1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

OELRICH CONSTRUCTION, INC., )

)

 Plaintiff, ) Case No: 1:20cv169 

)

 v. ) Gainesville, Florida 

 ) October 25, 2021 

PRC PRECAST, LLC, )

) 8:58 AM 

 )

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,) 

 ) VOLUME I 

 v. ) 

OELRICH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) 

 Counter-Defendant. ) 

_____________________________ )

TRANSCRIPT OF BENCH TRIAL 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. HINKLE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

(Pages 1 through 218)

LISA C. SNYDER, RPR, CRR

Official United States Court Reporter

111 North Adams Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850)567-1374 * lisasnydercr@gmail.com

Proceedings reported by stenotype reporter.

Transcript produced by Computer-Aided Transcription.

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 1 of 218
 2

APPEARANCES: 

For the Plaintiff: Warner, Sechrest & Butts, PA 

Counter-Defendant By: ROBERT PAUL BUTTS, JR. 

 MICHAEL DUSTIN SECHREST 

SEAN GERALD HIPWORTH 

Attorneys at Law 

 RButts@fbswlaw.com 

sechrest@fbswlaw.com 

shipworth@fbswlaw.com 

 5200 SW 91st Terrace Suite 101 

Gainesville, Florida 326008 

For the Defendant: Kirwin Norris, PA 

Counter-Plaintiff By: DAVID JOSEPH DARR 

 Attorney at Law 

djd@kirwinnorris.com 

 15 W. Church Street, Suite 301 

 Orlando, Florida 32801 

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 2 of 218
 3

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Call to Order of the Court at 8:58 AM on Monday, October

25, 2021.)

THE COURT: Good morning. Have a seat, please.

Is the plaintiff ready for trial?

MR. BUTTS: Yes, Your Honor. We are.

THE COURT: Defense ready?

MR. DARR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Opening statement for the plaintiff?

MR. BUTTS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And the rule on masks when you are

speaking and at the lecturn away from everybody else you are

welcome to remove your mask to make it a little easier for me to

hear and for the court reporter and for everybody else.

MR. BUTTS: Thank you.

A contract is a collection of promises.

In a construction contract the promises are unique.

There is a reason it's unique. The reason the promises are

unique is because unlike many contracts a construction contract

has to operate over a duration of time.

There are -- construction projects are dynamic, they

are not static. They change. There are many subcomponents,

including subcontractors and vendors that all have to be

coordinated in an efficient, effective manner. And that's why

construction contracts are quite often litigated and quite often

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 3 of 218
 4

complex.

Included in a construction contract are instructions

which are given in the form of a set of plans and usually in the

form of specifications that go along with those plans. And,

just generally speaking, the things that can be conveyed in

terms of directions for the people who are going to perform the

work if they are best presented with pictures and typically

those are the plans.

And if the requirements for the people who are working

are more efficiently and effectively presented by text, those

are the specifications, generally speaking.

Therefore, the rules that are associated with a

construction contract, because of its dynamic nature and

complexity and duration, are extra important that the parties

follow. One of the most important things are to adhere to the

plans and the specifications.

Another rule that's important is communication among

the various parties. And in a construction contract there are,

there may be -- there would be an owner. There would be a

contractor. There may be a subcontractor and sub

sub-contractors and vendors to all of those people who are

performing the work.

The communication is essential among all of that group

of people. There is -- it is essential that what is

communicated is reliable information that because, because of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 4 of 218
 5

the dynamic nature of a construction contract there is

information being exchanged, needing to be exchanged all the

time. And the information is understandably relied on by the

receiver of the information.

It's also important during the course of the

construction for there to be reliable assurances given. In

other words, so that people, the sub-contractors and the

contractor, and in some cases the owner and vendors can have a

clear understanding of what all of the moving parts are doing.

This is especially important for the contractor.

Not the least of the rules is safety. Especially on a

commercial contract, such as the one at issue, there are

significant safety requirements that have to be met by everyone.

In this case, it's a federal job so there are additional safety

requirements. And those safety requirements have to be known

and documentation has to be submitted and it is imperative that

the parties are responsible in that regard.

The contract at issue in this case is one between

Oelrich Construction and PRC Precast. Oelrich Construction is

actually a subcontractor in this case. PRC Precast is a sub

subcontractor in this case.

Oelrich Construction is in a contract with a joint

venture called SAW-Greenland. And SAW-Greenland is in contract

with the Veterans Administration.

Let me take you back to the beginning. Steve Realto

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 5 of 218
 6

works for PRC, the defendant in this case. Mr. Realto receives

plans and specifications for this project. He is asked to

provide pricing for this.

As a result of his review of the plans and the

specifications, PRC issued a proposal to Oelrich Construction

for doing a component of the work known as precast.

The idea or the rule that controlled the plans and the

specs are that this precast is fabricated offsite in Greenville,

South Carolina, transported to Gainesville at the VA Hospital,

over here. And installed on the building.

There are about 105 panels all together. Some of the

panels are large, maybe 4 feet wide. I don't know. 20 feet

long. Some of them are caps that go on top of what may be

referred to as a parapet wall in this case.

And just a parapet wall is simply a wall that sticks

up above the roofline, which is a flat roof. And it, it is --

the caps go along the top of that wall around the perimeter.

If I may, Your Honor, refer to the photograph to my

right?

Shall I move it closer?

THE COURT: That would be fine, yeah. I can see where

it is, but closer is always better. That's good.

MR. BUTTS: This is the building. It's actually to

house boilers, new boilers for the Veterans Administration. The

precast that you'll hear the parties refer to cover structural

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 6 of 218
 7

columns. And this light tan line is the precast.

It goes around the building horizontally at two levels

and vertically on the corners. The caps that I referenced would

go on top of this wall all the way around and then on top of

this wall back here.

THE COURT: All right. And this is a standalone

boiler building?

MR. BUTTS: Pardon me?

THE COURT: This is a standalone boiler building? I

mean, this is -- it's been a long time since I have been out and

seen the VA hospital over there, but this is a separate building

that houses the boiler and nothing else?

MR. BUTTS: Yes. They needed new boilers. And, so

they created a separate building. I think it probably joins the

VA, but I'm not certain of that fact. We'll have to ask one of

the witnesses as we get going. But, it's to handle those four

new boilers.

PRC finished the first panel in July of 2019.

Through October of 2019, PRC had built about 51 of the

panels and they stopped. 51 of the, what appears to be 105,

there are some references that there are 105 and at least one

reference that there is 115, but it was about that many panels

and caps combined.

PRC built no more panels or caps until March of 2020

when they built 12 more. And that happened to be actually after

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 7 of 218
 8

they were terminated on March the 17th.

On December the 16th, PRC billed for all 105 panels.

Completed. Not installed. And not necessarily for the freight,

although they did bill for the freight, but that was in error

and subsequently corrected. But, on December 16th PRC billed

for all of the panels as if they were all fabricated and

completed at their site in South Carolina.

Also on December 16th, PRC informed 

Oelrich Construction that it did not have an erector lined up to

install panels that Oelrich Construction was seeking to have

installed on January the 6th of 2020.

On December 30th, 2019, PRC showed a representative

of Oelrich Construction around their Greenville facility. The

representative had driven up there specifically for the purpose

to assess the quantity of panels that PRC had fabricated at that

time. Reminding the Court that they had billed for a hundred

percent. And there was a concern of whether or not there were a

hundred percent of the panels built at that time.

At that point, Oelrich Construction had paid 

PRC Precast almost $110,000 for the panels that PRC had

represented were built at that time.

On December the 31st, there was dialogue. And

Mr. Forde Davis of PRC was informed that Oelrich Construction

had found an erector to put the panels up.

It was -- at about that same time it was learned that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 8 of 218
 9

panels weren't ready to be put up. But nevertheless, 

Oelrich Construction had gone out of their way to find an

erector. And then on the 31st of December, Mr. Randall Forde

indicated in an email that PRC would in fact be able to install

the panels on the 17th day of February.

Now, it's important to note that on the visit on the

30th. By the Oelrich representative -- his name is Dana -- when

Dana Noyes went to the facility he was shown two areas where

there were panels represented to be those of 

Oelrich Construction. Mr. Noyes photographed those two areas.

One was in a covered area. And the other was out in the yard.

He photographed those areas. He took 5 photographs, sent them

back to Oelrich Construction where they reviewed the photographs

and reached the conclusion that instead of there being a hundred

percent of the panels completed that there were only 51.

Now, I think the testimony may be that they may be off

by one or two in either direction, but the point was that there

was not a hundred percent of panels completed at that time.

On the 4th day of February, about a little over a

month later, PRC informed Oelrich Construction that 22 days were

needed to finish making the panels.

Prior to that, as I noted, PRC had assured 

Oelrich Construction that they would install on the 17th.

Consequently the 17th slipped.

On the 20th PRC was informed that they could start

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 9 of 218
 10

installing panels in the northwest corner of the building. And

on a project like this, it's -- what would happen is they would

start in one part and work their way around and probably follow

other trays around the building. But they could start -- the

plan was for PRC to start in the northwest corner of the

building on or about March the 4th.

However, on February 26th, 6 days later, PRC informed

OCI that the start date had slipped once again and they would

not be able to start until March 26th, 2020, at the earliest.

And April the 6th at the latest.

Subsequently, there was dialogue between PRC and 

Chris Crehore who was employed by Oelrich Construction at that

time as the project manager.

During those -- during those conversations it became

apparent to Mr. Crehore that PRC had not fabricated any more

panels and did not know when it would, in March.

Mr. Crehore and Oelrich Construction was left with no

choice at that point but to terminate the contract of PRC and

find someone else to do it. They were up against a deadline and

ultimately up against liquidated damages. To be clear, they did

not suffer liquidated damages, but that was threatening.

Oelrich Construction had to go out and find a new contractor,

new subcontractor to replace PRC.

PRC never responded to the termination email. It

never acknowledged it. When Mr. Crehore terminated PRC at the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 10 of 218
 11

end of the email there was an invitation to come back to 

Oelrich Construction if they felt like he had a misunderstanding

of the facts leading up to that. And you'll hear Mr. Crehore's

testimony of the actual telephone conversation that took place

in regard to that termination that led up to it.

Oelrich Construction spent more money on the spring

precast replacement than they would have planned to spend or

they had budgeted to spend with PRC. It caused a delay and

disruption. Essentially it caused harm to Oelrich Precast in

the form of the cost of the extended general conditions that it

extended the job to finish it.

PRC still has the money $110,000, almost $110,000 that

Oelrich Construction paid for the panels and that they received

nothing for.

We talked about rules. PRC failed to timely respond

to Oelrich Construction's repeated request for assurances that

PRC was ready, willing and able to perform the contract.

We know that that's the case because of the email

dialogue and the telephone dialogue. And more importantly

perhaps, the lack of telephone dialogue and returned calls.

The problem here on a job like this, as I mentioned

earlier, is that there are a lot of moving parts on a

construction contract, on a construction job. There are -- the

amount of money that's being expended in a day is not measured

in thousands. It's easily measured in 10s of thousands. And,

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 11 of 218
 12

if there is not high quality information being shared, if there

is not timely responses to requests for information, it impacts

the -- not only the contractor, but the other subcontractors on

the job.

And in this case, although Oelrich Construction was a

subcontractor to the SAW-Greenland contract with the Veterans

Administration, SAW-Greenland's role here was to install the

boilers. That's their expertise. They did not have the

expertise to build a building. So consequently, they

subcontracted the entire process to Oelrich Construction.

The failure to timely give assurances, it was terribly

detrimental to this job. It caused Oelrich Construction to rely

on -- to have to decipher vague assurances, to rely on the

assurance that they would, PRC would install panels on the 17th,

change the schedule, impacting other subcontractors. Subsequent

to installing the panels there would be brick installed, metal

louvers installed, all of which came behind the precast

material.

What should PRC have done in that situation to

alleviate the problem? Well, one thing they could have done is

they could have just built the panels timely. And if they did

not have an erector they could have told that to 

Oelrich Construction earlier on and Oelrich Construction could

have used the erector that they found to install the panels.

Oelrich Construction could have made arrangements to have the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 12 of 218
 13

materials, have the panels brought down on trucks.

The other rule that PRC breached is that they did not

follow the plans and the specifications. Specifically, they did

not incorporate the specifications of the contract between the

VA and SAW-Greenland when they built the panels. This was not

discovered until after. During the discovery process this was

discovered.

Another -- that's obviously a problem because had

those panels failed, and on the building, that would have been a

problem that Oelrich Construction had inherited. That would

probably be the easiest thing. If they failed and hurt somebody

that would be an even larger problem, because these panels are

large. They weigh a lot. And they are attached to the building

in certain ways that it's just too risky. The plans call for

certain components, certain things that were not included in the

panels that were actually fabricated.

Throughout the project, starting back in probably

September of 2019, another rule that PRC violated was safety.

They did not provide the requested information that they were

obligated to provide pursuant to the contract with the VA.

Everybody on that job SAW-Greenland, Oelrich Construction, all

the subs, including PRC, were subject to the safety regulations.

Specifically, there are OSHA courses that have to be taken, 10

hour course for most people. 30 hour courses for the main

people. They did not -- PRC was very slow in complying with

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 13 of 218
 14

that. Ultimately, did not completely comply with that.

Another safety component on a job like this, there has

to be a lift plan. Have to have a place to show where the

crane's going to sit, where the precast is going to be, how the

crane is going to lift the precast, what it's going to swing it

over, what the dangers are associated with that. And that lift

plan was never provided by PRC for this job.

Another form of communication that PRC failed to

follow in terms of the rules is that they never did tell 

Oelrich Construction they had stopped fabricating panels in

November. The last ones were fabricated in October. By the

time -- of 2019. By the time they got to December of 2019, when

the job was ready to accept the panels, it was at that last hour

that they found that the panels weren't completed.

It's important to note that the project was delayed

initially. When, when the -- when Oelrich Construction was

given the go ahead to go ahead and begin constructing the

building, it was discovered that there were waterlines that were

interfering with the location of where this building was going

to go. Those waterlines were not shown on any of the drawings

that were provided by the design professionals.

There were sewer lines, storm sewer lines that had to

be extended. And those components were made of precast

materials. And the materials were sent out. Ordered by 

Oelrich Construction, sent out, as they were ordered. They were

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 14 of 218
 15

ordered consistent with the plans. When they arrived at the job

they were the wrong size. Another design professional mistake

that was rectified by Oelrich Construction and between SAW and

the VA. But, at the expense of some lost time in the beginning

of 2019.

Another problem that arose was in those same storm

water lines it was discovered that there were bats. And the

bats to be -- there are rules associated with bats that are

endangered and they had to be dealt with in a certain way. And

that extended the time for the construction as well.

There are times of year when bats can be discouraged

from coming back to a certain place. And there are times of

year when they are not allowed to be tampered with.

Before we went very far with this case we analyzed the

contract carefully. We noted the termination provision. We

noted the notice language. We certainly discussed it with our

client and we -- it became clear to us that in December of 2019,

Mr. Crehore, again who worked for Oelrich Construction at the

time as a project manager for this job, he took the freight and

the installation out of the contract. And at that time he

expressed that he was going to have to get someone else if PRC

did not perform.

At the end of January in 2020, this is after it had

been discovered that the panels, that only 51 of the panels had

been completed so far, Mr. Crehore went to PRC. So this is the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 15 of 218
 16

second time a representative of Oelrich Construction went to

PRC.

At that time there was a meeting taking place between

Mr. Forde Davis and Mr. Crehore at which time Mr. Crehore

expressed -- requested an assurances from Mr. Davis that they

did intend to finish that job and that they would make those

panels, with the understanding that if they didn't or couldn't

that Mr. Crehore and Oelrich Construction was to have to do

something else.

We've already discussed the dialogue that took place

leading up to the March 17th termination.

During that conversation that led up to that, one of

them, or at the time when Mr. Crehore expressed to Mr. Davis,

Forde Davis that they were going to have to terminate them, he

asked Mr. Davis is there anything else we need to talk about.

And the answer was, no.

He sent the termination letter. And once again he

asked if there is anything else that we need to talk about, let

me know. No response.

It was after that, and only after that, that 

Oelrich Construction made its way to try to find a replacement

for PRC Precast.

Mr. Crehore also gave thought to the COVID pandemic

that was coming on to the country at and around that time when

the termination took place, this was March of 2020. And it's

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 16 of 218
 17

one of the things that as a law firm we had to inquire of or

look into, whether there was an impossibility of performance.

There is nothing in the communication between the

parties that indicates that PRC ever communicated to 

Oelrich Construction that they were precluded from being able to

perform because of COVID. In fact, in fact, they resumed

construction again of the panels in March of 2017. And they

constructed more panels in April of 2017 and some more in May.

Payment was an issue that we had to look into as well

to determine the extent to which there were any -- was any money

owed to PRC. What we learned is that with each pay request

there was a specific form that was to be filled out. As part of

that form there is what is called a schedule of values that

shows the amount of money attributed to the contract for various

line items. In this case, since these products were fabricated

off-site and paid for prior to delivery while they were

fabricated, there were components, such as shop drawings. When

the shop drawings were completed there was payment made. When

materials that would go into the panels were acquired, there was

payment requested and payment made. And each time they would

say, the pay request would say what the percentage of completion

for that particular line item on the schedule of values was.

There was a line item for forming, you know, building

the forms that the panels would go into, the molds, if you will.

And then finally, there was the line item for the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 17 of 218
 18

actual produced panels. And it is that line item that I

referenced earlier where payment for 100 percent of the panels

was made on December 16th, 2019, when there were only

approximately 51 panels made.

THE COURT: Payment was requested or made?

MR. BUTTS: I beg your pardon?

THE COURT: Payment was requested for all of the

panels or made?

MR. BUTTS: Payment was requested for all of the

panels. There was communication after, after 

Oelrich Construction's representative went there on

December 30th and realized that there were only about 51 panels

made, Oelrich sent out correspondence that said their last two

pay applications, number 9 and number 10, were rejected because

number 9 had requested payment for over 60 percent of completed

panels. And Oelrich had learned, of course, that less than half

were built by the end of December. Certainly, that

Oelrich Construction would not have expected to pay for a

hundred percent of the panels.

At that time Oelrich Construction had paid

approximately $110,000 for the panels that were allegedly built.

But, I, I moved off the subject a bit. On the pay

request and the payments, not only is there an updated schedule

of values required as part of that, but there is a lien waiver,

in this case a bond waiver that's required.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 18 of 218
 19

There are photographs obviously that are required

because remember these are being built in Greenville. And

Oelrich Construction needs assurances that these panels have

been built. And Oelrich Construction is not going to be paid by

SAW-Greenland unless they can give SAW-Greenland that assurance,

photographs of the panels. And also, SAW-Greenland is not going

to be paid by the VA unless the VA has that assurance.

So, while nobody is necessarily checking the panels to

make sure they are being built correctly, there needs to be at

least photograph evidence evidencing progress in that regard.

Some of the earlier photographs were just simply photographs of

piles of material that would eventually be mixed and put into

these panels. But all of those components had to be sent with

each, with each pay request.

In addition to that, once they began to -- once PRC

began to bill for actual material, and certainly for completed

panels, part of the requirement in the contract was that they

would also update their insurance certificate to indicate that

they had sufficient insurance in place specifically to pay for

the panels that Oelrich Construction had paid for in case there

was some sort of a catastrophe and damaged them. It was part of

the contractual obligation. And, again, that requirement went

right up the line to the VA.

What happened in reality is that PRC would fail to

give all of the information when they made the pay request.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 19 of 218
 20

They would leave something off. And in the end, when they did

give all of the information that was requested, and part of

their contractual obligation to be paid, they were paid for pay

application 7 and 8 in December of 2020.

Oelrich Construction did not pay application 9 or 10

for the reasons that I mentioned a few moments ago.

Another issue that we had to look into before we went

very far with this case, we had to find out about retainage.

Retainage is a term that's used in the construction business.

And essentially it's, and if His Honor already knows what that

is, I can stop there.

THE COURT: I know what retainage is.

MR. BUTTS: Okay. So there is a 10 percent retainage

that was taken out of payments made to PRC initially.

The first pay request, maybe the second, the retainage

was taken out. But, eventually PRC pointed out correctly that

they had negotiated a different type of a payment arrangement

with Oelrich Construction, that there would be no retainage.

And, of course, PRC sought the retainage. And 

Oelrich Construction's solution to pay the retainage was to

simply request that PRC send another pay request for the

retainage. In this case, actually, it wasn't 10 percent. I'm

wrong about that. It's 5 percent. The retainage was 5 percent.

So PRC, it was requested by Oelrich that PRC send a

pay request separate from everything else because now we're on

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 20 of 218
 21

into, you know, some of the latter pay requests. And they asked

for -- asked PRC to just send a pay request for, I think it was

around -- it would be 5 percent of 110.

But PRC did not like that idea. Did not send the pay

request. Oelrich Construction was -- that conversation kind of

dribbled off at the end of December of 2020 and moved into the

discussions where Randall Forde indicated that they would be

installing the panels in February. And, of course, learning

that PRC had not fabricated all of these panels, at that point

PRC was ahead of Oelrich Construction even taking out the

retainage as an issue.

In other words, what I mean by ahead, is Oelrich

Construction had paid for more than they had received, than PRC

had built. And PRC did not build any more panels for the rest

of -- for January or February or half of March, for that matter.

So while it is true that PRC was entitled to

retainage, that would only be true if PRC had actually

fabricated the panels for which they were asking for retainage.

The other component that we had to take a look at, we

always have to look at in these construction cases is

mitigation. And, when a subcontractor like in this case is

terminated, of course it doesn't give Oelrich Construction a

blank check to go find someone else, although they are in a

pinch. They are up against it with SAW-Greenland who is up

against it with the VA. And they have to go find someone. And

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 21 of 218
 22

they weren't looking prior to terminating PRC. They wanted PRC

to cross the finish line with them because they had $110,000

invested and they had nothing to show for it.

They had no panels. They didn't have -- they didn't

know -- they were told in March that PRC hadn't made any more

panels. That's the first time they learned of that. And didn't

know when they were going to make them. So they are back to 51

panels that they paid over a hundred thousand dollars for. And

they have to shift gears quickly.

They went out into the market. They solicited

bidders. They received two qualified bids. And they took the

one that I believe was the most price of the two.

Having gone through that, we felt that we could be

some help to Oelrich Construction in trying to recover damages.

And we proceeded. And the result of this episode and this

unfortunate situation is that Oelrich Construction is damaged by

PRC's breach, and failure to follow the rules that are implicit

in this contract and construction contracts in general.

Oelrich Construction paid Spring Precast $44,276 more

than they would have had to pay PRC according to that agreement.

They had to pay Spring Precast an additional $6,996

more than they originally agreed to pay them because Spring

Precast had to make extra efforts to match the aggregate on

these panels with the existing VA building. By the aggregate I

mean, it's hard to tell looking at this photograph, but it's got

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 22 of 218
 23

pebbles in it, it's rough. And, so the texture, the color of

the pebbles, the frequency of the pebbles is unique to that

particular VA building. So it cost another $6,996 for Spring

Precast to match that.

I mentioned before the money that Oelrich Construction

paid to PRC for which they received nothing. That is $109,832.

Please keep in mind, that they had to start all over

again, shop drawings, everything with Spring Precast.

There was never an offer to send the panels down that

they had made, that PRC had made. There was no -- there was

nothing, there was no suggestion that perhaps they could match

the formula that was being used by PRC so that the aggregate and

everything would match, Spring could do it.

There was never an opportunity to just send the panels

down and let Oelrich Construction put them up. 

Oelrich Construction had a lot -- there was a lot nearby -- a

space available that they could have been staged and stored,

even if it wasn't ready to put them up. But the fact is it was

ready to put them up in January of 2020.

There was another $105,000, 105,842 that 

Oelrich Construction spent paying superintendents, job trailer,

extended conditions that, for the people they had to leave out

there on the job so they could get this project finished, longer

than they would have needed to.

And there were two trips made by Oelrich

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 23 of 218
 24

representatives to Greenville, South Carolina. One by 

Mr. Dana Noyes on December 30th, 2019 and the other one at the

end of January by the job project manager, Mr. Chris Crehore.

It's for that reason, Your Honor, that 

Oelrich Construction has found it necessary to sue PRC Precast

to recover their damages. Mr. Ivan Oelrich, who is here with

me, who I have the pleasure of representing, is respectfully

asking this Court to enter a judgment in his favor for that

total amount of money that we discussed.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Darr?

MR. DARR: Good morning, Your Honor. May it please

the Court, I am Joe Darr. I'm here on behalf of PRC Precast,

LLC. My client Randall Davis is the principal of PRC Precast,

LLC. And I'm a big fan of less is more. So, I'm going to go

ahead and cut straight to the chase in my opinion as to why I

believe PRC Precast should prevail in this case.

Primarily, I see there being two significant reasons

why PRC should win at the end of this trial. And, as I

mentioned during our last hearing last week, for better or

worse, a little background on myself, I'm a board certified

construction law attorney. I don't know how it happened, but

somehow this has kind of become my niche, payment disputes on

construction projects.

And I can tell you that for me one of the types of

advice that I give construction participants on projects that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 24 of 218
 25

makes me the most nervous when I give the advice is when someone

approaches me, whether it be an owner of a project, a general

contractor, or anyone else involved in constructing a project

and they ask me what should I do with this person or company on

this project that's not living up to their end of the bargain.

Should we terminate them? Frequently, my advice is, no, because

it always costs more. Just like in this case, when you bring on

someone new to replace the guy you terminate. But also it makes

me particularly nervous about giving that advice, especially if

they are going to terminate, is that there are special rules

that apply in the construction law context to the termination of

the contractor on a project.

And, many federal courts, all-be-it not Florida state

courts or Florida federal courts have held that termination is

the most drastic sanction that is available on a construction

project. And, the reason they call it the most drastic

sanction, Your Honor, is because there are frequently, and that

is the case in this case as well, other whips and carrots so to

speak to get your guy to do what you want, including withholding

any sort of damages that you think you may be incurring due to

some delay that's being caused on the project.

Now, as a result, some courts have held that the

burden is on the terminating party to justify their termination.

