RE RE COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12 (4)I'll talk through it with him tomorrow.
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304-3681
>>> "Greg Yancey" <gregyancey@verizon.net> 2/16/2012 5:25 PM >>>
If the surveying is in the number, let’s go.
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 5:25 PM
To: Greg Yancey
Cc: Mindi Hurley
Subject: RE: RE: COR 2R raise pad grade blocks f&g 2-15-12
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 >>>
朻举祹펬撑�纩ꎟᜓ姣徆秪횙贳叏쮟柲黏Ῠ絿ꈇ㫩ഥ槞뷚넙�㫥ῙǬ൪䢉隶ƫ쯔瑛躊䀃⻅寛ᆌ깴պ߁艹熎㟁ꀇ럪군뿭ᕂধ氖爨⨎㠖㓗峤鑋ᨢ݃ꮜ官쏋猨唆溃犁桁먪沀幉酀⽺陈ᾼ凄冊⩎ꈑ耂ࡀᘤ܍䊄偡撸ᴶ蠏扄㡑嚤ᜭ䚌兣㵶笄屈㟲镌⟃䩶牞ರஶ-숤㍥춛뎦р秎頾�︄䞋劣ᐧ唪鄦ꌹ⣔⦵ዕ䲧喟픩ᶺꔂ걟歗箓娅䋉�ᚭ喻ꮶ鹯橚⮷늍矓䆻矮겫빾⿂䌜Ἃ拄ၣﰧᥫ윗㋄ﰰ⾜ਫ싋び�㨟케惨赹ᬜ赅槏ᥡ㺝喯현痪洚荾
녫泚鯳懫횥畯Ꮇ섧烣ﲷ龝蜣㥴뻼쮖얫鴺�뵫뭲Ỿ鍯㸽㝿턯㩼＞띷緼庽콏盛뿹Ͱﻼ⽀㼃䲰ĉ澿鰓㯮믎ࣥ乂Ử시记Җ聃㲜쐓ࠑᅃ㠬䱑ᕕ釅嵬옗谑詤涜윛찑ᵵ采ﵹ鴟৲⇅늜䘪ꕳ饧◷ம阒䦫⪫뚼鬊䨧틪⢯㈪뎲䤯곲ス돋鬜갳౫⾥펭텤⸧蒓꒨㏎꠶덳㰁뀿먳蓰킆⎪숚消ഡ吳⍵刌땔軓㯭㝊ﰔ儯值䟍푋ӵ初헓呭헵嬕垣断㽓뵕屩࿖笝휉ϖ忩癘ᜬ䁡ಶ큘쉣䳖ě陚굝�鳖ԑ僁뭥�픖圱㖻蝍噜⑷줠瞀╨쑷ԡᛤ聞弇崔緵
