Laserfiche WebLink
0~/23/98 MON 12:a~ FAX 503 22a 4606 MELVIN MARK COMPANIES <br />This paragraph is written so that the Owner must give notice to the Architect if the Owner <br />determines that Contingent Additioaal Serv,ices are not required. We would change this <br />to require the ~rchitect to get the Owner's approval before coavnencing such services. <br />3.3.1.3 <br />We would attempt to have this paragraph deleted from the contraet. If not possible, we <br />would modify the language to require that the Owner be provided a reason.able amount of <br />ti.me to render deci.sions. <br />3.3.3 <br />This clause is confusi.ng. It should be simplified to add clarity. We would probably look <br />to modify "negtigence or other e.Rars or omissions" to "fault or faiture" similar to the <br />language in 3 _ 1.1.1. <br />3.3.4 <br />Architect is including "Providing serv.ices in connection with evaluati.n~ substitutions <br />proposed by the Contractor and m.aking subsequent revision.s to the drawings" as a <br />Contingent Additional Service. It is absa[utely inevitable duri.n~ the course of <br />consttuction that th.e Architect will have to provide services relating to substitutions <br />proposed by the Con.tractor, lt seems unreasonable to exclude such a minor service as <br />part of the contract. We might add language such as ". .. which requires significant <br />additional ti~ne by the Architect". The second part of this sentencc relates to the previous <br />issues wi.th paragraphs 2.4.5 and 3.4.16. The Arc.hitect intends to view (and invoice for) <br />any as-built wor.k as additional. services. <br />3.4.9 <br />Architect includes "Providing services in co.nnection with the work of a construction <br />manager or separate consultanxs retained by the owner" as an Optional Additional <br />Service. This Ianguage is vague an.d open-ended. This language at.lows the Arclutect to <br />charge, as addit.iona[ services, far any work "in cannection" with NQvIDC or any other <br />consultants the County and Transi.t may hire-such as an estimator. <br />3.4.13 & 3.4.14 <br />The Owner(s) need to determine what rale the Architect will play in programming and <br />space planni.ng and logistically how space plannin~; will be budgeted and performed, <br />There is currently a tenant improvement allowance, and it is not considered part of the <br />Cantractor's "hard costs", which is the basis for the Architect's contract. Is programming <br />and space planni.ng to be included as part of the base contract? If so, how will the G% be <br />applied? Will the percentage be applied to the allowance, estimates or actual expended <br />TI Constsuction costs? How will the speculative space be treated? There are different <br />ways to handle this; the County and Transit w.ill just need to determine the best way ta <br />approach th.is scope of work. <br />~ooa <br />3.4.16 <br />See 2.4.5 <br />