Opinion ID: 1195492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The alleged failure of the State to disclose information with respect to weather conditions.

Text: Under this head, we will consider both propositions (a) and (b) advanced by the Contractor. It is contended that the State had an affirmative duty to disclose the weather data in its possession, independently of what information it supplied to the bidders, and also that the duty to disclose arose out of the fact that such weather data materially qualified the information supplied to the bidders. A witness produced by the Contractor testified that he had examined at the Department of Astronomy of the University of Hawaii extensive and detailed meteorological data filling ten cardboard boxes, covering observations made at several sites on Mauna Kea and also at the observatories located on Mauna Loa and Haleakala. There was also testimony that the Department of Astronomy possessed a dozen volumes of bound manuscript records of meteorological data accumulated on Mauna Kea. The existence of these records seems not to be disputed, and it may be assumed that the data related to the years immediately prior to the letting of the contract. The Contractor's brief argues the relevance of these records in the following terms: It is apparent that (1) the 10 cardboard boxes and 12 bound manuscripts which were possessed by the State contained vital information concerning the weather conditions at the site; (2) the weather conditions were of paramount importance in the performance of the contract; (3) the State deliberately chose not to reveal the information in the boxes and manuscripts to the Contractor; (4) the Contractor bid with knowledge of the existence of a weather data collection but without knowledge of its contents; and (5) the Contractor encountered adverse weather conditions which were not reasonably foreseeable, thereby resulting in lengthy delays in the performance of the contract. However, no attempt was made by the Contractor to bring these records before the court and the evidence as to what data were contained in them is in most respects ambiguous and inconclusive. It is difficult to determine, from second-hand descriptions by witnesses who examined the records, to what extent they would have forewarned the Contractor of the adverse weather conditions actually encountered. In this respect the case is different from Hardeman-Monier-Hutcherson v. United States, 458 F.2d 1364, 198 Ct. Cl. 472 (1972), upon which the Contractor chiefly relies. There the government let a contract for construction of a pier at a remote location on the southern coast of Australia. It was of critical importance to bidders to determine the extent to which adverse wind and sea conditions would interfere with construction. Certain reports in the possession of the government forecast far worse conditions than should have been anticipated on the basis of information available to bidders. Prior to submitting its bid, the successful bidder learned of the reports and asked permission to examine them, which was refused. Adverse weather conditions of the sort indicated by the reports were encountered during construction and delayed the completion of the project. In the contractor's action for its extra costs, the reports were brought before the court and it was found that they had accurately forecast the weather and sea conditions actually encountered. It was held that the delay was caused by the act of the government in failing to disclose the reports and that the withholding of the reports was a breach of the construction contract. The decision is expressly founded upon the fact that the reports contained information which was vital to the performance of the contract and the further fact that the information was deliberately withheld by the government. In the present case, the State furnished to the bidder information with respect to wind speeds at the construction site during the period from November, 1965 to October, 1966, inclusive and with respect to temperature maximums and minimums at the site during the period from August, 1965 to October, 1966, inclusive. These data were accurate, so far as they went. The State possessed, during the bidding period, daily temperature figures for the period from November, 1966 to June, 1967, inclusive, which were not disclosed to bidders. The temperature data provided to bidders for the period November, 1965, to October, 1966 showed average maximum temperatures in excess of 40° for all months except February, and in excess of 50° for March and for May through September. The undisclosed temperature data for November, 1966 through June, 1967 were not expressed in terms of monthly average maximums, but showed (with the omission of late March and early April) the daily maximum temperatures between 6 AM and 6 PM. The daily maximum temperature exceeded 40° only on one day during November through January, on 6 days in February and on 3 days in March. Temperatures in excess of 50° were recorded only in May and June. Other than with respect to the temperature data for November, 1966 through June, 1967, the record does not disclose the nature of the weather data possessed by the State and not provided to the bidders, except in the most general terms. [3] While testimony offered by the Contractor supports the conclusion that such data would have assisted in forecasting weather conditions during the construction period, there is nothing to tell us whether a forecast based on such data would have been different from one based on data otherwise available to bidders. With respect to the data other than the temperature readings for the 1966-67 winter, the record clearly would not support a finding that the State withheld material information from the Contractor. The temperature data for the period November, 1966 through June, 1967 meets the test of materiality, in light of contract provisions which forbade the doing of important aspects of the work except when the temperature was above 40° and rising. An intelligent bid necessarily required an estimate of the periods during which such restrictive provisions would be in operation and the practicability of using heating devices to enable the work to proceed during periods of low temperatures. On the other hand, the Contractor bid with knowledge of the existence of a collection of weather data and made no request for its use. [4] It is most difficult for us to understand the conduct of either of the parties with respect to the vital question of the weather conditions to be anticipated during the construction period. Although aware that records of weather observations had been collected by the State, during the winter which had intervened between the period covered by the weather information provided to bidders and the bid opening, the Contractor showed no interest in such data and made no request to review such records. On the other hand, the State provided only weather information relating to the 1965-66 winter, despite the fact that it possessed more recent and presumably more relevant weather data. The Contractor has urged on us that some of the testimony tends to show that the State actively concealed such information from the bidders. However, this question was resolved by the finding of the trial court that the State did not withhold from the Contractor any information on Mauna Kea's weather and climate. Thus the question becomes whether the State had an affirmative duty to disregard the Contractor's complacency and to ensure that the Contractor was armed with the 1966-67 weather information, as well as that for 1965-66, in making its bid. There is no contention that such a duty of disclosure existed with respect to information in the possession of the State which was not material to the formulation of its bid by the Contractor. The Contractor has attempted to show the materiality of the weather data for the winter of 1966-67 by showing a parallel between the conditions at the site during that winter and those encountered during construction the following winter. The Contractor provided testimony to the effect that it derived from the temperature information furnished by the State for the 1965-66 winter a forecast of temperatures which would be encountered in construction, which forecast was substantially more favorable than either the conditions actually encountered or the conditions shown by the State's weather data to have prevailed in the winter of 1966-67. However, this weather forecast was not made by a meteorologist and there is nothing to show that it represented a sound use of the data available to the Contractor. Although the Contractor offered extensive testimony by an expert in meteorology, this witness testified only that the data in the possession of the State would have been useful to the Contractor in forecasting the weather conditions which should have been anticipated and provided no testimony with respect to what forecast of weather conditions should have been made with the use of that information. We cannot supply the omission. There is nothing in the record to show what temperatures the Contractor should have anticipated on the basis of the information furnished by the State and otherwise available to the Contractor, or what temperatures the Contractor should have anticipated had such information been supplemented by the temperature data for the 1966-67 winter which the State possessed. The record shows that there were a number of sources of weather information available to but not resorted to by the Contractor. The Contractor was free, at its own risk, to guess at the temperature conditions to be anticipated during construction, without employment of reasonably available expert advice and without utilization of reasonably available weather information, but it may not hold the State responsible for its error. Even if it be assumed that the State withheld weather information in violation of a duty which it owed to the Contractor, it was incumbent on the Contractor to show that possession of such information would have made a material difference in the forecast which the Contractor should reasonably have made on otherwise available information. The Contractor has offered no evidence to sustain this burden.