Laserfiche WebLink
<br />representative of the Coal Program had made some general volume estimates for the <br />material to be moved, but no volume figures were included in the bid documents. The <br />contractor was responsible for determining and verifying the actual quantities of material <br />to be moved in order to achieve the bid specifications. <br />A mandatory pre-bid meeting and site showing was held on January 11, 1994. At <br />the site showing all contractors toured the mine site and visited several features that were <br />referenced in the Special Conditions of the bid document. Bidders were invited back to the <br />job site the following day to make specific measurements on their own. <br />CWL was the lowest bidder and they were awazded the rnntract on February 18, <br />1994 for this project. During the course of the work a controversy arose regarding topsoil, <br />among other items. CWL claimed several stockpiles were not included in the special <br />conditions of the bid document. They stated they would not move them unless payment was <br />on an hourly basis. The IMP agreed that two of the stockpiles were not specifically included <br />in the bid, and they agreed to pay hourly rental rates to move these topsoil piles. IMP <br />asserts that one topsoil stockpile, the East Pit West Side Pile was specifically included in the <br />bid. <br />The specific points of contention as delineated in CWL's November 4, 1994 claim aze <br />presented in Attachment A. Mr. Mease claims the first nine items aze cases where the State <br />has been totally negligent in performing the contract. The next items, Item # 1 through Item <br />#14 aze monetary claims. The final four claims are the State's claims against CWL Mr. <br />Mease's claims are in italics, followed by the State's response. A finding for each specific <br />claim follows the State response. <br />Below is a summary of the findings regazding each item and my final decision on this <br />claim <br />A. Negligence Claims <br />SUMMARY OF FINDINGS <br />Item # 1 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #2 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #3 The State was negligent. <br />Item #4 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #5 There was an oversight by the Project Manager, although I see no evidence of <br />negligence. <br />Item #6 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #7 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #8 There is no evidence of negligence. <br />Item #9 The State failed to issue a change order within fourteen days of a field directive. <br />B. Claims for Payment <br />2 <br />