specifications also required the plaintiff to furnish
temporary heating, if necessary, before completion,
when sensitive work such as plastering and laying
of tile and linoleum was being done; and where it
is found that the Government did, in breach of the
contract, delay the plaintiff in the completion of
the project; it is held that to the extent that the
plaintiff was obliged to keep the buildings heated
at its expense before the Government accepted the
project, in excess of what would have been necessary
but for the Government's breaches of contract, this
expense is a proper element of the plaintiff's damage
and plaintiff is entitled to recover.
XXVI. Where in connection with a Government construction
contract, in accordance with Executive Order No.
7046, issued under the Emergency Relief Act of
1935 (49 Stat. 319), it was provided in the specifi-
cations that the minimum wage rates paid by the
contractor and its subcontractors should be ad-
justed in the event of fundamental changes in eco-
nomic conditions and that the contract price should
be increased or decreased accordingly; and where,
during the progress of the work (1937), there was
a fundamental change in economic conditions,
within the meaning of the specifications, necessitat-
ing the payment of higher wages; and where the
Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works
declined to consider the question of changed eco-
nomic conditions; it is held that it was the Admin-
istrator's contractual duty to consider the question
and upon the evidence the plaintiff is entitled to
recover the increased amounts paid by the con-
tractor and subcontractors in accordance with the
prevailing wages in the area during the perform-
ance of the contract. United States v. Blair, 321
U. S. 730. Id.
XXVII. No recovery is allowed where mere inconvenience
and no delay was experienced in connection with
installation of water facilities; nor in connection
with installation of wood thresholds where no
order in writing was given by the contracting
officer and no protest made by contractor; nor in
connection with repainting of walls where no
written order was given and no protest made. Id.
XXVIII. Where the Government specifications with respect to
painting and finishing concrete walls contemplated
a finish which, in fact, would not result if the speci
fications were followed and the contractor was
required, at extra expense, to remove defects and
use another method of finishing; it is held plaintiff
is not entitled to recover since no order in writing
was given and no protest filed as required by the
provisions of the contract. See Struck Construction
Co. v. United States, 96 C. Cls. 186. Id.
XXIX. Job and office overhead is allowed in connection with
breach of contractor by defendant in causing delay
in performance. Id.
XXX. The Government's statutory plea of fraud is dismissed
for lack of adequate proof.
XXXI. State Social Security Tax to provide for unemploy-
ment incident to termination of war paid by a
contractor under the Minnesota Employment and
Security Act in connection with services furnished
the War Department at government-owned plant
for the manufacture of small-arms ammunition
under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract were charge-
able as a cost of performance under the provisions
of the contract and plaintiff is entitled to recover.
Federal Cartridge Corporation, 372.
XXXII. It was the intention of the parties that the contractor
should be reimbursed for every sort of expense or
liability incurred as a result of the carrying out of
the contract with the sole exception of such ex-
penses as were incurred as the result of the failure
of plaintiff's officers to exercise good faith or that
degree of care which they exercised in the carrying
out of their own business. Id.
XXXIII. The disbursements under the Minnesota Employ-
ment and Security Act were disbursements required
by law which the contractor was obligated to pay
on account of the personnel employed in carrying
out the contract. Id.
XXXIV. Under a contract with the Government to construct
Lock 21 in the Mississippi River, near Quincy,
Illinois, where it is established by the evidence that
the contractor encountered subsurface conditions
which, as all of the conduct of both the plaintiff
and the Government engineers showed, were not
foreseen by them when the contract was made;
and where on account of these "changed conditions"
the contractor was put to extra expense by the
collapse of its cofferdam, as well as the necessity
for changing the drainage system, the hard driving
of wooden piles and the necessity for the use of
steel sheet piles; it is held that under the provisions
of the contract, the contractor was entitled to an
equitable adjustment of the contract price to cover
its increased costs with respect to the collapse of
the cofferdam and plaintiff is entitled to recover on
that item of its claim. Joseph Meltzer, Inc., of
New Jersey, 389.
XXXV. Where in response to plaintiff's claim for an equitable
adjustment of the contract price because of unfore-
seen conditions the contracting officer at first denied
any relief but later, upon reconsideration, granted
relief only as to some costs of drainage excavation,
difficulty of driving timber piles and the necessity
for driving steel sheet piles; and where the Chief
of Engineers, on plaintiff's appeal, affirmed the deci-
sion of the contracting officer, which was based on
the existence of unanticipated conditions; it is held
that the Chief of Engineers and the contracting
officer misinterpreted the contract and did not, in
fact, decide the plaintiff's claim and appeal on the
basis of the contract, and plaintiff is not therefore
foreclosed by their adverse decision from seeking
judicial relief with respect to extra costs caused by
the collapse of the cofferdam. Id.
