Change Order No. KJ-001-003
CHANGE ORDER
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EDITION
AlA DOCUMENT C701/CM
Distribution to:
OWNER 0
ARCHITECT 0
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 0
CONTRACTOR 0
FIELD 0
OTHER 0
PROJECT: New Detention Facil ity
(name, address) Stock Island, Key West, Florida
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: KJ-001-003
INITIATION DATE: January 21, 1992
TO (Contractor): Toppino 's, Inc.
P.O. Box 787
Key West, FL 33045
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 90007.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S
PROJECT NO: 3310-KJ
CONTRACT FOR: KJ-001, Site Grading & Caissons
CONTRACT DATE: July 17, 1991
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Furnish & install the revised quantities, sizes, and lengths of epoxy coated dowels as shown on
contract drawing sheet #3.30, revision 2, dated 10-3-91, as clarified by HLM letter to MK/G dated
October 18, 1991, and Document Clarification Request #KJ-001-019 dated 12-4-91, and further instructed
in MK/G letter to Toppino's dated November 15, 1991, which requires Contractor to install threaded
epoxy coated dowels supplied by others. Also, the amount of this change includes compensation for any
and all issues and impacts related to the epoxy coated dowel revisions described above.
_(/ji3tfi "
'" 0\1: AS TO RM
re _" c~ - ~NC'
,~"ley's Offit>>
c'-:~)
Not valid until signed by the Owner, the Architect and the Construction Manager.
Signature oi the Contractor indicates agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or the Contract Time.
The original (Contract Sum) ~u<)fa~ee<< ~xiIXlUf'R CRSt) was........................... $ 1,261,096.25
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders................................... $ 15,906.84
The (Contract Sum) (<XuaJCn~ed<.\\\X'(i~fl)(Cq(;t) prior to this Change Order was......... $ 1,277 ,003.09
The (Contract Sum) (liuaJrilnlleeck.\'\X'(irwfl)(Cq(;t) will be (increased) $(Je<J(ea;liedJ l)4ncj(langed)
by this Change Order.. ... ... ...... ............ ........ . ... .. ... ...... .. . ...... $ 31,458.24
The new (Contract Sum) (X:;u~aJ1(ee~ MClxilXluJ1( CQOst) including this Change Order will be ... $ 1,308,461.33
The Contract Time will be (increased) (Jdecxeaged) (xJnooal'lgoo) by ( 30
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
Recommended: Approved:
Morrison-Knudsen/Gerrits Hansen Lind Meyer/Gonzalez Architects
CONSTRUCTIO:-.l MANAGER ARCHITECT
P.O. Box 5283, Key West, FL 33045 3130 N rthside Drive
AD~qfESL ADD
~ A 1'a.. ,&. ,...,..
BY DATE BY
) Days.
Agreed To:
Toppino's, Inc.
CONTRACTOR
P.~v we::.: 33045
ADD "4-~
BY ~
Authorized:
Monroe County
OWNER
~-/;L-7 .L.
DATE
;,o~~~:::::.:~, ~9/92
BY Hayor/Cha i rman ATE
AlA DOCUMENT GiOl/CM . CHANGE ORDER' CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EDITION. JUNE 1980 EDITION' AIA*
~ 1980 . THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1i35 NEW YORK AVENUE, N..)Yrt- WASHINGTO~1 D.C;. 20006 C ERG701/CM -1980
AI '~NN: L. KOLHAGE, L 'K
. By ~~
i-l L~JI
Orl..Illdo, FhHIIJ"
\I"h,ni:lon. D.C.
Chlt'.igO, IllmOls
'l'~ 'or~. 'e~ 'Of~
\HUIITUTI RE
1:'(;"HIlIV;
10\\3 City, IO\loa
DC'n\C"r. Colorado
1'1.\"1'<;
30 January 1992
Mr. Doug Fu 11 er
~10rrison-Knudsen/Gerri ts
P.O. Box 5283
Key West, Florida 33405-5283
Re: New ~bnroe County Detention facility
Key West Florida
Mr. Fuller:
On January 22, 1992 your staff presented to me copies of a change order for
Toppino's Inc. in the amount of $ 31,458.24, for re-bar claim resolutions as
agreed to by the County Claims Review Board.
Due to the fact that the "Architect" was not a party to this process, nor
were the documentated positions of the '.'Architect" eX'"Pressed in documentation
provided to you, included in the presentation to this "Board of Review",
we cannot in good conscience become a party to the resolution of the issue
and approve payment to this contractor for work,material,labor, the "Architect"
deems to be a part of his contract obligation, as depicted on the Contract
Documents.
Therefore we are returning this "Olange Order" to you un-signed by the
"Architect". I am sure you can understand and appreciate the Architects
position of this matter.
Sincerely,
e~~J~1NC'
Associate
Construction Administrator
AAC-560
/rdr
cc: Dick Rogers,Dave Voda,Bob Yohe, Cliff Farrell
Enclosure
HJnsen Lind 'feyer
Soite 1100
XOO ,"onh \fagnoll:.l :\\cnue
Orlando. FlorodJ .l2S0.1-.\Shh
Phone 407 422.7061
F\X 407 422.70hh
-\-\( ',:;'flO
F."(o(~F.F.RNG
O'UI..JU. F1u,~
Wuhingt\>o. D.C.
