HEERY - Douglas · 2015-11-18 · find the original 50% DCAMM Contractor and Subcontractor ... Integral to the MSBA completion process is that both Heery and the District must

HEERY

Originals sent via Federal Express November 16, 2015

Mr. Michael Guzinski, Town Administrator Town of Douglas Municipal Center 29 Depot Street Douglas, MA 01516

RE: Douglas Intermediate School Renovations and New Elementary School M.G.L. c. 149 § 44D - Contractor / Subcontractor 50 % DCAMM Evaluations MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form

Dear Mike:

As part of the project Completion Phase, and in accordance with Paragraph 8.7.3 of our Contract, we are completing a few outstanding items in advance for reaching Final Completion of the project. Attached please find the original 50% DCAMM Contractor and Subcontractor Evaluations for review and processing by the Town. These documents were prepared by Al Calcagno and Marwan Abi-Elias of Heery based upon their observations working daily with each of the Sub Bid Contractors and the General Contractor. Please note that their evaluations are based upon their collective 30+ years of experience overseeing work of General Contractors and Trade Subcontractors on public projects utilizing Chapter 149 and Chapter 149A delivery methods in Massachusetts. These evaluations were reviewed with the Town in September of 2013 and again in May of 2014. Our evaluations and preparations of these documents are done to assist the Awarding Authority in complying with their obligations under M.G.L. c. 149 § 44D.

Due to the on-going issues with the water damage claim on the Middle School project, these documents were not finalized and sent to DCAM or the Contractors by the Awarding Authority. We would like to highlight that submission of the 50% Evaluations to DCAMM are encouraged, but not required to be submitted under M.G.L. c. 149 § 44D, as stated below on the DCAMM Instructions for Public Awarding Authorities.

Using This Form for PRELIMINARY Evaluations: This form may also be used to satisfy the requirement under M.G.L. c. 149, Sec. 44D(7), that, at approximately the 50% completion stage, the Awarding Authority shall, for informational purposes, advise the contractor in writing of its preliminary evaluation of the contractor's performance. You are encouraged, but are not obligated, to send a copy of a Preliminary Evaluation to DCAMM.

Integral to the MSBA completion process is that both Heery and the District must sign the forms and provide hard copies to both DCAMM as well as to each contractor that was evaluated. To that end Heery has signed the forms which we believe is a fair assessment of the work by each firm at or nor near the halfway point of construction and respectfully request that the District do the following;

1. Review the attached evaluation form for each firm, if in agreement then,

2. Sign the attached original forms (in blue).

3. Scan the forms so that a permanent electronic record is created and available.

4. Send the Original forms to DCAMM.

5. Send a copy of the Evaluations to each subcontractor.

Heery International, Inc. A group of professional service practices

80 Blanchard Road, Suite 108, Burlington; 01803

Telephone 781 494-9000 Fax 781 494-90'07

Offices Nationwide

HEERY

Letter to Michael Guzinski November 16, 2015 Page 2 of 2

Sign (in blue) and scan the attached MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form. Return the original signed MSBA Form to us so that we can forward to MSBA with other original close out

documentation.

Upon completion of these tasks please forward the originals as stated below on the DCAMM Instructions for Public Awarding Authorities.

t41 WHERE MUST THE FORM BE SUBMITTED?

(a) This completed form must be submitted by mail to Commonwealth of Massachusetts, DCAMM - 15th Floor, ATTN.: Contractor Certification Office, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108; or by fax to (617) 727-8284; or by email to certeval.dcamm(a.state.ma.us

Should there be any questions or if adjustments to the evaluation forms are desired by the Town, please return your written comments to our office with a narrative outlining the basis for the suggested change(s) along with the original DCAMM Evaluation for each Contractor for which there are questions for further discussion. We can discuss any proposed modifications that will arrive at a consensus for a fair evaluation of each firm. We recommend that all other evaluation forms should be submitted in accordance with the requirements noted above. Upon our notification of action by the Awarding Authority that the evaluations have been submitted to DCAMM as well as the individual Contractors and the return of the MSBA Notification of Total Point Retina Form to our office, we will include this information in our MSBA original close out document package.

