Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROJECT MINUTES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project: W. Edward Balmer Elementary School Feasibility Study Project No.: 17020
Prepared by: Joel Seeley Meeting Date: 2/14/18
Re: CM Prequalification Committee Meeting Meeting No: 4
Location: District Offices Time: 5:30pm
Distribution: School Building Committee Members, Attendees (MF)
Attendees:
PRESENT NAME AFFILIATION
Paul Bedigian Representative of the Building, Planning, Construction Committee
Jeff Lundquist Community Member with building design and/or construction experience
Andrew Chagnon Community Member with building design and/or construction experience
Dr. Catherine Stickney Superintendent of Schools
Lee Dore D & W, Architect
Thomas Hengelsberg D & W, Architect
Joel Seeley SMMA, OPM
Item # Action Discussion
4.1 Record Call to Order, 5:30 PM, meeting opened.
4.2 Record A motion was made by C. Stickney and seconded by P. Bedigian to approve the 1/30/18
CM Prequalification Committee meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimous by those
attending.
4.3 Record J. Seeley distributed and reviewed the CM Reference Call Summary, attached.
4.4 J. Seeley Each Committee member reviewed their evaluation of the submitted SOQ packages. J.
Seeley reviewed A. Chagnon’s evaluation.
The consolidated evaluation calculates the CMs scored rank in the following order from
highest to lowest: Consigli Construction Company, W. T. Rich Company, Inc., Fontaine
Bros., Inc., Gilbane Building Company, Suffolk Construction, Agostini-Bacon
Construction, and Whiting-Turner Construction Company.
A motion was made by C. Stickney and seconded by P. Bedigian to approve Consigli
Construction Company, W. T. Rich Company, Inc., Fontaine Bros., Inc., and Gilbane
Building Company as qualified CM firms to be invited into the RFP phase of the CM
Selection Process. No discussion, motion passed unanimous.
J. Seeley to notify the CMs and issue the RFP package.
4.5 Record Next CM Selection Committee: March 6, 2018 at 5:30 pm at the High School Media
Center.
4.6 Record A Motion was made by C. Stickney and seconded by P. Bedigian to adjourn the meeting.
No discussion, motion passed unanimous.
Project: W. Edward Balmer Elementary School Feasibility Study
Meeting Date: 2/14/18
Meeting No.: 4
Page No.: 2
Attachments: Agenda, CM Reference Call Summary
The information herein reflects the understanding reached. Please contact the author if you have any questions or are not in agreement with these
Project Minutes
JGS/sat/P:\2017\17020\04-MEETINGS\4.3 Mtg_Notes\3-CM Prequalification Committee\4-14February2018_Cmprequalcte\Cmprequalificationcommitteemeeting_14February2018_FINAL.Docx
1000 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
617.547.5400
www.smma.com
Project Management
Agenda
Project: W. Edward Balmer Elementary School Feasibility Study Project No.: 17020
Re: CM Prequalification Subcommittee Meeting Meeting Date: 2/14/2018
Meeting Location: Northbridge Public Schools District Office Meeting Time: 5:30 PM
87 Linwood Avenue, Whitinsville, MA Meeting No. 4
Prepared by: Joel G. Seeley
Distribution: Committee Members (MF)
1. Call to Order
2. Review Qualifications of CM Firms
3. Prequalify CM Firms to Receive RFP
4. Decide Additional Site Visit
5. Next Meeting: February 27, 2018
6. Adjourn
JGS/sat/P:\2017\17020\04-MEETINGS\4.2 Agendas\CM Prequalification Subcommittee\4-14February2018\Agenda_14February2018.Docx
PROJECT MINUTES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project: W. Edward Balmer Elementary School Feasibility Study Project No.: 17020
Prepared by: Joel Seeley Meeting Date: 1/30/18
Re: CM Prequalification Committee Meeting Meeting No: 3
Location: High School Media Center Time: 5:30pm
Distribution: School Building Committee Members, Attendees (MF)
Attendees:
PRESENT NAME AFFILIATION
Paul Bedigian Representative of the Building, Planning, Construction Committee
Jeff Lundquist Community Member with building design and/or construction experience
Andrew Chagnon Community Member with building design and/or construction experience
Dr. Catherine Stickney Superintendent of Schools
Lee Dore D & W, Architect
Thomas Hengelsberg D & W, Architect
Joel Seeley SMMA, OPM
Item # Action Discussion
3.1 Record Call to Order, 5:30 PM, meeting opened.
3.2 Record A motion was made by A. Chagnon and seconded by L. Dore to approve the 1/16/18 CM
Prequalification Committee meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimous by those
attending.
3.3 Record J. Seeley distributed and reviewed the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for Construction
Management at Risk Services and Draft Project Schedule, both attached.
A motion was made by C. Stickney and seconded by A. Chagnon to approve the Draft
Request for Proposal (RFP) for Construction Management at Risk Services and the Draft
Project Schedule and make final. Motion passed unanimous.
3.4 Record CM Qualifications packages were received from Fontaine Bros., Inc., Gilbane Building
Company, Consigli Construction Company, Agostini-Bacon Construction, W. T. Rich
Company, Inc., Whiting-Turner Construction Company, and Suffolk Construction. Each
Committee member provided an update on their progress review of the submitted CM
Qualifications packages.
3.5 Record Next CM Prequalification Committee: February 7, 2018 at 5:30 pm at the High School
Media Center.
3.6 Record A Motion was made by A. Chagnon and seconded by L. Dore to adjourn the meeting. No
discussion, motion passed unanimous.
Attachments: Agenda, Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for Construction Management at Risk Services, Draft Project
Schedule
The information herein reflects the understanding reached. Please contact the author if you have any questions or are not in agreement with these
Project Minutes
JGS/sat/P:\2017\17020\04-MEETINGS\4.3 Mtg_Notes\3-CM Prequalification Committee\3-30January2018_Cmprequalcte\Cmprequalificationcommitteemeeting_30January2017_DRAFT.Docx
AGENDA
BLACKSTONE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING - 6:00 PM
CM INFORMATIONAL MEETING - 3:30 PM
CM PREQUALIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - 5:30 PM
Review Draft RFP
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Review Schematic Design Phase Schedule and Deliverables
Prepare for MSBA FAS Meeting
CM PREQUALIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - 5:30 PM
Progress Review of Qualifications
Finalize RFP
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Review Updated Site and Floor Plans
Review Preliminary Exterior Imagery
Prepare for MSBA Board Meeting
MSBA BOARD MEETING
CM PREQUALIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - 5:30 PM
Prequalify CM Firms to Receive RFP
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Review MSBA Board Meeting
Review Updated Site Plan and Floor Plans
Review Updated Exterior Imagery
Review Preliminary Mechanical and Electrical Systems
Review Updated Sustainable Design Features
Review Preliminary Building Sections
Prepare for Community Forum No. 6
CM SELECTION SUBCOMMITTEE - 6:30 PM
Review CM Proposals
COMMUNITY FORUM NO. 6 - 6:00 to 8:00 PM -
WHITINSVILLE SOCIAL LIBRARY
CM SELECTION SUBCOMMITTEE - 6:30 PM
CM Interviews
January 30, 2018
March 14, 2018
Schematic Design Phase (SD)
January 16, 2018
January 30, 2018
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
W. EDWARD BALMER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DATE
All meetings held at the
High School Media Center at 6:30 PM
unless otherwise noted
MEETINGS SCHEDULE AND AGENDAS
October 30, 2017 Updated February 12, 2018
February 28, 2018
January 10, 2018
March 6, 2018
February 14, 2018
March 12, 2018
January 16, 2018
February 14, 2018
January 16, 2018
Project Management SMMA
AGENDA
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
W. EDWARD BALMER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DATE
All meetings held at the
High School Media Center at 6:30 PM
unless otherwise noted
MEETINGS SCHEDULE AND AGENDAS
October 30, 2017 Updated February 12, 2018
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
CM Recommendation and Introduction
Review Progress Site Plan and Floor Plans
Review Updated Exterior Elevations
Review Preliminary Structural Systems
Review Preliminary Technology Systems
Review Preliminary FFE Layout
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Review Progress Site Plan and Floor Plans
Review Updated Exterior Elevations
Review Final Mechanical and Electrical Systems
Review Final Sustainable Design Features
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Final Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Final Project Cost
Final Project Schedule
Vote to submit Schematic Design Cost Estimate to MSBA
COMMUNITY FORUM NO. 7 - 6:00 to 8:00 PM -
W. EDWARD BALMER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAFETERIA
SUBMIT SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE TO MSBA
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING - 7:00 PM
Vote to submit Schematic Design Package to MSBA
SUBMIT SCHEMATIC DESIGN PACKAGE TO MSBA
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO BE SCHEDULED
May 9, 2018
April 3, 2018
May 1, 2018
March 20, 2018
April 23, 2018
April 25, 2018
April 17, 2018
Project Management SMMA
1000 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
617.547.5400
www.smma.com
Project Management
Northbridge W. Edward Balmer Elementary School December 20, 2017 Updated February 12, 2018
Construction Manager Selection Timeline
Accelerated to be on Board by Mid-March 2018
November 21, 2017 SBC Decide CM at Risk Approach, Appoint CM Prequalification and
Selection Subcommittee
Nov 21 – December 6, 2017 Develop Application to Inspector General
December 6, 2017 Submit Application to Inspector General
Nov 21 – January 10, 2018 Develop Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
December 19, 2017 CM Prequalification Subcommittee Meeting: Review draft RFQ
January 3, 2018 Submit RFQ Advertisement to:
1. Central Register, Local Newspaper and COMMBUYS
January 16, 2018 CM Prequalification Subcommittee Meeting: Approve RFQ – 5:30 PM
January 10, 2018 RFQ Advertisement Noticed in:
1. Central Register, Local Newspaper and COMMBUYS
Jan 10 – February 6, 2018 Develop Request for Proposal (RFP)
January 16, 2018 Informational Meeting at W. Edward Balmer School and Tour – 3:30 PM
January 17, 2018 Notice to Proceed with CM at Risk from Inspector General
January 19, 2018 Deadline for Submission of CM Questions – 2:00 PM
January 24, 2018 (2 weeks) CM Qualification Packages Due
January 24-February 6, 2018 (2 weeks) Review CM Qualification Packages
January 30, 2018 CM Prequalification Subcommittee Meeting: Approve RFP, Progress Review
of Qualifications
February 14, 2018 CM Prequalification Subcommittee Meeting: Prequalify CM Firms to Receive
RFP
February 15, 2018 Distribute RFP to Prequalified CM Firms
February 20, 2018 Optional Site Visit
February 21, 2018 Deadline for CM Questions – 2:00 PM
February 28, 2018 CM Proposal Packages Due
February 28 – March 6, 2018 Review CM Proposals
March 6, 2018 CM Selection Subcommittee Meeting: Review CM Proposals, Finalize
Questions for Interviews
March 14, 2018 CM Interviews, Rank CM Firms
March 20, 2018 SBC Meeting: CM Selection Subcommittee to Recommend CM Firm,
Introduce CM
March 20 - 23, 2018 Finalize General Conditions, Fee and Contract Terms with Selected CM Firm
April 17, 2018 SBC Meeting: Vote to Submit Total Project Cost to MSBA
April 25, 2018 Submit Total Project Cost to MSBA (minimum 2 weeks prior to
submission)
May 9, 2018 Submit Schematic Design to MSBA
JGS/sat/P:\2017\17020\10-BID\10.3 CMR\CM_Selectionschedule12february2018_Accelerated.Docx
Ag
osti
ni/
Ba
co
n C
on
str
uc
tio
n C
om
pa
ny
P
roje
ct
Nam
e
Ro
ck
lan
d H
S/R
og
ers
Mid
dle
Sc
ho
ol
Be
ve
rly M
idd
le S
ch
oo
l B
eve
rly M
idd
le S
ch
oo
l A
tla
nti
s C
ha
rte
r S
ch
oo
l
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Jo
hn
Ric
ha
rdso
n
Ma
rk L
yd
on
D
are
n S
aw
ye
r R
ob
in G
ree
nb
erg
Co
mp
an
y
Do
re &
Wh
itti
er
He
ery
A
i3
Stu
dio
G A
rch
ite
cts
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2/6
/2018
978-4
99-2
999
1/3
1/2
018
78
1-4
94
-90
00
2/1
/2018
508
-358
-079
0
2/5
/2018
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l
pro
ject?
Ow
ner’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
Pro
jec
t D
irecto
r fo
r th
e O
PM
P
rincip
al in
Charg
e f
or
the D
esig
n f
irm
A
rch
itect
Pro
ject
Ma
nag
er
for
the
Desig
n f
irm
fo
r ju
st
co
nstr
uc
tio
n. T
he P
rincip
al-
in-C
harg
e a
nd
Pro
ject
Ma
nag
er
for
this
pro
ject
duri
ng
desig
n a
nd
co
ntr
ac
tor
sele
ctio
n a
re n
o
long
er
with S
GA
. 2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as
invo
lved
?
Jo
hn
Ro
gers
was t
he C
hairm
an o
f th
e S
BC
; M
r. S
cup
elli
was
the B
usin
ess M
anag
er
but
is d
eceased
and
Co
lleen
____ t
oo
k
over.
Jo
hn R
etc
hle
ss w
as a
lso
very
invo
lved
.
Mic
hael C
olli
ns, C
om
mis
sio
ner
for
the D
PW
97
8-6
05-2
43
0
Mayo
r M
ichael C
ahill
, C
ity o
f B
everly 9
78
-60
5-2
33
3
Bry
an
t A
yle
s,
City F
ina
nce D
irecto
r
Mic
hael C
olli
ns, C
om
mis
sio
ner
for
the D
PW
97
8-6
05-2
43
0
Mayo
r M
ichael C
ahill
, C
ity o
f B
everly 9
78
-60
5-2
33
3
Bry
an
t A
yle
s,
City F
ina
nce D
irecto
r
DP
W: R
ob
ert
Beatt
y, E
xec
utive D
irec
tor
Oth
er:
Mic
hael Lauro
, A
sso
cia
te E
xec
utive D
irec
tor
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m
the C
M f
irm
? P
roje
ct
Executive,
Pro
ject
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: S
teve A
go
stin
i
PM
: B
ob
Gilc
hrist
Ro
b L
inc
ieri w
as P
roje
ct
Eng
ineer
PM
: B
ob
Gilc
hrist
at
Ag
ostin
i
PM
: B
ob
Gilc
hrist
Sup
er:
Bill
Ed
ge
Harr
y H
arp
oo
l w
as t
he s
up
er.
He s
eem
ed
to
have a
go
od
rela
tio
nship
with t
he
cre
w a
nd
co
uld
talk
wit
h t
hem
ab
out
issues. F
or
exam
ple
, w
hen
I m
entio
ned
to
him
tha
t I saw
a
lab
ore
r sm
okin
g in
the b
uild
ing
, he k
icked
him
off
the
jo
b t
ha
t
day. A
pp
are
ntly,
it w
as t
he lab
ore
r's t
hird
str
ike. W
hile
Harr
y
rein
forc
es t
he s
mo
ke-f
ree r
ule
s in t
he
build
ing
, he d
oes n
ot
enfo
rce t
he p
roh
ibitio
n o
uts
ide o
f th
e b
uild
ing
. H
arr
y's
em
ail
co
mm
unic
atio
n c
an
be s
low
; he is a
bett
er
pho
ne
co
mm
unic
ato
r.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he d
iffe
rent
phases o
f th
e
work
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
DD
: V
ery
we
ll. E
xte
nsiv
e b
uild
ing
exp
lora
tio
n w
here
they
cam
era
’d p
ipes, sew
er,
etc
. and
fo
und
str
uctu
ral is
sues in t
he
build
ing
to
re
no
bu
ildin
g.
VE
: G
oo
d w
ith c
osts
and
CD
s a
nd
with R
evit c
oo
rdin
atio
n
pro
cess.
