THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700
S U M M A R Y
DIARY: December 1, 89 09:02 AM .......;
CSCJ HPS meeting with Architect.
...Root Cause Analysis Finds $40M Savings
...Notice Provides Accountability in Communications
...Fast-track/acceleration Forgotten by Management
...Jay Smith's letter - Management Recalls Fast Track Project
...Theory of Defense
Click here to comment!
0201 - High-Point Schaer 415 495
020101 - Mr. Alexander B. Vollmer, P.E., Regional Manager
0202 - High-Point Schaer 415 495
020201 - Mr. Roy I. Kim, Engineer
0203 - Natkin & Weisbach 415 546
020301 - Mr. Ken Natkin, Esquire, Partner
0204 - Natkin & Weisbach 415 546
020401 - Mr. Michael Marx, Esquire
0205 - Dworsky Associates 213 380
020501 - Mr. Wantland J. (Jay) Smith, AIA, C.E, Principal
0206 - Dworsky Associates 213 380
020601 - Mr. Allan F. Dietel, AIA, Principal
0207 - Patrick Sullivan 415 327
020701 - Mr. Patrick M. Sullivan, AIA, Principal
HPS, CSCJ Litigation, Interview Architect
Inadequate management by MK, OKA and County
Errors & Omissions, Making more money
Dispute Resolution, Discovery, Strategic Resource
Traceability to Original Sources
Discovery What We Need to Know Before It is
Executives Shun Details, Work by
Notice Provisions Accomplished by SDS
Command & Control Determines Meaning and
Truth Moving Target on Information Highway,
Construction Communications Align People as Reflected by Legal Preced
Contract Notice Provisions Align People Based on Experience of Legal
Notice Legal Requirement Align Understanding Discovered over Centurie
2515 - ..
2516 - Summary/Objective
251701 - Follow up
251703 - Jay is the Project Director assigned from the beginning. Jorge Soto
251704 - was the Project Architect until April of 1988. He is no longer with
251705 - Dworsky. Dean Vallejos was Mr. Soto's assistant.
251707 - ..
251708 - Allen Dietel assumed the duties as Project Architect upon Mr. Soto's
251709 - departure.
251712 - ..
251713 - On-site architect
251715 - DHP did not have an on-site representative. This indicates OKA may
251716 - not have performed its contract under which it was required to
251717 - administer the project according to a "Project Procedures Manual"
251718 - which OKA prepared.
251720 - ..
251721 - The PPM indicates on page 8 (HPS #3914) under Section 7, "Submittals"
251722 - that an architect was in fact "on-site." If OKA had an architect on
251723 - site, what tasks were carried out and how did this effect the duties
251724 - of DHP and OKA?
251726 - ..
2520 - Claims against DHP
252101 - AMV has sued DHP
252102 - BBC has sued CSC
252104 - ..
252105 - CSC seeks recovery from DHP to the extent BBC recovers from CSC.
252108 - ..
252109 - CSC has sued DHP
252111 - CSC seeks payment from DHP for certain CCO's issued to BBC on the
252112 - grounds such CCO's arise from inadequate performance by DHP under
252113 - its duty of care in performing the original design.
252115 - Ken conducted a general discussion of each of the major issues.
252116 - He distributed a report from PMA, an expert for CSC, that details
252117 - the grounds for this aspect of DHP exposure.
252120 - ..
2523 - Owner Liable for "Plan Check"
2524 - Design schedule
252501 - ..
252502 - Root Cause Analysis Finds $40M Savings
252503 - Notice Provides Accountability in Communications
252504 - Fast-track/acceleration Forgotten by Management
252506 - Jay was asked if the Santa Clara Jail was a "fast track" job, where
252507 - the County was responsible to check the plans for accuracy in order
252508 - to expedite performance? Was failure to perform this responsibility
252509 - the "root cause" of the owner's claim against the architect (DHP)
252510 - for alleged errors in the plans that caused delay and extra cost
252511 - completing the work?
252513 - ..
252514 - Jay said the the Santa Clara Jail project was not "fast track," and
252515 - that CSC did not assume any plan checking duties. He pointed his
252516 - finger to emphasize that the architect was entirely responsible for
252517 - accuracy of the plans.
252519 - ..
252520 - There was discussion of a letter from DHP, dated prior to the start
252521 - of the work, that said the owner agreed to perform plan check tasks
252522 - in order to expedite a fast track toward completion.
252524 - ..
