Reporter's Statement of the Case The additional excavation for the Columbia Island abutment caused an additional expense to plaintiffs in labor and material, amounting to $1,429.36, exclusive of overhead, profit, and bond, on the cofferdam above the aforesaid "rock" line. Including them, the cost is $1,668.42. For additional cost thereof below the "rock" line plaintiffs have been fully reimbursed. Plaintiffs began the pouring of concrete for the Columbia Island abutment July 11, 1929, and completed the pouring July 18, 1929. The amount of concrete poured over and above that necessary had bedrock been exposed at the contract drawing "rock" line was 771.52 cubic yards. At a price of $12 per cubic yard this amounts to $9,258.24. 7. On the Virginia end of the Boundary Channel Bridge plaintiffs started excavating for the abutment March 19, 1929, and completed removing earth April 5, 1929, at which time they uncovered rock. The rock apparently being soft, plaintiffs washed it off sufficiently to find out how much of it was in that condition, and it was inspected by the Government. Plaintiffs were told by defendant's officers to excavate the rock and keep on excavating until further orders, as it was not hard and solid enough for a bearing surface. On April 6, 1929, plaintiffs began its removal by air compressors and rock-drilling tools, stopped excavation May 20, 1929, at the Government's direction, and plaintiffs again washed it off, this time in order to furnish a clean and proper bond between rock and concrete. This second washing was done June 8 to 17, 1929, at a labor cost of $292.48, exclusive of overhead and profit, and cost of bond. Adding these extra elements, the amount is $341.40. The cofferdam for the Virginia abutment had to be adjusted to the lower depth resulting from the rock excavation. It was necessary to shift and reset the two lower sets of bracing in the cofferdam. The cost of labor and derricks for the readjustment of bracing was $782.62, not including overhead, profit, and cost of bond. Including them, the amount is $913.51. During the period of rock excavation in the Virginia cofferdam, the cofferdam had to be kept dry by pumping. 64834-38-CC—vol. 86 Reporter's Statement of the Case The cost of pumping during the time of such rock excavation was $649.49, exclusive of overhead, profit, and cost of bond. Including them, the cost is $758.11. The rock in the Virginia cofferdam was excavated at depths averaging about nine feet below the contract drawing "rock" line, without reaching bedrock. The Government then ordered plaintiffs to commence the pouring of concrete in the excavation, its officers being of the opinion that sufficient bearing had been found, and this operation was begun June 7, 1929, and completed about June 18, 1929. In this operation plaintiffs poured 836.26 more cubic yards of concrete than they would have poured had bedrock been encountered at the "rock" line disclosed in the contract drawings. At a rate of $12 per cubic yard this amounts to $10,035.12. 8. In excavating for foundation piers and cylinders much the same subsurface conditions were found as in the case of the two abutments, and the depths and pouring of concrete were at the direction of defendant's engineers. On the Virginia side extra pumping during the time of additional excavation was necessary as to cylinders and the southwest pier. The cost thereof to the plaintiffs, exclusive of overhead, profit, and bond, was $675.43. Including overhead, profit, and bond, the cost amounted to $788.39. On the Columbia Island side plaintiffs were put to an additional expense due to the increased depths of the cylinders necessary because of the lack of bearing surface at the contract drawing "rock" line. This additional expense, not including form work and concrete, and without overhead, profit, and cost of bond, amounted to $3,599.24. Including overhead, profit, and bond, the amount is $4,201.22. This cost embraces cylinder No. 40 for rock exacavation, of which plaintiffs have been reimbursed $9.37 plus overhead, profit, and bond, $1.57, total $10.94. The balance is $4,190.28. For the piers on Columbia Island, such additional expense, not including concrete, was $6,105.33, which with overhead, profit, and cost of bond amounts to $7,126.45. Extra concrete for the cylinders and piers, beyond that necessary had sufficient bearing been found at the "rock" Reporter's Statement of the Case line shown on the drawing, was required and poured, and amounted to 523.13 cubic yards. At a rate of $12 per cubic yard the price would be $6,277.56. 9. The extra concrete poured into the foundation as related in findings 6, 7, and 8 aggregated 2,130.91 cubic yards, and the total price at $12 per cubic yard is $25,570.92. Of this the contracting officer allowed and paid for 1,660.2 cubic yards only, at $12 per cubic yard, or $19,922.40, a difference of $5,648.52. 