Case #2: Blueprint problems.
Case #2: Blueprint problems.
Case Solution: the letter.
Treadwell Developers, Inc.
3400 Desert View Drive, Westwood, CA 90001
26 September 2001
John
Alspaugh
Principal for Commercial Facilities
Alspaugh, Jordan, and Vineski Associates
201 Greenwood
Westwood, CA 90000
Reference: our phone conversation on 26 Sept. 2001.
Dear Mr. Alspaugh:
Thanks for finding the time to talk with me about the Plum River Conference Center project. We continue to be impressed by the artistry of your design and are confident that the completed building will be both a prize winner and a city landmark. There is, however, a great deal of work that must be done to make your vision into a reality. We were embarrassed today to find that Liz Beauchamp, a City Planning Commissioner, received blurry sepia prints of the project from AJV that did not have match lines and did not have requested changes. In fact, the prints were dated 10 Sept. 01. They should have been copies reflecting changes authorized by the City Planning Commission at their review on 14 Sept. 01.
I am sure that you saw the fine publicity that the project received on the front page of today's Westwood News. I am also sure that AJV does not want to see embarrassing stories in the newspaper about delays caused by minor architectural drawing errors. Neither of our firms wants that kind of publicity, nor the penalties that could result from cost overruns caused by preventable delays. To prevent embarrassing delays and bad publicity, and to ensure that we are "looking at the same page" in each step of this complicated project, we wish to be very explicit about our expectations from AJV.
1. Immediate Problems with the Plum River Conference Center Drawings:
1.1. Out
of date drawings: the latest set of prints you sent was delivered
to
Treadwell yesterday (25 Sept.
01). They are dated 10 Sept. 01.
The City Planning Commission asked for changes at
their meeting of
14 Sept. 01. That was nearly two weeks ago.
Our contract
stipulates
that AJV will provide revised plans no later than four working days
after
City Planning
Commission requests for changes.
1.2. Print quality: sepia prints are too muddy to be useful to the
City Planning
Commissioners. Make
photocopies from the original prints.
1.3. Readability:
Outlining
circles are missing and/or obscure underlying detail. Specifically:
1.3.1. Fire corridor revision was not outlined.
1.3.2. The outlining in changing a tenant use
from "retail shop" to
"restaurant"
in the N.E. wing obscures the lettering identifying the function.
1.4. Missing: the fire stairwell exiting the theater does not appear.
1.5. Match lines: missing.
2. Drawing specifications:
2.1. Date: send the most current set of prints to both
Treadwell and the City
Planning Commission (see
4).
2.2. Print quality: make photocopies from original tracings.
Sepia copies are
not acceptable.
2.3. Match lines: clearly marked.
2.4. Tenant use: clearly marked, not obscured by lettering.
2.5. Revisions:
2.5.1. fire corridor outlined.
2.5.2. fire stairwell included and outlined.
2.5.3. tenant use function clearly marked.
(note the change from "retail" to "restaurant" in the N.E.
wing; see:
1.1.3).
2.5.4. outlines clearly indicated and not obscuring any underlying detail.
3. Delivery specifications:
3.1. Ordinary business: send drawings by priority mail to arrive
the next
business day.
3.2. Rush delivery: send drawings by courier to arrive the same
business
day.
3.3. COD shipments will not be received.
4. Schedule for the Plum River Conference Center Project:
4.1. Immediate problem:
4.1.1 I expect to receive legible and up-to-date drawings from you
by 2
pm this afternoon (26 Sept. 01).
4.1.2. As per our phone conversation, pending
my approval, send
identical drawings to Liz Beauchamp by courier to reach her
today (26 Sept. 01).
4.2. Communications:
4.2.1. AVJ will send revisions of drawings to reach Treadwell at
least four full working days before City Planning Commission
meetings.
4.2.2. Pending approval from Treadwell, AVJ will send approved
drawings to reach City Planning Commissioners
no later than
two full working days before scheduled meetings.
I know that secretaries and clerical personnel are sometimes not so contentious. I am sure that you share our concerns not to allow small procedural details to endanger the construction of what we all hope will be a landmark in our community for years to come. If you have questions or comments, please call me. If I can relieve you of any of the annoying details caused by this important and complicated project, I will be happy to do so. Please let me know what I can do to help us avoid problems like these. Thanks for your prompt attention.
