Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 
 

Uncompactable Soilwas A Differing Site Condition, But Contaminated Asphalt Was Not

Sunday, October 04, 2009 06:15 pm

 
Uncompactable Soilwas A Differing Site Condition, But Contaminated Asphalt Was Not

It is common to think of a Type I differing site condition as one that differs materially from that expressly shown or indicated in the contract. The following case reaffirms that a Type I condition clause also extends to implied contractual representations.

In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, European District (the Corps), hired HSG Technischer Service GmbH (HSG) for barracks renovations and associated site improvements in Stuttgart, Germany. The contracted work included reconstruction of roads and other paved services. HSG tested the underlying soil and found that some areas could not be compacted enough for the necessary load bearing capacity. Thus, HSG had to improve the native soil, which increased its costs beyond its original estimate by 150,000 Euros. Arguing the uncompactable soil constituted a differing site condition, the contractor sought an equitable adjustment to co [...]

 
› Next article: 
 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
 
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close