ST0001-CS020610T H E · C I T Y · 0 F
COPPELL
Daniel B. Hartman, P.E.
Schriekel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
1161 Corporate Drive West
Suite 200
Arlington, Texas 76006
June 10, 2002
RE: Creekview Drive Project #ST00-01
Dear Mr. Hartman:
The letter is written as a follow-up to our meeting in the field on Thursday, June 6, 2002 to discuss the
sidewalk construction along Creekview Drive. During the course of our conversation, we again discussed
the confusion of in-the-field surveying along this route prior to the design of the project. The project
assigns $25,600 (roughly 16% of the design cost) for topographic and right-of-way surveying. Of that
amount, $18,100 is assigned to the Creekview portion of the project and the remaining $7,500 is assigned
to the Freeport Parkway portion of the project. There is a note that states that the areas have already been
flown but not mapped and need special details in the creek area.
It was my understanding in reading the basic services on the schematic design that there would be an in-
the-field survey. Page I 0, paragraph 5 of the contract under schematic design states "the engineer shall
provide necessary design field surveys for his use in the preparation of the plans and specifications". The
only time I am aware of a design taking place without a detailed in-the-field survey is when you are
basically rebuilding existing infrastructure. In the case of cutting a road through pasture land, it is my
opinion that even if there was aerial contouring provided that there would be spot elevation checks in the
field to verify the accuracy of the information. As I am sure you are aware, aerial topography is not
always accurate. The lack of an on the ground survey has created confusion because there are conditions
in the field entirely different than what was shown on the plans put out to bid.
At this point, we are awaiting information from your firm concerning the additional dirt to be removed,
any additional walls to be constructed and any change in the scope of the project to construct the sidewalk
on the north side of Creekview. If there is an increase in cost to the City above the pricing reflected in the
bid, then there may need to be additional discussions to determine whose financial responsibility the
increase in cost will be.
One item that would be helpful is a detailed accounting of the expenditures of the $25,600 for the
topographic and right-of-way survey. The invoices submitted to the City for payment have not been
broken down adequately enough to determine the amount of hours for each task.
It is my hope that the construction of the sidewalk can be accomplished within the limits of the original
contract.
Sincerely,en~ne~t~/x' ~
K h M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineering and Public Works
Office 972/304-3686
Fax 972/304-7041