MCHSBC: Construction Manager at Risk RFQ - 2026-06-11

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.8-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The subcommittee coordinated the procurement schedule and reviewed draft qualification materials for a Construction Manager at Risk for the high school project. Members authorized two committee representatives to give final approval on the draft RFQ before forwarding it to the full building committee.

0:00 CMR Procurement Timeline and Meeting Scheduling — The subcommittee reviewed the proposed procurement schedule for the Construction Manager at Risk and aligned member availability for review sessions and firm interviews across July, August, and September.
24:38 Review of Draft RFQ — Members reviewed sections of the draft RFQ, providing revisions regarding hard copy distribution, project labor agreement language, LEED target phrasing, and criteria for evaluating past project experience.
48:37 Authorization to Finalize RFQ — Approved a motion authorizing Jenny Graham and Kenneth Lord to incorporate member feedback via email and give final approval to send the RFQ to the full building committee.

[Matt Gulino]: at Medford so that everybody that's interested can see the site, walk through the school, really kind of get a sense of the logistics and the challenges that they're going to face. So I think that's a super critical one. We typically do make them mandatory. We want people that are serious and really interested in going after this project. After that walkthrough, everyone can submit questions for the RFP, whether it's related to the actual document or questions they may come up with during the walkthrough. We'll have about a week to respond to those questions.

And then the actual proposals will be due on September 4th. From there, that should be from the 4th to the 21st, is when the selection committee will review the proposals. We will hold the pricing proposals during this first part of the review, just so that we can look at the proposals and look at it from a qualifications and experience standpoint first. It's typical to look at the non-pricing proposals see how the firms stack up against each other. And then after the interviews, we'll take a look at the pricing proposals as well. And those are kind of the three separate categories that we'll have to rank them on their proposal, their interview, and then their pricing proposal.

So that will be the kind of general outline once we have reviewed the proposals, set up the interviews. Right now, we're anticipating for the end of September with a follow-on meeting of this committee. We can either, depending on the timing of those interviews, I have in the past held an executive session following the interviews so that the selection committee can review and discuss the final ranking while everything is still kind of fresh in our minds. So between the 28th and the 29th, I think it will be critical for us to kind of finalize that ranking.

I have proposed a meeting with the building committee at some point in October, early October. We still need to finalize what date that will be. But at that meeting, we would review the ranking of the construction manager firms and ask the building committee to proceed with negotiations with the top-rank firm. Again, those negotiations are usually fairly quick and pretty easy to get through for the pre-construction services. Once we have that negotiation, we will issue a notice to proceed while the paperwork is circulating for signatures so that they can get their heads into the project, uh, through the month of October. That's that's when we'll be seeing the final, uh, you know, space recommendations from the building committee on the 14th. So it will be good to have them involved to see that process. Uh, and then they'll, um, you know, be able to weigh in heavily with SMMA on logistics and phasing, which is going to be a very critical part of this project. Um, So that's what we're looking at pretty much from now until we issue a notice to proceed in early October.

But for the sake of this meeting, we'll focus really just on the qualification pieces since we won't be issuing the RFP until August. So we have some time to finalize that document and review that. I had sent out an email last week when I issued the draft of the RFQ with just some of the pages to take a look at. The general information section is really just confirming if this committee wants any hard copies. A lot of these submissions have gone fully electronic, but if we want to request our copies, we certainly can do so.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Before we dive into the CMR, can we look at the detailed schedule that's on the next page? I think I just want to make sure that the subsequent dates for meetings work for everybody here before we proceed.

[Brian Hilliard]: Actually, I'd like to jump in two things. So I found out I'm going to be on a plane on the 13th, on July 13th. I thought it was in the evening, but it's actually in the morning. So that throws a wrench in for me on the 13th, the first meeting. Second, Matt, left field, Matt, I don't think I got, and I'm actually quite positive, I got your email with any of the information on this. And also because the calendar invite didn't come through. So I think somehow I got dropped on the original.

[Matt Gulino]: And they should be going to your Medford School Building Committee email.

[Brian Hilliard]: Ah, OK. That's exactly why, which I never check. Usually everything comes through my work email. Um, bring that back and forth. I haven't had to use that recently, so I'm just not in the habit of checking.

