Message-ID: <9085317.1075845779391.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: scott.healy@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com
Subject: Comments on Section 10
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

1.  FCE rejected Section 9.2 before.  Perhaps this provision should only be 
triggered if a specific quality problem is identified.
2.  10.1.1 (ii)--Shouldn't standard be that FCE uses commercially reasonable 
efforts to manufacture, deliver and install the Equipment in accordance with 
Exhibit N-3.
3.  10.1.2--Purchase trigger dates need to be based on when on the major 
equipment is delivered to the site in an undamaged condition.
4.  10.2.1--Shouldn't this section be eliminated?  Is this the point of 
termination schedule.  I don't want to pay FCE for shipment delays unless 
Purchaser directly and fully caused them.
5.  Section 10--Need sound guarantee.
 6.  Section 10--Where do we say that all tests will be performed on a unit 
by unit basis and in accordance with the specified protocol.
7.  Section 10.5.3--Need to incorporate FCE proposal.
8.  Section 10.6 (c)--My question on lien releases; will it be done on a unit 
by unit basis or on a facility basis?
9.  Section 10--Assuming that we adopt language that Output is the only test 
with a performance band, where do we put in the language about the purchase 
price adjustment if it is within a bound.  Even though we have not agreed to 
the % bound, we probably can write the generic language (or pull it from 
another document).
10.  Section 10.7--Add note--Waiting for response on other ENA proposal 
before deleting.