CF-Village-CS 890816 (2) GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
August 16, 1989
~ro
Karl
Hirschey
Cajun Contractors, Inc. _\ U ~ ~
P.O. Box 540487'
Dallas, Texas 75354-0487J~ ~/
Re: Village Parkway Pump Station'.
City of Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Hirschey:
We are in receipt of August 10, 1989 letter regarding a requested
change order. We understand your frustration and the subsequent
attempts to involve other issues; however, the facts remain that
Cajun Contractors failed to comply with the terms of the Contract
for this project.
In your letter you stated that Cajun did verify the conflict.
You failed to mention when this verification occurred. If it was
prior to beginning excavation as required, why were we and the
utility Owner not notified until the day you desired to cross
this utility? Our discussion with the Director of Public Works,
who would have made the decision as utility Owner, indicates he
was never consulted regarding the conflict.
You state that very little evaluation was necessary to determine
the economical cure. We must disagree. Just as we would not
attempt to dictate means and methods to the Contractor, design
and evaluation of alternatives should be left to the design
professional.
The Owner could have relocated this conflict for the cost of the
materials only. The relocation could have been added to either
of the other contracts in force by a unit price field change
(<$500). The conflict could also have been avoided by a design
change in proposed grade in the vicinity. The pipe used was
suitable for up to 12 feet of cover. The 36" could have gone
underneath the 8" with i foot of clearance and only had 9.5 feet
of cover. No additional fittings would have been required. Our
estimate of the additional excavation required is less than 200
yards. At current market prices for unclassified excavation and
backfill, this option would have been less than $1000. We
recognize that the relocation at the time and in the manner
performed was in the best interest of Cajun Contractors; however,
the relocation of the 8" was not necessarily required or the most
economical alternative for the Owner.
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
Finally in your letter you recite the delays encountered in the
processing of change orders. While the start to finish times may
be correct, you have failed to indicate the time included for
your delayed responses to the infonation re~ests during the
process. Also we must note that no item of work has been delayed
on this project by Owners evaluation of alternatives and change
order re~ests.
In summary, had the tens of the contract been followed allowing
for advance notification and the economical evaluation of
alternatives, we would have been able to recommend the most
favorable option to the owner. However, in our opinion, Cajun
did not comply with the tens of the agreement. Therefore, our
position remains unchanged in that we are unable to recommend
this item as re~ested for approval as a change order.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any ~estions.
Sanford W. Case, P.E.
cc:
H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
File 380