Please be advised that the 100 % DCAMM Evaluation Forms will be sent to your office under separate cover.

Sincerely,

HEERY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., AIA, Vice President / New England Area Manager

Enclosure:

c:

DCAMM - 50 % General Contractor Evaluation Form - CTA Construction DCAMM - 50 % Sub-Bid Contractor Evaluation Forms (15 - Filed Sub-Bidders) MSBA Notification of Total Point Rating Form

Mitchell Cohen, Douglas. School Building Committee Chairman (cover letter only) Bill Cundiff, Town Engineer (cover letter only) Craig DiCarlo, Project Architect - DiNisco Design Partnership (cover letter only)

/01404944.W4F

MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY

Notification of Total Point Rating Assigned to Contractors and Subcontractors on DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Form pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7)

Awarding Authority:

Town of Douglas

New Douglas Elementary School and Middle Project Name:

School Repairs

* Please check (✓) if this is a:

X Preliminary Evaluation (50% Complete)

Final ;valuation (once use/ occupancy is 'wed)

Firm Original. Contract Value C=Contractor/ S=Subcontractor Rating Submitted to

DCAM (yes or no)

V CTA Construction Co. $18,420,140 General Contractor - C 85 Yes

V Lighthouse Masonry $1,084,000 Masonry Subcontractor -S 91 Yes

V Berlin Steel Construction $408,000 Miscellaneous Metals Subcontractor - S 82 Yes

Debrino Caulking $165,930 Waterproofing & Dampproofing Subcontractor - S 87 Yes

V Greenwood Roofing $1,072,000 Membrane Roofing Subcontractor - S 90 Yes

Modern Glass $1,535,000 Aluminum Windows Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Modern Glass $31,025 Glass & Glazing Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Allegany Contract Flooring $444,000 Ceramic Tile Subcontractor - S 84 Yes

V K&K Acoustical Ceilings $476,720 Acoustical Ceilings Subcontractor - S 84 Yes

West Flooring. $532,033 Resilient Flooring and Base Subcontractor - S 87 Yes

V Bouchard Painting $396,430 Painting Subcontractor - S 88 Yes

V Bay State Elevator Company $187,000 Elevator Subcontractor - S 93 Yes

V Marathon Fire Protection $595,400 Fire Protection Subcontractor - S 86 Yes

V Sagamore Plumbing $1,060,000 Plumbing Subcontractor- S 91 Yes

V General Mechanical $5,119,000 HVAC Subcontractor - S 96 Yes

V Wayne J. Griffin Electric Company $4,700,000 Electrical Subcontractor - S 89 Yes

Town of Douglas Date

Heery International, Inc. / OPM

Date

Mr. Michael J. Guzinski / Town Administrator

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr. / Project Director

The Ratings set forth in this notification form represent the total number of points already entered by or on behalf of the District for each contractor and subcontractor (filed sub- bidders only) in Section III of the DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Form for this Project, as required by the provisions of M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7). The District acknowledges that the complete DCAM Standard Contractor Evaluation Forms for the Project, along with any contractor and subcontractor responses, are on file with the District and are being maintained in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D(7) and all other applicable law.

Division of Capital Asset Management Standard Contractor Evaluation Form

IMPORTANT — Please check (V) if this evaluation is for:

Prime/General Contractor pi Subcontractor

Section I- General Project Information - Section I must be completed in its entirety.

Reference Name: Al Calcagno

Reference Telephone #: 781-494-9000

Reference Position/ Title: Project Manager

Date: 12 May 2104 DCAM Interviewer (if any): N/A Reference

Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. / OPM Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: CTA Construction, Inc.