10. On October 23, 1929, plaintiffs addressed a letter to the director, office of Public Buildings & Public Parks of the National Capital, stating that decomposed rock had been encountered, necessitating deeper excavations "than originally indicated or contemplated"; that the increased cost of the excavation was being ascertained; and that this condition was creating a delay which would force them into months of severe winter weather, creating further delay and increased costs. The contracting officer replied to this October 28, 1929, as follows: This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 23, 1929, with reference to the additional work required in connection with your contract for constructing the Boundary Channel Bridge (Arlington Memorial Bridge), due to the discovery of rotten rock and gravel which had to be excavated in order to provide suitable foundations for the bridge. It is acknowledged that the existence of this layer of unsuitable material was not suspected until it was disclosed by your operations, and that the plans and specifications did not indicate its presence. You have been paid for the additional excavation entailed as the work progressed, except for certain items that are still under discussion. For the additional concrete required in the foundations, you have been paid the sum of twelve dollars ($12) per cubic yard, in accordance with our interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 34 of the specifications, subject to the verbal protest of your representative on the job. The question of the extension of time due to the delays occasioned by the additional work will be taken up when all of the additional work shall have been completed. Reporter's Statement of the Case We will be glad to discuss with you any matters connected with this subject, at any time that may be most convenient to you. Following conferences between plaintiffs and the contracting officer the plaintiffs on November 14, 1929, wrote to the contracting officer stating their position in the matter, that the situation was a changed condition, involving winter work and additional cost, entitling them to an "equitable adjustment" under Articles 3 and 4 of the contract; that the additional cost was not immediately ascertainable; and that they desired an extension of time for completion. 11. Sheet 19 of the contract drawings shows what was termed at the taking of evidence, "the east end wall." It was designed to support the deck of the bridge and not as a retaining wall. The drawings showed backfilling on one side only of this wall, whereas backfilling should have been shown on both sides. In constructing this wall plaintiffs followed the drawings, plans, and specifications and backfilled as indicated thereby. On February 20, 1930, it was discovered that the wall, as a result of backfilling on one side only, had bulged and cracked, its bottom moved out of line a maximum of 7 inches, and its top a maximum of 10 inches. To an expert engineer it would have been apparent that there was an error in the drawing in that backfilling was shown on one side and not on both sides, and likewise it would have been apparent to him in the actual process of backfilling that the same should have been done simultaneously on both sides in order to equalize the pressure against the wall. The attention of the Government representatives was called to the situation after the wall had thus moved out of line, and plaintiffs were required by the contracting officer to move the wall back in place and make repairs, which the plaintiffs did. The cost to plaintiffs of restoring the east end wall to its original position, exclusive of overhead, profit, and cost of bond, was $4,335.55. Including them, the cost would be $5,060.67. Reporter's Statement of the Case 12. Certain of the stones furnished to the plaintiffs under Article 82 of the specifications were not provided with holes for the expansion bolt anchors and plaintiffs so notified the contracting officer March 12, 1930, in writing, asking for instructions. On April 2, 1930, the contracting officer replied that under Articles 33 and 86 of the specifications this corrective work was to be done by the contractor, but that steps had been taken for doing it by the Government forces. The work, however, was done by plaintiffs' subcontractor, upon the order of the Government's granite inspector, and at an expense to them of $68.89, exclusive of overhead, profit, and cost of bond, and this expense, and charging thereof back to the Government, were approved by the inspector. With added overhead, profit, and cost of bond the charge would be increased to $80.41. In the course of the work a piece of bullnose granite was furnished by the Government and set by the plaintiffs. After having been set it was rejected by the Government for defect in quality and ordered removed. There is no evidence of rejection or order to remove in writing. account of the rejection and removal plaintiffs were put to an additional expense of $81.01, exclusive of overhead, profit, and cost of bond. Including overhead, profit, and bond, the cost is $94.56. On 13. In the fore part of March 1930 a fire broke out under the roadway slab of one of the spans on the Columbia Island end of the bridge, and caused concrete to scale off, exposing some of the reinforcing steel. The plaintiffs were ordered to, and did, repair the damage done by the fire. On March 25, 1930, the contracting officer ordered plaintiffs to install fire protection equipment. The plaintiffs concurred in its necessity, and it was installed by them on or before April 22, 1930, at an expense of $489.98, exclusive of overhead, profit, and cost of bond. Including them, the cost amounts to $571.93. 14. The plaintiffs on March 31, 1930, requested of the contracting officers additional work orders as follows: |