NA-MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Home Browse Search

Mashpee High School Project Management Chartwv 1 Attachment to letter to Mr. Paul Griffin dated September 12, 1995 Attachment Page 2 4. (a) The subcontractors' meetings have been attended by the Clerk of the Works. In these meetings the subcontractors have had cause to complain that they have not had opportunity to discuss the construction schedule with anyone from the Contractor's organization. The subcontractors have repeatedly asked for a copy of the construction schedule. To the best of our knowledge, the approved schedule has not been distributed to the subcontractors. 4. (b) The timeframe as stipulated under the Contract for the submission and approval of the master CPM construction schedule was 30 days from the Notice to Proceed. The Contractor failed to comply with this requirement and Chartwell only received the draft detailed CPM on July 25, 1995; that is, 6 to 7 weeks late. After the draft was reviewed and commented upon, a working session was arranged with the Contractor and the Architect to assess the corrected logic of the CPM schedule. As a result of the working session, the Architect approved the construction schedule on August 8, 1995. To date, the Contractor has yet to issue the approved as commented CPM. 4. (c) A preliminary 60-day schedule was used by the parties initially; it was rendered obsolete upon the approval of the CPM. Obviously, the revised and improved logic of the detailed CPM supersedes that of the preliminary efforts of the initial 60-day schedule. It is moot to say that unilateral errors were made. As for the structural steel, it is incorrect to say that an error exists. The due date for the arrival of the steel was August 31, 1995, which fact is supported by the Contractor's cashf low projection and, most of all, the fact that the building was ready to receive the steelwork for Sector 1 on August 31, 1995 (see Contractor's letter at Paragraph 6 where this fact is acknowledged.) 5. What does "on track and on schedule" mean? Is the Contractor saying that there will be no change to the interim due completion dates for the structural steelwork? What of the status of the shop drawings submittals? 6. (a) The Clerk of the Works was recently advised that the Contractor intends to place slab-on-grade in Sectors 3A, 3B and 4. This is at variance with the Contractor's fetter. Clarification is required from the Contractor. 6 (b) As of August 31, 1995 the foundation work was ahead of the approved schedule but progress was behind the assurances provided in the Contractor's letter dated August 7, 1995. The latter was the Contractor's own target following its earlier statement that it would achieve 250 linear foot per day. This target was set by the Contractor, not by the Owner or the Owner's consultants. 7. Expediting of submittals. What about the structural steel?