Laserfiche WebLink
<br />appear that the contractor was claiming that an additional $1,800 <br />was due him. In closer examination it appears that the stated <br />$1,800 amount includes $1,000 of base contract dollars and an <br />$800 claim for extra riprap that was never authorized by the <br />State. <br />I do not believe that the contractor has a claim for additional <br />work or materials, in fact I have asked for a price to complete <br />this work and if not properly completed by the contractor I would <br />recommended that monies being held in retainage be used to <br />satisfy the contract. If that is insufficient and if the dollar <br />amount is significant, I would suggest terminating the contact <br />and notifing the bonding company for the purpose of completing <br />the job. <br />Item #8 Amount - S5,000.00 <br />The contractor feels that he was damaged because of the failure <br />of the State to stake the outer limits of the work. <br />Task #2 states that the owner will stake the outer limits of <br />grading where deemed necessary. A letter dated May 16, 1995, <br />indicated that they had asked Bill Colgate to have this area <br />staked. This letter was written after an issue had come up over <br />the disturbance of 2 (or 2.5) acres of adjacent land outside of <br />the work area. I found no evidence that the contractor was <br />damaged as a result of this area not being staked. <br />Task #5 states that the owner will stake the outer edges for the <br />convenience of all parties. It was my understanding that the wks~ ~~~ of <br />fence on the east side had been established as the outer edge ~{~r~ <br />Task #11 states that approximately 100 feet back from the east ~O'O / <br />edge of the East Pit, as staked by the owner, reduce the <br />highwall. I am of the understanding that the area east and south .2~ <br />of the East Pit was flagged. <br />F <br />In summary it seems that the only area in question is the Chen's <br />Hill area and I cannot find that the contractor was damaged as a <br />result of that, henceforth I see no justification for this claim. <br />Item #9 Amount - $2,100.00 <br />