Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the fault lies in Mr. Mease's superintendence of the work. <br />The OWNER acknowledges that the upstream arrow indicator is missing from the drop <br />struchue drawing, but does not feel totally responsible since the proper orientation was <br />discussed with he contractor before construction on the drop structures wmmenced. CWL <br />did not bring the omission on the drawing to the OWNERSs attention, and did not <br />communicate effectively with workers on site. <br />The State is willing to share in the wst but does not believe that the CONTRACTOR is <br />entitled to full compensation for the described error. The OWNER has tried to be more <br />than fair on this issue and offered to pay half of the CONTRACTORS claim. <br />FINDING: Upon request, Mr. Mease faxed me a copy of his subcontractor's bill for the <br />additional excavation, moving wall, etc. for $350.00. To this he added his costs as follows: <br />3.0 hours dozer @ $90.00 = $270.00 <br />15 hours loader @ $65.00 = $97.50 <br />Overhead $100.00 <br />Subcontractor $350.00 <br />Total $817.50 <br />The State has acknowledged that upstream arrow indicator was missing. In cases of <br />ambiguity regazding any part of the bid, it is the Contractor's responsibility to bring it to the <br />attention of the Owner. Mr. Mease quoted only a part of The General Bid Specifications <br />#11 which in entirety states, "I'he drawings if any, included with this specification are <br />complete and adequate for construction. While every effort has been made to have the <br />plans and drawings free of errors and ambiguities, any such points must be brought to <br />OWNER'S attention immediately." If Mr. Mease's was confused about the orientation of <br />the structures, he should have immediately brought it to the OWNERSs attention. Despite, <br />not having done this, IMP has offered to pay Mr. Mease half of his costs. I conclude this <br />is a fair settlement. CWL is due $400.00. <br />Item # 7 Amount - %1800.00 <br />This is for additional work on bid /tem 3A, Chens Hill Damage(sic.) Control with Riprap, <br />which is referred to in Paragraph 7 above relative to inspection. <br />This item was completed to a quality superior to that required by the contract. By the contract <br />it should have had 110 cubic yards of riprap. CWL put SO additional cubic yards of riprap in <br />this ditch when it was originally built. CWL used this extra rock because it makes placing it <br />easier. CWL is asking for $800.00 in addition ro the original brd price of $1000.00 for the 2 <br />times CRr1: went back and added rock after the project was properly completed <br />The State failed to promptly inspect this work as required by the contract. Three large rain <br />17 <br />