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