I'm a member and have had several questions answered regarding this particular case, here is a brief overview:
Construction Consultant Management Services, LLC:
Ken Ramos / Registered Agent
Alex Moya / Managing Partner - A Registered Florida General Contractor (giving CCMS the ability to write contracts under Florida Law)
CCMS Services Include:
On Site Construction Management Services
Full Range Engineering Services
Architectural & Design Services
Due Diligence Assessment Reports
Develop Conceptual/Preliminary Budget
Proposals, Estimating & Work Scopes
Third-Party Contract Prep & Negotiating
Permit Expediting Service
Quality Control & Production Reports
Project Scheduling & Follow-up Reports
Digital Photography Reports
Thermal Imaging / Inspection Reports
Non-invasive Damage Evaluation Reports
Punch Scheduling, Walk-thru Reports
Pre-Qualified Contractor Referral List
We are in direct contract with a client, we contract for a percentage of the overall construction budget to oversee and manage the project. When working with churches or clients who may have inherent financial issues, it is necessary to impose a time limit for project completion.
We (CCMS) then write RFP's (request for proposals) per line item with specified work scopes (civil engineering, architectural, block wall, foundation, underground piping, utilities connect, roofing, etc.) to other contractors however, these contractors/subcontractors are in direct contract with CCMS (not our clients). We then submit the 3 lowest bidders to the client on a CRF (contract recommendation form) which the client signs off on, we do make recommendations as to which contractor we feel is a better choice. By utilizing this per-line item bid method of construction we usually cut construction costs by some 12 to 18% plus.
Contract A: El Pan De Vida / Church & CCMS:
Executed May 11, 2009
Completed May 10, 2010
CCMS was contracted by client (El Pan De Vida - Church) to oversee a construction project from concept to completion. Worked client's requirements/needs to a feasible and constructible building concept, established a conceptual/preliminary construction budget that met their needs.
Contract B: CCMS & Construction Unlimited Services, Inc. (Civil Engineering)
Executed June 16, 2009
Completed: May 14, 2010
County was against this project from the beginning we took the client through 2 public hearings (as they erroneously denied the first project) we were forced to redesign the entire project and resubmit for a second time, after prevailing at the BPC (board of planning commissioner's level) we took them through the BCC (board of county commissioner's) hearing for final project approval.
Contract C: CCMS & RH Wilson (Architectural/Structural Design)
Executed July 27, 2009
Incomplete; (see notes)
Likewise these drawings/plans had to be redesigned several times as well, the first was obviously due to the planning commission erroneous denying of the original plans, but the client was back and forth on what they actually wanted as finances were becoming an issue. We were forced to submit the building plans in phases (shell plans first) giving the client options on the interior as well as time to reorganize their financial issues. The shell plans are completed and ready to be submitted.
Contract D: CCMS & COL Construction, Inc. (Site Work / Horizontal Construction)
Executed July 7, 2010
Incomplete; Remaining work / foundation work (see notes)
This contractor was originally contracted and completed all of the following: site work, underground, site grading, utilities, turn lane, required signage, rebuilt junction box, asphalt driveway bib, modified & redesigned storm water catch basin & drain, Toho water shut-off valves, double safety-check valve, back-flow preventers, building fire-riser, building waste/water drain to sewer connection, building water supply line, underground electrical conduit supply lines to exterior building, concrete work (sidewalks & pads), temporary/permanent fencing and driveway gates, required drain swales, along with required sod areas.
During the turmoil with county and being denied the original project (10,000 s/f building & alternative parking on the client's second lot) along with the client's financial issues. We split this contract at the client's request into two separate contracts to maintain pricing by removing the foundation & slab work to be done at a later date. This left a $6,414 mobilization partial deposit on the remaining foundation & slab work (to ensure we wouldn't sub that work out to another contractor).
CCMS was referred to this client by another client (church) who had difficulties with both county and a few unscrupulous contractors. We were successful in obtaining a 60 day extension on an expired conditional use permit and turned in a full set of approved civil engineering plans within the allotted time frame.
This client (El Pan De Vida) has created an intolerable working relationship forcing CCMS to totally withdraw from the remaining project (see attached letter of withdrawal) although any/all contractual obligations were termed-out nearly a year and a half ago, we were asked to stay on to help even after the client moved forward to have the properties annexed by the city after we told them it couldn't be done, we still stayed on but over the past several months there has been far too much deceit and political in-fighting within the church itself.
In the past couple months the working relationship and conditions have continually deteriorated to a point of no return, as a result CCMS moved to withdraw from the remaining project (vertical construction). On October 13, 2011 we sent a registered package containing the following: all plans (both the original and revised plan applications) regarding the engineering improvements, underground and site construction (including CD), along with Osceola County, Tohopekaliga Water Authority (TWA) and South Florida Water Management (SFWM) documentation, applicable county ordinances, notes and permits including letter of withdrawal. We gave them 5 business days to respond if they didn't want us to complete the 2 remaining contracts, to which they never replied, so it was our assumption that they would have us proceed on the 2 remaining contracts. We are currently working on a church that this client (El Pan De Vida) is renting space from and according to them (the other church) they (El Pan De Vida) has a new contractor.
As of today several emails have been sent to the client requesting the new contractor's information so we are able to submit the sealed building/shell plans to county, as the original contractor refuses to submit under their license & insurance unless they are paid the remaining monies owed on the mobilization deposit ($7,497) for the foundation work. We have had absolutely no response from them (the client). The last email sent was marked "Final Notice".
Question 1 - If we send another registered letter in the form of "5 Day Cure Letter" as they are impeding our ability to complete the contract by not responding and should they fail to respond again, would that nullify our obligation to complete the remaining contracts ... if not what are our legal liabilities to them, seeing as our contract (CCMS & El Pan De Vida) is completed under the terms of that contract?
Question 2 - Or are we compelled to submit the plans under our license, even though we may not be able to complete the plans as we may still need to meet with them to conclude the particulars on the interior walls and spaces?