[Matt Gulino]: Okay, yeah, that's usually where I send all documents just to keep everything, you know, within kind of city Medford. Yep.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And Brian, just like you are on copy, I can see that. So if you look in your Medford inbox, I think you'll see all of the docs. But the reason we want you to be operating in there is because from an open meeting law perspective, if you get into a habit of using your personal email records requests, like, sort of have the right to, like, reach into your personal email. As well, so if you stick with, like, your city of Medford, your never public schools email address for all your stuff, like, it is a safer bet for you personally. Um. In in, in an event of, like, somebody having questions, like, open meeting questions.

[Brian Hilliard]: So I'll be, I mean, I can make it work. I can make anything work simply because, you know, this is, I know this is important. Let me jump up. I'm going to be flying into Western Canada. So I'll be, you know, I can do anything from anywhere. It's just I won't be in person if that's

[Member Jenny Graham]: And I think for this first meeting, it sounds like that's OK.

[Member Jenny Graham]: So is there a, because it sounds like you'll be on West Coast time, is there a time of day that maybe we can coalesce around for this so that we're not blowing up Brian's whole day? Yeah. I mean, you can get up at 4 AM.

[Brian Hilliard]: Right. Again, I can kind of work. Obviously, this is a bigger group than just me, but if we are, Uh, doing, you know, what was this an 11 a.m. meeting if it were in that zone, I can make that work obviously. Um, if it's evening, that's fine. Matt, are you expecting to, to do these sort of working hour, uh, meetings in, in general?

[Matt Gulino]: Uh, I'm, I'm pretty flexible. You know, I typically do kind of defer to what works for, for all of the, You know, the district members, um, just because your. Schedules are, um. You have normal day job, so, um, you know, I want to be sensitive to that. And so if evenings work better, I'm totally flexible for that. Um, but.

[Brian Hilliard]: Yeah, I'm, I'm fine. Again, if, if we sort of have a, you know, cross the board, if this is like an 11 AM type of meeting, typically I'll just make it work. That's fine.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And Libby, what about you in terms of like preference for things during the day or later in the day?

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Either is fine for a virtual meeting, you know, either one is totally fine in person. Evenings are easier because I'm not, you know, I'll be back in Medford, but, you know, on a certain day, I can be there in person too. Just as long as there's a heads up.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Got it. So, if we were to look at 714 at 11am, does that work for everyone here? We'll have to check with Dr. Glucy, but that would steer us clear of that. And then it sounds like on 731, although if we're going to meet in the evening, we may not want to do that on Friday in the evening. So I don't know if you all have any thoughts about the time of that meeting. And if we prefer the evening, Libby, are you thinking like 5, or 4, or 6? That's the 31st?

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Yes. I work from home on Fridays, so I could do more easily during the day if it's better for everybody. I'll be at 3. Yeah.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Great. And so then, Matt, when we get into the proposals on 824, we would be meeting the same kind of same thing to talk about the. the review matrix, questions, et cetera. That is the first day. No, that is not the first day of students returning, of teachers returning, Ken, right? It's the following week? Correct.

[Member Jenny Graham]: OK, so Monday would be OK from a school perspective. OK. Against me.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think I'm pretty flexible on the on the 24th. I don't know Brian and Libby if that works for you. That 1 sounds like it could be zoom if we wanted it to be.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: That's Monday, August 24th, right? Yeah, I think that's fine for me. I think I leave on Tuesday, the 25th. so that would be a 24th is ideal. Perfect.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Okay, do we want to shoot for 11 a.m.? We'll check, we have to check all these with Suzanne, but. Yeah. Sure. Okay. And then on 9-7, we are looking at actual proposals. So that would be the, what we need to find there is a date and time for an in-person meeting. Is that right?

[Member Jenny Graham]: I'm pretty flexible that whole week, maybe with the exception of Friday. Does anybody else have any I know we're back to school at that point can.

[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, Wednesdays are Wednesday, 1030 bags. I have the weekly. McLean Andrews meeting. Okay, and then we have a 1 PM meeting typically that day, but other stuff can move.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And this would probably be like a 4 or 5 PM meeting. Is that what we're thinking?

