Final Combined Book v.4.0 test

PO Box 575 Fort Montgomery, NY 10922

5. Scope Removal To be clear, I had no intention of removing scope from Spearhead’s contract. You have also been clear that you are responsible for meeting a SWJV schedule. You shared that Spearhead would need to be done with its work by mid-February in order for SWJV to meet its Project Schedule. During our call, I did not agree to removing additional scope besides what was previously agreed upon, the Feature wall and Roof Access Corridor. The following morning, my team and I discussed your situation and your SWJV Project Schedule. Reluctantly, I sent a text saying we identified scope to remove from our contract to help you accelerate your schedule . None of us wanted to turn over areas of work to another contractor that are not only 70% complete, but that Spearhead is also completely capable of performing. 6. Cost and Schedule Impacts We did not discuss Spearhead being responsible for “potential cost and schedule impacts” for removing scope from its contract. Spearhead has not delayed or impacted the project’s duration in any way. Pinning a delay of any sort on Spearhead is unfounded, particularly when Spearhead requested a change to its work shift and later had to wait an entire month to receive the critical GFRG/C pieces as they sat in a warehouse, nearby, because the bridge was “too congested” and the SWJV PM/APM “didn’t want a bunch of crates in everybody’s way.” Even the last delivery was held up by the SWJV APM for an entire month, until you intervened in January. Spearhead is now required to install all GFRG/C pieces in half the time, or 3 months versus Spearhead’s contract schedule of 6 months duration, all caused by the delay of Others, not Spearhead. 7. Recovery Plan Mr. Mock’s attached correspondence is irrelevant for many reasons. First, I never received the letter. Second, even if received, Spearhead is within its contract duration and would not have provided a recovery schedule for formal approval. Third, “summarized” dates presented to SWJV do not constitute a formal schedule and were never issued as a change to Spearhead’s Contract. And fourth, Spearhead hosted meetings in its shanty in an attempt to work collaboratively. Information shared during these meetings was unofficial, there were no minutes and Spearhead certainly did not expect the information discussed to advance its work would be weaponized against us. In Summary Throughout the course of this contract, Spearhead has attempted to mitigate the overall effect of delays and project impacts by others, including but not limited to, the initial delay in starting work. Due to the failure of others, Spearhead is now in the untenable position of having contract and change order work removed from our contract. In fact, due to delays, disruptions, design issues, changes, and other impacts the sole responsibility of Others, Spearhead was not allowed to substantially complete its work operations in November 2019 as impacted by the initial three (3) month delay. Further, as of this date, Spearhead cannot achieve Final Completion, which should have been accomplished by “end of January,” due to the lack of sharing updated schedules, continuously waiting for inspections from 3 separate entities, incomplete preceding work, changes to the design, poor trade coordination, stop work orders to allow the bridge to have its live load test, and the like.