Reporter's Statement of the Case

nish the necessary materials and labor and provide additional excavation, pumping, and sheeting made necessary by the leaking sewer, and cut the shelf under the sewer which interfered with the proposed foundation," was issued, increasing the contract price by the sum of $1,536.40.

VI. The contract plans provided for drainage into a sump located on the extension. Shortly after the contract was awarded it appeared advisable to have the drainage system so that it could be connected with the drainage system of the original plant and avoid the necessity of installing a separate sump in the extension. Plaintiff was requested to submit an estimate of the cost of the proposed change, which request was complied with by the plaintiff and an estimate submitted. Before any work was performed the proposed estimate was withdrawn and in August, 1919, plaintiff was directed not to make the change in the drainage system that had previously been contemplated but to install it in accordance with the original plans. This was due to the fact that the elevation of the drainage system in the original plant was such that the proposed change could not be made. The proposed change was not made and no work was done on the same.

VII. The original plans and specifications for the structural steel work did not provide for stops for the gypsum roof tile. Plaintiff discovered the omission and brought it to the attention of the public-works officer March 29, 1919. Plaintiff installed stops for the roof tile and for the skylight (hereinafter referred to), and thereafter, on April 12, 1920, by change order "D" the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks authorized the labor and materials therefor, naming an increase in price of $168.30, " in accordance with paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract", and stipulating that the change did not affect the time for completion of the contract.

VIII. During the course of the work plaintiff wrote the public-works officer maintaining that it was being delayed by failure of the Government to install the boiler pit beams which were to be installed by the Government. These beams were the supporting members for and carried the walls above the pit.

Reporter's Statement of the Case

On October 22, 1919, plaintiff was engaged in the building of the floor, adjacent to the boilers, that the beams were to support, but because of the fact that the Government had not at that time placed the beams in position, the work of completing the floors could not be performed.

IX. Due to the fact that there was a shortage of steel during the war the construction plans provided for a flue constructed of reinforced concrete. Subsequent to the armistice the steel situation was relieved, and as a steel flue covered with asbestos was superior to a concrete flue plaintiff was on June 13, 1919, requested by the public-works officer to submit an estimate for the change. On July 16, 1919, the plaintiff submitted an estimate of $10,244.00 additional to the contract price. On September 24, 1919, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in writing authorized plaintiff to proceed with the change, the actual cost to be determined by a board pursuant to paragraph 17 of the general contract provisions, a formal change order to be issued thereafter. Plaintiff erected the steel flue in place of the concrete flue. Thereafter, on May 12, 1920, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks issued change order "E" directing omission of the concrete flue, without providing for the substitution of any other form of flue. The order reduced the contract price by $2,005.31, in accordance with the report of a board " appointed pursuant to paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract ", and stated that the omission did not involve any change in the time for completion of the contract. On May 13, 1920, the Bureau of Yards and Docks forwarded to plaintiff a form of supplemental agreement for erection of a steel-plate flue. The proposed agreement was not signed by the plaintiff, it is not in evidence, and its terms do not appear. Plaintiff erected the steel flue in place of the concrete flue. Thereafter, on August 18, 1922, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, by letter designated "Change J", informed plaintiff that the construction of the steel flue operated to increase the contract price, in accordance with aforesaid paragraph 17, by $10,244.00.

X. The boilers in the building that was constructed by contractor were installed by another contractor and plaintiff

Reporter's Statement of the Case

had nothing to do with the installation of the same. The boiler contractor occupied a great deal of the floor space with his equipment which prevented plaintiff from doing work adjacent to the boilers and putting in tunnel walls and finishing the floor at the places where the boiler contractor kept his equipment.

The plaintiff, in letters of January 10, 1920, and February 24, 1920, complained to the public-works officer that the situation was causing it delay.

XI. The original plan provided for the installation of vault lights in the roof of the building. These lights are glass squares which have a ribbon of concrete between the glass squares and are put up on forms and concrete poured around them. In the course of the work it was decided to substitute ordinary skylights for the vault lights. Vault lights are always kept in stock and can be delivered immediately while skylights of the kind used had to be fabricated. The plaintiff was ready to proceed with the installation of the vault lights but it required 20 days to fabricate the skylights, during which time the plaintiff was delayed.

