Laserfiche WebLink
<br />determined that a safe distance has not been established. <br />Who is Bill Colgate, Lance Rundle, and Chuck Smith as the <br />May 16 letter contends that they individuals were said <br />that a minimum (50-100 yards) loss occurred if any. There <br />are indications that John Nelson was on site and there was no <br />mention of there being a problem in that area. It should be <br />noted that this doesn't excuse the contractor from performing <br />their duties in accordance with the contract. <br />An Aug. 26 letter restates that the States the topsoil and <br />growth material replaced. <br />The Oct. 7 letter says that a recalulation indicates that 3226 <br />cubic yards was lost and it must be replaced with comparable <br />material. <br />C3 <br />Problem: On May 10. the State claims that the contractor did not <br />compact the fill material in accordance with the <br />contract. <br />How was it determined that the work had not been <br />satisfactorily executed? <br />Was money with held to cover warranty or was this a punch <br />list item? <br />On May 16 the contractor questions the determination process, <br />yet he is willing to give you a warranty. <br />With what is known, I question the warranty <br />C4 <br />Problem: On May 10 the State claims that the contractor was not <br />completing weekly progress reports. <br />Is there any monetary claim for this? <br />On May 16 the contractor said he would get all of the reports <br />in. <br />C5 <br />Problem: On May 12 the State claims that the contractor disturbed <br />an additional 175'x 45'portion of vegetated area adjacent <br />to Chen's Hill and destroyed one (1) 6' Ponderosa Pine <br />- tree-0204),- --- -- --- --. . <br />