Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />2. The State has failed to pay promptly as required by the General Conditions (1993) and <br />terms of the Purchase Order. <br />Response: Available evidence as outlined in the attached spreadsheet and table of key dates <br />of invoices for the project shows that CWL invoices were paid in a timely fashion, Portions <br />of the invoices were not allowed due to requests for retamage payment which could not be <br />paid until completion of publication, premature billing prior to work completion, errors in <br />the invoice payment amount due for the work item, and requests for extra payment on work <br />included in the job price. Please see the attached table outlining all amounts not approved <br />for payment and reasons not approved. <br />FINDING: <br />2. It is mutually agreed that invoices were paid in a timely fashion until there was a dispute <br />regarding several items largely due a controversy over topsoiling costs. These will be <br />addressed in considerable detail in the monetary claims below. <br />Mr. Mease stated during the course of our meeting, he did not know what had been paid <br />and what had not. The IMP sent him copies of all his invoices showing what had been <br />approved for payment, but he said he did not cleazly understand the marked up invoices and <br />the spreadsheet did not add up. <br />The IMP provided a Summary of Billed Amounts Not Approved for Payment which delineates <br />which portion of each invoice was not paid. The IMP was not aware of his lack of <br />understanding regarding the paid amounts. <br />Based on the information provided to me by the IMP, the bills have been paid promptly. <br />Final settlement was delayed because of the controversies discussed in this document. I <br />see no evidence that the bills were not paid promptly. There is no evidence of negligence. <br />3. The State failed to stake the outer limits of grading areas: This caused great expense to <br />CWL. <br />Response: The Bid Invitation Special Conditions under Task 2-Chen's Hill Reduction, states <br />that 'The CONTRACTOR is solely responsible for determining and verifying the actual <br />quantities to be moved in order to achieve the final reclamation objectives. The OWNER <br />will stake the outer limits of grading where deemed necessary. No additional allowance <br />above the price bid will be made due to problems encountered or quantities of material <br />required to be moved to meet the performance standards of this job." The OWNER did <br />not deem it necessary to stake the outer limits of grading since the CONTRACTOR was <br />shown the grading limits during the pre-construction meeting. Grading limits on the east <br />side of the East Pit were walked with Preston Mease prior to the beginning of slope <br />reduction. Dana Lamm and John Nelson walked the grading limits on several occasions <br />during construction. <br />2 <br />