Tisbury Elementary School September 25, 2017 AGENDA| 1. Discussion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE TITLE| Slide Sub‐Title Building Committee Presentation: Tisbury Elementary School September 25, 2017

AGENDA| 1. Discussion of Options: i. Option 3B – 3‐story school, existing building to remain during construction ii. Option 3C – 3‐story school, existing gym removed prior to construction iii. Option 3D – 3‐story school, existing building removed prior to construction 2. Design‐Bid‐Build vs. Construction Manager at Risk 3. LEED vs. CHPS Comparison i. Registration ii. Prerequisites iii. Credit Areas – Location and Linkages, Site, Water, Energy, Materials, IEQ iv. Program Knowledge – Contractors, Suppliers, General Public v. Processes – LEED Online, Basecamp vi. Acknowledgement – State Reimbursement, Plaques and Certificates, Public Relations 4. School Visits: Edgartown and Oak Bluffs Schools 5. Project Schedule

OPTION 3B REVISED| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS • Entire existing building to remain during construction • Separated bus & parents drop‐ off • Lower grade play area close to classrooms and protected at rear of building • Reduces height by using topography (130’) • Potential to screen service areas from view • Adequate setback from W. William – 30’+/‐ • Setback to Spring – 32’+/‐ • Adequate planting buffers to east residential lots • Improves pedestrian and bike SITE PLAN access ‐ accessibility • Centralizes community recreation areas – visible EXISTING BUILDING (137’) • Protects wicks • Loss of separate lower grade drop off zone with loss of parking at the service lane. SITE SECTION

OPTION 3B| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS • Entire existing building to remain during construction • Separated bus & parents drop‐ off • Lower grade play area close to classrooms and protected at rear of building • Reduces height by using topography (130’) • Potential to screen service areas from view • Adequate setback from W. William – 30’+/‐ • Minimal setback to Spring – 9’+/‐ • Adequate planting buffers to SITE PLAN east residential lots • Improves pedestrian and bike access ‐ accessibility EXISTING BUILDING (137’) • Centralizes community recreation areas – visible • Protects wicks • Visual impact of parking is SITE SECTION reduced by smaller lots

OPTION 3B| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN FLOOR PLANS FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3B| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN FLOOR PLANS THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3B| MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

OPTION 3B| MASSING EAST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW

OPTION 3C| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS • Requires gym demolition • Separate bus & parent drop‐off • Increases parking adjacent to residential, but provides buffers • Visual impact of parking reduced with buffers and placement at now elevation on site • Lower grade playground separated from Upper and more protected, will need to use stairs to access. • Reduces height by using topography (126’) • Potential to screen service areas • Adequate setback from W. William ‐ 50’+/‐ • Adequate setback to Spring – SITE PLAN 45’+/‐ • Improves pedestrian and bike access – overall accessibility EXISTING • Segregates public use and school BUILDING (137’) uses vertically • Centralized community recreation areas • SITE SECTION Protects wicks

OPTION 3C| MODULARS CLRM GYM

OPTION 3C| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C| MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

OPTION 3C| MASSING EAST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW

OPTION 3D.1| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS • Requires full building demolition first • Main entrance north facing – prevailing windward • Lower grade play area close to classrooms • Separated bus and parent drop off • Limited queing for parent drop off • Extends construction duration. • Tallest overall (137’) • Difficult to screen service areas • Limited access to kitchen/café for deliveries • Reduced setback to W. William St. • Adequate setback to Spring St. • Greatest building setback from SITE PLAN east residential properties • Divides pedestrian and bicycle zones EXISTING • Divides school and community BUILDING (137’) recreation uses • Protects wicks • Consolidates parking along length of Spring Street SITE SECTION

OPTION 3D.2| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS • Requires full building demolition before construction • Main entrance north facing – prevailing windward • Lower grade play area close to classrooms • Separated bus and parent drop off • Limited queing for parent drop off • Extends construction duration. • Tallest overall (137’) • Difficult to screen service areas • Limited access to kitchen/café for deliveries • Reduced setback to W. William St. • Adequate setback to Spring St. • Greatest building setback from SITE PLAN east residential properties • Divides pedestrian and bicycle zones • EXISTING Divides school and community BUILDING (137’) recreation uses • Protects wicks • Visual impact of parking similar to existing – familiar • Requires remote site for parking SITE SECTION

OPTION 3D| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL LOCATED, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D| MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

OPTION 3D| MASSING NORTH WEST VIEW SOUTH EAST VIEW

DESIGN OPTIONS| ALL OPTIONS & COST COMPARISON OPTION 3C : Located East Side of Site Gym Removed OPTION 3B : Located East Side of Site OPTION 3D: Located Center of Site – Demo of existing school

PROCUREMENT| DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD VS. CONSTRUCITON MANAGER AT RISK D ESIGN ‐B ID ‐B UILD (C H . 149) VS . C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGER AT R ISK (C H . 149A) D ESIGN ‐B ID ‐B UILD (DBB) D ESIGN ‐B ID ‐B UILD (DBB) ‐ CON S ‐ ‐ PRO S ‐ • • No contractor input in design, planning or Design changes easily accommodated prior value engineering (VE). to start of construction • • Owner has little to no say in the selection of Design is complete prior to construction the individuals who will supervise the award project. • Construction cost is fixed at contract award • Design and construction are sequential, no • Low bid cost, maximum competition ability for early work packages • Relative ease of implementation • Construction cost unknown until contract • Maximum Owner control of award design/construction • Limited number of bidders likely due to busy mainland construction market

PROCUREMENT| DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD VS. CONSTRUCITON MANAGER AT RISK D ESIGN ‐B ID ‐B UILD (C H . 149) VS . C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGER AT R ISK (C H . 149A) C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGER AT R ISK (CMR) C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGER AT R ISK (CMR) ‐ CON S ‐ ‐ PRO S ‐ • • Approval required by the Office of the Ability to prequalify and select the CM and Inspector General (takes 30‐45 days) the team of individuals who will be part of • the team Need clear definition of CM and A/E roles • • CM participates in the sub‐contractor Cost of CM services including pre prequalification process construction (adds 2‐3% to initial cost) • • CM will review the plans and limit Contingency and allowance level drawing/specification inconsistencies • Timing of GMP • Better cost control through CM ownership of • CM has little real “risk.” construction budget • Ability to “fast track;” may start construction before design completion, reducing project schedule • CM will recruit island bidders

SUSTAINABILITY| LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) VS. COLLABORATIVE OF HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS (CHPS) 2. AGENDA i. Registration & Certifications ii. Prerequisites iii. Credit Categories – Location and Linkages, Site, Water, Energy, Materials, IEQ iv. Program Knowledge – Contractors, Suppliers, General Public v. Certificate Process – LEED Online, Basecamp vi. Acknowledgement – State Reimbursement, Plaques and Certificates, Public Relations

SUSTAINABILITY| REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION No Registration Fee Flat Registration Fee Flat Certification Fee Certification Fee Based on Square Footage

SUSTAINABILITY| REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION Registration $1,500 Registration $0 Design Review $4,400 Verified Design $4,850 Construction Review $1,440 Verified Construction $2,700 Total $7,340 Total $7,550