ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight

See a quorum. Glad to have everybody here for this exciting day. Yes Sir the. I know. Cheers. Well I'll just get started with something really really fun there's a little blonde set on that way back corner over there they got a little older this today. Deanne Happy Birthday. If there's anybody else I'll be glad recognizable for anybody else says or not but anyway thank you all. Senator Hester everything they like such no I'm good all right let's get started here. We're here today to. To hear some things on planes Review first off is item see a litigation oversight report by the agencies as Mr current here. Levy has a report for us. Just state your name and who you're with for the record please. I'm David current associate general counsel at the university of Arkansas system we have been asked to give a report on a lawsuit Brian Mitchell against the University of Arkansas at little rock this case involves a history professor at the university of Arkansas at little rock last summer he was awarded tenure promoted and given a raise and to our surprise a couple months later he filed an appointment discrimination lawsuit we have the case is in federal court we have a motion dismissed pending in the case for the last 2 months it's been assigned to judge J. moody we are writing a ruling at this time and we have a 50 page brief out there which I'm sure a lot of you would love to read that I have would not under any shall be happy to give you a copy of that if you would like I'm probably not at liberty to answer a lot of questions given active nature of the case but I'll be happy to try if anybody has any questions okay we do have one question representative fi. All right you're wrong you wanted. Okay sorry about that well I guess we do not have any questions so. Thank you Mr chairman we we thank you for your port. All right let's go to your claims review of. Adam one REISSUANCE of war unpaid bill Adam a which is a. Let me see if I get this right. I guess I missed so does good to give us a brief description of this is that right. I will miss one. 00 did I miss something appear. Okay hello I'm I'm skipping ahead of myself on for remembers the item agenda item agenda items due to D. one to D. 4 artists our discussions of the claim commission that are being reviewed miss Herby could you come to the table and identify yourself please. For the record. Sorry a little bit ahead there. Lunch is calling. Yes Sir my name is Catherine are beyond the director the claims commission. All right. So now we'll start of these. Reassurance reassurance of Wharton unpaid bills missed us can can you give us a description of the claim please. This claim is claim number 220758 huge air and Carol booth versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration this claim was filed by jerit booth requesting re issuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of 20 3000 $37 payable to the Arkansas department of finance and administration the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Surbhi does the commission have anything that will serve and I'm happy to take any questions are there any questions or discussions of the members. Seeing none do I have a motion approved the Saddam. I have a motion second. A second all in favor all right any bows. Motion carries. All right Sir number 2 was description you give us a brief description of plain to. This is claim number 200054 Charles II cross as appointed ministry of the State of Connie and Stokes cross versus the University of Arkansas for medical sciences claimant Charles cross as administrator of his wife's the state sought $800000 in compensation for medical negligence claim against the University of Arkansas for medical sciences claimant allege that his wife miss Stokes cross presented to the emergency room with bilateral leg swelling dyspnea on exertion and elevated blood pressure claiming a ledge that he requests that she be treated immediately but was advised that there was no room after her vitals were taken claimant went to his car to retrieve items when he returned he found his wife unresponsive in her wheelchair he alerted the emergencies department staff were unable to revive her Clement argued that you and that's was negligent in allowing the Stokes cross to simply wait unattended without any additional care monitoring or treatment and thereby proximately caused her unresponsive condition that respond at UAMS denied liability affirmatively stating that Mrs cross was triaged appropriately and that she had experienced symptoms for weeks prior to presenting at the emergency department. Artie's entered into a negotiated settlement agreement where the claim was sold for 220 $5000 the claims commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award of the General Assembly pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section 1910 to 15 the. Sir I read you have anything to add to this no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions any questions or discussions the members and I think I have served our. Thank you Mr the. Just educate me on my ignorance over here so how's the how does negotiations usually work is typically like any other kind of lawsuit or anything like that with the claims commission be involved is is it done. Is it they make agreement number 80 all for adjudication how's that typically work on these kind of negotiated settlements Sir from the claims commission perspective we receive a settlement agreement from the parties how they go about negotiating it. That that I'm not I'm not privy to but but in this case we received a settlement agreement which the commission reviewed and approved and sent over here okay just want to check on it thank you ma'am thank you Sir. Representative gene motion at the proper time all right. No other questions. I'll take your motion a motion moved that we affirm the ruling of the claims commission all right any US secretary of second all in favor. Interpose motion carries. 