Laserfiche WebLink
<br />assess damages based on the time when equipment logs had been <br />distributed. The fact that the logs had been maintained for <br />the purpose intended seems to be the critical factor here and <br />that is not the issue. I find that an oversight did occur, <br />yet this did not delay the work and it did not create any <br />inconvenience to the contractor. <br />#6 <br />S~~rial__Conditions state the nroiect manacrer is available <br />Wiring regular business hours 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, weekdays. <br />I called 7 working days in a row one time. 5 working days in <br />a row another time and 3 working days in a row several times. <br />and he didn't return my calls. I couldn't get through to John <br />Nelson on any of these times. and he didn't return my calls. <br />It is my understanding that a State representative was on site <br />most of the time. This could have been either Bill Colgate or <br />John Nelson. In conjunction with this, other persons were <br />available to the contractor if there was a problem of <br />contacting either of the parties noted above. It appears that <br />the contractor elected to limit his line of communication to <br />John Nelson. Whatever the issue is here, I find that persons <br />were available to the contractor in the most favorable manner <br />possible at all times and that the owner was not negligent. <br />#7 <br />The State failed to inspect the work promptly as required by <br />the General Conditions 1993 #30 Acceptance and Final Payment <br />Thy contractor claims the works was completed on July 12th. <br />but not inspected until July 25th. <br />This claim makes no mention if the notice of completion and <br />the completion of work is one of the same, which in this case <br />may not be relevant. A copy of the hand written inspection <br />