File
Sub
Pre
qual:
Very
go
od
with s
co
pe
. C
loseo
ut:
S
low
due
to o
wner
ad
ded
wo
rk o
n h
igh s
cho
ol p
roje
ct
to m
ake t
he H
S
finis
hes s
imila
r to
tho
se in M
S. C
om
mis
sio
nin
g w
as d
one b
y
CE
S a
nd
no
t g
oo
d –
wasn’t
hap
py.
Sag
am
ore
was g
oo
d in
plu
mb
ing
but
over
the
ir h
ead
in
mechanic
al.
Clo
seo
ut
is 8
0%
co
mp
lete
. O
n t
rack t
o g
et
$75
0k b
ack o
n
co
mp
letio
n.
Fully
invo
lved
with C
MR
vs.
DB
B.
Tric
ky d
esig
n o
n B
everly M
S
was e
ssential to
have C
M o
n b
oard
early a
s it
invo
lved
1,2
00
pile
s a
nd
their
ab
ility
to
he
lp w
ith
the p
lan
nin
g a
nd
co
ord
inatio
n, valu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
, etc
. w
as v
ery
help
ful. T
hey
were
incre
dib
ly invo
lved
with f
iled
sub
pre
qualif
icatio
n a
nd
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
rocess. C
urr
ently in c
loseo
ut
and
a m
on
th
aw
ay f
rom
sta
rtup
co
mm
encin
g.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they
pro
active? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
No
issues w
ith p
erf
orm
ance
. W
BE
: Y
es, and
hir
ed
lo
cally
.
Reaso
nab
ly p
roactive. N
o litig
atio
n b
ut
there
was a
n iro
n
wo
rker
who
fell
and
a law
su
it c
am
e f
ort
h a
ga
inst
ere
cto
r b
y
iro
nw
ork
er.
No
issues, no
litig
atio
n,
very
eng
ag
ed
and
invo
lved
. O
n t
ime, o
n b
ud
get.
No
litig
atio
n. N
o issues w
ith
their
perf
orm
ance o
n t
he p
roje
ct
as t
hey h
ave b
een e
ng
ag
ed
and
invo
lved
fro
m t
he s
tart
.
WB
E/M
BE
req
uirem
en
ts d
id n
ot
ap
ply
to
the p
roje
ct.
Ad
min
istr
ative t
asks c
ould
have h
ad
mo
re s
up
po
rt,
see ite
m #
8
belo
w. N
o k
no
wn litig
atio
n.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
bud
get?
C
hange O
rders
?
Cla
ims
for
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
?
Do
cum
enta
tio
n?
On b
ud
ge
t as m
uch a
s p
ossib
le.
Ow
ner
kep
t ad
din
g b
ut
no
t in
CM
co
ntr
ol.
No
issues. F
ast
track p
roje
ct.
7 C
hang
e O
rders
as a
result b
ut
fair a
nd
reaso
nab
le a
nd
no
sched
ule
im
pact.
No
ne.
Very
reaso
nab
le w
ith d
ocum
enta
tio
n a
nd
pricin
g a
nd
wo
rkin
g w
ithin
bud
ge
t.
Pro
jec
t ap
pears
to
be u
nd
er
bud
get.
TB
C w
he
n p
roje
ct
is
clo
sed
out.
Larg
est
cha
ng
e o
rder
was r
ela
ted
to
led
ge b
lasting
for
sco
pe a
dd
ed
during
co
nstr
uc
tio
n a
nd
there
fore
,
exte
nt/
quan
tity
of
led
ge w
as u
nkno
wn.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Sched
ule
dra
gg
ed
on
hig
h s
cho
ol as it
was a
phased
reno
and
und
ers
tand
ab
le d
ue t
o t
he c
ha
ng
es r
eq
ueste
d b
y t
he O
wner.
Mid
dle
scho
ol sched
ule
was m
et
and
op
ened
on t
ime.
Pro
jec
t 8
0%
co
mp
lete
. O
n s
ched
ule
.
Met
all
sched
ule
d m
ilesto
nes.
TB
C b
ut
it a
pp
ears
that
they w
ill b
eat
the
sched
ule
by
4 w
eeks
allo
win
g t
he
scho
ol to
mo
ve in d
uri
ng
Feb
ruary
vacatio
n e
ven
with c
onsid
era
ble
site c
hang
es/
exp
ansio
n o
f sco
pe o
f w
ork
mad
e d
uring
co
nstr
uc
tio
n a
nd
a d
ela
yed
sta
rt b
ecause o
f th
e
city's
IS
D.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the O
PM
, O
wner
and
oth
ers
in
form
ed
? D
ay t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
Very
go
od
. W
eekly
meeting
and
mo
nth
ly m
eeting
s
Very
eng
ag
ed
and
invo
lved
. O
PM
onsite
, site
sup
er
heavily
invo
lved
. E
very
issue r
eso
lved
rig
ht
aw
ay. O
PM
and
all
part
ies invo
lved
in a
ll co
mm
unic
atio
n
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
Ag
ostini d
id a
fair
ly g
oo
d jo
b v
erb
ally
keep
ing
the o
wner'
s t
eam
info
rmed
of
curr
ent
ac
tivitie
s,
up
co
min
g a
ctivitie
s, R
FIs
,
sub
mitta
ls a
nd
PR
/CO
R s
tatu
s, and
cri
tica
l p
ath
ite
ms d
uring
weekly
co
nstr
uctio
n m
eetin
gs a
nd
em
ails
. H
alfw
ay t
hro
ug
h t
he
pro
ject,
we
sto
pp
ed
receiv
ing
mo
nth
ly r
ep
ort
s w
hic
h inc
lud
ed
their
pro
gre
ss r
ep
ort
, fina
ncia
l up
date
s,
co
mp
lete
co
nstr
uctio
n
sched
ule
, q
ua
lity c
on
tro
l sta
tus, etc
. It
is m
y u
nd
ers
tand
ing
the
rep
ort
was n
ot
issued
because t
he P
M d
idn't
have t
ime t
o
assem
ble
it.
Ag
ostini's u
se o
f P
roco
re w
as h
elp
ful fo
r a
ll p
roje
ct
info
rmatio
n
dis
sem
inatio
n,
inclu
din
g R
FIs
, sub
mitta
ls,
meeting
no
tes, and
punch
lis
ts.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to w
ork
with e
very
bod
y?
Tra
de S
ub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
? S
cho
ol syste
m?
Overa
ll?
Excelle
nt
Excelle
nt.
Hig
hly
reco
mm
end
ed
. G
oo
d t
eam
synerg
y. T
hey
cam
e o
n d
uri
ng
SD
– d
id t
he
ir o
wn f
ull/c
om
ple
te e
stim
ate
in
ho
use.
Excelle
nt
to w
ork
with
.
Gre
at
job
on a
ll p
roje
ct
ac
tivitie
s. N
eig
hb
orh
oo
d issues a
nd
pub
lic f
oru
ms t
o k
eep
neig
hb
ors
and
scho
ol in
form
ed
reg
ard
ing
issues lik
e n
ois
e, d
ust,
etc
.
I th
oug
ht
that
Ag
ostini d
id a
gre
at
job
wo
rkin
g w
ith e
very
one
inclu
din
g t
he t
rad
e s
ub
co
ntr
acto
rs. C
om
mun
icatio
n b
etw
een
Ag
ostini and
the p
re-e
ng
ineere
d b
uild
ing
(g
ym
) sub
co
uld
have
been b
ett
er,
i.e
. sub
shari
ng
sched
ule
, w
ha
t co
rrective a
ctio
n
was b
ein
g d
one
. I am
no
t aw
are
of
any issues b
etw
ee
n
Ag
ostini, t
he s
ub
s, a
nd
the n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d.
Ag
ostin
i had
a g
reat
rela
tio
nship
with t
he
City o
f F
all
Riv
er
whic
h h
elp
ed
with t
he
pro
ject'
s p
erm
ittin
g issues.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any
again
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak
po
ints
? O
vera
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes. S
tro
ng
in s
erv
ice,
rela
tab
ility
, kno
wle
dg
e a
nd
co
mm
unic
atio
n. W
eaker
in p
ap
erw
ork
and
sched
ulin
g.
Mo
re o
f a G
C f
irm
than a
CM
firm
.
Ab
so
lute
ly w
ould
wo
rk w
ith t
hem
ag
ain
. H
onest,
tru
stw
ort
hy,
in-h
ouse b
ids. O
wner
inte
rest
– G
eo
rge A
go
stini o
nsite
mo
nth
ly. S
teve A
go
stin
i o
nsite
at
least
weekly
. W
eakness:
As a
firm
their
PM
do
es t
he
ir s
ched
ulin
g.
P6
sched
ule
pers
on
pre
ferr
ed
.
Go
od
all-
aro
und
and
co
nscie
ntio
us.
Reco
mm
end
Bo
b G
ilchri
st
as P
M o
ver
Ric
k R
eute
r b
ut
Ric
k R
eu
ter
is g
oo
d a
lso
.
I th
oug
ht
that
Ag
ostini co
uld
have d
one a
faste
r jo
b w
ith
co
ord
inating
ME
PF
P a
nd
gym
eq
uip
ment
sub
. F
or
a f
utu
re
pro
ject
with A
go
stini, I w
ould
ask t
ha
t th
ey m
ore
pro
actively
off
er
sug
gestio
ns w
he
n issues o
r co
nflic
ts a
rise a
nd
no
tify
the
desig
n t
eam
of
tim
e/c
ost
and
oth
er
trad
e im
pacts
.
I w
as s
atisfied
with A
go
stin
i as o
ur
co
ntr
acto
r and
be o
pen
to
wo
rkin
g w
ith t
hem
ag
ain
.
Co
nsig
li C
on
str
uc
tio
n
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
So
uth
bri
dg
e M
S/H
S
Ho
lbro
ok P
reK
-12 S
ch
oo
l Jo
hn
R. B
rig
gs E
lem
en
tary
Sc
ho
ol,
Ash
bu
rnh
am
Ro
ge
r L
. P
utn
am
Vo
ca
tio
na
l
Te
ch
nic
al H
igh
Sc
ho
ol
Sto
ug
hto
n H
igh
Sch
oo
l
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Ch
ris B
lesse
n
Ke
nt
Ko
va
cs
Ka
tie
Cro
ck
ett
V
lad
imir
Lyu
bets
ky
Sco
t W
oo
din
Co
mp
an
y
Ta
pp
e A
sso
cia
tes
Fla
nsb
urg
h A
rch
ite
cts
L
am
ou
reu
x P
ag
an
o A
sso
cia
tes
Dru
mm
ey R
osa
ne A
nd
ers
on
, In
c.
Dru
mm
ey R
osa
ne &
An
de
rso
n
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2/5
/2018
617-9
86-4
834
617-3
67-3
97
0
508
-75
2-2
831
2/3
/2018 6
17-9
64
-1700
2/6
/2018
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l p
roje
ct?
P
roje
ct
Manag
er
for
Desig
n f
irm
P
rincip
al in
Charg
e f
or
Desig
n f
irm
P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect
for
Desig
n f
irm
P
roje
ct
Manag
er
for
the D
esig
n f
irm
P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect/
Sen
ior
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
for
the
Desig
n f
irm
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as invo
lved
?
Chair o
f S
BC
: S
co
tt L
azazzo
Busin
ess M
anag
er:
T
err
y W
igg
ins
Scho
ol F
acili
ties M
anag
er:
M
ike C
om
eau
Tim
Go
rdo
n,
Da
n M
ori
art
y, M
att
hew
Mo
ore
,
Mik
e B
olg
er,
Sc
ott
To
wne a
re m
em
bers
of
the
PS
BC
S
BC
and
Dep
art
ment
of
Cap
ita
l A
sset
Co
nstr
uctio
n (D
CA
C)
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m t
he C
M f
irm
?
Pro
ject
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: M
ike
Walk
er
20
%
PM
: D
onna C
olle
ri t
o J
ohn
Lam
arr
e 1
00
%
Sup
er:
Jo
hn L
aP
erl
e (e
xcelle
nt,
hig
hly
reco
mm
end
ed
) 100
%
Jo
hn
Lap
erle w
as t
he s
up
eri
nte
nd
ent
and
he
was v
ery
go
od
at
manag
ing
all
asp
ects
of
the
wo
rk a
nd
anticip
ating
wha
t w
as c
om
ing
ne
xt.
Alw
ays p
lan
ned
ahead
and
had
answ
ers
to
pro
ble
ms b
efo
re w
e k
new
there
was a
pro
ble
m.
PE
: C
hri
stia
n R
iord
an
20%
PM
: T
im V
au
tour
50-7
5%
Sup
er:
Jo
hn L
aP
erl
e 1
00
%
PC
M: C
hristian
& J
ohn
ME
P:
Chri
s H
am
el (v
ery
go
od
)
Safe
ty is e
xtr
em
ely
im
po
rtan
t w
ith C
onsig
li to
ok
care
of
and
drille
d into
every
one c
om
ing
on s
ite
.
Co
nsig
li to
ok c
are
of
every
thin
g w
e n
eed
ed
and
req
uired
. G
oo
d jo
b! J
ohn
Lap
erle
as
sup
erinte
nd
ent
was d
eta
il o
rien
ted
, sched
ule
up
date
s s
po
t-o
n,
go
od
invo
lvem
ent
with
sta
keho
lders
inclu
din
g c
om
munity a
nd
ow
ner.
PE
: J
eff
Navin
10%
PM
: Jo
di S
taru
k 1
00%
(lo
t o
f re
sp
ect
for
her
–
too
k m
ate
rnity leave)
Sup
er:
Re
tire
d n
ow
, g
reat
and
kno
wle
dg
eab
le
10
0%
MA
CH
PS
Pro
jec
t
Fie
ld E
ng
ineer:
M
ore
than
one p
ers
on –
revo
lvin
g d
oo
r 1
00%
Safe
ty P
ers
onnel:
Did
have s
om
e o
nce a
mo
nth
PE
: M
ike W
alk
er
PM
: S
ean D
itto
Sup
er:
Ch
uck M
cW
illia
ms
PC
M: M
ichael M
urp
hy
LE
ED
: A
aro
n S
ham
pag
ne
Fie
ld E
ng
: A
nd
rew
Je
nnin
gs
Kyle
Rap
oso
is t
he
Sup
erin
tend
ent
on t
he
pro
ject.
E
xcelle
nt.
V
ery
kno
wle
dg
eab
le o
n
trad
e w
ork
, sched
ulin
g a
nd
safe
ty.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
Early o
n in t
he C
M@
Ris
k m
eth
od
. C
ould
have
been m
ore
in D
D. T
hey d
id d
o p
eer
revie
w
thro
ug
h c
onsu
lta
nt
and
had
so
me e
arlie
r
invo
lvem
ent
been
po
ssib
le it
wo
uld
have b
een
bett
er.
No
Valu
e E
ng
ineeri
ng
on t
he p
roje
ct.
Co
nstr
uctio
n D
ocum
en
ts: W
en
t o
ut
for
bid
in
20
10 –
kep
t o
n b
ud
ge
t. F
iled
Sub
Pre
qualif
icatio
n w
en
t w
ell
as d
id c
loseo
ut
and
co
mm
issio
nin
g. C
M w
as r
esp
onsiv
e w
ith
Cx
ag
ents
and
co
mm
ents
. C
onsig
li d
id g
reat
in a
ll
phases o
f th
e w
ork
.
Outs
tand
ing
= e
ac
h t
eam
mem
ber
(Christian
was g
reat!
)
Pro
jec
t w
as b
id w
ell;
gre
at
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n t
o
diffe
rent
meth
od
s a
nd
execu
tio
n t
hro
ug
h v
alu
e
eng
ineeri
ng
.
Self-p
erf
orm
ed
variety
of
tasks.
Clo
seo
ut
is s
till
ong
oin
g. F
inis
hin
g u
p s
ite w
ork
.
Wo
rkin
g c
losely
with t
he C
om
mis
sio
nin
g a
ge
nt.
Very
challe
ng
ing
with D
D e
stim
ating
= p
oin
t o
f
fric
tio
n h
ow
ever
no
t 10
0%
the
ir f
au
lt. T
hey
did
n’t
hand
le it
very
well.
