Agenda - Council - 10/09/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-210- Thomas B. Olson Page 2 August 10, 2001 As cited in your June 28 letter, Substantially Complete is a defined contractual term in Section 9.81 of the Agreement where said term as "... when the Work... is sufficiently complete.., so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use." The Contractor asserts that the substantial completion date is January 31, 2001, however, the Owner and Architect dispute this date as amongst other things, the building on January 31 was not weather tight. Exterior panels at the top of the building walls were not installed and outside weather was still able to invade the building. On February 7, 200l the Contractor, by letter, stated that the "punch list" was submitted on February 6, 2001 and requested an inspection on February 8, 2001 "... to determine whether the work or portion thereof is substantially complete...". Clearly this is in~ consistent with a January 31 substantial completion date asserted by the Contractor. See attached Exhibit "A". Furthermore, the Contractor failed to follow the Agreement requirements, Section 01770 to obtain the Substantial Completion status. This section specifically outlines the procedure required for substantial completion, one of which, requirements is to "Submit specific warranties." These were not delivered until at least March 8, 2001. See attached Exhibit "B". In your letter of June 28, 200l, you state that various change orders permitted additional time extensions. My review of the change orders indicates that while additional time was requested, none was granted except for 15 additional days pursuant to four Architect's Supplemental Instructions and Change Proposal ("ASI"). These are ASI Nos. 24, 31, 34 and 57. See attached Exhibit "C". In the event we are able to settle this matter, I will recommend to the Owner that its claim for liquidated damages be reduced fi.om 87 days to 72 days. I find no evidence that additional time was ganted pursuant to verbal change orders as you claim. For your information, the Owner and Architect advise me that the Contractor got behind in the Project generally as a result of its failure to timely order the steel. This then precipitated the completion date issues and is why we are now discussing this liquidated damages claim. Additionally, see the letter dated October 22, 2000 attached as Exhibit "D" from the City's Architect, Nancy Schultz, in which concerns about the Project schedule on that date were already apparent. In your various correspondence you threaten to "sue" the City/Owner. I would like to bring, to your attention Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the Agreement which call for disputes to be settled throu~ mediation and ultimately arbitration. Please advise if you have reason to believe these provisions are not applicable to the present dispute. I I I ! I I I I ! I I I i i I i I I I