Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In early November, IMP came to the conclusion that in view of the growing dispute with he <br />Contractor and the Contractor's seeming unwillingness to build the ditch to specifications <br />it was in the best interest of the Division and the Contractor to consider the job complete. <br />See the attached November 8, 1994 memo from John Nelson to Maggie Van Cleef. <br />Advertisement for final settlement was arranged immediately. The advertisements were <br />published on November 14 and 15, 1994, with he final settlement date being November 25, <br />1994. <br />The file was reviewed to ensure that all paperwork was in order and that the Division had <br />received everything necessary in order to approve payment. Missing items were requested <br />from the Contractor: John Nelson requested a final retainage invoice and contractor's <br />progress reports in writing on November 18, 1994; and Maggie Van Cleef requested the <br />Contractor's written guarantee by telephone on November 22, 1994. <br />The Division could not approve payment on retainage on July 26, 1994 because the job was <br />not complete and final settlement had not occurred. <br />On other invoices that have not been pout, the date is considerably older. #12 of the Purchase <br />Order Temu & Conditions require interest to be paid at 1 % per month starting on the 46th day, <br />until the balance rs paid in full <br />The DMG has withheld payment as a punitive action against CWL, not because of a good faith <br />dispute. After C[3'L refused to use the topsoil in 2 stockpiles that werenY identified in the <br />contract to be placed under the lump sum topsoiling prices Task #4, Task #7, Task #9, and <br />Task #13, DMG stopped paying promptly. <br />DMG has paid all invoices promptly. All were paid within 45 days of when DMG received <br />them. The attached Tittle of Dates Pertaining to Invoices shows that all bills have been <br />processed in a timely manner. This information was obtained from Division accounting files <br />and from COFRS, the State online accounting system. <br />DMG did not withhold payment as punitive action against CWL. All amounts denied in <br />invoices were not paid because: 1) the contractor billed before items were complete, or for <br />a higher percentage of the bid item than was actually complete; the wntractor billed for <br />retainage before the State could legally release retainage; or, the Contractor billed <br />additional chazges for work that was included in other bid items. Please refer to the <br />Summary of Billed Amounts Not Approved for Payment. <br />The DMG representatives tried to coerce CWL into using this topsoil by making up baseless <br />claims about wasted topsoils and areas where topsoil was covered with overbwden <br />DMG does not feel that the claim the Contractor wasted topsoil is baseless. Please see <br />DMG's response under #3 of "OWNER'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR". <br />25 <br />