heery - douglasma.org · find the original 100% dcamm contractor and subcontractor evaluations ......

HEERY

Originals sent via Federal Express

November 16, 2015

Mr. Michael Guzinski, Town Administrator

Town of Douglas Municipal Center 29 Depot Street Douglas, MA 01516

RE: Douglas Intermediate School Renovations and New Elementary School M.G.L. c. 149 § 44D - Contractor! Subcontractor 100 % DCAMM Evaluations MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form

Dear Mr. Guzinski:

As part of the project Completion Phase, and in accordance with Paragraph 8.7.3 of our Contract, we are

completing a few outstanding items in advance for reaching Final Completion of the project. Attached please find the original 100% DCAMM Contractor and Subcontractor Evaluations for review and processing by the Town. These documents were prepared by Al Calcagno and Marwan Abi-Elias based upon their day to day interactions with each company and their representatives over the entire duration of the project. Please note

that our evaluations are also based upon our collective 30+ years of experience and our perspective of overseeing work of General Contractors and Trade Subcontractors on public projects utilizing Chapter 149

and Chapter 149A delivery methods in Massachusetts. Our evaluations and preparations of these documents have been done to assist the Awarding Authority in complying with their obligations under M.G.L. c. 149 § 44D.

Integral to the MSBA completion process is that both Heery and the Awarding Authority must sign the forms

and provide hard copies to both DCAMM as well as to each Contractor that was evaluated in accordance with DCAMM requirements. Heery did reach out to DiNisco Design Partnership (DDP) to solicit their input on these evaluations. We forwarded to DDP our draft evaluation of CTA and a summary of the proposed evaluation

scores for the filed subcontractors. Other than receiving an initial indication that DDP did not agree with our

draft evaluations, no other comments have been received since our request was made more than 10 days ago. To that end Heery has signed the forms and respectfully request that the Awarding Authority do the following:

1. Review, Approve and Sign the attached original forms (in blue ink). 2. Scan the forms so that a permanent electronic record is created and available.

3 Send the Original forms to DCAMM at the address noted below.

4. Send a copy of the Evaluations to each Contractor and Trade Contractor. 5. Sign (in blue) and scan the attached MSBA form: "MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form". 6. Return the original signed MSBA form to our office in Burlington, so that we can forward to MSBA with other

required close out documentation.

Heery International, Inc. A group of professional service practices

80 Blanchard Road, Suite 108, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803

Telephone 781 494-9000 Fax 781 494-9007

Offices Nationwide

p4

Thomas E. Ellis, r., AIA, Vice President / New England Area Manager

HEERY

Letter to Michael Guzinski November 16, 2015 of 2

Upon completion of these tasks please forward the originals as noted below:

(4) WHERE MUST THE FORM BE SUBMITTED?

(a) This completed form must be submitted by mail to Commonwealth of Massachusetts, DCAMM - 15th Floor, ATTN.: Contractor Certification Office, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108; or by fax to (617) 727-8284; or by email to certevaLdcamm(astate.ma.us

(b) Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D (7), a copy of this form must be sent by the Awarding Authority to the contractor. The contractor shall, within 30 days of receipt of same, be entitled (but not obligated) to submit a written response to DCAMM disputing any information contained in the evaluation and setting forth any additional information concerning the building project or the oversight of the contract by the public agency that may be relevant to the evaluation of the contactor's performance.

If there are any questions or if adjustments to the evaluation forms are desired, please return your written comments to our office with a narrative outlining the basis for the suggested change(s) along with the original DCAMM Evaluation for each Contractor for which there are questions. We can discuss any proposed modifications that will arrive at a consensus for a fair evaluation of each firm. We recommend that all other evaluation forms should be submitted in accordance with the requirements noted above. Upon our notification of action by the Awarding Authority that the evaluations have been submitted to DCAMM and the individual Contractors and the return of the MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form, we will include this information in our MSBA original close out document package.

Sincerely,

HEERY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Enclosure: DCAMM -100 % General Contractor Evaluation Form - CTA DCAMM -100 % Sub Bid Contractor Evaluation Forms (15 - Filed Sub-Bidders) MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form

Mitchell Cohen, Douglas School Building Committee Chairman (cover letter only) Bill Cundiff, Town Engineer (cover letter only) Craig DiCarlo, Project Architect - DiNisco Design Partnership (cover letter only)

Heery International, Inc. / • PM

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. / Project Director

/7400tvioiP.10.;" Date Town of Douglas Date

Mr. Michael J. Guzinski / Town Administrator

MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY

Notification of Total Point Rating Assigned to Contractors and Subcontractors on DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Form pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7)

Awarding Authority:

Town of Douglas

New Douglas Elementary School and Middle Project Name:

School Repairs

* Please check (✓) if this is a:

(60% plete) 0 Final Evaluation (100 % occupancy is

achieved)

Firm Original Contract Value C=Coniractori S=Subcontractor Rating Submitted to DCAM (yes or no)

V CTA Construction Co. $18,420,140 General Contractor - GC 86 Yes

V Lighthouse Masonry $1,084,000 Masonry Subcontractor -S 89 Yes

V Berlin Steel Construction $408,000 Miscellaneous Metals Subcontractor - S 85 Yes

V Debrino Caulking $165,930 Waterproofing & Damppr000fing Subcontractor - S 85 Yes

