1939-06-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

352 reletting to another Contractor. This will result in a substantial delay due to the necessity of•preparing new contract documents, advertising for bids, receipt of bids, approval of award of contract and execution of con- tract, and the necessary loss of time both in securing P.W.A. approval of such procedure and in the new Contractor getting started at high speed. Frequently suen procedure involves litigation. The damage suffered by the Town due to lack of progress in the case of this contract consists principally of the additional cost of inspection and the possibility of loss of a portion of the grant if the work is not completed by the date set for the completion of the entire North Lex- ington sewerage project, which we understand to be October 2, 1939. It is not clear that the actual time of completion would be shortened by readvertising. It is our opinion that the defective workmanship here- tofore performed can be made good by adhering to the instructions which we have given the Contractor in writing, at no additonal cost to the Town. The same is true for any subsequent defective workmanship which may develop. Conclusion._ It is our opinion that the interests of the own are best served by continuing the present contract. We are, of course, making strong representations to the Contractor, regarding the conduct of his work. Very truly yours, METCALF & EDDY HPE,Jr./C. By - Harrison. P. Eddy, Jr, n Mr. Eddy said that he had talked with his inspector and had had a -conference with the partners and this con- clusion was reached after three hours of consideration. He did not believe that Mr. Street was of the same mind. Mr. Rowse asked what answer the engineers had from Rounds relative to the poor concrete poured. Mr. Eddy said that Rounds had made no reply. Rounds wrote a letter to them outlihing his reasons for the poor concrete, his reason being that their inspector was interfering with the measurement of water in the mixture and the others were technical reasons. Metcalf & Eddy got a report from Skinner and Sherman this morning on the strength of the concrete. It is good concrete but the engineers complained about the method of pouring it and leaving of voids. Instead of using the cement gun as called for by the contract,