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, if this is an in-person one, then yeah, I think evenings sounded like they were better.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Brian and Libby, do you have any preferences? We're so far out that my schedule is wide open at this point. I mean, I can be around Tuesdays, Fridays during the day more easily, if it works better to not do evenings. But I mean, I'm pretty wide open that week.

[Brian Hilliard]: For me, I would say, Jenny, I'm kind of like you. I like things clustered in the middle of the week. We tend to travel a lot, and sometimes we leave early on Fridays.

[Brian Hilliard]: So that's that, you know, again, like that sort of Tuesday to Thursday is ideal. But it doesn't mean, again, I don't have anything specific planned, so we can adjust if necessary.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: My only blackout that week is I just can't do Wednesday morning. But anything else?

[Member Jenny Graham]: If we did like a four o'clock start, it sounds like Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday are available. Yep.

[Member Jenny Graham]: OK, we can just check with Suzanne and pick one of those dates. And then 922. This will be the.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, this will finalize the ranking of the non-tracing proposals.

[Kenneth Lord]: We have a building committee meeting that week, but right now it's on Monday, which is Yom Kippur, so that might move to Tuesday.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I've been messing around with all of those dates. So we're not interfering with various calendars. So if we'd lock this in, I will like feed it back to, um, the other calendar.

[Matt Gulino]: uh usually we'll give i i would say roughly like 45 minutes you know you do like a 20 minute presentation um you know in a 30 minute q a is is usually pretty typical um and then you know we'll have 15 minutes kind of between each of the interviews if we schedule them on the hour and and kind of stick to that um but yeah we've seen that's tight We've seen other people do longer interviews, shorter interviews. It is really kind of up to what we want. So if we want to do a longer, allow them to do a longer presentation, we can bump it up to a full hour.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Sorry, I was going to get my calendar updated here. You're asking what the length of the interviews?

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, when we're interviewing CM firms, where are you thinking we should be in terms of timing expectations? This just feels like a really big decision. But I don't know what that means, because I've never done this before.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, I've never made the decision myself. But I assumed there would be guidance. But I would expect they give a presentation for, I don't know, half an hour, 40 minutes. And then there's some amount of time for Q&A. Yeah, we did an hour at least total.

[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, it was at least a 30 minute presentation for them and that was tight.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, I mean. I've actually never I don't think I've ever sat in on a CM interview, but the ones that we do usually are. 40 minutes.

[Adele Sands]: Sorry, you can break them up over a couple of days as well. If you want the longer presentations, because I think the good thing I think about the interviews specifically 1, you're learning about the team and how they might fit into our team or wider team, including the Medford folks. And then the other thing is you learn a lot about the project itself through the lens of a number of different builders. So we're also taking in a lot of information on how different CMs would approach your project. So I think for this project in particular, a longer interview would make a lot of sense.

And so breaking it up maybe over a couple of days, of course, we won't know exactly how many firms we're getting, so we can kind of fine tune that. But if we, I think, allot two days for this, and on the second day, we stay and deliberate and do the final ranking after the second day of interviews, I think makes a lot of sense here.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: I think that makes sense. If we somehow get down to three firms, you know, maybe we can squeeze them into a day if people's schedules allow. But, you know, it's going to be hard.

[Kenneth Lord]: I mean, leave some space in between for... We'll know more once we get through the qualification process, who will qualify, but then some may not submit. Right.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah. Right. It is entirely possible that, you know, if a CM firm, you know, doesn't I think that they can actually support the project. They may not submit a proposal. So, yes, that that is a possibility. If we, if firms do submit a proposal, we have to interview them. That is part of master law. So.

[Matt Gulino]: The shortlisting is really through the pre-qualification process. Got it.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: They get to decide if they want to be interviewed, basically.

[Member Jenny Graham]: What should we expect? How many proposals do you think is likely?

[Adele Sands]: I would say this project is large, so we might wind up getting a handful of maybe five or six, I would say, and maybe a couple of joint ventures thrown in. It really comes down to who can handle the size of the project, bonding-wise. But the joint ventures will open it up to follow-up partnerships.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, I think, yeah, there's probably- I can't think of more than five company that would be big enough. Yeah. Yeah. I see, yeah, two, three firms maybe submitting proposals by themselves. And yeah, I could see a couple of joint ventures as well. But yeah, I think Jen's right, probably between five and six is what we'll see. And depending on the composition of those teams, we can determine if we find them qualified or not.