V Greenwood Roofing $1,072,000 Membrane Roofing Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Modern Glass $1,535,000 Aluminum Windows Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Modern Glass $31,025 Glass & Glazing Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Allegany Contract Flooring $444,000 Ceramic Tile Subcontractor - S 86 Yes

V K&K Acoustical Ceilings $476,720 Acoustical Ceilings Subcontractor - S 89 Yes

West Flooring $532,033 Resilient Flooring and Base Subcontractor - S 86 Yes

V Bouchard Painting $396,430 Painting Subcontractor - S 80 Yes

V Bay State Elevator Company $187,000 Elevator Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Marathon Fire Protection $595,400 Fire Protection Subcontractor - S 94 Yes

V Sagamore Plumbing $1,060,000 Plumbing Subcontractor - S 97 Yes

V General Mechanical $5,119,000 HVAC Subcontractor - 5 99 Yes

Wayne J. Griffin Electric Company $4,700,000 Electrical Subcontractor - S 96 Yes

Original Contract Amount: $36,226,678

Current amount of Net Change Order: $968,320 Through CO # 26 Contract Sum To Date: $37,194,998

The Ratings set forth in this notification form represent the total number of points already entered by or on behalf of the District for each contractor and subcontractor (filed sub- bidders only) in Section III of the DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Form for this Project, as required by the provisions of M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7). The District acknowledges that the complete DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Forms for the Project, along with any contractor and subcontractor responses, are on file with the District and are being maintained in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7) and all other applicable law.

EVALUATION and RATING of CONTRACTOR

PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcagno Title - Project Manager

Agency/Firrn — Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: CTA CONSTRUCTION DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a I y Eva I atio i; X Final Evaluation

For a X Prime/General Contractor

Awarding Authority: Town of Douglas

Project Name and Location: New Douglas Elementary School and Middle School Repairs 23 Davis Street, Douglas, MA

Scope of Work: GENERAL CONTRACTOR

Contract Start Date: 03/02/2012

Contract End Date: Undetermined*

Contract End Data: Undetermined` • Contract Date was modified M Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of liquidated Damages until March 14 2014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Do te for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved

Substantial Completion of Phase 4 - 08/18/2014

Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Through Change Order #26]: $ 37 194,998

Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? X Yes No

( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.

Excel lent 13 Points

Sub Total: 11 Points

Unacceptable Poor X Satisfactory 0 Points 7 .Points 11 Points

Comments:

1. Quality of Workmanship Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality—related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

tit cep ' Satisfactory Very Good X 0 Poll '24 Points 26 Points 28 Points

Comments: Sub Total: 27 Points The overall quality of the work completed on this project has been consistently considered very good to excellent. When quality issues were raised by either the Architect or the OPM, CTA normally addressed the issues in a reasonable timeframe and brought the issue to an acceptable resolution. In the end, there were few items remaining on the punch list which were not completed in accordance with the construction documents. During the time following Substantial Completion, CTA continued to return to the project to address warranty issues brought to their attention by the Owner.

2. Project Management: Scheduling Rate this contractor's performance with regard to adhering to contract schedules. Did this contractor meet the contract schedule or the schedule as revised by approved change orders? If not, was the delay attributable to this contractor? If so, provide specific examples.

This area was one area where CTA could improve their performance. CTA provided periodic milestone schedules and bi-weekly 'look ahead' schedules and did provide overall schedule adherence of the Elementary School project milestone completion dates, which included a number of project changes. The Middle School renovation project schedule was impacted due to a three week delay by the Owner to the MS building resulting in the late start of the demolition, as outlined in CO #21. There were a number of issues which related to unanticipated field conditions which also impacted the progress of the work, in addition to the impact of the water infiltration event in October 2013. There remain unexecuted change orders which will most likely change the contract date for Substantial Completion of the project once they are executed. So at this time it cannot be determined if CTA completed the project within the contract timeframe, including all time extensions granted per Change Order.

3. Subcontractor Management

Rate this contractor's ability, effort and success in managing and coordinating subcontractors (if no subcontractors, rate this contractor's overall project management). Was this contractor able to effectively resolve problems? If not, provide specific examples.

Ut Poor X Satisfactory Very 6 Points 11 Points 12 Points 13 Points

Comments: Sub Total: 11 Points Overall, CTA provided adequate subcontractor management over the course of the entire project. The Project Manager for CTA left during the course of the project, which impacted the project management somewhat. CTA restructured their project team and brought in a new Project Executive, Paul DuRoss, which had a positive impact on the subcontractor oversight and performance. A few subcontractors were problematic in their performance, specifically the metal panel subcontractor and supplier. This subcontractor had significant issues with their supplier, which impacted the project schedule in a significant manner. While CTA was responsible

2

for this schedule impact, it was functionally out of their control. CTA advanced the work during the first summer to get the building enclosed to allow interior work over the winter.

4. Safety and Housekeeping Procedures

Rate this contractor's safety and housekeeping procedures on this project. Were there any OSHA violations or serious safety accidents? If so, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good 0 Points 3 Pont.is 7Points 8 Points nits

Sub Total:• 8 Points Comments: CTA provided appropriate safety oversight of the project, including their subcontractors. When potential safety concerns were raised, CTA promptly addressed all issues. The building and site were generally kept in good order with some room for improvement on periodic housekeeping, which is common on many public construction projects. There were no reported OSHA Violations or incidents of record during the course of construction.

