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 May 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), Chad DeLima (Marine Superintendent), Carla Anderson (Harbor Committee representative), Rachel Crosby (Recording Secretary)
Call to Order: Co-Chair Paul Redlund called the Meeting to order at 10:37 A.M.
Report by DPW
David Guertin distributed his memo, dated April 27, 2001, to the Building Committee with the subject MacMillan Pier Project, Staff Support for Meeting posted May 9, 2001 and discussed several topics, including:
ú Finalizing Change Order #1 to AGM – the Committee needs to issue a Change Order #2 to lower the dollar limit on Item F on Change Order #1 (test procedure #3). David Guertin referred to several attached documents regarding the proposed Change Order #2. The contract time extension requested by AGM has not been approved and is on-hold until the Town has a clearer idea of exactly how long the entire Pier Project is going to take. David Guertin referred to an attached memo from FS&T stating that it was premature to set a time extension for the contract.
ú Staff Report to Town Manager, May 7, 2001 – David Guertin referred to and discussed his memo to Mr. Bergman, dated May 7, 2001, with the subject 1st Monday Staff Meeting/MacMillan Pier, Overview of the Challenge. The memo covers such Project items as: Structure, Piles, Problem Surfaces (including Piling Test Procedures), the Money Problem, Summary of Findings and “The Solution”. The Piling Test Procedures have shown that the use of tapered tube pilings is preferred, even though they are more expensive and Mr. Guertin discussed in detail the financial implications of using the tapered tube pilings. AGM’s composite total bid for the pilings is still the lowest. The issue is still to find a pile that will reach the required load bearing at the predicted driven depth. Driving piles deeper than the predicted depth will create additional costs.
AGM may still have justification for a delay damages claim, but will probably not make a claim if the Town moves forward with the Project in a timely manner.
The “Solution” to the multiple problems and unresolved issues in the Staff Report includes: 1) Need to finalize the use of and pricing of the tapered tubes, 2) eliminate items not germane to the Pier “mission”, and 3) get decisions made and proceed. The Committee discussed the possibility of recouping some of the additional costs via the investigation of FS&T’s engineering work on the pile testing procedures. David Guertin explained why the total number of pilings required might increase. For example, twenty-nine piles were added to the Approach Pier. David Guertin will clarify the issue of additional piles at a future meeting.
ú Value Engineering Status – David Guertin confirmed that the engineering estimates and AGM’s pricing are extremely close and provide a high level of confidence in the cost-savings numbers. David Guertin referred to and discussed an attached document entitled MacMillan Pier Project Value Engineering Analysis (revision 4/26/01). He said that the Committee needs to finalize the list of items to be eliminated/changed so that the savings can be calculated and the change orders presented to the Board of Selectmen.
The deletions in List A will be discussed with the ProFish group (a fishermen’s association) so as to win their support before the Board of Selectmen. The fishermen’s’ top priority is to maximize deck space. Items on List A, already approved by the Committee, will lead to probable savings of $209,064. Items on List B are mostly pending final cost savings estimates, but the potential total could be in excess of $300,000.
Items on List C are also pending to some degree, and could also lead to a total savings in excess of $300,000. The Committee discussed the elimination of the purchase of benches (a List C item) by AGM for installation along the west side of the Pier. By consensus, the Committee agreed that the Town could probably buy the benches directly and/or find other funding sources.
Changing the Floating Dock back to all-wood construction was discussed in detail. Such a change would result in a substantial credit to the Pier Project, but would need to be discussed with the small boat users. AGM has said that the decision on the Floating Dock does not need to be made for another year.
In response to a question from Jane Donoghue, David Guertin briefly explained how the money in the Contingency Fund had been/will be spend and how the potential savings from the various lists would be used to replenish the Contingency Fund.