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $36,226,678 base bid (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)

Project Title: Douglas New Elementary School and Middle School Repairs

Contract Start/ End Dates: 03/2012 Actual Completion Date: 1/31/3014 (contract date at 50%)

Scope of Work: General Contractor Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (V) if this is a : Z Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or

Li Final Evaluation (once use and/or occupancy, or issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, or contract termination have been achieved, whichever is earlier)

• Please check (✓) Z The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes Z No ri

Standard Contractor Evaluation Form

Page 1 of 5 Revised: 7/09

Section II- Evaluation Questionnaire Please rate this contractor's performance in each of the following areas. If you need additional space, attach additional sheets. If you rate the contractor below "satisfactory" in any area, please provide detailed information to explain the rating assigned. You are not restricted to using the numerical values (points) shown and may score in between the points shown. A total of 80 points are required for a passing grade.

Carry over points

here ,1,

1. Quality of Workmanship (0-28 points)

Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory0 very good El excellent 0, 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

—+26 points

comments:

2. Project Management

a) Scheduling- (0-13 points) Rate this contractor's performance with regard to adhering to contract schedules. Did this contractor meet the contract schedule or the schedule as revised by approved change orders? If not, was the delay attributable to this contractor? If so, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

—4 11 points

comments:

b) Subcontractor Management- (0-13 points) Rate this contractor's ability, effort and success in managing and coordinating subcontractors (if no subcontractors, rate this contractor's overall project management). Was this contractor able to effectively resolve problems? If not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ri very good

excellent n 0 points

6 points 11 points 12 points

13 points --->12 points

comments:

Standard Contractor Evaluation Form Page 2 of 5 Revised: 7/09

c) Safety and Housekeeping Procedures- (0-9 points) Rate this contractor's safety and housekeeping procedures on this project. Were there any OSHA violations or serious safety accidents? If so, provide specific examples.

unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory M very good ❑ excellent n 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:

d) Change Orders- (0-9 points) Did this contractor unreasonably claim change orders or extras? Were this contractor's prices on change orders and extras reasonable? If not, provide specific examples.

7 points

unacceptable 17 poor ❑ satisfactory EZI very good ❑ excellent 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

-->7 points comments:

e) Working Relationships- (0-7 points) Rate this contractor's working relationships with other parties (i.e. Awarding Authority, designer, subcontractors, etc.). Did this contractor relate to other parties in a professional manner? If not, give specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points ,7 points

— 5 points comments:

f) Paperwork Processing- (0-7 points) Rate this contractor's performance in completing and submitting required project paperwork (i.e. change orders, submittals, drawings, requisitions, payrolls, workforce reports, etc.). Did the contractor submit the required paperwork promptly and in proper form? If not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory N very good ❑ excellent n 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

5 points comments:


3. On-Site Supervisory Personnel Rating (0-14 points)

a) General Performance- Rate the general performance of this contractor's on-site supervisory personnel. Did the superintendent(s) have the knowledge, management skills and experience to run a project of this size and scope? If not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Ei excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

X12 points comments:

Please add up all points from this page and the preceding pages and enter total here: 85

Section III- Legal and Administrative Proceedings

Are you aware of any legal or administrative proceedings, invoked bonds, assessed damages, demands for direct payment, payment bond claims, contract failures, contract terminations, or penalties involving this contractor on this contract? What is the status of any pending litigation? What was the final outcome of any completed litigation? What are the dollar amounts of assessed damages or penalties?

comments: None at this time.


Section IV- Evaluator Certification

I hereby certify that the information contained in this evaluation form represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true analysis of this contractor's performance record on this contract and that this Project Evaluation and Project Rating was not the subject of any negotiation, close-out, or settlement of the subject project or related thereto and that no compensation or consideration (either financial or additional work on this project or otherwise) was given to the awarding authority or me in connection with its preparation or the opinions contained herein.

I also certify that I have no ties with this contractor either through a business or family relationship.

I have mailed a copy of this completed evaluation form to the contractor on (Public Awarding Authorities must mail a copy of this completed evaluation form to the contractor).

