This item of $41.41 was deducted by defendant's Finance Officer to cover amounts of bank exchange paid. 26. By Article III-G, section b, of the original contract it was provided in part: Prior to final payment under the contract, or prior to settlement upon termination of the contract, and as a condition precedent thereto, the Architect-Engineer shall execute and deliver to the Contracting Officer a release, in such form and containing such provisions as shall be approved by the Contracting Officer, of claims or demands of any nature whatsoever against the United States arising under or by virtue of this contract. By the terms of Supplemental Agreement No. 4, dated July 17, 1943, the foregoing was deleted and the following was agreed to in place of it: 1. Prior to final payment and as a condition thereof the Architect-Engineer shall furnish the Government with a release of all claims against the Government arising under and by virtue of this contract, other than (a) such claims, if any, as may be specifically excepted by the Architect-Engineer from the operation of the release in stated amounts to be set forth therein, or in estimated amounts where the amounts are not susceptible of exact statement, and (b) any claim based upon responsibility of the Architect-Engineer to third parties arising out of the performance of this contract not known to the Architect-Engineer at the time of furnishing the release. Plaintiff under date of July 30, 1943, wrote the following letter to the defendant: At this time we are 100% complete on both Title I and Title II of our Contract No. W-1092-Eng. 8396. This completes all Supplemental Agreements through Supplemental Contract No. 5. Under date of July 31, 1943, plaintiff executed and filed with the defendant final release, excepting therefrom the following claims: 309 Findings of Fact 1. Possible claim for review and adjustment of Architect-Engineer Fee on Supplemental Contract No. 3, [1]* pending reply to our letter of May 6, 1943 to Memphis District Engineer Office and their referring the letter for answer to Atlanta District on May 17, 1943. 2. Western Union final statement, due to failure to submit previously, with substantiation. 3. Claims for Sunday and holiday double time retroactive to October 1, 1942. 4. Final payment of F. O. A. B., income tax, insurance, and Bank of Halls cashing check charges on last payroll, also final payment of unemployment and excise taxes, all of which Office of Area Engineer has assumed responsibility for payment directly. We are interested only in Claim 1. 27. Plaintiff's claims in this action are approximately as follows: Balance due under the basic contract. $2,650.00 Additional due under Supplemental Contract No. 1------- 13, 558. 00 5,000.00 3, 586.50 24,794.50 Item of $2,650.-The proof does not sustain plaintiff's contention as to this item. Plaintiff presented vouchers for the amounts due under the original contract and supplements 1, 3, and 5, amounting to $43,104, and has received payment in full for this sum, which includes the item of $2,650. See Finding 25. Item of $13,558.-See Findings 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Item of $3,586.50.-Plaintiff claims this amount because of the preparation of design plans and specifications for the extensive housing project. See Finding 24. The proof shows that a reasonable fee for this work is the sum of $3,586.50 28. Plaintiff's first request for a review of its fee was made by a memorandum addressed to defendant's successor contracting officer dated January 14, 1943. That this should be Supplemental Contract No. 1 was agreed to by the parties. Opinion of the Court 117 C. Cls. Under date of March 25, 1943, plaintiff wrote to the district engineer at Atlanta, Georgia, making another request for review of architect-engineer fee under Supplemental Contract No. 1. In this letter plaintiff makes the following statements: 15. We maintain that our design section is due full credit for sustaining the complexities imposed by the activities of others in Memphis District; for redesign, revamping, and fathoming the intricate contract letting, material and equipment purchasing done by others, and keeping the project on even keel as well as could be expected from any organization. 16. It is also called to attention that the Army Air Forces First Concentration Command project was an entirely new proposition, utilizing none of the proposed layout for the Operational Training Bombardment Station type, and as such it was a new planning project rather than a supplement. 