Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Station Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville committee moves design toward bids; peer review, stormwater and invoices cleared
Summary
The Town of Lakeville Fire Station Building Committee received design and permitting updates, agreed to a QA/QC review and a stormwater-only peer review by the Conservation Commission, discussed a possible separate water‑line bid, and approved four consultant invoices on roll call.
The Town of Lakeville Fire Station Building Committee on Wednesday reviewed final design work and permitting steps as the project team prepares to put construction documents out to bid, and it approved four consultant invoices on roll call.
Committee members said the project is moving toward a July bid posting after a May conservation commission meeting asked only for a peer review limited to stormwater. "Another set of eyes doesn't hurt," Spencer of Parr Group said after the conservation commission meeting, and the design team is lining up that focused review.
The peer-review requirement affects only stormwater, the committee heard; the conservation commission did not reopen wetlands delineation during its review. That narrow scope could speed the subsequent planning-board site-plan review, a Parr Group representative said.
The committee also reviewed the design team's quality-control work. Alex (project staff) told members the design documents were sent to ReadyCheck on May 23 for a two-week QA/QC review focused on constructability and MEP coordination; the firm will meet with the project team to walk through major findings. The committee discussed plans to post the bid in early July (the team said it would avoid posting during the July 4 week) and to host documents and addenda on ProjectDOG, an online plan-holder portal the team recommended using to maintain an accurate plan holder list and distribute addenda (staff estimated the vendor fee at under $1,000).
On procurement details, the team said material-testing and commissioning contracts will be procured before construction starts. The committee requested three proposals for materials testing (examples mentioned: UTS, SW Cole, Felsch) and was preparing an RFP for HVAC commissioning limited to building systems. The design team said commissioning will focus on HVAC and that materials testing will include concrete and compaction tests as required by the structural engineer.
Members discussed whether to bid the water line as part of the general construction contract or to post it separately. The project team recommended a separate procurement for the horizontal utility work so specialized water-line contractors can bid, which the team said can produce cost savings; the work could be bid concurrently with the main project or immediately before or after it depending on permitting.
Committee members also raised technology and low-voltage system questions. Geva of Save Our City and the chief have been refining low-voltage, radio and dispatch integration requirements; the chief said staff sought a pragmatic, upgradeable system so future improvements would not require substantial building alterations. The committee asked the design team to price optional technology components and return with estimates, including information about photovoltaic (solar) options though solar is not currently included in the base budget.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved four consultant invoices by roll call during the meeting. The motions were made and seconded on the record and carried on roll call with the members recorded below as voting "aye." The committee discussed a date typo on one invoice and clarified it covered services through the end of May before approving it.
• LEC invoice #153013 dated 05/08/2025, amount $1,857.50 — approved on roll call (members recorded as voting aye: Darling; Costin; Wakulla; O'Brien; Carboni; Osceit; Simon; Conray).
• Conray Associates LLC invoice #23.111.0-13 dated 04/30/2025, amount $16,200 — approved on roll call (members recorded as voting aye included Karsten; McCullough; Brian; plus others who responded "aye").
• Subutio and Associates Architects invoice #23083-13 dated 05/02/2025, amount $218,504.82 — approved on roll call (members recorded as voting aye: Garonne; Costain; McCall; O'Brien; Carboni; Conroy).
• Socio and Associates invoice #230883-14 (invoice date contained a typographical error listed as 06/02/6220 in the packet) amount $222,254.81 — the committee noted the date error, confirmed the invoice covers services through the end of May, and approved it on roll call (members recorded as voting aye: Darling; Carsten; McCullough; Brian; Carboni; Sukup; Conroy).
The committee set its next meeting for June 25 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station and asked the project team to return with QA/QC comments from ReadyCheck, the peer-review plan for stormwater, draft bid posting language, material-testing proposals, commissioning RFP language, and updated cost information for optional technology and photovoltaic work.
Funding origins and final construction budgets were not specified during the meeting; staff said they will work with the finance director to produce operational and lifecycle cost estimates for committee review. The project team emphasized that final finish selections and some smaller decisions will be made after contractor submittals during construction.