韟읿鹴脁飠മ잃빇琔蝡ᵖ鲇觘觩鎱事�⦯폌㘮掮첒㟁駤䴆䴬ᰳ㋗饥嵞쾌蹒饡뎭淖꼾騃鎯权᭴ꀉᄦ쭔䞉哓鑦劇赺ꤵ畩䥵�굔ꟓ畓럞컺玹陕읕汴뙯痑寗ꌽ홴ﻕ뗟훬筅�믭᭯꾝얶庙ꇽ烁췖얥냁դ�쎹뛱腍沺際뿅쁭�̉ࣝ텗懄䈏䌏黀햏鷵嵯엗俺�鷶涯즁䤩狘蝷綗ꙧ鐫㧤딼挱䋹理央鏸굷춖치㱥㍦榦陓鱿�ԋ킝䆅ꡧᎥ綠뱝��鹮绉ﶹ껾嫽ꇂ쵪z윿휶㭠肙膭랴쬆鬂慣০Ꜷ�诠芘駍껀㥷嬇濓웝㠸Ꭱ犄閐룄ᅗ휋锓அ즅
⢹峡脲嗐䇍ᤸ䀄䅬焄礍܂ॊ䍢嶩ච䓹鷘փ†㾀䃠␈ഖ萇慂롐㙤༝䒈兢ꐸⵖ谗捆롑盤Ἵ㶐两⏉䲮铯┺奏Ŝ䲘덠淆餰꥓㕹侟ᓀꔙ蠎鸁槐稳�䖛傥픩蔪ꤲꬸ⯒�牭劷冯嚫ഫ읖뉦Ⳗ箐뉅䗕�ᙬᳫ蕴ꯗꪵ簣悈ᠤі跿꣸㊆踟夡丨莖æ같鸧枃ᥱҝ⤣펢恩趚輦ꩃ騵盽敟�級Ᶎ녳鲷觫뛯络⭟춍鿮ꌿ磶빛欯좹纻㼌얓ﱸ忾⽟烴缼輿뾗㵾翟ﻲ྾ɤ䃼ﯾ긻깋뫬汏낁ㆈ萉ꠐୋÃ㒜䌄Ⲍ༽ᇄ䔌쐑ⲑፍ慛씔沑ᇆ斌뀙벧
硬ে�이鲇睼ै겨㩊⊧絺䠥㓲뎘刨ꔤꬥ䋲ꯎ쩊꯬⾛㈭얼찰骋뷖ௌ쳄䲹揳㜅펯ቒ䷁璈蛨⋍㼛錶埬댇ﯭ䎩곐ލ倆ඔ؛ᒻ᥅則薔䠫ᓓ枛䅋뭔둑ᷬ协⮵冻໕�啊ᵵ何Ꭼ噙ﴔ]핖ྌ쁛쭕嫥灕﵃흡푏戃ߜ㼃Ⳑ朏뙙靥핞팴代ᇠ脈□઼Ü엝Ȍⵗ㶵핍�涗郜ᝐ�궗篭ẖ풱祼墝Ў恼캇✍㈫趜愱汘⮩鉋矺䬦챒ⲷ㡊별㻓輹㣍䏶䲎䒳㧇퍍�斔㊙闳Ϋ暘镹ᓱ㏞枇鴴䌕祝㴍剋╚ꌳ�錆춴偅䀹蕺汫ᕔ꼥殩紵嘥仗솦歟덹盁植妴攻늍᭗筕
躛旭뙭䚐뿫㙚ർ潨橱꣬ᤰ�ൈᝲ⬀寇쭯ᳳ㗏켹ᷴ䔏ꋑ燩苷ᄟꑿ忇答ᵶᆎ憈鿽⑭㣡㗞朸�ᡸ㎮쳠Ở運磻錗碒垹閙௺些庳顛鎢忎瓪蚗왶筦ﳱܴ꧍뿼镆曚ꪅᩫ殭︺念ꦾﾱ�ﱼ㑛缁蛭㼁ퟆ 瀛굖廉졀뀐箠㵷쩭ⴊﬦꀅង浮식ꡁᒜ瀡∫㠐꒓愄䀂ᙦ9Դ茡宎鶋쏮浘㧄Т耄ࡀᘤ܍䊄偡撸ᴶ蠏扄㡑嚤ᜭ䚌兣㵶速摈坐间⟭쩸撷礯彌㝓퓤㜃亜댠৪鸽験ȕ䆋킟壊鬆ꑏ⫑∅㞫喨헩씺譆꽟歘ୖ訝枩솮ᖭ喻ꦦ롤깘�≤ߟ�휡�
⦦酼烠�︓蔵ᠢ纨ᜲ薎Ⅴ⠹刮阏昀倳踼൲쎛賐莖ꍉ概媴㎣햮畫嶙힆ꥧ槏�빽箿�蹻댖벃燚㱹➎圯�㩳�卿滠絸힎묛냷⾾缇㳽䞟춟緼㻾쯯緶齾뾟�㿵듯ﴄ꼿沣섈鐀ఔ臁ᰜ䈊퐀Х Ⱌ쏁찐വ郃㷬쐏ᅅ冺䴤씓䰑ᕕ釅屬ᾈ許繪ꜥ幢鹺챱籴襇⢲鉪₵ꮩ굚⬢ᒒꚎ⩉韌ⴥ拒⇋⯊흢䨠쒲ⲭ쮬뫴쮺듫⦽沮전䲼鱫㓕ࡌ챼춾粱챖㌢ࢣ㇗쏳�도᳚쿘㺭咶ࠍ凨괎㼋呑ᝍ텇㷎䠙瑐꺫퇵떴䜥瓓�剌䶕渾�华뗮問㗕䄕㱖厕埽偖弭홙촕Kှ툣㿼悅㗀诵쀂
䑶怉