..I L~Jt
(;bicOj,,"" III11w..
.'RClllru.Tl.:Rt:
"'n' YnrlI. Ne..' )'ClI!r.
1'l.,:o..'INfi
I...... Cily. Ju".
lIenver, Cnlo..dn
28 February 1992
MK/G 3310
INCOMING
0IS'f. I A R
18EIC
I 0Rtli
lFUi
Mr. Doug Fu llet"
Morrison-Knudsen/Gerrits
1590 Co llege Road
P.O. Box 5283
~ey West, Florida 33045.5283
Re: New t-bnroe County Detention Facility
Key West Florida
Dear Mr. Fuller:
I am writing in regards to the Qumge Order prepared for the "Toppin6.~!ltl
Contract, KJ-001-OO3, in the amount of $ 31,458.24.
HLM/Gonzalez Architects for the New Monroe County Detention Facility were
advised that the CMner/Program Manager/Construction Manager, had engaged
in, and agreed to a settlement agreement with "Toppino's Inc.1I regarding
additional te-bar for the IlCaisson Workll. This settlement apparently
took place sometllne prior to January 22, 1992.
The Architect had rendered a decision to the Owner/Program Manager, in that
the Architect concluded that the work in dispute was indeed covered by the
D<x:uments for Constt'UCtion issued to the Program Manager/CMner, and that no
additional monies should be allowed for this work. Therefore the "Architects
Signature II authorizing payment under the terms of the contract and the
Agreenent is rendered under protest.
Be further advised that the "Architects" signature tmder protest is only
for the payment of work we feel to be covered by the contract docunents.
The actual work as provided is consistant with the design intent of the
contract documents, and maintains the integrity of the finished product.
Should you require any additional information relative to this ussue,
please feel ftee to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kill~T~
Richard D. Ray \J
Associate
Construction Administrator
cc: Bob Yohe,Dave Voda,Dick Rogers
II.n~~n Lind Mc~cl
Sui't J IUO
t((l(l NOllh ~hgn<4ia A,tllV<"
o,l.",l". Fl"rld. .1~hlJ:l.ll1l>1\
l'hr.n~ 407 -I.:'!. 70<> I
FAX 407 4':: i"~il
--
O!!~y ~2~!!.~E
(305) 294-4641
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Danny Kolhage
Clerk
Randy Ludacer (J J A .
County Attorney ~ ~~
FROM:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAYOR, Wilhelmina Harvey, District 1
Mayor Pro T em, Jack London, District 2
Douglas Jones, District 3
A Earl Cheal, District 4
John Stormont, District 5
SUBJECT: Monroe County's contract with Toppino, Inc. for Site
Grading & Caissons at the New Detention Facility
(KJ-001)
DATE: March 18, 1992
I have reviewed the documentation furnished to me with
your memorandum of February 28, 1992. Our basic difficulty in
this matter has been the fact that the Architect had not
initially approved the Change Order in question, although the
County's officials, Construction Manager, the County Attorney and
County Administrator had all approved the basis for the change
had secured the approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
Order was
Architect
by virtue
this.
My concern with the Architect's joinder in the Change
essentially for the reason that I did want the
to be relieved of his essential warranty of the design
of our approving Change Orders which would compromise
In the Architect's letter of 28 February
addressed to Doug Fuller, he mentions the following:
1992,
"Be further advised that the 'Architects' signature
under protest is only for the payment of work we feel
to be covered by the contract documents. The actual
work as provided is consistent with the design intent
of the contract documents, and maintains the integrity
of the finished product."
I am therefore relieved of my concern with respect to
the integrity of the building and the fact that the Architect's
disagreement with the Change Order is predicated only on the
allocation of the cost of the item itself. This still leaves us
with something of a paradox in that in the event we had we not
had npt gone the course we did, we would be in a complete
standoff with the Contractor refusing to progress the work until
an interpretation and a Change Order had been approved, the
Architect refusing to approve the Change Order, and the
Contractor probably being a posture where he could have created a
delay Change Order at our ultimate expense.
I think that under the circumstances, since the
Contractor was directed to perform the change by our Construction
Manager, and that change has been done and incorporated in the
work, and that Change Order approved by both the Board of County
Commissioners and the County administration, that we have a
legally binding obligation to make the Contractor whole
regardless of the approval or non-approval of the Architect.
Unfortunately, the Architect's relationship is such that we can
anticipate this as a recurring problem whenever a design issue
occurs, and we can only rely upon our Construction Manager's
skill in negotiating a resolution of these matters. Otherwise,
we are going to have one of these donnybrooks every several
weeks. However, having said that, I believe that the Contractor
in question has a legitimate claim to be paid the moneys in the
Change Order as approved, regardless of the qualified aspect of
the Architect's approval.
RL/pr