Laserfiche WebLink
<br />This claim has to do with work the contractor said was <br />completed to establish riprap for the drop structures and work <br />associated with the ditch in the East Pit area. In referring <br />to the a letter dated July 19, 1995, I was only able to define <br />two items relative to this issue. The first item was for <br />building and removing a bench that was used in attempting to <br />sort riprap. The price noted for this was $1,230. The <br />contractor had also provided Sandra Brown some hourly rates <br />that were also considered in this process. During he hearings <br />it was noted that the end result of this effort was that no <br />acceptable riprap was produced. The second item noted was for <br />air time of $42 to make arrangements for the fabric. If the <br />change had not occurred the contractor would still have the <br />cost of producing riprap as none had been established as <br />result of these efforts. The State realizes that part of this <br />effort was a part of the cost that the contractor had <br />anticipated for producing usable riprap. In reviewing Sandra <br />Brown's findings, I concur with her determination that the <br />State owes the contractor $900 for his efforts to establish <br />riprap plus $42 for air time. <br />Item #6 Amount - 5800.00 <br />The contractor claims that the drawings for the drop <br />structures were inadequate and that they should be paid for <br />anv work done incorrectly as a result of this. <br />The State has admitted that the drawings were vague, yet the <br />contractor has some obligation to confirm questionable data. <br />As to whether or not it was appropriate, the State has already <br />agreed to pay $400 of this claim. Since the original <br />consensus the State has conceded to another 2 hours of machine <br />time or $180.00 for backfilling around the other two altered <br />drop structures. This seems to be a fair and equitable <br />settlement. <br />