Va
lue E
ng
ineeri
ng
on
sched
ule
, p
roje
ct
flo
wed
well
and
reso
lved
issues w
ell.
Clo
seo
ut
punc
hlis
t to
ok a
very
lo
ng
tim
e,
challe
ng
ing
.
Go
od
eff
ort
, th
e p
reco
nstr
uctio
n t
eam
was g
oo
d
to w
ork
with.
Pro
vid
ed
usefu
l ad
vic
e a
nd
inp
ut
during
DD
.
The c
ost
estim
ato
r had
excelle
nt
trackin
g t
oo
ls
for
the
VE
ite
ms a
nd
the p
roje
ct
cam
e u
nd
er
bud
get.
CM
pro
vid
ed
pro
ductive r
evie
w o
f th
e C
Ds a
nd
develo
ped
sco
pe o
f w
ork
fo
r all
trad
es.
Pro
ved
go
od
kno
wle
dg
e o
f th
e m
ark
etp
lace w
ith
active
invo
lvem
ent
in t
he f
iled
sub
pre
qualif
ica
tio
n
pro
cess. C
loseo
ut
too
k a
little lo
ng
er
than w
e
wo
uld
lik
e b
ut
in t
he e
nd
pro
vid
ed
co
mp
rehensiv
e p
ackag
e o
f in
form
atio
n t
o t
he
City. C
oo
pera
ted
with
the C
x a
ge
nt.
Co
nsig
li w
as n
ot
onb
oard
duri
ng
DD
. V
ery
help
ful d
uri
ng
valu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
bu
t p
roje
ct
bid
und
er
estim
ate
. V
alu
ab
le inp
ut
for
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n
Do
cum
ents
. G
oo
d d
uri
ng
File
Sub
Pre
qualif
icatio
n.
Clo
seo
ut
is s
till
in p
rocess.
Very
help
ful and
kno
wle
dg
eab
le s
o f
ar.
O
nly
20%
into
Co
nstr
uctio
n A
dm
inis
tratio
n.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
? C
om
plia
nce
with W
BE
/MB
E r
eq
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they
pro
active? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
Met
go
als
fo
r to
tal p
roje
ct
part
icip
atio
n. R
eally
go
od
. N
o litig
atio
n a
nd
were
very
pro
active
thro
ug
ho
ut.
There
were
no
majo
r is
sues a
nd
Co
nsig
li w
as p
roactive t
o s
olv
e c
oncern
s in
the
field
.
Yes, C
onsig
li w
as p
roactive
. D
eliv
ery
of
build
ing
with s
eam
less e
ven jug
glin
g 4
early s
ite
packag
es. S
cho
ol in
6 m
onth
s e
arly. N
o
litig
atio
n.
Issues: C
onte
ntio
us t
imes; lo
ts o
f p
ushin
g f
or
what
was r
ight.
They w
ere
pro
active b
ut
med
iocre
rating
.
In g
enera
l th
e q
ualit
y o
f w
ork
was g
oo
d. T
he
CM
ad
dre
ssed
and
reso
lves a
ll o
uts
tand
ing
issues b
y t
he e
nd
of
the p
roje
ct.
The C
M w
as
pro
active a
nd
im
ple
mente
d g
oo
d q
ualit
y c
ontr
ol
pro
cess in t
he f
ield
.
No
, so
far,
sm
oo
th p
rog
ress.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get?
Change O
rders
? C
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal
work
? D
ocum
enta
tion?
Gre
at
keep
ing
on b
ud
ge
t. P
roje
ct
was u
nd
er
bud
get
the e
ntire
way a
nd
chang
e o
rders
were
min
imal.
No
issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get.
Cha
ng
e O
rders
were
no
thin
g o
ut
of
the n
orm
.
Bud
ge
t: O
nly
issues in
the b
eg
innin
g a
t D
D
Phase. C
hang
e O
rders
were
all
reaso
nab
le.
No
sig
nific
an
t is
sues.
Lo
ts o
f c
hang
e o
rders
pass t
hro
ug
h.
No
t
vo
lun
tary
with
“C
M C
onting
ency”
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes, p
roje
ct
was d
eliv
ere
d o
n t
ime.
Yes.
Met
sched
ule
but
challe
ng
ing
. Y
es
On s
ched
ule
so
far
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
? D
ay
to d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
Gre
at
job
– m
et
1 t
o 2
x p
er
week.
Co
mm
unic
atio
n w
as c
lear
and
co
ncis
e.
Daily
und
ers
tand
ing
of
the p
roje
ct
pro
gre
ss w
as e
asy
for
our
team
.
Co
nsta
ntly p
rovid
ing
up
date
s, g
reat
co
mm
unic
atio
n, very
dis
cip
lined
.
Very
go
od
with
co
mm
unic
atio
n
CM
team
had
go
od
co
mm
un
icatio
n s
kill
s a
nd
pro
ced
ure
s.
Excelle
nt
daily
and
weekly
rep
ort
ing
. E
xcelle
nt
co
mm
unic
atio
ns.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
? S
cho
ol
syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Gre
at.
Co
nsig
li w
as e
xce
llen
t in
manag
ing
all
the p
layers
inclu
din
g t
he n
eig
hb
ors
.
Excelle
d.
Very
go
od
. T
he C
M’s
team
was v
ery
co
op
era
tive in w
ork
ing
with a
ll sta
ke
ho
lders
. E
xh
ibited
level head
ed
ap
pro
ach t
o t
he s
ub
co
ntr
ac
tor
manag
em
ent.
Excelle
nt.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes. G
reat
team
. V
oca
lized
ho
w t
o d
o 1
49
A
pro
jects
, str
eam
linin
g a
nd
instr
uc
ted
/led
on
ho
w
it s
ho
uld
be d
one. C
onsig
li is
alw
ays a
t th
e t
op
of
our
lists
of
CM
s t
o h
ire
ag
ain
.
Str
ong
co
mm
un
icatio
n s
kill
s.
Yes w
e w
ou
ld
definite
ly w
ork
with
Co
nsig
li ag
ain
. N
o w
eak
po
ints
. W
ould
giv
e t
hem
a 9
ou
t o
f 10.
Str
ong
pro
ject
manag
em
ent
was v
ery
go
od
. Y
es
we w
ou
ld w
ork
wit
h C
onsig
li ag
ain
. 7 o
ut
of
10.
Weakness: w
ork
ing
with t
hem
on t
he initia
l
bud
gets
.
Yes. S
tro
ng
po
int:
co
op
era
tive t
eam
pla
yer
The C
loseo
ut
pro
cess c
ou
ld h
ave b
een m
ore
eff
icie
nt.
Overa
ll g
oo
d q
ualit
y t
eam
, w
ould
be h
ap
py t
o
wo
rk w
ith t
hem
ag
ain
.
Yes, very
satisfied
.
Gilb
an
e B
uild
ing
Co
mp
an
y
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Sh
erw
oo
d M
idd
le S
ch
oo
l N
ort
h R
ea
din
g M
idd
le/H
igh
Sc
ho
ol
No
rth
Re
ad
ing
Mid
dle
/Hig
h S
ch
oo
l T
ac
on
ic H
igh
Sc
ho
ol
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Ka
tie
Cro
ck
ett
B
rad
Do
re, P
IC
Ch
uc
k C
aru
cc
i J
oh
n B
en
zin
ge
r
Co
mp
an
y
La
mo
ure
ux P
ag
an
o A
sso
cia
tes
Do
re &
Wh
itti
er
No
rth
Re
ad
ing
Sc
ho
ol B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e
SK
AN
SK
A
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2
/2/2
018
508
-75
2-2
831
2/1
/2018
978
-499
-299
9
2/1
/2018
2
/1/2
018
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l p
roje
ct?
P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect
of
Desig
n F
irm
P
rincip
al-
in-C
harg
e o
f D
esig
n F
irm
S
cho
ol B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e C
ha
ir
OP
M S
en
ior
Pro
gra
m M
anag
er
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as invo
lved
?
SB
C (m
and
ate
s b
y M
SB
A) o
f 10
-12
SB
M: D
an M
arg
oto
50
8-8
42-2
46
8
TF
M:
Bo
b C
ox
Sup
er:
Jo
e S
aw
yer
Pri
ncip
al: J
ane
Bld
g C
te C
hr:
He
nry
Fitzg
era
ld
20+
mem
bers
of
SB
C
Chuck C
aru
cci
Jo
n B
ern
ard
– S
cho
ol S
up
erin
tend
en
t
20 m
em
bers
on S
BC
To
wn A
dm
inis
trato
r
DP
W n
ot
invo
lved
Jo
hn
Bo
sb
erg
, P
rinc
ipal
Co
lleen
Hu
nte
r; C
ath
leen
Muso
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m t
he C
M f
irm
?
Pro
ject
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: Jim
Dri
sco
ll 2
0%
PM
: W
alt K
incaid
100%
Sup
er:
Sw
itc
hed
off
fo
r each p
hase /
co
nsis
ten
t /
mad
e
sense h
ow
th
is w
as d
one
MA
CH
PS
pro
ject
FE
: D
anie
l C
raw
ford
, sup
ple
mente
d b
y D
an
iel Jud
ge
Safe
ty: V
ery
big
on
safe
ty, h
igh
mark
s
PE
: Jo
an
na K
rip
p
PM
: Jo
an
na K
rip
p 1
00%
& J
im D
risco
ll 1
0%
Sup
er:
M
any; M
att
Rap
osa, M
att
Skill
en,
Jeff
Ro
sencra
ntz
10
0%
PC
M:
Jo
e M
cC
oy (E
stim
ato
r),
Jo
an
na K
rip
p, Jim
Drisco
ll
LE
ED
: S
hare
d r
esp
onsib
ility
ME
P:
Oliv
er
Co
wie
100%
FE
: M
any p
eo
ple
100%
Safe
ty: R
ota
ted
thro
ug
ho
ut
job
It w
as a
larg
e p
roje
ct
with s
evera
l sup
eri
nte
nd
ents
. M
att
Rap
oza, M
att
Skill
en,
Jeff
Ro
senkra
nz. A
ll w
ere
str
ong
lead
ers
with s
ignific
ant
co
nstr
uctio
n e
xp
erience a
nd
ab
ility
manag
e s
ub
co
ntr
acto
rs a
nd
main
tain
sched
ule
.
PE
: P
MA
, B
rain
tree
Sup
er:
4 s
up
eri
nte
nd
en
ts, ro
tate
d J
oa
nna K
rip
p
PC
M:
D&
W N
ew
bury
po
rt
LE
ED
: B
rad
Do
re
ME
P:
Vand
erw
eil
Safe
ty: G
ilbane (
2-3
ind
ivid
uals
)
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ents
knew
wha
t th
ey w
ere
do
ing
(kno
wle
dg
eab
le)
altho
ug
h t
here
was c
onsta
nt
turn
over
with
sta
ff.
PE
: A
nd
rew
Pro
ch
nia
k 5
%
PM
: D
ave D
eF
ore
st
10
0%
(excelle
nt)
Sup
er:
Ste
ve D
evo
ra 1
00
%
PC
M:
And
rew
and
Dave 1
00%
LE
ED
: O
nsite: Z
ac
k K
ushner
ME
P:
Art
Duff
y 1
00
%
Fie
ld E
ng
: C
oup
le o
f syste
ms s
up
ers
Safe
ty: F
T A
nd
rew
Leac
h 1
00
%
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
was g
reat
and
very
east
to w
ork
with
.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
All
phases t
hey p
erf
orm
ed
very
well.
To
p s
helf c
om
pany.
Were
very
pro
fessio
nal.
DD
: P
rett
y g
oo
d jo
b w
ith e
stim
ating
VE
: V
ery
invo
lved
in t
his
pro
cess
CD
: V
ery
invo
lved
; g
oo
d jo
b
FS
P: G
oo
d jo
b
Clo
se: P
roje
ct
clo
seo
ut
and
did
go
od
jo
b
Co
mm
issio
nin
g:
No
t in
vo
lved
DD
: N
o p
art
icip
atio
n
VE
: D
id n
ot
wo
rk o
ut
we
ll – c
ost
ad
ditio
nal $
15M
CD
: 5 y
ear
job
exp
ecte
d t
o o
rig
inally
last
3 y
ears
File
d S
ub
Pre
qual: F
ine
Clo
seo
ut:
No
t w
ell;
Pro
jec
t clo
sed
out
but
no
t w
ith M
SB
A f
or
ano
ther
3 y
ears
(2 y
ears
over)
based
on G
ilbane
perf
orm
ance.
Co
mm
issio
nin
g:
Terr
ible
Hired
aft
er
DD
. N
ot
a h
ug
e V
E e
ffo
rt; g
oo
d jo
b.
CD
s d
id V
E a
nd
estim
ating
, sched
ule
= g
oo
d jo
b
File
d S
ub
Pre
qual: P
art
icip
ate
d o
n C
te
Clo
seo
ut:
6 m
os a
way f
rom
co
mp
letio
n
Cx: M
SB
A h
ired
th
ird
part
y;
they a
re invo
lved
and
are
do
ing
fanta
stic.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
? C
om
plia
nce
with W
BE
/MB
E r
eq
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they
pro
active? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
GB
C g
ot
a w
aiv
er
bu
t d
id a
ttem
pt
the W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
. N
o litig
atio
n.
They w
ere
pro
ac
tive.
Issue: S
co
pe: $3
4M
co
nstr
uctio
n =
very
min
or
issues w
ith
exte
rio
r o
f b
uild
ing
– e
xte
rio
r d
eck w
ith
envelo
pe t
ie-i
ns –
all
were
reso
lved
satisfa
cto
rily
. O
ther
Pro
ble
m: W
ate
r lin
e
op
ened
up
aft
er
sch
oo
l w
as c
om
ple
ted
and
mis
sed
one s
ink
aft
er
clo
sin
g t
hem
and
flo
od
ed
entire
scho
ol. Insu
rance p
aid
for
the
rep
airs.
Wo
rk q
ualit
y w
as v
ery
go
od
No
co
mp
liance issues
I fo
und
them
to
be p
roac
tive
No
litig
atio
n
Litig
atio
n w
as n
ot
with G
ilbane
. M
BE
/WB
E:
Yes
Due t
o c
onsta
nt
cha
ng
e in lab
or
with G
ilbane t
his
caused
majo
r d
ela
ys a
nd
sub
sta
nd
ard
wo
rk. T
hey w
ere
pro
active if
they w
ere
sta
yed
on t
op
of.
WB
E/M
BE
go
als
were
exceed
and
do
ub
led
at
19
, g
oal w
as
11.
Litig
atio
n n
ot
with
Gilb
ane.
Gilb
ane w
as p
roactive.
Ong
oin
g lo
g d
efic
iencie
s b
ut
are
ad
dre
ssed
. N
oth
ing
ou
t o
f
the o
rdin
ary
.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get?
Change O
rders
? C
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal
work
? D
ocum
enta
tion?
Pro
jec
t cam
e in u
nd
er
bud
get.
Wo
rked
thro
ug
h c
han
ge
ord
ers
as a
gro
up
. N
o c
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
na
l serv
ices.
No
rmal – s
om
e c
laim
s t
hat
were
reso
lved
in
a s
ett
lem
ent
with
Ow
ner
Yes, b
ud
get
ran o
ver.
Yes, sub
sta
ntial c
hang
e o
rders
; yes t
o
cla
ims f
or
ad
ditio
nal serv
ices.
So
me c
hang
e o
rders
; M
inim
al ad
ditio
na
l serv
ices. N
o
bud
geta
ry issues
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ch
ed
ule
?
Ahead
of
sched
ule
= o
pe
ned
in
Feb
ruary
as o
pp
osed
to
fall
as p
lanned
.
Technic
ally
yes h
ow
ever
they w
ere
be
hin
d s
ched
ule
on f
inal
site w
ork
and
clo
seo
ut
Caused
majo
r d
ela
ys in p
roje
ct.
