Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Scope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee asks Rubinoff for clearer breakdown of IT, furniture, allowances and contingency
Summary
Members asked the design firm to break down large line items—particularly a $160,000 IT allowance, furniture and a generic 'allowance'—and to explain where contingency and change‑order costs appear in the schedule-of-values.
Committee members identified large or unclear line items in the cost estimate and asked the designer to provide detailed explanations. One member flagged an IT line at roughly $160,000 and questioned whether telephone, networking and furnishings were properly separated; another asked why some items were listed as "allowances" and whether that meant the town would be expected to fund those costs directly.
The group also discussed contingency and change-order treatment: members asked whether the contractor's general conditions and overhead (quoted at roughly 10%) included contingency or whether the town should expect additional owner‑paid change orders. A committee member urged the designer to provide a schedule of values so the town can avoid front‑loading payments for early items (for example, concrete or excavation) without adequate testing or holdbacks. The committee agreed to send a consolidated list of questions to the designer to clarify allowances, owner‑provided items and contingency recommendations.
