Opinion ID: 1782452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach-of-Contract/Rock-Buttress Claim Against the County

Text: RaCON argues that the trial court erred when it entered a summary judgment against RaCON on its $1.06 million claim against the County to recover the expense of constructing the 14 rock buttresses. In May 2000, BKI directed RaCON to build those structures in the manner designed by TTL. RaCON constructed the rock buttresses under protest and thereafter billed the County for this work. This breach-of-contract claim assumes that construction of rock buttresses was extra work not initially contemplated in the contract. The contract incorporated the ALDOT specifications for highway construction. RaCON contends that ALDOT specification 219 limits a contractor's obligation to build a rock buttress to a situation where a slope actually fails. RaCON argues that, in multiple locations on the project, BKI required RaCON to build rock buttresses in 2000 to prevent, not to remedy, slope failures. In those locations where slope failures actually occurred in 2000, RaCON further asserts that BKI's directive to build rock buttresses was contrary to the pre-bid representations that those structures would be constructed only as a last resort if less costly construction methods would not stabilize slope failures. RaCON argues that a summary judgment on its rock-buttress claim was improper because, at a minimum, genuine material issues of fact existed as to whether BKI's directive to build the 14 rock buttresses was extra work based on RaCON's interpretation of ALDOT specification 219 (i.e., that rock buttresses are not to be used as preventive structures) and on the pre-bid representations. The County argues that the contract obligated RaCON to build preventive rock buttresses as directed by the project engineer. The trial court concluded that the meaning and purpose of the contract as to the purpose and use of rock buttresses could not be resolved on summary judgment. . . . Instead, it ruled that Article V.E. of the contract barred RaCON's rock-buttress claim. In pertinent part, that provision states: E. Errors and Omissions: [RaCON] does agree to release and hold harmless [the] County . . . from any damages claimed by [RaCON] . . . resulting from or attributable in whole or part to, errors in or omissions of the plans and specifications, including final drawings of the Engineer/Architect or other design professionals. . . .  The County argues that RaCON released its rock-buttress claim under Article V.E. because the essence of that claim relates to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations as to project plans and specifications. Among other arguments, RaCON contends that Article V.E. is inapplicable to its rock-buttress claim, and, even though RaCON alleges in count V of its complaint that the project plans were negligently prepared, that Article V.E. does not prevent RaCON from pleading alternative theories of recovery. The trial court ruled that RaCON had released the rock-buttress claim under the errors-and-omissions clause in Article V.E. of the contract because that claim is an action for damages . . . resulting from or attributable to, in whole or part, from errors in or omission of [project] plans and specifications. We need not decide, however, whether the trial court properly applied and interpreted Article V.E. [12] RaCON's rock-buttress claim is based on its interpretation of ALDOT specification 219 and the pre-bid representations. When considering several complementary provisions in the contract documents and the uncontested facts, we agree with the County that the plain meaning of the contract obligated RaCON to build the contested 14 rock buttresses with no additional cost to the County beyond the contract price. Three points are particularly persuasive to our holding in this regard. First, RaCON's reliance on its interpretation of ALDOT specification 219 fails to consider the contractual provisions that reconcile apparent inconsistencies between the contract documents. ALDOT specification 219 is a standard guideline for highway construction. Paragraph 2 of addendum number 1 to the contract for this project states: Where the State of Alabama Highway Department Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 1992 Edition, differ from the Contract Documents and Specifications herein, the Contract Documents and Specifications shall take precedence. . . . The entire ALDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 1992 Edition, will be applied to this project except where it differs from the Contract Documents and Specifications.  (Bold typeface and emphasis in original.) Similarly, other provisions of the contract direct that, in determining the intent of the contract, plans that are specific to the project control over more general terms. ALDOT specification 105.04, which states as follows, is one of those provisions: 105.04 Coordination of Plans, Specifications and Special Provisions. (a) GENERAL. These [ALDOT] specifications, the supplemental specifications, the plans, special provisions and all supplementary documents are essential parts of the contract, and a requirement occurring in one is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complimentary [sic] and to describe and provide for a complete work. In case of discrepancy, . . . [p]lans shall govern over Standard Specifications . . . .  (Emphasis added.) Article I.C. of the contract further provides that, in the event of a conflict in the contract documents, technical specifications take precedence over general specifications. Considering all these provisions in pari materia, ALDOT specification 219 is not controlling if the specific plans and specifications for the project obligated RaCON to build the rock buttresses. Second, RaCON may not rely on BKI and TTL's oral, pre-bid representations when asserting its rock-buttress claim against the County. The contract contains the following integration clause in Article I.D.1: Integration: This Agreement, together with all documents which constitute the `Contract Documents,' constitute the entire agreement of the parties, as a complete and final integration thereof with respect to its subject matter. All understandings and agreements heretofore had between and among the parties are merged into this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses their understandings. No representation, warranty, or covenant made by any party which is not contained in this Agreement or expressly referred to herein has been relied on by any party in entering into this Agreement.  (Emphasis added.) Even assuming that BKI and TTL made the pre-bid representations that purportedly limited RaCON's obligation to build rock buttresses, the integration clause required that those representations be memorialized to survive and to constitute a part of the contract. We find no references to those pre-bid representations in the contract. Accordingly, the pre-bid representations by BKI or TTL are not to be considered in evaluating RaCON's rock-buttress claim against the County. Third, the plans specific to this project clearly state that RaCON would be required to construct rock buttresses. Note 304 on sheet 2K of the engineering plans stated that  [q]uantities of loose riprap, filter blanket, and underdrain have been included to be placed as directed by the project engineer for rock buttresses.  (Emphasis added.) Andrews, RaCON's vice president, was aware of note 304 before RaCON submitted its bid and then executed the contract. Additionally, sheet 2J of the plans given to RaCON contained a diagram detailing a typical rock buttress. Moreover, item 40 (class 2 riprap) and item 41 (filter blanket) in the bid-proposal form contained estimated quantities of materials needed to construct the rock buttresses. The bidders were advised in bid instruction 10.B. that the  quantities shown in the proposal shall be considered by the contractor as the quantities required to complete the work for the purpose of bidding.  (Emphasis added.) When returning their responses, the bidders were to insert prices for the estimated quantities of materials and work items on the project. This process allowed the County to consider competing bids, and the engineer and bidders to plan the project, without knowing the precise expenditure for each work item. [13] After RaCON zero bid items 40 and 41 and became the low bidder on the project, Wood, a professional engineer for BKI, spoke with Andrews about the requirement for rock buttresses before RaCON signed the contract. In his deposition, Wood gave the following testimony about that conversation: Q. What did you tell Keith [Andrews, RaCON's vice president, after the bids were opened]? A. I told him I wanted to make sure that [he] understood that, you know, one hundred thousand tons of riprap is for the rock buttresses, and at that time, he said yes, he understood that. And I said, we are going to put in what we need to, you know, no more, no less. I said [the estimated volume is] our best estimate, and he said he understood. . . .  While the plans given to bidders did not delineate the precise location of the intended rock buttresses, it is uncontested that bidders on the project were apprised of plans to use those structures  as directed by the project engineer.  (Emphasis added.) In addition, the contract documents contemplated that the project engineer would make the final determination as to the protections against possible slope failures. Before signing the contract, BKI sent Andrews a letter dated November 30, 1999, stating that the contract would obligate RaCON to place riprap and construct rock buttresses where the possibility of slides exists or as directed by the engineer.  (Emphasis added.) This communication affirmed that RaCON had the commercial risk under the contract to build the 14 rock buttresses that BKI later directed RaCON to construct. In summary, considering note 304 on sheet 2K in the plans, the diagram of a rock buttress in sheet 2J, the bid-proposal form specifying materials required to construct rock buttresses, bid instruction 10.B., and the above-discussed contract provisions, the contract documents clearly and unambiguously obligated RaCON, at the direction of the project engineer, to construct the 14 rock buttresses without the County's paying RaCON any compensation over amounts stated in RaCON's proposal. Because under the explicit terms of the contract documents note 304 on sheet 2K and other project-specific plans control over general specifications, we reject RaCON's argument that ALDOT specification 219 limited, or created a jury question concerning, RaCON's obligations to construct the rock buttresses. Further, the pre-bid representations allegedly limiting the extent of RaCON's obligations to build rock buttresses merged into the contract pursuant to the integration clause and cannot be used in interpreting the contract as it relates to the rock-buttress claim. Because the rock buttresses were not extra work added by the County after RaCON signed the contract, the trial court's summary judgment for the County on RaCON's rock-buttress claim in count II is affirmed. [14]