For Public Projects below $1,500,000, this form must be completed and signed by the Awarding Authority and may also be signed by the Owner's Representative (i.e. Architect/Designer) in conjunction with the Awarding Authority:

Signature of Awarding Authority

Print Name and Title Date

Signature of Awarding Authority's Representative Print Name and Title Date (optional)

For Public Projects $1,500,000 or greater, this form must be signed by the Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Project Manager and the Awarding Authority pursuant to M.G.L., c. 149, § 44A 1/2:

Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager

Signature of Awarding Authority Print Name and Title Date

Section V- Additional Comments

Comments:











Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Project Manager

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project DirectorPrint Name and Title Date

Michael J. Guzinski, Town Administrator



Comments:




❑ Prime/General Contractor Z Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Lighthouse Masonry

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $1,084,000.00 bid price (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)


Contract Start/ End Dates: 03/2012 Actual Completion Date: 01/31/2014 contract date at 50%

Scope of Work: (Masonry Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check ( 17) if this is a : Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or

Final Evaluation (once use and/or occupancy, or issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, or contract termination have been achieved, whichever is earlier)

• Please check (✓) if:

The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP sro z Project Manager.

Yes • Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? No ❑


Page 1 of 5

Revised: 7/09



Carry over points

here ,I, Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

-+26 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory E very good Z excellent 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good izi excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:

—>12 points

---->12 points



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good n excellent ri 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


->7 points

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points -*9 points

comments:


unacceptable ri poor 7 satisfactory r7 very good ❑ excellent 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

- ->7 points

comments:


unacceptable [-I poor ❑ satisfactory n very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

6 points

comments:









comments:







Signature of Awarding Authority Print Name and Title

Date



Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director 60/ierf Signature of Owner's warding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager





Comments:



IMPORTANT — Please check (✓ if this evaluation is for:

❑ Prime/General Contractor

IX Subcontractor





Date: May 12, 2014 DCAM Interviewer (if any): N/A Reference

Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Berlin Steel Construction

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $408,000.00 (bid amount) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)



Scope of Work: Miscellaneous Metals Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (V) if this is a : Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (17) if:

•

The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes No ❑



Section II- Evaluation Questionnaire Please rate this contractor's performance in each of the following areas. If.you need additional space, attach additional sheets. If you rate the contractor below "satisfactory" in any area, please provide detailed information to explain the rating assigned. You are not restricted to using the numerical values (points) shown and may score in between the points shown. A total of 80 points are required for a passing grade.


Carry over points

here Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very goodp excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

—24 points

comments:



unacceptable 1=I poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:


unacceptable [1] poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good Ell excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:

—>11 points

—>11 points



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory LI very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

—>7 points comments:



comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor n satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory pi very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

-->8 points

-->5 points

—>6 points




unacceptable ❑ satisfactory Z very good excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

—>10 points

comments:




comments:











Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project DirectobaN/011 Print Name and Title Date




Comments:





IX Subcontractor





Dater 12 May 2014 DCAM Interviewer (if any): N/A Reference

Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: DeBrino Caulking Associates

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $165,930 (bid amount) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)

Project Title: New Douglas Elementary School and Middle School Repairs


Scope of Work: Waterproofing Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

Important************* ***


❑ Final Evaluation (once use and/or occupancy, or issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, or contract termination have been achieved, whichever is earlier)

• Please check (%✓) if: The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes Z No ❑





Carry over points


unacceptable 111 poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

+26 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory 121 very good ❑ excellentO 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:


unacceptable Ell poor ❑ satisfactory IZ very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:

— >11 points

-->11 points



unacceptable ri poor ❑ satisfactory n very good IZI excellent lIl 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points 38 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑

0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points —>8 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory very good ❑ excellent ❑

0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points —> 5 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good lZ1 excellent ❑

0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

— 6 points

comments:




unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent E 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

--)12 points comments:




comments: None












Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director # API/ WS Print Name and Title Date




Comments:





IX Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Greenwood Industries

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $1,072,000.00 (base bid) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)

Project Title: New Douglas Elementary and Middle School Repairs

Contract Start/ End Dates: 03/2012 Actual Completion Date: 01/31/2014(contract date at 50%)

Scope of Work: Roofing Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (V) if this is a :

•

Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (V)

•

The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP sro z Project Manager.


