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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Connect