accepted by the bidder. Furthermore, paragraph 18 of the instructions to bidders specifically provides that "In case of error in the extension of price the unit price will govern." The unit price in this case was the lump-sum price of $500 and therefore, in accepting such price, the contracting officer acted precisely in accordance with the provisions of the instructions to bidders. You state, also, that the written contract itself appears to be ambiguous because it incorporates the original bid therein by reference. Whatever ambiguity there may have been in the original bid it was cured by the execution of the contract with the provision therein for the payment of a lump-sum price of $500 for the item. Both the contracting officer and the contractor knew, at the time was executed, that the lump-sum price for the item was to be $500 and not $1,000. Aside from the foregoing it clearly appears that, prior to the signing of the contract the contractor was advised that the formal documents would show a price of $500, and not $1,000, for item 20A. The contractor admits this, having stated in its letter of November 10, 1939, "In order to expedite matters, we signed our contracts with the knowledge of your ruling on item No. 20A" (that the price would be $500, and not $1,000). In other words, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, and of the legal effect of its action, the contractor signed the contract. Under these circumstances, the meaning of the contract is clear, there is no room for interpretation or construction, and the contractor may not be paid more for the item than the $500 it agreed to accept. (Board of Trustees of the National Training School for Boys v. Ö. D. Wilson Co., Inc., 133 F. (2d) 399. Also, see International Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 155 U. S. 303, 310; Parish v. United States. 8 Wall. 489; Gilbert & Secor v. United States, 8 Wall. 358, 360.) Accordingly, the decision of January 8, 1940, must be, and is, affirmed. LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States. OCTOBER 26, 1939. STIERS BROS. CONSTRUCTION Co., Washington, D. C. (Attention of Mr. Gollub.) DEAR SIRS: I am returning herewith the detailed estimate for the construction of the West Side Rock Creek Sewer, contract No. 13722. This office cannot approve the detailed estimate as submitted inasmuch as the total of $801,620, given in the estimate, does not correspond with the amount of $801,120 in the signed contract. The difference is in item 20A, for furnishing and installing two backwater gates with appurtenances. Under the lump-sum bid for doing this work you showed an amount of $500 and extended this amount in the total column to $1,000. We could not, in preparing the contract, do other than insert the lump-sum price of $500. Since the District of Columbia cannot make any payments on your contract until after the detailed estimate is approved, I suggest that you change the estimate to show the amount of the actual contract, $801,120. Yours very truly, HAROLD A. Kemp, Chief Engineer, Department of Sanitary Engineering. Mr. ELWOOD JOHNSON, WASHINGTON, D. C., October 28, 1939. Acting Resident Engineer, Rock Creek Diversion Sewer, Washington, D. C. (Attention Mr. Harold A. Kemp.) GENTLEMEN: I am returning herewith the detailed estimate for the construction of the West Side Rock Creek Sewer Contract No. 13722 with the change requested on item No. 20A. However, we desire to protest your interpretation of our bid on this item. The unit reads as follows, in the approximate quantities column, lump sum, under items and unit bid price furnishing and installing two backwater gates with appurtenances in West Side Diversion. We filled in the item as $500 per gate, showing our obvious intention by placing $500 in the unit price column, and not in the total amount column, and in view of the fact that there were two gates extending the unit price to $1,000 in the total amount column. Our material quotation for the gates alone not counting labor is over $750. We feel that inasmuch as our intention in the bid is so clear that we sincerely request your consideration and adjustment on this item. Yours very truly, STIERS BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., By WASHINGTON, D. C., November 10, 1939. Washington, D. C. BOARD OF DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, GENTLEMEN: In order to expedite matters, we signed our contracts with the knowledge of your ruling on item 20A. We would like to call your attention to our manner of interpreting the item. The item reads, "Furnishing and installing two backwater gates with appurtenances in West Side Diversion Sewer." We interpreted the item as follows: Two backwater gates at $500 per piece, lump sum, $1,000. We wrote that into our bid. If the item had read: "Furnishing and installing backwater gates,' then we would admit that your interpretation was correct. However, it reads: "Two backwater gates," and in our bid we bid the item exactly as we read it. We illustrated our intent by the way we extended the item on the two gates. In the amount column, we showed our lump-sum bid. We did not carry the $500 item through the unit and amount column, but extended it to $1,000 in the amount column. We received quotations from three suppliers on the gates: Brown & Brown, McNulty Engineering Co., and the American Rolling Mill Co. If you will take the liberty of contacting any one of these companies for a quotation of these gates, you will find that the material quotations of these gates will range from $1,000 to $1,530 f. o. b. Washington. Besides the actual costs of the gates as shown, please compare our bid on the unit with our competitors. Fitzgerald & Co. bid $2,200 on this item; Delbalso Co., $5,250; Leo Butler, $2,200; and Demmena, $2,000. We will be glad to have Brown & Brown with whom we placed the order for the gates, give you their actual charge to us for these gates and any other information that you may desire. We earnestly request that you reconsider your decision, and hoping to receive your favorable reply, we are Yours very truly, STIERS BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., By M. GOLLub. O MUSKINGUM WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT MAY 22, 1944.