General Contractor / Design-Build Delivery
Contract: Prime contractor under AIA A101-2017 with Pikes Peak Properties LLC. Design-build — SHC responsible to owner for design and construction.
Key contacts: Casey Copley (PM/Superintendent) · Caleb Strickler (Field Superintendent) · Marlowe Downey (Site Supervisor) · Steve Michaels (Site Supervisor)
Liability notes: Responsible to owner for design failures. Can seek indemnity/contribution from design team. $2.27M at risk including retainage and LD exposure.
Owner (Legal Entity) / End Operator
Contract: AIA A101-2017 prime contract. $2,271,419.11. Signed Apr 22, 2025.
Key contacts: Luke Brunea (DoubleDown Real Estate, owner rep) · Kelly Walsh (HavenStone COO/Founder) · John Buonforte (principal) · Ben Boyd (principal)
Liability notes: Owner approved Summit Fire and CWAM in writing Oct 16, 2025. Kelly Walsh's Jul 20–21 communications may be relevant to owner delay/interference claims.
Architect of Record
Contract: Direct contract with SHC — only design entity with privity. Nelson-Ross went out of business mid-project; Lowell Ross continued as Fine Line Design Studio.
Key contacts: Lowell Ross (principal)
Liability notes: At Jun 26, 2026 meeting, Lowell admitted plans were designed "site-unseen." Primary design liability for plan-field conflicts. Plans changed 5+ times. Responsible for structural-MEP coordination failures.
MEP Engineer — No Privity with SHC
Contract: No direct contract with SHC. Subcontracted by Nelson-Ross/Lowell Ross. Bryan Hunt is PE of record for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering.
Key contacts: Bryan Hunt, PE
Liability notes: SHC's claims flow through Nelson-Ross/Fine Line. Responsible for MEP plan omissions (gas, plumbing), wrong PEX spec, discontinued ERV-1 spec, failure to validate MEP against structure. Documented response delays averaging 7–27 days across 9 delay chains.
MEP Subcontractor
Contract: Subcontract with SHC. $346,935.26 base + 3 amendments = ~$384,757. Signed Oct 20–21, 2025. §4: $500/day LDs (sub-caused only). §9(c): delay damages from design team. §21: AAA Arbitration.
Key contacts: Shane Dorais (ShaneD@baphinc.net) · Cher Trujillo (chert@coloradowaterandmold.com) · Manuel "Manny" Contreras (field lead)
Liability notes: Missed all contractual deadlines (rough-in Dec 29, 2025; trim-out Apr 30, 2026). Mechanical permit pulled May 21, 2026 — 5 months late. SHC issued Notice of Default Jun 19. CWAM counter-claims delay damages under §9(c) citing site-unseen plans and 5+ revisions.
Fire Suppression & Alarm Subcontractor
Contract: Suppression: $129,010 (Oct 28–29, 2025). Alarm: $25,900 (Oct 28–30, 2025). §4: $500/day LDs. §21: AAA Arbitration. ⚠ Signatory discrepancy: §23 names Jimmy Porter; signed by Jordan Johnson.
Key contacts: Jordan Johnson (Branch Mgr — jjohnson8@summitfire.com) · Jimmy Porter (JPorter@summitfire.com) · Tyler Guilliams (tguilliams@summitfire.com)
Liability notes: License suspended + insurance expired discovered May 5, 2026. SHC-caused delay Dec 15 – Mar 3 (~11 wks). CSFD permit approved Jun 4, 2026. Stop work Jun 9 (surface mounting). $12,046 cost-sharing request pending. Fire Alarm complete May 13, 2026.
Construction Lender
Contract: Construction loan. Addendum signed Apr 25, 2025 (§8.7). Draw cycle: invoices by 25th → paid ~13th of following month.
Key contacts: Lorrie Kramer (primary) · Melissa Fulp (backup)
Liability notes: Lender inspector can reduce progress billing if stated % exceeds actual work. Contract end per CO-007: Sep 1, 2026.
dailylogs.pdf, hosted alongside this file). Daily logs cover Apr 3 – Jul 22, 2026 only; earlier events cite email or contract records.
| Date | Source | Event | Legal Significance | Delay Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-2024 | SHC records | SHC begins engagement for 2927 W Pikes Peak Avenue commercial tenant improvement — church to licensed daycare. Initial project scoping and design team selection underway. | Establishes SHC's entry point. Design-build delivery model means SHC accepts responsibility for design professionals it engages, including Nelson-Ross and Petrichor. | — |
| May 31, 2024 | Nelson-Ross proposal Drive: NR Proposal | Nelson-Ross Architects proposal signed. Architectural fee: $29,400. MEP engineering fee: $10,800–$12,600 (Petrichor Solutions LLC / Bryan Hunt, PE — subbed under Nelson-Ross). Key clause: Limit of Liability = $50,000 or architect's fee, whichever is greater. Petrichor has no privity with SHC. | Limit of Liability clause caps Nelson-Ross's direct exposure at $50,000 or their fee. SHC's claims against Petrichor flow through Nelson-Ross (no privity). Attorney must assess whether LOL applies to design deficiency claims or is limited to E&O coverage.What does "Limit of Liability" and "privity" mean? (click to expand)Limit of Liability: Nelson-Ross's contract says even if their bad plans cost SHC $500,000 in rework and delays, they only owe SHC $50,000. Whether that cap holds up in Colorado depends on whether it covers negligence claims — not just simple errors. The attorney needs to assess this before any demand is made. Privity: Bryan Hunt (Petrichor) never signed a contract with SHC — his contract was with Nelson-Ross. That means SHC cannot sue Petrichor directly. SHC has to go through Nelson-Ross, who would then go after Petrichor. No direct contract = no direct lawsuit. |
Design engagement begins |
| Jun 11, 2024 | Nelson-Ross proposal (countersigned) | Nelson-Ross proposal countersigned. Design contract formally executed. Nelson-Ross is architect of record; Petrichor Solutions (Bryan Hunt, PE) engaged for MEP engineering under Nelson-Ross. | Contract formation date. All design professional obligations run from this date. Colorado statute of limitations for design claims: substantial completion or discovery of defect (C.R.S. §13-80-104).What is a "statute of limitations"? (click to expand)Colorado law gives you a limited time window to sue a design professional (like Lowell or Bryan) after their mistakes cause harm. The clock usually starts when the building is substantially complete OR when SHC discovered the problem — whichever comes first. Under C.R.S. §13-80-104, SHC generally has 2 years from discovery. There is also an 8-year absolute cutoff from substantial completion. If Gerry and the team wait too long to file claims, those claims could be permanently barred — even if the evidence is strong. |
— |
| Oct – Nov 2024 | Nelson-Ross / Petrichor | Plan set iterations — design development phase. Nelson-Ross and Petrichor producing and refining architectural and MEP drawings ahead of first PPRBD submission. | Plan development period. Any "site-unseen" design failures (admitted by Lowell Ross at Jun 26, 2026 meeting) originate in this phase — plans drawn without field verification of existing conditions. | — |
| Nov 14, 2024 | PPRBD | First plan submittal to PPRBD — Plan C196245. Nelson-Ross Architects as architect of record. Review begins. | Establishes Nelson-Ross as architect of record and plan baseline. 8-month review and correction cycle to follow. | Start of permit delay chain |
| KEY DOCUMENT Nov 14, 2024 |
Email thread — "John Nelson - Daycare Center - Inv. #24077" 📎 Inv. #24077 Email Thread Participants: John Nelson, Lowell Ross (Nelson-Ross Architects); Alex Kosley (SHC CEO); Lee Chapin, Casey Copley (SHC) Thread: Nov 13–14, 2024 | Forwarded by Alex Kosley → Cody McCarty: Jul 23, 2026 |
FOUNDATIONAL: Lowell Ross makes written commitment to answer all RFIs promptly — in exchange for payment.
Nov 13 (2:52 PM) — John Nelson invoices 90% of design fee and withholds permit plan set pending payment: "we won't be able to release the plans for permit review until the attached invoice has been paid." States: "It is standard practice for us to invoice 90% of our fee upon completion of construction documents." Nov 14 (7:26 AM) — Alex Kosley (SHC CEO) agrees to hand-deliver a check and extracts a written commitment in exchange: "I am sure we can reasonably expect that even though you have received the vast majority of the payment, you will be expedient in processing the changes needed to get this plan approved quickly, as well addressing RFIs during construction promptly. Would you agree?" / "We will need the files released immediately upon delivery of the check." Nov 14 (9:19 AM) — Lowell Ross responds verbatim: "Yes, we (and our consultants) will work with you and RBD to obtain the permit in a timely manner along with answering all RFI's during construction. Thank you for bringing the check over today, we and our consultants appreciate the prompt compensation. I will email a WeTransfer link for the permit documents." Nov 14 (2:05 PM) — John Nelson confirms: "It is standard practice for us to invoice 90% of our fee upon completion of construction documents. We will of course provide all support needed for permit approval." What does this mean? (click to expand)On November 14, 2024, Alex Kosley personally drove a check to Nelson-Ross's office to pay their invoice. Before handing it over, he asked in writing: can we count on you to process plan changes quickly and answer RFIs promptly during construction? Lowell Ross wrote back the same morning: "Yes, we (and our consultants) will work with you and RBD to obtain the permit in a timely manner along with answering all RFI's during construction." That's a written promise, made the same day SHC paid them, that they would answer every RFI during construction promptly. "Our consultants" means Bryan Hunt at Petrichor too — Lowell was speaking for both of them. Now look at what actually happened: first RFI sent Sep 8, 2025 — took 31 days to get a complete answer. Structural revisions requested before Thanksgiving 2025 — Lowell went silent for 7 weeks. Bryan refused duct shop drawings, a gas isometric, and a splice correction detail, calling each one "outside scope." Bryan described the plans as "schematic" on July 23, 2026 — nearly 2 years after John Nelson said the documents were complete. Every one of those failures happened after Lowell looked Alex in the eye (in writing) and said yes. That written promise is the foundation of SHC's case against the design team. |
"We (and our consultants)" — Lowell explicitly bound Petrichor Solutions / Bryan Hunt PE to this commitment. Bryan cannot claim he made no such promise; his principal made it on his behalf in writing, on the date of payment.
John Nelson's statement that the invoice represents "completion of construction documents" is directly contradicted by the subsequent record: plans required 5+ revisions, failed PPRBD review multiple times, and were described by Bryan Hunt himself as "schematic" 20 months later. Specific failures that directly contradict this commitment: Sep 8 → Oct 9, 2025 (31-day first RFI); Nov 26, 2025 → Jan 12, 2026 (7-week structural silence); Nov 21 → Dec 15, 2025 (24-day partial MEP response); Feb 19 → Mar 12, 2026 (21-day mini-split non-response); Mar 2, 2026 (duct shop drawings refused); Apr 13, 2026 (gas isometric refused); Jun 26 → Jul 17, 2026 (21-day Revision 5 delay); Jul 23, 2026 ("plans are schematic"). |
FOUNDATIONAL COMMITMENT — written RFI promise on date of payment; binds Lowell Ross and all consultants (Petrichor/Bryan Hunt) |
| Dec 10–12, 2024 | PPRBD | PPRBD issues first disapproval of Plan C196245. Corrections required — plan deficiencies identified by city reviewer. | First documented plan deficiency finding by city reviewer. Triggers correction cycle extending the permit timeline. Establishes that Nelson-Ross/Petrichor's original plan set was inadequate for permit approval. | Permit correction cycle begins |
| Dec 16, 2024 | Nelson-Ross | Second revision set delivered by Nelson-Ross in response to PPRBD first disapproval. Further corrections will be required before PPRBD approves. | First correction turn-around. Evidence that plans required multiple revision cycles before city approval — supports argument that original design was deficient. | — |
| Jan 27, 2025 | Nelson-Ross | Nelson-Ross delivers revised plan set — "2927 W Pikes Peak Plan Set 01.27.2025." This set becomes the AIA A101 §9.1.5 enumerated drawing set (later redlined Feb 14, 2025). All subcontracts will reference this plan baseline. | Contract plan baseline delivered and accepted. If plans had known deficiencies at this delivery date, SHC may argue Nelson-Ross breached the design contract before construction began. This set governs as plan of record for all downstream disputes. | Contract plan baseline established |
| Feb 14, 2025 | AIA A101 §9.1.5 | Contract plan set titled: "2927 W Pikes Peak Plan Set 01.27.2025 REDLINE 02.14.25." This is the AIA contract plan of record for all subcontracts. All CWAM and Summit Fire subcontracts reference these plans. | All field deviations from this set constitute plan revisions requiring change orders. This set still governs as of Jul 22, 2026 — every sub is operating from 17-month-old plans. Mechanical Revision 5 splices (delivered Jul 17, 2026) not yet submitted. | Baseline for all subsequent plan conflict claims |
| Apr 22–25, 2025 | AIA A101-2017 Drive: AIA A101 Drive: Cost-Plus Agmt | AIA A101-2017 prime contract signed Apr 22–25, 2025. $2,271,419.11. Owner: Pikes Peak Properties LLC. Architect: Nelson-Ross Architects. Design-build delivery — SHC responsible to owner for design. | Establishes SHC's design liability to owner. Nelson-Ross's subsequent failure and replacement are SHC's risk in a design-build context. Contract end per CO-007: Sep 1, 2026. | — |
| Apr 24, 2025 | City of Colorado Springs / PPRBD | City Development Plan approved. PPRBD approves plan set for Plan C196245. Formal city-side design approval milestone after multiple correction cycles. | Approval after Dec 2024 disapproval and multiple correction cycles. Confirms plans were ultimately adequate for city approval — but field conditions will later reveal significant gaps between approved plans and actual site conditions. | City Dev Plan approved |
| Apr 24, 2025 | Internal SHC email — "Lowell Ross Alternate Contact Email" Caleb Strickler → office@, lee@yourstreamhome.com (internal notification) |
⚠ Lowell Ross departs Nelson-Ross Architects and begins operating under Fine Line Design Studio (fldstudioarchitecture@gmail.com) — on the same day as PPRBD plan approval, at the start of active construction. Caleb Strickler's internal notification verbatim: "Reaching to notify everyone who would need to get ahold of Lowell. After speaking with Lowell on the phone yesterday, he indicated he doesn't often check his Nelson & Ross…"
All original construction documents were stamped and sealed under Nelson-Ross Architects. All subsequent plan revisions, RFI responses, and site visits during construction were handled by Lowell Ross under Fine Line Design Studio — a different legal entity. What does this mean? (click to expand)In April 2025 — right as the building permit was being approved and construction was about to begin — Lowell Ross left Nelson-Ross Architects and started working under a different company called Fine Line Design Studio. He took the 2927 project with him. This matters for two reasons. First, the original blueprints were stamped and approved under Nelson-Ross Architects. If those blueprints had errors — and the record shows they did — the professional liability insurance that covers those errors belongs to Nelson-Ross, not Fine Line. SHC needs to make sure it's knocking on the right door when it files a claim. Second, when CWAM said "the original architect went out of business," they were partially right and partially wrong. John Nelson (the other principal at Nelson-Ross) had retired, and Lowell had moved firms. The result was the same on the job site — the team that designed the building was no longer the same team trying to fix it. Whether that transition contributed to the coordination failures is something Gerry needs to assess. |
⚠ ACTION REQUIRED FOR GERRY — E&O COVERAGE DETERMINATION NEEDED:
(1) Which entity carries E&O coverage? The professional liability (Errors & Omissions) policy for the construction-document phase belongs to Nelson-Ross Architects — the entity that stamped and sealed the original permit drawings. Fine Line Design Studio is a different legal entity and may carry separate or no E&O coverage for the revision and construction-phase work. Gerry must determine which policy responds to which phase of alleged negligence before any claim is tendered. (2) CWAM's "architect went out of business" claim: Shane Dorais's Jun 30, 2026 letter states "Due to the original architect going out of business, the plans did not fit the building design." Not precisely accurate — Nelson-Ross did not cease operations, and Lowell did not retire. However, Lowell did change firms during construction, creating a transition in the entity responsible for design support. This distinction matters for both the E&O claim and for any argument that the firm transition itself contributed to communication and coordination failures. Request proof of professional liability insurance from both Nelson-Ross Architects and Fine Line Design Studio covering the construction phase of this project. |
⚠ Architect changes firms at construction start — E&O coverage bifurcated between two entities; attorney action required |
| Apr 25, 2025 | Milestone Bank addendum Drive: Bank Addendum | Milestone Bank Construction Addendum signed (§8.7). Draw cycle established: invoices by 25th → paid within 3 days after 10th of following month. Lender contacts: Lorrie Kramer, Melissa Fulp. | Establishes draw schedule and lender controls. Contract end per CO-007: Sep 1, 2026. Lender inspector can reduce progress billing if stated % exceeds actual work — relevant to any draws submitted during CWAM delay period. | — |
| Jun 11, 2025 | Schedule #20 | Real Estate Closing. Pikes Peak Properties LLC takes title to 2927 W Pikes Peak Ave. Project transitions from design/permitting phase to active pre-construction preparation. | Establishes property ownership. SHC's obligations under AIA A101 now tied to an active ownership interest. Closing triggers timeline for permit deposit, abatement, and mobilization. | — |
| Jul 8, 2025 | PPRBD | PPRBD issues Permit P94043 for Plan C196245. "Original" splice is the only approved splice — still the only approved splice as of Jul 22, 2026. Construction can formally begin. | Permit issued ~8 months after first submittal. This is the reference point for all subcontract milestone calculations. Mechanical permit not issued until May 21, 2026 — 10+ months later. | Permit issued; clock starts for sub milestones |
| Jul 21, 2025 | Schedule #29 | Construction Mobilization. SHC takes possession of site and begins active construction operations. Abatement, demo, and subcontractor work commences. This is the contractual start of construction per the project schedule. | Start of construction for purposes of milestone, delay, and LD calculations. All pre-Jul 21 events (including the 8-month permit review) are pre-construction and do not count against SHC's construction timeline. CWAM subcontract executed ~90 days later (Oct 20). | Construction start |
| Sep 8, 2025 | Email (Caleb → Bryan) | Delay Chain 1 begins. Caleb sends first written RFI to Bryan Hunt and Lowell Ross identifying plumbing omissions from MEP plans: dishwasher (shown on A sheets, not reflected in P sheets), utility sink (A sheets only), washer/dryer plumbing and vent routing (A sheets only). These items appear on the architectural drawings but were never coordinated into the MEP engineering plans. Follow-up sent Sep 12; Lowell responds only to say he will contact Petrichor. Bryan responds Sep 16 with questions — no corrections. Lowell's Sep 22 statement: "Petrichor will be sending their revisions as soon as they have time" — no firm date given. Complete engineered response did not arrive until October 9: 31 calendar days, 4 follow-up contacts. | Establishes material omissions in Petrichor's MEP plans at the outset of construction. RFI is SHC's documented written notice to both architect and engineer. No firm delivery commitment was given at any point during the 31-day cycle. Bryan's Oct 7 response was incomplete; the final missing sheet (upper-level plumbing, infant-room sinks) arrived Oct 9 only after Caleb's fourth contact. Establishes the design team's pattern of indefinite deferrals and piecemeal responses. | 31-day design response gap (Sep 8 – Oct 9); 4 contacts required |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Caleb sends follow-up on Sep 8 RFI. No response from Bryan Hunt to date. | Second documented notice. Establishes pattern of non-response requiring multiple follow-ups to get any engineer action. | 4 days, no answer |
| Sep 16, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan responds to Sep 8 RFI with questions, not fixes. No corrected plans delivered. 8 days elapsed for a non-answer response to critical MEP omissions. | Engineer's response is procedurally inadequate — returning questions rather than addressing plan deficiencies. Establishes deliberate pattern. | 8 days → non-answer. No resolution. |
| Sep 22, 2025 | Email (Lowell Ross) | Lowell sends Delta 3 architectural change (infant-room sinks). Regarding Petrichor's engineered response to the Sep 8 plumbing RFI, Lowell writes verbatim: "Petrichor will be sending their revisions as soon as they have time." No delivery date provided. | Legally significant: "as soon as they have time" is not a delivery commitment — it is an indefinite deferral. No firm date was ever established by the design team for the Sep 8 engineered RFI response. This contemporaneous written statement documents the design team's approach to managing SHC's RFI timelines throughout the project. The complete engineered response ultimately arrived October 9 — 17 days after this non-committal statement. | No delivery date given — open-ended deferral documented in writing |
| Oct 3, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Delay Chain 2 begins. Caleb flags structural concerns after demolition reveals existing building conditions that conflict with plans. Field conditions do not match architectural drawings. | Establishes that site conditions diverged from plan assumptions — supporting Lowell Ross's later admission that plans were designed "site-unseen." SHC documented the conflict at first discovery. | Structural coordination clock starts |
| Oct 3–13, 2025 | Email (Lowell Ross) | Lowell's response to Oct 3 structural concerns: "I'll be out until the 13th." Site visit confirmed Oct 13. 10-day delay before architect even reviews field conditions flagged as urgent. | 10-day delay in architect response to flagged structural conflict. Architect's unavailability is SHC-side delay risk per CWAM §9(c). | 10 days unavailable |
| Oct 7, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan sends first substantive response to Sep 8 RFI — 29 calendar days after the original request. Splice covers washer/dryer and electrical service cleanup. Upper-level plumbing sheet (infant-room sinks) is still missing. Caleb flags the omission Oct 8 and requests the missing sheet. | 29 days to deliver an incomplete response. Bryan's partial splice does not close Delay Chain 1. Four contacts preceded this partial response: Sep 12 (Caleb follow-up), Sep 16 (Bryan questions only), Sep 22 (Lowell's non-committal deferral), and an Oct 6 Caleb timeline request. | 29 days → incomplete response; infant-room plumbing still missing |
| Oct 9, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan sends upper-level plumbing sheet with additional infant-room sinks. Delay Chain 1 fully closed — 31 calendar days after the Sep 8 written RFI. Four follow-up contacts were required before the complete response was delivered. | 31-day total response time for documented MEP plan omissions. Four contacts required to produce a complete response. Establishes Petrichor's pattern of multi-contact, delayed, piecemeal responses. No firm delivery date was given at any point during the 31-day cycle. | Delay Chain 1 closed — 31 days total, 4 contacts required |
| Oct 15, 2025 | Otter.ai — "2927 W Pikes Peak - Recurring OC Meeting" [Otter.ai transcript — obtain and preserve native audio and text] | OC meeting the day before owner written approval of CWAM. Both SHC leadership and the owner's representative verbally questioned CWAM's capability. Casey Copley: "I don't want to set all of us up for failure over what $30,000 looks attractive or whatever, but really it could cost us five times that." Luke Brunea (owner representative): "this might not be the right guy for us." | The day before owners approved CWAM in writing (Oct 16), SHC leadership and the owner's own representative verbally expressed that CWAM may be incapable or undercapitalized. If owners later claim SHC selected an incompetent sub without their knowledge, SHC can point to this meeting: the owners made the choice with eyes open, with their own representative present and raising the same concern.Why does what was said the day before approval matter legally? (click to expand)When someone makes a decision after being warned about the risks, courts say they assumed the risk. Luke Brunea — the owner's own representative — was in this meeting and said CWAM "might not be the right guy for us." The owners approved CWAM the very next day anyway. If the owners later try to claim SHC chose a bad contractor without their knowledge, SHC has a recording showing the owners were warned — by their own representative — before signing off. |
Pre-approval concerns documented — owners approved CWAM with known risk the next day |
| Oct 16, 2025 | Email — Summit Fire confirmation | Luke Brunea confirms owner group (Kelly Walsh, John Buonforte, Ben Boyd) approved Summit Fire and CWAM in writing. "We're good to move forward with Summit Fire per the traffic below." | Owner approved both problematic subs in writing before contract signing. Limits owner's ability to claim SHC chose incompetent contractors without consultation.What does "owner approval" mean legally? (click to expand)Kelly Walsh, John Buonforte, and Ben Boyd approved CWAM and Summit Fire in writing before SHC signed either subcontract. This is legally significant because of a concept called estoppel: if you expressly agree to something, you lose the right to later complain about it. If the owners try to claim SHC hired bad subs without their input, SHC can point to this email. The owners signed off — they can't un-ring that bell. |
— |
| Oct 17, 2025 | Email (Lowell Ross — "Delta 4") | SMOKING GUN: Lowell sends Delta 4 revision and writes: "I'm waiting to hear back from Petrichor if the ducts can fit our available space." 14 days after structural conflicts flagged, architect admits MEP plans have NOT been validated against the structural conditions they govern. | This statement is direct admission that engineer and architect had not coordinated their plans. Supports CWAM's "site-unseen" defense and SHC's claim of design professional failure. CWAM cites this at Jun 26 meeting.Why does Lowell's statement matter legally? (click to expand)When someone makes a statement against their own interest — especially in writing — it can be used as evidence against them in court or arbitration. Lowell's email saying he was "waiting to hear from Petrichor if the ducts can fit" is a direct written admission that the architect and engineer had not checked their plans against each other before giving them to SHC. CWAM will use this to say: "We couldn't do our job because the plans were never finished." This is one of the strongest documents in the file. |
MEP-structural coordination unresolved at 14+ days |
| Oct 20–21, 2025 | CWAM Subcontract Drive: CWAM Sub Amend 1 Amend 2 Amend 3 | CWAM subcontract signed. $346,935.26 (Mitigation $17,895.26 + Electrical $143,340 + Mechanical $185,700). Key provisions: rough-in start Nov 11 / inspection passed Dec 29; trim-out Apr 30, 2026; §4 $500/day LDs (sub-caused only); §6 CWAM pulls own permits; §9(c) CWAM may claim delay damages from design team; §21 AAA Arbitration. | Establishes all contractual deadlines that CWAM subsequently misses. §9(c) counter-claim provision is the basis of CWAM's Jun 30 response. §4 LD clause limited to sub-caused delays.What are "liquidated damages" and a "counter-claim"? (click to expand)Liquidated Damages (LDs): The CWAM subcontract says CWAM owes SHC $500 for every day they miss the deadline — but only if CWAM caused the delay. If SHC or the design team caused it, CWAM owes nothing for those days. Counter-claim (§9(c)): The contract also says if the design team's failures delayed CWAM, CWAM can come back and charge SHC for those extra costs. CWAM is doing exactly that right now. If CWAM wins, they may owe SHC nothing — or SHC could end up owing CWAM money instead of the other way around. |
Rough-in deadline: Dec 29, 2025 |
| Oct 28–30, 2025 | Summit Fire subcontracts | Summit Fire subcontracts signed. Suppression: $129,010 (Jordan Johnson/Casey). Alarm: $25,900. Rough-in Dec 26 / trim-out Apr 30 deadlines. Both deadlines subsequently missed. | ⚠ Suppression contract §23 names "Jimmy Porter" as signatory — actually signed by Jordan Johnson (Branch Manager). Signatory discrepancy must be analyzed for enforceability.What does "enforceability" and "signatory discrepancy" mean? (click to expand)A contract is only binding on the people who signed it — or on someone who had legal authority to sign on their behalf. Summit Fire's suppression contract names Jimmy Porter as the signatory, but Jordan Johnson (Branch Manager) actually signed it. If Jordan wasn't authorized to bind Summit Fire the way Jimmy Porter was, Summit Fire's attorney could argue the contract has a defect. This likely won't void the whole contract, but it is a weakness SHC needs to know about before trying to enforce $500/day delay penalties against Summit Fire. |
Rough-in deadline: Dec 26, 2025 |
| Oct 31 – Nov 3, 2025 | CWAM Amendment 1 Drive: Amend 1 | Amendment 1 to CWAM subcontract: temp furnaces, $3,900. Casey signs Nov 3, 2025. Shane Dorais does not countersign until Mar 24, 2026 — 3.5-month gap. Work performed before countersignature. | ⚠ Amendment 1 enforceability is at risk. Attorney must assess whether Shane's delay in countersigning, combined with work performed in the interim, creates an executed oral/implied agreement outside the written contract terms.What is an "implied agreement" and why does it matter here? (click to expand)Casey signed Amendment 1 on Nov 3, 2025. Shane at CWAM didn't sign it until Mar 24, 2026 — 3.5 months later. In the meantime, the work was done and SHC paid for it. Courts sometimes treat a contract as binding when both sides acted like it was in effect — even without a signature. This is called an "implied agreement." The risk for SHC: if the amendment was implied-binding from the start, CWAM might argue the deadlines and LD clauses inside it were also binding from the start — which could cut in either direction depending on the facts. |
— |
| Nov 6, 2025 | Email (Caleb → Bryan) | Delay Chain 3 begins. Caleb submits E-Delta splice to Bryan, receives PPRBD comments on same, and forwards to Bryan same day. Complete, same-day turnaround from SHC. | Documents SHC's prompt action. Engineer receives splice for review Nov 6. | Bryan receives splice Nov 6 |
| Nov 10, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Caleb resends E-Delta splice to Bryan. No response to Nov 6 submission. | Second transmission required for same document. Establishes Bryan's lack of responsiveness even when plans are already in his possession. | 4 days, no response |
| Nov 12, 2025 – Jan 22, 2026 | Google Calendar invitations (Lee Chapin inbox) ⚠ No corresponding Otter.ai transcripts, daily log entries, or written meeting minutes located in any searched source (Gmail, Otter.ai, Drive, ClickUp — all three SHC inboxes reviewed) |
⚠ EVIDENTIARY GAP: Seven on-site/RFI meetings with no written record. Calendar invitations confirm the following meetings were scheduled and occurred during the most critical period of design delays — while Lowell Ross was simultaneously failing to respond to written structural revision requests (Nov 26, 2025 → Jan 12, 2026):
• RFI Meeting — November 12, 2025 • RFI Meeting — November 13, 2025 • RFI Meeting — December 2, 2025 • RFI Meeting — December 4, 2025 • Plan Splice Meeting — January 16, 2026 • Plan Splice Meeting — January 19, 2026 • Mechanical Meeting — January 22, 2026 No Otter.ai transcripts exist for any of these meetings. No written meeting minutes, summaries, or follow-up emails documenting the outcomes were located in any searched source across all three SHC inboxes. What does this mean — and what should SHC do? (click to expand)Between November 2025 and January 2026 — right in the middle of the worst stretch of design delays on this project — SHC held at least seven meetings with the architect, engineer, and/or CWAM. We know the meetings happened because they're on the calendar. But nobody recorded them, and nobody wrote down what was said afterward. That's a problem. If Lowell Ross or Bryan Hunt said something important in one of those meetings — like "we know the plans don't fit" or "we'll have the revisions to you by X date" — there's currently no record of it. Before arbitration, Caleb, Casey, and Lee each need to sit down and write out everything they can remember from those meetings — what was said, who said it, what was promised. Memory is better than nothing, and if it's written down now while it's still relatively fresh, it becomes a usable record. Any texts, notes, or ClickUp updates from right after those meetings could also help fill the gap. |
⚠ EVIDENTIARY GAP — HIGH PRIORITY. These seven meetings represent the most critical undocumented period in the project record. They occurred during the exact window when: (1) Lowell was silent on structural revisions (Nov 26 → Jan 12, 7 weeks); (2) five separate structural/MEP RFIs were outstanding; (3) CWAM began encountering field conflicts with unresolved duct routing. Any verbal admissions, delivery commitments, scope concessions, or acknowledgments made by Lowell Ross, Bryan Hunt, or CWAM representatives in these meetings are currently undocumented.
Before arbitration, SHC must: (1) Interview Caleb, Casey, and Lee for independent recollection of each meeting; (2) Determine whether any meeting was recorded outside Otter (phone recording, Google Meet native recording, Buildertrend); (3) Search for personal notes, text messages, or ClickUp task updates created immediately after these meetings. |
⚠ 7 undocumented meetings — evidentiary gap covering the most critical design delay window |
| Nov 13, 2025 | Email (Caleb/Bryan) | Caleb follow-up asking if Bryan can finish "by tomorrow." Bryan delivers E-Delta splice response same day. 7 days total for E-Delta response; required 3 separate follow-up contacts. | 7-day turnaround on a document Bryan had for a week required 3 contacts to produce. Establishes systemic responsiveness failure. | 7 days / 3 follow-ups for splice response |
| Nov 14, 2025 | Email (Caleb → Bryan) | Caleb sends plumbing submittal and specific question about PEX pipe specification to Bryan Hunt. PEX is the material shown on plans for domestic water service lines. | SHC's documented notice that PEX specification in plans needs engineer confirmation. Clock starts on 27-day non-answer that will require rework. | PEX RFI clock starts |
| Nov 21, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Delay Chain 5 begins. Caleb sends 6-item RFI covering multiple mechanical and electrical questions. Also follows up on Nov 14 PEX question. No response to either. | Two simultaneous open RFIs to Bryan Hunt with no response. 6-item RFI initiates Delay Chain 5. | 6-item RFI clock starts; PEX RFI at 7 days unanswered |
| Nov 26, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Delay Chain 4 begins. Caleb flags trusses at 15" OC conflicting with duct routing in 5 separate locations. Lowell's response: "Soonest I can meet is Dec 4." 8-day delay to schedule a site visit on a critical structural-MEP conflict. | Truss-duct conflict is downstream consequence of MEP not being validated against structure (see Oct 17). 8-day scheduling delay by architect before any response. | 8 days to schedule site visit; truss conflict unresolved |
| Nov 26, 2025 | Email (Caleb) | Follow-up on Nov 21 6-item RFI. Bryan has not responded to Nov 21 RFI (5 days elapsed). | Second contact required on 6-item RFI at day 5. | 5 days, no response to 6-item RFI |
| Nov–Dec 2025 | CSFD / Summit Fire | Summit Fire submits fire suppression plans to CSFD. Initial CSFD review finds issues. Coordination meeting Dec 12 with Summit Fire and SHC. Dec 15: Summit presents re-engineering options to SHC. | Summit Fire cannot proceed without approved plans. Dec 15 marks start of SHC's documented decision-making delay (13 weeks) that will excuse Summit Fire from LDs under §4. | Fire suppression stalled pending CSFD approval and SHC decision |
| Dec 2, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan responds to Nov 21 6-item RFI — 11 days after submission. Response is partial. | 11-day response time to multi-item RFI; partial resolution only. 24 days total to partial response per email record. | 11 days → partial response. Outstanding items remain. |
| Dec 4, 2025 | Email (Lowell Ross) | Lowell/architect site visit for truss-duct conflict (first available date per Nov 26 email). 8 days after flag to get a site visit on an active structural-MEP conflict during construction. | Site visit occurs 8 days after conflict flagged. Any rework performed during that window was done at risk, without design guidance. | 8 days to architect site visit |
| Dec 11, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | CRITICAL: Bryan Hunt finally responds to Caleb's Nov 14 PEX question: "CSU does not allow PEX for service lines." This means PEX shown in engineer's own plans is not permitted by CSU — and the plumber may have been roughing in with the wrong material. 27 days to receive a critical answer that required rework. Caleb follows up on remaining outstanding items from Dec 2 partial response. | Engineer's plans specified a material CSU prohibits. 27-day delay to answer a question about the engineer's own specification. Potential rework of rough-in work. Establishes design deficiency + delay. | 27 days → wrong material confirmed. Rework risk. |
| Dec 11–16, 2025 | CWAM Amendment 2 Drive: Amend 2 | Amendment 2 to CWAM subcontract: line set removal, $225. Casey signs Dec 16. Shane does not countersign until Mar 24, 2026 — 3-month gap. Work performed before countersignature. | ⚠ Same enforceability issue as Amendment 1. Both late-signed amendments cover work already performed. Attorney must assess whether SHC has enforceable rights under these amendments.Same problem as Amendment 1 — why does it keep coming up? (click to expand)Both Amendments 1 and 2 were signed by Casey months before Shane countersigned, and the work was done in the gap. The pattern of doing work first, signing later creates a gap in SHC's paper trail that CWAM's attorney will exploit. SHC's position is strongest when change orders are signed before work starts — which is how Amendment 3 was handled (both sides signed at the same time). Amendments 1 and 2 are the weak spots in the contract record. |
— |
| Dec 15, 2025 | Email — "Answers from Friday" | Summit Fire presents re-engineering options after CSFD rejection: Option 1 = wet system to attic ($3,500 CO); Option 2 = dry system ($17,000 CO). Starts 13-week SHC decision silence. Summit follows up 6 separate times (Jan 8, Jan 19, Jan 30, Feb 4, Mar 2, Mar 16) with no actionable response until Mar 3. | SHC's 13-week non-decision is documented SHC-caused delay. Under §4, Summit Fire cannot be held liable for LDs during any period where delay is "caused by Contractor or Owner." This ~11 weeks runs Dec 15 – Mar 3.How does SHC's silence excuse Summit Fire from delay penalties? (click to expand)Summit Fire gave SHC two options for fixing the fire suppression plan on Dec 15. SHC didn't give a clear answer for 11 weeks. Summit Fire's contract says they're not responsible for delay penalties during any period where SHC or the owner is the one causing the delay. SHC's own email record shows Summit Fire followed up 6 separate times with no actionable response. This 11-week block of delay is documented as SHC-caused — meaning Summit Fire owes $0 in $500/day penalties for those days. This is not disputed; it's in SHC's own records. |
~11 weeks SHC-caused delay to Summit Fire. Excuses LDs per §4. |
| Dec 15, 2025 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan sends partial mechanical revisions after Dec 11 follow-up from Caleb. 24 days total from Nov 21 RFI; partial response only. Outstanding items from the 6-item RFI remain unresolved. | Delay Chain 5 partially resolved after 24 days and required 3 follow-up contacts. Outstanding items continue past this date. | 24 days total, 3 follow-ups, partial answer only |
| Dec 26, 2025 | CWAM Subcontract §3 | Summit Fire rough-in inspection deadline. MISSED. Summit Fire has not yet received CSFD plan approval and cannot work. SHC decision on re-engineering options still pending. | Contractual deadline missed — but SHC's own Dec 15 decision delay is the documented proximate cause. Summit Fire's LD exposure for this period is minimal under §4. | Contractual deadline missed. SHC-caused. |
| Dec 29, 2025 | CWAM Subcontract §3 | CWAM mechanical and electrical rough-in inspection deadlines both missed. Mechanical permit not even applied for; not issued until May 21, 2026 — 5 months later. CWAM defense: could not proceed without approved design revisions. | Both CWAM rough-in deadlines missed on the same date. This is the anchor date for any LD calculation, but SHC concedes ~90 days of design-caused delay attributable to engineering failures documented above. | CWAM both rough-in deadlines MISSED. Mech permit 5 months out. |
| Jan 8, 2026 | Email (Caleb) | Delay Chain 6 begins. Caleb requests structural plan revisions that were discussed before Thanksgiving. No response. Also: Summit Fire sends first of 6 follow-ups on re-engineering decision. | Both open items (structural revisions + Summit Fire decision) remain unresolved into the new year, weeks after initial requests. | Structural: 6+ weeks since Thanksgiving discussion with no revision |
| Jan 8–Mar 3, 2026 | Email — "Answers from Friday" (32 messages) | Summit Fire sends 6 follow-ups on the re-engineering decision (Jan 8, Jan 19, Jan 30, Feb 4, Mar 2). No actionable response from SHC until Mar 3 when Casey confirms ready to proceed. Feb 4 response: Casey says still waiting on plan revisions from engineer. | SHC acknowledged being blocked on engineer revisions. Summit Fire's inability to proceed is documented as SHC/engineer-caused. All 11 weeks exclude Summit Fire from LD exposure under §4. | ~11 weeks documented SHC-caused delay to Summit Fire |
| Jan 12, 2026 | Email (Casey Copley) | Casey sends welfare-check email to Lowell Ross seeking structural plan revisions. ~6 weeks of complete silence on structural revision items during active construction. No formal written notice of default sent to architect. | Casey's "welfare check" language documents that SHC received no architect communication for ~6 weeks on open structural items. Supports negligence/breach claim against architect. | ~6 weeks silence on structural revisions during construction |
| Feb 3, 2026 | Email — "2927 W Pikes Peak - Classroom 206 change request" Lowell Ross (Fine Line Design Studio) → Caleb Strickler (SHC) |
Lowell Ross responds same-day to a request for a billable classroom change, while ignoring outstanding structural revision requests since before Thanksgiving 2025 (~10 weeks of silence). Lowell verbatim: "We would have to do this hourly since there are several unknowns and site visits. I estimate 2 hours of site visits, 3-4 hours of design and drafting at $150/hr."
Silence record during the same period for which no fees were generated: Dec 11, 2025 — Caleb follow-up on structural revisions discussed before Thanksgiving (no response); Jan 8, 2026 — second follow-up (no response); Jan 12, 2026 — Casey welfare check: "I am reaching out to see if you are okay as we have not had any replies"; Jan 20, 2026 — first Lowell response, on a different subject (ASI-1). What does this mean? (click to expand)Between roughly Thanksgiving 2025 and January 12, 2026 — about 7 weeks — Lowell Ross did not respond to SHC's repeated requests for structural plan revisions. Casey eventually sent a welfare check email asking if Lowell was okay because he'd gone so long without replying. But on February 3, 2026, when SHC asked about a change to a classroom that would generate billable hours for Lowell's firm, he responded the same day — with a quote for his time at $150 per hour. That tells you something. Lowell wasn't too busy to respond. He wasn't unreachable. He was choosing what to respond to. When there was money in it for him, he answered fast. When it was about fixing existing work his firm was already paid for, the emails went unanswered for weeks. That's not a communication problem. That's a priority problem — and it's documented. |
The response-time asymmetry between billable and unbilled work is significant evidence of selective responsiveness. Lowell Ross was not incapacitated, unreachable, or generally unresponsive during the Nov 2025 – Jan 2026 silence period — he was actively working and capable of same-day responses when his firm's fees were involved. The 7-week silence on structural revisions was not a capacity problem. It was a priority choice. This directly undermines any argument that the silence was caused by workload, illness, or circumstances beyond Lowell's control. | Same-day response to billable change request — during 10-week silence on unbilled structural revisions; documents selective responsiveness pattern |
| Feb 3, 2026 | Email (Caleb → Bryan) | Delay Chain 7 begins. Trusses creaking under ERV-1 unit. Structural integrity concern flagged to Bryan Hunt. ERV-1 was specified by Petrichor in the MEP plans. | Structural concern with engineer-specified equipment. Documents that Petrichor's equipment specifications created field safety/structural issues. | Structural concern clock starts on ERV-1 |
| Feb 3, 2026 | Email — CWAM internal communication relayed to SHC Mike (CWAM mechanical lead, mjl73230@gmail.com) → Caleb Strickler (SHC) |
Equipment manufacturer refuses to validate Bryan Hunt's mechanical design. CWAM's mechanical lead Mike relayed Carrier's response verbatim: "I did get back with carrier carrier said that they will not confirm or deny that won't work due to the fact that engineer should know if that…"
In plain terms: Carrier (the equipment manufacturer) declined to confirm whether Bryan Hunt's mechanical design would function, stating that determination was the engineer's responsibility — not the manufacturer's. This occurred while Bryan Hunt had not confirmed whether the replacement ERV units would work in the available structural space and had refused to provide the duct transition detail as "outside scope." What does this mean? (click to expand)In February 2026, CWAM's mechanical lead Mike called Carrier — the company that makes the HVAC equipment Bryan Hunt had specified — to ask whether the design would actually work. Carrier's answer was essentially: don't ask us, ask your engineer. That's the engineer's job to figure out. Here's why that matters: Bryan Hunt is the licensed mechanical engineer on this project. His job is to design a system that works. When the company that makes the equipment won't even confirm that his design will function — and says that determination is his responsibility — it's a signal that the design wasn't clearly thought through. A third party with no stake in the dispute is effectively saying: the engineer needs to answer this, not us. |
The equipment manufacturer's refusal to validate Petrichor's design is independent third-party corroboration that the mechanical design was professionally suspect. When even the manufacturer of the specified equipment declines to confirm the design will work — and redirects that question to the engineer — it supports SHC's position that Petrichor failed to deliver a viable, buildable mechanical design. This is not SHC's own characterization; it is the manufacturer's documented response with no stake in the dispute. | Carrier (manufacturer) refuses to validate Bryan Hunt's mechanical design — redirects determination to engineer |
| Feb 9, 2026 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan responds 6 days later: "The unit that was specified was retired last year." ERV-1, as specified in Petrichor's MEP plans, is discontinued. Replacement unit is heavier, requiring structural re-evaluation. | Engineer specified equipment that was already discontinued. SHC was not informed until 6 days after flagging a structural creak. Demonstrates plans were not current at time of delivery. Additional rework and structural engineering required. | 6 days → confirmed discontinued equipment. Structural rework required. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | Internal email — "2927 Contracts and scheduling reminders" Cody McCarty → Casey Copley, Caleb Strickler (SHC internal) |
SHC's Director of Finance contemporaneously documents project delay as Lowell-dependent. Cody McCarty verbatim: "Just confirming that it sounds like there is a potential for another month delay in the project, depending on Lowell's response?"
