Reporter's Statement of the Case 103 C. Cls. In work of this character it is not practical to segregate the cost of boulder removal from the cost of common excavation. The presence of boulders and the removal thereof affect the progress of the dredge in removing common excavation and in computing either estimated or actual costs on a job of this character. The usual method pursued is to combine the costs of boulder yardage and common excavation. For the purpose of its bid of 34.73 cents per cubic yard, referred to in finding 2, plaintiff estimated that pay boulders would average 500 cubic yards per month of operating time, which at $12.50 per cubic yard would amount to $6,250, and deducted that amount from the total estimated operating cost (plus profit), $48,430.53, in arriving at a net estimated operating plant cost of $42,180.53. As shown in that same finding, plaintiff later agreed to do the work for 34 cents per cubic yard and the contract was executed on that basis. In determining the "Break-down Cost of Plant" in schedule A set out in finding 16, plaintiff multiplied the total estimated pay yardage, 2,894,500 cubic yards, by the contract price, 34 cents per cubic yard, and arrived at a total estimated contract price of $984,130. From that amount it deducted estimated mobilization costs of $14,529.16 ($48,430.53X.3 month) and arrived at an amount of $969,600.84, which it divided by the estimated months of operations, 23.5, in order to arrive at the estimated monthly cost of operating, $41,259.61. This latter figure was used instead of $42,180.53 (total estimated monthly cost, $48,430.53, less estimated monthly boulder receipts, $6,250) in order to arrive at the total estimated cost for both pay and nonpay dredging. 688 Reporter's Statement of the Case 20. These same estimated monthly cost figures of $41,259.61 in the case of pay and nonpay yardage dredging and $48,430.53 in the case of mobilization were also used in the schedule set out in finding 16 under "Actual Wind-up Final Details" to arrive at the estimated "Breakdown Cost of Plant" on the respective operations, for purposes of comparison, by multiplying these estimates by the actual number of months engaged on the respective operations, which gave a total of $713,610.37. On the basis that had the actual yardage and the time required for its removal been known when the bid was submitted, a higher bid, 35.73 cents per cubic yard, would have been submitted. An application of this increase in bid price of 1.73 cents per cubic yard (35.73 cents instead of the contract price, 34 cents) to the total yardage removed, 1,997,161 cubic yards, makes an amount of $34,550.88, which is the amount of recovery now sought in this suit. 21. As shown in finding 18, plaintiff's estimated monthly operating cost, exclusive of profit, was $44,060.53. In carrying out the work plaintiff removed 1,997,161 cubic yards of pay yardage for which it received (at the contract price of 34 cents per cubic yard) $679,034.74. Plaintiff also received $181,656.25 for removal of boulders instead of $146,875 as estimated. With these factors as a basis, an excess of receipts over estimated costs is shown as follows: Total common excavation-1,997,161 cu. yds. at 34¢------ $679, 034. 74 Total boulder yardage-14,532.5 cu. yds. at $12.50. Total payments received__. 181, 656.25 $560, 690, 99 Cost of performing work based on the actual time consumed, 17.24 months, and the estimated monthly operating costs, $44,060.53– 759, 088. 81 $101, 602. 18 22. As shown from the schedule set out on pp. 17 and 18, as a part of finding 16, the average estimated monthly yardage as computed by plaintiff in its original job estimate was 133,000 cubic yards, and in carrying out the work the average monthly production was 127,950 cubic yards, that is, a reduction of 3.8 percent, which was within a reasonable approximation of the original estimate. Between Stations 110 and 200, where the Opinion of the Court 103 C. Cls. greatest reduction in yardage took place on account of the hurricane, the original monthly estimate was 135,000 cubic yards, and the actual average monthly production was 123,372 cubic yards, that is, a reduction of 8.6 percent. Between Stations 320 and 375, which were least affected by the hurricane, the original monthly estimate was 125,000 cubic yards and the actual monthly production was 112,865, that is, a reduction of 9.7 percent. In estimating the progress of dredging in Cape Cod Canal it is reasonable to allow for a variation of from 3 to 10 percent. 23. As heretofore shown, in completing the job plaintiff excavated and received pay for 1,997,161 cubic yards. Plaintiff left in place within the pay prism 219,531 cubic yards, of which quantity 60,823 cubic yards were left within the required contract area and 158,708 cubic yards within the allowable overdepth dredging area, thus showing a total of 2,216,692 cubic yards available for dredging as compared with the estimate of 2,468,550 cubic yards after the hurricane and 2,894,500 as shown in the invitation for bids. 24. The record does not satisfactorily establish that the reduction in yardage due to the hurricane materially affected plaintiff's monthly progress or its unit costs in carrying out this work. Such reduction did not require a change in the specifications and plaintiff completed the contract without any change therein. The court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. LITTLETON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Article 4 of the contract under which plaintiff makes its claim for an increase of 1.73 cents per cubic yard for 1,997,161 cubic yards of material dredged, over the contract unit price of 34 cents a cubic yard, is set forth in finding 5. The pertinent provisions of the specifications prepared prior to August 4, 1938, with reference to the estimated "quantity of material" to be removed, the "physical data," and the "character of materials" expected to be encountered are set forth in finding 4. The estimated quantity of material which defendant considered would have to be removed to reach the |