1

Reporter's Statement of the Case tion of certain areas of the foundation of Grand Coulee Dam.

Careful consideration has been given to your statements relative to changed conditions encountered in the course of the foundation excavation and a careful review has been made of the information relative to the foundation which was available to bidders at the time this work was advertised. Also a study has been made of the condition of the foundation areas now uncovered. From the studies and comparisons which have been made, it is the conclusion that foundation conditions disclosed to date have not been materially different from those which should have been anticipated from the information that was available to bidders prior to opening of the bids. In view of the provisions of paragraphs 47 and 48 of specifications No. 570, no basis is found for any adjustment in the contract prices on account of foundation conditions.

76. Plaintiffs did not keep their books to show separately the costs of operations in either of the gorges. In making out their claim in the fall of 1937, there were no books or papers showing separately costs of operations in the gorges and costs of operations outside of the gorges. Most of the items in plaintiffs' aforesaid claim are based on estimates. The general method adopted in computing the damages due to the existence of the gorges was to compare the actual cost with an estimated cost for the same work if the gorges had been as shown on the plans, as construed by plaintiffs. 77. The encountering of the West and Center Gorges resulted in delaying plaintiffs' operations for 30 days and in added costs. The direct cost and delay cost amount to $130,036.94.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE REFUSAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO PERMIT THE CONTRACTORS TO EXCAVATE TO STABLE SLOPES IN THE EAST FOREBAY OF THE DAM

78. Areas of various operations under plaintiffs' contract are indicated on defendant's model exhibit C by numbers set on pegs. The area involved in this cause of action is numbered "10," which is referred to in the record as the east forebay area. The place numbered "11" was the loca

Reporter's Statement of the Case

tion of the ice dam, and the area numbered "12" was the location of the East Gorge. In this cause of action plaintiffs seek to recover extra expenses and damages for delay caused by slides originating in the east forebay area.

79. Part of Paragraph 56 of Specifications No. 570 reads as follows:

116 C. Cls.

Excavation, general.-Except as otherwise provided in these specifications for definite features of excavation or as otherwise shown on the drawings, excavation for foundations of the dam and powerhouse, which shall include all open-cut excavations required for the construction of the dam, powerhouse, and appurtenant construction, will be measured for payment to slopes of 1 to 1 for common excavation and 1/4 to 1 for rock excavation, and in the case of excavation for structures, to lateral dimensions 1 foot outside of the foundations of the structures: Provided, That where the character of the material cut into is such that it can be trimmed to the required lines of the concrete structure and the concrete placed against the sides of the excavation, without the use of intervening forms, measurement for payment will be made only for the excavation within the neat lines of the structure: Provided further, That for any required excavation where, in the opinion of the contracting officer, the conditions warrant, the excavation will be measured for payment to the most practicable dimensions and lines as staked out or otherwise established by the contracting officer: Provided further, That for required excavations outside of cofferdams, material in slips and slides extending beyond the established slope lines or below the established grade lines will be measured for payment if, in the opinion of the contracting officer, such slips or slides are beyond the control of the contractor and not preventable by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence:

80. In 1933 and 1934, prior to the commencement of the work by plaintiffs under their contract, part of the excavation in the vicinity of the east abutment of the dam had been performed under contract with David H. Ryan. This excavation consisted of the cut along the axis of the dam, about 450 feet wide, carried down to elevation 960, with slopes of approximately 12 to 1. It was found under this contract that slopes of 1 to 1 would not hold, but that such slopes would slide. When plaintiffs commenced excavation on the

Reporter's Statement of the Case

east side in February 1935, the defendant staked out slopes of 12 to 1.

81. Dr. Berkey's report of March 3, 1934, in discussing the rather unstable material constituting the river fill, concludes, in the last paragraph on the last sheet of this exhibit, as follows:

1

I was inclined to believe when these deposits were first encountered that they would stand reasonably well under excavation. In thinking of it in that form, however, the fact was overlooked that a change in loading was inevitable. Experience has already shown that most of the ground is easily disturbed by very moderate changes in load, by over-saturation, and the incidents of undercutting and removal of normal support.

82. In a statement submitting plaintiffs' bid by one of plaintiffs' engineers, appear the following paragraphs:

Residuary river drift and terraced gravels form an overlay at the damsite, up to 100 ft. thick. This material is of great variety of size and composition, and its chief effect has been to pave the river bottom, protecting the underlying silts. This bouldery river drift has a comparatively loose structure and in a thick mantle will tend to slump.

