Laserfiche WebLink
<br />item #~ Amount - si,soo.oo <br />The contractor contends that he had completed the work in <br />accordance with the contract and in the process of doing this <br />he was required to provide 50 additional cubic yards of riprap <br />for which he should be paid. <br />The amount of riprap and the manner in which the ditch was <br />formed is not in accordance with the contract and as such the <br />only conclusion is that this item shall remain on the punch <br />list until completed to the satisfaction of the State. This <br />conclusion was arrived at originally from reviewing the <br />document, which was further supported by my on site visit. If <br />this work is not done in a timely manner, I would suggest that <br />after proper notification that the State use monies from the <br />retainage to have this work done. <br />Item_#8 Amount - s5,000.00 <br />The contractor feels that he was damaged because of the <br />failure of the State to stake the outer limits of the work. <br />Task #2 states that the owner will stake the outer limits of <br />grading where deemed necessary. A letter dated May 16, 1995, <br />indicated that they had asked Bill Colgate to have this area <br />staked. This letter was written after an issue had come up <br />over the disturbance of 2 (or 2.5) acres of_adjacent land <br />outside of the work area. I found no evidence that the <br />contractor was damaged as a result of this area not being <br />staked. <br />Task #5 states that the owner will stake the outer edges for <br />the convenience of all parties. It was my understanding that <br />the fence on the east side had been established as the outer <br />edge. <br />Task #11 states that approximately 100 feet back from the east <br />edge of the East Pit, as staked by the owner, reduce the high <br />wall. I am of the understanding that the area east and south <br />of the East Pit was flagged. <br />In summary it seems that the only area in question is the <br />