Marblehead school project committee weighs $94,000 ceiling‑removal change order, defers final decision

A project oversight committee for Marblehead Public Schools on Friday reviewed plans to remove ceiling tiles in classrooms so contractors can replace rooftop HVAC units and rework ductwork, but the panel deferred a formal vote and ordered a site walkthrough to verify scope and costs.

Lena, the project presenter, told the committee the district procured a moving contractor under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B and awarded Wakefield Moving and Storage to relocate affected classroom furniture. She said the town appropriated a revised project budget of $13.97 million, that the construction contract with Homer is $8.9 million, and that an allowance of about $300,000 had been earmarked earlier for ceiling removal and reinstallation.

Brian Sarapin, the project consultant, said the team concluded Chapter 30B procurement was not appropriate for the ceiling work because the tiles and grids are integral to the building and the work is construction‑related. He proposed a phased approach: authorize a firm $94,000 change order to remove and store tiles, then survey removed material and return with a firm price to reinstall a mix of reused and new tiles. He said a worst‑case replacement number provided by estimators was about $295,000.

“Originally we thought the most cost‑efficient way … would be a Chapter 30B procurement,” Sarapin said. “That sort of panned out to be not a fruitful avenue. Ultimately we decided it wouldn’t.” He added that the $94,000 price covers removal and on‑site storage; the larger $295,000 estimate would include full replacement of grid and tile if much of the material proves unusable.

Committee members pressed staff on the math. One member, Mark, questioned the per‑tile and per‑square‑foot pricing, arguing $94,000 for roughly 36,000 square feet — or roughly $2–$3 per square foot in the presenters’ math — seemed high for removal and that selective demo versus wholesale removal should be examined. "I don't think TNM's the way to go on this," he said, urging a closer look at contractor pricing and device removal needs such as lights and sprinklers.

John Barteki of Raymond Design Associates explained the engineering rationale: replacements of rooftop units require reconfiguration of ductwork and substantial refrigerant piping beneath many of the units, and access beneath the ceiling will be required “in every instance and probably eight of the 10 units.” Barteki said the team’s surveys informed the $94,000 removal estimate.

Staff acknowledged some device removals — low‑voltage AV equipment — could be handled by district staff and that line‑voltage work (lighting) would require electricians on a time‑and‑materials basis after the tile survey. They also said they are tracking equipment shipments and that ceiling work would begin the day after school ends (June 24) unless the committee requests a different schedule.

Members also raised broader procurement and quality concerns. Several questioned a product change approving curb adapters for some roof fans and asked whether the change benefited the contractor’s schedule without producing a clear credit to the project. Mark cited observed roofing work—sections left without drip edge and left exposed—and said he would increase his on‑site oversight. "We can't be allowing this crap to happen," he told the committee, urging benchmark installs and clearer on‑site reporting.

Committee members agreed to schedule a sitewalk this week with the contractor and mechanical leads present so members can see which ceilings need access and why; staff said they would post a follow‑up public meeting to consider any formal change order. The committee did not approve the $94,000 change order at the meeting.

If approved later, staff said the $94,000 work would be processed as a change order and the team would return with a firm price for any replacement. The meeting concluded with a procedural motion to adjourn; committee members Kareeema, Mark, Brian and Mike voted yes and the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.

Next steps identified by the committee are a site walkthrough with the general contractor, HVAC subcontractor and architect, a brief report of observations or a benchmark install to establish quality expectations, and a posted committee meeting to decide whether to authorize the removal change order.