113 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case the Procurement Division that the frames were so distorted when removed that they were the equivalent of junk and it was requested that authorization be issued to install new windows. This information was transmitted to the contracting officer on October 11, 1938, and on October 21, 1938, authorization was given to proceed with the installation of new windows at the revised proposal figure of $1,908.50. On August 16, 1940, the Commissioner of Public Buildings wrote plaintiff: You claimed a loss of time of 66 days for the provision of new frames and windows in lieu of re-using existing frames and sash. You were authorized to proceed with this change on October 21, 1938. The Engineer's reports show that the project as a whole was affected 1 day due to this work. * * Your contract time is further extended * * 1 day for the provision of new window frames and sash * (4) Progress report: August 31, 1938.-At the end of August 1938 the construction engineer estimated the work to be 9.5 percent completed. Forty-four percent of the contract time had expired. The construction engineer estimated that the job should have been 35 percent completed at that time. (5) Change Order 18. Transformer vaults.-On September 8, 1938, the construction engineer stopped plaintiff's work on the transformer vaults pending conclusion of a satisfactory understanding with the utility company supplying power. Either plaintiff or defendant could have foreseen the difficulty by timely study of the requirements of the utility company. The specifications refer to provisions in the Standard Specifications for Electrical Materials and Installation for Buildings under the Treasury Department, January 15, 1937. Such standard specifications are not in evidence. Defendant's original design for the transformer vaults was standard, but did not meet the requirements of the utility company. The Consolidated Edison Company, the utility company supplying power for the transformer vaults, had been consulted by the Government at the commencement of the job relative to the acceptance of Government drawings in connection with the installation of trans 316 Reporter's Statement of the Case former vaults and equipment. Information necessary from the utility company was not forwarded to the Government until August 1938. When this information was received and the Edison Company had approved the drawings for installation of the vaults, certain changes in contemplated construction were found to be necessary in the standard design due to the requirements of the utility company. When the necessity for this change was ascertained, the plaintiff was requested to submit proposals for the change in the vaults and the change in the equipment in the vaults, which were designated as Change Orders 18 and 18A. When the proposal was forwarded to Washington, the contracting officer was unable to reconcile office estimates with the figures stated in the proposal and in order to avoid delay and expedite the work, the contractor was authorized on November 16, 1938, to proceed with the work on a time and material basis, the exact cost to be determined later. Revised proposals were later received and accepted and a change order issued on March 23, 1939, under which the plaintiff was paid the full amount due, including an allowance for overhead and an allowance for profit. The transformer vaults were located in an isolated area under the sidewalk at the 45th Street side of the building and the work required under this change order did not interfere with or affect the other work required under the contract, and affected the work of the electrical subcontractor only to the extent that it necessitated a change in his contemplated routine in that area. On August 16, 1940, the Commissioner of Public Buildings wrote plaintiff: You named a delay of 23 days for making structural changes in the transformer vaults, which work was authorized on November 16, 1938. The Engineer advises that this change interfered with the orderly prosecution of the work, and affected the project as a whole 3 days. * * * Your contract time is further extended * for structural changes in transformer vaults 3 days (6) Teamsters' strike.-On September 16, 1938, teamsters in the metropolitan area of New York began a strike which Reporter's Statement of the Case 113 C. Cls. continued until October 3, 1938. All trades engaged on the contract work were affected, and completion of the project was delayed by the strike. There is no further evidence of the nature of the delay so caused. On November 14, 1938, the defendant granted plaintiff an extension of the contract time of 17 days because of this strike. (7) Change Order 14. Compressor platform.