1 Findings of Fact 4. Time during which the dredge is engaged in removing misplaced material and dredging time lost due to the removal of obstructions as required in Par. SC-5. (e) When dredge shuts down for any reason or purpose that applies under paragraph SC-3 (d), the ensuing time shall remain under that classification until the cause of the shutdown shall have been removed and no claim shall be allowed for other work performed during that time except if it be the case that the Contracting Officer orders the dredge and attendant plant to be moved to a new location. SC-7. Plant: (c) Unserviceable Plant, etc. If at any time during the life of the lease, the Contracting Officer shall determine that any item of plant or part thereof is inadequate for the service required, or is not being operated at full capacity, or has become unserviceable, or incapable of efficient work, or is not being effectively operated because of reduced or incompetent crew, he will notify the Contractor in writing of his decision, and direct that the item of plant or part thereof be removed from the work or the defects corrected; and after giving of such notice, the rate of payment for the entire plant will be reduced in the ratio that the output falls short of that established by the 15-day trial period (see par. SC-7 (b)), with allowances for changes in dredging conditions, until the defects are corrected or incompetent crew replaced, or crew increased to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer: * (d) Control. 1. The entire plant shall be under the control of the Contracting Officer, or his representatives, with regard to the hours of work, location of work, work to be done, type impeller used, etc. A representative of the Contracting Officer will be present at all times to issue instructions with reference to work; however, the actual supervision and direction of dredging operations shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. * SC-10. Crew: The Contractor shall furnish, subsist and pay all necessary crew required for the satisfactory and efficient operation of the dredge and attendant plant and to handle floating and shore pipe lines (and submerged discharge pipe line if applicable), provided: that upon presentation by the Contractor of properly certified pay rolls the Government will reimburse the Findings of Fact 118 C. Cls. Contractor at the rate paid not to exceed the amount of fifty cents ($0.50) for each man-hour required in handling shore lines, exclusive of foremen and supervisors, in excess of an average of 300 man-hours per day computed monthly. The Contractor shall be responsible for all accidents to the crew and plant and for compliance with all laws pertaining to labor on dredges, dredge pipe line and fills. 5. The plaintiff was given notice to proceed by letter dated July 5, 1945, and the dredge was delivered to the defendant (Memphis Engineer District) on July 26, 1945, at Brandywine Chute, River Mile 756 A. H. P. (above head of passes) where actual dredging operations under the contract were commenced. Upon completion of dredging operations at that location on September 21, 1945, the dredge and attendant plant were moved to Wolf Island Bar at approximate River Mile 945.5 A. H. P. which is between Helena, Arkansas, and Cairo, Illinois. Dredging operations were begun on the Wolf Island Bar on September 26, 1945, and were continued in this area until December 5, 1945. 6. Plaintiff sues to recover dredge rental of 101⁄2 hours, amounting to $992.25, disallowed by the contracting officer for a delay in dredging resulting from plaintiff's failure to lay shore pipe at Cut No. 2 in advance of moving the dredge and attendant plant to that cut. 7. On October 12, 1945, while the dredge was engaged in dredging at Cut No. 1, the defendant's Chief Inspector, Mr. Thornton, directed plaintiff to lay shore pipe at a point adjacent to Cut No. 2, approximately upstream 3800 feet from the point where dredging was to be completed at Cut No. 1. The plaintiff's representative made no protest against this direction. At the time defendant's order was issued plaintiff had three or four more days' work to do at Cut No. 1 before moving to Cut No. 2. Cut No. 1 was completed October 14, 1945, at 7: 20 P. M. When the defendant's representative gave the order to plaintiff's dredgemaster on October 12, the dredgemaster replied that he would do the work immediately. While dredging at Cut No. 1 the spoil material was discharged on the Kentucky side of the river. Dredging in Cut No. 2 required that shore pipe would be set up on shore 1 Findings of Fact so that the spoil would be deposited on the Missouri side of the river at station 945, being one to one and one-quarter miles from where the dredge was operating on October 12. On the afternoon of October 14, Mr. Thornton, the Inspector, and Dredgemaster Eaglerson discussed the matter of placing the shore pipe. Mr. Eaglerson stated that he intended to place the pipe as soon as he got around to itthat he did not have sufficient labor at that time. 8. The dredging at Cut No. 1 began at the upstream end and extended downstream for a distance of 3,800 feet. Cut No. 1 dredging was commenced September 26, 1945, and completed at 7:20 P. M. October 14, 1945. Cut No. 2 was immediately adjacent to and paralleled Cut No. 1. It extended downstream a distance of 3,100 feet. Each cut was 300 feet wide. The width of the channel dredged in the two cuts was 600 feet. Hence, in order to start dredging operations at Cut No. 2 it was necessary to return the dredge to the vicinity where Cut No. 1 dredging was commenced and to start dredging 300 feet landward of the point where Cut No. 1 dredging began. A general hydrographic survey showing the layout of the project is in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9. The parallel cuts are shown as located between A and B, C and D, respectively. The spoil areas are also indicated. The map is made part hereof by reference. 