defendant's personnel had no obligation to the plaintiff in this respect, except to act reasonably in the matter of approving or disapproving borrow sites located and selected by the plaintiff. When the contracting officer responded to the plaintiff's request for assistance in October 1958 by furnishing a map that showed a couple of prospective borrow areas, the contracting officer was rendering a gratuitous courtesy to the plaintiff, rather than discharging a contractual obligation that rested upon the defendant. The defendant is not chargeable with a breach of contract in connection with an act which is not required by the contract, which is done for the benefit of the contractor, and which is taken advantage of by the contractor. B-W Construction Co. v. United States, 97 Ct. Cl. 92, 122 (1942); Vogt Brothers Mfg. Co. v. United States, supra, 160 Ct. Cl. at page 697.

Although the present claim is not for breach of contract, the rights and duties are similar. Since the appellant has failed to produce any evidence that the Government refused to approve material which met the specifications for Case 2 borrow, we must conclude that the Government acted reasonably.33

The appellant also introduced testimony relating to statements made by Mr. Grant to Mr. Cowan regarding the availability of A-4 material in bottom lands (Tr. 5863) which were to be flooded by the reservoir in the winter of 1964-65, apparently on the theory that such

33 The appellant's reliance upon the portion of FP-61 (Article 4.2 Changes) quoted in the claim brief of June 28, 1968 at page 34 (“It is mutually agreed that it is inherent in the nature of highway construction that some changes in the plans and specifications may be necessary during the course of construction to adjust them to field conditions is misplaced. See Appeal of John H. Moon & Sons, IBCA-815-12-69 (July 31, 1972), 79 I.D. 465, 497, 72-2 BCA par. 9601, at 44,876.

The pre-bid investigation on behalf of the appellant was conducted by Mr. Cowan who testified that he looked at the Hazel Wood cut in question although he did not walk the entire center line (Tr. 50-55). He did not see a spring there before he started grading (Tr. 86). Mr. Caldwell testified regarding the events that occurred after construction started which formed the basis for the claim of changed conditions (Tr. 416-31). Mr. Caldwell stated that the cut was started on July 22, 1964, and excavation continued there until July 31, 1964. After work in the cut had commenced, a wet condition was encountered on the high side of the hill and the further the excavation proceeded, the wetter it got (Tr. 418). The contractor was able to work in the cut again on September 14, 15, 16, 22 and 24, 1964, but performed no other work in the cut during that year (Tr. 418).

By letter of April 21, 1965, Mr. Grant authorized placement of 2,244 linear feet of underdrain in the cut (Tr. 427-28; Appeal File, Volume II). The underdrain was completed with considerable difficulty, on August 19, 1965, and the excavation in the cut was completed on August 30, 1965 (Tr. 429).

Mr. Grant testified that he had observed a "muddy quagmire” in the area of the Hazel Wood cut in 1960 before the center line of the roadway was staked (Tr. 2321-22). He also observed this muddy con

way prism, five or six times during the next three years (Tr. 2322). He described the problem as not a spring, but a seepage of water over an extended area (Tr. 2320).

Item 520 (1) of the contract (Volume I, Appeal File) contains an estimate of 3000 linear feet of 6-inch perforated concrete pipe underdrain for which the appellant bid $2 per linear foot. Exhibit I to the contracting officer's finding of fact (Volume I, Appeal File) shows the total amount of underdrain placed by the appelant to be 2097.2 linear feet, with an additional 768.9 linear feet placed by the completition contractor, for a total of 2866.1 linear feet of underdrain for Project 3-0-7.

Decision

While the category of changed condition that appellant is claiming is not entirely clear, we have considered the claim under both categories of the clause. In Perini Corporation v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 768, 778-80 (1967), it was held that to qualify as a changed condition, the unknown physical condition must be one that could not

be reasonably anticipated by the contractor from his study of the contract documents, his inspection of the site and his general experience as a contractor in the area.

Mr. Caldwell testified as to his experience as a contractor in the area (Tr. 194-98). To a contractor of his extensive experience, the estimate of 3000 feet of underdrain to

be placed on the project should have been ample warning of a substantial drainage problem. Mr. Cowan's testimony that he did not see a spring, when he looked at the Hazel Wood cut in his pre-bid inspection, falls short of stating that there was no water problem in the area, particularly in view of Mr. Grant's testimony that the problem was not a spring, but widespread seepage.

This Board has held that placement of substantially less underdrain on a project than was estimated in the bid schedule is almost conclusive evidence that conditions were better than anticipated.35 In the present case, the fact that the appellant placed only 2097.2 linear feet of underdrain in the Hazel Wood cut and that a total of 2866.1 feet was placed on the entire project is evidence that conditions actually encountered were approximately what had been anticipated when the contract was awarded. We are not persuaded by the appellant's evidence that a reasonable study of the contract documents and an adequate inspection of the site would not have alerted the contractor to the existence of conditions substantially similar to those forming the basis of the present claim. We find that the appellant could not reasonably have anticipated a sequence of work unimpeded by placement of underdrain and that conditions were not changed when it became necessary to place such underdrain in an

Service Construction Corp., IBCA NO. 678-10-67 (January 12, 1970), 70–1 BCA par. 8068.

amount less than that estimated in the contract.

The claim is therefore denied.

Claim K

The appellant alleged that the Government failed to provide and allow detours for county crossroads at Stations 242, 179 and 19+10, thus requiring the appellant to perform extra work.

