Common use of Review Time Periods for Disputes Clause in Contracts

Review Time Periods for Disputes. Delete “Regional Director” wherever it appears and Substitute “Thruway Division Director”. Add the following to the end of the second paragraph: “Copies of this notice of dispute shall also be provided to the Director of Construction Management and to the Office of the Chief Engineer.” Delete Parts 1, 2 and 3 and Substitute the following: “The Commissioner Review Stage of the Disputed Work Provisions, the administration of which has been delegated by the Thruway Authority Chairman to the Chief Engineer of the Thruway Authority, does not exist as a third chance to convince the NYSTA of the merits of the dispute; it is intended to provide a mechanism whereby work may continue under protest, the contract will be completed, and the Contractor’s claims will be properly qualified, quantified, and documented for a later resolution. These aims are accomplished as follows: an evaluation is made of the documentation submitted in the appeal; the work is directed to continue, either declaring the disputed work to be extra to the contract, or otherwise, fully defining the dispute and the documentation required criteria for possible settlement during the Contract Close Out Process or as a claim in accordance with law and the provisions of the Contract. The Commissioner Review Stage determination regarding disputed work is administratively binding but does not diminish the Contractor’s rights. Documentation presented at each Dispute stage must stand on its own merits. The process is self- correcting, providing Contractors an opportunity to provide proofs or documentation noted as lacking in the prior stage for the subsequent stage. The Disputed Work process is not progressively administered, each stage is assumed to be complete. Therefore, an appeal of the denial of a prior stage would be expected to include a narrative explaining the dispute, documentation of timely notice and verified documentation of costs, and explanation as to why the prior denial may be in error or incomplete with new information validating the Contractor’s position in the dispute. Should a Contractor, who feels a Disputed Work determination is unsatisfactory or in error, locate additional factual information they believe would alter a prior Disputed Work determination, the Director of Construction Management may reopen the matter on its original basis and/or merit at any time prior to the completion of the Final Supplemental Agreement by the Engineer.”

Review Time Periods for Disputes. Delete “Regional Director” wherever it appears and Substitute “Thruway Division Director”. Add the following to the end of the second paragraph: “Copies of this notice of dispute shall also be provided to the Director of Construction Management and to the Office of the Chief Engineer.” Delete Parts 1, 2 and 3 and Substitute the following: “The Commissioner Review Stage of the Disputed Work Provisions, the administration of which has been delegated by the Thruway Authority Chairman to the Chief Engineer of the Thruway Authority, does not exist as a third chance to convince the NYSTA of the merits of the dispute; it is intended to provide a mechanism whereby work may continue under protest, the contract will be completed, and the Contractor’s claims will be properly qualified, quantified, and documented for a later resolution. These aims are accomplished as follows: an evaluation is made of the documentation submitted in the appeal; the work is directed to continue, either declaring the disputed work to be extra to the contract, or otherwise, fully defining the dispute and the documentation required criteria for possible settlement during the Contract Close Out Process or as a claim in accordance with law and the provisions of the Contract. The Commissioner Review Stage determination regarding disputed work is administratively binding but does not diminish the Contractor’s rights. Documentation presented at each Dispute stage must stand on its own merits. The process is self- correcting, providing Contractors an opportunity to provide proofs or documentation noted as lacking in the prior stage for the subsequent stage. The Disputed Work process is not progressively administered, each stage is assumed to be complete. Therefore, an appeal of the denial of a prior stage would be expected to include a narrative explaining the dispute, documentation of timely notice and verified documentation of costs, and explanation as to why the prior denial may be in error or incomplete with new information validating the Contractor’s position in the dispute. Should a Contractor, who feels a Disputed Work determination is unsatisfactory or in error, locate additional factual information they believe would alter a prior Disputed Work determination, the Director of Construction Management may reopen the matter on its original basis and/or merit at any time prior to the completion of the Final Supplemental Agreement by the Engineer.”