The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-05-21 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesRECEIVED Reading School Building Committee RE - CL ERK Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on May 21, 2002, 7: DING, t14 SS. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) 'JUL 12 Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Ray Porter (RP) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Rich Radville (RR) Alex McRae (AM) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) Tim Twomey (TT) Bill Carroll (BC) Featured Guests: Dr. Harry Harutunian (Superintendent) Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS) Cheryl O'Brien (Asst. Principal - RMHS) RG opened the meeting by stating that the main purpose of it was to hear the recommendations of the architect evaluation sub-committee for likely candidates for the job of preparing a schematic design for the renovation of Reading Memorial High School. This sub-committee reviewed all sixteen sets of qualifications submitted in answer to the Committee's RFQ and was directed to rank them and present the top ranking firms to the main Committee for further consideration. The sub-committee members were DL, RR and JS. Sub-committee chairperson DL began by stating that the sub-committee met on May 6th and May 13th, with the latter date being the session in which the individual reviews were presented and discussed. The result was clear agreement on the top three candidates, those being Flansburgh Associates, The Design Partnership of Cambridge and HMFH Architects. There was sufficient disagreement on the recommendation of a fourth candidate to merit a memo to the Committee at large (copy attached), asking that the submittals of the next four candidates be studied prior to this meeting. DL explained that this came about because each of the candidates which ranked fourth, fifth and sixth had two out of the three sub-committee members placing them highly while the third member marked them much lower. This two-to-one scenario occurred in different combinations for each of these three candidates - Drummey Rosane Anderson, Tappe Associates and Strekalovsky and Hoit - such that each sub-committee member served as ` "oddman out". -DL went on to say that a-second round of reviews that - adjusted the relative scores of the three in question resulted in the same combinations of two-to-one, but the overall re-ranking placed these three on a par with the seventh-ranked candidate, the Office of Michael Rosenfeld. Hence, it became obvious that the sub-committee could not fairly differentiate Building Committee Reading Nfeeting lulinutes f -oni .Alay 21, 2002 between the four firms in this second tier in order to make a clear fourth recommendation and it was decided to present this task to the main Committee (by the attached memo). In the interim between the May 13th sub-committee meeting and this (main) meeting, the sub-committee checked references for all seven of the top- ranked firms. The sub-committee met just prior to the current meeting (at 6:30 p.m.) and discussed their findings. The references gave no reasons to disqualify any of the seven candidates, it was found. Therefore, the recommendations of the top three firms (FAI, TDPC and HMFH) remained a clear conclusion of the sub-committee, while the following four candidates did not have a clear recommendation, but should be considered by the Committee at large. - RR added that in the course of reference checking, he found that all past clients contacted were enthusiastic about the performance of the architects. He felt that the "pool" of seven candidates was an excellent selection to choose from. - JS also noted the reference-checking process and said that he had gained some insights about what the Committee should expect about such a project as the RMHS renovation (phasing, use of construction managers, etc.). He said that after the selection process was over, he could discuss these insights with the other members of the Committee. - TT asked the sub-committee if there was a significant separation between the top three recommended candidates and the following four. DL answered that there was a consistent gap between the two sets of candidates, which was confirmed by RR and JS. - TT wondered that in light of this, would the Committee consider restricting the number of interviewed candidates to only three and not four (as was expected). JS cautioned about having too few candidates should one or more of them drop out. - TT questioned how to resolve the choice of a fourth candidate, should four be desired; should the choice be made by the Committee as a whole or should the sub-committee be directed to reconvene and come back with a recommendation for a fourth? RR responded that picking a fourth simply to have a fourth (from a list of relatively equal candidates) might become an arbitrary decision. He did not feel that any of the candidates, once chosen to be interviewed, would be likely to drop out. He based this opinion on the workloads submitted by many of the candidates and the current "market" for design architects (low demand). DL concurred. Dr. Harutunian suggested reserving judgement on whether or not to pick more than the top three candidates and hold the second tier of candidates on a standby basis. Then if the Committee were to interview the top three and not be entirely satisfiedwith thechoices they presented -it could call in any or - all of the second tier candidates for interviews to broaden the selection. He r , also doubted that any candidates would drop out. Reading.School Building Committee 3 Afeeting Alinuta f •om hD, 21, 2002 RG asked the sub-committee members to articulate the particular strengths of the top three candidates that set them apart from the second tier candidates. DL responded that he felt the top three had composed their responses to pertain to Reading's particular needs rather than assemble bits and pieces of previous proposals to other towns. He said they were well experienced in high school renovations and the phasing for them. They applied themselves to trying to get this particular project rather than treat it as just another job application. RR responded that the volume and depth of experience with high school renovation projects presented by the top three put them ahead of the others, in his view. He also felt the experience of the designated individuals as well as the consultants listed put the three firms above the others. He agreed with DL that the specific attention paid to Reading's problems contributed to their elevated status. JS answered that the three firms had deep experience with high school renovations comparable in size to Reading's, not just partial reno's or projects much smaller than RMHS. They demonstrated how Reading's high school played to their strengths, mainly substantial experience of the firms, the individuals and the consultants with comparable projects. These demonstrations tied in well with the sub-committee's criteria for evaluating experience with high school renovations, which is why they scored so highly. - RG then asked if any non-sub-committee members had made a decision about which of the four firms in the second tier should be interviewed. AM noted that the two firms who had done feasibility studies for the high school were in the second tier (Strekalovsky & Hoit and DRA) and may deserve further attention on the basis of their prior experience. He said that he was interested in hearing more from The Office of Michael Rosenfeld (OMR). - BC said he favored S&H and DRA, based on their work in Reading and Newton. - TT felt that two of the four firms in the second tier were comparable to the top three in terms of quality of design. However, only one of them had zeroed in on Reading specifically and also had personnel with demonstrable high school renovation experience and this was OMR. He said he found their proposal "quirky" and individualistic, but if he had to recommend a fourth interviewee, it would be them. - PP said she had expected more information and enthusiasm from S&H and DRA, since they had worked on the high school previously, but did not find it. She was not sufficiently impressed enough with the other two firms to recommend them over any of the others, so she felt that the top three were enough to interview. MS agreed that the top three should be sufficient, but he mentioned that if another (second tier) candidate were to be called up to replace one of them, - he would recommend S&H,-based on their workon Coolidge Middle School. - - RP said he had reviewed the proposals and tried to follow the ranking criteria set forth in the evaluation sheets used by the sub-committee and found it difficult to do. He felt DL had had similar problems (DL had chosen not to Reading .School Building Committee Afeeting Minutes ftont iWay 2I, 2002 4 assign separate scores for the criteria but had ranked the candidates outright). He wondered if the RFQ could have called for responses that were more structured to the evaluation criteria. He said that he found DRA to have had the most experience with high school renovations among the four firms in the second tier. Regarding the existence of a second tier, he said he had expected the sub-committee to come back with numerical rankings that would have given a relative order to the respondents and would make the choice of a fourth candidate more straightforward. DL replied that it was his non- numerical ranking that made a straight numerical average of the three sub- committee members impossible. He said his understanding of the sub- committee's instructions was to bring back a recommendation of four top candidates. His method of ranking was designed to achieve