May 8, 2013 SBC meeting

May 8, 2013 SBC meeting

Postby Mary Wright » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:05 pm

MAY 8, 2013

A meeting of the Douglas School Building Committee (SBC) was held on Wednesday, May 8, 2013. Mr. Cohen called the meeting to order at 8:07 AM. He noted that the meeting is being videotaped.

Voting: Mitch Cohen (Chairman), Leslie Breault, Paula Brouillette, Nancy Lane (School Superintendent), Scott Yacino
Non-Voting: Cortney Keegan (School Business & Finance Manager), William Cundiff (Town Engineer), Jeff Kollett (School Facilities Manager)
Project Staff: Tom Ellis, Ken DiNisco, Al Calcagno
ABSENT: Melissa Gouin, Shirley Mosczynski, Michael Guzinski (Town Administrator)

Flooring Issues
Mr. Ellis stated that since the beginning of the project, there have been issues relating to ownership of moisture mitigation issues. CTA has taken the position that they believe the specification is vague relating to ownership of that item. They believe there are things outside their control that are affecting this. DDP has responded that they believe it is clear that the specification indicates that the general contractor owns the moisture mitigation system on this project.
Mr. Ellis described when a moisture mitigation system should be needed. The moisture content of the concrete has been monitored for three months. They are now at a point where the moisture mitigation system is definitely needed. They (CTA?) have started to come up with some options for mitigation which would allow for moisture of 90% or lower. They (CTA?) have started roughing up the surface profile of the slab and started responding to conversations with the flooring contractor. In doing so, the relative humidity on a lot of floors has been reduced. The third floor has numbers in the high 70’s. At this stage, the issue is the pH of the material at the surface. The additional cost of this mitigation system could run upwards of $300,000.
Mr. Ellis is working with CTA to attempt to come up with some solutions, such as an Artech system or a change in the adhesive that is not pH impacted.
Mr. DiNisco explained that CTA suggested a vapor lock approach a day or two prior to pouring the concrete. DDP rejected it. A discussion was held.
Mr. Ellis feels the most important thing right now is the potential impact to the schedule. Mr. DiNisco stated that the issues they are taking about do not require any action by the Committee. The first point is that CTA failed to finish the floor in accordance with the specifications and sample provided, and they grinded and shot blasted the floor, which created the problem with the pH.
The second point is that they are going to be late on substantial completion. Everything must be in place and ready to go on August 1. The construction work needs to be completed by July 15 so that the two week review and permitting process can be completed. Mr. DiNisco recommends that CTA comply with the contract. He feels it should take CTA one week to do each floor.
Mr. Cohen stated that the date for substantial completion in the contract is June 23. Mr. Ellis is not aware of anything that has occurred that would qualify CTA for an extension. Mr. Cohen expects the building to be done on June 23.
Mr. Ellis stated that MSBA is aware of all the issues impacting the schedule.
Mr. DiNisco read a letter he drafted to respond to CTA which states that CTA’s claim that the flooring began January 30, 2013 is not supported by construction site activity. CTA has ignored the contract documents, DiNisco’s correspondence, and the high pH. DiNisco denies their claim on the additive, to which CTA has failed to respond. The letter asks for a basis for a claim. Mr. Ellis asked that the letter include a reference to CSP ratings.
DiNisco takes no exception to the CMP Lockdown product, which in no way implies authorization of a schedule extension or additional cost. This product needs to be on the job no later than Monday. CTA failed to acknowledge that the project is behind for other reasons, i.e. windows, metal panels and porcelain tile. The letter asks that CTA submit a real recovery schedule, proceed with the work expeditiously without additional compensation unless otherwise amended by change order, and their request for additional time and cost is a matter of record. The Town fully expects CTA to fulfill their contractual obligations and the SBC expects the job to be substantially complete by June 23rd.
Mr. Ellis stated that the floor needs to be sealed with a pH resistant adhesive or a moisture mitigation system. Mr. Ellis would prefer a moisture mitigation system.
Mr. Ellis has spoken with Atty. Rich Bowen, who is comfortable with how the Committee is proceeding.
Mr. DiNisco feels they need their own milestones and need to meet regularly to see if the milestones have been met. The Committee asked for frequent updates regarding the proceedings. Mr. Ellis suggested weekly conference calls with CTA. Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Ellis to invite CTA to the SBC meeting next Thursday.
Ms. Lane stated that a LEED report, promised in January, still has not been provided nor have the incentives on the equipment. Mr. Ellis stated that all the entities were together at a meeting on August 23, 2011. He gathered those notes, and he is trying to pick up from where they were. Ms. Lane asked to have this discussion on next Thursday’s agenda.

Ms. Brouillette made a motion to adjourn the School Building Committee meeting at 9:26 AM. Ms. Breault seconded the motion. Vote: Unanimous.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Wright
Recording Secretary
Mary Wright
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:56 pm

Return to School Building Committee Minutes - 2013

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest