Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ADDITIONS TO LA PORTE CITY HALL_99-2206
r City of La Porte August 10, 2001 Jack W. Hanc�ock R.T.G. Buildi`Ag Company 11502 West Main Street La Porte, Texas 77571 Established 1892 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall. CLP Project No. 99-2206; Your letter dated August 7, 2001 Dear Mr. Hancock: I am forwarding your letter addressed to me dated August 7, 2001, to Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA, for response. As you know, Mr. McKinney is the architect charged with administration of our contract (see Article 4 of our contract for a description of the architect's duties). All future correspondence regarding contract administration should be addressed to Mr. McKinney. One factual inaccuracy needs to be addressed by the City of La Porte. To my knowledge, no agent or employee of the City of La Porte has contacted any of your subcontractors to request pricing information on this job. If I am incorrect, I would like to know specific instances of City of La Porte subcontractor contact as soon as possible, insofar as any such contact would be contrary to explicit instructions given by me to my subordinates and the architect, Mr. McKinney. Si rely, Dougl K. pper, P.E. Director of Planning Cc: John Joerns, Assistant City Manager John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy. 9 La Porte, Texas 77571 ° (281) 471-5020 „ tYxx���xxxxx��lYzxx��zxxx<xxxxxx�a;�xxxxx�xiz<�x��xxxxxxtr�x:txtx�x;�xx����xxx������xxx�x���xz<xxx�xxx����x��� x P. 01 TRANSACTION REPORT AUG-10-2001 FRI 09:45 AM DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME(L)PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP z< AUG-10 09:45 AM 2818674096 35"(1) 2 SEND OK 583 x � x TOTAL 35S PAGES: 2 Xt;XX;I;XXXX#�t;t;Xx#XXX�XXXXXXXXXYXX<1;1K�1;YI;XXXXXXXYYXXXXIC�ffiXXXXXt�XX;����XXXXYXXX�YI;XXXiXIKXr�XxX;XYYYKXXX<��YYX<t< City of La Porte P.O. Box ills La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Phone (281) 471-5020 Fax (281) 471-7168 fk6rmiietransmidal To: Jack Hancock Fax: 281-867-4096 From: Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Date: August 10, 2001 City Engineer Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall Pages: 2 CC: ❑ Urgerd ❑ For Roview ❑ Pleese Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Attached is my letter dated August 10, 2001 responding to your letter to me dated August 7, 2001. Hard copy to follow in regular mail. q . . r:•i c City of La Porte P.O. Box 1115 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Phone (281) 471-5020 Fax (281) 471-7168 To: Jack Hancock Fax: 281-867-4096 From: Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Date: August 10, 2001 City Engineer Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall Pages: 2 CC: Doug ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle letter dated August 10, 2001 responding to your letter to me dated August copy to follow in regular mail. r M-1 ,cer 4e.A4L City of La Porte Established 1892 August 9, 2001 Robert McKinney, AIA 20 Greenway Plaza Suite 45d) Houston, Texas 77046 RE: City Hall Expansion Dear Robert: I have received a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL/MODIFICATIONS dated July 5, 2001, a letter dated July 13, 2001, a letter dated July 15, 2001,a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL/MODIFICATIONS dated July 25, 2001, and a letter dated August 7, 2001 all from Jack Hancock with R.T.G. Building Company. Article 4 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract between the City of La Porte and R. T. G. Building Company clearly states that claims must be initiated by written notice to the Architect. Therefore, all the aforementioned correspondence is hereby forwarded to you for your review and response. Please call if you should have any questions. Sincerely, KKn upper, P.E. s Director of Planning Attachments: Cc: R.T.G. Building Company w/out attachments 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy. • La Porte, Texas 77571 • (281) 471-5020 Rub 07 01 02:42p R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY A RAINIREE COMPANY 11502 Went Main streetPHONE: 281-8674090 L Pane, Team 77571 FAX: 281-967-4096 August 7,2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director Coty of La Porte P.O. Boxlll5 La Porte, Texas 77572-I I l5 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall CLP Project No. 99-2206 Dear Mr. Kneupper On August 2, 2001 Mr. William Udick, spoke with Mr. Robert W. McKinney, the City of La Porte Architect on the above referenced project At that time Mr. McKinney stated we were to stop all work on the project at the request of the City of La Porte. Be advise, all work was stopped as of August 2, 2001. On August 7, 2001, I spoke with Mr. McKinney and he reconfirmed that all work was to have been stopped at the request of the City of La Porte. Since the stoppage of work, substantial deterioration of grade beam excavation and the plastic vapor barrier has accured due to weather conditions. R.T.G. Building Company has been called by several of our sub -contractors on the project, stating they have been called by another General Contractor to obtain pricing for the project at the request of the City of La Porte. These calls are causing confusion not only to subcontractors, but to R.T.G. Building Company as well, as we have not received written correspondence from the City of La Porte or the City's Architect. Be advised R.T.G. Building Company will not be held responsible for damages to the site caused by this delay and will expect payment for all General Conditions, Supervision, Overhead & Profit during this delay. Since y, cc . Hancocc cc: Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte Mr. Marvin L. Rader, Marvin L. Rader & Associates Transmittal ROBERT W. M cKINNEY AIA 1 / � PLANNING t^- PO M Q—P7 'fj-7V L/V Project Pmjmt Number REFu 7`W aresending you 171 Herewith ❑ Under separate cover Ll The following. Copies Date De Ipdm 9 () PVC IM &i%V 0 r - Fy �MVS 13a Cie r VW coaajG& iZTCr vs 2Q.lo � . Remarks. MIN P.O. Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270 (713) 665.5665 r, ROBERT W. McKINNEY AIA August 02, 2001 City of LaPorte City Hall Expansion CLP Project 99-2206 Summary of Events on Foundation and Slab Work: March 21 1"Interview with RTG after bidding: discussed concerns with subcontractors, documents, schedule, etc. April 2 — May 21 Answers to RFI's 1-25 given to RTG by Design Team RFI's included foundation clarifications and other construction related issues. May 2 1"job site meeting discussed structural drawings and answered questions about details and general construction. Late May — End June RTG terminated their subcontractor installing (do not have exact date) the foundation and proceeds to finish the foundation with their forces. July 3, 9, 11,16 Structural engineer performs inspections on the foundations and finds deficiencies at each inspection. July 11 City of LaPorte gives notice to RTG that no concrete can be poured due to deficient work. July 12 RTG attempts to pour concrete and is stopped by City Inspections and Police Department. Correspondence issued by RTG alleging interference by City and inadequate drawings by engineer. (713)665-5665 Fax (713) 665-6213 20 Ckcenway Plaza, Suite 454 Houston, Texas 77046 P 0 Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270-7071 City of LaPorte City Hall Expansion Sununary of FoundationMizfi Events Page 2 of 2 July 13 Meeting held: RTG, City, Architect to review July 12 correspondence. July-13- City documents -deficiencies -existing -in -the field with notes and photos to substantiate reason for notice to not pour. July 13 RTG issues RFI 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. July 13 Correspondence issued by A/E to answer RTG correspondence. July 16 RTG issues correspondence of work stop due to documents being inadequate. July 16 Site meeting held with RTG, City, A/E, to review conditions in the field and corrective measures required for City approval. July 17 Response given by A/E to RTG - July 16, 2001 correspondence alleging incomplete documents. July 20 Response given to RFI 28-36 by engineer. July 31 Letter issued stating there is cause for termination by the Owner. SARobcrt McKinney\Cr Y OF LAPORTEkm08021b.doc 4 I MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Kneupper FROM: Robert W. McKinney DATE: July 31, 2001 ' RE: City Hall Expansion Renovation City Project No- 99-2206 Initial Meetings and Interviews with RTG and Current state of project In light of the current state of the project with RTG, I have reviewed my records and offer the following: Documents RTG claims deficiency in the structural drawings as the cause for their problems in the foundation work. Our response to their correspondence of July 12 & 26, ,2001 on items listed as problems shows that questions and responses to RFI's have been adequately answered to provide RTG with direction for installing the foundation in accordance with the drawings. The structural engineer performed four (4) separate reviews on the slab and in each instance poor workmanship and non-conformance with the documents was found. The structural engineer in each review gave the contractor corrective measures that could betaken by the contractor to bring the foundation in compliance without having to disassemble the deficient work. Further, during the bidding period, no questions or comments or confusion regarding the structural drawings was expressed by any of the eleven (11) bidders that received drawings, including RTG. Initial Contractor Interviews March 21, 2001 Present: RTG — Jack Hancock Will Uzick City - Doug Kneupper Architect - Robert McKinney During the initial meeting with RTG, after bidding, the following was reviewed and discussed: 1) Verification of RTG pricing submitted in bid. /t j 2) Electrical items included in the bid (i.e.: phone system, data system). 3) Fire Sprinkler System and the extent of coverage. 4) Past Projects — RTG concerns for any new sub -contractors used in this project not used -in -the— - past. 5) -Process for submittals, corresponderice, site meetings, starting woik,-notifications by - contractor to City of work to disrupt the occupied building and of occupancy date for each phase of the work. RTG stated that they could see no problems with any of their subcontractors. They were comfortable with their subs and their bid. The foundation subcontractor was terminated mid -way through the first part of the slab construction leaving RTG with considerable work to be corrected . RTG elected to proceed with their forces to complete the foundation. From my perspective, RTG never recovered from their problems left from the original foundation sub. The termination of the subcontractor by RTG resulted in LaPorte Police Department being called to the site to settle a threat by the sub to the General Contractor over the termination. The site remained idle for several weeks after the termination, before RTG mobilized with their own forces to complete the work. Their work has been a constant problem due to workmanship and non-compliance with documents until present. S:Vtobert McICimcy\CrrY OF LAPORTE4m0801 I b.doc R O B E_K_T-W-M c K-1"N_N- July 17, 2001 Doug Kneupper Planning Director City of LaPorte Box 1115 LaPorte, Texas 77572 RE: RTG Correspondence July 16, 2001 CLP Project #: 99-2206 Dear Doug, We have received the latest correspondence from RTG. Their claims are that structural plans and specifications are inadequate and that items have been added and changed in the field. We have reviewed our records and cannot find occasions to support their claims. We have responded to 36 RFI issued by RTG, 9 of the 36 were issued on July 16t° in conjunction with their July 16, 2001 letter from Jack Hancock of RTG to Doug Kneupper of the City. The majority of the new RFI's have been previously answered in RFI's, site reviews, and inspections. However, responses to the new RFI 28-36 are included for your review (sent under separate cover). The claim of changes is a convenient interpretation of actual events. The structural engineer has reviewed the foundations on four (4) separate occasions: July 3, July 9, July 11, and July 16, 2001. At each review conditions were found not in compliance with the intent of the documents. In lieu of requiring the contractor to disassemble the non -complying condition, correcting measures were suggested that would allow the condition to be brought into compliance, saving the contractor time and effort. As of our last review of conditions, non -complying details continue to exist. Should the foundation be poured in it's current state we have no confidence that the slab will perform as designed. As to the allegation that the City of LaPorte interfered with the contractor on the July 12, 2001 attempt to pour, we do not understand how a regulatory agency (La Porte City Inspections) can be accused of interfering when conditions do not meet their standards. However, City Inspectors should respond to this issue. (713) 665.5665 Faa (711) 665-6211 i� n_..._....... o�... ...:.. .a.. u........_ T....__ »�.. nn n.._ •a+. .......... } Doug Kneupper Planning Director___ City of La Porte RTG Correspondence Page 2 of With the latest response to RTG's July 12, 2001 letter from Jack Hancock to Doug Kneupper and the new 9 RFI's,,we have no -outstanding -issues with regards to the foundation and -see -no -reason -why -work should not continue to correct deficient areas on the foundation. Sincerely, R bert W. McKinney, AIA cc: Michael Skoller RTG SARobert McKinney\MEMORIAL PARK GOLF COURSEVmO7241 a.doc 11 ,'u'1 16 01 01:28p R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY _A RAKMEE COMPANY 11502 Wea Mein Street PHONE: 28I-867.4094 G Porte, Tema 77571 FAX 281-967.4096 July 16, 2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director Coty of La Porte P.O.Boxl115 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall. CLP Project No. 99-2206 Dear Mr. Kneupper: It was hoped by R.T.G. Building Company, that after our mating on July 13, 2001 our differences could be settled in a win win manor. However, it has now come to my attention this day, this will not be the case. R.T.G. Building Company will continue to peruse the work in an attempt to please the City of La Porte and the City's engineer of record. However no work will be done on added items until it is agreed who will pay for all added work and delay costs associated therewith. With the interference of the City of La Porte on July 12, 2001 and inadequate plans and specifications, as provided by your engineer, it is imposable to proceed with the added changes given this day, without further clarification. R.T.G. Building Company was presented a 16-page list of -ad lodged deficiencies prepared by the City or La Porte. Be advised the grater part of this list is not understandable. We request a meeting with who ever prepared said list to provide clarification, so work can continue. cc: Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte Mr. Marvin L. Rader, Marvin L. Rader & Associates Jul 12 01 12:41p R. T. G. BUILDING COMPANY 11503 Wet Mara Sues --A E COMFANY V PwTeas 77571 PHONE: 281.867.4094 F": 281-9674096 ---- - ---7u1yl2, 2Wl - ---- Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director City of La Porte P.O. Box it 15 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 RE: Project No. Additions to La Porte City Hall Subject: Cancellation of Concrete pour this day by the City of La Porte Dear Mr. Kneupper: The City of La Porte has interfered with the production of the above referenced project, this interference has caused undue expense to R-T.G. building Company. The City of La Port's engineer of record has not provided adequate plans & specifications. R.T.G. Building Company will not proceed with the project until all issues are resolved It appears at this time there will be an increase in the amount of the contract sum to cover the cost of additional work and lost time, and an increase in the project time as well We are proceeding with the assembly of all component pieces and will complete a complete detailed analysis of all project effects. Upon conclusion, the final change proposal will be submitted Please consider this your formal notification in accordance with the regnirements of the General Conditions. Per Article 4.3. General Conditions of the contract. C` a W. Hancock cc: Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte MEETING - -LaPorte City Hall July 16, 2001 RE: Site Review In Attendance: NOTES Charles Walker Will Uzick Michael Skoller Reagan McPhail Tommy Carpenter Robert McKinney 1) The City of LaPorte presented RTG with a list of deficiencies from their foundation review that must be corrected to pass their approval from the City. The list was extensive and not reviewed in detail at the meeting. 2) We discussed aspects of the drawings in question with RTG. Confusion with RTG as to slab thickness based on their interpretation of the drawings was discussed. Michael Skoller reviewed the intent of the slab thickness and the notes regarding clearances. RTG requested clarification from Skoller. We reviewed the condition in the field and discussed the masonry supports to the reinforcing and the position of the reinforcing within the slab. Skoller stated that the reinforcing should be placed near the middle of the slab. 3) We reviewed field conditions at several locations to clarify intent of the drawings for RTG. Skoller reviewed existing conditions at the columns and pointed out conditions that were incorrect based on the drawings. Skoller made suggestions for correction that would possibly avoid disassembling the slab steel and would bring the conditions in compliance with the intent of the drawings. 4) We reviewed the condition at the existing grade beam at the face of the north wall. The north wall existing grade beam contained mud on the face of the wall below the over pour which may prevent the foundation from bonding correctly if left without dowels as per details. Correction of the detail was reviewed and suggestions were made to allow the condition to be corrected without completely disassembling the condition. 5) The condition of the west ramp was reviewed. •i LaPorte City Hall Meeting Notes July-16,-1001 --- Page 2 of 2 6) The stirrups were reviewed in the beams. The stirrups appear to be too high and are pushing the matt steel above the top of the slab in places. The stirrups will be repositioned at an angle -- to correct the condition. — -_ _._----7)- Timing vias discussed. RTG will target -making correction wid pouring around the 23rd or 24d' of July. SARobert McKinney\CITY OF LAPORTE4m07171b.doc r MEMORANDUM To: Dough 'Kneupper -- ' City of La Porte From: Robert McKinney, AIA Date: July 13, 2001 RE: Response to RTG, 12 July 2000 letter Regarding Slab on Grade— Concrete Placement Project #CLP-992206 Doug, We are in receipt of a copy of the 12 July 2001 letter from RTG, Jack Hancock regarding the foundation. The following is our response: Our notes and understanding from the original 2 May 2001 meeting differ from RTG's. In that meeting we discussed structural details but not all listed in the 12 July 01 letter. The design team gave an interpretation of the intent. No complete "revision" of the drawings was asked for by RTG or promised by the design team. A detail of the drop beam to receive penetrations was provided to RTG by National Structural as requested. That detail was provided as requested but no other formal revisions were done. All questions regarding plans, details, and intent have been answered in field meeting, inspections and responses to RFI's along with telephone conversations. There is a reference in the 12 July 01 letter to outstanding drawing and revisions. From our records, we have no outstanding requests for information and we have no drawings that are being revised or created. We understand the difficulty for RTG by having terminated the original concrete subcontractor responsible for the foundations. The state of the slab and mistakes by the original subcontractor make it very difficult for RTG to complete the project; however, we believe that we have assisted in every way requested of the design team in interpreting the intent of the documents and in assisting with the correction or modifications of conditions in the field not complying with the intent of the drawings. The following are responses to the 10 items listed as drawing problems. It has been our understanding through the process that the interpretations of the documents has been adequate for the purposes of the contractor. Item 1 The statement is not correct. Mr. Torres stated that detail "K" applies and includes detail "F". Therefore, detail "F" does not apply alone since it is included in detail "K". The detail "K" was simplified and discussed with RTG and ultimately given to RTG 04/30/01, in response to an RFI whose number was not included on their form. Item 2 Detail "K" was simplified to assist the contractor in his configuring the steps and beam at the perimeter of the foundation on the north and west of the foundation. The revised detail was discussed with RTG and a revised drawing was given to RTG on 30 April 2001. A response to the detail and its reinforcement was given to RTG in the rebar submittal and was returned to RTG with the reviewed rebar submittal dated 23 May 01. Item 3 Detail "Q" was a single notation on sheet SI and was defined as a typographical error by the response to RFI No 17 on 3 May 2001. Item 4 The Detail "C" reference mark on the plan S-1 was defined as a typographical error. The detail was corrected by a response to RFI No 18 on 3 May 2001 and described as detail `B". Item 5 No dowels are shown on detail 8-8 because it was assumed that the ramp would be poured monolithically with the rest of the slab. Juan Torres was informed on the 2nd construction review that the ramp was intended to be poured at a later date. Juan told Charles and Will from RTG that, if the ramp was going to be poured at a later date, it was necessary to add dowels and additional steel to be able to connect the slab to the ramp Item 6 The first request for information by the design team on this issue was on 5 July 2001 by telephone from the field office. The following response was given: The structural beam under the outside edge of the ramp is to be an "F" beam at 12 " wide. The architectural cap on the top of the slab is 24 " wide as shown on the Plan A2.4. The height of the cap varies with the length of the ramp and is shown in elevation 01 on Sheet A3.1. A sketch was sent to further explain the condition. The architectural cap and the structural beam can be independent elements and can be constructed by the contractor in two pieces or as one element depending on his preference. A clarification for reinforcement was discussed in the filed review of the field condition on 10 July 01. The literal reading by RTG of the plan condition at 3/A4.1 is not as was intended. From the plan it seemed obvious to the design team that there could be no steps at the edge of a ramp since the steps stopped at the previous grid -line. The use of this condition at 3/A4.1 was intended to describe the condition and relationships at the columns, exterior wall and roof structure. Apparently what was clear as to intent from the design team was not interpreted as such by the contractor. Item 7 We do not understand this reference and cannot find the issue in our drawings as described. We assume the reference is to the above issue at item No. 6. Item 8 On the meeting of 2 May 2001, one topic discussed was the pier steel extending into the grade beams. It was stated that the pier steel did not need to be cut. Sections 1-1 and 2-2 are solely intended to describe the areas involving interior and exterior recessed columns. These details clearly show a 30" deep beam below the recessed column or 38" from top concrete. Item 9 The grade beam detail "W" is a general condition at the face of the existing exterior wall describing two issues: The relationship of the existing beam to the new grade beam and the condition at the area on the existing wall where brick is removed to allow for a new door. The detail does not intend for all brick on the face of the existing wall to be removed. The demolition plan A2.2 shows the area of brick to be removed. The detail "W"/ Sheet SO shows the condition at not only the area of brick removal but also the relationship of the new grade beam to the existing. This detail was discussed and explained to RTG in a conference call with RTG and Reagan McPhail. A subsequent follow-up letter was issued July 6, 2001 by fax to both the city and RTG. Item No 10 Foundation note #9 addresses the required clearance in beams. Slab steel shall be place on 2 %." chairs. Paragraph-3 RTG is correct in that the source for the water from under the existing building is unknown. All sources for the water have been investigated by the city and no leaks or seepage can be located in or around the existing building that would lead to the source of the water. The amount of water is small and inconsistent and not seen as a major detriment. RTG is drying the area with the use of lime and the removal of any excess water that accumulates over extended periods of time. 1", 2"d 3rd construction reviews by National Structural engineering l" slab.review: The -fast -slab review was conducted on 2 July 2001. At -that time, -the slab was not ready, and.the following items in need of correction were addressed at the time of the review: 1. The piers caps needed to be cleaned from mud and loose concrete. Per sections 1-1 and 2-2, the piers needed to be chipped down to approximately 8" to maintain a grade beam depth, below drops, of 30". 2. The issue of bottom and side clearances was addressed. 3. Made the observations that crew was using wrong size stirrups on detail W forcing the mat steel to be high. Refer to foundation note #12. 4. Several interior beams had installed (2) #5 bars top and bottom instead of (2) #6 bars top and bottom as indicated on detail "D". An option to add (1) # 5 bars top and bottom from beam to beam wherever #5 bars were used instead of removing, and replacing with the proper size steel, offered to the contractor. 5. Per foundation note #9, beams needed to maintain 3" bottom clearance and side clearance. 6. A 6" wide beam on ramp was missing. 7. Beams were to be deepened at conduit per the new detail requested by RTG & the City. 8. Some mat and beam steel splices were found to be short. Instructed that splices needed to be 18" for #4 bar and 23" for #5 and 27" for #6 bars respectively, per foundation note #5. 9. #5 dowels x P-6" long needed to be installed along the existing building as per detail "W". 10. Detail K was used to demonstrate the continuity of the mat steel from one side to the other. 11. Comer bars were missing on beams per foundation note #7. 12. Slab appeared shallow in several places. Crew needed to verify that slab thickness was as specified in plans. Slab thickness was to be reviewed at next review. 13. Turn downs needed to be installed. 14. Beams traversing drops needed to be deepened and piers below needed to be chipped down. Refer to detail A on sheet SO. (see item 1 above) 2Id review: The second slab review was conducted on 9 July 2001. On second visit, the main task was to focus on the items previously mentioned. Little progress was made from the time of the previous review. The foundation deficiencies continued to require correction. 3rd review: Juan Torres explained, on several occasions, the proper installment of the reinforcement under the columns for the mat and the beam steel. All mat and beam still musts be continuous per plans. All splices needed to be per the plans and details. The majority of the items found wrong with the slab on the first review were had still not been addressed. Juan Torres left the jobsite about 6:00 with the agreement that if RTG completed at least 75% of the slab he would return the next morning to finish the review. About 7:00 p.m. Juan Torres received a call from Reagan McPhail saying that he needed to be at the jobsite before 5:00 a.m. for final review, as they were going to pour immediately afterwards. Because adequate light does not exist at 5:00 a.m. and because it is not prudent to do a construction review of this magnitude the same day one is planning to pour, Juan Torres agreed to drive back to jobsite by 8:00_p.m. for another construction review. Once he arrived at the site, there were not enough workers present to assist completing the job. Juan voiced his concern to postpone the pour for - another day. — - - - -- - - - Review by Michael Skoller on 16 July 2001: During this cursory review Michael Skoller saw no added steel as alleged by RTG (except as previously discussed). The alleged added steel, that was placed under the interior columns, was according to the plans There were still numerous locations of missing steel and concrete grade of only 2" to 3" inches. Stirrups were found to be too high. Instructions were given to slant stirrups to allow.23" minimum. The foundation continued to be lacking in conformance and was not ready to pour. Please contact me if you have comments or questions or need further discussions to these responses. S:Vtobert McKimcy\CrrY OF fAPORTE4m07I6 I sAm T 6. BULDLV6 COMPANY A RAINTREE COMPANY 11502 West Main Street LaPorte, Texas 77571 12 July 2001 Ref., LaPorte City Hall 604 West Fairmont Parkway -LaPorte, Texas 77571 Slab -on -Grade — Concrete Placement Project M CLP 99-2206 Phone: 281-867-4094 Fax: 281-867-4096 R.T.G.'s first progress meeting, on May 2, 2001, it was brought to the attention of Robert McKinney, AIA, (Architect), Doug Kneupper, PE (City of LaPorte), Tommy Carpenter, Inspector (City of LaPorte), Regan McPhail (City of LaPorte), Juan Tomas, Inspector (National Structure Engineer) that structural details on the plans were incorrect. At that time R.T.G. was told that the details would be revised and corrected drawings reissued. As of this date R.T.G. has not received any corrected drawings. Some of the problems that exist with the Structural and Architectural Drawings are as follows; 1. Sheet S-1, Detail "F"— North and West Exterior Beams. Mr. Torres implicated that Detail 'F' does not apply and replace with Detail Won Sheet S-0. 