A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request for approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (the “IG”) for the City to use the Construction Manager at Risk (“CMaR”) procurement and construction method (the “CMaR Method”) in connection with the First Street Garage Life Safety Priority Project

Title Procedures relative to receiving a Notice to Proceed June 2025 Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Esq., CIG Inspector General Office of the Inspector General Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2 | P a g e Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview of the CM at-Risk application process ........................................................................................... 3 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Timetable for Review ................................................................................................................................ 4 Application .................................................................................................................................................... 5 General Information .................................................................................................................................. 5 Authorization Information ......................................................................................................................... 6 Capacity Information ................................................................................................................................. 6 Awarding Authority Plans and Procedures ................................................................................................ 7 Certification ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Evaluation process......................................................................................................................................... 9 Certificate of Authority to use CM at-Risk Delivery Method ......................................................................... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 3 | P a g e Overview of the CM at-Risk application process Prior to using the construction management at-risk (CM at-risk) delivery method to procure a contract for the construction, reconstruction, installation, demolition, maintenance or repair of any building estimated to cost $5 million or more, an awarding authority1 must obtain a Notice to Proceed to use the CM at-risk delivery method from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG has developed this CM at-risk application to be completed on a project specific basis. The application process will be important to awarding authorities in assessing the qualifications and commitments that can help to ensure construction of a high-quality, cost-effective public building project. Before submitting an application, the awarding authority must assign or hire an owner's project manager and procure the services of a designer. [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 3] Under Section 4 of Chapter 149A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the OIG will issue a Notice to Proceed when the awarding authority has demonstrated that: • The awarding authority has authorization from its governing body2 to enter into a contract with a construction management at-risk firm. The authorization shall include the results of any public vote if applicable. • The awarding authority has the capacity, a plan and procedures in place and approved of by the governing body, where appropriate, to effectively procure and manage construction management at-risk services for the specific project and has retained the services of a qualified owner's project manager. • The awarding authority has in place procedures to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement process. • The building project has an estimated construction value of $5 million or more. • The awarding authority has determined that the use of construction management at-risk services is appropriate for the building project and states in writing the reasons for the determination. The OIG will review an awarding authority’s complete application and within 60 days from the date a completed application is received will determine whether the awarding authority meets the requirements necessary to obtain a Notice to Proceed. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149A, if the OIG declines to issue a Notice to Proceed to an awarding authority, the OIG shall provide in writing to the awarding authority the reason(s) for the decision. An 1 An “awarding authority” can be any “public agency” as defined under M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A. Certain public agencies are exempt from obtaining a Notice to Proceed for each CM At-Risk project but instead submit their CM At-Risk procedures for annual review by the OIG. [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 4(d)] 2 The “appropriate governing body” varies, depending on an awarding authority’s charter and other factors. [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 2]

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 4 | P a g e awarding authority not receiving a Notice to Proceed may resubmit its application upon correcting or responding to the reason(s) for denial provided to the awarding authority by the OIG. The OIG shall make a timely review of the resubmitted application and, if the awarding authority meets the requirements, the OIG will issue a Notice to Proceed. The OIG shall decline to issue a Notice to Proceed to an awarding authority that has failed to provide complete and accurate answers to all questions in the application and all other information and documentation required by the OIG. Providing false, misleading or incomplete information will be considered grounds for denial. Please submit an electronic copy of the application to IGO.Municipal@mass.gov. If you have any questions regarding the application process, contact Joshua Giles at [phone removed] or by e-mail at IGO.Municipal@mass.gov. Schedule Timetable for Review The OIG will review an awarding authority’s complete application and within 60 days from the date a completed application is received will determine whether the awarding authority meets the requirements necessary to obtain a Notice to Proceed. Event OIG Task Day 1 Awarding Authority submits application to OIG Date and timestamp application Days 1-15 OIG contacts applicant acknowledging receipt of application Review application Days 1-60 OIG determines whether additional information is necessary and if so, requests awarding authority to send information Request more information, if necessary Days 1-60 OIG reviews application to determine whether awarding authority meets requirements and will be issued a Notice to Proceed Analyze credentials based on evaluation criteria Days 1-60 OIG sends Notice to Proceed or Denial of Notice to Proceed Complete review and issue determination

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 5 | P a g e City of Cambridge City Manager, Yi-An Huang City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge MA 02139 Brendon Roy, Director Capital Building Projects, City of Cambridge [phone removed] yhuang@cambridgema.gov [phone removed] broy@cambridgema.gov STV, Inc. Anil Kurian, PE, SE [email removed] 390,000 sf open parking garage, 12,500 sf retail and office space Parking Garage Concrete, Steel, Masonry 51-69 First Street, Cambridge, MA Construction Documents Oct. 2025 Not Applicable October 2024 [phone removed] Application Please submit one electronic application including copies of the signature pages, to the CM at-risk mailbox: IGO.Municipal@mass.gov. To assist in the evaluation process, please submit and identify information and documents with the item numbers on this application form. General Information 1. Awarding Authority _____________________________________________________________ a. Awarding Authority Person in Charge of Project ______________________________________ b. Awarding Authority Address ___________________________________________________ c. Phone number of Awarding Authority Person in Charge of Project ______________________ d. E-mail address of Awarding Authority Person in Charge of Project _______________________ 2. Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) assigned or hired _____________________________________ a. Phone number for OPM __________________________ b. E-mail address for OPM __________________________ 3. Design Firm ____________________________________________________________________ a. Principal Designer in Charge of Project _________________________________________ b. Phone number of Principal Designer ____________________________________________ c. E-mail address of Designer __________________________________________________ 4. Narrative description and brief history of the project: As part of the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan, The City of Cambridge continues its efforts to address deferred maintenance needs and urgent repairs to existing municipal buildings. The First St Parking Garage is the largest municipal parking facility in the City. The garage was originally constructed in 1983 and expanded in 1986. The building has not undergone any major renovations since. The current project seeks to address urgent infrastructural and life safety repairs needed to allow continued safe occupation of the building. a. Estimated square feet ___________________________________________________________ b. Program type ________________________________________________ c. Building type _________________________________________________________________ d. Address of project _____________________________________________________________ 5. Project schedule elements, including, but not limited to: a. Feasibility study completion date (if any) ____________________________________________ b. Owner’s Project Manager contract execution date (if not an employee) __________________ c. Designer contract execution date ________________________________________________

