My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL49100
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL49100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:27:11 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:51:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />E4 <br />E5 <br />E6 <br /> <br />payment should be made as there appears to have been <br />sufficient riprap on site. <br />In accordance with the Oct. 7 letter the State will pay for <br />the balance of specification grade rock @ $28.00 per cubic <br />yard. <br />On July 19 the contractor asked for $800 for the work <br />associated with resetting drop structures. <br />Why did we agree to pay half and not all? <br />This issue appears to be shortcoming {see Aug. 26 letter) in <br />the contract and the State should incur the cost to make the <br />correction. In agreeing to pay half, we admitted to the short <br />coming. On the other hand, if there was some sort of <br />agreement that each would share in the blame then a 50\50 <br />split is appropriate. <br />Per the Oct. 7 letter the State maintains a willingness to pay <br />for half of this. <br />On July 19 the contractor asked for $550 to cover cost of <br />money. <br />Did we hold retainage twice as he claims? <br />What invoice is being with held? <br />According to the accounting sheet that was given to me there <br />is no double retainage. <br />I cannot find any justification for the contractors claim and <br />I agree with the State's position as noted in the Aug. 26 <br />letter. <br />Position maintained in Oct. 7 letter. <br />On July 19 the contractor asked for $42 for air time to <br />arrange for fabric for 12B. <br />All cost of preparing a bid would be included in the bid and <br />henceforth I see no justification for paying for his air time. <br />Position maintained in Oct. 7 letter. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.