Differing Site Conditions Part II

A contract that places the risk of differing site conditions on the contractor can still be profitable, but all of the bidders should be aware of the risks associated with the project.  If a bidder is concerned that the owner intends to place the risk of unforeseen conditions on the contractor, then the issue should be raised with the owner for clarification prior to the bid, e.g. at the pre-bid conference.  If the bid documents do not contain a differing site conditions clause, and/or changes clause, the owner should be asked whether the omission was intentional.  In this manner, even if the absence of the clauses was intentional, at least all of the bidders will be alerted to the increased risk associated with the contract, and all will be on equal footing.  It would be patently unfair for an owner to intentionally take advantage of the bid process by encouraging a bidder to submit a low price under the mistaken belief that the contract will allow an equitable adjustment if a differing site condition is encountered, while the other bidders included a risk contingency factor absent from the low bid.  Bidders who fail to understand the significance of a differing site conditions clause, a changes clause, (or more precisely the significance if the clauses are absent from their contract) are at great risk, as the “successful” bidder may not be able to obtain an equitable adjustment if a differing site condition is encountered.



Trenton H. Cotney
Board Certified in Construction Law
Trent Cotney, P.A.
1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 579-3278

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Dotted Line: When Contractors Can Walk Off the Job

"Mass-timber" Sees Greater Use in Roofing and Construction Projects in Europe