The public-works officer in writing December 2, 1919, instructed the plaintiff to furnish and install the additional steel that would be required to support the skylight, and authorized the plaintiff in writing December 12, 1919, to install the skylights, in neither case naming the price. The plaintiff performed the work as instructed and authorized.

Thereafter by change order "D", April 12, 1920, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks directed plaintiff to furnish and install the supports for the skylight, together with supports for "gypsum roof slab at the saw-tooth skylight," at an additional price of $168.30, as determined under paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract, the change not to affect the prescribed time for completion of the contract. By change order "G" dated July 27, 1920, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks directed the substitution of skylights for vault lights, the contract price to be reduced by $88.00, in accordance with the report of a board constituted and acting under paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract.

182593-33-CC-VOL 76-11

Reporter's Statement of the Case

XII. On May 21, 1920, the public-works officer directed plaintiff in writing to install a certain amount of roofing on the old or original building, adjacent to the new construction, the work to be done as an extra. No price was stipulated. The plaintiff performed the work. Thereafter, on July 27, 1920, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks issued change order "G", covering the work, increasing the contract price by $600.00 pursuant to the report of a board under paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract.

XIII. On March 4, 1920, the public-works officer in writing notified plaintiff to proceed with the construction of a trench for ash ejector pipe, work not called for by the contract, stating that the price would be determined by the board constituted under paragraph 17 of the general contract provisions. Plaintiff did the work so required. Thereafter, on April 3, 1920, the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks issued change order "C", in terms directing the work to be done, increasing the contract price by $925.00, in accordance with the findings of the aforesaid board, and extending the contract period 15 days.

XIV. By letter dated June 12, 1919, plaintiff was authorized by the acting public-works officer to substitute concrete piles for certain wood piles, subject to the contract and the findings of the " Board authorized to report on this change."

The change was made accordingly by the plaintiff. Thereafter, on February 26, 1920, the Acting Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks issued change order "A", covering this change, directing plaintiff to "(a) omit, as contemplated by the last subparagraph of the 5th clause of the contract, 1,095 linear feet of wood piles" and to "(b) substitute concrete piles, thereby involving a less number of linear feet to be driven," and by said order, and "in accordance with the report, dated February 14, 1920, of a board pursuant to paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract," reduced the contract price by $2,138.56, stipulating that the change did not affect the time prescribed for completion of the contract.

XV. On December 15, 1919, the public-works officer addressed plaintiff by letter, in part stating: "It is noted that no fire brick for the lining in the combustion chamber under

66

Reporter's Statement of the Case

the boilers and in the ash pits which are a part of contract 3632, Extension 'A' central power plant, have as yet been received on the works. Delivery of same should be made at once so as not to delay the completion of this contract." January 26, 1921, the Chief of the said Bureau of Yards and Docks issued change order H, directing plaintiff to omit the fire brick lining of the ash pits and soot hoppers of the boilers and the furnishing of 14,000 fire brick as they will be supplied by the Government, as directed by the officer in charge." By this order, and "in accordance with the report, dated December 14, 1920, of a board appointed pursuant to paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract," the contract price was reduced by $3,059.84. No mention was made of delay.

XVI. During the course of construction the plaintiff failed to submit certain drawings promptly when called for by the public-works officer, and the public-works officer failed on certain occasions promptly to pass upon drawings submitted by plaintiff, all of which caused delay in the work. The evidence does not disclose satisfactorily the number of days' delay due to either cause. Throughout the progress of the work both parties complained to each other of these several delays.

XVII. When the excavation for the building that was constructed was made it uncovered the foundation of the wall of the old power plant. It was found that the piles supporting that wall had rotted away and in some places the foundation had been broken. Plaintiff was given an order for extra work to underpin the walls of the old building. About the time that plaintiff started in on the work it was determined that the yard employees could complete the underpinning of the wall, and the order was rescinded. During the time that the yard employees were engaged in the work they used for the storage of Government materials a part of the site that was intended to be used by plaintiff for the storage of its own materials. This condition existed from August 23 to September 13, 1919. During that time the plaintiff was prevented from completing the footings and placing concrete at that part of the work.