252525 - Ken Natkin said a letter showing the owner was responsible for plan
252526 - checking could support Dworsky Associates (DHP) position that it is
252527 - not liable for $40M in damages that Blount Brothers claims the
252528 - architect caused, due to defective plans. Ken asked his staff to
252529 - locate the letter using the firm's automated document management
252530 - system, while the meeting continued. After half-an-hour the staff
252531 - reported the letter did not exist.
252533 - ..
252534 - Jay was angry about wasting time looking for a "phantom" letter,
252535 - because he was in charge of the project, and so would know who was
252536 - responsible for accuracy of the plans and specifications.
252538 - ..
252539 - Alex asked if I was sure about seeing such a letter, since all of
252540 - the data HPS has on the case was supplied by N&W. He asked me to
252541 - leave the meeting, and return to HPS' office to bring the letter
252542 - back to the meeting.
252544 - [On 891205 Alex objects to investing time capturing record;
252545 - feels saving customer $40M today was a fluke. ref SDS 3 F17H
252547 - ..
252548 - I walked back to HPS' office a few blocks away on Howard Street, and
252549 - found the entry in SDS record on 891109, under the subject....
252551 - 03 01010 01 01203............. Design Errors & Omissions
252553 - ...ref SDS 1 8375. It showed where the document was located in the
252554 - project case inventory. I made copies for all parties and walked
252555 - back to the meeting at Natkin & Weiskoff's office.
252558 - ..
252559 - Jay Smith's letter - Management Recalls Fast Track Project
252561 - Presented for discussion during meeting a CONFERENCE REPORT dated
252562 - 840306, prepared by Jay Smith. Para 5 of this meeting report
252563 - discusses OKA's rep, Proctor, issuing a letter on this matter.
252565 - Jay then recalled the design was fast-track. He cited the decision
252566 - to divide the project into contract A and B as part of this
252567 - process. Jay could not recall, even after seeing his letter, what
252568 - scope was intended for the "Plan check" engineer, which the Owner
252569 - indicated it would hire.
252571 - ..
252572 - Ken Natkin noted this letter is "helpful" and should be researched
252573 - as an affirmative defense (see also below, ref SDS 0 3W69) It can
252574 - reduce DHP's liability by millions of dollars.
252576 - ..
252577 - Design CPM schedule
252579 - Same letter para 2 describes CPM schedule prepared by DHP. Jay
252580 - will provide a copy of this for review and analysis by HPS.
252582 - I requested copies of original schedule and intermediate schedules
252583 - to show the evolution of the project in scope and intent with
252584 - respect to bidding dates, completion dates and costs.
252587 - ..
252588 - Responsibilities between DHP and Owner (MK/OKA)
252589 - Plan check responsibilities
252590 - Constructability review
252592 - Same letter para 4 discloses that owner through its CM rep, who at
252593 - that time was MK, was "... working on the selection of local
252594 - structural engineer to serve as plan checker/code consultant for
252595 - the project."
252598 - ..
252599 - Presented OKA letter #3202-211 dated 850801 titled
252600 - "Constructability Review of 100% Submittal" for contract B.
252602 - ..
252603 - Jay recalled the owner/OKA was statisfied the bid plans adequately
252604 - addressed the concerns set out in this review.
252609 - ..
2529 - OKA CM administration
2530 - Submittals
253101 - Jay advised that OKA furnished all submittals to DHP at once and
253102 - indicated the precast materials should be reviewed first. This ment
253103 - the security doors and frames were not given top priority.
253105 - ..
2534 - Contractor's original estimate files
253501 - I explained DHP's position can be enhanced by N&W obtaining these
253502 - materials for each of the main contractor claimants (e.g. AMV, BBC,
253503 - Monroc MEM, etc). HPS would develop an expert opinion about the
253504 - actual reliance with respect to claims of differing conditions.
253506 - ..
253507 - Ken advised CSC is performing this exercise for some of the claims. I
253508 - suggested that CSC's evaluation may be less careful on matters it
253509 - deems are the fault of DHP, and that DHP should therefore make its
253510 - own determination.
253512 - ..
253513 - This could be accomplished economically by obtaining CSC's evaluation
253514 - and conclusions in advance of trial and doing a check of those mat-
253515 - ters where DHP has exposure. The estimate files and CSC evaluations
253516 - should be requested during expert's deposition.
253518 - ..
253519 - Ken said N&W will do this.
253520 - ..
2537 - Bidding documents
253801 - HPS needs original bid sets to evaluate in conjunction with
253802 - contractor original estimate files.