Sincerely,
Bucky Treadlight
Assistant Project Manager
Plum River Conference Center Project
BT/jr
cc:
Randy McNamara
Project Manager
Plum River Conference Center Project
John
Alspaugh
Principal for Commercial Facilities
Alspaugh, Jordan, and Vineski Associates
201 Greenwood
Westwood, CA 90000
SUBJECT:
our phone conversation on 26 Sept. 2001.
Dear
Mr. Alspaugh:
1. First,
I would like to thank you for finding the time to talk with me about the Plum
River Conference Center project. Our
company continues to be impressed by your design.
We are all looking forward to the pride that the building will bring to
this region. As an assistant
project manager, for Treadwell, my duties involve monitoring and correcting any
immediate problems that may crop up. Some
of the problems may seem mundane from time-to-time, but I know both of our
companies want to make sure that this project goes as smoothly and efficiently
as possible. As a favor for you, I
am listing the problems we discussed on the phone.
This should aid AJV’s Commercial Facilities Department, and Mr. Randy
McNamara of Treadwell, in ensuring that both of our companies are working
together and in synchronization. The
front page of today’s Westwood News
newspaper featured a very favorable report of our project.
By staying on top of oversights and errors, maybe the newspaper reports
and publicity will always be favorable. I
know that neither Treadwell nor AJV wants any bad publicity or cost overruns.
2.
Problems Found with Drawings
2.1
Print Quality - Randy McNamara informed me that Liz Beauchamp, a City
Planning Commissioner, received blurry sepia prints of the project from AJV that
did not have match lines and did not have requested changes.
In fact, the prints were dated September 10, 2001.
They should have been copies reflecting changes authorized by the City
Planning Commission at their review on September 14, 2001.
Sepia prints are too muddy to for use by the City Planning Commissioners.
It has been our experience that the best way to go is to make photocopies
from the original prints.
2.2
Out of date drawings - The latest set of prints you sent was delivered to
Treadwell yesterday (25 Sept. 01). They
are dated 10 Sept. 01. At their
meeting of nearly two weeks ago (September 25, 2001) the City Planning
Commission asked for changes at their meeting of September 14, 2001.
2.2.1
Our contract stipulates that AJV will provide revised plans no later
than four
working days after the City Planning Commission requests change
2.2.2
As a reminder, the contract stipulates these delivery specifications:
·
Ordinary
business: send drawings by priority mail to arrive the next business day.
·
Rush
delivery: send drawings by courier to arrive the same business day.
·
COD
shipments will not be received.
2.3
Readability
- Outlining circles are missing and/or obscure underlying detail.
2.3.1
Fire corridor revision was not outlined.
2.3.2
The outlining in changing a tenant use from "retail shop" to
“restaurant
in the N.E. wing obscures the lettering identifying the function.
2.3.3
The fire stairwell exiting the theater does not appear (missing).
2.3.4
Match lines are missing.
3.
Corrective Actions Needed:
3.1
Print Quality - Make photocopies (not sepia copies, which are not acceptable)
from the original drawings.
3.2
Date
– Send the most current set of prints to both Treadwell and the City
Planning
Commission.
3.3
Readability – Make these revisions:
3.3.1
to outline the fire corridor,
3.3.2
the fire stairwell is included and outlined,
3.3.3
to clearly mark tenant use,
3.3.4
so that outlines are clearly indicated and not obscuring any underlying
details, match lines are clearly marked.
4.
When Immediate Corrective Actions are Needed:
4.1
I
expect to receive legible and up-to-date drawings from you by 2pm this
afternoon
(September 26, 2001)
4.2
As
per our phone conversation, and pending my approval, send identical
drawings to
Liz Bearchamp by courier to reach her today.
5.
How We Can Prevent This From Happening Again:
5.1
AJV
will send revisions of drawings to reach Treadwell at least four full
working
days before City Planning Commission meetings.
5.2
Pending
approval from Treadwell, AJV will send approved drawings to
reach the City
Planning Commissioners no later than two full working days
before scheduled
meetings.
6.
Mr.
Alspaugh, I know that you and I both share concerns not to allow
small
details interfere with the building of this magnificent structure.
Please
call me if you have any questions or comments.
I am open to suggestions
and ideas from you on how we can avoid problems
like these in the future.
Sincerely,
Bucky
Treadlight
Assistant Project Manager
Plum River Conference Center Project
BT/jr
cc:
Randy
McNamara
Project Manager
Plum River Conference Center Project
Back
to navigation
