#### H. E. CROOK COMPANY, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. B-195.

Decided March 3, 1924]

*On the Proofs*

*Contract; delays; extension of time.*— Where a contractor, without fault on his part, is delayed by the failure of the Government to have other work completed in contract time, and the time for completion was extended a corresponding number of days, the Government is liable for the actual damages sustained by the contractor by reason of such delays.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. Julian 0. Hammaek*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Bynum E. Hinton*was on the briefs.

*Mr. Edmond 0.*Fletcher, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert II.*Lovett, for the defendant.

The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its office at Baltimore, Md., and on September 26, 1911, entered into a contract in writing with the United States whereby it agreed to furnish all labor and materials necessary and to install an outside electric duct distributing system, together with a pipe distributing system, in the structural shop, navy yard, Norfolk, Va., for the performance of which work the United States agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $98,743. A copy of the contract attached to and made a part of the petition is made a part hereof by reference.

II. The contract provided that the plaintiff should complete its work within 120 calendar days from the date that a copy of the contract was delivered to it. This was done on October 6, 1917, and accordingly the date for the completion of the contract was February 3, 1918.

III. The plaintiff began work on the contract on October 26, 1917, but was permitted to perform onty small and iso*349lated portions of the work, and at times was not permitted to perform any work at all. Other contractors were permitted by the defendant to work under their independent contracts on the site where the plaintiff’s work had to be performed. The Nary Department did not furnish the piping, which it was-obligated to do under the contract, until August 1, 1918, and the Navy Department would not permit the plaintiff to proceed with the installation of the pipes supplying oil heaters until December 7. 1918-, and the plaintiff was not permitted to install the last portion of the duct system until February. 6, 1919. All these delays were without the fault of the plaintiff, and were occasioned by the defendant. The work was then delayed 412 days, and the United States extended the plaintiff’s contract time 412 days.

IV. These delaj^s compelled plaintiff to perform its contract at a time considerably later than originally agreed to by the terms of the contract, at which later time workmen’s ■wages’ were increased, and the plaintiff was compelled to and did pay $6,035.35 for such Avages in excess of the amount it AYould have paid for same except for the delays caused by the United States. This sum has not been paid to the plaintiff.

Owing to these delaj’s the plaintiff was compelled to and did keep a superintendent and timekeeper on the work for the period of 412 days', and paid as salary to said superintendent and timekeeper the sum of $5,320, Avhich was a reasonable amount for the seiwice rendered, and this sum it Avould not haA-e had to pay except for the delays aforesaid. This sum has not been paid to the plaintiff.

Owing to these delays the plaintiff was obliged to pay $493.72 as an additional premium for a renewal bond covering its contract, Avhich bond Avas required by the contract, and this additional premium it Avould not haA^e had to pay except for the delays aforesaid. This sum has not been paid to the plaintiff.

V. The plaintiff completed its contract, and the work was accepted as satisfactory by the United States; and the defendant on March 20, 1920, paid to the plaintiff the sum of $18,133.27, the balance then due on the contract price, *350the plaintiff at the same time reserving tlie right to sue for the items set forth in the above findings.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The facts in this case are fully set out in the findings, and it is not necessary to recapitulate them here. The plaintiff commenced work under the contract, and was delayed 412 days by the defendant in its performance. It thereby incurred losses and expenses amounting to the sum of $11,894.07. These facts are not disputed.

The law governing- such cases is well established, and has been repeatedly asserted by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States. *Kelly & Kelly*v. *United States,*31 C. Cls. 361; *William Cramp & Sons*v. *United States,*41 C. Cls. 164; *Muller*v. *United States,*113 U. S. 153; *United States*v. *Smith,*94 U. S. 214.

Judgment for plaintiff under Finding IV for the sum of $11,849.07.