|
|
Enron Mail |
I have a PSA which needs to be made 97-10/TurboPark compliant. Could you
work on it? I'll bring it around. Thanks, Kay ---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 02/26/2001 04:09 PM --------------------------- Barton Clark@ECT 02/22/2001 12:21 PM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Stone and Webster/Black & Veatch/Other Development Agreements See the attached Contract Status matrix. All of the proposed agreements in the top half of the matrix also have been blessed, as have the Secondary Agreements.. ----- Forwarded by Barton Clark/HOU/ECT on 02/22/2001 12:19 PM ----- Barton Clark 02/21/2001 08:48 PM To: tculwell@andrews-kurth.com, hhaltom@andrews-kurth.com cc: Subject: Stone and Webster/Black & Veatch/Other Development Agreements FYI, attached are the forms of design and engineering contracts for the Ft.Pierce project. The Technical Design Services Agreement will be cloned - one for the Facility improvements and one for the King Plant improvements, and the Black & Veatch agreement relates to design of the transmission upgrades. The two Technical Design Services Agreements ( with Stone and Webster ) will be amended and restated to be full blown Turbo Park compliant EPC contracts ( covering procurement and construction, as well as design ) with Stone and Webster ( assuming its estimate and delivery date are acceptable), at the time the project goes into Turbo Park. The Black & Veatch agreement will not be bifurcated, as Black & Veatch will not be the EPC contractor, but we will expect the EPC contractor for the transmission improvements to warrant the work. One issue we have is how to get Black & Veatch to give a Turbo Park compliant transmission improvements design warranty, but we may be able to get the EPC contractor to warrant the design and the improvements ( Turbo Park did not raise this issue, but it may in the future, so we need to be thinking about that ). The Black & Veatch agreement also may be assigned to FPUA, along with the transmission upgrades EPC contract, as FPUA will own the transmission improvements and supervise their construction. The reason for bifurcating the agreements is to allow work on "soft cost" items to proceed now - as required to keep the project on schedule - until we can close the deal with FPUA/FMPA and get into Turbo Park, where the "hard cost" procurement and construction expenditures can be made without putting the project on balance sheet. I'll forward the form Turbo Park EPC Contract under separate cover. Sorry about the late deliveries, but maybe you will be able to pick these up in the am. ----- Forwarded by Barton Clark/HOU/ECT on 02/21/2001 08:37 PM ----- Barton Clark 02/08/2001 04:43 PM To: David Fairley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mathew Gimble/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Darrell Stovall/NA/Enron@Enron, George McCormick/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Lisa Bills/Enron@EnronXGate, Catherine Clark/Enron@EnronXGate, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Herman Manis/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Stone and Webster/Black & Veatch/Other Development Agreements Attached are Turbo Park and accounting "approved" forms of the Technical Design Services Agreement between FPRP and Stone & Webster ( TDSA) and the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services between FPRP and Black & Veatch ( B&V Agreement). Each form has to now be fashioned to reflect the business deal/payment terms/etc. Note that the Scope of Work on the TDSA underwent substantial modification to conform with 97-10 requirements, and the attached draft Scope of Work only deals with the Facility ( as defined in the TDSA ), and not the "improvements" ( which term was included in the draft Tasking Letter from which the Scope of Work was fashioned).I assume we will need to "clone" this TDSA except for a different Scope of Work description to deal with such "improvements" other than the Facility ( ie, I assume these are the King Plant improvements). The TDSA is calculated to put as much of the Turbo Park-approved EPC in front of Stone & Webster at the earliest possible date, so that the amendment and restatement of the TDSA to make it a full blown Turbo Park EPC Contract will be more straightforward. Right now, it is contemplated FPRP would assign its interests as Construction Manager under the TDSA to ENA, and the TDSA would be concurrently amended and restated as set forth above, both at the time the FPRP goes into Phase II of Turbo Park. At the time FPRP goes into Phase I of Turbo Park, I believe the TDSA can remain an FPRP obligation ( like any other development agreement signed by a project entity that is subsequently transferred into Turbo Park). Since the TDSA now only involves soft cost expenditures, FPRP can sign it as soon as it is negotiated and agreed by Stone & Webster and before it goes into Phase I of Turbo Park. The B& V Agreement, which was modeled on Black & Veatch's agreement with FPUA, also can be signed prior to going into Phase I as soon as it is negotiated with Black & Veatch. Like the TDSA, there are commercial terms that need to be added. It was modeled on the FPUA Black & Veatch Agreement because that should speed negotiation with B & V on its terms, and we may want to assign the B & V Agreement to FPUA ( and they too would be comfortable with its terms). My understanding is that FPUA is supervising the transmission work and will be driving the design and engineering of the transmission facilities, so it may make sense for FPRP to assign the B & V Agreement to FPUA and simply retain the obligation to pay B & V ( up to a cap). I also have attached a revised version of the spreadsheet Mathew prepared listing FPRP contracts already entered into by FPRP ( the so-called secondary development agreements) and those proposed to be entered into before we go into Phase I of Turbo Park. Herman and Lisa, let me know which of the secondary agreements you have not previously reviewed ( those marked NO re your review ) that you need to review, and I will endeavor to furnish them to you. Let me know if you have any questions.
|