2. Sheet S-0, Detail "K' was deleted and to be corrected and revised. 3. Sheet S-1, shows Detail "Q' at Column A , Grid 5 8 A' Grid 3. NO DETAIL "Q" EXISTS. 4. Sheet S-1, shows Detail 'C , between Grid Lines 1 & 2. NO DETAIL "C" EXISTS. 5. Sheet S-1, Section "8-8 , The Ramp that is between Column Lines 'G&H' there are no Dowels shown to connect this ramp to the 6' or 12' Grade Beams. 6. Sheet A24, Grid Line 5, Refers to Sheet A4-1, Detail 03 — In reference to the wall at Grid Line 5, Detail 3 on Drawing A41 Shows this wall to be 2' wide with steps. Drawing Sf shows beam Detail 'F' to apply at this location. R.T.G. needs a revision at this location to show which detail is correct and what the reinforcement requirements will be. 7. Sheet S-1, Detail 'F' Indicates a 12" wide Grade Beam & Sheet A2.4 indicates 24" wide Wall — We have been informed by Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA that a 2' wide wall with no steps is acceptable at this location. Please furnish rebar details. 8. Sheet S-0, Section '14' and Section '2-2' from bottom of Grade Beam to Top of Finished Slab shows 38' — Details 'A, 'B , 'D' & F' from bottom of Grade Beam to j7op of Finished Slab shows 30". We were directed during pier drilling by City representatives that the top of the pier concrete was to be 30" below finished floor elevation. Later it was decided that 38" below top of slab would be required for all piers located at columns. This change required that 30 piers had to be broken down 8. On Drawing SO the Drill Pier Schedule Drawing indicates the pier reinforcement is to extend 6" into the grade beam and be sleeved. Section "2-2' on this Drawing indicates the pier steel is to extend 18' into the grade beam. Detail "1-1" on Drawing S-0 shows no reinforcement protruding into the grade beam. These details are inconsistent and confusing. 9. Sheet S-0, Section "W" Grade Beam Detail at Existing Slab — Brick Ledge, Break out and pour Grade Beam. Note: If Brick Ledge is broken out the existing wall would fall down. 10. Sheet S-1 — General Note #9 — Specifies rebar clearances This can not be achieved due to 4- 1/2" slab thickness. In order to meet the requirements the inspector is demanding, which are; 3' bottom clearance, 1' of reinforcement, 1-1/2' clearance from top of slab to top of rebar equals 5- 1/2' therefore a 5-112'thick slab would be required. At the same time, it was brought to the attention to all In attendance that there was water continuously seeping from beneath the existing building slab into the proposed beam area. R.T.G. suggested that either cement stabilized sand or a seal slab be Installed at the existing slab, but was told this would not be necessary. As of this date R.T.G. is still mucking water and mud from this area and the source of this water still remains unknown. 1' Inspection — July 3, 2001 National Structure Engineer sent Juan Torres to inspect the placement of rebar for slab -on -grade. R.T.G. had installed the #6 Drop Bars tied to the slab matt and beneath the columns as shown in Section '1-1 "on Drawing SO. Juan Torres indicated they needed to be installed at 15' OC to match slab reinforcement. R. T. G. relocated all of the #6 Drop Bars as per Mr. Torres request. LaPorte City Hall Slab on Grade — Concrete Placement Page 2 of 3 2" d Inspection — July 9, 2001 Mr. Torres was sent to inspect the rebar for slab -on -grade. Once again he stated that the #6 Drop Bars were incorrect, that they needed to be tied to the grade beam steel, instead of the matt steel as previously directed and indicated on the Drawings in order to make the grade beam steel continuous at the top bars of grade beam reinforcement. Additionally, Mr. Torres added 2 #6 Drop Bars at each exterior column. These additional Drop Bars are not Indicated on Drawing SO, Section 7=2'. R.T.G. relocated and added rebarper Mr. -Torres direction: - At that time, at each column, Mr. Torres added 2 each #6x6'Bars each way to be located at the center of the grade beam reinforcement. Also, where the 4' electric conduit at column 'G-3' crossed the grade beam Mr. Torres required the grade beam be deepened to 35-1/2' instead of 30' as is shown on the plans. When the grade was deepened he required that 2 each #6x15' be added with 6 each #3 2x2' 'L' Bars. 3id Inspection — July 11, 2001 Once again Mr. Torres was sent to inspect the rebar for slab -on -grade. At this time, Mr. Torres said the #6 Drop Bars needed to be installed inside the stirrups in order to made a accurate jgk2. He stated that the details on the plans were incorrect. Previously, Juan Torres stated that in order for the slab matt to be continuous additional #4 Bars would need to be spliced in where the matt steel breaks at column block -outs. Section '1-l' on Drawing SO clearly shows a break in the slab reinforcement at column block -outs. R.T.G. installed the additional reinforcement at Mr. Torres' direction. At 8:30 AM, on July 11, 2001, Juan Torres told R.T.G. that the bars were correct but needed to be installed under the matt. Sheet S-0, Detail 'W (Grade Beam Detail at Existing Slab) R.T.G. was told to install 1 #5xl'6' Dowel Q 24' OC and to add 2 #6 Bar continuous. On Mr. Torres 3'd inspection (July 11, 2001) he directed R.T.G. to install #5 Dowels at the West Side of the existing slab grade beam. R.T.G. installed these dowel as directed. Due to all the rain we have received in the past, the bottom of the grade beams remained 12' wide, but the tops were 16' to 18' wide. To accommodate the additional width at the top of the grade beams, R.T.G. installed 2 #4 continuous wl#015'tie bars @ 5' OC, at the engineers direction. At 6:30 PM, July 110% Regan McPhail from the City of LaPorte gave the okay for R.T.G. to go ahead with the concrete pour scheduled for 5.30 AM, July 12, 2001. At 8:30 PM, July 11, 2001, Regan McPhail and Tommy Carpenter from The City of LaPorte and Juan Torres from National Structure Engineers had another inspection. At that time they informed R.T.G. that the rebar for slab -on -grade did not pass inspection because some #3 nolsing bars and #6 drop bars were not installed and the matt was too high. R.T.G. had installed the #3 Nolsing Bars and the #6 Drop Bars prior to 5:30 AM, July 12, 2001. Tommy Carpenter advised R.T.G. that the concrete brick holding the matt up needed to be moved to go directly under where the bar crossed at 15' OCEW, which is not indicated on the drawings, both Tommy Carpenter and Juan Torres moved some of these brick themselves and additionally indicated that all other bricks installed in this manner would need to be relocated. On Sheet S-1 it is calling for a 4-112' Slab w1#4 Qa 15' OCEW 8 Reber Chairs Q 45' OCEW. On July 12, 2001, at 5:00 AM Tommy Carpenter, the Inspector with the City of LaPorte, was requested to inspect these items. He claimed that he could not inspect them at that time because a National Structure Engineer representative was not present. On the morning of July 11, 2001, around 10:00 AM, all interested parties were send notification (via fax) that R.T.G. would begin concrete placement at 5:30 AM on the morning of July 12, 2001, therefore it was to the discretion of all concerned to be at the job site. On July 11, 2001, when Juan Torres (the Structural Engineer) was informed that R.T.G. would be placing concrete on July 12, 2001, he stated that he couldnY be there as he had family to deal with. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALIMODIFICATIONS FWD Page 1 of 1 File No.: 008 l J I 26Jul-01 Project Name: Additions to La ports City Hall La Porte, Texas Project No.: CLP Project No. 99-2206 RECEIVED Contractor: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 8 Descriptive Title: Section: Flawed plans 8 Specifications and Hindrance by Owner PLANNING Information: RFI No.: Requested by City of La Porte Item No. Description Amount Add Deduct Equipment 2 each pump trucks 2 hours it $115.00 x 2 each $ 460.00 1 each compressor (D 156.96 x 1 day Hertz E 156.96 Fuel for compresser E 15.00 / day x 1 day / deliver 8 pickup E 65.00 2 each Light Standards @ $120.66 ea 6 241.32 2 each vibrators x 637.98 each x 1 day E 75.78 Total Equipment 6 999.06 Materials 110 yards of 30008 concrete @ $50.00 / yard. Concrete was rerouted to other contractors and sold for 2000# concrete Cost to R.T.G. was $1,550.00 or $15.00 / yard 6 1.650.00 Sub Contractors Alcon Construction Services. Finishers 18 each x $108.00 6 1,944.00 Labors 10 each x $78.00 each 6 780.00 Total Sub Contractors 6 2,724.00 R.T.G.Building Company Labor 7/12 Jesus Ibara x 617.50/ man hour x 2 man hours $ 35.00 7/12 Cesar Reyes x $16.00 / man hour x 2 man hours $ 32.00 7/12 Victor Saniago x $9.00 x 2 man hours $ 18.00 7/12 Raul Cuervo x $10.00 / man hour x 2 man hours $ 20.00 7/12 Ricardo Serrato x $9.00 / man hour x 2 man hours $ 18.00 7/12 Martian Recendez x $9.00 / man hour x 2 man hours $ 18.00 7/12 William Udick x $25.00 / man hour x 4 man hours 6 100.00 Sub Total Labor $ 241.00 Labor Burden x .8300 x $241.00 $ 200.00 Total Labor $ 441.00 Sub Total $ 5,814.00 Overhead 8 Profit x 15% x $6002.00 E 872.00 Total Owner Hindrance 6 6,686.00 Unforceen Condition Item No. 1 Drawing (S7) Grade beam (W) plans show beam to be l'-0" due to overpour of existing grade beam, beam was made 7-0" wide. 170'-0" long 4 each Labors x 16 hours each x $9.00 each 6 576.00 Labor Forman x $18.00 per hour x 8 hours $ 144.00 Hall of spoils 170'4r x 1'-0" x 7-0" = 12-1 /2 cy yards $ 135.00 Labor burden .8300 x $720.00 $ 598.00 Sub Total 6 1,463.00 Item No. 2 Instructed to clean existing overpour 170'-0" x 1'-5" Labor 4 each x $9.00 x24 hours each E 864.00 Air Compresser 5 days Q $582.00 E 582.00 Hand wire brushes Q $6.00 each x 8 each 6 48.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $864.00 $ 717.00 Sub Total 6 2,211.00 1WF \ Page 2 of 3 Item No.3 Chip 8" off top of piers at direction of engineer. 30 ea caps Labors 2 each x $9.00 x 40 hours each $ 720.00 Compresser @ 581.54 / week $ 581.54 2 each 60# hammers Q137.81 each $ 275.62 Points @ $7.58 each x 8 each y 60.84 Air Hose 2 each x 100'-0" Q 6.50 each b 13.00 Fuel 5 days x $15.001 day $ 75.00 Re -Set Forms as per detail "K" 295-0" of forms were set as per plans Detail "F" after forms ' were set, we were Instructed by enginer to use DetairK": there for all forms had to be removed and re -set. Carpenter 4 each Q $18.00 per man hour x 40 man hours b 2,880.00 Labor 2 each $9.00 per man hour x 40 man hours each $ 720.00 300 If of 2x6 Q 10'-0" = 30 each x $5.35 each $ 160.50 600 If of 2x4 @ 10-7 = 60 each x $3.25 each $ 195.00 Mlsc power tools, cords genrator etc. 40 hours x $2.00 $ 80.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $4,320.00 $ 3,586.00 Sub Total 6 9,347.00 Item No. 4 Section 1-1 # 6 steel drop bars #6 steel drop bars were Installed as per plans. At the direction of engineer we removed all bars 8 re -installed them at 15" oc to match the slab steel. Iron worker 2 each @ $21.00 per man hour x 16 man hours each $ 672.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 y 558.00 Sub Total $ 1,230.00 Item No. 5 After #6 drop bars were Installed at 15" oc, engineer instructed R.T.G. To install the drop bars to the grade beam steel. Ironworker 2 each Q $21.00 per man hour x 16 hours ea $ 672.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 $ 558.00 Sub Total $ 1,230.00 Item No. 6 We were than Instructed to tie the #6 bars to the•Sturips. Ironworker 2 each Q $21.00 per man hour x 16 hours as $ 672.00 Labor Burden .M x $672.00 y 558.00 Sub Total S 1,230.00 Item No. 7 Add 2 each #6 bars 6-0" long to Interior colums at mid span 8 add 4 each #6 bars at the exterior colums. Total 30 colums. Iron worker 32 man hours @ $21.00 per man hour $ 672.00 # 6 re -bar x 20-0" = 45 each Q $7.10 each $ 320.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 $ 558.00 Sub Total $ 1,650.00 Item No. 8 At the direction of the engineer add #6 drop bars at all colums at the bottom at the grade beam. Total 30 each Add 4 each at Interior colums 8 2 each at exterior colums Ironworker 48 man hours Q $21.00 per hour $ 1,008.00 54 each #6 bars x 29-0" x $7.10 $ 383.40 Labor Burden .8300 x $1,008.00 y 1337.00 Sub Total S 2,228.00 Item No. 9 Lower slab steel mat. Remove all existing chairs and conc blocks, Add 2 1/4" chairs, this requires 29491f of grade beam steel to be un lied at each strup, 1475 times approx and leaned and re -bed. Iron worker 8 each men ♦g $21.00 per hour x 56 hours each - $ 9.408.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $9,408.Do $ 7.809.00 Sub Total It 17,217.00 Sub Total Construction Cost $ 37,696.00 R.T.G. Overhead & Pro0t 15% x $37697.00 $ 5.654.00 Total Construction Cost $ 60,036.00 Page 3 or 3 NOTE: As of the 30 day of July, 19 days have elapased, the General Conditions cost to the City of La Porte is 5476.00 per day. I.T.G. Building Company reserves the right to quote. on all costs that may be unforeseen at this time. THIS CHANGE REQUIRES A CONTRACT EXTENSION OF DAYS. 19 Through July 30 DELAY TIME • 19 General Conditions 19. days x $157.84 $ 2,998.96 Supervision 19 days x $140.00 $ 2,660.00 Labor Burden. 8300 x $2,660.00 $ 2,207.80 Sub Total $ 7,867.00 Total construction cost $ 60,036.00 R.T.G. Profit $7867.00 x 15% $ 1,180.00 Total $ 69.083.00 ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ARE ATTACHED. R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO QUOTE ON ALL COSTS THAT MAY BE UNFORESEEN AT THIS TIME. UILDING COMPANY i nock '' Damte:July/ SI01 I? va- =ertz INVOICE ORIGINAL INVOICE 7117101 THANK YOU FOR RENTING FROM HERTZ! CUSTOMER NUMBER: 1699714 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 2225208-001 jl%b� 1111111111M 111111111111111111111 BILLING INVOICE NUMBEI: 520801 RTG BUILDING COMPANY 2511-8 NASA RD 1 SEABROOK, TX 77686.3474 PO NUMBER: JOB NUMBER: ORDERED BY: SIGNED BY: DELIVERED BY: RENTAL START DATEr CLOSED BY: SALES REP: '11I - RTO BUILDING COM CHARLES CHARLES WALKER HERTZ 7104101 7:00 ROLANDO PALACIOS MARK WEISS SHIPPING ADDRESS: HERTZ LOCATION; 412 RENTAL DAYS: INVOICE FROM DATE: ii 6 7/04101 17:67 RTG BUILDING COMPANY 6230 SOUTH LOOP EAST INVOICE THRU DATE: 7111101 7:00 401 WEST FAIRMONT HOUSTON, TX 77087 LA PORTE. TX 77571 713441-2391 ORIGINAL ADJ. TOTAL PAYMENT TERMS ARE NET 10 DAYS RENTAL CHARGES 435.00 436.00 OTHER CHARGES 2.50 2.50 Customer Is responsible for FUEL, FLATS, DAMAGE and DEWERYIPICK UP 50.00 50.00 CLEANUP FEES. LOW 12% of Rent Chys 52.20 52.20 LATE CHARGES MAY APPLY TAXABLE CHARGES 539.70 539.70 FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND BILLING SALES TAX 41.84 41.84 INQUIRIES CALL 1-800-456.6492 TOTAL CHARGES 681.64 581.34 DIRECT PAYMENT TO: HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL P.O. BOX 25390 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73126-0390 _ Sauimsent # Min Day Leek 4 *eak A 1 COMPRESSOR/375CFM/DSL/P0RTABL 145.00 145.00 435.00 10:�15.00 435:00 006370906 Make: I-R Model: P375WCU Ser #: 316674 i HR OUT: 267.80 HR IN: 267.80 MIL CHG: 200' OF HOSE SALES ITEMS: Qty item number Unit Price 1 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY FEE EA 2.500 66B6000001 Dstach and send bottom portion wOh Payment. RTG BUILDING COMPANY 711W01 25114 NASA RO 1 SEABROOK, TX 77586-3474 �- Custamor Num*: 1099714 801ina Imrass Numlb6r: 520801 2.50 581.54 BRANCH: 412 Equipment Rental BILL TO CUSTOMER: 1699714 9412 HERTZ EQUIPMENT 6230 SOUTH LOOP EAST HOUSTON, TX 77087 713-641-2391 EST START: 7103/01 14:30 SHIPPED BY: MARK WEISS ORDER DATE: 7103/01 Pox/JOB#: RTG BUILDING COMPANY 2511-B NASA RD 1 SEABROOK, TX 77586-3474 DESCRIPTION/CHA EST RETURN: 7/10/01 8:00 ORDERED BY: CHARLES SALESPERSON: 417 / 1 - RTG BUILDING COM Qty Equipment # Min 1 COMPRESSOR/ 3 7 tFM/DSL/ PORTABL 145.00 006370906 Make: I-R Model: P375WCU HR OUT: 267.80 MIL CHG: 200' OF HOSE 1 BREAKER/60-69#/AIR 013608206 Make: SULLAIR Alt Eqp #: 013608206 4 MOIL POINTS 1 BREAKER/60-69#/AIR 013608205 Make: SULLAIR Alt Eqp #: 013608205 SALES ITEMS: Qty Item number ..—.1.1 .tse ve R.A. No. 2225208 PAGE SHIPPING ADDRESS RTG BUILDING COMPANY 401 WEST FAIRMONT LA PORTE, TX 77571 281-838.1113 DROP DATE: DROP TIME: SALES COORDINATOR: A 1k- �v Rate I dude_m tenance service 31 Day �eek' 4 Week Amo�t 145.00 ,41` 35. 0 �.035.00 ^N1 Ser #: 31 45.00 45.0 1 00 295.00 Model: MPB-60A Ser W 45.00 45.00 295.00 Model: MPB-60A Ser 0 9W Unit Price CONTINUED CAREFULLY READ TERMS AND CONDITIONS N REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE vithatanding payment of the LOW lea, Customer I. liable for all damage to [ha Equipment am expense of HERC caused by the Equipment being used or Operated in violation of the farms and Conditions Players. Side of [his papa or in violators of the LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE. AGRAPH 12. ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE IS IN UEU OF III ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF CHANTABILITY AND THE IMPUED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE: AND liil ALL OBUGATIONS ON THE PART OF HERC TO CUSTOMER FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT LIMITED TO, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASING, MAINTENANCE, USE, OPERATION, STORAGE, :TION, DISMANTUNG OR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EQUIPMENT, CUSTOMER REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS FULLY INSPECTED THE EQUIPMENT AND THAT SAME IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND UR. CUSTOMER IS LABILE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF LAW ARISING OUT CUSTOMER'S USE, POSSESSION OR OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS RENTED WANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ABOVE AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. CUSTOMER REPRESENTS HAVING READ AND AGREED AME. LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER (LOW) IS NOT INSURANCE. The Charge for LOW is 12,00 % of Initial gross rental charges. Customer accepts It declines LOW. If Customer accepts LOW, in consideration Of the charge shown above, Lessor agrees to waive certain claims against customer for loss of or damage to Equipment, In accordance with the terms aM conditions on forth in Paragraph B, on the Reverse Side of this page and in the LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE which Customer hereby acknowledges receiving. Customer ditioseknowleoges the, the Equipment will be returned In a good-Gsan, and uncontaminated conn, has of any aM all hazardous substances. ustomer Title Terms are Net 10 Days Not valid without Barcode Name ter Signature Oete IIIIIIII I IIIIIIII (III IIIII IIIII (IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII Fully read the terms and conditions on reverse side of this page INVOICE ORIGINAL INVOICE 7f12/01 CUSTOMER NUMBER: 169M4 DOCUMENT NUMBER: 2244184.001 BILLING INVOICE NUMBER: alai PO NUMBER: CHARGES RTG BUILDING COMPANY JOB NUMBER: 2 -RTG BUILDING COM 2511-B NASA RD 1 ORDERED BY: MARK WEISS SEABROOK, TX 77596-3474 SIGNED BY: CHARLES WALKER DELIVERED BY: HERTZ RENTAL START DATE: 71UIOI 17:00 CLOSED BY: DOUG STOBBE BALES REP. MARK WEISS SHIPPING ADDRE99: RTG BUILDING COMPANY 604 W. FAIRMI NvT LA PORTE, TX 77571 HERTZ LOCATION: 412 1110 HOWARD AVENUE DEER PARK, TX 77536 281-479-6793 PAYMENT TERMS ARE NET 10 DAYS I lkvq 1 sly: V 61T-" 2015 fWaR 9 91Y1 FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND BILLING INQUIRES CALL 1-800.456.6492 DIRECT PAYMENT TO: HERTZ EQUIPNIEINT RENTAL P.O. BOX 26390 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 7312""0 Cuetener I, rgBBaw" ter FUSI., PLATS, DAMAGE eetd CLEANUP LEES. THANK YOU FOR RENTING FROM HERTZ! INVOICE FROM DATE: INVOICE THRU DATE: 7111101 17:00 7/12/Ol 9:23 RENTAL CHARGES 150.00 OTHER CHARGES 2.50 FUEL CHARGES 14AS DELIVERY/ACK UP 40.00 LDW 12% of Rent Cass 18.00 TAXABLE CHARGES 210.50 SALES TAX 16.34 'TOTAL CHARGES 241�2 REQUESTED, NET DUE PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT: in Day Week 4 Week Amount 1 LIGHT TOWER/4000 WATT 75.00 75.00 195.00 465.00 75.00 536409053 Make: COLEMAN Model: MH4000RL Ser #: RL2841 Alt Eqp #: 536409053 HR OUT: 1221.80 HR IN: 1221.80 MIL CHG: 1 LIGHT TOWER/4000 WATT 75.00 75.00 195.00 465.00 75.00 536401006 Make: WACKER Model: LT4Z Ser #: 5222900 HR OUT: 391.10 HR IN: 391.10 MIL CHG: SALES ITEMS: Qty Item number Unit Price 1 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY FEE EA 2.500 2.50 6686000001 3.76 REFUEL EA 3.850 14.48 4041000001 Detect and Bend bon" pmtlen with payment. RTG BUILDING COMPANY W12/01 Customer Nunbsr: 16S9714 2511.8 NASA RD 1 Wing Invoice Number: 41MI SEABROOK, TX 775BW474 PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT: ►`au� R.A. No. 2244184 r �' .. Equipvnen!lPprrtal BRANCH: 418 BILL TO CUSTOMER: 1699714 SHIPPING ADDRESS 9418 HERTZ EQUIP. DEER PARK RTG BUILDING COMPANY RTG BUILDING COMPANY 1110 HOWARD AVENUE 2511-8 NASA RD 1 604 W. FAIRMONT DEER PARK, TX 77536 SEABROOK, TX 77586.3474 LA PORTE, TX 77571 281-478.6393 281-867-9595 DESCRIPTION/CHARGES EST START: 7/11/01 16:17 EST RETURN: 7114/01 16:17 DROP DATE: SHIPPED BY: JASON ORDERED BY: MARK WEISS DROP TIME: ORDER DATE: 7/11/01 SALESPERSON: 417 SALES COORDINATOR: KENDELL L. KEGG POp / JOB#: CHARLES / 2 - RTG BUILDING COM Rates Include maintenance service Qty Equipment # Min Day Week 4 Week Amount SALES ITEMS: Qty Item number Unit Price PICKUP CHARGE 20.00 Customer is responsible for fuel, flats, damages and clean up fees and MUST call the branch to get a release # for all equipment releases All� CAREFULLY READ TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE '10MI CIUMCInp COYment of the LOW fee, Customer Is neat for 0 dmage to the Eoulament end experue of HERC ceryed by this Equipment pWnp used or olNee1w In y1w ron of Me terms anus condiftu m 00 Rwass Side of this Pepe or In vlalahan of Iha LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE. ARAGRAPH 12. ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE IS IN LIEU OF 111 ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF RERCHANTASIUTY AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE: AND (U) ALL OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF HERC TO CUSTOMER FOR DAMAGES. INCLUDING. BUT 40T LIMITED TO, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL. CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASING- MAINTENANCE, USE. OPERATION, STORAGE. '.RECTION. DISMANTUNG OR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EQUIPMENT. CUSTOMER REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS FULLY INSPECTED THE EQUIPMENT AND THAT SAME IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND 1EPAIR. CUSTOMER IS LIABLE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF LAW ARISING OUT CUSTOMER'S USE, POSSESSION OR OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS RENTED 'URSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ABOVE AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. CUSTOMER REPRESENTS HAVING READ AND AGREED r0 SAME. LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER (LOW) IS NOT INSURANCE. The Charge for LOW Is 12.00 % of initial gross rental Charges. Customer acceptses or declines LOW. If CM=W Wceors LOW, M ponsse sdon of Shawn above, bite ro w W e cleons against fa lose or of C, I Accept the loss and Damage Waiver (LOW) a to Eq danc Con to in Puag n Damage Si e, Of o P g e" In t ei Lien roa D ni;DAMAGE A E WAIVE G fortes In h Customragn B. On IM Rwaae Side, of tMe pope and In tl1e LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE wMch Customer larepy eckrowledgn recNv4p. Customer ecenowledpp that the Equipment will be retunW In a good, clean• " uncontaminated coMplon, free of any eM ail pererdous substances. rant Customer Name usromer Signature Tide Gas Terms are Net 10 Days Not valid without Barcode arefully read the terms and conditions on reverse side of this page - - - - - "Able R.A. No. 2244184 2 �• Equipment Rental PAGE 1 BRANCH: 418 BILL TO CUSTOMER: 1699714 SHIPPING ADDRESS 1418 HERTZ EQUIP. DEER PARK RTG BUILDING COMPANY RTG BUILDING COMPANY 1110 HOWARD AVENUE 2511-13 NASA RD 1 604 W. FAIRMONT )EER PARK, TX 77536 SEABROOK, TX 77586-3474 LA PORTE, TX 77571 ZBI-478-6393 281-867-9595 EST START: 7/11/01 16:17 SHIPPED BY: JASON ORDER DATE: 7111/01 PON/JOB#: CHARLES Qty Equipment # DESCRIPTION/CHARGES EST RETURN: 7/14/01 16:17 ORDERED BY: MARK WEISS SALESPERSON: 417 / 2 - RTG BUILDING COM 4000 WATT' Make: COLEMAN Alt Eqp #: 536409053 HR OUT: 1221.80 MIL CHG: 7i 'LIGHT TOWER/4000 WATT) 536401006 Make: WACKER MR OUT: 391.10 MIL CHG: /n) 75. 75 Mod 4000RL DROP DATE DROP TIME: SALES COORDINATOR: Rates include maintenance service Day Week 4 Week Amount 00 195.00 465.00 Ser #: RL2841 75.00 . 75.00 195.00 465.00 # Model:" LT4Z Ser : 5222900 SALES ITEMS: Qty Item number Unit 1 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY FEE EA 6686000001 DELIVERY CHARGE Price 2.500 2.50 . 20.00 CONTINUED CAREFULLY READ TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE lotwithstanding payment of the LOW toe. Customer is liable for all damage to the Equipment and expense of HERC caused by the Equipment being used or operated In violation of the terms and conditions in the Reverse Side of this one or in violation of the LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE. 'ARAGRAPH 12. ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE IS IN LIEU OF gl ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF AERCHANTASILITY AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE: AND (II) ALL OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF HERC TO CUSTOMER FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT 40T LIMITED TO, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASING, MAINTENANCE, USE, OPERATION, STORAGE, :RECTION, DISMANTUNG OR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EQUIPMENT, CUSTOMER REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS FULLY INSPECTED THE EQUIPMENT AND THAT SAME IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND IEPAIR. CUSTOMER IS LIABLE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF LAW ARISING OUT CUSTOMER'S USE, POSSESSION OR OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS RENTED 'URSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ABOVE AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. CUSTOMER REPRESENTS HAVING READ AND AGREED '0 SAME. LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER (LOW) IS NOT INSURANCE. The Charge for LOW is 12.00 % of Initial gross rental charges. Customer accepts or declines LOW. If Customer accepts LOW, In consideration of the charge shown above. Lessor agrees to waive certain claims against astomer for lose of or damage to Equipment. In accordance with the terms and conditions am forth in Paragraph S. on the Reverse Sid. of this page and In the LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE which Customer hereby acknowledges receiving. Customer acknowledges that the EWipmem will be neNmad in a good, clean, and uncontaminated condition, free of any and ail hmardous substance.. Terms are Net 10 Days Not valid without Barcode int Customer Name Title usmmer Signature Date (IIIII IIIII III I I I III IIIII III I IIIII IIIII ((III (III (III arefully read the terms and conditions on reverse side of this page F&L 0)ncrofeSemicK Inc. P.O. BOX 636 LEAGUE CITY, TX 77574 (HOU) 2813164M (FAX) 281.316-1991 BILL TO: Rain Tree Group :" Nq 30 07/07/01 JOB SITE: 604 Fairmont Pkwy PUMP #15 39 Meter 2 lirs Concrete Pumping Sales Tax f HVQJ DATE INVOICE# 07/26/2001 108054 115 00 230.00 0.00 ,y .`t F&L Concrete Services, Inc. P.O. BOX 636 LEAGUE CITY, TX 77574 (HOU) 2B1.316-2203 (FAX) 281-316-1991 BILL TO: Rain Tree Group Net 30 DATE INVOICE # 07/26/2001 10WS3 •�M�x1�•'.ti`•-od �J?e�'.t//��nJl �. `JOB :'ri �'n�Y.I"' 'i1 SITF 604 Fairmont Pkwy " Porte City. Hall PU14lP N2 36 Meta `LTN i>•`Y� i Concrete Pumping . 115.0 230.00 .. f, Sales Tax g 2S%:. 0,00 .'.L'r <.���.'�:(xa'•• ^1;,.i 1. .' �� T � l}�.;4:'+ 1 .y •'1iJ: , Mtn - nR%":_h.3i,+{�:S�L�':.^: i�3`,".. .'�.r�s'. .. s. 9...�%.'