5. Change Orders

Did this contractor unreasonably claim change orders or extras? Were this contractor's prices. on change orders and extras reasonable? If not, provide specific examples.

UInacceptable Poor X Satisfactory Very Good E.';xcellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 :Points..

Comments: Sub Total: 7 Points Change Order Activity (CO's) was considered normal with industry standards commensurate with Chapter 149 Public Construction processes. The CO's that were presented and negotiated with CTA during the course of the New Elementary School and the Middle School Repairs were justifiable and reasonable. In the end, all the final negotiated Change Order values were deemed reasonable and of fair value to the Owner.

6. Working Relationships

Rate this contractor's working relationships with other parties (i.e. Awarding Authority, designer, subcontractors, etc.) Did this contractor relate to other parties in a professional manner? If not, give specific examples.

Unacceptable P - or 0 .Points

X Satisfactory V C I v Good 5 Points 6 t oints

Comments: Sub Total: 5 Points The overall working relationship between CTA, the Designer and the OPM was generally good although there were the occasional and normal disagreements on work scope issues which were resolved amicably. Generally

3

all parties maintained a cordial and professional relationship in accordance with public construction procurement expectations.

7. Paperwork Processing Rate this contractor's performance in completing and submitting required project paperwork (i.e. change orders, submittals, drawings, requisitions, payrolls, workforce reports, etc.) Did the contractor submit the required paperwork promptly and in proper form? If not, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor X Satisfactory 0 Points 2 Points 5 Points

Very Good 6 ts 7 Points

Comments: Sub Total: 5 Points CTA utilized Submittal Exchange for the transmission of project documents to the project team. As such, the project documentation and tracking of documents was available to the entire team and the owner. All items, such as certified payrolls, as built drawings, general submittals, RFIs, and other close out documents were handled within reasonable timeframes.

8. On-Site Supervisory Personnel

Rate the general performance of this contractor's on-site supervisory personnel. Did the superintendent(s) have the knowledge, management skills and experience to run a project of this size and scope? If not, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor alis aatoiy X Very Good E'u 0 Points 3 Points 10 Points 12 Points 14 Points

Comments: Sub Total: 12 Points The on-site supervisory personnel demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the project requirements and possessed the skills and experience to manage this project. His ability to understand the contract documents and properly coordinate work between with the filed subcontractors was very good.

NOTE: A TOTAL POINTS SCORE OF LESS THAN 80

IS A FAILING SCORE Total Points 86

4

LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS:

Are you aware of any legal or administrative proceedings, invoked bonds, assessed damages, demands for direct payment, payment bond claims, contract failures, contract terminations, or penalties involving this contractor on this contract? What is the status of any pending litigation? What was the final outcome of any completed litigation? What are the dollar amounts of assessed damages or penalties?

Comments:

Not at this time.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Optional):

PP■tailivfaX Zac Date

Owner' Project Mana • er:

Signature

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. 781.494.9000 Printed Name

Contact Telephone No.

Project Director

[email protected] Title: Owner's Project Manager

Email Address

SIGNATURES and CERTIFICATIONS

NOTE: Complete both sections of Part One or both sections of Part Two

PART ONE: For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1,500,000 or More

Section A: Required Signature by Owner's Project Manager:

Pursuant to M.G.L. C. 149, Sec 44D(7), I, the undersigned Owner's Project Manager, as owner's representative, hereby certify that the information contained in this evaluation represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true an accurate analysis of the contractor's performance record on the contract.

Section B: Required Certifications by Awarding Authority:

Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D(7) and 810 CMR 8.02(4) or 810 CMR 8.09(3), I, the undersigned official from the public agency, hereby certify as follows:

a) The information contained on this evaluation form represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true and accurate analysis of the contractor's performance record on the contract;

b) The contents of the evaluation form or the Project Rating were not negotiated with the contractor or its representative for any reason; and,

c) Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D(7), on the date set forth below, a copy of this evaluation was sent to the contractor.

Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski

508-476-4000 ext 101 Printed Name


Town Administrator [email protected] Title: Email Address

EVALUATION and RATING of CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcagno Title - Project Manager

Agency/Firm — Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: LIGHTHOUSE MASONRY DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a Preliminary Evaluation; X Final Evaluation

For a Prime/General Contractor Sub-Bid Contractor

Awarding Authority:_ Town of Douglas

Project Name and Location: New Douglas Elementary School and Middle School Repairs

Scope of Work: MASONRY



contract End Date: undetermined* "'Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Sulkers PIA Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance Co. Itesetotien of this issue should modify the Contract Ootefor Contract Completion (both Substontki Completion and firm! Completion), which at this time are unresolved,


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Excluding Change Orders]: $ 1,084,000.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $ 1,138,200.00)


( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500 000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.

1. Quality of Workmanship

Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality—related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor X Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 14 Points 24 Points 26 Points 28 Points

Sub Total: 24 Comments:

The quality of workmanship completed by Lighthouse Masonry was satisfactory based on daily monitoring and observation throughout the project.

2. Project Management: Scheduling

Rate this contractor's performance with regard to adhering to contract schedules. Did this contractor meet the contract schedule or the schedule as revised by approved change orders? If not, was the delay attributable to this contractor? If so, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor 11 Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 7 Points 11 Points 12 Points 13 Points


Lighthouse Masonry was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule.



Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good Excellent 0 Points 6 Points 11 Points 12 Points 13 Points


Lighthouse Masonry did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other subcontractors (plumbing, HVAC, electrical) during the course of the project.


2



Sub Total: Comments:

Lighthouse Masonry safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders

Did this contractor unreasonably claim change orders or extras? Were this contractor's prices on change orders and extras reasonable? If not, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory Very Good X Excellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


Change Orders presented by Lighthouse were minimal and priced to be fair and reasonable.



Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory Very Good X _Excellent 0 Points 2 Points 5 Points 6 Points 7 Points


Lighthouse Masonry was cooperative and very responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM.

7.Paperwork Processing

Rate this contractor's performance in completing and submitting required project paperwork (i.e. change orders, submittals, drawings, requisitions, payrolls, workforce reports, etc.) Did the contractor submit the required paperwork promptly and in proper form? If not, provide specific examples.

3

Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good _Excellent 0 Points 2 Points 5 Points 6 Points 7 Points


Lighthouse Masonry provided timely payroll records and supporting documents for change order pricing.





The Lighthouse Masonry onsite foreman was a capable supervisor that had the requisite knowledge and experience to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:







0 's Project Manager:

Signature

Thomas E. Ellis Jr. 781.494.9000 Printed Name Contact Telephone No.

Project Director [email protected]

Title: Owner's Project Manager

Email Address



The information contained on this evaluation form represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true and accurate analysis of the contractor's performance record on the contract;



Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

Michael J. Guzinski

508-476-4000 ext 101 Printed Name Contact Telephone No.

Town Administrator [email protected]

Title: Email Address


GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name — Al Calcagno

Title — Project Manager

Agency/Firm- Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: BERLIN STEEL CONSTRUCTION DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a Preliminary Evaluation;

Final Evaluation

For a Prime/General Contractor X Sub-Bid Contractor

Awarding Authority: Town of Dou • las


Scope of Work: MISCELLANEOUS METALS

Contract Start Date: 03/09/2012 Contract End Date: Undetermined*

comma End. Date: Undetermined*

• Contract Date was modified in Chow Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014, At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages mitt I March 13, 2014. NUMMUS draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the ToWn and Travelers Insurance Co, Resahition of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completlon (both Substantial Complethsn and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $ 408,000.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $ 428,400.00)


( X ) Check if estimated Manager.

total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project





2 Project Management: Scheduling




Berlin Steel was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and no delays were caused.

3 Subcontractor Management




Berlin Steel did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other trades throughout the course of the project.

4 Safety and Housekeeping Procedures


2



The safety practices of Berlin Steel were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders


Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good Excellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


Change Orders presented by Berlin Steel were minimal, fair and reasonable..


Rate this contractor's working relationships with other parties (i.e. Awarding Authority, designer, subcontractors, etc.) Did this contractor relate to other parties in a professional manner' ? If not, give specific examples.





Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good Excellent

0 Points 2 Points 5 Points 6 Points 7 Points


Berlin Steel provided timely payroll records and supporting documentation in the proper format.





Berlin Steel was represented on site by capable personnel that had the knowledge to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:


5

Signature

s Project Manage

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. 781.494.9000



PART ONE: For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1 500 000 or More


Pursuant to M.G.L. C. 149, Sec 44D(7), I, the undersigned Owner's Project Manager, as owner's representative, hereby certify that.the information contained in this evaluation represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true an accurate analysis of the contractor's performance record on the contract.

Printed Name


Pro ect Director [email protected]


Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

508-476-4000 ext 101 Contact Telephone No.

[email protected]

Email Address

Michael J. Guzinski Printed Name

Town Administrator

Title:


For a Prime/General Contractor

Final Evaluation

Sub-Bid Contractor

EVALUATION and RATING of CONTRACTOR.

PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name — Al Calcagno. Title - Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: DEBRINO CAULKING ASSOC., INC. DCAMM ID # (if known)

Awarding Authority: Town Of Douglas


Scope of Work:

WATER PROOFING DAMPROOFING



Contract End Date: Undetenninpd* Contract Oate was modified In Change Order Number 2Ito be February 24 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014

Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co, Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Compktion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $ 165,930.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = 174,227.00)

Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? X Yes


No





The quality of workmanship completed by Debrino Caulking was very good based on daily monitoring and observations throughout the project.









Debrino Caulking did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other trades (painter, mason, windows) throughout the course of the project.



2



The safety and housekeeping practices of Debrino Caulking were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders


Unacceptable Poor X Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


Change Orders presented by Debrino Caulking were minimal and the CO's that were presented and negotiated by Debrino Caulking were justifiable and reasonable.





Working relationship with Debrino Caulking was considered normal. They were cooperative and responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM.



Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good Excellent 3

0 Points 2 Points 5 Points

6 Points 7 Points


Debrino Caulking provided timely payroll records and supporting documentation in the proper format.





Debrino Caulking was represented on site by capable personnel that had the knowledge to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:


s Project Manager:






VS* Signature

Thomas E. Ellis Jr. Printed Name

781.494.9000 Contact Telephone No.

Pro'ect Director


Email Address


Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D(7) and 810 CMR 8.02(4) or 810 CMR 8.09(3), I, the undersigned official from the public agency, hereby certify as follows




Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski




Email Address Title:


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcagno

Title - Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: GREENWOOD ROOFING DCAMM ID # (if known

This is a Preliminary Evaluation; Final Evaluation


Sub-Bid Contractor



Scope of Work: MEMBRANE ROOFING SYSTEM


Contract End Date: Undetermined* Contract End Date: Uodetereained*

Contract Date was modified In Change Order Number 21to b February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Updated Damages until March 1 4 2014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending motor on of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co.. Resaluticm of this issui shook/. modYy the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completkm and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved,


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $ 1,072,000.00

(Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = 1 125 600.00)

Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? X Yes






The quality of the work performed by Greenwood Roofing was very good based on the daily monitoring/observation

throughout the entire project.





