My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31685
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31685
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:41 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:04:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/27/1995
Doc Name
MEMO KEY RECORDS OUTLINING DETAILS OF CONTRACTOR PROBLEM AT GEC
From
DMG
To
MAGGIE VANCLEEF
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
:~ <br />f ~` ~ • <br />north end road. First grading was covered in the initial <br />bid. Road had to graded a second time to correct the <br />grade and CWL demanded additional payment. <br />3. Failure to obtain oral or written instructions on <br />construction such as the orientation of the concrete drop <br />structures. CWL installs a drop structure backwards and <br />blames a drawing that did not show the direction to the <br />stream flow that the drop structure was to be placed. It <br />was the contractors obligation to point out this obvious <br />oversight before commencing construction. <br />4. Frivolous billing such as 30 minutes of cellular air <br />time. <br />5. A total unwillingness to compromise on any portion of <br />this project. <br />H. The Project extended beyond the completion due date and <br />liquidated damages were levied against CWL. <br />I. The Chen's Hill ditch was never completed according to the Bid <br />Specifications even though CWL repeated stated that it was. <br />The physical and photographic evidence demonstrated that the <br />poorly constructed ditch was not built according to the bid <br />and in fact could not function. This resulted in complaints <br />from DMG, Dr. Corley (landowner) and Energy Fuels (adjacent <br />mine operator). <br />J. November 4, 1994 claim submitted by CWL. <br />K. November 18, 1994 formal complaint letter from Dr. Corley <br />refers to problems created by the contractor including <br />improper ditch construction, entrance gate damage and oil <br />spills. <br />L. December 5, 1994, DMG letter to CWL requesting that Dr. <br />Corley's damage be corrected by CWL. There is no <br />evidence that CWL ever contacted Dr. Corley. <br />M. December 13, 1994, Sandra Brown's decision on CWL's claim <br />substantiates and documents the extent of the problems and the <br />unsubstantiated nature of the contractors claims. The <br />contractors claims continue to cause the DMG to spend a <br />considerable amount of time on this project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.