Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />chances being made. This would have involved ditch work. <br />including shaping riprap and drop structures <br />The State did in fact make two separate changes in this area over <br />two separate periods of time. The first change took place when <br />no work had been started. The second change took place when 2-3 <br />drop structures were under construction. Those drop structures ~~ ~~esif-~ <br />were not changed and they were left in place as a part of the . 6~0 <br />final solution. Based on the final spacing, I could not obi ~°O~ <br />determine how the revised spacing would curtail the contractor in <br />any way. The information provided insufficient evidence to <br />support the claim that the contractor was in the process or had <br />completed any work that was deleted. I find no justification for <br />this claim. <br />Item #6 Amount - 5800.00 <br />The contractor claims that the drawings for the drop structures <br />were inadequate and that they should be paid for any work done <br />incorrectly as a result of this <br />The State has admitted that the drawings were vague, yet the <br />contractor has some obligation to confirm questionable data. <br />With an issue of a little fault on both sides it is my <br />understanding that a mutual agreement has been made to share this <br />cost on 50/50 basis. The State has already paid the $400, yet <br />after further discussion it has been decided that the State <br />should pay for another two hours ($180) of time for fill in at <br />the two altered drop structures. <br />Item #7 Amount - 51.800.00 <br />The contractor contends that he had completed the work in <br />accordance with the contract and in the process of doing this he <br />was required to provide 50 additional cubic yards of riprap for <br />which he should be paid. <br />It is my understanding that this work has not been completed to <br />the satisfaction of the State. when the area was hand excavated <br />to determine what had been done, it was discovered that the ditch <br />had not been properly shaped and that the riprap required in the <br />bottom had not been placed. In reviewing the claim it would <br />