Following a jury trial and verdict1 in favor of Hardin-Sunbelt, Joint Venture Hardin on its breach of contract claim against the Department of Transportation DOT, DOT appeals, contending, on numerous grounds, that the trial court improperly denied its motion for directed verdict. ‘Where a jury returns a verdict and it has the approval of the trial judge, the same must be affirmed on appeal if there is any evidence to support it as the jurors are the sole and exclusive judges of the weight and credit given the evidence. The appellate court must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the evidence is in conflict. As long as there is some evidence to support the verdict, the denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict, new trial and j.n.o.v. will not be disturbed.’ Punctuation omitted. Southeastern Security Ins. Co. v. Hotle , 222 Ga. App. 161, 162 1 473 SE2d 256 1996. Gantt v. Bennett , 231 Ga. App. 238, 240 1 499 SE2d 75 1998. Viewed in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence was that, by contract of October 25, 1995, DOT, as owner, contracted with Hardin as general contractor for construction of 1.283 miles of Sugarloaf Parkway in Gwinnett County, a $23 million project including construction of a portion of roadway, associated bridges, and an interchange. Incorporated into that contract was DOT’s “Standard Specification-Construction of Roads and Bridges.” Hardin then subcontracted with numerous subcontractors for portions of the project and all subcontracts also incorporated DOT’s Standard Specification. On January 6, 1996, Hardin and Dinsmore Grading Dinsmore entered into a $4.5 million subcontract dealing with the project’s earthwork. This earthwork included the restoration of a lake adjacent to the roadway construction. The lake, approximately two acres, was owned by Boeing Corporation formerly Rockwell, Inc. and was included in a temporary construction easement obtained by DOT. Although Section 166 of the Standard Specifications provided that a lake such as the Boeing lake could be used as a sediment basin during the project, DOT wanted to keep the lake clear of siltation. By amendment to the specifications in October 1995, DOT provided, instead, that a sediment basin be created at the head of the lake by constructing a rock check dam to collect most sediment before it entered the lake. DOT had experience with another lake in the same area which had totally filled up while being used as a sediment basin and did not want this to happen to the Boeing lake. It was intended that most silt would be stopped by the dam and that which filtered through would be removed periodically from the lake from the top of the dam by Dinsmore.
The bid documents and contract list the sediment basin and lake restoration items as separate items, with the lake restoration item identified as “lump sum” and bid by Dinsmore at $88,835. As stated by Section 109.01 of the Standard Specification, “the term ‘Lump Sum’ when used as an item of payment will mean complete payment for the Work described in the Contract.”
