man000204 96

1 7 9 Dear Mr. Renshaw: Last April Change Order No. 4 to the subject contract was issued, which among other things, provided for extension of the contract completion date to 30 days beyond the date the roof contractor would complete the entire roof. By letter dated January 19, 1956, we advised the subject Contractor that the roof was complete as of January 19 and that the 30-day time for completion of the remaining work would commence on January 20. By letter addressed to the District, dated January 24, the Contractor requested a further extension, stating that; *'Due to the length of time which has elapsed from the date of Change Order No. 4 and because of prior commitments, we hereby request that the commencing date be extended to February 20, 1956.” If the rock and oil surfacing on the slopes is omitted and only a tack coat is provided as contemplated under proposed Change Order No. 7, then the scope of work would be reduced and the extension, in any case should be less than requested. It is to be noted that erection of the roof took several months longer than such a job would ordinarily take, due to slow delivery of materials, the weather and more particularly to the incompetence of the subcontractors. Therefore, the subject contractor has been delayed in completing his work for a period far beyond the date that was anticipated at the time Change Order No. 4 was issued. On the other hand, much of his remaining work could have been done during erection of the roof. In fact we repeatedly urged him to do so, and although he did complete some of the remaining work during this period, he could have done a great deal more if he had been so inclined. The record shows the following: 8- 19-55 9- 7-55 8-24-55 to 12-13-55 11- 5-55 12- 13-55 12-19-55 1-3-56 1- 16-56 1-30-56 1-31-56 Memo to both Stewart and Woods urged them to get started. Started trimming north, west and south slopes. Diary shows that the Contractor was urged several times to do more work. Diary shows the matter was discussed with Contractor. Diary shows further discussions but no activity. r» >i »» if i» if ft Stewart phoned that Woods would move equipment in on 1-16-56. Equipment moved in. Additional equipment moved in. Finally got started. In view of the above performance, it is hard to justify a further extension in time. However, it is doubtful if the inspection costs would be much more if the extension were granted, since there is no direct charge for inspection time during periods when no work is being done. Also, consideration probably should be given to the fact that the Contractor’s 10^ retention has been tied up for several months longer