Page 11 - Barr&Barr_Technical Proposal

Description of the project quality, budget and scheduling
requirements and how they were met:
Th e original schedule was set to turn over the building in March
of 2014. Th e Corps of Engineers for the pond work permit was
delayed 14 months. Our team reduced the delay time down to
5 months, which allowed the school to open as planned for Sept
2014. Th e schedule had to be re-sequenced due to the owner delay
but our team developed a work around that allowed us to reduce
the overall impact to the project. As far as quality goes, this is a
very high end fi nish building and we had a full time QA/QC staff
member working with the design team and subcontractors to ensure
the highest level of fi nish was achieved. We had a defi ciency log
that was tracked and reviewed weekly throughout the project that
facilitated the closeout of any item prior to acceptance.

Description of Major Issues and how they were addressed:
Th is campus has a student and staff population of close to 45,000.
Student and staff safety was of utmost importance as this population
is moving almost every two-three hours 4-6 times a day. Th e
Integrative Learning Center ( ILC) we recently completed has over
7,000 students a day pass through its halls, so isolating our workers
from the students and staff was very well planned and orchestrated.
We had the main student center and a Teaching Lab all within 25’

of the new building we constructed. Due to these close adjacencies PROJECT DETAILS
we installed vibration monitors on both buildings that were set
at levels that if exceeded would alert us via text message and we
• Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset
would shut down the operation if necessary. Our relationship with Management & Maintenance (DCAMM) funded
the facilities group was invaluable for the campus wide shutdowns project.
required. We held meetings as often as necessary to inform the
• OSHA Partnership with the U.S. Labor Department
faculty, student body as the project progressed through certain to emphasize employee training and an ongoing
phases so all were aware when and where we would be. commitment to partner with all subcontractors to
identify and eliminate any hazards before they become
Description of the coordination with adjacent developments or an issue.
other concurrent projects. If applicable: • Building Information Modeling (BIM) was utilized
Th e project was in the heart of the main campus. We had a Student for clash detection, constructability review as well as
Center Dining Hall renovation project directly adjacent to our MEP and Architectural coordination. It was also
utilized for 4D construction sequencing/scheduling
project which needed to access the demo phase of their project
analysis.
through our site. We had weekly meetings throughout the project
with the other CM fi rm and their OPM to establish travel routes, • A high standard of sustainability includes natural
lighting, automatic lighting controls, energy effi cient
delivery schedules etc.. Another critical project interface was the
HVAC system including heat-recovery system and low
main steam loop tie in to the main campus system. Th e Utility
fl ow plumbing fi xtures. LEED Gold certifi cation.
Contractor for the main system project was behind schedule and
• Extensive site coordination due to the project’s
we had to temporarily feed our building project form the opposite
location in the heart of the UMass Amherst campus
end of the loop which was existing. Th e sub fi nally fi nished and
adjacent to the Campus Center, Student Union, the
we worked a 24hr shift tie in to ensure no disruption to the campus Campus Pond and the Hasbrouk Research Laboratory.
occurred. Couple that with the most active road on campus running
directly in front of our building with thousands of students walking
adjacent to our site just made us more vigilant about the safety of
oue workers as well as the faculty and student body.