�-w�'$:�Eh�::.,��':: i<X;•. Cc in CAMPBF I rT. COM'1'Fi & l/if711 (281) 443-8005 (281) 592-5201 FAX: (281) 592-1785 ,e CUSTOMER NO. PAGE NUMBER INVOICE REMIT TO: CAMPBELL CONCRETE & MATERIALS, L.P. P.O. BOX 201627 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77216-1627 INVOICE NO: `._ - PROJECT NO. ORDER NO. DELIVFFWAD - PURCHASE ORDERNUMBER.. - r TERMSSi Wpm' - - TERIAL PLANT.. NUMBER oE�rvEREER UNIT PRICE TAXABLE EXTENSION 14ONTAXABLE EXTENSION 037E yments are due at P.O. Box 201627, Houston, Texas, •1827. Venue for any suit for collection hereunder TOTALTONS TOTALYARDS TOTAL SALES TAX �O to in Harris County, Texas or Liberty County, Texas, option of Campbell Concrete & Materials, L.P. _ ;;JCu130 01 12:24p p.1 RT.G. BUILDING COMPANY 11502 West Main Street La Porte, Tens 77571 PHONE: 281-867-4094 FAX: 281.867-4096 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE: NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSA=D: 4 ATTENTION: 0 R, i -4, , d 7 COMPANY:( FAX NUMBER: PHONE FROM: REMARKS: If you have questions please calL N)'C57 Y aTO Jul 30 01 12:25p i 'ip- p.2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL/MODIFICATIONS Page f of 1 File No.: 008 25-Jul-01 Project Name: Additions to La Porte City Hall La Porte, Texas Project No.: CLP Project No. 99-2206 Contractor: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY Descriptive Title: Section: Flawed plans 8 Specifications and Hindrance by Owner Information: RFI No.: Requested by City of La Porte Item o. Description moun Add Deduct Equipment 2 each pump tacks 2 hours x $115.00 x 2 each f 460.00 1 each compressor Q 156.96 x 1 day Hertz f 156.96 Fuel for compresser S 15.00 / day x 1 day / deliver 8 pickup S 65.00 2 each Light Standards Q $120.66 ea $ 241.32 2 each vibrators x $37.98 each x 1 day $ 75.78 Total Equipment f 099.06 Matcrials 110 yards of 3000s concrete Q $50.00 / yard. Concrete Was rerouted to other contractors and sold for 20009 concrete Cost to R.T.G. was $1,850.00 a $15.00 / yard $ 1,650.00 Sub Contractors Alcon Construction Services. Finishers 18 each x $108.00 $ 1,944.00 Labors 10 each x $76.00 each f 760.00 Total Sub Contractors It 2,724.00 R.T.G.Building Company labor 7/12 Jesus Were x $17.SW man hour x 2 man hours $ 35.00 7/12 Cesar Reyes x $16.00 / man lour x 2 roan lours f 32.00 7112 Victor Saniago x f9.00 x 2 man hours $ 18.00 7112 Raul Cuervo x $10.00/ man hour x 2 man hours $ 20.00 7/12 Ricardo Serrato x $9.00 / man hour x 2 men hours f 18.00 7/12 Marciarlo Recendez x $9.00 / man low x 2 man hours S 18.00 7/12 W61lam Udick x $25.01) / man hour x 4 man hours $ 100.00 Sub Total Labor f 241.00 Labor Burden x .8300 x $241.00 $ 200.00 Total Labor f 441.00 Sub Total $ 5,014.00 Warhead d Profit x 15% x $6002.00 $ 872.00 Total Owner Hindrance f 6,686.00 Unforceen Condition Item No. 1 Drawing (S7) Grade beam (W) plans show beam to be 1'-0" due to overpour of existing grade beam, beam was made Z-7 wide. 170'-l1" long 4 each Labors x 16 hours each x $9.00 each f 576.00 Labor Farman x $18.00 per tour x 8 hours $ 144.00 Hall of spoils 170'-0" x 1'-0" x 2-0" • 12-1 /2 cy yards $ 136.00 Labor burden .8300 x $720.00 S 598.00 Sub Total f 1,453.00 Item No. 2 Instructed to clean exlsting ovarpour 170-X x 1'-5" Labor 4 each x $9.00 x24 hours each f 8a4.00 Air Compresser 5 days C 558200 f 582.00 Hand wire brushes Q $6.00 each x 8 each f 48.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $864.00 S 717.00 Sub Total f 2,211.00 Iul 30 01 12:25p p.3 Page 2 of 3 Item No.3 Chip 8" off top of piers at direction of engineer. 30 so caps Labors 2 each x $9.00 x 40 hours each $ 720.00 Compresser @ 581.54 / week $ 581.54 2 each 60S hammers 0137.81 each $ 275.62 Points @ $7.58 each x 8 each $ 60.64 Air Hose 2 each x I W-0" @ 6.50 each $ 13.00 Fuel 5 days x $15.00 / day $ 75.00 Re -Set Fors as per detail "K" 295'4r of fortes were sat as per plans DelaO'F' after forms were set, we were instructed by enginer to use DetairK": there for all fors had to be removed and re -eel. Carpenter 4 each @ $16.00 per man hour x 40 man hours $ 2.880.00 Labor 2 each $9.00 per man tour x 40 men hours each $ 720.00 300It of 2x6 10'-0" = 30 each x $5.35 each $ 160.50 6001f of 2x4 10-V - 60 each x $3.25 each $ 195.00 Misc paver tools, cords genrator etc. 40 tours x $2.00 $ 80.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $4,320.00 $ 3,586.00 Sub Total $ 9,347.00 Item No. 4 Section 1-1 8 6 steel drop bars 96 steel drop bars were Instafted as per plans. At the direction of engineer we removed all bars 8 re -installed them at 15' oc to match the slab steel. Iron worker 2 each @ $21.00 per man hour x 16 man hours each $ 572.00 Labor Burden .8300 x S672.00 $ 558.00 Sub Total $ 1.230.00 Item No. 5 After 06 drop bars were installed at 15" oc, engineer instructed R.T.G. To install the drop bars to the grade beam steel. Ironworker 2 each @ $21.00 per man hour x 16 hours ea $ 872.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 $ 558.00 Sub Total S 1,230.00 Item No. 6 We were than Instructed to tie the 06 bars to the Studps. Ironworker 2 each @ $21.00 per man tour x 16 hours ea $ 672.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 $ 558.00 Sub Total 6 1,230.00 Item No. 7 Add 2 each #6 bars 6-0" long to interim column at mid span & add 4 each 88 bars at the exterior colums. Total 30 colums. Iron worker 32 man hours @ $21.00 per man hour $ 672.00 0 6 re -bar x 2tY-0" a 45 each @ $7.10 each $ 320.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $672.00 $ $58.00 Sub Total S 1.550.00 Item No. 8 At the direction of the engineer add 06 drop bars at a8 column at the bottom at the grade beam. Total 30 each Add 4 each at Interior colums 8 2 each at exterior column Ironworker 48 man hours @ $21.00 per hour $ 1,008.00 54 each 06 bars x 20'-0" x $7.10 $ 053,40 Labor Burden.8300 x$1,008.00 $ 837.00 Sub Taal S 2,228.00 Item No. 9 Lower slab steel mat. Remove all existing chairs and conc blocks. Add 2 1 /4' chairs, this requires 2949 If or grade beam steel to be un tied at each strup, 1475 times approx and leaned and retied. Iron worker 8 each man @ $21.00 per hour x 56 hours each $ 9.408.00 Labor Burden .8300 x $9,408.00 $ 7,809.00 Sub Total S 17,217.00 Sub Total Construction Cost $ 37,696.00 R.T.G. Overhead 8 Profit 15% x $37697.00 $ 5,654.00 Total Construction Cost $ 50,030.00 Jul 30 01 12:25p . P., p.4 Page 3 of 3 NOTE: As of the 30 day of July, 19 days have eiapased, the General Conditions cost to the City of La Porte Is $476.00 per day. R.T.G. Building Company reserves the right to quote. on all costs that may be unforeseen at this time. THIS CHANGE REQUIRES A CONTRACT EXTENSION OF DAYS. 19 Through July 30 DELAY TIME • 19 General Conditions 19. days x $157.84 $ 2,90.96 Supervision 19 days x $140.00 $ 2,650.00 Labor Burden . 8300 x $2,660.00 $ 2.207.80 Sub Total 6 7,867.00 Total construction cost 3 60,036.00 R.T.G. Pmfd $7867.00 x 15% $ 1,180.00 Total 6 69,083.00 ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ARE ATTACHED. R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO QUOTE ON ALL COSTS THAT MAY BE UNFORESEEN AT THIS TIME. WILDING COMPANY k �Da1e:Juy, /Ot REC MEETING NOTES PLANNING LaPorte City Hall July 16, 2001 RE: Site Review In Attendance: Charles Walker Will Uzick Michael Skoller Reagan McPhail Tommy Carpenter Robert McKinney 1) The City of LaPorte presented RTG with a list of deficiencies from their foundation review that must be corrected to pass their approval from the City. The list was extensive and not reviewed in detail at the meeting. 2) We discussed aspects of the drawings in question with RTG. Confusion with RTG as to slab thickness based on their interpretation of the drawings was discussed. Michael Skoller reviewed the intent of the slab thickness and the notes regarding clearances. RTG requested clarification from Skoller. We reviewed the condition in the field and discussed the masonry supports to the reinforcing and the position of the reinforcing within the slab. Skoller stated that the reinforcing should be placed near the middle of the slab. 3) We reviewed field conditions at several locations to clarify intent of the drawings for RTG. Skoller reviewed existing conditions at the columns and pointed out conditions that were incorrect based on the drawings. Skoller made suggestions for correction that would possibly avoid disassembling the slab steel and would bring the conditions in compliance with the intent of the drawings. 4) We reviewed the condition at the existing grade beam at the face of the north wall. The north wall existing grade beam contained mud on the face of the wall below the over pour which may prevent the foundation from bonding correctly if left without dowels as per details. Correction of the detail was reviewed and suggestions were made to allow the condition to be corrected without completely disassembling the condition. 5) The condition of the west ramp was reviewed. LaPorte City Hall Meeting Notes ____July_1.6, 2001 Page 2 of 2 6) The stirrups were reviewed in the beams. The stirrups appear to be too high and are pushing the matt steel above the top of the slab in places. The stirrups will be repositioned at an angle to correct the condition. 7) Timing was discussed. RTG will target making correction and pouring around the 23`d or 24'b of July. SARobcrt McKinney\CrrY OF LAPORTE4m071716.doc Jul',27 01 03:19p &T.G.BULEDLVG C01WAIVY P.O. Box 0753 SEABROOK, TEXAS 77586-0753 PHONE: 2814674094 FAX. 281-86740% DATE: -7 - rz--? - O f NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSM11TED:-14 ATTENTION: felt K. (i3si cc I COMPANY: FAX NUMER. PHONE NUMBER: FROM: REMARKS: If you have questions please call. 4-1 --� k c 0 "' * -, !,. .- v- Z-7 j 1; ?A" 4 <W..4 lr. Vf11 .Ju1227 01 O3:19p p.2 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFT NO:- -F> -7_ 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Ball, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: S 8. RESPONSE CODE: XCRITICAL (j ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED: WHAT C.t_t�,1za►.1c�. I S 1ZcQ u 12c D � RoL��I R ItJFCRcc_fticOT 7-0 7-F17 3S I Q1PNC&T'e:S 7-PA--C �oTc QI ON DOL.� tJO7- AI'Pt-4 1-o -I - Z&- O 1 12. RESPONSE: 13. DATE ARCHITECT/PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. It the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7— Changes in the Work. 7a mn.. 04'.. �� ? V1-- FNA t L� Ju1.:27 01 03: 19p p.3 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFl NO: 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: So 8. RESPONSE CODE: KCRITICAL ( ] ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10, INFORMATION REQUIRED: ALA ot-,J you \AJA t.rl... -7 yc TX f0,F0'9CG t`+C1\.r r C rfl-ln�� e� c (Signature) 12. RESPONSE: DATE 13. DATE ARCIIITECf[PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Rork. 7.. V� oj. AB c ry AFTER STEEL PIPE COLUMN INSTALLED ff0 - - o to N O GRADE Ba✓gM EiG�NG I �I � I I Z -i 1' NON -SHRINKAGE I o GROUT 00 I. I Lo co I �) W M -*Co DR OF BAR 7- EW • 1 24" � Co (2) ((6WARS TOP & BOTTOM -� & O 16 BARS 0 MIDDLE 9 W/ #3 TIES 0 24 O.C. i=W TYPICAL INTERIOR FOOTING SECTION '1-1' '.LE f,EPTH (MATCH EXISTING) N 5 1/2" — PROVIDE 13 DOWELS 15.O.C. X 4• LONG DEND 24 DOWN 99 INTO EXTERIOR BEAM UBAR — PER PN (5 NOSING a Y� _____ ..�G-G 5 NOSING 7 .. �' � R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY _A RAINTREE COMPANY 11503 West Main St"« PHONE: 281-867-4094 La Pone, Texas 77571 Fax: 281-867-4096 June 15, 2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. PLANNING Planning Director City of La Porte P.O. Box 1115 LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115 RE: Project No. Additions to La Porte City Hall Subject: Excessive Weather, Flood of 2001 Dear Mr. Kneupper: Excessive weather has delayed the production of the above referenced project; this delay has caused undue expense to R.T.G. building Company. It appears at this time there will be an increase in the amount of the contract sum to cover the cost of additional work and lost time, and an increase in the project time as well. We are proceeding with the assembly of all component pieces and will complete a complete detailed analysis of all project effects. Upon conclusion, the final change proposal will be submitted . . Please consider this your formal notification in accordance with the requirements of the General Conditions. Per Article 4.3. General Conditions of the contract ' s rely, ack 1 .Hancock Mr. Robert McKutny, AIA cc: Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY _A RAIN7REE COMPANY 11502 West Main Sbvd PHONE: 281-867-4094 La Porte, Texas 77571 FAX 281.867-4096 July 13, 2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director Coty of La Porte P.O.Box1115 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall. CLP Project No. 99-2206 Dear Mr. Kneupper: The undersigned represents R.T.G. Building Company with reference to various claims previously documented by R.T.G. Building Company. Please fiad enclosed prior correspondence with your office transmitted during the course of R.T.G. Building Company's work on subject project. The project sustained delays due to sever weather on June 9 and 10 ° • Which resulted in delays and damages to R.T.G. Building Company. These damages are the responsibility of the City of La Porte in accordance with the contract documents. Please be advised this is a formal claim and is being made pursuant to the contract between the parties. R.T.G. Building Company does not agree nor otherwise ratify the City of La Porte right too unilaterally decide these claims by the City Engineer or the City's Architect, but is preserving its rights pursuant to all relevant laws and contractual provisions. Demand is made for approval and payment of these claims. Since ly, ack . Han ock cc: Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL/MODIFICATIONS Page 1 of 1 File No.: 007 Project Name: Additions to La porte City Hall La Porte, Texas Project No.: CLP Project No. 99-2206 Contractor: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY Descriptive Title: Section: Storm Damage due to Allson, Act of God Information: RFI No.: Requested by City of La Porte Equipment 2" pump 1 day Nations Rent E 40.29 3/4" pump 1 day " E 19.68 Hose for pumps 2 each E 67.11 Fuel for pumps 1 day $5.00 $ 5.00 Backhoe $ 1.767.47 Fuel for Backhoe $ 45.00 Compactor 2 each days Neff Rental $ 108.25 Fuel for Compactor 2 each days $10.00 Backhoe $ 1,418.00 Fuel for Backhoe $15.00 / day x 9 days $ 135.00 Compressor Hertz $ 470.88 Fuel for Compressor $15.00 / day x 30 days $ 450.00 2" Submersible Pump R.T.G. $33.55 / day x 31 days $ 1,040.00 1 each pump truck 1 each hour E 315.00 Sub Total Equipment $ 5,891.61 Materials McCoys 11 each rools poly Q $41.85 / rool E 460.35 McCoys 24 each rolls tape Q $6.00 / roll $ 144.00 Concrete 100.02 cubic yards extra Q $50.00 / yard E 5.001.00 Lows Tie Wire $ 264.41 McCoys 5 each rolls poly x $41,85 / roll $ 209.25 Re -bar Supply added by engineer y 1,040.33 10111ngsworth Termite re -treatment $ 2,407.00 Alson Place added re -bar Damaged by storm E 6,505.68 Charles Martin Trucking remove spoils from storm $ 3,465.00 Sub Total Materials E 19,497.02 R.T.G. Labor (See attached) E 21,422.68 Labor Bunten $ x.8300 $ 17,780.82 Total R.T.G. Labor $ 39,203.50 R.T.G.Overhead 8 Profit 15% x $64,592.00 $ 9,688.00 Total Construction Cost $ 74,280.00 THIS CHANGE REQUIRES A CONTRACT EXTENSION OF DAYS. 29 DELAY TIME - 29 General Conditions 29. days x $157.84 $ 4,577.36 Supervision 29 days x $140.00 $ 4,060.00 Labor Burden. 8300 x $4060.00 $ 3,369.80 Sub Total $ 12,007.36 Total construction cost $ 74,280.00 R.T.G. Profit $12007 x 15% $ 1.801.00 Total $ 88,088.00 FAXD l�EI 08Jul-01 ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ARE ATTACHED. R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO QUOTE LaPorte City Hall Storm Loss June 6, 2001 01ru July 6, 2001 Total Labor Cost Name Rate Hours Cost Labor Bill Jews lam OTQ 26.25 a 210.00 8/6 Denis Santos Rag Q 9.00 8 72.00 8/8 Jesus Ibem Reg Q 17.50 3 52.50 6/8 Eric Conejo Rag Q 9.00 3 27.00 6/11 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 8/11 Eric Canejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/11 Jose Aguilar Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/11 Rafael Zannrs Rag Q 9.00 8 72.00 e/12 Denis Serum Reg CO 9.00 8 72.00 6112 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 e/12 Rafael Zamora Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SM2 Jmquln Zamore Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/12 Jose Angel Cruz Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6/12 Canna Flores Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 8/12 Jesus Ibam Reg Q 17.50 5.5 96.25 SM3 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 GM 3 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/13 Angel Cr= Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6M 4 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6M4 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/14 Angel Cn¢ Reg Q 18.00 8 128.00 6/14 Madam Reandez Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 We Armando Pena Reg Q 18.00 8 128.00 6114 Jae Caceres Reg Q 16.00 B 128.00 6M 4 Rk rdo Seneto Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6/15 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 8/15 Eric Conejo Reg CO 9.00 8 72.00 6/15 Mariano Racenaz Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SM 5 Armando Pena Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6/15 Jose Caarez Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 SM 5 Ricardo Sermto Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6MB Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 3 27.00 6/18 Mariano Rooemez Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6M 8 Armando Pane Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6/18 Jose Ce� Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6118 Ricemo Senate, Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SMS Eric Corwin Reg Q 9.00 4 36.00 6H9 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 8/19 Madero Recenciez Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SM9 Armando Pena Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 8/19 Jose Caarez Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 6M9 Ricardo Semtc Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SM9 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 SM9 Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 6M9 Angel Cna Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 Still Jena lane Reg Q 17.50 8 140.00 6/19 Alejandro Martinez Reg Q 14.00 8 112.00 Will Ceser Reyes Reg Q 16.00 a 128.00 B/19 Saul Villanueva Reg Q 18.00 8 128.00 620 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 620 Mariam Recerldez Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 620 Jena lam Reg Q 17.50 8 140.00 620 AW*Wm Martinez Reg Q 14.00 8 112.00 620 Cesar Reyes Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 620 Saul Vlallnueve Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 620 Mrwldo Pena Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 620 Jose Caceres Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 620 Ricardo Semto Reg (19.00 a 72.00 620 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 620 Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 620 Angel Cnm Reg Q 16.00 a 128.00 621 Denis Santos Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 621 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 621 Mariana Receraez Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 621 Armando Peen Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 621 Jae Caceres Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 621 Rkerdo Semto Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 821 Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 621 Angel Cruz Reg Q 10.00 8 128.00 621 Jesus, lace Reg Q 17.50 8 140.00 6/21 Alejandro Martinez Reg Q 14.00 8 112.00 =1 Cesar Reyes Reg Q 18.00 8 128.00 621 Saul Villanueva Reg Q 10.00 8 128.00 622 Madero Receraez Reg Q 9.00 2.5 22.50 822 Armando Pera Reg Q 16.00 2.5 40.00 622 Jose Caceres Reg Q 16.00 2.5 40.00 Page 1 of 3 LaPorte City Hall Storm Loss June 5, 2001 tarn July 6, 2001 Labor Cent 822 Ricardo Serreto Rep Q 9.00 2.5 22.50 622 Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 5 45.00 622 Angel C= Reg Q 16.00 5 80.00 622 Jesus Iberro Rep Q 17.50 2.5 43.75 6/22 Alejandro Martinez Reg Q 14.DO 5 70.DO 822 Cesar Reyes Rep Q 16.00 2.5 40.00 822 Saul Viellnueve Rep Q 16.00 2.5 40.00 625 Ricardo Sertato Rep Q 9.00 a 72.00 525 Angel Cruz Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 825 Jane Ibana Rep Q 17.50 8 140.00 825 Alejandro Martkrez Reg Q 14.00 a 112.00 825 Cesar Reyes Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 625 Saul Villanueva Rep Q 18.00 8 128.00 625 Victor Santiago Rep Q 9.D0 8 72.00 626 Angel Cruz Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 528 Jeaus Ibana Rep Q 17.50 a 140.00 626 Alejandro Martinez Rep Q 14.00 8 112.00 626 Cesar Reyes Rep Q 16.00 B 12B.00 8/26 Saul Villanueva Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 626 Victor Santiago , Rep Q 9.00 a 72.00 626 Denis Sella Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 626 Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 627 Angel Cn¢ Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 627 Alejandro Martinez Reg Q 14.00 8 112.00 Sn7 Cesar Reyes Rep Q 18.00 8 128.00 627 Saul Wlanueva Rep Q 16.DO 8 128.00 627 Victor Santiago Rep Q 9.00 8 72.00 827 Denis Santos Rep Q 9.00 8 72.00 827 Eric Conejo Rep Q 9.00 8 72.00 828 Cesar Reyes Rep Q 16.00 8 128.DO 628 Angel Cn¢ Rep Q 16.00 B 128.00 628 AWj"ro Martinez Rep Q 14.DO 8 112.00 628 Armando Pena Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 628 Saul Vilanueve Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 628 Mariano ReceWez Rep Q 9.00 8 72.00 628 Jose Caceres Rep Q 16.DO 8 128.00 628 Ricardo Seneto Rep Q 9.00 8 72.00 628 Elipic Diaz Rep Q 12.55 a 100.40 628 Frank Aguirre Rep Q 9.00 6 72.00 828 Benny Aguilar Reg Q 9.00 6 72.00 829 Angel Cruz Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 629 Alejandro Madim Rep Q 14.00 8 112.00 629 Mariam Recendez Rep (19.00 8 72.00 629 Arrnendo Pena Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 am Jose Caceres Reg Q 16.00 8 128.00 829 Ricardo Serrato Reg Q 9.00 8 72.00 829 Saul Villanueva Rep Q 16.00 8 128.00 S29 Elgio Diet Rep Q 12.55 8 100.40 629 Cesar Reyes Rep (116.00 8 128.DO SnO Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 10 90.00 6130 Jesus lesm Rep Q 17.50 10 175.00 WO Saul Villanueva Rep Q 16.00 10 160.00 BW Ceaar Reim Reg Q 16.00 10 ' 160.D0 6/30 Gonzalo Flores Reg Q 16.00 10 160.00 6/30 Denis Santa Reg Q 9.00 10 90.00 &GO Eric Conejo Reg Q 9.00 10 90.00 600 Alejandro Martinez Rep Q 14.00 10 140.00 6130 Mariam Rec exlez Rep Q 9.00 10 90.00 6/30 Armando Pena Rep Q 16.00 10 160.00 6/30 Jose Caceres Reg Q 16.00 10 160.00 WO Ricardo Serteto Rep Q 9.00 10 90.00 6/30 Arad Cruz Rep Q 16.00 10 160.00 6/3O Eligio Diaz Rep Q 12.55 10 125.50 6130 Raul Cuem Rep Q 10.00 10 100.00 WO Ruben Luna Reg Q 9.00 10 90.00 WO Jose Rodriquez Rep Q 16.00 10 160.00 6130 SaNedor Carr¢eles Reg Q 16.00 10 160.00 7/1 Victor Santiago Reg Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 7/1 Jesus Iberta Reg Q 17.50 5.5 98.25 7/1 Saul Villanueva Rep Q 16.00 5.5 88.00 7tI Cesar Reyes Reg Q 16.00 5.5 88.00 7/1 Gonzalo Flores Rep Q 16.00 5.5 88.00 711 Eric Conejo Rep Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 7/1 Mariano Resendez Rep Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 7/1 Armando Pena Rep Q 16.00 5.5 88.00 7/1 Jose Caceres Reg Q 16.00 5.5 88.D0 7/1 Ricardo Sertato Reg Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 7/1 Elgio Diaz Reg Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 Page 2 of 3 LaPorte City Hall Storm Lose Jum 5, 2001 thru July 6, 2001 Labor Cont. 7M Jose Rodriquez Rep C 16.00 5.5 88.00 711 Denis Santos Rep C 9.00 5.5 49.50 711 Salvador Canizales Rep C 16.00 5.5 88.00 7/1 Ruben Luna Rep Q 9.00 5.5 49.50 7/1 Raul Cumw Rep C 10.00 5.5 55.00 711 A andm Martina Rep C 14.00 5.5 77.00 7/2 Jesus Ibana Rep C 17.50 8.5 148.75 7/2 Jeaus Ibana OTa 26.25 1.5 39.38 7/3 Jose Caceres Rep C 16.00 8 128.00 7/2 Annando Pena Rep C 16.00 8 128.00 72 Madero Rewxlez Rep C 9.00 8.5 76.50 72 Mariano Recandaz OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 72 Ricardo Sarteto Rep Q 9.00 8.5 76.50 72 Ricardo Senato OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 72 Angel Cruz Rep C 16.00 10 160.00 72 Elgic Diaz Rep C 9.00 8.5 76.50 72 Elgio Diaz OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 72 Eric Conep Rep C 9.00 10 90.00 72 Jose Rodriquez Rep C 16.00 8.5 136.00 72 Jose Rodriquez OTC 24.00 1.5 36.00 72 Ruben Luna Rep C 9.00 8.5 78.50 72 Ruben Lune OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 72 Victor Santiago Rep C 9.00 8.5 76.50 72 Victor Santiago OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 72 Salvador Carr®les Rep C 18.00 6.5 136.00 72 SaNador Cantrales OTC 24.00 1.5 36.00 72 Gonzalo Flom Rap C 10,00 7 112.00 72 Cesar Reyes Rep C 16.00 7 112.00 7/3 Cesar Reyes Rep C 16.00 8 128.00 7/3 Gonzalo Roma Rep Q 16.00 1.5 24.00 7/3 Gonzalo Flores OTC 24.00 6.5 158.00 7/3 Angel C= Reg a 18.00 4 54.00 7/3 Angel Cruz OT Q 24.00 4 96.00 7/3 Eric Conelo Rep C 9.00 8 72.00 7/3 Jose Cecems Rep Q 16.00 0.5 8.00 7/3 Jose Caves OTC 24.00 7.5 168.00 7/3 Elpb Diaz OTC 13.50 8 108.00 7/3 Artnmgo Pena Rep Q 16.00 0.5 8.00 7/3 Armando Pena OTC 24.00 7.5 180.00 7/3 Mariciano Recandez OTC 13.50 8 108.00 7/3 Ricardo Seneto OTC 13.50 8 108.00 7/3 Jose Rodrquez OTC 24.00 8 192.00 7/3 Victor Santiago OTC 13.50 8 108.00 7/3 Salvador Canfzam Reg C 16.00 8 128.00 7/3 Arturo Garcia Rep C 9.00 8 72.00 714 Jesus Ibena OTC 26.25 8 210.00 714 Cesar Re" Rep Q 16.00 0.5 8.00 7/4 Cew Re" OTC 24.00 7.5 160.00 714 Saul VWanmra OTC 24.00 7 168.00 7/4 Victor Santiago OTQ 13.50 7 94.50 714 Denis Santos OTC 13.50 5 67.50 714 Eric Conefo Rep C 9.00 6.5 58.50 7/4 Eric Conep OTC 13.50 1.5 20.25 714 Aletandro McMnez OTC 21.00 7 147.00 7/4 Angel Cn¢ OTC 24.00 8 192.00 7/4 Eligio Diaz OTC 13.50 8 108.00 7/4 Ruben Luna OTC 13.50 5 67.50 7/4 Salvador Canizales OTC 24.00 8 192.00 7/4 Jose Rodrquez OT Q 24.00 8 192.00 7/4 Ando Garcia OTC 13.50 a 108.00 7/4 Jose Cawres OTC 24.00 8 192.00 7/4 Armando Pena OTC 24.00 8 192.00 7/4 Madolero Resendez OTC 13.50 5 67.50 714 Ricardo Seneto OTC 13.50 5 67.50 7/4 Raul Cuerw OTC 15.00 8 120.00 714 Gonzab Foes OTC 24.00 1 24.00 Tom/ 1664.6 21,422.68 Pope 3 of 3 R.T.G. Building Company 11502 West Main Street La Porte, Texas 77571 (281) 867-4094 Fax: (281) 867-4096 PROJECT: La Porte City Hall La Porte, Texas PROJECT NO: SUBJECT: General Cost Conditions EFFECTIVE: June 1, 2001 Item Cost/Month Cost/Day tiWorkers Comp Ins. $ 710.00 $ 23.67 ,beneral & Auto Liability $ 694.25 $ 23.14 builders Risk Insurance $ 454.00 $ 15.13 Project Vehicle $ 400.00 $ 13.33 Gas, Oil 8 Maintenance $ 110.00 $ 3.67 Fax Machine $ . 35.00 $ 1.17 .First Aid/ Osha $ 85.00 $ 2.83 Telephone LineslFax Line $ 220.00 $ 7.33 Temp Electrical $ 215.00 $ 7.17 Temp Fence $ 400.00 $ 13.33 Pagers $ 17.00 $ 0.57 Barricades $ 60.00 $ 2.00 Temp Water $ 175.00 $ 5.83 Temp Toilets $ 85.00 $ 2.83 Holding Tank $ 150.00 $ 5.00 As Built Drawings $ 30.00 $ 1.00 Project Warranties $ 30.00 $ 1.00 O & M Manuals $ 30.00 $ 1.00 Small Tools $ 50.00 $ 1.67 Schedule Up Dates $ 150.00 $ 5.00 Dumpster $ 300.00 $ 10.00 Office Furniture $ 25.00 $ 0.83 Office Trailer $ 310.00 $ 10.33 Total $ 4,735.25 $ 157.84 Project Superintendent $ 4.200.00 $ 140.00 Labor Burden .5500 $ 2,310.00 $ 77.00 $ 6,510.00 $ 217.00 Grand Total $ 11,245.25 S 374.84 l SEABROOK, TX 77586 (281)474-2595 Closed — Invoice Process to 06-27-01 red by MDW on 06-27-01 ® Terri Baker R' NallonsRonf, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284-6163 128959 RTG BUILDING COMPANY 10502 WEST MAIN ST LA PORTE, TX 77571 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy LA PORTE,TX 77571 2216 La Porte (281) 867-4094 (281) 867-4096 DAILY WEEKLY 002700351254 SERIAL # 9700256 0 Bosch 11311 Demo Hamster 351bs EleC 38.00 114.00 008100029 �� SERIAL # 682991 I To t) LB2-400 Submersible Pump 2e 25.00 75.00 i00$400020083 1 Hose, Water 2ex 50' Discharge 6.00 24.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE Bred By: TRna: Me Onion 4-WEEK 334.00 200.00 72.00 06-27-01 08 :03am 07-25-01 08 :03am 06-27-01 02:00pm EXTENDED 0.00 25.00 6.00 2.50 NagornRent agrees W waive certabinadamages against Customer that ere Provided for on the reva Se side of this Contract, in consideration of the cwtomer paying the 111r, SUBTOTAL 1200 33.50 °6 of gross rental charges. DAMAGE WAV 3.72 Waiver Declined fDAMAGE WAVER CAN ONLY BE DECLINED IP A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS ON FILE) SALES TAX AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE AND CONDITIONS yOFTHE EQUIPMENT, N GOOD ORDER AND A COPY OF THIISN THE FRONT S CONTRACT. IF AND THAN CUSTOMER, SIGN R REPRE FACKNOWLEDGE E AGENT NTS THAT THEY TOTAL 3.07 40.29 OF, AND AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FOR CUSTOMER THIS CONTRACT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THERE ARE NO ORAL OR OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR AGREEMENTS NOT INCLUDED HEREIN. NONE OF THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS CONTRACT MAY BE AMENDED OR MODIFIED, EXCEPT IN WRITING, SIGNED BY COMPANY AND CUSTOMER, AND MADE A PART IT TN S %CT PAYMENTS �1-0L::00. IATES BASED ON B WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK, 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES BAL DUE ( 40.29 ; Net 30- )r Signature: Customer Printed Name (Required): Monday To Friday 7:00am To 5:00pm Saturday :Rent and the diamond logo are registered service marks of Nationii West, Inc m 2000 NationsRant West, Inc. All rights reserved. Revised SKU No. SEABROOK, TX 77586 Process Date 06-27-011� (281) 474-2595 Entered by TLB on 06-25-01 ® Mario W indfont Closed — Invoice REMIT. NotionsRent, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284-6163 NNE128959 2208 CHARLES • • 06-25-01 07 :37am RTG BUILDING COMPANY (281) 867-4094 am 10502 WEST MAIN ST (281)867-4096 ..., 07-23-01 07 :37am LA PORTE, TX 77571 _"''" " -- - 06-27-01 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy LA PORTE,TX 77571 La Porte City Hall 07:55am �. l EquiPmenf Na. Infarvol Chorge Meter nem Q—,rfgnnn Out/in DAILY WEEKLY 4-WEEK EXTENDED 008100127189 1 xoshin Submersible Pump 3/4e Elec 10.00 30.00 70.00 14.