Reporter's Statement of the Case 98 C. Cls. in public buildings in the United States, due to painstaking craftsmanship in the original structure, and was known as a "hand-tailored" job. The task of conforming the addition to the main structure required a high degree of care and attention upon the part of architect, owner, and builder, and step-by-step progress not present in ordinary modern building construction. 9. Soil conditions and underpinning.-The first work under the contract involved demolishing a portion of the existing structure and excavating for the addition. The defendant had made no investigation of soil conditions prior to letting the work. The contract specifications, Article 6 of Section IV, provided the bottoms of all excavations should be at the exact level indicated unless greater depth was required by reason of unsuitable bearing conditions, that all soil-bearing footings or walls should be started only upon approved bearing soil, and that if greater excavation was required than shown or reasonably indicated such excess excavation would be the subject of adjustment of the contract sum on the basis of unit prices mentioned in the contract for the various items. On July 26, 1932, after plaintiff had excavated for footings and was ready to start pouring concrete, the defendant ordered pouring suspended until soil conditions could be investigated. The pouring was suspended, the soil was examined and tested by the defendant, and on August 8, 1932, pouring was ordered to begin again. Plaintiff applied to the contracting officer on August 8, 1932, for an extension of 13 days in the contract time to cover the period of suspension. September 7, 1932, the contracting officer by letter acknowledged receipt of the application and stated that the delay of 13 calendar days had been noted and that consideration would be given at the time of final settlement to the waiver of liquidated damages for a corresponding period of time. Necessary extension of footings was done by plaintiff and paid for under Change Order No. 36, dated June 29, 1933. The price paid was based upon either actual cost or the unit prices for excavation specified in the contract, where applicable. 1 Reporter's Statement of the Case At the time of final settlement, the contracting officer allowed an extension of time of 13 days on account of soil conditions. Except for the pouring of the completed footings and walls, the suspension order did not interfere with the work. The demolition work was not completed until some time in September. No underpinning for the existing building had been orig. inally specified. After excavation was begun, the defendant determined that additional underpinning would be necessary. August 3, 1932, when plaintiff reached the level of the bottom of the existing footings, it was directed not to proceed until the nature and extent of additional underpinning was determined. The underpinning was in consequence postponed from August 5, 1932, to September 1, 1932, 27 days. Plaintiff applied for a corresponding extension of time, but was refused such extension by the contracting officer September 9, 1932, on the ground that it was concurrent with other delays. Thereafter, October 3, 1932, plaintiff protested that it was entitled to an extension of time covering the period involved in the actual operations of underpinning and pursuant to a suggestion of the contracting officer formally made application October 18, 1932, after cost of the work was ascertained, for an extension of 56 calendar days, from August 5, 1922, to September 29, 1932. The contracting officer replied October 31, 1932, to this request stating that of this period 22 days only, September 8, 1932, to September 29, 1932, were not concurrent with other recognized delays, that the 22 days were "recognized on account of the additional work required in connection, with the underpinning," that due note had been made of "this additional delay," and that at the time of final settlement consideration would be given if necessary to the waiver of liquidated damages over a corresponding period. The extra work required by the underpinning was paid for under Change Order No. 7 of October 31, 1932. At the time of final settlement the contracting officer allowed plaintiff a time extension of 22 days on account of work relating to underpinning, which time was not concurrent with other Reporter's Statement of the Case 98 C. Cls. recognized delays during the period from August 5, 1932, to September 29, 1932. 10. Consideration of granite samples.-The exterior walls of the old building were composed of Concord granite. The specifications, Article 2 of Section IX, provided that such of the old granite as was removed in demolition from the main building might be used in the new work if it was in good condition and could be recut, redressed and cleaned to correspond in color, shade, and texture to the approved new granite the contractor proposed using, and Article 5 of the same section provided that all new granite should be hard, durable gray granite having the same color, shade, and texture as the old granite after it had been thoroughly cleaned. Under Article 9 of Section I a sample of granite was required to be submitted by the successful bidder to the Architect of the Capitol, 24 inches by 24 inches of each finish. The plaintiff submitted four samples of Stone Mountain, Georgia, granite April 12, 1932, requesting an early decision. No formal action was taken by the Architect on this submission. On May 7, 1932, plaintiff submitted three samples of Concord-New Hampshire granite, following