If judgment for a claimant is less than the amount of a settlement offer by the defendant, prejudgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the judgment for the period during which the offer may be accepted. If judgment for a claimant is more than the amount of the settlement offer by the defendant, prejudgment interest does not include prejudgment interest on the amount of the settlement offer for the period during which the offer may be accepted. TEX. CIV. STAT. ANN. Art. 5069-1.05, 6(b), (c) (current version at TEX. FIN. CODE 304.105(a), (b) (Vernon 1999)). In Quality Beverage, Inc. v. Medina, 858 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]) the First Court of Appeals construed 6(c) to require the party seeking application of this tolling provision to bring a request to the court's attention while the court had plenary jurisdiction. Both sides have an obligation to provide the court with competent evidence to establish the proper amount of the interest award. See Quality Beve age. The opinion goes on to imply that competent evidence in this context could be stipulations, affidavits, or live testimony at a post-verdict or timely post-judgment hearing. See id. Quality Beverage failed to provide competent evidence when its counsel merely attached a letter as an exhibit to a response on a motion to modify the judgment. See id.