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE 2.50 mrad By: Time: NaeonnRanl agrees to waive certain tlamages against Customer that are providetl for on dre reverse aide of this Contract, h mnsltleradan of the customer payitg Ne folbw,rr te12 OO % of gm" rental charges. Waiver Decllned (DAMAGE WAIVER CAN ONLY BE DECLINED IF A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS ON FILE) READ AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE FROM AND REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACT. 1 ACKNOWLEDGE r OF THE EQUIPMENT, IN GOOD ORDER, AND A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT. IF OTHER THAN CUSTOMER, SIGNER REPRESENTS THAT THEY E'AGENT OF, AND AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FOR CUSTOMER. THIS CONTRACT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND D THERE ARE NO ORAL OR OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR AGREEMENTS NOT INCLUDED HEREIN. NONE OF THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS ;CONTRACT MAYBE AMENDED OR MODIFIED, EXCEPT IN WRITING, SIGNED BY COMPANY AND CUSTOMER, AND MADE A PART OF THIS ACT. RATES BASED ON 8 WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES er Customer Primed Name (Required): SUB TOTAL 16.50 DAMAGE WAV 1.68 SALES TAX 1.50 TOTAL 19.68 PAYMENTS 0.00 BAL DUE 19.68 Net.30 Monday To Friday 7:00am To 5:00pm Saturday $Rent and the diamond logo are registered service marks of NadonsRent West Inc. ® 2000 NadonsRem West, Inc. All rights reserved. Weed 10/00 SKU No. 33088 F SEABROOK, TX 77586 Process D e 06-18-01 (281) 474-2595 ntered by MDW on 05-31-01 Bill Period 06/01/01 06/29/01 /�1Onihly 8illina�losed "EM"To: NotionsRent, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284-6163 _ 1 RTG BUILDING COMPANY 10502 WEST MAIN ST 604 W. Fairmont Molar OW/In )06314069137 2702.6 2862.6 L Case 580L Backhoe 14'06" :LIVERY CHARGE t By: 867-4094 SERIAL # JJG0222137 165.00 500.00 Natic.s Rent agrees w weNe wftn damages egalnat CuslunhereW M form the reverse side 0 this Contra the cusromer Drevtdad cL in consideo"on al Paying Me following fee. 12.on % of gross rental charges. Ner Declined (DAMAGE WAIVER CAN ONLY BE DECUNED IF A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS ON FlIF) .D AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE FRONT AND REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACT. 1 ACKNOWLEDGI THE EQUIPMEM, IN GOOD ORDER. AND A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT. IF OTHER THAN CUSTOMER_ Ur.NFR RcoeccFNrc TNAT T. AMENDED HE TERMS OR CONDITIONS AND MADE A PARE OF THIS .S BASED ON 8 WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK, 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES. ;ignature: Customer Printed Name (Required): >> DELIVER ON 06-01-01 AT 08:00am 06-01-01 08 :00arr 06-29-01 08 :00am 06-29-01 1,600.00 1,600.00 /63D. oo SUB TOTAL—-&� DAMAGE WAV 0.00 SALES TAX17V. y7 _ TOTAL /76 y'/ 7�.==-:r PAYMENTS 0.00 BAL DUE /76y.Y7 TAR_?-7 Net 30 Int and the diamond logo are registered service marks of NationsReM Will Ina a 2000 NationsRent West, Ina All rights reserved. Monday To Friday 7:00am TO 5:00pm Saturday xenB IUTw PAGE 1 SKU No. 33088 ell SEABROOK, TX 77586 Process Dat 06-20-0 Old # 123237368 (281) 474-2595 ® Entered by MDW on 06-18-01 Terri Baker Closed -- Invoice REMo NationsRent, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284-6163 128959 2154 RTG BUILDING COMPANYr w (281) 867-4094 10502 WEST MAIN ST"" (281) 867-4096 LA 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy LA PORTE,TX 77571 006314069137 2862.6 1 Case 580L Backhoe 14,060 000000092003 15 Fuel Diesel Off Road Bred Br. Thee: La Porte City Hall Meter Out/In 2715.5 SERIAL # JJG0222137 165.00 500.00 MFG NRI # NRI92003 3.00 NaRonBRent aglsee to waive wmin Gmpw egdlHt CUBtaner tlrat aIe pmvhled for on Ne reverse side of Nis Contrail, in mnsideratlon W Ne anlaner paying the fefiowhy foe: 12.00 % of groan rental charges. Waiver DBd ned (DAMAGE WAIVER CAN ONLY BE DECUNED IF A CERnFICATE OF INSURANCE 15 ON FILE) READ AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE FRONT AND REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACt. I ACKNOWIFDGI MAY RE BY RATES BASED ON 8 WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK, 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES. or Signature: Customer Printed Name (Required): >> DELIVER ON 06-01-01 AT 08:00am PICK UP 06-19-01 AT 12:37pm << ------ >> PICKING TICKET CALLED IN ON 06-19-01 12:37pm BY Charles 06-01-01 08 :00am 06-29-01 08 :OOam 06-19-01 1,600.00 0.00 SUB TOTAL DAMAGE WAV SALES TAX TOTAL PAYMENTS BAL DUE Net 30 Monday To Friday 7:00am To 5:00pm Saturday 45.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 sRent and the diamond logo are registered service marks of NationsRent West, Inc. 0 2000 NationsRent West, Inc. All rights reserved. Revised 10/00 PAGE 1 SKU No. 33088 SEABROOK, TX 77586 Process Date 06-12-01 (281) 474-2595 n ered by TLB on 06-11-01 Terri Baker Closed — Invoice R TO NationsRent, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284-6163 128959 2170 CHARLES ja 8 Teleph°neRTG BUILDING COMPANY (281) 867-4094 10502 WEST MAIN ST N (281)867-4096 07-OS LA PORTE, TX 77571License Na. ,.604 W. Fairmont Pkwy os-LA POFTE,TX 77571 La Porte City Hall Enulprn m' N. hte'. I Ch—'rt Mercy Item D<criiption,iOwAn DAILY WEEKLY 4-WEEK EXTENDED 008500020083 1 Hose, Water 2"x 20' Suction 008400020083 1 Hose, Water 2"x 50' Discharge Ida., 000000200621 f 1 Tsurumi TE2-50 Centrifical Pum Z=TTNn:E M -K"AT CAT.' eed By: Tlme: 9.00 36.00 6.00 24.00 SERIAL # TAI-32594 35.00 105.00 es 44v. M o�oDD 108.00 9.00 72.00 6.00 275.00 35.00 �2 . Sg- NationsRent agrees to waive certain damages against Customer that am provided for on the teverae slide of this Contract, in cNlderation of r• i�b Me customer paying the fallowing lee: SUBTOTAL /c�s�.�•��0 12.00 ffio gross enmlaneryae. DAMAGE WAV 0.00 Welvar DeOlned (DAMAGE WAIVER CAN ONLY aE DECUNED IF A CERDFIC n OF INSURANCE IS ON RUE) SALES TAX ZI-0 --C-T3-- TOTAL S-14,12- c-56-a PAYMENT 0.00 ATES RASED ON a WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK, 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES. BAL DU ST./ Z Net 30 r Sigrature'. Customer Printed Name (Required). _ Monday To Friday 7:00am To 5:00pm Saturday ;Rent and the diamond logo am registered service marks of NationsRent West, Inc. ® 2000 NationsRent West, Inc. All rights reserved. R� PAGE 1 SKU No. 33088 SEABROOK, TX 77586 Process D er06-140 Old # 123248736 (281) 474-2595 ® n ered by on 06-12-01 Terri Baker Closed --- Invoice 11TO WT NationsRent, P.O. Box 846163, Dallas, TX 75284.6163 128959 2170 , CHARLES RTG BUILDING COMPANY T1ip6 (281) 867-4094 °mar No 10502 WEST MAIN ST `" (281) 867-4096 LA PORTE. TX 77571 07-09-01 08 :30am �-664W. Fairmont Pkvry LA FORTE,TX 77571 La Porte City Hall 0 am Equipment No IMerml.Charpe Mebr Item UescnPrnn awylD DAILY WEEKLY EXTEND ED 008400020083 1 Hose, Water 2"x 501 Discharge 6.00 24.00 vered By: C�sr C)q TIME. q�^ F9!9 Nellonsftent agrees 10 waive certain damages against Customer that we provided for on the reverse side of this Contract, in consideration of the customer paying the following fee: 12.00 % of gross rental charges. F Waiver Dacinad )DAMAGE WAIVER CAN ONLY BE DECLINED IF A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS ON FILE) READ AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE FRONT AND REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACT. I ACKNOWLEDGE T OF THE EQUIPMENT, IN GOOD ORDER, AND A COPY OF THIS COMPACT. IF OTHER THAN CUSTOMER, SIGNER REPRESENTS THAT THEY IE AGENT OF, AND AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FOR CUSTOMER. THIS CONTRACT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND ID THERE ARE NO DEAL OR OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR AGREEMENTS NOT INCLUDED HEREIN. NONE OF THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS S CONTRACT MAY BE AMENDED OR MODIFIED, EXCEPT IN WRITING, SIGNED BY COMPANY AND CUSTOMER, AND MADE A PART OF THIS TACT. PATES BASED ON B WORKING HOURS PER DAY, 40 HOURS PER WEEK, 160 HOURS PER FOUR WEEK PERIOD. OVERTIME CHARGED ON OVERAGES ier signature: Customer Printed Name (Required): 72.00 9-Qf1' SUB TOTAL DAMAGE WAV 0.00 SALES TAX Sq rTgss� TOTAL /Z:4V PAYMENTS 0.00 BAL DU /2-9 Net 30 Monday To Friday 7:00am To 5:00pm Saturday isRent and the diamond logo are registered service marks of NationsRent West, Inc. Q 2000 NationsRent West, Inc. All rights reserved. Revised 10/00 SKU No. 33088 (tit:{r.,F r ` RENTAL ATE: 12 i0 ) REMIT TO: NEFF RENTAL -- HOUS T ON RANCH: 101 NORTH LOOP WELT W010E: H;,USTON, TX 77016. 5i10964lb 713-802--978a RENTAL OUT S R.T,G. BUILDING COMPANY H 25'LS--B NASA ROAD 1 SUITE 107 PT SEABROOK, TX 77586 PO E UA I E ANU'TIME' OUA t to t ? DATE.AND<TIMERELEASED DATE.AND71ME. RETURNED DEL IV Y' AR f4l - PICK-UP'- MAR E R. T. G. BUILDING COMPANY ;_Ski-B, NASA ROAD 1 'SUITE 107 SEABROOK, TX 77586 D rr gb Location: LA PORTE,CITY HAL[_, 8ELTWAY@FH-1RMNOT PKW Job Number. LA PORT c C I'SY H. CUSTOMER I PHONE ORDERED BY PURCHASE ORDER / 7200967. 21SI-326-2454 CHARLES TERMS SALESMAN M DATE RENTAL BEGINS .. ESTIMATED DATE. TO BE RETURNED. 4{ .. - �" �c - 2,0 MR VS 285 Tarr*' 6/16 01 10:19 A I PLATE COMPACTOR 2500-501011 006705 W1550AW 50.00 SAES ITEMa s at Item nt.lmber Un.Lr, f'rxL-c I ENFE EA. ENVIRONMENTAL FEE LAPORTE CITY HALL CORNIER OF BEL rwp- r u AND FAIRMONT PARKWAY DELIVERY CHARGE PICKUP CHARGE lQ 4� Iy 5-55. 00 395. VIC, j LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER (LOW) Low IS NOT INSURANCE LDW.- By his initials, Customer agree. to pay a fee of % of the gross name: charged hereunder In consideration of Lessor agreeing SUB -TOTAL to ways certain claims against customer for lose of or damage to said equipment, provided equipment is used in conformity with this agreement Including Me ccndiaons specifled an the reverse side of this agreement ACCEPTS DECLINES SALES TAX: The equipment described herein Is named pursuant to and in accordance with Me tear and condieone set out on the relent, side of this agreement Customer rapresentl Mist he hate, mad end.�9l�se to th aeme. TOTAL: t 1 % J i i /•"„�f i r ) ' " _J 4', DEPOSIT: T SIGNING FOR CUSTOMER -�/��-" TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE OTHER SI1&9 -4<�2 NET DUE: r. A LARGER PRINT COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST CONTROL COPY :FINAL USE ONLY 23. 00 25.00 NR40001 (4/00) - RENTAL TE: REMIT TO: :ANCH: WEST VOICE: �_ HOUS TON, TX ?70:1 a 51 t�'?6 3 7 - - 0 0 1 ' i _�-80ii-9 78 2 RENT 1L. O£TURN S d, T. G. B I LD?I`•16 COMPPNl: ( 150? WE T MAi1,4 TREcT -, FORTE., TX 77571 . H p�pno PT R. i.l _.'r"'N'r p0 'i�P.TE. C : � V HAi..L HOU6TOr!,. TX 77000 •-�i-uo:ro r 1 r. q.t i ior.. AFI.T!JC 4- -t-.'f?.I: `.NI-'Uh'F(pJ:JY .., :.nr I`•,.::',•cr.- CUSTOMER M PHONE ORDERED BY PURCHASE ORDER F' TERMS SALESMAN M DATE RENTAL BEGINS ESTIMATED DATE TO BE RETURNED �`r Era''s'.Gment # 1 -,5-75 HP 4WD EAACVHQE 8E4475 31OE SALES ITEM Gity ikem 1 ENFE ENV I ROPNMENTPIIL, 54- ' 32 D(ESE �Et_ P : CKSJ?''GH?Rf� ON Dny Week h ,ee!< c6V'l„r k7k� •�/�. lair• i350.Q0 HR OUT ;' `= .00 HR I : `. 7.00 i' i 1p 1.t 9. - •510 3,V.Int1. THIS IS YOUR INVOICE. PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS" LOSS AND DAMAGE W IVER (LDI .tr ._ A»w — By hw ,w^. CWbmer some b •r1w� _ % of the gmas nnW Mugu h•nWundw In cm don of Luw •tF••hq m w*N• cwtri daft •yem mtcmer for lea a a aunty• m uW •gaWmr4 Pm+cIed Kul " IS used In cebamlty wldt r" •pnunnd Wkbd q tlu C M01" WKftd m dw rn Sift of db •pe•rn•m. ACCEPTS DECUNES The •gdprnud duc bed herein Is rrWd ppuunu•nt m •M In ecmi m whh db bane and fArtdd•ne W ad •n db r• = We of tlW agmmwL Cw sr bpb tlut h• has bed u eynee b dM um•. SIGNING FOR CUSTOMER TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE A LARGER PRINT COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST ONLY — __ -_ —. — -._.__ .__ __CUSTOMER INVOICE ' 5: '09 3. 75 •'-�G;kn LOW: SUB -TOTAL �� `�'• 5;r':1 SALES TAX TOTAL: DEPOSIT: NET DUE: NR40001 (4/00) nVc I BRANCH: 412 BILL TO CUSTOMER: 1699714 SHIPPING ADDRESS 412 HERTZ EQUIPMENT \ RTG BUILDING COMPANY RTG BUILDING COMPANY 230 SOUTH LOOP EAST 2511-B NASA RD 1 401 WEST FAIRMONT OUSTON, TX 77087 SEABROOK, TX 77586-3474 LA PORTE, TX 77571 13-641-2391 281-838.1113 DESCRIPTION/CHARGES ?ST START: 7/03/01 14:30 EST RETURN: 7/10/01 8:00 DROP DATE: :HIPPED BY: MARK WEISS ORDERED BY: CHARLES DROP TIME: )RDER DATE: 7/03/01 SALESPERSON: 417 SALES COORDINATOR: '0# / JOB#: / 1 • RTG BUILDING COM Rates include maintenance service Qty Equipment # Min Day eek"'. 4 Week Amot 1 COMPRESSOR/375CFM/DSL/PORTABL 145.00 145.00 ,435.00 035.00 006370906. Make: I-R Model: P375WCU Ser #: 31 HR OUT: 267.80 MIL CHG: 200' OF HOSE 1 BREAKER/60-69#/AIR 45.00 45.00 1 00 295.00 013608206 Make: SULLAIR Model: MPB-60A Ser 21W Alt Eqp #: 013608206 1 4 MOIL POINTS 1 BREAKER/60-69#/AIR 45.00 45.00 295.00 013608205 Make: SULLAIR Model: MPB-60A Ser 029W Alt Eqp #: 013608205 SALES ITEMS: Qty Item number Unit Price CONTINUED CAREFULLY READ TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE nwithst"Ing payment of the LOW tn. Custwor Is liable for all damage to the Equipment and sspensa of HERO caused by tits Equipmem being used or oplraw in violation of the tumor and cagitions l the Ravage Side of this page a in violadm of tM LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE. %AAGRAPH 12. ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE 15 IN UEU OF III ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS. IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING. BUT NOT LIMITED TO. THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ERCHANTABIUTY AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE: AND IIB ALL OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF HERC TO CUSTOMER FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING. BUT DT LIMITED TO. INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL. CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ON IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASING. MAINTENANCE. USE. OPERATION. STORAGE, IECTION, DISMANTLING OR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EQUIPMENT, CUSTOMER REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS FULLY INSPECTED THE EQUIPMENT AND THAT SAME IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND :PAIR. CUSTOMER IS LIABLE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF LAW ARISING OUT CUSTOMER'S USE. POSSESSION OR OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT. THE EOUIPMENT OESCRIBEO HEREIN IS RENTED JRSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ABOVE AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. CUSTOMER REPRESENTS HAVING READ AND AGREED ) SAME. LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER (LOW) IS NOT INSURANCE. The Charge for LOW 4 12.00 % of Initial gross rental Charges. U1 rges. Cuugaccepts or declines It Cwtanu accapu n LOW, In consideration of the charge shown above, Lpnr press to waive certain claims against customer fist loss of or damps to EWI mem. in accordance with the terms anal con,J]d q set forth in Paragraph B. on the Ravuse Sid. of this paga arld in pan LOSS AND DAMAGE WAIVER GUIDE which Customr MrWy scknawledgss era vsg. Custom( acknowledges on the Equipment will be rammed in a good, clean. and umonuminated condition, free of eny anal all hasudaus wbstancu. Terms are Net 10 Days Not valid without Barcode nt Customer Name Title atoms, Signature Dot, 1111111111H1111111111 N 1111111111111111111111111111 irefully read the terms and conditions on reverse side of this page 6100 RED BLUFF ROAD 77505-0092 .'JIMG SUPPE", LENTEW (281)487-7888 ******************* Date: 1412001 _�XNVOIC 816531 * CHARGE INVOICE * Page; 1 ******REPRINT****** R.T.G. BUILDING -HOUSE ACCOUNT R.T.G. 11502 WEST MAIN ST. (281)326-2454 604 W. FAIRMONT PKY. LA PORTED TX LAPORTE TX 77571-0753 I BEHIND CITY HAL g Store: 28 Terms: NET 10TH PROX ur rder #: 24218 person: 954 AL F. Tax ID #: P.O. #: 2180 271324 r 20'X100' 6 MIL BLACK 8 EA 42.99 EA -43.9c T )` •c6o 6 CU. FT. BLACK WHEELBARROW 2 EA 49.95 EA 99.90 T 3226 LH ROUND POINT SHOVEL EA 11, 49 EA 4. 47 T LH SQUARE POINT SHOVEL = EA 11,49 EA 22.98 T 5 /nI pF SIGNATURE: iver by: 6/13/2001 Weight: 584 ered by: LARRY FARMER. 501. 27 7, T 4-631652 At 821 3044 137505 9 . LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O. #: 2222 At 13424 DATE OF SALE: 06-30-01 STORE #: 1053 • ACTION #: 13424 AUTHORIZATION: 000732 REGISTER #: 000 "" "- •U• DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE J069319 NAIL DUPLEX BRIGHT 5 LB 1 6 BO 7.09 SUB 42.54 TAX 3.51 RTG BUILDING COMPANY ACCOUNT #: 821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT INVOICE * 04708 DATE OF SALE: 07-01-01 TRANSACTION At 04708 AUTHORIZATION: 000727 -------------------------------------------------------- S•K•U• DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT 000074111 1/4" X 8 1/2" SOS BIT DW 4 EA AL INVOICE 126400 P.O. # N STORE& 1053 REGISTER A 000 ----------------- PRICE 9.33 Business Account SUB 37.32 TAX 3.08 TOTAL INVOICE 000 EXT, PRICE 42.54 000 EXT• PRICE 37.32 RTG BUILDING COMPANY 126400 ACCOUNT #: 821 3044 137505 9 LOBES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O.& 2229 000 INVOICE #: 02407 DATE OF SALE 07-02-01 STORE AI: 1053 TRANSACTION * 02407 AUTHORIZATION: 000831 ------------------------------------------------ REGISTER #: 000 Ste, Ul, DESCRIPTION QUANTITY U NRO PRICE EXT. E• 000012148 TIE WIRE ROLL 22 000132438 100' FAT MAX TAPE 1 EA 19.97 �C 000091239 LUMBER CRAYONS, 6 PER CAR 3 - EA 3.87 000150325 2.5 LB BLUE 2 EA 4.97 5F� e4--0�-% 11.61 9.94 SUB 132.60 TAX 10.94 TOTAL INVOICE 143.54 .f#:621 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O. #: 2210 000 e m 02675 DATE OF SALE: 06-26-01 STORE At 1053 SACTION #: 02675 AUTHORIZATION: 001007 REGISTER #: 000 _________________________________________________________________________________ K •U. DESCRIPTION QUARTUNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE 00016964 20'X100'CLEAR 6MIL PLASTI RO 41.82 000012148 TIE WIRE ROLL 25p,92 2 RO 4.14 50.68 92 SUB 300.60 • TAX 24.80 TOTAL INVOICE 325.40 RTG BUILDING COMPANY ACCOUNT #:821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT INVOICE * 13123 DATE OF SALE: 06-29-01 TRANSACTION #: 13123 AUTHORIZATION: 000747 ________________________________________________________ S •K •U• DESCRIPTION 000012148 TIE WIRE ROLL "� UN O 126400 P.O. #: 2222 STORE #: 1053 REGISTER #: 000 4.14 000 EXT, PRICE 57.96 Business Account SUB 57.96 TAX 4.78 TOTAL INVOICE 62.74 RTG BUILDING COMPANY ACCOUNT #C821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT INVOICE #: 13146 DATE OF SALE: 06-30-01 TRANSACTION At 13146 AUTHORIZATION: 001108 ________________________________________________________. S.K.,U. DESCRIPTION 000074269 7 1/4"CIRCULAR SAW W/BRAK QUANTITY SEA 000072400 100' 10/3 SJTW-A T BLADE i 1 EA 000019808 KYLS DRILL KIT OW106K 1 - 000099424 500' LINE REEL 3 EA EA �000143125 7 1/4" 24T CARB 5 BLADE P 1 EA 000016956 10'X100'CLEAR 4MIL PLASTI 1 RO 000069319 NAIL DUPLEX BRIGHT 5 LB 1 2 000069404 NAIL COMMON BRIGHT 25 LB 1 BO 000071977 HOLE SAW 2 1/2" 450511 2 BO EA 000091239 LUMBER CRAYONS, 6 PER CAR 000081603 3/8"X2" DOWEL PIN 2 EA 1 EA SUB 390.47 TAX 126400 000 P.O.* 2222 STORE 9 1131 REGISTER 9 000 ----------------------------- PRICE EXT• PRICE 149.00 149.00 76.92 76.92 59.00 59.00 8.93 26.79 18.22 18,22 14.57 14.57 7.09 14.18 12.17 12.17 5.12 10.24 3.87 7.74 1.64 1.64 TOTAL INVOICE 422.68 M F 821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O. At 6/20/01 ' F 03573 DATE OF SALE: 06-20-01 STORE #: 1053 ' ,CTION i/: 03573 .----------------------------------------------------------------------' AUTHORIZATION: 000730 REGISTER #: 000 j DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE .012148 TIE WIRE ROLL 11 RO 4.14 ,0076528 1 FLU COOL WH18" 216 1 EA 4.38 SUB 49.92 ' TAX 000 TOTAL INVOICE 54.04 RTG SUILOING COMPANY 126400 ACCOUNTjW 821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O. At 0000 INVOICE 9 18312 DATE OF SALE: 06-25-01 STORE #: 1053 TRANSACTION A 18312 AUTHORIZATION: 000001 REGISTER #: 000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K.U. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 000070691 3/4"X12 BULLET HAS ST1674 2 EA 12.97- Business -Ac= ffgfla SUB 25.94- TAX 2.14- TOTAL INVOICE 000 UTL PRICE 25.94- 28.08- RTG BUILDING COMPANY 126,400 000 ACCOUNT* 821 3044 137505 9 LOWES BUSINESS ACCOUNT P.O.#: LAPORTE CY INVOICE At 13997 DATE OF SALE: 06-25-01 STORE #: 1053 TRANSACTION At 15997 AUTHORIZATION: 000720 REGISTER At 000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K.U. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE 000070691 3/4"X12 BULLET HAS ST1674 2 - EA 12.97 25.94 000017740 7 7-1/4" METAL BLADE 4 - EA 2.57 10.28 SUB 36.22 TAX 2.99 TOTAL INVOICE 39.21 :: Invoice Killingsworth Environmental INVOICE NO. 12601 P.0 Box 1587 INVOICE DATE 06/24/2001 Anahuac, Tx 77514 OUR ORDER NO. CUSTOMER ORDER NO, Phone: 409-656-1633 TERMS Fax 707-982-8253 SALES REP. E-mail: scottaa@@@earthlink.net SHIPPED VIA URL: httpJMvAv.mycompany.com F.O.B. PREPAID/COLLECT SOLD TO: SERVICE TO: RTG BUILDING COMPANY LAPORTE CITY HALL P.O. BOX 0753 SEABROOK TX 77586-0753 QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TERMITE CONTROL $2,407.00 $2,40.7.00 SUBTOTAL $2,407.00 TAX FREIGHT TOTAL $2,407.00 Questions concerning this Invoice? MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Call: SCOTTANDERSON KILLINGSWORTH ENVIRONMENTAL 409-656-1633 P.O. BOX 1386 ANAHUAC TX 77514 �1 Lr / Mt:t7AM.JUYYLY tiUMIJANY (713) 937.8999 7834 FAIRVIEW STREET HOUSTON, TX 77041 INVOICE is 7 J SHIP VIA: iUSKEY G:),'22iJ1 SHIP DATE: DUE DATE: NET 3'0 DAYS TERMS: 3Aii r� '7 rEl` Al.l� I 1nCil ivtRi' REMIT PAYMENT TO. P.O. BOX 4346, DEPT. 291 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210.4346 INVOICE NUM INVOICE DA Y; COST. I.D.: L n0 y P.O. NUMBER JV P.O. DATE: /0i OUR ORDER NO.: SALESPERSON: 1.00 ).00 EACh" Y 0. J J T i0.0V ) RTG Building Company 11502 Rest Main LaPorte, Texas 77571 Phone: 281-867-4094 Fax: 181-867-4096 Time and Material Itemized Proposal Date: June 20, 2001 Owner: LaPorte City Hall Telephone: N/A Address: 604 W Fairmont Parkway City, State, ZIP: LaPorte, Texas 77571 Description I Notes Cost Storm Damage - Tropical Storm Allison To muck out & remove 3 Days @ 9 hrs per day Loader w/ erator Spoils from Approximately 27 hrs @ $65. per hr $ 1,755.00 2,660 LF of Grade Beams Dump Truck - 3 d s @ 9 hrs per d 27 hrs @ $35. per hr $ 945.00 Move -in & Move -out @ $150. ea way $ 300.00 Not to Exceed 32 hours Charles Martin Trucking 1306N IOth LaPorte, Texas 77572 i Acc 'ted B Date: Contractor will furnish all labor and materials to construct and complete, upon the project, in a good workmanlike manner, only the work described above. Subtotal $ 3,000.00 Contingency % $ - Overhead & supervision 10 % $ 300.00 Profit _5_ % $ 165.00 Total Estimate $ 3,465.00 Construction Services 40A Blue Stem Dayton, TX 77535 INVOICE R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 11502 W. MAIN ST. LAPORTE, TX. 77571 DescdpUon of Work Performed: Job No.: 4375-01 CITY HALL RENOVATIONS/ADDITION FAIRMONT PARKWAY LAPORTE, TX Value of Work Completed: BUILDING SLAB FORMWORK, REBAR, DETAILING CRAFT 184 HRS @ 21.57 LABORER 168 HRS @ 15.10 POUR AND FINISH LATE CANCELLATION FINISHER 18 MEN @ 108.00 EACH LABORER 10 MEN @ 78.00 EACH Total due this invoice Invoice is Due Upon Receipt 936-258-5161 July 12, 2001 $3,968.88 $2, 536.80 $1,944.00 $ 780.00 INVOICE TOTAL $9,229.68 Invoice Total Thank You $9,229.68 $9,229.681) Jul 24 01 02:53p p.l R. T. G. BUILDING COMPANY 11502 West Maio Street La Porte, Texas 77571 PHONE: 281-8674094 FAX: 281-967-40% FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE: ;/2. 4-�/ r NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMTTED: G. ATTENTION COMPANY: IJi.i- l FAX NUMBER: , UMB— 4.7/ °— '%/ v ? d 713 - 665 -,-, Z 1 PHONE FROM: REMARKS: H you have questions please call. 4/ l r 7w4 Q gd" ,t fma Dy// Jul 24 01 02:53p F: 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAUMODIFICATIONS Page 1 of 1 File No.: 007 Project Name: Additions to La Porte City Hall La Porte, Texas Project No.: CLP Project No. 99-2206 Contractor. R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY Dwulpflve Title: Section: Storm Damage due to Alison, Act of God Information: RFI No.: Requested by City of LaPorte Equipment T pump 1 day Nations Rent $ 40.29 314' pump 1 day $ 19.68 Hose for pumps 2 each $ 67.11 Fuel for pumps 1 day $5.00 $ 5.00 BacMwe $ 1.767.47 Fuel for Backhoe $ 45.00 Compactor 2 each days Neff Rental $ 108.25 Fuel for Compactor 2 each days $10.00 Backhoe $ 1,418.00 Fuel for Backhoe $15.001 day x 9 days $ 135.00 Compressor Hertz 6 470.85 Fuel for Compressor $15.001 day x 30 days $ 450.00 2' Submersible Pump R.T.G. $33.55 / day x 31 days $ 1,040.00 1 each pump truck 1 each hour $ 315.00 Sub Total Equipment $ 5,891.61 Materials McCoys 11 each rools poly ® $41.85 / rool $ 460.35 McCoys 24 each roils tape a $6.001 roll $ 144.00 Concrete 100.02 cubic yards extra ® $50.00 / yard S 5,001.00 Lows Tie Wire S 264.41 McCoys 5 each rolls poly x $41.85 / roll S 209.25 Re -bar Supply added by engineer $ 1,040.33 Mrgsworth Termfte re -treatment $ 2,407.00 Almon Place added re -bar Damaged by storm $ 6,505.65 Charts Martin Trucking remove spoils from storm i 3,485.00 Sub Total Materials S 19,497.02 R.T.G. Labor (See attached) $ 21,422.58 Labor Burden $ x .8900 $ 17,760.82 Total R.T.G. Labor $ 39,203.50 R.T.G.OYerhead 8 Profit 15% x 584,592.0D It 9,688.00 Total Consbuctlon Cost S 74.280.00 THIS CHANGE REQUIRES A CONTRACT EXTENSION OF DAYS. 29 DELAY TIME - 29 General Conditions 29. days x $157.84 S 4,577.36 Supervision 29 days x $140.00 $ 4.060.00 Labor Burden. 8900 x $4050.00 $ 3.389.80 Sub Total S 12,007.36 Total construction cost S 74.290.00 R.T.G. Profit $12007 x 15% $ 1,801.00 Total S 88,088.00 06.1ul-01 ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ARE ATTACHED. R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO QUOTE P. 01 Y TRANSACTION REPORT ' JUL-24-2001 TUE 03:38 PM X RECEIVE x X Y DATE START SENDER RX TIME(L)PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP JUL-24 03:37 PM 51"(1) 2 RECEIVE OK x � x��xx��xxx�x�zxx��x�xxxxxx����xxzzz�x�zx���x��xx���x��xxzzxx�xxxxx�zxz�zxx����xxx�x��xx���x��������x ROBERT W. M cKINN EY AIA Transmittal 23,��ih 200/ bate T. RTG Building Company 11502 West Main LaPorte, TX 77571 V resending you rewith Under separate cover i The following: Copies Date FAIL 11+AT R-7 15 f 6rV l F�ttN r N & 5N*O;i_' .Do-tw (NG !) . TK-M AI W'pl,Ati "1, a, G#-Mb-S'' WIT4 t ,4VESTroNs FRony►_, -ntet R Sur5s FPX -i.. Remarks Project Project Number RE s a ANNM Dcscription ST/wo ,i t,o mer�r� pEcK�N�--. ff_i ,' ONG'I 7WO C l/VC__izZr__ 11 wF r-V n-E—c o rc b S liG� /Yt E IC A/d vt/ i f= TlflJ t,[G �w Fi E,64 CO e 0X 0/AlftT10Al $ lfil�� 136:- /VorCV /95 SU Cf}- 0/1 Tlfi� Sd3 M t Tl,; (i e �f0 T / CAaTC-!> Tay T/fC— 1/5;-- XeVi P-W /A/* 0 A-C--I�-E-0 YV/ G v /.31F- .9-�DILSC� f1-T �. TH-E BY ( I::_-;7W1TT-I P�� P.O. Box 7671 Ho.ston, Texas 77270 (713) 665-5665 47Sv ME 7_t/_c1 E 1' 77lVy f , SUBMITTAL NUMBER PROJECT: City of LaPorte Additions to LaPorte City Hall 604 West Fairmont Parkway LaPorte, Texas 77572.1115 PROJECT it CLP Project No. 99-2206 DATE: July 19, 2001 ArchltecUEngineer Robert W. McKinney, AIA 20 Greenway Plaza, Suite 450 Houston, Texas 77046 CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 11502 West Main LaPorte, Texas 77571 SUPPLIER., Joists Inc. of Texas 7801 Harms Houston, Texas 77041 SUBCONTRACTOR: Joists Inc. of Texas 7801 Harms Houston, Texas 77041 SECTION: Section 05120 - Structural Steel Section 05300 - Metal Decking DEVIATIONS: NONE_2j_ AS NOTED _ -25A- Description: Shop Dmwtngs - Needs CkrlOation �i �/ F N / A ' G Joists Inc- Layout Sheets No. AB-1,El&E2 T/ A.Re V014 /26V E tvG Joists Inc. Detail Sheets No. 1.9 fr r5v— � 1 � I A ✓T F-1 F' kV S.M.I. Joists Layout Sheet No. JiJ3 _ O II m Flo NS ? WC- _O 1 d Please Clarify ALL Items Highlited in Green ffO-r FIND "Arra,&67z'/Z. �� ' � strrm p T6 R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY CERT/RES THAT INFORMATION HEREIN COMPL/ S RE/ �RETNC� � � p v,� r i/ I CONTRACT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS. I Nn � f ` � w 1/� ydUlO, PJA45 10fJ Pji6#U6H75' R��vrR6 Fe�� p -- _NAME. -—Tmdye.Smith--` ------ -- - ---�//-t'i/-�-il�i•�.L_}—%�O /VS ---- TITLE: Project Manager R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 11502 West Mein LaPorte, Texas 77571 To: Robert W McKinney, AIA Date: 06/MOO1 Phone #: 281.867-4094 Fax #: 281-867-4096 PROJECT NAME: WE ARE SENDING YOU—x— UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA —x— THE FOLLOWING; x ATTACHED PUNS x SHOP DRAWINGS PRINTS CHANGE ORDER COPY OF LETTER SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTALS Copies Date Section No. Submittal No. Description 2 07/19/2001 05120 25A Sho 'Drawin s - Joists,.lnc. 05300 Clartfication of Highlited Items' THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW x FOR APPROVAL APPROVED AS SUBMITTED RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS x FOR YOUR USE APPROVED AS NOTED SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION AS REQUESTED RETURN FOR CORRECTIONS RESUBMIT COPIES FOR REVIEW &COMMENT OTHER FOR BIDS DUE PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: NOTE.' If ENCLOSURES RECEI VED ARE NOT LISTED ABOVE, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE By: Trudye Smith Received By: Title: Project Manager Date: A RAINTREE COMPANY ROBERT W. M cKINN EY AI A RECEIVED Transmittal PLANNING Z-3 7'7i/ 2Do /z--9_- rcl73 tM)✓(- Date Project T. Project Number RTG Building Company 11502 West Main RE �_o P-0Ft�TY.