Pacific Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 22 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 294-67.,294-67. |
Parties | PACIFIC ALASKA CONTRACTORS, INC. v. The UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Stuart G. Oles, Seattle, Wash., attorney of record, for plaintiff. Allen, DeGarmo & Leedy, Seattle, Wash., of counsel.
Mary J. Turner, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. William D. Ruckelshaus, for defendant.
Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS, COLLINS and SKELTON, Judges.
ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
*
In accordance with the standards for judicial review prescribed by the Wunderlich Act, plaintiff's motion and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment present issues concerning the finality of a decision of the Department of Commerce Appeals Board, DCAB No. PR-46, 66-1 BCA ¶ 5532, as modified on motion for clarification and reconsideration, 66-2 BCA ¶ 6043.
On October 6, 1959, plaintiff and defendant (by its Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Commerce) entered into contract No. CPR 10-300, by which plaintiff undertook in accordance with defendant's drawings and specifications to perform grading with excavation of cuts and placement of materials in fills, install culverts and provide drainage facilities otherwise, and place overlay material on the accomplished subgrade in the realignment, reconstruction and improvement of 8.7 miles of an existing forest road in Alaska, known as the Hope Highway, located some 80 miles by road from Anchorage.
Basically comprised of agreed unit prices applied to estimated quantities of work and materials, the estimated contract price was $475,002, subject to adjustment to the actual quantities realized in accordance with contract provisions.
The contract provided that performance would be started within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt by plaintiff of defendant's written notice to proceed. Such notice was received by plaintiff on October 30, 1959. The contract allowed 210 calendar days for completion of performance.
Stated in the contract as major items of work were unclassified excavation of an estimated quantity of 216,000 cubic yards of material in the accomplishment of the cuts and fills specified to bring the road to subgrade, and borrow excavation of an estimated 60,000 cubic yards of material for placement of the required overlay on the subgrade.
In the contract performance, plaintiff accomplished and was credited with unclassified excavation in the amount of 181,290 cubic yards, which was about a 16 percent reduction from the 216,000 cubic yards indicated in the contract, not coming within the price adjustments provided by Articles 4.2, 9.3 and 9.5, quoted below. However, plaintiff accomplished and was credited with 144,821 cubic yards of borrow excavation, an overrun of about 141 percent, and the proper basis of compensation for such overrun remains in dispute.
Made part of the contract by express provision are the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-57, January 1957, promulgated by the Bureau of Roads, Department of Commerce. Articles 4.2, 9.3 and 9.5 thereof provide:
Relying on the Changes article and on category (1) of the standard Changed Conditions article, plaintiff claimed, and defendant's contracting officer and the Appeals Board denied, entitlement to an equitable adjustment of the contract price on those theories. Plaintiff believes that the amount of the equitable adjustment under the standard Changes and Changed Conditions articles would under the facts and circumstances of this case exceed amounts allowable under Article 9.5 Force-Account Work, quoted above. No evidence was presented to the Board concerning the amount of such an equitable adjustment because pursuant to an agreement of the parties, determination of the amount of recovery was reserved by the Board for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. U.S.
... ... McIninch, deceased, Appellant, ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellee ... No. 81-2122 ... one." Federation Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, 625 F.2d 804, 807 (8th Cir ... ...
-
Turnkey Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
...to be encountered would be other than those actually encountered at the time of performance, Pacific Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.2d 461, 469, 193 Ct.Cl. 850, 863-64 (1971). Under category one of the Differing Site Conditions Article, a contractor may be entitled to an e......
-
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of Milwaukee County v. R. W. Const., Inc., 676
... ... , Washington, D.C., for The Associated General Contractors of America, amicus curiae ... WILKIE, ... United States. 8 In Ragonese, the borings set out the soil ... 6 Pacific Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. United States (1971), 436 F.2d ... ...
-
W.M. Schultz Constr., Inc. v. Vt. Agency of Transp., 17-436
...subsurface conditions would be otherwise than actually found in contract performance." Pac. Alaska Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.2d 461, 469 (Ct. Cl. 1971) ; see also Stuyvesant, 834 F.2d at 1581 (outlining same standard).III. Agency Decisions¶ 8. Applying this test, VTrans' Con......