A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to comparing construction management methods under Chapter 149 and Chapter 149A of Massachusetts law. The board examined the advantages of the CMR method, which involves early engagement of a construction manager during the design phase. This model allows for input on budget, schedule, and constructability, potentially leading to earlier identification of project challenges. However, the CMR approach often incurs higher costs compared to the traditional design-bid-build model, where contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder following the completion of design documents.

There was a detailed exploration of the financial implications of each method, with discussion of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) framework under the CMR model. The GMP includes a contingency fund for unexpected costs, requiring oversight on expenditures to ensure budget adherence. Average construction costs were compared, revealing that CMR projects tend to be more expensive per square foot than projects using a general contractor (GC). The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA)’s reimbursement policies were also discussed, noting the cessation of additional reimbursements for CMR projects, leading to similar funding levels across both methodologies.

The board also considered the complexities of managing construction adjacent to an occupied school. The CMR method was highlighted for its potential to offer better day-to-day coordination in such multi-phase projects, emphasizing the importance of having a construction manager involved early to strategize logistics effectively. Discussions underscored the logistical challenges of ensuring construction activities do not disrupt school operations, with a focus on minimizing impacts on student and staff access.

The meeting included in-depth discussions on the project’s geothermal system options. Five HVAC systems were proposed, with varying levels of geothermal integration. The board examined the energy use intensity (EUI) of each option. The discussion also highlighted the potential for additional reimbursement under the MSBA’s specialized opt-in code for electric systems, which could influence the selection of HVAC systems.

Board members addressed the operational and maintenance costs associated with the new building, acknowledging that despite higher initial costs, newer systems could lead to reduced maintenance expenses. The feasibility of geothermal systems was scrutinized, with considerations of drilling timelines, site logistics, and the impact of construction noise and pollution on the community. The board debated the merits of various drilling schedules to minimize disruption to school operations and the surrounding area.

The meeting concluded with updates on project funding and community engagement efforts. There was mention of ongoing programming meetings and discussions with the MSBA regarding funding for specific school spaces. Plans for community engagement meetings were outlined, focusing on site layout and community use, with input sought on facility features such as playgrounds and sports fields.