this end and it did agree well with the numerical rankings of RR and JS for the top three. RG asked for Mr. Orlando and Dr. Harutunian's opinion on the firms in the second tier. Mr. Orlando said that if he had to choose from the second tier, he would want to interview all of them. Since that was not realistic, he said he favored sticking to interviewing the top three firms. Dr. Hautunian said that there was no rule requiring that a fourth candidate be chosen and that he found no fault with the top three. He suggested interviewing only them. JS drew the Committee's attention to the timing of the interview process. He noted that he felt it was crucial to get the winning firm on board as soon as possible to allow them access to the high school staff before the summer break. He felt that taking more time to deliberate would rob the candidates of needed preparation time, which was already tightly compressed (nine days). Dr. Harutunian cautioned against hurrying the decision-making process in order to meet a schedule. He wondered if nine days were enough to be able to properly prepare for interviews. RR felt that it made it tough for the architects. TT agreed, but said that they were all aware of the desired schedule and that if they wanted the job, they could pull a presentation together. RR agreed that it was possible. TT recommended that the top three firms be interviewed in nine days (on May 30th) - AM wondered if the firms would be over-occupied with this year's submissions to the SBA to adequately prepare for interviews. RR replied that the SBA submissions involved production staff, which typically is not involved with interviews for designing projects. Discussion ensued about how to notify both the top three and the remaining thirteen candidates about their status, if the Committee adopted the three- only slate of interviewees. It was agreed that the top three would be notified by telephone and all would receive faxed notifications of their status. The non-interviewees would be told that they would still be under consideration if the chosen firms were not satisfactory. Observer Linda Phillips asked if the rankings of the firms by the sub- committee would be recorded and if the non-numerical rankings were acceptable legally. Dr. Harutunian answered that the sub-committee's work - - did not constitute a legally binding selection process and could have been done in executive session since the discussion of the firms involved individual and corporate reputations (it was done in open meetings). The selections done by the full Committee, however, must be ranked and recorded to satisfy Reading School Building Committee ,Meeting ltfinutes front Xfa 21, 2002 the law. JS noted that the sub-committee's individual scores and averaged rankings would be presented in its own minutes, which would be publicly ` posted. RG called for a formal motion to accept the recommendations of the sub- committee regarding candidates to interview. TT moved that the Committee interview the three candidates that the sub-committee put forward as their first tier choices; Design Partnership of Cambridge, Flansburgh Associates and HMFH Architects, which PP seconded. RP moved to amend the motion by adding DRA to the list of interviewees. No second was made and the amendment did not make it to the table. With no further discussion being offered, a vote was taken and the result was eight in favor, one opposed and one abstention and the motion carried (8-1-1). Observer Jackie Mandell passed out copies of a compilation of school projects put together by the Boston Society of Architects (BSA) in April of 2001 that listed salient data about the projects, such as size and type and cost information (copy attached). She pointed out that she favored DRA and that DRA had many renovation projects on the BSA list. She noted that Flansburgh Associates did not have as many and that some of their schools listed has had problems with cost and time over-runs. She also asked about an amendment being issued to the applicants and asked what it was for. Dr. Harutunian answered that the amendment allowed the use of a shortened version of the required Designer Selection Board state form and it was issued after requests from some of the applicants. ' The date and location of the interviews was set for the evening of May 30th in the Superintendent's Conference Room. RG would notify the three approved candidates and schedule the order of the interviews. DL would notify the thirteen other respondents and follow up with written notification for all sixteen of their status. Discussion then centered on what the interviewees should be told to prepare for during their interviews. - RR suggested having them discuss their relevant experience in phasing large high school projects comparable to RMHS. - TT said he didn't want them to simply repeat the information contained in their response brochures. He also wanted the candidates to clearly identify the individuals that would be doing the work and what their roles would be vis-a-vis Reading's high school project. - JS cautioned about requesting too many specific tasks of the candidates given the traditional limit of 45 minutes per interview, with only 20-25 minutes allotted to the architect's presentation itself (the remainder being left to questions and answers). RP suggested that the candidates be asked to be prepared to present background of any high school renovation project of theirs that went over time and budget limits or had any adverse health issues. TT took issue with that - - approach, saying it that all the candidates were likely to have had problems in the past and that demanding explanations of them did not promote the Committee's intent to establish a good working relationship with the winning architect. JS related an instance during the elementary school feasibility Reading School Building Committee 6 Aleeting it irtutes ft ont ;VM 21, 2002 study interviews wherein one of the candidates was asked extemporaneously about a well-known local school project that had problems and had answered graciously and effectively, which apparently told the Committee more about them than if they had prepared an explanation. RR felt that asking interviewees to be prepared to answer for troubled projects might send a message that Reading was going to be adversarial in its relationship with the winner and might scare off desirable candidates. RP still felt that such an approach was in the Town's best interests. Dr. Harutunian said that checking with the SBA about an architect's past performance would circumvent potentially embarrassing and/or adversarial approaches to finding out about a firm's past performances. RG felt that the pursuit of such information would be best handled during the interview process rather than by prior arrangements. Observer Jackie Mandell suggested that the Committee could check with the SBA about projects that were not listed in the brochures and call the interviewees to ask why they weren't listed (she related an instance of another town rejecting one of the finalists due to an omission of a troubled project from their RFQ response). RG said the Committee had chosen not to do that. - AM thought that the candidates should be asked to comment on the tentative schedule worked up by the Committee for the production of the schematic design. Frank Orlando asked that the finalists be asked to explain their expected method of approach to engaging the faculty and administration in determining the major educational issues for the renovated high school. JS suggested that the posing the question of how to approach phasing with little or no swing space would be a good way to evaluate the finalists through their answers. - RP asked if the sub-committee members had checked references that were not listed in the candidates' brochures. The members said they had only checked listed references and had concentrated on those whose projects were most like RMHS. Dr. Harutunian suggested contacting the superintendent and principal of the schools that were given as references for their views on the candidates since they were the end-users of the design process initiated and guided by those architects. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the April 4, 2002 RSBC meeting. DL so moved and was seconded by BC. He called for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the April 24, 2002 RSBC meeting. RR so moved and was seconded by PP. He called for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG, Dr. Harutunian and RR made note of the positive aspects of high school renovation projects such as were displayed in the brochures. They remarked how encouraging it was for RMHS to see how other communities had rejuvenated their high schools with their projects. /reading School Building- Committee ib eeting Alinutes fivnz .1firy 21, 2002 RG related that he had been speaking to several PTO's about the high school project and had noted significant interest in the high school project. He had encouraged the PTO members to get involved and stay informed about the ongoing process. RR asked to place in the record acknowledgement of the obvious effort made by the candidates who were not selected to be interviewed to thoroughly present their qualifications to the Committee. He noted that the level of quality of the presentations of the non-continuing thirteen respondents was very high and took significant work and expense to produce. He felt that they had tried very hard and that their efforts should not go unrecognized [so noted]. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time unrecorded). . Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee 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. N q O 0 v 0 b d E ° a E V n ~ U Y ` M b 1 ~ N u VGA ~vnC~ C Mr E ~ ~ 'yA~+ 1 'O u Q u Q~ Ll~ Q W Q Q Q N W V ? u Q W W V Q 6- Ott QQ P P ` y N W O N ~ O 8 _ h W nl~ i'~ ~ N O G N M O ~ 00 w' h ° N O N • ~ N t° b P V b O 7 V n MP n Off. ~ < . h N N ~ H ~ .M,. ° N N N ~ N O N w i N ~ N N ~ N N + N N N N - . N - N - - y - - N N N M - - 8 - - pp ~ - ~ - - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ a ~ 0 0 O ~ a m ' - - Y N h - N - - - - - - - - O - P q • O ~ W ~ O q °r J E b ro < < O Vi O O p O ~ ^ gal' N ^ q y o o°o N b z ~ N " N N ~ O N y y N N N N S - N - N - - - - ~ - - - - - - Q y S 8 ~ 8 S - - C888 N y ~ P 8 O 8 O S O 8 O S O 8 O O~ P o a O O ~ O O ~ j h ~ + O Q ° d 8 e0 ~ M ~ N v~ GG ^ ~ S 8 r h N N N M N N N M N r ~ N U fV N ~ h N N N N y, Y1 N y~ N N H 1" y~ 8 p ^ M W ~ ~ O O: O O O N O y1 N O~ O ° G 8 O N ~ Z j L `ry P O vj ` O p C O p O e'1 N M 8 ~y yry~ y y8 ~ V O N yl a N r N jI fi N yN ~ N y N MM H N y~ N N N N N - - - - - - - - - - - - - q n ~ ;Q c ~ :4 2 O C ~ ~ ~ ~ C1 N W IL W IL w ~ m c ~ E C7 iL W t% 4. W 4. hi N ~ $ n 8 e $ ~ n ~p ~ ' a N P P ~ N w N V eQ ~ h Q ~.j _ eq'~ N •~n ~ p N M_ N H . p O vii ~ w O o G gyp N M N N N N N om-. N N N MQ1 N N O N O°p H N ~ N O~ N N N N N N N N v ~ °1 a ~ N M O ~ h ° ~ ~ O h r l g rL V } ^ O O e O $ O ~ - ° 44 ~ o g ^ o ,O b j; ~ ~ $ o = ~ p $ U ~ M oo ~ N N r h a. ~ b ~ ~ C - y N ~ p N N H N N H H M ~ N N N ~ n , 6 ~ H N N O N N N 8 8 ~pp~ 8 8 - - ~ 8 O ~ O~ N vii Qb ~ w g n ,Q •~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Off,( O O ~ O Q b I N v O < b ~ tY ° ~ M P ~ N ' O K ~.j N o b p~ w 1 : i~ t°n v v~~ e•I p • H O~ O N ~ H L i N C MI a M ~ ~ N N N N N M N N ° py ~ 8 S r h S 8 1^ M -1 c V ; T v V I ^ p r V ap l L. ~ O 00 yO~ O N b P O O O N tl y p p V y b h p V < M h N n b ro • ~ py ~ . ~ N K y V fA < V L II Lx ~ Y ~ d i U' P2 x x x x p~ N O ~c!Y b O ~ b M N "'000 ''OO< e~ < < ~ C b ~ ~ < N b N N N ~ ~ b Y w w e Z o u ro d .o . u y, M j t W h ~ w s ro O ~ N O N n G V V ~ N ~ y C u c Y ` . E ~ rn x v ~ Yn o > n Q v ~ ° V x a a S V ' ~ y v 5 x a z x Q C~ < ~ vl a. < ~ ^ D ~ x a w ~ ~ of w w ~ < W $i W < ° p P A P P P P O~ G Vl a + ! b P P Q P P P Q P Q` 00 E P Q P u t+ r ° mm w a ^ t;, Q O 0 Nd W O 'b b Q e U 0 > w w M V n n C W < V CC W 0 o x x ~ L`3 5 < a ~ o A U° u h p 8 8M . SN 8 8 Y ° g N ~ g Ye `n ~ N ~ N $ ~ 8 ~ N N 'v 6 ~ a g a a I r N b P W ~ O ~ N ~ n pp~~ O~ y +'i ho V a O r O n t •E ~ y N n N N gg @N ~ eba b ro r ~ N v V1 V 4j ~~ya 0 N N H N N N N N N N Y 3 ~ O Y K r O ' g 8 O ~ P ~ ~,1 N. L N ~~DD N V q p O p O ~ O O P H ; N H ~ ( ~ G N ~ ^ a N N N Q N N O ~D N 'b 'B P H O H P ^ O H eh N" N c g 25 25 S g g 25 25 ~ 25 25 ~ E g + N u y N ~ r y Yt N N V f N N N H N 8 8 O 8 O n M1 8 O Q rj vQQ b pp O 8 O 8 O ~(}p V ~j p N w O 8 O ~ 8 NNry N N p 8 O v v~~ N H p S 8 ' ~ ~ M r°`n p V H ~~11 N { & pp N N aa{{ N y`Dj N ltl1 ( t N H H N u u Y d + m of a3 O O r o w" A A p U G: mn Mi a oo r h g ~ ~ rn n ^ ~ ~ n ° n v e N N N N N N H N N N N ~ H N N N N Y ° O V O p O A ~ O ~ N ~ ~L c lJ + ! ~ pO 8 8 ' A A 99XL `X ~ N N N N N N N C N ~ 8 W '1 O 7 ~Q } ~ 8 O 6] N N O N v N A p ~ yp N . n 8 v 8 Q N ~ ~b5 ~ ^ 8 O ~ 8 O 8 O p O N V p t~ h V C O ip y pp,~ O w r O ~ h P b ~1 { ~ O A GG .X C r p O < ~ + a ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N q ° F F w w v, x x ~ N M vv11 ^ N P ,8 Y yNj yy V b N.. ONe ~~pp ~p O P ~ ~ N 0p N N.. b h a ~ b N b ~ 0 b . Yi 7L N N b M V1 N ~ 8 u (i ~ W Y] 1~ G W W W W Yi W Y 1 W W W C s. O V {i 1 LL ) a ~ = ~ !S S {2 ~ ~ ~ u b ~ ~ E L 1e ~ C ~ C q~ ° F O g - ~ ~ ~ > > U U ~ U v 3 3 3 ~ a ci v n . x Z ~ m c a w 8 8 s C r u z V' ~ ~ ~ v l Q * ~ ~ S > . ° V U E 3 c `o C a Y ~ t ~ Ii 3 r Yi g ` ~ N y ~ G n W ~ g zz ~ 9 ° ' C 8 ~ y > 3 ~ gg cC~ ~ ti : a < y z Y ~ W _ S tr G P R: 1 E U O ~ e. a n F tq ~ A Q ~ 4 1 N W ~ ~ W ~ Q p Q v N ~ E U ~ E P P O , O ~ ~y N N N N N S S N ry O O f t ~ H ~ ~ t~~ f N ,O W O N O N N N Q H g vj o r O' $ O H N N N N H N H H N N N N H O 0 ~ y O ~ O $ q ~ ~ ~ . O O W ~ ~ O ~ R g O 8 O 8 q O, " ~ p O 8 O O O 8 8 q, c ; ~ q N N N q N N H ~ y~ H ~ N 1 ~ N r N ~ N N ~ N ~ N ~ H O N N O H ~ p ~ y vi ~ ~ l O ~ l1 N G w (V ^ M N N O N p O ~ O W N M p S + O b q a ~ kI ^ ~ f~ C O p Y U y " ^ N N H V N M O N 8 ~ w .E H C N H N N ~ In ~ 0 ry M 8 O 8 CC S N O O p 8 N N W N 0 M b q ~ S O p vi r Q 8 N N N H N M H H ~ N i H d y N H a w k w ' ' m m ~ w u m m m m u . ~ y ~'b 8 ~ n ~ O O d a N N ~ N n N ve M N n b h 0 a N ~ O q~ O ~ ~ i Q y~ Vi h _ N N N N N H H H \ H N _ N N 60 N N ~ N w H N S ~J Y : N ~ ~ b M ~ U , 1 D\ g z ~ q ~ M `c t J S $ q u j b b G N ~ r ^ H N N H N Q Sj } ~ E Q 8 8 O W Q n Q `Q~' e Q M b ~ I w h 8 L a K ~Y 1 ; l1 fV •H•• ~ : O r_: „ Ot N N H H H M H H N N N H N N N ~ "1 M O h 5Q~ 8 ^ q ~ Q 8 8 O p0 6 O 8 O f r ~ " M ~ Ol. N P O O M O~ tl tl ~ ^ ~ ~ N h O P r M M _ 00 p ~ p F E t p Q Q q 5 x ~ i-~ ~ 5 ~ p H M 0 U 0 p W V b O O eo , W NN N hh ` Y ~ ` " N M N N b ~ V V C1 ~ ~ rN'1 t 1 O V L y r q N q V t` b q b q b b q ~ f~ b l~ q V y y y N y y y y y y y y y y ~ S 5 e z g a 3 3 x s < 3 f n w w to .7 8 a W 8 ~ G V y S - ~ L ~ _ 8 L C O ~i u 9 ~ V v~ > ~ C 8 s N _ pq 8 t a V ~ u V u ~ y i ` p S O ~ O 'a V $ e S yy 4l a ti ci ' ' a k 1, w a EZ' y , W W a a u 1 V O U •U9{1. - - 9 .5 8 ~ G M V pp~~ P ~ ~ p 8 p 8 y d b pp.. ~ 0^ b.~ :C N pp Crr` N p O. ~ ~ N N H O N N N N N H „ rPt b pMp ro p O 0~0 ~D N N 8 ~ N w P N vO. N N N _ N N N H H N 0• n W W N P ~ h y O O p M N N N 8 8 = 8 O S O o pe W ~ O P H O O m u C u H d Q O q ~i N A O ro o E E O u b . A E c o V 'n H W D n~ O b v 8~ bO ~Op •O O ~ 0 N O ~N~ O N N N - N - - - - - - - - - - - - - n U ~ ~ S a w ~ m {p 0] LO A p y W A t~ ~ O Y ~ O P Y O ~ H ~ H h N b N ~~pp yO`~ (~(++i N .r H N N N N N V b ~ S O QQ N O N N q ~ 0 S O ~ N S U R a O rrr u I Q ~ v ~ H N C N U O eOeVV N Q N N N i N h ~ a ~ e e r x ~ W ~ D\ a w h N O N N O \ E J o m 0 ro n N r~" 8 F p F > Vl VV U F N N N O C O O 3 a m x r N F r 1 Q Q W b ~E o p t ` " o ` V z 'C W Q ~ o Q ~i g c u. d~ c P P P S pp~~ P 8 O ~ ~ S ~ N ~ N ~ A C~ G w p N N - rp N - - y' - N - - p - O ` - ,P„ - - O - S - o0 - O n O~ p p ~ N h O o0 O b O~ np ^ y'~`Y~• b ppp' .b-~ ~ N O ~ M N 8 i~ UNt N - N p W N A N O M N N N ^ N b N N N N N N {l'~W 41 N V1 N r ~ p O pQ O 8 O QQ ` : $ ~pQ ? p ~p ~ 8 O 8 O• ~ ~ ~ 8 8 p O .U V O p r0 O 00'I Q ~.J~ b b S n Y O N O ^ . ° vii N N N N H H N N N N N N N 1. ~ r p 8 ~ oNp ~ v O O O h H N N N H N N N Yi N N N o0 O 5Q~ 8 O p O 8 O O 8 O O n S 1~ M ~ P1 Y1 V1 N N H U O o N G N N N N H N ~ $ $ N pE 8 pO S O S O O b 8 O S 8 O S 1 8 O O y N N N O g N H Y1 8 - - Ej U H .1 N - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - Yu G ~ Y^ ~ ~ ~ W c W ° W A W ^ W A m W 41 CO iA p Qp 4pp1 IA p U ~ ~E~j W ~ ~ ~ ~ fi tY1 M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - + V OnO N ^ `e M P b N (°p N " ~ Cv7~ N pnp.. P fJ V N p~~ N 7 N N G h N h y~ - Nn•~ _ E ~ S e S N M p' N N N N ~ N P N ~ ~ ~ ° < ~ n ~ N ~ u Y Y b ~ g = ~ ° f V ~ S 4 aa .1 N n N ~ y ~ . r-. N ~ ri 99 a C ~ qCq N N N N N y ~ 8 O p 8 O $ NO 8 O 8 O O ` ' rl C~{ O H ~ H y N ~ N ~ y n N n H ~ N V N n N N v G b N 8 8 8 ~ t5~~ ~ ~j 8 Q 52 O p 8 V T O O 8 Vl O b pOe p6o W N O r O m N N 10 P ~ N n n N V N P N h O N N O~ ~ d T M ° K ry b c p ~ ~ c7 N m O 3 e u ~ O ~ C tl ~ ^ U k O n y d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e w 4. < ~ E p & p A ~ F. U t.. O ~ ~ 5 A A D x ~ h x t- - - - - - - - - - - - P P - .n° N b N 8 ~ ~ ~ ti ~ S Q P ~ N N ~ M n N N a y Y b N O N ~ ~ - - P - - - - - q - P - - - - - P P P P N Z Z N N Z. N - Y - N ~ x x x x x 5 x ,x x x N x 5 x 2 5 2 ~ 3 w z z z o z O 5 3 ~ . x ti ti v x 3 3 ~ z z < w A 8 r r e ° 8 8 ` r 8 - ~ 8 8 8 V g C e E ~ _ C tt ` ' YY S VV L E ce. m r N s 3 E" = Yj, ~G u U t 3 H O ~ x L7 p ; s a ~ e p v ~ z ~ s ~ ~ G . x s x C C 8 `r V ~ ~ S s ~ S ~ Y ~ z ~ ~ ~ C ~ O , v Y Y a " ' o ~ z Y < A $ CE Y fJ U z z y 3 a x~ z 3 a ~ e 3 < ~ z 3 ~ c ~ p 6 ~ Z ~ w ~ Q F H _ U_ P P P P m q q P P P P ^ P _ N H O ~ N x U x m rw ffia~ ■ ~ arr~r wr wre we ama Q O n V 7 LC W W Q U q U y z S v ~ L €ro e ~ UC u~ 0. 0 NC i0 x 0 ~ x 0 NC A x 0 NC N x 5 = LL J[ 0 LL Y 2 u o 0 ~ x 4 u ~ u o Y. ~ a c m' c .Y ~ m ~ C x w X ~ 1-i° ?l U = 2 R o i O u E 8 N 8 N G .o . CJ C ' C F° CJ F .m O C ~ ~ Y W ~ C O G .m O ~ ~ 8 8 N N 8 N N 8 N q O W N 8 S N S N 8 G' O b V ~p q O O O~ N o0 TEH R~ H N N N N N N N N b ~ Y ~ O O O O. O S O 8 O S O 8 O $ S O 8 O P Q 25 H O 8 ~o N O $ N O 52 25 N O ,°n N ~ N ~ H O g N N _ a ~ °w N+1 N 8 N 8 N N . a V N ^ _ N N $ ~ N 5 ~ S., b N N $ N R Sj, H S T N g M S N g g ~ Q 25 5 ~ 25 R E e 5~ 25 Q 25 ~ n 5~ Z5 Q E 1f N ~ N ~ N - H - - ~ p N - p g~ H - - N - N - N - N - N - p N - N - C - - - - - - P yO H - O y N O p NN - $ Y N - O $ N - - - o y p~ M - W F {i ~ O N O XNi O N ~ H O N O H O H O ' a9i O N O N O O 25 o 25 ~n N 25 b N 25 r N S o N a u ~ 0 H Q 25 6 1r~ Q 25 6 N Q 25 N m N QQ b N ~ N y~ ZS N 5Q$ S N QQ E H ~ N QQ S N QQ S N o u B 5 ~a .4m W ,0.81 m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ m m pp .5 ~ ~ Oy ~ Q O t WQQ v u~ ~ ¢ ~ E' ~ ~ Y7 $ O Y~I , ti. rn vi M N N O p ~ ~ p ~ a p $ p $ 00 p h (Oy P ~ h r1 N N ^ N owe p b O V ~~ff M1 y T h N ~ vii vP1 N V N V N Y N en H "l.. