Central Michigan University Meeting Date: February 7, 2007 Project No.: Page 1 of 6

Transcription

1 Project No.: Page 1 of 6 Topic: Location: Time: Present: Project Cost Estimate + Schedule Review Design Discussion 50% CD Owner Review Comments Architectural, Landscape and Civil Power Plant Conference Room 10:00 am 6:00 pm See attached Attendance Sheet Introductions were made and the agenda discussed. A. Project Schedule The current project schedule, dated January 11, 2007, was distributed to those present. DSA said that they are on schedule to meet the proposed bid date. The following reviews will occur at the 90% CD milestone: i. DSA QC review ii. CMU review iii. Plan/Peer review (managed by CMU) iv. Commissioning review (PBA) v. DMB review (final review before bids) vi. Office of Fire Safety review vii. Arup review DSA will add these reviews to the schedule. DSA commented that between the 90% CD and 100% CD submittal there will be coordination issues to address, and requested that review agencies be notified. The prequalification selection will be handled by CMU. DSA will assist with this process, if needed. CMU stressed concern with the selection of subcontractors. CMU would like to minimize risk and be as clear as possible in the prequalification RFP. DSA recommended that CMU work with the DMB to review this concern and receive approval for the prequalification process. DSA will submit past project information to CMU for reference. B. Project Cost Estimate The current project estimate, dated February 6, 2007, was distributed to those present. Value engineering has taken place over the past two months, and therefore the construction estimate was presented at $34.8 million dollars. The target construction budget is $34.6 million dollars.

2 Project No.: Page 2 of 6 The following was discussed regarding the estimate: i. The design contingency was lowered reflecting the limited amount of design work remaining. ii. Deduct alternates will be included in the bid package and reviewed at the next meeting. iii. The fixed projection screens (page 26 of the current project estimate dated February 6, 2007) will be provided by the General Contractor and may possibly be a deduct alternate. C. Design Discussion A power point presentation was presented by DSA. The following ideas were discussed: i. The inspiration for the material and color choices for the building came from the colors and textures of the rainforest (i.e. bamboo, exotic birds, flowers, etc). ii. A graphic installation was introduced to CMU for the east wall of the Main Stair. 1. To be printed on 3M paper or similar. 2. To span from the second level floor to the fourth floor ceiling. 3. CMU has concerns regarding maintenance and replacement. 4. The idea to project an image on the east wall was suggested as well as a painted image. 5. DSA will forward to CMU more information and images regarding the proposed graphic wall. 6. CMU requests DSA to submit more options regarding the wall. iii. Animations of the building (exterior and interior) were presented. 1. DSA explained to those present that there may be minor details that are out of date. Animations are very involved and hard to keep updated due to the fast pace of document development. 2. Copies of the animation will be forwarded to CMU for their use. iv. The window display areas above the east and west entries were discussed. 1. These areas can be used to display university banners, projects and/or holiday decorations. 2. A device to hold such items will be detailed by DSA. 3. The design was presented at a DSA presentation dated July 20, This area will be vented but not cooled. 5. CMU approves the display areas above the east and west entries as designed. v. Material boards were presented to reflect all interior design decisions made to date. 1. CMU would prefer a dark color cork material to be used at the back wall of any display case that is on a slate/brick wall.

3 Project No.: Page 3 of 6 2. CMU requested pictures of the end grain wood epoxy flooring being used at Reception 146. DSA will fulfill this request. 3. CMU approved the presented materials and finishes. D. Landscape Review The CMU Building Committee Review Comments and Request 50% Review spreadsheet and marked up 50% owner review drawings were explained and discussed. The following comments were made in addition to the previously mentioned items: i. CMU raised concern regarding photometrics and whether or not the lighting layout took into consideration the tree canopy. DSA will confirm with the electrical engineer that the trees are taken into account. ii. iii. iv. CMU indicated that they do not want a 6 arborvitae hedge surrounding the Outdoor Learning Center or the sculpture garden. They would like the arborvitae hedge replaced with a 3 hedge comprised of another plant type to be determined. CMU requested sidewalk revisions at the employee entrance to provide improved circulation from the north-south sidewalk west of the building. DSA indicated that that entrance was really not intended for students and adding a sidewalk might encourage students to enter at that location. CMU felt that students will enter at that location regardless of the design intent and it would be best to provide a sidewalk. CMU requested that we detail the plant beds to have edging if the budget will allow. BRI anticipates that while some trees have been deleted, freeing up budget dollars, the revision of the hedge will offset any savings, not allowing the addition of edging. v. CMU requested a 5 sidewalk connecting the bike parking to the east and west building entrances. vi. vii. viii. ix. CMU requested that the crabapple trees be planted in a mulch bed to minimize the need for mowing beneath these low-branched trees. DSA advised BRI that benches at east and west building entrances have been deleted from the project. CMU requested that we delete the trees within the service area screen walls. CMU asked that we ensure pavement across roadway north of project site will properly receive pedestrians on north-south sidewalk west of building. x. There was a discussion regarding tree spacing. CMU agreed to leave the Honey Locusts at the Outdoor Learning Center as designed.

