Message-ID: <28929226.1075845779121.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: scott.healy@enron.com
Subject: FuelCell contract questions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: Scott Healy
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Hi Scott,

I have some questions:

The obligation to try to improve performance  about the specific performance 
(ie minimum) standards frequently has a time limit, say 6 months.  Do you 
have a sense for the appropriate time period here?  Would it make sense to 
require them to work longer on the first 2.0 and 2.4 than the rest?

Will we have a drawing number for a standard foundation design, or will we 
need to put words around it.  I know we discussed the need for pilings as the 
most significant change.  Do you think that this difference is enough?  Did I 
understand that we want them to pay us at the end for non-standard 
foundations (as opposed to a credit). 

On termination, are we going with the average value no matter what the reason 
for termination, with a rep along the lines of whay you wrote, plus some 
monitoring ability.

On assignment, they mentioned a corporate guaranty.  I was thinking of using 
something broader due to various financing/balance sheet considerations, 
perhaps tying it to a guaranty from a BBB rated entity.

Do we want an option to have them store these, which would then impact 
payment?

Thanks,

Kay