During overburden excavation on David H. Ryan's contract, who is removing 2,040,000 cu. yds., the silts and clays were found to be easily disturbed by relatively moderate changes in load, oversaturation, undercutting, and removal of normal support. This tendency has a bearing on damsite excavation, waste disposal, river control during construction, and possible disturbance with changing water levels.

83. From August 1935 to July 1936 there were about a dozen slides in this area. Plaintiffs were paid for the removal of the material that slid within the slope lines. When plaintiffs began foundation excavation in the east forebay area, a clay-like material was encountered which tended, whenever it became saturated with moisture, to slide and slough off into areas already excavated below. Plaintiffs from time to time requested changes in the slope lines without informing defendant's officers the slope lines which they regarded would be ample to prevent further slides. The

116 C. Cls.

Reporter's Statement of the Case

contracting officer did make changes in the slope lines on a cut-and-try basis in an effort to stabilize the material. Flatter slope lines meant the removal of more material at additional expense to the defendant. The excavation of common was paid for under item 3 of the schedule of prices in Specifications No. 570.

84. The slides which occurred in this area were a source of additional expense to the plaintiffs. While the specifications provided for a minimum slope line of 1 to 1, the defendant authorized the original excavation in February 1935 to be made at 112 to 1. In June 1935 this was changed to 2 to 1, and such slope line was continued on the drawings accompanying Order for Changes No. 1, dated July 15, 1935. This order for changes is heretofore referred to in Finding No. 11. On the day following the slide of September 16, 1935, the defendant ordered slope lines flattened from slopes of 2 to 1 to slopes of 3.4 to 1. Ten days after the slide of April 16, 1936, the defendant staked out new and flatter slopes, varying in fan-shaped pattern, centered roughly in the bottom of the East Gorge from slopes varying from 3.15 to 1 to 4 to 1. When the frozen earth dam was completed in September 1936, sloping above this dam was permitted on a 7.5 to 1 slope.

85. Early in March 1936, plaintiffs, in an effort to protect the East Gorge from further slides, started, with the consent of defendant, the construction of a concrete arch dam just upstream from the area which was to be covered by the main dam. Work on this project started about March 6, 1936. The plan was to build a concrete arch dam with a timber crib on top of it. The crib was to be 25 feet high and was to have a rock fill upstream from it.

March 13, 1936, the arch dam had been completed and the crib had been built up about 10 feet when another slide occurred. The slide interrupted the work, came over the crib, and flowed into the East Gorge. This ended the work on this particular project.

About March 15, 1936, at a conference between the plaintiffs and the construction engineer, plaintiffs suggested that they be permitted to flatten the slopes in the east forebay area by excavating outside of the then established slopes.

1

Reporter's Statement of the Case

The construction engineer, believing that conditions at that time did not justify additional expense to the defendant, did not authorize further excavation.

86. Work on the East Cofferdam, described in Finding No. 71, was commenced on September 18, 1935. This dam was overtopped during the high water of 1936. July 8, 1936, plaintiffs commenced pumping out the East Cofferdam. During this operation further subsidence appeared near the top of the slope. Because of this the contracting officer conceived a plan for the construction of an ice dam by refrigeration process and freezing of the material at the toe of the slide. July 24, 1936, the contracting officer directed plaintiffs to hold the water level within the East Cofferdam at elevation 900 until the ice dam could be installed. August 3, 1936, an extra work order was issued by the contracting officer, and accepted by plaintiffs, for the construction of such an ice dam. The ice dam was constructed by plaintiffs and they were paid therefor in accordance with said extra work order. Pumping out of the East Gorge was completed September 25, 1936, and excavation was started again on October 1, 1936. The first concrete was poured in the East Gorge on November 28, 1936. The ice dam was approximately 110 feet long, 40 feet thick, and 50 feet high. After the ice dam was installed, slides ceased to interfere with plaintiffs' operations.

87. The first slide in the east forebay area occurred on August 1, 1935. Four more slides occurred in 1935. The first letter written by plaintiffs to the construction engineer in regard to the slide conditions in this area was on January 7, 1936. No protest of the slides was made, but only request for permission to build a haul road. Consent to construct the haul road was given by letter of January 18, 1936.

88. From the first of January to the 21st of March 1936, five more slides occurred. March 21, 1936, plaintiffs wrote to the construction engineer reviewing the history of the excavation in the east forebay area and calling attention to frequent and urgent requests for permission to flatten the slopes and remove all the material in the slides rather than just that portion which flowed within the slope lines. The last three paragraphs of this letter read as follows: