CF-TownC CHC-CS 860501 (2) ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING · INTERIORS
May 1, 1986
Hr. Larry Lieneke
1424 E. Grauwyler
Irving, Texas 75060
RE:Coppell Town Center
Project No. 8457
I~ar Larry:
Pursuant to our on-site meeting of Thursday, May 1, 1986 I provide
herewith the following understanding of the events which transpired at
that ti~e.
1. A review was made of the in-place under deck insulation which has
been provided for this project. At that time, it was noted that
the General Contractor and his subcontractor had provided a kraft
faced insulation in some areas rather than a foil-faced insulation.
It was determined at that time since this area was considered part
of a return air plenum, that all insulation with kraft paper facing
would be removed and replaced with foil-faced insulation.
2. During this review, it was also noted that, contrary to the
Contract specifications, the General Contractor had not provided
under deck insulation as required in the area bounded fromm Grid
3.7 through 9 and from Grid B through L. At this time, it was
agreed by all present that the General Contractor and his insula-
tion subcontractor would proceed with the installation of the re-
quired R22 insulation in this area.
3. Also during this meeting a review was made of the shop drawing sub-
mittal and it was noted that the shop drawing was approved by
O'Brien O'Brien Callaway with the following understanding:
A. The General Contractor would provide one layer of 3-1/2" un-
faced insulation and one layer of 3-1/2" foil faced insualtion
to produce the R22 factor as required by the Project Manual.
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. Larry Lieneke
Project No. 8457
May 1, 1986
Page Two
B. The use of the kraft paper-backed 3-1/2" insulation was not
approved for placement within a return air plenum.
C. It is understood that there should be no intermediate vapor
barriers, i.e., additional foil facing or kraft paper facing
below the far exterior foil backing. This would produce a
double vapor barrier which is unacceptable.
D. It is requested that the General Contractor and insulation
subcontractor obtain a written statement from the insulation
manufacturer that the assembly of one layer of FSK-25 unlaced
3-1/2" insulation and one layer FSK-25 foil faced insulation
produces the required R22 rating. This is being requested due
to the fact that in all other subheadings noted on the Manville
submittal, a 7-1/2" nominal thickness is required to achieve
the R22, not 7" as your insulation subcontractor has noted on
his submittal.
4. During this on site inspection, a review was made of the pickled
finish which would be provided on the handrail and, at that time,
we were advised by both Howard U. Freeman, Inc. and his painting
subcontractor that the wood which the handrail was made of in some
instances was red oak rather than white oak and samples were pro-
vided to the Architect for further review. During a subsequent
conversation with Mr. Joe Bosquez of Howard U. Freeman, Inc., it is
our understanding that indeed some of the handrail material which
was to receive the pickled oak finish was indeed red oak rather
than white oak and you have already advised Terrell Manufacturing,
the supplier of this product, that this is unacceptable and that
the handrails will be removed and replaced with white oak similar
to the sample which currently is in the Architect's possession.
This memo will be considered an accurate account of the actions taken if
word-Sro .the contrary is not received in written form by our office by
J.
.~ .,~ ~ertani
~'~sdc
cc: Mr. Ed Powell Mr. Mike ltenjum
Mr. Jack Waschitz