4 Project No.: Page 4 of 6 E. Civil Review The CMU Building Committee Review Comments and Request 50% Review spreadsheet and marked up 50% owner review drawings were explained and discussed. The following comments were made in addition to the previously mentioned items: i. Eliminate walkway to courtyard at the northeast corner of the site. ii. iii. iv. Alternate pavement section to be provided for east and west entrances. Slate pavers are a maintenance concern as well as a cost issue. DSA will present detailing options at the next project meeting. Owner prefers concrete pavement surface (DSA to coordinate final pavement type with owner.) v. Drop off area/bus route widen east entrance to provide additional space for ease of access for buses. vi. vii. viii. ix. All efforts shall be made to save the existing triangular-shaped area at the northeast corner of the site from being removed and replaced as part of the work for this project, and the area shall be indicated on the drawings to not be disturbed due to construction activities. The walkways may be removed and replaced if necessary, but the landscaping shall be maintained. As part of the removal of existing pedestrian walkways at the northwest corner, a couple of diagonal extensions of walkway were removed to accommodate the parking lot. The pedestrian traffic should be reviewed in this area (by Beckett & Raeder,) and any additional walkway required to accommodate this traffic shall be provided. Site signage is important to be maintained throughout the duration of the project. Signage shall be provided for the new building project, and the existing signage shall be maintained to a certain extent during the construction process (Beckett & Raeder/DSA item.) CMU facilities group to perform exploratory excavations as required to determine the location, depth and type of site underground electrical line that runs east-west along the north edge of the proposed site. Refer to C501, just north of the proposed storm water detention system. x. The connection to the existing chilled water system shall be made across Ojibway Court, on the south side of the street, to the chilled water line running east-west in that area. xi. There were discussions regarding the signage at the east and west entries to the building. The signage will be rotated 90 degrees from what is shown on the site plan. Also, it was suggested by CMU to place signage on the building entry doors/glass.

5 Project No.: Page 5 of 6 F. Architectural Review The CMU Building Committee Review Comments and Request 50% Review spreadsheet and marked up 50% owner review drawings were explained and discussed. The following comments were made in addition to the previously mentioned items: i. DSA confirmed their compliance with the specification section of the CMU Building Committee Review Comments and Request 50% Review spreadsheet unless otherwise noted. ii. Printing services for the next major milestone will be with a company local to DSA. iii. IT/AV drawings will become part of the electrical/architectural drawings. iv. There was a discussion regarding security cameras. CMU to verify the need for such items, and provide locations. v. Conduit for future card reader will be provided at all doors off the main corridors. CMU will provide a specification of the desired card reader. vi. Dean s Office 426C and Associate Dean s Office 426H shall have walls that extend to the underside of the decking. DSA will implement this change into the drawings. vii. The stair in the tunnel will move farther to the east. DSA will implement this change into the drawings. viii. Storage is needed in the basement. The proposed location Storage 002- will not be a sufficient amount of space because of the mechanical system. A new location was suggested at the west side of Stair 019. DSA will implement this change. ix. CMU verified that the word mark at the Pre-Lecture Space 106 can be walked on. The correct symbol will be provided to DSA by CMU. x. CMU suggested a built-in bench at the east and west entries in order to justify the large cavities. DSA will investigate this idea and proceed as necessary. xi. The plans will be updated to show perimeter finned tube locations. xii. If doors 107A and 107B are not needed per code, DSA will eliminate them from the project. xiii. The Materials Lab 134D space needs to be re-evaluated due to the high density shelving interfering with the column. DSA will work with CMU to configure the most efficient space.

6 Project No.: Page 6 of 6 xiv. The needed items at the Materials Lab 134D will be verified by CMU and forwarded to DSA. G. Demolition Package Progress The demolition project schedule was distributed to all those present. i. CMU agreed that the bid phase could be shortened to 2 weeks. ii. The demolition work needs to be completed by May 30 th. The following items will need to be considered in the demolition package: i. Temporary electrical panel ii. Safety lighting iii. Maintaining landscaped triangle at northeast area of site.

7 Meeting Attendance Central Michigan University Date: February 7, 2007 Project No.: Arch Civil/Land Schedule/Cost/Design Name Organization / Department Address Chad Stirrett Steve Lawrence Project Manager, Plant and Engineering Services Associate Vice President Facilities Management Stirr1cm@cmich.edu Lawre1sp@cmich.edu John Latoski Project Manager Engineering & Planning Latos1jr@cmich.edu Ray Christie Vice Provost, Academic Administration Chris2r@cmich.edu Tom Trionfi Contracting & Purchasing Trion1tp@cmich.edu Jessica Ebels Director, Academic Space & Remodeling ebels1jl@cmich.edu Janice Suchan DSA, Project Manager jsuchan@shwgroup.com Tod Stevens DSA Architects Mickey Walsh DSA Architects Melanie Hall DSA Architects Christy Summers Beckett and Raeder tstevens@shwgroup.com mwalsh@shwgroup.com mjhall@shwgroup.com csummers@bria2.com Greg Bono Wilcox Professional Services greg.bono@wilcox.us

8 Meeting Attendance Central Michigan University Date: February 7, 2007 Project No.: