Laserfiche WebLink
Joe added that we don ' t want the architect to be in conflict with what MEP <br /> needs. <br /> Mike Hickey added that it is a constant battle with the architect to meet <br /> those need , space requirements, etc. <br /> Bill Jones said their presentation goes a little beyond what we are looking <br /> for. SMMA is a full service, competent architectural firm, your proposal <br /> indicates some redundancy. How much time do you require in what areas? <br /> Mr. Wade explained they expect the architect to be a full service firm. <br /> This team has tremendous experience in schools and can review the work of <br /> the architect to be sure nothing is missing and represents the best for <br /> your high school . We don ' t want to duplicate the design efforts , that is <br /> not our intention. It is good practice to review the work of a design <br /> team. <br /> COMMITTEE DISCUSSION <br /> The Committee discussed the 3 firms interviewed . <br /> Peter thought Seaman Bratko was not well prepared, didn ' t seem like they <br /> read the RFP. <br /> Bill Martiros said their presentation wasn ' t slick but that doesn ' t <br /> necessarily mean they can ' t do the job. <br /> Paul did not hear anything from them he liked , they weren ' t responsive to <br /> the RFP. <br /> Bill Hauck does not think they would help with the design phase and that is <br /> a critical point. <br /> Peter said Chartwell was weak on technology ,. but maybe we don ' t need them <br /> to be really strong in this area. <br /> Merry Sue noted they did say they would get someone in that area, or <br /> several people. She did like the idea of a "showcase" school that Hanscomb <br /> mentioned . <br /> Paul said Chartwell did their homework very well . He was impressed with <br /> both of their consultants . Beacon really presented our position well . The <br /> personality is the key ingredient in this marriage. We don ' t want them to <br /> offend the architect. Personality is an important component, they need to <br /> work as a team and can ' t fight for position . Chartwell has a low profile <br /> and not too much ego. They may need more expertise on the site issue. <br /> Merry Sue reminded Paul that their environmental person was not present at <br /> this meeting . We need to hear what their role will be. <br /> Peter talked with Ed Frenette about Chartwell . He asked if he could have <br /> input into this project manager selection process . Mr. Frenette likes <br /> Chartwell a lot. He was trained in Toronto, training similar to Mr. <br /> Aitchison of quantity surveyor. Peter wants to make sure they weren ' t too <br /> "palsy" <br /> Bill Jones said their collective reputations rely on it. <br /> Peter thinks Chartwell really did their homework and are very responsive. <br /> Janice thinks Chartwell understands what a project manager is , the last <br /> group doesn 't. <br /> Bill Jones did diligence on the Revere school and it got a bad report, <br /> there were many architect mistakes . <br /> Paul added that Hanscomb were the estimators on the Belmont school . <br /> Janice said it bothered her that Hanscomb didn 't know if they could save us <br /> any money . <br /> Merry Sue was offended that they said we could have the schematics ready <br /> for June 1 . Everyone else said not to rush the design . <br /> Bill Martiros suggested looking at Chartwell 's short comings and then ask <br /> them those questions . Great Britain is known for their engineering. <br /> 9 <br />