PROJ00345

• Contract/PO #: C153330
• Contractor Name: Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• County: Routt
• Bill Number: SB 77-35
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I

I

shortly before inspection to give bidders information on moisture content,

water table, and oversize rock which may not show up on the logs or test

I

results.

Centerline staking of the major structures and the limits of clearing

I

,
and borrow excavation will save a lot of questions. Any questions which are

I

not covered by the bid documents are usually answered by an addendum to all

bidders so that all remain on an equal basis.

I

B.

Contract Provisions

The following comments and recommendations are based upon a review of

I

the contract documents received on August 11, 1978.

I

Specification
Page or Draw-
ing No.

I

P. 61 Item 5 is so worded that questions could arise on embankment

I

construction materials. If sources of these materials con-

I

taining adequate quality and quantity are to be provided

by the owner at no cost to the Contractor, this should be

I

made clear.

I

P, 62

Item 7 describes a relationship between the State and the Owner.

I

It would appear that if the plans and specifications are

State-approved and then carefully enforced, this relationship

I

will have no effect upon the Contractor. He is bound contrac-

tually to perform the work but not to obtain State approval

I

of the work. This item could result in unnecessary bidder

I

concern and higher prices. Unless required, it should be

deleted.

I

I