finding contractor, who relied on misleading description of site, was entitled to extension of time under changes clause
How later courts described this case
- finding contractor, who relied on misleading description of site, was entitled to extension of time under changes clause
- existence of high ground-water table not shown in government core boring logs constituted changed condition
- “[G]eneral portions of the specifications should not lightly be read to override the Changed Conditions clause.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLLINS, Judge
(dissenting):
On the authority of the factual situation in Leal v. United States, 276 F.2d 378 , 149 Ct.Cl. 451 (1960), it is my opinion that the board had substantial evidence for concluding that the contractor was not misled (compare id. with Woodcrest Constr. Co., 66-2 BCA ¶ 5726 , at 26,694-96 (ENG BCA 1966 )). See Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 345 F.2d 535 , 170 Ct.Cl. 712 (1965) ; cf. Fort Sill Associates v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 301, 307-308 (1968).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the reasons set out, we conclude that the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals’ decision on the “Changed Conditions” cause of action was not based on substantial evidence, and thus, its determination that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover is reversed. We uphold the Board’s decision, however, on the “Changes” cause of action, since it was supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the “Changes” cause of action is denied, defendant’s cross-motion is granted, and the case is dismissed as to this cause of action.
As to the “Changed Conditions” cause of action, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and denies defendant’s cross-motion, with proceedings suspended for 90 days pending the Board’s determination of plaintiffs’ recovery consistent with our opinion. Plaintiffs will comply with Rule 100 and the appropriate provisions of the General Order of the court of April 1, 1968, implementing it. Upon the conclusion of the Board’s proceedings, plaintiffs • will report the result to the court, and the parties will take further action for the final disposition of the case in this court.