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 6 | P a g e September 2025 October 2025 August 2025 June 2027 Not Applicable $925,630 Refer to signed “Certificate of Authority to use CM at-Risk Delivery Method” included herein. City Manager, Yi-An Huang. Refer to Attachment B, Page 1. Refer to Attachment C, Pages 2-4 “Memorandum from City Manager to City Council” July 30, 2025 Refer to Attachment C, Page 1 “City Council Vote Authorizing Use of CM at Risk” August 4, 2025 Refer to Attachment B, Page 5. $8,000,000 Please refer to Attachment A. d. Projected procurement milestone dates, including but not limited to the following items: i. Request for prequalification issuance ________________________________ ii. Request for proposals issuance ____________________________________ iii. CM at-risk firm contract execution date _____________________________ iv. Other . . . e. Projected completion date (use and/or occupancy) __________________________ 6. Submit an estimated total project budget, including but not limited to line items for the following items: a. Owner’s Project Manager contract amount (if not an employee) ________________ b. Designer contract amount ________________________________________________ c. Estimated construction cost ___________________________________________ d. Other costs ___________________________________________________________ Authorization Information 7. Submit the attached certification form (see last page) authorizing the awarding authority to enter a contract with a construction management at-risk firm, including the date of authorization. Submit copies of any public vote if applicable. 8. Submit the name(s) and title(s) of the individuals authorized to sign the CM at-risk contract on behalf of the awarding authority. 9. Submit written evidence of the approval of the governing body of the project plan and procedures, if applicable. 10. Submit the written determination by the awarding authority that the use of CM at-risk services is appropriate for the building project and the reasons for the determination. Capacity Information 11. Provide an organizational chart of the project organization showing the roles and responsibilities of each individual or entity participating on the project, including contractors. 12. Provide the name, affiliation, and contact information for all key members of the project team. List relevant qualifications and experience, including any public project experience and any CM at-risk experience (public or private) on project(s) of similar size and complexity or on any other projects, for: a. the individual/s within the awarding authority that will make project decisions for the awarding authority and that will supervise the Owner’s Project Manager,

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 7 | P a g e Please refer to Attachment B, Page 6-10, also Attachment E. Please refer to Attachment B, Page 1 - 10. Question 14 – 20 responses, please refer to Attachment D, pages 1-2. b. the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), c. the Designer, and d. any other members of the project team or special consultants to be used to support the project (e.g., counsel, accountant, financial advisor), if any. 13. Submit a copy of the scope of services portion of the a) OPM contract and b) designer’s contract. If the OPM is an employee, submit the individual’s title, job description and scope of work related to the CM at-risk project. Note: You do not need to send in copies of the scopes of services if the project is a school building project receiving assistance from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and the OPM and Designer will be signing the MSBA contracts for CM at-risk services in their entirety with no changes. You may instead submit a copy of the signed signatory pages. If the project is not receiving assistance from the MSBA, however, the scope of services for the OPM and the Designer must adequately reflect the roles and responsibilities of each firm when using the CM at-risk method. Applications that do not will be required to submit an updated scope of services upon Notice to Proceed, if granted. Awarding Authority Plans and Procedures3 Provide information regarding each of the following components of a CM at-risk project: 14. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures for acquiring appropriate expertise to assist where the team may not have the necessary experience to meet anticipated challenges. 15. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures for conducting the two-phase selection process for hiring a construction manager at-risk firm [M.G.L. c. 149A, §§ 5–6] and the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement. 16. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures for developing the cost-plus not to exceed guaranteed maximum price form of contract [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 7]. Include information on negotiating the contract, including establishing the general condition items, CM at-risk fee, cost of the work and other contract components. Include information on what level of design development the awarding authority plans on establishing the GMP, contingency and other components of the final contract amendment. 3 An awarding authority’s plans and procedures must be approved by the governing body, where appropriate. [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 4(a)(2)].

Office of the Inspector General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 8 | P a g e 17. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures for conducting the selection process for obtaining trade contractors [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 8(a)] and the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement. 18. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures for obtaining subcontractors [M.G.L. c. 149A, § 8(j)] and the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement. 19. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures relative to administering and coordinating the project and maintaining project communications. 20. Provide the awarding authority’s plan and procedures relative to monitoring and auditing all project costs. Do not submit requests for qualifications (RFQs), requests for proposals (RFPs), draft contracts, or other such documents related to the CM at-risk delivery method procurement. Certification The undersigned hereby certifies under the pains and penalties of perjury that all answers and all information contained in this application are, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. Signature Date Title Awarding Authority

Evaluation process The OIG will review the information submitted by the awarding authority and assess whether the plan and procedures provide an adequate framework for procuring and managing a CM at-risk delivery method project. The following criteria will be used in making a determination whether to issue a Notice to Proceed. Although the OIG will rely primarily on the information presented in the application to make its determination, the OIG reserves the right to obtain additional information and to verify information. • Is the estimated construction cost $5 million or more? • Did the awarding authority receive approval from the appropriate governing body? • Did the awarding authority’s governing body approve the plan and procedures? • Are the awarding authority’s goals and objectives for using the construction manager at-risk method reasonable and designed to maximize competition? • Has the awarding authority established an experienced and effective project organization structure, including an owner representative as a point of contact, an owner’s project manager, and a designer? • Is the decision–making authority clear? • Do any project team members have relevant CM at-risk experience for the size and scope of the project? • Does the plan and do the procedures demonstrate an appropriate assessment of the awarding authority’s tasks and responsibilities associated with a CM at-risk contract, including all aspects of coordination and administration of the CM at-risk delivery method? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for conducting the two- phase selection process for a construction manager at-risk firm and clearly delineate the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation, and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement, and otherwise comply with all statutory requirements? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for negotiating the cost-plus not to exceed guaranteed maximum price form of contract? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for conducting the selection process for trade contractors and clearly delineate the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation, and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement, and otherwise comply with all statutory requirements? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for obtaining subcontractor contracts and clearly delineate the methods that will be used to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation, and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for administering and coordinating the project and maintaining project communications? • Does the plan and do the procedures provide an adequate framework for auditing and monitoring all project costs? • Is the schedule realistic?

