My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL44142
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL44142
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:12:58 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 12:52:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/23/1995
From
COLO WEST LEASING
To
CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />This leaves a balance of 39,905.34. <br />Plus the additional claim items. <br /># 3 <br />CWL has had to engage an attorney to <br />of 2 or 2.5 acres. CWL incurred an <br />because of the DMGs negligence. <br /> <br />help with this matter <br />additional expense <br />In regard to task # 5, the maps distributed by DMG and <br />incorporated into the bid documents did not show a fence. <br />The map gave us a much greater area to use. The boundries <br />were depicted by the maps. It was never CWLs understanding <br />that the fence was to be the boundary. This caused CWL <br />great expense on the south end of Chens hill. I <br />specifically asked John Nelson to get a boundary on the <br />south, so that we could grade this area the way the proposed <br />contour map shows it. They would not do this. DMG asks for <br />a lump sum bid price, furnishes contour and boundary <br />information on maps, then demands something else in the <br />field. <br />In regards to Task 11 DMG employees did not stake any areas <br />for boundries at any time! CWLs employees did all the <br />boundary staking. CWL would like to be compensated for <br />doing this work along with the inconvenience of having to do <br />the staking ourselves CWL had to retain an attorney to <br />defend themselves in this matter. <br /># 4 <br />CWLs dates are correct with the exception of June 12 which <br />should be June 13. When DMG was late with the seed delivery <br />we backed off our ridged schedule. Until that time we were <br />pushing for completion on schedule. Also DMG was holding us <br />up by not making the decision on where the topsoil would go <br />first. I asked John Nelson several times about contract <br />time. He told me not to. worry, time would be added for <br />seeding. still at issue is the fact that we couldn't seed <br />until the topsoiling was done. <br /># 7 <br />CWL still maintains that this work was done to contract <br />specifications originally. <br /># 8 <br />This job was completed on July 12. John Nelsons final <br />inspection and certification of completion states that all <br />exceptions were completed on July 25. I contacted John on <br />October 6. At that time he indicated there were additional <br />problems with the Chens hill ditch unrelated to my work. He <br />also said the portion of the ditch that we were arguing <br />A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.