Katherine E. Kohm | The Dispute Resolver | March 23, 2018<\/p>\n
The case\u00a0
Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States<\/u>, No. 2017-1584, 2018 WL 1386147, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2018)\u00a0concerned a dispute between\u00a0the federal government\u00a0and\u00a0a contractor\u00a0related to the\u00a0construction of\u00a0flood control structures and the\u00a0relocation of a sewer line in Chula Vista near San Diego, California.\u00a0 After starting work, the contractor\u00a0encountered “subsurface organic\/unsuitable material\u201d and \u201ca layer of dripping saturated dark clay material under which a clean layer of sand is producing water.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0As a result the parties modified the contract – selecting larger pipes, reinforced concrete, more soil investigation, but to no avail.\u00a0 The project was terminated after further structural failures.\u00a0\u00a0The contractor then sought extra costs\u00a0for what it deemed a Type I differing site condition (“DSC”) and for delay costs for inclement weather. The Court of Federal Claims denied\u00a0the claims and the contractor appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\u00a0 The Appeals Court reviewed for “clear error.”<\/div>\nUnder this federal contract,\u00a0a Type I DSC claim arises when the subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differ materially from those indicated in\u00a0the contract documents.\u00a0 The Appeals Court recounted that typically whether “a contract contained indications of a particular site condition is a matter of contract interpretation.”\u00a0Id.<\/u>\u00a0 As part of its burden of proof, the contractor needed to show it acted as\u00a0“a reasonable\u00a0contractor<\/span>\u00a0[when] reading the contract documents as a whole\u00a0[and] interpret[ing] them as making a representation as to the site conditions.\u201d\u00a0 Besides reliance on the contract and proof of\u00a0damages, the contractor also needed to prove that \u201cthe actual site conditions were not reasonably foreseeable to the\u00a0contractor<\/span>\u00a0with the information available to the particular\u00a0contractor<\/span>\u00a0outside the contract documents\u201d as well.\u00a0Id.<\/u>\u00a0\u00a0The Appeals Court agreed with trial court’s\u00a0conclusion that the saturated soil conditions were reasonably foreseeable from the contract documents.\u00a0\u00a0In particular, the contract stated that\u00a0the\u00a0worksite was located on a floodplain and the descriptions of the incorporated\u00a0boring logs expressly stated that “variations may exist in the subsurface between boring locations.”\u00a0 The court also emphasized that “actual conditions at the site indicated such [saturated] conditions” and the contractor was charged with knowing information that could be gleaned from\u00a0a pre-bid site visit.\u00a0 The court found important that there was no testimony from the contractor otherwise regarding the actual conditions.<\/p>\nFor the contractor’s part, it argued that the contract had identified the areas of the project as “hard unyielding material.\u201d\u00a0 But the Appeals Court was unpersuaded in the face of disclaimer contract provisions\u00a0noting “unstable material”\u00a0and boring logs that were determined to indicate otherwise. The contractor also balked\u00a0that trial court found that an “independent soils investigation” was something a reasonable contractor would have performed.\u00a0 Again the Appeals Court disagreed concluding that the underlying decision actually did “not impose an improper requirement for investigation.” Lastly, the Appeals Court disposed of the contractor’s argument that the agreed-to modifications to the contract served as admissions by the government that a Type I DSC existed because “a contractor is not entitled to the benefit of any presumption arising from the [CO]’s decision.”\u00a0Id.<\/u>
\n<\/u>
\nAlthough the contractor did not prevail on the DSC claim, the Appeals Court did breathe new life into the delay claim for having to work in inclement weather.\u00a0 The trial court had dismissed this claim as well on account of an “accord and satisfaction” as a result of contract modifications. However, the Appeals Court disagreed noting that\u00a0the contract modification did not represent a meeting of the minds to dispose\u00a0of these inclement weather delay claims especially in light of the\u00a0government’s actions post-modification – requests for estimates, draft modifications with\u00a0these claims included, offer to review further documentation.\u00a0 Accordingly this delay claim was remanded for further hearings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Katherine E. Kohm | The Dispute Resolver | March 23, 2018 The case\u00a0Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, No. 2017-1584, 2018 WL 1386147, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2018)\u00a0concerned a dispute between\u00a0the federal government\u00a0and\u00a0a contractor\u00a0related to the\u00a0construction of\u00a0flood control structures and the\u00a0relocation of a sewer line in Chula Vista near San Diego, California.\u00a0 After… Continue reading Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim<\/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":[164,3],"tags":[9895,88,10404,11],"class_list":["post-893851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-dispute","category-insurance-claims","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-differing-site-condition","tag-insurance-claim","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nFederal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition ("DSC") and for delay costs for inclement weather\" \/>\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\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition ("DSC") and for delay costs for inclement weather\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-03-28T19:36:11+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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-28T19:36:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\"},\"wordCount\":658,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"california\",\"Differing Site Condition\",\"insurance claim\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Dispute\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\",\"name\":\"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-28T19:36:11+00:00\",\"description\":\"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition (\\\"DSC\\\") and for delay costs for inclement weather\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & 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":"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition (\"DSC\") and for delay costs for inclement weather","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\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition (\"DSC\") and for delay costs for inclement weather","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2018-03-28T19:36:11+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim","datePublished":"2018-03-28T19:36:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/"},"wordCount":658,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","california","Differing Site Condition","insurance claim"],"articleSection":["Construction Dispute","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/","name":"Federal Circuit Affirms Absence of Differing Site Condition But Remands for Delay Claim - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-03-28T19:36:11+00:00","description":"dispute between the federal government and a contractor related to a Type I differing site condition (\"DSC\") and for delay costs for inclement weather","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/federal-circuit-affirms-absence-differing-site-condition\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & 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\/p2ztG6-3KwX","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893851","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=893851"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893851\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":893852,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893851\/revisions\/893852"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=893851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=893851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=893851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}