Government Can’t Use Contract’s General Disclaimer of Reliance on Site Information to Deny Differing Site Condition Claim (Metcalf v. U.S. precedent)

by Kent Holland | Jul 26, 2017 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

By: J. kent Holland, Jr. The U.S. Army denied a differing site condition claim of its contract that allegedly encountered subsurface rock conditions as well as ground water conditions, differing materially from what was represented in a geotechnical report provided to...

Encountering Soil Conditions Differing from data in Government Provided Geotechnical Report Entitled Design-Builder to Differing Site Condition Recovery (ASBCA Decision)

by Kent Holland | Jun 1, 2017 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Geotechnical, Saturated Soil, Geotechnical Report, Metcalf Construction During site excavation, a design-build contractor encountered a large quantity of unsuitable soils, and this required remediation before foundation work could commence for a building. In this...

Contractor May Recover on Differing Site Condition Despite Not Following the Notice Requirements of Contract

by Kent Holland | Dec 19, 2016 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

After final payment was made under its contract, a utility construction contractor submitted a written request for additional payment to the project owner seeking payment for extra work it performed as well as increased costs due to delays and disruptions during the...

Liquidated Damages Found to be Unenforceable Penalty; but Waiver of Differing Site Conditions Claim was Enforced

by Kent Holland | Jan 14, 2015 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Contractor brought suit seeking additional compensation for costs resulting from differing site conditions and alleged inaccurate site plans.  The Owner counterclaimed for liquidated damages based on delayed completion, being a 397 day delay at $700/day. The court...

Wyoming Case Highlights Importance of Following Contractual Notice Provisions

by Kent Holland | Dec 17, 2014 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

By Charlie G. Baxley Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. A recent Wyoming case – JEM Contracting, Inc. v. Morrison – Maierle, Inc. – serves as a reminder to contractors and subcontractors of the importance of following the contractual requirements for notice when...

Differing Site Conditions: Trial Necessary to Determine if Federal Contractor Entitled to Relief

by Kent Holland | Jul 8, 2014 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

A contractor on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project filed a complaint with the U.S. Claims Court, claiming it was entitled to equitable adjustment to its contract for additional costs and time due to encountering differing site conditions while dredging the Miami...