The management and scheduling of work performed by Greenwood Roofing was in general compliance with the planned schedule by the GC and the roofing work schedule normally followed that work progress. The Elementary School work was on-schedule with no significant issues. There was schedule impact related to a temporary seam failure as a result of a significant rain event during the middle of the roofing operations for the Middle School gym roof replacement. The specific cause of this failure was undetermined. This did have an impact on the completion of the work in the gym for the Middle School during this intermediate phase. The date of substantial completion of the final phase of the Middle School project

was not ultimately impacted by this specific event.





Greenwood had no subcontractors under their contract to manage. Their overall project management was consistent with expectations on other Chapter 149 public projects. Other than the schedule impact to the Middle School as noted in Section 2, they provide sufficient project management oversight and staffing during the course of the work





Safety and general housekeeping were within normal parameters, with no safety issues (accidents or safety citations)

during the course of the work.

5. Change Orders


Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good _Excellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


Change Orders presented by Greenwood Roofing were limited and within normal expectations for the work performed. Additional roofing work at the mechanical screen wall required as a result of design changes on the Elementary School was

handled in a timely manner.





The general working relationship with Greenwood Roofing, the General Contractor, the Designer and the OPM was

considered very good throughout the entire project.

3





Greenwood submitted information in general conformance with the contract requirements, including certified payrolls, submittals, change orders, etc. Their performance was consistent with their performance many other public construction projects as well as other roofing contractors under Chapter 149 contracts.





Greenwood Roofing was represented on site by knowledgeable management personnel with the expertise, skill and experience to manage a project of this size and complexity.



4



Comments: None


/Pmcoola vs* •






Owne 's Project Ma ager:

Signature

Date



Project Director [email protected] Title: Owner's Project Manager Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date


Town Administrator

Title:


[email protected]

Email Address


GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name — Al Calcagno Title — Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: MODERN GLASS DCAMM ID # (if known)





Scope of Work:

ALUMINUM WINDOWS


Contract End Date: Undetermined' • Contract Date was modifled in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Bulklers Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance Ca Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Cornpletion), which at this time are unresolved.


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $1,535,000.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $1,611,750.00)


( x ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.









Modern Glass was able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and no delays were caused.





Modern Glass did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other trades (mason & framers) throughout the course of the project.

4.Safety and Housekeeping Procedures

2




The safety and housekeeping practices of Modern Glass were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders




Change Orders presented by Modern Glass were minimal and reasonable.





Working relationship with Modern Glass was good and within the norm.



3



Modern Glass provided timely records and supporting documentation in the proper format.





Modern Glass was represented on site by capable personnel that had the knowledge to execute their contract work.





Comments:


5


Thomas E. Ellis Jr. Printed Name






Owner's Project Manager:

Signature Date



Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

Michael J. Guzinski



Title:

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION


Title — Project Manager

Agency/Firm Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: MODERN GLASS DCAMM ID # (if known)



Awarding Authority: Town of Dou las


Scope of Work:

GLASS & GLAZING


Contvact End Date: Undetermined' Conunct Dote was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014, At that time the Owner also waNed the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014.

Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Rtsk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co. Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and final Completion), which at this time are unresolved,


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $ 31,025.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $ 32,576.00)










Sub Total: 12 Comments: Modern Glass was able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and no delays were caused.





Modern Glass did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other trades (painter & caulking) throughout the course of the project.



2



The safety and housekeeping practices of Modern Glass were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders



Change Orders presented by Modern Glass were minimal and reasonable.

Sub Total: 8





Working relationship with Modern Glass was very good and within the norm.





Modern Glass provided timely records and supporting documentation in the proper format.



Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory _X _Very Good Excellent 0 Points 3 Points 10 Points 12 Points 14 Points


Modern Glass was represented on site by capable personnel that had the knowledge to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:



Owner's Project Manage •

Signature Date






Printed Name




Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date


Town Administrator


[email protected]


6


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION


Title - Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: Alleghany Contract Flooring DCAMM ID #

This is a

(if known)

Preliminary Evaluation; X Final Evaluation




Scope of Work: CERAMIC TILE



Contract End Date: Undetermined. • Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13„ 1014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance Co.

Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Date for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which of this time are unresolved.


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $444,000.00 (Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $466,200.00)


( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater requiring an Owner's Project Manager.





The quality of workmanship completed by Alleghany was very good based on daily monitoring and observation throughout the project.











2

Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very. Good Excellent 0 Points 3 Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


The Allegheny safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders




Change Orders presented by Lighthouse were minimal and priced to be fair and reasonable.





Alleghany was cooperative and responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM.

7. Paperwork Processing



Sub Total: 6

3

Comments:

Allegheny provided timely payroll records and supporting documents for change order pricing.

8. On-Site Supervisory Personnel Rate the general performance of this contractor's on-site supervisory personnel. Did the superintendent(s) have the knowledge, management skills and experience to run a project of this size and scope? If not, provide specific examples.





