Opinion ID: 1250780
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Paving

Text: Johnson claims to be due an additional $84,159.67 on the paving portion of the contract. The contract contained an FAA P-401 Specification, which seeks to assure uniform density specifications. Section 4.12 of the P-401 Specification provides for asphalt paving sampling and testing:  4. 12 ACCEPTANCE SAMPLING AND TESTING OF BITUMINOUS MIXTURE (DENSITY). P avement density will be determined by comparing the density of cores t aken from the compacted pavement to the density of laboratory-compacted specimens.  (a) Lot Sizes. T he pavement will be accepted for density on a lot basis. A lot will consist of:  (1) o ne day's production where it is not expected to exceed 2,000 tons (1 814 000 kg)  (2) a half day's production where a days production is expected to consist of b etween 2,000 and 4,000 tons (1 814 000 and 3 628 000 kg)  (3) s imilar subdivisions for quantities greater than 4,000 tons  (b) Laboratory Density. B ituminous mixture for laboratory-compacted specimens shall be sampled o n a lot basis from trucks delivering material to the job site. T he lot size shall be the same as indicated in paragraph 4.12(a) and shall be divided i nto four equal sublots. O ne sample shall be taken from each sublot on a random basis, i n accordance with procedures contained in ASTM D3665. O ne laboratory compacted specimen shall be prepared from each sublot.        (c) Core Density. C ores for determining the density of the compacted pavement shall be taken on a lot basis. T he lot size shall be the same as indicated in paragraph 4.12(a) and shall be d ivided into four equal sublots. O ne core shall be taken from each sublot on a random basis....  (d) Pavement Density. T he target density (percent compaction) of each lot of in-place pavement s hall be 98 percent of the average density of the laboratory-prepared specimens. T he pavement density shall be determined by dividing the core density of each sublot b y the average density of the laboratory-prepared specimens. Special Provision 22(B)(6) provides: SAMPLING PAVEMENT. The contractor is required by the specifications to furnish all tools, labor and materials for patching the holes. These core samples are obtained for determining thickness and density of completed pavement. The measuring and testing of these samples is the responsibility of the Engineer and Owner. The cores shall have a diameter of four (4) inches and one core shall be removed at a random location in each 22,500 square feet of paved surface area.  (Emphasis added.) During the paving period, the asphalt was tested in the following manner: (1) At the start of each workday, the contractor and the engineer estimated the asphalt production for the day. This estimated daily production was a lot or target lot; (2) The target lot was divided into four equal sublots; (3) One sample was taken from each sublot of the target lot on a random basis from trucks delivering the asphalt mix to the paving site and compacted under laboratory conditions to determine the density; (4) The actual daily production was a lot or paved lot; (5) The paved lot was divided into four equal sublots; (6) One core sample was taken from each sublot of the paved lot on a random basis; and (7) The core samples from the paved lots were compared with the laboratory-compacted samples from the target lots to determine the pavement density, upon which the price to be paid was based. Johnson succinctly posed the issue for resolution on appeal: Resolution of the asphalt claim requires a determination as to the size of each lot and sublot, for sampling purposes. Rugby contends that the lots and sublots may vary in size, depending upon the daily bituminous mix production. Johnson contends that each lot consists of 90,000 square feet of paving with each sublot being 22,500 square feet. This determination requires an interpretation or construction of the contract between the parties and is therefore, a question of law for the court and is fully reviewable on appeal. The testing procedure used when the runway was paved in 1986 involved paved lots and sublots which varied in size from day to day, depending upon a day's actual production. Johnson did not object to the testing procedure until 1990. Relying on the last sentence of Special Provision 22(B)(6), Johnson contended at trial and on appeal that each paved lot from which core samples were taken had to be 90,000 square feet and each sublot had to be 22,500 square feet, without variation for day-to-day differences in daily production. A contract is to be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting. Section 9-07-03, N.D.C.C. A court may consider the parties' actions after entering into the contract in ascertaining the intentions and construction placed upon the contract by the parties. Tobias v. North Dakota Dep't of Human Services, 448 N.W.2d 175, 179 (N.D.1989). Rugby awarded the airport runway contract to Johnson in October 1985. When Johnson was paving the runway in 1986, the testing procedure employed involved paved lots and sublots varying in size, depending upon the day's asphalt production. Johnson did not object to the testing procedure at that time. Although one interpretation of the seemingly conflicting provisions may appear favorable to Johnson's position, the parties' actions at the time of the paving are indicative of a construction and intention that varying sizes of lots and sublots were proper and intended. The project engineer on this project, who had previously worked on 22 airport projects involving the P-401 Specification, testified that he had never previously heard of a fixed 22,500 square foot paved sublot. In light of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in concluding that lot size does not need to be a numerical value but can be the daily production and that Rugby complied with the Marshall density and core density sample procedure as found in the specifications and used those figures appropriately in determining the price adjustments. The judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and LEVINE, MESCHKE and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.