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 8 8 8 8 8 ~ C ~ ~ '{Q J ~ ~ p ~ j ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U gyp C $ N S O ~ q V I pq O pP~ H SQQ~ p ~ H b p b r1 N O N O H OQ N ~ N $ 0 P N O N r en o a 2S a p 8 oo w b $ v "1 ° S ~ H 1$ ? u a ''Z . N N N N N N 8 Q S 8 8 8 O b 8 8 8 O O O S 8 O O t~ p V ~ b ° 8 O ~ b ~p 8 O, 00 8 S 8 8 O O O O O ~ 'l r W f°` ^ q < ~ O b Q ~ Y H a ti x y !i ~ ° ua, w w laa. ~ t] ~ 1„ LL x N O O Q~ A A f: 4' O x x x x x x G x x ~ ~ x ~ x x x x x x• x x x 3 x Y Z 4 .p y~ b v b h N X a a N N n". u Y y. W d dC 0. L N d M N N SC b 0. H d g ~ yy yy y W iil W y NN y W {31 W y W W y y W W y W W y y W W yy W yy N~l W 41 W yt/l NJ W W < ~ 3 3 8 3 ti a S 3 3 ~ V a z a 3 m" < < 3 3 V L ~ u ul. o o v u - gr~ ~ Y ~a w d 3 ~ c W tX v C a a v z r u 12 u u < z Y a fr c ~ u ~ g y v z : y > u ~ a vi v c > i u~ 8 C ° ' W t < 8 ul u W o o U u1 $ W m 8 8 41 tilt G 3 u K z U 8 W u a ilk ,c ~ " ~ a N t N U n a ~U Z k 9 o ~ Z W v W t~' yW ~ K X X f V4' I d u d a U R-~ L V e o R a.. W a V n o W zm x C - Y u v u v u u u z Q u z z u E V a oP. g g C $ 8 G F O C .C O ,C O 8 N N N H H N H M H N H H N N H ~ Q 25 $ ~ ~ 5 ~ 25 M Q SSA Q 25 Q 25 m_ b m_ b r $ p° 8 o~ S w ^ N ~ n N N H ~ ~ h N ~ N S H C r N O N O N O N ~ N _ 5 r1 N n N O O -1 O 6 N b o q 8R 0 s h H ~ O N H r1 N N fY N r W N b M n N P ~ ~ ~ N V ~ H ~ a C U ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N 8~ $ R y~ ~ 8 P 8 O G G H N H N N H N N ia. 4 . C Lb W CO L9 m m V m LA m .R u`3 . . y H y n b N .~N. H ~ r N ~ a H b N N b e~ H pp P H T T N Y~ N r o~0 ~ H O N ~ N ~ E e N N M N N M P V N t b T^ t z J N U G `y'~ ~ b I J ~1 V t I yJ t 'Z Lql p a ' 25 M 25 r( v 8 ^ E e x a n 25 $ 8 g 8 a It H b N N t: ti H ~ C ' N e ~ N Y N n, N V vN~ N ~f N vv~~ N N S 88ON ~.j p~ 88Op eNNry} p g O b W q b W N V T M 8 W y W U U Q1 d r - - - - < W - < W - - - LL - <<i. - - - W W W x h {<r. W W W D z z z z z z z a z ; z ~ z ~ z ~ z $ z z " G u u a se u 44 d u u u x `VGA] VSC } $NCy ' O a w o < z v z y a O ~ o v r D e y " ~ > 8 ~ ? g I w o e V V w e ~ _ w ~ 7 °o ~ ~ yy SL o i~ y > T a 0 a 6 W Q Qq gg A m W P P P P qQ~ , Q Qq~~ Q qq O , u P r N Q U z d V v ~ ~ X 9 ~ ~ q ~ uy w U U S a U O OpO D x S O U E P P P P P O~ P N V ?a ~ ~ p_ N Np P w vt O a b W N YNi O V b vNi ffy• ( { N n y v V H < O O b t h~ N b O vQi i~ V V V b b' b ~ t., - vi N b ~ N N H H N N N N H N N N N H H fN O m. N G ^N ~ pO a ~ g g g ro g g g 8 O 8 O g O U . rv H N P O N ,Q yl N p O.~ N O p (CMNV N O p 8~ N C g (QN.~ N (QNV N O g N N 8 ~ N H ~ N U ~ b. N M A V O 3 ~ ~ H oNp ~ y V N M yOy H O ~ ~ M n N (n~L H if N N g g $ ~ 2 25 ~ 0 2 5 ~ N N H ~ N Ny N 85 O~ N S vNi H ~Np - - ~ ` - - - N - S y~ - - - V m N - - - - - 8 O N - 8 O N - 8 }Qd{ - - - - O O„ N - `p$~~ P - p8 O - $p S - - - 8 O o0 8 d N S O t~ H 8 Oppq H ~1 ~rv Q OCO Ni H N H N N N - y~ - - - - - - - - a 2 ' w s a. 2 v: ~ h: ~ 'u. 2 v. w - - - ~ ~ k s m :s m Y ~ Yl u w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O P M P - Q O 1~ N N N o N o M H b N = N N M N ^ N H M M H ,~i m ° N b N N H N H ~ r m N vv~~ N r 8 ~ ~ 8 O 8 O o M O N N O N O ~ N 00 N `~Qy~L w N I~ N ~ O N ~ f+ N O t~ tom( N } ~T~ G U ~ S CO N p O C~ o b G o0 ~ O~ p~ N y ~ N NN N H H H N N - y - - - - - - 88 pOp O - pp O Q - - - - S QOQ .p - O N - O ~ - 8 Cj M S O Q (p p~ h ~p y ~ V P ~ C. 8 00 8 O F F F' 3 w 3 U 3 ~ V u~ ~ ~ K ~ F. Y' N Q Q ~ O C] F N ~ S a 3 z z z z $ x z z z z z z z x z W L' ~ V `b ti y V) O z0 a E s ;a .a w 5 a z S 'O x E b 3 h ' S d z l aZ m o m y O Q N y V ~ N 1 C Y yy ~ c .G y _ N V ~Vy ~ A ^ ~ ~ ~C V _ •O 8 .Q Y ~ ~ y B •C yy N ~7 ~ U C z t y t ~ ~ 8 T ~ ~ ~ O N Y q 0 'C O^ fJ p u~ p w C Q U a~ y~Q ' O+ ~ g C g C ~ E' S S S S 7n - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - a w ~ ~o v $ v° n ~ ~ S g ~ a ~ e r j n v ~ ~ F e m ~ ~ r h ~ ~i ~ b N _ H N N ~ N N N H N N H N H N N N s s ~ n s s ~ r o, ~ n e .1 ~ I b H b H M N ry N N N N H N N N h h ~ n N N A 0 N „ N Q 8 8 S O 8 O 8 O 8 O 8 di 8 `~Cj O O N O N OI C O p O g ~ N ~ N N N N y Y H H N N N ~ ~ ~ pp O t~ S O p ~ p p 8 ^I ' ~ N N H H N H - - - - - - - - N H - - - - y - 9 - - - - - ~ - - - ;Q - - ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ m K! R1 W fi CO Y ~ w p . f0 e Q O r b ry V t h O p b ~ N 4 N O ~ .1I N , h ` N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r, ~ g H r N Q Q V r ~ b ~ V l tl a0 Q. ti 01 ~ edeV A~1 !d H N H N ^ M N Q ~ Z ~i 8 O 8 O 8 O ~ N p 8 ~ P ` ~ O P b W r ~ . r p 8 ~ P p p~~ N tl N r - q W r - - - - - - - - - - - - C t F C p - - o U e - - - - - - - - - - - - < S ay a e gy w ~p c S ~ 2y d rOL F • F ~ ~ Q F= F' n 3 ? o z Z X Z Z z z z z O N N N f ^ ry . ~ f• 1 • q N N P c 'u b S t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 N y x 2 S S ~ o x x l v C < f ; r W c 3 ~ z ~ ~ LZ x z x a H w ° ' U ~ a ~ w ~ } r 8 r i s i ? ~ ~ ~ U = .t 0 o S V U 0 4 ~ ~ ~ x ~SS C C S V . $ ~ ` + a ~ > ~ o 4 > ~ F < < ~ 6 ~ ..1 < u. < x z S c N < a O ~ W vVi e Q ? a` c ' x I a ^o S ~ (lQ ~ O F O F oi N l O N O N F LL C p O N ~ ~O n 1 V 1~ 00 V v~ O~ h ~ ~ N 0 y 0 p C ~ ~ N " rP N r p 00 (ham 00 n f M y 0~0 Y O _ O N N N M ry H N N N N N N NI I I I »I I N N - s w :s m b m a h ~o r C~ a U U a 0 a ~ a N C ~ ° vI vl i. z ~ s e e ~ = a pqN p6N 8N 8N 8N P O Q O O N N N H 0 0 n a n v fii n .1 N N N N N w ~ ~ p ~ w w ~ p ~ ~ A z z z z x z z z z N ~ N ~ N. N. N K N _ d q O. p T O. A O. z x x z x z s s x - - T T ~l l l l l l c z I tx 6 Ila C IBM X: 4 X of I I o Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phasea reference check questions Architectural Firm: .`Person Contacted ~v' Caller .Date D~2 t Y`tiZ . 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant AVouPeduc ionai planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of Educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 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? / vtr fic a uVc~ "I r v-, 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? sm-e l co-e C---- 0 Me-" a4,p 69 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design?c 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? `u rho 6 M 12-. o cl 3 / - g ✓1 _ - Ak d7~It vl r/t Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check ques ' ons Architectural Firm: S Person Contacted Caller - Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. Ap U40 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? y~ 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? f ~JhcUp>rt G~e~ r L. 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? W)90- 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? S hU r)ri), 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? / uiz- 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? s~c1r, w Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted Caller Date/ 1 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. C~ ~ ~1 b 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? le. 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests, fqrinform tion and to minor adjustments in the process? u~ . yl L X~~ L LJ/V V° (a 4. Was there a significant phasing i sue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? OPT, et,~Y ell~ ;p4j, 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? wil a 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Reading Memorial High School, .Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Finn: Person Contacted ~iAlvc Caller Date cwk- 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real plannin recommendations. Z~c fie,7 G d 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? J C 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? G ~ d.._ 6 1 M -4.AA "M 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? CU A - 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 'Trip- c~~ C)\i,e-^~t) CAI-, I I L-1v Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process AUMJ- Ali May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted Caller N Date tPi~iTy~~- ~7 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. 0V P/~ u I I-Y - 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? V p_ 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? V" /V~ d~' / 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? ~ aYaSn, rte.. • c..v-~--y~ v~s-c-~-- 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? CA:n l -/U- 9,trv,,~Je-4 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? f, Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm: `5Person Contacted Caller Date Ag-elf May, 2002 reference check questions 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. C~t.vt wcSZ-~ 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? r e,~ e4 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? V\," e~ S ~ +-0 L-"-_ , 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? AA-111L 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? U v,A Reading Memorial. High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted Caller Date 5/la'~L 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. e/ PP1Ya- 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? v ~vy, 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? V &I 4. Was there a significant phasing issue wi your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? pM Gr~,~+ ate ~ VI - rn,o •~~~.G~v-f yv, 5 . S 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? L oi-e e --p1-- htct c v ere &0 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? iM 0-P W"-~ yc'w~e P` 5- v-C lecPrv.e;,V--r- 1h vfai~e Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions A•s s`~ Architectural Firm: "i fl G Person Contacted Lec O(sa., _ s,^„ Caller ~lf~,s 4 Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? (e,,,,~; y ~kt~,.~„.~.; ~ ~~-.ter, ~•e~..'x`- ~ r,._-~:,;.,, 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? ~ d 1 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? Yri.~-r,.a^~. d•,•T,i,,l.~ t,;:,. .-~y ~l ,r i. / ~:.!/`,l-~~%rc. ~a7(L~4....... G-,a~<- 'y~'`"C. ~ 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off .to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? ~vF . Q-A f.~~. = l\ .L,~,-s'~ r--t-~•''~ 1'Y~.w.,..~.~t}~e.-rtt_.7(.~. . ~J" ' s ._„Q.+n.~C ~ ~~--~z ~.~-c~_ . Ter ~ , Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: i P C Person Contacted' CJ~ Caller Date _ sEz Z V 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and 8,,v b„N« programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 1 l 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 00 ~GC p~ M Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process Schematic Design Phase May, 2002 reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted R Caller Date/ dZ =s."