TOWN OF PROVINCETOWN
BUILDING COMMITTEE
The
following minutes are available on-line as a service and are not the official
record due to changes in formatting for the Internet. The minutes may have
attachments that are not included here in this format. The official, complete
paper copy can be viewed during regular office hours, Monday - Friday: 8 a.m. to
5 p.m. in the Office of the Town Clerk, 260 Commercial St. Provincetown, MA
02657.
Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2001
Members
Present: Paul
Redlund (Co-Chair), Joyce Guide, Jane Donoghue, Rex McKinsey
Members Absent: Regina Binder(Co-Chair) (excused)
Others Present: David Guertin (DPW Director), John Mikutowicz (AGM), Don Harvie (FS&T), Rosemary Heard (MassDev), Susan Whittaker (Resident Engineer), Rachel Crosby (Recording Secretary)
Call to Order: Co-Chair Paul Redlund called the Meeting to order at 11:02 A.M.
Report by DPW
David Guertin distributed a packet of documents, including:
1. Memo from David Guertin to the Building Committee, dated March 9, 2001, with the subject, “MacMillan Pier Project, Staff Support for Meeting posted March 9, 2001”, which covered the following:.
ú Presentation to Grantors – made by Ms Heard, Joyce Guide, and David Guertin at a meeting on February 23, 2001 at which they reviewed test pile issues, integration of user groups, function of Building Committee, risks relating to the Project, status of Pier Corporation, and ongoing negotiations with the fishermen’s association. Ms Heard briefly reviewed her presentation document entitled “MacMillan Pier, Rebuilding a Multi-User Pier”. All grantors are very much in favor of the Project going ahead, but with the understanding that cost overruns should be covered by deletions from the Project. Joyce Guide reported that she had explained to the grantors that the Building Committee has already recommended a list of deletions.
Ms Heard explained the third test pile procedures (using tapered piles) to the grantors. Also covered were the risks of proceeding versus not proceeding with the Project (until the test pile procedures were completed).
Ms Heard reported that she and Truman Hansen had been appointed to the Pier Corporation Board.
Grantors were pleased that the fishermen were successfully being integrated into all discussions and decision-making processes.
Joyce Guide reported that the grantors had expressed approval about the level of organization in the Project. David Guertin said that the grantors would like to meet with the Building Committee sometime in the end of May.
ú David Guertin indicated that the Pile Indicator Program #3 may cost as much as $192,000, as estimated by AGM. FST is reviewing the estimate. AGM has already ordered the modified piles. David Guertin affirmed that the Town has not yet officially approved this work. Mr. Guertin recommended that, after verification by FS&T, formal change orders be initiated with AGM for the execution of the work (Pile Indicator Program #3). AGM has also produced estimates for various credits – for the elimination of concrete fill in the pilings and for the deletions recommended by the Building Committee.
ú AGM has said verbally that proceeding with the modified approach pier design, requiring an additional 29 piles, will cost approximately $300,000 additionally.
ú David Guertin recommended that the Building Committee request that staff investigate the contractual relationship with FS&T to determine financial responsibilities.
ú David Guertin then reviewed a spreadsheet entitled “MacMillan Pier Project Value Engineering Analysis, Comparison on Proposed Credits, March 7, 2001”. The top section of the page contained a table for items definitely eliminated from the Project totally as much as $202,000 (or $217,000 per AGM estimate). The middle section of the page itemized Pending/Possible credits in the amount of $150,000. The bottom section of the page showed a “Composite Total” of $352,000 in actual and potential cost savings.
The Committee discussed removing the Courtesy Float from the main bid and possibly not replacing it with a new Float, but rather simply renovating the existing Float. In response to a question from Joyce Guide, David Guertin confirmed that there would be no additional engineering costs associated with such a change.
Also discussed was the pending elimination of the poles at Lopes Square. Based upon the tentative estimates prepared by AGM to-date, the $352,000 total potential savings has validity. This amount would offset the $192,000 additional costs associated with proceeding with the modified Approach Pier.
David Guertin then referred to a spreadsheet dated March 27, 2000, entitled “MacMillan Pier Demolition and Reconstruction, Summary of Cost Savings (Potential and Approved” and discussed two additional eliminations: substituting lighter weight pile wraps and eliminating concrete fill in piles. Mr. Harvie explained that the plate on the bottom of the proposed new piles eliminated the need to use concrete fill to stabilize the soil plug. Mr. Guertin confirmed that the piles will be coated on the outside, but not on the inside. John Mikutowicz explained that, with the bottom plate, the amount of concrete needed to fill the piles would increase significantly. Mr. Harvie explained that the piles would be sealed top and bottom, thereby greatly reducing the risk of corrosion. Mr. Harvie confirmed that the concrete fill would add little to the stability of the piles. Mr. Guertin recommended postponing any decision on the concrete fill until the test procedures were completed. Susan Whittaker confirmed that the change order for the Approach Pier had included eliminating the concrete fill in the piles for that section of the Pier.