[Brian Hilliard]: Why don't we at least just count on an hour per and once the prequels are sorted through, if we need to add an extra day or stretch it out, does that make sense?

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah. Or if we want to stretch them to 90 minutes or something, there's two in a day. You can easily do that.

[Brian Hilliard]: Yeah. I think we'll have a better idea once the prequels are sorted through.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Okay. Great. There's a lot of calendar Tetris going on to set the schedule too. So that's why I just want to make sure we have the right timing for, for this to be thorough. And then we would do the ranking at the end of day two.

[Brian Hilliard]: Yeah. And I think we could be surprised either way. It may boil down to just a few firms. And we might be surprised, depending on the market, that it's way more than we expected.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, we were surprised with the architects a bit also. We'll see.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, yeah, that that will have to get coordinated with with the other building committee meetings. Um, but, yeah, some, some time in that 1st week, I think the 5th is the Wednesday. I know we've been holding some building committee meetings on Wednesdays when Mondays don't work. So that's why I threw that in there. The 5th is a Monday. Yep.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and it conflicts with our school planning, so it's going to move. So I'll take that action item to figure that part out now that we have the rest. OK. Hold on just one second, Matt, before you move on. And Matt, will you send calendar invites to everybody for these times so that we can all have them locked in?

[Matt Gulino]: I am going to take a quick screen share because I don't think this will disappear when I move the screen.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Can I ask a question? The MSBA doesn't end up other than dictating the process. weighing in on how we select our CM at all?

[Matt Gulino]: Nope. It's an entirely different body. Yep. As long as when we submit schematic design and have the OIG approval, they just want to make sure that we've gone through all the necessary steps to actually procure a CM at risk. OK. I think all these are going to.

[Member Jenny Graham]: We have nine minutes left, and I think we have to go through any sort of feedback and comments that we have on the RFQ draft. Is that right?

[Matt Gulino]: Yes. Yeah, and I did receive, I'll actually pull up the actual RFQ so we can look at the actual sections.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And then from a, like, you asked a question earlier, and I see it was like, 1 of the questions on page 2, and that 1st section, the question, the question you asked was, like, do we want paper copies or do we want. Virtual, like, just electronic and. I would prefer to have a hard copy. I think it's a little bit easier for people to. People to, like, be in meetings and moving around, but I don't know how the rest of the group feels.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, either 1's fine. If we're getting hard copies, it is nice to have them physically. But then let's do it.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: I feel bad because we hate printing them, but we don't print them anymore, but it is nice. It was nice for the. But the, um, it was extremely helpful.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Okay. So we'll make sure there's enough hard copies for everyone on the committee. Um. Other than that, I think the other parts of. This the page 2 was really they're really questions for procurement. Is that right? Matt?

[Matt Gulino]: yes yep which i'll follow up with them on yeah it's just confirming uh yeah how how they want to handle it i know when we did the designer everything went through left field um so i'll uh i'll double check and make sure that that's still the intent uh and okay moving forward for this is five the right number of hard copies uh i uh I put five for the district members. I won't need one. Matt Rice, do you want one?

[Adele Sands]: He was texting me that he's having a hard time getting his mic to work, I think.

[Matt Gulino]: Oh. I'll confirm with him. But I'll get at least five for the Medford members. And if Matt wants one, I'll bump it up. But I do not want one. I don't need more paperwork in the trunk of my car.

[Member Jenny Graham]: When you talk to procurement, I think, ideally, those copies, the hard copies, could be delivered to the high school so that they're a little easier for us to distribute and field. If they have to go to City Hall, that's fine. But I think expressing a preference to procurement would be helpful if they're OK with that.

[Kenneth Lord]: Okay, if you want to put my name, because if you put Matt Galeno, God knows here. Yeah, good point.

[Adele Sands]: And Matt Rice has confirmed that he is good with the digital version only.

[Matt Gulino]: Yep. Great. Same thing, I'll just kind of confirm if they want to have any sort of project contract number. It's kind of up to the procurement team. If they want a specific number, but.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And then these numbers will all of these facts and figures will be updated with C2.2. Is that right?

