Page 14 - Barr&Barr_Technical Proposal

Cornell University

The Bloomberg Center, Roosevelt Island, NY
B. Self Evaluation

Addressing the self-evaluation narrative, I humbly off er the following evaluation. This was generated through various conversations with
my staff involved in the day to day operations at the site. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the best) below is how I would rate this project within each
given area and why.

1. Quality of Workmanship: I would evaluate this as a rating of 1-5. Elaborate here: Th e workmanship at the Bloomberg Center
exceeds expectations of the client and design team. Th e eff ort our team performed in producing quality mock ups, reviewing them
with the Owner and Design team, honing all the little details that were not shown in the documents but wanted in the product
was refl ected in the fi nal result. Field visits to review visual mock ups of the façade, the curved glazing and its connections to the
structure, the steel node at stair 5 enabled a clear understanding of the detail anticipated as a baseline from the subcontractors. We
took nothing for taken for granted when it came to quality and wanted the team and subcontractors to completely understand before
proceeding. Shop drawing and product data confi rmation, fi eld measuring, confi rming control samples as well as timely responses to
fi eld observation reports were the components that allowed the team to provide a quality product to the client. Performance Rating 5.

2. Scheduling: I would evaluate this as a rating of 1-5. Elaborate here: Our scheduling was accurate and reliable and updated on
a monthly basis. We produced a very detailed P6 schedule which refl ected not only our activities but also the responsibilities of
the design team and Owner highlighting critical milestone dates. Early on our schedule refl ected impacts such as late permitting,
rock excavations and discovered electrical and water services. Th e issuance of several bulletins and the incorporation of almost 500
ASIs made for challenges to keeping schedule. Our schedule became fl uid to the ongoing design and owner revisions. Our team,
working hand in hand with the owner and architect, was the driving force behind the success of the project. We were very proactive
in professionally pushing the signature architect in meeting their time frames on deliverables and enforcing that the subcontractors
were constantly updated on the decisions. We were a constant force behind this process, ensuring timely decisions in order not to
impact our schedule. It sometimes was not an easy task but it was something that had to be done if the owner wanted to meet their
required certain date. We were constantly tracking and updating the team on where and how the schedule was being impacted.
Sequencing and recovery options were always reviewed and discussed as a team. Performance Rating 4.

3. Subcontractor Management: I would evaluate this as a rating of 1-5. Elaborate here: Our weekly foreman’s meetings maintained
direct oversight keeping the pressure on the subcontractor base to maintain the quality, compliance, proper manpower, safety. Weekly
meetings were held with subcontractors reviewing safety; submittals and RFIs, manpower requirements, material delivery dates
and logistics. Critical milestones were reviewed and monitored. MEP meetings were held weekly to monitor the progress of the
BIM model, MEP coordination as well as the integration of the various systems. Focused meetings were scheduled with the critical
contractors to the project. For example there were bi monthly meetings with the façade and the electrical contractors ensuring the
contractor was on task and achieving milestones. Our technology and supervision create very effi cient and organized construction
sequencing. Performance Rating 4.