A major report on the elementary school project, sent to the Massachusetts School Building Authority early in December, fell short of the MSBA’s expectations, according to the authority’s written response.
A Dec. 28 letter signed by Mary Pichetti, director of capital planning at the MSBA, stated the submission “lacks the information expected” of a report at this stage of the project. Specifically, the MSBA cover letter criticized the report for “lack of clarity in many areas, including the cost estimate, compliance with the budget, updated schedule, and information regarding state and local approvals.”
The MSBA is expected to reimburse Harvard for about a third of the overall cost of the elementary school project, and it has often been described as the town’s partner in building the new school. As part of this process, the MSBA requires reports when construction documents are 30, 60, and 90 percent complete. After receiving each report, the MSBA has 21 days to comment, and school districts then have 14 days to respond to those comments in writing.
Harvard’s 60 percent submission, prepared by architectural firm Arrowstreet and project management company NV5, reached the MSBA Dec. 7, and the MSBA returned its comments Dec. 28. Arrowstreet and NV5 responded to the MSBA’s comments in writing Jan. 11.
The MSBA’s foremost complaint was that information it had requested in its comments on the 30 percent October submission was still not provided in the December submission. For instance, in its October comments, the MSBA had asked that application dates for the necessary state and local approvals be added to the project schedule. Arrowstreet responded that those dates would be added in the 60 percent submission, but they weren’t, even though the dates were available.
Smaller rooms; lack of attention to detail
The MSBA noted that the 60 percent plans showed the pre-K classroom, the kindergarten classrooms, and the cafeteria as smaller than they had been in earlier drawings, and it told Arrowstreet to return the rooms to the size the authority had approved in the project funding agreement in June 2018. Arrowstreet responded that the rooms would be returned to the acceptable sizes. When the Press asked where the additional space needed for the cafeteria and the classrooms would come from, architect Emily Grandstaff-Rice of Arrowstreet said the necessary space would be regained by moving interior walls farther into certain corridors and by various “nips and tucks.”
Many of the MSBA comments pointed to a lack of attention to detail. Errors the MSBA had corrected in the 30 percent submission were still wrong in the 60 percent submission, causing the MSBA to question whether some documents from the previous submission had accidentally been submitted in the most recent one. And the geotechnical report, which the MSBA expected in the 30 percent submission, was neither there nor in the 60 percent submission, even though the report was dated Sept. 5, 2018, and was apparently available for both submissions.
One of the more substantive MSBA comments on the latest submission was that it failed to confirm that Harvard had initiated a required independent structural design review. This review is typically not expected to be complete until the final design submission. But the MSBA commented that the team should consider securing the review earlier, because its purpose is to “identify and correct any structural issue prior to going to bid,” and this project’s early bid package includes structural work. The early bid package went out Jan. 10.
Arrowstreet responded that it had waited to have the review until structural drawings were complete, adding that there would be sufficient time to include any issues identified by the review in a bid addendum. At the end of the Feb. 7 committee meeting, Project Manager Tom Murphy of NV5 told the Press the review had now been done, and Grandstaff-Rice said the reviewer had so far asked only for “clarification of some details.”
Critique draws little discussion
The MSBA’s issues with the quality of the 60 percent submission were not discussed at either of the two School Building Committee meetings in January. The agenda for the Feb. 7 meeting included an item “Response to the 60 percent submission,” but when the agenda item came up, there was no discussion of the MSBA’s comments.
The Press followed up with building committee chair SusanMary Redinger in an email after the meeting and asked why building committee members had no comments about the MSBA’s response to the submission. She responded that some committee members had contacted her with questions about the MSBA response, and she had replied to them individually after speaking with Arrowstreet and NV5.
During public comment at that meeting, the Press asked why there were so many omissions in the 60 percent package. Murphy said the design work was being done up until the last minute, leaving insufficient time to thoroughly review the submission.
Going forward
After the meeting, building committee member Nick Browse said the problems cited in the MSBA’s comments were mainly about paperwork, not about issues that would actually affect the children who would someday use the new school building.
The Press also asked what would be done to avoid this situation in the 90 percent submission, due March 4. Murphy said the project management team would request documents well in advance of that date so the team would have sufficient review time. Redinger said the building committee relies on the project management team to review documents submitted to the MSBA, but she added, “We’ll make sure these things are taken care of in the 90 percent submission.”