As to whether or not that's the case or not under Florida law,

who knows. We don't get a lot of Florida state appellate

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 25 of 218
 26

decisions anymore on construction law issues. So it's a bit of

unchartered territory under Florida law, Your Honor.

But with that in mind, the number one reason that PRC

should prevail in this case is that they were wrongfully

terminated, not just in one manner, but in several regards.

In particular, and this is going to make the most

common sense I think to everyone in the room, if you are going

to terminate a participant in a project for failing to meet a

deadline there actually has to be a deadline.

Now, the evidence in this case is going to show that

originally when the parties entered their contract there was a

deadline specified in the contract. But, as Mr. Butts just

suggested, there were some design related errors early on in the

project and other delays that occurred that were no fault of

PRC, and apparently no fault of Oelrich, that caused PRC's work

to ultimately get way behind. They wouldn't be allowed to start

until right around 9 months later than was contemplated in the

contract. 

So that deadline in the contract, that went out the

door. There was no formal deadline at that point. The parties

had to come to a mutually agreeable deadline. One, the record

evidence will reflect a deadline was not agreed upon by the

parties. And ultimately PRC was terminated.

THE COURT: Let me just tell you so that you'll know,

I mean, my question about that, I think the contract says PRC

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 26 of 218
 27

will perform when Oelrich says to perform. So, as you tell me

there has to be a mutual agreement, I guess what I'm going to

need you to explain to me at some point is why it has to be a

mutual agreement if it's not enough just for Oelrich to say here

is the date that you have to perform by.

MR. DARR: Sure. And, I'll go ahead and address it

right now then while I'm thinking about it, Your Honor. That's

a good question.

Factually the problem here is, and I think you'll see

the record evidence, you will not see a single email, a single

formal letter, I doubt you're going to hear anyone testify on

their side that they ever gave PRC a deadline, what I call a

drop dead date to perform their work. Instead, what you have

are two parties trying to figure out how they can get this work

done. But at no point is there any writing anywhere that I've

seen where Oelrich said, listen, this date is what we need it

by. You know, we're facing liquidated damages from the general

contractor and the owner who are upset that we are behind. If

you guys can't deliver and install by X date your contract may

be terminated.

I'm going to get into that more in a little bit from

the wrongful termination aspect. But part of it is you got to

give the contractor a chance to recure notice to step up and

address whatever sort of issue there is, and try to rectify it,

before you can terminate that person.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 27 of 218
 28

And, again, that all ties back to this drastic

sanction aspect. That's why the courts generally require that

is to give the other party a chance to step up, rectify it and

hopefully continue on.

So, point one is, there was no deadline. The record

evidence will reflect there was no line in the sand deadline,

drop dead date by which our client, my client had to complete

its work.

That makes that termination on that basis, which was

the sole basis listed in the termination notice in March of

2020, was their failure to timely perform. That makes that

termination wrongful, Your Honor. And there are a few reasons

why it's wrongful as well and I'll get to that in a second.

Now, again, just to kind of summarize the two main

points I want to make at the beginning. The second reason that

PRC should prevail in this case is even if that termination was

done properly, they dotted their I's, and crossed their T's,

gave them a chance to cure, all of those things, the case should

still go in PRC's favor because in this case another unique

aspect is this sub-subcontractor it has a specially manufactured

product. These precast panels, not many people do it. There's

only six of them in the southeast, I believe, that do this kind

of work. So they have surprisingly a little bit of bargaining

power in this situation. Usually when I represent lower tier

subs like this they just have to accept whatever they get from

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 28 of 218
 29

above because they want that money and they just go with it and

try to figure out later.

Here, PRC made clear during negotiations before the

contract was signed they needed these additional payment terms.

And, part of those additional payment terms were that they would

be paid net 30 days from the date of the invoice, no retainage

would be held. And perhaps most importantly, if you do not

timely pay them they have the right, expressly under the

contract, to suspend performance.

And, with that in mind, the first -- even if the

termination was done properly, which we disagree with, the first

material breach here by any means, and I think the record

evidence reflects this, is the lack of timely payment to PRC.

That's really when the wheels started to come off the bus,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question about that too.

Subcontract, the contract between Oelrich and PRC, says Oelrich

doesn't have to pay until it gets paid.

If I understand from what you told me, somewhere else

there is a supplemented appendix, something that says that term

doesn't apply here and, in fact, Oelrich has to pay within 30

days from invoice.

MR. DARR: Yeah. The key language -- the whole

payment clause made me smile when I first saw this case a year

and a half ago. But, the key language in that regard that made

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 29 of 218
 30

me smile was that it expressly states that these payment terms

supercede all other payment terms in the contract. And, if we

didn't have that language I would be a little less confident in

my client's position in this case, but we do.

THE COURT: As you can tell from my question I've read

some of this. I didn't read the whole 1,800 pages of the

contract. And if there is the addendum that you are talking

about, I have not read it. I've read a lot of the exhibits,

I've been through a lot, but I have not read every word of all

of the thousands of pages of exhibits, so --

MR. DARR: That's understandable.

THE COURT: Just heads up to both sides, I haven't

read that part that you're talking about.

MR. DARR: Sure. And, those additional payment terms

are located in the contract between Oelrich and PRC. I believe

it's around the 14th page or so of the subcontract, something

like that. But, we'll definitely get into that once we start

asking questions to the witnesses.

So, those payment terms, in my mind, make this unique

from a construction law payment dispute in the sense of, like I

said, usually lower tier subs, guys at the very bottom, they

don't normally get terms like this because they just don't have

much bargaining power. You know, typically you have a guy that

does drywall, there's a lot of drywall subcontractors out there.

So, if he won't take it, I'll just go to some other guy who will

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 30 of 218
 31

sign my form contract and all of those terms will be in my favor

and we're good to go. Well, I just want to point out, that's

not the case here. Here they did have enough bargaining power

to negotiate. And the evidence will show that Oelrich didn't

want to agree to those terms initially but eventually relented

because they needed PRC to come up with these specially

manufactured goods.

Now, I also think it's worth noting, sort of a brief

chronology of how we got to where we are with regard to the

dispute we have here. So, initially the parties enter into

their contract in December of 2018.

And as I mentioned earlier in that contract, PRC, and

its bid was based on this, was supposed to start work in July of

2019 and finish in August of 2019.

During the spring and summer of 2019, it appears that

the overall project again was delayed for design errors and

other things that Oelrich has never alleged was the fault of

PRC. And as a result, the project wasn't ready for PRC's work

until at the earliest in the spring of 2020, almost nine or so

months after the time period that was originally contemplated

for PRC's work under the contract.

Now, in April of 2019, which is only 4 or 5 months

after the contract was entered into, the record evidence will

reflect that they were already having payment issues. There

were at least two payment applications from PRC that were

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 31 of 218
 32

overdue. And needless to say, four months into the project,

that's not a good start to Oelrich living up to its primary

obligation under the subcontract which was to make timely

payment.

Slipping into April of 2019, I'm sorry, August of

2019, there were more payment applications that were overdue,

including the May 2019 payment application. You're going to see

record evidence of PRC's accounting person, Allison Taylor,

sending emails to Oelrich complaining, you guys are overdue,

this one is over two months past due. This one's one month past

due. What's going on? Part of that problem is that the

retainage was withheld on those payments, which we'll get to in

a second.

Then, in October of 2019, keeping in mind, the work

should have been done already for PRC in August of 2019.

October of 2019, project still not ready for PRC's work. The

work that needed to get done before PRC could put up those

panels on that building, including the structural work, and the

concrete work, hadn't been complete yet. So, even if the

precast had been ready, all 100 percent of the pieces in October

of 2019, they couldn't even install them at that point.

Now, I did hear Mr. Butts reference that, well, it's a

big project site, you guys could have delivered the panels and

laid down somewhere on the property and we could have taken care

of that later. But, the reality is, and there will be testimony

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 32 of 218
 33

to this degree, saying that essentially these panels, you can't

just unload them, lay them on the ground and let them sit there.

They have to be stored in a specific manner, usually on the

flatbeds of trucks, with little slots so to speak, where you

hold them upright and that way they don't get cracking or

anything like that while they are waiting to be stored, which is

how they store them at the yard as they make them for clients up

at their factory in South Carolina. So, that's another issue we

can get into later. I'm trying to stay more big picture here.

November 20 of '19 more overdue invoices. And there's

plenty of emails about this unfortunately that we're going to

have to go through showing PRC was constantly complaining about

these invoices. Still trying to work with Oelrich to get the

work done, but at some point there were, by my count, 6 past due

invoices in the fall of 2019.

Interestingly, during that time, Oelrich admitted that

it was improperly withholding retainage. Part of that is

because, at least in the written record, is that they just

simply weren't used to not withholding retainage on their subs

because typically most subs do have to allow the higher tier

contractor to hold usually 5 to 10 percent of whatever they are

billing. And that money is usually intended to make sure the

sub completes its work.

But again here, this subcontractor negotiated a deal

that's different than normal. It's unique. Included in that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 33 of 218
 34

deal was the payment terms that did not allow withholding

retainage.

So in December 2019, we get to the end of the year,

suddenly looks like the project, according to Oelrich, is going

to be ready for precast sometime in the near future. So they

come back to PRC and say, hey, let's get it going, we need to

get your precast out here. And the parties engage in a lot of

written communications about when they can or can't and when

they anticipate they might be able to. But you won't see any

evidence, written record at least, showing that the parties came

to an agreement on some sort of deadline for this work to be

delivered or even completed.

Then January 2020, things start to get a little more

serious it seems like. Suddenly, I believe it was January 8th

of 2020, SAW, which is the general contractor for the project,

writes a letter to Oelrich pointing the finger at them saying,

hey, you guys are delaying the project. Your various subs are

delaying us. We are going to hold you accountable. Please be

advised we may terminate your contract. And, oh, by the way,

here's what you need to do to cure those deficiencies. Pretty

good cure notice. So we'll look at it. It's the way it should

look, clearly outlining everything that they needed to do to

rectify. And most importantly, putting them on notice, Oelrich,

if they didn't address these issues they might be terminated.

So they had the threat of termination looming over them.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 34 of 218
 35

Now, what's interesting is Oelrich writes back two

days later and says, hey, Mr. SAW, general contractor, we are

not delaying the project. And, in particular, the precast,

which is PRC's that you claim is delaying the project, it's not

on the critical path.

And, again, I don't know how much you know about

critical path, Your Honor, but basically critical path of a

construction project, it's the sequence of events of work that

have to happen in a linear fashion to get the project done.

So, in other words, if this item doesn't get done, and

it's on the critical path, the project can't move any further

because you got to get that work done before you can do the next

thing.

So, for instance here, before PRC could put up its

panels you had to have a structure to put them on. So

structural work would have been on the critical path. Here you

got Oelrich saying, no, it's not on the critical path. The

precast work as of January 2020 is not delaying the project.

THE COURT: One thing I'm going to be interested in

for each side as you present this, is not whether, not just

whether they said to the contractor, it's not in the critical

path. I notice that in your trial brief, and just now, and each

time you have addressed this, you've said they said it's not in

the critical path.

What I don't think I've heard you say is, it wasn't in

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 35 of 218
 36

the critical path. So, I'll be interested not just in what they

said in their letter, and both sides are kind of taking advocacy

positions, I'll be interested whether it was in the critical

path. At some point obviously it is in the critical path.

Maybe not right then, but at some point you got to have this

stuff or you can't keep going.

MR. DARR: Sure. Absolutely, Your Honor. And, I

guess the only point I was trying to make, is at least as of

January 2020 admittedly, from their letter, it was not.

So, really, as to when it became a critical path

issue, at this point I haven't seen any evidence one way or the

other showing when it did or not. To some degree, another

unique aspect of this case, is that we've really had relatively

limited discovery with a lot of these issues. There were only

two depositions we took and two that they took. So, there is

going to be some surprises here probably. And so, to answer

your question frankly, I haven't seen any evidence as to when it

became a critical path issue.

THE COURT: I'll be interested in that. And obviously

SAW thought it was in the critical path. They are threatening

to terminate. It will be interesting. I have presided over

lots of federal criminal trials where there have not been any

depositions either. So it will be different for you to be in a

trial where nobody knows what the witness is going to say. I do

it on a regular basis. So we'll just see what they say.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 36 of 218
 37

MR. DARR: I wish I was as cool and calm about it as

you are, Your Honor. But, yes, we'll see.

THE COURT: I haven't lost a case since I became a

judge so it's easy for me to be calm.

MR. DARR: So, another point about this letter from

SAW to Oelrich, the cure notice from SAW saying, hey, listen,

you guys are delaying the project, here is what you need to do

to cure it. We might terminate your contract.

So, I did note when I was listening to Mr. Butts give

his opening, that, you know, he said Oelrich was up against a

deadline. He also noted if that, you know, if there's not

information being shared it impacts not only the contractor, but

other subcontractors on the job. And, what's interesting about

this SAW letter, among many things, is that it was never sent to

PRC.

PRC didn't know any of this was going on up top. They

had no idea how serious the issue was at that point. This

letter was never sent to them. And I've never seen any evidence

that Oelrich or anyone there told PRC, hey, just so you guys

know they are threatening termination on us from above. We're

serious now guys. Instead, for whatever reason, that letter was

withheld, not provided to PRC.

Then, still in January of 2020, I think about two

weeks or so after that SAW cure notice to Oelrich, Oelrich's

counsel writes a letter to PRC directly. First paragraph in

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 37 of 218
 38

that letter says, we're not threatening litigation. We're just

trying to work with you basically is the gist of it. Please

contact me or Oelrich before January 31, 2020, so we can make

sure we're all on the same page about getting this work done.

Interestingly, I think so at least, about 3 days after

that letter that said we are not threatening litigation, Oelrich

sues PRC in Florida state court. 3 days after that letter.

And, does not provide a copy of that complaint to PRC. PRC

wasn't served with a complaint in this case until, I believe it

was July of 2020, after the termination. So, again, that's

another thing that was kept from PRC that would have maybe put

them on notice that things are serious. Didn't get the SAW cure

notice, didn't get a copy of the state court lawsuit that they

not secretly filed, but filed and didn't serve on PRC.

Then from January of 2020 to March of 2020, this is

the last period of this dispute basically. Oelrich and PRC are

trying to figure out when they can get the work done. And PRC

has, you'll see through the written records of the emails, and,

again, unfortunately a lot of emails, showing that they are

trying to work with Oelrich to get this work done on a timely

basis.

Now, apparently, some time in early March of 2020,

Oelrich decides no, you know, enough is enough. We got to get

this going, I'm going to send this termination notice and we're

terminating your contract and we're going to get someone else to

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 38 of 218
 39

finish it up. That was March 17, 2020, which is the date of

termination notice which I'm sure we'll be looking at during the

next 3 to 5 days.

So I want to get back to the two points I summarized

earlier as to why PRC should prevail in this case. One is, PRC

was wrongfully terminated.

Now, another thing that Mr. Butts commented on that I

agree with is that in construction there are, I believe he

called them special considerations, for certain issues that are

unique to the construction industry.

One of them is that when you are going to terminate

someone else's contract you got to do it right. Now, the first

and most basic thing you have to do to properly terminate a

contractor is to look at the party's contract and see what the

contract requires you to do to terminate them.

Here, the burden for them to terminate them under the

contract, at least what was expressly provided, was admittedly

pretty minimum because it's their contract. All it said was

they had to provide 24 hours notice that they were going to do

it.

Instead, here what happened is on March 17, 2020,

that's the date that they sent the termination notice, they both

notified PRC for the first time in writing that you're in

material breach of contract. And surprisingly, in that very

same email, it says consider this notice of said termination.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 39 of 218
 40

And, I'm sure you already read our motion for partial

summary judgment on this. But, again, they gave notice of the

breach and terminated, in our mind, on the same exact day. So

even under that expressed very minimal 24 hour notice provision

they didn't even do that.

Instead, they did it on the same day. And that's

important because, you know, at a minimum that 24 hour period

could have given PRC a chance to know, hey, this is very serious

and let me try to rectify it. And, again, this goes back to the

purpose of the cure notice process to terminate someone on a

construction project. It isn't just a procedural mechanism for

the guy who gets terminated to go, aha, got yeah, you didn't

check all the boxes. No.

It serves a remedial purpose, which is to give that

contractor notice that this is above and beyond normal

day-to-day squabble about, you know, pay apps and certificates

of insurance and safety documentation which is very common on

construction projects, constant emails back and forth about

relatively trivial issues compared to the main obligations of

the parties.

Instead, the cure notice gives the person notice, hey,

wow, this is significant enough that the other side believes

it's a material breach of contract and that they might terminate

my contract, which then gives the guy who gets the notice an

opportunity to cure whatever deficiencies are in the notice.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 40 of 218
 41

Now, admittedly, some breaches aren't curable. One of

them, arguably, is if you fail to meet a deadline in your

contract. Well, you've already missed that deadline, can't cure

it. What am I supposed to do? Send you a cure notice before

the deadline saying, hey, looks like you're not going to finish

on time, cure this issue. That seems a little not common sense

to me. But here the key distinction is there was, again, the

record is going to reflect, there was no agreed upon deadline.

And, it needed to be mutually agreed. I understand

that Your Honor mentioned that the contract said that, you know,

the contractor Oelrich could demand performance within a

reasonable period or set some sort of deadline. But, again, the

record is going to reflect that there was no deadline set under

the threat of termination. And that threat of termination is

key because otherwise the contractor, who is supposedly in

default, can't really appreciate the gravity of the situation

otherwise and be given a chance to step up to correct it.

So here, even if the cure notice that they sent, slash

termination notice, complied with the 24 hour requirement it

still would be a wrongful termination because our Clint PRC was

terminated for not meeting a deadline that was never specified.

Especially important in that regard to keep in mind about these

other communications, the SAW letter cure notice that Oelrich

got that we had no idea about. I mean, maybe if we had gotten

that at least we would know, oh, Oelrich is getting some real

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 41 of 218
 42

pressure from above, they are being threatened to be terminated,

maybe we will too. We never got that letter. Likewise, we

never got the state court lawsuit until after they terminated

us.

Again, that would have been something that arguably,

question of fact, put PRC on notice, oh, they sued us in Florida

state court, well, we might be terminated at some point. We

should probably figure out how to get this addressed.

So, my second point is, even if that wrongful

termination issue didn't exist, they checked all of the boxes,

they gave PRC express notice of how they materially breached the

contract, they gave PRC a chance to cure those breaches, even if

there was no wrongful termination, PRC should still prevail in

this matter because, as one of our affirmative defenses, because

Oelrich committed the first material breach. And, again, we had

these unique payment terms, which I've addressed most of them

and how they got to have those, but key to that was that the

invoice would be paid in that 30 days and retainage was

expressly not allowed on materials that were created. And,

equally important, the provisions provided that if Oelrich

failed to timely make payment under those terms PRC had the

express right to suspend production and renegotiate, I'm sorry,

and to adjust the schedule by which it would deliver and install

its precast materials. That's key as well.

So it expressly contemplated unlikely payment. And if

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 42 of 218
 43

payment was not forthcoming in a timely fashion they had the

right, PRC did, to suspend their work at that point.

Now, why did PRC find these provisions to be so

important? Why did they absolutely have to have them for them

to want to enter into this contract? The reason that they

needed these is because you have to understand the nature of

what PRC does. PRC primarily is a manufacturer. They make

these architectural precast panels for projects throughout the

southeast. And these panels and other products, precast

materials that they make, are almost always unique and designed

for one specific project.

So, for example, in this case, the materials that they

made for Oelrich are still, I believe, sitting in their yard

unused, partly because we want to preserve evidence for them to

look at if they wanted to, but also because, you know, there is

no way to sell them. They are worth nothing to anyone except

the owner of this project, the Veterans Administration. They

are unique to that project, can't be used elsewhere.

So, with that in mind, generally all the materials

they make are specially manufactured goods. And I believe the

testimony will reflect that in the past they had gotten burned

on making these specially manufactured panels for other

contractors. And not getting paid, for whatever reason. Maybe

it's because the owner didn't pay the general contractor so the

general contractor didn't want to pay them.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 43 of 218
 44

Maybe it's because the general contractor, the owner

of the funding for the work dried up and they decided to suspend

the production or completion of the project that was at hand.

And then PRC got left holding the bag. And these goods that

they are making for them, they are worthless. They can't sell

them to anyone else. So, these provision were very, very

material to PRC entering into this contract. And I believe the

evidence will show that PRC would not have entered into this

contract without it.

The evidence will also show that there were untimely

payment issues on this project. Now, I know that part of

Oelrich's, and this is pretty common for higher tier

contractors, the defense will be, well, yeah, you submitted a

pay application on this date, but you didn't give us the proper

lien release on the right form or you didn't give us, I believe,

some pictures of the product, you didn't give us an updated

certificate of insurance. But, as you'll see, we'll walk

through the progress payment provision in this contract -- which

that's what these are, progress payments, not final payment --

and you'll see that each payment application, which will be

entered into evidence, PRC checked all of the boxes.

Moreover, I don't believe Oelrich will assert that

there were no untimely payment invoices that were properly

submitted. Admittedly, at least several of them, the early

ones, were not timely paid because they were withholding

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 44 of 218
 45

retainage even though all of the proper documentation that they

claim needed to be submitted was submitted.

And, again, I think part of their defense of that is

going to be, well, Your Honor, it's only 5 percent of what PRC

billed, we're only talking about $5,800. It's not material.

Well, I think generally, I'm not sure how I would rule on that

if I were the Judge, but I will say here it is material because,

again, PRC demanded these terms be entered. They wanted to be

paid in full. Cash flow was important. And Oelrich agreed to

it. So it is a material breach of contract. And payment terms,

generally, are material terms most courts hold in construction

contracts. That Oelrich violated by not timely paying. It's

their primary obligation under the contract to PRC to pay for

the work done, you agreed to do it. And on that note, they keep

saying that PRC, almost as if they didn't do anything for them,

well, they were making the panels. They are just at the yard at

PRC in South Carolina. The contract only contemplates one

mobilization fee, which is the fee to freight it down and get

going. They never agreed to have them deliver bit by bit in

waives. It's just inefficient.

So, based on those two primary reasons I think that's

why PRC needs to prevail in this case. PRC's damages that they

have incurred due to that breach of contract by Oelrich include

the unpaid work that they performed that was not done. As you

may or may not know from the filings, that termination notice

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 45 of 218
 46

was not seen by PRC. And the reason it wasn't seen, the

evidence will show, is because rather than sending a formal

letter via certified mail, FedEx, something that would verify

they got the notice, it was sent via an email. And the subject

line of the email just said the project name. And it was one of

hundreds of emails that my client was getting at the time. And

it was overlooked.

In the meantime, PRC was trying to work with them in

good faith to keep making that product. And there were pieces

that were never paid for. Ultimately, when they realized they

had been terminated they stopped production, but there was an

unpaid amount of work under the project that's around $30,000

that they were never paid for.

There were also fees associated with the expense of

storing these pieces beyond what was originally contemplated in

the contract.

And, finally, there is going to be a lost profit and

disposal fee component to PRC's damages. They were deprived of

their ability to earn the profit they would have made had they

been allowed to complete the work, the full project. And, in

addition, these panels now that we're not in discovery anymore

are going to have to be destroyed and disposed of. That has an

expense with it as well, to take it somewhere for someone to get

rid of them.

And, in short, primarily due to the wrongful

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 46 of 218
 47

termination issue aspect of this case, and then if nothing else,

the first material breach being that lack of timely payment, PRC

should prevail. And I look forward to proving the case to you,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Probably a little early, but a

good time to take the break. Let's take 10 minutes. I'm

actually going to, you've all got computers up. I'm going to go

by the time on the computer rather than the pretty, but

old-fashioned clock, where it's hard to tell what time it

actually is. I've got 10:22. Let's take til 10:35. I'll be

back in the courtroom at 10:35.

(Recess taken 10:22.)

(Resumed at 10:35.)

THE COURT: Have a seat, please.

Please call your first witness.

MR. BUTTS: Yes, Your Honor. Plaintiff calls 

Chris Crehore.

THE COURT: We did not invoke the rule explicitly.

Does either side wish to have the rule invoked?

MR. DARR: We were going to, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Each side is responsible for seeing that

your witnesses abide by the rule and nobody tells the witness

about the testimony in the witness' absence.

Come right up here please, sir.

MR. DARR: Mr. Butts, is that one of your witnesses or

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 47 of 218
 48

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

is that someone from your firm?

(No audible response)

CHRISTOPHER CREHORE, PLAINTIFF WITNESS, DULY SWORN

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: For the record, state your name

and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: Christopher Frank Crehore.

C-R-E-H-O-R-E.

THE COURT: Mr. Crehore, while you are testifying, if

you're comfortable with it, you may take your mask off.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Good morning, Mr. Crehore. Thank you for joining us.

What is your, what was your role on the VA project for the

boilers?

A. Project manager, Oelrich Construction.

Q. And, in your role as a project manager, what did you --

what were you particularly in charge of?

A. I would have answered for the project. I would have been

in charge of the paperwork side. I would have been in charge of

procuring materials and getting the superintendent in the field

what he needed to make the project happen.

Q. And what was -- who was the superintendent in the field in

this case?

A. Started out as Miguel Hernandez and then it was Jordan.

Q. And, what was Jordan's last name?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 48 of 218
 49

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Robinson.

Q. For the Court, can you give a brief description of the

project? I have a drawing here. Can you see that okay?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How, is it a, is it a one story project or two? How was it

built?

A. So that's the cover sheet to the project documents that we

had for the VA boiler project. It is a two story cast-in-place

concrete skeleton of a building with block in fill. It's kind

of open on the inside with the boilers and associated steel

catwalks. Had a one story, a smaller office area behind it.

Exterior was precast metal panel and brick and some store front

in place.

Q. I'm going to get into that in a little more detail in a

minute. Thank you though for giving us an overview.

In addition to you and Mr. Robinson, who else was on the,

let's just call it the management team for the project?

A. There would have been Andy Wilson who was an APM, an

assistant project manager. There was also Jerre Carr who was an

intern in the office and then there would have been the field

staff, Jordan.

Q. What was -- can you explain Oelrich Construction's role in

the hierarchy of the various parties that were involved in this

project?

