My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL38573
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL38573
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:17 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:45:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/26/1995
Doc Name
MEMO GEC EAST PIT PROJECT C-87-037 COLO WEST LEASING CLAIM
From
DMG
To
CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Dennis Larson 3 April 26, 1995 <br />8. CWL feels that they should not have been held to keeping the road (south side of <br />Chen's Hill) as the boundary of the work area. Amendment #1, to the Bid <br />documents, 2. modifies task 2 to include the following: <br />The road around Chen's HiU will not be eliminated The CONTRACTOR may <br />move the road slightly closer to the fence, if possible, to gain a few extra feet for the <br />outslope reduction and drainage ditch number 1. <br />The other side of the fence mentioned in the amendment is the Energy Fuels Coal <br />Mine and not included in the project. AS well being stated in the amendment, this <br />was pointed out to all contractors at the pre-bid meeting. <br />5. Deleted erosion mat--did DMG pay two hours machine time to have the ditch <br />shaped? All ditch constructed for which erosion mat and/or riprap was deleted was <br />paid for at the unit price for ditch without erosion mat, item 12d, ($0.30 per foot). <br />CWL billed for and was paid for 1750 lineaz feet of ditch (1750 • 0.30 = 525) on the <br />invoice dated 7/26/94. We will hopefully be able to measure the length of ditch on <br />site on Thursday. <br />6. Disagreement as to whether the ditch was completed to specifications will be <br />investigated during the planned site visit, Please let us know if DMG can provide <br />any further information. <br />3. CWL claims that it has not received payment of $90.00 for the coal overburden spill <br />near the Magpie Creek staging area. John Nelson's October 7, 1994 letter, #3, <br />agrees to pay $90.00 for item 2a in the August 26, 1994 letter. A.2. (there is no 2a) <br />in the August 26, 1994 letter to CWL from John Nelson refers to coal overburden <br />spoil near the Magpie Creek staging azea. CWL's bill of 11/1/94 refers to item 2A <br />per the September 26 meeting. DMG contends that the bill was for the spill at <br />Magpie Creek staging area, which appears as item 2A or A.2. We are unclear as to <br />what berm CWL is referring to. <br />STATE CLAIMS <br />3. Horizon B Topsoil pushed in the East Pit by CWL on 3/1/94. There was much <br />confusion over this issue at the hearing. I asked John Nelson to outline and measure <br />the area where topsoil was lost on a site map. He has done that and the area <br />conforms to his original estimates, as upheld by Sandra Brown in her decision. We <br />also have some aerial photographs which illustrate this further, which will be <br />available during our site visit Thursday. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.