Building committee approves PCOs including $1.2 million Tollgate demolition change; members warned of further costs

The building committee voted to approve a series of project change orders and payments Tuesday, including a recommended award for Tollgate demolition and abatement that will require about a $1.2 million change to the construction contract.

Chair (S1) opened the meeting and moved the agenda items through routine votes before presenters reviewed multiple PCOs for Pilgrim High School and Tollgate High School. Project presenter (S5) said Pilgrim work captured by post‑bid design bulletins is mostly minor — landscaping, electrical clarifications and added piping — and that the final agreed Pilgrim PCO came to $95,247 after a detailed review. The committee approved that PCO and several smaller Pilgrim items by voice vote.

The most significant vote involved Tollgate demolition and abatement. S5 told the committee the low bidder for the demolition work was American Environmental with a recommended bid of "$4,100,000," and that additional abatement scope and second‑shift work pushed the recommended change order to roughly a $1,200,000 increase to the contract. "If we were to go back out there and rebid it, we'd probably best case get the same 3 bidders," S5 said, arguing market conditions made the bid credible. After questions about schedule, noise ordinances and whether a rebid could lower the price, the committee moved and approved the change order.

The committee also approved grouped credits that return unused allowances to the owner and a number of payment applications, including Application 19 from Dimeo Construction. S5 flagged that about $1.276 million of that application is for tipping fees to dispose of contaminated soils, costs that are being drawn against contract allowances.

In a longer project update, S5 presented contingency and change‑order totals to date, noting that approved changes total approximately $1.598 million and that the owners' contingency balance remains but is being consumed by PCOs. S5 highlighted several items likely to return at future meetings, including a request from Pilgrim to add a referee room at the annex, for which a subcontractor priced a change at about "$139,000." S5 said that decision will be held for committee consideration.

Members also discussed a discrepancy in classroom and security technology between the two projects. An AV/security device described as a "time sign monitor" — an announcement and clock/security interface — emerged as a particular cost driver. S7 described the device as "basically a ... announcement system" with capabilities beyond a classroom clock; presenters said bringing Pilgrim to the same specification as Tollgate could cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and scheduled an AV deep‑dive to reconcile scope and pricing.

Environmental risks also drew sustained attention. S5 described additional contaminated‑soils hits and a groundwater detection of vinyl‑chloride in the eastern footprint, saying the team must perform test pits, ground‑penetrating radar and targeted cores to locate sources and determine remediation steps. "We have to start burning holes in the concrete slab here," S5 said, warning that investigative work could be disruptive and expensive. S5 said the team will coordinate with the Department of Environmental Management and the environmental consultant on next steps.

The committee approved a draft PCO emergency policy that creates a four‑member subcommittee empowered to approve urgent PCOs between full meetings; the policy will go next to the policy subcommittee and then to the full school committee. The committee also voted to accept a Rhode Island Energy incentive offer for Tollgate totaling $247,663 under a low‑energy intensity reimbursement program; presenters said the payment will arrive as a check at project close.

The meeting closed with no public comment and unanimous agreement to adjourn. The building team recommended posting plan changes and bulletins to the project portal in real time to assist reviewers, including the fire marshal, and pledged follow‑up briefings on contingency status and the AV/technology reconciliation.

What happens next: the project team will meet the AV consultant for a technical review, continue environmental investigation and return any large PCOs (for example the referee room or technology parity work) to the committee for decisions.