A. Yes, sir. So, on this particular project Oelrich

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 49 of 218
 50

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Construction was basically a subcontractor. We were in charge

of the shell of the building and the site work, but we answered

to the prime contractor who was SAW-Greenland, a joint venture.

And then ultimately you would have had the owner, the VA.

Q. And then as the subcontractor, did Oelrich Construction

perform work on the job? Did they actually build things on the

job?

A. No, sir. The majority of the work was subbed out and we

were supervision.

Q. And as the project manager, did you have other projects

that you were managing in and around this time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was -- about what percentage of your time did it take

for you to manage this particular project?

A. I had some other projects going on at the time. However,

this was the big one. It was probably about half my time.

Q. When you are building a building like this, as a

contractor, how do you know what it is you're supposed to build?

A. We build by the project documents, which are the plans and

specifications.

Q. And, how do the plans and -- how do the plans relate to the

specifications? Why do you need both?

A. You need both because the project drawings are going to

give you an illustration, they are going to give you an overall

picture and dimensions. But I guess if I had to explain it I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 50 of 218
 51

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

would say that if you had a picture of a car on the drawings

maybe the specifications would tell you it's going to be a 1960

Pontiac GTO, it will be black in color, it will have chrome trim

and bucket seating.

Q. Three deuces and four speed?

A. Yes, sir. If that makes sense.

Q. I understand. I also wanted one of those.

A. You and me both.

Q. Was PRC Precast one of the subcontractors on this job?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have interactions with PRC Precast on this job?

A. Yes.

Q. And, did PRC Precast work on the actual job or how did the

contractual relationship work with PRC Precast?

A. PRC was going to provide the precast concrete panels on the

exterior of the building, but never actually made it to the

project.

Q. So, how was it that PRC Precast was building -- doing work

for the project but not being at the project?

A. They were supposed to be casting the panels at their

facility in, I believe, it was Greenville, South Carolina.

Q. I'm going to ask you if you will look at Exhibit Number 2,

please. And it will come up on your screen in just a moment.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you see that okay?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 51 of 218
 52

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is this document?

A. It appears to be the contract agreement between Oelrich and

PRC.

MR. BUTTS: Your Honor, may I speak with Mr. Darr for

just a moment, please?

THE COURT: You may.

(Pause in proceeding.)

MR. BUTTS: Your Honor, Mr. Darr and I talked just a

moment and we agreed, with the Court's permission, that all of

the exhibits that we have both submitted would be automatically

deemed admitted except for those that we have expressed

objections to, in which case we would either withdraw the

objection or raise the objection when the exhibit is brought to

the Court's attention.

THE COURT: All right. The courtroom deputy will want

to have a clear indication of which have been admitted and which

not. But let me make sure I understand what you said. The

exhibit lists that were provided in connection to the pretrial

process, in this case I think they are actually attached to the

pretrial stipulation, all of those exhibits are admitted except

to the extent objections are noted there.

When you bring an exhibit up during the trial, unless

there is an objection articulated at the time, it will be deemed

admitted.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 52 of 218
 53

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

MR. BUTTS: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that's what

Mr. Darr and I agreed to.

MR. DARR: That's right. And, I just want to make

sure it's clear, you know, we only had two objections that we

filed to the pretrial list. But there may be circumstances

where an exhibit is introduced that we may object to here. For

example, the project specs with SAW and the VA. Otherwise, yes,

that's fine with us.

THE COURT: They are admitted as we just said. And if

it turns out that you've got some objection that hasn't been

made to this point we can always revisit the question. But,

unless it comes back up they are deemed admitted.

MR. BUTTS: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Mr. Crehore, I direct your attention, if you would, to

paragraph 3E. And this has to do with the schedule?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you see that? 

In the third line down at, just before the semi-colon it

indicates that PRC in this case will diligently and continuously

prosecute the work according to the contractor's schedule as

amended. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do project schedules such as this one, are they amended on

these types of projects?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 53 of 218
 54

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. A project, a construction project schedule is a dynamic

thing. Some things might take a little longer, some a little

less, but they are updated on a regular basis.

Q. Was there a schedule attached to this contract?

A. Yes.

Q. And, was it necessary to amend that schedule from time to

time?

A. Yes.

Q. And was -- what was the reason -- was it -- did you

experience a delay in the beginning of the project?

A. Yes, we did. We had several site issues on that project.

Q. Did that require Oelrich Construction to amended the

schedule?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was the process for doing that?

A. We would document anything on the schedule. If it, you

know, didn't take as long as it was supposed to, if it took

longer, we would enter the actual dates. And if there were any

added activities, issues that arose, like the site work on this

job, they would be added to the schedule.

Q. Who among your team was primarily responsible for updating

the schedule?

A. Project superintendent, Jordan.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 54 of 218
 55

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And would he update it -- how often would he update it?

A. Every day to every couple of days.

Q. Would he do it with a bar chart?

A. Yes. He had an overall project schedule. And he also had

a, what we would call a 2 to 3 week look ahead that was more of

a bar chart format.

Q. You mentioned delays in the beginning of the project. Can

you describe what those were?

A. Yes, sir.

We actually had several site delays on this job. One of

them was we found several lines in the ground within the project

footprint that were not on the project documents. They were

never shown on the drawings. We had some smaller lines, but all

the way up and to we found a pair of 12-inch lines that were not

located on the drawings.

We also had some other issues. We had an existing storm

sewer line that ran under the corner of the new building that

had to be rerouted out from under the footprint of the building.

So, when we actually exposed that line we found that we had

ordered new line, per the drawings, and that it was incorrect

size. So that material had to be reordered. And we had to

account for that.

Another delay that we had was that same storm line had a

bat infestation that we had to account for that also.

Q. Were you able to successfully address all of those delays?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 55 of 218
 56

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did the other subcontractors -- did the subcontractors on

the job cooperate with Oelrich Construction in accommodating

those delays and adjusting their schedules?

A. They did, with the exception of PRC.

Q. In paragraph 3E, we were talking about that a moment ago,

after the semi-colon that we were looking at it says, and to

coordinate the work with other work on the project by other

trades so that the contractor or owner shall not be delayed by

any act or omissions of subcontractor in the completion of the

project. Why is that important to Oelrich Construction on a

project like this?

A. It's important because I have to be able to communicate

with all of my subcontractors. I have to take all of the

individual sub-scopes of which there are usually 15 to 20 on any

project, and I have to dovetail all of those scopes together

into one project schedule that everybody can get behind. And

then, because we are not the prime GC, we're a sub on this job,

I have to give that schedule to the prime GC. And then they, in

accordance, they take that and they plan their activities with

mine.

Q. I want to address your attention, if you would please, to a

part of the contract that says, trade specific scope of work

structural precast. And it's several pages back.

Item number 13, it appears that Oelrich Construction and

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 56 of 218
 57

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

PRC agreed to make a change in paragraph 6A. And, the change to

paragraph 6A was to say -- instead of saying, in the opinion of

the contractor, it says if according to the agreed upon schedule

the subcontractor falls behind. Do you see that?

A. Which number are we on?

Q. I'm referring to number 13 and there at the bottom of that

paragraph it says 6A.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And there appears to be an agreement to change the language

in paragraph 6A. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I think it's important to focus on the actual language.

And then if we can scroll back up to paragraph 6A. And, this is

talking about subcontractor delay paragraph. And then you can

see where the language is changed in the beginning of the second

sentence or really the first sentence. If in the opinion of the

contractor, the subcontractor falls behind it's changed to read,

if, according to the agreed upon schedule, the subcontractor

falls behind. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the progress of the work to be performed the contractor

may direct the subcontractor to do certain things.

As you amended the schedule from time to time, was there

any disagreement expressed to you about the amended schedule

that Jordan Robinson sent out?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 57 of 218
 58

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. No.

Q. If we turn back to 6A, please? I think we are still there.

Among the things that it says that Oelrich Construction can do,

about four lines down, it says: And to submit for approval a

schedule demonstrated in a manner in which the required way to

progress may be regained all without scheduling requests -- all

about any additional costs whatsoever to the contractor.

Did the schedules that Mr. Robinson used to update the

progress of the project with the other subcontractors achieve

that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did any other subcontractor on the project object to the

need to adjust the schedule as amended in paragraph 3A from time

to time?

A. No, sir.

Q. As part of the construction contract, under paragraph 5,

there are several paragraphs there that talk about payments. In

addition to the pay request, the request for payment that a

subcontractor would get, in this case were there lien waivers

required?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there photographs required of the material that had

been either purchased or incorporated into panels?

A. Yes. They would have to provide those in a COI also.

Q. And by COI what do you mean?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 58 of 218
 59

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Certificate of insurance.

Q. And, why was that important?

A. Billing for stored materials that's held at their facility

if anything was to happen. If it was going to burn to the

ground one night or get hit by lightning they would have to have

insurance that says that it would be replaced.

Q. In addition to those items, what type of safety

requirements were necessary or safety information was necessary

in order to safely pursue this project?

A. Information that a subcontractor or PRC would have to

provide to the project? 

Q. Yes.

A. So, everybody on that job had to have an OSHA 10

certification. All of the contractor foreman had to be OSHA 30

certified. In the case of PRC, as they would have to have a

crane to erect the precast, they would have to provide a crane

lift plan. And all of that would be submitted. And then we

were required by spec to have what they call an AHA report or an

activity hazard analysis review.

Q. And, did PRC timely provide the OSHA certificates?

A. No, they did not.

Q. Did, to your knowledge did PRC ever provide an OSHA 30

certificate for any person?

A. No, they did not. Forde and I had several discussions

about this where he said, yeah, we'll get it to you, you know,

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 59 of 218
 60

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

like it wasn't a big deal. And I would explain to Forde that

this is a government project. There are strict paperwork

requirements. You can't just show up with this and expect to go

to work that day.

I have to have it. I have to review it. Make sure that

it's approved. Then I submit it to the JV. And they review it

and make sure that it's approved before we can schedule our

meeting, our activity hazard analysis plan. If you don't --

Q. Why is that important for the safety of the project?

A. Specifically, a crane lift plan would be important because

it would go over certain safety details like how much did the

panels weigh, how big is the crane, where is it going to lift

from, are there any -- is there anything underground that it

can't bear on that might give way, how are you going to pick

panels and swing them, are there any overhead lines. That's

where you would identify and address any potential safety

issues.

Q. As it pertains to this particular project, what was your

experience with the VA and SAW-Greenland in regard to the -- why

they needed that information and when they needed the

information?

A. They were very strict about that in the project documents.

That's why we had to get it in time to go over it and go over it

with the JV because if you didn't they would shut you down if

you don't show up with it.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 60 of 218
 61

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. By JV you mean the joint venture between SAW and --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You mentioned an AHA, what is that, activity -- 

A. Hazard analysis. 

Q. What is that for?

A. It's where you would talk about what you are going to do

and identify any potential safety issues. You just kind of walk

through what you were going to do, and go through the whole

process and give everybody a chance to take a look at it.

Q. I realize that the only subcontractor who probably needed

to use a lift and have a lift plan was PRC. Were the other

subcontractors that you had, did you have any problems getting

the OSHA 10 certificates from them?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any trouble getting the OSHA 30?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any problems getting the activity hazard

analysis?

A. No.

Q. Turning back to the general scope of work, paragraph 4,

please. It says that, last sentence in that, excuse me, the

entire paragraph. Subcontractor will provide necessary work

forces, equipment, and material delivery so that the project is

a hundred percent completed per schedule. Did PRC do that?

A. No.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 61 of 218
 62

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Did PRC coordinate its work so as to not hinder other

subcontractors' completion dates?

A. No, they did not.

Q. To your knowledge, did PRC ever come to the job site?

A. No.

Q. Did PRC -- I think we've discussed this already but number

10, was PRC required to comply with number 10?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they do so?

A. No, they did not.

Q. Were they required -- was PRC required to comply with

number 16?

A. No, they did not.

THE COURT: While we're paused, we've got one on each

side not wearing your mask properly. Get your mask up over your

nose and keep it there, please.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. I would like to direct your attention please, Mr. Crehore,

to Exhibit 3, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. Do you recognize that

document?

A. I do.

Q. Was that the, excuse me, tell the Court what it is, please?

A. The contract agreement with the JV, with the joint venture,

SAW-Greenland.

Q. Is that contract agreement incorporated into the contract

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 62 of 218
 63

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

agreement with PRC?

A. With all of the subcontractors, yes.

Q. And it references in paragraph 2.1 on page 3 the prime

contract. Do you see that?

A. I'm still looking at the coversheet.

Q. Page 3?

MR. HIPWORTH: Okay. Thanks.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. 2.1 at the top of page 3?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the prime contract in this case?

A. Prime contract would have been the contract between the JV

and the VA.

Q. I'll refer you to Exhibit 32.

MR. DARR: Your Honor, just to be clear, so it's on

the record, I know we discussed this during our hearing last

week. But PRC does object to the admission of this exhibit as

irrelevant because it wasn't fairly contained within the

pleadings of Oelrich's claims and defenses in this case. So, we

don't think it should be at issue. Rather than object every

time to evidence offered about this we'll just go ahead and put

on the record that it's a continuing objection if that's okay

with Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is. I overruled the objection to the

document. It's plainly admissible. The real issue goes to

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 63 of 218
 64

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

whether they can rely on failure of the product that PRC

manufactured to comply with the conditions that are set out in

the agreement.

And we left that where we did last time, which was not

definitively resolved, but in effect that I'll take the

testimony and it will either be deemed properly here or deemed

the proffer.

Mr. Darr, one thing you'll want to address at some

point about that, I did notice in going through the various

things to prepare first you are correct, it's not in the

pleadings. But, it does seem to me it's referenced in your own

26(a)(2) disclosures. You listed Mr. Davis as an expert, maybe

both Mr. Davis' as experts. And one of the things you said they

would testify about was whether PRC materials met the terms of

the contract.

So, you apparently listed experts to talk about this

subject. Now, I don't know where that leaves us, but that's one

of the things you'll want to address when we double back to

this.

We left it where we did, it's a bench trial so nobody

is going to suffer any harm whether this is just proffered or --

proffered by the lawyer or proffered through the testimony.

Best to do it this way.

And, of course, it may or may not make a difference in

light of the other rulings in the case. So I'm certainly not

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 64 of 218
 65

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

prejudging any of that, but I do recognize it's going to be an

issue and we will want to talk about it at the appropriate time.

But you have preserved your objection. You don't need

to make it each time.

MR. DARR: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. In looking at Exhibit 32, I'll direct you to section

034500, which is on page 286 of 1,899 pages. Actually, I may be

wrong about the page number. It's section 034500. Do you

recognize this section as the section of specifications

pertaining to the precast material?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The precast material we are referring to is the material

being fabricated in Greenville, South Carolina by PRC in this

case?

A. Correct.

Q. Was anyone else fabricating precast material on this

particular project?

A. No.

Q. I would like to go back to Exhibit 2, please, and reference

the schedule. That is near the back of the contract, please.

And I'm referring to the bar chart, specifically line number 97.

Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was the precast material -- what does line number 97 tell

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 65 of 218
 66

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

us about the precast material?

A. It says, precast panel erection with a 20 day duration was

scheduled to start on 7/11.

Q. And, on 7/11, had PRC fabricated all of the panels

necessary for the erection?

A. No.

Q. To your recollection, had they fabricated any panels at

that time?

A. I do not believe that they had.

Q. What -- what is -- what was your understanding of what,

what precast panels are expected to be fabricated and installed

on this building? What do you mean by precast panel?

A. So the exterior precast panels would have been a certain

dimension, height, length, thickness. And they would have been

cast in PRC's yard. They would start off with an empty form,

they would lay the rebar in, then they would pour concrete. And

then this particular panel had an exposed aggregate finish. It

had to match the existing VA.

Q. Is there a difference between a panel and a cap?

A. Yes. The panels would go around the building on the

exterior of the building. The precast caps would go around the

top of the parapet wall on the exterior of the building.

Q. And did the -- looking at the rendering, is the light --

where is -- what color are the areas where the precast panels

are adhered to the building?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 66 of 218
 67

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. It is the light colored area.

Q. And how are those precast panels adhered to the building?

A. They would have been embeds that would have been installed

in the cast-in-place concrete before it was poured. And then

there would have been embeds in the panels. And when the

precast panels are picked from the truck by the crane and set on

the building, these embeds would be welded together to form the

connection that holds the panel.

Q. So you mentioned precast, I think you may have said

columns, what do the precast columns sit on in terms of the

foundation?

A. Okay. So, if I said precast columns, that was incorrect.

That would have been cast-in-place columns --

Q. Excuse me.

A. -- and beams that would have run down to the foundation of

the building.

Q. Can you just describe from a visual perspective what we

would see if we were looking at the foundation?

A. Okay. So the foundation is what spreads the load of the

building to the earth beneath it. If you were -- if you were

looking at the foundation, when the building was done you

wouldn't see it because it would be underground. But to

construct the foundation you would excavate the area, and either

form up a earth form the foundations. You would put the -- you

might have some stone at the bottom for dewatering. Then you

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 67 of 218
 68

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

would have the rebar cage, as it's called, with a dowel sticking

up and out that would eventually tie into the column. And then

you would pour the foundation or the column pads.

Q. So is the foundation in this case, could it be described as

a trench?

A. Yes.

Q. That goes around the perimeter of the building?

A. Yes. There was a trench and spread footings.

Q. When you say dowels do you mean re-enforcing rods?

A. Yes. That come out of one member and go into another.

Q. And then on top of that -- what's a common word used for

that foundation? Do some people call it a footer?

A. Yes.

Q. Would the rods that come up out of the footer, how then do

they -- how are the columns cast-in-place to incorporate the

rods?

A. So, the first thing that they would do is they would bring

in more rebar and they would tie that rebar from the column to

the rebar that's exposed from the footer. And then they would

have form work to make the shape of the column. And then they

would pour the column.

Q. And, if I may? May I?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Are the columns in these areas?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 68 of 218
 69

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes. The columns would be at all of the corners and then

at regular intervals in between.

Q. And then is this -- what is this area called? How's that

built?

A. Those are the precast panels.

Q. I'm sorry. What's behind them in terms of the structure of

the building?

A. You would have the columns. And then you would have beams

that would tie the columns together. And you would have block

in fill.

Q. Is that all cast-in-place, the beams?

A. The beams and columns. Yes, sir.

Q. And then, it appears that there's another level so that

would -- would there be more beams or, excuse me, more columns

and then perhaps a beam at the top?

A. Yes. They would have the foundation. Then they would do

the columns. Then they would do the first floor beams. Then

they would do the second floor columns. And then they would do

the second floor beams around the top of the perimeter.

Q. Where is the roof? Is that more or less at the second

floor beam level?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And then do the walls extend up past that?

A. Yes. That would be the parapet wall, which in this case

was block.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 69 of 218
 70

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. About how tall was that?

A. I think it was maybe 3 feet. It was a few courses.

Q. And is it on top of the parapet wall that you described

where the caps go?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, the precast material do I understand then it

goes -- it covers the cast-in-place beams and columns?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we look at Exhibit 554, please?

Can you turn to the schedule of values portion of that,

which is about 3 pages back? 

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. In column B it discusses a description of work. Under line

number 1 it says, markup samples?

A. Mockup samples.

Q. Mockup samples. Thank you.

And, then as we move from the left to the right it has a

schedule, under schedule of values it has $2,800?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then moving left to right it -- we learn that there are

on this particular pay application, which I believe is number 5,

prior to this application there had been $1,200 of work

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 70 of 218
 71

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

performed; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then this period PRC is seeking $1,600 of the $2,800;

is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then since all of this is being built in Greenville, we

have in column G what is being stored in Greenville to date in

this case on that first row $2,800 total to date, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Going farther to the right, it indicates that 100 percent

of the mockup samples are, in fact, taken care of?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. As we come down that line, the next line of the shop

drawings and it appears that on this pay request in May of 2019

that all of the shop drawings are completed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Line number 3 is for forming re-enforcing steel plates

production materials. And then line number 4 is for the actual

production. Is line 4 for the completed panels and caps?

A. Yes.

Q. And, is line 3 for the material that's needed to form and

goes in to mix together to be the precast ultimately?

A. Line 7?

Q. Line 3.

A. Oh, line 3. Yes. Forming reinforcing. Yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 71 of 218
 72

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. So, in May of 2019, PRC is asserting and requesting payment

for approximately 18 percent of what it was going to need for

the forming, reinforcing steel plates production materials,

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. If we look at Exhibit 555, please. And we go to the

schedule of values. It's kind of light, but can you read what

the -- how much of the -- how many -- what percentage of panels

had been produced through this pay request which is through work

performed in July of 2019?

A. It's hard to read, but it looks like 8 percent.

Q. And that means 8 percent of the panels are completed at

that time, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is a pay request given by PRC asking to be paid

for 8 percent of the panels?

A. Correct.

Q. And, now they are up to one hundred percent of materials

and the forms, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And if we look at 556, Exhibit 556, please. And go to the

schedule of values on that one. Now, this appears to be in

September. And I notice that the application date is in the top

right corner and right below it it says period 2. Do you see

that?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 72 of 218
 73

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they -- do the subcontractors apply for payment in the

middle of the month and are they allowed to project to the end

of the month?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in this case, PRC is projecting that it would have

53 percent of the panels completed by the end of September,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in this case, do you recall approximately how many

panels there were on this job and caps?

A. Panels and caps, I think there was around high 90's or a

hundred for everything.

Q. So, that if it were a hundred, just for easy math, there

would be an expectation there would be 53 panels and caps

completed through the end of September, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then I'm going to show you one more that is, excuse me,

557. If we could look at that. If we could scroll to the -- do

I understand correctly this is a pay application being submitted

in October for work performed through the end of October,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And do I understand correctly from this pay application

that, again, using the presumption that there are a total of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 73 of 218
 74

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

only one hundred panels and caps that PRC is asserting that they

have completed a little over 63 of them; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. On Exhibit Number 559 is an electronic message from

Yosamani Gil to F. Davis. Can you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember anything about the embeds that Mr. Gil is

discussing in this email?

A. It looks like we were short on embeds and we were trying to

get more. Needed another 50 delivered.

Q. Do you remember whether or not PRC delivered the embeds?

A. I do not.

Q. In December of 2019, I'm going to show you Exhibit Number

24, please.

Give you a moment to look through that. Just glance

through it. It's about 4 pages long. I mainly would like to

focus on two components of it, the second page primarily of the

exhibit.

Can you see that email, it appears to be from someone named

Jerre Carr?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the same Mr. Carr that you mentioned earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is Mr. Carr asking for in this email?

A. He's looking for the same items that we discussed earlier

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 74 of 218
 75

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

that we were still trying to get out of PRC, the safety

information.

Q. So even in November of 2019, PRC has still not submitted

this information?

A. That's correct. I don't believe that they ever did.

Q. And then if we could turn to the next page, please. This

appears to be a letter from Mr. Wilson to Mr. Davis dated

December 12, 2019. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the circumstances surrounding that letter?

A. Again, we were trying to get PRC to understand that you

can't just show up with this information. That it's got to be

reviewed and approved or you are not going to be allowed to

work. It's important that we get this in.

Q. In the first paragraph it starts off by saying, on

September 19th, Jordan Robinson made all subcontractors aware of

safety documentation. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that he did not make all

of the subcontractors aware of that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is this -- what is Mr. -- what is the point that Mr., as

you understand it to be that Mr. Wilson is making in the second

paragraph?

A. I think Andy is expressing some frustration that we can't

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 75 of 218
 76

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

get any reply from PRC or we can't get any communication from

this, the items that we need to be able to get the work done.

Q. And, do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Gil was not

trying to do that on October 29th?

A. No, I do not.

Q. And the information he's asking for, the things we have

discussed already in items 1, 2 and 3?

A. No, sir, I do not. I tried to explain to Forde when I

could get him on the phone that the OSHA 30 is not something

that you are going to take in a couple of days and get it behind

you. It takes a lot longer than that.

Q. What do you mean by OSHA 30? What is that?

A. So, all of the workers on the job had to have an OSHA 10

safety program. But, the foreman for all of the subcontractors

had to have what they call an OSHA 30, which is a much more

in-depth detailed safety training.

Q. Why do they call it OSHA 30?

A. It's a 30 hour course.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe, going down below 1, 2

and 3 that Mr. Carr was not trying to acquire this same

information on November the 14th?

A. No, sir.

Q. And, did PRC provide this information for what's referenced

as the preparatory phase meeting on December 20th, 2019?

A. No, sir. They did not.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 76 of 218
 77

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Did they attend it?

A. I believe that we only got a small amount of the paperwork

that we were looking for from PRC. And what we did get was

incomplete.

Q. Were you able to have the preparatory phase meeting?

A. No, sir. We can't schedule it without the paperwork.

Q. Was this going to hold up the job?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you express this to anyone from PRC?

A. I did. To Forde.

Q. Did you do it more than one time?

A. I did it repeatedly.

Q. Did you -- how did you do it?

A. I would have to call Forde and email him several times to

get any communication from him. As their anticipated date got

closer I would have to call more and more to try and get him on

the phone and impressed upon him how important it was to get

this information. We can't -- the VA will not let you start

without it.

Q. Did you have any trouble reaching Forde Davis on the -- by

telephone?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you try his cellphone number?

A. I did.

Q. Did you try -- 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 77 of 218
 78

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Repeatedly.

Q. Did you have any other numbers to try?

A. I had the office number that I would call and not get an

answer.

Q. It appears that Mr. Wilson is asking for this information

no later than 3 on 12/13/2019. Am I correct in understanding

then it was not received timely?

A. Correct.

Q. As we scroll down to the bottom, where it appears

Mr. Wilson is quoting paragraph 6A of the contract, did you --

did you have an opportunity -- did, excuse me.

Did Mr. Forde Davis ever respond to this letter in regard

to Mr. Wilson's claim, I mean his claims and disputes issue that

he's raising quoting the contract?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Davis responded to anybody else at

Oelrich Construction when Mr. Wilson expressed to him that he

was contemplating or when he was quoting this contract clause?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he express to you -- did he give you any response to

Mr. Wilson's assertion that if there were additional costs

associated with the delay that Mr. Wilson and

Oelrich Construction was going to assess them against PRC?

A. No.

Q. Did the other subs comply -- had the other subs already

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 78 of 218
 79

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

complied with all of this?