Y
es, o
n s
ched
ule
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
? D
ay
to d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
Gre
at
co
mm
unic
atio
n t
hro
ug
ho
ut
E
xcelle
nt
co
mm
un
icatio
ns
C
om
munic
atio
n w
as o
k.
Do
ing
gre
at
job
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
? S
cho
ol
syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Very
go
od
; att
uned
to
all
issues
V
ery
go
od
wo
rkin
g r
ela
tio
nship
betw
een p
roje
ct
team
–
Ow
ner
was a
t tim
es c
halle
ng
ing
Rate
them
as g
oo
d.
Fanta
stic s
o f
ar
Quic
kly
reso
lved
issues w
ith
neig
hb
orh
oo
d
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll
satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes. 8 o
ut
of
10
Str
eng
th: N
atio
nally
based
co
mp
any w
ith g
rea
t re
so
urc
es t
o
pull
fro
m t
o a
dd
ress issues. G
oo
d t
ec
hno
log
y k
no
wle
dg
e.
Weak P
oin
ts:
Natio
nal co
mp
any s
om
etim
es y
ou d
idn’t
get
the lo
cal fe
el
Yes, sup
po
rted
jo
b. W
ith r
esp
ect
to m
anp
ow
er
– s
tro
ng
manag
em
ent
and
fie
ld t
eam
s. D
id a
go
od
jo
b m
anag
ing
sub
co
ntr
acto
rs.
No
, w
ould
no
t hir
e.
Str
eng
ths: knew
what
they w
an
ted
to
do
Weakness: co
nsta
ntly c
hang
ing
sta
ff
Overa
ll satisfa
ctio
n w
as 5
of
10
Str
eng
th:
team
is v
ery
go
od
, g
oo
d c
om
mun
icato
rs.
Weak: M
issed
so
me t
hin
gs in
buyo
ut;
sw
itc
hed
sup
ers
fro
m
pro
po
sal b
ut
pers
on
was g
reat.
Wo
uld
wo
rk w
ith
Gilb
ane
ag
ain
. 9
out
of
10
Gilb
an
e B
uild
ing
Co
mp
an
y
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Ta
co
nic
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l W
inth
rop
Mid
dle
/ H
igh
Sc
ho
ol
De
arb
orn
ST
EM
Ac
ad
em
y
Ea
st
So
me
rville
Co
mm
un
ity S
ch
oo
l
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Vla
dim
ir L
yu
be
tsk
y
Da
vid
Gir
ard
J
on
ath
an
Le
vi
Ch
ad
Cri
tte
nd
en
Co
mp
an
y
Dru
mm
ey R
osa
ne
An
de
rso
n
Sc
ho
ol B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e
Jo
na
tha
n L
evi A
rch
ite
cts
P
MA
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2
/3/2
018
61
7-9
64
-17
00
2/1
/2018
617
-692
-0618
2
/2/2
018
617
-437
-9458
2
/2/2
018
508
-494
-708
8
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l p
roje
ct?
P
roje
ct
Manag
er
for
DR
A A
rch
itects
C
hairm
an o
f th
e D
esig
n a
nd
Co
nstr
uctio
n C
om
mitte
e
Ow
ner
of
Desig
n f
irm
O
PM
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as invo
lved
?
SB
C w
as invo
lved
in
pro
ject
21 p
ers
on
SB
C
Scho
ol M
gr:
Jim
McK
enna
TF
M: R
ich
Cifo
ni, n
ot
very
invo
lved
DP
W:
no
t in
vo
lved
So
S: Jo
hn
Macero
(curr
en
tly in
Sto
ne
ham
)
A
ng
ela
Alle
n,
Purc
hasin
g D
irecto
r
(PM
A w
as b
roug
ht
onto
the p
roje
ct
as O
PM
aft
er
the
CM
was
alread
y o
nb
oard
. W
illia
m K
earn
ey w
as t
he
orig
inal P
roje
ct
Executive o
n t
he p
roje
ct
who
was r
em
oved
fo
r J.
Drisco
ll to
lead
the p
roje
ct)
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m t
he C
M f
irm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: A
nd
rew
Pro
ch
nia
k
PM
: D
avid
DeF
ore
st
Sup
er:
Ste
ven V
erd
ura
PC
M:
And
rew
Pro
chn
iak
LE
ED
: S
achary
Kush
ner
ME
P:
Art
Duff
y
Fie
ld E
ng
: M
ike F
orw
oo
d
PE
: Jo
an
na K
rip
p 1
0%
PM
: W
alter
Kin
caid
100%
Sup
er:
Mark
and
so
meo
ne e
lse
LE
ED
: C
hip
Mc
Elro
y 1
00%
Fie
ld E
ng
: M
att
Em
alu
els
on 1
00%
Did
no
t a
tte
nd
weekly
meeting
s s
o d
idn’t
meet
the
sup
erinte
nd
ent.
Ca
n s
peak w
ith
Dic
k L
aw
ton 6
17
-470-1
718
for
ad
ditio
nal d
eta
il.
PE
: K
evin
Co
ok (g
oo
d c
om
mun
icato
r) a
vaila
ble
whe
n n
ee
ded
1x/m
o o
r as n
eed
ed
PM
: M
ichael M
arc
ella
(excelle
nt
– t
op
tie
r)
Sup
er:
Sam
Mehan
ken (o
ld s
cho
ol, h
ard
dri
ver)
LE
ED
: Lin
da C
alla
han
, P
roj. E
ng
. (F
ab
ulo
us –
hig
h m
ark
s)
10
0%
ME
P:
Dere
k O
ldem
an (F
ab
ulo
us jo
b –
hig
h m
ark
s) 1
00%
Fie
ld E
ng
: Lin
da C
alla
han
Safe
ty: R
eg
ula
r C
heck-i
ns
PE
: Jim
Dri
sco
ll 2
0%
PM
: M
ike M
arc
ella
100
%
Sup
er:
S
am
Neham
kim
10
0%
LE
ED
: W
ill G
reg
g
ME
P:
Will
Gre
gg
FE
: K
err
y T
aylo
r 1
00
%
Sam
N. w
as e
xcep
tio
nal. G
rea
t re
latio
nship
s w
ith t
rad
es a
nd
Ow
ner.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
Actively
invo
lved
in p
rovid
ing
inp
ut
in m
ate
rials
and
syste
ms
sele
ctio
n in D
D.
Go
od
und
ers
tand
ing
of
the c
ost
co
ntr
ol,
gre
at
inp
ut
fro
m t
he C
hie
f C
ost
Estim
ato
r d
uri
ng
valu
e
eng
ineeri
ng
. P
rovid
ed
revie
w a
nd
co
mm
ents
on c
onstr
uc
tio
n
do
cum
ents
; U
nd
ers
too
d t
he p
rocess w
ell
for
file
d s
ub
pre
qualif
icatio
n. C
loseo
ut
is T
BD
as t
he p
roje
ct
is u
nd
er
co
nstr
uc
tio
n. C
om
mis
sio
nin
g:
Co
op
era
tin
g w
ith
the C
x
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct,
no
issues t
o d
ate
.
DD
: E
xcelle
nt,
pre
co
nstr
uc
tio
n f
an
tastic
VE
: F
anta
stic
CD
: V
ery
go
od
File
d S
ub
Pre
qual: G
reat
job
; g
oo
d c
overa
ge;
no
n-u
nio
n d
id
gre
at;
few
chang
e o
rders
.
Clo
seo
ut:
fan
tastic;
sta
yed
on s
ite 6
mo
s-1
yr
clo
sin
g p
roje
ct
out;
Co
mm
issio
nin
g: very
go
od
DD
: G
oo
d;
little
mo
re invo
lvem
ent
on
their s
ide
VE
: g
oo
d
CD
: p
rett
y g
oo
d;
in d
ep
th,
inte
rdis
cip
linary
co
ord
inatio
n;
go
od
revie
w a
t 6
0%
, 9
0%
; g
reat
IDC
syste
m
File
Sub
Pre
qual: G
oo
d
Clo
seo
ut:
2 w
eeks a
way f
rom
clo
seo
ut
Excelle
nt
thro
ug
ho
ut
Co
nstr
uctio
n P
hase
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
? C
om
plia
nce
with W
BE
/MB
E r
eq
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they
pro
active? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
Go
od
qualit
y o
f w
ork
overa
ll. C
M is p
roactive in
ad
dre
ssin
g
issues b
roug
ht
by t
he D
esig
n T
eam
. T
he p
roje
ct
is
ap
pro
xim
ate
ly 6
0%
co
mp
lete
.
Issues: M
ars
hall,
co
ncre
te s
ub
, had
issues w
ith s
tairs 2
-3
tim
es –
pro
cess w
asn’t
tho
ug
ht
thro
ug
h.
Very
pro
active; g
ave m
ultip
le o
ptio
ns t
o f
ix
pro
ble
ms/s
olu
tio
ns
WB
E/M
BE
Co
mp
liance:
Yes
Pro
active: Y
es
Litig
atio
n: N
o
Issues: re
lating
to
tra
des u
nd
er
perf
orm
ing
; G
ilbane h
ad
to
make c
orr
ectio
ns (i.e. ro
ofing
); v
ery
pro
active w
ith h
and
ling
issues
Very
str
ong
with
de-s
co
pin
g e
arly o
n.
Gre
at
follo
w-u
p.
Perf
orm
ance issues: N
o
Co
mp
liant
WB
E/M
BE
Pro
active: Y
es
Litig
atio
n: N
ot
that
he’s
aw
are
of
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get?
Change O
rders
? C
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal
work
? D
ocum
enta
tion?
Go
od
und
ers
tand
ing
of
the
co
st
co
ntr
ol m
easure
s. N
o
un
necessary
or
un
usual ad
ditio
nal serv
ices r
eq
uests
as o
f
no
w.
No
bud
get
issues –
und
er
bud
get
Reaso
nab
le a
mo
unt
of
cha
ng
e o
rders
Reaso
nab
le a
dd
itio
nal serv
ices.
No
issues w
ith b
ud
get.
Ratio
na
l le
vel o
f C
ha
ng
e O
rders
(2
-3%
)
No
issues w
ith b
ud
get.
Cha
ng
e O
rders
sub
mitte
d t
imely
and
well
vett
ed
. N
o c
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal serv
ices.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Wo
rk in p
rog
ress, o
n s
ched
ule
based
on t
he m
ost
recen
t
sched
ule
up
date
.
Yes, ab
so
lute
ly.
Did
no
t m
eet
the s
ched
ule
. C
oup
le m
onth
s o
ut
fro
m
sub
sta
ntia
l d
eliv
ery
date
but
no
t all
fault o
f G
ilbane.
So
me u
nd
erp
erf
orm
ing
sub
co
ntr
acto
rs.
Yes, sched
ule
was m
et
rig
ht
on
sched
ule
. U
nd
er
bud
get
with
co
nting
encie
s
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
? D
ay
to d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
Very
go
od
co
mm
unic
atio
n s
kill
s b
y t
he
Pro
ject
Ma
nag
em
ent
Team
. N
o issues.
Excelle
nt,
gre
at
team
. V
ery
go
od
co
mm
unic
atio
n. L
ots
of
sched
ulin
g
Very
active
Reg
ula
r m
eeting
s
Well
info
rmed
; excelle
nt
co
mm
un
icatio
n
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
? S
cho
ol
syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Very
co
op
era
tive in w
ork
ing
with e
very
one.
Gre
at
exp
eri
ence
overa
ll.
10 o
ut
of
10 o
n a
ll; g
ave in
-cla
ssro
om
pre
senta
tio
ns; very
att
en
tive;
hand
led
ab
utt
ers
questio
ns; very
co
mm
itte
d
Very
go
od
with
arc
hitects
. G
oo
d w
ith t
rad
e c
ontr
acto
rs.
Maste
rful w
ith t
he n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d a
nd
scho
ol syste
m.
Gre
at
rela
tio
nship
with t
rad
es a
nd
scho
ol syste
m. Little
inte
rac
tio
n w
ith n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d b
ut
hand
led
situa
tio
ns w
ell
when t
hey d
id a
rise.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll
satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes, g
oo
d p
rofe
ssio
na
l te
am
to
wo
rk w
ith
. Y
es, 1
0 o
ut
of
10; a
nd
did
hire f
or
an a
thle
tic c
te.
Str
eng
th:
pla
nn
ing
and
org
aniz
atio
n;
und
ers
too
d o
bsta
cle
s a
nd
sched
ule
Weakness: no
ne
wo
rthy o
f m
en
tio
nin
g
Wo
rk A
ga
in:
Yes
Overa
ll S
co
re:
8 o
f 10
Str
ong
: P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
em
ent
level and
lead
eng
ineer;
manag
em
ent
of
cha
ng
e o
rders
Weak: sub
co
ntr
acto
r re
latio
nsh
ips p
ossib
ly
Yes, w
ould
hire a
ga
in.
Rate
10 o
f 1
0.
Str
ong
: p
roactive, c
lient
orien
ted
firm
.
Weak: tim
ing
of
chang
es, a
llow
ances –
early o
n (g
row
ing
pain
s)
Fo
nta
ine
Bro
s.,
In
c.
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Mo
no
mo
y R
eg
ion
al H
igh
Sch
oo
l N
els
on
Pla
ce
Ele
me
nta
ry I
E
ast
Bri
dg
ew
ate
r Jr/
Sr
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l O
ld C
hic
op
ee
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l R
en
ovati
on
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Bill P
ete
rs
Ro
be
rt P
ara
, Jr.
D
are
n S
aw
ye
r B
ert
Ga
rdn
er
Co
mp
an
y
Mo
un
t V
ern
on
Gro
up
L
am
ou
reu
x P
ag
an
o A
sso
cia
tes
Ai3
C
ao
lo &
Bie
nie
k A
sso
cia
tes,
Inc
.
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2/1
/2018 7
81-2
13-5
030
2/1
/18 5
08
-75
2-2
831
2/1
/2018 5
08-3
58
-0790
2/4
/2018 4
13-5
94
-28
00
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l p
roje
ct?
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
of
Desig
n f
irm
P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect
and
Pri
nc
ipal o
f D
esig
n F
irm
P
rincip
al-
In-C
harg
e o
f D
esig
n F
irm
P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect
for
the D
esig
n f
irm
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as
invo
lved
?
R
uss A
dam
s o
f W
orc
este
r’s D
PW
overs
ees a
ll o
f th
e b
uild
ing
pro
jects
508-9
29
-13
00
Tis
hm
an w
as O
PM
– E
ric B
ackstr
and
t 61
7-5
94
-00
81
Mo
nic
a
Po
itriss 5
08-7
99
-3506
All
of
the a
bo
ve w
ere
invo
lved
fro
m S
BC
, S
cho
ol B
usin
ess
Manag
er,
Fire D
ep
t, H
eath
Dep
art
ment,
Sc
ho
ol P
rincip
al, D
PW
,
Facili
ties M
anag
er
Will
iam
Zaskey w
as t
he B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e C
hair,
and
Mayo
r
Ric
hard
Ko
s w
as t
he e
xec
utive o
ffic
er
for
the C
ity.
Carl D
ietz
was t
he lo
cal b
uild
ing
co
mm
issio
ner,
and
Mari
e L
aF
lam
me is
the C
ity T
reasure
r.
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
o
ther
key m
em
bers
of fr
om
the C
M
firm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: D
ave F
on
tain
e, w
as P
roje
ct
Execu
tive
PM
: Jim
Mauer
Sup
er:
Gle
nn C
alla
han
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
on
the p
roje
ct
was G
lenn
Calla
han
and
he w
as
sin
ce r
etire
d. T
hey a
re w
ond
erf
ul to
wo
rk w
ith
. T
hey a
re a
very
go
od
firm
to
wo
rk w
ith a
nd
no
matt
er
who
yo
u g
et
for
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent,
they w
ill d
o w
ell
with y
our
pro
ject
with D
ave
Fo
nta
ine S
r. a
nd
Jr.
very
invo
lved
with e
very
pro
ject.
PE
: D
ave F
on
tain
e J
r.
