Opinion ID: 185896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-Support Grout Holes

Text: 42 Finally, KiSKA argues that the district court erred as a matter of law by holding that, while the contract affords no flexibility with regard to the locations of grout drillings, Third Order at 8 (emphasis in original), the contract permitted [KiSKA] to drill all grout holes, including surface grout holes, `horizontally, vertically or inclined,' id. at 9 (quoting Contract § 239, ¶ 3.2(A)). Specifically, KiSKA maintains that the contract specified that all such grout holes must be drilled vertically. Br. for Appellant at 37-38. Because KiSKA could not drill the surface grout holes vertically at many of the locations specified in the contract without drilling into existing utilities, KiSKA reasons that WMATA breached its contractual warranty of specifications. We reject KiSKA's argument. 43 Section 239(1.1)(B) provided that [p]re-support chemical grouting shall be preformed [sic] from the existing ground surface at locations shown on the contract drawings. Contract § 239, ¶ 1.1(B). As even WMATA concedes, the contract drawings depicted the surface grout holes as drilled vertically. See JA 1001. Yet section 239(3.2)(A) provided that grout pipes were to be installed horizontally, vertically or inclined, as required. Contract § 239, ¶ 3.2(A). Observing that the contract contained no clear directive that the [surface grout] holes should be drilled at a particular angle, the district court concluded that the flexible language of [section 239(3.2)(A)] applies. Third Order at 8-9. Accordingly, the district court held that the contract permitted [KiSKA] to drill all grout holes, including surface grout holes, `horizontally, vertically or inclined.' Id. at 9 (quoting Contract § 239, ¶ 3.2(A)). 44 On appeal, KiSKA argues that the district court's reliance upon section 239(3.2)(A) was misplaced because the provision did not remotely purport to override any other provisions of the contract requiring particular grout holes to be drilled at particular angles. Br. for Appellant at 40. KiSKA places particular emphasis upon the fact that section 239(3.2)(A) provided that the contractor shall drill grout holes `as required.' Id. at 41 (quoting Contract § 239, ¶ 3.2(A)). Because the contract drawings depicted the grout holes as drilled vertically, KiSKA argues that the contract required the surface grout holes to be drilled vertically, thus warranting that the surface grout holes could be drilled vertically. 45 We find that KiSKA's reading of the contract places too much emphasis on the contract drawings, while ignoring other crucial provisions of the contract. As WMATA correctly observes, General Provision No. 2 of the contract clearly stated that [i]n [the] case of [a] discrepancy between Drawings and Specifications, the Specifications shall govern. JA 755. Given that the contract unambiguously indicated that WMATA did not know the location of the utilities and, in addition, expressly assigned KiSKA the responsibility of ultimately locating the utilities, KiSKA's reading of the contract cannot stand. See, e.g., Contract § 101, ¶ III(D)(18)(a) (The Contract Drawings show some known public and private utilities in their approximate locations within the limits of the project which are expected to interfere with the work. The Contractor is, however, cautioned that these locations are not guaranteed, nor is there any guarantee that utilities lines in existence within the limits of the project have been shown.); id. § 101, ¶ III(D)(18)(b) (Before commencing construction, the Contractor shall verify the locations of utilities which may be affected by his operations.); id. § 207, ¶ 1.5(A)(2) ([The contractor must] [v]erify by field investigation locations of [utility] facilities within and adjacent to limits of project which may be affected by construction operations.). Read in conjunction with section 239(3.2)(A)'s mandate to drill surface grout holes horizontally, vertically or inclined, as required, id. § 239, ¶ 3.2(A), the aforementioned provisions sufficiently refute KiSKA's warranty argument. 18