Context: This email was prompted by Casey Copley escalating internally after Caleb Strickler had not replied to an internal scheduling email for 7 days. Casey's message (same date): "What is the status of these things? You have not replied or acknowledged this email at all in 7 days!! I hope you are replying to others quicker than 7 days!!" What does this mean? (click to expand)In February 2026, Cody — StreamHome's Director of Finance — sent an internal email asking: are we looking at another month of delay because Lowell still hasn't responded? This matters because it's not something Casey or Caleb said to make themselves look good — it's the finance director independently asking whether the project is going to slip another 30 days because the architect won't write back. That's a real-time, internal, business-level acknowledgment that Lowell's silence was costing the project time and money. |
SHC's own Director of Finance contemporaneously documented in writing — on February 12, 2026 — that the project faced a potential additional month of delay contingent on Lowell Ross's response. This is internal corroboration, dated and on the record, that the design team's non-responsiveness was actively causing project delays during the same period Lowell had been silent since before Thanksgiving 2025. Directly contradicts any argument that SHC's delay concerns were fabricated after the fact. | Finance director internally documents potential additional month delay — Lowell-dependent |
| Feb 19, 2026 | Email (Caleb → Bryan) | Delay Chain 8 begins. Original mini-split units specified by Petrichor are stuck in customs. Caleb submits alternate mini-split submittal to Bryan for approval. Requires engineer review and approval before procurement can proceed. | SHC acting promptly to mitigate supply chain issue with engineer-specified equipment. Engineer approval required before sub can proceed with alternate. | Alternate submittal pending approval |
| Feb 24, 2026 | Otter.ai — "SHC Weekly Leadership Meeting," 7:05 a.m. [Otter.ai transcript — obtain and preserve native audio and text] Attendees: Casey Copley, Lee Chapin, Caleb Strickler, Alex Kosley, Cody McCarty |
SHC internal leadership meeting. Multiple significant statements documented:
Lee Chapin: "all the mistakes that have come along the way has cost us $100,000 we can't do this anymore" Caleb Strickler: "ghosted us, didn't give us drawings for a month, gave us drawings back without that design, and now he's saying it's out of his scope" ⚠ Unknown speaker (needs authentication via audio review and attendee testimony): "Lowell and the engineer were like, yeah, I don't, I've never seen this project. I didn't draw these. And they're both the owners of the firm." Casey Copley (fabricator incident): "the fabricator, come from the fabrication company, come out to the site. And the guy literally told me, 'I can't design this dude. You have to have your people... I fucking don't even know what to do here'" |
Lee's $100,000 acknowledgment: Internal SHC statement quantifying cumulative design-caused costs at $100,000 as of Feb 24, 2026. Contemporaneous admissible evidence of design-team-caused damages.
Caleb's "ghosted" statement: Internal corroboration of Petrichor's month-long non-responses and scope deflection — consistent with the documented RFI delay chains. ⚠ Unknown speaker — HIGH PRIORITY, needs authentication: If authenticated, this is a verbal admission by both Lowell Ross and Bryan Hunt that they had no direct knowledge of the project they designed. Must be corroborated via audio review, speaker identification, and attendee testimony before use as a direct admission. Do not characterize as established fact without corroboration. Fabricator incident: A professional duct fabricator attended the site and could not proceed without an engineered splice detail that Bryan Hunt had already declined to provide (claiming outside scope). Documents a direct, measurable on-site work stoppage caused by Petrichor's scope refusal. |
$100K design-caused costs internally documented; fabricator work stoppage; "never seen this project" statement requires authentication |
| Feb 26, 2026 | Email — "2927 W Pikes Peak Engineering RFI Resolution" Casey Copley (SHC) → Lowell Ross; cc Caleb Strickler, Lee Chapin, project inbox |
SHC formally objects in writing to Petrichor's "field fabricate" position. Casey Copley verbatim: "We received Bryan Hunt's response indicating that the requested detail falls outside his contracted scope and would likely be field fabricated. We cannot accept that approach."
This email follows the February 24, 2026 SHC Leadership Meeting (Otter.ai) in which Casey described a duct fabricator coming to site and stating he could not proceed without an engineered detail that Bryan had refused to provide. SHC's written objection was sent to the architect within 2 days of that internal meeting. What does this mean? (click to expand)Two days after a professional duct fabricator came to the job site and told the crew he couldn't build the duct connection without an engineered drawing — a drawing Bryan Hunt had already refused to provide — Casey put it in writing to Lowell: we are not accepting "just figure it out in the field" as an answer. This is important because it shows SHC didn't just complain internally. They documented their rejection of Bryan's position in writing, to the architect, within days of the incident. SHC was pushing back on the "not our scope" deflection from the start. |
SHC put its formal written objection to Petrichor's scope deflection on the record within days of the fabricator incident. This closes the loop on the Feb 24 Otter meeting — SHC did not silently accept Bryan's "out of scope" position. The combination of (1) a professional duct fabricator unable to proceed without the engineered detail, and (2) SHC's written rejection of field fabrication as an acceptable substitute, directly documents a work stoppage caused by Petrichor's refusal to deliver a contracted engineering deliverable. | SHC formal written objection to "field fabricate" scope deflection — addressed to architect |
| Mar 2, 2026 | Email — "Re: Summit day care - site meeting for Mech" Bryan Hunt (Petrichor Solutions) → Casey Copley (SHC) |
Bryan Hunt refuses duct shop drawings in writing. Verbatim: "Producing duct shop drawings is not a service we provide." Bryan refers SHC to third-party "tinners" (H2Air and similar contractors) to source the drawings independently.
Context: SHC initially accepted this position after speaking with Lowell Ross. Casey Copley (same date): "I spoke with Lowell on Friday, and he explained why this item falls outside of your original scope. That makes sense, and we understand the distinction." This is one of a documented series of Petrichor scope disclaimers: duct shop drawings refused (Mar 2), gas isometric refused (Apr 13), utility service coordination disclaimed (Jun 22), disconnect field coordination disclaimed (Jul 23), plans characterized as "schematic" (Jul 23). Each refusal pushed resolution responsibility back to SHC and the field trades. What does this mean? (click to expand)Duct shop drawings are the detailed fabrication instructions that tell a sheet metal shop exactly how to cut, bend, and assemble the ductwork for a building. Without them, the field crew is essentially guessing. On March 2, Bryan Hunt said in writing: "producing duct shop drawings is not a service we provide." He told SHC to go find someone else to do it. Here's why that's significant: the whole reason SHC hired Nelson Ross and Petrichor was to get a complete set of construction documents — documents that tell the trades exactly what to build. If the engineer won't produce the drawings needed to actually build what he designed, the design isn't complete. By March 2026, Bryan had now refused: the 12-to-32-inch duct transition detail, duct shop drawings, and was about to refuse a gas isometric. Each refusal was one more thing the field couldn't do without engineering support — and one more delay. |
Clean written scope exclusion from Petrichor, produced 5 months into active construction. Duct shop drawings are a standard deliverable in MEP engineering for commercial construction. Bryan's refusal — and Lowell's ratification of that position — forced SHC to seek third-party coordination for a deliverable reasonably within the scope of "documents necessary for obtaining permits for construction" under the Nelson Ross proposal. This is part of the documented pattern of Petrichor progressively narrowing their contracted deliverable after construction was underway. | Petrichor refuses duct shop drawings in writing — scope disclaimer #1 in documented series |
| Mar 2–3, 2026 | Email (Casey/Summit Fire) | Summit Fire fifth follow-up, no response (Mar 2). Mar 3: Casey finally confirms SHC is ready to proceed with Summit Fire. Mar 16: Summit Fire responds they are "still 6–8 weeks out once you decide" — a further delay caused by the 11-week gap during which their crews were not mobilized. | Mar 3 confirmation ends the SHC-caused delay period for Summit Fire. 6–8 week crew mobilization lag is a downstream consequence of SHC's 11-week delay. | SHC-caused delay ends. 6–8 wk crew lag continues. |
| Mar 12, 2026 | Email (Caleb/Bryan) | 21 days after Feb 19 submittal with no response, Caleb follows up on alternate mini-split. Bryan responds same day asking for more information — no substantive review performed in 21 days. | 21-day non-response followed by information request rather than substantive review. Engineer's 21 days of non-response compounded procurement delay. | 21 days → information request, no approval |
| Mar 13, 2026 | Email (Casey/Caleb) | Casey escalates mini-split delay, noting original RFI was sent weeks earlier. Caleb simultaneously sends electrical submittals to Bryan for review. | Casey's escalation email documents SHC's awareness of cumulative delay. Electrical submittal (Delay Chain 9) begins. | Two simultaneous open items with engineer |
| Mar 18, 2026 | Otter.ai — "Weekly project meeting," 9:35 a.m. [Otter.ai transcript — obtain and preserve native audio and text] Attendees: Casey Copley, Caleb Strickler, additional participants |
SHC internal project meeting. Casey Copley documents design-caused costs and back-charge strategy:
Casey Copley (attic duct rework — $11,000): "they made some major egregious mistakes. The duct sizing was ordered according to the original drawings. They got shop drawings, executed, got all the material ordered, delivered to the site, set all the units. And then realized the rafter sizing spacing was off. Had to change all the duct sizing up there. So that's where this $11,000 is coming from — in my opinion, 100% attributable to the architecture." Casey Copley (delay quantification): "seven weeks... delay directly caused by the architects and engineers." Casey Copley (back-charge plan): "We are going to have one of those labeled back charge order. And the back charge order, all of us are going to sit down, finance team, figure out what the real delay is... we're going to factor all those costs in, prorate everything from the live estimate and get a daily cost for the delays." |
$11,000 attic duct rework: Casey documents approximately $11,000 in wasted materials caused by incorrect rafter spacing in the original plan set. All materials were ordered, delivered, installed, and then required complete replacement — a fully preventable loss directly attributable to the plan set.
Seven-week delay: Internal SHC quantification of design-team-caused delay at seven weeks as of March 2026. Note: SHC's later formal CWAM notice (Jun 19) allocates 90 days to engineering/permitting/revisions. A delay expert should reconcile these figures — they likely cover different periods or methodologies. Back-charge strategy: SHC was actively calculating and intending to pursue back-charges against the design team as of March 18, 2026 — three months before the formal CWAM default notice. Confirms the delay cost accounting was a deliberate, ongoing internal process. |
$11K wasted attic materials documented; 7-week design delay internally quantified; back-charge plan active |
| Mar 19, 2026 | CWAM Amendment 3 Drive: Amend 3 | Amendment 3 to CWAM subcontract signed by both parties. $33,697: 225A→400A service upgrade, washer/dryer/sump circuits, exit signs, radon circuit, attic lights. Clean execution — no signature gap. | Amendment 3 is enforceable. Unlike Amendments 1 & 2, both parties signed contemporaneously. | — |
| Mar 20, 2026 | Email (Caleb) | Caleb follows up on Mar 13 electrical submittals. 7 days elapsed, no response from Bryan. | Follow-up required on electrical submittals at day 7. | 7 days, no response to electrical submittals |
| Mar 20, 2026 | Email — "2927 W Pikes Peak - Electrical submittal for 12/12 and 2/23 plan revisions" Steven Byrd (American Electrician) → Caleb Strickler (SHC); Bryan Hunt (Petrichor) — non-responsive |
Bryan Hunt's non-response to electrical submittals blocks equipment procurement. SHC's electrical subcontractor American Electrician sends Caleb a direct written demand. Steven Byrd verbatim: "I need those submittals signed please. The engineer and by you. Before I can order the gear."
Caleb Strickler, same day: "They are sent to the engineer and we've been pushing for approval. I just spoke with the architect about this; he is working to also push the engineer for an approval." Electrical submittals had been sent to Bryan Hunt March 13 — 7 days earlier with no substantive response. No engineer approval was located in the record following this exchange. What does this mean? (click to expand)On March 20, 2026, SHC's electrician — a separate company called American Electrician — told Caleb in writing: I cannot order the electrical equipment until Bryan Hunt signs off on the submittals. Bryan had been sitting on those submittals for 7 days without responding. This isn't a paperwork delay. Equipment has lead times. If you can't order it on March 20, it doesn't show up on March 21 — it shows up weeks later, and everything that depends on it gets pushed back too. The electrician couldn't do his job because the engineer wouldn't sign a piece of paper. What makes it worse: Caleb had to call Lowell Ross — the architect — to try to get Bryan Hunt to respond. The engineer wasn't answering SHC directly, so SHC had to go through the architect to reach him. That's not how a responsive design team operates, and it directly contradicts Lowell's Nov 14, 2024 written promise to answer all RFIs promptly. |
Clearest documented instance of Bryan Hunt's non-responsiveness causing a concrete, real-world work stoppage. A licensed electrical subcontractor could not place an equipment order because the engineer had not signed off on submittals sent 7 days earlier. Equipment procurement delays directly extend installation timelines and push out inspection dates. This is a documented causal link between Petrichor's response failures and measurable schedule delay — with a third-party subcontractor's written statement as the source.