XXXVI. Where, under the orders of the Government's agents
who had the power to determine what the content
of the concrete mix should be, the plaintiff placed a
quantity of Class A concrete around certain ducts
in the lock walls and cross-overs; and where plaintiff
was paid only the price of Class B concrete; it is
held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the
difference between the stipulated unit price of Class
A and Class B concrete on this item of its claim.
Id.
XXXVII. Where it is found that the refusal of the Government's
agents to allow the contractor an extension of 21
days in connection with dredging excavation was
arbitrary and unreasonable; and where it is also
found that refusal of an extension of time because
of the collapse of the cofferdam and the conse-
quences of that collapse, resulting in a delay of 46
days, was likewise unjustified, under the terms of
the contract; it is held that plaintiff is entitled to
recover liquidated damages assessed for the two
periods of 21 and 46 days. Id.
XXXVIII. Where the contractor, under the terms of the contract,
had the choice of accepting labor supplied by the
United States Employment Service or obtaining its
labor in the open market; it is held that plaintiff is
not entitled to recover on any of the elements of its
labor claim based on the alleged inefficiency of the
labor obtained from the Employment Service. Id.
XXXIX. In a suit arising out of a contract for the construction
of an irrigation canal on the Deschutes River near
the city of Bend, Oregon; upon the evidence and
the terms and conditions of the contract, it is held
that plaintiff is entitled to recover on the first
item of the claim for certain dry and subaqueous
rock excavation beyond and outside the limits of
the work called for, and that plaintiff is not en-
titled to recover for certain canal excavation alleged
to have been covered by the contract price for
excavation nor for mixing and placing certain con-
crete for which it is alleged payment should have
been made under the contract. Orino, 491.
XL. "Approach channel" standing alone, in its ordinary
and accepted meaning, denotes a channel from a
source of supply capable of supplying capacity of
structure which it serves to connect, but in the
instant case the meaning must be determined from
the context in which the term is used and from
other portions of the contract documents wherein
the work to be performed under the contract is
specifically defined or otherwise indicated. Id.
XLI. The "approach channel" included in the excavation
for headworks for purpose of payment at appli-
cable unit prices set forth in the bid schedule had
reference to channel which was to be constructed
upstream from station where headworks proper
terminated, and was not a channel to be constructed
out into river by contractor as part of his work
under the contract. Id.
XLII. Doubtful expressions in construction contract with
Government are to be construed most strongly
against the party who uses the language. Garrison
v. United States, 7 Wall. 688, 690; Gibbons v.
United States, 15 C. Cls. 174, 192; Callahan Con-
struction Co. v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 538, 611-
612.
XLIII. The contractor should not be held to know or sus-
pect that the representatives of the Government
who drafted the specifications may have intended,
without expressing it, to interpolate some such
amplifying expression as "from the bed of the
river" between the words "approach channel" and
the words which followed, with reference to excava-
tion for headworks. John K. Ruff v. United States,
96 C. Cls. 148, 164; Loftis v. United States, 110 C.
Cls. 551. Id.
XLIV. Where it was admitted by the defendant that con-
tractor protested directions that certain work be
done under the contract, but it was denied that he
asked for written instructions and testimony with
respect to request for written instructions was in
irreconcilable conflict, the court would accept as
true the testimony of the contractor and his super-
intendent and reject that of the witnesses for the
Government. Id.
XLV. Where it is found that the construction of the con-
tract provisions relating to the matter, by the
Government's administrative officers as well as by
the Government's representatives directly in charge
of the project, was erroneous, and that compensa-
tion for the subaqueous rock excavation in question
was not properly measured by the unit price appli-
cable to dry rock excavation; it is held that the con-
tractor was entitled to recover a fair price, includ-
ing overhead and profit, for such subaqueous rock
excavation. Id.
XLVI. Where contractor protested decision that he was not
entitled to additional payment for excavation and
concrete work, but there was no claim that he re-
quested instructions for decision regarding the
work; and where he did not make written protest
that work involved change in plans and specifica-
tions or that it was work outside that called for by
the contract; it is held that plaintiff could not re-
cover payment unless it appeared that there was
no occasion for protest or reason why contractor
should have insisted upon written instructions or
order therefor, as if it involved extra work. Id.
XLVII. Where each portion of the contract in suit was capa-
ble of being understood without reference to any
other portion, the court could not read two parts
as one so as to impute to provisions for removal of
rock masses, loose and liable to fall, an undertak-
ing by the Government to pay, found only in pro-
vision respecting changes which Government might
find it desirable to make. Id.
XLVIII. Excavation from beyond neat lines of side walls of
unlined canal section of rock comprising overbreak
|