,LO DREGA H EHA & o co, P.

KEVI W.CO WAY.

FRA IS T. LO DREGA (1935-2008)THOMAS J I.ONDREGA .::1.:..MICIlAEL W 'IlEEIlARALPHJ.IO 'Aco ••-1-JEFFREY T. I.ONDREUAN:::t.:..BRIAN K. ESTEP + tERIC 1.GAROFA '0VICTORIA S IUELLEH

• or 0 . 'sa•• HOAl\D CERTlrII:D TRIAL nORNEY

'::1.:.. D. II TTf.D TO PRACTICE IN TlfI:IHOSlATE s I'KEMECOUKT~L '0 AD\IITIU> IN PA

t ~lSO AO\IITI EJ> I.' Y

ATTOR EYS AT LAW38 II NTI GTO STREET

P.O. IlOX 1351NEW LO DO . CO 'Ecrl UT 06320-1351

JEFFHEY T. 1.0, DIU:GAN

J londregan@c1smlaw.eol11Phone: (860)447-) 171Fa,,: (860)444-610)

www.conwllylundregllll.col11

71,is document is confidential. It relates a communication privileged hy the attorney-client relationship und is thusexempt from public disclosure under the Connecticl/{ Freedom 0/ In/ormation Act. It should be filed or storf!c!sf!paratelyjrom public documents in order to avoid accidental disclosure.

TO:FR M:DATE:RE:

[am sending this memorandum to you ahead of tomorrow's MB Meeting. I have been provided a copy oranundated letter from Friar rchitecture to Councilors Passero and Olsen regarding the selection of an architectfor the design of the ew London High chool Campus. Additionally, I was copied on an email to you fromDiana McNeil of RE , the ity's project manager for this project, whereby Diana raises some concerns aboutthe Friar letter.

My understanding is that Friar was not one of the firms chosen for the short list of tinalists for this project bythe 'MBC sub-committee charged with coming up with such a list. It appears that Friar is now seeking eitherspecial consideration in the process (a second bite at the apple on their submission) and/or recommendingchanges to the procedure for choosing an architect. According to Diana's email, there is mis-information.errors, and inaccurate representations made in Friar's letter.

Absent any negligence or error that may have been committed in the selection process to date by the ub-committee or the MBC, I strongly urge the MBC to not waiver from the selection process that it has alreadyapproved and commenced. To do so at this point in time, either to give special consideration to firms not on thcshort list or to scrap the process and start all over. would raise a number of potential objcctions to the process byany of the other Jirms that ultimately are not selected and/or harmed by giving special consideration or changingthe process. Litigation would not only be costly to the City, but could result in possible delays that wouldimpact the entire project.

Smith, Marie

From:Sent:To:

Cc:Subject:Attachments:

Dear Committee Members

Smith, Jeff <jsmith@ci.New-London.CT.US>Thursday, June 25, 20154:58 PMMcNeil, Diana; Martin T. Olsen; Curtin, Peg; Skau, Vernon; Kripas, Kirk; Kenric Hanson; Ericson, Katherine; Richard Gipstein;Wheeler, Timothy; Gautier Jr., Miguel; Thompson, William; McCoy, Kathleen; Cymbala, PaulaRivera, Manuel J.; Michael Passero; Smith, MarieRE: Architect's final selection presentationsMemo to J. Smith. pdf

This morning I received a copy of a letter from Friar Associates. I am very concerned that any deviation from our agreed upon procedure could result in legalaction. Any change will leave me with only two options: 1.Throw out all the proposals and start over, or 2. Open up the process for all those who did not makethe cut. Either option will very likely result in legal action and delays in the project. Please read the attached memo from Attorney Londregan concerning thisrequest from Friar.

Jeff Smith

From: McNeil, Diana [mailto:dmcneil@crec.org]Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:48 AMTo: Martin T. Olsen; Curtin, Peg; Skau, Vernon; Kripas, Kirk; Kenric Hanson; Kate Ericson; Richard Gipstein; Wheeler, TImothy (Wheelert@newlondon.org); MiguelGautier Jr.; Tommy Thompson; Katherine McCoy (mccoyk@newlondon.org); Cymbala, Paula (CymbalaP@newlondon.org)Cc: Manuel Rivera, PhD. ; Smith, Jeff; Michael Passero; Smith, Marie <SMITHM@newlondon.org> (SMITHM@newlondon.org)Subject: Architect's final selection presentations

Good Morning,

Attached please find excel and pdf of Interview Schedule, for the meeting on the 26th•As the schedule is very tight, I will be the time keeper. Please note the times for questions and answers, as well as committee discussions.

I have not received questions. Below are my suggestions, unless covered in the presentation.

1- Who is the team member with the highest percentage of involvement in this project (usually a Project Architect), specifically during programming,design and construction documents.

a. How much of his/her time -on a daily basis, will be dedicated to this project?b. What other project(s) has that individual worked on or completed recently, with similar scope, schedule and budget to this project?

2- Who is the team member involved during the C.A (Construction Administration) phase of this project?

1

a. How many years of experience, specifically in Construction Administration does that individual have?

3- Large architectural firms handle several projects at the same time, using several project teams. Why is this team the right fit for this project?

See you all on Friday,

Diana I. McNeil, AlA, LEEDAPConstruction Services - Senior Project/Program Manager147 Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106Phone: 860.524.4071 Cell: 860.508.1502dmcneii@crec.orq I www.crecconstruction.orq

e_ CREC IExpertSolutions

2