3. This. This is claim number 2201530 I'm sorry in 1 place. This is claim number 181073 James construction group LLC versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant James construction group entered into a contract with respondent Arkansas department of transportation for construction of a bridge on Roosevelt road in little rock which spanned over the union Pacific tracks claimant sought 1000000 440 1000 500 $52.02 and forty one thousand five hundred fifty two dollars and two cents and damages alleging delays disruptions and contract administration irregularities on the part of the respondent respondent denied liability and urge dismissal arguing that claimant had been paid per the terms of the contract following briefing by both parties and hearing the claims commission awarded the claimant a total of 910000 800 $37.44 which was comprised of 180 4000 650 $9000.92 an overhead 50 3000 400 $75 for the remaining half of deck replacement cost 350 6000 800 $83.23 an additional parking costs 150 4000 and reimbursement for improperly assessed liquidated damages $10000 in attorney's fees and 6 percent pre judgment interest of 150 1000 $819.29. Service Commission everything that this no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions. This. Members are there any questions yes okay we have questions you have a. Yeah with. Well I I'd like to ask questions of our dog that's possible they have anyone here Mr Umeda on that score screen yes Sir Mr you met a. So it was probably about a year ago we had a very similar leased on high level circumstances claim where we were doing a bridge deck for or at least the vertical structure where we there are some questions on a cold Joint anyways lots and lots of money those are not enough having to pay out here we are again on a some somewhat similar circumstances what what are we doing to prevent. Your mean is there is there is there a new process in place where for gonna stop somebody from pouring or claim there's a cold joint like the costing us millions of dollars like I guess one saying that this seems to be this is the second time in 2 years or this is a problem what are you doing to make sure this is a problem anymore. If you look at the issue with the concrete pours of the I believe after this incident dated because I have a more more more hands on deck to the to the supervisor for or that you know we're we're chief engineer and I'm sure he's he's overlooking and and sandy's these issues and hopefully local compulsory process is to help prevent some of these issues that arise during the construction. Okay thank you. President Jean. I'm over here it is James constructions okay with this. Of Solomon brothers plane Commission yes Sir neither party appeal this award okay thank you. Senator garner. Thank you the conclusion of 356000 use me national flag in calls. What's kind of an. Why is it so high the staffing that they have to do what why was that amount awarded to that is degrees and just I try to read to submit testimony but it's just this extensive yes Sir give me just one second. Okay so. What the commission found is that James construction have budgeted approximately $1800 per day for railroad flagging expenses and because of the extended amount of time that this project took that that there was an extra 38 working days of flooding costs that James construction. Could not have anticipated and so there. They initially did a a contract with or.for X. amount of dollars for flagging and other things today. They James argued that are.made him stay over 100 plus days and then the commission agreed what that does for warning that that basic or got kicked this can down the road made them concur all these extra costs that it is that a kind of a summary evidence are more to it well I think that the contract just ended up taking longer and that additional working days had to be added to it and that the claimant had included in its original bid they had bid $250000 that they had set aside for real red flag expenses but that because the project took so many more working days than either party originally anticipated that the railroad fighting costs were significantly higher than that. And your question yes ma'am maybe this is or died I mean if you contract for X. amount of time and they're going Curley 6 calls. What was the thought process of not like trying to go she ate something with them to additional with me why does make it to the claims commission just felt like I had to throw down on this. Well that. This is actually it's when Janet this section and the role company that are not and is not a part number or a party that the contract is my understanding that the the railroad company sort of they've taken advantage of the situation and sent out more people than necessary and so just look offered her that way unfortunately the farmers not have a contract until relatively what to do of during these these jobs so the Department position was that that's something to be worked out with the with the railroad company and not not are not. Okay didn't how did are.comers responsible is that was that the what the commission found as they weren't response but this role company wasn't response was actually or dots position that they have to hold. Either way I guess I well so I can say and I and the claims commission found that perhaps James construction and R.could pursue the railroad to recover for any alleged overcharges but to the extent that that claim might be time barred or for some other reason unsuccessful the commission that thought it would be unfair for claiming to have to bear those costs align okay thank you. Any other questions. Seeing none do I have a motion to war disclaimed. I have a motion I have a second. And second. All in favor say aye hi impose no. Motion carries. Adam bill number 3 please miss that's good this is claim number 220153 rock city harvest LLC versus the Arkansas alcoholic beverage control division claimant rock city harvest LLC alleged that it was that a paid the renewal fee for its medical marijuana dispensary license twice claimant sought reimbursement of 20 2000 $500 which is the amount of a single license renewal fee from A. B. C. A. B. C. responded admitting that claimed it was entitled to reimbursement