A. Yes.

Q. Every one of them?

A. Yes.

Q. If we could turn to Exhibit 563, please. I'll give you a

moment to review this email chain. Just generally, and I'll

direct you to specific things.

This goes back little further in time. And there's some

overlap, and I apologize for that. We see in the beginning

where at the very first email on November 20th, the one we've

discussed, Mr. Carr, Jerre Carr asking for lift plan and AHA

activity hazard analysis.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The next email Mr. Davis is acknowledging that he knew

about the OSHA requirements at bid time. But he still hadn't

given them to you, had he?

A. No.

Q. And, he's saying this is the first time that he's heard of

the activity hazard analysis. Did any of the other

subcontractors express to you that they were unaware that they

had to turn in an activity hazard analysis?

A. No.

Q. I'm moving up that page to the top. It appears that you

are sending an email on December the 12th, no, excuse me. It

appears that Mr. Wilson is sending an email on December 12th.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 79 of 218
 80

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

And he's just reiterating that he's looking for the documents.

But then that's the same day that he also sent the letter that

we just went over in some detail.

Then on the 16th, this is following Mr. Wilson's letter,

you write to both Forde and Randall Davis. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And tell me about the conversation, if you can recall it,

that you had with one or the other or both, the previous Friday?

A. So, I've never talked to Randall. I never got any return

phone calls from him over the course of the project. The one

time that I was able to get Forde on the phone and talk to him

about the OSHA certificates, about those specifically, he said

that he had a foreman that was -- he was going to knock the OSHA

30 out in a couple of days when he was done with the current

project is the way that he put it. I tried to explain to him

that, Forde, that sounds great, but it's not going to happen

that way. The majority of people that take that class it takes

them a lot longer.

Q. And then you go on to indicate that you still needed the

lift plan, right?

A. Correct. I told him a couple of times. At least get me

what you can get me now so I can get started with the process.

Any crane company ought to be able to give you a lift plan in a

little less than an hour. It's a standard thing for every

project they do.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 80 of 218
 81

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And then at the bottom it appears that the last line you

are asking a question, two questions. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Did he ever respond to you? Did he ever answer the first

question?

A. No.

Q. Did he ever answer the second question?

A. No.

Q. Did he give you any level of assurance that at that time,

that he was going to do the project?

A. Zero.

Q. Did he give you any level of assurance that he was going to

cooperate so that you could have the preparatory phase meeting?

A. No.

Q. Did he indicate to you that he -- did he even acknowledge

that you wanted him to be there on the 6th of January and

install material?

A. Not until it was apparent that we weren't going to make the

date.

Q. Did he tell you that he hadn't built anything in terms of

material --

A. No, he did not.

Q. -- since he billed you for 63 percent of the material in

October?

A. No, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 81 of 218
 82

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. I want to go to the next email, which is the 16th of

December. And here, it appears Forde Davis is communicating

with you that he hasn't been paid for 3 pay requests, 3 previous

pay requests. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he raises concerns about that. He's telling you that

he's billed for all of the production, not just 63 percent, but

a hundred percent, right? And he's not going to ship anything

until you pay it all, right?

A. Correct. I believe he had some pay applications that had

not been fully paid by OCI because he hadn't turned in all of

the paperwork that was required to get it paid.

Q. And at the time that he is asking for full payment, he,

even by his own pay requests, he had only produced 63 percent of

the panels?

A. Correct.

Q. Number 2, he indicates that he is not going to be able to

perform on January the 6th, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the last sentence he is indicating that he's working

on the OSHA 30 documents and the lift plan. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. So, he did get back to you a couple of days later or

actually on the same day and indicated that he was working on

it, but he wasn't going to be able to do anything on the 6th?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 82 of 218
 83

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Right.

Q. Did you need him to be there on the 6th?

A. I did.

Q. Were you ready for him on the 6th?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you have to have done on the building in terms of

the work that preceded the precast in order for him to be able

to begin hanging precast on the 6th of January?

A. You would have to have the cast-in-place, concrete, columns

and beams done with embeds. You would have to have the majority

of the block work done. And you would have to have

waterproofing done.

Q. What was the last thing? 

A. The waterproofing.

Q. Oh. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I just had a little trouble

hearing you.

You mentioned block. May I? It appears when I look at

this that there is some areas with some bricks; is that right?

A. Yes, sir. There was exterior brick veneer on the job.

Q. Where do the blocks go on the building?

A. The block-in-fill would have been behind the brick.

Q. And, would there be some that goes behind the precast?

A. Yes.

Q. And, some up at the parapet wall?

A. Yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 83 of 218
 84

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. So is that why you had to have the block because you were

going to cover it up?

A. Yes.

Q. So the precast covered up not only the cast-in-place

column, but it also stuck out far enough on each side that it

covered up some block?

A. Correct.

Q. The project was to that point where they could have started

installing the precast on the 6th day of January?

A. Yes.

Q. What, on the -- then you write Forde Davis back on December

the 18th, a couple days later. And I think -- what is the gist

of the email that you are sending? Or why are you sending that

email, I should ask it?

A. It looks like I'm telling him that the check or the funds

went out for the 2 pay applications 7 and 8 because we just got

the material or we just got the paperwork that accounting,

Christina was looking for to be able to release those funds.

Q. And had PROLS, is that lien?

A. Release of lien.

Q. Partial?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the P?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at that point are you expressing concern about the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 84 of 218
 85

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

January 6th date?

A. Yes, sir. At this point I've got, you know, the JV on my

butt. I am not the boss of that project. I have to tell these

guys when things are going to happen.

Q. When you say in the last, the last sentence of that one

paragraph there, it says, this is the date we had been talking

about. Who had you been talking about that date with?

A. Forde.

Q. So Forde knew you needed it on the 6th?

A. Forde is the only one that I could communicate with.

Q. Based on -- did Forde give you any indication that he was

not going to be able to do it on the 6th up until the email that

he sent you on the 16th of December?

A. No. No, sir.

Q. Were you corresponding with him prior to that date, prior

to the 16th of December?

A. Yes. Trying to get all of the other paperwork so we could

get it approved in time to start.

Q. Prior to the 16th of December, had you made -- had you made

Forde aware that you had a target date of January the 6th?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Forde Davis -- is it the first time that you learned

that he was not going to do it on the 6th, the email that you

see here dated December 16th at the bottom of that page?

A. I believe it was. Yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 85 of 218
 86

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. You mentioned that the job was ready on January 6th. I

would like you to look at Exhibit 11, please. Do you recognize

this letter?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. The components of the job that were masonry, did that

include bricks?

A. There was brick on the project, but that wouldn't be done

until later.

Q. Right. So, what is the -- what are the concerns being

raised by SAW as it pertains to precast?

A. So, they are asking me where the paperwork is. And I don't

have anything to give them.

Q. Is there any reason that SAW sending this letter out would

be -- would SAW send this letter out to you, demanding that the

precast and, be installed or inquiring as to why it isn't being

installed, if you weren't ready for it?

A. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Would they

send it out if?

Q. The letter seems to indicate that SAW thinks that you

should be installing precast?

A. Yes, sir. January the 8th would have been 2 days after we

were set to start. And they don't have paperwork yet.

Q. Is there any -- do you know of any reason why SAW would be

asking you why you are not installing precast if you weren't

ready to install precast?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 86 of 218
 87

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Because we're -- we haven't given them any of the paperwork

to be able to get started. They know we're not going to start

soon, as we indicated.

Q. Let's look at Exhibit 13. Do you see at the bottom where

it says, masonry on that first page?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, this letter, if I'm understanding, is written in

response to the SAW letter?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Written by Andy Wilson two days later?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see where Mr. Wilson says under masonry, when they

started the CMU block walls?

A. On 11/18.

Q. Do you have any reason to think that Mr. Wilson was not

accurate when he expressed that the walls had started on

November the 18th?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Is that consistent with your recollection of the status of

the project that they started the block walls on November the

18th?

A. Yes.

Q. And these are the block walls that you noted are necessary

in order to install the precast on January the 6th, correct?

A. Yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 87 of 218
 88

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And, do you have any reason to think that the blocks would

not be fully installed on the 13th of January?

A. No.

Q. And, do you have any reason to think that the second floor

wouldn't be fully completed or wasn't fully completed by the

17th of January?

A. No, sir.

Q. If Mr. Wilson's recollection of the status of this project

was insistent with Mr. Robinson's schedule, would there be an

explanation for that?

A. If the dates in the letter didn't match Jordan's schedule,

I don't know unless he might have forgot to update part of it.

Q. Unless who forgot to update?

A. Unless Jordan didn't update a part of it.

Q. On the second page of that letter, do you know where

Mr. Wilson got the information from that says that precast was

starting on the 17th of February?

A. I believe that that start date came from PRC. That's when

they said they could start erection.

Q. I would like to take a look for a minute at Exhibit 558,

please.

Do you recognize that document?

A. Looks like a December pay application from PRC.

Q. If we could go back to the schedule of values, do you see

the date of the application?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 88 of 218
 89

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. 12/16.

Q. And this is application number 10, isn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. This is the last one that was submitted, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And, it's for work projected to be performed through the

31st of December?

A. Through the end of the year, yes.

Q. And, can we tell what percentage of work PRC is asserting

is completed on line number 4, production, at that time?

A. A hundred percent.

Q. And, on the next line it says, freight, doesn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. On this particular application PRC has asked to be paid a

hundred percent for the freight as well?

A. Yes.

Q. But, in fairness to PRC, that freight request for payment

was withdrawn. 

Do you recall that to be true?

A. I believe so.

Q. But there was no withdrawal of the hundred percent for the

production, was there?

A. No.

Q. And, at that time, they were being asked for $27,538,

weren't they? No. Excuse me. I'm sorry. $15,899, right?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 89 of 218
 90

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Correct, per line item 4 for the hundred percent.

Q. Did anybody from PRC ever say to you, or anyone else that

you know of at Oelrich Construction, we're going to bill you for

a hundred percent, but you don't have to pay it until we ship

it?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall anyone from PRC ever saying anything remotely

like that to you?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you recall anyone at Oelrich Construction ever

expressing that they had heard anyone at PRC say that, although

they were asking for a hundred percent payment that

Oelrich Construction really didn't have to pay it at this time?

A. I do not.

Q. If we could look at Number 571, please.

This is another email chain. And, if we could go to the

end and we'll work our way back. I'm trying to stay

chronologically consistent, but with the chains I sometimes have

to double back and I apologize for that.

On December 23rd, there's an email from Andy Wilson to

Forde Davis. What are piece detail cut sheets?

A. So a piece detail or cut sheet would be for every different

precast panel there would be an individual cut sheet that gave

you overall dimensions, that type of material, for each of the

different, each of the different pieces.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 90 of 218
 91

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Why is that important?

A. At one time when Forde had said that his erector couldn't

be there when we needed him we went out and found him one. We

had -- I'm trying to remember, I think we found him through --

he had some erection work for W.W. Gay at one point. So we

reached out to him, sent him the drawing specifications, got a

price. And said, okay, Forde, you can't get an erector, here we

got you one.

Q. But you still needed the panels?

A. Yes.

Q. It looks to me as if the next email in the chain is from

you to Forde. It appears that you are following up on what

Mr. Wilson had asked for, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you, in fact, leave a voice mail that day?

A. I left several. I would always try and call first, but

when I wouldn't get an answer I would go back in and send an

email.

Q. And, it appears that you are at this point, which is on the

23rd of December, that you are, you're still hoping that you can

erect on the 6th. And, did you, in fact, lose your slot?

A. Yes.

Q. And did -- I'm going to move over to the email from 

Forde Davis to you. About halfway up on page 3. And, what is,

what is your understanding of what Mr. Davis is asking for or

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 91 of 218
 92

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

communicating to you about piece sheets?

A. Our production tickets or piece sheets are for in-house

only and not distribution. What specifically do you need to

know about the pieces.

Q. Had you -- was that -- were you expecting to receive that

type of response?

A. No. I was expecting to get a copy of the sheets.

Q. And then, going up a little bit higher at 157, Mr. Wilson

seems to express what he is looking for. Is that everything you

needed?

A. Overall dimensions, weight, embed location for each piece,

type.

Q. Then it seems that Mr. Davis responds at 2:06 and says he

will get a spreadsheet to you. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And, Mr. Wilson at 2:21 asks if he can get the spreadsheet

today?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you recall getting the spreadsheet?

A. I do not.

Q. Ever?

A. No.

Q. Instead, or what is the tip that Mr. Davis is referencing

to you?

A. He gives us a weight per cubic foot for concrete.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 92 of 218
 93

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Did that take care of the information that you needed to

have to be able to satisfy the VA and all of the requirements

for installing the precast?

A. No.

Q. Is that why you wrote him back at 3:08, at the top of that

page 2?

A. Right. I'm expressing to him, you know, we're paying for

the product and we can't seem to get any information on it. I

would have been looking for embed locations, that type of thing,

for the erector at that point.

Q. In this email here and your telephone conversation where

you are able to reach Forde Davis to whatever extent that is

during this time is it -- to what extent do you make it clear

that you have concerns about this project and about PRC in

particular?

A. Right here, you know, when I told him there is going to be

a cost associated with it.

Q. What did you mean by, PRC is not leaving us options?

A. Means I can't seem to get any feedback or I can't get any

communication, I can't get the paperwork I need to get the job

done. At this point I'm wondering if they are going to do it at

all.

Q. In the end you asked him to call you. And, do you recall

whether he did?

A. He did not. I keep trying to set up a plan, set up a

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 93 of 218
 94

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

schedule that they will get behind and buy into the project.

And I don't get any communication.

Q. Now, he does respond to you though later in the evening.

And he indicates in the last sentence that he's trying to get

on-site and for installation as soon as possible. Was that

information helpful to you?

A. No. I can't go back to the JV and tell them that we're

going to do it as soon as possible. I have to be able to tell

them when it's going to happen.

Q. In your telephone conversations when you are able to reach

Forde Davis, did you make sure he understood that?

A. Yes.

Q. He indicates in the second paragraph that he's notifying

his erector that it would be in or that he has notified his

erector that he's -- that it would be in January, later in

January or, excuse me, be in January. But, he said that wasn't

set in stone.

Had you made it clear to him that he did have a drop dead

date January 6th?

A. It was always going to be January 6th.

Q. Now, in the last email in that chain in that exhibit on

December 27th, about lunch time, near the end of the first

paragraph, what are you -- why are you telling him you are going

to pull the transport, that you're pulling the transport and

erection out of his scope?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 94 of 218
 95

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Because he told me that his erector couldn't make the date.

So, that's when we went out and found him one. And, you know,

if you can't arrange for shipping either we'll find a trucking

company. I mean, at this point we are committed, we've made,

you've made precast, we paid for some of it. We can't go get it

somewhere else because it's never going to match the exposed

aggregate. So, we're going to incur a heavy cost and have to

repay all of it, so give me the rest of the precast and I'll pay

you, I'll make sure you get paid for it and we'll finish the

job.

Q. Did he ever give you any assurance that -- did Forde Davis

ever give you any assurance that he was going to finish that

job?

A. No. When, when I went up to see Forde, you know, I went up

there to be able to sit across the table from him and ask him if

he was going to finish the job. And he said that he wanted to.

However, they didn't make the January 6th date. I think the

next date that we got from PRC was the 2/17 date that came from

Randall.

Q. That came from Randall when he assured you that it would be

done on 2/17?

A. I think he said he was going to start erection on 2/17.

And that was -- he sent that information after Dana's site

visit.

Q. I see. Did he ever give you the contact information for

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 95 of 218
 96

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

the shipping company? I'm speaking of Forde Davis.

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did he call you immediately after your email on

December 27th at 11:46?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he respond to your assertion that the associated costs

for the delay were going to be his responsibility?

A. No, sir.

Q. You spoke about Dana's visit toward the end of the month, a

couple days later, a few days later, what transpired to cause

Dana Noyes to go to PRC's facility?

A. PRC was billing out material and we wanted to know if they

had it because we couldn't get any communication from them. So,

we asked Dana to go up and take a look at it.

Q. Did Dana work for Oelrich Construction at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, did he go up there?

A. He did.

Q. And, did he report back?

A. He did.

Q. Did he take some photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. And, what was your impression of whether or not PRC had

built a hundred percent of the materials?

A. It looked like they had made some of the materials. It

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 96 of 218
 97

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

was -- it wasn't organized very well. But from what we could

tell by looking at the pictures and counting the pieces it

looked like they had made maybe just over half of the material.

Q. I'm going to refer you to Exhibit 10, please.

I'm going to go to the back of page, 10 -- I mean Exhibit

10 -- and there are some photographs back there.

Can you see those?

A. Yes.

Q. Are those the photographs that you recall that Mr. Noyes

took on his trip?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall what the numbers are on the photographs?

A. It looks to be where we were adding up the panels to see

how many had been made.

Q. I'm working my way backwards on that exhibit on some of

these, once again, because it's a chain, are duplicates. So, I

think we've already gone over everything on page 4 of the

exhibit in working backwards. We've covered everything on page

3. And now I'm going back to the very first page.

At the bottom on December 27th at 11:46 -- actually, I'm

sorry, we already went over that one. The top of the page.

This is on December 31st. So this is the day after Mr. Noyes

must have gone to PRC's facility. And this is from you to

Randall Forde, Randall Davis? Excuse me.

A. Yes, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 97 of 218
 98

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And, in this email explain what you're communicating to

Randall Davis in this email?

A. Said that I had just tried to call him based on Forde's

email from the erector not being able to make the 1/6 start

date. We went out and spent a lot of time and effort to find

another erector that could make the date.

However, per the attached site pictures from yesterday it

appears that it's not all ready. It looks like we've got about

half of it ready. Please confirm, is your December payout bill

production and delivery at a hundred percent.

Q. When you tried to call him what did you get?

A. I left a message like I always did.

Q. Did he call you back?

A. No. I don't think I've ever talked to Randall.

Q. Based on the calculations and the red marks on the pictures

that are part of this Exhibit Number 10, there were 51,

approximately 51 of 105 panels. Does that refresh your

recollection as to how many there were?

A. Yes.

Q. And, the folks within Oelrich Construction, who put that

information together about the 51, are you comfortable that they

were diligent in their effort to try to determine how many

panels were there?

A. I am.

Q. Do you have any, any way to reconcile that only 51 panels

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 98 of 218
 99

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

were completed but PRC had asked for payment for 63 percent of

the panels in October of 2019?

A. I do not.

Q. Did Forde Davis or his dad, Randall Davis, ever attempt to

reconcile that difference with you?

A. No.

Q. If PRC had all of the panels on December the 30th, when

Dana Noyes went there, were you ready to have them installed if

you had an erector, on January the 6th?

A. Yes.

Q. And, tell me more about this erector and why you didn't

ultimately just simply go up there and get the panels and put

them up?

A. Because when PRC changed the date he walked.

Q. What do you mean, changed the date?

A. When they said that we were not going to be ready on 1/6

that the date changed to 2/17, he's not going to wait around.

He's not going to continue to change the date. He was done. He

left. He backed out.

Q. So you lost the erector?

A. Yes.

Q. If PRC, if PRC had 105 panels all ready to go when 

Dana Noyes went up there, and you needed to have a place, would

have been able to make arrangements to get them down to

Gainesville?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 99 of 218
 100

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. To find a trucking company?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Even though no one from PRC gave you the information of the

company who they indicated they were going to use?

A. It would have been a lot of work to find a trucking company

to do that, just like it was to find an erector, but, yes.

Q. And, if you were able to bring those panels down to

Gainesville somehow, and if you lost the erector because you

couldn't get them here before the 6th day of January, what would

you have done with the panels?

A. I would have found a storage lot.

Q. Did you have one available?

A. We have -- there was a couple of different areas that, in

that close proximity to the project that we've used for storage

lots before. I think the closest one was over on Main Street by

the Winn-Dixie.

Q. Did you have any other options offsite or farther away from

the property?

A. There was one off 34th Street, by the UF Hilton that we've

used for storage before.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Oelrich has any property that would

be sufficient to store them?

A. I believe he does.

Q. Do you think that you could have made arrangements to store

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 100 of 218
 101

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

the panels in a manner that is as sufficient as we see them

being stored in the 5 photographs there at the back of Exhibit

10?

A. I think we could figure something out. We just have to get

the material.

Q. In this first photograph, would you have been able to

duplicate that storage method?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, can we look at the second photograph? Would you

have been able to store them in a manner that was better than

that?

A. Hopefully, yes, sir.

Q. Let's go to the next one. Could you have stacked them up

just like that?

A. Yes.

Q. Let's go to the next one. Could you have arranged them

something like we're seeing here with the 8 panels? 

A. We could have found some place to put them.

Q. And the last one, is there anything complicated about that

photograph and how those panels are being stored at PRC's

facility that you couldn't duplicate in Gainesville?

A. It looks like they've got them stacked up on some dunnage,

some timber material.

Q. Was there any shortage of dunnage at that job?

A. No.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 101 of 218
 102

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Why, why were you trying so hard to try to accommodate PRC

and find a crane and take over the freight? What was the

motivation or the incentive for Oelrich Construction to continue

to try to work things out with PRC at that point?

A. Because of the time we are already committed. We had paid

for a certain amount of material. And we can't go out and get

it somewhere else unless we pay for it all over again. The

exposed aggregate would never match.

Q. Did anyone from PRC ever suggest that you do that and offer

the formula that they had used?

A. No.

Q. Did anyone from PRC ever object to you taking over the

freight and the installation of the panels?

A. No, sir.

Q. I would like to look at Exhibit 14, please.

Do you recognize that email?

A. Yes.

Q. Not the one at the top. I'm talking about Randall Davis to

Dana Noyes?

A. Yes. I believe this is where we came up with the next

erection date of 2/17.

Q. Why is it that Mr. Oelrich is emailing this email to you?

A. Because nobody from -- it doesn't look like anybody from

PRC sent it to me. It looks like Randall sent it to Dana.

Q. Do you think that maybe Mr. Noyes was not working there at

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 102 of 218
 103

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

that time?

A. I would imagine yes, that that's why he sent it to Ivan.

Q. Well, focusing on the main email, the one where Mr. Davis

is reaching out to Dana, is this -- you have -- you've mentioned

February the 17th in some level of assurances that PRC was going

to, in fact, start to install panels on February 17th. Is this

email the email that you have been talking about this morning?

A. Yes.

Q. This is the type of communication that contractors and

subcontractors have with one another in order to facilitate the

smooth construction and cooperation during a complex job like

this?

A. No, it is not. I need to be able to get somebody on the

phone to walk through the process of what we are going to do and

how we are going to do it.

Q. Did he ever -- did Randall Davis -- did you try to reach

Randall Davis in response to this?

A. I tried to reach Randall Davis several times and never got

a phone call back.

Q. But what is your understanding of this email in regard to

February the 17th?

A. He is giving an anticipated start date of 2/17.

Q. Did you rely on that?

A. I did.

Q. And, what did you do in reliance on this email?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 103 of 218
 104

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. We rescheduled the precast panel erection for the 2/17 date

that he gave in the email.

Q. Now, at this time, during January or late December of 2019

and beginning of '20, was the installation of the precast on the

critical path for this project?

A. No, it would not have been at that point.

Q. If we could turn to Exhibit 43, please?

At the bottom of the page you're writing an email to 

Forde Davis and Randall Davis. And this is on January the 6th.

Now, this was the day that you had hoped to install before,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that at this time you still don't have a lift

plan?

A. Correct. I'm asking for it again.

Q. And, is it true that you don't have the OSHA certs and 10,

30's for everybody you need it for?

A. Correct.

Q. Up at the top, on January the 7th, you are asking for a

phone call. Did you receive one back?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive a phone call back in response to your

request on the 10th?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you receive a response to your question in the first

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 104 of 218
 105

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

sentence of your email at the bottom of the page, if we are

going to start on February 17th, when are we going to be done

with production. Did you get a response to that?

A. No.

Q. May we look at Exhibit 517, please?

At the top of the page, page 1, what is, -- do you recall

the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wilson's email to

Allison Taylor and Forde Davis on January 14th?

A. It looks like he's rejecting pay app 9 and 10 because they

haven't produced all of the material that they are billing for.

Q. Mr. Wilson is making the assertion that PRC had only

completed 53 percent of the precast production. Do you have any

reason to disagree with that?

A. No.

Q. Does it surprise you in the beginning of the second

paragraph that he indicates that he has tried several times to

discuss all matters related to this situation but never received

a call back? Does that surprise you?

A. It does not.

Q. Does he seem to anticipate that they may start producing

again and that Oelrich Construction will pay for what they

produce and send photographs of?

A. We would love to pay for the material and get it and finish

the job.

Q. Now, you mentioned earlier today that you took a trip up to

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 105 of 218
 106

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

PRC's facility.

A. Yes, sir, I did. At the end of January.

Q. And what, tell us again what the purpose of your decision

to go to PRC at the end of January was?

A. I flew up there and went to their facility in Greenville to

be able to talk to Randall or Forde, either one of them, and to

be able to sit at the table and see if I could get any

reassurance that they were going to finish the job.

Q. Did you have an appointment?

A. No, I did not. I couldn't get anybody to answer the phone.

Q. So you tried to make one?

A. I did.

Q. And, when you got there, what, did you meet with anybody?

A. I talked to the person in the front office and then I

talked to Forde.

Q. And, do you recall what you talked about with Forde?

A. Yes. Forde and I sat down in a little conference room off

to the side of the front entry. And I said, Forde, this doesn't

work. We can't build a project like this. I have to be able to

communicate with you. I have to, I've got to be able to, you

know, to call you and you pick up the phone. I came, I took a

day out of my life and I came all the way up here just to sit

down across the table with you and, you know, look you in the

eye and find out if we're going to finish this job. Do you want

to finish this project.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 106 of 218
 107

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Did you discuss an alternative?

A. No. Forde told me that he wanted to finish the project.

That he wanted to get it done.

Q. And, did you rely on that assurance?

A. I did. You know, I was hopeful that they realized that me

coming all the way up there, you know, they could tell that

we're serious to finish the job.

Q. Did you have -- at that point were you still contemplating

working under the presumption that you would be installing

precast beginning on February the 17th?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Forde Davis indicate to you otherwise?

A. I don't remember. I think it was in another email that

they said -- that Forde said that we weren't going to be able to

make the date that Randall had given us of 2/17.