=" sQ 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? -yam' ~j..b...,~ xl _ + CZ141- A ron-... C 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 6.il ) 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? +J W i'-- K r•- / to ai - .-6,,ZZ r 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 0. Ar~wV ~,L.~•.w,.M,..~Mnw , ARJ,.:N , 1-..C 9 Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions d°µ 4 Architectural Firm: Person Contacted d- Caller Date 1. How knowledgeagle was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a signific n phasin issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in_the-firm. or. w~nsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? w~ 0 _ 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? _4 N -0 Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: <`)rPerson Contacted i ~ ~i Caller 5~' Date 1140-- 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? n 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? L7 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 exr '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 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 'f Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm: Caller ~I 2A May, 2002 reference check questions Contacted k6X - G! a-P 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 161- A-e-~Vx CL I/ v U 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? ejv(~ 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? i 6. How well did the architect research exis r g documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? ~i l 041 Ak,V v i L l ei- j3~~ ,~vi~a~ n ^ ~ , j,tik i~ L., ~G(;ci.cl,L.•Cr//~~~i:✓ I _ S8A s /a 4 IV, Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted 34- Caller Date s IV 0-" i 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 3 L III O-Z t 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? L7 i~o- 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? VWA 1/0 Y- w pX 6. How well did the architect research exrstin documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 1 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? p 4u ll r ((ll//jj V 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? sI Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions k,4 Architectural Firm: Person Contacted- c~e t' F t - Caller wr-~ y'-- Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? - /~~4 t) 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? (1 9 6. How well did the architect research exis ' g documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? ti t~~ ~ ,may ~ ;J ruo a~ -3 kl- .t lr` e)A r An -Ao, c irk L~-,~ 1 ~ , ~i 'j.,c, j 111 V~ t~l t~~; t l otc,~it,, r- Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: 7Y~'Y-' Person Contacted Sri ~~ofa~ - 9 Caller IE,.u b 4 Date s/iJ~/,~-z 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant aboutidducational planning and 3 ~ r programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of edut,4fional needs and concerns into real planning recommendations.6- 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 uninteresti ? PAZ, 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? P".. n.. 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? . 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? / UU r 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? DUI cD Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process . May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Q Architectural Firm: _ Person Contacted a.r~~cc C, C~a:.v Caller Date 4" /~C4 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 plann"yi.,n~g~ recommendations. ¢ I -7^ ! a...X ~'S"..4' n_~ ~-~wt.. ~f1' /L..w+f_v..Y'C ~ ~.~-w, a---..,.~.-•c.a.-.. ~a...-2~ Lr+t.a-..rL A-ff 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significaZphasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt' were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? nn pn, 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Cry ~ fro ~ rQ,,,,. o". u Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: F A f` Person Contacted ~r /fir t~ t.": re. Caller sfi r s4 Date S/iGoZ 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? f I 0 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? (z• m . c.a-..,~-~--~<.,~ c. ~ . f , ,r l..a:,.,-~~ ate,-..,~'. 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? ~p 7J q ~,.,~R~ 1`'o„{yt r~..v~•...-x„Q,.. -•~~••i-.,~..aw~'~^~.~,.c_ M^~fn,, /'^^"L•~-^~as;• ~~~-,,.;:T i+_....t?,.r..~,,f,. .4~,' '~e- Cw.t,., Q l 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Oil_ 14, r ~.._,.,k 4~-.'C-•,+ ~,.d.~../ ~'t.,.t,..,•z,¢_ ~l_ /..a. ~'f '~:,a-<..,. i. r,._•.~/C+..-.` +~w~-.w~C.,r~ ,~'.,~.,,v,%, / a.G/ r~7`+i'~-~ 10, Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted 9, ~ kyg IY6,44,? (Mh - Caller s Date SI2 r ia, 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 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 existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? e a 4 V V 7. Did you receive the attention of. senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? .D r OIL,, 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? L i ( ( u n, Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm:'`-''4 Person Contacted - /10/ 01,A - r~•~-614 ~ Caller b 4 Date T l~~ l .z Ag art. s~ P- 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about ddtcatipnal~planning and 3 ~ programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of edut4tional needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. ~ wb,bry 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 uninteresti 2 / ^^Jr P 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? X ~4-cu -G•l RCS ct a -e 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? _ 9R..(~K. ~",._..,~-...,,_....,..rr.»G6,~ q,.,•O-;:~ /~,.,,/~.vvy~,..,,,,r...e,,~ / nf7..,. ~N,E. 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? L. ' Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process . May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions r QC Architectural Firm: f-A Person Contacted ChaV- Caller ~r 5 te_ Date 14 ,1 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? 4 11 D 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? 4. Was there a significa phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan r for this iss e? t~ p A4 -/''c 4 5 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt' were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? ~,r,.~~ G3,..e_.e.... r'~~R,~ k.`-+*+wr.. (Jw, ~.Cr~',,-~.~ /u✓i,.~r-+(, ~ G,r+t,.' 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? Z. z. ~rtti_ > r• bee u _ r ca_ , 'CT ge, ~ ~ r Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: % r- Person Contacted fir. Caller • -rfirs4 Date 'rh(-I o-a 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? Gr/ y e.. r~ti.ti...-•v'~ ~+.i`...•nr,je. ~ `'~Q/'1 ~ ~-~..r,,.~:i.,. ~ ~'G"~ ; 7 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? w'i-'t~-ti r ~'a~..'^^.~ GSM-"""~•„-t U ~'Ce"'.,'C-~'~.'..^a2 4. Was there a significant phasing issue with your project? How well did the architect's design plan for this issue? n-s-•~J t.-a. j';.1~._....-.t.r:.~ 4°/h~.:7 /ri.~-,_.,~,..,.,C ~ b~•"-."':- ~""+,-'Rrw..~ 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? ~ ,z....~.~.,~ ..-W~.a,,-.,.~,~,,,C_ ,n--w„~.} /~^'-~.~~.~..~.i.,s, ~~7-~...:,• .•Y...aX~..vc •+.-r` e- Cw.~,.. V t 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 44, 4~. V'A 1 4:;- Z-4 ~ I t,L.t „I __..~y ~~-.~C..~+ ?'.d- .J ~"1.,~•,.•e,¢. ~ y.,t.,~-~"~e:.z.,~~. I'~-~..•~-..,-.C ~.•mC..~,.t,,,~:,. ~ a-L~ r % y c l ~ V ~.~%Y..~-~..-.-~ i~ ems- t~,~ -/~C,. dh.-i....~.-:._,,...,tia 1~ ;~'t' r `~.-r.-•`^'1'"'~ ~ C`> Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process . May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted k.., Caller J s Date 5~2 r 1. How knowledgeable was the'architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? Av. V r`f > 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? b. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? t-I 7. Did you receive the attention of. senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate.his consultants? Tr_F 'ter J t-36.r Z... 4. C' r; M,J- / 3 zr,~, - ctd,.<. ( IJ a n~ Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions A-s Architectural Firm: G Person Contacted Lec dfsa. _ s,~~ Caller t -~f ti, s 4 Date 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? iT < a 3. How responsive was the architect to Owner requests for information and to minor adjustments in the process? lJ / lea.,, ~,X 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? ~ri-,d~,,~•, u ~ G~a...~/w-»-==`K. ,2~/1.~ G,~-OTC. '~-rc.c- - ,r'~.e..,-.~•w..~, ~ Q I 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? A,;A , 4 C r ~ U ~ a c g (~q ~ 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off _to junior staff members? 21--e i 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? r. l~ 9 Te T r , F Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: I P C Person Contacted Caller ~ J4_" s <e Date Z_ ' . IqC4AA 4 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and Bar b.3".6 programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? r 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 existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? C: 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants fix. p, n, D3 Reading Memorial High School, Architect Selection Process May, 2002 Schematic Design Phase reference check questions Architectural Firm: Person Contacted Caller Date s` / r nZ ~==M sR c 1. How knowledgeable was the architect or his consultant about educational planning and programming issues? Was he able to translate user's statements of educational needs and concerns into real planning recommendations. 