GENERAL51961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inspecting the work some work had been covered up The contention that the ditch was silted in or even that the riprap had been washed away prior to the inspection by the State cannot be substantiated as the precipitation reports from the Energy Fuels coal mine site would indicate that there was only a trace of moisture during the period in question. In summary it appears that the ditch was not constructed in accordance with the contract and this issue should continue as a punch-list item until the work is completed to the satisfaction of the State. #8 The State has also failed to advertise for th final settlement as required by the General Conditions 1993 #30 The advertisement for final completion is done after satisfactory, completion. It is my understanding that the owner has advertised for settlement, which in my opinion should not have been done based on my understanding of the status of this project. With regards to this claim, I find no negligence on the part of the State that would have an adverse affect on the contractor. #9 A field order was signed 2-26-95 by John Nelson and the contractor The contract requires that a change order be issued within 14 working day s of such directive. CWL could not bill until the c hange order was rece ived. The change orders were not processed and pursued in manner which in keeping with the State practices and procedures, yet I have no evidence that the contractor had any payments withheld or delayed because of the absence of a signed change order. On the contrary the contractor has been paid nearly the full amount due, except for retainage withheld. This finding is based on the summary amount established by all change orders issued, of which none have been signed by the contractor. Under ordinary circumstances this would not have been allowed, yet due to the net results being a reduction to the original base price, payments could and were made.