My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12-28-2015 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2015
>
12-28-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2016 3:22:06 PM
Creation date
1/5/2016 2:07:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
12/28/2015
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
444
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
arrangements to protect Owner's interest therein, all of which must be satisfactory to <br />Owner. <br />2. Beginning with the second Application for Payment, each Application shall include an <br />affidavit of Contractor stating that all previous progress payments received on account of <br />the Work have been applied on account to discharge Contractor's legitimate obligations <br />associated with prior Applications for Payment. <br />3. The amount of retainage with respect to progress payments will be as stipulated in the <br />Agreement. <br />B. Review of Applications: <br />1. Engineer will, within 10 days after receipt of each Application for Payment, either indicate <br />in writing a recommendation of payment and present the Application to Owner or return the <br />Application to Contractor indicating in writing Engineer's reasons for refusing to <br />recommend payment. In the latter case, Contractor may make the necessary corrections and <br />resubmit the Application. <br />2. Engineer's recommendation of any payment requested in an Application for Payment will <br />constitute a representation by Engineer to Owner, based on Engineer's observations of the <br />executed Work as an experienced and qualified design professional, and on Engineer's <br />review of the Application for Payment and the accompanying data and schedules, that to the <br />best of Engineer's knowledge, information and belief <br />a. the Work has progressed to the point indicated; <br />b. the quality of the Work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject <br />to an evaluation of the Work as a functioning whole prior to or upon Substantial <br />Completion, the results of any subsequent tests called for in the Contract Documents, a <br />final determination of quantities and classifications for Unit Price Work under Paragraph <br />9.07, and any other qualifications stated in the recommendation); and <br />c. the conditions precedent to Contractor's being entitled to such payment appear to have <br />been fulfilled in so far as it is Engineer's responsibility to observe the Work. <br />3. By recommending any such payment Engineer will not thereby be deemed to have <br />represented that: <br />a. inspections made to check the quality or the quantity of the Work as it has been <br />performed have been exhaustive, extended to every aspect of the Work in progress, or <br />involved detailed inspections of the Work beyond the responsibilities specifically <br />assigned to Engineer in the Contract Documents; or <br />b. there may not be other matters or issues between the parties that might entitle <br />Contractor to be paid additionally by Owner or entitle Owner to withhold payment to <br />Contractor. <br />EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract <br />Copyright © 2007 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. <br />Page 54 of 62 <br />00 72 05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.