Laserfiche WebLink
f • • <br />staking became an issue after the fact. With the exception of <br />the issue involving Chen's Hill, I found that the State did <br />meet the intent of the Contract and there was no evidence of <br />negligence. <br />Since my finding are consistent with that of Sandra Brown, I <br />would concur with that her judgement was fair and sound. <br />#4 <br />The State was required to furnish seed within 5 working days <br />notice. CWL notified John Nelson on May 20th that they would <br />need seed in 5 days. <br />The claim contends that the seed should have been delivered <br />within 5 days of notification or May 25, yet Task #14 calls <br />for a two week notice. This would have placed the due date at <br />June 3, 1994. Mr. Meese contends that Mr. Nelson delivered <br />that seed on June 13th. <br />According to the State the request was made on May 26 and the <br />delivery was made June 9, 1994. The State contends that the <br />seed was delivered and placed in a dump truck and covered with <br />a tarp to protect it from moisture. On what date the <br />contractor discovered the seed is unknown. <br />The issue of the exact date requested and the exact date of <br />delivery is not relevant as the contractor had not and was not <br />prepared to fertilize, which must be done before seeding. <br />Based on this I find that the contractor has not been delayed <br />or inconvenienced and that the State was not negligent. <br />#5 <br />The State was to furnish ecLui ument rental records to CWL. CWL <br />did not r eceive these until it asserted claims at our meeting <br />in Denver on Sep tember 26th. <br />It is my understanding the equipment rental records are <br />intended to maintain an understanding between both parties of <br />equipment use throughout the job. It is also my understanding <br />that State had not furnished these to the contractor until <br />after they had been requested in September. It is hard to <br />