4



Comments:


5

Thomas E. Ellis. Jr. Printed Name

Project Director


[email protected]

Owne 's Project Manager






Title: Owner's Project Manager Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

Michael J. Guzinski



Town Administrator

[email protected]

Title:

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name — Al Calcagno Title - Pro'ect Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: K & ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a

For a

Preliminary Evaluation;

Prime/General Contractor

Town of Douglas

Final Evaluation

X Sub-Bid Contractor

Awarding Authority:


Scope of Work: ACOUSTICAL CELINGS



conttact End Date: Undeteindned• Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assesstnent of Liquidoted Damages until March 13, 2014

Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co. Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract °cite for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and FinolCompktkini, which at this time are unresoNect


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $476,720.00

(Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $500,556.00)





UnaCceptable Poor X Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 14 Points 24 Points 26 Points 28 Points






K & K Acoustical Ceilings was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and they were responsive when buttoning up the ceilings at project completion.





K & K Acoustical Ceilings did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other subcontractors with in-ceiling work (plumbing, HVAC, electrical) during the course of the project.


2




The safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders


Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good _Excellent 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points

Sub Total: 8 Change Orders presented by K & K were minimal and priced to be fair, reasonable and commensurate with industry standards..


Rate this contractor's working relationships with other parties (i.e. Awarding Authority, designer, subcontractors, etc.) Did this contractor relate to other parties in a professional manner ? If not, give specific examples.

Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory Very Good X Excellent 0 Points 2 Points 5 Points 6 Points 7 Points


K & K was cooperative and very responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM. They also interacted very well with the other in-ceiling sub-contractors (plumbing, HVAC & electrical/controls).



3



K & K Acoustical Ceilings provided timely payroll records and supporting documents for change order pricing.





The K & K Acoustical Ceilings foreman was a capable supervisor that had the requisite knowledge and experience to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Optional)

5

Own 's Project Manager:

Signature Date ler



PART ONE: For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1,500,000 or More Section A: Required Signature by Owner's Project Manager:


Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. 781.494.9000 Printed Name Contact Telephone No.







Awarding Authority:

By: Signature


Town Administrator

Title:

Date


[email protected]

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcagno Title — Project Manager

Agency/Firm — Heery International, Inc. Tele. # -781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: WEST FLOORING DCAMM ID # (if known)



Awarding Authority: The Town of Douglas


Scope of Work:

RESILIENT FLOORING



Contract End Date: Undetermined'

Contract Dote was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014. At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014. Numerous draft change orderssiwait execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and TravelerS insurance CO. Resolution of this issue should modify the ContraCt Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved,










The quality of workmanship completed by West Flooring was satisfactory based on daily monitoring and observation throughout the project.





West Flooring was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule.





West Flooring did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other subcontractors (drywall and painting) throughout the course of the project.

2




Sub Total: 8 Comments: The safety practices of West Flooring were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders












West Flooring provided timely payroll records and supporting documents for change order pricing.




The West Flooring onsite foreman was a capable supervisor that had the requisite knowledge and experience to execute their contract work and worked well with other sub-contractors.



4



Comments:


5

781.494.9000

of,



PART ONE For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1,500,000 or More



Owner' Project Manager: ato#

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. Printed Name


Project Director [email protected] Title: Owner's Project Manager

Email Address






Awarding Authority:

Signature

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski




Title:

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcag,no Title - 781-494-9000

Agency/Firm- Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: BOUCHARD PAINTING, INC. DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a Preliminary Evaluation; x Final Evaluation

For a

Prime/General Contractor X Sub-Bid Contractor



Scope of Work:

PAINTING

Contract Start Date: 03/09/2012 Contract End: Undetermined*

Contract Emit DSc Undetermined.

Contract Date was modified In Change Order Number 21to be February 21, 2014, At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13 2014, Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Raiders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co. Resolotkm of this issue should modify the Contract Dateforeantract Completfon (both Substantial Compkt(om and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved,


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $ 396,430.00

(Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $ 412,252.00)

Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? X Yes No ( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.





The quality of workmanship completed by Bouchard Painting was very good based on daily monitoring and observation throughout the project.





Bouchard Painting was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule dates.





Bouchard Painting did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other subcontractors during the course of the project.

2





The safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5 Change Orders Did this contractor unreasonably claim change orders or extras? Were this contractor's prices on change orders and extras reasonable? If not, provide specific examples.

Unacceptable X Poor Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 3 Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


Bouchard presented many Change Orders that were disputed and rejected due to the lack of factual support but there were other change orders that were negotiated to a fair and reasonable amount. Due to the number of unreasonable change orders a poor rating has been assigned for this category.





7. Paperwork Processing

3


Unacceptable X Poor Satisfactory Very Good Excellent 0 Points 2 Points 5 Points 6 Points 7 Points


Bouchard Painting submitted incomplete supporting information that was inconsistence with the contract documents. Therefore a poor rating has been assigned for this category.





Bouchard Painting was represented on site by capable personnel that had the knowledge to manage and execute their tasks as per the contract.





Comments:


Thomas E. Ellis, Jr.