the claims commission awarded the claimant 20 2000 $500 and referred to claim the General Assembly for review for review pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section 1910 to 15. Sorry anything that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions are there any questions from members. I have a motion to approve a motion of second have second all in favor say aye. Imposed motion carries. I don't for. Mr this is claim number 191111 when co incorporated versus Arkansas tech university claimant Franco incorporated sought not less than 290 2000 800 $68.30 in damages from responded Arkansas tech university alleging wrongful termination of 2 contracts for remodel of the Williamson building and for the installation for the installation of insulation in the Williamson building claimant argued that responded should not have terminated the contracts and that responded did not follow the required procedure terminate the contracts respondent answer denying liability and stating affirmatively that claimant's work was negligent following a hearing in this matter the claims commission may detailed factual findings concerning the circumstances of the contract and awarded claimant Franco a total of 140 3000 700 $52.46 the award was comprised of 100 $28 120 8000 200 $67.12 in damages related to the remodel contract and 7000 980 $5030.34 in damages related to the installation install finally 7000 $500 was awarded an attorney fees respond in Arkansas tech university appeals. Sir did you have anything to add to that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions all right. Yes Sir Mr Mr well if if possible I would like to adjust here from Arkansas tech themselves on why they think they should be appealed call I think they're here seems like a bit of a mess yeah. All right we have a representative Arkansas tech come forward please. All right if you state your name who you're with please and your welcome to the good morning my name is Thomas Pennington and I'm the former university counselor at Arkansas tech. Good morning nice to see you all again my name is Edward Armstrong and I'm the current university counselor at Arkansas tech university. Mr. Well I would just like to hear from you guys what what specifically has changed since of claims commission or nothing while white white what what the grounds for your. Why are you are gone there's the results. Thank you Sir it it's the position of Arkansas tech that we had the right to terminate the contract. That fraud being committed in there for attorneys fees should not have been awarded. And also we ask that the verdict be reduced to not award profit to fling co. The total of those 2 things you're you're wanting not to pay attorney's fees and remove profit what's what's the total amount you're wanting to cancer if if my math is correct the verdict. Total was $143750.46. If we remove the attorney's fees will be reducing it by 7500 reducing the profit on both counts will be $32926.46 which would leave. $3326. Thank you. Represent Shepherd. Thank you Mr chairman I have just a few questions of the chair will allow and I would like to hear from the contractor as well. So with regard to the one of the contentions by tech is that there was fraud committed by the contractor what was that fraud. Thank you Sir it was the its position of Arkansas taking overseas that was the submission of 2 false pay applications at the beginning of the contract okay enda's tech NO my understanding is that and I. Tell me if I'm off base here but as I read this last night that those were submitted at the request of representatives of Arkansas tech who actually asked for the submission of pay applications and I'm not trying to justify one side of the other because there's there's you know there's no reason to be submitting false applications but is is in my correct about that yes Sir you are in and it would be our position that he did not have the authority to do that okay. And did that person was that person benefiting personally by the submission the representative of Arkansas tech where they benefiting personally by requesting those pay applications. I'm I'm speculating at this point but I think it was in my opinion it was an attempt to save his job. And so in in that regard I would answer you is that as a yes but do I think that he pocketed any money personally as a result of that no as I understand from material it was because it was to trying procure the grant funds that were being used to pay in a timely fashion and then finally it looks like this hinge largely on whether this was a termination for cause or whether it was for convenience as I understand tech is Kate claiming it was a termination for cause but as I read review the material it seemed that there was some question as to whether tax specifically identified what that actual because of the termination was I might incorrect about that that's a very good question it's our position that the contract allowed us to terminate the contract for neglect or default then there are. I think 14 reasons under that. They're contracted not require us to specify which of those 14 we were using but fraud was within those bottom of one more question if I may I apologize what does what I don't know the answer this I'm asking and and I'd like to hear from the contractor with regard to the distinction between a termination for calls versus the termination for convenience what is the difference in terms of what the contractor can recover based on whether it was a termination for cause or convenience support is there a distinction the claims commission which had a very thorough opinion. Base their decision on termination for convenience which allowed for the provision of profit in in the verdict okay thank you. Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr if I'm listening right the. The argument is that you all terminated for the reason that you did but was there anything in the contract or anything legally that would give the contractor any coverage if it was because of your employee that initiated the action. If they indeed initiate the action first. That's a good question Sir I don't know the answer I would submit to you though that there were 3 people that did things wrong in this contract it was the Arkansas tech university employee that was terminated which was our construction manager it was the construction manager for the construction company that agreed I'll submit these false invoices and then the architect which also agreed to the submission of the false invoices when I say agreed they they signed off on it. Senator if I may and thank you times for for explaining that I would answer that the contract clearly did not give cover for this it was a wrongful action for them submit the invoice so obviously even if an employee of a T. you suggested that they act outside of the bounds of the law and outside of the contract the contract wouldn't justify that. And so it would be outside of what was permitted under the contract. I guess one to wrap my round is it's okay a pre alternate contact terminate contract. On the basis what you feel the contractor did wrong but where is the responsibility that you would a Sam in fact it was waiver employees who did something wrong. And then the follow up to that would be. The actual work that was done set aside grant time running out motivation all that stuff. Was our actual work done that's represented in the dollar amount that is being requested. Materials labor going through the auditing process to make sure the 2 by fours in the labor was all there is is dollar amount actually represent work done even if the grant had a run out it would been paid for all grant. On the first question I think Arkansas tech acted appropriately by terminating the employee after he had. I've taken the actions that he did and it was pretty quick and we would find out about it he's terminated within I will make it up to 70 2:00 hours to answer your second question. The recommendation that we have that would reduce the verdict $203326 would compensate Plan co for items awarded by the claims commission for unpaid work. There was unpaid work of $53000 it was awarded in count one. In $7326 and count to. And then the claims commission awarded $43000 and retain edge. So when we have a pay application we retain 10 percent and we did not object to the first 5 pay applications that we that we paid setting aside that the very first to so there was a total of $103326. Okay thank you thank Mr. Any other questions for. Thank you. If not of a lot of if there's anyone out there for Flynn echo that wants to come forward if you would make your way this way will let you. Stage to. Basically reasoning for. Everything here. I thank you Mr Speaker questions for the contractors a. You're recognized is this on well let's listen I'm sorry state your name and your place of going to make sure the microphones on I'm sorry hi my name is David grace and I'm the attorney for Flynn echo okay Mr Speaker you're recognized. So I guess my question. Because at all Sorvillo. Thank you narrow so I guess my question would be just or a response to any of these points for questions have been asked me specifically with regard to this question of whether it was a termination for for calls or termination for convenience what is the contractor's position on that and if it's if I assume that your put that in part you would say it's termination for convenience but what what would you point to and and help us understand the distinction there and why you believe it's one of the other we maybe need sure. Excuse me I'm sorry. The claims commission terminated decide. The let me back up sorry. Arkansas tech. Purported to terminate the contract for calls. Flynn because position laws Hey there was no grounds for termination and be the procedure for terminating the contract for clause as set forth in the contract was not fall. The claims commission. Agreed. That flank that Arkansas tech did not follow the procedure in the contract for termination for calls they made an explicit finding about that. And then they said okay but. There is a provision. In the contract that allows Arkansas tech to terminate for convenience termination for convenience means that they do not have to have a calls they can do it if they want to. For no reason problem. So. The commission expressly decided that although there was no grounds to terminate the contract for calls it could be terminated for convenience and although Arkansas tech didn't do that they could have done that so they then decided to award damages based on the termination for convenience provision which is Mister Pennington said includes payment for work performed. Profits lost on work was not performed. That's basically the contract remedy the attorney for remedy is a legal. Is is there a distinction in the process for termination for cause versus the termination for convenience aside from having to specifically identify what the calls is I'm not sure I understood your question I guess my I guess what I'm trying to get at is it it kind of sounds like the claims commission while they while they found that it was not a termination for cause which was the your position they also kind of gave Arkansas tech the benefit the doubt means to say and you didn't follow the contract terminated all you we're going to we're going to consider it a termination for convenience in other words they kind of gave each side something I'm just wondering is that was there an argument that the contracted never been properly terminated and therefore Arkansas tech should have been held to the whole thing we we took that was our case we we took the position that there was no termination for cause and because there had not been an actual termination for convenience that we were entitled recover damages for basically breach of contract wrongful termination breach of contract. The. You know there's not a lot of rules in my experience about this contract say that this termination for convenience remedy is available and all the state contracts that I'm. And some contracts and I don't remember what this one says to be honest but there are contracts that say that in the event that a contract is wrongfully terminated then that becomes a termination