9. Shore pipe consisted of 16' lengths of 7" pipe weighing about 1200 pounds per section. Cut No. 2 required a total of about 2000' of shore pipe at the beginning of dredging operations. Of this about 1200' was to be placed on the ground and on beyond the river bank while approximately 800' was to be placed on a ramp to be constructed by pumping after arrival of the dredge at Cut No. 2. The ramp was pumped in during the period from 11:45 P. M. October 16, 1945, to 6:50 A. M. October 19. The shore pipe was then attached to the floating line from the dredge thereby providing for disposition of the spoil. 10. Between October 12 and 16, 1945, there was sufficient depth of water to have allowed the plaintiff to use its equipment close to the shore at Cut No. 2 so that the shore pipe could be laid on the bank with the use of a derrick barge. Findings of Fact 118 C. Cls. Thereafter the water level fell rapidly and it was necessary to pump a ramp approximately 800 feet in length out from the bank into water sufficiently deep to allow the use of plaintiff's equipment. The time consumed in pumping this ramp was paid for at the full contract price. The cost of this ramp was not necessitated by plaintiff's failure to place the shore pipe on the river bank as directed. The additional men required to comply with defendant's order to move the shore pipe to Cut No. 2 and to place it in position for dredging in advance of moving the dredge and attendant plant would not have increased the size of the dredge crew to the extent that additional payment would be authorized under the contract. 11. Compliance with defendant's order would have required the use of a derrick barge, a pipe barge, at least one tug, and five or six men to deposit the pipe on the river bank. It would have required approximately 15 men to lay the pipe as directed. These men would have been in addition to the crew then on duty at the plant. An operating dredge with its attendant plant and crew is a highly integrated and complex unit. 12. Plaintiff had from October 1 to 12, inclusive, a daily crew of 67 men. On October 13 the crew consisted of 66 men. On October 14 and 15 the crew consisted of 64 men; on October 16, 73 men, and from October 17 the crew consisted of 74 men until the 31st, except for 2 days-the 24th and 25th-when there were 68 men. 13. The crew on the dredge from the 12th to the 19th was adequate for the work of the actual dredging operations which were in progress and for necessary repairs to the dredge and equipment. If the plaintiff had used a sufficient number of the crew on the 12th, or about that time, for the purpose of laying the shore pipe, as directed by the defendant on the 12th, it would have endangered the dredge. It would have been taking a chance of a delay in repairs to the dredge. The crew then on the dredge and plant was needed to take care of and keep the job running and, if the tow boats and equipment had been away and anything adverse had happened, the contractor would have been penalized for the pe 1 Findings of Fact riod of time of their absence or break-down. Defendant's inspector was aware of this situation. 14. Plaintiff, in order to have complied with the defendant's order on October 12, would have required at least 10 or 12 additional men. Earlier in the month, about October 1, defendant's representative on the dredge advised plaintiff's dredgemaster that additional men would be needed to handle the shore line that would be required at Cut No. 2, and plaintiff, on the 12th of October, was aware that additional men would be needed, when the time came for moving from its then present location to Cut No. 2 in order to lay shore pipe line. If plaintiff's crew, during the period from October 12 to 16, had consisted of the same number of men as on October 19th (74 men), plaintiff could have laid the shore pipe for spoil area at Cut No. 2 during that period. The additional men required to comply with defendant's order to move the shore pipe to Cut No. 2, and to place it in position for dredging in advance of moving the dredge and attendant plant, would not have increased the size of the dredge crew to the extent that additional payment would be authorized under the contract. When the defendant's inspector on October 12 ordered Capt. Eaglerson to lay shore pipe he expected the captain to see his superior officials and to arrange for additional men for that purpose. By the 19th of October plaintiff had increased the crew to 74 men. Additional men were recruited and transported from Louisiana by chartered bus which required several days. After repairs had been made this number of men did perform the operation of laying the shore pipe at the point desired. 15. When a shore line is being used regularly the shore line crew does not constitute a part of the same crew used for operating the dredge. On a floating pontoon line deckhands are ordinarily used and they are of a different classification and receive a little higher rate of pay, whereas when going on shore to lay a shore line, except for a foreman and possibly one or two men, unskilled labor is picked up locally and used. In operating a large shore line, additional crew |