GENERAL49100

• Permit No: C1981037
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Name: CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
• Permit Index Doc Type: GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~.. .

CONTRACTOR CLAIMS:

~II ~I~~I~III~~~~~I~
Problem: On May 4 the contractor objected (Item ~'1) to moving 2800
cubic yards of topsoil stockpiled on the north end of
Chen's Hill.
On May 10 this issue was resolved in that this material did
not have to be moved.
On May 12 this same issue as mentioned again.
On May 14 this same issue as mentioned again.
On May 16 the contractor restates his position.
In the same May 16 letter the contractor stated that topsoil
was rare on this site.

Problem: On May 4 the contractor objected (Item ~+2) to moving 5000
cubic yards of stocked topsoil located at the East Pit.
On May l0 the State contends that this was covered in Task 7,
9, and 13.
On May 12 this same issue as mentioned again.
On May 14 this same issue as mentioned again.
On May 16 the contractor restates his position.
With reference to the letter dated Oct. 7 I question whether
or not we owe the contractor for moving this topsoil.
B3
Problem: On May 4 the contractor did not want to prepare the
ground for drilling.
On May 10 the State made it clear that this was covered in the
contract.
--- ---Or~May- 16-the-eont~actor-acknowledges- that- they-will-_do
moved. DID THE CONTRACTOR NEED THIS TOP SOIL TO PROVIDE 6" OF
FILL?