GENERAL47526 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The state asserts that the Fart Pit West side pile was identified at the pre-bid meetu~ to be moved under the lump sum topsoiling paces in Task 4, 7, 9 and 13. This is refuted on ppge 1 of the special conditions P-~-Bid Meeting and site showing 3rd paragraph, which reads: "Bidders are cautioned that, notwithstandirtg arty remarks of clanfuati' ons gaen at this meeting and site showing all temu and conditions of the contract documents remain undumged unless they are clurnged 6y written amendment issued by the OWNER " This it also addressed in the amendment #1 dated January 12, 1994, #14 'All other items in the original Invitation and Bid not addressed in this amendment remain unchwRged ". Response: In regard to the East Pit West Side topsoil stockpile, Bid Invitation Tasks 7, 9 and 13 state that "Topsoil~owth medium is available from stockpiles located at the East Pit on Map 7." The map shows only a single stockpile location. As outlined in the General Conditions, page 1, "In case of a difference between the contract documents, precedence shall be given to the Special Conditions, not the map. As more than one stockpile is mentioned, the Special Conditions document takes precedence. At the Pre-Bid Meeting, all contractors were taken to both piles and both piles were specifically pointed out and discussed with the contractors. Also, Amendment 1, item 11 states in part "the topsoil and overburden growth medium must be replaced evenly to a depth of 6 inches over the entire disturbance or to the extent of the available soil." There was topsoil still available out of the stockpile in question. The topsoil pile was in.plain view and therefore not a changed site condition. At no time did the OWNER ever state that the CONTRACTOR was only required to move a single topsoil stockpile. . During the meeting of May 11, 1994, in Hardee's Restaurant in Florence between Preston Mease, John Nelson and Jim McArdle, Mr. Mease was asked specifically if he had seen this topsoil stockpile and he told Mr. Nelson and Mr. McArdle that he had. The entire basis of CWL's argument rests with a map which did not portray 2 stockpiles. The OWNER asserts that the CONTRACTOR moved this topsoil pile under his lump sum bid and is not entitled to additional compensation for this item. Due to the CONTRACTOR'S indication of his intent to dispute the inclusion of the Est Pit West Side Topsoil Pile in the lump sum bid items, the OWNER kept machine time records. Machine time to move this pile began during the afternoon of June 15, 1994 and continued until June 28, 1994. A total of 72 hrs of cat (TD-25) time ($6480.00), 10.5 hrs of D-7 time ($787,50) and 73 hrs of scraper time ($11,842.00) were used to move this pile. These amounts were included in both CWL invoices dated June 26, 1994 and July 24, 1994. The OWNER maintains that this topsoil pile is part of the lump sum bid. The CONTRACTOR is not owed any additional amount for moving topsoil from the East Pit West Side topsoil stockpile. 7