Oops: More Contract Problems?

To:  “Susan Lovallo” <slovallo@port-orange.org> “Sandra Woodman” <slwoodman@port-orange.org>

 It is my understanding that the City of Port Orange has decided to “charge back” $4000 to Hunter Knepshield for issues that were encountered on the Spruce Creek project.  I would like to make a few points in our defense that you may or may not have considered.

.

First and foremost, HK/Qualite made every effort to reduce the cost of your lighting system by retro-fitting your existing system by adding fixtures to the existing system.  We did at no time offer to “up sell” the City into a new system as did the electrical contractor.  Our intention was always to sell you you what you needed, which we believed was in the best interest of the City.  We had no control over the cost of installation of the system.  From the pure procurement stand point, we were asked to sell and deliver product to the City, which we did.  Our purchasing agreement did not include specific delivery dates, so I do not understand how the City can enforced a penalty upon us. We communicated with the contractor on the delivery.  Qualite/HK delivered what was ordered. We, in fact, scheduled the delivery earlier than the actual date, but we were asked to delay the delivery by the contractor. Had the contractor accepted delivery at the original date, any discrepancy with the order would have been addresses with plenty of time as to not delay the project.

.

With regard to ”missing parts” specifically moguls(knucklebones)”, we do not believe that they were missing.  These moguls are an integral part of our system and are mounted on the cross-arms prior to delivery and are set at precisely aiming coordinates. They were not placed in a box and accidentally miscounted. There is no way they were left them off.  What i believe, more than likely happened, is that they were damaged, along with the 3 lens assemblies, during the removal of the existing outfield poles.  Obviously that is difficult to prove but is not uncommon when retro-fitting, accidents happen.  Had M Gay done their due diligence with regard to those 3 lens assemblies, they should have been ordered as soon as they were discovered to be broken.  HK/Qualite shipped the needed parts, without question, as soon as we were made aware.

.

Regardless, the 3 “broken” lens assemblies would have had been ordered separately, and M Gay would have had to come back to install them.  I believe M Gay used this as an opportunity to pass the additional mobilization cost on to the City/HK.  I believe we have the support of the engineer on this.  M Gay tried unsuccessfully to convince everyone that did not know they were using existing fixtures.  I provided all the documentation to the engineer that in fact they knew all along that this project was going to mix and match existing and new fixtures. As the project neared closer, several attempts were made by the VP of HK/Pat Kinney, to contact M Gay to explain how the project was going to come together.  They did not respond.

.

HK/Qualite are not the bad guys here. We shipped what was ordered and should be paid accordingly. I have been told the check has been sent minus the $4000.  If your decision was final, we would appreciate a written response so we can take the necessary action to obtain what was rightfully ours.

.

 Regards,