Court Opinion

ID: 9583784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:00.161015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:45.932251
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
There is no disputed issue of fact in this case. The only thing to be determined is the construction of the contract.
Paragraph 104.02 of the specifications of the contract is set out in the prevailing opinion. It provides that the engineer for the state has the right to make increases or decreases in quantities of materials used and alterations in the construction of the road as may be necessary or desirable; and that such alterations do not invalidate any of the provisions of the contract. The contract further provides that the alterations are considered to be a part of the original contract. It further provides that if a demand is made in writing by either party, a supplemental agreement will be necessary before any alteration is made which involves an increase or decrease of more than 25% of the total cost of the work calculated from the original proposal quantities at the unit prices. The standard specifications for road and bridge construction state:
The contract includes — any change orders and agreements that are required to complete the construction of the work in an acceptable manner, including authorized extensions thereof, all of which constitute one instrument.
The “change order” can be made by the engineer and the contractor is obligated to follow it. If it is a supplemental agreement, it is beyond the scope of the original contract and cannot be forced upon the contractor. He may demand a written contract covering the work, or he may by action accept the offered terms to do the extra work without demanding a new written agreement.
The contract between the parties to this appeal provided that there would be a renegotiation of the original contract if the cost, based upon original proposal quantities at the unit contract price is 25% more or less than the contract price. The facts of this case are stipulated to, and are as follows:
1. The contract price was $2,773,828.-80.
2. The change orders for additional work amounted to $84,044.87.
3. The change orders for deleted work was $133,768.67.
4. The plaintiff was paid $2,052,779.-93.
5. The State withheld money for work which did not measure up to specifications in the amount of $63,349.61.
The plaintiff calculates the percentage of increase or decrease as follows:
Original Contract Price $2,773,828.80
Work done and paid for: $2,052,779.93
Less: payments for extras 84,044.87
Total Over Extras $1,968,735.06
Add: penalty for improper work 63,349.61
Value of project per contract: $2,032,084.67 $2,032,084,67
TOTAL DIMINUTION FROM CONTRACT: $ 741,744.13
*110The $741,744.13 is the difference between the original contract price and the amount paid. The percentage of diminution of the work provided in the contract is, therefore, $741,744.13 divided by $2,773,828.80 or 26.-74%.
The trial court correctly rejected this formula for calculating the percentage of decrease in the amount of work called for in the contract. All increases and all decreases in the work relating to that called for in the contract should be considered in making the calculation.
The plaintiff had the burden of showing that there was a diminution in work of more than 25%. In order to eliminate a figure from the calculation, he would need to show that the extra work had nothing to do with the project. This he failed to do. The correct calculation would, therefore, be:
Original Contract Price $2,773,828.80
Add: extra change order 84,044.87 $2,857,873.67
Deduct: deleted change orders 133,768.67
Total Work to be Done per Contract and Amendments $2,724,105.00
Work paid for: $2,052,779.93
Add: penalty — work done but not to specifications 63,349.61 $2,116,129.54
TOTAL DIMINUTION FROM CONTRACT $ 607,974.46
The correct percentage of diminution would be $607,974.46 divided by $2,724,105.00 or 22.3%.
There being less than 25% change in the work to be done pursuant to the terms of the contract, there is no need for any renegotiation of the contract and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
No costs should be awarded.
CROCKETT, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of EL-LETT, J.