My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00233
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00233
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:12 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:44:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153528
Contractor Name
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Water District
0
County
Montezuma
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br />. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~"- <br /> <br />Section II <br /> <br />- Under-utilized Project Personnel <br /> <br />As noted earlier, the Towaoc Municipal Project was bid with the intent <br />of maximumizing personnel and equipment usage. This is the required <br />concept of a competitive and cost effective operation. <br /> <br />Work started in Division I and was intended to flow into Division II <br />and Division III work. Work in Division II would be in progress while <br />pipelaying and follow up activities in Division I was being completed. <br />The contract documents allowed for this concept when the documents <br />stated that the. Contractor would be provided.the.final. alignment of-the <br />Division II segment by December 31, 1988. <br /> <br />We have been unable to follow our work plan due to the delay created <br />when the Owner was unable to provide the Division II work area to us as <br />scheduled in the contract documents. <br /> <br />Instead of the project supervision and project engineering managing <br />this as an entire project composed af Division I, II, and III, it has <br />now been effectively broken down by the Owner into what amounts to <br />three separate projects, none of which could be managed or performed <br />concurrently with the other. This has caused the performance of the <br />supervision and engineering to be spread over a considerably longer <br />~ime period than was bid into the overall project. <br /> <br />Our claim for Section II, Under-Utilized Personnel will compare the <br />direct costs of the project when the project could be considered as <br />operating efficiently to the latter period when it was farced to <br />operate at a lesser degree of efficiency because of Owner-caused <br />reduced workload. We will consider the period from Octohpr 24, 1988 <br />thru March 2, 1989 the basis for the fully efficient pwriod when our <br />direct costs were at a level that could be held reasonahly consistent <br />, . . <br />throughout the project_' This period includes the start up periad wh~ch <br />contributes to provide a conservativ~-daily average direct cost. The <br />less than fully efficient period is considered the time after March 2, <br />1989. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.