Opinion ID: 504859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Conditions Encountered

Text: 10 It is common knowledge among contractors that sand is less firm and more permeable to water than is clay. 4 Accordingly, during the design of Section D008 and prior to bid, WMATA decided to lower the elevation of the tunnels from that originally planned, in an attempt to avoid mining in sand and to place [the tunnels] in a horizon of highly plastic homogeneous clays of relative impermeability so as to create easier tunneling and lower cost. J.A. at 20 (citing Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnston, Report No. 18 [hereinafter Rep. No. 18] at 1). Nevertheless, the Board found, and the parties do not dispute, that after construction of the tunnels began, Granite-Groves encountered not the kind embrace of clay, 5 but rather repeated and continual sand and water intrusion problems. Id. at 25. These problems were described by the Board, as follows: 11 The contractor encountered little difficulty ... between Station 187 + 64.5 and 184 + 16 where the soils was hard plastic clay. Between Station 184 + 16 and the (G) Street vent shaft [Approx. station 175 + 50], the contractor encountered a sandier materials which coupled with water intrusion, resulted in numerous tunnel cave-ins and related problems. Without citing the individual occurrences, the difficulties encountered can be succinctly described as water, and water borne soil materials entering the tunnel through the tunnel face and lagging several times chimneying to the street surface. 12 Id. at 25 (emphasis added) (quoting the Contracting Officer's decision). According to the Board, most of the water intrusion problems occurred in two particular sections of the project: 13 The next question for determination is the location of the area affected by the water. From an examination of all the evidence we have concluded that these areas include from Station 180 + 00 to 178 + 50 and from Station 176 + 75 to 175 + 25 [where the contractor encountered sandy soil containing abundant water]. 14 Id. at 28-29 (emphasis added). We hold, like the district court, that the Board's factual determinations regarding the conditions encountered by the contractor must be accorded finality, because they were not arbitrary, capricious or grossly erroneous and were supported by substantial evidence.[269 U.S.App.D.C. 278] C. The Contract Documents and Pre-Bid Information Provided to Granite-Groves 15 In making its bid, the contractor relied on several sources of subsurface data furnished by WMATA. First, WMATA provided a series of drawings in the contract plans, describing for the entire length of the project (Section D008) the locations of certain subsurface exploratory borings performed by a soil investigation firm. 6 See J.A. at 40-43 (reduced reproductions of the contract drawings); Rep. No. 18 at 1. The exact locations of the borings are described in terms of Stations; Station 174 + 82, for example, marks the approximate start of Project D008. See J.A. at 40. Second, for each exploratory boring, WMATA provided prospective bidders with a detailed log of the soil conditions and major soil layers encountered at each five foot interval from the ground surface to the base of the project. These boring logs were prepared for WMATA by Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnston (MRW & J), a geotechnical engineering consultant firm. See id. at 44-50. 16 Additionally, two soils reports prepared by MRW & J, known as Volume IV, which was the original report (July 1969), and Rep. No. 18, the supplemental report (September 1972), were available to Granite-Groves prior to its bid submission. See Appellant's Brief at 26. Particularly relevant is Rep. No. 18, which contained MRW & J's interpretation (in narrative form) of the boring log data presented in the contract plans as well as soil profiles of the tunnel horizon, which were also based on the boring logs and which presented pictorially the subsurface strata the contractor could expect to encounter. See J.A. at 20. The tunnel profiles from Rep. No. 18 are reproduced in relevant part in Appendix A. 7 17 The abbreviations used in the soil profiles and boring logs were based on the following soil classification system: 18 NOTE--Some parts of this form are wider than one screen. To view 19 material that exceeds the width of this screen, use the right arrow 20 key. To return to the original screen, use the left arrow key. 21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COARSE GRAVELS CLEAN GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL, GRAINED AND LITTLE OR NO FINES. SOILS --------- (MORE GRAVELLY (LESS THAN G SINGLE-SIZE, NARROWLY THAN GRADED GRAVEL, FEW HALF FINES. LARGER THAN NO. SOILS 5% SMALLER GP-GN GRAVEL WITH MODERATE 200 FINES, 5% TO 12% SIEVE) PASSING No. 200. (MORE THAN NO. 200) THAN HALF OF ------------------------------------------------------------------------ COARSE DIRTY GW SILTY GRAVEL, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES. FRACTION (MORE THAN GC GLAYEY GRAVEL, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES. IS LARGER 12% SMALLER GW-GC GRAVEL-SAND MIX WITH SILTY CLAY OR CLAYEY SILT FINES. THAN NO. THAN NO. 200) 4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COARSE SANDS AND CLEAN SW WELL GRADED SAND, LITTLE GRAINED OR NO FINES. SOILS --------- (MORE SANDY (LESS THAN SP SINGLE-SIZE NARROWLY THAN SOILS GRADED LEVEL, FEW HALF FINES. LARGER THAN NO. (MORE 5% SMALLER SP-SW SAND WITH MODERATE 200 THAN FINES, 5% TO 12% SIEVE) PASSING NO. 200. HALF OF THAN NO. 200) COARSE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FRACTION DIRTY SW SILTY SAND, SAND-SILT MIXTURES. IS 12% SMALLER SC CLAYEY SAND, SAND-CLAY SMALLER MIXTURES. THAN NO. THAN NO. 200) SW-SC SAND WITH SILTY CLAY OR 4) CLAYEY SILT FINES.