Q. But, at the time that you met with Forde he didn't tell you

that, did he?

A. No, sir.

Q. He told you he wanted to finish the job, gave you every

indication and assurance that he would do that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you left that, excuse me. Were you shown any of

the material?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Did you ask to see it?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 107 of 218
 108

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Before I could ask, Forde told me that they were actually

in the middle of some type of move and that it wasn't available

to be seen. That they were, they were moving offices, that they

were moving yards.

Q. Did he tell you, at that time, that they had not

manufactured any panels since October?

A. No.

Q. None in November, none in December, none in January?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you that they weren't going to manufacture them

in February either?

A. No.

Q. Did he lead you to believe that they were going to finish

all of the panels or they were already finished and that they

were going to all be available and installed in Gainesville on

the 17th of February when you left his office that day?

A. Yes, yes, sir.

THE COURT: Let me ask a question about that before we

leave it. The question was, did he lead you to believe that

they were going to do it by February 17th. I've got a more

specific question. Did he say that?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. What he told me was that they

wanted to finish the job. That they wanted to get it behind

them.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 108 of 218
 109

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Did you talk to him about when they would do it?

A. We didn't talk about the specific date that day. It was

more of trying to get, trying to get communication, trying to

get talking established so we could work towards the erection.

Trying to be able to, you know, say, hey, man, when I call you,

you've got to pick up the phone.

THE COURT: I get it. I understand why you would want

to look him in the eye and say you've got to return my phone

calls, when I need to talk to you I need to talk to you. I get

that. And, I understand you looking him in the eye and saying,

do you want to finish this project or not. I get that.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You are all the way up there in

Greenville. I take it you changed planes to get there from

Gainesville?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You are already there, you are all the way

there. You are sitting down talking to him and you didn't say

February 17th we've got to have this done? You didn't talk

about the date?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember talking about the exact

date.

THE COURT: All right. Fair enough.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. I would like to look at Exhibit 41, please. At the bottom

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 109 of 218
 110

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

of that exhibit there is an email from Forde Davis to you. This

is 6 days after you were there, 7 days, more or less. February

4th. In this email he appears to be giving you some sort of an

update on how many panels he's made. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know why he would say that he had only made 19 of 53

instead of 51 of a 105?

A. I do not unless he's not counting the precast caps. Maybe

he's just talking about the spandrel panels.

Q. So, at this point down toward the bottom of that first

paragraph it appears he's indicating to you on the 4th of

February that it's going to take him 22 days to finish making

these panels during the month of February, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that would put him out to somewhere around 22 plus

February 4th would put him out toward the end of February,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you happen to recall, excuse me. Let me continue to

refer to the email.

In the second paragraph it says, I know that it is further

out than what we originally said. Is what he originally said

the 2/17 date that his dad said?

A. Yes.

Q. He assures you that he wants to do the project. And he

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 110 of 218
 111

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

says, he will have the OSHA certs, at the bottom of the last

sentence, and crane plans at least two weeks before he is going

to do it. Did you ever get all of the OSHA certs?

A. No, no, sir.

Q. Did you ever get the lift plan?

A. No.

Q. You respond to him later that afternoon. And, you did some

calculations, that it appears that the date now has shifted from

February the 17th to March the 4th. And, you asked to confirm

that that is the date. Did you receive any confirmation that

that would be the date?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any indication that that would not be the

date?

A. No.

Q. I would like to refer to Exhibit 522, please. This is

another email chain, but I mainly want to focus on the email on

February 6th at the bottom.

This is 2 days after you asked Forde Davis to -- if March

the 4th is when he is talking about being on-site and is your

erector on board with that. Two days later, February 6th, the

bottom of Exhibit 522, it appears that you left Forde Davis a

message.

A. Yes.

Q. And, did he return that call to you?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 111 of 218
 112

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. No.

Q. And then on February the 10th, 4 more days later, it

appears that you tried to call him back or call him again. Did

he call you back --

A. No.

Q. -- in that regard?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any information that you could give the JV,

according to the second sentence in your email, on February the

10th?

A. The only information I had was when he said it was going to

be the added 20 days. I was trying to get him to confirm and

not me assume what day that was going to be to get him to point

to a day on the calendar and say this is the day that we're

going to be erecting. And I couldn't do that.

Q. Then you sent him an email 10 days later. Do you recall

whether or not you had any dialogue in those 10 days with 

Forde Davis or anyone from PRC?

A. No, I don't believe that I did.

Q. The conversation that you reference in the second sentence,

do you know when that took place?

(Witness reading.)

THE COURT: Mr. Crehore, I need you to either speak

loudly or read to yourself. In between makes it hard for all of

us.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 112 of 218
 113

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Understood. Based on this

email, we might have talked. I guess we did.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. And, what, why are you talking about where Jordan wants to

start the installation?

A. We're trying to work towards being ready for them. So

Jordan is -- he's saying what area of the building that he wants

to start on and then go around for the erection sequence.

Q. If we could go to Exhibit 562, please. Just focusing on

the very last email, the one at the top of the chain.

This conversation is taking place 6 days later in February.

Do you know if the starting of the precast is on the critical

path yet, at this time?

A. No. It would not have been on the critical path at that

point.

Q. It appears that you and Mr. Davis had had a conversation,

maybe it's the same one or a new one, and you're trying to put

together some dates. The last sentence in that first paragraph

asks for a list of the panels that have already been cast. Did

you ever get that list?

A. No.

Q. It appears that you've been told that the erector will be

available after 3/16, but that he hasn't started his OSHA. Now,

this erector is going to need the OSHA 30, isn't he?

A. The foreman for PRC would need it, yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 113 of 218
 114

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And so, it appears to be you're allocating a week to take

the class and try to estimate when the start date is going to

be. Is that a fair assessment of the email?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall doing that?

A. I do.

Q. Do you recall discussing the idea that it's going -- you're

contemplating this thing starting on the -- the installation

beginning on the 23rd?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there an agreement to that by --

A. Yes.

Q. -- Forde Davis to start on the 23rd?

A. Yes.

Q. Or the 6th?

A. Yes. We had talked about doing that class in a week would

be a lot. That would have to be the only thing that he did.

Q. Is that what accounts for the range between the 23rd and

the 6th?

A. I believe so.

Q. And then was Mr. Davis on board with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he give you a level of assurances that they were going

to finish making all of the panels and have them ready to

install by that time?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 114 of 218
 115

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. He did.

Q. Did you ever receive the lift plan?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever receive the operator OSHA 30 cert?

A. No.

Q. At that time, did Mr. Davis tell you that they had not

fabricated any panels since October?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you that they had not fabricated any panels

since Dana Noyes went there on December the 30th?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you that they had not fabricated any panels

since his father assured you that they were going to install all

the panels beginning on February the 17th?

A. No.

Q. Let's go to Exhibit Number 15, please.

Before we look at this, can you just explain to us what,

practically speaking, was all of this, all of this dialogue and

assurances and changes and date slipping, how did this affect

this job?

A. It, it pushed out the end date of the job because we

couldn't finish on time.

Q. Was it hard to deal with it in terms of the other subs, the

masonry subs?

A. It is when you have somebody that's not keeping up their

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 115 of 218
 116

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

end of the deal.

Q. Masonry subs, were they going to -- did the mason, were

they installing concrete blocks and bricks?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to review any of the bills or

anything the masons submitted?

A. Yes.

Q. And, what is your recollection of the percentage of

completion that the mason was at the end of December, on the

concrete, just the blocks?

A. I believe he was 85 percent complete.

Q. Now, in terms of the sequence of events the -- am I correct

that sequence is blocks, precast then brick?

A. Yes. You can't put the brick in until the precast is

completed.

Q. Why is that?

A. Because the brick butts up to the precast. There's a joint

in between.

Q. And, is that -- is it fair to say that the face of the

brick is on the same plain as the face of the precast?

A. Yes.

Q. So they could just put a line block on the precast and run

a string across and lay to the string?

A. Yes.

Q. And practically speaking, how would that, what type of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 116 of 218
 117

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

complication would have been caused if you had tried to go ahead

and install the brick before the precast?

A. You can't do it efficiently.

Q. Going to Exhibit 15. This email chain goes back, covers

most all of them that we've discussed already going back to

February the 4th.

And it includes the one on February the 20th where you're

communicating to Forde Davis that you're going to -- that Jordan

Robinson wants to start in the northwest corner.

It includes the one we just talked about on February 26th.

So here we are, on March the 17th, 2020. What is this email

that we're looking at here?

A. This is referencing a conversation that I had with Forde.

I actually, I was on the phone with Forde. I'm explaining to

him that I still need to get your paperwork. I've got to have

it in. And I'm explaining why, why it's important so we can get

it in to get it approved to be able to move forward on the job.

At this point, I realize that I'm not getting any feedback.

I'm not getting any input from Forde. So, there's nothing but

silence. So I stop and I say, Forde, are you making panels?

And he paused and he said, no. And I said, Forde, can you

tell me when you are going to be making panels? And he said,

no.

So I said, Forde, this isn't working. I can't make a

schedule around this. And I definitely can't build a building

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 117 of 218
 118

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

around this. You have got to be able to tell me when you're

going to make panels. Can you do that? And he said, no.

At that time, I told Forde, I'm terminating your contract

and I'm going to go find somebody else to make this precast.

I said, again, can you tell me when you can make panels?

And he said, no.

I said, okay. Then we're done. Do we have anything else

to talk about? And he said, no.

Q. At the time that you sent this email on March 17th, had you

made any effort to find another pre-caster to replace PRC?

A. No, sir.

Q. The last sentence of your email invites Forde Davis to

notify you immediately if there is anything about your email

that you got wrong, or I think the words were -- if your

understanding of what led up to this was not correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive any indication from anyone at PRC that your

understanding of the situation was incorrect?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive any communication from PRC whatsoever,

after you sent this electronic message?

A. No.

Q. Did you send it to the same email address that you always

sent your correspondence to Forde Davis?

A. I did.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 118 of 218
 119

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. I would like to turn to Exhibit 138, please?

THE COURT: Tell me where we stand at some point.

MR. BUTTS: Almost finished.

THE COURT: All right. Let's finish up then before we

take the lunch break.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Do you recognize this email?

A. I do.

Q. Is this the first correspondence that you had with 

Chris Carawan?

A. The first correspondence since when?

Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Chris Carawan is the person from SAW?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And this is your conversation with or, excuse me,

your email to Mr. Davis is at 6:18 it seems on the same date

Mr. Carawan is reaching out to you earlier in that afternoon.

Do you see that in the last --

A. Yes.

Q. -- the bottom of that? 

Did this letter that you are receiving from Chris Carawan

of SAW influence the decision that you made to terminate PRC?

A. No. What the deciding factor in my mind was, was when I'm

talking to Forde. And, again, we're talking about another date

that's not going to be met. That you can't tell me when you're

going to be making panels. At that point, it was clear to me

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 119 of 218
 120

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

that they didn't have any intentions of completing the project.

Q. If we go up on that email a little bit, on the 19th it

appears that you're communicating to Mr. Carawan that you've

terminated the contract with PRC?

A. Yes.

Q. And, what was his response to that?

A. His response was he wanted to know how we were going to

provide the precast now. Where do we go from here.

Q. When you indicate in this email that he couldn't tell you

when he was going to start making panels without coordinating

with his team and that he was supposed to do that and get back

with you, and did, and he didn't get back with you?

A. No.

Q. So you gave him the opportunity -- did you give him the

opportunity to get with his team and get back with you on when

they were going to make panels?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that when you had to terminate him?

A. Yes.

Q. Was he aware -- did you make him aware, prior to that time

that the termination was imminent?

A. When we talked.

Q. Did you do a calculation to determine when the last day was

that PRC could have started installing these panels and not

delayed the job?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 120 of 218
 121

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes.

Q. What did you determine?

A. It would have been in early, around the 9th or the 10th of

the month.

Q. Of which month?

A. Of March.

MR. BUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Crehore.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Thank you.

THE COURT: That makes this a convenient time to break

for lunch. Let's take an hour, we'll start back 10 minutes

after 2. We're adjourned until then.

(Recess taken 1:09.)

(Resumed at 2:12.)

THE COURT: We can get Mr. Crehore back on the witness

stand. Mr. Crehore, you may be seated. You are still under

oath. Mr. Darr, you may proceed.

MR. DARR: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: While you work on the equipment I did have

one question I wanted to ask Mr. Crehore, and now probably

works.

One of the exhibits you were shown referred to there

being 53 panels remaining. And Mr. Davis was given a schedule

as to how many days it would take and so forth. Do you recall

that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 121 of 218
 122

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

THE COURT: And, Mr. Butts asked you about why 53 and

not 105, and one of the things was maybe that's panels and not

caps?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The other possibility that occurred to me

was that that was the 53 that had not yet been manufactured.

Those numbers don't work exactly, but they are pretty close if

you take 105 and subtract out the ones that you had counted as

being manufactured.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I was going to see if you could give us

any more help in figuring out which of those it was a reference

to. And, in particular, did 53 panels match up to how many

panels as opposed to caps there might be?

THE WITNESS: Well, honestly, that was always a

question of mine because in the pictures that we took we had

asked how many had been completed, but we were never given an

answer. So, it was our interpretation of counting of what we

thought we saw in the pictures. So, I wasn't a hundred percent

sure.

THE COURT: Right. But, 53 remaining. And he's

talking about how long it would take to manufacture 53. And, of

course, there wouldn't be any reason to be talking about how

many had already been manufactured. It was the time it would

take to do the ones going forward. That's why it occurred to me

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 122 of 218
 123

Direct Examination - Christopher Crehore

maybe it was 53 that hadn't been manufactured yet.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It could be. I just thought

it might be the precast caps because there was a bigger number

of those going around the perimeter of the building.

THE COURT: All right. But you hadn't gone back and

actually done a count to see if that matched up?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

THE COURT: Just not sure? Fair enough.

Did we get the electronics done? We're working on it.

All right. We can be at ease while we try to get the

electronics working.

MR. HIPWORTH: Your Honor, while we are waiting, 

Ms. Markley had emailed us and pointed out that we had used

Exhibit 41. On our exhibit list that was intentionally admitted

but that's because it's a duplicate. Exhibit 521 is the same

exhibit as 41. We just went through and removed duplicates we

could identify.

THE COURT: All right. So the reference on the record

to 41 really means 521?

MR. HIPWORTH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And, the courtroom deputy also

tells me that there was a reference to Exhibit 138 and she

thinks that means Defense Exhibit 138.

MR. HIPWORTH: Yes, Your Honor. We determined that

that was one of PRC's exhibits.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 123 of 218
 124

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

THE COURT: All right. So, the reference to 138 was a

reference to Defendant's 138.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARR: 

Q. Can you pull up Plaintiff Exhibit 2, please?

Good afternoon, Mr. Crehore.

A. Mr. Darr.

Q. Good to see you again.

A. How are you?

Q. Good. Thanks. Got a few questions for you before we can

let you go and you can get back to your normal life.

If you can see on your screen there we've got Plaintiff's

Exhibit 2 up. That's the original contract between PRC and

Oelrich; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And, if you could do me a favor, if you need to look at the

contract to answer any of these questions feel free to let me

know and we can turn to the page that you're looking for.

A. Okay.

Q. As far as I can tell, and we went through some of these

questions during your last deposition we had of you, as of the

date this contract was signed the original deadline by which PRC

had to deliver and install the precast materials was August 7,

2019; is that right?

A. I would have to take a look at the end of the contract. I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 124 of 218
 125

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

think in the bottom of the scope that Forde and I generated a

little schedule template of our intentions at the time.

Q. Okay. If you could turn to page 20, please. And, if you

could make this a little bit bigger? And, Mr. Crehore if you

could take a look at ID 97 there that reads, precast panel

erection 20 days. What are the dates that you see that are

indicated for that scope?

A. 7/11 to 8/7.

Q. So, that would indicate that the precast materials were

originally scheduled to be installed no later than August 7,

2019, right?

A. Originally scheduled, yes.

Q. And, if you would turn to page 19, please? And, I'm

looking at item 71 there, Mr. Crehore. It's blow down and fuel

oil pit?

A. Yes.

Q. Right there. And, I think you testified about this during

your deposition, but I just want to confirm so the Court can

hear that the concrete for this building that you guys were

constructing was supposed to start originally on March 12, 2019;

is that right?

A. It looks like we had a schedule for the pit area, for the

blow down pit, yes.

Q. And, that's the first item of work for the concrete for the

building built, correct?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 125 of 218
 126

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes.

Q. And then --

A. I believe so, yes. We would have done the lowest numbers

first.

Q. And then if you take a look at item 84 there, if you could

scroll down a little bit, Caitlin. Thank you.

That is the bar and joist decking item; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, as far as you could tell, that's the first item of

steel work that you had to do for the building; is that right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And that work was supposed to be originally started on

June 27, 2019?

A. Correct.

Q. And one of my favorite questions in the case is the

following: When was Oelrich ready to set PRC's precast panels?

A. 1/6.

Q. So, it's your testimony that as of January 6, 2020, you

were all ready to let PRC start installing the panels at the

project; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, if Mr. Ivan Oelrich had an opinion that the panels

weren't ready to be installed in the project until March 10,

2020, I take you would disagree with that opinion then?

A. Yes.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 126 of 218
 127

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And, how do you know the panels were ready to be installed

at the project as of January 6, 2020?

A. That's what we had been -- that's what we had scheduled.

Q. So the basis for your opinion that it was ready as of

January 6, 2020 is that's what Oelrich's internal schedules

indicated; is that right?

A. And that we had -- we were working on completing the items

that preceded the precast, like the block and the waterproofing.

Q. Just so I'm clear, those items did need to be completed

prior to PRC being able to install their panels at the project?

A. We wouldn't have had the block a hundred percent completed,

but the majority of it would have been needed to be completed,

yes. So, they would be wrapping up the block as we started the

precast on the other side.

Q. And, you don't currently work for Oelrich right now, do

you?

A. No, I do not.

Q. You were terminated from Oelrich?

A. Correct.

Q. And, do you remember the date that you were terminated from

Oelrich?

A. 4/15.

Q. And, the project wasn't complete as of April 15th, 2020 --

I should back up one spot. You were terminated on April 15th,

2020, is that what you meant when you said 4/15?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 127 of 218
 128

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. Yes.

Q. And, the project wasn't completed as of April 15, 2020; is

that right?

A. No.

Q. So, you weren't there to witness the completion of the

project, correct?

A. No.

Q. Why were you terminated from Oelrich Construction?

A. Performance.

Q. What, in particular, about your performance resulted in

your termination from Oelrich?

A. I would imagine that it had something to do with the VA

project.

Q. What, in particular, about the VA -- you said I imagine it

would. Do you know specifically what about your performance

with the VA project led to your termination?

A. Precast.

Q. What about the precast?

A. Not being complete.

Q. And, were there any other reasons that your employment from

Oelrich was terminated?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. So, you were terminated because the precast wasn't

complete. And I guess, for lack of a better way to phrase it,

you were the person who had to take responsibility for that; is

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 128 of 218
 129

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, did anyone tell you at Oelrich what you should have

done differently?

A. No.

Q. Who told you why you were terminated?

A. Ivan.

Q. And, do you recall anything that Ivan told you specifically

about why you were terminated other than just generally the

precast?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Did Ivan have any critiques for you regarding how you

should have managed that scope of work differently?

A. Not that I remember, no.

Q. With regard to the follow on subcontractor that Oelrich

ultimately hired to complete PRC's work, that was 

Spring Precast; is that right?

A. I believe that's who it was.

Q. Were you the one that found Spring Precast?

A. I believe that I had started the initial conversations to

find them, but didn't actually move into contract with them.

Q. And, did you seek bids from any other subcontractors other

than Spring Precast to complete PRC's work?

A. Yes.

Q. And, how many bids did you seek?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 129 of 218
 130

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. I believe there were 6 RFQ's sent out, give or take one.

Q. And, do you recall the names of any of those other

sub-contractors that you solicited bids from?

A. No, I do not.

Q. And, how many responses did you get to those requests for

proposals?

A. I'm not sure. I did that in conjunction with

pre-construction department.

Q. And, who in the pre-construction department would you have

worked with on that issue?

A. Matt Marino.

Q. I think you just mentioned it, but you weren't still with

Oelrich once the contract with Spring was signed, correct?

A. No.

Q. Did you negotiate that contract with Spring?

A. I don't know. I think it was sometime around that area

when I left.

Q. And, if you could pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, please?

And, I think Mr. Butts went over this letter with you while

he was asking you some questions. This is the cure notice that

Oelrich got from the general contractor on the project SAW; is

that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And, if you want to take a look at it real quick that's

fine, but in your opinion SAW gave clear notice why SAW thought

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 130 of 218
 131

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

Oelrich was in default of the contract between those two

parties, didn't they?

A. They reference masonry, precast and steel and roof systems.

Q. So, they specified right there in the first paragraph why

they thought Oelrich was in default of the contract, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, is it fair to say that SAW gave Oelrich notice that it

was considering terminating the contract between SAW and

Oelrich?

A. It says they might do that in paragraph 2.

Q. So, that's yes, they did give you clear notice that they

were considering terminating the contract?

A. Yes.

Q. And, is it also fair to say that SAW notified Oelrich what

it needed to do to cure its alleged default?

A. So, they are looking for a recovery plan to start and

finish dates for the items listed.

Q. Yes. Right here in 1 and 2 they specified what Oelrich

needed to do to cure what they felt was a default, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, did you ever send this SAW cure notice to PRC?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Are you aware of anyone from Oelrich having sent this SAW

cure notice to PRC?

A. No.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 131 of 218
 132

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. Can I ask, why didn't you send this to PRC?

A. At the time I didn't think that PRC, you know, would need

it.

Q. Why is that?

A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure why they would.

Q. Well, I mean, one need would be to let PRC know that you

guys were being threatened by the general contractor with

termination and their scope of work is included as -- PRC's

scope of work is included as part of the reason that the general

contractor SAW thought that you guys were in breach of contract,

that's right, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. So, given that you're trying, through all of these emails

you guys were just talking about, to get PRC to timely deliver

their product and install it at the project, don't you think

that's the sort of thing PRC should have known about that may

have gotten their attention to know things are very serious?

A. That's one point. I mean, these are things that I talked

to Forde about on the phone when I could get him on the phone.

But, no, I don't think I sent him the letter.

Q. If you could pull up Defense 137, please?

This is the termination notice that you issued PRC on

March 17, 2020; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, through this email, and feel free to read it again if

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 132 of 218
 133

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

you need to, Oelrich terminated PRC's contract as of the date of

this email March 17, 2020, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that same email, Oelrich had declared the contract

to have been breached by PRC, that's right, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I think I heard you testify earlier that you had had,

I believe, it was a phone call with Mr. Forde Davis in March of

2020 prior to sending this email regarding termination?

A. Yes.

Q. But, you don't remember whether or not during that phone

call you gave PRC a chance to cure any perceived breach of the

contract; is that right?

A. I believe I did.

Q. And, how did you do that?

A. After we had talked about it and I said, Forde, I'm

terminating your contract, can you tell me when you will be

making panels. And he said, no. Did I use the term notice to

cure? No.

Q. And, do you know the date when you made this phone call to

Forde Davis?

A. I believe it was that day.

Q. March 17, 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. But, you're not sure?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 133 of 218
 134

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. It was, it was the 17th.

Q. And, how do you know that?

A. Because I had the conversation with Forde and then went in

and sent the email.

Q. Other than that conversation on March 17, 2020, that you

have testified you had with Forde, did you ever mention

termination to PRC?

A. Yes.

Q. And, when was that?

A. It was during my conversation with Forde during the site

visit at the end of January. And, also in one of the emails

that I believe that we looked at.

Q. And, okay. So I just want to make sure we are all clear

here. You told him -- you mentioned termination on March 17,

2020 during a phone call to Mr. Davis, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, your testimony is that you mentioned termination

during your site visit in January 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. And those are only two times? 

A. I believe there was another email.

Q. There was an email where you had mentioned you may be

terminated?

A. Yes.

Q. If we could please see Defendant Exhibit 21, please?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 134 of 218
 135

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

If you could scroll down just a little bit, please. That's

good.

Do you see this email right here dated February 22, 2019,

Mr. Crehore?

A. I do.

Q. And, you said, Forde, I just left you a message. Please

give me a call so we can talk about that. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we take a look at Defendant Exhibit 108, please? 

This is another email of the many we've been looking at

between yourself and Mr. Davis. December 18, 2019, similar

situation. Forde, I just left you a voice mail. Do you see

that?

A. I do.

Q. Can you take a look at Defendant Exhibit 115, please?

This is an email dated December 23, 2019. And, this is

another one. Actually, if we could scroll down a little bit.

That's not the correct one. There we go. December 23, 2019.

This one is from you, Mr. Crehore, to Forde Davis. Similar

language, again. I just tried to call you again. Do you see

that language?

A. Yes.

Q. And, let's take a look at one more. Defendant Exhibit 121,

please?

Another email from yourself, Mr. Crehore, to, this time,

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 135 of 218
 136

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

Randall Davis, Forde Davis, Ivan Oelrich, and Dana Noyes dated

January 7, 2020. Do you see that?

A. The one at --

Q. It's the very top one there.

A. Yes.

Q. You said, Forde, Randall, I just called and texted both of

you. Do you see that language?

A. I do.

Q. Well, I don't want to annoy the Court, but is it fair to

say that generally would you be of the opinion that you did a

pretty good job of documenting when you called or texted

Mr. Davis, Randall or Forde?

A. I don't think it was every time that I tried.

Q. But, it's fair to say you did a pretty good job of

documenting when you called them, right?

A. I tried.

Q. But, when it comes to documenting calls about potentially

terminating their contract, would you be surprised if we didn't

see any emails that documented a call in that regard?

A. I think there was the one email.

Q. Which should have been produced in this case if it exists,

you would think, right?

A. I thought that we had looked at it. Maybe we hadn't.

Q. And, if that email exists where you had mentioned

termination to PRC, do you have any idea what the date of that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 136 of 218
 137

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

email would be?

