Interim Architect Agreement/Contract

Home Browse Search

CLARK, LINDAUER, McCLINTON, FETHERSTON, EDMONDS BL LIPPOLD Eric B. Lindauer, P.C. Michael C. McClinton, P.C. Ben C. Fetherston, Jc, P.C. James C. Edmonds, P.C. Steven M. Lippold, P.C.' Rebecca Biermann Tom Sarah R. Troutt ATTORNEYS Telephone (503) 581-1542 FAX (503) 585-3978 July 11, 1997 ..~~ ~ ~ ~'' ~rr ~~ ~ ', f . O~ ;y 880 Liberty Street NE [97301] P.O. Box 2206 Salem, Oregon 97308-2206 Edward L. Clark, Jr. Retired •Also admiaed to pnctice in WashingWn MR KIM KLE AIA ARBUC COSTIC ARCHITECTS INC 363 E ST S IvIOR 973G1-3~33 Re: Courthouse Square Dear Kim: I have a copy of your letter to Mike Hansen, dated July 7, 1997. As you know, during our discussions, I indicated to you that I could not agree to the $50,000 figure for arbitration. I could, however, agree to $30,000. Additionally, Mike Hansen and I made it quite clear in our discussions that we would require the elimination of the language "and including those based on or arising from any statute, constitution, regulation, ordinance, rule or any alleged tort," be eliminated from the arbitration language. With respect to item number 4 of your letter, relating to the attorney fee provision, you indicated in our meeting that you are comfortable with the AIA form. That from does not provide for attorney fees when a party places the agreement in the hands of an attorney for assistance in enforcing the agreement. Again, Mike and I do not agree to that language. With regard to item number 5 of your letter, I think that the language of the various provisions in the FTA addendum makes it clear which are applicable to you and which are not. I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of lining out items which do not apply to the architect, because there is an obligation for certain of those items to apply to subcontractors or other vendors. Therefore, I would prefer not to delete any of those provisions because some might be applicable to your subcontractors or vendors. Regarding your paragraph number 7, relating to the seismic safety clause, I cannot make the change you request. As you will recall during our discussion, you indicated that the Oregon Department of Transportation does not agree to the seismic safety clause. You were going to provide me with written documentation of that, so that I could raise the issue with FTA. I take it from your response that you have been unable to obtain such documentation. I am enclosing for your review a revised copy of the FTA contract clauses, with the revision of the dispute resolution language we discussed at our meeting.