GENERAL51961

• Permit No: C1981037
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 5/16/1995
• Doc Name: FINDINGS DATED MAY 16 1995
• Permit Index Doc Type: GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

totally insufficient to determine
I am inclined to believe that it
and that the contractor should be
this work.
Item #4 Amount - S315.00

what is correct.
might be closer
awarded 2 hour
Personally
to 2 hours
of time for
For the construction of three water bars off the south end of
the project.
The contractor built a road for their own convenience outside
of the project boundaries. To reduce the effects of erosion
on this steep incline the State directed the contractor to
install three water bars at the contractors expense. The
position here is that if the contractor had not disturbed the
area the water bars would not have been necessary. At the
time of the site meeting the contractor claimed that spill
from the adjacent topsoil pile would have had the same effect
on the area in question. Even though this has nothing to do
with the fact that the contractor went outside of an area to
perform work for their convenience, I did investigate this
claim. The end result was that I could not substantiate this,
in fact the trees separating the disturbed slope and the
adjacent topsoil would indicate to me that this would have
established a boundary that would have kept this from
happening.
I find that the contractor has no justification for additional
monies for this work.
Item #5 Amount - 58.670.00
The contractor is claiming that work had been completed prior
to changes being made. This would have involved ditch work,
including shaping, riprap and drop structures.
The State did in fact make changes which involved the
elimination of the erosion mat and 250 ft of riprap. The
changes involving the drop structures are discussed in
subsequent Claim #9.