Loading...
CF-Village-CS 890810 ..~.s..~.~.~A Augus~ 10, 1989 Home Office: Dallas Office: Atlanta ~ice: P.O. Box 1~ · Baton ~uge, ~ ~21~1~ P.O. ~x ~7 · D~II~, ~ 7~7 ~ ~m~la~ P~., B~. (~) ~7 · F~ No. (~) ~1-9~ (214) 5~11 · F~ No. (214) ~1816 (~) ~1~ · F~ ~. (~) ~1~ Ginn, Incorporated 17103 Preston Road Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75248 U.S. Mail Attention: Mr. Sanford Case RE: Village Pkwy Pump Station City of Coppell, Texas Gentlemen: Cajun Contractors, Inc. is in receipt of your August 7, 1989 letter regarding our June 27, 1989 request for a change order for the extra work involved in the raising of the 8" waterline to allow for the installation of the 36" waterline as designed. As you are aware, the 8" waterline did not exist at the location you indicated in your drawings and therefore made impossible the accomplishment of the work as shown. Our most recent correspondence with you on this matter dated July 27, 1989 asked two questions, neither of which were addressed by you in your above referenced response. These questions simply addressed the real issue, that of whether or not the extra work was required. Rather than answer our questions, you again recited the project specifications and referenced other construction projects. Consequently, in a final written effort to clarify and fairly resolve the issue, Cajun offers the following information. You state in paragraph one Cajun failed to verify the conflict. This is incorrect. The conflict was indeed verified, otherwise, how has it come to be known. You further state we failed to provide advance notification. We notified both you and the Owner immediately upon uncovering this discrepancy. The Owner promptly reported to the site to investigate the problem. He had no recommendation whatsoever. You reported to the site within the next two hours to find Cajun rerouting the 8" line. You also gave no recommendation. Consequently, the extra work was completed and the contract work continued. With the work complete and the cost in hand, Cajun submitted a change order request which you rejected. You cite as the reason improper notification. You have subsequently listed the options Ginn, Incorporated Page Two under Contract for handling the problem we removed from the Owner due to our ~,lproper notification. Please look again at the problem and at the cure, then look at your listed options. An 8" PVC line was in the direct path of a 35" PCCP line. One required relocation. Very little evaluation is necessary to find the solution. The only economical cure is to relocate the 8" PVC line. You list as one option relocation by the Owner. The Owner reviewed the situation and indicated no interest at all in proceeding in that manner. Another option you listed is relocation by separate contract. Considering both cost and time, can that really represent to you a viable option? You further list the option of relocation by a change order. That is where we presently are. Finally, you list the option of alteration of design to avoid the conflict. That implies moving the 36" PCCP line in lieu of the 8" PVC line. You must agree that would be cost prohibitive. In summary, each of these options represent additional, work and additional cost to the Contract. The responsible measure to take is to accomplish the work using the most efficient method considering all of the circumstances. Cajun did exactly that. You discuss in the second paragraph of your letter unrelated construction projects the City of Coppell presently has underway. You reference them in terms of cost of work similar to the subject extra work. Does this indicate we shall be paid for the work. You further state these two projects utilize in their contracts pay items for such similar work. It seems such a pay item should have been included in our contract as well if it can prevent such problems. Finally, you cite the specifications regarding written approval prior to the relocation. A quick review of the two change orders affecting cost to date for the project should put Cajun's decision to proceed with the work into its proper perspective. Cajun submitted the electrical change order request on March 30, 1989. We received approval on this extra work on June 12, 1989, 2 1/2 months later. Cajun submitted the drilled pier change order request on April 12, 1989. You sent it back to us in revised form on May 31, 1989 and we have yet to receive it in approved form. That change order has been in process for four months and solely in the Owner's hands for a period in excess of two months. Should Cajun have waited until receipt of written approval on that request, the project could in no way have been completed within the specified time frame. In consideration of the Owner's track record on this project, awaiting written approval of our submitted change order request on this item would stop work on the line, thus extending the work duration and increasing its cost. Again, relocating the 8" PVC was the only economical solution. G~nn, Incorporated Page Three tn conclusion, Cajun only asks you evaluate the real issue: adjusting the actual conditions to facilitate the functionability of the designed aystem. We found the problem, made it known, evaluated the cures and, keeping the Owner's interests at heart, we implemented the correction. We trust our discussion clarifies and verifies our position on the matter. Should you require further discussion on the change order cost, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, CAJUN CONTRACTORS, INC. Karl D. Hirschey Project Manager KDH/ksb cc: Chron File 1.11 (8821) File 1.21 (8821) Jerome Ducote Baton Rouge Russell Doyle - City of Coppell Steve Goram - City of Coppell Gabe Favre H. Wayne Ginn - Ginn, Inc.