David Guertin asked for a vote from the Building Committee for two remedies regarding financial responsibilities and also a vote authorizing AGM to proceed with the Approach Pier at an estimated additional cost of $300,000. With the $192,000 (for the new test pile procedure) and the $300,000 (for the Approach Pier), the total potential additional cost was now $492,000. This total was offset by the $352,000 potential cost savings, leaving an outstanding increase of $140,000, which could be offset by other cost reductions.
In response to a question from Jane Donoghue, Joyce Guide reviewed the process by which the Building Committee had recommended and received approval from the Board of Selectmen on the list of approved eliminations.
Paul Redlund and David Guertin discussed making a motion to the effect that FS&T’s contract should be investigated/reviewed to determine financial responsibility issues.
David Guertin said it was staff’s current analysis that a potential delay claim by AGM could easily amount to $800,000, though the cost analysis was not yet final. Mr. Redlund thanked AGM for not having already filed a delay claim.
Joyce Guide reminded the Committee that if AGM is given approval to go ahead with the Approach Pier, several of the deleted items on the March 27, 2000 spreadsheet would no longer be applicable. The Committee then reviewed the old spreadsheet for current applicability. The Committee discussed whether all the piles, and especially those underneath the center of the Pier deck, needed to have pile wrapping. Pile wrapping could be added later, but at a greater expense. The wraps normally go from 2’ below low water mark up to the bottom of the deck. Without pile wrapping, the life-cycle of the Pier could be affected. The Committee discussed the type and thickness of the coating that is normally sprayed on the steel piles. Mr. Mikutowicz confirmed that the bottom 12’ of the pile will not be coated. He also said he had never put wrapping on new installations. He said he had added wrapping to older piles, but that they were 50 or 60 years old. The Committee discussed the possibility of getting an estimate of the cost savings of eliminating the wrappings entirely and also requiring that a piling maintenance program be created by the Pier Corporation. Rex McKinsey suggested using lighter wrapping underneath the deck with the heavier wrap used on the piles at the edge of the deck. Mr. Mikutowicz confirmed that there were approximately 590 piles in the whole Pier with approximately 133 used in the Approach Pier. He confirmed that switching to a lighter wrap for the Approach Pier piles would cause delays and reengineering.
Ms Donoghue then commented that the cost savings for lighter piling wraps would therefore only apply to the remainder of the Pier.
Mr. Mikutowicz reviewed the potential construction schedule for the near future, confirming that they could be ready to start the Approach Pier in four weeks (early April).
David Guertin reiterated that only the dinghy dock and float space #11 would be affected by the work on the Approach Pier. Float space #11 could be moved to the other side of the Pier. David Guertin confirmed that the Town needed to honor the lease for float space #11 and make appropriate arrangements before the work on the Approach Pier begins.
The Committee reviewed again the items on the March 27, 2000 spreadsheet of deleted items. In particular, item #8 (reduce the width of the Main Pier on the West Side) was noted as being taken off the list due to lack of public support. David Guertin will update the spreadsheet to reflect all the changes.
Other possible cost savings could include narrowing the proposed width of the T section by one row of pilings. David Guertin confirmed that the grantors want the Project to go forward, and if it is slightly reduced, while retaining the essential mission, they would remain in agreement.
Joyce
Guide moved to approve Pile Indicator Program #3 in the maximum amount of
$192,090, Rex McKinsey seconded and it was so voted, 4-0.
Paul
Redlund moved to request that staff investigate the contractual relationship
with FS&T relative to financial responsibilities directly related to these
matters, Jane Donoghue seconded, and it was so voted, 4-0.
Joyce
Guide moved to approve AGM’s proceeding with the modified Approach Pier design,
which adds 29 additional piles, subject to price verification of their
estimated additional cost of $300,000, Rex McKinsey seconded and it was so
voted, 4-0.
Mr. Mikutowicz confirmed that the new finger pier extension had not been damaged in the recent storm and that the AGM barge also survived.
Change Orders
ú None
MISCELLANEOUS
ú In response to a question from Paul Redlund, David Guertin and Mr. Mikutowicz confirmed that the proposed staging area at the DPW garage is acceptable to AGM.
ú Joyce Guide requested that there be a Project map mounted on foam core at future BC meetings.
ú The Committee discussed the issues surrounding the proposed handicapped access for the Courtesy Float, including the impact of a previous agreement made with a taxpayer concerning the configuration of the handicapped access. David Guertin confirmed that the agreement required non-mechanical means be used for handicapped access. Mr. Redlund mentioned the possibility that the settlement of the litigation over the fuel dock might create other options for access.
ú Ms Heard thanked the Building Committee for their continued support.
OLD BUSINESS - none
NEW BUSINESS
– none
MINUTES
February 26, 2001 – Joyce Guide moved to approve with one correction, Jane Donoghue seconded and it was so voted, 3-0, 1 abstain (Rex McKinsey) .
ADJOURNMENT
Joyce
Guide moved to adjourn at 12:45
P.M. and it was so voted unanimously.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
These minutes were approved by a vote of the Provincetown Building Committee at their meeting on ________________, 200__
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________ ________________________
Building Committee Signature Title
Rachel Crosby
Rachel
T. Crosby, On-call secretary