--r�-'7�—•�i71 ,�,� We are sending you Herewith Under separate cover . The following: Copies Date Description 7 Zo o/ A= Z� �3 6 Remarks By • � P.O. Box 7671 Housion, Texas 77270 (713) 665-5665 Jul 16 01 02:45p p.9 I. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2.RFINO: Z_1 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Unit, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 8. RESPONSE CODE: PCRIfICAL ( J ROUTINE 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED 7. DRAWING Nos: S n 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP A. Q,j iy H r R-"F, �F{C D�rlti 1f� g,r S+401<-36J OtJ �I 'NI S DTZ"11JG 12. RESPONSE: 13. DATE —16 ' U I DATE Z'/0,/ 14. If the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 m4uires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Work. PA. 2r" o/Fd Jul 16 01 02:45p p.10 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: Z£� 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: S 8. RESPONSE CODE: ].CRITICAL [ ] ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED: T 15 u rJ c.Lc4Z W Nc -yj-r-. A-0-0 4ovJ TH r= DpZdp Iti1 C PAS SLw DErAi l HQ��►J o ►-% THIS AKA Q t J C, A'F''P�G-c) , P LJZ-AS e, I kp-i+q k6 rrk kr.>p t n-( oh1A t- pETA t I C DATE ! /6 '0 / 12. RESPONSE A10 z+Qo1n6ti1tt-- WeF-05,ffyQ ye A-S Pc-R pt:/ w S ,Ef}-cH CCAIVYD7 21V w tf M e A sIA� ID90P' cRDSs S TN-0 6R". 5 b Ef�'M , `T'1tz�- AFT /L- 77 i'/ S GDOy,0177 06) H79T 65-F-W QItSGy SF,d IN 71-) 6 S/775:' EV i �►•�S /�NSP o �v S. 13. O/ JA 0 "� / -, I DATE 712, it 16 1 ARCHITECf/P OJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. if the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Work. 'I&. ar,. o/* 01 02:45p I. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: 30 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City flail, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: SO 8. RESPONSE CODE: 04CRITICAL [ I ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED: rdf- TH. 12�ISED �ai741(C_ 'D�'fW 14 C-1W�f.� � ►,� yZF1 13 R�sR�NS� DATE 7— 6 -0 12. RESPONSE: QFF�54 TO 196?rltiL, 1tK'' F%M Mt+7T iC/'OJ/ N6- 64-6 R EPV IA Ui M ENT. S , PLEE & To Rcwlse�v A/ZR'w1IUQ su-NT 7v 9T--6 3O AfR.J L, 2.o O1. 13. t DATE/ O ARCHITECT/PROJECTENCINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given In Item 12 requires an adjustment In Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 - Changes in the Work. 74xr. o/k�. Page 1 of i PROJECT: LAPORTE CITY HALL CTY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 CONTRACTOR. R.T.G. Building Company ARCHITECT: Robert McKinney AIA ATTENTION: Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:113.665-5665 Fam 713.6654213 DESCPJPnON:- 30LOTION: pmjax Mmapd S .VOn rcm. RisE,f- Rvnl RFI No. — Date- / 30/ 2001 TbM• 4-�n'o l WN 0/11 02/i�}2f.2 A�ItadHaP}oem tWc 7A0 / REOVESTOR ACIMME GM THAT THIS RFI M TO USED TO REOEST WFORMATION ONLY. AND DOES NOT CONSTR A CONTRACT CHANGE NODWATICK MR G. Ragm MdAW Fu:IIS1T1. WO Rn fie FWd Omra RR Fk Mon Oft Houston P.O. Box 7671 Houston. Texas 77270.7671 (713) 665-5665 Date 3 O 14�-p - 2,0 O 1 Fax Number Z" I — 9 Col _ I Projwr O OLI F= C ITi We are sending you 2 tonal pages. T S 15 CO W190S ! 7"ff 01-AW I n) & of A& 5 S nz'ff�i"S Th-# - i 5t+o v L- 0 C, t, �F-t-j LC c ATl O N S xi Tt; -r WAT we rl-Wc1CAW S I WI 0 L,t F ( Eo -C lt5 c-�Tc R-0 (Z G f2-+ o 0-IOU I�J 5 . TtylC ?,�, ovs K' bet-a,Jl(2, 30 �. C&UUC-V 7-?)-2 z tzw�s e sus . 0 6 L/L AA 15 w G N n--6 70 D ISCUSS, Nol a N — �Ot COL /NS/Pc Papl lcK 2e�-: S2 R6 , De-�K /so I-o 2 S ArI R PALFIC Ne/Nr, 4T GPAX)U PMAM 11 �-�A�43 1 GAADC B Am PPZP / /+s pe-A 50 .1 e 1 RE so 02 WALL SECTION 0 5 RIE "M R6 : SO fRE : S I .i- • •r.i - ♦.�Ar it..l.q�.�Nf.. 1ti:1 +c ii'Di Yet -n,* Houston P.O. Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270-7671 (713) 665-5665 Dared 2D0 To Arm / % 0" ' Fax Number Project)/t We are sending you 2t— total Pages. t-� S9/— B?-- 46Z9 _nluY- 16 01 02:45p p.7 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: r5 t 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Ball, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: 5o 8. RESPONSE CODE: KCRITICAL [ ] ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED: I,JE Vk2 h%� f" �trJ� NywFF�►z o� ?-N�" y-9401,o/t'C 5 It✓f1c,2c: r»TAie- 4-4 4pperics DATE 12. RESPONSE: u 13. DATE V—"/ b� ARCHITECT/PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Work 7m, V� 010. J&416 01 02:44p p.6 GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: —37 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Han, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: S 8. RESPONSE CODE: dQ CRITICAL (j ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED Or- (S"n w G J3R1 ck- LL- DE, 1�i is 'I�> E�C RE1A0eT>, s -F VJ G Ref-moic. 1—r" --Pe $`Ki GK. Om- DATE7-16 Q r IICLE 12. RESPONSE: z � m�ai r 13. /17 DATE?.0 O I 14. If the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work In accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Work. 74. Wf 04�. 9FT NO 3 Z c4--,v7'd - Item 9 Existing grade beam detail "W ' is a general condition at the face of the existing exterior wall describing two issues: The relationship of the existing beam to the new grade beam and the condition at the area on the existing wall where brick is removed to allow for a new door. The detail does not intend for all brick on the face of the existing wall to be removed. The demolition plan A2.2 shows the area of brick to be removed. The detail "W 'l Sheet SO shows the condition at not only the area of brick removal but also the relationship of the new grade beam to the existing. This detail was discussed and explained to RTG in a conference call with RTG and Regan McPhail. A subsequent follow-up letter was issued July 6, 2001 by fax to both the city and RTG. Jul 1G O1 02:44p p.5 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: '3 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: ' & RESPONSE CODE: bo4-CRTTICAL [) ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED: SE�CMof 8 —g of t ixi�(�.�t�.►C-, Sd�1�S IF VCS 11. .��/- �--� /��✓� DATE O/ CONTRACTOR (Signature) 7177,E l2. p P�o�NSEI� r/N(r 4� 7vLv/ /ti % RAMP 1S To 6U P0C/2C-V mON01-/ rHI-04-L�l� A A10 n 7o pa (1X inrU cV f/'o hDw��S � Rev//z�b ''''''''7777 ��/� 13. �Q� DATE i%/& ARCHITECT/PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given in Item 12 requires an adjustment In Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's. Work In accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 - Changes In the Work. 74 sv� oaa. �wGvc� 1/C 02�iV1/° /S PDUR-�—e wlt.LC �t.a- ,f-S 7-&UCT-E�o . t Jul �'16 01 02: 44p p.4 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: s ' 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: , 8. RESPONSE CODE: H CRITICAL [ ] ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED S I SNawc, Mkt-oaG (-1" C-: IVHicw Is a [' vJPNG A 4,t,-- 5 &-c_7-1 o s o l o 5 NoIJ Z' 1� 1 t7E STcPS , 1�1 G t��-G'a Got'Z-iLEc.-r- 1��T�4 I �- 12. RESPONSE: P/r+ DATE 7-16 -Ol TITLE vvr°t°C7z, 13. ((//t'[ IVY -+ ` DATE '7 1,0 /b ARCHITECT/PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given In Item 12 requires an adjustment In Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 - Changes in the Work. Pz. 2r- ova. Item 6 The first request for information by the design team on this issue was on 5 July 2001 by telephone from the field office. The following response was given: The structural beam under the outside edge of the ramp is to be an " F" beam at 12" wide. The architectural capon the top of the slab is 24" wide as shown on the Plan A2.4. The height of the cap varies with the length of the ramp and is shown in elevation 01 on Sheet A3.1. A sketch was sent to further explain the condition. The architectural cap and the structural beam can be independent elements and can be constructed by the contractor in two pieces or as one element. A clarification for reinforcement was discussed in the filed review of the field condition on 10 July 01. Your literal reading of the plan condition at 3/A4.1 is not as was intended. From the plan it seemed obvious to the design team that there could be no steps at the edge of a ramp since the steps stopped at the previous grid -line. The use of this condition at 3/A4.1 was intended to describe the condition and relationships at the columns, exterior wall and roof structure. Apparently what was clear as to intent from the design team was not interpreted as such by the contractor. ql+& 16 01 02:44p p.3 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFI NO: 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: & RESPONSE CODE: ([CRITICAL [ j ROUTINE 10. INFORMATION 7. DRAWING Nos: S 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP R EF� ►Jo-T— S ' Oj1r -* q OPTC--s fo tZ t�L�� FoizGG—r'tcti-r 60%/E'tz4 tJ G Gory,Fi-[c-T drl-414R . PLc c- AUDhSC WHA i �[ 1�5 T'o aC-A85 17/C!+✓L' ;qr�s c_TL 11. /-�� — 12. RESPONSE: PA^DATE 7— (0 — O I � 1,6 R $IV GAS Mir`T S lamt l #0 v t-d 4.S" OG A ty. C c/NrJ e'x- b0 tV67- Z m q T) 13. DATE % 12,0 /O ARCHITE /PROJECT ENGINEER (Signature) 14. If the Contractor believes the response given to Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes in the Work. 7a..2r .. owe.. Jul 16 01 02:44p p.2 1. GFS NO. (FILE NO.): 2. RFINO: 3' 3. PROJECT NAME: Addition and Renovation of LaPorte City Hall, LaPorte, Texas 77571 4. CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY 5. CONTRACT NO.: 6. SPECIFICATION Nos: 7. DRAWING Nos: 8. RESPONSE CODE: kCRTTICAL [ j ROUTINE 9. DATE RESPONSE REQUIRED: ASAP 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED Rc- h ' Sera o r-1 W H 'Fib t=g o 4 TNT `DTPAI AH-r k5 sHowrJ on 7;4(5 c--TRiL- APP (wo)vc'ri Lt�A,r..tt=U. 1io 1c) 11. //v —1_--ti l,X 12. RESPONSE: FOKE I� I TNtSctT4%J a DATE /170M/� Tb EX(STNUS1A41bR?2.-T'0 Pr62O-470S) YO 0l2T %b 6F704-M 7H-,n-T wo v t-d ty#t6f r A-01-tE1!oN ©Y AFiV Ty 13. DATE /Q 14. If the Contractor believes the response given In Item 12 requires an adjustment in Contract Price of Contract Time, the Contractor shall submit a timely proposal so as not to delay Contractor's Work in accordance with the General Conditions, Article 7 — Changes In the Work. 2reo4* w ROBERT W. M c K I N N E Y AIA July 17, 2001 Doug Kneupper Planning Director City of LaPorte Box 1115 LaPorte, Texas 77572 RE: RTG Correspondence July 16, 2001 CLP Project #: 99-2206 Dear Doug, RCEVD PLANNING We have received the latest correspondence from RTG. Their claims are that structural plans and specifications are inadequate and that items have been added and changed in the field. We have reviewed our records and cannot find occasions to support their claims. We have responded to 36 RFI issued by RTG, 9 of the 36 were issued on July 16a' in conjunction with their July 16, 2001 letter from Jack Hancock of RTG to Doug Kneupper of the City. The majority of the new RFI's have been previously answered in RFI's, site reviews, and inspections. However, responses to the new RFI 28-36 are included for your review (sent under separate cover). The claim of changes is a convenient interpretation of actual events. The structural engineer has reviewed the foundations on four (4) separate occasions: July 3, July 9, July 11, and July 16, 2001. At each review conditions were found not in compliance with the intent of the documents. In lieu of requiring the contractor to disassemble the non -complying condition, correcting measures were suggested that would allow the condition to be brought into compliance, saving the contractor time and effort. As of our last review of conditions, non -complying details continue to exist. Should the foundation be poured in it's current state we have no confidence that the slab will perform as designed. As to the allegation that the City of LaPorte interfered with the contractor on the July 12, 2001 attempt to pour, we do not understand how a regulatory agency (La Porte City Inspections) can be accused of interfering when conditions do not meet their standards. However, City Inspectors should respond to this issue. (7 13 ) 665-5665 Pas (713)665.6213 20 Grccn wny flan. Sui.c 450 Houma.,, Tm,, 77046 PO Rux 7671 Housrun, Texas 77270-7671 Doug Kneupper Planning Director City of La Porte RTG Correspondence Page 1 of 2 With the latest response to RTG's July 12, 2001 letter from Jack Hancock to Doug Kneupper and the new 9 RFI's, we have no outstanding issues with regards to the foundation and see no reason why work should not continue to correct deficient areas on the foundation. Sincerely, 0 414A�o R bert W. McKinney, AIA cc: Michael Skoller RTG SARobert McKinney\MEMORIAL PARK GOLF COURSEkm07241a.doc ;3;jL 16 01 01:28p p.1 R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY _A RAINTREE COMPANY 11502 Wed Mun Street PHONE: 281-8674094 L Porte, Te 77571 FAX: 291-9674096 July 16, 2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director Coty of La Porte P.O. Box1115 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall. CLP Project No. 99-2206 Dear Mr. Kneupper: It was hoped by R.T.G. Building Company, that after our mating on July 13, 2001 our differences could be settled in a win win manor. However, it has now come to my attention this day, this will not be the case. R-T.G. Building Company will continue to peruse the work in an attempt to please the City of La Porte and the City's engineer of record. However no work will be done on added items until it is agreed who will pay for all added work and delay costs associated therewith. With the interference of the City of La Porte on July 12, 2001 and inadequate plans and specifications, as provided by your engineer, it is imposable to proceed with the added changes given this day, without further clarification. R.T.G. Building Company was presented a 16-page list of ad lodged deficiencies prepared by the City of La Porte. Be advised the grater part of this list is not understandable. We request a meeting with who ever prepared said list to provide clarification, so work can continue. cc: Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA Mr. G. Ragan McPhail, City of La Porte Mr. Marvin L. Rader, Marvin L. Rader & Associates Fm To: ENGINEERING OFFICE 120 SOUTH SECOND STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: 281-842-7046 FAX: 281-867-4629 9 From: Fax: 7�� ��GA_ V V Date: Phone:: n r Pages: Re: 0_4_ i CC: .. ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle -Comments: IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE TRANSMISSION PLEASE CONTACT THE LA PORTE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AT 281-867.4603. �e-�uan�' Jz ✓izGorvvwi,a,,�cL �u, ,l�s�ce4��L-;a✓_�'�"�..x�-e 3, 3 ��;�a..•-� owe � �..v�' f � .��Cc ,��a� M " Transmission Result Revort(MemoryTX) ( JuI.20. 2001 11:38AM ) ` ' ' 1) LA PORTE FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE 2) Date/Time: Jul•20. 2001 11:38AM File Page No. Mode Destination Pals) Result Not Sent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0161 Memory TX 7136656213 P. 1 OK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for error E•1) Hans up o, line fall E.2) B'.sr E.3) No answer E-4) No facsimile connection ENGINEERING OFFICE 120 SOUTH SECOND STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: 281.842-7046 FAX: 281-867.4828 q its oua.e oiwa Da sea o.r.r pp tTI/Y�e.Y Ya1141aAR1�T anaoay /p A7A,'e QL7itsL< 4f3.� r '�iTS. aL &� ..d" �!C..:vf�weri-j ?zt .oy�Gn. a�.rla.✓! 4: a..jCe . �.z.er6,.,.�CvG��4s(.,r>f.�•f+.-s2f"�Pcae.+l�?'�• .de.W dao�f cG.., y ba ry s2i/ laausz.� l� I Jul 16 01 01:27.p p.l R.T.G. BUILDING COMPANY A RAINTREE COMPANY 11502 Wet Main Shea PHONE: 281-6674094 'A Pate, Tew 77571 FAX 291-9674096 July 16, 2001 Mr. Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. Planning Director Coty of La Porte P.O. BOxll15 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 Re: Additions to La Porte City Hall. CLP Project No. 99-2206 Dear Mr. Kneupper: It was hoped by R.T.G. Building Company, that after our meeting on July 13, 2001 our differences could be settled in a win win manor. However, it has now come to my attention this day, this will not be the case. R.T.G. Building Company will continue to peruse the work in an attempt to please the City of La Porte and the City's engineer of record. However no work will be done on added items until it is agreed who will pay for all added work and delay costs associated therewith. With the interference of the City of La Porte on July 12, 2001 and inadequate plans and specifications, as provided by your engineer, it is imposable to proceed with the added changes given this day, without further clarification. R_T.G. Building Company was presented a 16-page list of ad ledged deficiencies prepared by the City of La Porte. Be advised the grater part of this list is not understandable. We request a meeting with who ever prepared said list to provide clarification, so work can continue. cc: Mr. Robert McKinney, AlA Mr. G. Hagan McPhail, City of La Porte Mr. Marvin L. Rader, Marvin L. Rader & Associates MEMORANDUM To: Dough Kneupper City of La Porte From: Robert McKinney, AIA Date: July 13, 2001 RE: Response to RTG, 12 July 2000 letter Regarding Slab on Grade — Concrete Placement Project #CLP-992206 Doug, We are in receipt of a copy of the 12 July 2001 letter from RTG, Jack Hancock regarding the foundation. The following is our response: Our notes and understanding from the original 2 May 2001 meeting differ from RTG's. In that meeting we discussed structural details but not all listed in the 12 July 01 letter. The design team gave an interpretation of the intent. No complete "revision" of the drawings was asked for by RTG or promised by the design team. A detail of the drop beam to receive penetrations was provided to RTG by National Structural as requested. That detail was provided as requested but no other formal revisions were done. All questions regarding plans, details, and intent have been answered in field meeting, inspections and responses to RFI's along with telephone conversations. There is a reference in the 12 July 01 letter to outstanding drawing and revisions. From our records, we have no outstanding requests for information and we have no drawings that are being revised or created. We understand the difficulty for RTG by having terminated the original concrete subcontractor responsible for the foundations. The state of the slab and mistakes by the original subcontractor make it very difficult for RTG to complete the project; however, we believe that we have assisted in every way requested of the design team in interpreting the intent of the documents and in assisting with the correction or modifications of conditions in the field not complying with the intent of the drawings. The following are responses to the 10 items listed as drawing problems. It has been our understanding through the process that the interpretations of the documents has been adequate for the purposes of the contractor. Item 1 The statement is not correct. Mr. Torres stated that detail "K" applies and includes detail "F". Therefore, detail "F" does not apply alone since it is included in detail "K". The detail "K" was simplified and discussed with RTG and ultimately given to RTG 04/30/01, in response to an RFI whose number was not included on their form. Item 2 Detail "K" was simplified to assist the contractor in his configuring the steps and beam at the perimeter of the foundation on the north and west of the foundation. The revised detail was discussed with RTG and a revised drawing was given to RTG on 30 April 2001. A response to the detail and its reinforcement was given to RTG in the rebar submittal and was returned to RTG with the reviewed rebar submittal dated 23 May 01. Item 3 Detail "Q" was a single notation on sheet S1 and was defined as a typographical error by the response to RFI No 17 on 3 May 2001. Item 4 The Detail "C" reference mark on the plan S-I was defined as a typographical error. The detail was corrected by a response to RFI No 18 on 3 May 2001 and described as detail `B". Item 5 No dowels are shown on detail 8-8 because it was assumed that the ramp would be poured monolithically with the rest of the slab. Juan Torres was informed on the 2nd construction review that the ramp was intended to be poured at a later date. Juan told Charles and Will from RTG that, if the ramp was going to be poured at a later date, it was necessary to add dowels and additional steel to be able to connect the slab to the ramp Item 6 The first request for information by the design team on this issue was on 5 July 2001 by telephone from the field office. The following response was given: The structural beam under the outside edge of the ramp is to be an "F" beam at 11 " wide. The architectural cap on the top of the slab is 24" wide as shown on the Plan A2.4. The height of the cap varies with the length of the ramp and is shown in elevation 01 on Sheet A3.1. A sketch was sent to further explain the condition. The architectural cap and the structural beam can be independent elements and can be constructed by the contractor in two pieces or as one element depending on his preference. A clarification for reinforcement was discussed in the filed review of the field condition on 10 July 01. The literal reading by RTG of the plan condition at 3/A4.1 is not as was intended. From the plan it seemed obvious to the design team that there could be no steps at the edge of a ramp since the steps stopped at the previous grid -line. The use of this condition at 3/A4.1 was intended to describe the condition and relationships at the columns, exterior wall and roof structure. Apparently what was clear as to intent from the design team was not interpreted as such by the contractor. Item 7 We do not understand this reference and cannot find the issue in our drawings as described. We assume the reference is to the above issue at item No. 6. Item 8 On the meeting of 2 May 2001, one topic discussed was the pier steel extending into the grade beams. It was stated that the pier steel did not need to be cut. Sections 1-1 and 2-2 are solely intended to describe the areas involving interior and exterior recessed columns. These details clearly show a 30" deep beam below the recessed column or 38" from top concrete. Item 9 The grade beam detail "W" is a general condition at the face of the existing exterior wall describing two issues: The relationship of the existing beam to the new grade beam and the condition at the area on the existing wall where brick is removed to allow for a new door. The detail does not intend for all brick on the face of the existing wall to be removed. The demolition plan A2.2 shows the area of brick to be removed. The detail "W"/ Sheet SO shows the condition at not only the area of brick removal but also the relationship of the new grade beam to the existing. This detail was discussed and explained to RTG in a conference call with RTG and Reagan McPhail. A subsequent follow-up letter was issued July 6, 2001 by fax to both the city and RTG. Item No 10 Foundation note #9 addresses the required clearance in beams. Slab steel shall be place on 2 '/4" chairs. Paragraph 3 RTG is correct in that the source for the water from under the existing building is unknown. All sources for the water have been investigated by the city and no leaks or seepage can be located in or around the existing building that would lead to the source of the water. The amount of water is small and inconsistent and not seen as a major detriment. RTG is drying the area with the use of lime and the removal of any excess water that accumulates over extended periods of time. lit,2"d, 3'd construction reviews by National Structural eneineerine 1" slab review: The first slab review was conducted on 2 July 2001. At that time, the slab was not ready, and the following items in need of correction were addressed at the time of the review: 1. The piers caps needed to be cleaned from mud and loose concrete. Per sections 1-1 and 2-2, the piers needed to be chipped down to approximately 8" to maintain a grade beam depth, below drops, of 30". 2. The issue of bottom and side clearances was addressed. 3. Made the observations that crew was using wrong size stirrups on detail W forcing the mat steel to be high. Refer to foundation note #12. 4. Several interior beams had installed (2) #5 bars top and bottom instead of (2) #6 bars top and bottom as indicated on detail "D". An option to add (1) # 5 bars top and bottom from beam to beam wherever #5 bars were used instead of removing, and replacing with the proper size steel, offered to the contractor. 5. Per foundation note #9, beams needed to maintain 3" bottom clearance and side clearance. 6. A 6" wide beam on ramp was missing. 7. Beams were to be deepened at conduit per the new detail requested by RTG & the City. 8. Some mat and beam steel splices were found to be short. Instructed that splices needed to be 18" for #4 bar and 23" for #5 and 27" for #6 bars respectively, per foundation note #5. 9. #5 dowels x P-6" long needed to be installed along the existing building as per detail "W". 10. Detail K was used to demonstrate the continuity of the mat steel from one side to the other. 11. Corner bars were missing on beams per foundation note #7. 12. Slab appeared shallow in several places. Crew needed to verify that slab thickness was as specified in plans. Slab thickness was to be reviewed at next review. 13. Turn downs needed to be installed. 14. Beams traversing drops needed to be deepened and piers below needed to be chipped down. Refer to detail A on sheet SO. (see item 1 above) 2"d review: The second slab review was conducted on 9 July 2001. On second visit, the main task was to focus on the items previously mentioned. Little progress was made from the time of the previous review. The foundation deficiencies continued to require correction. Yd review: Juan Torres explained, on several occasions, the proper installment of the reinforcement under the columns for the mat and the beam steel. All mat and beam still musts be continuous per plans. All splices needed to be per the plans and details. The majority of the items found wrong with the slab on the first review were had still not been addressed. Juan Torres left the jobsite about 6:00 with the agreement that if RTG completed at least 75% of the slab he would return the next morning to finish the review. About 7:00 p.m. Juan Torres received a call from Reagan McPhail saying that he needed to be at the jobsite before 5:00 a.m. f for final review, as they were going to pour immediately afterwards. Because adequate light does not exist at 5:00 a.m. and because it is not prudent to do a construction review of this magnitude the same day one is planning to pour, Juan Torres agreed to drive back to jobsite by 8:00 p.m. for another construction review. Once he arrived at the site, there were not enough workers present to assist completing the job. Juan voiced his concern to postpone the pour for another day. Review by Michael Skoller on 16 July 2001: During this cursory review Michael Skoller saw no added steel as alleged by RTG (except as previously discussed). The alleged added steel, that was placed under the interior columns, was according to the plans There were still numerous locations of missing steel and concrete grade of only 2" to 3" inches. Stirrups were found to be too high. Instructions were given to slant stirrups to allow 23" minimum. The foundation continued to be lacking in conformance and was not ready to pour. Please contact me if you have comments or questions or need further discussions to these responses. S:Utobcn McKinnc)ACrrY OF LAPORTE4m07161a.dm -1- R. T.6. B11IL PhV6 COMPANY A RAINTREE COMPANY 11502 West Main Street Phone: 281-8674094 LaPorte, Texas 77571 Fax: 281-867-4096 12 July 2001 Ref., LaPorte City Hall 604 West Fairmont Parkway LaPorte, Texas 77571 Slab -on -Grade — Concrete Placement Project #: CLP 9972206 R.T G.'s first progress meeting, on May 2, 2001, it was brought to the attention of Robert McKinney, AIA, (Architect), Doug Kneupper, PE (City of LaPorte), Tommy Carpenter, Inspector (City of LaPorte), Regan McPhail (City of LaPorte), Juan Torres, Inspector (National Structure Engineer) that structural details on the plans were incorrect. At that time R.T.G. was told that the details would be revised and corrected drawings reissued. As of this date R.T.G. has not received any corrected drawings. Some of the problems that exist with the Structural and Architectural Drawings are as follows; 1. Sheet S-1, Detail 'F"— North and West Exterior Beams. Mr. Torres implicated that Detail 'F' does not apply and replace with Detail Won Sheet S-0. 2. Sheet S-0, Detail 'K' was deleted and to be corrected and revised. 3. Sheet S-1, shows Detail "0' at Column A' Grid 5 8 "A'Grid 3. NO DETAIL "Q" EXISTS. 4. Sheet S-1, shows Detail 'C' between Grid Lines 1 8 2. NO DETAIL "C" EXISTS. 5. Sheet S-1, Section '8-8', The Ramp that is between Column Lines 'GBH' there are no Dowels shown to connect this ramp to the 6' or 12' Grade Beams. 6. Sheet A2-4, Grid Line 5, Refers to Sheet A4-1, Detail 03 — In reference to the wall at Grid Line 5, Detail 3 on Drawing A4-1 Shows this wall to be 2' wide with steps. Drawing S1 shows beam Detail "F" to apply at this location. R.T.G. needs a revision at this location to show which detail is correct and what the reinforcement requirements will be. 7. Sheet S-1, Detail 'F' indicates a 12' wide Grade Beam 8 Sheet A2-4 indicates 24' wide Wall — We have been informed by Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA that a 2' wide wall with no steps is acceptable at this location. Please fumish rebar details. 