A. I do not.

Q. So, your testimony is that you did discuss termination with

Forde Davis at least twice, once during your site visit in

January 2020 and once in the termination notice of March 17,

2020. And I understand that you believe you discussed

termination generally with him. But, did you ever inform anyone

with PRC that if they did not start to install their product at

the job site by a specific date their contract may be

terminated?

A. Only in the conversation on the 17th with Forde when he

said he wasn't going to make the next date.

Q. And, what specifically did you tell him regarding his

failure to meet a specific date would result in termination?

A. I asked Forde if he was making panels. And he said, no.

And I asked him if he could tell me when he was going to be

making panels. And he said, no; I told you, I'm terminating

your contract.

Q. Are you aware of anyone else from Oelrich Construction

telling anyone at PRC that if they failed to deliver and install

their precast materials by a specific date their contract may be

terminated?

A. No.

Q. And, we discussed this at your deposition, but how many

years in the construction industry have you been working in this

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 137 of 218
 138

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

industry?

A. Commercial construction since '02.

Q. So we're looking at about 20 years of commercial

construction experience?

A. Yes.

Q. And, how many jobs have you managed as a project manager

during that time, approximately?

A. A lot.

Q. Over a hundred?

A. Maybe 40 to 50.

Q. And, I asked you this question during your deposition. I

just want to make sure we're still on the same page. Would you

agree that as a general principle, if a construction contractor

is terminated from the project the terminated contractor should

be notified that it's being terminated?

A. I think I did that in the email and the phone call.

Q. But, would you agree, that as a general principle, they

should be notified they are actually being terminated, correct?

A. They should be notified, yes.

Q. And, other than this termination notice that we have in

writing dated March 17, 2020, the only other attempt that you

made to inform PRC that they were terminated were through the

phone call you're talking about on March 17, 2020, with Forde

Davis; is that right?

A. And face-to-face conversation we had at his office and the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 138 of 218
 139

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

email that we talked about.

Q. And, I asked you this during your deposition as well. And,

I just want to make sure we are still on the same page. Do you

agree that termination is a significant deal in the construction

industry?

A. I do.

Q. And, with regard to the email and the form of the

termination notice, did you ever consider sending a formal

letter on Oelrich letterhead to PRC notifying them that they had

been terminated?

A. At the time I was using the email string to tie it back to

dates that didn't happen.

Q. But, did you ever consider sending a formal letter on

letterhead to PRC?

A. I don't think I sent them a letter, no.

Q. Can you pull up Defendant Exhibit 285, please? 

Mr. Crehore, if you could take a look at this exhibit?

Could you please tell me what you're looking at?

A. Looks like a letter on OCI letterhead directed to PRC.

Q. And, if you could scroll down just a little bit? 

If you read through the contents of that letter is it

identical or close to it, to the termination notice that you

emailed on March 17, 2020?

A. Yes, it appears to be.

Q. And, if you could scroll down just a little bit more? 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 139 of 218
 140

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

And, it's signed -- the signature block at least is set up

for you to sign; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So it appears that you did consider sending a formal letter

to PRC regarding termination, but you didn't, right?

A. At least I didn't sign the letter, no.

Q. And, did you consider not only sending this formal letter

to PRC, but also sending it through some means by which you

could confirm that PRC actually got it?

A. I don't think I ever sent them a letter, so, no.

Q. Well now, I'm saying did you consider sending this

termination notice via a means by which you could determine they

actually got the notice? For example, FedEx?

A. I don't, I don't remember sending it to them, so, no.

Q. Did you write the contents of this letter?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Who else would have done it?

A. That's a good question. I think if I had written it I

would have sent it.

Q. But you are not sure who drafted it?

A. I am not.

Q. I would like to change gears just a little bit into the

typical process for how you figure out how to subcontract work

out to individuals under you to complete a project, generally.

Typically, in your experience, 20 years doing commercial

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 140 of 218
 141

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

construction, how do you go about finding subcontractors to

perform your scope of work when you are the PM for the sub above

them or the general contractor?

A. We would send out a request for bids.

Q. And how do subcontractors or -- strike that.

What documents do you usually get from subcontractors to

show they are responding to your request for bids?

A. We get a bid proposal.

Q. And, do you ever get quotes from subcontractors for the

work that they are going to do for you?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you please pull up Defendant Exhibit 274? If you

could do me a favor, Mr. Crehore, and take a look at this

document. And could you describe to me what this document

appears to be?

A. It looks like a quote or a bid from PRC.

Q. And, if you want to take a look at it a little closer.

Best you can tell this is for the project that's at issue in

this lawsuit today?

A. That's the project name, yes.

Q. And this is dated 10/31/18; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you ever see this document before today?

A. I don't know.

Q. Could you scroll down a little bit, please?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 141 of 218
 142

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

And, you've got two sections here we're looking at on this

PRC quote. You got inclusions and exclusions. Do you see that,

Mr. Crehore? 

A. I do.

Q. And, generally, when subcontractors give quotes like this

on a commercial project or a government project, what do

inclusions and exclusions typically mean?

A. Inclusions are what they have included in their number and

exclusions are not.

Q. Makes sense. And, if you look at the exclusions section,

in particular, this quote from PRC mentions there on number 8,

if you can see it. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And, what does number 8 say?

A. It says they have excluded acid edged finish.

Q. If you could scroll down a little bit more, please?

Do you see -- what is this logo up here in the upper

right-hand corner of PRC's quote for its work on this project?

A. APA certified.

Q. And, what did, if you recall, what did the specifications

between the VA and SAW require for certification for the precast

contractor on this project?

A. I remember that they called for a certification, but I do

not remember which one.

Q. Is it fair to say that if you had seen this document you

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 142 of 218
 143

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

would have realized that PRC is an APA certified plant as

opposed to some other certified plant?

A. Again, I'm not, I don't remember what certification was

called for on the job. So I don't know if it would have jumped

out at me or it would have registered.

Q. And, do you have any reason to doubt that Oelrich got a

copy of this quote before it signed its subcontract with PRC?

A. I don't. No, I'm sure they got a quote at some point.

Q. Did there, just try to get your view on this, is there any

reason that you have to doubt that this document was received by

Oelrich?

A. No. The things that I remember negotiating with Forde were

incorporated into our contract scope. Those are the things that

he and I talked about.

Q. And, before you would have entered into a contract with PRC

you would have gotten some sort of quote from them prior to

signing the contract, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, if you could please pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 2?

And then page 5 please, Caitlin.

And, I think Mr. Butts mentioned this briefly with you, but

I just want to make sure I'm on the same page. This section

right here regarding subcontractor delay, this sentence in

particular, if in the opinion of the contractor the

subcontractor falls behind in the progress of the work to be

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 143 of 218
 144

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

performed, that language was modified through an amendment; is

that right?

A. I believe so, yes. I'd have to look at the contract.

Q. If you could go to page 16, please, Caitlin? Scroll down

to the bottom.

Then, maybe this will help you answer the question, but

this was the modification that was made to that last provision

that we looked at; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So now, instead of it being if in the opinion of Oelrich

PRC was behind and delaying the project it now says if they are

behind according to the agreed upon schedule then that's when

you guys could exercise those rights. My question is, what was

the agreed upon schedule that PRC had with Oelrich?

A. It would have been the original schedule as amended.

Q. And, was PRC -- strike that.

So, the person who was responsible at Oelrich for keeping

the internal schedule that Oelrich maintained for the project

updated was Jordan Robinson, the superintendent for the project;

is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had no responsibility for updating that schedule,

correct?

A. No. It would have been Jordan that updated the schedule.

Q. Is there anybody else at Oelrich that would have been

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 144 of 218
 145

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

responsible for ensuring the schedule that Oelrich maintained

for the project was accurate?

A. Before Jordan it would have been Miguel who was the project

super.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether Miguel is still employed by Oelrich?

A. He is not.

Q. Was Miguel terminated?

A. No.

Q. And, I believe you testified about this when Mr. Butts was

asking you some questions. But, generally, did Mr. Robinson

email out those schedules that he kept for the project to all

the subcontractors?

A. Yes.

Q. And, roughly, how often did he do that?

A. Probably once a month. But, he would have sent out

supplementals in the between in the form of the bar chart the

look ahead that he kept.

Q. And, how do you know whether or not the dates that

Mr. Robinson listed on the schedules he maintained were

accurate?

A. Because he would have updated them per what happened in the

field.

Q. And, were you reviewing those schedules on a monthly basis

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 145 of 218
 146

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

to ensure that the schedules he maintained actually reflected

what was being built at the job site?

A. Yes. I would go over the schedule.

Q. How would you know one way or the other whether it was

accurate?

A. By what happened in the field. By the work that was in

progress.

Q. And, in your experience, 20 years experience as a

commercial construction guy, is it fair to say that sometimes

contractors don't maintain schedules that actually reflect

what's going on at the job?

A. I'm sure it happens. I would like to think Jordan was a

little better than that.

Q. Could you go to page 4, please, of this exhibit?

If you could do me a favor Mr. Crehore and turn your

attention to paragraph 5 there? 

And, what is paragraph 5 labeled as in bold there?

A. Payment.

Q. So, is it fair to say this is a payment term section of the

contract?

A. Yes.

Q. And, if you take a look at 5B there, what is that

sub-paragraph entitled?

A. Progress payments.

Q. And, this is the part of the contract that potentially

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 146 of 218
 147

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

could have governed what PRC had to do to obtain progress

payments while it was building the materials for Oelrich; is

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, one of the things that PRC had to submit under this

clause was a schedule of values; is that right? I'll help you

out here a little bit. I think it's in that bold area.

A. Yes. With a schedule of values.

Q. Is that what you're looking at right there, where it says

schedule of values?

A. Yes.

Q. Another thing they had to submit, lien waivers, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then other than those two items, can you tell me where

in here that updated certificates of insurance were required?

A. I'm not sure if it does. I think an updated COI is a

standard thing to be submitted with a pay application, but I'd

have to read it.

Q. Sure. And, if you want, feel free to read this progress

payment section I'm talking to you about, 5B. But, based on

your review of it as you sit here today, do you see anywhere in

there where updated certificates of insurance were required to

obtain a progress payment?

A. No.

Q. Likewise, do you see anywhere in the section 5B of the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 147 of 218
 148

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

subcontract, a requirement that PRC submit pictures of the

product that they were making for Oelrich?

A. No. I think submitting pictures would be standard with

billing for stored materials. But, no, I don't see it listed.

Q. And, we were talking about these safety documents a lot.

And, when I refer to safety documents, in particular I'm talking

about the infamous OSHA 10 and OSHA 30 documents. Do you

understand that?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think I heard you testify earlier that you said you

had no trouble getting those documents from the other

subcontractors on this job?

A. No.

Q. And, can you tell me, who are the other subcontractors that

submitted those documents to you?

A. That would have been all the other trades on the project

starting off with site work, landscaping, concrete, metals,

moving into finishes, paint, millwork. That type of thing.

Q. And, in terms of all of the subcontractors that you

received these safety documents from, were they already on the

project site?

A. No, they had to turn the paperwork in prior to being

on-site.

Q. But, of the ones that turned in the safety paperwork, those

that had submitted them were already on the site or had been on

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 148 of 218
 149

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

the site after they submitted the safety documents, right?

A. I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it that the --

Q. Let me try to make it clear. That's fair.

Were there any subcontractors that submitted these safety

documents to you that were not on the project site as of

January 2020?

A. As if they would do the work prior to turning the paperwork

in?

Q. Well, I guess, let's back up a step.

You can't go on the job site to do your scope until you

submit these safety documents, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So did anybody, any of the subcontractors to Oelrich submit

the safety documents that were not yet needed to be on the job

site as of January 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. And, what subcontractors were those?

A. I don't remember. But, we would typically, as soon as we

get you signed up and on board, they get your paperwork in, you

know, let's go ahead and get it approved and get it behind us.

But, no, I don't remember a specific one.

Q. And, it was your testimony earlier that PRC never made it

to the job site; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Let me ask you this, did PRC need to have those safety

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 149 of 218
 150

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

documents submitted in order to start manufacturing the

materials?

A. No.

Q. And those OSHA 10 and OSHA 30 safety documents, those would

have come from the erector that would have actually put up the

precast panels at the project, right?

A. Should have come from anybody that was going to be on the

job, the erector and/or PRC if they were going to have anybody

there.

Q. Is it fair to say that as of the spring of 2020 it was

pretty difficult to find an erector to put up those panels?

A. That's what Forde had said. That's when we went out and

found one for them.

Q. Earlier, when Mr. Butts was asking you questions, he asked

you about, I believe, it was payment application 10. And I

believe that was one that was submitted towards the end of 2019.

And, you had testified that PRC in that pay app had billed for

one hundred percent of the precast materials; is that correct?

A. I think it is that they had billed for a hundred percent

through the end of the year.

Q. And, did anyone from PRC ever tell you that they had

completed one hundred percent of the precast materials?

A. On the pay application, yes.

Q. But other than the payment application, no one from PRC

ever told you that they had completed one hundred percent of the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 150 of 218
 151

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

precast materials?

A. Just in the pay application.

Q. Did anyone from PRC ever explain to you why they had put

the one hundred percent indication of billed on that pay app 10?

A. No.

Q. And, earlier you testified that at some point you had given

PRC a deadline of January 6, 2020 to begin installing their

materials; is that right?

A. Yes, that was the first date.

Q. But, as far as you can recall there sitting there today,

you don't recall writing to anyone at PRC saying that if they

don't start installation by January 6, 2020 their contract may

be terminated, right?

A. No.

Q. And, I recall you testifying that in January of 2020, you

had done them the favor of going to find PRC an erector to put

up their materials; is that correct?

A. Yes. We found them an erector when Forde said that theirs

couldn't make the date.

Q. And, who was that erector? What was the name of the

company?

A. I do not remember.

Q. Do you remember how you got their information?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you obtain that information?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 151 of 218
 152

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

A. I believe that they had -- they had done some erection for

somebody that we work with. And we were able to, we were able

to contact them and get the information, the contact information

for the erector.

Q. And, if you had provided that contact information to PRC we

would see that in an email, correct?

A. I guess. If I had sent it to them, yes.

Q. And then, during your testimony, Mr. Butts was asking you

questions about shipping the panels to the project and options

for storing them somewhere in or around Gainesville, Florida.

Do you recall that, Mr. Crehore?

A. Yes.

Q. And, let me ask you this, did you ever ask anyone at PRC to

ship the panels that were already made?

A. I don't remember. I don't think having some of them and

not all of them would have helped.

Q. Well, earlier you testified that they could have started

installation of the product some time in January of 2020 even

though you guys weren't done with all of the predecessor work

completely; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So, if they had to deliver them on an interim basis in

January 2020, which is roughly the date you said the project was

ready for precast, couldn't you have started to take what was

already there and install the project according to the date that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 152 of 218
 153

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

you say the project was ready for the product?

A. We could have started, yes.

Q. Now, you testified that PRC's delay on the project pushed

out the end date of the job. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me ask you, how do you know that?

A. By tracing the path of the critical path work.

Q. But you were terminated on April 15, 2020, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the job finished after that date, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know what date the job, the project actually was

finished?

A. I know when it was scheduled to be finished.

Q. But, since you weren't there when the work was done you

don't know what date it actually finished, right?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you know when Spring Precast completed its work as the

follow on contractor?

A. I do not.

Q. And I recall you testifying that you had performed a

calculation saying that March 10th, 2020 was the last day that

PRC could start installing the panels without delaying the job;

is that right?

A. Yes, it was around there.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 153 of 218
 154

Cross-Examination - Christopher Crehore

Q. And, was this calculation in writing?

A. No, I think we would have taken the duration of the precast

direction and added it to the duration of the subsequent

activities, being the metal panels and the brick work. And then

taken that total duration and subtracted it from the end of the

job to know when we needed to start to finish on time.

Q. And, did you ever provide your calculation to PRC?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you recall whether you ever told PRC in writing that,

hey, if you don't deliver and install your precast materials by

March 10, 2020 you're going to delay the job?

A. No, I don't recall if I put that in writing.

Q. And, did you ever tell anyone at PRC that if they don't

start installing their materials by March 10, 2020 they are

going to delay the job?

A. Yes.

Q. And, who did you tell that to?

A. Forde.

Q. What date was that?

A. I'm not sure. It would have been one of the conversations

I had with him when the date continued to slip.

Q. But you're not sure which conversation that was, right?

A. No, I'm not.

MR. DARR: Thanks for your time, Mr. Crehore.

THE COURT: Redirect?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 154 of 218
 155

Redirect Examination - Christopher Crehore

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Mr. Crehore, the metal contractor on the job, did they come

after the precast was to be installed?

A. These were for the exterior metal panels?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, they would have been after.

Q. And, was the brick on the job performed by -- or performed

subsequent to installation of the metal panels?

A. Yes, they would have been installed after.

Q. And, did the mason and the metal subcontractor cooperate by

turning in their OSHA certificates and the activity hazard

analysis timely?

A. Yes.

Q. And, did they turn them in when they were requested by

Jordan Robinson back in September of 2019, at or about that

time, if you recall?

A. Yes.

MR. BUTTS: I don't have any other questions. 

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Crehore, you may step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Please call your next witness.

MR. BUTTS: Your Honor, the next witness is 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 155 of 218
 156

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Dana Noyes.

DANA NOYES, PLAINTIFF WITNESS, DULY SWORN

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: For the record, state your full

name and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: Dana Arthur Noyes. N-O-Y-E-S.

THE COURT: Mr. Noyes, you may be seated. While you

are testifying there if you're comfortable you may remove your

mask.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Noyes.

Are you familiar with a project to build a building and

replace the boilers at the Malcolm Randall Veterans Affairs

Medical Building?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Are you, were you in the employ of Oelrich Construction

during the time that this building was being built?

A. For part of it. Yes, sir.

Q. And, when was your last day with Oelrich Construction?

A. I don't remember the exact date. It was early November of

2019.

Q. And, what was your role with Oelrich Construction during

the time that you were employed there while the building was

being built?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 156 of 218
 157

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

A. I was hired to be the director of operations.

Q. And, as the director of operations what was your -- what

did you do?

A. I supervised all the staff. I reported directly to 

Mr. Oelrich, the owner. I was out in the field on pretty much a

daily basis to try to get around to review all the projects. I

was there to run interference. I was there to be, in so many

words, the bad guy if I needed to be so everybody else could

maintain good rapport, provide the best customer service

possible, which was also my intent.

Q. Did you find yourself in that role on the VA project?

A. Yes, sir. I was there pretty much on a daily basis. I

didn't stay all day. I mean, in and out. But we had 20 some

odd projects going at a time. Can't be in one place too long.

Q. After your employment was or during the time that you were

there, did you have any dealings that pertained to, excuse me,

during the time that you were working there, up until the early

part of November, did you have dealings or any familiarity with

PRC Precast for that particular project?

A. No, sir.

Q. After you were there, did you have an occasion to --

A. May I correct, may I correct myself?

I don't remember having any dealings with PRC while I was

there.

It seemed like to me Mr. Crehore would have discussed

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 157 of 218
 158

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

things with me somewhere along the line of things that we're

waiting on, inventory that hadn't arrived. The project itself

was, had a number of delays due to information that wasn't

always timely. But, I honestly do not remember having any

dealings with PRC while I was employed at, directly with

Oelrich.

Q. Did you ever have any dealings with PRC after you were

employed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When, give me, describe the nature of that involvement?

A. Well, the entire time I was director was always my mantra

to make sure that everybody understood you could call me at a

moments notice and I was going to be wherever you needed me to

help. Well, now I'm no longer at Oelrich, but Mr. Crehore

called me and said, Dana, I'm at my wits end. I'm trying to get

information. We're missing the panels. And he gave me a brief

discussion. And it -- I don't know which one of us suggested

that I might take a road trip up to PRC and verify that the

panels that were being requested to be paid for, the work was

there, ready to go. Was it a transportation problem, what was

the difficulty not being able to get the panels to the site.

And, Chris told me go, keep your receipts, we'll pay you when

you get back and give us a report.

Q. And, did you go?

A. I did.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 158 of 218
 159

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Q. And, was it -- do you recall the date that you went?

A. It was in December. I don't remember the exact date.

Maybe you could refresh me.

Q. If it were -- would you have any reason to believe that it

was not December the 30th?

A. No.

MR. DARR: Your Honor, I know it's a bench trial.

We'll let things slide a little bit here and there primarily

because I know you're going to be able to rely on admissible

evidence. But, I would like to object and say a little less

leading, please.

THE COURT: I got it. Mr. Noyes doesn't know what day

he was there. I assume somebody has got a record and if it

matters somebody will be able to prove the exact date. I have

it, Mr. Noyes doesn't remember. And for what it's worth,

getting a witness to say they have no information inconsistent

with something proves nothing.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. What was the purpose of your visit to PRC?

A. Chris had described difficulty getting finite information

from PRC. And, by that I mean I was unaware that not -- please

understand, I've been gone for probably a month and a half. A

lot happens in construction in a month and a half. I don't know

if there were pictures provided for inventory that was to be

paid for prior to me going. But, my goal was to support 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 159 of 218
 160

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Chris Crehore, take photos of inventory that was to be paid for,

and evaluate its condition and hopefully come back and go, hey,

it's all there and it's ready to go, they're waiting on

transport, they are waiting on you Chris. You know, what's the

status of the project because they are -- I wasn't led to

believe that there was tangible photos, a QC record that says

we've produced these catalog numbers for panels. Typically,

it's, you know, panels are numbered based on shop drawings. And

with this pay app you've produced X number of panels based on

the numbers and nobody's going to question it. But I hadn't

seen any of that.

Q. What did you do when you first got to Greenville, South

Carolina?

A. I actually arrived the evening before so that I could get a

decent night's rest. It was a, you know, a hike up there. And,

so I got myself a hotel room and I spent the night. I got up in

the morning. I fed myself and I went to PRC.

Q. And when you arrived at PRC, what did you do?

A. Parked my truck. And, proceeded to find the customer

entrance. I identified who I was and that I would like to talk

to someone there about the status of the Oelrich project.

Q. And, the person who you spoke with, what did they do to

enable that? 

A. I hope I've got this right. I'm not trying to

misrepresent. It seemed like to me there was somebody out

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 160 of 218
 161

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

front. And then they said they were going to get a member of

management to come and see me, just stand by. A member

representing themselves as management, I can't remember if it

was an older man or younger man. But, at any rate, a gentleman

came out very polite, took me to the conference room and asked

me to have a seat, that someone else would come and be with me.

And so, I sat in the conference room for 10, 15 minutes.

And, I didn't find that extraordinary because I was there

unannounced. I just drove up. And, based on Chris' information

to me that communication had been good at times and then poor of

late, and that's why I took the road trip. But, so I sat and

waited.

Q. And, did someone else come and join you?

A. Yes. A representative from PRC came. And I explained who

I was, that I was from Oelrich. And he explained to me rather

colorfully that he didn't appreciate the fact that I was there

unannounced. And I sat there as a professional and listened.

We would get people unannounced at Oelrich. I was expected to

take them to the conference room and sit down and listen.

Didn't always fit the schedule, but that's customer service,

that's what you do.

Q. What did you say -- what did you say to the representative

from PRC?

A. Explained that I was there because there didn't seem to be

the level of communication back to Mr. Crehore, the project

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 161 of 218
 162

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

manager. I was told that there was multiple communications with

Oelrich Construction with multiple people. And they didn't

really understand why I felt the need to drive up and see them.

Q. Aside from the colorful language, was the person otherwise

polite?

A. Yeah, we had -- that color didn't last long. It was like,

it was a venting. It was, let me -- he let me know he wasn't

pleased that I was there without an appointment. And I

understood that. And, then after that it was a reasonable

dialogue. Yes, sir.

Q. And then what happened next?

A. I think at some point I offered to call back down to say,

somebody here isn't telling me what I am wanting to hear. And I

offered to call and get Chris on the phone because PRC was

saying we've done everything correctly and Mr. Crehore had

explained to me that -- he didn't reach out to me because

everything was going well, somebody who no longer was employed

there. But he knew I would help him out.

And so, I offered to call down and I was told, no, you

don't need to do that. And I said, okay, that's fine. I'm

trying to get to the bottom. And then it was agreed that we

would go out and actually look at the product that was made for

Oelrich for the VA project.

Q. And did you do that?

A. We did.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 162 of 218
 163

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Q. And what did you see or what were you shown?

A. When we walked out and I don't, I couldn't draw you a

diagram at the moment, but we left the conference area and we

went out into what I would call the covered warehouse area.

This was an area where there was a lot of material in an area

that was, if I had to guess probably, I don't know, 150, 200

feet deep, 300 feet wide. And there were panels in there. And

I don't know whether I asked first or whether the PRC

representative offered first, but I was shown panels in front of

me and said these are your panels.

And so, I got my iPhone out, that was a camera that I had,

and I took pictures of what was pointed to in front of us. And

he said, these are your panels. So I took pictures.

Q. Can we look at Exhibit Number 10, please? Exhibit Number

10 has 5 photographs attached to it at the end. I'm going to

ask you to look through, scroll through the 5 photographs and

ask if you, if they look like any of the photographs or look

like the photographs that you took when you went to PRC.

A. Photo 1 is mine. Photo 2 is a mine outside.

Photo 3 is mine. Yep, 4 is mine. Yep, 5 is mine.

There is red writing on these. I don't, I wouldn't, I

didn't do that. I would have to have somebody insert that kind

of stuff. I'm not super tech-savvy.

Q. Did you say you did not do that red writing?

A. I did. There is a red X back a few photos. I didn't put

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 163 of 218
 164

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

the red X in there. Anything that's red on those are an add to

the photo that's not me.

Q. Do these represent all of the photos that you took at the

PRC site that day?

A. Yes, sir. Yeah, that's it.

Q. And, we're on number 5. Is that one of the photos that was

taken inside the covered area?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I think there's, I think there's only

2 of the 5 are outside. I think the others are inside.

Q. I see.

A. This one definitely, yes, sir.

Q. And, if we can just scroll back through the photographs and

if you can identify the ones that were taken inside the covered

area, please?

A. So, 1, 5 and 3 I can be pretty solid that they are inside.

2 and 4 are obviously outside. The lighting is obviously

different. There are trees.

Q. And, when you were with the representative from PRC, and

the representative pointed out the panels that were inside as

belonging to Oelrich Construction, do the 3 photographs that

you've referenced take in all of the panels that PRC represented

to you under the cover belonged to Oelrich Construction?