Note: Caleb had to route through the architect to pressure the engineer — meaning the coordination failure required SHC to manage Petrichor through Lowell Ross rather than getting direct engineer response. Directly contradicts Lowell's Nov 14, 2024 written commitment. |
American Electrician cannot order gear — Bryan Hunt unsigned submittals block procurement; 7 days no response; SHC routed through architect to reach engineer |
| Mar 24, 2026 | Email (Bryan Hunt) | Bryan finally responds to Mar 13 electrical submittals with attachments — 11 days, required follow-up to produce. Also on this date: Shane Dorais countersigns CWAM Amendments 1 & 2 (3–4 months after Casey's signatures). | Electrical submittal: 11-day delay, 1 follow-up required. CWAM amendments: late signature gap creates enforceability questions for attorney review. | 11 days for electrical submittal response; Amend. 1 & 2 signature gaps formalized |
| Mar 27, 2026 | Email (Caleb) | Another follow-up on mini-split alternate approval. No confirmed approval in the record as of the document date. Procurement remains stalled pending engineer sign-off. | 36+ days from original Feb 19 submittal. Mini-split alternate never formally approved in the available record. Procurement delay attributable to engineer. | 36+ days, no approval. Procurement blocked. |
| Apr 2, 2026 | PPRBD inspection note | PPRBD inspector notes: "need engineers letter for pex larger than 1 inch." Inspection creates a partial hold on the Plumbing Top-Out (PTO) inspection. Bryan Hunt must provide engineer's letter with HDPE SDR rating and city PSI data before PTO can complete. | Inspection hold created by engineer's plan deficiency (wrong pipe material spec). Engineer's letter required to clear hold — engineer has not provided it as of Jul 22, 2026. Active hold on permit Final.What is a "plumbing top-out hold" and why does it matter? (click to expand)When an inspector puts a hold on an inspection, no further work in that area can be covered up — no insulation, no drywall — until the hold is cleared. Bryan Hunt needs to send PPRBD a letter explaining and authorizing the pipe size that was installed. Until he does, the hold stays open. If the hold is still open at Final inspection, PPRBD will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) — meaning the daycare legally cannot open. As of Jul 22, Bryan has not sent the letter. SHC should be demanding it in writing with a deadline. |
PTO hold remains open as of Jul 22, 2026 |
| Apr 3, 2026 | Daily log / CSU Log p.147 | CSU Plumbing Rough Inspection — PASSED. Inspector checked prior day's corrections and approved. CSU left at 9:30 AM. | Positive milestone — plumbing rough inspection passed. | — |
| Apr 6, 2026 | Daily log — Engineer/HVAC Design Meeting Log p.143 | On-site design meeting: Lowell Ross, Bryan Hunt, Shane Dorais (CWAM), HVAC Mike, Caleb, Steve. "Duct routing problems were identified, and solutions were worked through." Required site visit by design team to resolve routing problems that plans could not address. | Design problems severe enough to require architect and engineer to attend field coordination meeting months after construction began. Validates CWAM's defense that plans required significant field resolution. Lowell and Bryan are confirmed present and aware. | Routing problems require physical site meeting — indicates plan-field conflict |
| Apr 27, 2026 | Daily log (Affordable Solutions HVAC) Log p.107 | CWAM runs thermostat wire. "Looked through plans and discussed necessary revisions." Revisions still required months after construction start. | Plan revisions still in discussion as late as April 2026. Supports CWAM's claim that ongoing design changes prevented orderly rough-in completion. | Revisions still in discussion in April 2026 |
| Apr 21, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.127 | Casey: "spoke with the engineer and we should have the requested mechanical and electrical revisions tomorrow, also gave approval for the isometric gas drawings." SHC approving gas drawings. | Engineer promising revisions "tomorrow" — documenting continued delay in revision delivery. SHC signing off on gas isometrics. | Revisions still pending Apr 21 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | Daily logs (Thorp / Casey) Log p.121 | Thorp Excavation begins city water tap. Discovers 7-foot buried concrete storm drain under asphalt — previously unknown condition. CSU changes pipe tap specifications (saddle → threaded taps) mid-work. Electrical rough-in inspection (lower level) PASSED. | Unexpected subsurface condition creates a documented force-majeure type delay for water tap work and the downstream hydrostatic test sequence. This is root cause of Kelly Walsh's "4 different answers" on hydrostatic test timing.What is a "force majeure" condition? (click to expand)Force majeure (French for "superior force") means an unexpected event beyond anyone's control that excuses a delay. A buried concrete storm drain that nobody knew was there — and that forced a change in how the water tap was done — is a classic example. If anyone tries to penalize SHC for the resulting delay to the hydrostatic test sequence, SHC can point to this discovery as a legitimate excuse. The key is that SHC must document it clearly — which the daily log does. |
Storm drain discovery: water tap/hydrostatic test cascade begins |
| Apr 23–24, 2026 | PPRBD | PPRBD Electrical Rough Inspection: lower level passed Apr 23 (1:00 PM); upper level passed Apr 24. Both inspections passed. | Electrical rough-in inspections pass — positive milestone for CWAM electrical scope. | — |
| Apr 24, 2026 | Email — "Fwd: Condit. Waiver on Progress Payment w/ notary & Invoices – Electrical/Mechanical" Cody McCarty (SHC) ↔ Cher Trujillo, Shane Dorais (CWAM) |
SHC finance team identifies CWAM overbilling at 122.75% of current contract value. Cody McCarty verbatim: "The billing sent today would push the mechanical scope of work to 122.75% of our current contract."
Cody noted an amendment of $11,814.14 covering the revised mechanical design (driven by Petrichor's plan changes) would be sent "ASAP" to address the contract balance discrepancy. What does this mean? (click to expand)In April 2026, CWAM submitted an invoice that would have paid them 122% of what their contract allowed — in other words, they were billing for more work than their signed contract covered. But here's the context: the reason the numbers were off is that Petrichor kept changing the mechanical design. Every time Bryan revised the plans, CWAM had to do additional or different work that wasn't in the original contract. SHC knew an amendment was needed to cover the new scope but hadn't gotten it signed yet. So CWAM was doing real extra work caused by Petrichor's design changes, but billing for it without a proper amendment in place. That's a contract administration problem — and the root cause is the same as everything else on this project: the plans kept changing. |
The overbilling occurred because CWAM was executing work under a revised mechanical design necessitated by Petrichor's repeated plan revisions — but the formal contract amendment to authorize and price that revised scope had not been executed. Documents a direct financial consequence of Petrichor's plan changes cascading into SHC's contract administration with CWAM. The revised mechanical design that caused the billing discrepancy was Petrichor's product, not CWAM's unilateral scope expansion. | CWAM billing at 122.75% of contract — design revision amendment not yet executed |
| Apr 30, 2026 | CWAM Subcontract §3 | CWAM trim-out deadline missed. Summit Fire trim-out deadline missed. Neither sub has completed rough-in, let alone trim-out. CWAM mechanical permit not yet issued. | Both subs miss trim-out deadline by months. CWAM defense: plan revisions still ongoing (see Apr 6 and Apr 27 meetings). Summit Fire defense: SHC-caused delay Dec 15 – Mar 3 plus CSFD plan approval delays. | Both trim-out deadlines MISSED |
| May 5, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.100 | CRITICAL: Caleb discovers Summit Fire's contractor license is suspended and insurance is expired. Casey informs owners same day. Quote: "Summit Fire has not received plan approval so he investigated and found that their license is suspended and their insurance is expired. We are working to get answers. I did inform the owners of this issue." | Summit Fire was legally unable to operate. SHC documented immediate notification to owners. This discovery establishes a period where Summit Fire could not legally work regardless of other delays. Formal notice sent May 11; updated COI received May 12.What is a "COI lapse" and why does it create risk for SHC? (click to expand)A COI (Certificate of Insurance) is the document that proves a subcontractor has insurance coverage. SHC's contract with Summit Fire required them to keep valid insurance at all times. When Summit Fire's coverage expired, SHC had no proof of coverage. If a Summit Fire worker had been injured or caused damage on site during that gap period, SHC could have been held financially responsible — not Summit Fire. SHC did the right thing by notifying owners immediately and getting a new COI by May 12. But the gap period needs to be checked to confirm nothing happened during it. |
Summit Fire legally unable to work — active license suspension |
| May 6, 2026 | Daily log (Affordable Services HVAC) Log p.95 | CWAM "encountered routing issues, we attempted to re-route but were unsuccessful as structure and meps are in the way, they are sending an RFI on it." Also: Thorp fails first compaction test — must dig up and restart. | CWAM's RFI on MEP-structure routing conflict in May 2026 demonstrates that design coordination problems persist 7+ months into construction. Contemporaneous documentation supporting §9(c) delay damages claim. | MEP-structure conflict still unresolved in May 2026 |
| May 7, 2026 | Daily log (Steve Michaels / Thorp) Log p.93 | Thorp passes second compaction test — road opens. Casey "worked through Summit fire contracts and current situation." Received unapproved change order from Thorp for road work. CWAM: met with PPRBD inspector for consultation on routing and flex ducting — CWAM removes non-UL listed flex connections on inspector's direction. | CWAM using non-UL listed flex connections — code compliance issue discovered during inspector consultation. Inspector consultation required to resolve routing issues, confirming plan deficiencies. | CWAM non-UL flex removed; compaction delay resolved |
| May 11–12, 2026 | SHC correspondence | SHC sends formal notice to Summit Fire regarding suspended license and expired insurance. May 12: updated COI received from Summit Fire. Insurance compliance restored. | SHC documented formal notice and rapid cure. The COI lapse creates an insurance gap during which SHC would carry liability for Summit Fire's work. Attorney should confirm the gap period. | License/insurance gap confirmed; cured by May 12 COI |
| May 13, 2026 | PPRBD / Summit Fire Log p.89 | Fire Alarm inspection — PASSED. PPRBD status: Final. Summit Fire fire alarm contract ($25,900) fully complete. No open disputes on this agreement. | Fire alarm scope closed successfully. No LD or cost-sharing issues on this portion of the contract. | — |
| May 14, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.87 | Casey: "spoke with mechanical team and they said that the dryer vent and the water heater venting was not part of their scope." CWAM disputes scope of dryer vent and water heater venting — potential gap in MEP plans or subcontract scope. | Scope dispute over dryer vent and water heater venting. Plan deficiency or ambiguous subcontract scope. Attorney should review MEP plans for these items. | Scope dispute adds delay and cost risk |
| May 20, 2026 | Daily log (Affordable Solutions HVAC) Log p.82 | CWAM lineset inspection PASSED. However: "inspector wants the manual uploaded before he can complete the inspection." Documentation hold added by inspector during positive inspection. | Inspection partially blocked by documentation requirement — manual upload required before inspector can fully complete. Administrative delay from incomplete submittal package. | Manual upload required; inspection hold |
| May 21, 2026 | PPRBD permit records Log p.81 | CWAM mechanical permit issued under "Affordable Services Corp." Permit status: Open. This is 5 months and 22 days after the contracted Dec 29, 2025 rough-in inspection deadline. CWAM defense: could not pull permit without approved plans, which were delayed by design revisions. | Mechanical permit issuance 5+ months late is the single most significant scheduling failure. CWAM's defense (plan revisions) is documented in SHC's own logs and email record. SHC's LD calculation must account for this timeline. | Mech permit: 5+ months after rough-in deadline |
| May 27, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.78 | Summit Fire submittal rejected again by CSFD. Summit Fire "does not believe they will make the new deadline." Casey: "got approval from ownership team to allow surface mounting." Also: CWAM lower level HV inspection PASSED after finishing work based on inspector's prior comments. | ⚠ CRITICAL LEGAL GAP: Casey approved surface mounting May 27. A stop work order was subsequently issued Jun 9 for surface-mounted pipe. Contradiction between these two dates must be resolved before any LD claim against Summit Fire for this period.What is "waiver" and why is this dangerous for SHC? (click to expand)Waiver means: if you explicitly allow something, you lose the right to claim later that it violated the contract. Casey approved surface-mounted pipe on May 27. Then on Jun 9, SHC stopped Summit Fire's work for... installing surface-mounted pipe. Summit Fire's attorney will argue SHC waived the concealment requirement. Unless SHC can produce a written document overriding Casey's May 27 approval, the Jun 9 stop work could be legally indefensible. That means SHC — not Summit Fire — might owe for the idle time from Jun 9–22. |
CSFD rejection — surface mounting approved; later reversed |
| May 28, 2026 | Daily log (Summit Fire / CWAM) Log p.76 | Summit Fire: pipe fitters walk site, red-line plans for their engineers to update drawings, encounter routing obstacles for main line and FDC controls. Leave to work through routing/design at office. CWAM: "began removal of temporary heating units... completed red lines of mechanical vent ducting for engineer's splice." | As of May 28, Summit Fire still working through routing — plans still not acceptable as drawn. CWAM still producing field red-lines for engineer-required splice — further documenting plan deficiency requiring field correction. | Both subs still addressing plan deficiencies as of May 28 |
| Jun 4, 2026 | CSFD / Jordan Johnson email Log p.72 | CSFD approves Summit Fire suppression permit (FCS-C-SP-26-00081). Jordan Johnson confirms in writing. This is the start of Summit Fire's ability to legally begin actual fire suppression installation — 6 months and 9 days after their contracted start date of Nov 11, 2025. | Permit approval after months of CSFD rejections. The 6-month delay to permit approval is jointly attributable to Summit Fire's plan deficiencies and SHC's 11-week decision delay (Dec 15 – Mar 3). | CSFD permit: 6 months after contracted start |
| Jun 8, 2026 | Daily log (Summit Fire / Casey) Log p.68 | Summit Fire day 1 of actual installation work. Casey: "Marked up plans and planned out routing of pipe. They will need to resubmit the plans because most of the routing will not work as drawn." Day one of installation reveals plans still do not work as drawn. | Even after permit approval, Summit Fire's plans do not match field conditions. This is the same plan-field mismatch documented since the project's original submittal. Further evidence of design-build plan deficiency. | Plans still don't work as drawn — first day on site |
| Jun 9, 2026 | Daily log (Casey) / Email (Caleb) Log p.65 | STOP WORK ORDER issued to Summit Fire. Casey, Caleb, and Lee agree work doesn't adhere to contract — pipe installed below 80" and surface-mounted. Summit crew "saw the writing on the wall." Caleb confirms at 4:59 PM: "Yes, we asked the installation team to stop working today due to contradictions between the onsite installation and the plan as we understand it." | ⚠ Stop work issued for surface-mounted pipe — which Casey approved May 27. Jordan Johnson later asked (Jun 12) for concealment documentation that supposedly justified the stop work; SHC has not produced it. If SHC cannot produce documentation, the stop work is legally vulnerable and undermines any LD claim against Summit Fire post-Jun 9.Why can't SHC charge Summit Fire for the Jun 9–22 idle period? (click to expand)Jordan Johnson (Summit Fire) asked in writing for the document that required concealment of basement pipe. SHC has not produced it. Without that document, Summit Fire's argument is: "Casey told us May 27 that surface mounting was approved. You stopped us on Jun 9 with no valid justification." If SHC tries to charge Summit Fire $500/day for Jun 9–22, Summit Fire will demand payment for those same 13 days from SHC — and they'll have Casey's May 27 approval in their hand when they do it. |
Installation stopped — June 9–22 Summit Fire completely idle |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Daily log (Casey / Summit Fire) Log p.62 | Fire pipe coordination meeting on site. Casey performs red-lines for new concealed CPVC design. Summit Fire attends. New timeline discussed: engineered drawings Jun 22, submittal to CSFD Jun 24–25, approval ~Jul 22, rough-in ~Aug 19. | New design agreed — complete restart of Summit Fire's installation scope. This represents a material change to the original contract scope and could support Summit Fire's $12,046 cost-sharing request.What is a "material change" and why does it support Summit Fire's cost request? (click to expand)A material change is when the scope of a contract changes so significantly that the original price and timeline no longer apply. Summit Fire came in to install a steel surface-mounted system. After the stop work, SHC agreed to a completely new concealed CPVC design — different materials, different routing, starting over from scratch. That is a material change. Summit Fire's $12,046 request covers the cost of that restart. Before SHC responds, the attorney needs to advise — any partial acceptance could complicate SHC's LD dispute with Summit Fire. |
Complete re-design and restart of suppression scope |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Email (Jordan Johnson) | Jordan Johnson: "I reviewed meeting notes and I am struggling to find documentation where we are directed to not leave any basement pipe exposed, or to have 70% of the system concealed within the structure. I find discussions and pricing to conceal the upper floor but that change order was not approved." | Summit Fire's written challenge to the stop work justification. Jordan cannot find concealment requirement in any meeting notes. Change order for concealment was never approved. SHC has not produced documentation. This is an active evidentiary gap. | Stop work justification in dispute; CO never executed |
