12-19-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

> He made a claim for $1,944.94 for additional time expended in setting the Dianna Lane. We agreed this was a reasonable amount and conceded this claim. > He also added costs of $306.48 for standby time on 9/25 and $153.24 for his inspection of electrical work on in November. He was awarded the first amount and denied the second. (It should be noted his "standby" claim was a result of his verbal settlement agreement to address outstanding items with the lift station supplier. An issue with the completion of an electrical disconnect switch (the responsibility of the lift station supplier) was still not properly resolved so he became angry and left the site without completing the work he had agreed to. Soon thereafter, he notified me our "deal" was off and he would see us in court.) > The hearing officer also disallowed our claim for $626 to complete the installation of the lift station alarm systems that were clearly the responsibility of Great Western. (The hearing officer mistakenly stated it was clearly the responsibility of others even after we had pointed out the specific contract language that made this Great Western's responsibility.) > The hearing officer disallowed our claim for $3,315 for a credit for the contractor not completing the lift station demolition work as specified. (Technically, we should not have been allowed this claim due to the 30 -day notice requirement we mentioned earlier, but we felt we should list it in case the hearing officer decided to ignore the contract document.) The hearing officer totally missed the point on this issue as was evidenced in his ruling for "lift station demonstration ". The essence of the above claim was to point out that if the contractor was going to be allowed claims beyond the 30 days that he had previously indicated no charges would be forthcoming, we felt we should offset them by pointing out the same situations existed to the benefit of the contractor. In this case, we agreed to minimize the demolition that saved the contractor substantial time and effort due to the depth of the station. As is typical in contract administration, each party bends a bit with trade -offs that end up fair in the end. Great Western's approach is they wanted extra expenses without providing offsetting credits for changes that saved them money. > A similar claim we made for a credit for force main piping the contractor did not end up installing was also denied. This amount was estimated at $1,300. Our rationale was the same as the previous item. > We were awarded a credit of $650 for soil testing not performed. > The hearing officer also made a math error of $143. This was the difference between the outstanding contract amount before any additional claims ($4,857) and the $5,000 we paid Great Western on August 29th per our settlement agreement of that date. (We would then have paid the $2,179.14 when the terms of that agreement were completed. The hearing officer did not include this factor in his calculation.) • We were also denied a claim of $400 for additional filled we supplied to assist the contractor in bringing the site up to grade per the contract that was related to his claim for the $640. Given the hearing officer's decision on this overall item, we are ok with this result. Page 137