Laserfiche WebLink
<br />According to the State the request was made on May 26 and the oSIUV'~~ <br />delivery was made June 9, 1994. The State contends that the seed ~~ I <br />was delivered and placed in a dump truck and covered with a tarp ~ ~r o <br />to protect it from moisture. On what date the contractor ~~ <br />discovered the seed is unknown. <br /> ~ <br />The issue of the exact date requested and the exact date of O <br />ro <br /> <br />delivery <br />is not relevant as the contractor <br />had not and was ~N, <br />~co~„'C <br />not ~ <br />prepared to fertilize, which must be done before seeding. I <br />Based <br />on this I find that the contractor has not been delayed or `~/~i/~./~~%'~ <br />inconveni enced. , <br />~~'~,~ a/i3` <br />#s <br />The S ta te wa s to furn ish eq uipmen t re ntal reco rds to CWL. CWL <br />di d not re ce ive h s un ;1 ; a er d l am at oar m ing_ in <br />De nve r on Se ptem ber 2 6th. <br />It is my understanding the equipment rental records are intended <br />to maintain an understanding between both parties of equipment <br />use throughout the job. It is also my understanding that State <br />had not furnished these to the contractor until after they had <br />been requested in September. It is hard to assess damages based <br />on the time when equipment logs had been distributed. The fact <br />that the logs had been maintained for the purpose intended seems <br />to be the critical factor here and that is not the issue. I find <br />that an oversight did occur, yet this resulted in no <br />inconvenience to the contractor. <br />#6 <br />Special Conditions state the project manager is available during <br />regular business hours 8:00 am to 5:00 pm weekdays. I called 7 <br />working days in a row one time. 5 working days in a row another <br />time and 3 working days in a row several times, and he didn't <br />return my calls I couldn't get through to John Nelson on anx~ <br />these times, and he didn't return my calls. <br />It is my understanding that a State representative was on site <br />most of the time. This could have been either Bill Colgate or <br />John Nelson. In conjunction with this, other persons were <br />available to the contractor if there was a problem of contacting <br />either of the parties noted above. It appears that the <br />contractor elected to limit his line of communication to John <br />