Message-ID: <10240284.1075845779278.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: scott.healy@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com
Subject: Purchase order
Cc: stephen.plauche@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: stephen.plauche@enron.com
X-From: Scott Healy
X-To: Kay Mann
X-cc: Stephen Plauche
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

I will send you comments via e-mail periodically as I read sections.  Here 
are my comments thru Section 5.

1.  Shouldn't the agreement be in the name of ENA?
2.  Section 2.1--We should have the right to change the persons identified 
listed in Section 2.1 (a) & (b), particularly if we assign.  Do we need a 
procedure?
3.  Section 2.1 (d)--Shouldn't it just say "highway" as opposed to "major 
highway"?
4.  Section 2--Need to add the following concept.  90 days after RTO, 
Purchaser shall identify up to [5] primary or alternative sites for 
installation of the units (identification to include an expected 
configuration).  Upon 10 day notice, Purchaser shall have the right to 
substitute sites or change site configurations.  The project plans shall be 
based on the primary configurations identified by Purchaser.  4 months prior 
to shipment, Purchaser must identify the site where a unit must go.  At this 
point, the site is locked in for that unit.
5.  Section 3.3 (c)--insert "or as reasonably required to implement" after 
"as required by".
6.  Section 3.16--Add in concept of identified sites.  Timing of plans should 
coincide with site identification.
7.  Section 5.1.1--Incorprate concept that shipping per unit is based on the 
lesser of actual costs or $87,000 per unit.  I think that FCE agreed to this 
concept.
8.  Section 5.4--Why is "to be discussed" shown?  I thought that FCE agreed.