Revere City committee approves testing firm, contract amendments and invoices for school project

The Revere City School Building Committee approved a set of construction-related invoices and contract amendments Monday, selecting Briggs as the project's independent third‑party materials‑testing firm and authorizing additional work by environmental and geotechnical consultants to support upcoming site‑work bids.

The actions matter because the approvals move the project closer to awarding major site and foundation work, unlock reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) once MSBA executes the project funding agreement, and shift limited contingency money to cover required preconstruction investigations of potentially contaminated soils.

The committee approved an invoice from Perkins Eastman for construction‑document and geotechnical work totaling $719,719.20 and an invoice for Consigli covering preconstruction services and a construction requisition totaling $619,747.81. The committee also approved a payment to Left Field (the city's owner's project manager) earlier in the meeting (amount not specified on the record).

Brian, the Left Field project representative, told the committee that geotechnical work completed to date did not reveal new, immediate issues but that some outstanding findings relate to two contract amendment requests on the agenda. "No new issues that we're gonna talk about a little later because it relates to 2 contract amendments that we have tonight," Brian said, adding that site work and ground improvements for the building are "extremely complex" and have required additional consultant work.

Brian said permitting milestones had advanced: the project has received the final environmental impact review from the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process, the local Conservation Commission has issued its order of conditions, and the city has executed the MSBA project funding agreement. "Them signing that document is the required step that'll allow us to start inputting reimbursement from the last year and getting reimbursement flowing back to the city," he said. He said the MSBA's ProPay system will be used to process monthly reimbursements once MSBA finishes its internal steps.

On bidding, Brian said the procurement for concrete and structural steel has completed and, together with an earlier site demolition award, those three trades are currently about $7.8 million under the project's budgeted amounts in aggregate. He cautioned, however, that site work likely will not be under budget and that the team is still finalizing bids for underground waterproofing, elevators and the large site‑work package. The committee was told a 90% construction‑document package will be issued at the end of the month and that some value‑management (value‑engineering) could be required if overall bids exceed the budget.

Selection of third‑party testing firm

The committee voted to award an independent testing contract directly to Briggs for on‑site materials testing and inspection services. The selection was based on qualifications, local availability, turnaround commitments and unit pricing. Brian said the project has carried a testing allowance of $400,000 in the budget and that the team expects to open a purchase order for roughly $300,000 to start; tests will be billed against that allowance as work proceeds.

Dr. Kelly expressed concern about concrete quality based on observations at other city projects and asked that Briggs and the structural team be vigilant. "I just would ask that you ... make sure that they are very much in tune to the consistency and the quality of the concrete that they use," Dr. Kelly said. Brian replied that the comment would be shared with Briggs, Consigli (the construction manager), Perkins Eastman (the architect) and the structural engineer.

Contract amendments and budget revisions

The committee approved a Left Field contract amendment and a budget revision to fund Sanborn Head to perform soil pre‑characterization and related environmental services. The total Sanborn Head proposal is $79,970; the project already had approximately $47,700 in an existing Left Field allowance line, so the committee approved moving $32,270 from the project's soft cost contingency into Left Field's contract to fully fund the Sanborn Head scope. Brian described the work as "pre soil precharacterization" to determine where soil is considered "dirty" (subject to DEP open files) and where it can be reused on site. He said a second, larger round of site‑wide soil testing by Sanborn Head may be needed later and would be funded similarly if required.

The committee also approved an amendment to Perkins Eastman's contract and a budget revision to fund additional geotechnical services by GZA, the project's geotechnical engineer. That additional service value is $151,250; because Perkins Eastman had no remaining allowance for those services, the request included a budget revision to move the full amount into the contract. Brian said GZA's continued involvement will be required through award, shop drawings and on‑site verification during earthwork and ground improvement activities.

Votes at a glance

- Perkins Eastman invoice (construction documents / geotechnical): $719,719.20 — approved by roll call. - Consigli invoice (preconstruction services invoice No. 32 + requisition 3): $619,747.81 — approved by roll call. - Selection of Briggs as third‑party materials testing agent (contract direct to city; testing allowance $400,000; initial purchase order ~ $300,000): approved by roll call. - Left Field contract amendment No. 7 to accept Sanborn Head proposal $79,970 and Budget Revision Request No. 7 to move $32,270 from soft contingency into Left Field: approved by roll call. - Perkins Eastman amendment and Budget Revision Request No. 8 to fund GZA additional geotechnical services: $151,250 — approved by roll call.

The committee deferred agenda item 8 (a Consigli contract amendment that had been expected) and indicated it may hold a short special meeting next week to act on contract amendments the project team hopes to finalize before major site‑work mobilization. There were no public comments recorded, and the meeting adjourned.

Limitation: The transcript and meeting record showed multiple name spellings and short, repeated roll calls; amounts and allocation details cited above match the statements made aloud during the meeting. Where the record did not provide a specific invoice amount or an exact remaining allowance figure, the article states the numbers that were read on the record or notes that the amount was "not specified."