Certificate of Authority to use CM at-Risk Delivery Method I, , [legal counsel for the governing body as identified below] do hereby certify to the Office of the Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 149A, § 4(a)(1), regarding using construction management at risk services for the following project (“Project”), as follows: (1) That [name of political subdivision] is a public agency as defined in M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1), is duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has received the necessary authority and power from [its city council, town meeting or other governing body] to enter into a contract with a construction management at risk firm and to perform all its obligations in connection with the Project. (2) That the public vote of the governing body, attached hereto (if applicable) was duly adopted and is currently in effect. Signature [SEAL] Title Date

City of Cambridge Application for Construction Management at Risk First Street Garage – Life Safety Priority Project Attachment A Part I Question 6 Project Estimate

page 1 of 1 Attachment A Question 6: Project Estimate

page 2 of 1 Attachment A Question 6: Project Estimate

City of Cambridge Application for Construction Management at Risk First Street Garage – Life Safety Priority Project Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12. Authorization & Capacity Information

page 1 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 City of Cambridge – Organization The City Manager’s Office is the Executive Department of the City of Cambridge. As the City’s Chief Executive Officer, the City Manager provides leadership to and the administration of all departments and services. The City Manager is responsible for the enforcement of all laws and City ordinances; appointment of department heads; appointment of members to the numerous City boards and commissions; and submission of the annual budget to the City Council. In addition, the City Manager and his or her staff recommend policies and programs to the City Council and implement City Council decisions. Below is a description of all of those who will be involved followed by an organizational chart: City of Cambridge - City Council • Authorizes the City Manager to apply to the Office of the Inspector General to use the Construction Manager at Risk procurement and construction method set forth in M.G.L. c. 149A • Approves project funding City Manager – Yi-An Huang • Signs all contracts, change orders, and authorizes all payments for the project Deputy City Manager – Kathy Watkins • The Deputy City Manager is responsible for all City’s capital projects • The Deputy City Manager is the chair of the selection committee for the selection of the construction manager • The Deputy City Manager meets weekly with the owner’s project manager (“OPM”) to review all aspects of the project Purchasing Agent – Elizabeth Unger • The City’s Purchasing Agent implements and administers the purchasing policies and practices of the City. The Purchasing Department ensures that all purchases of goods and services are made in accordance with state law and City ordinances. Finance Department Assistant City Manager of Fiscal Affairs – Claire Spinner Budget Director - Taha Jennings Assistant Finance Director – Michele Kincaid • The Finance Department, under the direction of the Assistant City Manager of Fiscal Affairs, is responsible for planning, implementation, oversight, integrity, and reporting of the City’s operating and capital finances. • The Finance and Budget Departments work closely with the City Manager’s office and the OPM to maintain cost control throughout the project starting with the development of the project budget. Capital Building Projects Department • The Capital Building Projects Department, under the direction of the Deputy City Manager, is responsible for the planning, management, and delivery of municipal construction projects for the City of Cambridge. This includes public schools, fire and police facilities, community centers, and multi-department complexes. The department oversees all phases of capital projects, from feasibility and design through construction and closeout with a focus on ensuring projects are delivered efficiently, sustainably, and in alignment with City goals and standards. Owner-performed OPM services provide greater control, flexibility, and accountability, allowing for cost savings, customized decision-making, and streamlined operations that align closely with the owner's goals while being mindful of the community.

page 2 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 • The department provides centralized leadership across disciplines, integrating the work of architects, project managers, engineers, and sustainability professionals. It ensures compliance with Massachusetts public construction laws, manages design and construction procurement, and coordinates closely with the City Council and other departments on project funding and scope approvals. Capital Building Projects Department Director/Owners Project Manager – Brendon Roy • The OPM, an employee of the City of Cambridge, is MCPPO certified. • Reports to the Deputy City Manager and City Manager • Assists the Deputy City Manager as a member of the selection committee for the selection of the construction manager • Manages all daily aspects of the project with the building users, architect, construction manager, commissioning agent, licensed site professional (“LSP”), geotechnical engineer and testing agency • Advises executive leadership of project cost changes, payment applications provided by the architect and construction manager for approval • Recommends approval of payments for the architect and construction manager to the City Manager • Monitors project budget Capital Building Projects Department Director of Construction, MCPPO certified – Monique Oliveira • The Director of Construction is an employee of the City of Cambridge and is MCPPO certified • Reports to the Director of Capital Building Projects/OPM • Assists the Deputy City Manager as a member of the selection committee for the selection of the construction manager • Assists the OPM with managing all daily aspects of the project with architect, construction manager, commissioning agent, LSP, geotechnical engineer and testing agency • Assists the OPM with all project cost changes • Assists the OPM with review and approval of payments for the architect and construction manager • Assists the OPM monitoring the project budget Capital Building Projects Department Director of Design, AIA, MCPPO certified – Nick Stoutt • The Director of Design is an employee of the City of Cambridge and is MCPPO certified • Reports to the Director of Capital Building Projects/OPM • Assists the OPM and Deputy City Manager as a member of the selection committee for the • Construction Manager at risk • Comanages all daily aspects of the project with the OPM, Architect, Construction Manager, Licensed Site Profe ssional (LSP), Geotechnical Engineer, Industrial Hygienist and Testing Agency • Reviews and advises OPM on project cost changes • Recommends approval of all payments for the Architect and Construction Manager to OPM and • Deputy City Manager • Advises OPM on Design and Construction Change Orders on the City’s behalf • Monitors Project Budget Capital Building Projects Department Assistant Project Manager, MCPPO certified – Augusto Trento • Assistant Project Manager for the City of Cambridge and is MCPPO certified • Reports to the Director of Capital Building Projects and Director of Construction • Provides Daily supervision/oversight of active construction activities onsite • Brings extensive knowledge of civil/sitework and building enclosure systems

page 3 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 • Provides real-time field oversight and problem-solving during execution • Supports coordination between the Construction Manager, architect, and project team • Monitors schedule, budget, and compliance with project specifications • Assists with review of contractor pay applications and change orders • Ensures construction aligns with City standards and project goals Capital Building Projects Department Supervising Architect, MCPPO certified – Aoife Viglianti • The Supervising Architect is an employee of the City of Cambridge and is MCPPO • Certified • Reports to the Director of Design/OPM • Attends construction meetings • Assists with coordinating consultant services • Maintains project records • Reviews contractor payment requisitions • Assists with onsite job inspection and quality control oversight • Assists in the change order process • Assists in evaluating and resolving claims and disputes • Assists with punch list inspections for occupancy and final completion documentation Capital Building Projects Department Consultant, MCPPO certified – Michael Black • Reports directly to the Director of Capital Building Projects • Performs comprehensive reviews of design documents to ensure alignment with City objectives, program goals, and constructability throughout design development phases • Reviews project funding and budget; assists the Director and project team in troubleshooting and resolving emerging issues. • Supports department operations by assisting with planning, staffing and overall oversight functions; serves as a trusted advisor to the Director on departmental strategy and resource allocation. Engineer | Architect – STV, Inc., Anil Kurian, PE, SE, Senior Associate/Project Manager • Reports to the OPM • Serves as a member of the City’s selection committee for the selection of the CMaR • Assists the Purchasing Department and the OPM with the RFQ for the construction manager • Prepares the design drawings and specifications and coordinates all aspects of the basic design services and their additional services consultants • Coordinates with the construction manager starting with pre-construction services • Coordinates with the commissioning agent, LSP, geotechnical engineer and testing agency • Provides construction administrative services • Certifies monthly requisitions from the construction manager • Provides affidavits for substantial and final completion Commissioning Services – TBD • Reports to the OPM • Responsible for the preparation of the commissioning specifications for the architect • Responsible for commissioning various building systems Construction Testing Services - TBD • Reports to the OPM, independent/3rd party testing agency • Responsible for the services described and coordination with the Architect

