Laserfiche WebLink
,~ <br /> ~~ <br />_ <br />^ <br />? <br />, <br />:~~ ~ ~^ <br />~ I ,: a~, <br />7 <br />t: ~' <br />, . <br />.e <br />. <br />MELVIN MARK COMPANIES <br />MELVIN MARK PROPERTIES • MELVIN MARK BROKERAGE CO. • MELVIN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO. • MELVIN MARK DEVELOPMENT CO. <br />October 16, 1997 <br />Mr. Randy Curtis <br />MARION COUNTY- GENERAL SERVICES DEPT. <br />220 High St. NE <br />Salem, OR 97301 <br />Re: October 13, 1997 Memorandum <br />Dear Randy: <br />This correspondence is in response to your memorandum dated October 13 regarding <br />compensation for Melvin Mark Development Company services. I am quite surprised <br />and disappointed in the message and tone conveyed in your memo. It does not <br />accurately describe the circumstances surrounding our involvement in the Courthouse <br />Square project. <br />We have not been reluctant to finalize negotiations on the fee issue. Rather, we have <br />raised the fee issue on several occasions over the previous months, and as we <br />discussed most recently in our meeting on September 26, we are interested in <br />accurately defining our scope of services so we can attribute and negotiate an equitable <br />fee. Both you and Mike acknowledged at that time that a building redesign would <br />prompt a reassessment of our fee. You may also note that, unlike every other <br />consultant involved in the project, we have not yet invoiced you for our professional time. <br />Until now, we were waiting to do so until we had a contract finalized. This was a good <br />faith gesture, which apparently has been misconstrued. <br />I don't believe I have ever indicated that we had "underestimated the scope of work or <br />fee estimates" on this project. I feel comfortable that our proposed fee adequately <br />compensated our company for the time and personnel costs incurred for the services <br />requested, and the project represented, in the RFP. It is indisputable that this project <br />required services far different from what was requested in the RFP. We thought that <br />Marion County and Salem Area Transit understood the dire state of the project this <br />summer, and we thought it was clear that the owners learned that they needed <br />something more than simply a construction manager, which was requested by the RFP. <br />A traditional CM would not have taken the aggressive steps, or have offered the <br />services, necessary to salvage this project. A CM would have simply awaited the <br />resolution of the complex issues surrounding the site and design, and, if retained, a <br />construction manager (as the name implies) would have simply monitored the <br />construction of the building as initially designed; a building that was, in our opinion, <br />inefficient, over budget and non-economic. <br />As you point out, we did exercise diligence is assessing work scope when we met with <br />you prior to the submission of the initial RFP. I do not believe you expected our <br />111 SOUTHWEST COLUMBIA • PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 • TELEPHONE: (503) 223-4777 FAX: (503) 223-4606 <br />