GENERAL36031 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nelson. Whatever the issue is here, I find that persons were available to the contractor in the most favorable manner possible at all times and that the owner was not negligent. #7 The State failed to inspect the work promptly as required bathe General Conditions 1993 #30 Acceptance and Final Payment. The contractor claims the works the work was completed on July 12th. but not inspected until July 25th. This claim makes no mention if the notice of completion and the completion of work is one of the same, which in this case may not be relevant. A copy of the hand written inspection report made by John Nelson was included with this appeal. This report indicates that it was completed on July 20, 1994 and turned in on July 25, 1994. The July 20, 1994 date appears twice on this report. Based on the hand written report, I believe the inspection was made on July 20th. It is my opinion that the inspection was completed within the specified time and that the written report was not typed up until July 25th, henceforth the discrepancy. The contractor then goes on to explain that due to delaXs in inspecting the work, some work had been covered u~ This issue is addressed later on in a claim for monetary damages. The drainage ditch in question was excavated by hand and it was determined that the ditch was improperly shaped and that the only existence of riprap was completely inadequate most of which was on the side with very little in the bottom. That which was found on the bottom appeared as material that might be expected as native to the immediate area. In other words it appears to have been material that was exposed during the shaping process. Based on the fact that the finished product was investigated to the extent mentioned appears that time of inspection is less relevant than the satisfaction of the work completed. #8 The State has also failed to advertise for the final settlement. as required by the General Conditions 1993 #30.