Jump to content
IGNORED

11/15/19 - Range Improvements at Clinton and Flatbrook WMAs


Recommended Posts

November 15, 2019

Significant upgrades to the Flatbrook and Clinton Wildlife Management Area hunter training area ranges are ongoing with an estimated completion date of January 2020 for the Clinton Range. A completion date for the Flatbrook range is yet to be determined due to unforeseen additional work needed at the site.

The major range enhancements planned for the Clinton and Flatbrook ranges aim to improve safety and the user experience. Earthen berms will be constructed or improved to restrict bullet travel outside of the range area and shooting stations will be constructed. The shooting stations will consist of covered firing line bench rests and baffles. Bench rests provide a comfortable and stable base, seat and platform, so that a steady anchor point and pattern of use is provided for a shooter thereby improving shooting accuracy. Baffles, which are installed in front of the bench rests, eliminate blue sky or the area the shooter sees above the target or backstop. By preventing the shooter from seeing above a certain height, baffles eliminate the likelihood that bullets will travel over the backstop area. These improvements will provide outstanding opportunities and increased safety for sportsmen and women.

We apologize for any inconvenience the ongoing construction presents. Every attempt was made to schedule the range closures outside of the busy fall season, however contractual obligations and timeframes precluded the Division from delaying work at these sites, so construction moved forward when the opportunity presented itself. The web sites linked below offers information on ranges in New Jersey other than the Division's (linked above).

Where To Shoot (NSSF site)
Shooting ranges in New Jersey

We ask for your continued patience during this time and are confident you will appreciate and enjoy these improvements when the ranges re-open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yoda4x4 said:

Sorry Bob but I highly disagree. As far as I'm concerned, the upper management who decided on this can go F themselves.

David

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 

Contractual obligations and time frames within the contract are set by who? The state who puts the bid up fir a bid. Therefore Yoda is 100% correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contractual obligations and time frames within the contract are set by who? The state who puts the bid up fir a bid. Therefore Yoda is 100% correct
Let me be clear, I have no issues with the updates/upgrades. Their timing for this is as stupid as it gets. It's as idiotic as if you are voting for Murphy.

David

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that seems like hogwash.  You contract out, you tell them when it needs to be done and they bid on it based on that contract, no?  Horrible timing, one of the busiest range times of the year.  I'd imagine NJDFW will say they did it to save money by going with the lowest bidder who could only do it at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that seems like hogwash.  You contract out, you tell them when it needs to be done and they bid on it based on that contract, no?  Horrible timing, one of the busiest range times of the year.  I'd imagine NJDFW will say they did it to save money by going with the lowest bidder who could only do it at this time.
That's a bunch of crap. If the answer is that their contractors are too busy, then just push it out till the next spring/summer. There was absolutely no pressing reason it had to be done now. F'ing morons!!!

David

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, yoda4x4 said:

Let me be clear, I have no issues with the updates/upgrades. Their timing for this is as stupid as it gets. It's as idiotic as if you are voting for Murphy.

David

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 

Who Don’t like upgrades? Yes the timing is a big issue, considering they have so much time in a year to do the upgrades without having to close At prime time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BowhunterNJ said:

Yeah that seems like hogwash.  You contract out, you tell them when it needs to be done and they bid on it based on that contract, no?  Horrible timing, one of the busiest range times of the year.  I'd imagine NJDFW will say they did it to save money by going with the lowest bidder who could only do it at this time.

You are 100% correct. The contractor does not tell the state when he would like to do the work. The owner, in this case thE State sets commencement and completion date in contract specifications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

You are 100% correct. The contractor does not tell the state when he would like to do the work. The owner, in this case thE State sets commencement and completion date in contract specifications. 

As well as monetary penalty costs for every day past completion. I charge $500-$1000 per day in ALL my contracts. The only way to hold their feet to the fire and get things done ON TIME!

AWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MGHunter66 said:

As well as monetary penalty costs for every day past completion. I charge $500-$1000 per day in ALL my contracts. The only way to hold their feet to the fire and get things done ON TIME!

Liquidated Damages are in almost every State contract and many Contractors get nailed by it, although when challenged in court they are not upheld, considered illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

Liquidated Damages are in almost every State contract and many Contractors get nailed by it, although when challenged in court they are not upheld, considered illegal. 

In my experience very few challenge it. They know the parameters of the contract, know the agency going out to bids lawyer has deeper pockets and are simply not willing to expend time, energy and legal expences

AWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MGHunter66 said:

In my experience very few challenge it. They know the parameters of the contract, know the agency going out to bids lawyer has deeper pockets and are simply not willing to expend time, energy and legal expences

It is challenged frequently but not in court. Before going to court you challenge it through 3 step internal process. First with resident Engineer, then if unsucsesfull with regional engineer and then with the higher-ups in Trenton.  It usually never gets to court because the state uses it as bargaining tool to offset additional cost the contractor is claiming and  both sides know they need to come to some kind of agreement because going to court is expensive and very time consuming. But I am talking about LDs which are small, $25K or even $100K on multi million dollar contracts. The few cased making to court were over huge amounts and as far as I know they were never awarded. The court refuses to accept arbitrary penalty, let say $5K/day, and allows only actual damages. This is where it ends because  what is actual monetary damage to the state if the project takes more time than specified? Aside from States field office expenses it is very hard to justify anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...