Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-28 School Building Architect Selection Subcommittee Reading School Building Committee Architect Selection subcommittee,Schematic Design Phase May 28,2002, revised May 30, 2002 f" A Firm Avg Position Jeff S. 'Dennis L. Rich R. rank Points Rank Rank Points Rank Points Rank w Flansburgh 2.66 2 1-09 2 3 97 3 Tappe ??? ? 102 Tie 5/6 Out 75 Tie 8/9 Kaestle Boos 6.33 7 100 7 8 84 4 HMFH 1.33 1 2 104 1 SMMA 8.66 8 100 8 7 70 11 Alderman McNeish Out 62 13 HKT — out 92 10 Out 71 10 OMR --5.-66 —4 --1-02 —fie—5/6 5 76 Tie 6/7 Strekalovsky&Hoit 6.0 6 98 82 5 V Design Partnership ---�.O �-3 —105 —3 98 72- McManus Peterman out 57 Out 63 12 DRA 5.83 5 --1-04 -47— 575 Tie 8/9 ()no Dore&Whit�ie—r —out — g 11 --Out48 14 Turner Group out 76 —14— Out 38 16 — ARCADD out 72 15 5— Mt. Vernon out 88 12 Out 76 Tie 6n is-oa I Reading High, Schematic Design Phase May-02 Architect selection - summary s i3 0> Uennis Jeff S. Richard R. total �� w " FIRM Flansburgh A 3A 0 - Tappe B 0 Kaestle Boos j} 0 HMFH A 0 SMMA A - 0 -6 0 3 0 MR A 5i 0 trekalovsky & Hoit A - 5* 0 Design Partnership 0 AOIeManustPetwmang 0 DRA A 0 0 Twmer9naw 0 13 0 i3 0 r � J z f v/ 9,f3 �f Reading School Building Committee clo Reading Public Schools o 82 Oakland Road Reading,MA 01867 .r���SS. May 31, 2002 David Finney, AIA Design Partnership p COPY 500 Rutherford Avenue Charlestown, MA 02129 Dear Mr. Finney: This letter follows and confirms the earlier telephone call to you from Russ Graham, Chair of the Reading School Building Committee. Mr. Graham called to notify you that our Committee has selected another firm, Flansburgh&Associates,to perform the schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. On behalf of the Committee, I want to again thank you and your colleagues for your response to our RFQ for this very important project. We were impressed with Design Partnership's portfolio of work, the resumes of its personnel,and your thoughtful interview with the Committee. We greatly appreciate the obvious hard work you put into the entire RFD process. As other projects arise for Reading's schools,we hope we will see Design Partnerships in the mix again. Sincerely, Dennisnis J� � Member, School Building Committee Chair,Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-944-4260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Hamtunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c%Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 31, 2002 Sidney R. Bowen, III 77 Norurgh&Associates ® COPY 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114-1910 Dear Mr. Bowen: This letter follows and confirms the earlier telephone call to you from Russ Graham, Chair of the Reading School Building Committee. Mr. Graham called to notify you that your fine has been selected by that Committee to perform the schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Our Committee congratulates you and your colleagues, and thank you again for your participation in our RFQ for the RMHS renovation. We were impressed with Flansburgh's portfolio of work, the experience of your personnel,and your thoughtful interview with the Committee. We greatly appreciate the obvious hard work you put into the entire RFQ process. Please know that,with great expectations and excitement, we look forward to getting underway and working closely with you on this very important project. Sincerely, in I errreely,, � Dennis J. Lacro Member, School Building Committee Chair,Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-944-4260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Handunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading,MA 01867 May 31, 2002 George R. Metzger,AIA HMFH As COPY 130 Bishopop Allen Drive Cambridge, MA 02139 In Dear Mr. Metzger: This letter follows and confirms the earlier telephone call to you from Russ Graham, Chair of the Reading School Building Committee. Mr. Graham called to no*you that our Committee has selected another firm, Flansburgh &Associates, to perform the schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. On behalf of the Committee, I want to again thank you and your colleagues for your response to our RFQ for this very important project. We were impressed with HMFH's portfolio of work, the resumes of its personnel, and your interview with the Committee. We greatly appreciate the hard work you put into the entire RFQ process. As other projects arise for Reading's schools,we hope we will see your firm in the mix again. Dennis J. LaCr6bc �� Member, School Building Committee Chair,Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-944-4260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee C/o Reading Public Schools j( v 82 Oakland Road May 23, 2002 Reading, MA 01867 102 JL;; 14 p p: 51 Sidney R. Bowen, III By Fax and Mail Flansburgh & Associates [617-720-7873] 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114-1910 ® copy Dear Mr. Bowen: This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed your firm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview is scheduled for 9:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day. Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will make up the firm's project team. Since we may be working together for some time, we want to meet the individuals who will be responsible for this project, and identify their respective roles. Second, we expect that you will relate your experience and qualifications specifically to their fit for our high school renovation effort. Please do not simply repeat what's in your proposal, but directly address the project at hand. Third, of particular interest to the Committee is the phasing of this project— please focus on this. Phasing is a very important issue, especially as we will need to cope with a lack of swing space in the building. Fourth, the concerns of our faculty and staff are important factors in this project, and we expect to hear how you will get to know and consider these concerns going forward. Fifth, we would like your thoughts on our proposed project schedule. We cannot promise to change it, but would appreciate your comments on it. z 1 will be your liaison with the Committee for the interview process, and can be reached at the telephone numbers given below. Please arrive 15 minutes before your scheduled time so that you can set up and begin your presentation on time. If you have any requests for information or site visits, please contact either the office of the Superintendent, Dr. Harry Harutunian, at (781) 944-5800 or by fax at (781) 942-9149, or RMHS Principal Frank Orlando at 781 944-8200, as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in this important project. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dennis J. L C - d Member, School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-9444260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R: Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent cac ,ono GhNLYMB CLINICAL AFFAIRS i1�.J 001 kxMiMx%xMx MMMMx Mi3xxM Mxx TX REPORT kxz %Mkk%%ikx MMxx%kix%kxx TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 3192 CONNECTION TEL 916177207873 SUDADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 05/23 12:05 USAGE T 00'24 PGS. SENT 2 RESULT ON m Reading School Building Committee P c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road E ` 3 k c Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Sidney R. Bowen, III By Fax and Mail a a Flansburgh & Associates [617-720-7873] Z 77 North Washington Street a N 4- Boston, MA 02114-1910 N Dear Mr. Bowen: 8 This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed yourfirm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview Is scheduled for 9:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day. Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will y,,,,,_, oi....-I— -- he,un.4inn fnn.Ihor fnr enmp Reading School Building Committee _ _:�,.� v c/o Reading Public Schools Ss. 82 Oakland Road Reading, J0 MA 01867 ZGu1 ;! I P 4: S I May 23, 2002 David Finney, AIA By Fax and Mail Design Partnerhip [617-241-5143] 500 Rutherford avenue Charlestown, MA 02129 Dear Mr. Finney: ir� copy This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed your firm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview is scheduled for 8:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day. Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will make up the firm's project team. Since we may be working together for some time, we want to meet the individuals who will be responsible for this project, and identify their respective roles. Second, we expect that you will relate your experience and qualifications specifically to their fit for our high school renovation effort. Please do not simply repeat what's in your proposal, but directly address the project at hand. Third, of particular interest to the Committee is the phasing of this project— please focus on this. Phasing is a very important issue, especially as we will need to cope with a lack of swing space in the building. Fourth, the concerns of our faculty and staff are important factors in this project, and we expect to hear how you will get to know and consider these concerns going forward. Fifth, we would like your thoughts on our proposed project schedule. We cannot promise to change it, but would appreciate your comments on it. 2 1 will be your liaison with the Committee for the interview process, and can be reached at the telephone numbers given below. Please arrive 15 minutes before your scheduled time so that you can set up and begin your presentation on time. If you have any requests for information or site visits, please contact either the office of the Superintendent, Dr. Harry Harutunian, at (781) 944-5800 or by fax at (781) 942-9149, or RMHS Principal Frank Orlando at 781 944-8200, as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in this important project. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dennie- d ' I Member, School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-944-4260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutuhian, Superintendent oi, aa� ioeu GENZYME CLINICAL AFFAIRS r�001 r xffixxxxxxxxxxxxx#xxxxx xxx TX REPORT xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 3194 CONNECTION TEL 916172415143 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 05/23 12:07 USAGE T 00'27 PGS. SENT 2 RESULT OR Reading School Building Committees y c/o o Reading Public Schols o e 82 Oakland Road 10 : u° Reading, MA 01867 E o LL S May 23, 2002 EE5 m David Finney, AIA By Fax and Mail i Design Partnerhip [617-241-5143] L 500 Rutherford avenue a + Charlestown, MA 02129 w n Dear Mr. Finney: 8 a 3 c This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be Interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed your firm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These Interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview is scheduled for 8:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day, Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will make up the firm's oroiect team. Since we may be workina together for snme Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 George R. Metzger, AIA By Fax and Mail HMFH Architects [617-876-9775] 130 Bishop Allen Drive COPY Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Mr. Metzger: This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed your firm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview is scheduled for 7:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day. Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will make up the firm's project team. Since we may be working together for some time, we want to meet the individuals who will be responsible for this project, and identify their respective roles. Second, we expect that you will relate your experience and qualifications specifically to their fit for our high school renovation effort. Please do not simply repeat what's in your proposal, but directly address the project at hand. Third, of particular interest to the Committee is the phasing of this project—please focus on this. Phasing is a very important issue, especially as we will need to cope with a lack of swing space in the building. Fourth, the concerns of our faculty and staff are important factors in this project, and we expect to hear how you will get to know and consider these concerns going forward. Fifth, we would like your thoughts on our proposed project schedule. We cannot promise to change it, but would appreciate your comments on it. 2 1 will be your liaison with the Committee for the interview process, and can be reached at the telephone numbers given below. Please arrive 15 minutes before your scheduled time so that you can set up and begin your presentation on time. If you have any requests for information or site visits, please contact either the office of the Superintendent, Dr. Harry Harutunian, at (781) 944-5800 or by fax at (781) 942-9149, or RMHS Principal Frank Orlando at 781 944-8200, as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in this important project. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ` 'M V," Dennis J. a d Member, School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee 781-9444260 (home) 617-761-8313 (work) cc: R. Graham,SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent <ae ,oay VENLYXE CLINICAL AFFAIRS 0001 $$s TX REPORT $sx TRANSMISSION ON TX/RX NO 3193 CONNECTION TEL 916178769775 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION IO ST. TIME 05/23 12:06 USAGE T 00'25 PGS. SENT 2 RESULT OK µ Reading School Building Committee m E c c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 .E May 23, 2002 N George R. Metzger, AIA By Fax and Mail HMFH Architects [617-876-9775] 130 Bishop Allen Drive Cambridge, MA 02139 y _ Dear Mr. Metzger: This confirms that the Reading School Building Committee has selected your firm to be interviewed on its qualifications to perform schematic design services for the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. You have already been contacted by telephone by our committee's Chair, Russ Graham, to inform you of your selection. The Committee reviewed your firm's response to its April 5, 2002 Request for Qualifications for those services, and chose it and two other firms for interviews by the Committee. These interviews will take place on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 7, 8, and 9 PM in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 82 Oakland Road, Reading (where the vendor's conference took place). Your interview is scheduled for 7:00 PM. Each interview will last no longer than 45 minutes. The first 20 to 25 minutes of the interview will be your firm's presentation, followed by a 20 to 25 minute question and answer session. The Committee will likely select the successful firm shortly after the final interview that night, and will notify you of your firm's status the next day. Please note that the Committee has some threshold expectations for your presentation and interview. First, we expect to meet the personnel who will make up the firm's project team. Since we may be working together for some n Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road L[.1 I ''4 Reading, MA 01867 May 22, 2002 Edward R. Frenette, AIA 1000Symmes Ma sack s McKee Associates O I.