Loading...
ST0501-CS100205 (10/27/2011) George Marshall - Fwd: RE: Contract Amendment #2 2-4-2010.doc,Page 1 From: Keith Marvin To: Garza, Michael; Griffin, Ken; Marshall, George Date: 2/5/2010 10:56 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Contract Amendment #2 2-4-2010.doc, ST05-01 Deforest Road My thoughts on the matter are that they have likely spent more time on this issue than they had anticipated dealing with this drainage situation. I don't believe they could have anticipated the problem with the previously installed system at the time we approved their contract. Now how much time they spent working on it, and how much additional compensation they may be owed is the dilemma for me. I believe they spent a lot of time spinning their wheels, as evidenced by the hour breakdown they provided. Keith >>> George Marshall 2/5/2010 10:33 AM >>> Keith, Mike, and Ken, Please see Dan's response below. I have re-read all items in the correspondence folder on Laserfiche as well as the contract documents and have compiled the following response. Please let me know how you feel about it. Dan, I am looking for more specific detail than just the 7 line items listed. Which items are items of work already performed and which items are based on the final design? Existing Site Analysis -Site visits 10 hr - Do you have field reports or specific dates? What part of the drainage took 10 hours of site visits? I would expect a few hours of site visits and for most of it to be part of the original contract as due diligence on your part. -Review of existing record drawings 20 hr - Due diligence. -Meetings/communication with City Staff 10 hr - Can you provide meeting dates? And was drainage the only topic discussed? -Runoff computations/Drainage area maps 30 hr - The design of a drainage area map would be included in the original contract, no matter if you were tying to an existing system or not. Engineering Design -Horizontal alignment alternatives 35 hr- I have seen only two alternate designs presented and based on the contract, page 10 item Section A, item 7: "the Engineer shall furnish... a written report on the project in sufficient detail to indicate clearly the problems involved and the alternate solutions available to the City, to include layouts, preliminary right-of-way needs, opinion of probable cost for each alternate proposed, and the Engineer's recommendation(s)/" -Profiles for alignment alternatives 35 hr - These were not necessary for compiling alternative designs. For HGL comparison to Top of Curb a simple addition to the spreadsheet is sufficient. -Preparation of Plans/Specification 30 hr - I can only assume that this is for future work for the profile of the additional 36" RCP. -Cost estimate 2 hr - See above reference to Page 10 Section A, item 7 of contract. Total Hours: 172 Please note that the only item we can fall back on in terms of what is included in the project is the contract as approved by council and any amendments after. This is clearly defined in the contract. Thank You, George George Marshall, PE (10/27/2011) George Marshall - Fwd: RE: Contract Amendment #2 2-4-2010.doc,Page 2 City of Coppell Engineering 972-304-3562 >>> "DeGroot, Dan" <ddegroot@burnip.com> 2/5/2010 7:19 AM >>> What kind of additional documentation? The contract doesn't have drainage design in it for the eastern portion of the project. I have put together multiple exhibits, multiple drainage plan and profiles, and multiple pavement grade changes in order to offset the error from the developer's engineer. I do have meeting notes where it was discussed not to include the design in the contract. What is so difficult about the drainage is that the hours were not broken out specifically while we were trying to get it all put together. I feel that I am charging way under the actual time spent on the drainage for this project and I have not included any of the graduate engineers time. We are currently 92,000 over on the contract and I believe it is all do to drainage on the eastern end of the project. I am not asking to be reimbursed for everything, just a portion. Please let me know what kind of documentation you would like see. -----Original Message----- From: George Marshall [mailto:gmarshall@coppelltx.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:16 PM To: DeGroot, Dan Cc: Ken Griffin; Keith Marvin; Michael Garza Subject: Re: Contract Amendment #2 2-4-2010.doc, ST05-01 Deforest Road Dan, I have reviewed your contract amendment #2. Please send us additional documentation & detail on the additional 172 hours. Some of the items listed we would expect to be included within the original contract. We want to treat you fairly and pay for additional services, however we can not approve this request as is. Thank You, George Marshall, PE George Marshall, P.E. City of Coppell Engineering 972-304-3562 >>> "DeGroot, Dan" <ddegroot@burnip.com> 2/4/2010 2:29 PM >>> George: this is what I have put together for the contract amendment for drainage. Let me know if it will do. If it is ok, I can sign and send originals. ________________________________ Note: These electronic documents are provided by Burgess & Niple (B&N) as a convenience to our clients. The official document is available as a manually signed, initialed, or sealed hard copy. If there is a discrepancy between electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies shall prevail. It is our professional opinion that this electronic information provides information current as of the date of its release. Any use of this information is at the sole risk and liability of the user. The user is responsible for updating information to reflect any changes in the information following the preparation date of this transmittal. The delivery of this information in electronic format is for the benefit of the owner for whom the services have been performed. Nothing in the transfer should be construed to provide any right to third parties to rely on the information provided, or that the use of this information implies the review and approval of Burgess & Niple.