Oswegatchie Fire Station Building Committee - Minutes - 01/04/2024

[pic]

         Oswegatchie Fire Station Building Committee Special Meeting
                                   Minutes

                               January 4, 2024



Meeting called to order at 5:30pm

Pledge of Allegiance

Members Present:  Robert Tuneski, Matthew Blankenship,  Jennifer  Bracciale,
Rocco Bracciale, Wayne Gilpin,  Ted  Olynciw,  Beth  Sabilia,  Paul  Rafuse,
Richard Muckle

Guests:   Brandishea (Shea) Moses, Director Michael  Howley,  Twig  Holland,
Attorney Nick Kepple

    • Public Comment:  None


    • Opening Remarks:  After tonight R. Tuneski will have a  very  accurate
      schedule to provide to committee members by the next regular meeting.


    • Motion to approve the minutes for December 19, 2023 with the following
      correction:
      Correct Rich Bracciale to Rich Muckle – R. Muckle
      Second – P. Rafuse
      For – R. Tuneski, M.  Blankenship,  J.  Bracciale,  R.  Bracciale,  W.
      Gilpin, P. Rafuse, R.    Muckle
      Abstain – B. Sabilia, T. Olynciw

Silver, Petrucelli & Associates (SP&A) delivered their presentation  to  the
committee at 5:40pm
      Responses to questions posed to vendor:

    • Response to global supply chain issues and estimates:
      Vendor recommended pre-purchasing critical items which is a bit  of  a
      risk to the Town due to purchasing items before there is a final  bid.
      They will manage those risks to avoid  delaying  a  project.   If  the
      project can be figured out during design and development a  plan  will
      be mapped out and do early bid packages.
      T. Holland:  Are early bid packages direct from the manufacturer?
      Yes – Invite to bid for material only purchase or tie into any federal
      or  state  consortium.   Some  CROGS  are  looking   at   pre-purchase
      agreements so you are  not  bidding  it  you  are  procuring  it  over
      consolidated items.  Manufacturers are doing that so you have a better
      source line.  Addressing skilled labor –  the  state  bonded,  on  the
      educational side, 1.1 billion dollars in November.  There  is  concern
      is finding general contractors along with the skill set to hire.
    • Response to constructor encountering significant  challenges  and  the
      ability to offer alternatives:
      Procuring a switch gear – problem was handled by adjusting the  phases
      of a project.  Another switch gear issue  was  handled  by  installing
      temporary buses and disconnects.
    • Response to most challenging event:
      Community Rec Center in New London – A lot more  foundation  work  was
      needed.  Site contractor, pile designer and design team met  and  came
      up with different solutions – least expensive, fastest solution,  what
      is the fastest solution moving forward.  A blended effort was  decided
      upon which caused only a 3 week delay.
    • Response to the firm's proposed schedule:  T. Holland questioned if it
      is possible to accelerate the design portion so site, steel,  concrete
      & early bid packages could happen by November 2024.
      It is possible an early site package could be issued.  This  could  be
      looked at as a phase of starting early construction.  Vendor will also
      be determining what processes can be done  at  the  same  time  (i.e.,
      permitting).
    • Response to how they would address any special equipment/needs:
      Vendor does not see any particular complications  working  with  this.
      Will work with Town  on  equipment  list.   Meeting  minutes  will  be
      provided  to  committee  to  determine  if  all  Town’s  concerns  are
      addressed.
    • Phase I Environmental Study is already being  contracted  out  and  it
      appears on vendor’s bid package:
      Vendor had excluded the Environmental piece.
    • T. Olynciw asked how SP&A would treat the work product by a previously
      hired architectural firm:
      Take information, review it and build what they can but will  probably
      start from the beginning to build a 3-D building information modeling.
    • B. Sabilia asked if communication design, wiring, etc. is included:
      They work with our vendors to organize security and IT systems.   They
      make provisions for equipment in the building.   This  cost  would  be
      rolled into below the line in the soft cost.
    • B. Sabilia asked about space needs and who would be at  the  table  to
      ask these questions:  The Interior Designer and an  architect  and  we
      delegate someone who has the best knowledge ie. the Chief  and  higher
      ranking officers.
    • B. Sabilia asked if they do public engagement around projects:
      Yes – They understand these projects are part of the  tax  payers  and
      community.  They present to the membership and the public.
    • P. Rafuse asked if the vendor aims to incorporate the new  NFPA  Codes
      and Regulations into the building design.  More specifically some  are
      not requirements but are new technologies  that  the  NFPA  recommends
      that become requirements.  Is that something you incorporate ahead  of
      time or is that something you look to us for:
      Vendor stays up to date on NFPA requirements but  welcome  any  input.
      Vendor is willing to do that but is cautious about implementing  newer
      technologies.  Will discuss these issues with  the  committee  if  the
      need arises.
    • J. Bracciale asked about the Woodbridge Fire Dept.:
      It was all a new building and a portion of it  was  intended  to  look
      like an old meeting house and mimic the Town Hall across the street.
    • J. Bracciale asked if the  aesthetics  of  the  Town  are  taken  into
      consideration:
      Yes.  A reference to other projects was given.
    • R. Bracciale asked if this project is a  good  candidate  for  a  pre-
      engineered building or conventional construction and  have  they  seen
      lead times for pre-engineered building from design to delivery:
      Will have to analyze the project before making a statement.  Lead time
      depends on the manufacturer.
    • R. Muckle stated cost and schedule are the 2  primary  drivers.   What
      takes place between now and March when the project would begin:
      Survey and site could be in the cue.  The  team  would  be  assembled.
      Programming could be done.  Once that is solidified other  things  can
      run parallel, i.e., site work, due diligence, wetland mapping that can
      happen early.  The bulk of the work would begin mid-March.
    • W. Gilpin asked their availability to start on this project:
      Starting in mid to late March, yes.
    • R. Tuneski asked if SP&A have any design awards:
      Yes, East  Hartford  Fire  House  and  the  Willimantic  Eastern  Fire
      Training Academy.
    • R. Tuneski asked if they will survey recent history  of  our  building
      practices to determine what solutions did  or  did  not  work  in  the
      applications they were introduced to:
      The team would talk to the  person  responsible  for  maintaining  the
      Town’s facilities.
    • R. Tuneski asked if they will do design reviews along the way and will
      they be predicated on the extent of work accomplished i.e., 50%,  75%,
      100%  review.   How  will  design  development  and  the   review   of
      information be handled:
      Vendor will pick the percentages that the committee  desires.   Vendor
      can establish at what critical mass points the committee would want to
      see each document.
    • R. Tuneski – Construction documents  –  Any  reason  why  construction
      documents cannot begin after the 50% or 75% design  review  or  is  it
      necessary to wait until the design development is 100% complete:
      Traditionally wait until it is complete  to  get  the  full  estimate.
      This will give the committee the clarity if the vendor is on budget so
      do not want to get too far ahead of the game and possibly have  to  do
      things twice.
    • R. Muckle – based on experience what  is  a  reasonable  estimate  for
      beginning construction i.e., shovels in the ground:
      This design will take most of 2024.  Construction  could  be  done  12
      months.  Starting point depends on the calendar.  Highly recommend not
      rushing the project as this could lead to  issues  with  the  building
      down the road.