[Matt Gulino]: Yep. Yeah, that is what I was working on this morning. So they should start, they should be reflecting. the C22 options, the description that I already had in here, the project history is just a quick summary of the high school, which is really from what you guys had provided in your SOI.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Some comments about the project description. Go ahead, Libby.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Um, I think the 1st thing is, and I've mentioned this to you all before, but the city of Medford is pursuing a project labor agreement. So that has to be reflected and noticed in this. CMR application, right? In some way, it's, they have not finished. There's a study or something that has to happen. There are things that have not been completed, but there has to be like, I believe what I've been told is that there has to be some sort of reference of that. possibility in this before it goes out. So hopefully you all can take that on and figure out exactly what that reference needs to look like.

[CT9F89z4GEc_SPEAKER_03]: You talk about the standard, the prevailing wage ordinance one?

[Member Jenny Graham]: No, it's a separate, it's called a project labor agreement and it's specific to the project. Um, so that was 1 comment. Um, the 2nd comment, um, was that the project history, uh, was clearly copied out of the, but the language doesn't belong here anymore. Like, we're not submitting an any longer. Right? So that part needs to be updated to not be talking about. We're submitting an so I, like, we did that. We are moving on. Um, so that has to be reframed on the top of page 4. the other thing that I think is important in this section, and it's actually, like, it comes up a lot in the community. Like, this building was built for. You know, however, many thousands of students, right? And so why is it why is it so big? Well, 1 of the things that has happened over the course of time is that it did start as the building just for, like, 9 to 12 over time, though, we have added.

Things right to the building, like the registration center central expanded central office kids corner. Like, none of those things were there in 1970 when the building opened, but they are. part of the evolution of the building. So I think that should be reflected here somehow, that yes, it started as a building. And as the student population has changed, all kinds of things have happened and decisions have been made to bring us to where we are today. And I don't think that's particularly well-reflected in the project history at the moment. And I think it would need to be.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Um, my other comments, um, in this section are about, um, the, the phrasing and the language about lead V5 silver. Like I, I know that's the minimum from an MSBA perspective, but that, that is not the stated goal of this project. So I just want that language to precisely line up with like where we are going. Like we, the school committee issued like, uh, A goal there, and we have not taken any formal votes to change it. Although I know that's in progress. So I'd like that language to be modified in some way to acknowledge. like our continued consistent intent, which may change, but as of right now, like there is something on the table that is not exactly what this says. So that needs to be updated. I think in the like the work includes section, we also need to make reference to the possible secondary egress. Whether that will happen or not is still very much up for discussion and may not happen, but I think it is substantial and kind of belongs in here. And then in number three, there's reference to modular classrooms. And we did just pick an option that is free of modular classrooms. So that needs to be updated. Those are my comments on that.

[Matt Gulino]: Oh, yeah, I did. Yeah, and I did take out the. Modular modular reference this morning, so that that is gone. That duration, right? Uh, I'll double check as well. Uh, I am still actively going through and updating these, but I will, I will double check and make sure that the durations, uh, align with what the schedule that's outlined up above.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: I'll just circle back to the lead question Jenny. Do you think it should say platinum still or just you know, it says it says, you know, um Minimum silver, but we're goal is gold. I know we've talked about reducing the goal to gold from platinum But that's what sort of hasn't been officially decided. Do you think it's a platinum at the moment? Just say, you know, that's the goal and we can always change in it's got a little it's fine to say like

[Member Jenny Graham]: The school committee, like, the project began with an intention to do this given that the. You know, whatever there's a new version out the project is exploring a modified goal of this, but has not been decided and the minimum is. Whatever it is, I think it's fine to just say.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: The truth where we are, but make sure it's it's very clear. We're not just going for the bare minimum. Yeah, perfect.

[Matt Gulino]: I can add in the mages, add in the language from the school committee discussion about lead V for platinum and just make a reference.

[Adele Sands]: Matt Rice is texting that currently the target that needs to be ratified by SBC is LEAD V5 gold, which seems to be the equivalent of LEAD V4.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And that just hasn't happened yet, so we should make that clear. So that if that does not happen, there are no surprises.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And I know we're over time, so. I need a little more time to read through the next 2 sections. For me personally, so, Matt, I will send you any other comments I have, but I don't know if anyone had anyone else had comments about the next section, which is our, which is like the scope of services right on page.