a suggestion from the Architect that the Stone Mountain granite would not be accepted. Again following a suggestion from the Architect that he did not wish to be put to the election between two samples, plaintiff, May 19, 1932, withdrew the sample of Stone Mountain granite. The Architect approved the samples of Concord-New Hampshire granite May 23, 1932, as well as the proposed subcontractor for the granite work, John Clark Co. Inc., of Rockville, Minn. On May 31, 1932, plaintiff gave the Architect notice that although it did not anticipate a delay by reason of the lapse of time between submission and approval of granite, it was desired to record the dates thereof in the event that delay attributable to the elapsed time thereafter developed. On September 27, 1933, plaintiff applied to the Architect for an extension of 26 calendar days for performance, covering the period April 12, 1932, to May 7, 1932. On October 26, 1933, the contracting officer wrote plaintiff a letter containing the following: 1 Reporter's Statement of the Case Because of the failure of this office to take action on the Stone Mountain granite, it is considered that the Government delayed your operations for a period of 25 calendar days from April 13, 1932, to May 7, 1932, inclusive, and at time of final settlement, consideration will be given to the waiver of liquidated damages over a corresponding period. A reasonable time for consideration of the granite samples was ten days from the date of their submission. 11. Changes in bookstack design.-A part of plaintiff's work was furnishing and installing steel bookstacks. The bookstack construction was unusual in that the bookstacks were a structural part of the building, supported by the walls and carrying the roof construction. For bookstack construction and book ranges plaintiff submitted to the contracting officer the name of Union Iron Works Co., as subcontractor April 19, 1932. This company was approved as a subcontractor July 1, 1932. On July 9, 1932, plaintiff notified the contracting officer of the possibility of delay in the work attributable to the period between April 19, 1932, and July 1, 1932. The Architect revised the details of the bookstack construction and on August 4, 1932, requested plaintiff to submit a proposal covering the revision. This plaintiff did August 25, 1932, after having submitted an earlier proposal that was rejected. The revised proposal stated that, due to the fact that the bookstack subcontractors had been unable to proceed with fabrication because of the Government's delay in redesigning the bookstacks, an extension in contract time should be granted "equivalent to the elapsed time between the suspension of the bookstack detailing and your final decision in the matter." The proposal was accepted by Change Order No. 5 of September 7, 1932, which was silent as to extension of time for performance. Thereafter, September 9, 1932, the contracting officer found and so notified plaintiff that the bookstack subcontractor was on or about July 1, 1932, notified by the consulting architects not to proceed with the shop drawings as a change in design was contemplated; that the change in design was authorized September 7, 1932; that plaintiff was accordingly delayed for Reporter's Statement of the Case 98 C. Cls. a period from July 1, 1932, to September 7, 1932, inclusive, a total period of 69 calendar days; and that a concurrent delay of 13 calendar days from July 26, 1932, to August 8, 1932, had been recognized by the contracting officer, leaving an additional delay due to suspension of the bookstack detailing of 56 calendar days, due note of which had been made for the purpose of consideration in final settlement with a view to waiver of liquidated damages over a corresponding period. Because of their unusual construction, the installation of the bookstacks could not be started until the erection of the walls reached the second floor level. This stage of construction was reached and the erection of the bookstacks begun in March 1933, although the materials began arriving in October 1932. 12. Changes in cellar.-During the course of the work the Architect of the Capitol considered changing the refrigeration layout and other things in the cellar. February 24, 1933, plaintiff was ordered to and did suspend certain work in the cellar until the change in arrangement could be worked out. On April 12, 1933, the contracting officer requested plaintiff to submit a proposal making the change, which proposal plaintiff furnished May 19, 1933. June 6, 1933, plaintiff requested an extension of 30 days to cover the change. The change order, No. 37, under which payment for the change was made, was issued July 1, 1933, without providing for an extension of time. On September 8, 1933, the contracting officer found, and so notified plaintiff, that plaintiff was directed to suspend the work in question in the cellar February 24, 1933, pending decision on changes; that the changes were ordered July 1, 1933; that by reason of the time taken by the Government to consider the change the plaintiff was delayed in the prosecution of the contract work 30 calendar days, falling within the period between February 24, 1933, and July 1, 1933. The finding so made concluded with the statement that at the time of final settlement consideration would be given if necessary to waiver of liquidated damages over a period of 30 calendar days. 13. Additional flashing.-On June 15, 1933, the contracting officer requested of plaintiff a proposal for furnishing and installing certain lead-coated copper flashing not called |