GENERAL41656 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. McArdle also threatened to go back upon CWL's perfomtance bond if CWL did not comply. Bonding companies routinely send Bond Status Inquires to DMG during the course of the project and after the project is complete. These inquires always include a questions about the contractor's performance of the work. To this date, DMG has not responded to any of these inquires because we did not want to respond honestly that there were many problems with the manner in which the contractor was performing the work. Mr. McArdle was stating the truth when he reminded the Contractor that the performance bond is available to the OWNER if the Conuactor does not perform on the job. While these coercive actions were ongoing CWL has been without the use of its money. As stated above, DMG has paid all amounts properly due on all invoices in a timely manner. FINDING: The evidence presented to me shows all paymenu have been made on a timely basis, within 45 days of receipt of the invoices. Payment is in compliance with the Procurement Rules. No additional payment is due. Item # l4 Amount - SI50.00 For 2 hrs with the D7 Cat at $75.00 per hour. No. 8 on the Final Inspection and Certificate of Completion requested that the road into the West Pit area be sloped 2% into the hill Originally, this road war bulk wring equipment rental time. All wor to be done on this road rs additional work (Field Directive #4 Item No. 2 requests CWL to do his work «sing equipment rental time). 77th work was perfo»ned Then a ratnstomt silted in the slopr; CWL was regtested to re-do the slope on the Final Inspection, and performed this wotri CWL is entitled to compensation for such additional rental time. Response: Field directive number 4 dated 6-7-94 and signed by the Contractor on 6-14-94 states Wat "Utilizing machine time, construct a combination ditch-access road from the fuel loadout, following the flags to intersect the old road, road to be 10' wide, and with a 2% dip towazd the hill. The overall grade flowing north to Magpie Creek shall not exceed 5%." The lower portion of the road into the west pit was not sloped at 2% into the hill as requested by the Project Manager. Water from the rainstorm, mentioned by the Contractor, only served to illustrate this fact by overflowing the road in several places. This is illustrated in the attached slide. The Owner does not believe that we should Gave to pay twice for work because the Contractor did not do it correctly the first time. The Owner does not believe that the Contractor is due additional money to complete the work in accordance with Field Directive #4. FINDING: CWL was paid to perform this work according to the specifications listed in the IMP response. The road did not meet the specifications and the Conuactor had to repair it. The State is not obligated to pay twice when the original work does not meet the 26