01-30-1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Page 14 Melheny Construction Company, the Progressive Construction Company and the Beekman Construction Company. The contractor agreed to send a letter to the city stating that within 30 days it would have a complete response to the requested change order with all of the prices outlined therein. � There then followed a discussion concerning liquidated damages to be assessed on the project because of the contractor ' s failure to meet the deadline date of November 15, 1979. Johnson, the attorney for the contractor, stated that the contractor at this time wanted to show its good will, get the project completed, and then discuss the question of liquidated damages. Malkerson stated that it may make sense for the contractor at this time to allow the reasons why the contractor tbinks it should not have to pay liquidated damages . Johnson stated that although under the contract liquidated damages may be due, he would hope that the city would not assess liquidated damages because of the weather in 1979 , and the timing of the contract. Malkerson asked him to explain both matters. It was then discussed generally that the bid opening for the contract was on April 27 , 1979 , and that pur- suant to the terms of the specifications, that if the city wanted to bind the contractor, the city would have to let the contract to the contractor by May 27 , 1979 . Malkerson noted that there had been discussions with various property owners concerning whether or not to construct the project in 1979, and therefore there was a possibility that after the bid opening, the city may not proceed with the project. The City Engineer had spoken with the contractor and the contractor agreed to extend the nor- mal thirty day time period to January 12 , 1979, so that the city could decide to let the contract up and through June 12 , 1979. The contractor noted that the contract was awarded to the con- tractor on June 12, 1979 , and the contractor had been asked by the City Engineer previously to submit a letter to the city con- firming the oral understanding concerning the extension of the 30 days through June 12 , 1979 . The city never received such a letter. After the award of contract on �une 12, 1979 , the city sent the contract documents to the contractor on June 14, 1979, and thereafter the contractor executed the documents and provided the performance bond as required by the contract documents. Aow- ever, it was agreed by everyone that at no time did the contractor ask for a change in the contract completion date or in anyway indicated that he would not then be able to complete the project as provided for in the contract. In fact, it was noted that the contractor signed that contract and, therefore, without doubt bound himself to the November 15, 1979 deadline date. The engineer and the public works administrator noted that at the preconstruction conference at which the contractor was present on June 14 , 1979 , the contractor again said he would have no problems meeting the completion date of November 15, 1979, and in fact he expected to complete the project in early October, 1979 . ' -2-