School Building Committee (2020)

School Building Committee (2020) Special Meeting via ZOOM App Tuesday March 30, 2021 6:30 PM Committee Members Present: Alderman Mark Bettencourt, Alderwoman Stacy Gould, Alderman Joe DeLucia, William Hull, Heather Romanski, Gerald Martin, Gregory Ballassi, Greg Carabine, Peter Gauthier, Kristen Talley and Christine DiStasio. Committee Members Absent: None. Ex-Officio Members Present: Kristen Stringfellow. Citizens Present: Matthew Brown, Norwich Board of Education Facilities Manager. I. Call to Order and Quorum: Alderman Mark Bettencourt called the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. II. Public Comment: None. III. Review of Scoring Document: Alderman Bettencourt read through draft calibration rubric and proposed revisions. Discussion ensued on changes to the draft calibration document. IV. Training in Documents Use: Greg Carabine explained that members would take the criteria sheet and work through it as they read through proposals. Alderman Bettencourt stated the calibrations would be printed, signed and submitted as public records. SEE ADDENDUM. V. Adjournment: Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 PM. Heather Romanski seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Katherine Rose  ADDENDUM Draft Qualifications Evaluation Form Rating Column: 0 ‐ 5 points; highest number equals greatest value 0= No 1=Little 2=Some Evidence Evidence Evidence 3 4= 5=Exempl =Adequate Significant ary Evidence Evidence Evidence Owner: City of Norwich Project: Project Description: Firm: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Contact: Rating XWei Criteria 0‐5 ght = Total 1. Firm's background 0= no expertise/experience (New School, renovate as and professional new or master plan qualifies as a project) 1= At least 3 expertise, including projects with at least 2 in CT and documented qualified size and scope of personnel meets this requirement 2= At least 6 projects projects, special with at least 3 in CT and documented qualified qualifications, and the personnel meets this requirement 3= At least 10 3 availability and projects with at least 5 in CT and documented qualified experience of assigned personnel meets this requirement 4= At least 12 personnel and/or the projects with at least 6 in CT and documented qualified firms supporting team. personnel meets this requirement 5= At least 14 projects with at least 7 in CT and documented qualified personnel meets this requirement 2. Firm's proven track 0= No successful projects 1= 2 successful referendum record of success in projects, 1 in last 5 years 2= 3 successful referendum gaining community projects, 2 in last 5 years 3= 5 successful referendum support for the projects, 3 in last 5 years 4= 8 successful referendum selection options. 2 projects, 4 in the last 5 years 5= 10 ssuccessful Balance success versus referendum projects, 5 in the last 5 years failures and the mitigation of lessons learned. 3. Firm's ability to 0= No evidence of timeliness 1= Evidence of timeliness complete the work of 10% of projects and staffing in Criteria 1 2= Evidence within the required of timeliness of 25% of projects and staffing in Criteria timeline, and to 2 1 3= Evidence of timeliness of 50% of projects and commit staff in a staffing in Criteria 1 4= Evidence of timeliness of 75% of timely way when projects and staffing in Criteria 1 5= Evidence of requested. timeliness of 100% of projects and staffing in Criteria 1 4. Firm's demonstrated 0= No school projects (Schools or master plan work understanding of the qualifies as a project) 1= 0 multi school projects (single work. school projects only) 2= 2 multischool projects with 3 1 or more schools 3= 5 multischool projects with 3 or more schools 4= 6 multischool projects with 4 or more schools 5= 7 multischool projects with 5 or more schools 5.Evidence of any 0= No Evidence 1= Little Evidence 2= Some Evidence 3= special or innovative Adequate Evidence Think about recent concerns in approach the firm will education, security, tactile learning, 4= Significant use. Assess the Evidence widespread health issues. 5= Exemplary 1 relevancy of any Evidence innovation in completing the scope of services. 6. Positive or negative 0= No evidence of conflict resolution or has history of history of litigation. negative (losing) litigation 1= unable to successfully Weigh the existence of resolve two or more conflicts without negative any litigation history 1 litigation 2= unable to successfully resolve one conflict and dispositions versus without litigation 3= No litigation 4= Demonstrated any relevant mitigating ability to resolve a majority of conflicts 5= factors. Demonstrated ability to resolve nearly all conflicts MAXIMUM 50 GRAND TOTAL Reviewer: