ARCOM

Abstracts – Browse Results

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...

Chow, L K and Ng, S T (2010) Delineating the performance standards of engineering consultants at design stage. Construction Management and Economics, 28(01), 11.

Hallowell, M (2010) Cost-effectiveness of construction safety programme elements. Construction Management and Economics, 28(01), 34.

Type: Journal Article
Keywords: bidding; contract claims; government contracts; site conditions; Type I claim
ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903406162
Abstract:
The United States government’s differing conditions clause poses extensive legal and financial risk. This contract clause addresses Type I and Type II unforeseen conditions. A Type I condition occurs when a latent physical condition materially differs from that condition indicated in the bidding documents. A Type II condition exists when an unknown physical condition has an unusual nature different from that condition generally encountered and naturally inhering in the contract work. The occurrence of either provides a contractor with the contractual right to file a claim for equitable contract adjustment. A contractor desiring to prevail, regarding a Type I claim, must properly comply with the Weeks Dredging proof elements. Chi-square statistical results, for 143 Type I differing conditions claims, provide empirical evidence that 79% of the contractors receive a disfavourable court award when challenging the United States government. Forty-four per cent of the reported cases cite the Weeks Dredging proof element, contractor did not act as a reasonably prudent contractor, as a basis for denying a contractor’s claim for equitable adjustment. This standard measures whether a reasonable contractor did or did not review and properly document all bidding documents.