page 4 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 CM Selection Committee • Kathy Watkins – Deputy City Manager, Chair • Elizabeth Unger – Purchasing Agent • Brendon Roy – Director Capital Building Projects • Monique Oliveira – CBP - Director of Construction • Nicholas Stoutt – CBP – Director of Design • Brooke McKenna – Commissioner, Department of Transportation • Anil Kurian – Lead Consultant Trade Contractor Prequalification Committee • Purchasing Agent – Elizabeth Unger, Chair • Deputy City Manager - Kathy Watkins • Owners Project Manager – Director of Capital Building Projects, Brendon Roy • CBP - Director of Construction, Monique Oliveira • CBP - Director of Design, Nick Stoutt • Engineering Consultant – Anil Kurian • Construction Manager at Risk (TBD)

page 5 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12

page 6 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 12a. Awarding Authority Supervising the OPM Awarding Authority City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Key Member(s) City Manager – Yi-An Huang Deputy City Manager –Kathy Watkins Purchasing Agent – Elizabeth Unger Assistant City Manager of Fiscal Affairs – Claire Spinner Over the past 20 years, the following projects have been designed and constructed using the M.G.L. c. 149 Design-Bid-Build delivery method, in accordance with statutory experience requirements. The total projects costs for projects delivered using M.G.L. c. 149 exceeded $315M. Relevant Experience • Cambridge Public Library • Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility • Cambridge War Memorial Building • West Cambridge Youth and Community Center/VFW • Cambridge Rindge and Latin School Project • Multi-Departmental Relocation Plan Phase 1: 859 Massachusetts Ave Phase 2: City Hall Renovations Since Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149A was adopted in 2004, the following projects have been designed and constructed using the M.G.L. c. 149A Construction Management At-Risk (CmaR) delivery method, in accordance with statutory experience requirements. The total projects costs for projects delivered using M.G.L. c. 149A exceeded $967M Relevant Experience • Alice K. Wolf Center (former Police Station 5 Western Ave) Estimated Total Project Costs: $23M Total Completed Project Costs: $21.4M ($1.6M savings) • Dr. Martin Luther King School - Putnam Ave Upper School Estimated Total Project Costs: $95.5M Total Completed Project Costs: $94.3M ($1.2M savings) • King Open and Cambridge Street Upper School & Community Center Estimated Total Project Costs: $159.1M Total Completed Project Costs: $157.1M ($2M savings) • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School Estimated Total Project Costs: $321.1M (269M) Ongoing, Project Completion – September 2025 • Fire Department Headquarters Reconstruction Project Estimated Total Project Costs: $77M Ongoing Project Completion – August 2026

page 7 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 12b. Owner’s Project Manager OPM City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge, MA 02139 Key Member(s) Brendon M. Roy Director of Capital Building Projects broy@cambridgema.gov Projects completed for the City of Cambridge: Relevant Experience • The Cambridge Rindge and Latin School Project • Alice K. Wolf Center (former Police Station 5 Western Ave) • Dr. Martin Luther King School - Putnam Ave Upper School** • King Open and Cambridge Street Upper School & Community Center** • Multi-Departmental Relocation Plan | Phase 1: 859 Massachusetts Ave ** Projects completed for the City of Cambridge as Owner’s Project Manager: Relevant Experience • Multi-Departmental Relocation Plan | Phase 2: City Hall ** • Foundry Project – 101 Rogers Street ** • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School** • Fire Department Headquarters Reconstruction Project** ** Delivery Method: CM at Risk (Ch. 149a) Capital Building Projects Department | Brendon Roy, MCPPO certified The Capital Building Projects Department, led by Director Brendon Roy, is currently managing several major projects using the M.G.L. c. 149A Construction Manager at Risk (CMaR) delivery method. These efforts include school upgrades, building renovations, and new public service facilities. Projects currently under construction are tracking well — on schedule and within budget. Active Chapter 149a CMaR projects include: • Phase 1 & Phase 2 of the Multi-Department Relocation Plan • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School ($321M) • Fire Department Headquarters Reconstruction Project ($77M) Mr. Roy has over 16 years of experience with the City of Cambridge and has served as a senior leader within the City Manager’s Office. He’s been instrumental in delivering complex capital projects through every phase from planning to completion. Under Brendon’s leadership, the Capital Building Projects team has grown into a strong group of professionals all certified and trained to manage construction from start to finish all the while being mindful for the best interest of the City’s and community. The Capital Building Projects Department, led by Director Brendon Roy, is managing several major initiatives using the M.G.L. c. 149A Construction Manager at Risk (CMaR) delivery method. Current efforts include school modernization, major building renovations, and new facilities that support public services. Projects now under construction are progressing on schedule and within budget. Director of Design | Nick Stoutt AIA, MCPPO certified Nick Stoutt brings over 3 years of direct, relevant experience with the City of Cambridge, having formally served as Assistant Commissioner for Architectural Services and acting Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), where he successfully delivered a broad range of municipal projects. He offers 21 years of diverse professional experience

