GENERAL34764 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J` • • Division letters dated May 10, 1994 (item 2) and May 12 , 1994 ( item 2 ) , the bid document tasks 7, 9 and 13 and Amendment Number 1 to RN-MINES-322 dated January 12, 1994. As noted in our meeting, an additional previously unknown topsoil pile was located during construction activities in the East Pit area and the contractor was paid hourly equipment rental to move this pile. Also, the contractor was given the benefit of the doubt on the previously claimed topsoil pile located on the north end of Chen's Hill as outlined in the Division's letter of May 10, 1994. The Division has reviewed your concerns regarding this particular topsoil pile in question and can find no basis for paying extra beyond what was bid in your lump sum bid price. 2. Additional time for revegetation. a. The Contractor outlined reasons for a time extension for revegetation in a letter dated June 16, 1994. b. The Division responded to the Contractors letter on June 24, 1994 and addressed all issues. No new information was provided during our meeting other than stating that grading and topsoil replacement had to be completed prior to revegetation. The Division can find no basis for a time extension for revegetation for reasons outlined in our letter of June 24, 1994. 3. Claims outlined in your letter of July 19, 1994. a. Item 1-4.5 hours at $90.00\hour Dozer Rental -$405.00 aa. In reference to our letter of August 26, 1994. Item A-1 and A-3 determinations remain unchanged, however, A-1 should also include the fact that Amendment Number 1, item 8, specifically stated that the undisturbed drainage located on the extreme south end of the East Pit was not to be disturbed. No additional payment will be made for this item. The Division has reconsidered item A-2 of our