for convenience and then the remedy is whatever the termination for convenience section says I don't remember this contract says that or not okay but you know I think the claims commission sort of said okay that's what we're going to do I'm guessing but I kind of think that's what they do the claims commission I believe they took testimony it did they take testimony and have an actual in person hearing on this issue not exactly. This case was done a little differently I think at least my experiences claims commission is not that fast but but what we did this was such a huge mess and they were so much information and so many people involved in so many documents so much everything Mr Pennington and I. And also we have the code stuff and it was hard to even have a run so Mister Pennington and I with the commission's permission decided that we would just put it all down on paper so we took a stack of depositions that high in a stack of documents that we put it all in a big pile and dumped it in the commission's lap okay and I think they read every bit of it because they're close a lot of the deposition testimony in their decision so they reviewed amount to them for and that was by agreement yes RT Mr thanks and I did it by agreement because we can think of another way to do it that would make any sense at all thank. At the end there other points raise I tried to make notes but if if if people could ask me questions another or otherwise I'll try to no question come of senator Hammer. Thank you just kind of walk me through the process real quick sure there was the disagreement and then they approached by terminating 4 calls before the commission that was step number one. The right what a yeah I did that if what in I'm sorry everything about this is not easy to explain there's just nothing about as to consumers in a sense but yes okay thank you at a contract when cope from the contractor while it got terminated we medical yes right but that that's my they went before the claims commission to terminate the contract for calls first or when did that happen not what happened. Let me give a brief facts summary briefly 5 thank you read as I can't think entered into a contract with Arkansas tech in may of whatever your laws. The the over billing incident that Mr Pennington talked about occurred in may of that year. It was resolved at least that's our position. And 5 months went by where we worked on the job. From may until the end of October the beginning of November. Of that year. The the termination for cause letter was issued. A few months passed and then we filed our case claims commission okay and claims commission ruled what the claims commission ruled that the contract with my understanding of what this says is the contract was wrongfully terminated okay but the termination for convenience remedy was available to 80 you so they applied damages based on that right and and maybe this is along the lines of the Speaker that's what I want to clear. Did did the claims commission through their determination allow for the contracted then be terminated for convenience was that that did they initiate that or did detect come back and say okay we've got that opportunity I got now we're gonna go back and try to terminate it for for convenience who who made that decision the claims commission made that decision and that open the door for them check to then come back and terminate contracts for convenience but but they didn't but they did not text and once we got to the claims commission everything was over as far as okay incoming tech was concerned at a side event after after the contract was terminated the building caught on fire the contract was never complete. And we had our lawsuit you know after that so so what we would do placing mission everything happened there we didn't go back one last question then because you brought up when the building burned. Tech get the benefit of the insurance policy and did they get benefited at the full value of the building as all this work would have been completed I don't know the answer share can restrict the course completion you may. I this is the most complicated fact pattern I apologize. The information that I have is that when the second contractor came in. Building caught on fire after that that matter has still not been resolved with the insurance companies because there is the university property damage insurance okay let me just shorten it up and just ask you. Are you all asking for the full benefit of building completed including the work that Franco would have done is that what you're anticipating getting from the insurance company so it would been the full amount with them having completed all work. I don't have that answer the fire okay gutted the building basically the walls were left okay or so it would be a substantial number thank you. Mr. Tell you what my questions for a thank you how much of the award was awarded few for profit for work not performed. My understanding of the contract and the award is is that the the profit number 2 contract says that the remedy for termination for convenience is pay for the work that's done. Pay for profit on the work that was not done because of the termination for convenience. That's the remedy this in the contract so essentially is is Mister Pennington explained the of the award is is based on the work Franco performed that Arkansas tech admitted was performed and not paid for there was a dispute about what we did and and the and the the commission did not award plan co damages based on the work we claimed we did that that that Arkansas tech disputed they just base they're working with Arkansas tech already agreed they owed plus the profit on the work we did not do thanks and that's my question yes that's the answer the the the 30 some odd $0 number based on what the commission said the contract says its profit a work which is not performed because of the termination so there was fraud determine the contract now you want to describe all by all parties tect but thank you and the architects you will profit for work not performed after the fraud. Let me try to explain our position because