Own 's Project Mana r:

Date

781.494.9000






Printed Name




Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D (7) and 810 CMR 8.02(4) or 810 CMR 8.09(3), I, the undersigned official from the public agency, hereby certify as follows:




Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Michael J. Guzinski


Town Administrator

[email protected]

Title:

Email Address

Date


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name — Al Calcagno Title -- Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: BAY STATE ELEVATOR DCAMM ID # (if known)



Sub-Bid Contractor


Project Name and Location:

Scope of Work:

New Douglas Elementary School and Middle School Repairs

ELEVATORS




Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 2Ito be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated DamagesUnti!March131014, Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance Co Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Date for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which or this time are unresolved.





( X ) Check if estimated Manager.

total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project

1.Quality of Workmanship




2.Project Management: Scheduling








Bay State was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and they were able to effectively solve all issues presented on site during the course of the project.



Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory X Very Good Excellent 0 Points 3 Points 7 Points u 8 Points 9 Points

2


The Bay State safety practices and housekeeping procedures were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5.Change Orders Did this contractor unreasonably claim change orders or extras? Were this contractor's prices on change orders and extras reasonable? If not, provide specific examples.



Change Orders were minimal to none by Bay State Elevator. And any CO's that were presented by Bay State were negotiated to a fair and reasonable cost.





Bay State Elevator was cooperative and very responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM.





Bay State Elevator provided timely payroll records and supporting documents for change order pricing.

3





The Bay State Elevator foreman was a capable supervisor that had the requisite knowledge and experience to execute their contract work.



4



Comments:


5

er's Project Man er:

gnature








Project Director


Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski




Email Address Title:


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE Name — Al Calcagno Title — Project Manager

Agency/Firm —Heery International, Inc. Tele. # - 781-494-9000

Contractor Being Evaluated: MARATHON FIRE PROTECTION DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a Preliminary Evaluation; x Final Evaluation




Scope of Work: FIRE PROTECTION



• Contract End Date: Undetermined*

" Contract Dote was modified in Chonge Order Number 21to be February 21, 2014, At that time the Owner also waived the ossessment of Liquidoted Damages until March 13, 2014

Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance.Co, Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completkm (both Substontial Completion and Final Completion', which ot this time are unresolved,










The quality of workmanship completed by Marathon was very good based on daily monitoring and observation throughout the project.





Marathon Fire Protection was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule.





Marathon Fire Protection did not manage sub-contractors but did work cooperatively and coordinated with other in-ceiling subcontractors (HVAC & electrical) during the course of the project.

2





The Marathon safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders




Change Orders were minimal by Marathon Fire Protection and the CO's that were presented and negotiated were justifiable and reasonable as most of the CO's were requested by the local authorities having jurisdiction. An excellent score has been assigned for this category.




Sub Total: 6

Comments:

The working relationships with Marathon were very good and mutual understanding was normally reached during the course of the project.

3





Marathon was able to submit on time certified payrolls, as built drawings, submittals, and never had any issues or delays coordinating paperwork.





The Marathon Fire Protection onsite foreman was a capable supervisor that had the requisite knowledge and experience to execute their contract work and the owner of the company was often present to assist and coordinate as well.



4



Comments:


Owne ' Project Manager



ature




Section A: Required Signature by Owner's. Project Manager:


Project Director tellisheery.com Title: Owner's Project Manager Email Address


Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D (7) and 810 CMR 8.02(4) or 810 CMR 8.09(3), I, the undersigned official from the public agency, hereby certify as follows:



c) Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D (7), on the date set forth below, a copy of this evaluation was sent to the contractor.

Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski




Title:

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name- Al Calcagno Title - Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: SAGAMORE PLUMBING DCAMM ID # (if known)


For a

Prime/General Contractor X

Sub-Bid Contractor

Awarding Authority:


Scope of Work: PLUMBING



Contract End Date:Undetermined* . Contract Oate Was modified in Change Order Number 21to be February 21, 2014. At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 1

„ orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact , . . . . . .

Numerous draft change o of the BulWers Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers insurance Co, Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved.


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $1,060,000.00

(Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $1,113,000.00)







The quality of work completed by was very good based on the daily monitoring and observations throughout the entire project.




Sub Total: 13 Comments: Sagamore Plumbing always able to plan well and staff the job with sufficient manpower that allowed them to work ahead of schedule many times.

3.Subcontractor Management




Sagamore managed their insulating and balancing subcontractors effectively in addition to working cooperatively and coordinating with other subcontractors (electrical & HVAC) throughout the duration of the project.

2





The Sagamore Plumbing safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5. Change Orders




There were only a limited number of change orders by Sagamore Plumbing and the CO's that were presented and negotiated were fair and reasonable.





Working relationship with Sagamore Plumbing exceeded the norm. Sagamore Plumbing was always professional, respectful and went the extra miles to make sure that any issues presented were properly addressed and satisfied the Owners' entire management team. Therefore a scoring of excellent has been assigned for this category.

3





Sagamore Plumbing was always able to submit timely certified payrolls, as built drawings, submittals, etc. and there were never any issues or delays coordinating the required paperwork


Rate the general performance of this contractor's on-site supervisory personnel. Did the superintendent s) have the knowledge, management skills and experience to run a project of this size and scope? If not, provide specific examples.



Sagamore assigned and maintained, throughout the entire duration of the project, a senior foreman who was very knowledgeable of his trade. Additionally there was a very capable crew to back him up who knew exactly how to execute their tasks in a combined team effort. Sagamore Plumbing made the job easy and as a result the quality of their work/workmanship was excellent. Therefore a scoring of excellent has been assigned for this category.





