HomeMy WebLinkAbout962226.tiff �`� Roche Provican[g
1r Quality Service
w y'S Constructors, Inc. - - since 1971
n: 5g
November 6, 1996 catior'
Mr. Pat Persichino
Director, General Services
Weld County Colorado
915 10th Street
Post Office Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: Weld County North Jail Complex
RCI Project No. 9604
Dear Mr. Persichino:
After review of your letter dated November 15, 1996, I would like to express our concerns regarding the
procedures you recommend. It is not our desire to put Weld County in a middle position between the
Architect and General Contractor. However, we are bound by the terms of the Standard Form of
Agreement between the Owner and Contractor and the AIA A201 General Conditions. Said
agreement contractually binds both Weld County and Roche Constructors, Inc. In accordance with
Article 4.2.1 of the General Conditions, the Architect is considered the "owner's representative". There
is no contractual agreement between the Architect and the Contractor. Therefore, there can be no
arbitration between the Architect and the Contractor.
Please understand our position pertaining to the electrical power for video cameras and overhead
door operators.The contract drawings do not contain or indicate any power wiring or circuiting for
the cameras or overhead doors. There is not an issue with the "monitoring cables" for the cameras, as
your letter indicated. Roche Constructors, Inc., has a contract to complete the work in accordance
with the plans and specifications, but not to "design" any of the systems. Article 3.1 of the General
Conditions requires that we report any inconsistencies, errors or omissions we may discover to the
Architect. However, the Contractor shall not be liable to the Owner or Architect for damage resulting
from errors, inconsistencies or omissions, unless we knowingly failed to report it. When errors were
discovered in the documents, they were immediately reported to the Architect, by Roche
Constructors, Inc.
In accordance with Article 4.3.2 of the General Conditions,we have made a formal claim to the
Architect. The claim, in accordance with the General Conditions, is between the Owner and
Contractor.
In accordance with Article 4.3.7 of the General Conditions, we must notify the Architect (Owner's
representative) of any claims for additional cost "prior" to proceeding with the work. This also has
occurred.
In accordance with Article 4.4.1 of the General Conditions, the Architect shall review the claims and
take one or more of the following actions within ten days:
W Exceeding Your Expectations e_Ci. Pa- G� ' C7
) l
CORPORATE OFFICE • 361 71st Avenue • Post Office Box 1727 • Greeley, Colorado 80632 • Phone 970 356.3611 - c..., non acr ai,n
alill
REGIONAL OFFICE • 2500 West Sahara, Suite 207 • Post Office Box 28160 • Las Vegas, Nevada 89126 • Phone 702 252.36 Pu de)e 7
Ihi) 11g 962226
j* Roche
Constructors, Inc.
Mr. Pat Persichino
November 6, 1996
Page 2
1. Request additional supporting data
2. Submit a schedule for the actions to be taken
3. Reject the claim
4. Recommend approval
5. Suggest a compromise
We must assume, as a result of your letter, that the Architect has selected Item 3 above and rejected
the claims.
In accordance with Article 4.4.3 of the General Conditions, we must take one of the following actions:
1. Submit additional supporting data requested by the Architect
2. Modify our initial claim
3. Notify the Architect that the initial claims stands
It is our intent to obtain revised pricing from the electrical subcontractor for the work and modify the
claim. However, it is not our intent to drop the claim. We will then await the Architect's written
response in accordance with Article 4.4.4 of the General Conditions. The claim is subject to arbitration
upon written demand by either party (Owner or Contractor), per Article 4.5.1. Arbitration cannot be
demanded until we have received the Architect's "final written" decision.
In closing, I would like to comment on a couple of other issues addressed in your letter. Weld County
has, as you indicated, already paid for installation, as shown in the contract documents. The County
has not paid for work not shown in the contract documents, such as power wiring and circuiting.
Upon receipt of all necessary technical design data to complete the work, we will proceed so as not
to delay the project. However, we must preserve our claim. Keep in mind, however, all costs of the
claim and arbitration costs shall be borne by one of the parties to the claim, which is either Weld
County or Roche Constructors, Inc. I urge that you reconsider your position and attempt an amicable
resolution without arbitration or litigation.
Sincerely,
ROCHE CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
'le/Gee-7f
Michael W. Allen
Vice President
MWA/vsh
pc: Don Warden
Barbara Kirkmeyer
Bruce Barker
Tom Roche
Gary Culver
Carlin Nafziger
9604
Hello