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. RAMEY, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 4589] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4589) for the relief of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Comptroller General of the United States to settle and adjust the claim of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, New Philadelphia, Ohio, for the balance necessary to cover the reasonable compensation for a flowage easement which was granted to the United States by deed dated January 8, 1941, prior to the change in plans by the United States and the State of Ohio for the relocation of a State highway, which relocation deprived the claimant of any access to its buildings situated on a part of the land not affected by the flowage easement, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the sum not to exceed $1,745 upon the receipt by him of evidence that a release, satisfactory to the War Department, of the United States from any further claim for damages and from any further liability of any kind by reason of the grant of the easement, has been executed by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District and has been recorded in the proper land records of the State of Ohio. The Comptroller General of the United States transmitted a request to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for this legislation. Therefore, your committee recommends favorable consideration to the bill. Appended hereto is the letter from the Comptroller General. The Congress: GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, Pursuant to the act of April 10, 1928 (45 Stat. 413), I have the honor to make the following report and recommendation concerning the claim of the Muskingum watershed conservancy district, New Philadelphia, Ohio, for the payment of an H. Repts., 78-2, vol. 3—49 additional amount on account of a grant to the United States of a perpetual easement and the right to flood a portion of certain lands owned by the district and situated in the county of Carroll, State of Ohio. The facts relative to the claim as reported by the Real Estate Claims Board, Office of the Chief of Engineers, War Department, are, in substance, as follows: On January 8, 1941, the claimant, in consideration of the payment by the Government of the sum of $2,171, granted to the United States, by an instrument under seal, a perpetual easement in--and the right to flood as may be necessary in the operation of the Atwood Dam-a tract of land situated in Carroll County, Ohic, and comprising a total area of approximately 213.3 acres, more or less. The easement provided, in part, that "the said Grantor, in consideration of the above specified sum, also hereby releases the United States from all claims for damages that may hereafter accrue to it by reason of the overflowing of the abovedescribed land.” It appears further that the claimant owns a group of buildings located approximately in the center of the subject tract abutting on a public road which, at the time of the grant, joined State Highway No. 762 in the northeast corner of the area and led south to the town of New Cumberland, Ohio. At the time of the grant of the said easement, it was known by the parties that the creation of the reservoir resulting from the construction and operation of the Atwood Dam would permanently flood portions of Highway No. 762 and, also, portions of the public road on which the claimant's buildings were situated and thus would deprive the claimant of a means of access to the said buildings by the then existing highway system. However, as a part of the project for the reservoir, the United States Corps of Engineers, working in cooperation with the State of Ohio, planned to relocate the flooded portion of State Highway 762, and the original plan for the relocation would have provided the claimant with a means of access to its buildings through the construction of a comparatively short-access road which would lie entirely within the tract of land owned by the claimant, coextensive with the flowage easement. But in order to reduce the cost of relocating Highway No. 762, both to the United States and to the State of Ohio, the final plans which were made subsequent to the grant of the flowage easement on January 8, 1941, provided for the relocation of said highway in such a manner that access could be had to the claimant's buildings from the highway only by the construction of an access road approximately one-half mile in length which would require the obtaining of an easement through a cemetery. Inasmuch as the Department of Highways of the State of Ohio advised the War Department that it would be illegal for the said highway department to add this access road to the plans and specifications and to construct it as a part of the State highway system, the cost of relocating the access road was eliminated from negotiations between the United States and the State of Ohio. In its formal claim, submitted by letter of May 25, 1943, the claimant alleges that the value of the flowage easement which was granted to the United States by the deed dated January 8, 1941, was determined on the basis that the United States would arrange for the construction of an access road to its buildings. It is alleged further that, without the access road, the buildings have no value to the property beyond salvage when torn down and, therefore, that it is entitled to an additional payment of $1,745 representing the difference between the value of the flowage easement computed on the basis of no access being provided to its buildings, or $4,144, less the estimated salvage value of the buildings, $228, and the amount it previously received for the flowage easement computed on the basis of an access road being built, or $2,171. There is nothing in the flowage easement deed, or otherwise in the record, supporting the claimant's allegation that, at the time the easement was granted, it was understood that an access road to its buildings would be constructed by the United States. However, the district engineer of the War Department reports that the consideration of $2,171 stipulated in the flowage easement deed dated January 8, 1941, was based on the fact that all buildings would remain on the property inasmuch as they are entirely above the spillway elevation and that, at the time the computation was made, it was the understanding of the parties that access to the buildings would be provided by the proposed relocation of State Highway No. 762 but that the subsequent change in the plans for the relocation of the highway placed it at too great a distance from the subject property to provide access thereto at a reasonable cost. Since the easement deed which was executed by the conservancy district deed on January 8, 1941, contained no stipulation to the effect that said easement was granted with the understanding and on the condition that an access road was to be constructed by the Government from the relocated State highway to the |