Howard Center for Social Sciences

MEETING NOTES

Date: June 6, 2001
Project: Lewis and Clark College Social Sciences Building
Job No.: 0104
Re: Schematic Design Budget Meeting

Present: Michael Sestric, Lewis and Clark College
Stephanie Coyle, Hoffman Construction Company
Will Dann, Thomas Hacker and Associates

cc:Lewis and Clark College, (as distributed by Michael Sestric)
Thomas Hacker, Charles Dorn, Robin Wilcox; THA
Doug Macy, Eric Bode, Walker Macy
Gaafar Gaafar, Jerome Madden; kpff
Bob Gulick, CBG Consulting Engineers
Greg Richards, CBG Consulting Engineers
Ron Peterson, Harper Houf Righellis
Carol Williamson, Williamson McCarter
Glenn Sexton, Northwest Information Services
Todd Pierce, Design Pacifica
Russ Altermatt, Altermatt and Associates
David Malman, Architectural Lighting Design
TH&A file


7.1 Stephanie Coyle presented the revised Schematic Design Estimate. She indicated that they had reviewed the allowance for escalation and determined that it could be reduced by 1%. This brought the overall estimate down to $12,352,777 or $242.16/sf. before “value engineering”

7.2 Stephanie presented the list of Value Engineering Proposals. In summary, including all of the excepted proposals the project can be reduced to 11,452,286 or $224.56/sf for 51,000gsf. This met the target on a square foot basis, but as the budget was based on a 48,000 sf building, the project is still over budget by $652,286. The consensus was that reducing the
project below the budgeted $225/sf would not result in the quality the College expects and the reducing the project area would not achieve the program goals.

7.3 The Value Engineering proposals were reviewed with the following comments:
* There are three items in the “Recommended, pending further design” column, which would reduce the cost by an additional $124,000. The largest is utilizing modular air handlers. The design team will attempt to incorporate
these items, as there is no sacrifice in the design or quality.
* The approved VE list includes changing the all of the quarry tile to stained concrete. The committee’s last instructions were to have mix of quarry tile and stained concrete as in Miller. The spreadsheet will be revised to include that item, a savings of $24,000, or $37,000 less than on the list.
* The credit for 50% of the wood trim for marker boards and acoustic wall panel (classroom trim) was shown in the wrong column, resulting in additional savings of $17,777.The revised V.E. total is $881,037 resulting in a cost of $11,471,740 or $224.89/sf.


7.4 Michael indicated that he was working on a number of strategies, including funding the central plant expansion outside the project budget, to close the gap in the project funding.

7.5 Michael will set up a meeting with the executive
committee to review the budget and the response Michael Mooney’s comments on the design. Will indicated the he believed that the design changes proposed to address these concerns would not have a significant impact on the budget.

7.6 Will indicated that they had commissioned a
perspective rendering of the building that would better show the project in relation to the landscape. Michael expressed his willingness to share the cost of the rendering.

7.7 Will suggested that Design Development could begin with considerable work on the architecture, structure, and mechanical systems. The design team had a good head start on the classroom design because of the work of the classroom committee. The refinement of that work could continue through the summer, working with Facilities, IT and instructional media staff. When school starts in the fall, meetings could be scheduled to bring the design committee and the classroom committee up to date on the design. The detailed programming of the administrative and work areas could also be done at that time.

7.8 Michael indicated that he had met with the
registrar and that two medium classrooms would be swapped for a larger flat floor classroom. He acknowledged the loss of the classroom at the entrance in response to suggestions by Michael Mooney. The architects will meet with the registrar, IT and instructional media to finalize the classroom mix.

7.9 Michael indicated that Design Development Phase could proceed, subject to any additional changes that might come out of the meeting with the executive committee. The architect will produce a schedule for Design Development for Michael’s approval.