Standard Contractor Evaluation Form Page 1 of 5

Revised: 7/09



Carry over points

here ,I, Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good z excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points




unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points --->12 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactoryD very good Z excellent [1] 0 points

6 points 11 points

12 points 13 points —4 12 points

comments:



unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory Ti very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points —>8 points

comments:


unacceptable ri poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points —+7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

—>7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent 1-1

0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points --> 6 points

comments:


Revised: 7/09



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good IZI excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points

10 points 12 points 14 points

points

comments:




comments: None


Date









Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Project Manager




Comments:





II] Prime/General Contractor

XI Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Modern Glass

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $1,535,000 (base bid) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)



Scope of Work: Aluminum Windows Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (V) if this is a : El Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (✓) if:

El The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes IZ Non




Carry over points

here



unacceptable ❑ poor ri satisfactory ❑ very good excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points --->26 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points -+12 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ 0 points

comments:

poor ❑ saqsfactory iz very good 1:1 excellent ❑ 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points --->11 points



unacceptable 7 poor ❑ satisfactory 7 very good E excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points -->8 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory E very good ❑ excellent 7 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points +7 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ri satisfactory ❑ very good E excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points -->6 points

comments:


unacceptable 7 poor ❑ satisfactory 7 very good E excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points -->6 points

comments:


Revised: 7/09




comments: —>12 points




comments: None


Revised: 7/09








For Public Projects $1,500,000 or greater, this form must be signed by the Owner's (Awarding Authority's), Project Manager and the Awarding Authority pursuant to M.G.L., c. 149, § 44A 1/2:

Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director 6,40 Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:




L I Prime/General Contractor

Z Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Modern Glass




Scope of Work: (Glass Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (i/) if this is a : Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (✓) if: The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M

dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes M No




Carry over points

here



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

comments:



—>26 points

unacceptable ❑ poor El satisfactory0 very goodN excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

—>12 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ satisfactory El very good ill excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points




unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory n very good excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

-->8 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

—>7 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor[] satisfactory n very good El excellent n 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

-->6 points

—>6 points




unacceptable E poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good E excellentE 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

—412 points

comments:




comments: None











Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director &NW Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:





N Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Allegany Contract Flooring

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $444,000 (base bid) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)

Project Title: New Douglas Elementary and Middle School Repairs


Scope of Work: Ceramic Tile Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************


▪


ri Final Evaluation (once use and/or occupancy, or issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, or contract termination have been achieved, whichever is earlier)

• Please check (V) if:

▪


• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes PI No





Carry over points

here


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points -->24 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent n 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:

—>11 points

-+11 points


Revised: 7/09


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory pi very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

—>8 points

comments:



comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable F7 poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

—38 points

—>5 points

—points




unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points —>12 points

comments:




comments: None








Signature of Awarding Authority's Representative Print Name and Title

Date (optional)

For Public Projects $1,500,000 or greater, this form must be signed by the Owner's Awarding Authority's) Project Manager and the Awarding Authority pursuant to M.G.L., c. 149, § 44A 1/2:




Comments:

bAN/Or Thomas E Ellis, Jr., Project Di ector ala




Standard Contractor Evaluation Form Revised: 7/09

Page 5 of 5



n Prime/General Contractor

El Subcontractor


Reference Name: Al Calacgno




Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: K & K Acoustical Ceilings

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $476,720.00 (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)



Scope of Work: Acoustical Ceilings Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important************* ***

• Please check (V) if this is a Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (N/)

▪

The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP sro H Project Manager.



Revised: 7/09


Carry over points

here ,1,


Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there qualify-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very goodE excellent E 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points .28 points

comments:


—>26 points


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory El very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points _ _

—>ii points

comments:


unacceptablerj poor ❑ satisfactory El very good ill excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points —>11 points

comments:



unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory [71 very good ri excellent ❑

0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points --> 7 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor Ell satisfactory n very good Z excellent n 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

—+8 points

comments:

) Working Relationships- (0-7 points) Rate this contractor's working relationships with other parties (i.e. Awarding Authority, designer, subcontractors, etc.). Did this contractor relate to other parties in a professional manner? If not, give specific examples.

unacceptable ❑ poor n satisfactory 111 very good Z excellent 111 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor n satisfactory Z very good n excellent n 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

—6 points

— +5 points


Revised: 7/09



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory [s] very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

--->10 points comments:




comments: None


Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager














Comments:



IMPORTANT — Please check ( ✓ if this evaluation is for:

Prime/General Contractor ❑ Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: West Floor Covering


Project Title: Douglas New Elementary and Middle School Repairs.


