{"id":886197,"date":"2015-12-23T06:42:10","date_gmt":"2015-12-23T13:42:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=886197"},"modified":"2015-12-22T17:04:55","modified_gmt":"2015-12-23T00:04:55","slug":"differing-site-condition-defense-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/","title":{"rendered":"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Joseph T. Imperiale and James M. Kwartnik, Jr. | Pepper Hamilton LLP | November 20, 2015<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Appeals of Washington recently decided <em>King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV<\/em>, a dispute between a joint venture contractor (the Contractor) and King County, Washington (the County). The dispute stemmed from problems that arose and significant delays that occurred during a major expansion of the County\u2019s wastewater treatment system, known as the Brightwater project. The case illustrates the potential pitfalls of a contractor\u2019s claim of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/skip-the-site-visit-lose-a-differing-site-conditions-claim\/\" target=\"_blank\">differing site conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The Brightwater project consisted of the construction of a new treatment plant and a new 13-mile underground conveyance system that involved extensive tunneling work. Construction of the underground conveyance system was divided into three contracts, one of which was awarded to the Contractor (the Project).<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the award, the County and its consultants prepared contract documents, including specifications and two geotechnical reports (the Contract Documents), to assist with the solicitation and preparation of bids for the Project. According to the Contract Documents, the entire Project would be situated below the groundwater table, which meant there would be conditions that would require special excavation techniques and equipment in order to apply constant pressure to the face of the tunnel to prevent it from collapsing. The Contract Documents contained information about the soil samples extracted from boreholes drilled roughly 300 to 400 feet apart on the Project, as well as baseline estimates of the expected numbers and percentages of \u201ctunnel soil groups\u201d that would be encountered on the Project.<\/p>\n<p>The Contractor received and analyzed the Contract Documents and retained two geotechnical consultants to assist with preparing the bid. Relying on the Contract Documents, the consultants developed reports attempting to identify the types and locations of soils that would be encountered on the Project. The Contractor submitted the lowest bid and was awarded the Contract.<\/p>\n<p>The requirements of an affirmative representation as to site conditions and actual reliance on those conditions are not unique to Washington, and contractors should be cognizant of such requirements when claiming <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/top-10-lessons-learned-construction-attorney\/\" target=\"_blank\">differing site conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>In its defense and counterclaim, the Contractor asserted, among other things, that the County breached the contract by failing to grant change orders and time extensions for differing site conditions. One of the Contractor\u2019s differing site condition claims was based on the Contractor\u2019s assertion that \u201cthe <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/factors-affecting-construction-cost-estimate\/\" target=\"_blank\">soil conditions<\/a> encountered [were] materially different than what was anticipated.\u201d Specifically, the Contractor contended \u201cthat the frequency of transitions between one soil condition and another [in particular, from plastic to non-plastic soils] was higher than what was indicated in [the Contract Documents] and what was anticipated.\u201d The Contractor claimed that the increased number of changes in soil conditions substantially slowed progress because the Contractor had to repeatedly stop work and readjust excavation parameters. The Contractor asserted that this change constituted a differing site condition, which, under the contract\u2019s \u201cDiffering Site Condition\u201d clause, entitled the Contractor to an equitable adjustment in time and price.<\/p>\n<p>The trial court denied the Contractor\u2019s differing site condition claim on summary judgment. On appeal, the <em>King County<\/em> court identified the following requirements for establishing a differing site condition claim: 1) the contract documents indicated certain conditions; 2) the contractor reasonably relied on those indications when making its bid; 3) actual conditions materially differed from those that were indicated in the contract; and 4) the materially different conditions were not foreseeable. Applying this test, the court affirmed the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment because the Contractor failed to satisfy the first two requirements.<\/p>\n<p>First, the <em>King County<\/em> court found that the Contractor admitted that \u201cthe Contract documents contained neither location-specific baselines for soil types between the boreholes nor indications of expected transitions from plastic to non-plastic soils.\u201d Further, the court was not persuaded by the Contractor\u2019s argument that, \u201ceven though there was no explicit representation in the Contract documents about the frequency of transitions,\u201d the Contractor made a reasonable interpretation about the number of transitions based on the information presented in the Contract Documents.<\/p>\n<p>The court stated that, even if a Contractor\u2019s \u201creasonable interpretation\u201d of owner-provided documents was enough to satisfy the first requirement of a differing site condition claim, there could be no such \u201creasonable interpretation\u201d here, where the Contract Documents contained no express or implied indication as to the number of transitions. Moreover, the court found that a statement in the Contract Documents that \u201cbidders should make their own interpretations and conclusions about the soil conditions along the tunnel\u201d shifted to the Contractor any risk associated with assumptions made by the Contractor.<\/p>\n<p>Next, the court found that the Contractor failed to establish the second requirement of a differing site condition claim&#8230;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pepperlaw.com\/publications\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected-2015-11-30\/\" target=\"_blank\">To finish reading this article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Joseph T. Imperiale and James M. Kwartnik, Jr. | Pepper Hamilton LLP | November 20, 2015 The Court of Appeals of Washington recently decided King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV, a dispute between a joint venture contractor (the Contractor) and King County, Washington (the County). The dispute stemmed from problems that arose&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[8994,11],"class_list":["post-886197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-claims","tag-differing-site-conditions","tag-insurance-claim","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\"},\"wordCount\":790,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Differing Site Conditions\",\"insurance claim\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\",\"name\":\"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00\",\"description\":\"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected","datePublished":"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/"},"wordCount":790,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Differing Site Conditions","insurance claim"],"articleSection":["Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/","name":"Differing Site Condition Defense Rejected - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-12-23T13:42:10+00:00","description":"King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects\/Parsons RCI\/Frontier-Kemper, JV illustrates the pitfalls of a claim of differing site conditions","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/differing-site-condition-defense-rejected\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3Ixv","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/886197","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=886197"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/886197\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":886198,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/886197\/revisions\/886198"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=886197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=886197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=886197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}