8. Sheet S-0, Section '14" and Section '2-2" from bottom of Grade Beam to Top of Finished Slab shows 38' — Details A' 'B", 'D' & 'F" from bottom of Grade Beam to Top of Finished Slab shows 30'. We were directed during pier drilling by City representatives that the top of the pier concrete was to be 30" below finished floor elevation. Later it was decided that 38" below top of slab would be required for all piers located at columns. This change required that 30 piers had to be broken down 8'. On Drawing SO the Drill Pier Schedule Drawing indicates the pier reinforcement is to extend 6' into the grade beam and be sleeved. Section '2-2" on this Drawing indicates the pier.steel is to extend 18' into the grade beam. Detail '14" on Drawing S-0 shows no reinforcement protruding into the grade beam. These details are Inconsistent and confusing. 9. Sheet S-0, Section 'W Grade Beam Detail at Existing Slab — Brick Ledge, Break out and pour Grade Beam. Note: If Brick Ledge is broken out the existing wall would fall down. 10. Sheet S-1 — General Note #9 — Specifies rebar clearances This can not be achieved due to 4- 1/2" slab thickness. In order to meet the requirements the inspector is demanding, which are; 3" bottom clearance, 1' of reinforcement, 1-1/2" clearance from top of slab to top of rebar equals 5- 1/2' therefore a 5-112'thick slab would be required. At the same time, it was brought to the attention to all in attendance that there was water continuously seeping from beneath the existing building slab into the proposed beam area. R.T.G. suggested that either cement stabilized sand or a seal slab be installed at the existing slab, but was told this would not be necessary. As of this date R.T.G. is still mucking water and mud from this area and the source of this water still remains unknown. 1" Inspection — July 3, 2001 National Structure Engineer sent Juan Torres to inspect the placement of rebar for slab -on -grade. R.T.G. had installed the #6 Drop Bars tied to the slab matt and beneath the columns as shown in Section "1-l' on Drawing SO. Juan Torres indicated they needed to be installed at 15' OC to match slab reinforcement. R. T G. relocated all of the #6 Drop Bars as per Mr. Torres request. LaPorte City Hall Slab on Grade — Concrete Placement Page 2 of 3 2n° Inspection — July 9, 2001 Mr. Torres was sent to inspect the rebar for slab -on -grade. Once again he stated that the #6 Drop Bars were incorrect, that they needed to be tied to the grade beam steel, instead of the matt steel as previously directed and indicated on the Drawings In order to make the grade beam steel continuous at the top bars of grade beam reinforcement. Additionally, Mr. Torres added 2 #6 Drop Bars at each exterior column. These additional Drop Bars are not indicated on Drawing SO, Section '2-2'. R.T.G. relocated and added rebar per Mr. Torres direction. At that time, at each column, Mr. Torres added 2 each #6x6'Bars each way to be located at the center of the grade beam reinforcement. Also, where the 4' electric conduit at column 'G-3' crossed the grade beam Mr. Torres required the grade beam be deepened to 35-112' instead of 30" as is shown on the plans. When the grade was deepened he required that 2 each #6x15' be added with 6 each #3 2'x2' "L" Bars. 3b Inspection —July 11, 2001 Once again Mr. Torres was sent to inspect the rebar for slab -on -grade. At this time, Mr. Torres said the #6 Drop Bars needed to be installed inside the stirrups in order to made a accurate jakq. He stated that the details on the plans were incorrect. Previously, Juan Torres stated that in order for the slab matt to be continuous additional #4 Bars would need to be spliced in where the matt steel breaks at column block -outs. Section "1-1' on Drawing SO clearly shows a break in the slab reinforcement at column block -outs. R.T.G. installed the additional reinforcement at Mr. Torres' direction. At 8:30 AM, on July 11, 2001, Juan Torres told R.T.G. that the bars were correct but needed to be installed under the matt. Sheet S-0, Detail 'W' (Grade Beam Detail at Existing Slab) R.T.G. was told to Install 1 #5x1'6" Dowel @ 24" OC and to add 2 #6 Bar continuous. On Mr. Torres 3 ° inspection (July 11, 2001) he directed R.T.G. to install #5 Dowels at the West Side of the existing slab grade beam. R.T.G. installed these dowel as directed. Due to all the rain we have received in the past, the bottom of the grade beams remained 12' wide, but the tops were 16' to 18' wide. To accommodate the additional width at the top of the grade beams, R.T.G. installed 2 #4 continuous w/#4x15'tie bars @ 5' OC, at the engineers direction. At 6:30 PM, July I Im, Regan McPhail from the City of LaPorte gave the okay for R.T.G. to go ahead with the concrete pour scheduled for 5:30 AM, July 12, 2001. At 8:30 PM, July 11, 2001, Regan McPhail and Tommy Carpenter from The City of LaPorte and Juan Torres from National Structure Engineers had another inspection. At that time they informed R. T. G. that the rebar for slab -on -grade did not pass inspection because some #3 noising bars and #6 drop bars were not installed and the matt was too high. R.T.G. had installed the #3 Nolsing Bars and the #6 Drop Bars prior to 5:30 AM, July 12, 2001. Tommy Carpenter advised R.T.G. that the concrete brick holding the matt up needed to be moved to go directly under where the bar crossed at 15' OCEW, which is not indicated on the drawings, both Tommy Carpenter and Juan Torres moved some of these brick themselves and additionally indicated that all other bricks installed in this manner would need to be.relocated. On Sheet S-1 it is calling for a 4-112' Slab w/#4 Q 15' OCEW 8 Reber Chairs @ 45' OCEW On July 12, 2001, at 5:00 AM Tommy Carpenter, the inspector with the City of LaPorte, was requested to inspect these items. He claimed that he could not inspect them at that time because a National Structure Engineer representative was not present. On the morning of July 11, 2001, around 10:00 AM, all interested parties were send notification (via fax) that R.T.G. would begin concrete placement at 5:30 AM on the morning of July 12, 2001, therefore it was to the discretion of all concerned to be at thejob site. On July 11, 2001, when Juan Torres (the Structural Engineer) was informed that R.T.G. would be placing concrete on July 12, 2001, he stated that he couldn't be there as he had family to deal with. ENGINEERING OFFICE 120 SOUTH SECOND STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: 281-842-7046 FAX: 281-867-4629 Fax To: k3.t..+ i '� /C ��7From: 1`-�q��- / / J �i`u.�►! Fax: Date: Phone: c f. Pages: Re:' - Z � ! n /Oy,,, CC: ❑ Urgent Xor Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply -Comments: IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE TR THE LA PORTE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AT 281-867-4603. 0 M ❑ Please Recycle PLEASE CONTACT ''A II -� Ild W . , II II II I I II II / fed I 0 i / II j / i / I , It / ®, % / II I / � � � i i � ----- (�ULLY Fi-11 WEDNESDAY T� W&CIPPIWARM i.a. lam. I dr. �.i 1' i✓r�... • - T MIME_M�..OWW �. M21 On THURSDAY 12 JULY 2001 193rd day — 172 days follow ` sip �...,.� .. ... �•taAa 4 .fl L. r p. STORK' Xa/z SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Stork Southwestern Labs 2522 Texas Avenue -Taxes City, Texas 77590 • Telephone:(409) 948-8494 FAX: (409) 948-4321 REPORT OF TRIP FOR SCHEDULED SERVICES NOT PERFORMED CLIENT: CITY OF LA POSTE ATTN: DOUGLAS KNEUPPER, P.E. P. 0. BOX 1115 LA PORTE, TX 77572-1115 PROJECT NO.: 6390316 PL6 REPORT NO.: 24330 PROJECT: City Hall Addition DATEOFSERVICE: 7/12/2001 AUTHORIZATION: REPORT DATE: 7/16/2001 SERVICES: Travel to the jobsite to perform services as scheduled. REPORT OF INSPECTION On July 12, 2001, a representative of Southwestern Laboratories, Inc. was present at the above referenced project to perform concrete inspection and testing services as scheduled. However, upon arrival at the jobsite the technician was informed that services for this date had been cancelled due to the contractor not being ready. Technician Time: 4:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. (3 hours) Technician Time: 4:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. (3 hours) Technician: Stevhen Henderson Engineering Technician Report Distribution: (1) CITY OF LA MRTE STORK SOUTHWESTERN LABS Sandi Hernandez Project Manager Our letters and reports are for the exclusive me of the client to wham they are addrasad and shall not he rapfnduced except in full mthou1 the approval of the mitim lalloralary. The me of our hame must warts our written ap rm,al. Our letters am reports apply only to the sample tested end/or Inspected, and are not Indicative of the quantities of apparentPy identical or similar products. 1099 Ll A ARCHITECT'S OW 13 A Ch.iECT Cl FIELD REPORT CONSULTANT AIA DOCUMENT C711 FIELD ❑ PROJECT: CL7 ro2T"E C�T'j lhY� CONTRACT: FIELD REPORT NO: �5 PLANNING ARCHJTECT'S PROJECT NO: DATE Y/ O/ Of TIME r2 �-- p WEATHER - C L ER7rZ TEMP. RANGE g 4' O F EST. Y OF COMPLETION CONFORMANCE WITH SCHEDULE (+, —._)/I WORK IN PROGRESS PRESENT AT SITE OG(/ /y/Cl2 12,FA'w #1cto HA (i ,TA -ow-. I+"co c k. I S'?/t-I�GT • "/G rM EER , OBSERVATIONS ) W� /2EyIF�ErD THc G(/R.�C�7V'r S'Tthr;< OF T7`�'£' 1'--0unr,0 -T� N �.¢ lff -st7r o Av , FaR r T1-Avizs. Po q_l GU/f759 IS 5T/l.L slaws-Y !/yTo TW17 NdK?f} GRAVC— l6Esl,ovj _(0 rHr ExIrTIN� SlMCO r47!E roy1e C =-eF 7?Y'e W4-7F72 C4'NN07 6E r VAIO a is M/tv/m/fI, • Ell &VAlA 3) PVt 4e7fV//1'' 27'e446RlcK DN I!t>% #N' rtl /,vtrty AS Ctt"f--0 Fz9A 9'1 AtCNi7F-c-f 644tt- 01L~1616s g-) 7•ltg� FX.1STiA16 ova OVA, Q6�liS}/✓✓ "!,v '' Docu�s ova 2evlswc , �io2� P(7 K'AWivUT IA 6;� P tAuC&V A-T A.9-,c-IYNT hUC TD WA•/L67Ur STELEL lZElNfOKclNG T.lv ENGIlv5" WIL-L ,> 6vlFw 2� Aoycrc' DowrLl tWIU, a INFORMATION OR ACTION REQUIRED __ ATTACHMENTS REPORT BY: /2ti Y" AIA DOCUMENT C711 • ARCHITECT'S FIEL PORT • OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA® • ® 1972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 page f of pages ROBERT W. M c K I N N E Y MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: RE: Tommy Carpenter Reagan McPhail Robert McKinney, AIA 6 July 2001 Foundation Review i LaPorte City Hall I•nI:1 3� PLANNING I spoke with Juan Torres of National Structural RE: Friday Review of the Foundation Forms. We discussed the brick ledge at detail 4/4/SO and the intent. Reagan and I discussed the detail earlier this week and I explained the following: We do not want to remove the existing face brick except at new openings which are shown on the plan. The brick must remain. The demolition drawing l/A2.2 and the subsequent roof and wall details of new to existing illustrate the intent. Detail 4/SO showing the brick ledge removed is a general detail of the configuration of the beam at the existing - and the probable condition at a new door or opening where brick is removed. We have intentionally left the existing brick in place for several reasons: 1) Construction is simplified and less disruptive at the north and west walls at existing occupied offices. 2) We get a "free" rated separation between the new and existing by leaving the brick in place. 3) Sound from the new functions to existing offices is lessened due to the mass of the brick and in some cases the sound is completely stopped. 4) The integrity of the existing re -roof detail does not require extensive repair and awkward flashing at the new modified condition. 5) The existing foundation does not require extensive modification to receive the new building. In short, the existing brick incorporated into the new wall is a benefit to the expanded building not a hindrance. We must leave it in place. SARobert McKinney\CITY OF LAPORTE\rm07091a.doc (713) 665.5665 Fax (713) 665.6213 20 Orem,wuy Plaza Suitc 450 House on, Tcxa.., 77046 PO Ilnx 7671 11.0 o.,, Tcxas 77270,7671 Jul 03 01 07:19p Debbie Barmore 713-852-3749 p.2 Robert McKinney From: Michael Skoller [michael@structural.nu] Sent: Tuesday. July 03, 2001 4:36 PM To: rmckinney@Mrarchitects.com Subject: Findings- LaPorte City Hall The following foundation items have to be corrected - LaPorte City Hall 1. Piers * Clean all Pier Caps + Piers to he chip down at recessed column locations to maintain the 30" deep beam '* Straighten pier steel 2. Beams Beams to be 30" deep at all times Add #6 bar top and bottom at wider areas Bottom clearance- 3" Side clearance- 2" Missing beam at ramp area ( 6" wide beam) Refer to beam details for steel required at beams Deepen beam at crossing pipe location Beam to be 35 1/2" and add (2) k5 bars in the middle of the stirrup Beam splice to be 27" minimum Add corner bars per foundation note No. 7. ( interior and exterior beams) Refer to detail "S" at ramp location ( not ready at the time of the inspection) Refer to detail "K" for nosing and mat layout Beam steel continuous at all times Dowels per detail "w" need to be installed. 3. slab Slab to be 4 1/2" at all times from finish concrete Mat splice to be lam minimum Turn downs need to be installed chairs need to be installed ##3 to maintain turn downs in place Refer to recessed column detail for mat steel layout. 1 Jul 03 01 07:19p Debbie Barmore 713-852-3749 ROBERT W. M cKI.NNEY AI A Houston P.O. Bm 7671 Houscon, Te 77170-7671 (713) 665-5665 Date 3c`�rl �.�/f/� 7-o� i To y I V p / ' t�^��% I L / L Far, Number �O 6Y / — s'( `� 7:�t We are sending yw —2G wmi pages_ ��►''GI.oSG� / �5 �- GOP y .(I F T NE d P°o n-7' rl�✓1 STYLvC-GyG tNf-eYL l�E�cFw of %VA10 r-i01J L?2C-FVrZ.G- 70-0� Mtn/ Nv� �-- Page I of I PROJECT: LAPORTE CTTY HALL CITY HALL AMMON CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. Sanding Company ARCHITECT: Robert McKinney ATA ATTENTION: Mr. Robert McKinney Phone: 713-665-5665 Fa:: 913-665-6213 DESCRiPTION:- SOLIMON: Caariea wader eroi«: MAOMW Supaismdan RFI No. —27 Date to / /$ / 2001 RECE VEIL o/ PLANNING RF-QUWOR ACXNCWU3MS THAT THIS AS lSf0 BE USED To REQUEST WFORMAATION ONLY, AND DOES NOT CONSTMM A CONTRACT CHANGE MODWICATTON. rc MR. G. Raapm MeR Fe= 713J71-7168 RFI Fie F'aM ONW . RFI FW Mab OBri RECEIVED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET PLANNING Date: (0` 11 -0/ a Time: 1 1 f� To: �e$&a � `eAc. L company: 1 "�e FAx No.:Phone N: �2rtE Tx 7751 j From:: r jU r Phone N 281-867 4094 Fax 9 281-876-40% From: Charles Welker. Projact Superintendent Number of pagm transmitted, Including coy= Z Pwjact No.: 99-2206 ptnject Name: City of Laporte City Hell Addition 604 West Ftumont Parkway LaPorte, Texan 77571 Comments: It you catlhol reed Otis lar or it you have any Quss im OUN m0 1 fot� >s4 Iunc 6, 2001 note'. l0:OpA.M. Time Meeting Attendee►: Charles Walker RTO RTO Will Udick Architect Robert N► 'Uney CLP Reagan McPIW Meeting Agenda: 1, work progress since last meeting: (a) McNabb plumbing has installed 12" storm drain and set test well. (b) Allied Fire Protection has set vault tap into existing main & stub up into new addition. 2. Field Observations: (a) All interior grade beams have been excavated and now working on exterior beams. (b) All rebar for grade beams has been tied and waiting for instaUation Problems and Decisions: (a) The Architect advised us that there was no need in cutting control joints every 15', we can fulkrw Ref. Drawing A2.4 (b) The Architect mentioned there may be some problems with the existing RR's and He will notify Will Udick with further information (e) The Architect mentioned we will need to move the handicap parking on the west entrance due to there will be a problem with the step being too high. He will provide us with a drawing. (d) We discussed patching the four crossings with concrete. and asphalt. There was not a problem with this. 4. Review of Construction Schedule: (a) RTO presented the owner with a new project schedule 5. Review of submittals: (a) We discussed with the Architect about the eoncretc ruix design. He explained it had been misplaced and now he has our new submittal and we will have an answer on 6112/011 6. Review of Request for Information Log: (a) As of 6/6/01 all of our RFI's are up to date. 7. Meeting Minutes: (a) The meeting held on N&OI lasted 60 minutes. Next meeting not yet established Meeting Agourned Reagan McPhail From: Doug Kneupper [kneupperd@ci.la-porte.tx.us] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:13 AM To: Mcphail, Reagan Subject: RE: CITY HALL EXPANSION PROGRESS MTG JUNE 6 No discussion about slab subgrade and its condition? -----Original Message ----- From: Reagan McPhail [mailto:mcphailr@ci.la-porte.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:11 PM To: Kneupper,,Douglas Subject: CITY HALL EXPANSION PROGRESS MTG JUNE 6 ATTENDEES: Robert McKinney Will Udick, Charles Walker - RTG All visible concrete to be scored as per pattern on architectural plans ADA wants us to submit a formal variance for restroom layout (131 & 132) . the existing restrooms do not meet today's minimum standards. A fee of $100 is required to submit a variance. If the variance is denied 18" of additional space will be needed. Reviewed 2nd pay request, item for fire protection questioned they asked for 100% of materials, RTG to revise or explain before acceptance RTG revised schedule - inter -office mail RTG to man project with 5 rodbusters & 5 carpenters weather permitting with 20 finishers when pour is scheduled RTG to repair asphalt cuts...... 1st north parking lot and then the south and drive-thru of which will be done on a Friday and remain closed over the weekend. I shall coordinate with utility billing. Date for this has not been set. 1 Reagan McPhail From: Doug Kneupper [kneupperd@ci.la-porte.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:25 AM To: Joerns,John Cc: Reagan McPhail (E-mail) Subject: Clty Hall Subcontractor I talked with Will Udick wl RTG Building Company. He stated that for performance reasons, RTG had to release the foundation subcontractor, Land -Craft, from the City Hall job. While RTG was releasing Land -Craft, a statement that was interpreted as being a threat was made to RTG. RTG then called La Porte police to be on the scene Wednesday morning to discourage the exchange of words, fists, gunfire, etc. Our police did not encounter a problem and the subcontractor is no longer allowed at the City Hall site. RTG will be continuing the foundation work later this week with their own crews in an attempt to place concrete at the end of next week. Will also told me that Scott Lake went to the RTG office a day or so ago and demanded to be paid for work he had performed for the foundation subcontractor. Will .told him there was nothing RTG could do and that Scott should pursue a formal complaint through the Dept. of Labor. Scott 'told Will he would go to the City and Will replied there is nothing the City can do either. 6n LANDCRAFT BUILDERS, INC. RE EIVED 440 BENNIAR3 SUITE 2110 HOUST011, TEXAS 77060" PHONE: (281) 445-7515 pLAN ING FAX 1.281) 445-7520 F FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL, SHEET TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INC. COVER: Pf *Cy��y�IJMRF•R: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RF' YOUR REFEP,ENCE NUMBER: ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR RFVIEF/ C ;FLEAS$ COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY: t)"elnPing 3 Silldi:-ig for the Millennium l� BUILDERS, 440 , , ON, TEXAS 77060 PH (281) 445,7515 _ FAX (281� 445,7520 May 30, 2001 R.T.G. Building Company 11502 W. Main LaPorte, Texas 77571 Re: LaPorte City Hall Addition and Renovation Dear Mr. Udick, The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter, dated May 29, 2001, that was faxed to my office on yesterday. The letter st.eted that LANDCRAF T BUILDERS, INC. was severely behind on the project and that we were understaffed and at an, "attention deficit "in relation to this project. Mr. Udick the grade, beams in 1A, 11, 12, & 13 were problematic on this project. These grade beams had column in them and the cut sheet showed long steel on the bottom and short steel on the top. The problem with this was that the short bars did not did not cover the length of the grade beam. Scott Lake had discussed this problem with Charles, superintendent with RTG, on severed occasions over the last few weeks and Charles said that he had not heard back from the arc hiteet. We requested clarification from RTG and to this day we still have received no positiv,i4eedback. /cotlt��� Mr. Udick you are incorrect in your stateme.ots, we have manned this project! And there has been competent supervision on this project at all times. The exaggeration of problems on this project, in relation to Iand.Craft Builders, Inc., came and continues to stem from Charles and Jason in whatever attempts that they are making at manning the project and making a little profit for themselves. ��. LAND CRAF7'BUILDERS, INC. RE EI ED 440 BENMAR, SUITE 2110 HOUSTON: TEXAS 77060 PHONE: ('281) 445-7515 PLANNING FAX: (2E'�I) 445-7520 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL- SHEET INC. COVER: Pi-8�i UuTZFR:' SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMHER: YOUR REFERF.NCF. NUMBER: ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT M PLEASE REPLY: M N0to/rnrr.r..c-:. nevelnring S BAI ling for the Mi?lenniwm ;:.LANDCRAFT BUILDERS,) INC. .0; HOUSTON, PH (281) 445-7515 y FAX 281) 445.7520 May 30, 2001 R.T.G. Building Company 11502 W. Main LaPorte, Texas 77571 Re: LaPorte City Hall Addition and Rencrvation Dear Mr. Udick, The purpose of this letter is to respo,rid to the letter, dated May 29, 2001, that was faxed to my office on yesterday. The letter eixited that LANDCRAFT BUILDERS, INC. was severely behind on the project and that we yore understaffed and at an, "attention deficit "in relation to this project. Mr. Udick the grade'3eama in lA, 11, 12, & 13 were problematic on this project. These grade beams hed columns in them and the cut sheet showed long steel on the bottom and short steel on the top. The p roblem with this was that the short bars did not did not cover the length of the grade beam.:? cott Lake had discussed this problem with Charles, superintendent with RTG, on sevemil occasions over the last few weeks and Charles said that he had not heard back from the arc:utect. We requested clarification from RTG and to this day we still have received no positive :isedbadc. dLake��tt Mr. Udick you are incorrect in your stateme: cts, we have manned this projeotl And there has been competent supervision on this project at all times. The exaggeration of problems on this project, in relation to Landiraft Builders, Inc., came and continues to stem from Charles and Jason in whatever attemp :s that they are making at manning the project . and making a little profit for themselves. NATIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEE 730 N. POST OAK ROAD, SUITE 300, HOUSTON, (713) 956-2094 FAX - May 29, 2001 Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA 20 Greenway Plaza Suite 450 Houston, TX 7046-7671 Re: City of LaPorte City Hall Mr. McKinney: The following are clarifications for the foundation to the above project in order to accommodate existing field conditions: 1. Beams containing 4" conduit must be 34" deep. Refer to attached drawing. 2. Pier steel can be extended 18" into the beams and should be at the column locations. 3. Per our detail W, beams must be 12" wide from face of concrete. In cases where existing concrete obstruct into the new beam, widen areas as necessary. Provide additional (2) #5 bars, (1) on top and (1) on bottom. If you have any question regarding the information provided, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ALAN SKOLLER 48544 Michael Skoller 4" PIPE CROSSING BEAM / 12" X 34" BEAM \ TOP VIEW 4 1/2" SLAB WITH #3 BARS 15" O.C.E.W. L #3 TIES @24" O.C. ELEVATION �J (2)#6 BARS TOP AND BOTTOM PER DETAIL "D". (2) #5 BARS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STIRRUP WHEN BEAM DEPTH EXCEEDS 30" NATIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. 730 N. Post Oak Rd, Suite 300 Vow Houston, TX 77024 Phone: 713 956-2094 Fax: 713 956-2095 E-mail: michael truclural.nu ROBERT McKINNEY, AIA Addition to LaPorte City Hall LaPorte, TX Date 05-23-2001 Rev. 0 NATIONAL Mr. Robert McKinney, AIA 20 Greenway Plaza Suite 450 Houston, TX 77046-7671 May 23, 2001 Re: Rebar Schedule- La Porte City Hall, La Porte, TX Mr. McKinney: After reviewing the rebar schedule for the above project, I have found that no information was provided for the following:. 1. No. 5 nosing bar per our "Drop -In -Beam' detail. (Attached 1) 2. No. 5 —30" X 30" angle bars shown on the "Drop -In -Beam" detail. (Attached 1) 3. Angled #3 bars at the recessed interior columns as detailed in section 1.1/SO. (Attached 2) 4. #3 turn downs @ 15" O.C. as shown on details A and F. 5. Dumpster Pad was not designed by National Structural Engineering The review was only intended to address the type of material to be used and not the quantity provided. National Structural Engineering does not determine drop amounts or locations. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the phone number above. Sincerely, Michael A. Skoller,. m W 0 Q W m I r. 36" SPLICE I ' ', r (TYPICAL) rJ5 NOSING BAR �5 ANGLE BARS � � � I 3 X DROP 12" MIN. DROP PER PLAN �C, QLL W Q - - - m DROP IN GRADE BEAM EXTEND 36" a lAei AFTER STEEL PIPE COLUMN INSTALLED ------------ ---- �— ---: — --� GRADE BEAM Z_ J a00 rai X a wco Nm `-' w M .2 C7 - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 A d6LEr .r/o • 3 1- NON -SHRINKAGE GROUT (2) �6 BARS TOP & BOTTOM & (2) #6 BARS 6 MIDDLE W/ 3 TIES O 24' D.C. TYPICAL INTERI❑R F❑❑TING SECTI❑N '1-1' GRADE BEAM O 12" O.C. W. IN FOOTN. TOP & BOTTOM m Few To: h O 4- ENGINEERING OFFICE 120 SOUTH SECOND STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: 281-842-7046 L FAX: - 281-867-4629 From: & -*, a1 1 r � Fax: Date: 5 /Z ) o I Phone: Pages: / 1 Re:' CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review �Iease Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle -Comments: IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE TRANSMISSION PLEASE CONTACT THE LA PORTE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AT 281-867-4603. �I1A w /a //l s�st// a ✓inral��D.t.tt se , 534e� f�c ad. `fates - -' a� Vit ata� ..r. / ewe.' 3) WA� ARCHITECT'S FIELD REPORT AIA DOCUMENT C771 ON ❑ ARCh,(ECT ❑ CONSULTANT ❑ FIELD ❑ PROJECT,: L -?'DA--7Fi_C_!_M FIELD REPORT NO: PLANNING CONTRACT: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: DATE S/i. /O I TIME /O C�'O Cl , WEATHER G L E/f 2 • TEMP. RANGE i0 n 1 • EST % OF COMPLETION 40 % CONFORMANCE. WITH SCHEDULE (+, —) ✓ WORK IN PROGRESS PRESENT AT SITE 6iv"veyL' • FDUA/O/ 7M NS c0 Mr / et' -�a (I— elSTIL c G-A16'/n1&-0-j'e-- OBSERVATIONS F011N✓I4Tr91vs WEile k1-5-✓I F-wE0 ?f--r ra PC-Jl&i✓ INTENT`: Gti"& /3c-/?vv czEVltTdvAtf <f CelyFt G a/ZAT( 0 AIS W F-/tc plScussseV 4- 9-i: v!%wcd /ti TltE . PF7vE�rT1z1rTt0 Al s or P4-vm 6 w 4�- !� 6-- 11-7 � (//�if3'7lON�• w �� /�%-v�F w � � srrzv�rrr/�-�r-�- A //A- / A /r—:_ n /;z A-Il r- 1 A/('r/1 u c?z n A/_ C le-Fd A 1AA1P16U2/N 0- Th`e eX/ I T/N A6-7tlC1F vC-N G( W/L•� c-x ! s7/NG SZ vNn�n ( ll Ll ANC- OLvr/0nJ V1 f fr/ N M JLT6 w! /.G (ST/N � G2tW '4 illAge /sus 9 vG fig T/1` ITEMS TO VERIFY S0l//t c,6 OF kll&TC-/L (Al EXlsr/NCB 61/t-V/N6-- INFORMATION OR ACTION ATTACHMENTS REPORT BY: t�G�� /yr�yC/w/✓G AIA DOCUMENT G711 • ARCHITECT'S FIELD ORT • OCTOBER 1972 EDITION • AIA® • m 1972 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 35 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTOtJ, D.C. 20006 page of 2-- pages PeWarrn400 CAI (>ieeVC ctz GLhvJ ne rrff- OF PEi?Ve7' VCW . #5 OvEj¢,l�vl4 ;., e •�1 I . �wsT�N�r aG- SE-�: ,so 1/ 30- ku-r v� s&t:-f-7o,U`w, 7rts ov&iteoF vA 8 �� REYYNt/N . sH /Ffi J3ol-0 p,M_ &F O�E2pav� Mf��nrrA/Al SIzE OF 8Ej9iVl , Fg. 2 of L FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET Date: 09 May, 2001 To: Mr. Teresa Whorton FAX No.: 713-937-9883 From: Will Udick, RTG Building Company Phone: 281-867-4094 Fax: 281-867-40% Number of pages transmitted, including cover: _2_ Project No.: CLP Project No. 99-2206 Project Name: Addition to LaPorte City Hall 604 West Fairmont Parkway LaPorte, Texas 77571 Company: Reber Supply Company Phone: 713.937-8999 Xlf eA& 4 fm d4" 9... IZ " w uwr vad ad,'. fitrwde CC; Mr. Charles Walker, RTG 281.867-1114 Mr. Robert McKinney AIA 713.665.6213 Vernon Land, Landcraft Builders, 281-442-7520 M?-. r:C-Wa K-1 �PHAv—te-OL. 281-4-11-'It(o$ RECEIVED s o/ PLANNING FEED I-cl e69:60 IO 60 Rew I S: xd os : OS :9�j 9 ViOV,'SV ' N01103S IIVM ZO - • OS . af�x sk/ d aard w.{�g 9 pyar� p( °oullZI) OSI, -I, = 90 C'bt/ P. 4N J-T21 l l-J"d s� 71 -Ead �d�sN70�i N N N N = May 14 01 06:17p Debbie Bermore 713-852-3749 p.1 R0BER.T VV. M c K I N N E Y A IA Houston P.O. Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270-7671 (711) 665-5665 Dam J[—�J — V OOI To Crl �17�'�i.� fffW4-t KE-74, ClO n-rG Fu Num6er _ Z8 � — 8 6 %— Cf Off% Project— � We are sending you mml pages. i2LIF sr.