Opinion ID: 901222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prunty's ClaimUnit Bid Contract

Text: [¶ 9.] Prunty argues that its contract with the City is a unit bid contract and as such, requires the City to pay for the actual units supplied. A unit-bid contract is one wherein the contractor submits a price per unit for each of the various categories involved. This type of contract is used where the final quantities of work cannot be determined with accuracy until final completion. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. v. United States, 483 F.2d 682, 684 (8thCir.1973). Prunty admits that change orders had to be submitted but asserts that a final change order is contemplated by the contract. Prunty also argues that not all changes required halting the work until a change order was approved. Prunty argues that only certain changes required prior approval. Specifically, changes that required prior approval were of two types: (1) changes due to subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing materially from those indicated in the contract, and (2) changes due to unknown physical conditions at the site, of an unusual nature and differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in this type of work. Prunty claims that the final change order did not include changes requiring prior approval. Whether the site conditions differed materially or were of an unusual nature would be questions of fact for which summary judgment would be inappropriate. Sundt Corp. v. South Dakota Dept. of Transp., 1997 SD 91, ¶¶ 22-24, 566 N.W.2d 476, 481-82.