253804 - Jay feels Dorwsky can supply an original set of contract A bid
253805 - documents. HPH may be able to use the materials already supplied for
253806 - contract B.
253809 - ..
2542 - Major schedule delays, overview
254301 - Pile driving problem in differing soil conditions
254303 - ..
254304 - Jay feels the decision to require piles to be driven to refusal
254305 - rather than to the specified blow count, was an error by the owner.
254306 - He feels it was unnecessary.
254308 - ..
254309 - Since this may have compressed contract A schedule because a time
254310 - extension was not permitted, even though it appears more time was
254311 - required, the owner may be liable for any acceleration expense that
254312 - may have resulted in contract A and B.
254314 - ..
254315 - Jay did not recall any basis for the owner not granting a time
254316 - extension for contract A. DHP was not involved in schedule
254317 - matters.
254319 - ..
254320 - Theory
254322 - If OKA improperly denied time extensions on matters for which there
254323 - was entitlement, then DHP may have less exposure for acceleration
254324 - damages (a major component of Blount's claim) arising from poten-
254325 - tial defective plans, since OKA's action compounded the effect of
254326 - acceleration, if any, caused by plan defects. This is particular-
254327 - ly important on matters in the Amoroso contract, because the effect
254328 - of initial construction delays are compounded over time.
254332 - ..
254333 - Mislocated dowels
254335 - Is there anything to Amoroso contention that it installed some dowels
254336 - correctly, but contract A and B plans differed?
254338 - Ken advised Amoroso has an expert who will be deposed shortly and
254339 - is expected to maintain that the "grid" for the project can be
254340 - interpreted in a variety of ways, one of which indicates either
254341 - Amoroso installed the dowels correctly, or that the contentions of
254342 - error by OKA cannot be supported by the drawings.
254344 - ..
254345 - I asked DHP if during the job Amoroso every claimed that it was
254346 - misled or confused about the expected location of dowels, or
254347 - otherwise objected to OKA's/DHP's interpretation of the drawings,
254348 - based upon alleged alternate interpretation of the plan "grid."
254349 - DHP is unaware any such event.
254351 - ..
254352 - Theory of Defense
254354 - It would seem that Amoroso must show that it not only installed the
254355 - dowels correctly under a reasonable interpretation of the plans;
254356 - but, further conveyed this position in a timely manner so as to
254357 - mitigate damages resulting from alleged incorrect interpretation by
254358 - OKA in applying the plans under Contract B.
254363 - ..
254364 - Inventory of dowel locations shown in contract A
254365 - and installed "as-built" locations
254367 - Amoroso's expert is expected to provide a full inventory of dowel
254368 - placements and the correlation to plan dimensions so we can readily
254369 - verify the facts of this issue.
254371 - ..
254372 - Once Amoroso's shows its evidence, DHP's design expert should
254373 - comment on this to develop a professional response as to what the
254374 - plans require. HPS could offer this service. HPS could also
254375 - testify about how a reasonable contractor could be exptected to
254376 - interpret the plans.
254379 - ..
254380 - Note
254381 - ----
254382 - OKA's contract para IV.1.37 (page A-25), required it to review
254383 - the contract A as-built drawings which should have shown the
254384 - actual location of dowels, which should have indicated Amoroso's
254385 - understanding of the plan "grid."
254387 - ..
254388 - Amoroso was required to submit an "as-built" of its work. This
254389 - document should be obtained to show the basis of OKA's conduct
254390 - relative to this matter. Did OKA fail to require the contractor
254391 - to submit the as-built?
254395 - ..
254396 - Ken gave an overview of the major claims against DHP under contract
254397 - B. These included precast, doors and frames, stair pressurization,
254398 - electrical conduit issues, door lights.
254400 - ..
254401 - Ken will be meeting with mechanical and electrical design consultants
254402 - under DHP, and would like questions or areas of interest to HPS for
254403 - inquiry during that meeting.
254406 - ..
2546 - Job photographs, where are they?
254701 - These need to be located and obtained to facilitate schedule
254702 - analysis. Since HPS is finding discrepancies in the OKA schedule
254703 - data relative to other OKA reporting documents, the job photographs
254704 - become more important to establish an actual "critical path."
254706 - ..
2550 - Administrative claim record
255101 - Dick Schironi requested questions for Bill Proctor and James Brown
255102 - on this matter.
255104 - ..
255105 - HPS submitted such questions together with applicable OKA contract
255106 - provisions for the C. Knapel deposition, see ref DCP 1 items #8 and
Distribution. . . . See "CONTACTS"