ST8801-CS 910121 Kimley. Horn ! . ~
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. i i \ "..:
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS · SURVEYORS !'J ;'"[ ...........................
12660 Colt Roacl~Suite ;~0. ~.,~/~_ Dallas. Texas 7525~214 386-7007 Facsimile 2~89-3~20 ..........
,--'
Post Office Box 478 ~ ~ ~L c .' j
Dear Ms. Daneshmand: ?/&k'~- &~',~c
I have reviewed your correspondence of January 9, 1991 with our staff, and we strongly
disagree that the additional services detailed on invoice ~086186 in the amount of S7,563.19
was not authorized services. We offer the following evidence to support our claim:
October 24 letter from KHA: referencing a meeting of October 23 in which the extent
of the Sandy Lake improvements were identified as 400' to 600' each way - not the 300'
described in our contract scope of services.
March 1, 1990 letter from the City: In response to a KHA letter of December 4, 1989, the
City requests pavement markings & signage, utility relocations and retaining wall designs
(items 6, 7 & 8) all of which were specifically excluded from our contract scope of
services.
April 25, 1990 letter from KHA: KIIA requests a meeting with the City to discuss the
additional services items and completion of our contract.
September 18, 1990 letter fromK. HA: In uPdating the status of the project KHA again
requests a meeting to discuss the additional services items and completion of our contract.
October 16, 1990 letter from KHA: In order to complete our contractual obligations to
provide quantities and an engineers estimate of probable cost, we notify the City of our
intent to complete the additional service items on an hourly basis over and above our
original contract amount.
In summary, we do indeed feel that we were authorized by the City staff to proceed whh
additional services on this project which included extended project limits, right-oF-way
review, utility relocations, signage, pavement markings, traffic control plan and structural
retaining wall designs. All of these items were specifically excluded from our original
contract of August I0, 1989. In addition to our reasonable assumption that additional services
were authorized, we have been subject to extensive delays in the response time of the City
which in itself is cause for renegotiation of compensation in accordance with the standard
contract provisions.
Anaheim · Charlotte · Dahas · Fort Lauoerclale · Fort Myers · ~'~aShvllle * Orlar~G~) · Phoenix
Raleigh · San D~ego · Stuart * TamDB · Veto Beach · Wrginia Beach · West Palm Beach
Building client r e la t ~ o n s h ~ p s a. n c e 1967
I,'~ l"-'q hoh rc.'n'J ;CoDl*cll:919 l.l~
Ms. Shohre Daneshmand -2- January 21, 1991
We have provided the City with a final set of plans for an estimated $640,000.00 in
construction improvements. Using the standard TSPE curve B (low curve) to calculate fees
as a percent of construction, a reasonable fee for our services would be in the range of 5.7%
or $36,480.00 (6.7%-1% for bidding and construction phase o.bservation which is not being
performed). Our total request of $20,000.00 in basic services plus $7,563.19 in additional
services seems more than reasonable at 4.3% of construction cost. We understand that the
original $20,000.00 in funding came from DART, however, we are not contractually obligated
to payment which is contingent to any funding source.
We have enjoyed a successful working relationship with you and the City of Coppell
providing civil, hydrology and traffic services and hope this will continue. Please allow me
the opportunity to visit with you personally to discuss possible funding alternatives or other
solutions. I will call you on Thursday, January 24, 1991 to set up a mutually convenient
meeting time.
Sincerely,
K IIMLEY- HORN A N D ASSOCIATES, INC.
Thomas P. Jones, P.E.
Division Manager
mw
attachments