Opinion ID: 1136039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ISBA's Motion For Judgment N.O.V. On Bott's Claim For Compensation For The Schematic Redesign Work Was Improperly Denied.

Text: The ISBA argues that the district court erred in denying the ISBA's motion for judgment n.o.v. on Bott's claim for schematic redesign work. The ISBA asserts that the schematic redesign work was required under the basic contract and as such should be compensated under the basic fee provisions of the Agreement. In the alternative, the ISBA argues that Bott's claim is for additional services, and should be compensated on an hourly basis, as provided in the Agreement. The Agreement provides for compensation for all basic services described in the Agreement in an amount equal to 7.75% of the total construction cost, plus a 10% incentive bonus if the total cost of construction is less that $8.2 million. Bott's responsibilities, as described in the Agreement, include all architectural and structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services for the design of all facilities, improvements ..., and systems for the Project. Under the provisions which establish Bott's responsibilities under the schematic design phase of the project, Bott is required to perform all professional services for the preparation of a schematic design of the Project in conformance with the program and the requirements of the Authority and State of Idaho. (emphasis added) The Agreement also provides that additional services requested by the ISBA would be compensated on an hourly basis. We conclude that the Agreement unambiguously provides for a set rate of compensation for all work performed by Bott, including change orders on the schematic designs. The evidence reveals that Bott was required to perform a number of revisions on the schematic designs, some of which required a substantial amount of reworking and revisions on the designs. The determination of whether the revisions to the schematic designs constituted basic services or additional services under the Agreement is a question of fact for the jury. To the extent that the schematic redesign work was within the all basic services provision of the Agreement, Bott received compensation for the services as part of the $44,252.00 awarded for basic fees. To the extent that the schematic redesign work constituted additional services requested by the ISBA, Bott was entitled to compensation on an hourly basis. Since, Bott did not present any documentation of hourly work performed on the schematic redesign work, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of Bott's entitlement to compensation for the schematic redesign work. Quick, 111 Idaho at 763, 727 P.2d at 1191. We conclude that judgment n.o.v. is proper on the issue of Bott's claim for schematic redesign work and reverse the decision of the district court. We reject Bott's argument that it is entitled to compensation for schematic redesign work under the doctrine of quantum meruit. There is no basis for the application of quantum meruit in this case; the Agreement contemplates a method of compensating Bott for the schematic redesign work performed, the theory was not argued at trial, and no instruction was given to the jury on quantum meruit. We also reject Bott's assertion that the entire jury verdict is supported by substantial evidence.