MINUTES

Mr. Spradling moved for approval of the September 24, 2013 minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Goetz. All voted in favor and the minutes were approved.

Louis Krupnick, with Swanke Hayden Connel & Partners, gave an overview of the project. A lengthy handout was provided. He stated that the Public Service Commission is requesting approval to go through the Design-Build Procurement Act in order to make immediate exterior repairs to their building in Charleston. They have spent the last six months looking at the problems with the building facade and to identify masonry problems. They were initially asked to look at the arch and when they looked at it they discovered the arch was in distress.

Mr. Krupnick advised that when they took at look at the rest of the building they also discovered brick problems, water damage and problems with the precast concrete. They have done selective demolition to see what is going on with the building. There is a series of defects such as water inside the walls, degrated polyurethane that has ripped due to movement, and corroded ladder truces which only had 50% of material left. Mr. Krupnick stated that they took ten demolition patches to see what they could find. Surprisingly, it is what they didn’t find that was the problem. There was no masonry reinforcement. The brick on the shelves were not positioned correctly and it forced water back into the building. The most disturbing problem was the brick support. The backup block is in terrible condition and the level of construction is just not up to snuff.

Chairman Monteleone requested that they go through their application and discuss the criteria as it relates to their project. Mr. Krupnick stated that they are requesting approval as a design-build project as they need a rapid turn-around and must control costs. They plan to have an engineering team do further research and have design concepts.

Chairman Monteleone believes they are not ready to be before the Design-Build Board. He questioned if he was going to design and then put out the construction to bid or have teams do design and construction. Mr. Krupnick explained that they are now creating the criteria for the specifications. He indicated that they need to do the project through design-build method as they need to hit the June construction season and can not do that with the typical design-bid-build method. He also stated that they need close coordination due to the emergency situation. The building is now scaffolded off and they need the design and construction working together. Cost containment is also needed and design-build allows them to see what costs are up front. This will allow them to define scope and determine estimated costs. Since they need the repairs rapidly, early cost containment is necessary.

Mr. Smith questioned what funding plan they had in place. Mr. Albert advised that the Public Service Commission’s revenues are generated from fees they assess and those have increased so they are in good shape financially and will fund this project.

Mr. Thrasher advised that we typically look at two methods of construction, Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build. There is a third category of using emergency procurement. He suggested this might be a better method for them. Mr. Albert advised that they used that for the first part of assessing the problems but the Purchasing Division will not allow them to use emergency procurement for the renovations.

Mr. Thrasher stated that there are too many variables for people to be able to design and build as they are not sure what they will find. Mr. Krupnick advised that they know enough to put out good specifications. They plan to strip everything out. He is confident that the design-build method is a good solution. Mr. Thrasher questioned whether they plan to pull the skin off and make corrections then put on a new skin. Mr. Krupnick stated that is what they plan to do. The specifications will require the building match the existing buildings.

Mr. Thrasher questioned how much remediation will be necessary after they take the skin off. Mr. Krupnick indicated they will remove the exterior in strips and it will be easy enough for the Public Service Commission to identify problems. Mr. Goetz questioned if they plan to take the entire brick facade off. Mr. Krupnick stated they do plan to remove it all but will try to maintain the brick on the first level. Mr. Thrasher questioned if they can do criteria so that bidders will be able to bid on the same work. Mr. Krupnick advised that they could as their specifications will be concise and this will work very good with design-build. He is very confident they can put out a good package and get proposals for bidders.

Mr. Spradling question their time line as it looks very aggressive and he is not sure they can meet it. Mr. Krupnick stated that they could meet the deadlines as the people at the Public Service Commission are good decision makers and they have a good team of folks who have done this. Mr. Krupnick again expressed the emergency situation and requested they approve them as a design-build project as it needs done as soon as possible .

Mr. Smith explained the design-build process and stated that you can not be the criteria developer and the designer. Mr. Krupnick advised he has done this all over the world and he puts in the specifications in the initial design the needs they seek and then the teams tell them how they approach it. The specifications will identify things they want such as brick, etc. Mr. Smith still does not see how this could be a design-build project if he is doing all the design. Chairman Monteleone stated that he has done restorations and you need to take the criteria a little farther. The Criteria Developer will need to do specifications that shows the scope of the work. The Public Service Commission needs to put specifications out so they have some control over what it will look like. Mr. Goetz questioned whether the criterial will include trying to save the first level of brick. Mr. Krupnick stated that it will include that.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Public Service Commission moving forward as a design-build project. Motion seconded by Mr. Spradling. All voted in favor and the motion passed.

