{"id":894363,"date":"2018-06-07T10:44:10","date_gmt":"2018-06-07T16:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=894363"},"modified":"2018-06-07T10:44:10","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T16:44:10","slug":"type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/","title":{"rendered":"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>David Adelstein | <a href=\"http:\/\/www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com\/type-i-differing-site-conditions-claim-is-not-easy-to-prove\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Florida Construction Legal Updates<\/a> | May 19, 2018<\/p>\n<p>A\u00a0differing site condition\u00a0claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. \u00a0 \u00a0There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. \u00a0And there will\u00a0likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>\u00a0<strong>Type I\u00a0differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents<\/strong>.\u00a0 That seems easy enough to prove, right.\u00a0 Nope. \u00a0And, I mean nope!\u00a0 If you don\u2019t believe me, consider the recent decision in\u00a0<i>Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S<\/i>., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>To prevail on a Type I DSC claim, a contractor must prove that: (1)\u00a0a reasonable contractor reading the contract documents as a whole would interpret them as making a representation as to the site conditions;\u00a0(2) the actual site conditions were not reasonably foreseeable to the contractor, with the information available to the particular contractor outside the contract documents\u00a0(i.e., reasonable foreseeability); (3) the\u00a0particular contractor in fact relied on the contract representation; and (4) the conditions differed materially from those represented and \u2026 the\u00a0contractor suffered damages as a result.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><i>Meridian Engineering Co<\/i>., 885 F.3d at 1356 (internal quotations and citation omitted).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the contractor entered into a contract with the government to build flood control structures. \u00a0During construction, the contractor encountered subsurface unsuitable saturated soils.\u00a0 The contractor notified the government and modifications were issued as a result of the unsuitable soils.\u00a0 However, the government eventually suspended the work following structural failures and then terminated the project.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>An issue pertained to the contractor\u2019s Type I differing site conditions claim that the subsurface unsuitable saturated soil caused delays and increased costs. \u00a0The trial court found that the existence of the subsurface saturated soils was\u00a0<strong>reasonably foreseeable<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0(If the site conditions were reasonably foreseeable, there is not a Type I differing site conditions claim.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>First, the specifications stated \u201c[w]ater in varying quantities may be flowing in natural washes throughout the length of the project,\u201d and \u201c[t]he work site may be inundated because of [water] runoff.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<i>Meridian Engineering Co<\/i>., 885 F.3d at 1357.\u00a0 Based on these specifications, the court found that a\u00a0<strong>reasonable contractor would interpret the specifications as a representation of water as a site condition<\/strong>. \u00a0Remember, the very first element in a Type I differing site\u00a0conditions claim requires a reasonable contractor interpreting the contract as a\u00a0whole would interpret them as making a representation about the site conditions. This kills the Type I differing site conditions claim.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Next, the original drawings showed the potential presence of saturated soil and the job was on a floodplain.\u00a0\u00a0<strong>Based on this, a reasonable contractor would have performed a site inspection which, in turn, would have informed the contractor of the subsurface saturated soil conditions.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, boring logs that accompanied the contract stated that variations may exist between boring locations.\u00a0 Certain geotechnical information did indicate there would be hard unyielding material in excavation areas.\u00a0 \u201c[E]ven though the Contract indicated \u2018hard unyielding material\u2019 found at parts of the site, a reasonable and prudent contractor would not have understood the [C]ontract documents as providing an affirmative indication of the subsurface conditions to be nonsaturated at the site.\u00a0\u00a0<i>Meridian Engineering Co<\/i>., 885 F.3d at 1357 (internal citations omitted).\u00a0\u00a0<strong>Had the contractor undertaken a pre-bid site inspection, it reasonably would have foreseen a saturated soil condition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>This case demonstrates that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If the site conditions were reasonably foreseeable, perhaps with a pre-bid site visit, then there goes the claim. \u00a0And, presumably, the contract and accompanying geotechnical information will warrant a reasonable contractor to undertake a pre-bid site inspection (according to the\u00a0<em>Meridian\u00a0<\/em>court\u2019s reasoning).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>David Adelstein | Florida Construction Legal Updates | May 19, 2018 A\u00a0differing site condition\u00a0claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. \u00a0 \u00a0There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. \u00a0And there will\u00a0likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. &nbsp; A\u00a0Type I\u00a0differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove<\/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],"tags":[9895,8994],"class_list":["post-894363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-dispute","tag-advise-consult","tag-differing-site-conditions","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>Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim\" \/>\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\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-06-07T16:44:10+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=\"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\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-07T16:44:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\"},\"wordCount\":636,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"Differing Site Conditions\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Dispute\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\",\"name\":\"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-07T16:44:10+00:00\",\"description\":\"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim","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\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2018-06-07T16:44:10+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\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove","datePublished":"2018-06-07T16:44:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/"},"wordCount":636,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","Differing Site Conditions"],"articleSection":["Construction Dispute"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/","name":"Type 1 Differing Site Conditions Claim is not Easy to Prove - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-06-07T16:44:10+00:00","description":"This case shows that Type I differing site conditions claims are not simple to prove. If site conditions were reasonably foreseeable there goes the claim","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/type-1-differing-site-conditions-claim-not-easy-prove\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3KFd","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894363","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=894363"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894363\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":894364,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894363\/revisions\/894364"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}