09-15-1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� Fage 17 ; . F.ebutt2l : Conpletion date on the project uas Ne�•e:�ber 15 , 1979 , for all parts of the project . Co. kd . 6 ard Co. Rd . 19 vere not started �ntil u�`� �gop, 7'ne design geometrics as opposed to tne ge�metr�cs of the rcad::ay between Dece;..ber, 1979 , and *iay , 1980, are ver}' much �ifferent . The safety built into the 7Ge�»ay design �:as not a�•ai?able thraugh the winter of 1979 and :480. Moreover as vou probablti knov, liouidated darr.- a2es clauses in favor of the govern-�ent in rcad construction cases are cp�:�:�nplace and are ordinazily interded to cover addi�ional adrninistrative and en�ineering 2xper.ses incurred by tne govern�ent ::hen perfornance of the contract has extended over a greater period of tir�e than originally agreed upon, tne loss to the government of the safe use of a compieted road and the inconvenience to tne general public ir, not ;�aving the road with aIl of its safet} features open on schedule. All of these and otners are factors which can properly be considered. Moreover , liquicsted cas- ages are gererally sccepted as a le�iti�.,ate tecnniQue to a?locate the con- sequcnces of a breach before it occurs . At the time vou signed this co�- tract, you knew of tne provision for liouidated cs:�sges �nd agreed tnat that was the way in which to dete.,�,ine the daWaces to be sus��ined by the Cit}• in case of your failure to �eet the co:�pletior. cate. *;oreoLer zs you know, our liqu�dated ��:.age arount of S200 per ca}' is ver}� ?ow in co�pari- son to State Nignwa_y projects �:here on a project of this size liquidated damages could be as �u�ch as �500 to �1000 per day. �� Fl , tilllffcl0 �ltlii:ilT_1011S cSSC7tS: F?:�r2 _ �E;IIS �1dG� vccil OrCIcrE'C�i D}� trle C1Cy � �'r.ich not only delayed ultimate cowpietion , but the Cit� has giver. no con- sideration to these of either tine or co�:.per.sation." 8. K2buttal : The change or�er itens on the project consisted bf a limited s��rade correction and additionai guard rail construction on Co. Rd . 6. You in fac� never requested any extension of tir�e for co�pletion zs part of y�ur c:ritten spp.oval of tne cY:ang� orGers. �;or�ov2r the guard rail construction was do�e by your subcontractor sne not b�� vou and , of course, is tnerefore unrelated to ;our failure to finish the jab in a ti�.e11 �an- - ner. Z believe tnat any subg:ade corre�tion too�: apyrohimately three worKing days to conpiete and tnereiore obviousiy is not csuse for a sub- stantial delay especi�lly when those subgrade cnar.ges were r�ade in Septetu- ber, 1974, and yet vou still submitted a construccian progress sched�ule whicn shc»ed completion in a ti;nelti �:�anrer. In clesing you note that tne sbove was s Yartiai list of -.:hy Buffalo BitUmin- ous feels the City of Grono is not entitled to liouidated da��ges in the above natter. I'ou note that a detailed exa�niration of all of the facts , particular- ly as depositions , r�ay be taken later and will cisclose more of the details . If tnere are more facts , ae want to know of them no�;. becaLse hasea Upon the iacts t;�at ue have gathered to date, and especiaily yovr repeated adsissions in meetings with us that you nade the business decision to pull your cre� off of this project and have them work on projects in otner cities , clearly shows tnat tnere was no reason wny vou could have finished tnis project in a tiroely ;:.anner. i;�erefore, unless we receive co�crete facts to the contrsry , support- Page 4. 500a