By Brimer H.C.R. No. 64 76R1817 MDR-F HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1-1 WHEREAS, DalMac Construction Company, Inc., alleges that: 1-2 (1) on February 15, 1993, DalMac Construction Company 1-3 and Texas A&M University entered into a contract for the 1-4 construction of a recreational sports building; 1-5 (2) almost immediately after work began, DalMac 1-6 Construction Company discovered that the university's plans and 1-7 specifications did not adequately describe the work, the plans 1-8 frequently conflicted with the specifications, and it was 1-9 impossible to construct the building from the plans and 1-10 specifications; 1-11 (3) DalMac Construction Company incurred several 1-12 hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional expense because the 1-13 university insisted on performance that exceeded the plans and 1-14 specifications as initially requested; 1-15 (4) in compliance with the procedures specified in the 1-16 contract, DalMac Construction Company regularly notified the 1-17 university and requested clarification of inadequacies, conflicts, 1-18 and other problems, and in some instances the university did not 1-19 respond for more than a year; 1-20 (5) in compliance with the procedures specified in the 1-21 contract, and as a direct result of design inadequacies and 1-22 conflicts, DalMac Construction Company was forced to submit change 1-23 proposals for time and money; 1-24 (6) after numerous change proposals were denied or 2-1 left unanswered, DalMac Construction Company used the dispute 2-2 resolution procedure specified by the contract; 2-3 (7) despite the obvious problems with the university's 2-4 architectural plans and specifications, and despite the 2-5 university's insistence on performance that exceeded the initial 2-6 contractual requirements, DalMac Construction Company fully 2-7 satisfied its contractual obligations, both as initially required 2-8 and as subsequently modified at the insistence of the university; 2-9 (8) the university refused to extend the construction 2-10 date for more than 15 days during construction; 2-11 (9) after construction was completed the university 2-12 inexplicably granted two additional extensions of 43 and 17 days, 2-13 setting December 20, 1994, as the adjusted date of completion, but 2-14 these extensions were of little consequence since the project was 2-15 290 days beyond schedule due to problems with the plans; 2-16 (10) DalMac Construction Company completed 2-17 construction on or about November 17, 1995; 2-18 (11) on or about October 16, 1995, DalMac Construction 2-19 Company submitted to the vice chancellor of The Texas A&M 2-20 University System a "Request for Equitable Adjustment," supported 2-21 by project documents, which included requests for time and money, 2-22 with the total claim at that time amounting to $2,412,575.66; 2-23 (12) the vice chancellor summarily responded to the 2-24 "Request for Equitable Adjustment" by indicating that the 2-25 university was not responsible for the losses of DalMac 2-26 Construction Company and its subcontractors regardless of cost; 2-27 (13) there was no indication that the university 3-1 reviewed the "Request for Equitable Adjustment," and both the 3-2 rapidity and the content of the vice chancellor's response suggest 3-3 that the university did not, in fact, review the "Request for 3-4 Equitable Adjustment"; 3-5 (14) despite DalMac Construction Company's repeated 3-6 proposal for a joint review of the plans, as a start toward final 3-7 settlement, and despite the vice chancellor's remark that the 3-8 architectural plans were the worst he had ever seen at the 3-9 university, the university never agreed to the joint review; 3-10 (15) on July 10, 1996, and in compliance with the 3-11 dispute resolution procedure provided for by the contract, DalMac 3-12 Construction Company gave notice to the chancellor of The Texas A&M 3-13 University System that the company was appealing the vice 3-14 chancellor's rejection of the claim; 3-15 (16) on September 25, 1996, the chancellor set the 3-16 dispute for arbitration in College Station, Texas, for two or three 3-17 days, over DalMac Construction Company's objection that two or 3-18 three days was not ample time to present all complicated 3-19 engineering information necessary for an informed arbitral 3-20 decision; 3-21 (17) DalMac Construction Company and the university 3-22 submitted their dispute to an arbitrator, whose March 25, 1997, 3-23 decision addressed only three of the numerous issues in dispute, as 3-24 the university was unwilling to arbitrate the remaining issues; 3-25 (18) on April 14, 1997, DalMac Construction Company 3-26 wrote to the university proposing a settlement, to which the 3-27 chancellor responded with an offer of $19,000 on a $2.4 million 4-1 claim; 4-2 (19) on April 30, 1997, pursuant to the specified 4-3 dispute resolution procedure, DalMac Construction Company appealed 4-4 to the Board of Regents of The Texas A&M University System and 4-5 asked for a full and fair hearing; 4-6 (20) at the hearing before the board of regents, 4-7 DalMac Construction Company was given a mere 45 minutes to discuss 4-8 a claim now exceeding $3 million, and the board of regents upheld 4-9 the chancellor's findings; 4-10 (21) on July 30, 1997, the board of regents offered 4-11 DalMac Construction Company $204,461, an increase over the initial 4-12 $19,000 offer, due only to the university's incorrect deduction of 4-13 liquidated damages; 4-14 (22) DalMac Construction Company sought confirmation 4-15 that the offer of $204,461 was the board of regents' final 4-16 response; 4-17 (23) the university has failed to pay DalMac 4-18 Construction Company for construction costs and expenses incurred 4-19 as a result of the university's mistakes, and the university has 4-20 breached the contract it entered into with DalMac Construction 4-21 Company; and 4-22 (24) DalMac Construction Company is entitled to actual 4-23 and monetary damages, including court costs and attorney's fees; 4-24 now, therefore, be it 4-25 RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That 4-26 DalMac Construction Company, Inc., is granted permission to sue the 4-27 State of Texas and Texas A&M University subject to Chapter 107, 5-1 Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and, be it further 5-2 RESOLVED, That the president of Texas A&M University be 5-3 served process as provided by Section 107.002(a)(3), Civil Practice 5-4 and Remedies Code.