-On September 19, 1938, the construction engineer stopped plaintiff's work on a platform in the new compressor room. The contract called for a new platform of reinforced concrete construction. Forms were in place and plaintiff was ready to lay the reinforcing steel when the construction engineer found that the design was not strong enough without additional reinforcement to hold the heavy equipment that had to be located there. The stop-order was lifted on October 25, 1938, when Change Order 14 was issued covering the added expense of the stronger design. The area involved in this change order requiring additional reinforcement for compressor platforms was located on the west central portion of the first floor and comprised a total area of approximately 30 feet by 30 feet. Plaintiff submitted its original proposal on September 28, 1938, which was forwarded to the contracting officer on October 5, 1938. The plaintiff later revised this proposal so submitted following a conference thereon. The only trades working in this area at the time the stop-order was issued pending the submission and approval of a proposal for the changes necessitated were the steel and electrical subcontractors. These trades continued to be gainfully employed in other work on the building and were not delayed. A strike of truckers was concurrent with the period during which this change was under consideration, for which the plaintiff was granted an extension of time of 17 days. On August 14, 1940, the Commissioner of Public Buildings wrote plaintiff: You requested an extension of time of 30 days for making changes in compressor room, for which work your proposal was accepted on October 25, 1938. The records of the Engineer clearly indicate that no delay was occasioned in the area involved, and that the completion of the building itself was not delayed. 316 Reporter's Statement of the Case * * Your requests for time for the installation of compressor slab reinforcement * will receive consideration at the time of final settlement. By letter dated February 7, 1942, the Commissioner of Public Buildings reviewed other items reserved for consideration at the time of final settlement. Plaintiff's request for extension of time on account of the change in compressor slab reinforcement was not mentioned. (8) Progress report: September 30, 1938.-At the end of September 1938, the construction engineer reported the contract 16.26 percent completed. Of the contract time, 52.5 percent had expired. (9) Change Order 26: Lead pans in showers.-On October 11, 1938, the construction engineer stopped the finishing of all shower rooms, pending clarification of the specifications with respect to the installation of lead pans. All preliminary work had been completed, ready for terrazzo and marble. Plaintiff was asked for a proposal, which was promptly submitted, for the installation of lead pans. The proposal thus submitted, was returned for revision. The plaintiff submitted its revised proposal under date of February 27, 1939, which was forwarded to the contracting officer on March 1, 1939, and approved and authorized on March 7, 1939. Work was resumed on February 27, 1939, on verbal orders, and plaintiff was paid for the extra work. On August 16, 1940, the Commissioner of Public Buildings wrote plaintiff : * * * You requested 48 additional days for the installation of lead pans in toilets. The Engineer reports that the project as a whole was affected 8 days, because of this change. * Your contract time is further extended days for the installation of lead pans in toilets, * The shower rooms were on the first, second, and third floors. Each one occupied an area approximately five feet square. The terrazzo and marble work were installed after the changes had been completed. The subcontractors for terrazzo and marble worked in other areas after the stoporder of October 11, 1938. Reporter's Statement of the Case 113 C. Cls. (10) Progress report: October 31, 1938.—Although progress was normal during the month of October 1938, for the contract as a whole, the construction engineer reported at the end of that month that the contract was only 27 percent completed. Sixty-one percent of the contract time had expired. (11) Truck drivers' strike.-On November 2, 1938, the truck drivers for the supply houses furnishing plumbing and heating supplies began a strike which lasted until December 28, 1938. Deliveries of heating material for the contract work were interrupted by the strike and completion of the project was delayed by it. There is no further evidence of the nature of such delay. On August 16, 1940, the Commissioner of Public Buildings wrote plaintiff in reference to this strike: * * You had previously requested an extension of time of 56 days for this strike in your letter of April 17, 1939. However, in view of the amount of work performed during November and December 1938, it does not appear that the strike affected the project as a whole more than 30 days. * * Your contract time is extended * 30 days for the strike of truck drivers for plumbing and heating supply houses, * * (12) Access: Superintendent's office, etc.-An area in stage 1, adjacent to stage 2, including the loading platform on Depew Place, the superintendent's office, the weigh office, and toilets on the first floor, was to become the new parcel post area. Steel had to be removed; new steel had to be placed; and there had to be new partitions, new floor, new lighting, and new finish, as well as a new platform and driveway. Defendant partially stopped plaintiff's work in this area from November 11, 1938, to December 29, 1938. Overhead construction and partition work went forward. Demolition of steel was stopped, and plaintiff was prevented from ripping up the loading platform preparatory to relocating it. The weigh office was used to receive bulk mail. It was released to plaintiff after the Christmas rush. The superintendent continued to occupy his office until the completion of stage 1, several months later. |