CF-TownC CHC-CS 860522 (2) ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING · INTERIORS
May 22, 1986
Mr. Jack Waschitz
Howard U. Freeman, Inc.
1424 E. Grauwyler
Irving, Texas 75060
RE: Coppell Town Center
Project No. 8457
Dear Jack:
I am in receipt of your letter dated May 12, 1986 with attachments
referencing Blackman Electric's comments in response to the electrical
engineer's inspection report of April 28, 1986 of the above project
site. I have also received Mr. Larry Lieneke's letter of May 16, 1986
with attachments as possible further clarification of comments made by
the electrical subcontractor.
I have reviewed the information contained in both letters and all at-
tachments and provide the following comments.
1. Refer Item No. 2, Blackman Electric Co. speed letter, May 9, 1986.
In response to the electrical engineer's comments regarding the use
of set screw fittings in lieu of the compression type fitting for
conduit as indicated in the Contract Documents, the electrical sub-
contractor states that the set screw fittings were part of his re-
design and negotiation stage of the value engineering process and
that they were part of his contract and had been accepted. We take
exception to the statement made by the electrical subcontractor and
request that you refer to the Project Manual, Section 16110, sys-
tems of conduit, Part 2, Products, Item 2.3 Raceways, letter E
which states, "Fittings for EMT, used for power or lighting or con-
trol wiring shall be water-tight compression type couplings. In-
dentor or set screw couplings shall not be accepted." I would also
like to call your attention to the standard form of agreement be-
tween the Owner and Contractor dated March 20, 1985, Attachment A,
Accepted Voluntary Alternates and Value Engineering, Items 25 and
26. These two items are the only items which deal with any elec-
trical modifications. Item No. 25, as stated, substituted an al-
ternate light fixture package in lieu of the originally specified
lighting fixture package thus providing a savings to the Owner in
2850 Lincoln Plaza · 500 North Akard · LB 16 · Dallas, Texas 75201-3394 · (214) 954-3100
McKinney Place · 3131 McKinney Avenue · Suite 850 - LB 113 · Dallas, Texas 75204 · (214) 871-9100
Mr. Jack Waschitz
May 22, 1986
Page 2
the amount of $49,000. We have reviewed the pre-submittal informa-
tion which we had previously been provided from Blackman Electric
and in this submittal data, there is no mention of, nor request to
substitute the conduit fittings-. Item No. 26, for a deduct of
$2000, the electrical subcontractor was allowed to use an alternate
electrical distribution in lieu of the electrical distribution ar-
rangement which was shown on our plansl. This item has been dis-
cussed thoroughly with the electrical engineer, and after a thor-
ough review of both the Architect's and Engineer's files and notes
on the value engineering process, there is no indication that a
change from compression type couplings to set screw couplings was
either requested, discussed, or approved by either the Architect or
engineer. It is apparent after a review of the documents prior to
Contract signing, that the compression type fittings still were
part of the Construction Documents at the time the Contract was
signed by both the City and General Contractor.
I have received and reviewed Mr. Larry Lieneke's letter of May 16, 1986
and the attachment letter from Mr. Jeff DuBois, then of you firm, dated
Aril 29, 1985 and a speed letter from Blackman Electric dated April 24,
1985 from Mr. Dana Jeffreys. After receiving this letter and review-
ing the information, I thoroughly reviewed our files which did not in-
clude a copy of either Mr. DuBois' letter or Danna Jeffreys' speed let-
ter in either the main project filing or the value engineering files;
thus, it appears that these documents were never received by our office.
It appears, after reviewing Mr. DuBois~ letter, that what precipitated
his response was the electrical engineer's review of the electrical shop
drawings which had been submitted and reviewed prior to the April 29
date and, as noted then, the set screw type fittings were rejected.
After reviewing all of the pertinent information, I contacted Mr. Jim
Johnson to discuss this specific item with him. After our discussion,
it became apparent that it was not our desire to have the electrical
subcontractor go back into the project and remove each and every piece
of conduit and wire and replace all of the set screw type fittings with
compression fittings as this indeed would cause a considerable time
delay to the project. In lieu of the replacement of the set screw con-
nections, it is felt that the electrical su6contractor may wish to con-
sider possibly offering the City of Coppell a fair credit in the amount
of difference between the cost of set screw fittings versus compression
type fittings as a possible way of resolving this situation. It is the
feeling of both the Architect and electrical engineer that, at the time
the Contract for Construction was signed, that the compression type fit-
tings were still part of the Contract and, to date, no approval, to the
best of our knowledge, has ever been given for the use of the set screw
fittings in lieu of the compression type, nor has the rejection of this
item in the shop drawings ever been reversed. If such documentation
Mr. Jack Waschitz
May 22, 1986
Page 3
does exist, it is requested that it immediately be forwarded to the
Architect's office for review by the Owner.
2. Item No. 13 of Blackman Electric's letter of May 9, 1986 indicates
that the requirements for rigid conduit to be used at the chillers
is correct as stated by the electrical engineer. It is my under-
standing after discussing this item with Mr. Jim Johnson, that dis-
cussions have been in progress between Mr. Blackman and Jim Johnson
and that it was determined that a flexible waterproof connection
would be provided at this location at no cost to the Owner in lieu
of using a waterproof rigid conduit.
3. Item No. 19 of Blackman Electric's letter of May 9, 1986 we take no
exception to as the electrical subcontractor has indicated that he
will make all corrections necessary to make this item acceptable
and in compliance with the Contract Documents.
4. Item No, 20 of Blackman Electric's letter of May 9, 1986. We are,
at this time, awaiting a response from Blackman Electric and the
manufacturer of the emergency generator regarding the comments made
about the muffler. It appears that there is some question as to
whether the muffler which has been installed on this piece of
equipment is the correct muffler and if it meets the requirements
as set forth in the Contract Documents. Any response on this item
by either our office or the MEP engineer's office will be held un-
til this information is recieved from your firm and reviewed.
In conclusion, it appears that the most significant problem facing the
electrical subcontractor is the question of the set screw fittings which
he has provided, which are not in compliance with the Project Manual,
nor, to the best of our knowledge, were ever part of the value engineer-
ing process. Once again, I would like to request that the electrical
subcontractor respond as soon as possible with information regarding the
question of the set screw fittings versus the compression type fittings
and also information regarding the muffler for the emergency generator,
Sho~u have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
/~r~ctor of Construction Administration
/ RJB/sdc
cc: Mr. Tony Callaway Mr. Larry Lieneke
Mr. Jim Johnson