Opinion ID: 2124349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inadequacy of design and method.

Text: It is settled that the MSC is deemed to warrant the adequacy of its plans and specifications to the extent that compliance therewith will result in satisfactory completion of the contract. [18] It is also settled that the parties may, by the inclusion of a changed-conditions clause, convert this claim for breach of warranty into a matter for equitable adjustment between the parties. [19] The reason why design features of a contract are within the scope of the changed-conditions clause is that in certain cases they reasonably indicate the subsurface conditions likely to be encountered. [20] In the case at bar, we conclude that the location of the sewer along the curbline of 84th Street was not the most economical design for the job, as the instructions to bidders specifically warranted. [21] The location of the sewer along the curbline reasonably indicates that only partial dewatering will be necessary, that is, a fairly small number of deep wells, probably all on one side of the street. Partial dewatering is indicated because the presence of overhead utilities, the proximity of private property, and the volume of traffic along 84th Street, all give rise to the inference that extensive well-drilling will not be required. However, it is conceded that, under the conditions encountered, an extensive well-drilling program, with a large number of wells, was required in order to draw down the large, interconnected artesian aquifer. Indeed, before Lazynski began work on the completion contract, there was a massive change in location of the sewer, away from the curbline and onto the state fair grounds, partly in order to permit a more efficient dewatering system. [22] We also conclude that the contract documents reasonably indicated that conditions were such that compressed air could be used. When the carbon-dioxide problem arose and compressed air could no longer be used, there was thus a change in conditions which should have triggered negotiations for an equitable adjustment. It is conceded that all the bidders on Contract 222 who testified stated that they intended to use at least partial compressed aid in order to control the ground water. In addition, the contract provided as follows: 18. COMPRESSED AIR The Contractor may, at his option, use compressed air in part or all of the work.... The MSC argues vigorously that the use of the word may means that the contractor had no absolute right to use compressed air, and that, once the CO2 problem was encountered, he was required to cease using air without any adjustment for the cost of alternative methods. On the contrary, the use of the word may in this clause merely vests the contractor with the right to use compressed air, if he should so choose. If he does choose the use of air (as R. W. did), and if subsequent underground conditions render the use of this method impossible, he is entitled to an equitable adjustment under the changed-conditions clause.