Federal Circuit Reverses Metcalf v. U.S.

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

Holds Government Cannot Bar Differing Site Conditions Claims with Broad Disclaimer Language, AND Government is Bound by a Broad Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing In a major victory, not only for the contractor, but also for historic federal contract principles, the...

Differing Site Conditions Claim Rejected Because State Had no Duty to Disclose Superior Knowledge, Plus the Contractor Did Not Document Damages but Attempted to Rely on Total Cost Claim

by Kent Holland | Jan 31, 2014 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

On a contract for a renovation and asbestos removal in a state office building, the contractor claimed there was a differing site condition making asbestos removal more difficult than anticipated.  The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the contractor could have...

Differing Site Condition Claim Barred by Contract Disclaimers

by Kent Holland | Mar 29, 2013 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Where a contract contained both a differing site condition clause as well as language stating that bidders may not rely upon data (such as soil information) provided by the owner with the invitation for bid (IFB) but should perform its own site investigation instead,...

Differing Site Conditions, Defective Specifications: One Coin, Two Sides

by Kent Holland | Feb 9, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Unforeseen site conditions typically spawn two types of claims based on two distinct but related theories: differing site conditions (DSC) and defective specifications.  A contractor may attempt to circumvent the limitations on recovery under a DSC provision by...

Failure to Attend Pre-Bid Site Visit Proves Fatal to Contractor’s Differing Site Conditions Claim

by Kent Holland | Feb 8, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

A government repair and alteration contract required installing new shower units to existing supply piping. Upon demolishing the shower wall, the contractor discovered that due to the location of the existing supply lines it would have to remove and replace the pipes....

Engineer Not Liable for Breach of Implied Warranty of Design

by Kent Holland | Feb 8, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

When an engineer designed a road that failed because the impermeability of the underlying soil caused water to accumulate between the soil and the asphalt, resulting in the road floating and the asphalt cracking, the project owner sued  for negligence and breach of...