CONTACTS 
0201 - O-0432 0101 High-Point Schaer          415 495 2242 fax 3559
020101 - Mr. Alexander B. Vollmer, P.E., Regional Manager
0202 - O-0432 0201 High-Point Schaer          415 495 2242 fax 3559
020201 - Mr. Bill Ma, Phd., P.E., Project Manager
0203 - O-0432 0202 High-Point Schaer          415 495 2242 fax 3559
020301 - Mr. Roy I. Kim, Engineer

SUBJECTS
HPS, CSCJ, Internal meeting
Summary

0404 -    ..
0405 - Summary/Objective
0406 -
040601 - Bill reviewed the NW notes on coordination meeting  ref DRP 2.
040602 -
040603 - Roy will follow up re deposition support for percipient witnesses.
040604 -
040605 - Alex will follow up re deposition support for "experts."
040606 -
040607 - Rod will enter edits on Claim #15 prelim opinion for submission to NW.
040608 -
040609 - Bill explained Issue Analysis procedures.
040610 -
040611 - Alex requested more information on obtaining the "Manual of
040612 - Professional Practice..."
040613 -
040614 - Bill asked Roy to prepare notes of this coordination meeting for
040615 - distribution.
040616 -
040617 -
0407 -

SUBJECTS
Coordination with Counsel
Meeting Notes Procedures

0605 - Recieved DRT 1, from Roy
0606 -
060601 - This transmits HPS meeting notes, ref DRP 1, to NW as a supplement to
060602 - the notes submitted to HPS by NW, ref DRP 2.
060603 -
060604 - Bill reviewed in detail NW's notes from the coordination meeting,
060605 - ref DRP 2.
060606 -
060607 -
060608 -
060609 - Trial continuance
060610 -
060611 - Alex said that during the coordination meeting, NW indicated they
060612 - have joined in a motion for a continuance of approximately 3 months.
060613 -
060614 - HPS Scope
060615 -
060616 - He also said the architect NW had retained as an expert, had to
060617 - withdraw due to a conflict.  This led to a discussion about the scope
060618 - of HPS testimony.  Is it for Construction Management expertise, or
060619 - design professional expertise?
060620 -
060621 -
060622 -
0607 -

SUBJECTS
Coordination with Counsel
Deposition support

0905 - Expert witnesses
0906 -
090601 - Bill recommends Alex advise NW that in order for HPS to prepare its
090602 - position, HPS personnel must attend depositions of opposing expert
090603 - witnesses in order to discover the basis of expert's position and to
090604 - support counsel with questions that should be asked based upon the
090605 - dynamics of the deposition (see also SDS 3 line 0818, DCP 1).
090606 -
090607 -
0907 -
0908 - Remaining percipient witness questions
0909 -
090901 - Roy reported on submission of questions for C. Knapel, ref OF 2.
090902 -
090903 - Roy will inquire of NW about whether they want HPS to supply any more
090904 - questions for depositions.  No more work will be performed on this
090905 - until further notice from NW.  I explained the importance of getting
090906 - sufficient notice to do a good job.
090907 -
090908 -
0910 -
0911 - Deposition disketts
0912 -
091201 - Roy indicated HPS has not received these yet from NW.  He will follow
091202 - up to obtain them and determine whether HPS software can handle the
091203 - data format.  If so, this will greatly expedite HPS research because
091204 - we can perform our own search for data, and extract it directly  as
091205 - necessary, to support our opinion.
091206 -
091207 -
0913 -

SUBJECTS
Coordination with Counsel
Claim files,
Claim #15 Prelim Opinion
Conflict resolution in management
Overview of Methods
Change Orders, 930724
Internal management