PM
: Jam
ie B
lum
e
Sup
er:
B
ill F
aneuf
PE
: D
ave F
on
tain
e S
r.
PM
: Jam
ie B
lum
e
Sup
er:
Mac
k W
hite
PE
: C
hri
s F
on
tain
e (sin
ce r
etire
d, I b
elie
ve)
PM
: R
ichard
Raim
ond
i;
Sup
er:
Mik
e C
avana
ug
h
I d
o n
ot
recall
the
nam
e o
f th
eir s
afe
ty o
ffic
er,
tho
ug
h h
e w
as
in-h
ouse. T
he r
em
ain
ing
po
sitio
ns w
ere
no
t ap
plic
ab
le a
s a
GC
.
Mik
e C
avanaug
h w
as t
he
pro
ject
sup
eri
nte
nd
ent.
He w
as a
ble
to m
anag
e s
ub
s a
nd
co
mp
lete
the
pro
ject
mo
re o
r le
ss o
n
tim
e, ho
wever
I d
on’t
belie
ve h
e c
om
ple
tely
und
ers
too
d h
is r
ole
as t
he jo
b s
up
er
(did
n’t
und
ers
tand
why h
e w
ould
need
to
be
on s
ite
whe
never
sub
s w
ere
wo
rkin
g).
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in
the d
iffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
Fo
nta
ine B
ros.
cam
e o
nto
the
pro
ject
aft
er
CD
s a
nd
were
very
go
od
. V
ery
kno
wle
dg
eab
le. G
et
alo
ng
with s
ub
s a
nd
reso
lve
any issues a
nd
co
nflic
ts q
uic
kly
. A
weso
me g
uys t
o w
ork
with.
DB
B P
roje
ct
This
was a
pro
ject
tha
t w
as 3
-phases o
n a
tig
ht
occup
ied
site
.
Pre
co
nstr
uctio
n s
erv
ices w
ere
im
po
rtan
t to
have s
ep
ara
tio
n o
f
access. F
onta
ine jo
ined
in D
D a
nd
were
very
key t
o g
ett
ing
th
is
pro
ject
valu
e e
ng
ineere
d w
ith a
diffic
ult s
ite
. T
here
was a
larg
e
am
ount
of
gri
nd
ing
of
led
ge a
nd
they h
and
led
every
thin
g
sm
oo
thly
with
manag
ing
the s
ub
co
ntr
acto
rs a
nd
esp
ecia
lly
so
me s
ub
s w
ho
co
uld
be d
ifficult a
t tim
es.
Excelle
nt,
pro
active p
rob
lem
so
lvin
g t
eam
. E
asy t
o w
ork
with
and
make t
hin
gs h
ap
pen
Pro
jec
t w
as D
BB
but
they w
ere
a h
eavily
invo
lved
GC
and
were
gre
at
to w
ork
with
.
This
was a
DB
B P
roje
ct
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they p
roactive?
Was t
here
litig
atio
n?
There
were
no
issues o
r p
rob
lem
s w
ith t
heir
perf
orm
ance a
t all
on t
he p
roje
ct.
There
was a
mecha
nic
al un
it issue t
hat
aro
se
with t
he m
echan
ica
l/co
ntr
ols
co
ntr
acto
r b
ut
it w
as r
eso
lved
by
Fo
nta
ine.
No
issues w
ith F
on
tain
e’s
perf
orm
ance o
f w
ork
. T
hey w
ere
co
mp
liant
with W
BE
/MB
E. V
ery
pro
ac
tive. T
here
was n
o
litig
atio
n t
ho
ug
h t
hey d
id h
ave s
om
e c
halle
ng
es w
ith W
est
Flo
ori
ng
but
alw
ays r
eso
lved
.
There
were
no
issues w
ith t
he
ir p
erf
orm
ance o
n t
he p
roje
ct.
Dave F
onta
ine J
r. a
nd
Sr.
were
very
much
invo
lved
in
the
pro
ject.
They w
ere
very
pro
active. W
ere
WB
E/M
BE
co
mp
liant
and
had
no
litig
atio
n.
In g
enera
l, n
o c
om
pla
ints
ab
out
the p
erf
orm
ance, th
oug
ht
they
did
tend
to
push m
anag
em
ent
issues w
ith s
ub
s in
to o
ur
co
urt
.
No
WB
E/
MB
E issues. I d
id n
ot
feel th
eir t
eam
was p
art
icu
larly
pro
-active o
n t
his
pro
ject
(no
t in
dic
ative o
f m
ost
pro
jects
we
’ve
co
mp
lete
d w
ith t
hem
). T
here
is a
curr
ent
litig
atio
n c
ase
betw
een F
onta
ine a
nd
a f
iled
sub
co
ntr
acto
r.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
bud
get?
C
hange O
rders
?
Cla
ims
for
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
? D
ocum
enta
tio
n?
The p
roje
ct
was o
n b
ud
get
and
on t
ime
. It
is a
co
nstr
uctio
n
pro
ject
with a
14
mo
nth
sched
ule
wh
ich w
as v
ery
tig
htly
sched
ule
and
all
mile
sto
nes w
ere
met,
pro
ject
was o
n b
ud
get
and
the
chan
ge o
rders
were
reaso
nab
le. W
he
n a
questio
n
cam
e a
bo
ut
of
pricin
g o
n d
ocum
en
ted
ite
ms, it w
as a
lways
dis
cussed
and
reso
lved
as n
eed
ed
.
The p
roje
ct
cam
e in o
n b
ud
get
and
end
ed
up
giv
ing
mo
ney
back t
o t
he C
ity. T
here
was a
Ne
tZero
att
em
pt
for
LE
ED
but
wasn’t
successfu
l. T
hey w
ere
gre
at
on
bud
get
an
d w
ith
wo
rkin
g t
hro
ug
h d
ocum
enta
tio
n a
nd
cha
ng
e o
rders
. N
o
ad
ditio
na
l serv
ices.
No
rmal b
ud
get
matt
ers
tha
t arise o
n p
roje
cts
. N
o e
xcessiv
e
bill
ing
with c
hang
e o
rders
. If
there
was q
uestio
ns o
n p
ricin
g
they w
ere
alw
ays d
iscussed
and
revis
ed
as n
eed
ed
.
No
issues w
ith b
ud
get.
Cha
ng
e O
rders
were
ag
gre
ssiv
e, b
ut
ultim
ate
ly n
eg
otia
ted
to
accep
tab
le a
dju
stm
en
ts.
Do
cum
enta
tio
n w
as c
om
ple
te a
nd
tim
ely
.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
The d
istr
ict
was a
ble
to
occup
y t
he s
cho
ol o
n s
ched
ule
,
ho
wever
pu
nch lis
t sco
pe c
arr
ied
in
to t
he s
cho
ol year.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
?
Day t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the
pro
ject?
Very
well.
Da
ily c
om
munic
atio
n t
hro
ug
h e
mails
and
meeting
s
alw
ays k
ep
t every
one in t
he lo
op
on e
very
deta
il o
n t
he
pro
ject.
Did
well
with w
eekly
meetin
gs invo
lvin
g t
he O
PM
. D
id w
ell
reso
lvin
g b
ud
ge
tary
issues/q
uestio
ns a
nd
wo
rkin
g w
ith
neig
hb
ors
to
keep
them
info
rmed
of
po
ten
tia
lly d
isru
ptive w
ork
i.e. b
lasting
and
gri
nd
ing
on s
ite a
nd
was a
lways m
ind
ful o
f th
e
neig
hb
ors
and
keep
ing
them
up
date
d w
ith m
eeting
s a
nd
wo
rked
on
dust
co
ntr
ol in
ord
er
to k
eep
a g
oo
d r
ela
tio
nsh
ip
with a
bu
tters
Met
with
the O
PM
Rep
once
a w
eek a
nd
on
all
co
rresp
ond
ence
co
pie
s w
ere
mad
e t
o t
he O
PM
and
all
pert
inen
t p
eo
ple
were
kep
t in
the lo
op
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
Rela
tio
ns b
etw
een
the O
PM
and
Fo
nta
ine
were
str
ain
ed
at
best
and
oft
en
unp
rofe
ssio
nal.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to w
ork
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
?
Scho
ol syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Rate
them
5 o
ut
of
5.
They w
ere
gre
at
wo
rkin
g w
ith a
ll p
art
ies
fro
m t
rad
e c
ontr
ac
tors
and
sub
s t
o t
he n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d a
nd
scho
ol syste
m. D
ave F
on
tain
e w
as o
nsite o
ften a
nd
had
a v
ery
hand
s-o
n a
pp
roach
wh
ich a
lso
he
lped
a g
reat
deal.
Very
well.
E
xcelle
nt
man
ner
of
hand
ling
the w
ork
, co
mm
un
icatio
n w
ith
sub
s, neig
hb
orh
oo
d a
nd
the s
cho
ol syste
m.
Rela
tio
ns b
etw
een
the G
C a
nd
severa
l sub
s w
ere
als
o s
tra
ined
,
and
incre
asin
gly
as t
he jo
b p
rog
ressed
. T
his
did
no
t
necessarily
keep
wo
rk f
rom
bein
g c
om
ple
ted
on t
ime, b
ut
in
my o
pin
ion
qualit
y o
f w
ork
suff
ere
d a
t tim
es.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts?
Overa
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes. C
om
munic
atio
n w
as g
reat,
every
one w
ork
ed
well
tog
eth
er,
a lo
t w
as a
cco
mp
lished
with
so
lutio
ns m
ad
e w
itho
ut
hesitatio
n. T
here
are
no
weak p
oin
ts w
ork
ing
with F
onta
ine.
Yes. T
hey a
re h
onest,
kno
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
have in
teg
rity
.
Enjo
yed
wo
rkin
g w
ith B
ill P
ha
neuf
as h
e w
as g
rea
t to
wo
rk w
ith
as S
up
eri
nte
nd
ent.
Yes. G
reat
sched
ule
manag
em
en
t, s
ub
co
ntr
ac
tor
manag
em
ent,
co
mm
unic
atio
n. W
ere
pro
active a
nd
pro
ble
m
so
lvin
g a
ll alo
ng
and
were
ab
le t
o w
ork
on a
tig
ht
sched
ule
and
still
co
me in o
n t
ime a
nd
on b
ud
get.
I w
ould
wo
rk w
ith F
on
tain
e a
gain
on
a p
roje
ct,
part
icula
rly in
ligh
t o
f p
ast
exp
eriences I’v
e h
ad
with t
hem
. In
genera
l, I f
ind
the o
wners
hip
reaso
nab
le a
nd
easy t
o w
ork
with
. T
hey h
ave
str
ong
re
latio
nsh
ips w
ith s
evera
l are
a s
ub
co
ntr
ac
tors
and
a
deep
and
exp
erienced
sta
ff. I d
o f
eel th
ey a
re o
ften a
gg
ressiv
e
with c
ha
ng
e o
rder
req
uests
, b
ut
with t
he r
igh
t te
am
, no
t
genera
lly t
o t
he p
oin
t o
f b
eco
min
g a
n issue
. O
n t
his
part
icu
lar
pro
ject,
I w
as o
vera
ll d
issatisfied
with t
heir
perf
orm
ance, b
ut
it
was v
ery
much t
ied
to
the p
roje
ct
team
they h
ad
on t
he
jo
b.
There
were
als
o p
len
ty o
f F
onta
ine c
rew
on t
he p
roje
ct
that
perf
orm
ed
excelle
ntly, a
nd
oth
er
pro
ject
team
s I’v
e w
ork
ed
with h
ave u
nd
ers
too
d t
he v
alu
e o
f w
ork
ing
to
ge
ther
with
the
aw
ard
ing
auth
ori
ties a
nd
desig
n t
eam
to
ach
ieve t
he
best
end
results f
or
all
invo
lved
.
Fo
nta
ine
Bro
s.,
In
c.
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
We
st
Sp
rin
gfi
eld
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l N
ew
Pla
ins E
lem
en
tary
Sc
ho
ol
Ne
w P
lain
s E
lem
en
tary
Sc
ho
ol
Au
bu
rn M
idd
le S
ch
oo
l
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Lo
rra
ine
Fin
ne
gan
A
ng
ela
Wa
ng
, S
ch
oo
l D
ep
t. B
usin
ess M
gr.
V
ika
s M
ag
arv
ed
ark
ar
Eri
c M
oo
re
Co
mp
an
y
SM
MA
T
ow
n o
f S
ou
th H
ad
ley
Fo
rme
rly o
f Jo
ne
s W
hit
se
tt A
rch
ite
cts
L
am
ou
reu
x P
ag
an
o A
sso
cia
tes
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2/5
/2018 6
17-5
20-9
468
2/5
/2018
2/3
/2017
2/6
/2017 5
08-7
52-2
831
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l
pro
ject?
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
for
the D
esig
n f
irm
S
cho
ol B
usin
ess M
anag
er
– F
ina
ncia
l o
vers
ight
and
co
ntr
ol fo
r
the S
up
eri
nte
nd
en
t and
Scho
ol D
ep
art
ment/
Co
mm
itte
e
Pro
jec
t A
rchitect
for
Desig
ner
Pro
jec
t A
rchitect
for
the D
esig
n f
irm
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as
invo
lved
?
Scho
ol B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e: D
oug
Ma
tto
on 4
13
-43
7-3
059
Scho
ol B
usin
ess M
anag
er:
Kevin
Mc
Qu
illa
n 4
13
-263
-329
9
To
wn F
ac
ilities M
anag
er
413
-427-1
89
7
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent,
Nic
ho
las Y
ou
ng
Scho
ol C
om
mitte
e C
hair
, K
evin
McC
alli
ste
r
To
wn F
ac
ilities M
anag
er,
Mic
hael S
ulli
van
SB
C: D
iane M
ulv
aney
Sup
er:
PM
: Jo
e F
land
ers
Scho
ol B
uild
ing
Co
mm
itte
e:
Mark
Im
se, S
bc C
hairm
an
Scho
ol B
usin
ess M
anag
er:
C
ecelia
Wirzb
icki
To
wn F
ac
ilities M
anag
er:
Jo
e F
ahey
DP
W:
Oth
er:
Dr.
Mary
elle
n B
runelle
, S
up
t. O
f S
cho
ols
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
o
ther
key m
em
bers
of fr
om
the C
M
firm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: D
ave F
on
tain
e 5
%
PM
: Jim
Mauer
the
n t
aken o
ver
by D
ick R
aim
ond
i 60%
Sup
er:
Phil
Briand
10
0%
Safe
ty: M
arc
h F
reche
tte 5
%
PE
: C
hri
s F
onta
ine a
nd
David
Fo
nta
ine
PM
: M
ark
Feeney
Sup
er:
Mark
Ho
ga
n
PE
: D
ave F
on
tain
e S
r. /
Chri
s F
on
tain
e (re
tire
d)
PM
: M
ark
Feeney
Sup
er:
Mark
Ho
ga
n
Denn
is
LE
ED
: M
ark
Feeney
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
Mark
Ho
gan h
as s
up
er
energ
etic a
nd
invo
lved
with a
lo
t o
f fo
rward
thin
kin
g w
ith
no
excuses a
nd
ge
t it d
one
.
Altern
ative m
eans a
nd
meth
od
s u
tiliz
ed
at
tim
es t
o a
ch
ieve
desired
end
result i.e
. sheer
stu
d a
nd
ste
el w
ork
ing
to
geth
er
to
make it
wo
rk.
Pro
jec
t E
xec
utive: D
avid
Fo
nta
ine J
r.
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er:
Jam
ie B
lum
e
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent:
B
ill F
aneuf
Pre
-Co
nstr
uctio
n M
anag
er:
D
avid
Fo
nta
ine J
r.
MA
-CH
PS
Co
ord
ina
tor:
Jaso
n B
haja
n
BIM
/ME
P C
oo
rdin
ato
r:
Jan R
ein
hard
t (S
ub
co
nsu
lta
nt
To
Fo
nta
ine B
ros)
Fie
ld E
ng
ineer:
S
teve S
and
ers
on
Safe
ty P
ers
onnel
Bill
Fa
neuf’
s p
erf
orm
ance o
n t
he p
roje
ct
was e
xce
llen
t.