page 8 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 encompassing architectural design, construction oversight, and comprehensive project management across both public and private sector projects. Current City of Cambridge projects - Chapter 149A CMaR delivery method: • Cambridge Fire Department Headquarters • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School • 158 Spring Street & Ahern Fields Other related City of Cambridge completed projects: • DPW Simard Building Reconstruction • Rindge Commons Pre-Kindergarten Fit-Out • River Street Firehouse Renovation Other related projects: • Parkway Central Library Renovation — Free Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA • Library Square Renovation — Vancouver, British Columbia Director of Construction | Monique Oliveira, MCPPO certified Monique Oliveira has over 20 years of experience delivering capital projects across public and private sectors. She has led teams at major construction management firms and served as an OPM for public agencies. Her portfolio includes complex, sustainable projects in higher education, financial institutions, medical facilities, affordable housing, and municipal facilities. As Director of Construction for the City of Cambridge, she oversees planning, procurement, and execution with a focus on equity, sustainability, and resilience. Current City of Cambridge projects - Chapter 149A CMaR delivery method: • Active CMaR projects listed above under the Capital Building Projects Department (Brendon Roy) Other related projects as Construction Manager - 149A CMaR delivery method: • Massport Logan Airport, Terminal A-C Connector $215M • MSBA Francis C. Collins Middle and Saltonstall Schools 585,000sf $74M Other related projects as OPM - 149A CMaR delivery method: • MBTA Green Line Extension (GLX) Medford & Somerville $2.28B • Department of Public Works, Arlington MA 80,700sf $44M Assistant Project Manager | Augusto Trento, MCPPO certified Augusto Trento brings extensive field experience with a strong focus on civil/sitework and building envelope systems. Augusto provides daily onsite oversight of active construction activities and plays a key role in coordinating with the Construction Manager, architect, and project team. He supports cost and schedule control, monitors contractor compliance, and ensures real-time resolution of field issues to maintain project progress and quality. Current City of Cambridge projects - Chapter 149A CMaR delivery method: • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School Consultant to the City of Cambridge | Michael J. Black, MCPPO certified Michael J. Black brings over 51 years of experience in engineering and construction, including leadership roles in the public and private sectors and extensive work as an independent consultant. Former DCAM-certified general contractor, Vice President of Operations, with 17 years at United Engineers and Constructors, an EPC (Engineer, Procure, Construct) firm. Current City of Cambridge projects - 149A CMaR delivery method: • Serves in an executive capacity on all active CMaR projects listed above under the Capital Building Projects Department (Brendon Roy).

page 9 of 9 Attachment B Question 8, 11 and 12 Other related City of Cambridge completed projects with Chapter 149A CMaR delivery method: • Alice K. Wolf Center, 5 Western Ave • Dr. Martin Luther King School-Putnam Ave Upper School • Multi-Department Relocation Plan, Phase 1: 859 Massachusetts Ave. • Multi-Department Relocation Plan, Phase 2: City Hall Upgrades • Foundry Project, 101 Rogers St. Other related City of Cambridge completed projects: • The Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility • The West Cambridge Youth and Community Center/VFW • War Memorial Office Renovation • Cambridge Rindge and Latin School Project 12c. Designer The Design Team STV Inc. One Financial Center, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 Key Member(s) Anil Kurian, PE, SE Senior Associate/Project Manager Transportation & Infrastructure Massachusetts [email removed] Relevant Experience Green Street Garage Rehabilitation, Cambridge, MA (2019-2023) Concrete Repairs, trench drain and drainpipe replacement, Waterproofing coating repairs, stairwell repairs and painting. First Street Garage Assessment, Cambridge, MA (2023-2024) Comprehensive assessment of the garage including concrete repairs, elevators, stairwells, waterproofing, plumbing, sprinklers and dry standpipes, fire alarms and geotechnical assessment of settled areas in the Ground Level. Involved in the structural portion of the assessment and managing the team for assessment of the other systems. Massport Logan Airport Central Garage Concrete Repairs and Structural Improvements, East Boston, MA (2024-Ongoing) Concrete repairs (denoted as high priority in the assessment report completed by others), limited drainpipe replacement (high priority repairs only), temporary electrical and plumbing relocations to facilitate concrete repairs, and joint sealant replacement. Involved in design through construction phase. Construction is ongoing. 12d. Project Team Geotechnical Engineer Licensed Site Professional TBD Key Member(s) Relevant Experience

City of Cambridge Application for Construction Management at Risk First Street Garage – Life Safety Priority Project Attachment C Question 9 and 10 Awarding Authority Authorization Information City Council Vote Authorizing Use of CM at Risk, August 4, 2025 Memorandum from City Manager to City Council, July 30, 2025

1 Memorandum Date: July 30, 2025 To: City Council From: Huang, Yi-An, City Manager Subject: Utilization of Construction Manager at Risk Construction Method under M.G.L. Chapter 149A for the First Street Garage Life Safety Priority Project (“Project”) I am writing to ask for your approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (the “IG”) for the City to use the Construction Manager at Risk (“CMaR”) procurement and construction method (the “CMaR Method”) in connection with the Project. By way of background, in 2004 the Massachusetts Legislature passed construction reform legislation that allowed Massachusetts public agencies and municipalities to use the CMaR Method for the first time. The CMaR Method has been commonly used by the private sector for some time and is an alternative to the design-bid-build approach used under M.G.L. c. 149. Since the legislation was enacted, many public entities have successfully applied for, and are using the CMaR Method. The Office of the Inspector General has promulgated a set of procedures for using the CMaR Method. Once a public agency or municipality’s (hereafter “Municipality”) governing body authorizes the use of the CMaR Method, the Municipality submits an application to the IG, from whom the Municipality’s awarding authority must obtain a notice to proceed in order to use the CMaR Method. The application requires that the Municipality demonstrate the following: a. The Municipality has authorization from its governing body to enter into a contract with a CMaR firm. b. The Municipality has the capacity and a plan and procedure that is in place and approved of by the governing body, where appropriate, to effectively procure and manage CMaR services for the specific project and has retained the services of a qualified owner’s project manager. c. The Municipality has procedures in place to ensure fairness in competition, evaluation and reporting of results at every stage in the procurement process. d. The building project has an estimated construction value of $5,000,000.00 or more. e. The Municipality has determined that the use of the CMaR Method is appropriate for the building project and states the reasons in writing for the determination. This memorandum is intended to summarize the definition, advantages, and process governing the use of the CMaR Method in support of my seeking City Council approval to utilize this construction method for the Project. My submission to you of this memorandum is the first step in satisfying the above referenced requirements for seeking approval to use the CMaR Method for the First Street Garage Project and will answer the following questions: • What is CMaR? • What procurement and construction methods has the City used for vertical construction projects in the past? • What are some of the benefits and risks of using the CMaR Method? • What is the timeline for the CMaR Method? What is Construction Management at Risk (CMaR)? The CMaR is selected through competitive procurement based on qualifications and price. The City will procure the CMaR via a two-step Request For Qualifications (“RFQ”) and Request For Proposal (“RFP”) process.

