man000204 151

SPECIFICATION NO. 4» SCHEDULE I The following letter from J. M. Montgomery dated April 18, 1956, relative to acceptance of Specification No. 4, Schedule I, was considered by the Board. ,fMr. W. C. Renshaw Chief Engineer and General Manager Las Vegas Valley Water District P. 0. Box 1109 Las Vegas, Nevada Subject: Specification No. 4, Schedule I - Construction of Charleston Heights Reservoir - Wells and Stewart Construction Company and Industrial Construction Company, Contractors Dear Mr. Renshaw: On April 16, Mr. C. D. Stewart and Mr. Lalif Woods requested immediate payment of the 10$ retention under the subject contract. They were told that acceptance of the work had been held up pending completion of a satisfactory test of the reservoir, and since a seep had developed below the reservoir on the east side with the reservoir only partially filled, some remedial work might be necessary before the reservoir could be filled in accordance with the test specified under Section 68 of the Specifications. Mr. Stewart argued that there was a good possibility that the seep was a natural spring brought on by increased artesian pressure prevailing during the early spring. It was pointed out that this was unlikely because the seepage stopped when the north basin was emptied, but commenced again when the north basin was refilled. It was explained to Mr. Stewart and Mr. Woods that the leakage would be measured for various levels to determine whether the quantity was within reasonable limits for an earth embankment-type reservoir. Mr. Stewart was very much dissatisfied with the possibility that payment of the retention might be held up for an indefinite period of time and wanted to know whether the one-year quarantee bond might not give the District the necessary protection. He indicated that if the retention were not paid promptly, they would institute legal action to compel the District to pay it. Due to the fact that the final test could not be made while the roof contractor was at work, the subject contractor has been delayed many months in completing his work. Since this was not his fault, it is believed that this circumstance should be taken into consideration. However, acceptance of the work subject to final testing of the reser­voir and relying upon the one-year guarantee to insure the performance of any remedial work that might be indicated from leakage tests poses a legal question. Therefore, it is recommended that this question be settled before any steps are taken to formally accept the contract. Very truly yours, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY /s/ R. C. KENMIR"