Ho
nesty
, fa
irness, cap
ab
ility
, re
sp
ecte
d b
y t
rad
es
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in
the d
iffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
This
was a
DB
B P
roje
ct
This
was a
DB
B P
roje
ct
FB
I cam
e o
n b
oard
aft
er
CD
s a
s it
was a
DB
B p
roje
ct.
Enjo
yed
wo
rkin
g w
ith t
hem
. S
eem
ed
sensitiv
e t
o t
he
desig
n a
nd
were
on p
oin
t w
ith c
onstr
uctio
n m
eans a
nd
meth
od
s a
nd
did
a g
oo
d
job
pro
vid
ing
a f
inis
hed
pro
duc
t w
ith f
orw
ard
th
inkin
g
so
lutio
ns.
Desig
n D
evelo
pm
ent:
E
xce
llen
t
Valu
e E
ng
ineeri
ng
: V
ery
Go
od
Co
nstr
uctio
n D
ocum
en
ts: E
xcelle
nt
File
d S
ub
Pre
qualif
icatio
n:
Excelle
nt
Clo
seo
ut:
V
ery
Go
od
Co
mm
issio
nin
g:
Very
Go
od
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they p
roactive?
Was t
here
litig
atio
n?
FB
I w
ork
ed
well
with
the f
ield
sub
bid
ders
and
oth
er
sub
s.
There
was s
om
e d
iscussio
n r
eg
ard
ing
the
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir
wo
rk o
n t
he F
SB
Maso
n a
nd
so
me o
f th
e w
ork
req
uired
rew
ork
. M
y r
eco
llectio
n is t
he M
BE
/WB
E r
eq
uired
a w
aiv
er
fro
m t
he s
tate
. T
hey a
re p
roactive,
there
were
cla
ims f
or
site
wo
rk t
hat
ultim
ate
ly g
ot
reso
lved
lo
cally
.
Fo
nta
ine B
ros.
pro
vid
ed
accura
te a
nd
tim
ely
reco
rds.
First
exp
erie
nce w
ith F
onta
ine.
Exceed
ed
exp
ecta
tio
ns.
WB
E/M
BE
: Y
es.
Litig
atio
n: N
o.
No
cla
ims…
FB
I w
as p
roactive a
s n
o s
urp
rises w
ere
to
lera
ted
.
No
issues w
ith t
heir p
erf
orm
anc
e. C
om
plia
nt
with W
BE
/MB
E.
Pro
active: Y
es, very
much
so
. N
o litig
atio
n.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
bud
get?
C
hange O
rders
?
Cla
ims
for
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
?
Do
cum
enta
tio
n?
The b
ud
get
was o
k,
altern
ate
s w
ere
accep
ted
.
The c
ha
ng
e o
rders
were
typ
ically
man
ag
ed
we
ll.
There
were
num
ero
us c
laim
s f
or
chan
ge o
rders
part
icula
rly
aro
und
site w
ork
and
ab
ate
men
t
There
were
no
bud
ge
t is
sue.
The
pro
ject
co
sts
and
po
tential
chang
es w
ere
tra
cked
eff
icie
ntly a
nd
revie
wed
weekly
(O
pen
bo
ok.)
Op
en t
o c
ha
ng
es b
ut
no
surp
rises. R
evie
wed
po
ten
tia
l cha
ng
es
weekly
and
tra
cked
and
ge
nera
ted
with p
ap
erw
ork
.
No
issues w
ith b
ud
get.
C
ha
ng
e O
rders
in t
ota
l w
ere
in a
neg
ative a
mo
unt.
D
ocum
enta
tio
n w
as v
ery
go
od
.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes, th
ey d
id a
ltho
ug
h t
he p
unch lis
t to
ok v
ery
lo
ng
to
clo
seo
ut.
Yes, th
e s
ched
ule
was m
et.
M
et
sched
ule
with c
halle
ng
es i.e
. S
teel co
min
g f
rom
Ca
nad
a
Yes.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
th
e O
PM
, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
? D
ay t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
Very
go
od
co
mm
unic
atio
n e
sp
ecia
lly o
nce
Dic
k c
am
e o
n
bo
ard
.
The G
C t
eam
was e
ng
ag
ed
and
kep
t all
sta
keho
lders
ap
prised
daily
and
part
icip
ate
d in w
eekly
meetin
gs.
Very
info
rmed
and
there
was c
ost
savin
gs w
ith m
od
ula
r
cla
ssro
om
s t
hat
were
a s
tones t
hro
w a
way f
rom
scho
ol
build
ing
tha
t allo
wed
fo
r th
e t
eam
to
be a
pp
roachab
le.
Co
mm
unic
atio
ns w
ere
exce
llen
t th
roug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
?
Scho
ol syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Wo
rked
very
well,
Dave F
on
tain
e liv
es in W
est
Sp
ring
fie
ld s
o
that
he
lped
.
Fo
nta
ine B
ros.
were
fair a
nd
a g
oo
d t
eam
to
wo
rk w
ith.
The
sched
ule
was c
ritical alo
ng
with s
afe
ty a
nd
qua
lity. F
onta
ine
co
ord
inate
d w
ith t
he
ir s
ub
s a
s n
ecessary
to
ensure
success.
They w
ere
sensitiv
e t
o t
he p
olit
ics a
nd
had
a u
ser-
frie
nd
ly
str
aig
htf
orw
ard
ap
pro
ach t
o t
he n
ew
co
nstr
uctio
n a
nd
were
very
co
nscio
us o
f safe
ty, n
ois
e a
nd
dust
imp
acts
on
oth
ers
FB
I w
as e
xcelle
nt
with a
ll p
art
ies inclu
din
g t
rad
e c
on
tracto
rs,
neig
hb
orh
oo
d a
nd
scho
ol syste
m.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts?
Overa
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes, I w
ould
wo
rk w
ith t
hem
ag
ain
. R
easo
nab
le, p
rac
tical a
nd
inte
reste
d in
gett
ing
the jo
b d
one w
ell.
Yes, th
ey w
ere
team
ori
ente
d a
nd
fair t
o a
ll p
art
ies.
Yes, te
am
is v
ery
im
po
rtan
t. D
ave
and
Chris F
onta
ine w
ere
gre
at.
Very
ap
pro
achab
le. F
ield
cra
ftsm
anship
and
assem
bly
and
seq
uencin
g w
ere
gre
at.
Yes. S
tro
ng
po
ints
: H
onesty
, F
air
ness, C
ap
ab
ility
, R
esp
ecte
d
By T
rad
es
Weak p
oin
ts: A
cco
un
ting
So
ftw
are
Co
uld
Be U
pd
ate
d
Overa
ll S
atisfa
cti
on:
Very
hig
h.
W.
T.
Ric
h C
om
pa
ny, In
c.
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Bri
dg
e B
osto
n C
ha
rte
r S
ch
oo
l N
ort
on
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l B
roo
ke
Ma
tta
pa
n C
ha
rte
r S
ch
oo
l L
eo
min
ste
r H
igh
Sc
ho
ol A
dd
itio
ns a
nd
Re
no
va
tio
ns
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Jam
es L
ieb
ma
n
Je
ff E
llio
tt
Ma
tt R
ice
B
ill R
oc
he
Co
mp
an
y
HM
FA
Arc
hit
ec
ts
JC
J A
rch
ite
ctu
re
Arr
ow
str
ee
t D
ae
da
lus P
roje
cts
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2
/1/2
018
617
-844
-212
4
2/2
/2018
2
/4/2
018
617
-520
-948
9
2/4
/2018
617
-451
-271
7
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l
pro
ject?
Arc
hitect’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
for
Co
nstr
uctio
n A
dm
inis
tratio
n.
Senio
r P
roje
ct
Desig
ner
for
the
Arc
hitect.
P
roje
ct
Manag
er/
Pro
ject
Arc
hitect
Ow
ner’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as
invo
lved
?
Yu
lly C
ha
, S
cho
ol’s E
xec
utive D
irec
tor
ycha@
brid
geb
osto
ncs.o
rg
R
ob
ert
Ba
ldw
in, O
wner’
s R
ep
Jo
n C
lark
e,
Execu
tive D
irecto
r
SB
C:
Yes
Scho
ol B
usin
ess M
anag
er:
Yes
To
wn F
ac
ilities M
anag
er:
Scho
ol F
acili
ties M
anag
er
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
o
ther
key m
em
bers
of fr
om
th
e C
M
firm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: B
rian
Sa
nto
s,
15
%
PM
: T
om
Ho
od
, 1
00
%
Ed
Co
nd
on,
10
0%
PC
M:
Bri
an S
an
tos,
15%
ME
P:
Ken N
ob
reg
a, 2
0%
Fie
ld E
ng
: Lee P
ap
as, 10
0%
Ed
Co
nd
on –
His
perf
orm
ances w
as g
oo
d. H
e w
ork
ed
well
with t
he a
rchitec
t and
tried
hard
to
get
thin
gs r
ight
and
und
ers
tand
the
inte
nt.
He d
id n
ot
fore
see issues w
ell
befo
re
they a
rose.
PE
: Jo
na
tha
n R
ich
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er:
Ste
ve R
om
an
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent:
Mik
e P
irre
llo
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ents
and
Assis
tant
were
bo
th e
xcelle
nt.
They
co
ord
inate
d w
ell
with s
cho
ol sta
ff o
n a
daily
basis
.
PE
: Jo
hn R
ich 5
%
PM
: B
ria
n S
an
tos 5
0%
Sup
er:
Tim
Cre
ed
100
%
PC
M:
Bri
an S
an
tos 5
0%
LE
ED
: K
en N
ob
reg
a 5
0%
ME
P:
Ken N
ob
reg
a 5
0%
Tim
Cre
ed
was o
ur
Sup
eri
nte
nd
en
t and
he w
as e
xtr
em
ely
co
mm
itte
d t
o t
he p
roje
ct
and
was a
n e
ffective
co
mm
unic
ato
r.
PE
: Jo
n R
ich
PM
: C
hris Q
uin
n
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent:
Jo
hn
De
Bett
enco
urt
LE
ED
: N
A
Safe
ty:
Art
Cla
es
Jo
hn
De
Bett
enco
urt
was a
very
str
on
g s
up
eri
nte
nd
ent.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w
well
did
they d
o? C
onstr
ucta
bili
ty?
Were
no
t hired
un
til aft
er
DD
. W
ork
ed
wit
h t
he r
est
of
the
pro
ject
team
to
get
the c
ost
to w
here
the c
lien
t need
ed
it
to
be in V
alu
e E
ng
ineeri
ng
. P
art
icip
ate
d in s
om
e r
evie
w b
ut
limited
in C
Ds. W
ell
manag
ed
pro
cess f
or
FS
B q
ua
lific
atio
n
pro
cess. W
ell
manag
ed
pro
cess t
o o
bta
in T
CO
, co
mp
lete
punch
lis
t and
clo
se o
ut.
WT
Ric
h w
as f
ully
eng
ag
ed
thro
ug
h e
ntire
pro
cess, and
the
ir
early e
ffo
rts t
ow
ard
s c
onstr
uc
tab
ility
and
co
st
co
ntr
ol p
aid
div
idend
s late
r in
the
pro
ject.
DD
: C
ost
estim
ating
, p
erm
ittin
g a
nd
co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty r
evie
w
and
sup
po
rt
VE
: S
ug
gestio
ns w
ere
off
ere
d
CD
: C
onstr
ucta
bili
ty r
evie
ws w
ere
perf
orm
ed
File
Sub
Pre
q: P
art
icip
ate
d in r
evie
w p
rocess
Clo
seo
ut:
Was e
ffic
ien
t
CX
: C
oo
rdin
ate
d t
rad
e c
on
tracto
r eff
ort
s in r
eso
lvin
g C
xA
co
ncern
s.
Very
invo
lved
and
help
ed
a g
rea
t d
eal w
ith F
iled
Sub
Pre
qualif
icatio
n.
Very
invo
lved
and
wo
rked
to
clo
se o
ut
item
s e
ffic
iently.
CX
: V
ery
invo
lved
and
wo
rked
to
clo
se o
ut
item
s e
ffic
iently
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they p
roactive?
Was t
here
litig
atio
n?
WT
Ric
h s
uccessfu
lly c
om
ple
ted
the
challe
ng
e o
f m
eetin
g a
very
tig
ht
sched
ule
fo
r a d
ifficult g
ut
reno
/ad
ditio
n w
ith
part
icula
rly d
iffic
ult late
nt
co
nd
itio
ns. T
here
were
mu
ltip
le
ow
ner
chang
e o
rders
inclu
din
g m
ajo
r site r
eco
nfig
ura
tio
ns t
o
avo
id led
ge, and
the a
dd
itio
n o
f a f
ull
co
mm
erc
ial kitche
n
aft
er
co
nstr
uctio
n b
eg
an. U
nd
er
these c
ond
itio
ns t
he C
M
successfu
lly g
ot
the
Ow
ner
into
the b
uild
ing
befo
re t
he s
tart
of
scho
ol. E
arly o
n, W
T R
ich
warn
ed
the t
eam
the s
uccess
wo
uld
invo
lve t
rad
e-o
ffs, co
nte
ntio
us m
om
ents
, and
a lo
ng
punch
lis
t. It
did
. T
he P
roje
ct
manag
em
en
t te
am
was
co
nscie
ntio
us,
and
str
ove t
o u
nd
ers
tand
the d
esig
n in
ten
t
and
to
execute
acc
ura
tely
and
care
fully
. T
hat
said
, W
T R
ich
str
ug
gle
d t
o lo
ok b
eyo
nd
the n
ext
task a
nd
oft
en d
idn't
identify
issues b
efo
re t
hey b
ecam
e p
rob
lem
s o
n s
ite.
Only
one lin
geri
ng
pu
nch lis
t item
and
WT
Ric
h w
as p
roactive
bring
ing
the p
art
ies t
o a
so
lutio
n.
No
issues w
ith p
erf
orm
ance o
r W
BE
/MB
E.
We h
ad
one M
BE
sub
(ste
el) w
ho
was c
halle
ng
ing
to
wo
rk w
ith b
ut
the
CM
was
pro
active in
sup
po
rtin
g t
ha
t sub
to
ac
hie
ve a
po
sitiv
e
outc
om
e.
No
issues
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
bud
get?
C
hange O
rders
?
Cla
ims f
or
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
? D
ocum
enta
tio
n?
Charg
e o
rder
manag
em
ent
was s
low
and
oft
en c
onte
ntio
us.
Their f
oc
us (ap
pro
priate
ly) w
as o
n f
inis
hin
g t
he w
ork
.
W. T
. R
ich w
as v
ery
bud
get
co
nscio
us w
hile
resp
ecting
the
desig
n inte
ntio
ns a
nd
ed
ucatio
nal d
eliv
ery
meth
od
s.
Bud
ge
t m
anag
em
ent
was w
ell
do
ne w
itho
ut
any c
oncern
s o
f
no
te.
No
issues
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes
All
dead
lines o
n c
om
ple
x m
ulti-
phase p
roje
ct
were
met.
Y
es, ag
gre
ssiv
e 1
2 m
onth
sched
ule
was m
et
and
scho
ol
sta
rted
on
tim
e.
Yes.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
?
Day t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the
pro
ject?
Very
well.
So
metim
es d
ay t
o d
ay a
nd
alw
ays w
eekly
. S
up
erio
r co
mm
unic
atio
ns f
rom
all
levels
of
the C
M t
eam
. W
eekly
OA
C m
eeting
s w
ere
held
, w
hic
h w
ere
run b
y t
he C
M.
Mo
nth
ly o
verv
iew
rep
ort
s w
ere
issued
.
No
issues h
ere
, d
id v
ery
well
to k
eep
all
part
ies info
rmed
.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
?
Scho
ol syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Very
well.