Scope of Work: Resilient Flooring and Base Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

Important****************

• Please check ( V) if this is a :

▪



• Please check (%✓) if:


• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes IZ No ❑




1. Quality of Workmanship (0-28 points) Carry over points

here ,1, Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.


-+26 points comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good[i] excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:


—>11 points

unacceptable ❑

poor ❑ satisfactory El very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points

6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points 3L points

comments:



unacceptable ri poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good excellent ❑ 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points —>8 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor 111 satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor 7 satisfactory Z very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable ri poor 7 satisfactory M very good ❑ excellent n 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

—8 points

- ->5 points

— 5 points





comments: -->12 points




comments: none


Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director










Signature of wner s (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title

Date Project Manager





Comments:




❑ Prime/General Contractor IZ Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Bouchard Painting

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $396,430.00 (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)



Scope of Work: Painting Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

*****************Important****************


•



• Please check (N✓) ❑ The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP si zoject Manager.

Yes • Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? No 7 Standard Contractor Evaluation Form

Page 1 of 5

Revised: 7/09



Carry over points

here ,1, Rate the quality of this contractor's workmanship. Were there quality-related or workmanship problems on the contract? Was the contractor responsive to remedial work required? If so or if not, provide specific examples.


—>26 points

comments:



unacceptable 1:11 poor pi 0 points 7 points

comments:

satisfactory ❑ very good

excellent ❑ 11 points 12 points 13 points

—>12 points


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory El very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points




unacceptable ❑ poor ri satisfactory IS] very good n excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points



unacceptable ❑

poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good excellent ❑ 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points —>8 points

comments:


unacceptable 111 poor 7 satisfactory n very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

-->6 points

comments:


unacceptable ri poor 111 satisfactory n very good El excellent n 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

-->6 points

comments:





—>12 points

comments:




comments: none











Thomas E Ellis, Jr., Project Director 040V0r Signature of Owner's ( warding ding Authority's)


Project Manager




Comments:




❑ Prime/General Contractor M. Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Bay State Elevator Comapany


Project Title: Douglas New Elementary School and Middle School Repairs.


Scope of Work: Elevators Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************



• Please check (%✓) if:

•

The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP sro N Project Manager.

Yes • Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? No






unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory Z very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

comments:



Carry over points

here ,I,

—>26 points

unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory0 very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

—12 points comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory0 very good Z excellent El 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments: -->12 points



unacceptable 7 poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good [Z] excellent 7 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points ->8 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent [Z] 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points >9 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor n satisfactory 7 very good [Z] excellent El 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

—> 7 points

comments:


unacceptable P poor ri satisfactory 7 very good 7 excellent Ej 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

—> 7 points

comments:





L points

comments:




comments: None


Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director










Signature of Owner's warding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:





IZ Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Marathon Fire Protection




Scope of Work: Fire Protection Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important ****************


▪



• Please check (✓) if: ❑ The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes ZI No ❑






unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory H very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory IX1 very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments:

Carry over points

here

-->24 points

-->11 points


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory IZ very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points




unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z1 excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

—>g points

comments:


unacceptable n poor n satisfactory [1] very good ❑ excellent 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor n satisfactory n very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ❑ satisfactory N very good n excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

->9 points

->6 points

->5 points




unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactorylj very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

--->12 points

comments:




comments: None











Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director 4AW10,"

Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:






IX Subcontractor




Reference Position/ Title: Project Manager.


Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Sagamore Plumbing

Contract Cost for Contractor Being Evaluated Including Change Orders: $1,060,000 ( base bid) (if change order amount unknown for subcontractor then estimate as 5% of subcontract amount)



Scope of Work: Plumbing Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check ( V) if this is a : Z Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (■✓) ❑ The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes No0







comments:


Carry over points

here ,I,

26 points


unacceptable E poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points -- > 12 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor E satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points

comments: 12 points



unacceptable ❑ poor n satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ri 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory pi very good [ZI excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

>8 points comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent El 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

–> 7 points comments:


unacceptable n

poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good IZ excellent ❑ 0 points

2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points 6 points

comments:


3. On-Site. Supervisory Personnel Rating (0-14 points)


unacceptable [11 poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good El excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points





comments: None


Date


I hereby certify that the information contained in this evaluation form represents, to the best of my knowledge, a true analysis of this contractor's performance record on this contract and that this Project Evaluation and Project Rating was not the subject of any negotiation, close-out, or settlement of the subject project or related thereto and that no compensation or consideration (either financial or additional work op this project or otherwise) was given to the awarding authority or me in connection with its preparation or the opinions contained herein.







Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director Signature of Owner's (Awarding Authority's) Print Name and Title Project Manager



Comments:







Z Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery Internaitonal, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: General Mechanical




Scope of Work: HVAC Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

Important************* ***



• Please check (%✓) if: ❑ The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's Project Manager.

• Did the contractor execute this project using their own employees? Yes No E





Carry over points


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good E excellent0 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points -+26 points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor TI satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points , — 13 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent 0 points 6 points 11 points 12 points 13 points -->B points

comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactoryil very good Z excellent n 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


unacceptable ❑ poor ri satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ri satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:


unacceptable n poor ri satisfactory n very good ❑ excellent IX 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points

comments:

8 points

—48 points

->7 points

->7 points




unacceptable ❑ poor satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent El 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

--*14 points

comments:




comments: None











Thomas E. Ellis, jr., Project Director Aono Signature o Owner's(warding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:




Li Prime/General Contractor

IX Subcontractor






Agency/ Firm: Heery International, Inc. Name of Contractor Being Evaluated: Wayne J. Griffin Electric Company




Scope of Work: Electrical Project Location (city and state): Douglas, MA

***************** Important****************

• Please check (s7) if this is a Preliminary Evaluation (50% complete); or


• Please check (N✓) if:

❑ The project was estimated to be greater than $1.5M dollars and required an Owner's eP sro z Project Manager.







Carry over points

here ,I,

unacceptable E poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good ❑ excellent El 0 points 14 points 24 points 26 points 28 points

—28 points comments:



unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good Z excellent ❑ 0 points 7 points 11 points 12 points 13 points _

—4 12 points comments:



comments: — >12 points



unacceptable ri poor ❑ satisfactory n very good E1 excellent [--7 0 points 3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points

comments:


8 points

unacceptable 111

poor ❑ satisfactory very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points

3 points 7 points 8 points 9 points ---> 7 points

comments:


unacceptable 111 poor n satisfactory very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points 2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points -->5 points

comments:

0 Paperwork Processing- (0-7 points) Rate this contractor's performance in completing and submitting required project paperwork (i.e. change orders, submittals, drawings, requisitions, payrolls, workforce reports, etc.). Did the contractor submit the required paperwork promptly and in proper form? If not, provide specific examples.

unacceptable ri poor ❑ satisfactory M very good ❑ excellent ❑ 0 points

2 points 5 points 6 points 7 points — +S points

comments:




unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ satisfactory ❑ very good [E] excellent ❑ 0 points 3 points 10 points 12 points 14 points

> 1 2 points

comments:




comments: None




I also certify that I have no ties with this contractor either through a business or family relationship







• Thomas E. Ellis, Jr., Project Director 6 0/ or Signature of Owner's warding Authority's) Print Name and Title Date Project Manager




Comments:


Documents

HEERY - Douglas · 2015-11-18 · find the original 50% DCAMM Contractor and Subcontractor ... Integral to the MSBA completion process is that both Heery and the District must