GENERAL47006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Preston Mease -2- December 20, 1994 settlement offers, the Division has offered to drop monetary claims against Colorado West Leasing for work not performed correctly in return for Colorado West Leaning's agreeing to drop claims for additional payment on work items included in the original contract. As added incentive to settle, the Division has also offered to waive the liquidated damages due from Colorado West Leasing for late completion of the contract. Since this amount has been pending in negotiations, two settlement offers and Colorado West Leaning's request for a decision, the Division has not taken the formal notice step, expecting that the issue would be resolved informally, through the claims process, or through a settlement. 2) The division is aware that a notification to the Contractor's surety is a very serious step. The Division has avoided notifying the surety of the ongoing contract disputes up to this time. The Division felt that a formal notice to dismiss the contractor would be counterproductive to an amicable resolution to the contract dispute. The Division is fully prepared to formally comply with Number 9. WORK PROGRESS, fourth paragraph. Since you appear to be intent upon pursuing all formalities of the contract, we will send formal notice to you and your surety unless you direct us otherwise in writing by December 30, 1994. You also questioned Dave Bucknam on the need to submit a new bill for amounts outlined in my December 9, 1994 letter. Department of Natural Resources Fiscal procedures require that all invoices processed for payment be original. It is our standard policy when a contractor submits an invoice and part of that invoice cannot be approved, to require the contractor to submit a new invoice for the unapproved amount. This policy is in place not to annoy or inconvenience contractors, but so that we can comply with Department fiscal policy. In regards to the two invoices you sent by facsimile Friday December 16, 1994, it is arguable whether a facsimile copy of a bill dated March 21, 1994 is an original invoice, but in the interest of fostering good relations, the bill has been approved for $4069.60 based on your bill for Item 8, North End backfilling and grading. Your second invoice, dated June 26, 1994, does not invoice for 5 hours of D7 time at $75.00 per hour, totalling $375.00, as stated in my letter of December 9, 1994 and per Change Order number 5. I am aware that on your invoice of June 26, 1994 (a handwritten invoice), the Project Manager converted some hours from the TD-25 hours at $90.00 per hour to D-7 at $75.00 per hour. However, the invoice dated June 26, 1994 has so many inaccuracies that it cannot be approved: the date is over six months ago, it is a facsimile copy and may or may not be considered an original, the bill is for $77,425.01, and the piece of equipment or the hourly rate for which we are prepared to pay is not mentioned.