Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: James John Jack Cook [Cook] was the general contractor hired by the Oklahoma Board of Public Affairs to do construction work on the renovation of the east half of the Byron Fish Hatchery for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation in accordance with plans and specifications designed by the project engineers, Robert C. Poe and Poe & Associates of Kansas, Inc. [Poe]. The renovation project included reworking existing ponds, building a concrete drain and harvest kettle structures, and installing new fill and drain lines. On May 29, 1979 Cook was declared the low bidder and on June 6, 1979 Cook entered into a written contract with the State to construct the project for the total sum of $526,224. The terms of the contact required Cook to perform the work in accordance with the engineer's plans and specifications and to complete the project within 180 days. The majority of the work involved excavation, filling and moving dirt to fashion the appropriate ponds and areas to be used for a fish hatchery. Cook bid the work on a per-unit basis. Cook attended neither of the two pre-bid conferences that were held. The evidence is uncontroverted that, at the time of both of these conferences, the subsurface water conditions were discussed. Cook testified that he made no attempt to investigate the subsurface conditions of the soil, as required by the contract, because he felt he should be able to rely upon the soil borings furnished by the State with the plans and specifications. Cook sent his son to inspect the site six days after the pre-bid conference. This inspection consisted merely of driving through the location in the company of the hatchery manager. Other contractors who bid on the project testified that they were able to discover the wet soil condition. [1] Cook did not offer a single witness to testify that it was not possible to determine upon inspection that the soil was wet. Cook commenced work on the project on July 23, 1979. Soon thereafter he began complaining to the State and the engineer that the soil conditions were wet instead of dry and that he felt he was entitled to extra compensation for working with wet soil. On February 15, 1980, after repeated warnings about his failure to comply with the plans and specifications and to perform the work in a timely manner, Cook was removed from the job in accordance with the terms of the contract. Thereafter, Cook's bonding company employed Dave Construction Company to complete the work. While Dave Construction Company was still working on the project, Cook commenced this action against the State and Poe. Cook alleged that he was required to perform extra work for which he should be compensated because [1] the State and Poe misrepresented the moisture content of the soil and failed to disclose the wet soil conditions, [2] the plans and specifications contained miscalculations and errors and [3] the State breached its contract with him  all of which caused him to incur extra costs. The cause was tried without a jury. The district court found that the unexpected difficulties in Cook's performance of the contract were due to the State's failure to disclose the underground aquifer which was known to it. Further, the soil borings provided with the contract showed no evidence of moisture, and the trial court found that it is customary to show the soil's moisture content by borings. The lower court also found that it is the custom of the industry to advise a contractor of any serious problems that will be encountered in the work, if known. Poe was found to be the agent of a disclosed principal  the State  and hence was not liable for any damages ex contractu. [2] In addition to an award for the extra expense Cook incurred due to the wet soil conditions (removing wet dirt  $178,155 and constructing concrete mud slabs  $18,000), the district court also awarded compensation to Cook for [1] redoing a harvest kettle that was rejected by the engineer ($10,450), [2] laying pipes at a depth deeper than required by contract specifications ($11,000), [3] correcting manhole elevations ($2,003) and [4] prejudgment interest. [3] The liquidated delay damages withheld by the State were awarded to Cook as well ($23,300). Cook's total recovery amounted to $242,908 [4] with counsel fees of $45,000. The State appealed from the judgment and Cook counter-appealed. Even though Poe was exonerated from liability [5] he deemed himself aggrieved by the judgment and brought a separate appeal. [6] All of these appeals stand consolidated here for our disposition by this opinion.