Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1952 [PAGE 523]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

620

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[March 13

" . . . I have received no communication from the Contractor or his attorney relating t o settlement of this contract. I am advised that the Contractor has made no demand for further payment and that he has not attempted to comply with the provisions of the contract preliminary to final settlement such as evidence of payment to sub-contractors, lien releases, etc." On February 8, 1950, the Contractor transmitted to Sargent & Lundy an invoice, dated December 31, 1949, in the amount of 8121,029 (the final 15 per cent payment on t h e approved contract) and requested payment, qualified by the following statement: "Accordingly, we ask for payment due us per invoice enclosed, which payment, however, should be made and accepted by us without in any manner or degree whatsoever affecting, waiving, or jeopardizing our claim which is pending for final determination." On February 14, 1950, facts relative to the above request were reviewed with Judge Armstrong. He concluded that the University not only had the right but the obligation t o withhold the balance of funds until all claims had been settled. It was further agreed t h a t this conclusion should be reviewed with Sargent & Lundy for their concurrence. On March 9, 1950, with the concurrence of Sargent & Lundy, t h e Contractor was advised by letter that, since his request represented final payment on the contract and there were claims and counterclaims pending, the University did not have the authority to approve payment. T h e Contractor was further advised that the University, as before, was ready to discuss the claims and counterclaims on a factual basis. Now what are the claims and counterclaims that have produced this stalemate? The Contractor has submitted two claims: 1. The first by letter dated December 31, 1947, in the amount of J8,66o, later revised and re-submitted at a conference on March 15, 1948, in the amount of {8,230. On June 30, 1948, he proposed a compromise settlement of this claim for $6,500; 2. The second by letter dated January 21, 1949, in the total amount of 8226,036 which included the claim referred to above. This report will be limited to the second claim since it includes t h e first. This claim was submitted by letter to Sargent & Lundy. T h e Contractor alleged he had encountered unforeseen or changed conditions resulting in additional work and costs which fall into three general classifications: 1. Projects withheld from construction because of contemplated design changes. 2. Projects withheld from construction because of changed underground and field conditions. 3. Underground interferences not shown, or incorrectly shown, on the plans. The Contractor has submitted only general claims and has not supported these claims with statements of fact. Judge Armstrong in his report of August 22, 1949, to Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Williamson, indicated t h a t he had been unable to uncover any facts which would support the Contractor's claim for 3226,036. At this point, a review of the salient financial facts may be helpful. Original Contract #354 511 00 Contract Change Orders No. 1 $ 400 00 2 442 210 00 3 3 720 00 4 4 328 85 5 599 12 6 520 03 7 331 53 8 242 55 Sub-total 452 352 08 Total Contract $806 863 08 Payments S685 833 62 Balance Balance withheld on Contract $121 029 46