man000204 154

t'ltem 1 is in effect an enlargement of the request made by letter of August 15, 1955 for a 10-day extension based on the fact that the District first awarded the work to Pipeline Constructors. As previously recommended we feel the Contractor is entitled to a 10-day extension for this delay. Item 2 does not appear to be justified. The following material was received on July 12, 1955: 5770 lin. ft. 12" pipe for 25th St. line 2540 lin. ft. 12" pipe for Crestwood Ave. line Since the contract was awarded on May 5, 1955, this material was delivered only 68 days after award of the contract. It is believed that this represents better than normal delivery time for 12-inch pipe at that time, and it is doubtful if delivery was actually delayed by the strike. Item 3 apparently is intended to refer to the flash floods in July rather than in August. This request represents a change in the Contractor*s earlier request for an extension due to the flash floods. His request of August 15 was for 10 days but now he requests 20 days. As previously recommended, we feel that the Contractor is entitled to a 10-day extension for delay caused by the -two flash floods in July. Item 4« Although the pipe for ”Cn Street was delivered on August 12, the Subcontractor did not start excavation until August 18. Therefore, we do not believe an extension based on slow delivery of the pipe for this line has been justified. From August 20 until August 31 he stopped work and waited until he could get suitable equipment for cutting the hard caliche. The trenching conditions were no worse than could be expected and no worse than conditions encountered by other contractors in many other parts of the project. We feel that he should not have taken the job without suitable equipment for trenching through caliche. Item 5 is a request for an extension of 3 days based on the fact that it became necessary to move the pressure reducing station at 17th Street and Charleston Boulevard about 5 feet after the excavation for the original location had been made. We feel that this extension is justified. To summarize, it is recommended that an extension of 23 days be granted. If granted, this would extend the completion date to October 2, 1955* If the date of January 17, 1956 were taken as the completion date, the overtime would amount to 107 days. Since the contract provides for assessment of liquidated damages at $50*00 per day for the overtime, the liquidated damages would amount to $5,350.00. Change Order No. 2 is enclosed herewith, which if approved, would extend the contract completion date to October 2, 1955* Very truly yours, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY /s/ R. C. KENMIR"