631 Findings of Fact The Indianapolis architect who designed the project buildings was employed by the defendant to prepare revised plans and drawings. FOUNDATION DELAYS 11. The excavation of basements began July 31, 1935, and could have been completed by about October 8, 1935. Discovery of unsuitable bearing soil in foundation areas of each building resulted in substantial delay on the installation of foundation footings and walls. Only sufficient men and equipment were employed to keep basement excavation far enough ahead of foundation work to avoid costly sloughing and caving before walls could be erected. Twenty-one basements had been opened, substantially in advance of foundation work, when a truck drivers' strike on general excavation stopped these operations from November 5, 1935, to January 13, 1936. A general strike on all work concurred from November 12 to December 9, 1935. Because foundation work was not sufficiently advanced, basement excavation was not resumed until April 1936 and was substantially completed the following month, without having caused or contributed to delay in completion of the project. 12. By letter received July 31, 1935, the defendant requested the contractor to submit the unit prices called for by the specifications, and stated it was important to do so promptly to obviate the possibility of foundation delays in the event bad soil conditions were encountered. On August 8, 1935, the contractor commenced hand excavation of trenches for foundation walls and footings and thereafter discovered unsuitable bearing soil in varying amounts in the foundation areas of all buildings. On August 15, the contractor telegraphed the Director of Housing for authority to perform the extra excavation and concrete work on the basis of unit prices later to be established. On August 19, the Director rejected this proposal, requested submission of unit prices, and stated: It will be necessary for the Project Manager to either wire or write this Division for approval of each suggested changed condition before proceeding with the work. If the estimated cost of any proposed change Findings of Fact 126 C. Cls. amounts to less than $500, an immediate proceed order will be given, but if the estimated cost amounts to more than $500, this Division must obtain approval from the Administrator before authorizing the procedure of the work. On August 21, the contractor submitted its proposed unit prices but the defendant unreasonably delayed its determination of unit prices until September 25, 1935. In this interval to expedite progress the contractor offered to perform the extra work on six of the ten buildings which had already been excavated to contract footing levels at a cost not to exceed $500 each. After approval by the Director, work proceeded on this basis. 13. On September 25, 1935, Change Order 1 was issued by the defendant and accepted by the contractor. It provided in part: Whenever any changes in the depth or design of foundation footings, as contemplated by the Specification, Division VII, Section 24, is found necessary, you shall proceed with such a change upon receipt of written instructions from the Project Manager accompanied, if required by the Project Manager, by a revised structural drawing: provided (a) the amount involved in any such change does not exceed $2,500.00 and (b) the total of all such changes authorized hereunder does not aggregate more than $20,000.00. In the event any change exceeds the amount specified in (a) above or such change together with previous changes hereunder exceeds the amount specified in (b) above, the contractor shall not proceed with such change without further written direction from the Contracting Officer. The change order set forth the unit prices and provided further as follows: NOTE 3.-These unit prices and interpretation of procedure are established for application to usual conditions encountered in foundation work. Extraordinary conditions will be adjusted by special consideration at the discretion of the contracting officer. Your itemized proposal covering each change ordered hereunder shall be submitted as promptly as possible to permit check of same and issuance of a Change Order covering the amount involved. 631 Findings of Fact 14. When the contractor discovered unsuitable bearing soil, it orally notified the project manager, who examined the condition and directed additional excavation in some instances, but usually telephoned the local architect who came to the site in varying times from one hour to the next day. The architect probed the soil with a steel rod or had test holes dug, and then issued oral instructions as to how to proceed. On the first two or three buildings, hand excavation for the extra depths was not permitted until after the contractor had offered and the Director approved procedure on the basis that additional work would not exceed $500 in cost. Except for the first few buildings, the project manager insisted that the trench excavation be completed to contract levels before any action was taken on unsuitable soil discovered in a portion thereof. There was a stoppage of hand excavation on most buildings and a substantial slowing down on every building on account of unsuitable soil investigations, and in some cases, the contractor was required to leave the building and transfer workmen elsewhere. In a number of cases, the oral authorization to perform additional excavation was limited to a specified depth, and then the project manager or architect was recalled, the area reexamined, and additional excavation directed, and this process repeated until satisfactory bearing soil was reached. Sketch drawings of the changes were prepared when the extra excavation had been completed. The work of setting forms, reinforcing steel and the pouring of concrete was then held up until the sketch drawings had been transmitted to Washington, the extra work approved by the Director, the project manager advised of the approval, and oral notice to proceed given to the contractor. This procedure was employed because of the Director's telegraphic instructions to the project manager on September 4, 1935, that sketches of proposed changes in design of foundation footings be submitted to Washington for approval regardless of cost involved. The formal change orders and drawings were prepared some time after the extra work was completed. Findings of Fact 126 C. Cls. 15. Schedule A of this report is a tabulation of the events on foundation changes for each of the buildings, showing the dates of the commencement of hand excavation for foundation walls and footings, issuance of written notice by the contractor of its discovery of unsuitable bearing soil for foundations, forwarding to the Director of Housing by the project manager of request for approval of changes, transmitting of the Director's approval to the project manager, issuance of written proceed order by the project manager to the contractor, and the completion of the pouring of concrete for the footings, together with a computation of the calendar days transpiring on each building between the contractor's written notice of unsuitable soil, and defendant's written notice to proceed. While oral advice preceded the contractor's written notices of discovery of unsuitable soil and the project manager's written notices to proceed, the evidence is highly conjectural and unreliable as to when such oral communications occurred. 16. At the commencement of the general strike on November 12, 1935, the contractor had opened 21 basements, poured footings for 15 buildings, completed foundations for about 10, placed first floor slabs for 5, and just commenced brick masonry on one. Except for the delays encountered, it would have completed foundations for approximately 20 buildings by November 12, installed first floor slabs for 14, with brick masonry and upper slab work progressed on 10 buildings in varying stages from operations on first story to enclosure of about 3 buildings. After the general strike ended on December 9, 1935, no further progress was made on foundation footings until the spring of 1936, because the specifications prohibited pouring of concrete on frozen ground. 17. The changes in depth and design of the foundation footings and walls were minor in nature, involving no unusual or difficult engineering problems. The contracting officer allowed total extra compensation for this work in the sum of $13,574.37, later increased to $22,872.88 by the official representative of the head of the department. |