Laserfiche WebLink
03/23/98 MON 12:a5 FAX 503 22~ 4606 MELVIN MARK COMPANIES ~ 005 <br /> <br />3.4,19 <br />This paragraph weakens the "without limi.tation" language .included in 2.1, I, We would <br />delete the entire paragraph. <br />4.6,1 <br />Alt.hough the .language .has already been madified to enhance the Owner's control, this <br />paragraph seems open-ended and vague. <br />4.10 <br />We would be inclined to add ". ., however, failure to give such notice shaIl not reli.eve the <br />Architect of its obligations under this A~reement" to the end of this paragraph. <br />8.5.1 <br />We would atte.mpt to include language that the Architect should be obli~atec! to continue <br />performance under the Agreem~nt pending resolution of any di.spute. This is n.oted in the <br />FTA exhibit, but is probably worth reiterating in this paragraph. <br />10.5.11 <br />This paragraph appears to be n.umbered incorrectly. It should be 11,5.1.1. <br />11,2,1 <br />As th.e project is no~v being bid, how could we better define/term "negotiated hard <br />costs?" <br />Article 12 <br />This A,rticle describes the previous project design. <br />