Risk of Differing Site Condition Not Shifted to Contractor

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

Contract provisions requiring contractors to perform site investigation and inspection prior to bidding did not impose the risk of subsurface conditions on the contractor, and therefore, did not preclude a claim for equitable adjustment.  When the contractor began...

Differing Site Conditions and Lost Productivity Entitle Contractor to Additional Compensation

by Kent Holland | Feb 7, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

A construction contractor was entitled to change orders where it encountered differing site conditions that required the use of form footings instead of trench footings as has been planned. The plans and specifications incorporated into the contract contained...

Differing Site Conditions: Can You Recover Increased Costs?

by Kent Holland | Feb 7, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

In some parts of the country, subsurface conditions create great financial risks for contractors.  The Differing Site Conditions clause is one of the tools owners use to remove some of the risk and, therefore, maintain competition in the bidding process. Generally, a...

"No-Damage-for-Delay" Clause Unenforceable where City Withheld Superior Knowledge about Site Conditions and Caused the Delay

by Kent Holland | Feb 7, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

A state court in California declined to enforce a “no-damage-for-delay” clause that would have deprived a construction contractor of equitable adjustment for time delays and expenses caused by the project owner, City of Los Angeles. The city had superior...

Contractor sues engineer for misrepresenting site conditions

by Kent Holland | Feb 7, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Where a general contractor prepared its bid in reliance upon information provided by the project owner’s engineer, and the site conditions differed from what was represented, the contractor sued the engineer for misrepresenting the conditions. Both the...

Contractor Entitled to Recover Additional Compensation Due to Project Owner’s Failure to Disclose Material Information During Bidding Process – even Where Nondisclosure was not Done with Affirmative Intent to Conceal the Information

by Kent Holland | Jan 11, 2011 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

Contractor is entitled to recover additional compensation due to a school district’s failure to disclose material information during the bidding process, and it is not necessary for the contractor to prove affirmative fraudulent intent to conceal the information. ...