—� n 1000 Massachusetts Avenue jlJo—) V Cambridge, MA 02138 Dear Mr. Frenette: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, JD Dennis J. LaCroix 1�ts' Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Mark L. Sirulnik, AIA President Alderman & MacNeish 594 Riverdale Road West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Mr. Sirulnik: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Roger 0. Hort, AIA Strekalovsky & Hoit, Inc. 51 North Street Hingham, Ma. 02043 Dear Mr. Hoit: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, D ,"dn co V Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Michael J. McKeon, AIA Vice President Kaestle Boos Associate, Inc. 124 Grove Street, Suite 215 Franklin, Ms. 02038 Dear Mr. McKeon: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c%Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Martin A. Kretsch, Principal The Office of Michael Rosenfeld, Inc. 543 Massachusetts Avenue West Acton, Ms. 01720 Dear Mr. Kretsch: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Owen Beenhouwer, AIA President Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc. 141 Herrick Road, P.O. Box 299 Newton Centre, Ms. 02469-0299 Dear Mr, Beenhouwer: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, � �r ral FIT Dennis J. LaCroix C Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Jeffrey R. Davis, AIA Tappe Associates, Inc. Six Edgerly Place Boston, Ma. 02116 Dear Mr. Davis: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® copy Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 R. John Dore President Dore & Whittier, Inc. 1400 Hancock Street Quincy, Ms. 02169 Dear Mr. Dore: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, In COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c%Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Tom C. Peterman McManus Peterman Architects, Inc. 27 Moulton Street Cambridge, Ma. 02138 Dear Mr. Peterman: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® Copy Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c%Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Loren M. Belida, AIA Senior Vice President H.L. Turner Group, Inc. 27 Locke Road Concord, NH 03301-5417 Dear Ms. Belida: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. It the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, Ll COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee cyo Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Hisham N. Ashkouri, Ph.D., AIA President ARCADD 1185 Washington Street West Newton, Ma. 02465 Dear Mr. Ashkouri: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01887 May 23, 2002 Frank Siraco, AIA Mount Vernon Group, Inc. 20 Cabot Road Woburn, Ms. 01801 Dear Mr. Siraco: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® c®Pr Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 W. Eric Kluz, AIA HKT Architects, Inc. 35 Medford Street Somerville, Ms. 02143 Dear Mr. Kluz: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, ® copy Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent OF Reading School Building Committee c/o Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 May 23, 2002 Edward R. Frenette, AIA Symmes Maini & McKee Associates 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Dear Mr. Frenette: Thank you for your firm's response to the Reading School Building Committee's recent Request For Qualifications for schematic design services in the proposed renovation of Reading Memorial High School. Unfortunately, your firm is not among the three firms this Committee chose to interview as a next step in the selection process. However, if after these interviews, the Committee does not select one of those firms for the project, we will certainly re-consider your firm's qualifications. We will contact you directly if such a situation arises. The selection process should conclude over the next two to three weeks. Our selection of 3 firms to interview was not simple or easy. Our Architect Selection Subcommittee was given sixteen competent and thorough RFQs to review and report on to the full Committee. It was clear that each responding firm had made a strong effort to demonstrate its ability to perform the work we require. Consequently, the Subcommittee's deliberations were lengthy, and its recommendations to the full Committee, of necessity, passed over many capable candidates. Again, we thank you for your interest in this project. We do appreciate all the time, work, and expense that went in to submitting your response package. If the Committee ultimately does choose another firm, we hope that you will try again, should Reading issue other requests for architectural services in the coming years. Sincerely, Li COPY Dennis J. LaCroix Member, Reading School Building Committee Chair, Architect Selection Subcommittee cc: R. Graham, SBC Chair H. Harutunian, Superintendent Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) ,1SS. Firm: 1UD1 UPS BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy .i NOTE: IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score _ 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 1 y 2. Experience with complex phased projects _20 /3 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 c� 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process _ 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 3 _ 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 9 SCORING CATEGORIES- PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 4 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 9 p Signature of reviewer and date 11;1/ '/ ,�9 <J Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: /dlC i fs BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 t 6 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 if- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 tY 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 /0 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 �0 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 7 SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 7. 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 6 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 y GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 92. Signature of reviewer and date S/f1/o't i Reading School Building Committee (3 Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation-May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy ✓ NOTE. IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score I. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notiust new construction) 20 /G 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 /5 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 „t 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 o 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 q 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 °! 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 6 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 f GRAND TOTAL RA TING 120 t o 0 Signature of reviewer and date b, ✓-4J S /_L_3 /Ot Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts .� 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONSABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER fe- ra-; SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 /G 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 _ I'D 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 t 7 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 to SCORING CATEGORIES-PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 tr 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 'r GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 /uz Signature of reviewer and date ,., O Reading School Building Committee /� Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase CD Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) _20 1 y 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20_ 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 /Y 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 /0 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 9 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 G SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 10 S 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 �. 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 y 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 S GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 g3 Signature of reviewer and date i � s- GIL Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May,2002 (Use backjor any comments) Finn: Sire /c4 G�sk l�G,fi_ BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO I. Registration man Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved V1 3. Carries$1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy i/ NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONSABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum _Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects _ 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process _ 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process _ 10 to 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 _— SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 tf 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 S GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 E3 Signature of reviewer and date U f/Is /ot Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Finn: AF 0'4b P BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE., IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP_ Go NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) _20 17 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 0 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 } 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 S SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 y GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 7L Signature of reviewer and date C-/ l .a 5 1r3 hoz � t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation-May,2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: p � BASIC QUALIFICATIONS �Y� YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES- ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects _ 20 ,yq� i5 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 _Gg- /6 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 � o 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 1,9 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 3 SCORING CATEGORIES- PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 _ 9 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 S- 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 S' GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date ti/ dot 9 t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase L J Architectural Firm Evaluation—May,2002 (Use backfor any commends) Firm: Ard # l✓`a Ne' G BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO I. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 /3 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 _ lo 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 I Z 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 io 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 �o 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 7 SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 10 T 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 1120 45 Signature of reviewer and date �✓• ` --/ S! 3 hoz Reading School Building Committee ° Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May,2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THEANSWER ANYOF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) _20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 S 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 S- 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 i SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 _ 'i 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 �- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 ,t- 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date ( / cL S (13 �0- Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Finn Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backjor any comments) Finn: 'll.- BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts (/ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy t. NOTE' IFTHEANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONSABOVEISNO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 / 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 to 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 S SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 _ 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 7- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 5— GRAND TOTAL F,4 TING 120 Signature of reviewer and date L' a Reading School Building Committee J Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Finn: r1 � 'e�� h,�r3 G BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy ✓ NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 z� 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 19 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 In 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 I J 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 p SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 o 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 } 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 S' GRAND T/OTAALL RAATING 120 /09 Signature of reviewer and date ✓ c:c� f/�J /�z 13 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: 4 BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 Y 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 1 l' 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES- PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 8 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 _T 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 y 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 S GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 100 0 Signature of reviewer and date (✓ - - f(�} t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: _ 14rr Fra Arc BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved " 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 20 -t,D 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 'Z 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 (9 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 (0 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 t 3 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES- PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 8 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 �- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 .r 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 d� GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 _ /2- Signature of reviewer and date 1i /0 z. Reading School Building Committee tJ Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: 4,L BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy ✓ NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONSABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 13 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 I( 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 1 t 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 