first well first I mean like I say it's it's hard to explain The this Flynn co did nobody even says that playing code a product anybody it's employee just like Arkansas to secure say that. The process prosecuted well the prosecutor accepted a no contest plea from Flynn because employee but just like Arkansas tech didn't know what it's employee was doing neither did claim code and know what it's employee was doing the fax shall the Commission sets. When Flynn call learned about the problem they were notified with a letter from Arkansas tech that said I forgot the words that were sent over building an overpayment whatever they called in the may we want our money back they got the money back the next day as soon as Blanco knew what happened they corrected the problem.. period They didn't know about this it is there's evidence in the file that proves they didn't know about this Arkansas tech didn't know what they're gonna was doing either. The architect knew what was going on he was an independent party we even have to tell anybody anything but the fact is the the undisputed fact is is that this is Franco knew what happened they fixed the problem they refunded the money they started over again and. From a legal standpoint whatever that's worth. Arkansas tech did not terminate the contract in may they allowed Flynn co to continue performance after they receive their refund that is a waiver of any grounds for termination based on those actions under the law. And so we will go forward until November and it comes back up again for whatever reason and here we are but this link I was never accused of a crime Blanco's never involved in any criminal action it's employee pleaded no contest. To the charges that were made against him Mr. Rows of all the Arkansas tech up representative pleaded guilty to the charges against him and the architect did too as I recall what we were involved in that stuff but the pleadings are attached to the motions of a notice of appeal excuse me but but the thing because position which. We believe was sustained by the claims commission was it did not commit fraud and if whatever problems committee was way. So I mean that I'm sorry for the long winded answer the but that but that's our position we're asking to be paid for the work that we did after all that. After all that happened that we were allowed to perform the more painful yeah that that was 10 minutes of I'm asking about no I'm sorry this is hard to talk about profit after the fraud you will pay for work you did not perform the profit of it everybody agrees you pay for the work you did I'm saying should you get paid for the profit and I understand your position right position to do this contract I move on. So my question is was also the Goshen a contractor was a super competitive bid contract this was a. Excuse me this is a negotiated contract I don't understand all the ins and outs of the negotiation but apparently contractor approved in advance do work up to a certain value for the university system this job was fit in that category Franco was selected as the contractor do the job and go she added price to do the work within that cap that's how it happened okay let's take is a reason you do not put out for bid build. I don't have the. Answer to that Sir I I just want involved in the process I apologize that's fine I just was curious I just I kind of thought this was just to go should be it was not out for a competitive bid with all the other contractors okay of I have more questions over for you let's start with representative Dotson. Surprisingly mine I didn't realize of stolen mine was asked. Representative Shepherd thank you so Senator Hester ask some good questions about the about what is was awarded what was but being paid for. Am I correct as I read the order. There would have been no basis there would be no basis at all for the payment of proceeds. For work for profit. After the fraud. It I mean as we're referring to it. Or for any work that had been performed. If Arkansas tech could fall the contracted given notice but the claims commission found that they didn't follow the contract instead almost that I mean at a. Treated as a as a termination for convenience which there probably could be an argument against that but is that is am I correct about that is Arkansas tech disagree with that. Thank you Sir I think that I would really ask the committee to think about what I'm about to say the process they said we didn't follow. To terminate the contract was to ask the architect is it okay to terminate the contract he's the decision maker he was one of the parties engaged in the falls pay applications so what will they say that we didn't follow the procedure I think we follow the procedure in one section of the contract there's another section they're referencing that they say we didn't follow the procedure that procedure they're saying we didn't follow was to involve the architect which we say was it in the architect that the planned guilty to the. Falsifying business records so. I don't know the answers your question but but the architect the architect was Arkansas tech's architect that's who you retain that was not that was not this wasn't something where that you were. Contracting with both the architect and the contractor jointly or for some type of you are correct Sir what it and then they the claims commission found that instead of getting even giving notice of fraud that the only thing that was said was notice of neglect and or defaulted did Arkansas tech give notice of the fraud under the contract it's our position that that when we gave notice of neglect in default at that was included within the 14 for the the provisions under that. It don't we did exactly what contract required was to give the notice of neglect in default it doesn't say in specify one of the following it just says neglect in the fall okay and then the final the I know the claims commission said it to your point that you didn't certified with the initial with the decision maker who was the architect and you're saying that the architect was part of the problem and why would you go to the is there a