Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The State wants the area revegetated and the tree <br />replaced. <br />A follow up to this was included in the Aug. 26 letter. <br />Per the Oct. 7 letter the tree must be replaced. <br />C6 <br />Problem: On May 12 the State claims that the contractor disturbed <br />an area 150'x 30'portion of vegetated located at the <br />southeast corner of the East Pit. <br />DELAYS <br />D1 <br />Problem: From the June 24 letter from the State it was noted that <br />the contractor does not want to give up 5 days for the <br />deletion of the erosion mat and the riprap and channel <br />shaping at the south end of the East Pit. <br />There is reference to a June 16 letter from the contractor <br />that I do not have. <br />I am unable to determine if the 5 deletion wa justified. <br />On another note the State claims that the contractor was not <br />justified in claiming cost for work completed. What was not <br />completed in accordance with the contract? Could it have been <br />corrected and if so how much was the value of the work <br />properly completed. <br />D2 <br />Problem: Weather delays <br />The June 24 letter refers to additional days for weather <br />delays. Where is that documented. <br />An Aug. 26 letter did extend the completion date by 28 days to <br />allow for weather. That same letter allowed for an extension <br />-- of 15 days for machine time-on Chen's Aill. <br />