Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in a depression of any sort, let alone one of the nature <br />described. This is a rather significant issue and as such it <br />should have been brought to the States attention for <br />consideration and authorization before the work was done and <br />the area was covered over. I find that there is no way of <br />substantiating this claim. <br />Item #13 Amount - $4,480 <br />The contractor feels that he should be compensated for his <br />cost of money for the retainage being held by the State. <br />Because of the unsatisfactory completion of work in several <br />areas, monies have to be retained to cover that cost. There <br />is no justification on collecting interest on retainage being <br />held to satisfy a claim. <br />Item #14 Amount - 5150.00 <br />The contractor wants additional D7 Cat time for re-grading the <br />West Pit area road to_provide the required 2% slope into the <br />hill. <br />The contractor is claiming that the road was properly sloped <br />when originally completed and he now wants additional monies <br />for regrading. At this point, I am unable to determine what <br />might have been. I believe that if the contractor felt that <br />if his work had been properly executed the first time he <br />should have challenged the need for corrective action, before <br />proceeding. <br />