2 The type of contract the City will enter into with the CMaR is a cost-plus fixed fee amount with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”). The GMP is the sum of the CMaR fee, and the costs associated with the CMaR’s general conditions for construction, all of the filed sub bid trade contractors, the CMaR estimates for any un-bid subcontractors at the time of the establishment of the GMP and includes the CMaR’s contingency. The CMaR agrees to pay for costs that exceed the GMP that are not the result of changes in the contract documents. This is one of the reasons a CMaR is selected prior to the plans and specifications being completed. The CMaR works with the owner and the architect to develop the scope delineated in the contract documents as part of the team. The fixed fee is a percentage of the cost of the work and is submitted by the CMaR during the selection process based upon an estimated cost of construction. The CMaR’s contingency belongs to the CMaR if it is needed but is turned over to the City if not used. The contingency is a line item within the GMP and is used to incorporate missing items undefined at the time the GMP is established that arise during the project. By law, the GMP cannot be established until the drawings and specifications are at a minimum of 60% complete. The closer the documents are to being 100% complete, the less the CMaR’s contingency line item is. The Owner’s contingency is for owner-directed changes or unforeseen conditions unknown at the time the GMP is established. The CMaR’s contingency is included in the GMP; the owner’s contingency is outside of the GMP. The City Manager’s project management staff will work closely with the City’s Architect, consultants and CMaR to determine the appropriate contingencies. What procurement and construction methods has the City used for vertical construction projects in the past? The City has used M.G.L. c. 149 and the M.G.L. c. 149A delivery process in the past for bidding vertical construction. This process, also defined as “design-bid-build”, requires all of the construction bid packages to be available only after 100% completion of the design documents. Under this traditional approach, the lowest responsible and eligible bidder is awarded the project. The City of Cambridge has previously received approval from the Office of the Inspector General to utilize the Construction Manager at Risk (CMaR) delivery method on several major projects, including 158 Spring Street (AKA Kennedy Longfellow School), Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper Schools, Fire Department Headquarters, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. School on Putnam Avenue, King Open and Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex, Foundry redevelopment, and the Multi-Department Relocation Plan. What are some of the pros and cons of using the CMaR method? Pros: • The selection of the CMaR through an RFQ process allows the City to better define the specific requirements the City is looking for in a CMaR firm. The submission of defined company qualifications the presentation of these qualifications by the CMaR team to a selection committee allows for a better interaction of questions and answers to best determine the most qualified CMaR for the project. • The selection is based upon qualifications and experience relative to specific City requirements, not the lowest price. The CMaR is selected, rather than awarded due to the lowest bid. The working relationship between the CMaR, the Owner and the architect is enhanced due to a working relationship that is developed during the process leading up to the establishment of the GMP. • The CMaR is directly involved with the selection and management of the scope of work for the filed sub- bid trades. Because the CMaR takes the lead in defining the peripheral scope of work for staging, lifts,

3 temporary lighting, miscellaneous patching, fire stopping, etc., scope of work disputes (a cost to the owner if they have merit) are minimized and this coordination places responsibility directly with the CMaR as the responsible party for defining each sub-bidders’ drawings and specifications. • The CMaR provides pre-construction services, which aids the City’s project team with scheduling, budgeting, value engineering, phasing strategies, and constructability reviews. • With the CMaR Method, early bid packages for demolition and abatement of hazardous materials can run concurrently while the project design is being finalized. • The potential for change orders that occur as the result of gaps in the scopes of work as defined by the Architect is reduced because the CMaR is participating in the delineation of the scope of work during the pre-construction services. • If the City and the selected CMaR do not come to an agreement as to the GMP, then the City has the option of bidding the project. Cons: • The CMaR Method reduces conflict risk between the City and the CMaR firm but that risk is minimized with an overall increased cost at the time the GMP is established. What is the timeline for the CMaR Method? The first step is the CMaR Method is submission of an application to the IG. The IG’s response for approval or denial of the application is due in 60 days. Submitting in August 2025 would position the Inspector General's approval in October 2025, which would align with the schedule for completion of the Construction Document package by the Engineering consultant, STV, Inc. At the 90% CD milestone, the City and consultant identified areas of concern in accurately defining the scope of work for the building repairs. Therefore, having the early involvement of a Construction Manager in the process will help mitigate potential Change Orders in the construction phase. Bringing the CMaR under contract will help provide critical insights regarding site logistics, design constructability, and potential alternative methods. I look forward to answering any questions you may have about the application and the CMAR Method that we propose to use for this Project.

City of Cambridge Application for Construction Management at Risk First Street Garage – Life Safety Priority Project Attachment D Question 14 – 20 Awarding Authority Plans & Procedures

page 1 of 2 Attachment D Question 14 – 20 Awarding Authority Plans & Procedures 14. Experience with CMaR Selection Process The City of Cambridge believes that they do have the necessary experience to manage the process of the OIG’s requirements to procure CM at risk services for the First Street Garage Project per M.G.L. c. 149A delivery method. The City of Cambridge’s Office of the City Manager, Procurement Department, and Capital Building Projects Department have worked together successfully with M.G.L. c. 149 and M.G.L. c. 149A processes and have completed the following projects: • The Cambridge Public Library • The Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility • The Cambridge War Memorial Building • The West Cambridge Youth and Community Center/VFW • The Cambridge Rindge and Latin School Project • Alice K. Wolf Center 5 Western Avenue - MGL 149A • Dr. Martin Luther King School -Putnam Ave Upper School - MGL 149A • King Open and Cambridge Street Upper School & Community Center - MGL 149A • Phase 1 - Multi-Department Relocation Plan – 859 Massachusetts Ave • Phase 2 - Multi-Department Relocation Plan – City Hall Upgrades - MGL 149A • Foundry Project – 101 Rogers Street - MGL 149A • Tobin School and Vassal Lane Upper School - MGL 149A • Fire Department Headquarters Reconstruction Project – MGL 149A 15. Experience with CMaR Selection Process The OPM’s team within the Capital Building Projects department works closely with the Purchasing Department in preparing the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for qualified Construction Management firms. The RFQ, which is posted on the City of Cambridge Procurement web page, is also in local newspaper and trade publications including the Central Register. This project’s construction costs are fully funded by the City of Cambridge. The City of Cambridge has acquired architectural and engineering consulting services through the public procurement process to assist in the process to evaluate and engage a Construction Manager at Risk for this project. After the City of Cambridge receives notice from the OIG to commence with soliciting CMaR services the selection committee shall meet and define the following: • Prepare and advertise the RFQ for CMaR services following the procedures set forth in M.G.L. c 149A • The Selection Committee receives and evaluates the statement of qualifications and pre-qualify a minimum of 3 firms • The Selection Committee shall prepare the RFP and distribute it to the CM at Risk Firms • The Selection Committee shall receive, interview, evaluate and rank the CM at Risk proposals • The Selection Committee shall negotiate non-fee contract terms with the selected CM at risk firm The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall be issuing all official notifications to solicit the RFQ and RFP documents. The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall be the point of contact for all correspondence during the Selection process to ensure fairness in competition. The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall evaluate all of the RFQ’s and the reporting of the Selection Committee results. 16. Establishing the GMP The City of Cambridge understands that M.G.L. c. 149A requires that design documents be completed at a minimum of 60% when establishing the GMP. The goal is to have the documents as close to 100% as the schedule will allow keeping the unknowns or speculation of costs to a minimum. Having the CM at risk under contract during the design development phase will also enhance the overall cohesiveness of the team. The GMP shall also include the following:

