ST8502-CS 860613GINN, INC.
June 13, 1986
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Mr. W. K. Wolfe, Jr.
Ashlar Contracting Co.
P.O. Box 713
Lewisville, TX 75067
We are in receipt of your June 2, 1986 letter and enjoy the
opportunity to respond to the issues you have addressed. After
reviewing your comments, we wonder if you have taken the time to
familiarize yourself with the contract documents and
specifications to which you are contractually obligated. We
will clarify some of these areas which we feel are causing
Ashlar Contracting Company to mislead themselves regarding its
responsibilites on this project.
On December 17, 1985, a preconstruction conference was held.
The purpose of this meeting was to clarify each party's
responsibilities and contractual obligations. A summary of what
was discussed and ~kq~ upon was sent to you on January 2, 1986.
Please refer to Item 4, page 2 of that summary which states the
following: "Ashlar Contracting Company is responsible for
notifying utility companies and coordinating work schedules with
them on relocations, excavations, or any conflicts." The same
issue is clearly defined in the Contract Documents and
Specifications, Section 00650, paragraph 1.14 "Contractor's
Responsibility for Utilities and Services," page 9, which states
"In case that such physical properties (property of utility
companies) conflict with the performance of the contract, it
shall be the contractor's responsibility to ~1~.~~ such con-
flicts and to give ~ notice thereof to the owners of the
utility." Again, this same issue is .addressed tn Section 00650,
' item 4, page 12 Having
paragragh 1.25, 'General Notes, ·
clarified this issue, it is an obvious observation that Ashlar
should have fulfilled their own responsibilities and should have
taken the initiative to contact GTE (incident per your letter)
directly, instead of waiting for TP&L to do your work for you.
As a result, Ashlar caused delay to themselves and their sub-
contractors for three months.
Also per your letter you stated that someone suggested:th&t~f
you staked out the right-of-way limits for TP&L at the bridge,
this would expedite TP&L to relocate their poles and that this
cost Ashlar several hundred dollars to do and the poles were
still not moved for several months. The suggestion you refer to
was made at the preconstruction conference by TP&L. If the
poles were not relocated in a sufficient tine frame and caused a
delay, per the Contract Specifications, General Conditions of
16lXSPrc~:,n Ri)ad · Suite !06 · Dalla,,Texa5 75248 · Phone214/386-6611
Agreement, Section 4, paragraph 4.02, "Extension of Time," "the
Contractor shall give the Engineer prompt notice in writing of
the cause of such delay." No such notice was ever received by
our office. Therefore, at the time, Ashlar must have felt this
was only a minor inconvenience. In addition, to construct this
project according to the plans, you needed to define the
right-of-way limits, so we do not believe any additional costs
were incurred staking the right-of-way.
Also in your letter, you referenced Lone Star Gas - Transmission
Department as showing very slow response on addressing conflicts
with their utility. You are reminded that it was strongly
emphasized at the preconstruction conference on December 17, 1985,
by both Ginn, Inc. and Lone Star Gas that you needed to provide
our office with certain existing utility information prior to
the City and Lone Star Gas being able to begin their negotiations.
Our office received this information on March 23, 1986. This
three month delay is directly the result of Ashlar's lack of
responsiveness.
In regard to the 16" waterline conflict, you are correct that we
received a price from Ashlar in April for this extra work.
Since then we have been working closely with some of the
property owners and the City regarding alternative solutions to
the lowering of this water main. Please recall, however, that
this extra work price was requested on February 12, 1986, and we
finally received it on April 21, 1986.
Throughout the decision making process required for the items
you have addressed in your letter, there have been numerous
other items which could have been worked on and have not. Those
are storm sewer laterals, storm sewer inlets, and junction
boxes. Due to this fact, we see no delays occurring yet on the
project other than those you have been directly responsible for.
Also, the temporary asphalt detours, if maintained properly
(including drainage), should hold up very well and will continue
to be needed until you complete the items of work just
previously described. Per the Contract and as clarified at the
preconstruction conference, Ashlar is reauired to provide a
construction superintendent on the job at all times to manage
the project. We are pleased to hear that you have been meeting
your responsibility in this particular area. Please be aware
that further delays can be anticipated if you do not submit the
required shop drawings in a timely fashion. This was addressed
on December 17, 1985, at the preconstruction conference and
restated in our January 2, 1986 correspondence to you (see item
10, page 2 of that correspondence). To date, we have not
received the required submittals. We must emphasize the
necessity to submit the required shop drawings as soon as
possible so that you do not create additional delays to
yourselves in the coming months.
Per your comment regarding "exposure to additional claims by the
Public," until you complete the project, that exposure shall
exist per the contract. Your realization of this fact will
hopefully motivate you to complete the work as soon as possible.
In response to your last paragraph on the second page related to
"right-of-way not being obtained, slow payments, reduced
payment, deleted item payments," we have the following comments.
First, Ashlar Contracting Company has not been delayed or
affected by any right-of-way issues whatsoever. No stop work
order has ever been issued for any work within the limits of the
public right-of-way. The City of Coppell controls the cash flow
on this project and when a pay application is submitted in
proper form and all the math is correct, the pay application is
processed in a timely fashion. In regard to reduced or deleted
payments, this is a unit price job and you have been paid for
the proper percentage of units of work completed to date in
accordance with contract requirements.
Per your directions, we have requested to our structural
engineer that he revise the south abutment cap design due to the
new Shaft "D" location. Any additional fees incurred by the
City of Coppell as a result of this design change will be
charged to Ashlar Contracting Company. A bill will be sent to
you and then a deduction for this extra design work shall be
shown on the payment application.
In summary, we hope this letter helps clarify the contractor's
responsibilities and provides motivation to your staff to begin
planning your work schedules ahead of time.
Part of finding the solution to a problem is first defining what
the problem is. Now that we have identified the problem, we
trust you will initiate the means and methods to resolve the
problems.
We, too, feel a meeting is necessary and would like to schedule
one at our office for Tuesday, June 17, 1986, at 9:00 a.m.
If this time is not convenient, please advise.
Sincerely,
Kevin Peiffer
/sr
Ed Powell
Wayne Ginn
Randy Fleming
Reuben Martinez