The High School project has achieved an important milestone: the EFPBC has voted to approve the construction budget. To date the project is on time and slightly under budget.
On Monday, November 17, the EFPBC voted to approve the construction cost of the project called the Gross Maximum Price (GMP). The project budget is $129,923,146 of which the construction budget is $101,235,610. Originally the GMP was $208,954 under our budget. Before the project was bid to subcontractors, the committee chose to remove four line items and put them in the category of alternates. When the GMP was below our budget the committee included all four back in the project. These alternates totaled $205,593. With these added back the final GMP was $101,232,248 which is $3,362 below our construction budget.
In order to finalize the GMP, the EFPBC was involved in value engineering which is an exercise used to determine if there are any possible reductions available that would not compromise educational objectives. Reductions can be from three categories: material changes, quantity of material, and design options. In total the EFPBC evaluated more than 90 options ranging in value individually from $312,000 to $3,500. For example, the Committee decided to reduce the quantity of tile material on corridor walls from 6’-6’’ to 5’-0’, which reduced the cost by $147,000.
While the GMP is below our budget we remain focused on delivering the project on time, on budget. In addition, the construction manager at risk (CM) carries a $2,500,000 GMP contingency and the town has an additional total contingency of $5,560,524. We still have to be cautious because unexpected latent conditions might arise as construction proceeds. A ‘latent condition’ in construction is an unforeseen problem requiring attention and resolution.
The project is operating under a tight time schedule with target completion of August 2017. The CM believes the completion date will be met.
The CM is experienced in phased construction, planning and logistics. One of the great advantages of the CM project delivery method is the CM works directly with the design team and our project manager (OPM) during the final design and construction document phases. In this way the CM becomes intimately involved with the project and suggests ways of reducing cost without reducing quality. The CM at Risk approach chosen for this project mitigates risk to the town for both cost and schedule.
As we all know, the main purpose of this project was to enhance the educational experience of the students and faculty while achieving a LEED silver position. The committee can report that every educational and sustainability objective has been respected and is in the project. The Committee will continue to monitor the budget and make adjustments accordingly.
Robert F. Deering, on behalf of the EFPBC
The Members of the EFPBC:
Robert F. Deering, Chair, BOS Representative (Precinct 1)
Donald E. Cecich, Secretary (Precinct 3)
Bill McAlduff, Superintendent of Schools
Wei Han, School Committee Representative (Precinct 3)
Charles Tseckares, Architect (Precinct 3)
Geethanjali P. Mathiyalakan, Engineer (Precinct 5)
Gerald R. Nardone (Precinct 3)
Linda A. Rossetti (Precinct 2)
Brendan Driscoll (Precinct 7)
Shelly Walsh (Precinct 7)