Opinion ID: 596464
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Custom Fabrication

Text: 17 Conveyor Rental argues that a subcontractor relationship existed between Ed Waln and the Tribe in part because the Tribe was required to custom fabricate the gravel to meet the specifications in the prime contract. 18 Evidence to support this claim is Ed Kelton's affidavit stating that he was hired by the Tribe to design, mobilize, supervise, and act as foreman of the operation, which included deciding what measures were necessary to bring the material into compliance with the prime contract specifications. Supplemental evidence supporting this claim was presented in Conveyor Rental's Motion for a New Trial showing that the Tribe was required to select rock which, when crushed, would not exceed a plasticity index of 6. 20 To meet those specifications, the Tribe had to crush the rock and then screen it to produce gravel which met the size requirements. 19 We find that the custom specifications in the present case are more like the custom specifications in cases finding a materialman relationship. In Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States for the Use of Gibson Steel Co., the Fifth Circuit found that the custom manufacturing of some steel and iron products used in a building is simply not enough in itself to establish the relationship of responsibility and importance necessary to render a middle party a subcontractor. 382 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir.1967); accord United States for the Use of Pioneer Steel Co. v. Ellis Constr. Co., 398 F.Supp. 719, 721 (E.D.Tenn.1975) (custom fabrication of trusses and pipebridges for building not enough to establish subcontractor relationship); see Brown & Root, Inc. v. Gifford-Hill & Co., 319 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1963) (involving sand and gravel specifications). The Tenth Circuit, in United States for the Use of Bryant v. Lembke Construction Co., found a materialman relationship in circumstances where the specifications for concrete in the prime contract were merely descriptive of what was to be furnished. 370 F.2d 293, 296 (10th Cir.1966); accord United States for the Use of Potomac Rigging Co. v. Wright Contracting Co., 194 F.Supp. 444, 447 (D.Md.1961) (descriptive specifications for cribbing in retaining wall were necessary whether the supplier is a subcontractor or only a material supplier). 20 The specifications here, which appear to be merely descriptive of what was to be furnished, are similar to the relatively uncomplicated specifications for steel products required for a building (Gibson ), trusses and pipebridges for a building (Pioneer Steel ), sand and gravel for navigation locks (Brown & Root ), concrete for buildings (Lembke ) and cribbing for retaining walls (Potomac Rigging ). The BIA specifications in the present case were necessary whether the supplier is a subcontractor or only a material supplier. Potomac Rigging, 194 F.Supp. at 447. 21 The two cases which found a subcontractor relationship are distinguishable from the present case because they involved highly intricate customized fabrication. In Miller Equipment Co. v. Colonial Steel & Iron Co., the agreement called not for the mere supply of material but for the custom fabrication of massive girders and their accessories, key and integral components of the bridge, designed and fabricated to mesh precisely in their final assembly on the job-site. 383 F.2d 669, 674 (4th Cir.1967). And in United States for the Use of Wellman Engineering v. MSI Corp., the [m]echanism [was] built to the prime contract specifications, for the unique task of rapid movement of the heavy concrete roofs of missile launchers.... 350 F.2d 285, 287 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1049, 19 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1968). 22 We conclude, therefore, this factor tends to support a materialman relationship given the relatively simple requirements of the BIA specifications. 23