Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; February 2, 1960; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
The appeal centers on whether a contract clause, known as the unit-price provision, which adjusts the contract price based on a rate of $74 per cubic yard of concrete, applies to the additional cost of dewatering required due to deeper footings than specified in the plans. The defendant city argues that the unit-price provision does apply, a position supported by the circuit court. Conversely, the plaintiff contractor asserts that Article 15 of the AIA General Conditions, incorporated into the contract, governs the situation and excludes the unit-price provision from covering dewatering costs.
The court considers two arguments from the city against the applicability of Article 15. First, the city contends that Article 15 violates public contract letting statutes. However, prior rulings establish that modifications to public contracts, which do not significantly alter the project or excessively increase costs and are authorized by the contract, can be made without adhering to initial statutory procedures. Thus, Article 15 is deemed a legal inclusion in public contracts.
Second, the city claims the contractor cannot seek extra compensation under Article 15 because the contractor had a duty to investigate underground conditions before bidding. The plans, however, explicitly represented that soil capable of supporting 6,000 pounds per square foot would be found at a specified depth. Testimony indicated that accurately determining soil depth would require extensive excavation. Consequently, the contractor is entitled to rely on the express representations in the plans, even with a contractual duty to investigate present. Relevant case law and legal principles support this right to rely on the plans.
The unit-price provision in the contract applies to the plaintiff contractor's dewatering expenses resulting from the architect's change order to deepen the footings, and it takes precedence over Article 15, which is a general provision. In contract law, specific provisions prevail over general ones in the event of inconsistency. The key issue is whether the unit-price provision encompasses the dewatering expense. Witnesses, including a civil engineer and the architect, provided testimony about the customary application of unit prices in construction contracts. They indicated that unit prices are meant for additional or reduced work of a similar nature, and different methods are not typically covered by unit prices.
The contractor had previously estimated a dewatering cost of $1,700 for work below the water table, which was known at the time of bidding. The subsequent change order required deeper footings but did not necessitate a different construction method, as dewatering was already accounted for in the bid. Consequently, the court concluded that the unit-price provision governs the situation and that the plaintiff contractor is not entitled to recover extra costs related to dewatering due to the change order. The case of Gerhardt F. Meyne Co. v. United States, cited by the plaintiffs, was deemed inapplicable because it involved different construction methods, which was not the case here. The judgment was affirmed.