O
uts
tand
ing
team
pla
yers
. C
M w
as p
roactive in c
om
munic
atio
ns w
ith
all
part
ies n
ote
d
ab
ove w
hic
h m
ad
e f
or
a s
mo
oth
pro
cess.
Manag
ed
tra
de s
ub
co
ntr
acto
rs v
ery
we
ll, w
ork
ed
we
ll w
ith
city o
ffic
ials
, scho
ol fa
culty/a
dm
in, a
nd
neig
hb
orh
oo
d
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll
satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes, I w
ould
reco
mm
end
wo
rkin
g w
ith t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
.
They k
ep
t th
e p
roje
ct
mo
vin
g a
nd
overc
am
e s
erio
us issues
during
co
nstr
uctio
n. W
eak p
oin
ts w
as f
ore
seein
g issues
befo
re t
hey a
rose. O
vera
ll satisfa
ctio
n is f
air
ly h
igh.
Yes, E
xce
llen
t C
M b
ring
ing
valu
e t
o t
he t
eam
, lo
okin
g o
ut
for
bo
th t
he O
wner
and
Desig
n T
eam
’s in
tere
sts
in
bett
erm
en
t o
f
the p
roje
ct.
Yes, p
roje
ct
execu
tive
was a
str
eng
th a
s w
as a
ge
nera
l
ap
pro
ach t
ha
t d
id n
ot
seem
overh
ead
-heavy, g
ivin
g t
he
sense t
hat
the p
roje
ct
itself w
as t
he h
ighest
prio
rity
. H
igh
satisfa
ctio
n.
Yes
W.
T.
Ric
h C
om
pa
ny, In
c.
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Ze
rva
s E
lem
en
tary
Sc
ho
ol
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Ale
x V
alc
arc
e
Co
mp
an
y
Cit
y o
f N
ew
ton
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2
/6/2
018
61
7-7
96
-10
00
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l
pro
ject?
Dep
uty
Co
mm
issio
ner
of
Pub
lic B
uild
ing
s
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as
invo
lved
?
In r
ole
, he is in
charg
e f
rom
the C
M S
ele
ctio
n P
rocess t
o
Clo
seo
ut,
wo
rks t
hro
ug
h S
D g
ett
ing
ap
pro
vals
, and
wo
rkin
g
thro
ug
h f
und
ing
and
pro
cure
ment
matt
er
and
hand
les t
he
Desig
n a
nd
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n C
ontr
ac
ts.
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of fr
om
the C
M
firm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: Jo
n R
ich
PM
: S
teve R
om
an s
tart
ed
and
the
n C
hri
s Q
uin
n t
oo
k o
ver.
Bo
th a
re n
o lo
ng
er
with
WT
Ric
h a
ny lo
ng
er.
Sup
er:
Jack H
anle
y
PC
M:
Ste
ve R
om
an
ME
P:
Ste
ve K
ou
tala
kis
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w
well
did
they d
o? C
onstr
ucta
bili
ty?
WT
R c
am
e o
n b
oard
duri
ng
SD
Phase f
or
Pre
Co
nstr
uctio
n
Serv
ices.
Rating
:
Estim
ating
: 8
of
10
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty:
8 o
f 1
0
Pre
qualif
icatio
ns:
10
of
10
Valu
e E
ng
ineeri
ng
: 8
of
10
Clo
seo
ut:
8 o
f 1
0
Cx: 8
of
10
Duri
ng
Co
nstr
uctio
n p
hase,
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
kep
t th
e p
roje
ct
mo
vin
g w
ith s
ub
s.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E
req
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they p
roactive?
Was t
here
litig
atio
n?
No
issues. M
et
WB
E/M
BE
req
uirem
ents
. N
o litig
atio
n.
Giv
en t
hem
a 7
of
10 f
or
bein
g p
roactive. N
o litig
atio
n
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
bud
get?
C
hange O
rders
?
Cla
ims f
or
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
? D
ocum
enta
tio
n?
Chang
e O
rders
were
no
t excessiv
e.
Pro
cessin
g c
hang
e
ord
ers
wo
uld
be r
ate
d a
6 o
f 1
0.
There
was s
om
e d
iscussio
n
reg
ard
ing
the in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f a c
han
ge a
nd
who
ow
ned
it
fro
m t
ime t
o t
ime.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes. S
cho
ol o
pened
on t
ime b
ut
they d
idn’t
meet
the
Sub
sta
ntia
l C
om
ple
tio
n d
ate
of
6/3
0 u
ntil 8
/1
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
?
Day t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the
pro
ject?
They w
ere
go
od
to
ge
t th
e p
roje
ct
do
ne o
n t
ime. H
ow
ever,
their
co
mm
unic
atio
n w
as b
ett
er
duri
ng
the
Pre
Co
n p
hase
than
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n p
hase a
s t
hey a
cte
d m
ore
lik
e a
GC
duri
ng
Co
nstr
uctio
n t
ha
n t
hey p
erf
orm
ed
as a
CM
. O
fte
n w
hat
was
str
ate
giz
ed
duri
ng
Pre
Co
n d
id n
ot
reach t
he f
ield
pers
on
nel
and
it
too
k c
are
ful exam
ina
tio
n t
o g
o b
ack a
nd
make s
ure
it
was f
ollo
wed
thro
ug
h.
Pre
Co
n C
om
munic
atio
n w
as 9
of
10
Co
nstr
uctio
n C
om
mun
icatio
n w
as 8
of
10
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y?
Tra
de
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
?
Scho
ol syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Pre
Co
n C
om
munic
atio
n w
as 9
of
10
Co
nstr
uctio
n C
om
mun
icatio
n w
as 8
of
10
Rate
overa
ll: 9
of
10
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll
satisfa
ctio
n?
WT
R h
as b
een h
ired
fo
r 3
scho
ols
in N
ew
ton w
ith C
ab
ot
Ele
menta
ry c
urr
ently u
nd
erw
ay.
Str
en
gth
: P
ushin
g s
ched
ule
on s
ub
s a
nd
perf
orm
ing
to
meet
sched
ule
; W
eakness: N
eed
mo
re c
om
munic
atio
n.
Wh
itin
g-T
urn
er
Co
ntr
ac
tin
g C
om
pa
ny
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Ha
rtfo
rd C
lassic
al M
ag
ne
t
Sc
ho
ol – H
art
ford
, C
T
Du
nd
alk
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l /
So
lla
rs
Po
int
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l – D
un
da
lk, M
D
UM
ass L
ab
& S
cie
nc
e B
uild
ing
–
Am
he
rst,
MA
DC
AM
Ph
ysic
s/S
cie
nc
e B
uild
ing
– A
mh
ers
t, M
A
Ch
am
pio
ns C
en
ter
– A
mh
ers
t, M
A
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Pe
tin
a K
illia
ny
Pa
ul H
um
e
Ma
tt E
llsw
ort
h
Ja
co
b W
arn
er
Ro
b C
ollin
s
Co
mp
an
y
Arc
ad
is
Gri
eve
s W
orr
all W
rig
ht
&
O’H
atn
ick
, In
c.
Wilso
n A
rch
ite
cts
W
ilso
n A
rch
ite
cts
P
MA
Co
nsu
ltin
g
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2
/1/2
018
2
/5/2
018
410
-332
-100
9
2/2
/2018
617
-338
-599
0
2/1
/2018
617
-338
-599
0
2/1
/2018
78
1-5
19
-10
74
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l
pro
ject?
OP
M
Desig
ner/
Arc
hitect
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
and
Pri
ncip
al In
Charg
e
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
/ P
roje
ct
Arc
hitect
Ow
ner’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as invo
lved
?
Mayo
r and
pub
lic m
em
bers
in 2
006
B
altim
ore
Co
un
ty P
ub
lic S
ch
oo
ls F
acili
ties
Dep
art
ment
over
saw
all
new
co
nstr
uctio
n a
nd
reno
vatio
ns
NA
N
A
NA
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m t
he C
M f
irm
?
Pro
ject
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
Sr
PM
was B
ob
Schaeff
er
Sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
was R
aj P
ate
l
PE
: D
avid
Meyer
PM
: A
lan O
sw
ald
and
Mic
k R
ayb
urn
Meg
an M
cF
arla
nd
Gra
nt
Cu
nn
ing
ham
Fie
ld S
up
er:
To
dd
Co
nfe
r
To
dd
did
a g
reat
job
with
the s
ize a
nd
co
mp
lexity
of
the p
roje
ct
as h
e w
as p
roactive, o
rga
niz
ed
and
perf
orm
ed
deta
iled
insp
ecti
ons o
f w
ork
and
co
ord
inate
d.
An e
xam
ple
is w
hen
there
was a
skylig
ht
deta
il, h
e m
ad
e s
ure
all
5 c
ontr
acto
rs
that
had
to
wo
rk w
ith t
he d
eta
il w
ere
all
in t
he
kno
w a
bo
ut
the intr
icacie
s o
f th
e d
eta
il.
Sup
er:
Jo
hn C
urr
an
Hig
hly
org
an
ized
– o
ut
fro
nt,
full
dis
clo
su
re
Sup
er:
Jo
hn C
urr
an
Very
go
od
fie
ld s
up
erv
isio
n /
co
ord
inatio
n.
Pro
jec
t is
ong
oin
g.
Never
chang
ed
Sup
ers
and
co
mm
unic
atio
n s
kill
s
were
wo
nd
erf
ul.
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he
diffe
rent
phases o
f th
e w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
This
was a
5 p
hase p
roje
ct
where
co
ord
inatio
n
and
co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ere
key d
uri
ng
tra
nsfe
r
fro
m p
hase t
o p
hase a
s t
here
was a
n a
dd
itio
n
and
reuse c
onvers
ion c
om
po
nen
t o
f a
n ind
ustr
ial
build
ing
to
the n
ew
scho
ol. T
here
was o
nly
1
incid
en
t to
sp
eak o
f w
here
it
was a
lesso
ns
learn
ed
. T
arr
ing
of
roo
f p
resen
ted
fum
es in t
he
scho
ol.
Cam
e o
nb
oard
20
% into
DD
. W
ork
ed
in
Co
sting
and
lo
gis
tics,
Div
isio
n 0
0 s
co
pin
g d
ocum
en
tatio
n
and
wo
rked
as C
onstr
uctio
n M
anag
em
ent
Ad
vis
or
Manag
ed
site a
nd
prim
e c
ontr
acto
rs,
wo
rked
on
so
me o
f th
e V
alu
e e
ng
ineerin
g f
or
the p
roje
ct
with t
he B
altim
ore
Co
un
ty S
cho
ols
Wo
rked
well
thro
ug
h D
D t
o C
Ds e
stim
ating
to
co
me in u
nd
er.
Did
a g
rea
t jo
b a
nd
were
very
pro
active.
Clo
seo
ut
and
Cx w
as u
nd
er
the D
esig
n t
eam
.
Went
sm
oo
thly
becau
se t
he M
ech c
ontr
acto
r
was d
ecent.
DC
AM
was p
hased
pro
ject,
very
co
mp
licate
d
with e
arly p
ackag
es –
alw
ays o
rga
niz
ed
W-T
was b
roug
ht
on ¾
in
to D
D.
They w
ere
go
od
during
valu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
and
CD
s. H
igh
valu
e o
f
wo
rk a
nd
had
insig
ht
no
t d
up
licate
d b
y p
revio
us
co
mp
any. K
no
wle
dg
e o
f th
e p
rocess (S
tate
pro
cess) is
hig
h.
Pro
ject
is s
till
und
er
co
nstr
uc
tio
n.
Co
st
str
ug
gle
s d
uri
ng
valu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
. T
here
were
2 v
alu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
exerc
ises a
nd
W-T
perf
orm
ed
well.
Very
sup
po
rtiv
e.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he
perf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
? C
om
plia
nce
with W
BE
/MB
E r
eq
uirem
ents
? W
ere
they
pro
active? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
No
issues w
ith t
heir p
erf
orm
ance o
n t
he p
roje
ct.
They w
ere
very
pro
active a
nd
there
was n
o
litig
atio
n.
W-T
was p
roactive. N
o litig
atio
n. N
o issues w
ith
their
perf
orm
ance.
W-T
was p
roactive. T
here
was n
o litig
atio
n.
WB
E/M
BE
req
uirem
en
ts –
exceed
ed
in b
oth
.
Pro
active –
yes. N
o litig
atio
n.
Go
od
onsite.
No
litig
atio
n. W
-T w
as p
roactive
. M
ee
ting
the
WB
E/M
BE
was a
cha
llen
ge.
W-T
mad
e b
est
eff
ort
to
pro
vid
e d
ocum
ents
to
meet
the
req
uirem
ents
.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get?
Change O
rders
? C
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal
work
? D
ocum
enta
tion?
Orig
inal co
st
estim
ate
was h
igh a
nd
with
a
red
uctio
n o
f sco
pe t
hey w
ere
ab
le t
o b
ring
the
pro
ject
in w
ell
und
er
bud
get
and
end
ed
up
giv
ing
a c
heck b
ack t
o t
he c
ity. N
o c
han
ge o
rders
ou
t
of
the o
rdin
ary
with p
ricin
g a
nd
mo
st
were
at
the
Ow
ner’
s r
eq
uest.
No
thin
g o
ut
of
the o
rdin
ary
… t
he a
mo
un
t o
f
chang
es a
nd
savin
gs in
bud
get
was s
o lo
w t
hat
Baltim
ore
Co
un
ty t
eam
ed
ag
ain
with t
hem
fo
r
ano
ther
scho
ol b
uild
ing
.
On b
ud
ge
t – a
ccura
te e
stim
ate
s a
nd
hig
hly
org
aniz
ed
do
cum
en
tatio
n.
Pro
jec
t w
as u
nd
er
bud
ge
t. B
ids v
s. estim
ate
s
(W-T
was m
ore
co
rrect.
)
Reaso
nab
le. N
o issues. W
ork
ed
with u
s.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes. T
here
were
no
mis
sed
date
s. T
here
was o
ne
issue w
ith m
ois
ture
tha
t aro
se o
n t
he g
ym
flo
or
and
they w
ent
back a
nd
wo
rked
it
thro
ug
h t
o
reso
lve.
Yes
Yes, w
ith
multip
le s
ched
ule
s (co
mp
licate
d
co
nstr
uc
tio
n).
On s
ched
ule
curr
en
tly.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the
OP
M, O
wner
and
oth
ers
info
rmed
? D
ay
to d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the p
roje
ct?
The t
eam
is t
here
every
day w
ith t
he
OP
M –
every
thin
g w
en
t very
well.
Arc
hitect
was
co
ntr
actu
ally
bo
und
to
them
.
Co
mm
unic
ate
we
ll. B
i-w
eekly
pro
cess m
eeting
s.
If issues a
rose a
meeting
was s
et
and
tho
se
invo
lved
were
co
nta
cte
d t
hro
ug
h e
to
ad
dre
ss t
he issues a
nd
keep
every
one in t
he
loo
p. O
wner
too
k o
wners
hip
of
wo
rkin
g w
ith
co
mm
unity o
n c
om
munity m
att
ers
.
Daily
meeting
s –
ou
t fr
ont
– a
ll p
art
ies invo
lved
V
ery
go
od
co
mm
unic
atio
n b
etw
een
all. P
roje
ct
is
ong
oin
g.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to
work
with e
very
bod
y? T
rad
e
Sub
co
ntr
acto
rs?
Neig
hb
orh
ood
? S
cho
ol
syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Wo
uld
giv
e t
hem
a 9
out
of
10
. T
hey h
ad
sta
ffin
g
chang
es a
nd
they w
ere
unno
ticeab
le a
nd
seam
less.
PM
was r
esp
onsib
le f
or
the s
ched
ule
and
acco
unta
ble
with t
he S
up
erinte
nd
ent
and
estim
ating
was d
one b
y t
hem
as w
ell
so
they h
ad
a g
reat
hand
le o
n s
ched
ule
and
bud
get
at
all
tim
es.