page 2 of 2 • At the completion of all design phases including a final estimate at 90%, the CM at Risk shall prepare a detailed cost estimate with all line-item including quantity and unit costs for all items. The Architect shall be required to engage a cost estimator through Schematic design and reconcile differences with the CM at Risk. The final GMP is established after all qualified trade bidders are under contract. • Dollar values for the CM at risk firm’s contingency • Dollar amounts for the CM at risk firm’s general conditions and fees, including those for the pre-GMP work • A listing of all design documents for which the GMP bid is based • A list of Allowances, Alternates, and unit prices • Any clarifications or assumptions for which the GMP is based • The dates of substantial and final completion 17. Trade Contractors – Fair Bidding Process & Selection The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall be issuing all official notifications to solicit pre-qualifications for trade contractors. The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall be the point of contact for all correspondence during the selection process to ensure fairness in competition and evaluation of the trade Contractor pre- qualification submittals and reporting the trade Contractor prequalification Committee results. The Trade Contractor pre-qualification committee members named. Refer to Attachment B, page 4. The City of Cambridge shall award the trade bids to the lowest responsive and responsible pre-qualified sub-trade bidder. 18. Subcontractors – Fair Bidding Process & Selection The City of Cambridge shall work closely with the selected CM at risk to identify nontrade subcontractors to bid on the project. The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall be informed of all sub-bidders notified and shall keep and updated tabulation of all bidders. The City of Cambridge Purchasing Department shall work closely with the OPM’s team within the Capital Building Projects Department and the CM at risk contractor during the bidding process to ensure fairness in competition and shall coordinate with the Director of Equity & Inclusion to ensure that all bidders are aware of the City of Cambridge Ordinances and that all are properly addressed during the bidding process. 19. Project Communications The City of Cambridge Selection Committee shall meet regularly during the CM at risk procurement process to review, discuss and score all RFQ/RFP proposals. The Selection Committee shall make a recommendation to the City Manager who will make the final selection decision. After the CM at risk is selected, the OPM’s team within the Capital Building Projects Department, Architect and the CM at risk shall meet regularly to review Trade Contractor submissions with the Trade Contractor prequalification Committee. During the design, and through all construction phases, the team including the OPM, Architect and the CM at risk shall meet weekly to review status of shop drawing submittals, testing requirements, design changes, schedule, payments and coordination of the construction activities with the City of Cambridge Inspectional Services Department to assure compliance with the construction documents. In addition to the team weekly meeting, the Capital Building Projects Department meets weekly with the Deputy City Manager to keep the City Manager apprised of all developments relating to the weekly progress of the design and construction activities. 20. Project Controls The OPM is required to review and recommend payment of invoices to the City Manager for approval. The City of Cambridge Finance Department receives the approved invoices signed by the OPM and the City Manager for payment. The OPM tracks and maintains the project budget and reconciles all account activity on a regular basis with the Finance Department which is responsible for the official tracking of all project costs with the Audit Department.

City of Cambridge Application for Construction Management at Risk First Street Garage – Life Safety Priority Project Attachment E Question 13 Design Scope

October 8, 2024 Ms. Kara McSweeney Falise, PE Senior Engineer Cambridge Department of Public Works 147 Hampshire Street Cambridge, MA 02139 Reference: House Doctor General Engineering Services Contract 10141 First Street Garage Restoration (10141Q) Amendment 5 Scope and Fee Proposal for Project #1 – Life Safety Priority Package Dear Ms. Falise, Attached please find the STV Incorporated (STV) fee proposal to provide additional design services related to the First Street Garage Restoration Project for the City of Cambridge (City). This amendment is for Project #1 to reconstruct the stairwells, replace the elevators, replace the waterproofing at Level 2 over the tenant space, replace the drainage and fire protection systems. Scope of assessment: a) 1st and 2nd Street Stairwells and Elevators • Structural scope includes an on-site investigation of the landings and the elevator shaft, design of partial-depth and full-depth repairs at the landings, metal stair and metal railing connections, drain pipe runs, concrete repairs at the 1st Street stairwell, specifications associated with the structural work items and quantity take-offs for cost estimating. • Plumbing scope will include drainage design from the sump pit that will be provided at the bottom of each of the elevator shafts. A permanent pump will be provided within each of the sump pits that will discharge to the city sanitary system closest to the area of the elevators. The plumbing design will be compliant with 248 CMR 10, the Massachusetts Uniform State Plumbing Code. • Elevator scope includes modernization of two elevators at the 1st Street stairwell, and one elevator at the 2nd Street stairwell. This includes the replacement of all electrical and mechanical components in the elevators. The structural items in the elevator will be removed. These include the guide rails, hoistway enclosure, pit steel, and car frames. The controller, motor, valve, pump, door equipment, switches, contacts buttons, and all operating devices will be replaced.

