|
|
Enron Mail |
Hi Scott,
I have some questions: The obligation to try to improve performance about the specific performance (ie minimum) standards frequently has a time limit, say 6 months. Do you have a sense for the appropriate time period here? Would it make sense to require them to work longer on the first 2.0 and 2.4 than the rest? Will we have a drawing number for a standard foundation design, or will we need to put words around it. I know we discussed the need for pilings as the most significant change. Do you think that this difference is enough? Did I understand that we want them to pay us at the end for non-standard foundations (as opposed to a credit). On termination, are we going with the average value no matter what the reason for termination, with a rep along the lines of whay you wrote, plus some monitoring ability. On assignment, they mentioned a corporate guaranty. I was thinking of using something broader due to various financing/balance sheet considerations, perhaps tying it to a guaranty from a BBB rated entity. Do we want an option to have them store these, which would then impact payment? Thanks, Kay
|