Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />FINDINGS DATED MARCH 15. 1995 <br />Contractors Claim Against Purchase Order C-79064 <br />Claim of Negligence <br />#1 <br />Notice of award was not given within the 4 days stated in the <br />special conditions. <br />The documentation that I have, indicates that the pre-bid on site <br />meeting was conducted on January 11, 1994 and the bids were <br />received on January 25, 1994. There was some concern that the <br />contractor might have erred in their bid and some time was <br />consumed in this verification process. The contractor was given <br />a NOTICE OF AWARD and asked to submit bonds, insurance, <br />schedules, etc. on February 2, 1994. These were due by February <br />12, 1994. On February 21, 1994, the contractor was issued the <br />NOTICE TO PROCEED. <br />I am unable to substantiate any neglect on the part of the State <br />in processing documentation. <br />If there is any concern <br />it should be noted that <br />TO PROCEED is issued. <br />#2 <br />that this had an impact on the schedule, <br />the clock doesn't start until the NOTICE <br />The State has fail d to~av promptly as required by the General <br />Conditions (1993) and the terms of h Pur has Ord r <br />The State has records of receipts and distribution of payments <br />which indicate that payments were made in a timely manner. This <br />claim is not absolutely clear as to whether this is an issue <br />with the periodic pay requests or with the clearance of the <br />retainage. If this is an issue with the payment of retainage, <br />please see subsequent comments addressing that. With regards to <br />periodic payments, I found no grounds to substantiate the claim. <br /> <br />