ST9601-CS000127 PAVING COMPANY
419 East Highway 80 P.O. Box 270040 Dallas, Texas 75227-0040 Tel (972) 289-0723 Fax (972) 216-5637
Thursday, January 27, 2000
The City of Coppell
Via Hand Delivery
Attn: Michael A. Martin, P.E.
Re: Wrangler Drive
In response to your letter dated January 13th, 2000, Tiseo Paving Company believes the
letters and meetings that were conducted were sufficient notice to the City in regards to
the lost time resulting from utility conflicts. In fact, there was no reply from the City of
Coppell on any of our letters regarding the delays we encountered. The only response
was a verbal reply stating that it would be discussed after the project was completed.
You also state that Cog No. 1.36 was brought up in every project meeting. Neither I or
any other member at those meeting recall this being mentioned.
In regards to the Critical Path Schedule, your letter states that your requested a schedule a
few months past. In fact, this letter is the only letter that mentions a Critical Path
Schedule. For all intents and purposes this project was completed July of 1999. Prior to
the completion of the project I submitted schedules in January, March and May of 1999.
There was no rejection of these schedules nor was there any request for a Critical Path
Schedule.
As for the GTE conflicts, their conflicts began during Phase I on the North side. During
the construction of Phase 1 we had meetings on site with J. Simms about the conflicts in
Phase I and II. In fact, we had numerous meetings on site and at City Hall with GTE
regarding these conflicts. Most times we did not receive any response from J. Simms and
were forced to contact his supervisor. However, his supervisor's only response was to
say that he would see xvhat he could do.
~ l~74
It appears that if the City is going to hold the contractor to the Standard Specification
than the City needs to follow the specifications as well. For example, "Extra Work" Item
1.37.3 "...the contractor shall do such work, but only when as ordered in writing by the
engineer." Tiseo Paving Company submitted a letter regarding the price to adjust
existing sanitary sewer manholes. We did not receive a letter from the engineer, but were
instructed by Lan'y Davis to proceed with the extra work. Furthermore, the City of
Coppell has withheld payment from Tiseo Paving Company in access of the liquidated
damages deduction in question for over four months in direct violation of Cog Item 1.52.
We feel that it is inappropriate for the City of Coppell to hold Tiseo Paving Company to
Cog No. 1.36 for delays well known and thoroughly discussed verbally with the City,
when the City of Coppell does not adhere to the North Central Texas Standard
Specifications.
In regards to the date charged time was to be stopped, it was my understanding on site,
that time would be stopped if I wrote a letter stating, "the project is substantially
complete and request that time be stopped" per Larry Davis. On July 29th, 1999 I
forwarded this letter to the City of Coppell. I was unaware that time was still being
charged to this project. In fact, a letter from Mike Jones dated October 26th, 1999 stating
that time was stopped August 5th, 1999 and 417 calendar days were charged to the project
was the first time I became aware that time had not stopped July 29th, 1999. I believe the
City of Coppell failed to inform us of their intent when they charged time beyond July
th
19 (the date of the meeting with Larry Davis). Is it the City's intent to penalize
contractors without any communication in order to prolong the resolution of the problem?
We are still pursuing compensation for the additional days requested in our letter dated
November 19th, 1999. (See attached copy).
Sincerely,
Robert Caudill
Project Admn.