My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL32835
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL32835
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:55:09 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:26:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/14/1994
Doc Name
CERTIFIED MAIL CLAIM FOR GEC PROJECT RN- MINES-322 STATE OF COLO PURCHASE ORDER C-70964
From
COLO WEST LEASING
To
DMG
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.
/
9
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 />CWL is entitled to be paid for the following items, some of <br />which are damages, some of which are unpaid bills and some of which <br />are a combination. <br />ITEM ~ 1 AMOUNT - $56.236.61 <br />This claim is for line items and retainage billed to date but <br />as yet unpaid, and for hourly equipment rental for additional work. P~0 <br />This hourly equipment rental time was used (a) to move three piles <br />of topsoil, (b) to rip the areas that these piles were on, and (c) <br />to move some brush on the East side of the East Pit. These three <br />piles of topsoil are identified as Chens Hill North Pile, the East <br />Pit Yard Pile, and the East Pit west side additional topsoil pile. <br />The Chens Hill North Pile was addressed in a letter from DMG <br />dated May 10, stating that this pile was not included in the lump <br />sum topsoiling price. CWL was asked to move this using hourly <br />equipment rental. CWL has not been paid fully for this. <br />The East Pit Yard pile was a small pile near the East Pit and <br />was not identified in the contract documents. It didn't become pp <br />evident to them that it was topsoil until near the very end of the /A'~ <br />job, when CWL indicated this to DMG. DMG then told CWL to spread <br />this, using equipment rental. CWL has not been paid for this. <br />The third pile, the East Pit West Side additional topsoil, was <br />not identified in the contract documents to be replaced under the <br />lump sum topsoiling prices. Task 4 "Chens Hill topsoil <br />replacement", Task 7 "West Slope topsoil replacement", and Task 9, <br />"North End topsoil replacement", state that "If project manager <br />requires additional topsoil to be brought in from the east Pit <br />site, this cost will be paid separately, and will be based upon the <br />Equipment Rental rates." The East Pit West side additional <br />topsoil, was the only other topsoil available to which this <br />reference could apply. <br />The state asserts that the East Pit West side pile was r,f , <br />identified at the pre-bid meeting, to be moved under the lump sum -~"° <br />topsoiling prices in Task 4,7,9 and 13. This is refuted on page 1 ~ <br />of the special conditions Pre-Bid Meeting and site showing 3rd <br />paragraph, which reads: "Bidders are cautioned that, <br />notwithstanding any remarks or clarifications given at this meeting <br />and site showing, all terms and conditions of the contract <br />documents remain unchanged unless they are changed by written <br />amendment issued by the OWNER." This also is addressed in the <br />amendment #1 dated January 12, 1994, #14 "All other items in the <br />original Invitation and Bid not addressed in this amendment remain <br />unchanged". <br />- 3 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.