� m vS 7 ra , �7ivic c7o .MON'O"THZGZ,V �_Lr (S PFS161vb-O fi-I A S7iFF��y� J (-&rz) To /z.0 S��O(L- �10 T- ft-S /. E-n- 45i5o7-f�c-ff S TVy tZ ,4- Go AfT J-C-r2tt7�t0N (/Vl L !i NOT' WoOR-K rrl�— SU3L /c� � i� 7v _MNO L / % bl I G 7o VV02lK I)S BY R at �� 2S/--P6 - q6 2,9 FACSDULE TRANSMISSION SHEET Date: S-9-61 T' Al 0 To: gAheA n kelular cmapamy: A,I.,t FAXNo.: 1t� (e�i5.bZ13 Fhm�e N:-IIS_(yt.s-S6/iS From: RT r Birild_'.._SS;s r� Phone # 281-867Am — NBW NUMBER . Fax N 281467AO96 — NXW NUMBBR Namr. charley Walker Number of Pages tttmsiO4 mdud'uu cover. I Project No.: 99-2206 Project Neme:'Ciry of La Pmte Ciry U Addition `604- Weyf Paimoamt Padtvsy IA PoM Tams 77571 RE EI ED s. PLANNING rrl A" im s r 6r rr rood" OWN &a ,) Tttlr �n/GtN Dto OCT RZVIf-�-w Tilt DRlLLIlv&- or� Paup,jr%t OF `rt-te PttA-S & CAW ArOr cowlmr✓nrf pFs otjo t-KS Dp-A-1NlNGS vrttir-W CALL- {=o►z 12' FIF-PS -rW IGO:W Eck} Ito"o �ESPoNb IF DIFFER-G—nrC N106"rtOMS l T. 2) pTG -ro pKov1Dt A DO-AwIMG aF WtiprT IS Pko PoSG—YJ prop, eN6(146c�- "P(44VA\,/lL6VlEw -_-_ 7 Tttt ENGrN6& MPrY)E A F►Et.q (1Eu16w corinvmD-NT OF W h-Ar-- IS P" "-3a ffV tT- IRV pr -.S 01 y, h--ct1PTA-I$ t,'E�,7 o 0-t6 tN 4,L,-/ � t� �cN c/-b✓-) E5owi'colV5 w l w/ern. A-n Tbr wu-15r E To Ce A& p oa-r =i qTN� tNOa-.K- oN Td*+'r E'FFoR-T mu3T 2E s<MP1,ov Gy T tirr OW WT'yL ►Q� C4<- 0 M ROBERT W. M cK INNEY AIA RE VED of Transmittal Date Frojett To Douglas K. Kneupper, P.E. City of La Porte P O Box 1115 �r;115 We are sending you erewith Under separate cover - The following: Fl: Cupiea Date Remarks No — //I Gfiti Project Number , RE PLANNING Description d�T 2Z . By P.O. Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270 (713) 665-5665 May 04 01 11:50a Page 1 of I PROJECT: LAPORTE CM HALL CITY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 RFI No. GG Date 5 1-4 / 2001 CONTRACTOR: R.T.G. Building Company ARCHITECT: Robert McKinney ALA ATTENTION: Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:713-665-5665 Fax: 713-665-6213 1 DRAWING/SPECIFICATION NO DESCRIPTION: S�-L= ?7.+7�2� 5Zs A --';- SOLUTION: Rcgmmr's Signaawe Date' Ceuia Walktt .{ Pmjw Managed Sui ctintendent , S LC V3 1-W'AZ A3.1 P-1 NOTE ALvwl i or- e, j.Euv6A, , l0/ REOUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS RFI IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST INFORMATION ONLY, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE !i CONTRACT CHANGE MODIFICATION. A N CKOIL Tro 5TV69 Li SO FP!% m: MR.G. Reagan MCPIWA Faoft3-471-7168 RFI File Field Office A I Awr—t1op, A-NC"R TO CAL �1 TO caL- L-ow&K LoVVC---A, May U9U 1 1 1 : eua P i Page 1 of I PROJECT: CONTRACTOR ULT I M_I115I" I:�l vtoluI1 ORN LAPORTE CITY HALL CITY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 R.T.G. Building Company Robert McKinney AIA Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:713-665-5665 Fa:: 713-665-6213 RFI No. — 2— Date 5 / 4 / 2001 DESCR11MON:- VE F lil Ake 1.1.1�' SO 5Cc-r1,t j" IAj II+tS V&-t-A(L-. IaDlc. eS f'' -re 2" SA+JO CIPT11,jA�. SOLUTION: R ;Iu 's Sigmana Cha1a Walker Pmjea Managed Sqm-undent Dale: 04' MAF ZAo f RESPONSE: : 5 I Fou nr f t o of s Vc' Sq " G of 5 eu! o vnU �r r o O sc Sand t :+ A`ehiwaMngin . Dam: t jn4 d%7 w01 REQUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS RFl IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST INFORMATION ONLY, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE MODIFICATION. W. MR G. Reagm McRaE Fa:: 713471.7188 RR Fibs Field 011m RFI Fie Male Gate S May U2 U1 Uz:eup Page I of I PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: ARCHITECT: ATTENTION: LAPORTE CITY HALL CITY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO. 99-2206 R.T.G. Building Company Robert McKinney AIA Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:713-665-5665 Fax: 713-665-6213 RFI No. - I I Date/ 72001 DESCRIPTION:- f.0 FAltlli1j-C. S -S�rT101.� tt �C ,� I S iZ�ist+c..�y� AT i HC Ir`-ITc(2sCGT !O� SOLUTION: Date: .j — - -o J Charles Walker Project Manager/ Superintendent Sib, %0 U l REOUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS RFl IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST INFORMATION ONLY, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE MODIFICATION. 1-6 cc MR G. Reagan McPhal I = 7+3-471-7166 RFI Fie FLM Offim RFI File Main O1Gca May 02 OI 02:29p Page I of I PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: ARCRITECT: ATTENTION: LAPORTE CITY HALL CITY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 R.T.G. Building Company Robert McKinney AIA Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:713-665-5665 Fax: 713-665-6213 RFI No. - 1 g Date-" / Z-/-2001 DESCRIPTION: fir. COL.UVA" L_t1J& G �jcvft o� G 15 Fc FER�,JaC D oa 6F , D c.1.1t:- L BETI.1 tE j - lei �to Cs-rAt1— FOR-CTto L S 1 0 YA t �S Requate 'a Chada Walker Pmjeet Manager/ Superintendent AmhilecJEngirc .. Date I G Due: 3 MA'tl Zoo f REQUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGES IAAT THIS RFI IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST INFORMATION ONLY, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE MODIRCATION. MR. G. Reaper MrPhal Fa: 713471-7166 RFI Re Field Otto RFI Fie Main Otte p.2 May U2 U1 UU:NBp Page I of I PROJECT: LAPORTE CITY HALL CITY HALL ADDITION CLP PROJECC NO.99-2206 RFI No. - I I Date S/ Zi2001 CONTRACTOR: ARCHITECT: ATTENTION: DESCRIPTION:-?-)—: R.T.G. Building Company Robert McKinney ALA Mr. Robert McKinney Phone:711465-5665 Fa:: 713-665-6213 liYl�atlt�G 50,1 SHeJS I�t St-0pe n. 1v %S Pc-� fvoT Sbi nw I O D o a Lo C \Mir-H 1 SOLUTION: zvm 09) Regattsw's Signaave r ! Date: �• "' Carta walker Pmjat Maaaga/ Superiwmdmt RRCPnNCR: TH-e l tVTENT 1 S TO AMV6 A l S 6A S +-T 77fZc IS OF6�/ 'TO 40VA1N 7-0100S T Ai1.2, AmhitwttEngine .. ��iin2lS Date: 3 *2A-11 Wo/ REOt1ESTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS RFI IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST INFORMATION ONLY. AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE MODIFICATION. MR G. Reagan McRto4 Fax: 713471-7166 RA Re Fold Ofte RR File Mam Ofto RprMAY. j.'2UU12 1:hh M UABNtY tNUlarmcre i,�j-une-'NU. Hd . 'Apr 30 01 11:37a P. '2/4 r P. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Page I of I RFI No. — Dale 4 / 80 2001 PROJECT: LAPORTE CITY BALL CITY HALL ADDTTJON CLP PROJECT NO.99-2206 CONTRACTOR: R.T.G.BuNingCompaay ARCHLTECT: Robert McKlmey ALA ATTENTION: Mr. Robert MclOnney Pbone: 713-665-5665 F*r. 713-665-6213 DF.SCREMON:- SdSC-- ATTACM&P RFt V7906k So" - RtSda c� Rav"v.1 0 4-so-of Dam CS10-d'61 RR R TO BE USEOTO REQUEST W MRTION ONLY. AND OOEB NOT CONSTITUTEA cc ,e10. Raapan NCPW Fac MV1.71e1 RFI Fla Fad 0Mm RFI Flo Wain C11m • Houston P.O. Box 7671 Houston, Texas 77270-7671 (713) 665-5665 Dare 2�- ,/A, n' ," 'fin/ I �� a l . F. Number / 3// Project t-A- We are sending you —3— tool pages. ay , Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: �LAPORTE CITY HALL cary'HAI;Y—ADDITION CLP PROJECT NO. "-2206 CONTRACTOR: ARCHMCT: ATTENTION: DESCRIPTION:- SOLUTION: ILT.G. Building Company Robert McKinney AIA Mr. Robert McKinney Phone: 713-665-5665 Fa:: 713-665-6213 RFI Na — Z41 Date S / 8 / 2001 REC, I ED 01 PLANNING Raryatm'e Sip--66'T� . cnufa walka Frojca Mmapd Sapaumadm t nrevnxar. TWS 5 AfCWWMEapeea: 16G►o ip 1.12 %TIC)N DOES REOUESTOR AG01101M.EDGES THAT THIS RA IS TO eE CONTRACT CHANGE MODIFICATION. as NFL G. Rm W MCPW FCC 113471-7168 RF1 Fie Feld Otea RFI Fie Main O®s SLEsvES . IIJ6 TO REDDEST wowlAT1011 GILT, ANO DOES NOT CC04TM M A GLUES us A D alA-W I M& O F w+41�--r I s PRO P o S t�v - -rf�G Sown 0 N R•Ev t eAi e io (N Ttifr PI F-L O &r,a"r rAYA t,C- TO T l b V-nrGWU-6A, ACSScusStOfV ( lec L� . Tt�- .b Coivact Documents. The Architect reserves the right to reject mater:at from a manufacturer who is not 1'16ted, for that reason alone. This is not Intended to prwAice the submittal of alternative manufacturers and methode that may be benKiWl to the project- 2 SLEEVES, CUTTING AND PATCHIN13 A. Provide for the timely placing of sleeves for all raceway end exposed c Who Paeeing through wells, pill beams, floors, and roof while same are under Construction. If holes and sleeves are not properly Installed and cuttng and pstching oaoorn" nacaseary, it shall be done at no expense to the Owner, Severe approval from the Architect before Cutting or patching a 1�corstructed or existing well. �v v 8. Where the floor or well ls Are rotad, tw ponetrotlOn Shore be txfrtldetely seated using UL lbmd materials end a UL listed procedure sufficient to preserve tree Are rating. wners the local authorities have special requiremants, then those shell be fully compiled with. 1.13 E5cuTCHEONS A. Provide heavy chrome-plsted or nichel-plated plates on conduit passing through wells and ce lingo In Anishad areas. Escutcheons shell be 8 d C No. 10. or approved, chromaplaUd $Iasi plates wirl cono"ed hing". 1.14 PROTECTION OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT A. Take particular taro not to damage the building Structure. AD finished floors. stop treads and finished surfaces Shea be covered to prevent any damage during construction. Repair at no cost to the Owner, any dwnago to tie "Ong faculties. 8. Do not deliver agUlpment to job site until progress of construction has reached the $tape where equipment Is sel ly needed, or until building is dosed in enough to protect equipment from the wea or. C. Adequately pro1W equiprnwd Rom damage sillier detlyn to job. Cover with heavy drop cloths as required to protect from plater, dirt, point, water, or physical drrnage. D. Equipment which he$ been damaged by eonatructlon activiUea or weathered due to wwoper storage win be rejected, and Contractor ls oWiCeted to fumish now equtpntertt of a like kind. E. At time of flnei acceptanos, equipment shall be clam. 15 ACCESS DOORS A. Provide sled, hanged aceess door and frame with hush hOt101e for all 00606/11 M CJbhbb• Arno On boxes, cable tap boxes, smoke detector$, or otter equiprrNnt which la ftWed In inaccassible condrucW but is required to be seceeyible. Access doors shall suitable nor the otinatructon In which May are t 3tNed. Doors Shoji be provided under another Division. Provide all Information required for locating and ailing MoSs socess doors. 1.16 EQUIPMENT NOISE AND VIBRATION ELECTFUCAL REQUIREMENTS DE No.8000260 10010-4 C. rq ELECT DE No. � RTG BUILDING COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION In order to maintain and improve our Company commitment and reputation for quality, all project assigned personnel shall, as apart of their daily supervision, coordination and administrative duties, monitor the various phases or components of construction so that a continuing system of quality assurance prevails and this process becomes a matter of record The purpose of this program is to assure that the building or facility is constructed in accordance with the contractual requirements, i.e., plans, specifications, applicable codes, accepted industry standards, approved submittals including shop drawings and within a predetermined cost and time framework; Conformance to. Requirements. For RTG Building Company and projects managed by the company, the definition of "Quality" is conformance to requirements. In order to accomplish this, it is required that all supervisors employed by RTG Building Company, as well as those of subcontractors, expend every effort to ascertain that all components of the projects are properly coordinated and that quality is of such a cab'ber that corrective work be kept to a minimum DEFINITION AND INTENT For a specific project, the Project Team is designated as the Quality Improvement Team (QM for the project, The QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM is RTG Building Company's method of assuring performance, by all parties, of their responsibilities and contractual requirements. The basic intent of this action program is to require all RTG Building Company field staff to make formal periodic quality control checks of the work as a part of their customary duties and activities related to coordination supervision and administration of the construction process. Their objective will be to prevent improper work, identify the root cause of deficiencies at an early stave, and cause corrective actions to be taken by the responsible parties. They will then follow the correction of deficiencies, verify and document that fact for future reference. It is not the intent of the program to provide additional or extra services customarily provided by other professionals, i.e., such as full time or 100% inspection or testing services. Such services will be coordinated and integrated into the overall project quality control program. It is the intent to require all subcontractors, suppliers, etc., to fully perform their contractual requirements related to quality control. The first line of action is PREVENTION non conforming actions and work This is accomplished by F rarnfid review nf.ill mritraemal requirements (including olans and specifications) and develop a plan to ',• ensure conformance to the requirements. Communication and education of these requiremertis to all RTG Building Company staff; trade contractors, and their workers is the key to success of the PREVENTION process. The second line of action is MONITORING and CHECKING of the activities and the work Recording deficient and / or omitted items and developing corrective action plans is necessary to document current performance and corrective action. The third line of action is FOLLOW UP, recognition of the root cause of nonconformance. AND CORRECTIVE ACTION. Deficiencies and omissions are monitored to ensure that corrective action has been taken by the responsible party on or before the assigned dates. Further follow up is made to ensure the deficiencies and omissions are not repeated The Fourth line of action is VERMCATTON. The process documents that. (1) there were no deficiencies noted when checked. or (2) corrective actions were taken and it has been verified in writing that the action is acceptable. The keyword being documented. The final course of action is MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW of each projects nUALITY ASSURANCE activities ensure that the spirit and letter of the program are stet. i.e.. AUDIT of the details and process It is intended that inspection, reporting and corrective action will be performed as an integral part of each person's routine job activities and is not a special or unique job description or activity performed only by designated personal. duality verification is to be an item of discussion on the agenda of every iob progress meeting. Such items as status of shop drnwinu, catalog cuts, samples, approval of manufacturers, inspection and test reports, and coordination of electrical and mechanical trades are to be discussed and minuted. All staff assigned to quality verification function must remain cognizant of the fact that the architect and their consultants are responsible for the design of the facility. In the event that situations arise where details are improper or unworkable. it is not the function of these staff members to modify the design documents. In this situation. the architect should be notified and the design corrected by those parties responsible for doing so. RTG Building Company Deficiency Tracking Log Location: Page Number: of Disttribution: Owner _ RTG Building Company Project File DATE: ACTION DATE: DATE CORRECTED DATE VERRIFIHD DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY: REMARKS: PREPARED BY: TITLE DATE: ACTION DATE: DATE CORRECTED: DATE VERPJFIED DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY: REMARKS: PREPARED BY: TITLE: ",pp=NDIX. ?IL•LD NGiNEERING: HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL 'i. Are batterboards, bench marks and other reference points being adequately protected and maintained? b. Was the appropriate base or axis Line placed as required and in time for trades to proceed uninterrupted? C. Are the 4' marks and/or other references to elevation adequate and promptly placed where needed? d. Were the transits and levels checked for accuracy during this period? e. Has the work of the concrete Subcontractor been checked for line and'grade? f. Has the work of the masonry Subcontractor been checked for line and grade? g. Has the structural steel been checked for plumbness and elevation? h. Are field books being used and entries being properly made? EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL Excavation a. Have all permits, and permission from private owners affected by the work, been obtained? b. Have all working drawings of sheeting, bracing, underpinning, etc. been submitted and approved? c. - Has excavation been performed ro Lines and grades as specified? d. :E material under Eoor.ings has been removed or disturbed, has it been crcpar'_y backfilled and compacted or has it been filled with concrete? e. Have bearing surfaces been examined and approved by proper authorities? f. Is trench excavation a reasonable distance in advance �. Has unsuitable material been removed and replaced with suitable material,as specified? h. Has material unsuitable for 'packfillina been stored separately from suitable material? :ias excavated material Seen tored.in approved areas so as not to obstruct :ha flow of vehicular traffic, pedestrians or surface wacer.' Has excavated macar'_al '_•::Fn iisposed of in approved areas (on or off site) ar.d cave necessary permits been secured? Have excavations been p_c_ariy sloped and/or sheeted as specified and is .:cca_c_::ca with OSHA? L. Have sheeted excavations been properly shored and braced? M. Has sheeting been properly anchored at the bottom? n. Have adjacent structures and/or utilities been properly underpinned or supported to prevent damage? o. Has sheeting left in place been cut off at the proper depth below grade? p. Have adequate means been taken to remove and dispose of water from excavations and to assure a dry work area? q. Have adequate means been taken to maintain a Lowered water level in order to prevent uplift or flotation of structures? r. Have settling basins been provided and maintained where suspended material is removed with the water? S. Have fences, pedestrian and vesicular bridges and plating or decking of excavations been installed as specified or required? t. Is blasting being performed as specified or directed; is, number, Length, placing, direction, and loading of holes correct? U. Have structures and utilities adjacent to the blasting site been previously surveyed and adequately protected? v. Are timber or steel mats being,used to -cover the blast areas? W. Have explosives been stored and handled as specified and/or in accordance with code requirements? X. Is the explosives magazine adequately protected against vandalism? y. Are the proper records regarding the amount of explosives delivered and.used being kept? Z. Are proper amounts of explosives being stored: enough for daily use and not in excess of that specified or required? aa. when line drilling, are holes spaced within specified Limits to avoid overbreak? bb. Have proper means been taken to keep dust under control and noise within specified Limits? Backf ill a. Is backfilling being done as soon as possible after structures or utilities are installed and is bracing., if required, adequate? b. Does the backfill material meet the specifications as to type, gradation, impurities and Erost? C. Have special requirements been followed for backfill directly over and adjacent to structures and utilities? d. Has backfill been placed in layers of the proper thickness and compacted as specified? e. Have proper compaction tests been performed, if required?: Have all cavities around sheeting or left by removed sheeting been Eilled and properly compacted? q. Has all work, inspections and tests been performed and accepted on structures.and utilities before backfilling? TPBER PILES a. Has the area been investigated for structure or utility interference with pile driving? b. Co timber piles conform to, specifications regarding type, straightness, butt and tip diameter, preservative retention, and other physical properties? C. Have all bored holes and. cut -of f areas been coated with preservative per the specifications? d. Has'all pre -installation -inspection and testing, as required, been performed? e. Have load test procedures been approved and tests performed; if required? E. Have test piles been driven (per specified driving :ormulas), if required? g. :s the proper pile hammer (energy rating) and driving :head being used? h. Have the location of all piles been accurately laid out per specifications? i. ,are proper pile Leads being used to assure correct pile alignment? j: Have pile heads that are broomed or split been cut off :o sound material? 'k. Are the piles driven within i:orizontal and vertical tolerance? L. -ave .damaged or unsatisfac:cry piles been removed? M. iias jetting, when per.Ittod, Coen performed as ::pec i E ied? n. :iave,piles been driven to the minimum elevation and _equired penetration? o. ..ave piles been cut off at -he proper elevation? o. Fas a final pile Locatioc drawing been made and submitted to the .Engineer? 7CHCRETE I . :•enerai a. Has the concrete subccntractor been submitted for approval? _. Have the reauy-mi:; er and the source of aggregate and comer. : en ::oprcved? Z. Have materials been uc-icted and approved for the concrete design :n_.:es: Have all the ccncr3na ;esicn mixes, including admixtures and dd:ti':e5, Where required, been submitted and e. Have the reinforc::: shoo arawings been ..,C.?dited? E. Are delays in preparation and/or approvals of shop drawings delaying the work? g.. Have the various samples such as additives, admixtures, reinforcing steel accessories, waterstop, expansion joint, patching materials, form ties and accessories, grout, floor hardener, etc. been submitted and approved? h. Has the reinforcing steel mechanical splicing system (if required) been submitted and approved? i. Has a concrete testing Laboratory and inspectors been assigned? 2. Concrete Delivery and Placement a. Did the trucks arrive at the jobsite on time and in sufficient quantity to prevent delays and/or overtime? b. Was the slump of concrete within tolerance? C. Are.cylinders being taken, handled and stored in strict compliance with A.C.I. requirements? d. Have any trucks been rejected? If so, why? e. Are the specified number of cylinders being taken? E. Have any concrete test cylinders been broken below specified strength? If so, give details. g. Was the method of concrete delivery in accordance with specifications and accepted practice? h. Were there any breakdowns in delivery or conveying equipment or any interruption in delivery which caused "cold joints"? i. Are there sufficient and adequate vibrators at the site? Are they being used properly? j. Were tremies or "elephant trunks" used for placing concrete in walls? k. Have sleeves, inserts, reinforcing rods, etc. been displaced during placement? L. Is proper attention being paid to cold or hot weather requirements? M. Is the proper concrete additive being used? 3. Formwork a. Have forms been designed in accordance with Local ' .. '..oues m weu aS plans ana specirlcations'7 ` b. Are there formwork drawings at the jobsite? Are the formwork drawings stamped and signed by a registered P.E.? Are the forms being erected in accordance with said drawings? C. Does the rate of concrete placement exceed that specified on the drawings' (based on ambient temperature)? d. Is there excessive deflection of forms? e. Are the form materials in accordance with specifications? E. Are the forms in adequate condition for continued use? ]• Have embedded items been placed prior to concrete placement? h. Has the concrete frame dimensions been reduced to allow for tolerance of concrete and facing material? L. Are mud -sills required and f so, are they in place? j. Are slabs being reshored in accordance with specifications and accepted practice? k. Is stripping proceeding in accordance with requirements of specifications and Local codes? L. If power buggies are being used, do the formwork drawings indicate any special requirements? M. Are the forms being swept, blown or washed clean prior to concrete placement? 4. Reinforcing Steel. a. Are the rods suff_cient!y tied to prevent displacement? b. Are the chairs and ior other accessories in accordance with specifications and adequate to carry the Loads imposed thereon? C. Have dowel size, spacing and projection been checked prior to concrete placement? d. Was the reinforcing installed in accordance with approved and/or aporcied,as noted shop drawings? S. Finishing a. Are wet screeds being utilized to establish grades? b. Are the screeds being used effective for maintenance of prccer tolerance? C. Are there numerous "bird baths" in the floor surface? d. Is the texture of r.he ::Lab finish in accordance with specificaticns and intended use? e. Are surfaces being patched as specified? f. Are surfaces being rubbed as specified? g. is the specified bonding agent being used properly? ?P.ECAST CONCRETE 1. Have design calculations arc anchoring devices been submitted and aouroved? 2. Have samples and desi•:n .mixes been submit=ed and approved? 3. Have shop drawings beer. ::;ib-Ltted and approved? 4. :f a mock-up is reguir_;:. Lt been furnished and accepted? 2. Has the project been rev..:•:e.i with the subcontractor in order to,establlsh ;..._.;c.:iing and staging areas so as to minimize inter a_e-ca w--th overall job access? 6. Has the sequence of erection and timing been reviewed and coordinated? 7. Has the fabrication schedule been submitted and the plant visited for verification of production and quality? 8. Is the concrete being tested for conformance with established requirements and are the test results being reviewed? 9. Have any pieces been rejected due to substandard test results? 10. Is the method of curing in accordance with specifications? 11. Have mill test reports been submitted for cement and reinforcing steel? 12. Have penetration locations of plumbing, sprinkler, electric and H.V.A.C. been coordinated? 13. Has sufficient tolerance been allowed? 14. Have anchors for attachment to the structure and support angles been properly installed? 15. Have previous trades (concrete and/or structural steel) been surveyed to determine whether finish lines can be maintained? 16. Has proper corrective action been taken by previous trades prior to the installation of precast? 17. Has the material delivered to the jobsite been inspected for damage and nonconformance, and have substandard pieces been removed? 18. If shims are necessary; do they meet specifications for material and requirements for safety? 19. Is the installation being performed within specified tolerances? 20. Has all patching and cleaning been completed in accordance with the specifications? '41. Has the finished work been adequately protected against damage by subsequent trades? MASONRY 1. Are the materials furnished as specified? been submitted? 3. Has mortar mix been approved? 4. Has sample panel been erected and approved? 5. Have anchors and expansion joint material been submitted and approved? 6. Are anchors and expansions joints being properly installed? 7. Is proper protection against adverse weather conditions being used and properly maintained? 8. Is wail reinforcing being installed for bonding adjoining scythes of masonry walls? 9. Is waterproofing being properly installed? .0. :iave extericr Lines of.adjacent and/or supporting work .:u&i as concrete and miscellaneous iron been checked? _1. :s the back of face brick being purged to specify ,thickness? 12. rare the horiiontal beds and cross joints completely filled with mortal? _3 Are all holes in joints filled be striking? 14. Are all corners of 'leads tailed obt and not toothed? 15. Is the contractor-instailing a1'i anchors, ties, etc. required for his trade and si.miiar items required and furnished by other trades? 16. Is the contractor taking care in setting masonry around door bucks and window frames and are the spreaders being maintained and anchors being installed and slushed solid? 17. ,1re al-1 chases, sweep holes, recesses and openings being provided? 18. 73 the finish of interior partitions in good condition to accept paint, etc. (in accordance with the finish schedule)? 19. Have plumbing and heating lines been tested, approved .and insulated prior to closing in with masonry? 20.•- S the cavity (in cavity wall construction) being kept free of mortar? 21. :s all exterior brick work.and structural facing tile being properly cleaned and was down and all voids _n joints pointed? 22. Are all relieving angles installed and secured in conformance with plans and specifications? 23. kre required sleeves installedonall pipes to be tuilt in by mason? •:ave shop drawinas been submitted, aooroved and ,:oordinated? 3. -ave samples. of marble or stone and anchors been submitted and approved? 3."as sufficient tolerance been „allowed? - -ermit ar. expeditious inst_ilat_or, with minimum damage _o finish trades? ' -ave relieving ancies been installed with oroper tolerance? 5. _ees the installation meet,t^a specifications? :iave anchors. for attac.nment -o the structure been properly installed? 3. :iave the previous trades icorcrete and/or structural >,reel) been sur/eyed t,u i.Lurmi e whether finish Lines _an'be maintained. 9. :as proper corrective .i_tic 'peen taken by previous _:ades prior to th a ca of marble? 61 10. Has the material been checked for thickness and fit? 11. Has the finished work been adequately protected against damage by subsequent trades? :wriirewr 11,11 � 1. Are shop drawings being adequately expedited? 2. Have anchor bolts been checked and accepted by the structural steel subcontractor? 3. Have column and/or beam billet plates been checked for proper elevation? 4 Is the torquing of high tensile bolts being done on the basis of approved procedure? 