Presentation on Harrison County Schools Project

Craig Baker, Criteria Developer, advised the board that the costs were opened on the Harrison County project yesterday. Two teams remained at that phase, City Construction/Omni Associates and BBL Carlton/ZMM. City Construction’s base bid cost was $14,394,528.00 and BBL Carlton’s base bid cost was $20,498,000.00. Both costs included the mine grouting. When the technical scores and cost scores were combined City Construction had a score of 184 and BBL Carlton had a score of 145.

Mr. Baker advised that both costs were over budget due to the mine grouting. Harrison County Schools is wanting to do some negotiating in order to be where they need to be with their budget. Mr. Baker further advised that the negotiating would not change the outcome of the bids. Chairman Monteleone stated the statute allows negotiating as long as it does not change the outcome or the scope of the work.

Mr. Smith questioned how much over budget they were. Mr. Baker stated they were $2 million over due to the grouting. Even without the grouting they would have been a little high.

Mr. Smith moved to approve Harrison County Schools to move forward with their project. Motion seconded by Ron Spradling. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Mr. Thrasher abstained from voting.

Presentation on Pendleton County Schools Project

Dave Snider, Criteria Developer, advised that three cost proposals were opened yesterday on the Pendleton County Schools project. City Construction/Blackwood’s base bid cost was $11,594,412.00, G&G Builders/Williamson Shriver’s base bid cost was $11,993,000.00 and Massaro/McKinley’s base bid was $13,720,000.00.

Mr. Snider advised that this project is also over budget. They had a budget of $9.3 million. They were $2 million over budget but the items on the unit costs can be removed and they totaled approximately $400,000. However, further negotiating will be required. Chairman Monteleone questioned if this was the project that originally had all the alternates. Mr. Snider advised that it is and they will not be able to get the items in the alternates now.

Mr. Goetz reviewed the scores and questioned since they are so close how they negotiate so it won’t flip the score. Chairman Monteleone advised that in order to be proper they must be very careful going forward. The Criteria Developer will need to present something to this board that shows the negotiating did not change the placing of the bidders or change the winner. He also stated that this will be very difficult to negotiate since it is so close and the budget is over. Mr. Raines stated that they can cut some items such as lighting or floor finishes.

Chairman Monteleone advised that they must still meet the time lines or their approval will be revoked.

Mr. Womack questioned whether they could go back to the second bidder and ask for deduction costs for both teams so they can see if it would change the outcome. Chairman Monteleone stated they could as it would assure they don’t change the outcome and they can compare fairly. Mr. Thrasher stated that costs should have been broken down so you can look at costs as deductive alternates. Mr. Raines advised that they tried to do that but this board would not allow it. Chairman Monteleone stated that design-build doesn’t go well with alternates but they did allow unit costs. He further stated that during the legislative session they need to tweak the laws so the process fits schools better. Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Thrasher that this board would not allow alternates because they would select different alternates in each one and it would allow them to get the team they want.

Mr. Spradling questioned whether the numbers have been made public. Mr. Snider advised that they have been made public because they are required to have a public cost opening. Mr. Spradling expressed concerns that the second bidder will know what they need to do when they provide unit costs. Mr. Goetz stated that the line item costs were suppose to be included. Mr. Snider indicated that they were but all of those will be taken out but it still doesn’t get them on budget and need to negotiate further. Chairman Monteleone advised that they must come back at the next meeting and explain how their negotiating worked.

Dr. Manchin questioned if the School Building Authority or Harrison County Schools comes up with additional money are they done with this board. Chairman Monteleone stated they are except for the monthly reporting. However, Pendleton County is so close that they will need to compare line items and compare the new base bid.

Chairman Monteleone advised that they must provide certification from the Criteria Developer on each project that the negotiating was done correctly and that the negotiations did not change the outcome. This must be certified to the board. Mr. Raines stated that Harrison County is so far apart on the costs that negotiation will not change the outcome. Chairman Monteleone still requires certification on both projects.

Mr. Smith moved to approve Pendleton County to proceed in the design-build process. Motion seconded by Mr. Spradling. All voted in favor and the motion passed.

There was no other business.

There being no other business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.