In connection with ASBCA No. 15183, Appeal of Edward R.
Marden Corp., under Contract NBy 66498 (south Weymouth
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar). t h e specifications provided:
6A.13 Wood Nailers and Blocking. Wood nailers shall be
provided at all eaves and edges of the roof and elsewhere
as indicated; the wood nailers and blocking shall be
anchored in position by means of expansion bolts, concrete
nails, powder actuated anchors or other approved method.
The wood nailers shall be of such thickness as to finish
f l u s h with the top surface of the roof insulation board.
Similar wood blocking and nailers shall be provided on the
t o p s of all concrete curbs on the roof affording a base for
air intakes and vent fans. (Emphasis added.)
The Contractor tried to use concrete nails but could not
g e t satisfactory results, s h i f t e d to powder-actuated bolts
a n d toggle bolts, and shifted again to expansion bolts. and
claims $42,967 for the extra costs of attempted performance
w i t h concrete nails. o f the bolts over nails. and of the
delay. The Navy contends that the Contractor was
r e s p o n s i b l e for a satisfactory method of securing the
nailers and that improper alignment of roof plank cores and
t r a f f i c on the nailers resulted in the unsatisfactory work.
Unhappily, t h e decisions establish that a listing of
materials or methods of performance amounts to a
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n that any of these will result in
s a t i s f a c t o r y work. Roscoe Engineering Corp. and
Association, ASBCA 4820, 61-1 BCA 15,244 (contract gave
c h o i c e of loaded box or anchor pile method for vertical
p i l e t e s t . U p o n satisfactory results with anchor piles.
government required the use of a loaded box at extra cost;
h e l d , Contractor entitled to equitable adjustment): J. G.
Watts Constr. Co., ASBCA 9445, 65-1 BCA 22,043
(asbestos-cement sewer pipe failed where cast-iron pipe
would not have, but Contractor had option to use
asbestos-cement pipe and need not Strengthen such pipe to
m e e t conditions); Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., ASBCA 6294, 61-1
BCA 15,464 (drawing held not to modify 46Yb option to saw
c o n c r e t e joints; C o n t r a c t o r entitled to increased costs of
performance); _Lehigh Chemical Co., ASBCA 8427, 1963 BCA
18,698 (when specs permit more than one method, restriction
of performance is a change).
In addition, the Court of Claims has recently made clear
that where Plans and Specifications are defective and must
be changed, any delay whatsoever (not merely delay beyond a
reasonable time) is compensable as a suspension of the work
o r as a breach of contract. Chaney and James Constr. Co.
v . U . S . , c t . C l . 150-67, 20 February 1970. Therefore, the
Contractor here demands $500 damages for every day of delay
and asserts that the nailer problem prevented completion of
t h e roof, held the work up over the winter, etc.