[Matt Gulino]: Yep. I did. Yep. I did. I did see your comments. So I'll, I'll go through those today and, um, and incorporate those as well.

[Kenneth Lord]: There were comments about adding in about project safety about site security, a butter communication.

[Matt Gulino]: Yep. Yep. The butter communication is a good one for sure. Um, so yeah, I'll, I'll definitely go through and, make sure those comments are addressed.

[Kenneth Lord]: And then page 14 C, you had had a 10 month after substantial completion commitment. I wasn't sure if that was enough given substantial completion will be likely. I don't know what substantial completion when we're moving the building or when the whole site work is done. Because I know we'll continue to work on the site for almost another year, probably. I don't know if that was a substantial completion when that was done or when the building is moved into.

[Adele Sands]: It's usually the building portion of it. But also, you can also make it clearer and reference both.

[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, so you just got to tweak that so it's not just there's still a lot more work after that. And then 10 months after the whole project is done,

[Adele Sands]: And if everybody that sends Matt any comments can copy me just in case with Matt's impending nuptials so that I can make sure that the next couple of weeks, if anything changes or comes up, I'm copied.

[Kenneth Lord]: And then just, I've got a meeting in another 10 minutes, and I'm the host of the meeting. On the evaluation criteria, aren't we required to have all of our criteria listed in this? You know, we're going to say highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous, you know. Yep. All the standards, because.

[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, that's the minimum, but you've got the minimum criteria there, which I think at least one project within the last 10 years of this total construction cost is a problem because there haven't been that many.

[Matt Gulino]: Correct. Yeah. And I think that's something that, um, that when I issue this to the, to the building committee and receive comments from them as well is, is one thing that we'll have to address is maybe not dollar value, but, you know, size of square footage. Yep. So I can clarify, clarify that. And I think it's something that, that, um, you know, we may want to talk about too, in terms of, you know, there aren't a lot of other high school projects in Massachusetts that are this size. Um, so do we want to entertain um, you know, higher education facilities that maybe are large and have similarities to, you know, to Medford High School. There is a way that we can, you know, we can kind of adjust what we consider as a similar project as long as we are doing that equally across all, um, all of the applications. So that's just something we'll have to consider between now and when we get proposals is how kind of stringent and strict.

[Kenneth Lord]: Sorry, Matt, that's not right. You have to have the minimum criteria correct in this document because you cannot waive a minimum criteria.

[Matt Gulino]: Correct. Yeah, no, that's kind of what I'm saying. Before this is issued, we will make sure that we have clarity on exactly what Um, you know, similar type construction project means.

[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, I mean, I, I would think it was more about the value of criteria in the next section. We don't have any listed. I think we're supposed to have that up front.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, I'll take I'm going to be going through this again today with the updating comments and I'll certainly. Um, you know, make sure that any, you know, numerical, uh, rankings are, are clear.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And Libby, did you have any other comments based on, um, what you reviewed?

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: I was just going to go back to say, speaking of the project types, I mean, I think it would be fine to consider other non public K-12 projects, if it was a very large, complicated public university project or huge health care. But there's a lot of complications that it shows somebody can handle the work. A small project wouldn't be the same. But I think I don't want to limit us yet.

[Brian Hilliard]: Public work, I think. And there's so few project typologies that are entail this many types of construction in this many spaces. I'd be shocked if there was anybody that meets the criteria that hasn't done a big public school.

[Member Jenny Graham]: I guess my other comment on that was, is having done three of these enough? That doesn't seem like they're going to be able to

[Kenneth Lord]: Well, that's the minimum criteria that would get them to us to be able to review as a let them submit a proposal.

[Brian Hilliard]: Yeah, I think that's okay. Okay. And to Ken's point, that just allows us to look at them and consider them. Because three projects this size, that's a lot.

[Kenneth Lord]: You can have one of the evaluative criteria say, okay, three is not advantageous, three to five is advantageous, five to 10 is highly advantageous.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: It's a CMR project with a total construction costs in a similar amount. They did a CMS project, but they've done three of a similar size.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I'll mess around with the- How does similar size work in our context?