and I'm not it's unclear from the order there's a statement that one co was not given the opportunity to cure the defect or the default is that something that's provided for under the contract for a termination for cause is there are right to to cure any default that may have been raised by the by the owner in the provision that we rely on no Sir. I guess I'd like to hear what yes con skews me I'm sorry my friends clogging up for the Hobart so she could with what I read in the newspaper of the of. The contract has. Arkansas tech wrote these contracts not us the contract if they wrote says the. The third General conditions that are incorporated by reference into the contractors general conditions for observing followed throughout the process of this project. One of those provisions in the general condition specifies a procedure for termination for cause it requires that an initial decision maker. Of specify the reason for termination. It also says that that notice has to be given 7 days before termination it is our position that the initial decision maker necessarily identifies the reason for termination and the 7 days give us an opportunity to care for that reason whatever it might be. The initial decision maker doesn't have to be the architect in fact the words initial decision maker what that person is called in this case the contract that Arkansas tech had with your architect identified him as the initial decision maker there is a procedure. For changing the initial decision maker if either party doesn't like who it is if Arkansas tech done like if or if the in architect and one of the it's either what you can change the initial decision maker the fact that the architect was involved in the over billing I agree that raises the specter of a conflict if that's the reason why is being asked to issue a decision although 5 months later who knows but the fact is is that Arkansas tech and replaced him with another initial decision maker an independent decider to say yes or no or whatever about this that was not done and that is what the commission said it should have been. Everything else much bigger than that okay Sir Hammer. What is the dollar value of the profit that's included after the fraud was committed. Is that the claims commission I guess whoever can answer what's what's the dollar value of the profit to Senator Hester is point awhile ago what's the dollar value. Of the settlement amount that the commission is proposing after fraud was committed. There was 32200 roughly as to the remodel contract in about $600 as far as the insulation install so we're talking about a little under $33000. So. Raises questions as well as gateway what if we just took that off of the amount that you're proposing. And made that the settlement amount that we recommended why would that not be a logical way to approach this given the profit that's included in the settlement amount after the fraud occurred I get it nobody likes what anyone of the 3 parties did. But at the end of the day. Is that. But if anybody wants to respond. Worker questionnaire Hammer if you give me just a second we're working on something for you might be thank you. Representantes. Her name was we're still talking things. That's all questions I got what you saw you. The figure it was quoted thank you. Are we gonna get insurance Dotson on something well if that question is still hanging if the chair's wanted to allow him to for me to give them an answer I'd be glad to. I think we're ready to move if you already 0 we're ready Rosa Dotson you have a motion force yes Mister chair. Thank you just listen testimony back and forth on this it seems to me as if Franco performed work up until a certain point in time and. But the the the profit portion of it that they. Perfect they didn't perform work on on they necessarily. If the contract was terminated they should necessarily get paid past that point and so my motion would be to cover the cost of that minus the profit portion of the 30 2000 and cover the cost of their attorney's fees I think the motion is to amend the ruling in the claims commission and that total would be 110000 80646. We have a motion I have a second. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion I guess I haven't done that but if there is some discussion center of Richmond Shepherd. So you know I think the bottom line to this is that there's this was a mass. Both both sides. Whether whether it should be attributable to them but or just it was the accident Chloe's. You know have acted acted in a improper fashion I guess the thing but the issue I have with the motion is that from what I understand from from the claims commission's decision and what's been stated here today is the profit would not had Arkansas tech followed the letter of the contract the profit never would have been an issue there would be no basis for the ward and that's you know that's my concern it's not as if I don't know that there's there's there's a party that staff. Is in should necessarily win or lose here it looks like the claims commission kinda split the baby so to speak and you know tried to give some award to Franco but then at the same time they were they they at least determined that there was a termination for convenience to try and provide the ability to terminate the contract so you know I have mixed feelings on that but I I just wanted to be able to say that on the record that that's that's my concern with the situation is that it appears to me that that tech could of follow the letter of the contract and if the if the contract if we're not if we don't follow the letter of the contract then why do we have the contracts in place and so that's that's my concern. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion. Motion the second all in favor say aye opposed no. No 7. All right back to Rizzle motion. So I have a motion to award this climb. I have a motion. I have a second any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Any knows no. The eyes have it. All right that's it today I believe in. What is the gentleman that's is the show for today thank you for coming in and this we are adjourned.