| Jun 16, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.57 | Casey: CWAM CT Cabinet is lost in transit. Casey frames in janitor closet and mop sink per plan 205 changes. Casey begins drafting letters of intent to subcontractors behind schedule. | Lost CT Cabinet adds electrical delay. Casey drafting intent letters signals escalating awareness of schedule failure; these letters are relevant to the notice history for any LD calculation. | CT Cabinet transit loss adds electrical delay |
| Jun 18, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.52 | Casey: "began drafting letters of intent to subcontractors that are behind schedule." Met with Caleb and Lee on project coordination and plan forward with Summit Fire. Received Summit Fire material delivery from Denver. | Letters of intent to subs are formal precursor to default notices. SHC documenting escalation posture. | — |
| Jun 19, 2026 | SHC formal notice | Casey issues formal Notice of Schedule Default to CWAM. Sent to Shane Dorais, Cher Trujillo, Manuel Contreras. ~159 days behind schedule. SHC acknowledges ~90 days as engineering/permit delay; disputes ~69 days as CWAM staffing failure (consistently only 2–3 workers on site). Demands recovery plan within 3 business days. | Formal default notice is required precursor to termination under §11 (10-day cure period). Notice establishes SHC's documented position. CWAM's 3-business-day response window sets up the Jun 30 counter-response.What is a "Notice of Default" and what happens next? (click to expand)A Notice of Default is a formal written warning that CWAM isn't keeping their contract obligations. It is not a termination — it's a required step before SHC can terminate. Under §11 of the subcontract, CWAM gets a 10-day cure period after the notice: they can respond with a plan to fix the problem and avoid termination. CWAM responded on Jun 30 — not with a cure plan, but with a counter-claim. SHC's formal reply to CWAM's Jun 30 response was already overdue as of Jul 22. Every day of silence after CWAM's response weakens SHC's arbitration position. |
159 days behind — formal notice triggers cure period |
| Jun 23, 2026 | Daily log (Casey Copley) Log p.41 | Casey: "met with Caleb and CSU electrical division and they said that the electrical firm still needs to submit load calcs and other submittal docs." CSU electrical requires load calculations that have not yet been submitted by the engineer. | Load calculations — engineer's responsibility — have not been submitted to CSU. Active compliance gap in electrical permitting attributable to engineer. Further support for negligence/breach claim against Petrichor. | Load calcs unsubmitted — electrical permit compliance gap |
| Jun 24, 2026 | Daily log (Nelson and Ross site meeting) Log p.37 | Lowell Ross site meeting. CWAM's Manny discusses architectural conflict. Lowell tells Manny: "the issue wasn't in his realm and he needed to call Brian." PPRBD Ducting Insulation Inspection: "Splice is required to be uploaded to PPRBD website for finalization. Only ERV insulation requires inspection." | Lowell deflecting field conflict to Bryan Hunt in June 2026 — same structural/MEP coordination failure documented since October 2025. Inspector requires splice upload before inspection can finalize. | ERV insulation inspection incomplete — splice required |
| Jun 22–23, 2026 | Daily log (Summit Fire) Log p.45 | Summit Fire begins demo of previously installed steel sprinkler mains. Jun 23: begins installing CPVC pipe with new concealed design. Real installation restarts — 7+ months after contracted start date. | Restart of actual installation with new design. Duration from contracted start (Nov 11, 2025) to restart: 224+ days. Attribution: ~77 days SHC-caused + CSFD rejections + Summit license suspension + stop work. | Real installation restarts 7+ months late |
| Jun 24–26, 2026 | Daily log / Engineer meeting Log p.37 Drive: Mech Redline | ERV-1 truss conflict discovered in detail. Jun 26: site meeting with Bryan Hunt and Lowell Ross. Full Mechanical Revision 5 punch list established: supply/return vents for rooms 206A, 209, 108B, 405A (currently none specified); mechanical schedule update; ERV duct sizing; ERV 2/3/4 hanging; wall heater panel schedule; Bath 109 lighting; electrical service details. Bryan: "This will be the last time we combine splices for you." | At Jun 26 meeting, Lowell Ross admitted plans were designed "site-unseen." This is CWAM's key piece of evidence for their §9(c) counter-claim. Bryan's "last time" statement creates urgency around Revision 5 submission to PPRBD. | ERV-1 conflict adds to outstanding revision list |
| Jun 26, 2026 | Daily log (PPRBD) Log p.30 | PPRBD Duct Inspection — PARTIAL PASS: "Upper level ABOVE CEILING DUCT - SUPPLY/RETURN MAINS/BRANCHES FOR F-1 & F-2 OK TO WRAP. EXHAUST DUCT FOR EF-1, 2, 3 & 4 COMPLETE. Splice still needs to be uploaded when we receive it." Inspection could not fully finalize without splice upload. | Partial pass — splice upload blocks finalization. As of Jul 22, 2026, Mechanical Rev 5 splices have still not been submitted to PPRBD. Partial pass creates a dependency chain for insulation and drywall. | Partial pass only — splice upload still required |
| Jun 26, 2026 | SHC follow-up notice | Casey sends second formal notice to CWAM (Shane Dorais, Cher Trujillo, Manuel Contreras). CWAM missed the Jun 23 recovery plan deadline — no response received, no increase in manpower observed on site. SHC extends the cure deadline to COB Jun 30, 2026 and restates that failure to deliver a recovery plan may result in further action under the subcontract. | Second written notice strengthens SHC's documented cure-period record under §11. CWAM's complete silence after Jun 19 — no plan, no call, no written response — is now on the record. This notice sets Jun 30 as the operative deadline, which is the same date CWAM ultimately responds.Why does sending a second notice matter legally? (click to expand)Courts and arbitrators look closely at whether the party claiming a default gave clear, repeated warnings before taking action. Sending a second notice after CWAM ignored the first one shows SHC followed the contract's cure process step by step. It also locks in Jun 30 as a formal on-the-record deadline — CWAM cannot later claim they didn't understand the first notice was serious or that the deadline wasn't real. |
CWAM missed Jun 23 deadline — new deadline set for Jun 30; still no manpower increase |
| Jun 30, 2026 | CWAM formal response Log p.27 | CWAM responds to Jun 19 and Jun 26 default notices. Shane Dorais: plans changed 5+ times; site-unseen design; fire suppression forced duct reroutes; radon mitigation system required in January placed it in the same space plans called for ductwork, causing mid-project reroute; condensers moved twice per SHC/PPRBD direction and may require a third move (under ME review as of Jun 30); Lowell Ross admitted at Jun 26 meeting that plans were designed "site-unseen"; ~16 weeks of accepted delay documented. CWAM disputes SHC's staffing characterization — Shane states 3–12 workers/day on site, not the 2–3 workers SHC alleged. CWAM is positioned to counter-claim delay damages under §9(c). | CWAM's counter-position is substantively strong. The "site-unseen" architect admission is direct admission of design negligence. SHC's formal response (the "polish email to Shane" with Alex Kosley) was overdue as of Jul 14, 2026. Every day without SHC's formal response weakens SHC's arbitration posture.What is a "counter-claim" and what does "AAA Arbitration" mean? (click to expand)Counter-claim: CWAM isn't just defending the default notice — they're turning it around. They're saying: "You accused us of being late, but your architect (Lowell) and engineer (Bryan) caused the delays, not us. You owe US money." If CWAM's counter-claim succeeds in arbitration, SHC might end up paying CWAM instead of collecting from them. AAA Arbitration (§21): Under the subcontract, disputes go to the American Arbitration Association — not court. A private, binding arbitration process where a neutral arbitrator decides. It's faster than court but the decision is usually final. SHC needs its formal response to CWAM in place before arbitration is formally triggered. |
CWAM counter-claim: 16+ weeks design-caused delay |
| Jun 30, 2026 | Email (Summit Fire) | Summit Fire sends $12,046 cost-sharing request: reengineering $5,000 + new parts $5,981 + permit $1,065. Asking SHC to split 50/50 ($6,023 each). Jimmy Porter: "Our initial $30K in parts costs, over half of which we will not be able to utilize, we are willing to absorb at this time." | Open cost request, no formal response, no change order executed. Casey acknowledged Jul 21 but committed only to "review." Attorney must advise before SHC responds — any partial acceptance could affect LD and delay dispute positions. Lee Chapin was "amiable" to reviewing.Why can't Casey just agree to review this without attorney guidance? (click to expand)Summit Fire wants SHC to split $12,046 in unexpected costs 50/50. No change order has been signed. If Casey responds with anything that sounds like agreement — even "we're willing to discuss" — Summit Fire's attorney could treat that as a partial admission that the cost is owed. That could affect SHC's ability to hold Summit Fire responsible for other delays and penalties. Lee Chapin sounded open to it. But before any response goes out, the attorney needs to advise on how to protect SHC's LD and dispute positions at the same time. |
$12,046 unresolved; no CO executed |
| Jul 7, 2026 | Daily log (CWAM) Log p.19 | CWAM: "Was notified by Caleb bathroom fan ducting in lower level 109, must be manipulated for proper chase construction. Manny gave approval of manipulation and says CFM inspection will pass." | Design conflict in lower level bathroom fan ducting requires field modification in July 2026 — continued evidence of plan-field conflicts 18+ months into project. | Plan conflict in July 2026 — duct manipulation required |
| Jul 13, 2026 | Daily log (CWAM) Log p.12 | CWAM: "Had partial inspection for the F3 unit. Signed off and ready to insulate installed ductwork." American Electrician and CSU on site to review new service feed setup — CT panel, disconnects, and service line plan confirmed. | Partial inspection progress on F3 is positive. Electrical service coordination with CSU is active. | — |
| Jul 13–17, 2026 | Email (Caleb/Bryan Hunt) | Caleb sends 3 follow-ups to Bryan Hunt for Mechanical Revision 5 splices. Bryan commits Jul 13 to deliver by Jul 14: "Tomorrow is what things are currently looking at for delivery of them." Bryan misses the Jul 14 deadline by 3 days with no proactive communication; delivers splices + change summary Jul 17. Bryan states: "This will be the last time we combine splices for you. It is expected that you submit them as soon as you get them."
Caleb Strickler, Jul 17 (documented downstream impact): "When we receive a projected delivery date, we communicate that information to the bank, owner, subcontractors, and other members of the project team to plan accordingly. When those dates pass without the revisions being delivered or any communication that the schedule has changed, it puts us in a difficult position, making it challenging to manage expectations, coordinate the work, and maintain our project schedule." Bryan Hunt, Jul 22 (written refusal to correct identified deficiencies): "There will be no revisions to this splice. Submit them and then we'll address subsequent requests." — sent after Caleb identified missing items and unanswered RFIs in the delivered splice package. |
Bryan committed to Jul 14 delivery and missed it by 3 days with no proactive notice. Caleb's Jul 17 email creates a written record that Bryan's missed delivery dates ripple directly to the bank, owner, and subcontractors — relevant to damages claims against the design team for schedule disruption. Bryan's Jul 22 written refusal to revise a delivered set containing identified deficiencies is independently significant: SHC has a documented, substantive basis for withholding submission (splice is incomplete), and Bryan's refusal to cure is in writing. As of Jul 23, Caleb's deficiency list remains unaddressed. Plan of record is still the original Feb 2025 set. | Jul 14 delivery missed; Bryan refused correction Jul 22; splices not submitted as of Jul 23 |
| Jul 14, 2026 | Daily log (CWAM) Log p.9 | CWAM: "Completed ERVs (ran exhaust outputs closer than 10ft away recommended room distance however in the case of ducting being in the attic: recommendation is void; more 90-degree ducting was required than original plan, however will not affect performance drastically)." | CWAM self-documenting deviation from plan: ERV exhaust outputs installed closer than recommended spacing. CWAM notes this deviation is acceptable in attic context and does not affect performance — but this is CWAM's unilateral determination. Engineer sign-off on deviation not documented.Why does "no engineer sign-off" matter on a deviation? (click to expand)CWAM installed ERV exhaust outputs closer together than the plan specified, and wrote their own note saying it's fine. The problem: CWAM decided this unilaterally, without getting Bryan Hunt (the engineer) to confirm it in writing. If there's a performance problem later — or if an inspector questions the spacing — SHC is in a weaker position because there's no engineer letter on file saying the deviation was acceptable. SHC should request that Bryan review and confirm CWAM's field deviation in writing before the project closes. |
ERV deviation from plans — engineer sign-off not documented |
| Jul 16, 2026 | Email (Caleb Strickler → Bryan Hunt) | Caleb identifies that the development plan specified a 1" HDPE domestic service line for the building, but the actual inner diameter of a 1" HDPE pipe is ¾" — potentially undersized for building demand. CSU has stated the service is within range, but Caleb formally requests Bryan Hunt's written confirmation that the ¾" effective inner diameter is within acceptable industry standards. As of July 23, 2026, Bryan has not provided that written confirmation. | Open item: engineer-specified domestic service size may be technically undersized per actual demand calculations. CSU's verbal "within range" statement is not a licensed engineer's written sign-off. If Bryan does not respond with written confirmation, SHC is operating with an unresolved deviation from the specified domestic service capacity — a potential liability at Final inspection or post-occupancy. Bryan's non-response continues the pattern of failing to close engineer-required confirmations. | Water service size confirmation outstanding — Bryan has not responded as of Jul 23 |
| Jul 15, 2026 | Daily log (Thorp / Marlowe) Log p.6 | Thorp Excavation on site with CSU for water main connection. Marlowe log: "Fire department was not called to site and did not show up." Hydrostatic/flush test could not be completed — fire department attendance required. Status: still pending as of Jul 22. | Hydrostatic test is a gate item for Summit Fire's final plumbing connection. Incomplete coordination means test has not been performed, creating open punch item. This is the source of Kelly Walsh's "4 different answers" on hydrostatic test status. | Hydrostatic test still pending — CSFD not coordinated |
| Jul 21, 2026 | Daily log (Whitcomb Plumbing) Log p.1 | Whitcomb Plumbing on site: "Will soon be correcting the mistake of tying the gas line to the sprinkler system." Gas line was incorrectly connected into the fire sprinkler system — discovered on site. Kelly Walsh raised this as a concern, stating Summit Fire identified it, not SHC's PM. | ⚠ Who installed the incorrect gas line connection is undocumented. Kelly Walsh's statement that Summit Fire found it (not SHC PM) raises field oversight questions. The responsible party must be identified for liability allocation.What is "liability allocation" and why does it matter here? (click to expand)Liability allocation means figuring out who is legally responsible when something goes wrong — and which party's insurance pays. Someone connected a gas line to the fire sprinkler system, which is dangerous and incorrect. Each trade on this job (plumbing, HVAC, fire suppression) has specific scope. Until we know which trade made the connection, we don't know who is responsible for the rework cost or any downstream liability. Kelly Walsh noted that Summit Fire found the problem — not SHC's PM — which raises a question about field oversight. Identifying the responsible party matters before SHC pays for anything. |
Gas line rework required — responsible party unknown |
| Jul 21, 2026 | Email (Kelly Walsh → Casey) | Kelly Walsh private note to Casey: "Don't spend the next few days preparing for us. Spend them getting the project synchronized." Group email Jul 20 raises: critical path, hydrostatic test confusion (4 answers received), outdated plan revisions, gas line in sprinkler, downstairs vs. upstairs gating, outside work schedule. | Owner communication documenting SHC's failure to maintain coordinated project documentation and clear communication. Kelly praised Marlowe and Caleb. Not directed at individuals but at systemic coordination failure. Owner communications are potentially admissible. | Owner awareness of coordination failure documented in writing |
| Jul 22, 2026 (TODAY) | PPRBD permit P94043 / Multiple sources | Status as of document date: (1) Mechanical Revision 5 splices delivered Jul 17 — NOT SUBMITTED to PPRBD. "Add Splice" button unused. Plan of record is still Feb 2025 set. (2) Plumbing Top-Out (PTO) hold open — Bryan Hunt engineer's letter needed for HDPE/PEX sizing. (3) Zoning Final status: Rejected / Failed. (4) Hydrostatic test not complete. (5) SHC formal response to CWAM default reply overdue since Jul 14 — Cody McCarty internally confirmed Jul 22: "We still need to respond to this, yeah?" (6) Summit Fire $12,046 cost-sharing unanswered. (7) Gas line rework in progress. (8) Fire rough-in inspection scheduled Jul 28 — gate item for insulation and drywall. (9) Bryan Hunt refused to revise Mechanical Rev 5 splice on Jul 22 despite Caleb's written deficiency list — "There will be no revisions to this splice. Submit them and then we'll address subsequent requests." Deficiency list remains unaddressed as of Jul 23. (10) Domestic water service size confirmation from Bryan outstanding since Jul 16 — CSU verbal clearance received but no engineer's written confirmation. | Multiple simultaneous open legal and compliance items create compounding exposure. CWAM's "polish email" and Summit Fire cost-sharing response both require attorney review before transmission. Unsubmitted splices mean every sub is working from a 17-month-old plan set. | Multiple open items — critical path gated on Jul 28 inspection |
| Jul 23, 2026 — 1:30 PM | Otter.ai — "2927 W Pikes Peak Financial Review," 1:30 PM (13:40 duration) [Otter.ai transcript — obtain and preserve native audio and text] Participants: Cody McCarty (SHC), Luke Brunea (owner representative / Pikes Peak Properties LLC) |
Owner representative raises subcontractor and design professional recoupment on the record. Luke Brunea stated verbatim: "Some of these subs are going to need to have a little bit of a reckoning in various ways, and perhaps some of the professional services folks as well... if we're going after these subs to get something back, how does that factor into our conversations?"