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, I think it's really going to be from a size and complexity standpoint, just knowing that not many or really anyone is going to have especially a high school project of this dollar value, just with how pricing has increased over the years.

[Member Jenny Graham]: I think this will- Is there a square footage minimum that we should be articulating? This feels super squishy.

[CAS00002491_SPEAKER_14]: The cost is hard because if it was done three years ago, it could be significantly less expensive, but still as complicated and as large.

[Brian Hilliard]: I think, Jenny, I think it sort of wants to be squishy because I think what Matt Galino is getting at is that this is sort of, this is a kind of a unicorn project. And we really need to consider, I think, cast a fairly large net, wide net. Because I just think that it's going to be tough to find somebody that's spot on with this, with a ton of experience building this exact project.

[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, my fear with adding in like specificity like that is, you know, people like, you know, 550 or 600,000 square foot building. Like, we haven't done one of those, um, you know, or we haven't done three of those, uh, you know, we're not even gonna bother, you know, but they may maybe had a 500, you know, thousand square foot building, you know, so the similar is really kind of what we need, what this committee will have to kind of agree upon and, Having it a bit squishy does give us that flexibility to kind of make that determination. If we start to put very, very specific criteria, my fear is that we'll just kind of push out interested firms and not give us the ability to kind of evaluate them apples to apples when we receive them.

[Member Jenny Graham]: So what's your recommendation? Like, but I think we all agree, like, we don't want to push people out, but what's the recommendation?

[Matt Gulino]: I think the recommendation is is going to be more based off of of size square footage.

[Adele Sands]: What's the number? So Matt Rice is texting me because he still can't get through his mic. He's saying he'll send over the Lexington CMR FQ because that is, um, they had similar discussions with that group around, um, size and complexity for the similar project scope.

[Matt Gulino]: Okay. Yeah. And I, and I have been talking with, um, Kevin Sullivan who is working on Brockton. So I will take a look at there. RFQ as well and see if they had anything since they are a very large project as well.

[Member Jenny Graham]: I think we are running out of time here. I guess two things. One is, it's our expectation that we're going to get an authorization from the building committee on next Wednesday to proceed and this is not ready. How do we go from here to ready and give the building committee adequate time to review this?

[Matt Gulino]: My intent is still to update this and get it out to the full committee tomorrow.

[Member Jenny Graham]: And we never gave them the heads up that we talked about that this was coming, did we?

[Matt Gulino]: I mean, I've been referencing it and giving updates to it in our weekly recap and kind of giving the overall schedule and what the game plan is.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Well, we talked about sending an email saying, as a heads up, you should expect this thing on this day so that you can review it, so that you can be prepared to provide an approval. And that didn't go out. I don't know.

[Matt Gulino]: It went out in the weekly recap, Jenny. That's exactly what we talked about last week, that I would highlight those things in the weekly recap. And that's what I did.

[Member Jenny Graham]: OK. I don't think we should assume people have read that. But I think more importantly, if we are going to send them something, we have to figure out the messaging because this is not ready.

[Adele Sands]: Do we want to send it out to this group tomorrow, Matt, and then circle back? Do we need another meeting? I'm available next week if we need another meeting of this group to be able to, for this group to make that recommendation next Thursday.

[Kenneth Lord]: On Monday, we need to meet or can we do this by email? I don't know.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I mean, maybe that's a great question, Ken. So perhaps the better path forward is for everybody to provide their comments and this group to take a vote to authorize somebody to green light this to the building committee. And that can be me, or it can be Ken. It could be the two of us. That's not a quorum, so that would be fine.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, let's do it. So can somebody make that motion for me?

[Member Jenny Graham]: Okay. So motion to provide feedback via email and authorization to Ken and Jenny to give the final say go to the, to send this to the building committee by Ken and seconded by Libby. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. I am Libby Brown. Yes. Brian Hilliard.

[Member Jenny Graham]: Matt Rice. He has texted aye. And Dr. Galusi is absent. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in the affirmative, 1 absent the motion passes. Um, okay. Is there a motion to adjourn?

[Member Jenny Graham]: By Ken. Is there a second? Second. By Libby. I'll call the roll. Ken?

Jenny Graham total time: 16.06 minutes total words: 2311