My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36031
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36031
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:45 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:34:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/17/1995
Doc Name
HEARING PROTEST ON CWL CLAIM PO C-79064
From
CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES
To
COLO WEST LEASING
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.
/
17
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 />Claim of Monetary Entitlement <br />Note: This Claim includes monies collected, retainage and <br />claims of damages. <br />Item #1 Amount - 549.530.94 <br />This claim involves four (4) separate issues The first issue is <br />the matter of the unclaimed retainage. The second. third and <br />form, ;ss„as are all similar in that they all involved time spent <br />to move topsoil and to rip the area from which the topsoil was <br />removed Included in the forth item was the time sent to move <br />some brush on the east side of the East Pit <br />On the issue of unpaid retainage, the balance of the retainage is <br />due the contractor after satisfactory completion of the work, <br />including the advertisement for closure and the satisfaction that <br />all claims had been rectified and that the punch list had been <br />reasonably completed. It is my understanding that the current <br />retainage is insufficient to cover the completion of work yet to <br />be done. The major items yet to be completed include the removal <br />of unacceptable riprap stockpiled on the site, correcting the <br />unacceptable ditch, replacing topsoil which was lost in the East <br />Pit, reseeding the areas which did not receive proper coverage of <br />topsoil due to the loss of available topsoil in the East Pit, <br />etc. <br />The claim as stated with regards to the movement of topsoil from <br />the north side of Chen's Hill appears to be accurate. It is also <br />noted that the contractor was paid for this work, as requested, <br />from the hourly rates as stated in line items 16 and 17 of the <br />agreement. <br />I was unable to substantiate the contractors claim with regards <br />to moving the small pile near the east. This is a mute point, as <br />the owner has paid the contractor for this work through the <br />normal billing process using line items 16 and 17 of the <br />agreement. <br />With regards to the issue involving the third pile on the west <br />side of the East Pit, it is my understanding that this material <br />was used at the East Pit site. Task #10 includes the cost of <br />topsoil from the East Pit for the East Pit. I cannot <br />substantiate this claim. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.