Opinion ID: 1628617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who Caused the Delays?

Text: Notice to proceed with the work on Phase I of Contract Number 13 was issued July 9, 1957, and on November 27, 1957 the proceed order was issued for Phase II. It was agreed that Phase I of this contract would be completed within six months, and Phase II was to be completed within four months, meaning that both phases of Contract Number 13 should have been completed prior to March 27, 1958. The contract, however, was not accepted as completed until July 19, 1960. Thus, plaintiff was required to be engaged in the performance of this contract almost 27 months beyond the date when completion was contracted for. Nowhere in the record is it established that the delay involved was due to plaintiff's action or nonaction; rather, it is convincingly established that plaintiff held a fully complimented staff ready at all times to expedite the completion of work required by the contract and plaintiff did in fact perform its obligations under the contract with dispatch. The work order for Phase I of the second contract, Number 37, was issued May 20, 1958, shortly after the anticipated completion date of the first contract, and on January 7, 1959 the work order was issued for Phase II. The job was, therefore, expected to be finished on May 7, 1959, four months after issuance of the work order on Phase II; it was not accepted, however, until August 19, 1960. Plaintiff was, in consequence, engaged in the performance of the work under this contract 15 months longer than the time agreed upon. Again, as in the first contract, no action or nonaction on plaintiff's part is assigned as a reason for the inordinate delays which admittedly occurred. The delays attributed by plaintiff to the Department about which plaintiff complains are that (1) the Department's employees tardily supplied or failed to supply standard plans for bridges, culverts and other structures as required by the contract; (2) the Department failed to furnish necessary preliminary right of way information, made revisions during the course of the work requiring the acquisition of additional rights of way and failed to provide access to certain properties in order that plaintiff could complete right of way maps; (3) defendant delayed, ignored or deferred repeated requests for certain soil reports required by plaintiff for design work; and (4) the Department was guilty of immoderate delays in approving plans. The delays which did occur, as we have noted, were not caused by plaintiff. To the contrary, plaintiff maintained his fully complimented staff throughout the period during which he was attempting to accomplish the work called for by the contract. We understand this was necessary to avoid delaying the work and in order to have adequate and properly trained personnel on hand when work could be performed. The Department makes no convincing effort to assign the cause of delay to plaintiff and, unexplainably, makes no effort to assign the cause for delay to others. Without reviewing the evidence in detail here, we are satisfied from our study of the record that the Department was responsible for inordinate delays which plaintiff could not be expected to anticipate. The delays were a violation of the Department's contracts with plaintiff and brought about damage to plaintiff for which recovery should be allowed. The principal delay, which we shall cite, was brought about by the Department in making a contract with Engineering Testing Laboratory, Inc., for subsurface soil testing required by plaintiff before designs of certain bridges and other structures could be finalized. Changes in procedure of the Department's right of way section entailed innumerable other delays, and the Department's failure to timely furnish standard plans and specifications for plaintiff's use, changes in standards relating to vertical clearances, sidewalk dimensions, the position of a bridge, the type of foundations required for overpasses, a change in the location or routing of the highway, a change in location of a segment of the highway because of a subsurface pipeline, delays in approval of plans and designs submitted, relocation of the bridge or overpass at Broadacres Road to the White Pines Road, requiring a new schematic plan for the Greenwood and T & P location, revision of Greenwood Interchange and Buncomb Road Crossing, the Fournoy-Lucas Road Crossing and U.S. 79 connection, together with others, all caused delays because of the Department's action or nonaction making performance within the time stipulated impossible. When plaintiff entered into these contracts he properly assumed that his services would be required during the time stipulated for performance by the contractapproximately 14 months. Instead he was required to hold his staff in readiness from June 25, 1957 to August 19, 1960more than three yearswith the resulting additional expense which he asserts.