17. It is therefore requested that a review be made of the method used in figuring our fee under Supplemental Contract No. 1; that adjustment be made whereby full credit for design and supervision and attendant fee accrue to the Architect-Engineer; that the planning of AAFFCC project be regarded in the light of what it actually was, that is, an entirely new job instead of an additional extension, with new design investigation and bases involved. Under date of December 8, 1943, plaintiff made a request to the contracting officer, Atlanta Engineer District, for review and adjustment of architect-engineer contract and fees in connection with the instant contract. This letter is in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 21. Under date of February 14, 1945, the contracting officer made findings of fact in which he determined that he was without authority to decide on the matter of duress raised by the plaintiff in connection with signing change order A and Supplemental Contract No. 1. The contracting officer made elaborate findings of fact and determination of the claims presented by plaintiff and disallowed the claims. Plaintiff appealed from the contracting officer's decision by a letter dated March 17, 1945, addressed to the Secretary of War and sworn to by John J. Harte before a Notary Public of the State of Georgia on March 20, 1945. 309 Opinion of the Court On July 6, 1945, the War Department Board of Contract Appeals, as the authorized representative of the Secretary of War, dismissed plaintiff's appeal because it had not been taken within the 30-day period prescribed by the contract. The court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. HOWELL, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is a claim to recover certain fees alleged due the plaintiff as an architect-engineer, upon work done for the defendant, and to recover damages for breach of the contract because of alleged interference with plaintiff's performance. On May 29, 1942, the plaintiff accepted a "letter contract" offered by the District Engineer of the United States Engineer office at Memphis, Tennessee, and thereafter the parties signed a written cost-plus-fixed-fee architect-engineer contract dated May 27, 1942, in connection with the construction of an Operational Training Medium Bombardment Station in the vicinity of Halls and Dyersburg, Tennessee, the estimated cost of which was $2,466,750. The contract was in three parts. Title I covered the design work, Title II the supervision of construction, and Title III contained the administrative provisions of the contract. For the design work the plaintiff agreed to a fee of $10,650, and to a fee of $7,100 for the supervision work. The design work under Title I was to be completed within four weeks from the date of the contract, i. e., by June 27, 1942. Title II, being supervision, would continue until the construction work was finished. The design work under the first title was immediately undertaken and was satisfactorily completed on the prescribed date, including certain changes and corrections suggested by defendant. Shortly after completion of the design work under Title I, it was decided in Washington that the type of installation would be changed from "Operational Training Medium Bombardment Station" to a "First Concentration Command Installation," a much larger type of project. Whereas the original project was estimated at $2,446,750, the new project was to cost $3,201,200, plus the amount of the original contract, or a total of $5,647,950. Opinion of the Court 117 C. Cls. The decision to make the change was apparently made upon receipt on June 27, 1942, of the design and plans under the original contract and because the Corps of Engineers was unable to get approval of the project from the Air Corps. However, no directive effectuating the change was received by the Memphis office of the U. S. Engineer until August 21, 1942, a period of about two months. During the interim, plaintiff's plant was idle except for some routine supervision of construction. On August 21, 1942, Mr. Harte, sole owner of plaintiff company, was called from the project to the Memphis office where the new directive was studied and discussed for two days. He was, then instructed to return and perform the necessary design work, which he did. Unknown to Mr. Harte and on the same day he returned to the project to perform the design work, the District Engineer at Memphis dispatched representatives to the offices of the Air Force, the using service, in Cincinnati, Ohio, for the purpose of getting approval of a relatively rough lay-out plan upon which work had been proceeding in the Memphis office. This lay-out plan and alleged design was approved in Cincinnati, and without more ado, the Memphis office proceeded to let contracts on the basis of the same, inadequate as it was and described with more particularity in Finding 5. The plaintiff went ahead with preparation of the design work, as instructed to do, until September 14, 1942, when Mr. Harte was again called to Memphis. At this time the plaintiff had finished the design for the project and was preparing estimates upon which contracts could be let. Due to the almost complete change in the nature of the project under the new directive, the previous work performed by plaintiff was of very little value in performing the new work. Moreover, the new designs prepared by the plaintiff were not used either, as the Memphis U. S. Engineer's office had already proceeded to let contracts on the basis of its own inadequate drawings. Upon arrival at Memphis, Mr. Harte went to the office of Colonel G. W. Miller, Executive Assistant to the District Engineer. After waiting in the outer office for two days Mr. Harte was allowed to see the Colonel who met him with |