Needham committees shortlist three construction managers and advance Pollard schematic to MSBA
Loading...
Summary
The School Building Committee voted Jan. 12 to invite Bond Building, Consigli Construction and a Fontaine/Dimeo joint venture into phase‑2 CMR RFPs for the Pollard Middle School project; the team also prepared schematic design materials for the MSBA and flagged a possible liquefaction area that may require ground improvements.
The School Building Committee on Jan. 12 voted unanimously to short‑list three construction manager at‑risk candidates—Bond Building Company, Consigli Construction Company and a Fontaine Brothers/Dimeo joint venture—for Phase 2 of the Pollard Middle School construction manager selection process. Chair Richard Kreen read the subcommittee’s recommendation and the committee approved advancing the three top‑ranked firms into the RFP stage.
Why it matters: the choice of CMR will shape preconstruction cost estimates, scheduling and the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) negotiations that follow MSBA review. Committee members emphasized safety records, relevant school experience and the ability of firm teams to work with the town’s architect and OPM.
What the committee decided: the RFP will be issued the next day and will require each firm to submit a technical file and a separate financial proposal. Technical proposals are due in roughly a month; interviews are targeted for Feb. 24. After the committee ranks technical proposals, financial proposals will be opened, and the committee expects to return for an appointment vote at its March meeting (March 9 was noted as the next meeting when the committee could confirm a preferred candidate).
Schematic design and MSBA: the design team reviewed the schematic presentation planned for the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s Facilities Assessment Subcommittee on Jan. 28. The presentation packages include site maps, program goals (reuniting grades 6–8; team teaching; outdoor learning spaces), floor plans, massing studies and sustainability strategies. The team is highlighting variances from MSBA guidelines (for example, programmatic allocations and additional science/learning labs tied to the project’s educational plan) and intends to seek MSBA incentive points for sustainability measures.
Geotechnical findings: preliminary borings—report due the week of Jan. 19—show mostly conventional conditions but identified a portion of the site where liquefaction is possible during a seismic event. The design team said additional targeted testing is planned; if liquefaction is confirmed, foundation design may require ground improvements or piling. The team told the committee it has carried a ground‑improvement assumption in its cost estimates to cover that risk.
Next steps: issue the CMR RFP, receive technical proposals, conduct interviews, reconcile CMR and architect cost estimates and present a recommended appointment to the committee in March. The committee also discussed outreach steps (neighborhood letters and future public meetings) and scheduling tours of similar middle schools for the project team and committee members.
Attribution: The short‑listing recommendation was presented and read by members of the selection subcommittee and acknowledged by the full committee during roll‑call votes recorded on Jan. 12. Direct quotations and technical findings come from the committee’s on‑record presentation and roll‑call proceedings.