Comments:


5

gnature


[email protected] Email Address

Printed Name

Project Director Title: Owner's Project Manager



PART ONE: For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1,500,000 or More Section A: Required Signature by Owner's Project Manager:


Ow r's Project Manag







Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

Michael J. Guzinski





6


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION



Contractor Being Evaluated: GENERAL MECHANIC DCAMM ID # (if known)

This is a Preliminary Evaluation; Final Evaluation


Sub-Bid Contractor



Scope of Work: HVAC


Conttatt End Mtn: Undetermined* Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21 W be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also wowed the assessment of Liquidated Damages until March 13 2014

Numerous cf raft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co, Resolution of this Issue shook/ modify the Contract cote for Contract Comp/Won (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresoNed,


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Excluding Change Orders]: $5 119 000.00

(Final Change Order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $5,374,950.00)

Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? X Yes No ( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1,500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.





The quality of work completed by General Mechanical was excellent based on the daily monitoring and observations throughout the entire project.





General Mechanical was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule dates and milestones.





General Mechanical managed their ductwork and controls subcontractors effectively in addition to working cooperatively and coordinating with other subcontractors (plumbing & electrical) during the course of the project.

2





The safety and housekeeping procedures were always kept in compliance by General Mechanical and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the project.

5.Change Orders


Unacceptable Poor Satisfactory Very Good X Excellent -- 0 Points 3Points 7 Points 8 Points 9 Points


There were only a limited number of change orders by General Mechanical and the CO's that were presented and negotiated were fair and reasonable. Therefore a scoring of excellent has been assigned for this category.





The working relationship with General Mechanical exceeded the norm. They always went the extra miles to make sure that any issues presented were properly addressed and satisfied the Owners' entire management team.

3





General Mechanical Contractors was able to always submit timely certified payrolls, as built drawings, submittals, etc. and there were never any issues or delays coordinating the required paperwork.




General Mechanical assigned, and maintained through the entire duration of the project, an experienced Project Manager as well as a knowledgeable on-site foreman. They provided a very capable crew that knew exactly how to execute their tasks. General Mechanical made their job easy and as a result the quality of their work/workmanship was also excellent. Therefore a scoring of excellent has been assigned for this category.



4



Comments:


781.494.9000

Owner's Project Manag

Signature

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr.



PART ONE For Contracts Estimated to Cost $1 500 000 or More



Printed Name

Project Director Title: Owner's Project Manager


[email protected] Email Address






Awarding Authority:

By: Signature Date

Michael J. Guzinski




Title:

Email Address


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

REFERENCE: Name - Al Calcagno Title — Project Manager


Contractor Being Evaluated: WAYNE J. GRIFFIN ELECTRIC, INC. DCAMM ID # (if known)


X Final Evaluation

For a

Prime/General Contractor Sub-Bid Contractor



Scope of Work:

ELECTRICAL

Contract Start Date: 03/09/2012 Contract End Date: 01/30/2014

Contract End Date: Undetermined• • Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be teinuory 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of Liquldoted Damages until March 13, 2014. Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Resolution of this issue should modify the Contract Da te for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Final Completion), which at this time are unresolved.


Contract Cost for Contractor Evaluated [Including Change Orders]: $4 700 000.00

(Final change order amount unknown for subcontractor, estimated as 5% of subcontract amount = $4,700,000.00)


( X ) Check if estimated total project cost was $1 500,000 or greater, requiring an Owner's Project Manager.


PERFORMANCE

GENERAL INFORMATION



Contractor Being Evaluated: BAY STATE ELEVATOR DCAMM ID # (if known)


For a Prime/General Co tractor

Sub-Bid Contractor



Scope of Work:

ELEVATORS


Co_ntract End twat : undetermined•

• Contract Date was modified in Change Order Number 21 to be February 21, 2014 At that time the Owner also waived the assessment of liquidated Damages until March 13, 2014 Numerous draft change orders await execution pending resolution of the time Impact of the Builders Risk Claim settlement between the Town and Travelers Insurance Co. Resolution of this Issue should modify the Contract Dote for Contract Completion (both Substantial Completion and Flnal Completion), which at this time are unresolved.










The quality of work completed by Griffin Electric was excellent based on the daily monitoring and observations throughout the entire project.





Griffin Electric was always able to staff the job with sufficient manpower to meet the contract schedule and one of only a few subcontractors who use a critical path schedule to work the job.





Griffin Electric managed their communication subcontractor effectively in addition to working cooperatively and coordinating with other subcontractors (plumbing & HVAC) during the course of the project.

2





The Griffin Electric safety practices were acceptable and no OSHA violations or accidents occurred during the life of the project.

5.Change Orders








W. J. Griffin was cooperative and very responsive to input from both the Designer and the OPM. They also interacted very well with the other sub-contractors (plumbing, HVAC & communication).



3



W.J. Griffin was always able to submit timely certified payrolls, as built drawings, submittals, and there were never any issues or delays coordinating and delivering paperwork.





W.J. Griffin always maintained throughout the duration of the project a capable on-site foreman as well as an experienced group of mechanics with knowledge of their trade.



4



Comments:




Project Director [email protected] Email Address Title: Owner's Project Manager

Owner's Project Manager

nature











Awarding Authority:

By: Signature

Date

Michael J. Guzinski



Title:

Email Address

6

heery - douglasma.org · find the original 100% dcamm contractor and subcontractor evaluations ......

Documents