Page 16 - Barr&Barr_Technical Proposal

UMass Amherst
Integrative Learning Center, Amherst, MA
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: Quality control and workmanship are the most important aspects of any project, especially one of the
magnitude of the Bridgewater State University Science and Mathematics Building (the University’s largest ever capital improvement
project). Th e design team, University and DCAMM spent years developing a project plan that would deliver a world class facility that
would defi ne Bridgewater State’s path into the 21st century. Th e project’s size, complexity, and level of detail made it imperative for
Barr & Barr and all subcontractors to provide a level of quality that exceeded everyone’s expectations from even the earliest stages.
Th at quality of workmanship began with the design documents and extensive contract documents. Although there were numerous
RFI’s and bulletins, as expected with a large addition and a renovation, the majority of the documents were comprehensive, both in
their details and their overall scope. Th roughout construction, Barr & Barr met weekly with the design team to review the project’s
progress as well as review the quality of the workmanship. As a result of our continuous diligence, we were successful in achieving
every goal. Performance Rating 4.

2. Scheduling: Th is project was multi-faceted in almost every way, from the complexity of the façade components (over 12 diff erent
types of materials were used on the façade of the building) to the phasing requirements set forth by the University. Scheduling
played a distinct and imperative role in the success of this project. Barr & Barr created a detailed, task oriented, critical path driven
schedule that was reviewed weekly with the University and subcontractors. Over and above the actual project scope scheduling there
was a higher level of detail needed within the plan to outline the needs and requirements of the University. Barr & Barr had to be
conscientious of the University’s school schedule so their yearly program would not be disturbed or interrupted. Th is essential part
of the schedule made it vital for Barr & Barr to develop a plan with the University and stick to it. Th ere was no room for deviation
as the students and the school program needed to continue and could not be disrupted by the ongoing construction. Th roughout the
project Barr & Barr kept the needs of the University at the forefront and compressed the contract schedule to better fi t their needs.
Th is was done by pushing the subs every day to ensure the schedule was being met and was achieved with no additional cost to the
project budget. Performance Rating 5.
3. Subcontractor Management: Due to the fact that this project was state funded, there was a considerable amount of planning that
went into developing the scopes for each of the trades. Th e state projects within Massachusetts require pre-approval for certain trades
(mechanical, masonry, roofi ng, waterproofi ng, etc.). Th e management of a portion of the subcontractors started with this extensive
prequalifi cation & approval process. Once pre-qualifi ed and approved, the state continued with the bidding process for these select
trades. Th is process is known as ‘fi le sub’ or ‘trade’ bidding. Th ese trades bid and submit pricing based on plans and specs only. In
order for Barr & Barr to manage the subcontractors that were included within the ‘trade’ bid process, it was imperative to work
with the design team to ensure the completeness of their scope. Barr & Barr did not have the opportunity to sit down with these
subs and review their scope prior to them be awarded the project. Th e remaining subcontractors (steel, concrete, curtain wall, metal
panels, windows, etc.) were bought out and de-scoped with Barr & Barr. Th is required Barr & Barr to have a level of adaptability
that we were not used to. Th e onsite management of the subcontractors continued throughout the project with extensive façade