Enron Mail |
I can send you what I have on the WestLB stuff, but it may not help too much
if you are trying to figure out how to get turbines into a project. We are currently working on the mechanics relating to that. It may take a while to get a copy, as I don't have an electronic version and I'm currently in meetings where I'm using my hard copy. How soon do you need it? Kay Karen E Jones@ECT 08/18/2000 10:52 AM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: EPC Limits of Liability Hi Kay. Thanks for this input. My somewhat knee-jerk reaction has been that NEPCo is, indeed, taking a very aggressive approach. We are also hearing that they are under some sort of "mandate" to include these provisions in their contracts on a going forward basis (I think I might have some idea of what that's about), but we are obviously concerned that it won't fly with a third party buyer of our project. Dean, Jim Fowler (our outside counsel at McCutchen) and I may want to chat about it with you further. On a related note, I keep running into the need to have a more basic understanding of the West LB documents and the GE LM-6000 contract than I have. Do you have copies of those documents, and could I ask you to have copies made and sent to me? Much appreciated. Hope all is well, Karen To: Dean Russell/SF/ECT@ECT cc: Karen E Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: EPC Limits of Liability NEPCO's position sounds more typical for a cost plus contract. Is this a lump sum deal? If so, then I think NEPCO is taking an aggressive approach to both LOL and retention. A 10% limit of liability during the warranty period is particularly aggressive, unless there are a lot of carve outs to the limit of liability, and other give-and-takes which make it make sense. Another factor which might make a difference is the treatment given to the GE contract. Is NEPCO taking risk on GE performance, and is the dollar value of the GE equipment included in the price used to figure the % of liability? I'm glad to discuss this if I can be of help. Kay From: Dean Russell @ ECT 08/17/2000 10:17 AM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Karen E Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: EPC Limits of Liability Kay - Ron Coker in the CTG group suggested you might be able to help with this. ENA/SF is in the middle of negotiating the EPC contract for Pastoria (750 MW) with NEPCO. We have hit a couple of snags in the contract and would very much appreciate your input as to what is "market." 1. Limit of Liability - NEPCO would like 80% up to Substantial Completion, 40% up to Final Acceptance, and 10% for the Warranty Period. GE's LOL is 100% of their contract value though the warranty period. (which Kiewit also agreed to on Pittsburg.) 2. Retention - NEPCO would like to have 10% retention on payments only for the first 5% on the contract value and then 5% retention thereafter. We would prefer 10% throughout the payment schedule. What do you think? We want the Owner's position to be as strong as possible to enhance the sale of the project, but NEPCO is under a great amount of pressure to reduce their contingent liability, and we really don't want to leave them holding the bag once we are gone if it is not necessary. Regards, Dean
|