NA-MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Home Browse Search

Mr. Paul Griffin Response to Contractor's letter of August 31, 1995 September 12, 1995 Page 2 0 0 none does as regards the structural steel for Sector 1), it would ANDREW CHARTWELL 8 CO. amount to a unilateral mistake on the part of the Contractor to be corrected at no cost to the Owner. Moreover, if the Preliminary Schedule had any residual significance - which it does not - September 18, 1995 was beyond the specified period of applicability for the 60-Day Schedule in any event. Above all, the Contractor's letter acknowledges the fact that Sector 1 was in a condition to receive the steelwork before August 31, 1995 thereby making a nonsense of the alleged logistical error. Turning to the reference to "your consultant", if this is to Chartwell, then we would like to know when and in what context we have purportedly used the CPM solely to "control the economics of the project" and how our alleged action was detrimental to the construction process. Indeed, the Contractor's suggestion that the Construction Schedule has been utilised as a financial guide rather than a construction monitoring tool demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of the purpose and intent of the CPM technique. Reference to the relevant sections of the Specification will confirm that the CPM Schedule links time, resources and cost. Given the Contractor's performance to date, we can foresee that the CPM Schedule will have to be revised if a marked improvement is not forthcoming in the month of September 1995. Regarding the fields, we received numerous assurances from the Contractor that the work would be finished by the due substantial completion date of September 6, 1995. Not once were we informed that difficulties had been encountered with subcontractors as regards the peat moss for the loam. If the Contractor was more responsive to our requests and forthcoming in providing us the information we need, then the team work repeatedly referred to in the Contractor's letter would be a lot more profitable. As for the Contractor's statement that the work was on schedule as of August 31, 1995, we do not agree. In our opinion, based on data provided by the Contractor, progress was behind schedule by approximately three weeks as of the said date. Please refer to Monthly Progress No. 4 for details in this regard and to the requested point-by-point commentry attached to this letter.