1710 - Claim #15 Opinion
1711 -
171101 - This document, ref OF 1, has a good overview of methods for
171102 - evaluating claims and adequacy of claim determinations by an Engineer
171103 - or Architect.
171104 -
171105 -
1712 -
1713 - Bill and Alex expressed following points:
1714 -
171401 - Bill feels the general organization is adequate.  He submitted
171402 - written comments and two sets of the document ref OF 1  with
171403 - additional comments in the margin by him and Alex.
171404 -
171405 - He believes the recommendation of 10% liability [see 1:25] exposure
171406 - to DHP is unfounded and that the $7,000 [see 1:28] exposure set out
171407 - in the Summary is likewise not adequately supported.
171408 -
171409 - Bill and Alex feel the concept that DHP is not liable for "value
171410 - added," since CSC was the beneficiary, should be more fully explained
171411 - than as set out at ref OF 1, page 7:26.
171412 -
171413 - They indicated the opinion is diffuse (insufficiently concise).
171414 -
171415 - Alex feels the pleading paper format connotes an image that conflicts
171416 - with HPS role as a construction professional.
171417 -
171418 - He requested I try to incoroprate his and Bill's ideas into a docu-
171419 - ment for submission to NW, because HPS indicated such submission would
171420 - be made in the recent coordination meeting  ref DRP 1.  Alex feels
171421 - this is also a good exercise to evaluate and develop the working
171422 - relationship between HPS and me, i.e. are we communicating?
171423 -
1715 -
1716 -
1717 - Discussion
1718 -
171801 - Bill asked that I not respond to the points he and Alex raised today,
171802 - then departed the meeting for a previously scheduled appointment.
171803 -
171804 - After Bill left, I indicated to Alex that his and Bill's comments are
171805 - welcome as part of the collegial exchange available within HPS that
171806 - can lead to an improved final work product, an end to which I am fully
171807 - committed.  I explained that sometimes experts disagree about what is
171808 - "clear," what is "well founded," and what is neither [every appellate
171809 - opinion begins "... it is abundantly clear, ... manifest  ... doubt-
171810 - less," etc, when such was not at all clear in the lower venue]. HPS
171811 - should not conclude that my positions arise from a lack of respect for
171812 - the views of HPS staff or an implacable insistance on my own vision of
171813 - reality. Indeed the free and occassional peripetetic exchange of views
171814 - is the essence of cooperation and mutual respect which I sought in
171815 - joining HPS.  My experience in some areas necessarily exceeds that of
171816 - others within HPS; HPS expertise exceeds mine in particular areas.
171817 - Melding these resources should yield the best results and a productive
171818 - work environment. This is my objective at HPS.
171819 -
171820 - With this in mind I explained the 10% valuation was intended to be a
171821 - matter for consultation and adjustment in the ordinary course of
171822 - opinion development, and that I am interested in HPS views on this
171823 - matter.
171824 -
171825 -   Alex indicated HPS does not include in its exposure presentation
171826 -   the cost of its work to perform additional service relative to the
171827 -   amount to be obtained or saved by the client in the event HPS
171828 -   performs all of the additional work needed to fully resolve an
171829 -   issue, as described in the opinion.
171830 -
171831 -   Alex advised that HPS exposure analysis deals only with direct
171832 -   costs claimed by the parties, and excludes consideration for
171833 -   litigation expense, including HPS costs.
171834 -
171835 -   Accordingly, this aspect of the opinion can be eliminated.
171836 -
171837 -
171838 -
171839 - I advised the $7,000 value in the Summary was not intended to be
171840 - supported in the Summary, but rather follows from the discussion in
171841 - the body text (see ref OF 1 line 507) and I expected to obtain some
171842 - constructive ideas through peer review today.
171843 -
171844 - Alex indicated my writing applies words he has not encountered and/or
171845 - he has encountered mainly in legal textual material.  He feels it is
171846 - not representative of good engineering writing.
171847 -
171848 - We discussed how the peer review process provides ample opportunity
171849 - to conform the writing to HPS standards.  Terms like "supra" for
171850 - example, have no place in an engineering document.  "Dispositive,"
171851 - cited by Bill and Alex as "legalease" is not far removed from words
171852 - like "cursory" and "demur" which, while used in legal writing, often
171853 - appear in more common forums.
171854 -
171855 -
1719 -
1720 - Written comments
1721 -
172101 - Bill's are those in pencil.  Alex prepared a separate hand written
172102 - sheet, plus he commented with red ink in the margin of his copy of
172103 - the opinion.  Red ink is a good medium for ease in picking up edits.
172104 -
172105 - I advised Alex I will give separate treatment to his comments and
172106 - present a revised draft for him and Bill to consider tomorrow.  Alex
172107 - said the revisions should take less than two days work.  I advised it
172108 - will take 1 to 2 hours.
172109 -
172110 -
1722 -

SUBJECTS
Issue Analysis Procedures

1904 - Format
1905 -
190501 - I asked Bill if the format for the Claim #15 opinion or the CCO #88
190502 - review could be applied to this exercise.
190503 -
1906 -
1907 -
1908 - Bill offered the following outline for evaluating Issue binders
1909 - provided by NW (generally he calls it:  "IQ" for Identification and
1910 - Quantification).
1911 -
1912 - Define the Issue
1913 -
191301 - This should be a 2 sentence description.
191302 -
1914 -
1915 - Chronology
1916 -
191601 - List salient events by date.
191602 -
191603 - Graph chronology with a "timeline."
191604 -
1917 -
1918 - Contract terms
1919 -
191901 - Set out the pertinant aspects of the applicable language in the
191902 - contract.
191903 -
1920 -
1921 - Claimants Position/Allegations
1922 - Respondents Position/Allegations
1923 -
1924 - HPS Preliminary Analysis
1925 -
192501 - Entitlement
192502 - Quantum (time, money)
192503 -
1926 -
1927 - Further Work to Complete HPS Opinion
1928 -
192801 - Missing Documents
192802 -
192803 - Further Analysis
192804 -
19280401 - Need As-built CPM
19280402 - Design Professional Opinion
19280403 - Legal Opinion
19280404 -
19280405 -
192805 -
192806 -
192807 -
1929 -

SUBJECTS
Issue Analysis, 1200-0 - Design
Design Professional Standards of Care

2105 - Discussion on obtaining copy of:
2106 -
2107 -                 Manual of Professional Practice for
2108 -                 Quality in the Constructed Project;
2109 -
210901 - This issue arises from ref SDS 1, issued by memo to Bill and Alex.
210902 -
210903 - Alex expressed doubt that this is a competent source.  He cited
210904 - controversy within the design professional community about its
210905 - acceptance, and he understands it spans several large volumns.
210906 -
210907 - I explained the views expressed by an engineer colleague, ref SDS 2
210908 - line 0505:
210909 -
210910 -   "... it makes a strong and persuasive case for uniform standards in
210911 -   the full range of tasks and assignments for design and CM
210912 -   professionals.
210913 -
210914 -   ... it has a section dealing specifically with Owner responsibili-
210915 -   ty for the result of placing unrealistic limits on budget and time
210916 -   of performance for the design phase."
210917 -
210918 -
210919 - Alex asked for information on the cost of the material and
210920 - verification of its size.
210921 -
210922 -
2110 -
2111 -

SUBJECTS
Site visit
Interview Architect

2405 - Roy will follow up on setting up these meetings.  We need to set aside
2406 - 2 days for meeting with architect.
2407 -
2408 -