ú Taper Tube Piles – use of the Taper Tubes will add an preliminary estimated expenditure of $262,559, per initial pricing from AGM. FS&T is reviewing the new pricing and David Guertin referred to and discussed an attached letter from AGM to FS&T, dated April 28, 2001, concerning the details of the proposed change in the piling/driving cost. Mr. Guertin explained how the original Change Order #1 added $250,000 in costs, the changes to the Approach Pier design added $300,000, and that the taper tube solution will add, with all adjustments, approximately another $300,000. Therefore total additional costs are now projected to be approximately $850,000, while the current amount in the Contingency Fund is only $600,000. The difference of $250,000 emphasizes the need to replenish the Contingency Fund by the activating savings from items from one or more of the lists (A, B, and/or C). If all the cost savings from the lists were realized, the total savings would be approximately $890,000, which would restore the Contingency Fund to approximately $640,000. David Guertin said that the probability was high that once the “Solution” (of using the taper tube pilings, etc.) was implemented, approximately 80% to 90% of the engineering risk associated with the Pier Project would be eliminated.
ú Miscellaneous Discussion Items
The Committee and David Guertin discussed which group of fishermen and boaters should be consulted concerning the change to the Floating Dock design/construction material.
David Guertin explained how the “soft costs” are being handled and controlled. For example, the reimbursement to MassDev is tracking at lower than expected.
The grant contract for the Courtesy Float is en route can be considered a reality. David Guertin said he had not heard from the engineers concerning the redesign of the Courtesy Float. Paul Redlund suggested that some of the grant money might be used for the mechanical handicapped access at the end of the Pier and David Guertin confirmed that possibility, provided there were funds left over. David Guertin said that only $5,000 to $10,000 was going to be saved via the redesign of the handicapped ramp near the Surf Club.
David Guertin explained the attached Pile Driving Log prepared by Susan Whittaker, Resident Engineer, and dated May 2, 2001. The Log shows that the Approach Pier piles are reaching load capacity at lower depth than expected (using the capped end piles), which will result in a savings as pile driving costs are paid for on a per-foot basis. David Guertin said that the savings from the lower pile driving depths would not be known exactly until the end of the Pier was reached. If the Tapered Tubes require greater depth, however, the cost savings would be offset. The loading requirements for the Main Section of the Pier and the Tee-Section have been reset to 200 pounds per square foot, which is still sufficient for most structures. The Approach Pier loading is set at 100 pounds per square foot.
The Committee discussed several options for construction of the Floating Docks, including still building one of the docks out of concrete.
The pile driving
for the Approach Pier will be complete in approximately three weeks. The Committee discussed the
establishment of a final timeline/schedule for the entire Project.
ú Motions
Rex
McKinsey moved to approve a credit amount of $12,500 as a result of savings in
Change Order #1, Jane Donoghue seconded, and it was so voted, 4-0.
Rex
McKinsey moved that the Building Committee support the cost-saving items, in
the total amount of $209,064, on
List A of the Value Engineering Analysis as discussed at their meeting on May
9, 2001, Joyce Guide seconded, and it was so voted, 4-0.
Rex
McKinsey moved that the Building Committee support the concepts of the various
potential cost- savings items on List B of the Value Engineering Analysis as discussed at their meeting on May 9,
2001, Joyce Guide seconded, and it was so voted, 4-0.
Rex
McKinsey moved that the Building Committee support the concepts of the various
potential cost- savings items on List C of the Value Engineering Analysis as
estimated, with the exception of the North Floating Dock, as discussed at their
meeting on May 9, 2001, Joyce Guide seconded. The Committee discussed the pros and cons of changing
the Floating Docks construction material to wood. Carla Anderson spoke as a
member of the general public, stating that the one of the original purposes of
the Pier Project was to have more facilities available more days of the
year. Carla Anderson said it was
too early in the Project to eliminate the more durable float material. The Committee discussed how much money
should be maintained in the Contingency Fund. David Guertin discussed his proposed strategy for discussing
the financial status of the Pier Project with the Board of Selectmen on May 14,
2001. He said he would emphasize
that the Building Committee had reserved judgment on the Floating Docks
material until more information was available. David Guertin said he would be
seeking approval of the Building Committee’s motions from the Board of
Selectmen. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0.
Rex McKinsey moved to support the use of the Tapered Tube Pile Procedures in the areas the engineers have identified at a projected net additional expenditure of $262,559, Joyce Guide seconded and it was so voted, 4-0.
Change Orders
ú None
NEW BUSINESS – Rex McKinsey reported on
the Americorp grants received by the Harbor Committee.
OLD BUSINESS – none.
MINUTES
None
ADJOURNMENT
Paul
Redlund moved to adjourn at 12:52
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