My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL41656
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL41656
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:10:00 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:19:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/13/1994
Doc Name
DECISION ON CWL CLAIM PURCHASE ORDER C-79064
From
DMG
To
COLO WEST LEASING
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.
/
77
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 />because CWL was not ready to seed until a full 11 days after the seed delivery. <br />FINDING: Task 14 of Special Conditions specifies a two week notice prior to seed delivery. <br />The seeds were delivered in two weeks, four days so they were four days late. However, it <br />is important to note that there was no delay in the project or the Contractors schedule <br />resulting from the delay. As explained in the IMP response, seeding did not begin until <br />June 23. There is no evidence of negligence. <br />5. The State was to furnish equipment rental records to CWL. CWL did not receive these <br />until it asserted claims at our meeting in Denver on September 26th. <br />Response: The Equipment Rental forms the Division are using were properly filled -out and <br />signed by both the Project Manager and CWL each day. Upon learning that CWL needed <br />copies, copies were made available. <br />FINDING: The General Bid Specifications, page 80, do require the Project Manager to <br />furnish a copy of each day's "Equipment Rental Record" to the Contractor. The Project <br />Manager did keep the daily records, they were signed daily by the Contractor,however CWL <br />was not furnished a daily copy. This was an oversight by the Project Manager. As soon <br />as 6e became awaze of it, copies were sent to CWL. There was an oversight by the Project <br />Manager, although I see no evidence of negligence. <br />6. Special Conditions state the project manager is available during regular business hours <br />8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., weekdays. I called 7 working days in a row one time, 5 working <br />days in a row another time and 3 worlang days in a row several other times. I couldnY <br />get through to John Nelson on arty of these timeg and he didnY return my calls. <br />Response: At the pre-construction meeting, CWL personnel were introduced to Bill <br />Colgate. Mr. Colgate was hired by the Division to be the Division's on-site contact and <br />observer when the Project Manager (John Nelson) was not present. If CWL was having a <br />problem with locating John Nelson, Mr. Colgate should have been informed of the problem <br />and he would have located either John or someone else in the Division who could have <br />helped. <br />Also, CWL could have contacted Maggie Van Cleef, who is listed as the Agenry Contact <br />on the Purchase Order, Jim McArdle or Dave Buckram. <br />FINDING: Mr. Mease had made notes in his field book regarding his inability to contact <br />Mr. Nelson. He did not explain why other personnel were not consulted or informed of his <br />need to contact Mr. Nelson. At the meeting with the IMP representatives, they said Mr. <br />Mease did refer to Mr. Colgate in Mr. Nelson's absence on several occasions. So, although <br />Mr. Nelson could not be contacted there were other DMG representatives who were <br />available. There is no evidence of negligence. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.