2. How were the architect's presentation and communication skills? Were presentation plans well done and pleasing to look at or were they dry and uninteresting? y 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? ~ 6.4, ~",A ) 5. How clear were the architect's documents? Were their significant change orders that you felt were attributable to lack of drawing coordination or missing information? 6. How well did the architect research existing documents and existing conditions in preparation for planning and design? 7. Did you receive the attention of senior people in the firm or was responsibility quickly handed off to junior staff members? 8. How well did the architect control and coordinate his consultants? 3 ~'`a'"t ~~.ac Reading High, Schematic Design Phase Architect selection - summary 'Grader Jeff S. bennis FIRM y-- J; ~ May-02 Richard R. total Flansburgh `fr 0 Tapper` 0 Kaestle Boos - 0 HMFH ? 0 SMMA 0 0 H 3 0 OMR 5 0 Strekalovsky & Hoit 0 Design Partnership 0 1{caran ; 0 'DRA 5 0 here &Iittiet- 0 T-uer-Group i_3 0 ARCAM J3 0 Mt=e-i )3 0 r r' ~ f r e ~i t,f-g. J-3 a i ~f ✓ t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) ' ° Firm: f 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: 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process b. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals. proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process GRAND TOTAL RATING r__-- 20 20 C A NV,.t ,in I1) 10 /0 10 /O 10 5 A O, in q- 5 5 ~J 120 Signature of reviewer and date f i ~ C l U 1. 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 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 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 3 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 - 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 r 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 Iz-s GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date t-;:~ , d K- - Y3 T-L 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 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process Signature of reviewer and date Maximum Score 20 11,16) 20 "yU 20 d `-61 10 l 0 10 I y ,n 1 T 10 LO 10 5 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 P'A-Q-~ C' [~J-L- Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: 0094?, P1}(~ 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 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 (not just 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 - I 3 0 2- Reading School Building Cormnittee 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 t~ 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 - G O NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 2- 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 jw- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 (4' 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 /0 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 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 3 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 ~ . I I y'~ Signature of reviewer and date ' Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: A-I') 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process GRAND TOTAL RATING Signature of reviewer and date S ►3 Maximum Score 20 0 20 20 S 10 10 10 c 10 10 5- 5 120 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: Vlt- V PTV X11 U'/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 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 i S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 l 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 c7 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 (e) 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 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date 4"2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS 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 YES NO L/ 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 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 U 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 Is 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 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date ~ " A t 1 ~ 0 Z- 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 i/ 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 O 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 O 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 l 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 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 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date Reading School Building Conunittee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: A-t 4," V1/~ W V C ~'l~ BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved l~ 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 5 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 /a 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 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 ~j 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 2 r 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 (2'Z- Signature of reviewer and date j7-,2 t~ O~v~ - I 0 -2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: J t--l MA BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts (f 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved cf 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process Signature of reviewer and date Maximum 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Score l1 `7 t~ < <7 V IN -7e) 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 . 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- 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 1 C) 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 v 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 c ` 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 ~a 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 q- 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 U Signature of reviewer and date ~e j t Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Finn: 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 10-0 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 1 ~7 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 1 U 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 lo SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 5 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 '2 • ~r 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 2. GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date 4:) C - l d Z Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: 09A 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 C r 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 5 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 S 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 10 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 o b. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups 10 t SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 10 "v 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 'S 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4_- n 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date jc;-,- ~~-c b l 15 /'o2 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: M G {"tekv-tlf~ ei ~ Gtr 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process GRAND TOTAL RATING Signature of reviewer and date Maximum Score nn .'7 20 nn c, 10 l" 10 10 / O n to rn C 5 inn & -3 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 t/ 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 10 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 f b 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 i 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 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 S GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date c ('D Firm: Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) (Alk' . 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 ! y 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 13 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 f 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 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 14 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 back for any comments) Firm: BASIC QUALIFICATIONS z--~ c- 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 cf) YES NO ,i 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 (0' 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 I r 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 l® 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 r~ 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 3 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 Y_ GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 9-L Signature of reviewer and date ✓ ~ 4... . G Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: I`-"G' Pig t -Le BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 11/ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved I,-, 3. Carries $1,000,000 minimum professional liability policy tl/ 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 f~ 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 f 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 (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 Signature of reviewer and date G R A N D T O T A L R A T I N G 120 t o F, y Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: T4 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 