0 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 6 SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 10 6 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 4 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 �7 6 Signature of reviewer and date �� S L/. /(3 U2 Reading School Building Committee C/ 6 Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 /_� 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 16 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 /6 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 /o 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 9 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 10 9 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 G 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 _ S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process _ 5 S GRAND TOTAL RAAT_IIN�G� 120 (or Signature of reviewer and date Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase ( v Architectural Firm Evaluation—May,2002 (Use backfor any comments) iLu2 Ju" I ,i P 4 50 Firm: 5 (}2ekat oysY� l Qi r BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policyy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANYOF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS N0, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASICREQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES-ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 /2- 4. 24. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 / 5. Past experience with SHAH approval process 10 / 0 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES-PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects(not just new construction) 10 �J 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 4' 3. Past experience of individualsproposed for project 5 Q' 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 . lid Signature of reviewer and date J- C I � O1 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation–May,2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: M P BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 O 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 Qi 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 0 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 _) SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 SD 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 —I5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 / Signature of reviewer and date Q,tLg_.2 , - r� UZ Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: �- , 'L± BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries$1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 110 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 11110 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 ) `6 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 to 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 c7 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 S 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 S� 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 3 ,��GRRSAND TOTAL RATING 120 )y Signature of reviewer and date 1�' `1""'Q--P' �- - 13 u2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: 1 L) P l 11l}2 BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO I. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts V 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 3 5. Past experience with SBAB.approval process 10 3 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 0 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 10 �O 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 _ 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 3 '/—�/ GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 ov Signature of reviewer and date dam` " A� !�- I S O2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy C/ NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 / 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 / u 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 10 S 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 77 Signature of reviewer and date Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: (A,6 BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 O 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 S 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 5 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 2) SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 b 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 '71 _ �GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date S I I (D z Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: V4+- V e,lW01/\ BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 1 q-- 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 (b 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 I J 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 /o 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 y SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 ) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date 5 - I 1 U -L Reading School Building Cotrunittee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation —May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: I U Q rJ Y�2 �u Q CSII� BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy V/ NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 20 f 0 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 '7- 3. 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 U 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 3 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 3 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 3 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 4- 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 _ Signature of reviewer and date ' Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May,2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: Hj!�'-r' BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts V 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 L) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 O 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 13 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 1 D 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 Io 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 1 ') SCORING CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 LD 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND -71 TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date Pi-A'Z.P_' 1 I 0Z Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation-May, 2002 (Use backfoornany comments) Firm: ��cLt'-r(V1tiG +1 Yv�C� 2l�,h BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved V 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score I. