Laserfiche WebLink
guidelines and then came up with 7 criteria of h i' s own , rating thea 0-2 and <br /> weighed some of the criteria. i e dime up with a scoring for each firm. <br /> Keyes fell 6th on his list. They have good related high school experience. <br /> Limited in house high tech support. Boring designs but cost efficient. <br /> Peter stated the Groton school and coombs school had the same contractor. <br /> He expects our architectural firm to be strong on construction management <br /> so a committee member does not have to be on the construction site every <br /> day . The architect should be on top of these items. Keyes is a solid but <br /> boring firm. <br /> Paul said the committee could , through the negotiations, make it work. <br /> They have a good reputation and have been around a long time. <br /> KARSTLE MBOOS., PodP ONE <br /> Bill Jones <br /> said the designs were interesting and innovative but the basic <br /> problem i s they are a Conn firm, a different State with demographics very <br /> different from Mashpee. Their Mass, connection is a firm expert in food <br /> service. It is difficult for them to be competitive with the other firms <br /> on this l i <br /> St. <br /> Merry Sue agreed they were interesting and innovative but not a Mashpee <br /> friendly group. They were very up on educational technology,, <br /> Janice is nervous about thea because they had not worked together as a <br /> group before , we should not be a. test case i <br /> Paul said Group one would do the engineering work and they have never done <br /> a school before, <br /> Bill Marti roe said he spoke with the Building chairman of their Colchester <br /> school who was very , very happy with the school , had no problems . He has <br /> not seen any of their work. <br /> Joan said she reviewed their tape and did not get a good feeling from their <br /> attitudes during the presentation. <br /> Joe thinks they have produced large, congested complexes, very retail <br /> looking . H e did not get a good feeling. Based on the other firms, e could <br /> do Better* <br /> Steve said their expertise is to build projects in conn . The partnership <br /> was weak. He spoke with the construction manager of one of their jobs who <br /> said they are competent but not cheap. <br /> Michael said they have good high school and high tech experience. They did <br /> not do a site review, they are not Mashpee friendly , <br /> Peter explained when he asked who their leader was, no one knew. There was <br /> no person taking charge, they had not thought it out, <br /> EARL FLANSBURGH <br /> Bill Jones said they were rated #1 for their competence but investigation <br /> turned up many interesting facts. They were once a great firm but he d i d <br /> not get the impression they are still today. They were powerful in their <br /> presentation but afterward his view changed considerably , <br /> Merry Sue said she doesn ' t see the need to discuss them any further* They <br /> were not up front with the Committee with their information, They never <br /> admitted the problem with Belmont, <br /> Janice agreed the committee did not need to spend more time on them. <br /> Paul said during a site visit, the staff said F l ans bu rgh did not listen and <br /> the chairman of the building committee echoed that. we need a firm that <br /> will 1 i st to us , our political and citizen base. <br /> 2 <br />