QUESTIONSABOVE IS NO, THEAPPLICANT DOES NOT MEET BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP -GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum rn _ r-y Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 ' 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 , f 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 E 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 (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 £ GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 21- Signature of reviewer and date ~ 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 .1/' 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 y 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 i~ 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 ~y 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 / Q 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 9 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 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 TOTAL RATING 120 Signature of reviewer and date S-1 13 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 Ll~ 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved vl 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 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 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 S~ GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 9 Signature of reviewer and date ~/-~J~ Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: a ~,t rnj BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES 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 NO 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 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 (not just new construction) 10 2. Experience with complex phased projects 10 -4-- 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5 Lf GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 ;Z? Signature of reviewer and date' 0 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: b PIA BASIC QUALIFICATIONS 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 6 YES NO 1/ 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 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 6. Ability to present project needs to local boards and groups SCORING CATEGORIES - PRIME CONSULTANT(S) 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 2. Experience with complex phased projects 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process GRAND TOTAL RATING Maximum Score In 1n 16 t, 20 ' A 1117 11) 0- 10 1 n ez 5 f 120 f Ot f Signature of reviewer and date 0 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: Y lY"e,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 / /s 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 l ~a 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 j 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 r 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- 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 4 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 t 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 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 J_. GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 ( 0?-- Signature of reviewer and datef w.., s lt 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 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 -D 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 16 5. Past experience with SBAB approval process 10 t 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 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 f ~~Z 13 Reading School Building Committee Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: S, ; ✓ M, e fc W BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts d/ 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 REQ UIREMENTS OF THE RFP - GO NO FURTHER SCORING CATEGORIES - ARCHITECT Maximum Score 1. Past experience in high school rehab projects (not just new construction) 20 G 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 r- 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 16 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 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 TOTAL RATING 120 -100 Signature of reviewer and dater 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 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 NO 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 c 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 (9 E 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 10 ho 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 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 5 4. Past experience in public work, primarily public bidding process 5° GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 (12- ILI Signature of reviewer and date r Reading School Building Committee r/ 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 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 1S 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 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 G 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 9 GRAND TOTAL RATING 120 6 Signature of reviewer and date Reading School Building Committee a Reading Memorial High School Schematic Design Phase Architectural Firm Evaluation - May, 2002 (Use back for any comments) Firm: J~ BASIC QUALIFICATIONS YES NO 1. Registration as an Architect in Massachusetts 2. Ability to proceed with study and further phases if approved LI/ 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 7 2. Experience with complex phased projects 20 6 3. Past experience of individuals proposed for project 20 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 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 a°`,- ` 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. 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. 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. N Q O Q a A W b ^o d z 'E S~ E Y 4 $ k .C+ o e~ z ~ 8 E S E ~ ~ 4 ~ v E o 8 0 o m u~ 0 ~ A 8 & ~ ~ ~ $ u m q 8 pp~~ pp,. pp~~ O 8 pp~~ P O pp.. O~ 8 p~ O~ S O 8 N ~ •0 .O N O N _ O 8 O 8 N op N P ~ O P P ~ N IIFJJ N ~ - ' u - - - - - - - - - - - - - M - o 8 - ~ - h W nn r d b M O N-. p 8 n p ~ 4 00 W y O N 00 N o0 P d O V h ^ n Off. . V N N P ~ M H N ~'1 ~ O (.j N ^ N YJ N O N h N N N ~ . N ~ N N N N N N . N . N N ^ N N N N N ` 8 G ~ •N• ro 8 8 8 O P $Q ~ " 8 O 8 O eo ~ p 8 8 pd . u h ? N C 8._ ~ . h M app vl n O 8 O 8 O oA v ' O r o ~ O ~ M 4 O M1 O Nt V ~ O ~ V ^ y y O H t~ H V~ N H L P H N . N 1 N N ~ O v N N N N N ry N N - N - O - - H - - - h P - N - - - - - - G - O - - $ OA P.. V d h yO~ ~ r P O ~ r e 0 b < [ h G p 8 rd'1 `O ~ i y P ~ P ~ „ „ 00 y O O W N Hy H b N z 'Z N N N N - N - N - - - - ~ ( Ll - - - - - N H - - - y - 8 - 8 - R - - 8 - 8 Sppq ~ P 8 O S O 8 O 8 O 8 O ^ 8 O P T p 2 O5 $ ~ Op O b O O O . < O d v P1 p ry i ~ O ~ N ' v i N N .P. N h N ` ~ ^ N N C H 8 N ~ H ~ N (N~ H 1~ M N h N - - - N - ~ y N - ry N - - N - '1 N - N - N N t ~ N - - - - - - - T i ~~pp O O O O Z Q Zj O S O 8 N r '1 8 O S v i O~ S M1 z ~ T p N p O M N p~ V ! h O p O N ~ y y N N ~ d 'I N ~ N N ~ N y y~~ N y N MM N ~ N VI N 9 v :4 a e C1 lA m W W W LC. - - - - - - - - - - - - - N - - - O N - g - h ~ 8 :O h r t~ di b n h M . ON P ~ O N w Q_ eQ (Y vl _ ~q P N i ~ ~ M_ q N N . p O vii w O O O O gyp V ~ ~ M ~ v v~ N .d-. ^ y~ N O pp N 0Op N N ~ N O~ N N N N N N N H M VI N N N N N W n ~ ~ 8 ~ h ~ l` }~j ~ Q ~ ^ p d 8 O N 8 O 8 v } O h ~ h ~ r O ~ b' C }PVT} V ~ ~ ~ ~ G G L. ~ ~ _ _ r 1 G ~ C Y ~ p N N N N p N N H ( r~ N ~ N N p C N C N N N N N N j d S P O g ~ y S + d p O ~j 8 O . . ~ r O f O N O N O ~ 8 O ~ 8 d n p .J v~l O O O h ~ 1• G p fQ p N ~ 6 'O O N ~ <p t Y ~ N n w M m N YL O "1 C l ~ N . p P N f ~ ry ~ . N ~ p N H N V ~ 1`I PO gppp q N tRr~ P N ~ v ~ N H N M1 1. l „ N P P V1 N ~ N M' d N N O N N N M M p P b O O ~ ~ O ~ V P ~ ~ ~ 8 O pq O b ~ N H y y C ~ b j r ~ t` ~ i~ d M1 H P b y b . N b O N p b b h a o _ I ^ ~ 1 4 'ly y' p qQ Q ~ ~ ~ d < < $ Q P CC pp C o P d r M a s P , r b rl b ~ S4 . d X, se XM ae Q N N X X X a4 X ~J, X X ai X a p' o . ~ ~ t~+ I 4J Nl. t~i t~t W t 1i I~i u~ t~i `t+~. u`~ $ . O u22 u ~ t~i t~i 1~ u W I Y ~ < 6 6 ~ o u 'e 'J 3 F ` ~ o o O: ~ ,w - F L g} it & ~ a ~ _ ~ .K E u ~ b m u p u c c .a ~ . a N ' S N x m J d m LL m G IL m QQ N N N rT. OC .C 3 V ~ V p 8 C tlC tl 8 Z. tl ~ , O V sl N N W CC u T Ti O LVy ltI N U 'R N N O C S 7 y m - 1 C y ~ N p N V C q < V {il y C'fu' W y.^ C lu Yl Nn CT _ 'u w ~ L F .p t~ [4: y C ~ V ug G a J O N ^ r S 4 Y ~ C' < x a 3 $ S a O C :.a 5 O V V S o ? 5 x 4 Z in A C~ - ' d 'C W .'E N W LL < [ g z < ~ T a P P P P 9 P p. O. rT t wv b h. a T P ? N Q Q Q` P P wlaA11 wl e:l t I T, ? N A O d d N d O ro b n E 0 aU "Ell w C tl e u r 9 vtl 'C W r< "A N 2 7 O A a N O O .D ' E C e e nY a 'O W G y. Q 3 v t ~ m w A ~ w ~ q A V ~ ~ " E ' ' ~ ~ a ~ ~ ZS: Q '2$ Q 2$ Q 2$ ~ ~ Q LS 8 $ g $ ~ N N N N N N N N N N O ~i. M V O O ~ M ~ q ~ N V p H N Y 7 M M ~ pp ry ~ p `O H O N h w 6 H N R ry r. Irl O_ y M _ N N O ^ N . N N N N N N N N N N H ~ 0 8 88 S $o~ 8 ^ 8 $ 8 P 8 8 q y 0O O O ~ `8: O pO O ~ QO. °l. ~ p w yP of qqO O O ^ It O 8O O 8O O o . 1 _y 5 N N N O. .N.. H p` y ~ N `G N ~ N n y N N ~ N O N v N N N u ~ y O V N N N V N ~ N ~ "i O M qq .E N N Q 25 ~ N 5 ~ 25 $ H V N M g V Y° Y y u ~ N N ~ N V ~ N ~ 6 ~ F C H ~ Oo N r'~ H H y OPO ~ ~ b 8 N ~ ry~ Oa ~.~_Nt N M b O p O N M CC ~ .O ~ O h N O N V y y N y y H H N N y N N _ ~ k Y 5 4 e . e ti 3 m Y m ~ w ~ ~ C :3 m Y m Y m 8 y W y A ONO O O P P N N N W N d NN b Vt a . O O ~I O~ O ^ V N O opdp N P N H v m N N N N N N NN N N N k "p V ~ P pM~ Ob N `.i S }Vj}T~~ C a. ~ a ~ O~ ,~0,1 r N S O 8 a N < x ? ^ t~ M N p O PO v~ N N oMO N V ~y § V q 7 VVV L CCO 7 ~M M `Q~' A O~ N ONn1 n N 8 p N P 14 y ~v oW N 'Sp!