Norfolk County hires Habib Associates for BMS studies at three courthouses; staff warn vendor‑contract cap may delay work
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The commission approved contracts with Habib Associates to study building management systems at the Brookline, Stoughton and Renton courthouses, with staff estimating a 3–4 month study and warning the county is near a cap on its use of the vendor under the state house‑doctor contract.
Norfolk County commissioners on Dec. 17 approved contracts with Habib Associates to perform building management system (BMS) studies for three county courthouses in Brookline, Stoughton and Renton.
County staff member Maureen told the commission the studies will inspect heating, ventilation and air‑conditioning systems, evaluate whether upgrades to a building management system would be cost‑effective and produce a final document and meeting to present recommendations. Maureen said the work would likely take three to four months and include a closing meeting to review findings.
Director Kronick cautioned the commission that use of Habib Associates through the state's house‑doctor contract is subject to a fixed ceiling on aggregate financial benefits. "There's not an infinite amount that you can use," he said, noting the county is approaching that cap and that the county may be unable to award further work to Habib until the contract ceilings reset in March or April. That provision, staff said, could affect the timing of any follow‑on design and construction work.
The commission moved and seconded the contract authorization and recorded the vote. Staff emphasized this procurement is for a study only; costlier installation projects remain to be evaluated if the study recommends them. Maureen and other staff noted prior similar work for the Dedham District Court, where a BMS installation cost roughly $800,000, underscoring that any retrofit is likely to carry substantial costs.
Next steps recorded in the meeting include executing the contracts (subject to contract cap constraints), completing the studies and returning to the board with the results and cost estimates for any recommended upgrades.
The commission's discussion focused on scope, schedule and compliance with the state contract rules rather than the merits of any one courthouse upgrade. The transcript does not record a line‑by‑line budget for the studies; staff said the final study would provide a clearer cost picture.