The Galante Architecture Studio (TGAS) delivered their presentation  to  the
committee at 7:04pm
      Responses to questions posed to vendor:

    • Response to global supply chain issues and estimates:
      The firm was very accurate  with  their  estimates  among  the  global
      supply chain issues.
    • Response to constructor encountering significant  challenges  and  the
      ability to offer alternatives:
      An example was given that a temporary solution was found when a switch
      gear for a generator was delayed.
    • Response to most challenging event:
      Many  issues  with  renovating  a  historic  building.    A   redesign
      eliminated the need for the customer to build new building at  a  cost
      of $41 million dollars.
    • Explain the firm's proposed schedule:
      Begin in 4-5  months,  design  and  develop  schematics  summer  2024,
      construction June 2025, finished March 2026.
    • Response to how they would address any special equipment/needs:
      This  is  done  during  the  programming  phase  by  determining   any
      idiosyncrasies and make adjustments accordingly.
    • Response to a better detail of fees:
      State of Massachusetts does not allow the negotiation of fees prior to
      being hired.  Vendor stated he would need to go  back  to  office  and
      look at the analysis.
    • T. Olynciw asked for a ballpark square footage cost:
      $800-$900 per sq. ft.
    • B. Sabilia asked how space needs are determined:
      Sit with chief and department  representatives.   Vendor  brings  what
      they think to the table and listens to what the department needs are.
    • P. Rafuse asked if vendor incorporates the newer NFPA  recommendations
      in the design phase or wait until they become requirements:
      Vendor incorporates recommendations as core principles and they become
      requirements later.
    • R. Muckle asked for explanation of figures found on handout:
      These were a cost estimate  vs  bid.   Vendor  stated  they  have  not
      underestimated a project.
    • M. Blankenship asked if they have worked with  hybrid  companies  with
      adapting and merging into one:
      They are currently working on that type of project.
    • R. Tuneski asked how many design awards they have won:
      This is not what they always aim for.  They have be awarded  3  awards
      for a building they were only trying to design as  a  cost  effective,
      durable building in very trying times.

Purchasing Agent B. Davy gave report on references:
    • The Galante Architecture Studio
     1. Good reference from Davenport
     2. The design phase is 6-8 months behind in Cambridge, MA
    • Silver, Petrucelli & Associates
     1. Came in over budget on job
     2. Stonington wants to hire them again – They have had no  issues  with
        prior     building, communicative

Committee members voiced their choice of vendor and reason for choice:
      R. Bracciale:  SP&A - Vendor is local and cost is significantly less
      W. Gilpin:  SP&A
      T. Olynciw – Abstained
   M. Blankenship – SP&A:  Cost and local
      P. Rafuse – SP&A
      B. Sabilia – SP&A
      J. Bracciale – SP&A:  Local and architecturally pleasing
      R. Muckle – SP&A:  Team is all in one house, have good designs, local
      R. Tuneski – SP&A:  Local and examples have a large range

The committee favors selecting SP&A over TGAS.

In order to request additional funding at the Board of  Selectman's  meeting
scheduled for 1/9/24, the committee agreed to a special zoom meeting  to  be
held on 1/8/24 at 6pm.  R. Tuneski will work  with  Attorney  N.  Kepple  to
develop a memorandum to present at the 1/8/24 meeting.

R. Tuneski requested T. Holland  work  up  the  numbers  of  both  architect
firms.   Atty.  N.  Kepple  is  charged   with   confirming   T.   Holland's
calculations are reasonable.

Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm


Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Finnegan, Recording Secretary