Cody confirmed all subcontracts require arbitration as the first step. Luke stated his goal was to "plant that as a thought" and understand the game plan "as those conversations mature." Financial context from same call: Draw 14 (~Aug 25): ~$85K; CWAM mechanical overbilling dispute in progress (~$10K); Milestone Bank agreed to add $125K to loan (not yet formalized — expected in contingency); remaining contingency ~$70K + line of credit; Draw 15 (September): estimated $250K–$365K; overall budget trend $2.317M (target: $2.3M); project final draw estimated October 2026. What does this mean? (click to expand)Luke Brunea is the owner's representative — he represents Kelly Walsh, John Buonforte, and Ben Boyd, who own the building. Today he asked on a recorded call: if StreamHome goes after the subs and the engineers for money, how does that affect our shared financial picture? The short answer is: it's good news that he's asking. It means the owners are thinking the same way SHC is. But the money from arbitration won't arrive fast — arbitration can take months or longer — so it can't be counted on to cover current project costs. Luke needs to understand that the recoup timeline and the project completion timeline are separate things. |
First documented instance of the owner group formally raising recovery against both subcontractors AND design professionals ("professional services folks") on the record. Luke's specific inclusion of "professional services folks" — not just subcontractors — is significant: it establishes that the owner group is independently considering claims against Nelson Ross / Petrichor, not just CWAM. Owner representative has now expressed alignment with SHC's arbitration strategy as of July 23, 2026. | Owner alignment on arbitration strategy documented; recoupment discussions ongoing |
| Jul 23, 2026 — 9:19 AM ⚠ | Email — "2927 W Pikes Peak - Structural/mechanical contradictions," Bryan Hunt (Petrichor Solutions) → Caleb Strickler (SHC), 9:19 AM [Source: Email — preserve native EML with full headers and attachments] ⚠ HIGH PRIORITY — Send to Gerry immediately |
⚠ SMOKING GUN: Bryan Hunt admits in writing that Petrichor's plans "are schematic." In response to Caleb's Jul 23 deficiency list, Bryan issues three separate written scope disclaimers in a single email:
Disclaimer 1 — Plans are schematic (verbatim): "the plans clearly state that they are schematic" — stated in response to SHC identifying missing condenser spacing measurements and disconnect clearances. Bryan states the IOM (manufacturer's installation manual) is always the controlling document, not the plans. Disclaimer 2 — Disconnect coordination not in scope (verbatim): "Final disconnect locations are fully the responsibility of the electrical and mechanical contractors to field coordinate between themselves - the code is clear for what is required. While we are fully capable of LOD400 that is something that we were never contracted to provide, and you will find that the plans clearly state that they are schematic." Disclaimer 3 — Utility service plan not in scope (verbatim): "The utility service plan is not within our scope - if the civil engineer requires additional information from me have him contact me." Bryan also states regarding condenser placement: "The condensing units were not installed per the previously provided measurements anyway." ⚠ Document control issue: Two of the four Addendum 5 attachment filenames contain a typo — "2917 W Pikes Peak" instead of "2927 W Pikes Peak" (Mechanical Add05 and Plumbing Add05). Petrichor document control error; preserve original filenames. What does this mean? (click to expand)Bryan Hunt wrote in an email today that the plans "are schematic." In plain terms, schematic means a rough sketch or concept drawing — not a finished set of construction documents. Here's why that matters: SHC paid Nelson Ross and Petrichor to produce plans good enough to pull permits and build from. That's the whole point. If the plans were always "just schematic," then Petrichor is now admitting in writing that they never actually delivered what they were paid for. Every time CWAM hit a problem in the field — wrong duct sizes, wrong condenser placement, missing details — the answer from Bryan was essentially "figure it out yourself, our plans are schematic." But schematic plans can't pass inspections. That's why this project has had 5+ plan revisions, multiple inspection failures, and is still not done. Think of it this way: if you hired an architect to design your house and they handed you a napkin sketch and said "it's schematic, you figure out the rest" — that's not what you paid for. That's what Bryan is now saying Petrichor delivered. |
"Plans are schematic" — written admission against interest. Petrichor's contracted scope (per Nelson Ross proposal) was to produce documents "necessary for obtaining permits for construction." A schematic plan is a conceptual document — it shows intent, not construction-ready details. Bryan's written statement that "the plans clearly state that they are schematic" directly supports SHC's position that Petrichor failed to deliver construction-ready documents and that this failure caused the inspection failures, rework, and delays documented throughout this timeline.
Three scope disclaimers in one email — disconnects, utility service, condenser placement — continue the pattern of deflecting responsibility to field contractors for items that originated as plan deficiencies. Bryan's concurrent refusal to revise the Mechanical Rev 5 splice (Jul 22) and this written scope disclaimer (Jul 23) together establish that Petrichor has now formally disclaimed responsibility for the very deficiencies SHC has documented since September 2025. ⚠ Preserve this email natively (full headers, attachments, original filenames) as a priority document for arbitration. |
⚠ "Plans are schematic" — written admission; three scope disclaimers; priority arbitration document |
Each delay chain below is a separately documentable delay event with a responsible party, a measurable duration, and a downstream consequence. All delays involve design professional non-responsiveness (Bryan Hunt / Petrichor) or architect unavailability (Lowell Ross / Fine Line Design Studio) unless otherwise noted.
| # | Chain Name | Date Requested | What Was Requested / What Happened | Date Promised / Date Delivered | Days | Follow-Ups Required | Responsible Party | Downstream Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MEP Omissions — Plumbing | Sep 8, 2025 | Caleb's first RFI: dishwasher, ice maker, gas piping missing from MEP plans. Sep 12: follow-up. Sep 16: Bryan responds with questions, not fixes. Nov 14: Caleb sends plumbing submittal + PEX question. Nov 21: follow-up. Dec 11: Bryan's answer — CSU prohibits PEX for service lines. Plumber may have roughed in with wrong material. | Sep 16 (non-answer) Dec 11 (critical answer) |
~95 | 3+ follow-ups across chain | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt (plan omissions, wrong material spec) | Wrong pipe material may require plumbing rework. Missing lines required field-added work. Sep 8 RFI unresolved for 95 days. |
| 2 | Structural / Framing Conflicts | Oct 3, 2025 | Caleb flags structural concerns after demo. Lowell: "Out until the 13th." Site visit Oct 13. Oct 17: Lowell sends Delta 4 and admits: "I'm waiting to hear back from Petrichor if the ducts can fit our available space." MEP not validated against structure 14 days after flag. | Oct 13 (site visit) Oct 17 (partial response) |
14+ | 2 (flag + follow-up) | Fine Line / Lowell Ross (unavailability + site-unseen design); Petrichor (MEP-structural coordination failure) | MEP routing required rework after structural conditions revealed. This conflict propagates into Nov truss-duct conflicts and Jun 2026 ERV-1 issues. |
| 3 | E-Delta Splice / PPRBD Comments | Nov 6, 2025 | Caleb submits E-Delta splice + PPRBD comments to Bryan same day. Nov 10: Caleb resends (no response). Nov 13: third contact — "Can you finish by tomorrow?" Bryan delivers same day. | Nov 13, 2025 | 7 | 3 contacts required | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt | Splice response required for permit plan update. 7-day delay in 3-contact pattern is the documented baseline for Bryan's non-responsiveness throughout the project. |
| 4 | Trusses vs. Ducts (5 locations) | Nov 26, 2025 | Caleb flags trusses at 15" OC conflicting with duct routing in 5 areas. Lowell: "Soonest I can meet is Dec 4." 8-day delay just to schedule a site visit on an active structural-MEP conflict during construction. | Dec 4, 2025 (site visit only) | 8+ | 1 (flag) | Fine Line / Lowell Ross (scheduling delay); Petrichor (underlying MEP-structural conflict) | 8 days before architect responds to active structural conflict. Duct routing in these 5 areas was uncertain until architect/engineer conferred. CWAM cites this in Jun 30 default response. |
| 5 | Mech/Elec 6-Item RFI | Nov 21, 2025 | Caleb sends 6-item RFI. Nov 26: follow-up. Dec 2: Bryan responds partially (11 days). Dec 11: Caleb follows up on outstanding items. Dec 15: Bryan sends partial mechanical revisions. Total: 24 days from first RFI to partial mechanical response; outstanding electrical items remain. | Dec 2 (partial) Dec 15 (partial mech revisions) |
24 | 3 (Nov 26, Dec 11, Dec 15) | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt | 24 days + 3 follow-ups for partial resolution. Outstanding items from this RFI continued to delay CWAM rough-in work. CWAM could not finalize mechanical rough-in without these answers. |
| 6 | Lowell Goes Silent — Structural Revisions | Dec 11, 2025 | Caleb requests structural plan revisions discussed before Thanksgiving. Jan 8: follow-up, no response. Jan 12: Casey's welfare-check email to Lowell. ~6 weeks of complete silence on structural revisions during active construction. | Never confirmed in record | ~42 | 2 (Jan 8, Jan 12) | Fine Line / Lowell Ross | 6 weeks of architect silence on structural revision requests during active construction. Framing and mechanical decisions made without authoritative design guidance. Supports negligence/breach claim against architect. |
| 7 | ERV-1 Discontinued Equipment | Feb 3, 2026 | Trusses creaking under ERV-1. Feb 9: Bryan responds — "The unit that was specified was retired last year." Engineer-specified equipment is discontinued; replacement is heavier, requiring structural re-evaluation. | Feb 9, 2026 | 6 | 1 (flag) | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt (specified discontinued equipment; plans were not current) | Plans specified equipment no longer manufactured. Replacement requires structural re-evaluation. Additional cost and delay for ERV-1 substitution. |
| 8 | Mini-Split Alternate Submittal | Feb 19, 2026 | Original mini-splits stuck in customs; Caleb submits alternate. Mar 12: follow-up (21 days, no response). Bryan asks for more info — no substantive review. Mar 13: Casey escalates. Mar 27: another follow-up. No confirmed approval in available record. | Unresolved as of Jul 22, 2026 | 36+ | 3 (Mar 12, Mar 13, Mar 27) | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt (non-response to alternate submittal) | 36+ days without engineer approval for alternate equipment. Procurement blocked pending approval. No confirmed approval in record — status unknown as of Jul 22. |
| 9 | Electrical Submittal Approval | Mar 13, 2026 | Caleb sends electrical submittals. Mar 20: follow-up (7 days elapsed). Mar 24: Bryan responds with attachments — 11 days total, required follow-up. | Mar 24, 2026 | 11 | 1 (Mar 20) | Petrichor / Bryan Hunt | 11-day delay on electrical submittals; required active follow-up. Electrical permitting and CWAM rough-in dependent on timely engineer responses. |
| 10 | Summit Fire — SHC Decision Delay | Dec 15, 2025 | Summit Fire presented re-engineering options. SHC did not provide actionable decision for 11 weeks. 6 documented Summit Fire follow-ups (Jan 8, 19, 30, Feb 4, Mar 2, Mar 16) went unanswered or received non-committal responses. SHC confirmed ready Mar 3, 2026. | Mar 3, 2026 | ~79 | 6 follow-ups by Summit Fire | StreamHome Construction (SHC — decision delay) | ~11 weeks of SHC-caused delay fully excuses Summit Fire from LD exposure under §4 for this period. Also delayed Summit's mobilization by 6–8 additional weeks (crew unavailability after long pause). |
| 11 | Summit Fire — CSFD Plan Rejections | Nov 2025 | Summit Fire submitted plans to CSFD — rejected. Multiple revision cycles. CSFD permit finally approved Jun 4, 2026 — approximately 6 months from first submission. | Jun 4, 2026 | ~180 | Multiple CSFD cycles | Summit Fire (plan quality); partially SHC (11-week decision delay); CSFD (review timing) | 6 months to CSFD permit approval; actual on-site work delayed to Jun 8, 2026. Summit Fire's rough-in inspection is now targeting Jul 28, 2026. |
| 12 | Summit Fire — License/Insurance Suspension | Discovered May 5, 2026 | Caleb discovers Summit Fire's contractor license is suspended and insurance is expired. Casey informs owners immediately. Formal notice sent May 11. Updated COI received May 12. | May 12, 2026 (COI received) | ~7 | 1 (formal notice May 11) | Summit Fire (failure to maintain license/insurance) | During suspension period, SHC carries full liability for any Summit Fire work. Work performed while unlicensed may have regulatory implications for permit/inspection. |
| 13 | CWAM Mechanical Permit — 5-Month Delay | Dec 29, 2025 (contractual deadline) | CWAM's mechanical permit required by rough-in deadline Dec 29. CWAM defense: could not pull permit without approved plans. Mechanical permit issued under "Affordable Services Corp." on May 21, 2026 — 5 months and 22 days after contractual deadline. | May 21, 2026 | 143 | N/A — permit delay | CWAM (§6 permit obligation) / Petrichor (plan deficiencies delayed approvals) | Without mechanical permit, CWAM could not schedule required rough-in inspections. Root cause is disputed between CWAM (plan delays) and SHC (CWAM staffing failure). Total CWAM delay: ~159 days; SHC concedes ~90; disputes ~69. |
| 14 | Mechanical Rev. 5 — Unsubmitted Splices | Jun 26, 2026 (punch list established) | Caleb sends 3 follow-ups Jul 13–17. Bryan delivers Mechanical Rev 5 splices Jul 17. Bryan states: "This is the last time we combine splices for you." As of Jul 22, 2026, splices have NOT been submitted to PPRBD. Plan of record remains Feb 2025 set. | Splices received Jul 17, 2026 Not submitted as of Jul 22 |
5 (and counting) | 3 to produce splices | SHC (failure to submit after receipt) | Every sub on site operating from 17-month-old plans. Inspection finalization and permit Final blocked. Owner identified outdated plans as top concern. Highest-priority action item on project. |
The following items represent evidentiary gaps that must be addressed before any arbitration proceeding, default notice, or formal settlement position can be taken. Items are ranked by legal urgency.
