Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 141981 <br />Connell, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. <br />P. 0. Cox 341939 <br />Coral Gables, Fl. 33134 <br />Attn: Fir. F. Kirsch <br />Re: I.R.C. Courthouse Renovations <br />Gentlemen: <br />:BOOK 4;u PAGE o-ju <br />January 2, 1989. <br />v a.. <br />rte? cP� s tti�(■ L`:j <br />tray vie call to your attention that Change Proposals No. 18, 229 25 <br />and 26, as submitted by the Contractor, were valid for 15 days from <br />the date of the proposal. This period has past for these proposals. <br />The number obi days of Contract Time included in the proposals for <br />accomplishing the proposed changes is based upon acceptance of the <br />proposal within the period of validity. Therefore, it is hereby <br />a condition of the above noted change proposals that the lapsed time <br />between the end of the validity period and acceptance of the proposal <br />shall be added to the time which maybe required for accomplishment <br />of the changes. All other conditions of these proposals remain un- <br />changed. <br />Very truly yours, <br />REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, INC. <br />L. A. Snodgrass <br />Vice -President <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INQUIRED ABOUT THE COMPLETION DATE WHICH <br />WAS SET OUT ON THE CHANGE ORDER AS OCTOBER 30, 1981, AND MR. KONTOULAS <br />EXPLAINED THAT THE ANNEX AND THE COURTHOUSE ARE UNDER ONE CONTRACT; <br />THAT DATE ACTUALLY RELATES TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ANNEX INTERIOR. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ASKED IF IT IS STILL ANTICIPATED THAT <br />THE WORK IN THE COURTHOUSE WILL BE COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY, AND MR. <br />KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE AN EXACT DATE, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS <br />WITH MR, REINHOLD AND MR. SNODGRASS, THEY SEEMED TO FEEL THAT IT COULD <br />BE COMPLETED NEAR THE END OF FEBRUARY, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE DATE OF COMPLE— <br />TION AND STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT CLARIFIED ON THE CHANGE <br />ORDER THAT THE OCTOBER 30TH DATE APPLIES TO THE ANNEX INTERIOR. <br />