Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii • <br />RESPONSE TO THE CONTRACTORS CLAIMS DATED DEC. 12. 1994 <br />Item 1 <br />This is irrelevant as the start date is based on the notice to <br />proceed, so this cannot cause a delay unless other circumstances <br />come into play, such as weather. In this case a delay in the start <br />time was preferred. <br />Item 2 <br />as <br />This is irrelevant and is not substantiated. <br />Item 3 <br />The contract calls for this where it is deemed necessary. I have <br />no evidence that this was deemed necessary until after the fact. <br />Item 4 <br />The State claims to have delivered the seed in a timely manner and <br />at the time_when the contractor was ready to commence seeding. <br />Item 5 <br />I am not aware of how this caused a delay and or inconvenience. <br />Item 6 <br />The documentation provides no evidence as to whether the project <br />manage was available or not available. <br />Item 7 <br />The time of the inspection had no impact on the completion date <br />which was July 12. To the contrary the completion date precedes <br />the inspection date. <br />Item 8 <br />' The advertisement for final completion is done after completion and <br />upon reasonable and satisfactory completion of the punch list <br />items. <br />Item 9 - <br />From the documents provided me, I was unable to find any signed <br />change orders. It is my understanding that change orders were <br />prepared, but CWL has refused to sign the same due to contract <br />disputes. It should be noted that payments associated with change <br />orders will be made until the change order has been approved. <br />