5. Has torque wrench been properly calibrated and maintained in adjustment? 6. Is the framework being properly braced or guyed? 7. on welded structures, have copies of welder certificates been forwarded to the proper authorities (Architect, Engineer,. etc.)? 8. Has welding and or bolting been inspected? If so, indicate by whom and attach a copy of the inspection report. 9. Were there any delays due to weld rejection? 10. Were there any.delays due to improper fabrication? 11. was steel erected during this period checked for plumbness'and elevation? 12. Has tolerance for structural steel been checked against tolerances for curtain wall, sash, masonry, etc.? 13. Does the non -encased steel have a shop -applied prime coat? 14. Is the unpainted steel free of excessive rust and scale? MISCELLANEOUS IRON 1. Has complete list of shop drawings for all items been submitted in the order of importance? a) Built-in,items „in.,concrwro? b) Built-in items in masonry?' c) Furnished and installed items by this trade? 2. Have shop drawing approvals been received? 3. Have samples been submitted and approvals received? 4. Have approved shop drawings been distributed to all parties concerned in the coordination and the installation of miscellaneous iron items? 5. Has, fabrication and installation of items been performed in an acceptable manner? 6. Do the items required to'be built into the concrete and/or masonry have the proper anchors attached? 7. Have all items requiring painting been painted per specifications? B. Have those individuais doing the installation work been given the correct layouts, to follow? 9. Has a delivery schedule been forwarded to the. Miscellaneous Iron Contractor Ear the proper and timely installations? 10. Has material been delivered and/or installation been made in timely fashion :;o as not to delay the progress of the work? HF".BRANE WATERPROOFING 1. Have the manufacturer of products and samples been submitted and approved? Are the materials furnished as specified? 2. Is the contractor follcwinc the specifications on the number of mappings and plies? 3. :s the membrane being, turned up, on wall and -down on outside face of wall as specified?. 4. Is the membrane water Proofing being protected before earth backfill or..rearing surface? INSULATION 1. Have samples of materials been -submitted for approval? 2. Is insulation material scared on the job being J adequately protected against• moisture and other. damage? 3. are surfaces to which insulation is to'be applied dry, clean, free from dire, •;rease, Loose particles or any substance that would impair the bond or adhesion'oE the materials appLied thereto? the insulation, after berg installed, protected 'rom moisture? 5. :f a vapor barriers required, _h Po is it. installed on ��e proper side of the insulation? 6. Doe's the insulation be'ino used have the. "k" factor as required by the spec_f:c._ticn? 7. :s the insulations being :nstalied in proper Location,. 8. :f a vapor barrier is -used, is a minimum of 3/4" between it-and,the wail or ceiling surface .being maintained? 9. When outlet and switch oo>;es are encountered, is the' blanket or board cut aearLy, around same? 10. f nails are used as a fastener, and are subject to roisture, arc they nr rust resistant? 11. Has damaged vapor burr'cr boon repaired? 12. :',as plastic.foam inaniac.or, boon -covered with an opaque 'tarpaulin to _car.•:•:;. !L rom sunlight? 13. Has care been taken t3 prx )ct the plastic foam frcm solvents, mastics r- oafnt:, 14. "as the plastic :oar• otected :rem hot asohait ind coal tar pitc`? ROOFING AND SHEETMETAL 1. Are the materials furnished as specified? 2. Is the slab or roof surface prepared to receive roofing? 3. Is the temperature too low to lay roofing? 4. Is there a vapor barrier specified and in place? 5. Is the thickness of the insulation as specified? 6. Are the joints being staggered between courses on the insulation? 7. Is the roofing.being applied immediately over the insulation to protect it from the weather? 8. Are cant strips being provided around curbs or other extensions through roofs? 9. In case of metal base flashing, is,the wood mailer installed? 10. Are the ends of the roofing sealed at the end of each day? 11. Are metal pitch pockets being installed around posts, braces and similar items extending through roof? 12. Are the roof drain (lashings being installed as specified? 13. Are follow-up trades exercising care and protection so as not to damage the. roofing? If not, give particulars. WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS AND GLAZING 1. Have shop drawings been submitted in the order of need on the job.site? 2. Has approval of shop drawings been received? 3. Have all required samples of. materials '(metal, glass, glazing, compound, glass blocking supports, etc.) been submitted and approved? 4. I9 a mock-up of .a window, or a section of curtain wall required? 5. If item 4 is required, does the mock-up require testing? 6. If items 4 and 5'are required, have pro er __ ��_ .... ' oi. a..y d+..cuL�uetu venue CO- C05L the window and/Or window wall to the requirements or standards of N.A.A.M. (National Association of Architectural Manufacturers)? 7. Has the fabrication of the materials been performed as to the standards outlined in the specifications? 8. Has the finished product been protected and delivered in a safe, undamaged state, and checked against the approved/tested mock-up? 9. Have field measurements been taken and the work coordinated with the work of other trades? 10. Has, the erection of all the items above been performed per plans and specifications? 11. Have the proper engineering layouts been furnished to the erectors, so that coordination of the "trades" adjacent has been achieved? 12. Does the glass (previously approved) have the. proper Labels attached to each pane or sheet of glass? 13. Is the glazing being performed with the proper glazing to J strips, caulking, and blocking and has the glass been properly sized to meet the requirements of bite? 14. Are 'the installations being performed per manufacturers requirements and the approved mock-up? LATH AND PLASTER 1. Have all required samples and materials been submitted and approved? 2. Does the delivered material meet or agree with the submitted and approved material? 3. Is the material being shipped in original containers, kept off the ground and'being properly covered? 4. Are the wire ties for Lashing and'furring being properly installed? 5. is the ceiling framing being correctly installed, with proper hangers, main runner channels and furring channels, and is insulation (where required) in place? 6. Have access doors, Lighting fixtures and mechanical considerations been checked and/or tested prior to installation of latli and plaster? '7. 'Is the proper lath being used and are the ends being properly lapped? 8. Are all openings oceperly reinforced with striplath as ?' required? 9. is the contractor using grounds or screeds for proper alignment of the 'plaster in all areas, and especially in toilet roams where tile is to be applied to the plastered,surfaces? 10. 'ias the plaster been mixed ::i accordance with manufacturer's instructions and/or recommendations, and is the mixer clean and material frost and lump tree? 11. ias the contractor examined the surfaces to be plastered and notified all interested parties. whether -here are deficiencies? the required ranae? i3. gas a sample, area been completed and accented or approved for use as a ncrm _o compare the remaining areas to be plaste'rei? 14. :s there proper ventiiation `,r uniform drying of Lascer? 15• ",*as the initial or .orcVious ::cnc been prcperly scratched and dried sut;_c,anr.;y prior to the application of the succ.n•-i;;.: coat? 1G. 7s the plaster beLr.:i-PP,!: ir: proper thickness and .o a true 'and even Pinich t- screeds_ and grounds? i • ::ave surrounding ,a: aas ::uc ::c: ca damage, been J p operly protected pr:o_ o .::u 'start of plastering? 18. After the plastering is completed, has the finished product been left clean and have adjacent areas been cleaned in a timely manner? GYPSUM DRYWALL QUALITY CONTROL. 1. Has the manufacturer of products and samples been submitted for approval? 2. Has material shipped to job been inspected to ensure that: a) Material meets specifications b) Material is not damaged c) Material is properly stored and in a dry area 3. Have partition lines been snapped at floor and ceiling to ensure that partition will be plumb? 4. Have.all studs adjacent to door frames been anchored to floor and ceiling runners? S. Have studded partitions been sighted to ensure that they are straight and true without misalignment? 6. Has the spacing of studs been checked to ensure that it does not exceed maximum allowance spacing? 7. Has caulking.been applied at floor and ceiling runners if specified? .8. Has necessary blocking to receive or support fixtures been installed? 9. In vertical application of panels, have they been securely fastened with screws? (12" 0-C in field and if 811`0-C along abutting vertical edges) 10. In horizontal application of panels, have they been securely fastened with screws? (.12" O-C in field and 12" 0-C along -abutting horizontal edges). 11. Have water resistant panels (green board) been used in high moisture areas such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms? 12. Have hollow metal door frames been grouted, if specified? 13. Have trim, corner beads, etc. been securely fastened and properly aligned? 14. Are boards held tightly against framing? Do boards 15. Has face paper been broken by fastener? If so, a second fastener should be driven 1 1/2" away from original one. 16. Are there any projections such as pipes, conduit, or twisted studs that will create an uneven surface? 17. Have Large cracks or voids been filled prior to taping? 18. Has joint compound been allowed to dry thoroughly between coats? 19. Have openings around pipes, electric boxes, etc., been properly sealed? 20. Have fastener heads and metal trim been completely covered? 21. Have joints been sanded and inspected for smoothness prior cc decorating? I. ,:cRF-MIC TILE :iave the samples of floor and'wail tile been submitted and approved? _. Have samples of pigmented grout and acid proof grout (if required) been submitted? 3. 1f integral floor membrane is required, have samples oeen'submitted and approved? 4. Does the method of installation adhere to the :specifications? S. Are accessories and door ::addles part of the scope of work and have these samples been submitted and approved? 6. Have the subsurface finish requirements and tolerances for this work been coordinated with other affected subtrades (i.e. concrete', masonry, drywall, plumbing, electrical and H.V.A.C.)? 7. Have required 4' bench marks and centeriin'e coordinating marks been established? 8. is the subcontractor protecting adjacent finishes from damage? 9. Has the completed installation been left in a clean and workmanlike manner? 10. Have the finished surfaces been protected? FLCOR FINISHES t �< ' Resilient Flaorinp 1. Has the flooring subcontractor submitted floor samples and has the Architect, a?proved same? 2. Is the.material received of quality specified and/or aooroved and not a cheaper alternate? 3. ::as the material been properly stored and not damaged? 4. Have the center lines or base lines been properly indicated on the drawings and is the orientation, pattern, and grain direction of the tile also- indicated by the Arcnitect?. 5.: is the installation in accordance with Item 4 above? 6. Has the concrete slab been oroperly cleaned of dust, Airy_ 7. is the concrete finish, uhici receives the tile; adequately finished and prepared to prevent "telegraphing"? S. Have all traces of oil or grease.which would affect the adherence of the 'tile to concrete been removed? 9. 3as the base slab, which recoives the tile, been tested for excess moi t re' 10. -:lave all shrinkage. ,:racxs ::: r'r 'case floor been tilled with an approved ll.. :lave base -lines for insc_(laticn of the vile been given to the installer:' 12., Has the finished ti1e, ,a r `einc Laid, been properly J protected from traffic? 13. Does the installer have all miscellaneous specials that go with the tile or Linoleum, i.e., rubber saddles, dividers. and reducers? 14. Is the required base material (rubber, vinyl, etc.) being installed? 15. Does the specification call for pre -molded or job -formed corners, and is installation per the 'requirement? 16. If solid colors are being used, are they being segregated by lot number so as not to get two different shades of a color in one room? 17. If a flash patch has to be used, has the manufacturer's Literature.been checked as to compatibility of the material to its location, i.e., slab -on -grade? 18: Has the concrete subcontractor been notified so as to avoid unfair back -charges for repair of the concrete floor,, i.e., damage by other trades? 19. Do the tolerances of the concrete finish satisfy the Architectural specification prior to application of finish floor? 20. Has the painter been allowed sufficient time to finish coat his work before application of floor finish? 21. If linoleum is being stored on the job, is it being .stored in a vertical position to prevent waving of the sheet? 22. After a piece has been cut from the roll, has the remaining linoleum been stored again vertically? 23. Is the tile or linoleum being adequately rolled to create overall adhesion?... 24. Does the adhesive being used correspond to the type of resilient flooring being laid? 25. Is the adhesive proper for the,location, that is, - below -grade, on -grade, or framed floor? 26. Is it being used according,to the manufacturer's instructions with regard to type of trowel or brush application and method of placement of flooring onto he adhesive? 27. Is final cleaning satisfactory? C1....�:..- 1. If required, are the clips, sleepers and fill being a installed properly? 2. If a wood sub -floor is used, has it been laid diagonally unless otherwise specified? 3. If T.SG. flooring is used, is it driven snug with the nails driven at 45 degrees? 4. Have end joints been staggered? S. Has the material been properly protected in stock? 6. Has plaster or masonry walls dried -sufficiently prior to installation of the flooring? .7. Have all badly crooked boards been eliminated? 8. Is adequate heat being maintained while materials are being installed? 9. Are floors being protected Erom traffic during and after installation? 10 In laying block floor or parquet type floors, has sufficient room for expansion been left around the perimeter (1/2" to 1-1/2")? 11. Has the wood flooring been kiln dried to a moisture content between 6 to 8 percent? 12. Does the flooring material meet the specifications as to species of wood as well as grade of material? 13. Has coarse sanding to remove irregularities and subsequent fine sanding to bring out the grains been done? . SUSPENDED ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING 1. Are the materials furnished as specified? 2 Are the hangers the correct type and spacing? 3. Are the channel carriers being leveled correctly? 4. Are the in and out corners being mitred neatly? S. Are the Lights, air diffusers and sprinkler heads Located correctly in the ceiling layout? 6- Are, access doors' being installed at dampers, fusible links, valves, etc.? PLUMBING 1. General a) Does subcontractor's equipment list' comply with specifications? b) -Has subconiracrbr obtained necessary permits and approvals for connection.of utilities? c) Have ail shop drawings been submitted and approved? 2. Foundations a) Have foundation wail sleeves been coordinated with utilities connection? b) Have sump p'its.and sewage ejector pits been Is piping below slab,on-tirade properly supported? d) Where a sub -soil drainage system is installed by plumber, has perforated pipe been installed in correct bed (i.e., crushed -stone, sand)? e) Is perforated pipe pitched to sump pit? [s perforaceu pipe nrotected`.Erom concrete pour.' 3. ?ipino a) Does list of nipi:nl :mu:oriaLs and uses comply . with. specificatior.:;. b) Have piping drawinyc: !:urn coordinated with a ,11:V.A.C., electr c::i .,nc �siliny.drawings? c) Do the cast -ren cLnts require molten lead or preformed-moide•.i' -cc? 0 d) Is copper pipe brazed (15% silver) or soldered. (95% tin-5% antimony)? e) Are thrust blocks provided at direction changes in below ground piping? f) Are sleeves provided at all wall penetrations? 9) Are pipe hangers of specified material and spacing? h) Are escutcheons provided at wall penetrations? i) Are unions provided in'pipinq for easy removal of control valves and equipment? j)' Are access doors provided for concealed valves? k). What is waterproofing detail at penetration of waterproofed floor? 1) If kitchen equipment or lab equipment is provided by owner, have the connections been coordinated? 4. Equipment a) Does equipment require housekeeping pads? b) Is equipment mounted on vibration isolators? c) Does equipment have integral motors and starters? d) If loose starters, who provides and installs? e) What controls are required? Who provides controls? f) Are controls wired back to central alarm panel? g) Can permanent sump pumps be used for construction purposes? h) Who furnishes and installs water meter? i) Are plumbing.fixtures scheduled for delivery to meet job schedule? j) Are plumbing fixtures protected from theft and damage prior to installation? k) . Who furnished and installs toilet accessories? 5. Testing a) Has'scheduling of all hydrostatic testing been coordinatedwith mason or drywall contractor prior to closing shafts? b) Is temporary heat required for testing? c) Is domestic water piping cleaned per code requirement? j H.V.A.C. 1. General a) Has subcontractors equipment list been submitted? b) Does all'equipment comply with specifications?` c) Has schedule of sheet metal drawings been established to meet coordination requirements? d) Have, coordination drawings been signed off by H.V.A.C., plumbing and electrical contractor? e) Have all shop drawings been submitted? f) Has expediting chart been submitted? g) Have certifications been obtained for all welders? h) Have Instruction Manuals and warranties been submitted? 2. Air Handling Eauipiient a) Has correct material been used for the application? i.e. black iron Eor kitchen exhaust, aluminum for moisture, stainless steel or copper .for very high moisture content. ,b) Have ,Eire dampers been installed as required by code at all Eire rated partitions? c) Have access doors begn.provide'd at all fire .dampers? d) Has interior acoustic Lining been securely fastened with edges sealed to prevent flaking off or delamination of Liner? e) Have high velocity,duct joints been sealed to prevent Leakage and noise? ') Is flexible ductwork securely attached to. air -Light troffers, induction units, etc., and has it been run without crimping? ,3) Has plenum.casing.been r'-gidly braced? h) Are plenum doors adequate Eor maintenance? i) Has fah inlet been protected by screening? j) Have fan belts and drives been protected by guards? Have Elexible connections been used at inlet and outlet rnnnortinnc to _) Has operation of automatic dampers been checked for Eull opening and closing? �) Have volume dampers been installed in branch ducts'• to.facilitate balancing? -) Are diffusers installed neat and square in finished ceiling? J) Have.air balance reports been submitted and spot checked? p) 'Have.fan air quancir.ion been checked? a) 'llave fans been checker Cop excessive noise 'or vibration? r) Have water cooling.cc.i,is been piped for counterflow arrancemenr? s) Has a drip pan with drain been installed under cooling coil? t) Has drain pipe been installed with deep seal .. trap? u) Has sating been installed around cooling coils.to prevent air bypass? v) Is preheat coil protected by a freeze stat? w) Has operation of control valves been tested for flow to coils? x) Have plenums been cleaned out prior to start of fans? y) Are electric heating coils protected by air flow switch? 3. Refrigeration Equipment a) Are compressors mounted on isolation bases? b) is muffler installed on suction and discharge gases? c) Have oil filter, oil cooler and safety controls been checked prior to startup? , d) On all reciprocating or centrifugal compressor refrigeration machines, was the manufacturer's representative present at startup? e) Has absorption refrigeration machine been checked for air leaks and ability to draw a vacuum? f) Is sufficient steam pressure available at control valve? g) Have air cooled condensers and cooling towers been checked for noise levels? h) If winter operation of cooling tower is required, have'exterior pipes been heat traced? Who supplies and installs electric heat tracing cable? i) In multi -unit operation, have chillers been set to share the load.sequentially? j) On all type'systems, have safetys been checked (i.e. high pressure, low pressure, freezestat, etc.)? 4. Heating Equipment a) Is buried fuel oil tank grounded?. b) Has vent line been installed to fuel tank? c) Do oil pumps have strainers? d) Have safetys been checked for fuel sensing, air and flame failure? e) Is boiler manufacturer represented at start-up? E) Has steam condensate been piped back to boiler through condensate tank? g) Does boiler room have sufficient ventilation and combustion air? h) Has water treatment been provided for boiler feed water? i) Do chimney and boiler breechings have clean -outs? J j) In piping unit heaters has steam piping been 1. pitched back to the main? k) Is hot water piping pitched toward the unit heater? L) Have continuous radiator convector covers been field measured? S. Pumps and Piping a) Is pump'mounted on vibration base? b) Have housekeeping pads been provided? c) Has pump been checked for noise and vibration? d) Is insulation readily removable to service the pump? e) In cooling tower applications, is condenser water pump suction below cooling tower pan water Level? E) Have sufficient unions been provided for removal bf equipment; coils., etc.? g) Have hangers been provided with vibrations isolators for equipment on spring mounts? h) Are sleeves and escutcheons installed at all wall penetrations? i) Have waterproof floor pipe penetrations been Lashed? j) Have all strainers and traps been blown down prior to equipment start-up?. k) Has all piping been hydrostatically tested prior to enclosing shafts? 6. Controls . a) Has control wiring been coordinated with electrician? b) Have smoke detectors been mounted on ductwork? c) _ Have manual bypasses been installed around water control valves? d) Have safety controls, been checked prior to equipment start-up? e). Have operational controls been.tested? [) Have thermostats and pressure gages been mounted at all systems? g) Are all control valve; accessible? If not, have access doors been provided? h) Have tests reports been Lied on all systems? ELECTRICAL 1. General . a) Is subcontractor's equipment .List complete and -does it comply with specifications? 'bl Have all shop drawings been submitted and approved?' c) Does equipment delivery schedule comply with construction schedule? -a) Have -coordination drawings been prepared by electrical, plumbing, H.':.a.C. and ceiling J. contractors? al Has project engineer su=ervised coordination? E) Prior to final, acceptance, has all equipment been protected from physical damage by other trades and damage from rain water? g) Are all materials and equipment Underwriters Laboratories labeled or listed? h) Has owner been provided with as -built drawings; instruction manuals and instruction period on all systems? 2. Incoming Service a) If Utility Company is constructing transformer vaults, have wall penetrations been coordinated with foundation wall drawings? b) If W.L.C.C.C_ constructs transformer vaults, do we have signed off. construction drawings by the Utility Company? c) Where primary service feeders are run underground, have they been run below frost line (minimum 3011'cover) and have the conduits been encased in red pigmented.concrete? d) Has access been. left for Utility Company to rig in the transformers? 3. Emergency Generators a) Has division of work been adequately described? Mechanical will normally install required ventilation system, fuel oil lines and pumps, exhaust silencer and piping. b) Has concrete mounting base been poured before rigging generator? c) Has adequate maintenance space been provided around the generator? d) Have all cable terminations been made up tight? e) Has operating test been made with Utility Company power off to verify that required accessories operate? E) Has vibration and noise been observed in adjacent occupied areas? 4. Switchgear Panelboards, Motor Control Centers a) Has bus -duct manufacturwr fiat i connection from switchgear to service entry? b) Is cable and wire run in'a neat, workmanlike fashion? c) Are power cable phases color coded? d) Are cable terminations made up tight? e) Have belleville (concave) washers been used on aluminum bus -duct connections? E) Have ail switches been labeled? g) If fed from below, have conduit stub -ups been coordinated with switchgear location? h) Is switchgear mounted on curb or concrete base? i) Has sufficient space been left for rear access? j) Has switch and circuit breaker wiring been' coordinated with H.v.A.C. control.wiring? + k'j Are wall mounted boards securely fixed to wall? L) Have disconnect switches "been -installed within sight of controlled motors? m) Has all water piping over switchgear been protected by sheet metal pans? 5. Conduit, Wire, Busway_S Raceways ' a) The primary cause of electrical failures is due to improper conductor splices and terminations. Are all connections positively made tight? b) Has floor loading been considered in storage of cable reels? c) 'Are cables stored,at temperature above 10 degrees Fahrenheit? d) If contractor has exercised option to use aluminum wire, has wire size and conduit size been increased? e) Have correct wire connectors been used for all splices? E) Is EMT. and flexible metallic conduit being used in areas only as specified? g) Has liquid -tight flexible conduit been used for all outdoor motor and vibration mounted motor connections? .h) Has compression fitting been used.on EMT to assure electricalcontinuity? i) Have vertical.and'horizontal conduit runs been adequately supported?- j) For conduits in slabs; have the conduits and floor boxes been adequately supported prior to concrete pour? k) Have correct details been followed on conduits piercing waterproof slabs and roofing? L) Has area of conduits and bus-ducts.piercing slabs been firestopped? m) Has complete busway run been field measured? n) Has busway been adequacely supported with provisions for movement and expansion? o) Have specified materials been used in hazardous, wet and outdoor -Locations? used on outdoor conduits at outdoor 'switches? q) Have all pull boxes, tao boxes, splice boxes and cable support boxes been made accessible? 6. Liohtina Fixtures I) Has Lighting £`xure frame been coordinated with ceiling type' b) Has weight of £icture .keen verified with Local code requirements for supporting on ceiling structure? c) Does fluorescent Ligncing have class P ballasts? d) On coordination drawings, was 14"-16allowed for .incandescent Hi -hats' e) Does frame of fixture have objectionable light leakage? 7. Grounding a) Have all equipment components been grounded? b) Is building ground system connected on street side of incoming domestic water line meter? C) Is grounding continuous through conduit, junction boxes, pull boxes, panelboards, disconnect switches to motor, fixture or terminal receptacle? d) Has Master Label issued by Underwriters Laboratories been issued for lightning protection system? S. Control Wiring 6 Special Systems a) Has control wiring been coordinated with mechanical contractors and automatic control contractor? b) Has control wiring been coordinated with Motor Control Center wiring? c) Have smoke detector, fire alarm and sprinkler alarms been tested prior to Fire Department inspection? d) Have signal and operating tests been performed on Audio and Master TV antenna systems? . • d REFERENCE MATERIAL i. Foundation Construction (A. BrintonCarson, P.-E.- McGraw-Hill) 2.. Substructure Analysis S Design (P. Anderson - Ronald Press) 3. Construction Rock Work Guide (Crimmins, Samuels,' Monahan - Wiley-Interscience) 4. Construction of Structural Steel Buildings (William Rapp - Wiley-Interscience) 5. Construction Failure (Jacob Feld - Wiley-Interscience) 6. A.C.I. Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts-1, 2 6 3 (American Concrete Institute) 7. A.C.I. 301-66 Field Reference Manual, Publication,SP-15 (American Concrete Institute) B. A.C.I. Public, Sp-4 Formwork Ear Concrete (American Concrete Institute) 9. C.R.S.I.:Recodmended'Practice Ear Placing Reinforcing Bars (Concrete Reinforcing Steel•Institute) 10. Manual of Steel Construction (A.I.S.C. - AmericanInstitute of Steel Construction) 11. Construction Inspection Handbook j (James J. O'Brien, P.E. - Van Nostrand Rheinhold) 12. A.S.T.M. Standards in Building Code (American Society for Testing Materials) 13. Materials of Construction (R.C. Smith - McGraw Hill) '4. ;Building Construction (Huntington 6 Mickadeit,- John Wiley 5 Son) 1S. Sound -Control S Thermal Insulation (Paul D. Close - Reinhold Publishing) .6. Technical Notes on Brick. Construction (Brick Institute of America) 17. Manual'of Lathing & Plastering (J. Diehl, A.I.A. - National Bureau Ear Lathing S Plastering, Gypsum, Associates, etc.) 3 'B. Code for welding in Building Conscruction (Amerizan Welding Sociecy)