RE RE COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12 (2)I think what he's trying to say is that the $42,095.90 that he sent
yesterday is a fair number because it includes a considerable amount of
hand work, and a bunch of extra surveying.
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304-3681
>>> "Greg Yancey" <gregyancey@verizon.net> 2/16/2012 5:16 PM >>>
I am confused. What is the total value of the change order?
Gregory K. Yancey
Provident Company
(214) 215-9400 v
(214) 276-1709 f
gregyancey@verizon.net <mailto:gregyancey@verizon.net>
________________________________
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvin@coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:57 AM
To: gregyancey@verizon.net
Cc: Mindi Hurley
Subject: Fwd: RE: COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12
It doesn't look like Marty wants to negotiate on this. How do you want
to proceed?
Keith
>>> "Marty Murphy" <Martym@JRJPaving.com> 2/16/2012 9:43 AM >>>
Keith,
In the first change request I sent to you, I based my quantities on
using 2000cy of onsite dirt and importing the remainder. So the 3770cy
number was based on both bank yards for the onsite material and truck
yards for the imported material. When I priced this last change request
I confirmed with my foreman that he believed he had all of this material
onsite now so my comparison was based on the difference of volume
between the first revised plan (3311cy of fill) and the last revised
plan (550cy of fill). I can provide the takeoffs if you like, I was just
mentioning this note as a matter of facts, probably should have defined
how I recalculated my quantities as well.
In regards to your opinion of using pay item 107 I am going to disagree
as this bid price was based on making the fills from the existing topo
to the original proposed grades as a mass excavation process over a
majority of the site with fill depths of 1’ to 3’. The plan changes
being made here are based on grade changes that require fills of .05’ to
.90’ with an average depth of .532’. I do not believe the pay item 107
reflects the same scope of work here as this is smaller fills
concentrated in a smaller area and on 44 lots. My production rates are
much lower than they were for the mass grading and thus warrants the
additional costs.
In regards to the change I also see you have made in your change order
on the lot grading. I am not sure if this a typo or you intentionally
made these changes but they have been reduced as my total for the rough
grading and fine grading is $439.00/each not $378.20/each. If this was
an intentional change then I again am going to have to disagree with you
on the same basis as the fill item above. These lots are very small
(95x32) and (96x30) and they are “zero” lot lines with 3’ drainage
easements. A typical subdivision lot is one and a half to twice the
width with and a tad bit longer with a 10’ drainage easement. The lot
grading production is slowed down by the smaller lot size and the
drainage easement at 3’ is going to be very difficult to grade. The
swales are one foot off the edge of the pad and one foot lower than the
pad, this will require slower production and hand grading to establish.
I cannot agree to this price change.
Also this added work is going to add time to our schedule in the amount
of ten days that will need to be added should we be able to agree on a
dollar amount for this work. I will also note that I did not request
additional cost in the last change order request for the grade staking
that should have been as these lots will have to be restaked for these
new grades. The cost for the grade staking will add another 40 hours for
rough staking and 20 hours for final staking at $125.00/hr for an
additional $7,500.00.
I believe these prices are more than fair for the added scope of work
if you take into consideration the facts I have identified above. If you
want to meet about this with the developer we can but I do not see any
reasoning that would be convincing enough to lower my unit pricing as
provided. I think everyone should consider the facts I have provided
before making any further judgment on my pricing.
Marty Murphy,
Business Manager
JRJ Paving, LP
1805 Royal Lane, Ste. 107
Dallas, TX. 75229
214-466-8340
214-466-8354 Fax
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvin@coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:08 PM
To: Marty Murphy
Cc: Mindi Hurley; Richard Odell; Tad Larson; gregyancey@verizon.net
Subject: Re: COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12
Marty,
Comparing the two change order letters below, I see only a 91CY
difference in your estimated quantity of on-site material to be used in
this effort between the 1/13 letter and the 2/15 letter.
It also seems to me that pay item 107 Embankment (on site) should apply
to the 3,861CY of material to be moved from one location on site to
another. Using that item, and the contract unit price of $3.46, it
seems that item 1 in your request should be reduced to $13,359.06.
We understand that time is of the essence in reaching an agreement
here, so I have taken the liberty of preparing a change order document
reflecting the above change. I have also consolidated the grading to
one line item, and reduced the cost to an amount that is agreeable to
the city and the developer.
If you are in agreement with this proposed change order, please sign
and return three copies. If you wish to discuss this change further, I
would be happy to facilitate a meeting between JRJ, city staff, and the
developer.
Thanks,
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304-3681
>>> "Marty Murphy" <Martym@JRJPaving.com> 2/15/2012 10:43 AM >>>
n average depth of .532’. I do not believe the pay item 107
reflects the same scope of work here as this is smaller fills
concentrated in a smaller area and on 44 lots. My production rates are
much lower than they were for the mass grading and thus warrants the
additional costs.
In regards to the change I also see you have made in your change order
on the lot grading. I am not sure if this a typo or you intentionally
made these changes but they have been reduced as my total for the rough
grading and fine grading is $439.00/each not $378.20/each. If this was
an intentional change then I again am going to have to disagree with you
on the same basis as the fill item above. These lots are very small
(95x32) and (96x30) and they are “zero” lot lines with 3’ drainage
easements. A typical subdivision lot is one and a half to twice the
width with and a tad bit longer with a 10’ drainage easement. The lot
grading production is slowed down by the smaller lot size and the
drainage easement at 3’ is going to be very difficult to grade. The
swales are one foot off the edge of the pad and one foot lower than the
pad, this will require slower production and hand grading to establish.
I cannot agree to this price change.
Also this added work is going to add time to our schedule in the amount
of ten days that will need to be added should we be able to agree on a
dollar amount for this work. I will also note that I did not request
additional cost in the last change order request for the grade staking
that should have been as these lots will have to be restaked for these
new grades. The cost for the grade staking will add another 40 hours for
rough staking and 20 hours for final staking at $125.00/hr for an
additional $7,500.00.
I believe these prices are more than fair for the added scope of work
if you take into consideration the facts I have identified above. If you
want to meet about this with the developer we can but I do not see any
reasoning that would be convincing enough to lower my unit pricing as
provided. I think everyone should consider the facts I have provided
before making any further judgment on my pricing.
Marty Murphy,
Business Manager
JRJ Paving, LP
1805 Royal Lane, Ste. 107
Dallas, TX. 75229
214-466-8340
214-466-8354 Fax
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvin@coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:08 PM
To: Marty Murphy
Cc: Mindi Hurley; Richard Odell; Tad Larson; gregyancey@verizon.net
Subject: Re: COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12
Marty,
Comparing the two change order letters below, I see only a 91CY
difference in your estimated quantity of on-site material to be used in
this effort between the 1/13 letter and the 2/15 letter.
It also seems to me that pay item 107 Embankment (on site) should apply
to the 3,861CY of material to be moved from one location on site to
another. Using that item, and the contract unit price of $3.46, it
seems that item 1 in your request should be reduced to $13,359.06.
We understand that time is of the essence in reaching an agreement
here, so I have taken the liberty of preparing a change order document
reflecting the above change. I have also consolidated the grading to
one line item, and reduced the cost to an amount that is agreeable to
the city and the developer.
If you are in agreement with this proposed change order, please sign
and return three copies. If you wish to discuss this change further, I
would be happy to facilitate a meeting between JRJ, city staff, and the
developer.
Thanks,
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304-3681
>>> "Marty Murphy" <Martym@JRJPaving.com> 2/15/2012 10:43 AM >>>