Laserfiche WebLink
Contractor: <br />Address: <br />Phone: <br />Change Orders: <br />Change Order #1: May 26, 2000 <br />Dirt-N-Iron <br />1685 CR 17 <br />Loma, CO. 81524 <br />970/858-4009 <br />1) Additional machine time could be used to further regrade the access road and other <br />locations to approximate original contours. Bond monies were available and the Coal <br />Program approved of the additional reclamation. An estimated 40 hours of track-hoe time <br />@ $7S/tu was directed for an additional $3,000. The item extended the contract 5 days. <br />2) Additional regrading required additional revegetation work. Approximately 2 acres of <br />additional revegetation was needed. The Additive Alternate #4, Revegetation, amount of <br />$500 was applied. This item extended the contract 1 day. <br />3) Excessive winds and inclimate weather for revegetation were experienced extending the <br />contract an additional 5 days. <br />The total Change Order costs resulted in an increase to the Purchase Order of $3,500. <br />IV. CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY <br />Construction start-up was delayed because of tardiness in State Purchasing issuing the contract. <br />Prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed, the contractor had already mobilized a Komatsu D41 E <br />dozer to the site and had also installed a locking gate at the start of the access road to the bench <br />to prevent vandalism of the machinery. A Komatsu PC200 track-hoe and a MOXY MT30 Rock <br />truck were mobilized on-site and were used for moving the excavated channel material initially <br />against the trench side cuts and eventually to the designated disposal area to the south. At the <br />later part of slope reduction, material moved to the designated disposal area from the base was <br />performed by the rock truck and a Komatsu WA380 tire loader. The amount of rock encountered <br />during channel excavation was more than sufficient to satisfy the riprap requirements. An excess <br />amount of greater than 4'd rock was encountered. The larger rock was approved for channel <br />placement as long as it was keyed in per specs. Rock placement in the channel was exciting <br />watching the loader dumping rocks at the top of the channel and watching the hoe trying to <br />defend itself from damage, <br />Field Directive #] was issued shortly after construction commenced. An argument was brought <br />up by the contractor regarding the specifications which referred to two given elevation points and <br />how the slope between them could not be changed from the originaUpre-construction grade. <br />Field Directive #1 stated: "There was an oversight on document preparation which neglected to <br />state, in writing, that the channel from the lower point of the gully headcut would be constructed <br />at a 3:1 on Drawing #1 referenced for final grade. The `construct 3:1 channel from lower (point <br />gully headcut) to bottom of fill slope per specs' referenced 2 given elevation points that exhibited <br />a 2.5:1 and cannot be graded to a 3: 1. Therefore the lower point (gully headcut) to bottom of fill <br />slope grade will be at a 2.5:1 per pre-construction". Concern was made by the Coal Program as <br />to the area where the slope would transition between the 3:1 and the 2.5: l . Previous experience <br />