Physical conditions beneath the Earth's surface can be difficult to predict. Project owners hire soil test borings and provide the logs from those borings to prospective bidders. But cost and restricted access limit the number and location of the borings. How much may a bidder infer from borings performed in a different section of the project? And to what extent can surface conditions alert bidders to possible problems?
The Federal Circuit recently addressed these issues on a government canal restoration project. The contractor’s inferences and assumptions relied on the boring logs from a different section of the project, but depressions in the surface should have alerted the contractor to subsidence in the area.
The second case in this issue involves a project owner’s refusal to pay for work performed by a subcontractor. The subcontractor completed the work with the owner’s knowledge and encouragement. The Arizona Supreme Court said it would be unjust for the owner to benefit from this work and pay no one for it.
The third case addresses the severity of disciplinary action against a wayward architect. The Nebraska Supreme Court said the falsification of continuing education documents warranted revoking the architect’s license for five years.