~ w N Ord N N I N ry n V N o i N N < N p ^ N 8 ~t N N 8 O N ~ Q Q t~ r° 'n'1 $ O $ '1 °~1 Q 25 ~ v Q 25 o Q 25 r 0 5 $ ?5 o. 7 ~ 8 u y pry, ~ U m 333 i E 3 y C CQ ~ U ~i ~ A F= p~ f- Q{S. t~ 1 0 ~ x ia. x 66q h V .y pw `7 LO lL 5 {L S ~ O K ~ 0 b O o0 N ~ M b M 8 O OD ' N 0~0 V N hh V ` n p Y\. N ` rN'~ y N N N n N N N ,O N w N eo u~ y n N V b b V b ~ h b b h V y y N y y y y y y y y y y y S e ~ O a ~ y kgk 3 a ~ 'go .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'k 'S y b p S {07 ' 8 ~V! ~ L Q f+ h7 a f Jyj ~ V A ~ a e ~ •~EE Y ~ ,p ~ . VG N ~ tLF~J Vj ~ ~ N ~ O GG ~ y ~ ~ ~ ` z y ~ j i s V y {U~. ` ~ O N u ~ 8 G~ U ~ ~ ~ o Lo' u y v M y U ` v 1 i.. i.. C4 e ~ 8 4 9 21 W n n N oo R 4~ O. $ $ g g '1 N d O , ' T O A d N b P O E~ i a 0 U 0 tt 1 b ~E G ~ O O ~ ~o oW 6 `Q~ u N N A y Q 4 k 8 S 8 uR u, E • g'. rn ~ g ~ ~ ~v ~ $ g g g e F. w ~ o . O - - O V O - N - - W O ^ - pOp - ~ - - ~ - N _ W N ~ N ~ p pO~~ P p O, O W r ~ ~ N oo ~ N ~O N ~ N re M N y~ N E ~ e ~ M H N ~ y N O ~ ~ b N g e v _ N N N p N A N N N N H N N N N N p S ~ 8 O ~ 8 4X-• ~ ~ 8 O 8 O ~ ~ 8 O „ pq O8 S O8 O 8 pO O S Op O u h M p 8 b ~ Cj v W 8 O M b $ p O O ~ 00 O N N N O H ~'i N K ^ N ? M V ^ N : N p N N M N N H N ~ N .p N „ N N r• 8 ~ 888Op v°Qi S O y S O ~ Q ~j ~ S O ~ 8 O O P N N o 8 ~ N ~p V Y 41 V N N O M N O N w N N ii pQ W ~ ~ < 8 O ~p O p N 8 O P 8 O O„ O r aJ O O ~ n T O C ^ O Li M N Oo N G ^ vv~~ H N N N N - - - - - - - - N - - - - - - - - - m - - R a ~ P pQ v 8 O 8 O ~ ~ pO O pO VO O N ~ N $ N p O p ~ O N 8 vl M N S N - - ~ u ~ N y N - - - - - - - - - - - y y ` LL ` G W m ,uS, a m m - m - m - m - m pp ~i ~ b g W ~ u~ m U~ N t~ ~ N ^ N a N ~ ~ - Y - ~ fV ~ - ~ - N - M N - - h N - ~ N ~ N ^ H p E LJ O „ N V N ~ Y H O i N O e~ N N O h O . N N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ .Y°S ~ n ~ V u v b G g g g m ~ ' cc U' ~ H H y ~ N H } ~}j;; C ~ ~ ~ C G N N N N S O Q 8 O 8 O O $ 8 O S O pQ r+~ f't P 8 N N t` (V N tNV N N N tY" N N N N N N V1 N 8 8 8 pp 8 8 8 p 8 8 ~n r m P r N P ~ N h N „ N P ~ ° „ N ~ .d ~ M ° V Y u ~ O cc _ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U 3 u C m O ~ CC O m ~ 'N tt k ^^-G V - r - < - - - - - - - - - - - - d - - - " ~y F ^ y x F r e a g ~ „ ~ ~ n ° g r P v ~ N N M Y M c N N N ~ 'paOG ~ P T O. P P P P ~ Z ~ N Z N ~ y x - y - ~ - y - - - 5 - S - 5 x - - - T - x x 2 S y x S a S _ d x O. ~ u x < ro < < $ ° $ g 3 Z w G z 6 z z o Z 3 x y N c~ x 3 3 O V N Z Y $ O ~ ~ O V ~ ~ ~ C = V ~ V N 8 F F V O Fyy N V y a T l x W u F ° ,G m F o 3 F '6 ~ x S ae-, 6 U x w U F e .yi 5 x ~ 5 C N v~ V W u E " = 3 z F Z F ~i b u a , V G u u y o~ 4 O g y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x u u ~ C < ,r 3 u C a O .C ~ y LO z ~ ~ 3 z " Q ~ ~ e ~ tLL ~ u ° ~ •`u u u • •`V Y u • p T z O ~ z v y 3 a x~ e 3 ~ o m ..a g~ ;y z ~ „ 7 ^ a w ~ 0 8 ..u ~ y qq q pp~ U P P P P P p q. P pp~~ P pp.~ P 8 N 8 O 6 O N x S Q ' O V N C o U 3 u z m z fi E V z u Q O V n C W .y xm a i i E i i L. Q Q V1 b U z 0 n e W O e ° U « xo & 5R R OC yN W ~ ~ x O T O S O x yy 6 ~ Ji LL Jf = u fa O . S ° 0. V 3 G U ~ . ? ~ < c a~ .c at ~ x ty V ly V 9 0 i O V 8 ' V ~ N s N C •s ~ C •s O C ~ ,E m ~ G ~ ~ ° W C a ~ •C s • ~ C , ~ O C FF° v S c_ ~ s N 8 N 8 g ti O IL N 8 S N 8 N s o h N ~e O M1 N r N ~ N T ~ N N W .N. N 1"I ryry N ~~pp P N O. t` ~ N u V e ~Op D~ N O a N v~ W N P N ' O~ N T_ N p O ^ N .~-I N t y tY ~ N O~ ~ N O Gb N 8 N N 8 N H v N °n N ,O'., N 8 S 8 8 N ° p U ~ 8 O 8 O 8 O S O 8 O 8 G 8 O 8 O $ 8 O 8 O P ° 8 q 5 N O S b N N pO S N pb 8 N O h N e 0 h ^ N pO S N ~ •O W N p S p S N N N $ N 8 P N Y ~O N p O N ~ N ~ N o ^ p O N U N O d H P W C ~ 88 ppO~ eo N 5~ jpp5. O N 8 .Op O H `p?~ O N - 8 O vi N 8 O H 8 O O~ N ~ O H 8 O V N 8 ~Op 6 N 8 O c N N N 9 O W w $ O $ ~ O O 8 O O d b O g O ~ O H O S vl H O $ g °i ~ E 5 0 N , `d w v+ r n H n ~ $ N $ w S ~ h h g ° r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 O Ir~ 25 m ~ N b O V1 N 25 N N 25 O i+f N a ~ E O V ~ P N b S H E s ~ 25 N N 04 N ~ N ~ S N S S N S N S N S N S N ~Sp N N V 8 g ,v_ p~ s '4 W ;4 W ~ to :4 CG 4 N 3 W 07 as W m ~ pj O N ~ a 7 ~ ^ G g ti7 u7 O N ~ pp ~p ~ pp .p P p S (O` p S o0 pp `O N y?1 N ~ y~ M y~ p O~ h N p 0+1 N N fO(~. N N w~ N M W N N Opp V N V ~ N ~ Vl ~ H V i y N rn h N N N + ~ N h ~Np N V N O ~ N • N , N .N. N rr~~ 8 8 8 Q ~ n g u ~ ~ ~ L O a ~ ~ ~ < ~ g CC O ~ p S N 8 O . N 8 O N H M ~ N 8 O M1 N O _ N O O N O O ~ N Yj P N N C o O ~ ~ < N n Y O c ~ O ~ pp o O H ~ VV N N N N N N 8 8 8 O n ~ 8 O P 8 6 A 8 O n O w N O ~ N Q ~ o O .o e v w O ~ P w O ~ O n v a • ( 0 ~ a v~ N O ~L O ~ a A < < u7 w O p o u, u- a , O L] F S v~ qq p O ~ ~ < H p ~ X , x u x ; z x q ~ x + u z ° , X x x x X x X X Z N x N x X 'x x X b N ~ ~ $ u ~ a ~ w a k x a ~ a w ^ a ' v, iL V1 X a N x u a k a ~ u w N pG N u x i a 8 w wwwww ww w w w w w w w w w w w ww .1 by II ti ~ 3 F . 3 L' c 3 ~ U 3 ~ s, z E a S 3 m` t < < 3 3 < a i 3 8 3 S ~ u1 . ` o ~ ° u L g ~ O O p ~ u ~ c Y" ~ a ~ X ~ a ~ b ~VV ~cC ~ ~ iq V L U i O z U ul w ~ ~ V V ° v a N W yip. O . N ~ ~ L 5 ~ g ° U ~ pup o W { 8 t ~ w ~ k o U w 8 N w m v 8y N w ~ ~ V 8 N w z N 8y N ~ ~ P. ~yy N c ~ C s E o < N c ; V V C > < w S ~ Q Q Q x w < f J i I q 0 u m V. e 9 n O V w w h O V V O O W -a U U U U O U O U O U x 9 O UO .x S U y ° V D V P P T - P P P ~ 8 N 8 N c O ~ O CN N GJ ON c O ~ c FO O G FO O G FO G7 n ~ O N V y ° .O N HH ~ < N V O H N ~O p N e0 m N M N n w H N N N r H P n N e~ N tl H _ N b N & „ H n N J r S ~ O ~ 8 1~ M 8 p ~ 8 O h 8 O ~bnp b b 8 pO 8 N 8 O M O S O O - V O ~ O n N _ u g VL Ad 5 ^ N ~ N H N H H H N N N N O h ^nl t~ '"L O ppO~ r+l O tY i^y 1+ O b O n O q ;O ~ ~ 00 S N o H N N N N N H N b Q) ~I O N N N g N O O N O N N O N-. N p~ O N g N QQ O O^ N ~ N 8 t~I• vL N 8 N v~ N O yN ~ o P V Y e° H g ~O G ~ G g `O n N g N g V r g O < N ~ .N b N ~ ~ N pg O ~O t'' ts~ ^S N es~ ~ pg 8 a O g V N a w iw L ia. w m m " m m m m m O b N N N H b N b ~O N V N ~~0, N m a M r} N n a00 N N N N O N n b N V N N N a N N H 7 U~ 5 ~ a U ~ 5 0 7 0 ~ 25 M h 25 b ~ (f r S, ~O. n g n O 25 N b yy O e h ~ v o Q S p O^ g 0O ~ ` g a ~V b v~ v N N N' N N N H v Vn~ r ~ f v~ V On O N o o N 8 vVO~~ N n ~Nf fJ ~ N S O w 8 On N O g 8 O r p o ~ e~ ry Noo S O 40 8 O ~ N 6 g O ° U (ej pp t~ q m G 0. m N T b 0. - y - M1 U - - - - r - - - - :z - µa, - - - tai. - E - - tai. K W x a y W k ka. W Q X X z z q G z 3 4 z X u X ; X u X X u X Y Z z ' " O 7 m iL eo J4 w y » SC w JL ep 9L a ~O 0O w ~L eo >L ee AC ° a y yyy ' In y TNS y ~ N ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ y V y VTC } O W ~ W ~ ~ f W N O W w a z v U a W a M1 f M1 ~ > w ~ .G G W < ` y . d J ItJ ~ ~ ~ ~ M1 _ g y w O V 8 a ~ u t~ V $ o e u > ' h £ u 0 g N a A G ' ~ ~ 3 F X m v ~ ~ g ~ g ~ , v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VV `X F fi , Y y ,S i u M1 r w t o O t o Y d i ~ T ~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ a V u 4 g $ 6 3 'w s v n > p'~j, ~ N G 1 s ~ , a u ryry J t i a .-C 7 L b L ~ ~ a a X . L J '1 ' a , 1 O 'ti T d O - a o S ` a v s z > ° W a < a z W Q QQ Q ~ Qq qq qq pp pp Cry R ~ Nt {[I P O. P P Q • u _ q U 3 'E 0 n °w w y V C W t ~m w u U x 10 ~ ~ O x 2 0 E P P R R S; Q 25 5 $ 25 O 8 8 o g w N o 8 v ~ o. ~ v Y ~i V O N N N N N N N N „ N N N N N N N 'kll"44E" O N N tU H O g g g Q~ g S S g Q G a N a g O ~ O ~ O ~ b p' C w ~ O p C O p ? ~ U O G8 N N O N O N N ry N N N ryry N N N N Ti v H O N l~ L' C e ° N °ry v $ ? ~ 4 25 N Q 25 ~ v v N Q S ~ ~ q 25 9 N N N M N 8 8 $ OO 0 8 8 O 8 O N .r. N N N r NON H NNy N O 8 YPl O vOi N O N N O ~ N O ~ ~ V [p Q .p g 6 N Q b N ~ N O O ,p~~~ Q 8O N 8$ N pq q N g b Q, b g O o g `o = 5 2 E 2 2 e b g m to m H N ~ t~'1 f~ C b ~ p N 8 n 8 N n N V N n O y 8 ^ Q n ^ N - N ~ N a N _ Y m „ r N N N N N N N N H N M N N N N M S p r O N N N O N 8 b n N - ~ N W ~ eo N V f N N O N ~ 1~ ~ r( N ~ etT ~ ~ R $ 8 O S N N 8 O 8 (Y W N pp 8 N py V N ~ NH l-~ N O N O H H f'7, N 8 O N N y .pp Q 8 8 N O S ~ O t~ N G OO N ~ S G Q - ~ N - ~ QO - - - - v0 Q - Q~ S Q - d ~ O p o - - - - - - - 3 - - - ~ 3 - yy ~ V - 3 - - - q 3 Q' - gp {i] - €p tii - - - - - k - - - - - F- - - - - - - - - ; z u z 3 z a z a z s z s z z z a z s z a z z z N 00 b o0 t0 4, `G %b N V b N = N Z ~~Ur+ N ~ x e E ~a c e c .a o ° w ~ a ~ z d S ~ ~ x 3 < z a m` m C ( F a N ~ y C Y ~ V N ? t N SV~ 'O V p O V y ~ I V J ~ . V Q _ ' g ' ry O R C~ ~ ~O" Q 4 a 'Y~Y N X V) g a ~ U ! Z ~y O i s x 72 G ~ off, w ~ < o L z ~ x < 3 U O , h ^ ; ~ ~ S z V V h W s m W o. A q O U q 4 v d z E ° V w n a • :C wy E~ ~ v Oro U 'G ~ c~ ~ ~ fj 'Po ~ ~ w" u O 'c' w u C ~ E' $ S S S ~ g N 8 C S S a ~ , roj raj a r'e v $ ~°e n ~ ~ o p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r)[ CJY p o ~ 8 O ~ ~l 8 O pQ O O O O O y v b N b N M N N N N N ~ N H N N N N A b d N N h N + - - p O O, N - - - - - Q `6 H - - - - - O O ~ OO N $ & N 8 O y~ fV N 8 O N d N ~ N 8 O N d N 8 O~ O~ ON H 8 R $ ~ O O 8 O ~ a ~ 8 H 8 N q ~ N ~ H P ~ N g N H N N - 4^ - a - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - t+ y F ~ ~ m 'O N C ~ 9 W a a S b N b b 1~ n O V Q fV b N OO Y G N C d ~ H N N N N N N N N N N N H N N s 8 O $ O 8 ,o Ot t3 S 3 e ^ ~ H f~~l v~ 8 O ~ p ~ U ~ U O V O U m 8 O ~ oq V = H g R ~ N 8 O ENO, ~ ~ " l & S O ~ Q ~j a0 ~ 8 P e ~ N .N p Ob ~ P Q ` ~ O O ~ $ 8 O w 8 O Y N 8 p O o. ~ V 8 P P p p~~ N tl ~ Y a ~ C y ~ C O 5 ~ ~ ~ ti ~ m w ...0001 k p 61 k 4 ~ A .h w pp H ~ H A paQ F F op. c t- ~ u ~ ~ ~ z ~ z ° z z x z X X 7 Y b ~ ~ .b V n ~ P P 7 u ~ x Vj' U ~ ~ x x T T T ~ ' ~ o ~ : e Z o f v 6 ~ ' 7 ~ . ° _ " Q ~ ~ A4 O ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,Q ii ~ c x " L Z o y x I o . N A ' U _ ~i $ . 8 N ~ " V " C 0 ~ y s ms T : V ~ s t x " C 8 s ~ _ 8 U e " C S E a o T ~ V. V C X r ,N G V " $ •c x a v = V U C , x y o x 3 r z c x o x ~ C S m y a °m x < v' U P a~ < m C A ~ ~ g 52 5 ~ P q. q 1 O .J w N Q O V z s z ~H 8 e e U 'F n 4 a ~ o U « 0 0 W a - ~