Page D-1, Special Provisions of the Contract, provides as follows:

Section 4.-Scope of Work. 4.3 is amended and supplemented as follows: The parkway will be closed to public traffic. The construction and later obliteration of detour roads will be paid for at the contract unit prices for the pay items involved.

FP-61, Article 4.3 states the following:

4.3 Construction and Maintenance of Detours. Any existing road, while undergoing improvement, shall be kept open to traffic by the contractor, provided that when approved by the engineer or indicated on the plans or in the special provisions the contractor may bypass traffic over a detour. The contractor shall keep the entire length of road under contract or the detour, as the case may be, continuously in such condition that traffic will be adequately accommodated during the entire contract period. The contractor shall provide and maintain in safe condition temporary approaches and crossings and shall keep open and safely passable intersections with trails, roads, and highways; provided, however, that snow removal will not be required of the contractor for accommodation of traffic. The contractor shall bear all the expense of constructing and maintaining such roads, detours, approaches, intersections, and any accessory features without direct compensation, save as provided be

low.

Mr. Caldwell testified that failure of the Government to approve detours at the three stations indicated was one of the major delays on the job (Tr. 339). The cut at Station 236 could not be completed while the existing county road remained in place (Tr. 343). The bridge for the relocation at Station 242 was completed on May 16, 1964 (Tr. 341). The fill at Station 179 could not be completed while the county road remained (Tr. 348–50). The structure for the relocation of this road was completed on May 9, 1964 (Tr. 350). Mr. Caldwell attached less importance to the problems encountered at the fill at Station 19+10. In view of previous delays there was very little delay or damage there (Tr. 409–10). Mr. Caldwell stated that the relocated crossroad at Station 242 was completed on September 8, 1965 and all three relocated crossroads were finished before the winter season. He also stated that his subcontractor for concrete worked ahead of the grading operation, excavated for bridges, and created a situation. where water would accumulate unless a drainage ditch were cut. Be

36 On Sheet 10 of the plans the word "upon" is used in lieu of the word "after."

fore grading could proceed, some preparation had to be made to pump out the water and give the area time to dry (Tr. 946).

Mr. Caldwell testified that he first discussed the problem of detours with Mr. Grant in June 1964 (Tr. 406-07). Although he was denied permission to build detours, he did not submit a written request for approval of the detours (Tr. 651). At the hearing, Mr. Caldwell drew sketches of the detours he would have built at Stations 19+10 and 236 if he had been granted permission (Govt. Exhibits I and J; Tr. 1301-02).

Mr. Grant stated that he received no request for a detour (Tr. 2216) but if the request for the detours shown in Mr. Caldwell's sketches had been presented to him, he would not have granted permission to build them, since he considered the sketches showed solutions that were not feasible from an engineering standpoint or were dangerous (Tr. 2217-30).

Mr. Grant stated that the situation at the county road at Station 179 did not require a detour, since the appellant was allowed to build a ramp as high as he built his fill in 1964 in order to maintain traffic and the relocated road was graded and traffic turned on it in 1965 before any further work was done on the fill (Tr. 2216). The appellant would probably have been allowed to increase the height of the ramp if the fill had been built higher but the matter wasn't even discussed (Tr. 2216-17, 2229).

Mr. Grant testified that the purpose of including relocations of the county crossroads in the design of the parkway was to permit traffic to be maintained during construction (Tr. 2218-19).

He stated the normal sequence of operations would have been to grade the county road first, then build the bridge (Tr. 2219–22, 2235). At Station 242, the bridge subcontractor dug a hole and built the bridge before the county road was graded. No drainage was provided and water and mud accumulated to a depth of about a foot inside the box bridge (Tr. 2233). The drainage which was provided in 1965 to enable completion of the county road could have been accomplished as easily in 1964, according to Mr. Grant (Tr. 2234). Mr. Grant averred that no effort was made to finish the county roads in 1964, which he attributed to poor planning (Tr. 2219-22).

Decision

It is axiomatic that a contract

should be considered as a whole, with all parts of the contract being interpreted together.37 When the requirement in FP-61, Section 4.3 that existing roads shall be kept open and passable is read in conjunction with the notes on pages 10, 16, and 17 of the plans that existing county roads are to be obliterated after completion of the box bridges, the only conclusion warranted appears to be that the relocated county

Lane Co., Inc. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 203 (1970).

roads, as well as the box bridges, must be completed before obliteration of the existing county roads. Supporting this view is the fact that the plans make no provision for temporary detours at those locations.

The Government was entitled to have the relocations of the county roads built to maintain traffic without the necessity for the additional expense of temporary detours to serve the same purpose. The burden was on the appellant to show sufficient reason for deviating from the method of construction apparently contemplated by the contract as well as by the normal sequence of construction. Both Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Grant agreed that the construction of the bridge at Station 242 ahead of the grading operation, without providing drainage in the area, caused a condition which interfered with construction. Such a condition is clearly not attributable to the Government since the sequence of operations was under the control of the appellant.

Station 179, the appellant's conduct With respect to the situation at

was not consistent with the assertion that this was a major problem. written request for a detour and the The appellant did not submit a the alleged oral refusal of permisrecord reveals no attempt to reverse sion for a detour at that location. In view of Mr. Grant's testimony that a detour was not necessary and that a ramp would have been allowed as high as the appellant cared to construct the fill, it appears that there