A. That's what I understood. Yeah. I specifically asked

where the Oelrich material was. And I was shown the area. Now,

as I don't -- at the time I did not know, nor did I really want

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 164 of 218
 165

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

to know, how many panels I was looking for. I went to see -- I

went to have PRC be proud to show me here is everything racked

and stacked, here is everything cataloged, we don't know what

your problem is. That would have made me very happy. So I took

photos where I was directed to take photos as these are your

panels.

Q. Did you find the panels racked and stacked, as you

mentioned?

A. You can look at the photos and say, they are, they are

stored with spacers. They are stored so they can be picked up

and moved. Again, I had, I had an idea in my head having looked

at the drawings a number of times from the beginning of the

project as to where we were headed, that there was probably

somewhere in the neighborhood, now granted, I hadn't seen the

drawings in a number of months, that there were somewhere

between a hundred and 150 panels. And that's what I came to

see. And my pictures -- I didn't see a hundred to a 150 panels.

But, nor did I note that I -- I didn't see catalog stamping on

the end or on the back or spray paint, you know, 1 of a 150, 2

of a 150, 3 of a 150. So, I took pictures where I was directed

this is your product, this is your inventory.

Q. Can we go to photograph 3, please? Is this just another

photograph of panels that were under the cover?

A. Yes, sir. I am deducing the fact that there is a cardboard

box that's been Xed out. It's not weather damaged. I'm

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 165 of 218
 166

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

assuming, yeah, this is inside. I don't have any perspective to

relate it to.

Q. And, if we look at the 5th photograph.

A. Inside.

Q. And I know I've asked this question in a different way, but

I just want to make sure. The 3 photographs you took represent

all of the panels that were made for Oelrich Construction that

were inside the building, right?

A. 3 of the 5 are inside and represented to be the panels for

Oelrich.

Q. Were there any panels that were represented to be Oelrich's

panels inside the building that you did not have an opportunity

to photograph?

A. Sir, I wouldn't have known. I couldn't have known that.

Q. Did you photograph all of those panels that you were told

were Oelrich's?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Can we look at number 2, please? After you photographed

the panels that were inside the building, was the PRC

representative still with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what happened next?

A. I may have asked -- I think I asked is this it. And he

said, no we have some out in the yard.

Q. And then how did you know which panels in the yard were

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 166 of 218
 167

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Oelrich's panels?

A. Because he pointed in the direction. And, I took the photo

in the -- I took the photo in the direction that they pointed.

And, the, I would have assumed from the photo, and you can see

my shadow there holding the camera up to photo, that I wasn't

that far away from them. But there was no red X out in the

field. All right.

So my assumption was the flat panel laying on the ground

and the panels behind were Oelrich panels. There was no

indicator. There was no more indication out there that they

were Oelrich's panels than were inside. So, when the gentleman

was kind enough to point out those are your panels over there,

and an S, it was plural, I took a photo. You can clearly see my

shadow taking the photo.

Q. Did the gentleman stay with you when you were taking this

photo?

A. He was there for -- he was there, but then he said, well,

I've got to go. You can -- I believe he gave me permission to

walk around. But I was left with the impression that we had

seen our photos. So after that I mean, I don't have an escort,

I don't really want to be on his property and fall. And I

don't, he doesn't need me out there as a liability. And I left.

I made 5 photos.

Q. If we can look at number 4, please?

Do you recognize this photograph?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 167 of 218
 168

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

A. It's mine. And it's -- Mr. Butts, it's possible that he

also -- I took that photo. And the only photos that I took were

photos that represented product that they pointed to. So, I

don't want to slight them and say he left me at the previous

photo. He must have shown me these as well. All right. And so

I took pictures. Again, the red X is not mine. I may -- the

reason I took it was to show the panels pointed to and the

panels in the general area. They could have just as easily have

been for Oelrich. I didn't have shop drawings with me to

inspect that closely.

Q. Were you shown any other panels represented to belong to

Oelrich Construction that you did not photograph?

A. No, sir, no.

Q. What did you do after you finished photographing the

panels?

A. I made my way off the property.

Q. What did you do with the photographs?

A. I would like to say that before I got out of the immediate

area that I had transmitted them to Mr. Crehore. It could have

been that evening. You would have to look at Mr. Crehore's

email record to find out when I actually sent him these. I'm

pretty confident though they were the same day because I wanted

him to see what was going on. At that time I no longer had

access to any Oelrich email.

Q. Did you discuss a schedule with the gentleman who was

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 168 of 218
 169

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

escorting you?

A. Yes. Chris had asked me to try to verify when the panels

might be delivered. And I believe that was the request was when

can the work be on the job site because we were already -- they

were already needing it. They were ready to accept it. They

were working on cranes and folks to hang it down there. I

believe that PRC was only going to be responsible for getting

the panels from their facility to the job site.

 And, the gentleman was very polite. And I wasn't

expecting a schedule before I left. I was like, you know, let's

all be courteous. You didn't know I was coming. And he said,

I'll get it to you tomorrow. Even if he had gotten it within a

week we were -- that was fine. Just let's get Chris a schedule

so he has something to count on. And he, he agreed to do that.

Q. Did the gentleman who was with you ever mention to you that

PRC had billed Oelrich Construction for all of the panels that

they were to produce but that Oelrich Construction was not

expected or required to pay for them at that time?

A. I don't remember any conversation like that. Am I allowed

to -- never mind. I'll just --

Q. You should say whatever --

A. Any time we received a request for payment, I would have

found it quite rare to have someone say, we're billing you a

hundred percent but you don't have to pay us. Every pay request

was sent to the VA promptly for payment.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 169 of 218
 170

Direct Examination - Dana Noyes

Q. And, when you left the premises out there in Greenville,

what was your impression as to whether or not you had been shown

all of the panels that PRC had fabricated at that time for

Oelrich Construction?

A. Well, maybe I'm a little naive, Mr. Butts. But if a fellow

professional tells me these are your panels, this is it, and

you're billing for a hundred percent then I've got to take the

man or woman at their word.

Q. So, are you satisfied that you saw all of the panels that

were fabricated at that time at PRC for Oelrich Construction?

A. I saw all the panels that were represented by PRC to be for

Oelrich and I photographed the same.

Q. What was your impression of the quality of the storage and

cataloging and things of nature that you saw?

A. Mr. Butts, I'm not a precast concrete expert by any stretch

of the imagination. I have had wonderful opportunities in my

career to see a number of other large panel operations. My

biggest concern was that the panels would get to Gainesville

intact and we wouldn't have to manufacture any other panels.

I was concerned for their -- we had had enough delays. We

didn't need any fractured panels or -- I don't know that I'm

really an expert in precast concrete. I've seen other

operations. This operation is unique and it's different than

the others I've seen.

Q. Thank you.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 170 of 218
 171

Cross-Examination - Dana Noyes

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Cross examine?

MR. DARR: Just a few questions, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARR: 

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Noyes.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I just have a few questions for you. It sounds like your

involvement with the project was fairly limited. Is that fair

to say?

Let me ask a different question. I'll ask you a specific

question. I apologize. What was your involvement with the

project other than making this site visit to PRC's facilities in

December of 2019?

A. Well, prior to leaving I was there on the first day that

trucks mobilized into the asphalt area that was to have turned

into the image you see on the cover page of the drawing set.

At that time there were concrete parking bumpers, street

lights, and everything else that you can imagine in this area.

So, I was on-site at the time the first shovel went in the

ground.

I was there when we had to have a second ground penetrating

radar study done because the first one was inadequate.

I was there every time we found something else below grade

that impeded the project. I was there when we had to reroute

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 171 of 218
 172

Cross-Examination - Dana Noyes

around live power and live pressure water for storm. I was

there when we had delays due to bats. So, I was there from the

beginning and I was there frequently.

Q. So --

A. I was there at night.

Q. I apologize, go ahead.

A. Go ahead.

Q. So, you were involved or aware of some of the delays to the

project that were occurring from what it sounds like early 2019

through October of 2019. Is that fair to say?

A. It is.

Q. And, in your opinion, were any of those delays attributable

during that time period to PRC?

A. No.

Q. And, when you visited PRC's site up in Greenville, South

Carolina, are you confident that you saw all of PRC's

facilities?

A. I'm sorry, your last name?

Q. Mr. Darr.

A. Darr?

Q. Yes.

A. Mr. Darr, I was not given a, we are proud of our facility,

we are going to take you on a tour first and show you every

square inch of the place and then we're going to show you your

work because it's outside and it's racked and stacked. No. I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 172 of 218
 173

Cross-Examination - Dana Noyes

left the conference, which was comfortable. We walked out into

the covered work or storage space. We walked out of that. If I

remember correctly, towards the left of the building facing it

from the parking lot out front. And I was shown that area. And

I left. So, I did not -- I couldn't tell you if there's an

upstairs. I couldn't tell you anything other than the main

entry, the conference room, the storage area and covered storage

area and then the area that's in the two outside photos I

believe I took.

Q. I believe you testified at the time that you went to PRC's

facilities in December of 2019 you were no longer employed by

Oelrich; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you compensated for your time for going up there to

make the site visit?

A. Mr. Crehore told me to keep my receipts. If you were to

question Mr. Oelrich I was pretty damn independent while I was

there and I didn't bill the company for much of anything. And

so, I chose to enjoy some of the sights up there and made it to

my benefit on the way back. And I didn't feel it was

appropriate. So, no, sir, I did not bill Oelrich Construction.

And Mr. Oelrich would not find that surprising.

Q. So, just so I can make sure I'm clear, you weren't

compensated for your time up there to go make the site

inspection, so to speak?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 173 of 218
 174

Cross-Examination - Dana Noyes

A. No, sir, I was not.

Q. When you visited PRC's facilities in December of 2019, did

you represent to PRC that you were a current Oelrich employee?

A. No. I told them that I was the director of operations,

which is what I had been. And I was there in that capacity. I

didn't make any representation as employed, not employed. I

told them I was there representing Oelrich Construction.

Q. But at that time you weren't really the director of

operations though because -- 

A. No.

Q. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And, beyond the pictures that we just saw that Mr. Butts

ran you through, were there other panels that you saw while you

visited PRC's facility?

A. There was -- I'm sure there were other -- that facility

could not possibly have just had Oelrich panels there. I think

in the periphery of my photos it shows there are other sections.

Clearly, the one photo, is it photo 2, has a big red X on it.

It's an outside photo. Those panels were back there, but

apparently someone determined that they weren't Oelrich panels.

So, yeah, there were other things laying around.

Q. And, I recall you testified that PRC pointed out these

panels and said these are your panels or something to that

effect?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 174 of 218
 175

Cross-Examination - Dana Noyes

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that right?

A. General, yes, sir.

Q. And, I recall you testifying that you thought you asked is

that it; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But, did anybody from PRC say, yes, this is all of

Oelrich's product that we have at our facilities? 

A. Don't think I could say with confidence that the statement

that you worded it was said.

Q. Just to be clear, those red edits we saw, I think you

testified those weren't your edits, you didn't put those on

there?

A. No.

Q. Do you know who did?

A. I do not.

Q. Maybe I zoned out at the beginning of your testimony. We

kept talking about the gentleman that was escorting you. Does

that testimony sound familiar?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that? Do you know who that was?

A. I'm, I'm -- there was represent, and please, it's been

awhile. There was a younger man and an older man. And, I think

the older man -- I wasn't there to worry about, just who. I was

there -- and I didn't sit there taking copious notes. I figured

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 175 of 218
 176

Redirect Examination - Dana Noyes

if I left with photos and my word was going to be good enough

back to Chris. So, I really wasn't too worried, other than the

fact they told me they were management at PRC.

Q. But as you sit there today, you don't remember the names of

those people; is that correct?

A. Randall and Forde Davis, I think their last name is Davis.

Q. Those are the two guys that you spoke with while you made

your visit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, at any point during -- let me back up one step. 

Other than that site visit you made to South Carolina at

PRC's facility, had you ever had any other interactions with

anyone from PRC directly?

A. No, sir.

Q. And, during your visit to their facility, in December of

2019, did you ever say to anyone at PRC, hey, your contract may

be terminated?

A. No, that wasn't my job. I was there to find out what

material was available. No, I wouldn't have been able to make

that call.

MR. DARR: Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

THE COURT: Redirect?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Mr. Noyes, when you went to the facility and you met with

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 176 of 218
 177

Redirect Examination - Dana Noyes

the gentleman who took you outside and showed you the panels,

did you request to see all of the panels for 

Oelrich Construction?

A. Yes, sir. That's why I was there. They wanted to bill for

a hundred percent. I'm there to see a hundred percent panels.

Now, may I say -- may I speak?

Q. Sure. Of course.

A. If they had shown and said, the shop drawings and here's

the catalog, and I'm going to round down for ease of my

discussion, we were contracted to build a hundred panels. We

have 90 of them built and we're billing for a hundred percent,

by the time you pay us, that's a practice that is accepted to

bill ahead because you know that 30, 60, 90 days later, by the

time you get paid, you'll have the panels built. That would

have been fine. So, I was there, I was there in an openminded

capacity. I didn't, I didn't have any hidden agenda. I just

wanted to see the product and be able to tell Chris, you know,

you're okay, it's there and they are ready to ship.

Q. In your career, have you had occasions where products are

fabricated off-site?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the method that is typically used to demonstrate

that product is actually being fabricated when the person

fabricating the product is seeking to be paid?

A. Typically, there's, you have shop drawings. And each item

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 177 of 218
 178

Redirect Examination - Dana Noyes

that has to be, let's take a steel erector, you may have 135

pieces that have to be manufactured and they all come together

to build the product and those are manufactured off-site and

they are hauled in. As they are built, if they say they are

20 percent done, they can typically show you that they have

catalog number 1 through whatever that would make 20 percent and

they provide you with photos and say this is it, and you pay

20 percent.

Q. So, it's reasonable for the contractor to request

photographs of stored materials?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is it also reasonable for the contractor to ask the person

that is storing the materials to make sure that they have

sufficient insurance in case something happens at their facility

that damages the materials?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. That's all in the boilerplate in the contract document.

It's standard procedure.

MR. BUTTS: Thank you. I don't have any other

questions.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. BUTTS: Thank you, Mr. Noyes.

THE COURT: Mr. Noyes?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 178 of 218
 179

Redirect Examination - Dana Noyes

THE COURT: The gentleman over there at that table

sitting farthest away from, with the light blue mask, do you

recognize him? Maybe not with the mask. Take your mask off

momentarily.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. He was there.

THE COURT: He was one of the ones you talked to?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Darr asked you about the delays early in the

project.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The bats, the pipes, the water, the

whatever. And one of the things he asked was, was any of that

attributable to PRC. And you said no. Was any of the delay

attributable to Oelrich?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. We didn't -- I want to be

respectful.

THE COURT: Yeah. I know you didn't put the bats

there. I'm not talking about --

THE WITNESS: The drawings were, so by example,

everything that was underground initially that caused delays,

the Veterans Administration had no idea what was underground.

They said they did, but they didn't. And we kept backing up

more often than not.

THE COURT: I wasn't limiting it just to the things,

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 179 of 218
 180

Redirect Examination - Dana Noyes

the specific things we mentioned, but of anything that caused

delay in the first part of the project, was anything a cause of

delay that was attributable to Oelrich?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. We provide management. We

don't provide labor and services.

THE COURT: Either side have questions just to follow

up on my questions?

MR. BUTTS: No thank you, Your Honor.

MR. DARR: No thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Noyes, you may step down.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Let's take the afternoon break. Let's

take, I've got 3:58. Let's take til 4:10 and we'll start back

up. And you can have your next witness on the stand ready to

go.

MR. BUTTS: How long would you like for us to go

today?

THE COURT: Who is the next witness?

MR. BUTTS: Mr. Oelrich.

THE COURT: Let's at least get him on and off. I

don't know how long you're going to be with Mr. Oelrich. This

is the --

MR. BUTTS: I should -- I'm not sure. Probably an

hour or so. Not as long as Mr. Crehore.

THE COURT: Yeah. Let's see if we can't finish with

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 180 of 218
 181

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Mr. Oelrich and plan to stop at that point. This is the point

in every trial where I tell people, look, I really am paying

attention. So I know Mr. Noyes said about 5 times that he saw

what they told him was his product and he didn't see anything

else. But I got it the first time. So, I didn't need it all of

those times, but I got it. 4:10.

(Recess taken 3:59.)

(Resumed at 4:10.)

THE COURT: Have a seat, please.

MR. DARR: Your Honor, a little bit of an unusual

request, but we are trying to go see if we could get some

bottles of water in here. The marshals told us we would have to

get your approval.

THE COURT: Bottles of water are fine with me.

MR. DARR: Thank you very much.

MR. BUTTS: Good afternoon, Mr. Oelrich.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. We haven't sworn him.

IVAN OELRICH, PLAINTIFF WITNESS, DULY SWORN

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: For the record, state your full

name and spell your last name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Ivan Alexander Oelrich. O-E-L-R-I-C-H.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Oelrich.

Are you also familiar with the project that's the VA that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 181 of 218
 182

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

we've been discussing all day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, what is your role with Oelrich Construction, the

plaintiff in this case?

A. I'm the president of Oelrich Construction. So, my role is

oversight of the company, management of the company, making sure

that we are, you know, in the end giving customer service and

taking care of our clients and making sure we have the resources

in place to do those kinds of things.

Q. Do you, this particular project involved boilers, as I

understand it. What is the relationship as you describe it

between Oelrich Construction and SAW-Greenland, the JV?

A. They were their subcontractor. They were the prime

contractor, we were a sub.

Q. Going beyond that, why did you, why did SAW-Greenland need

you?

A. They needed a local contractor that could use local folks

generally to build the building. They had expertise over the

boilers and the mechanical portions of that. That's some heavy

mechanical type work. Of course, we've built lots of buildings

around this area so it seemed like a good fit as subcontractor

just to build the building. It's a simple building so it's

pretty straight forward.

Q. Describe how the process took place that ultimately led you

to enter into a contract with SAW-Greenland?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 182 of 218
 183

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. So they courted us. They came to town and they were

looking at the project probably 6 months before it actually

became real. We did some budget work with them. You know, met

with them a few times, looked at the job, looked at the site and

just kind of developed a rapport with them. I think that they

may have gotten another quote from a couple other contractors.

I am not positive about that.

Q. So, did you submit a quote?

A. We did.

Q. In the process of submitting the quote, was the number that

you gave them a, what's called a stipulated sum?

A. It was a stipulated sum, but we gave them somewhat of an

open book. We negotiated some of the things, you know, some of

the parts and pieces, I don't really remember what they were,

but I do remember there was some back and forth about getting

the contract right, get the number right. Because they had to

produce a number to the VA that made the project go.

Q. Did they produce -- are the prices that you gave them based

on plans and specifications?

A. Undoubtedly, yes, sir.

Q. Were the specifications those that we discussed earlier

today as being part of the contract between SAW and the VA?

A. Yes, sir. Yeah. They were the project plans and specs

that we all were held to.

Q. And, did you use those specifications in soliciting bids

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 183 of 218
 184

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

from the subcontractors?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Did you use the plans?

A. Yes.

Q. And, did you, were there specifications as part of that SAW

VA contract that applied to all of the various subs that were on

this job?

A. Each and every one, yes, sir.

Q. And, was it important to follow those specifications and

the plans on this job?

A. That's the nature of commercial construction, yes, sir.

It's very, very important.

Q. And, if you did not follow the plans and specifications

what would be the consequence of that?

A. They could, you would have to rip it out. I mean, if you

brought materials that were subpar or whatever and it was

discovered, you know, those things have to come out of the

building and the right thing has to go in.

Q. Other than the initial proposal, bids that you worked on to

be able to come up with the stipulated price, contract, or bid

that you gave to SAW, when did you become more involved in this

project?

A. Gosh, as this precast issue started to come to a head. So

the end of 2019.

Q. Did that come to a head as a result of PRC billing one

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 184 of 218
 185

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

hundred percent for the precast?

A. It was already -- it was at a full roar by then. That was

one of the straws that -- everybody, everybody, I was and our

team was very skeptical of PRC at that point because we had been

through a lot. And then to get a bill like that was not a good

sign.

Q. I want to show you Exhibit Number 12, please. Do you

recognize that?

A. Absolutely, yes, sir.

Q. Can you describe what led to that email that you sent?

A. Well, certainly the lead up to that was the months before

that. We had a lot of issues with the billing and getting

information from PRC. They were always hard to get ahold of.

And then when we did get ahold of them they were tough on our

people. We were having a tough time with that through the, you

know, let's say the third quarter or third and fourth quarter of

2019.

The issues, you know, we were trying to get a date set for

January 6th was our date. That was the first date that they

said they would be out there and we were going to get it done.

And, you know, that came and went.

We still hadn't gotten all of their information like we've

heard the Court talk about it all day today. Couldn't get

information. Just started piling up. We got a hundred percent

billing. Dana's testimony you just heard. He had gone up

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 185 of 218
 186

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

there. They didn't have anything close to a hundred percent.

It was not looking good. We had spent $109,000 with PRC, with

this firm. And, you know, I was starting to worry that we were

going to be left out, hung out to dry after paying them that

money.

And so, I tried to call on several occasions up to that

office. You get the -- they send you through all the different,

press the different extensions. One time I got the sales guy,

he answered the phone. And I told him who I was. And he was

quick to get me off. But I could never get anybody on the

phone.

And so, on January the 9th I wrote an email to the

president Mr. Randall Davis trying to set the tone of, you know,

I don't understand what the issue is, what, you know, it speaks

for itself I think. I wanted to understand what was happening

and what we could do to make it better.

Q. Did you receive a reply to your email?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you receive a telephone call response to your email?

A. No, sir.

Q. If we can look at Exhibit Number 558, please.

I would like you to reference the schedule of values.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. We talked about this this morning with Mr. Crehore. Do you

recognize this document?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 186 of 218
 187

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. I do, yes, sir.

Q. And when you mentioned that PRC had billed one hundred

percent for the panels, what did you mean specifically by that?

A. Line item 4 is production. That is production of the

panels. And in this pay app they've actually billed us a

hundred percent for all of the materials and mockup samples.

Everything that they, you know, as they talked about earlier,

they're a manufacturing type company. And everything that was

in their control they had billed a hundred percent for.

Q. What percent -- and at this point you had paid them how

much money?

A. 109, close to 110, somewhere like that. The exact number

is floating around there somewhere. It's on one of the

exhibits, obviously.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to calculate what percentage of

the total in column C, if you add 2,800, 2,400, or 24,000,

65,160 and 43,437, just those first four numbers?

A. Yeah. That gets you close to 130, 140 grand.

Q. And you had paid them how much at that time?

A. 109, 110.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to calculate what percentage of

that 130 or $40,000 --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- represented by the 109 or 10 that you had paid them?

A. For sure. That's about 80 percent of all of the costs that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 187 of 218
 188

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

they incurred for manufacturing.

Q. I'm going to ask you to take a look at Exhibit 9, please.

And if we can look at the, I'm sorry. I didn't mean -- I

meant Exhibit Number 557, pay app 9.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you recognize this document to be?

A. Pay app number 9 for October of 2019.

Q. Is this the last time that PRC billed for fabricating

products?

A. No, sir. They billed in the previous one we just looked at

in 10 as well.

Q. Is this, is October the last time PRC fabricated products

in 2019?

A. I don't know that I have knowledge of that.

Q. Do you know whether PRC fabricated any products in

November?

A. I'm going to go off my recollection of sitting through the

depositions that they said that they did not.

Q. So, what percentage does, is PRC requesting payment for of

the products of the total of line item 1, 2, 3, and 4 all the

way down through production, what percentage of the production

is being requested here, is being represented as being

completed?

A. So, the only thing they got, we'll go with 37 percent left

to finish on the actual production of the panels. Other than

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 188 of 218
 189

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

that, everything has been billed for.

Q. And at that time, Oelrich Construction had paid

approximately 80 percent of all of the line item 1, 2, 3 and 4?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there any incentive for Oelrich Construction to insist

that PRC install panels on January the 6th if the project was

not ready for the panels to be installed?

A. No, sir. We would not harass a subcontractor to show up on

a job site that wasn't ready. That would not be, maybe harass

wasn't the right word, but --

Q. Was the project ready on January 6th?

A. Absolutely.

Q. What if PRC had delivered the panels in January of 2019 and

you did not have someone to erect them, what would you have

done?

A. Presumed, I mean, erection was in PRC's contract, of

course. But we were looking to help them with that with finding

them an erector but nonetheless, if they had said, hey, the

panels are ready, bring me the panels. I mean, like we talked

about earlier, I own a piece of property right down the road

that we could have put all of those panels on.

Q. Could you have stored them in a way that would keep them

safe?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Could you have stored them as well as they appeared to be

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 189 of 218
 190

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

stored in the photographs that we talked about earlier today?

A. I would like to think we could do better.

Q. Did you have any incentive to help PRC to complete its work

on this project?

A. Absolutely. I had 109 or 110,000 incentives to get them on

board and get them out there to get this thing going because I

have already spent a bunch of money.

Q. Was there anything, according to your knowledge, that

precluded PRC from fabricating the panels regardless of when the

project was ready?

A. Absolutely nothing. They could have met the -- we've

talked about this July date, that was the original date of the

original contract. And they could have made the panels and we

would have paid them for them. And they could have said, hey,

your panels are done per the original schedule and now you got

to take them. And we would have had to figure that out. They

are a manufacturing facility as they have said several times.

And they could have manufactured them and brought them to us.

Q. If you will look at Exhibit Number 4, please?

Do you recognize that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that document?

A. It's our subcontract with Spring Precast.

Q. It appears that there was some negotiations on markups on

the contract?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 190 of 218
 191

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. Yes, sir. As I recall.

Q. Is the date that you signed it, is that the correct date as

to when the contract was entered into?

A. That would be my standard procedure. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall when Spring was able to get started on the

project?

A. It was early September, in my recollection.

Q. And, when did they complete their work?

A. About a month later, month and a half.

Q. Did you have any problems with them?

A. Absolutely none. Well, let me back up for just a second.

We had a problem getting, matching the existing precast. So we

ended up --

Q. How did you address that?

A. Well, they had to go to Georgia and buy some white clay,

rock or whatever it was. Some specialty rock. And, that ended

up costing us another 6,700 bucks. So but, that was not

Spring's, necessarily their problem. It just was an issue we

had. But they did an outstanding job.

