Opinion ID: 1810721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: lowndes

Text: As hereinabove early noticed the Lowndes project included four different projects conveniently combined into one in the pleadings and the proof. Stanton claims damage because of the asserted facts that in the bid documents setting forth the dirt removal details, its source, and where to be carried, there appeared a statement 20 percent shrinkage factor used. The earth actually was Selma chalk which swelled when excavated and delivered to the site requiring less volume of hauling, and involved extra work in loosening for excavation and in compacting it to density when delivered. Stanton maintains that the shrinkage factor asserted was a representation or perhaps rather a misrepresentation intended to have the bidder's reliance upon it, and that the difference was expensive to Stanton. The Commission countered with the assertion that 20% shrinkage was only a figure assumed for its purpose in comparing bids. The record further reveals that Stanton had done other work in the Columbus area, was familiar with this type of soil and did some test examination of it. In addition, according to the specifications applicable thereto, it was the duty of the bidder to make his own determination as to what to expect from the dirt. Stanton says, in its reply brief, a contractor bids a project based on his knowledge of the contract and the project at the time he submits his offer to the owner. We think that Stanton established no case for relief as to the shrinkage issue. Stanton next complains that it was damaged on account of the failure of one of the spans of the Highway 82 bridge crossing the Tombigbee River. Before bidding on the project, Stanton, through an association apparently existing to be of service to road builders, obtained assurance from the Commission that load limits crossing the Tombigbee River and other bridges involved would be relaxed, and Stanton took this agreement into consideration as vitally affecting the number of loads of earth that would have to be transported. One span of the Tombigbee River Bridge, made of light-weight concrete, cracked and then holes developed in it. This occurrence brought about a conference between Stanton and the Commission which gave rise to a supplemental agreement whereby, among other things, Stanton would repair the damage and the cost would be equitably divided between the parties. About, but before, this time, the Commission had withdrawn the relaxation of load limits and, for the rest of the hauling, Stanton was limited to much lighter loads across the bridges involved. It claims damage because of that fact. The record shows, however, that 90 to 95% of the hauling across these bridges had been done before this bridge span flaw developed, and that a subcontractor or hauler employee had quit the job and Stanton had sued him asserting that 50% of the delay was caused by his breach of contract. The record also has it that, before this time, Stanton had already removed much of his heavy hauling machinery to another project. Stanton then subcontracted the hauling to another contractor, whose vehicles were of much lower capacity. The supplemental agreement we have above mentioned provides that the hauling of materials across the bridge at legal loads and at a speed reduced to a maximum of 15 miles per hour has been authorized since assessment of the damage, and this authorization is to continue and this hauling and all other work of our contract is to be completed at the earliest possible time. ... (Emphasis added and later herein we will take further note of the underscored portion.) Taken at its strongest in favor of Stanton, no prima facie case for relief as to the bridge hindrance has been shown. Stanton next complains of slow-up and delay in its work because of interference by the Commission with its planned sequence of accomplishing the work of the project. Returning for a moment to Big Holmes, the record shows that, when the project engineer brought information to Stanton that it would be required to do the project as discussed above, one of the Stantons making up the corporate complainant observed that such a requirement had not been made for the Lowndes project. Stanton claims that promptly the Commission required all work to cease until a 9/10 mile segment of the Lowndes project had had soil erosion and grassing treatment. This left much of Stanton's equipment idle and occasioned considerable delay on its part. Stanton and the Commission are at variance as to liquidated damages imposed for failure to complete the project on time. Some of the pay estimates in evidence show 300 contract working days and have below (+ 26) C.O. # 1. The final estimate returns to 300 days, however, and it is apparent that liquidated damages were withheld on that basis. Stanton claims it is entitled to the 26 extra days plus seven days' delay in the in-grade preparation work noticed next above and fourteen days of interruption on account of the bridge failure. Taking the proof as to the in-grade above, we are of the view that it called for proof in answer by the Commission. In view of what has been said as to the liquidated damages, we think the Commission should come forward with its proof and also that determination is called for as to whether the supplemental contract portion emphasized above, operates to abandon maximum working days and is a new and superseding agreement that the contract is to be completed at the earliest possible time.