| # | Priority | Item | Description of Gap | Why It Matters | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Summit Fire concealment documentation | Casey approved surface mounting May 27, 2026. Stop work issued Jun 9 for surface-mounted pipe. Jordan Johnson asked Jun 12 for documentation of concealment requirement — says he cannot find it in any meeting notes. SHC has not produced this documentation. | If SHC cannot produce documentation, the Jun 9 stop work order is legally vulnerable. A vulnerable stop work order undermines any LD claim against Summit Fire after Jun 9 and exposes SHC to Summit Fire's cost-sharing request being entirely SHC's burden. | Attorney to determine: (1) does documentation exist? (2) If not, can it be reconstructed from meeting notes, emails, or phone logs? (3) SHC must not send written settlement response to Summit Fire's $12,046 request until this is resolved. |
| 2 | CRITICAL | SHC formal response to CWAM Jun 30 letter | CWAM responded to SHC's Jun 19 default notice on Jun 30 with a substantively strong counter-position citing the "site-unseen" admission, 5+ plan revisions, and §9(c) counter-claim rights. SHC's formal reply (the "polish email to Shane" with Alex Kosley) was overdue as of Jul 14, 2026. | CWAM's Jun 30 letter, if left unanswered, may be treated as constructive acknowledgment or bad-faith non-response in AAA arbitration. SHC's formal position needs to be on paper before any demand for LD damages or termination is pursued. | Attorney to review CWAM's Jun 30 letter. Attorney to advise on and approve the Alex Kosley draft before transmission. Send immediately after attorney clearance. |
| 3 | CRITICAL | CWAM Amendment 1 & 2 enforceability | Amendment 1 ($3,900, Oct 31/Nov 3, 2025) and Amendment 2 ($225, Dec 11/16, 2025) were signed by Casey months before Shane Dorais countersigned (both on Mar 24, 2026). Work was performed under both amendments during the gap period. Amendment 3 ($33,697) is clean. | If Amendments 1 & 2 are unenforceable, SHC's claims under those provisions are weakened. Conversely, if CWAM tries to disavow them, SHC needs to understand its position. The gap period work creates an implied contract argument that may run either direction. | Attorney to assess enforceability of Amendments 1 & 2 under Colorado law given the gap period and the work performed. Advise SHC before making any claims that depend on those amendments. |
| 4 | CRITICAL | Lowell Ross "site-unseen" admission — documentation | At the Jun 26, 2026 site meeting, Lowell Ross reportedly admitted that the plans were designed "site-unseen." This is referenced in CWAM's Jun 30 default response as a key fact. There is no written contemporaneous record of this statement in the available documents. | The "site-unseen" admission, if documented, is the single most powerful piece of evidence in SHC's claims against the design team and directly supports CWAM's §9(c) counter-claim (which SHC would then redirect against Petrichor/Fine Line). Without documentation, it is a he-said dispute. | Obtain written statement from each person present at Jun 26 meeting (Caleb, Casey, Lee, Bryan Hunt, Lowell Ross, Shane Dorais). Casey or Caleb should draft contemporaneous memo while memories are fresh. Preserve CWAM's Jun 30 letter as corroboration of the admission. |
| 5 | HIGH | Gas line installation — chain of custody | Whitcomb Plumbing on site Jul 21–22 correcting a gas line incorrectly tied into the fire sprinkler system. Kelly Walsh stated Summit Fire identified this, not SHC's PM. Who installed the incorrect connection is undocumented in available records. | The responsible party for the incorrect gas line installation determines: (1) which subcontract's LD and indemnity provisions apply; (2) whether SHC has a cost-recovery right against a sub; (3) whether this incident affects SHC's field oversight liability argument with the owner. | Caleb and Marlowe to confirm in writing: who installed the gas line? When was it installed? Who first identified the error and how? Obtain written statement from Summit Fire (Jordan/Tyler) confirming when and how they discovered it. |
| 6 | HIGH | Bryan Hunt engineer's letter — HDPE/PEX hold | PPRBD inspector noted Apr 2, 2026: "need engineers letter for pex larger than 1 inch." Bryan Hunt must provide a letter confirming HDPE SDR rating and city PSI data before the Plumbing Top-Out (PTO) inspection can clear. Casey emailed Thorp (Trevor) Jul 21 for SDR + PSI data, which must be delivered to Bryan first. | PTO hold blocks permit Final. Permit Final blocks certificate of occupancy. Certificate blocks turnover (Oct 16–19). Critical path item with direct impact on completion date and lender obligations. | Trevor Thorp to provide SDR rating + city PSI (needed by Jul 23). Casey to transmit immediately to Bryan Hunt. Bryan to produce engineer's letter. Target: letter received before Jul 29 insulation start. |
| 7 | HIGH | Mini-split alternate — engineer approval | Original mini-splits specified by Petrichor were stuck in customs. Caleb submitted alternate Feb 19, 2026. Bryan asked for more information Mar 12 (21 days later). Caleb sent follow-up Mar 13. Another follow-up Mar 27. No confirmed approval in available record as of Jul 22, 2026. | If mini-split alternate was never formally approved, there is either (a) an unapproved substitution in the field, which creates permitting/inspection risk; or (b) the equipment is on hold, blocking CWAM's trim-out schedule. | Caleb to confirm: was the alternate mini-split ultimately approved by Bryan and installed? Obtain written approval from Bryan Hunt if not already in file. If equipment is still pending, escalate to attorney for potential negligence claim against engineer. |
| 8 | HIGH | CSU electrical load calculations | Casey log Jun 23, 2026: CSU electrical said the firm still needs to submit load calcs and other submittal documents. This is an engineer responsibility under MEP design. Status unknown as of Jul 22, 2026. | Unsubmitted load calcs means CSU electrical permit cannot be finalized. If this is still open, it gates the electrical Final inspection (Oct 7 per schedule) and certificate of occupancy. Petrichor is responsible for load calc submission. | Caleb to confirm with CSU electrical: have load calcs been submitted? If not, send formal written demand to Bryan Hunt / Petrichor with deadline. Document as another engineer failure. |
| 9 | HIGH | Summit Fire signatory discrepancy — suppression contract | Summit Fire Suppression contract §23 names "Jimmy Porter, Company Representative" as the signatory. The contract was actually signed by Jordan Johnson (Branch Manager). Jordan Johnson signed; Jimmy Porter did not. | Signatory discrepancy could affect contract enforceability — particularly for LD calculations and the $12,046 cost-sharing request. If the named signatory (Jimmy Porter) did not sign, Summit Fire could argue the contract was not properly executed. | Attorney to assess enforceability under Colorado law given the named-but-unsigned signatory. Consider obtaining a confirmation/ratification letter from Summit Fire acknowledging the contract is binding. Do not raise this with Summit Fire without attorney guidance. |
| 10 | MEDIUM | Dryer vent / water heater venting scope dispute | Casey log May 14, 2026: CWAM stated that dryer vent and water heater venting are "not part of their scope." This was apparently a surprise to SHC. MEP plans should specify these items; the subcontract scope should include them. | If this scope gap is real (items not in MEP plans and not in CWAM subcontract), SHC must either negotiate a change order with CWAM or obtain a separate sub. If it's a CWAM misread of their scope, SHC needs written clarification before final billing. | Attorney to review CWAM subcontract scope and MEP plans for dryer vent and water heater venting. Determine responsibility. If CWAM scope gap exists, document as a plan deficiency and seek recovery from design team. |
| 11 | MEDIUM | CWAM ERV deviation — engineer sign-off | CWAM log Jul 14, 2026: ERV exhaust outputs installed closer than 10-foot recommended room distance. CWAM self-determined this was acceptable because ducting is in the attic. No engineer sign-off on this deviation is documented. | If the ERV deviation creates a code or performance issue, the undocumented unilateral deviation is CWAM's liability — but SHC supervised and did not object. If it later fails inspection, SHC and CWAM will dispute responsibility. | Caleb to document: (1) was Bryan Hunt informed of this deviation? (2) Is there any written engineer acknowledgment? If not, send to Bryan for written confirmation that the attic installation meets code requirements. Create paper trail before inspection. |
| 12 | MEDIUM | Zoning Final — Rejected status | PPRBD shows Zoning Final inspection status: "Rejected / Failed: Not ready" from Feb 4, 2026. This inspection must be cleared before permit can go Final. Path to resolution is unknown in available records. | Zoning Final rejection is a hard block on permit Final and certificate of occupancy. If this is not resolved, the project cannot complete regardless of all other inspections passing. | Caleb to investigate: what specifically caused the Feb 4 Zoning Final rejection? What is required to clear it? Contact PPRBD zoning division directly. Establish a clear resolution path with target date before Jul 25 owner meeting. |
All source documents referenced in this timeline. Google Drive links open the document in a new tab. On print, URLs are shown in full.
| Document | Category | Date / Parties | Key Relevance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nelson-Ross Architects Proposal | Design Contract | May 31, 2024 — Nelson-Ross / SHC | Limit of Liability clause ($50,000 cap). Establishes Petrichor (Bryan Hunt) as MEP sub with no privity to SHC. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PkwFNmimu4ueQrxPfaAeOPBOWYBA2UFG/view |
| AIA A101-2017 Prime Contract | Prime Contract | Apr 22–25, 2025 — Pikes Peak Properties LLC / SHC | $2,271,419.11. Design-build delivery. Contract end Sep 1, 2026 per CO-007. All sub deadlines flow from this. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PiqtAZOkw2JEixZZHy8kZKCuQRoxTjq3/view |
| Cost-Plus Agreement | Prime Contract | Apr 22–25, 2025 — Pikes Peak Properties LLC / SHC | Cost-plus fee structure supplement to AIA A101. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vizyWm7_T1QoGSiJwbQFeNqW9YqDtyR0/view |
| Milestone Bank Construction Addendum | Lender / Finance | Apr 25, 2025 — Milestone Bank / SHC | §8.7 draw cycle (invoices by 25th → paid ~13th following month). Lender inspector controls. Contract end Sep 1, 2026. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zCveWwjcTIarXWHGJ9ifgj3jpetO23oW/view |
| CWAM / Affordable Services Corp — Subcontract | MEP Subcontract | Oct 20–21, 2025 — SHC / CWAM | $346,935.26. §4 $500/day LDs (sub-caused only). §6 CWAM pulls own permits. §9(c) delay damages from design team. §21 AAA Arbitration. Rough-in Dec 29 / trim-out Apr 30 deadlines. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_gL8Ff-T9BnBX7CEIycPMevnfW2IRNWY/view |
| CWAM Amendment 1 | MEP Subcontract | Casey signed Nov 3, 2025 — Shane signed Mar 24, 2026 | Temp furnaces, $3,900. 3.5-month signature gap. Enforceability at risk — work performed before countersignature. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vfjBJST5iDiIFQfJM69bJZ4twVS2YknG/view |
| CWAM Amendment 2 | MEP Subcontract | Casey signed Dec 16, 2025 — Shane signed Mar 24, 2026 | Line set removal, $225. Same 3-month signature gap and enforceability risk as Amendment 1. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LHObgY0ME9zHoXomw1EY1bCQ8gE0xEJW/view |
| CWAM Amendment 3 | MEP Subcontract | Mar 19, 2026 — SHC / CWAM (both signed simultaneously) | $33,697: service upgrade, washer/dryer/sump circuits, radon, exit signs. Clean execution — enforceable. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JP-CjELZJKaMBJ_s17LIhnnmbZBvGnm0/view |
| Mechanical Revision 5 Red-Line (Jun 26) | Design / Engineering | Jun 26, 2026 — Bryan Hunt / Petrichor | Full punch list from Jun 26 site meeting. Splices delivered Jul 17 but NOT YET submitted to PPRBD as of Jul 22. Critical path item. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IvfXogBWLHJ13Ci6M5lMtjkugVYsGqZ9/view |
| Buildertrend Daily Logs PDF | Construction Records | Apr 3 – Jul 22, 2026 (112 pages) | Contemporaneous daily log record. Covers active construction phase only. Referenced throughout timeline with page citations. | dailylogs.pdf — hosted alongside this file |
| Project Schedule — Buildertrend Export | Schedule | 2927 W Pikes Peak Ave — 159 line items | Item #29 Construction Mobilization = Jul 21, 2025 (contractual start of construction). Item #159 Turnover to Client = Oct 20–21, 2026. | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gq0xqzh8bNLvtk3GuvbMOTotAYUp_aa0/edit |
| Legal Strategy / Working Document | Attorney Work Product | Google Doc — ongoing | Primary strategy document linked from this timeline's navigation bar. | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U-qgAQSJwj1glLl7oZRG-bZ8Dz98_7eQdHhdMDwS4No/edit |