Laserfiche WebLink
specifying those tasks, then following State Procurement Code procedures to publicly award <br /> bids to the lowest bidders. In order to get the full advantage of a short reclamation season, <br /> the Division had to complete much of the preparation work and issue bids to contractors by <br /> mid-June. In addition, the Division has conducted many reclamation tasks that were planned <br /> for this year. Therefore, granting the motion to amend would mean that the Division's work <br /> and resources for certain reclamation tasks will have been wasted. <br /> Moreover, the claims in the Third-Party Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint cast <br /> a cloud over further reclamation work to be accomplished this year and in future years. <br /> Specifically, the second, third, and fourth claims in the amended complaint contain <br /> allegations of breach of contract and\or breach of good faith and fair dealing by the Division <br /> for reclamation work it has already performed or is to perform this season or in the future. <br /> The Third-Party Plaintiffs ask for damages from the Division for these alleged breaches. <br /> The Court should also note that these claims for relief are asserted in general terms <br /> and do not specifically state what reclamation tasks Third-Party Plaintiffs allege fall within <br /> an asserted claim. (See e.g., paragraphs 37, 39, 43, and 44 of the amended complaint). <br /> Consequently, especially as to reclamation work not yet performed, the Division is left in the <br /> position of guessing which reclamation work will be claimed to be a breach of contract <br /> and\or of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the pendency of the motion to <br /> amend has required the Division to halt certain reclamation tasks from proceeding. At this <br /> time, the Division is unwilling to risk continuing certain work in the face of an amended <br /> 6 <br />