Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-21 School Building Architect Selection SubcommitteeMeeting notes Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee Date; May 21, 2002 Place: Guidance Conference Room, RMHS Time: 6:30 PM Present: Richard Radville (RR) Jeffrey Struble (JS) Dennis LaCroix DL) LJ DL opened the meeting at 6:30, and asked the committee if there were comments on reference checks on the 7 firms noted at the last meeting. RR noted that he had contacted 4 references re HMFH, 2 re Office of Michael Rosenfeld, and 2 re Strekalovsky and Hoit. RR said that in general, all references were excellent. A few individuals offered comments about minor situations where they felt the architect or his consultants could have done better, but they felt the architect responded well and got through the issue well, RR felt that no reference comments would justify a change in position of any firm from the results of the previous meeting. JS offered that he had contacted 3 references re Design Partnership, and 4 re Flansburgh. Again, all references offered excellent comments, and JS felt that all references felt the firms were technically competent. JS had questioned the references extensively on construction phasing issues. JS described a conversation re the Westborough High School (Design Partnership), where the architect recommended that a program of 4 summers and three school years be used, but the town pressured the architect to come up with a plan of 3 summers and two school years. Ultimately, the shorter schedule could not be achieved, through no fault of the architect, noted the reference. The reference suggested that we be realistic when the phasing plan is discussed. JS noted that he had high hopes that the Malden High project had great similarities to RMHS in terms of phasing without additions to use as swing space, but found that the City actually intends to vacate the building in large part for the duration of construction. JS also noted that all towns were hiring construction project managers, and that they recommended that the firm have actual construction experience. DL had contacted 3 references re Tappe and 2 re DRA. Again, DL found no complaints of any substance. All references felt the firms did very well on the phasing issues and were very much up to the task. DL noted that all firms had individuals who were easy to work with, communicated well, acted professionally at all times, and in general knew their business. DL noted that all firms used the people represented at the RFQ and interview phase, had senior people in charge, and there was no diminution of service. Resident Tom Ryan asked about the difference between a Clerk of the Works and a construction project manager. RR explained that a construction project manager was generally a firm hired by the town to represent the town to the contractor and to assist in the design process, particularly from a "constructability" perspective. The construction project manager can also assist in a phasing plan design. RR further explained that a Clerk of the Works is generally an individual hired by the town to. be on site during construction every day, to monitor job progress and quality control issues. Meeting notes Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee Date: May 21, 2002 Page 2 of 2 All present agreed that there was no reason (based on the reference check process) that advice offered to the full committee should be changed from that suggested in RR's memo of May 14. RR moved to adjourn at 7:00. Motion was seconded by JS and the vote was unanimous. Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted - LZ- Caller ~-~Datefi 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant 6ouPed of planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements ofducational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? ) 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? S Me l c-vie G----- 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? a Ekoz-- Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Q Person Contacted Caller Date ~At? cl 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. fkp U+ 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? vVII , 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? y,~4 ° fJhcLP>n ~ ~~c--;, 2- 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? (---:b S h6 r),l,, 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? VIA ~.~C71r, w Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process Schematic Design Phase A p Architectural Firm: r Person Caller Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? fie. 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests, fqr innform tion and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significant phasing i sue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? r~ a 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Ar" Contacted SCI 1 I- May, 2002 reference check ques{~'_tions Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: _ Person Contacted AQ)I ~ Caller M Date PL(k / Yr~ 'k-- a y c,,~,- . 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real plannin recommendations. re4 G ~pav-\ d 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? ~.r r- 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? s-a JJ 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 61 6,sbr1I-Yftft4 1Ss~-e~ Y)C- -O.AA "AA-A) 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? VH,k I J V,/ pvk 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? a e1 - 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 1-rt P- Gr-~ - o4n fl, ov-e,~o LI-' I I b~ PVC C~9 Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted Caller Date C73 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. avt"., al I 0 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? V" Wp"-- 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? M u~ 7 Irt~a~--- 4. Was there a significant phasin issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? V" &~q d1w / 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? tylA J G~~ ~ a-~a S n ~ rte.-.. lv~ ~ tn...•-~ ~ 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? ~ ~ Je4 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted ~JL Caller Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. w-c~- 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? r z>~ e-t 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? E'er - Y-~~~~v 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? eJ ~ +x AA 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Reading Memorial. High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm:Person Contacted l J --Q-- Caller Date 5/l 4-/0 'Z 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations.. , A 0"O-r el Me-,-q C) 2It P r) 9ra 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significant phasing issue wi your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? pM Co.t,,~a-.e Ce- mot, 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? I Is - 0.6+ ve-SrA 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design?" ~vIdwT c~ 11~; 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? q wv/ e P° s~~A v--( - rate M vfai~e r,,v7,eV-° Meeting notes Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee Date; May 21, 2002 Place: Guidance Conference Room, RMHS Time: 6:30 PM Present: Richard Radville (RR) Jeffrey Struble (JS) Dennis LaCroix DL) w, P b": L! DL opened the meeting at 6:30, and asked the committee if there were comments on reference checks on the 7 firms noted at the last meeting. RR noted that he had contacted 4 references re HMFH, 2 re Office of Michael Rosenfeld, and 2 re Strekalovsky and Hoit. RR said that in general, all references were excellent. A few individuals offered comments about minor situations where they felt the architect or his consultants could have done better, but they felt the architect responded well and got through the issue well, RR felt that no reference comments would justify a change in position of any firm from the results of the previous meeting. JS offered that he had contacted 3 references re Design Partnership, and 4 re Flansburgh. Again, all references offered excellent comments, and JS felt that all references felt the firms were technically competent. JS had questioned the references extensively on construction phasing issues. JS described a conversation re the Westborough High School (Design Partnership), where the architect recommended that a program of 4 summers and three school years be used, but the town pressured the architect to come up with a plan of 3 summers and two school years. Ultimately, the shorter schedule could not be achieved, through no fault of the architect, noted the reference. The reference suggested that we be realistic when the phasing plan is discussed. JS noted that he had high hopes that the Malden High project had great similarities to RMHS in terms of phasing without additions to use as swing space, but found that the City actually intends to vacate the building in large part for the duration of construction. JS also noted that all towns were hiring construction project managers, and that they recommended that the firm have actual construction experience. DL had contacted 3 references re Tappe and 2 re DRA. Again, DL found no complaints of any substance. All references felt the firms did very well on the phasing issues and were very much up to the task. DL noted that all firms had individuals who were easy to work with, communicated well, acted professionally at all times, and in general knew their business. DL noted that all firms used the people represented at the RFQ and interview phase, had senior people in charge, and there was no diminution of service. Resident Tom Ryan asked about the difference between a Clerk of the Works and a construction project manager. RR explained that a construction project manager was generally a firm hired by the town to represent the town to the contractor and to assist in the design process, particularly from a "constructability"_-perspective. The construction project manager can alsoassist in a phasing plan design. RR further explained that a Clerk of the Works is generally an individual hired by the town to be on site during construction every day, to monitor job progress and quality control issues. Meeting notes Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee Date: May 21, 2002 Page 2 of 2 All present agreed that there was no reason (based on the reference check process) that advice offered to the full committee should be changed from that suggested in RR's memo of May 14. RR moved to adjourn at 7:00. Motion was seconded by JS and the vote was unanimous.