Page 19 - Barr&Barr_Technical Proposal

did not have direct fi nancial responsibility to the subcontractors, 8. On Site Supervisory Personnel: Barr & Barr’s team included
as they were paid by the bonding company. Understanding this, a full time on site staff from senior project managers and lead
Barr & Barr had a project manager dedicated to overseeing this superintendents to fi eld engineers, project engineers, BIM
process. Barr & Barr staff constantly met with subcontractors, the coordinator, project accountant, safety superintendent, and
Owner’s representative and the bonding company to ensure the administration. Th is enabled Barr & Barr to resolve any type
payment and change order process continuted moving forward. of complex issues which came up on the project. In addition
Performance Rating 5. it provided more continuity to the overall fl ow of the project.
Th is helped the project maintain the schedule and allowed the
4. MBE/WBE Participation: Th e M/WBE Participation appropriate time to manage the fi nancial end. Performance
requirements of this project were simply a best eff ort. 90% of Rating 5.
the procurement was completed by the previous contractor and
the only trades left for Barr & Barr to infl uence had stringent 9. Contract Closeout: As we near substantial completion, Closeout
Subcontractor qualifi cation requirements that limited the activities have increased however the process began within (4)
opportunity to improve on the existing Participation level for weeks of award starting with an internal review of the documents
the project. Performance Rating 3. to ensure that Barr & Barr understood the requirements of the
documents. We then scheduled a meeting with the Owner
5. Safety: Safety is the most important item on all Barr & Barr and Architect to confi rm our understanding of the documents,
projects. In order to insure that all workers go home safely to clarify any ambiguities and agree on the processes by which the
their families every night, Barr & Barr implemented a highly closeout documentation would be transmitted. In today’s day
developed site specifi c Safety Program on this project. Th is and age, a rather unique requirement was the need for paper
involved a full time Site Safety Inspector (formally employed copies of all submittals at closeout, rather than leave this to the
by OSHA for 25 years), individual training for every worker on end; we’ve required that subcontractors provide the necessary
the site, weekly mandatory safety meetings for foreman as well hardcopies throughout the project so that these can simply be
as Project Managers, for all Subcontractors. Weekly tool box transmitted at Project Completion. Performance Rating 4.
talks were required from each of the Subcontractors on site. In
addition, the Director of Safety for Barr & Barr would inspect
the site every week and conduct training classes for all Barr &
Barr employees as well as Subcontractors. Frequent Stand-downs
were held for all workers on the site as well. Being that this was
an OCIP project insured through Rutgers University, bi weekly
site inspections were done between the insurance carriers and Barr
&Barr. Overall the project has a very thorough and successful
Safety Program. Performance Rating 4.

6. Contract Administration: When Barr & Barr took over the
project, there was a signifi cant backlog of aged Change Orders
that could not be fi nalized for a variety of reason. Barr & Barr
restarted the process, fi rst by ensuring that all Labor Rates were in
accordance with all contract and insurance requirements and were
in a format acceptable to the auditors who would be monitoring
the project on behalf of the Owner. Additionally we regularly
met with the Owner’s team to ensure that there was agreement
on any productivity factors that needed to be accounted for. Th e
most important change was Barr & Barr earned a level of trust
in the eyes of the Owner’s Team. When Barr & Barr started on
the project a Change Order had not been authorized in six (6)
months; now we’ve successfully resolved Change Orders in as
little as twenty (20) days. Performance Rating 5.

7. Working Relationships: Due to the status of this project
when Barr & Barr took over, working relationships were a real
challenge at the beginning. What made it all work, was the fact
that the Barr & Barr team has a long term relationship with
contractors throughout New Jersey. Th e contractors got involved
with the project solely on the fact that they had long standing
relationships working with Barr & Barr. Th is also helped with
the Subs already under contract because they were familiar with
our reputation. Th ey knew if we told them they were going to
get paid, it would happen. Barr & Barr dealt with the Owners
Reps, Surety Contractor, Surety’s consultant, Rutgers University
and the Architect on a daily basis. For the most part, we gained
the respect of these parties through our actions and dedication
to the project, as well as maintaining a positive attitude even
through the most diffi cult of situations. Performance Rating 5.