Select Board approves $165.2 million GMP for Pierce School; windows and sprinkler allowance included

The Town of Brookline Select Board voted unanimously Feb. 5 to approve a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract with Consigli Construction in the amount of $165,193,282 for construction of the Pierce School, a project the Building Commission reviewed Jan. 30, 2025.

The GMP, announced at a Feb. 5 special meeting, folds phase 1 demolition into the single contract and includes late additions such as park and drainage work, a $1,250,000 allowance for sprinkler work and an alternate for full replacement of 57 windows in the historic Pierce building priced at $656,507. The project team told the board the GMP is roughly $2 million below the previously circulated 90% budget estimate and that phase 1 is on schedule.

Why it matters: The vote obligates the town to a major construction contract and commits borrowing and reimbursement decisions that will interact with Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) participation. Board members pressed the project team on whether added work is eligible for MSBA reimbursement, how park subsurface value is being handled under Article 97, and whether replacement windows have been reviewed by preservation authorities.

Adam Keane, owner’s project manager with Left Field, presented the GMP and said, “phase 1 is on time and on budget” and that the GMP as presented is “approximately $2,000,000 on this contract less on our on this GMP that we're presenting to you today in comparison to our 90% budget.” Lap Yan of the Building Department, who has been leading the town’s work on the project, told the board the bids were time-sensitive and that the board convening the special meeting was necessary because “we felt that it was imperative that we get the GMP approved” while current bids remain valid.

The board and project team discussed three main add-ons included in or attached to the GMP. First, the team recommended accepting Alternate 1 — a full replacement of 57 windows in the historic building at a quoted cost of $656,507 — after they found widespread gasketing failure in the existing windows. Andy Dushane of Left Field said 20 of the 57 windows “have failed so far,” and that the project team recommended replacing all windows now rather than replacing some and letting the others fail later. Project staff explained the original window manufacturer no longer makes a needed profile and that retrofitting would leave the town with limited warranty protections.

Second, the GMP includes a $1,250,000 allowance for sprinkler/fire-protection work related to the town hall/library parking garage and other fire protection needs. The team described that figure as an allowance because final design and permitting for that scope remain in study; the allowance can be credited back to the town if not used. Keane said including the allowance in the GMP preserves the town’s MSBA participation for that work, whereas adding it later by change order would reduce MSBA reimbursement rates.

Third, the GMP includes park improvements tied to Article 97 review for subsurface use of Pierce Playground. Joe Callahan (identified in the meeting as on the call) summarized prior state coordination and said state regulators had accepted the town’s approach; he said the town had proposed park improvements in the $95,000 to $120,000 range to offset the change in subsurface value and that the final affidavit from the assessor remains to be filed with the state. The project team later indicated the work included in the base contract amounts to about $95,000 of park improvements.

Board members pressed the team on MSBA reimbursement. Keane and Lap said the town’s MSBA participation is accounted for at roughly 21.6% reimbursement overall but cautioned that some line items have different eligibility and caps; Lap noted some elements could be treated as MSBA-ineligible and that final reimbursement depends on MSBA rules and permitted scopes. The project team said that if the sprinkler allowance proved not to be spent under the GMP, the town could receive a credit back via a deductive change order.

Several board members raised preservation and process questions about the window replacement. John (Van Scioyak) and others asked whether the Preservation Commission or Massachusetts historic-preservation authorities had approved the proposed replacement windows. Helen Charlofsky, identified in the meeting as associated with the school committee and the Pierce Building Committee, said the existing vinyl windows likely were not approved originally by the Preservation Commission and that the project team intends to consult the commission and follow its guidance on suitable replacements.

The board also discussed the timing pressures of the bid validity window. Keane said the bid prices were valid only through the next business day (cited as Feb. 10 in the meeting) and that not accepting alternates before bids “go stale” could require rebidding those scopes at higher cost.

Formal action and next steps: Select Board Chair Bernard Green moved approval of the GMP as recommended by the Building Commission, including the windows alternate and the sprinkler allowance. The board recorded unanimous ayes from John Van Scioyak, Michael Salmon, Paul Warren, David Perlman and Chair Bernard Green. Board members directed staff to pursue potential recoupment from the original window manufacturer and to proceed with preservation and MSBA coordination as required.

Votes at a glance: The Select Board approved the GMP contract with Consigli Construction for the Pierce School (motion passed; ayes 5–0). The authorization includes the windows alternate ($656,507) and a sprinkler allowance ($1,250,000). The Building Commission had reviewed and voted on the scope Jan. 30, 2025.

The project team and town staff said they will file the required assessor affidavit for Article 97 park substitution and will submit proposed window replacements to the Preservation Commission and any state historic-review bodies as required. Staff also said counsel and relevant officials will pursue any warranty or recovery claims against the prior window installer or manufacturer.