Opinion ID: 1366742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Seubert wrongfully withhold liquidated damages and engineering costs from Steelman-Duff?

Text: The district court found that both Seubert and Steelman-Duff were responsible for some of the delays that occurred during the highway reconstruction project. The district court nevertheless found that Steelman-Duff performed its part of the project with due diligence. Seubert challenges this finding of due diligence and argues that the district court failed to evaluate Steelman-Duff's compliance with other provisions in the subcontract. Seubert argues that before Steelman-Duff left the work site on June 23, the subcontractor was aware or should have been aware of the excess rock that needed to be removed, that Steelman-Duff did not remove such rock because Steelman-Duff's president was not paying attention to the job, and that this failure to remove the excess rock until early August significantly delayed the completion of the project. Seubert therefore concludes that Steelman-Duff breached the WSDOT standard specifications which (1) prohibited voluntary shutdowns, slowing of operations, or unauthorized suspension of work; (2) required Steelman-Duff to apply sufficient labor and equipment to carry out the progress schedule; and (3) provided that time was of the essence. This Court will uphold the findings and conclusions of the district court regarding a party's compliance with a contract when such findings are supported by substantial and competent, albeit conflicting, evidence. See, e.g., Foley v. Munio, 105 Idaho 309, 311, 669 P.2d 198, 200 (1983). Hyrum Cox, Steelman-Duff's president, testified that he had no reason to foresee the excavation of excess rock, since this was a balanced project, which meant that the contractors would use all available rock and that no additional excavation would be necessary. Cox additionally noted that earlier in the project the contractors had actually run out of rock. Cox further testified that the contract did not anticipate any excavation of excess rock and so Steelman-Duff was forced to finance the additional excavation. Once Steelman-Duff learned of the excess rock, it proposed a schedule for excavation; when Seubert asked Steelman-Duff to accelerate the schedule, Steelman-Duff complied. On the other hand, the testimony of Seubert employees tended to show that Steelman-Duff was well aware of the excess rock and left the project anyway. We are mindful of the regard that we shall give the special opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appear personally before it. I.R.C.P. 52(a). We therefore conclude that substantial and competent evidence supports the district court's finding of due diligence. Seubert then contends that the district court did not make findings as to Steelman-Duff's failure to comply with the other contractual provisions, and that this cause should be remanded for such findings. We disagree. The district court found that various actions by all parties contributed to the delayed completion of the project and that Seubert and Steelman-Duff both deviated from the progress schedule. The district court nevertheless concluded that such delays and deviations did not breach either Seubert's or Steelman-Duff's contractual obligations. Although the testimony is admittedly conflicting, substantial and competent evidence supports the district court's findings. Since Steelman-Duff apparently left the work site without knowing that further excavation was required, Steelman-Duff cannot be said to have voluntarily slowed or shut down the operations of the project. Moreover, Steelman-Duff completed its performance of the contract well before its deadline and the project deadline. Even without further findings on the part of the district court, the record in this case is clear and yields an obvious answer to the relevant question. Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho 217, 225, 646 P.2d 988, 996 (1982). Seubert argues that since the district court found that both Seubert and Steelman-Duff delayed completion of the project, the liquidated damages and engineering costs should at least be allocated between Seubert and Steelman-Duff. This Court has ruled, however, that a general contractor cannot recover from its subcontractor for delay under a liquidated damages clause where the general contractor contributed to the delay by failing to perform a contractual duty, such as failing to provide adequate equipment. City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Constr. Co., 123 Idaho 516, 521, 850 P.2d 165, 170 (1993); State v. Jack B. Parson Constr. Co., 93 Idaho 118, 120, 456 P.2d 762, 764 (1969). One of the standard specifications applicable to this project stated as follows: The contractor [Seubert] shall construct 0.35 foot minimum depth of crushed surfacing on each section of grading immediately following completion of the sub-grade as specified in the special provision entitled Crushed Surfacing Placement. (Emphasis added). Because Steelman-Duff wished to begin excavation of the existing roadway as soon as possible, Seubert promised to bring the large crusher to the construction site to crush rock for the gravel covering. Indeed, Seubert was scheduled to produce and place this gravel in early April. Consequently, Steelman-Duff began its excavation in early April. It is undisputed, however, that the large crusher did not arrive at the construction site until late April and that Seubert did not apply gravel to the subgrade until May 4, over a month after Steelman-Duff began to excavate the roadway. The district court found that Seubert's delay in providing the large crusher was not a breach of the construction contract, primarily because schedule changes and delays occurred throughout the course of the project. Even so, however, Seubert cannot contest the fact that the failure to bring the large crusher on-site earlier was a failure to provide adequate equipment, was not in compliance with the provision quoted above, and contributed to the overall delay of the highway reconstruction project. We uphold the determination by the district court, therefore, that Seubert may not recover the liquidated damages and engineering costs from Steelman-Duff.