It w
as a
pro
ject
ble
nd
ing
2 b
uild
ing
s into
1 a
nd
merg
ing
one c
om
munity p
op
ula
tio
n t
hat
was in
the m
ajo
rity
bla
ck a
nd
the o
ther
co
mm
unity
white a
nd
merg
ing
them
into
one c
om
mun
ity. It
went
very
sm
oo
thly
initia
ted
by t
he O
wner.
Manag
ed
sub
s v
ery
well
with c
onta
ct
daily
C
M h
and
ling
of
issues w
ith s
ub
s w
as s
eam
less.
A lo
t o
f co
nstitu
ents
– S
tate
/lo
ca
l g
overn
men
t
etc
. G
oo
d a
t navig
ating
all.
No
issues.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts? W
eak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Wo
uld
defin
ite
ly w
ork
with
their t
eam
ag
ain
. B
altim
ore
Co
un
ty t
eam
ed
ag
ain
with t
hem
fo
r
ano
ther
scho
ol b
uild
ing
. S
co
re t
hem
with
a 9
ou
t
of
10
. D
esig
ner
was p
roac
tive t
o id
en
tify
pitfa
lls.
They w
ere
gre
at
at
pla
nn
ing
and
exec
utio
n a
nd
tend
ed
to
wo
rk t
o k
eep
peo
ple
hap
py b
y f
ixin
g
and
reso
lvin
g m
att
ers
.
Very
go
od
BIM
; p
reco
nstr
uctio
n w
as g
reat.
O
vera
ll – v
ery
po
sitiv
e
Yes.
Su
ffo
lk C
on
str
uc
tio
n
Pro
jec
t N
am
e
Em
ers
on
Co
lle
ge
1-3
Bo
yls
ton
Pla
ce
R
eg
is C
olle
ge
R
eg
is C
olle
ge
S
ale
m S
tate
O’K
eefe
Ath
leti
c C
en
ter
Re
fere
nc
e N
am
e a
nd
Tit
le
Ro
ss C
am
ero
n
Th
om
as P
isto
rin
o
Bri
an
Me
ye
r Jim
Ro
ge
rs
Co
mp
an
y
Elk
us M
an
fre
di A
rch
ite
cts
R
eg
is C
olle
ge
C
ollie
rs I
nte
rna
tio
na
l L
eft
Fie
ld,
LL
C
Da
te C
alle
d /
Te
lep
ho
ne
No
. 2/5
/2018 6
17-4
29-1
300
2/1
/2018 7
81-7
68
-7075
2/1
/2018 6
17-3
30-8
094
2/1
/2018
617-7
37-6
400
1.
What w
as y
our
role
in t
he s
choo
l p
roje
ct?
P
roje
ct
Manag
er
for
Desig
ner
CF
O f
or
co
lleg
e a
nd
overs
igh
t o
f all
facili
ty a
nd
co
nstr
uc
tio
n p
roje
cts
Ow
ner’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
Ow
ner’
s P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
2.
Who
els
e f
rom
the T
ow
n w
as invo
lved
?
NA
N
A
NA
N
A
3.
Who
was t
he P
roje
ct
Manager
and
oth
er
key m
em
bers
of
fro
m t
he C
M f
irm
? P
roje
ct
Executive, P
roje
ct
Manager
and
Sup
erinte
nd
ent.
PE
: F
rank C
ram
er
PM
: K
evin
Cham
berlain
Sup
er:
Fra
nk R
ond
eau
PE
: S
ean
Ed
ward
Sup
er:
Mic
hael H
ealy
Team
was t
op
-shelf. T
hre
e p
eo
ple
onsite a
t all
tim
es
fro
m P
M w
ith
diffe
rent
exp
ert
ise a
nd
pro
ble
m-s
olv
ing
pro
actively
PE
: C
ha
ng
e f
rom
Pe
ter
Gia
rdin
i to
Sea
n E
dw
ard
duri
ng
pro
ject
PM
: M
ichael H
eale
y
Sup
er:
Jake B
ow
ler
and
Ric
hard
Mayo
Excelle
nt
co
mm
un
icatio
n w
ith t
he
Co
lleg
e, ne
ighb
ors
,
tow
n a
nd
co
mm
unity.
Pro
jec
t w
as 5
or
6 y
ears
ag
o…
diffic
ult r
ecalli
ng
who
.
Team
wo
rked
well
with
all
site t
ours
, w
ere
pro
active, and
excelle
nt
thro
ug
ho
ut
dura
tio
n o
f th
e p
roje
ct
4.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the C
M p
art
icip
ate
in t
he d
iffe
rent p
hases
of
the w
ork
?
Ho
w w
ell
did
they d
o?
Co
nstr
ucta
bili
ty?
Very
go
od
..,
too
k lead
ro
le a
nd
co
ord
ina
te b
uild
ing
,
pro
ble
m s
olv
ers
and
co
ntr
ibute
d e
xte
nsiv
ely
thro
ug
ho
ut
all
phases
Very
larg
e f
irm
, very
he
lpfu
l th
roug
ho
ut
the
en
tire
pro
ject.
Sta
rted
on t
he
pro
ject
in D
D.
Gre
at
LE
ED
ap
pro
ach,
help
ed
make it
a c
ost
eff
ective p
roje
ct
and
pro
vid
ed
cre
ative s
olu
tio
ns a
long
the w
ay. Lo
ts o
f re
so
urc
es a
nd
help
ed
with a
lo
t o
f th
ing
s t
ha
t w
ere
outs
ide t
he
ir s
co
pe
when n
eed
ed
with little t
roub
le i.e
. C
om
mencem
ent
ten
t
need
ed
to
be insta
lled
in
an a
rea o
f th
e c
am
pus t
ha
t had
recently h
ad
a lo
t o
f w
ate
r d
ue t
o inc
lem
ent
weath
er
and
they p
rovid
ed
a s
olu
tio
n a
nd
a c
rew
to
make it
hap
pen
quic
kly
and
easily
.
Suff
olk
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n w
as g
rea
t. T
hey w
ere
go
od
at
every
thin
g. T
here
was a
little s
ched
ule
issue
that
aro
se a
t
the e
nd
but
it w
as n
ot
10
0%
Suff
olk
's f
ault (w
eek o
r 2
late
at
the e
nd
.) C
oo
rdin
atio
n c
ould
have b
een a
little
bett
er
tow
ard
s t
he e
nd
to
avo
id t
he d
ela
y b
ut
overa
ll th
ey
were
gre
at
with t
he v
alu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
, had
inven
tive
ways o
f re
so
lvin
g issues a
s t
hey a
rose a
nd
go
t th
e jo
b
do
ne.
Suff
olk
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n w
ork
ed
very
well
on
this
pro
jec
t and
it w
as a
successfu
l p
roje
ct.
There
was g
oo
d c
oo
rdin
atio
n
with k
ey invo
lvem
ent
with t
he
sam
e P
roje
ct
Ma
nag
er
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
Info
rmatio
n t
ransfe
r w
as g
reat
tho
ug
h a
ll le
vels
of
the o
rganiz
atio
n a
nd
in
tera
cting
wit
h
the s
cho
ol a
nd
off
icia
ls. T
hey h
ad
an e
xce
llent
Pre
-CM
team
and
they d
id a
gre
at
job
with t
he v
alu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
the jo
b. V
alu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
was v
ery
im
po
rtan
t o
n t
his
pro
ject
and
Suff
olk
pla
yed
an im
po
rtan
t ro
le in
co
ntr
ibuting
their inp
ut
thro
ug
ho
ut
and
pro
vid
ing
cre
ative
so
lutio
ns d
uri
ng
valu
e e
ng
ineeri
ng
tha
t he
lped
with t
he
tig
ht
bud
get
on t
he p
roje
ct.
Clo
seo
ut
was p
rom
pt
and
Co
mm
issio
nin
g w
ent
well.
5.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he p
erf
orm
ance o
f th
eir
work
?
Co
mp
liance w
ith W
BE
/MB
E r
eq
uirem
ents
?
Were
they p
roactive? W
as t
here
litig
atio
n?
No
. D
efinitely
pro
active
. R
ep
ort
pre
sen
ted
at
OA
C a
nd
co
ntin
ually
im
pro
ved
. N
o.
There
were
no
issues w
ith t
he p
erf
orm
ance o
f th
eir w
ork
.
Co
mp
liant
with W
BE
/MB
E a
nd
alw
ays p
roactive
thro
ug
ho
ut.
No
litig
atio
n.
The y
ear
this
pro
ject
was b
ein
g
do
ne, M
A r
eceiv
ed
a g
reat
am
ou
nt
of
sno
wfa
ll a
nd
Suff
olk
was m
ore
than
reaso
nab
le t
o w
ork
with t
he
Co
lleg
e w
ith s
ched
ule
acco
mm
od
atio
ns.
There
were
no
issues r
eg
ard
ing
Suff
olk
's p
erf
orm
ance
.
They w
ere
in c
om
plia
nce w
ith
WB
E/M
BE
req
uirem
ents
.
Co
nsta
ntly p
roactive t
hro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
There
was
no
litig
atio
n a
t a
ny t
ime d
uri
ng
the p
roje
ct.
There
were
no
issues w
ith S
uff
olk
's p
erf
orm
ance o
n t
he
pro
ject.
They w
ere
co
mp
liant
with a
ll re
quirem
ents
and
were
pro
active t
hro
ug
ho
ut
the la
tter
part
of
desig
n a
nd
into
co
nstr
uc
tio
n le
nd
ing
their e
xp
ert
ise w
here
need
ed
for
so
lutio
ns. T
here
was n
o litig
atio
n.
6.
Were
there
any issues w
ith t
he b
ud
get?
C
hange
Ord
ers
? C
laim
s f
or
ad
ditio
nal w
ork
? D
ocum
enta
tio
n?
Em
ers
on c
arr
ied
co
nting
ency a
nd
Suff
olk
were
go
od
at
manag
ing
all.
Exactly o
n b
ud
get.
No
thin
g o
ut
of
the o
rdin
ary
and
alw
ays w
ork
ed
with t
he
Co
lleg
e r
eg
ard
ing
pri
cin
g t
o k
eep
within
bud
get.
Do
cum
enta
tio
n w
as g
oo
d.
No
issues t
hro
ug
ho
ut
the
pro
ject.
Whe
n t
here
were
questio
ns o
n p
ricin
g,
they w
ere
dis
cussed
, w
ork
ed
thro
ug
h a
nd
reso
lved
rela
ting
to
Chang
e O
rders
.
Pro
jec
t had
yo
ur
typ
ical tig
ht
bud
ge
t and
chang
es w
ere
tig
ht
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct
but
Suff
olk
manag
ed
it
well
keep
ing
their
eye o
n t
he b
ud
get
and
sco
pe.
7.
Did
they m
eet
the s
ched
ule
?
Yes a
nd
beat
it b
y a
co
up
le w
eeks.
Y
es, in
clu
din
g t
he a
cco
mm
od
atio
ns m
ad
e f
or
the
excessiv
e s
no
wfa
ll d
uri
ng
the p
roje
ct.
Yes. S
ched
ulin
g d
isru
ptio
n w
as d
ue t
o c
hang
e in s
enio
r
sta
ff w
hen
lead
ers
hip
left
the c
om
pany f
or
ano
ther
op
po
rtun
ity.
Excelle
nt
manag
em
en
t o
f th
e s
ched
ule
. M
et
all
mile
sto
nes t
hro
ug
ho
ut
on
tim
e.
8.
Ho
w w
ell
did
the c
ontr
acto
r keep
the O
PM
, O
wner
and
o
thers
info
rmed
? D
ay t
o d
ay a
nd
thro
ugho
ut
the
pro
ject?
Co
nstr
uctio
n t
eam
in h
ouse b
ut
cle
rk o
f th
e w
ork
s w
as
basic
ally
co
-lo
cate
d in t
he o
ffic
e.
Very
well
info
rmed
thro
ug
h w
eb
-based
to
ols
that
were
up
date
d in
RealT
ime
. R
eg
ula
r m
eeting
s s
ched
ule
d a
nd
decis
ions m
ad
e, w
ork
thro
ug
h a
ny issues t
ha
t aro
se o
n
the p
roje
ct
Gre
at
co
mm
unic
atio
n, g
rea
t sup
eri
nte
nd
ent
to h
elp
the
job
go
we
ll, r
eg
ula
r m
eetin
gs w
eekly
and
daily
with
diffe
rent
part
ies t
o e
nsure
all
mo
ved
alo
ng
well.
Pro
jec
t M
anag
er
and
Pro
ject
Exec
utive w
ere
gre
at
and
kep
t g
reat
co
mm
unic
atio
n t
hro
ug
ho
ut
the
pro
ject.
Em
ails
were
sent
with a
ll p
art
ies k
ep
t in
the lo
op
, re
gu
lar
meeting
s w
he
ther
it w
as d
aily
with t
he c
rew
or
weekly
with t
he c
onstr
uc
tio
n m
eeting
s f
or
the e
ntire
pro
jec
t.
9.
Ho
w w
ould
yo
u r
ate
the C
M’s
ab
ility
to w
ork
with
every
bod
y? T
rad
e S
ub
contr
acto
rs? N
eig
hb
orh
oo
d?
Scho
ol syste
m? O
vera
ll?
Very
hig
h.
They h
ave g
iven a
no
ther
pro
jec
t to
this
sam
e
team
.
Wo
uld
rate
them
with a
10
ou
t o
f 10
. B
efo
re w
ork
ing
with
them
I w
asn't
co
nvin
ced
as t
heir r
ep
uta
tio
n w
as t
oug
h
but
wo
rkin
g w
ith t
hem
on
this
pro
jec
t, I w
as c
onvin
ced
they w
ere
the b
est
to w
ork
on t
he
pro
ject
sin
ce t
hey w
ere
so
go
od
to
wo
rk w
ith.
They w
ere
gre
at
with a
ll o
f th
e
trad
e c
ontr
acto
rs, co
mm
un
ity a
nd
neig
hb
ors
thro
ug
ho
ut
the p
roje
ct.
They w
ere
gre
at
to w
ork
with
and
we
nt
ab
ove a
nd
beyo
nd
.
Very
go
od
inte
rface w
ith a
ll o
f th
e t
rad
e c
on
tracto
rs,
neig
hb
ors
and
scho
ol em
plo
yees. A
lways w
ork
ing
thro
ug
h s
olu
tio
ns w
here
there
may h
ave b
een issues o
r
co
nflic
ts, key w
as c
om
munic
atio
n a
nd
bein
g o
pen t
o
so
lvin
g t
he p
rob
lem
s.
10.
Wo
uld
yo
u h
ire t
his
co
mp
any a
gain
?
Str
ong p
oin
ts?
Weak p
oin
ts? O
vera
ll satisfa
ctio
n?
Yes, S
tro
ng
team
… v
ery
go
od
at
seq
uencin
g t
he
co
nstr
uc
tio
n a
nd
lo
okin
g m
onth
s a
head
. S
ite a
ccess w
as
limited
96,0
00 s
f b
uilt
thro
ug
h 1
4 f
t o
penin
g.
Fo
und
them
to
be a
n incre
dib
le c
red
ible
fir
m t
o w
ork
with.
Every
thin
g h
ap
pens w
ith
no
excuses f
or
it n
ot
be
ing
acco
mp
lished
. C
ontr
act
was f
air
and
there
are
no
weaknesses t
o s
peak o
f fo
r S
uff
olk
Co
nstr
uctio
n.
Have h
ired
Suff
olk
Co
nstr
uc
tio
n s
evera
l tim
es s
ince t
his
pro
ject.
Str
eng
ths a
re t
hat
Suff
olk
is a
big
machin
e w
ith
lots
of
reso
urc
es. N
o w
eaknesses.
Yes, w
ould
defin
ite
ly w
ork
with
Suff
olk
ag
ain
. T
heir
str
eng
th is b
ein
g a
larg
e f
irm
tha
t is
pro
fessio
na
l and
alw
ays w
ork
ing
thro
ug
h s
olu
tio
ns. H
ave s
ince w
ork
ed
with S
uff
olk
on o
ther
pro
jects
and
been
very
hap
py.
There
are
no
weaknesses w
ith S
uff
olk
.