• Electrical scope includes system load calculations and upgrades, as needed for the elevators, fire alarms, and any new lighting needs, as required. This includes additional lighting in the machine rooms and elevator lobby, providing 110 VAC disconnect switches for cab lighting in the machine rooms, evaluation of the main disconnect switch, and adding a dedicated phone line for each elevator. b) Fire Protection • Fire protection scope includes the full demolition and removal of all piping and valves for the existing standpipe system in the building after the existing backflow preventer that is to remain. It also includes removal of the existing fire pump and removal of the existing sprinkler system that serves the lowest floor level of the garage area- the fire pump and sprinkler system on lowest floor are not to be replaced. A new standpipe system will be designed with fire department connections located just outside the fire valve room. All new valves will be provided in the valve room for sprinkler systems and the standpipe system. New piping will be provided from the new sprinkler alarm valves to the new sprinkler system connections that have already been installed/capped as part of recent projects. A capped connection for future shall be provided in the loading dock area per a request from the Cambridge FD. • Structural scope includes providing details for new standpipe and/or sprinkler system connections to existing structural elements. • Electrical scope includes system review and documentation of the existing system. Once the existing system is reviewed then a code review of the existing system will be performed to identify any code issues with the existing device locations or where additional devices are required. This code review and the existing system review will then direct the new Class A addressable fire alarm systems design or any upgrade potential of the existing fire alarm system. STV will then produce drawings, details, and specifications describing the scope required to upgrade or replace the existing fire alarm system. c) Drainage System • Drainage system replacement scope includes replacing all of the floor drains and drainage piping in the garage area to the exterior walls of the garage. The two existing separators that serve all of the garage drains in the garage area are inspected yearly. It is assumed that the separators and associated vent piping do not need to be repaired or replaced as part of this project. • Structural scope includes providing details for new drain pipe and floor drain connections to existing structural elements.

d) Waterproofing – Level 2 • Structural scope includes design of a new waterproofing system over the tenant space in Level 2, and any related repairs to the concrete deck required for waterproofing installation. e) Bid Phase Services • Scope includes review of contractor bids and providing a recommendation letter to the City towards contractor selection. f) Construction Phase Services • As part of the Construction Phase Services, STV will attend weekly progress meetings, distribute meeting agendas and meeting minutes to all attendees, perform on- site inspections as needed, review contractor submittals and respond to any RFIs in a timely manner. • Resident Oversight scope includes providing one full-time resident inspector over an assumed period of 15 months to monitor construction activities during milestone inspections, maintain inspection logs and review quantity take-offs for contractor pay requisitions. Budget: The requested fee increase under this Amendment is $925,630.00. The breakdown of the fee proposal is included in Attachment 1 – Fee Proposal. The requested fee includes an allowance of $10,000 for Thielsch to perform independent testing services during construction, and an allowance of $4,000 for Gannett Fleming to schedule a second visit to the Garage to inspect the 2nd Street elevator. This will increase the overall fee of this task from $864,793.60 to $1,790,423.60. STV billing will be based on actual labor rates and hours multiplied by 2.70 to account for overhead and profit. Schedule: From Notice to Proceed (NTP), we anticipate approx. 4 months to submit a bid package to the City for advertising. Our current contract for this task expired on 6/30/2024. We request that the contract end date be extended through 12/31/2025 to allow for an anticipated NTP date around mid-November. Deliverables: The following deliverables will be sent to the City: • Design Plans, Specifications and Estimate at 75% and 100% milestone submissions. • Meeting agenda minutes during Design and Construction Phases. City Assistance:

STV requests the City’s assistance in the following tasks to aid our assessment: • Provide a Massachusetts licensed elevator technician to provide access to the hoistway and machine room during the onsite assessment portion per Massachusetts regulations. • Provide access to all machinery, electrical and generator rooms for inspection. • Provide access to the 2nd Street stairwell for inspection. If you have any questions concerning these documents or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call Anil at [phone removed] or email him at [email removed]. We look forward to continuing to work with the City on this project under our general engineering services contract. Sincerely, STV INCORPORATED STV INCORPORATED Anil Kurian, P.E., S.E. John M. Ennis, P.E. Project Manager Vice President Attachments: 1. Fee Proposal cc: JME, 40-21727.10 SIGN

STV Proposal or Job Number: Client Job Number: Project Description/Location: Client: Design Assumptions: Prepared By/Date: AVK 07/29/24 (Rev 3 - 10/8/2024) Reviewed By/Date: Personnel Hours by Classification Direct Labor Estimate: PIC PM SE/FIELD1 ENG/FIELD2 AE TECH Total First St Garage Project #1 - Life Safety Priority Package 1st and 2nd Street Stairwells and Elevators - Stairwells - Structural 24 96 176 120 416 Elevators - Plumbing 120 200 320 Elevators - Electrical 40 210 250 - Fire Protection - Fire Protection 112 192 304 Fire Protection - Structural 20 40 60 Fire Protection - Electrical 4 16 20 Fire Alarms - Electrical 40 240 280 - Drainage System - Drainage System 96 180 276 Drainage System - Structural 20 40 60 - Waterproofing - Level 2 - Waterproofing - Structural 12 40 64 40 156 Bid Phase Services Bid review and recommendation 8 12 20 Construction Phase Services - Engineering (site visits, RFIs, submittals) 60 208 240 508 15 months Resident Oversight 60 2400 2,460 15 months - - Manhour Totals: 0 104 868 3,998 160 0 5,130 Hourly Payroll Rate: $0.00 $87.04 $88.89 $61.11 $44.44 $42.59 Hourly Contract Rate (2.70 multiplier): $0.00 $235.00 $240.00 $165.00 $120.00 $115.00 Budgeted Costs: $0 $9,052 $77,156 $244,322 $7,111 $0 Other Direct Costs (ODC) Estimate: UNITS UNIT COST 0.670 $ Ground Transport, per vehicle trip - $ $337,640.74 Meals, per person per day - $ 2.7000 Lodging, per room-night - $ 911,630.00 $ Photocopies, per copy - $ Blackline or Blueline Prints, per sheet - $ Bond or Vellum Reproductions, per sheet - $ - $ Mylar Sepias, per sheet - $ 1.00 Photographs, per roll (including development) - $ - $ Overnight Postage, per package - $ - $ - $ 14,000.00 $ - $ 1.00 SUBTOTAL ODC: 14,000.00 $ SUBCONSULTANTS: Thielsch (concrete testing, bond testing) (allowance) Gannett Fleming (allowance) 925,630.00 $ SUBTOTAL SUBS: - $ TOTAL: - SUB MULTIPLIER: - SUBCONSULTANTS: Cambridge House Doctor Engineering Services 10141Q 4021727 Cambridge, MA Travel (mileage) (X miles/RT for X trips) BUDGETED ODC: - Department of Public Works, City of Cambridge - - $ - - OTHER: 10,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ - ITEM COST - $ ODC MULTIPLIER: ODC: - $ BUDGETED SUBS: - OTHER: - 14,000.00 $ OTHER: ITEM COST - - ESTIMATE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EFFORT MULTIPLIER: BUDGETED EFFORT: Summary BUDGETED COSTS: Amendment 5 - See Scope of Services Letter Fire Protection, Drainage System, and Waterproofing on Level 2. Major elements of repair include: 1st Street Stairwell, 1st Street Elevators, 2nd Street Stairwell, 2nd Street Elevator,