Q. Once Spring came on board, what was the -- and once PRC was

no longer part of the team, what was the -- what was your

incentive to get the project done at that point?

A. Well, we were getting, we had gotten to the end of our

float time with PRC. And that happened in March, like Chris was

just talking about.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 191 of 218
 192

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

And it got to the point where we needed to finish the

building, the outside of the building because we, we had to

finish that before the VA finished on the boilers inside.

Because if we had missed that date then they would have been

slamming us with liquidated damages and we would have gotten

eaten up in cost there.

I mean, the other incentive is once we've past that date of

about March 10th, every day that we're out there it costs us a

bunch of money to be out there. So, I'm looking at we need to

beat the VA or, excuse me, SAW. We need to make sure that they

don't finish their boilers and have it all hooked up and ready

to go and we're holding up the job at the end. In the end we

need to get somebody else on board so we can get going and get

ourselves out of here because every day we're on the job past

our scope of work is costing us thousands of dollars.

Q. I just want to look at the Exhibit 3, please. Do you

recognize this document?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, what is it?

A. It appears to be our subcontract agreement with

SAW-Greenland or I guess just SAW there.

Q. And, can you reference paragraph 2.1, please?

Is it your understanding that this paragraph incorporates

the contract with the VA?

A. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 192 of 218
 193

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Q. If you would reference Exhibit 32, please?

Do you recognize this?

A. Not immediately, but --

Q. Can we reference, let's refer to the --

A. Can we go back to, what is it?

Q. You want to go back?

A. Yeah. You asked me if I recognize this document. I'm

drawing a blank I guess. I don't know what that --

MR. DARR: Your Honor, I don't know if you already

ruled on this, but this is the document that we had the hearing

on last week as to whether or not this is authentic. This is

the testimony I think you said they needed to get it in. To the

extent you haven't ruled on it --

THE COURT: Just, let's just see what he says.

MR. DARR: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I mean, this looks like the contract

with the VA and SAW-Greenland.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Can we reference the specifications portion of it that

pertains to precast? Do you see that?

A. I absolutely do.

Q. Do you recognize what that is?

A. Absolutely. That is the specifications for the project.

Q. And, are there similar specifications for all of the

various disciplines that go into this project?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 193 of 218
 194

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. For every trade in the project, yes, sir.

Q. Is this an example of the specifications that you

referenced earlier that are part of the instructions that you

have to use to build this building?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why are these specifications so important to a construction

contract?

A. Because they tell you what the -- the plans tell you where

things go and how they are situated. And the specifications

tell you what they are. If they wanted Pella number 17 series

windows then it would say Pella number 17 series windows. And

that better be what you put in the job.

Q. Let's go to Exhibit 2, please. Do you recognize this

document?

A. I do. It's our subcontract with PRC.

Q. Can we go to Defendant's Exhibit 274, please? 

Do you recognize this document?

A. I do.

Q. What is it?

A. It looks like the original quote that we got from PRC.

Before, when they were --

Q. If we can go back to Exhibit Number 2, please? Let me back

up.

If we can go to the end of it? Are quotes sent to you

typically signed?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 194 of 218
 195

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know why this one is not signed?

A. No, sir.

Q. If we can go back to Exhibit 2, please?

Is that quote incorporated into this contract in any

manner?

A. No, sir. We make a point not to put those quotes in our

contracts because those quotes have or a lot of times don't --

are trying to skirt around the project specifications. And when

we're bidding a job we want to buy the product based on the

plans and specifications specifically.

Q. Can we go to Exhibit 14, please?

Do you recognize this document?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you explain why you sent an email to Chris Crehore on

September the 2nd, including this document?

A. Because it came from Dana. This was the results of Dana's

or this was the -- when Dana went up there they --

Q. If Mr. Davis --

A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, Dana sent it -- Dana must have

sent to me and then I forwarded it to Chris.

Q. Well, it looks to me that it was sent, if I'm reading it

correctly, from --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. It looks like it's sent from Randall Davis. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 195 of 218
 196

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And it was sent to Dana?

A. Correct.

Q. How do you end up with it?

A. Because when Dana had left I had took over his email

account. So emails to Dana came to my account so that I could

monitor anything that came in.

Q. When you, did you have any involvement with selecting

Spring to perform the work that PRC was going to perform on this

job?

A. Besides just monitoring what Matt and Lee were doing to

make sure that we were getting this thing taken care of, no,

sir, I did not, not in that negotiation.

Q. What's Matt's role?

A. Matt is the preconstruction manager.

Q. And Lee?

A. He's the estimator.

Q. And, do you know how many -- do you have knowledge of how

many people they reached out to to try to take care of that?

A. So, when I talked to Matt after, or after our deposition I

was curious about that. And he had mentioned that they had put

it on the building connected, which connects to 20, 30 subs.

And they had gotten so many back. But they ended up with 2 or

3, you know, qualified bids that could do this.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 196 of 218
 197

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Q. Do you know whether they took the lowest or the highest of

that group?

A. It's my understanding from Matt, Matt suggested that we

took the lowest. He had suggested that we had, you know, Spring

at whatever they are 230 and, or 330 and the other one at 360 or

something like that.

Q. After PRC was terminated, how did that impact 

Oelrich Construction in terms of job site supervision?

A. I don't necessarily understand your question. I'm sorry.

Q. Was there an impact to Oelrich Construction in terms of

supervising the project for an extended period of time?

A. Yeah. We needed to get this -- like I was just talking

about, this project -- now we are on the critical, precast is on

the critical path because the critical path is shifting.

Typically, when you build a building, you build the exterior

shell, you get it dried in. And then the critical path will go

to the interior finishes. That's how a typical project goes.

And that's how this one was originally laid out.

But once the, so once the building was dried in we still

didn't have precast, but we had moved on to the inside and

started doing all those inside finishes.

And, while the inside were getting done the outside was not

getting done. And, so the critical path changed from the inside

of the building to, hey, the precast has got to start now so

that we can get the metal guy behind him and the brick guy

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 197 of 218
 198

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

behind him and then we can do all the site, you know, we've got

a lot of site concrete and fencing and what not to do after

that.

Q. Did that have an impact on the sequencing of the job and

your organization?

A. Absolutely.

Q. I would like you to look at Exhibit 6, please. Plaintiff's

Exhibit 6.

MR. DARR: Your Honor, this is one of the objections

that we filed to the pretrial exhibit list for Oelrich. We

objected to the admission of this exhibit primarily for two

reasons. One being that this chart, this table basically has an

analysis of what they believe their delayed damages to be. And,

unfortunately though for them, you need an expert to provide

testimony and analysis as to what the delay damages would have

been. They don't have anyone designated even as a quasi fact

expert witness in this case to testify as to that matter.

And, given that the admissibility of this would depend

on some sort of expert opinion to support it we believe it's

objectionable for that reason under Rule 702. But also an

easier one is under Rule 1006 for summaries. This is

summarizing, in the left-hand column under general conditions,

various costs that Oelrich supposedly incurred as part of their

delayed damages calculation. And, we were never given any of

the backup documentation for those costs. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 198 of 218
 199

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

For example, you've got the project manager there.

And they are trying to charge his salary for this period of time

that they allege that they were delayed and kept on the project

longer due to PRC. But we were given no backup that shows proof

as to what was actually paid to the project manager for the

case.

I asked them during Mr. Oelrich's deposition whether

they had that sort of documentation. And I can run through his

transcript and find where he told me, yes, they do. But we

weren't given any of it.

THE COURT: Well, let me deal with that and then we

can double back to the expert.

It really doesn't matter to me whether you ask 

Mr. Oelrich in his deposition whether that document exists.

What you need to show me is your production request where you

asked for that document. And then if they didn't provide it

I'll exclude it. But, more to the point, if they didn't provide

it, you asked for it, there should have been a motion to compel

and we would have solved the problem.

So, I mean, if you didn't ask for it, why does that

mean I should exclude the evidence?

MR. DARR: Well, I mean, I can -- construction case, I

guarantee my requests for production tried to get all of these

documents. They didn't produce them. Frankly, when I'm trying

to prove a delay of claim in particular I'm going to make sure I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 199 of 218
 200

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

get all the documents produced that I need to rely on to prove

my claim. It's their damages claim. The burden is on them to

prove it. If they decide not to produce those documents why am

I going to, you know, frankly, I don't want to waste my client's

money trying to have a fight over trying to get the documents

that they should have a motivation to produce in the first

place. That explains my rationale, to be blunt.

THE COURT: Well, and I get it. And, if they come in

and Mr. Oelrich says, I paid the superintendent $1,900 a week,

or whatever this says, if he doesn't have backup for that, that

may go to credibility, but why can't he testify to that? I

mean, you know what the people make in your office. I mean, if

you are in a lawsuit and it makes a difference what Ms. Bunch

makes you know the answer to that question and you can testify

to this.

MR. DARR: Well, I guess I can testify to it, but the

summary itself would be inadmissible. That's all I'm talking

about right now.

THE COURT: And, I don't get that either. I do

understand Rule 1006, but if you have a witness who testifies to

a fact, Rule 1006 doesn't have anything to do with it. So if he

comes in and says, this is what we paid, and this is what we

lost, this is the effect of not getting the precast when we were

supposed to, if he knows that, and it's information he can

testify to, then he is not summarizing other stuff. He's just

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 200 of 218
 201

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

testifying. Isn't that right?

MR. DARR: Well, I guess if Your Honor's ruling only

depended on his testimony with regard to their damages then,

yes. But, obviously, this table wouldn't be a basis for

evidence is all we're trying to say, Your Honor. The actual

excel spreadsheet itself. I know it seems like I'm kind of, you

know, making a thin distinction there so to speak, but to me I

wasn't provided any of those records that were underneath all of

this. For all I know those records are inadmissible themselves.

I have no idea. 

I mean, it's got to be based on admissible evidence

too which is another reason that I don't know one way or the

other whether it's based on admissible evidence or really

whether it's even true. I guess that could go to credibility.

And, if he just wants to testify to that, that's fine. But the

table should be a piece of evidence that's admitted. It's one

of the only two objections we made to all of their trial exhibit

list.

THE COURT: I understand the argument, but I only made

a couple of objections, cut me some slack. But I got to deal

with the objections on the merits.

As to expertise, the 702 objection, he's the president

of the company. So, if he wants to testify here is how we do

business, here is what I pay a supervisor, if I have to do this

project 3 weeks late, if I have to keep the supervisor on the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 201 of 218
 202

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

job for 3 extra weeks, it cost me $5,700, it seems to me he can

give that testimony.

MR. DARR: From the cost perspective it seems like you

are probably right. I guess I was more focused on the actual,

any delay analysis that was performed. Typically in delay

claims, at least the ones I've been involved with, you've always

got some sort of expert, at least a quasi one, who can testify

as to what the analysis was that they did to arrive at the

conclusion that, yeah, indeed, we suffered however many weeks of

delay, and it was on the critical path, and let me explain to

you how I got there.

Now, they didn't designate any experts here, quasi or

otherwise. So, I think that's a real issue, Your Honor. And

that's why I'm raising that objection now.

THE COURT: Well, I overrule the objection. If he

gets to something that only an expert could testify to, and he

hasn't made the required expert disclosure, object again and

we'll deal with it. But, if it's just things that the president

of the company can testify to, he can testify to it.

And I understand that often in a case like this you'd

have an expert. There's no limit how much money you can spend

to litigate a case, but you don't have to. And, frankly

sometimes the guy that runs the company is more credible on that

kind of thing than the fellow that you hired who is good at

giving expert testimony. So, when he gets through on direct and

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 202 of 218
 203

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

you get through with cross we'll see what he has proved.

MR. DARR: I was going to say, maybe that's something

I can address on cross. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. BUTTS: 

Q. Mr. Oelrich, do you recognize the document that's Exhibit

6?

A. I do.

Q. The information that's on the left side of the exhibit, can

you explain what the line items are, first of all, going down

under what they call general conditions?

A. Yes, sir. So I guess maybe to better, to back up a little

bit, this document I went, when we had this issue and we had

removed PRC, we were looking to define what, you know, what our

damages were. That was the goal. And so I went and sat with

Mr. Wilson, who is the assistant project manager, and pulled up

a stool to his desk. We took the -- to the left, to get into

your direct question, the left is a very much abbreviated -- we

took the original budget that we did for this job and broke it

down into just the things that we needed to show for our

extended stay on the job.

And so those are the items in column B there that we

thought were affected by us being out there on the project for

an extended duration.

Q. On the first line it says, project manager. Is that 

Mr. Crehore or whoever followed behind him or before him?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 203 of 218
 204

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. Yes, sir. Correct. Yes, sir.

Q. And why is the quantity .5?

A. Because roughly half of his time or half of his time or,

excuse me, approximately half of his time was attributed to that

project.

Q. And, is the unit price his weekly salary?

A. Yes, sir. That's his weekly salary.

Q. And, what constitutes the labor burden?

A. Labor burden is all of the soft costs that go into having

an employee; retirement funds, workers' comp, insurance, FICA,

all of the different things that go into employing someone.

Q. What type of employee benefits does Oelrich Construction

pay?

A. We pay for health insurance, we pay for dental insurance,

we have vision, we a have 401K that we match up to a percentage.

Vacation time. People's vacation can vary depending on the

length of stay. So, paid vacation. I'm sure I'm forgetting

some other things, but that's generally it.

Q. Does the 23.59 percent in the case of the project manager

reflect that labor burden?

A. It does. That's a specific number that 

Miss Christina Sapp, our accounts payable person, she calculates

that number on a form. And we do a lot of work for the

University of Florida. There is a form we fill out and create

that number specific to each employee.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 204 of 218
 205

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Q. I'll ask her more about that when she testifies.

So, is the product of the multiplication coming across left

to right, is that what we're seeing for the 1,307?

A. Yes, sir. That's half, .5 times the full week salary of

2,115 multiplied by the labor burden should give you half a week

of what they cost.

Q. And the superintendent on the next line down, did you have

a full-time superintendent on this job?

A. We did, yes, sir.

Q. And, is the unit price that's reflected of $1,900 accurate?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, is the labor burden of 24.96 percent calculated in the

same way as it was up above for the project manager?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is the product of those numbers on the right-hand side

accurate, 2,374?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, the project engineer, did you have one project

engineering on this job?

A. We actually had a couple different ones on this job.

Q. Did the combination of the project engineers total one full

work week?

A. For sure, yes, sir.

Q. And, is the price, the unit price for one full work week of

a project engineer or engineers $1,050?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 205 of 218
 206

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is the labor burden stated or calculated the same way?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. As the others we talked about?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is the product accurately stated on the right-hand column

under total?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that $1,282?

A. That's correct. Yes, sir.

Q. The next line item it says cellphones and communications,

.25 months. Can you describe to me how that calculation is

performed?

A. So, again, we're trying to get down to what this project

was costing us per week. So some of these items were figured in

months, units is the months. So, in order to get a week you get

a quarter of a month, .25 percent of a month.

Q. So, what is the total cellphone expenditure attributed to

this project for one week?

A. $58.

Q. Did you attribute anything to sanitary facilities?

A. No, sir.

Q. Job site security?

A. No, sir.

Q. Dumpsters?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 206 of 218
 207

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. No, sir.

Q. How did you calculate the postage?

A. That is 25 percent. Again, this is a paired down version

of the original estimate we did for the job. So, when we

originally did the job we said that it's going to take $40 a

month to do postage. And so in this instance we took a week of

that and ended up charging $10 for the week. But, in summary,

we get a bill from the post-it thing and all the stuff we send

out. And Miss Christina cuts it up and puts it on jobs based on

the scale of the job. But as you can see, it's not a big

expense.

Q. Is there some historical information that goes into the

estimate or the proposal that you give originally on this?

A. Absolutely. This was all based on, I mean, beside the

people cost, most all of this other stuff is --

Q. Does your company keep track of the expenditures so they

can generate the historical information accurately?

A. Yes, sir. We spend a lot of time on that.

Q. The small tools, can you tell us how that was calculated?

A. Yeah. We were charging 250 a month for that project. So,

a quarter of that is $63.

Q. And, is the calculation for the vehicle fuel accurate at

$400 a month?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, you took one fourth of that for a week?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 207 of 218
 208

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. Correct.

Q. And, is the one hundred dollars that are under the total,

is that an accurate number?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, for the job site vehicle, is it accurately stated that

one fourth of the monthly cost of $250, is it accurate that it's

$250 a month for the job site vehicle?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, is it the -- did you just multiply that times -- you

divided it by four?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in terms of the clean up on the job, does it --

historically is $907 an accurate number to attribute to a job

like this for cleanup?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you multiply that number times .25 to equal $227?

A. We did.

Q. What's the $5,482 that we see on the right?

A. That's the sum total of column line L to that point. So

that's the people and --

Q. Could you scroll up a little bit, please? I mean, I should

have said down.

Can you describe what the construction aids are, MOT?

A. That's modifications of traffic or maintenance of traffic.

Those are cones and stop signs and, you know, bob the barricade

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 208 of 218
 209

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

type stuff.

Q. Do you rent that?

A. We do.

Q. Is $75 an accurate number for one week?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, equipment rental, what would you -- what is an example

of what you're paying for equipment rental?

A. That's the big forklift that we have out on the job that we

use to move equipment and materials around the job site. Keep

the job site organized and clean. It's a large scale forklift.

Q. You rent it by the month?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, is $3,000 the accurate amount of money that is paid

for each month?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, temporary protection. What is that for?

A. That's for -- it could be for like cardboard to cover

countertops. You know, it can be visqueen to cover things up.

It's, you know, tape and all the things that go into to keep

things covered from getting damaged.

Q. Thank you. Is that rented by the week for $150?

A. No, it would be an expendable thing that they --

Q. Oh, a one time expense?

A. No. It's an ongoing expense. Keeping things covered and

protected during the job site. It's something that happens the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 209 of 218
 210

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

whole job.

Q. How much does that cost per week for that product?

A. $150.

Q. Is the $975 a total of the 3 numbers in column L?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can we scroll down a little bit more? What is the 6,457

represent?

A. The sum of column M so far.

Q. What is the payment and performance bond that's listed on

the left-hand side?

A. The bonds, we have to have a bond for this project. And we

get charged on that based on cost.

Q. Is that $65 an accurate number for the bond?

A. It is, yes, sir.

Q. And, how did you determine that general liability amount,

the percentage in column C?

A. Again, that's a historic cost that our general liability

insurance is based on cost. So you multiply .98 times $6,457.

Q. And that .98, how did you develop that number or arrive at

that number?

A. That's a historical number that we've, you know, we add it

in every year. We calculate to see what we're spending on

general liability insurance. Lots of money though.

Q. What is this 6,574?

A. 6,574 is the total of the 6,457 plus those two numbers we

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 210 of 218
 211

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

just discussed, bond and general liability.

Q. What is -- and then the CM fee, what does that mean?

A. That's our overhead and profit for that line item.

Q. And, how did you determine 15 percent is the correct number

to put there?

A. That's, it's a feeling thing, but it seems like a

reasonable fee for, you know, $6,500 worth of expenses.

Q. Is that what you would typically charge to perform this

type of work under these circumstances?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That CM fee, does that pay the -- is that -- does that

represent the profit for Oelrich Construction?

A. That represents profit and overhead office expenses.

Q. Okay. And the combined overhead profit and profit is

represented as $986, is that an accurate number?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And so what is the total amount per week that 

Oelrich Construction incurs expenses for each week that they had

to stay on the job beyond when they would have?

A. I got to get Sean to move the cursor off the number because

I can't read it. 7,560.

Q. And then, if we go to the top of that next column, at the

top of the page over here. How did you determine that -- how

was it determined that there was a 14 week delay?

A. So, like I said, when we started this thing I gave it to

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 211 of 218
 212

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

Andy. I went and sat with him and said, here is the things that

we need to put this together. And I left it for him to, you

know, figure out what those dates were and what was reasonable.

So the ready for precast date was our drop dead date to

install the precast before we got into -- before it hit the

critical path is what that was. Mr. Crehore just talked about

that.

Q. Did you -- is the $105,000, 105,845, is that an accurate

reflection of what it cost Oelrich Construction to continue the

project as a result of PRC Precast failing to fully perform

their work?

A. It ended up costing us a lot more than 14 weeks in the end.

I mean, Spring didn't even get out there until September after

we got through all of the parts and pieces. But, yeah, I mean,

we put this together in June of 2020.

Q. So, below that number, that yellow line that says 7,560 a

week times 14 weeks, is a number that's $316,533.

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Does that accurately reflect the amount of the Spring

Precast contract?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you see the number below that, 272,257.00?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that, what is that number?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 212 of 218
 213

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. That's PRC's contract value.

Q. Does that -- there was one change order on the job, wasn't

there?

A. There was. The change adds about $2,000. It, that was a

deducted change order.

Q. Does this number accurately reflect the PRC contract value

after the deducted change order is taken out?

A. No, sir. I think it's $2,000 less.

Q. Are you sure of that?

A. No. I'll suggest no, I'm not. I do know there is a $2,000

deductive change order on PRC's contract to remove the stainless

steel weld plates.

Q. What do you mean by the word, delta?

A. That's the difference between the 316 and the 272. That

turns out to be the additional contract value that we had to pay

to switch from PRC to Spring.

Q. And, what is the $6,996 represent?

A. That's the additional aggregate that Spring had to get from

Georgia or whatever. We talked about that a little bit ago.

But in order to match the panels, the existing panels that are

there at the VA.

Q. Under the 109.832, is that the amount of money that Oelrich

Construction paid to PRC?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you receive any panels or anything for that money?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 213 of 218
 214

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

A. No, sir.

Q. Why does the next line say, 12 week delay instead of 14

weeks?

A. It's an error. It's the same number 105,845, but it's just

an error.

Q. The travel expenses to Greenville, South Carolina, we heard

Mr. Noyes indicate that he did not turn in any receipts for

expenses. Do you know whether or not the $1,000 is accurate in

terms of what it cost Mr. Crehore to go up there or should that

be $500?

A. It's an estimate. So, I mean, we had to buy a plane ticket

and get him up there. And we had to pay a salary for him to go

up there for the day. So, you can get to a thousand pretty

quick. But, I mean, yeah, it could be $500 too. That's not the

hill I'm here to fight.

Q. Consequently taking that into consideration, is the

267,949.09 the amount that you are requesting a judgment for in

this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did PRC breach the contract by overbilling for its

materials in December of 2019 when it billed one hundred percent

for work that was not fully performed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did it breach the contract by failing to deliver and

install the materials according to the directions that they were

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 214 of 218
 215

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

being given by Oelrich Construction throughout the, especially

the spring or the first quarter of 2020?

A. Absolutely, yes, sir.

Q. Did they, did PRC breach the contract by failing to

properly, to incorporate all of the, to build the panels

according to the specifications of the contract?

A. Yes, sir. They were required to follow the specifications.

Q. And are those breaches material?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And, you heard Mr. Crehore's testimony earlier, in regard

to the, when those precast panels came onto the critical path.

Do you recall what he said?

A. I do.

Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with him?

A. No, sir.

Q. When Mr. Crehore was terminated, was that amicable or a

difficult departure?

A. It was a somewhat difficult departure because I have known

him professionally for a long time.

Q. Have you known him personally?

A. Yes.

Q. And, was Mr. Noyes also terminated?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, was that a difficult decision?

A. Yes, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 215 of 218
 216

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

MR. BUTTS: I don't have any other questions. Thank

you.

THE COURT: I've got a couple of questions before

cross, but I would like to finish this, this evening, if we can.

But, Mr. Darr, tell me -- I guess you get some preference if you

would rather start in the morning. I'll give you a trade secret

to both sides. All you really have to do is say this will go

faster if I get tonight to prepare further and then you get the

night and you start in the morning. So, I'll leave it a little

bit up to you whether you want to do your cross tonight or in

the morning.

MR. DARR: I was going over my outline right now, Your

Honor. And while you're asking the questions I'm going to try

to listen and get an estimate.

THE COURT: All right. My questions are easy. First,

the 9 cents is just a typo, right?

THE WITNESS: I suppose. Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: On that chart?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's way too technical.

THE COURT: It's just somebody hit the 9, it's back

up there now. You can look on the right side. This is

Plaintiff's 6. I think the 9 cents is just, somebody hit the 9

instead of the zero.

You've included additional cost for aggregate for the

Spring Precast sample to pass?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 216 of 218
 217

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand why that's

different for Spring than it would have been for PRC.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't know that I'm

qualified to answer that question. I didn't get into the nuts

and bolts of why. I would surmise it was an original, you know,

they negotiated and said we're going to do this and that didn't

work and so now they agreed to, you know, I would be guessing.

I don't know.

THE COURT: All right. Fair enough. So, that didn't

put your multitasking much at risk?

MR. DARR: I think we're going to defer to start

tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. for our cross.

THE COURT: All right. Let's do that then. Anything

else either side needs out of me before we break for the night?

We'll start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. If you

will be ready to go I will be here on time and we'll go back to

work. We are adjourned for the evening.

Thank you, Mr. Oelrich. You may step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Proceedings concluded at 5:15 on Monday, October 25,

2021.)

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 217 of 218
 218

Direct Examination - Ivan Oelrich

* * * * * * * * 

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript 

from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

Any redaction of personal data identifiers pursuant to the 

Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy are noted within the 

transcript. 

/s/ Lisa C. Snyder 3/13/2022 

Lisa C. Snyder, RPR, CRR Date 

Official U.S Court Reporter 

I N D E X

PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES PAGE

CHRISTOPHER CREHORE

Direct Examination By Mr. Butts 48

Cross-Examination By Mr. Darr 124

Redirect Examination By Mr. Butts 155

DANA NOYES

Direct Examination By Mr. Butts 156

Cross-Examination By Mr. Darr 171

Redirect Examination By Mr. Butts 177

IVAN OELRICH

Direct Examination By Mr. Butts 181

E X H I B I T S 

(All stipulated-to exhibits were discussed) 52 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00169-RH-GRJ Document 116 Filed 03/13/22 Page 218 of 218