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 5� 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 / C) 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 / 0 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 7 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 �p 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 2 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 S GRANDTOTALRATING 120 �OIiw Signature of reviewer and date ¢7` LR C - 1� U2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use backfor any comments) Firm: M M� BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts V 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 7 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 ( b 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 V SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 11 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 2 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 ^J GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 70 Signature of reviewer and date P '�g ' h-� 'UZ Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Finn Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts V 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 J-2- 2. Z2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 I 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 ro 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date S • t 3 J l Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: �P' f � BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts V 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved ✓ 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE. IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 _IZ-0 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 17 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 1 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 U 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 l 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 I 0 SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 10 b- 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 2 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL TOTAL RATING 120 7 Signature of reviewer and date Qll� C - I %. d t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: O R A BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts ✓ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 'T 3. Carries$1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy V NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES -ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 i C 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 J SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 0 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 5 ^, �GRAND TOTAL RATING) 120 / Signature of reviewer and date Ion ^t�-6� Reading School Building Conunittee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation —May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: MC Mc R - IAA C' . BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 D 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 O 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 S 4. Past experience in public work,primarily public bidding process 10 2 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 2- 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 / O SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 / O 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 3 Signature of reviewer and date 9 9�" S' I 0`L Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation—May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: (Jl� 1CclJ p�Q i hsl��� l P BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts L/ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy v NOTE: IF THE ANSWER ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS NO, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP- GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 421. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 14- 2. . Experience with complex phased projects 20 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 /O 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 /c' 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups to — SCORING I b CATEGORIES -PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (notjust new construction) 10 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 `a 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 S GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and dates Reading Memorial High School,Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase refereince check questions Architectural Firm: C Person Contacted 301 Caller '� .r..xi. _ Date 1. How knowledgea le was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate use'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 y rand uninteresting? l" tf"�`^w"` 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? gyp, �t-ti,2.x.��t✓� -�t "Y"°"Y �.°�`"� . _ . 4. Was there a signific n phasing'issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? I 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? +- -C-U �'4 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in thgfixm of was_r_esbility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? g �� c Yom J �n� 3mm ^w._.i.vA-s-+uctik t:wl . -F N ' J Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May,2002 Schematic Design Phase �reference check questions Architectural Firm: P?� Person Contacted /T✓ J Z CallerDate 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. VL 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? I'I 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? y Y3f 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? L7 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 exrstin�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? u 0 Ir 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? f Reading Memorial High School,Architect Selection Process May,2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm- Person Contacted Caller 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. i Gia_j�- 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? A-C4� �b L110-1 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? 6. How well did the architect research exist g documents and existing conditions in preparation for plarming and design? I\ 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? J / /, y 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? ,p�,� ,,.Et<� � �&�,39s /� ��'° �- � .� I-Lu�-�� ,�.�'t� � — ���,, _s'.- �y�� FIs.;. i ; I_ �€1 iia �d ��8' f ' // i 1l �,.r, ) 3 k '4 �..t.w�3�1 o,ti-�.., 1 a��n��a�,� A ����?ttYo-„�,� Meeting notes Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee Date; May 21, 2002 Place: Guidance Conference Room,RMHS HEZ A" ! L' P 4: 4 3 Time: 6:30 PM Present: Richard Radville(RR) Jeffrey Struble(JS) Dennis LaCroix DL) 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 Hort. 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 rims 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 Date: May 21, 2002 Reading School Building Committee RMHS Architect Selection subcommittee 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. Town of Reading, MA Reading School Building Committee Architect Selection Subcommittee Memorandum To: Members of the School Building Committee Fr. Richard Radville Date: May 14, 2002 The subcommittee has completed its review of the Architect's submittals. In preparation for Tuesday's meeting, we want to ask for your help in a final evaluation step. We have strong agreement on the top three candidates. These are: Design Partnership Flansburgh Associates HMFH After those three,the evaluations of the subcommittee varied somewhat. The following three firms were ranked highly by two members of the committee, but not by the third member. Tappe Associates Strekalovsky and Hoit DRA Further detailed group discussion on these three firms changed their rankings somewhat,but also brought a fourth firm into contention—The Office of Michael Rosenfeld. The result is that we have the top three firms and four others that we could consider for the fourth interview slot. We request that all members of the committee take some time prior to Tuesday to review the proposals from these four firms, and be prepared to discuss the merits of each: Tappe Associates Strekalovsky and Hoit DRA The Office of Michael Rosenfeld The subcommittee is going to try to check references on all 7 firms this week. Please feel free to call me at 944-1192 or 617 723-8808 with any questions.