The primary method for managing risks associated with latent physical conditions encountered in construction projects is the differing site conditions clause in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.236-2. Since fully redressable claims under specifically included contract clauses may not be brought under separate breach of contract claims, most claims for hidden site conditions are brought under the differing site conditions clause. However, certain federal contracts for smaller construction projects awarded through simplified procedures, and some custom-negotiated construction contracts may lack a well-defined differing site conditions clause. In such cases, contractors must pursue their claims arising out of unforeseen conditions, such as claims related to subsurface conditions under traditional breach of contract theories. Additionally, when faced with unforeseeable events like extreme and unpredictable weather or unanticipated changes in labor conditions that are not typically covered by the differing site conditions clause, construction contractors may opt to initiate breach of contract claims to recover their increased costs.

The Government’s non-disclosure or misrepresentation of information material to site conditions are two breach of contract actions available to construction contractors in such situations. To be successful in a non-disclosure claim, the construction contractor must demonstrate that the Government possessed information pertinent to a material site condition, which it failed to disclose to the contractor. The contractor must also establish that the presence of the material site condition could not have been readily determined through a site inspection or other reasonable methods. Government misrepresentation is the other breach of contract claim commonly applicable in contracts without a differing site conditions clause. A misrepresentation claim is essentially based on the Government breaching its duty to disclose its superior knowledge of the site condition. To prove that the Government breached its duty to disclose, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) has previously required that the contractor demonstrate Government culpability. One way of demonstrating Government culpability is by proving that the Government knew that the contractor was unaware of the differing site conditions. However, the Federal Circuit has recently rejected the Government culpability requirement, making contractor claims easier to prove in such situations. Therefore, depending upon the circumstances, the adjudicative forum’s analysis for a breach of contract claim for Government misrepresentation is similar if not identical to a differing site conditions claim.

Under the Spearin doctrine, when the government furnishes design specifications directing the contractor on how to undertake performance on a contract, it provides an implied warranty that the contractor will be able to perform the contract satisfactorily if it adheres to the government’s specifications. The doctrine allows contractors to transfer to the government the risk of increased costs resulting from defective specifications. Notably, however, the Spearin doctrine only applies when the defective specifications are design specifications as opposed to performance specifications. Design specifications expressly describe how contract performance must be undertaken and do not permit the contractor to make any deviations. Meanwhile, performance specifications state the overall objectives that must be achieved but leave the decisions on how to achieve those objectives at the discretion of the contractor. Since design specifications do not allow deviations or grant the contractor discretion in achieving contractual objectives, the government implicitly warrants that design specifications are free from defects. Consequently, when the government’s design specifications are defective or result in unsatisfactory performance the government is deemed to have breached its implied warranty of specifications under the Spearin doctrine. In such cases, the contractor may recover all proximate costs stemming from the government’s breach.

The government provides contractors with a variety of information during the solicitation process before a contract is awarded. Such information may be furnished through pre-award conferences, questions and answers, solicitation attachments, specifications, diagrams, drawings, contract provisions, etc. When the government misstates material facts during the contract formation process, it may later be liable under express provisions of the contract or for breaching an implied warranty that it furnishes correct information. In this regard, when the government provides incorrect representations and directs or expects prospective offerors to base their contract pricing on those misrepresentations, the government is responsible for any losses the contractor suffers as a result of its reliance on that information. In other words, when the government instructs offerors to base their pricing on data it furnishes, it assumes responsibility for ensuring that the data accurately reflects the conditions the contractor will encounter during performance. In such cases, as long as the contractor can demonstrate that the government's information was incorrect, it need not prove the government's intent to deceive or bad faith. Furthermore, the contractor may also not need to prove that the incorrect information was inadequately or negligently prepared.

Government contracts for construction projects typically include a Differing Site Conditions clause to account for the risk that the contractor may encounter unanticipated subsurface or otherwise latent physical conditions. The purpose of this clause is to discourage contractors from inflating their pricing on account of unexpected physical conditions that may or may not arise. The clause contemplates two types of differing site conditions. In a type I condition, the contractor encounters physical conditions materially different from those specified in the contract. Meanwhile, a type II condition is unknown, unusual, and materially different from that ordinarily encountered. To successfully recover under a type I differing site conditions claim, the contractor must establish five elements by a preponderance of the evidence. The contractor must establish that: (1) a reasonable contractor reading the contract as a whole would interpret it as making a representation as to the site conditions; (2) the actual site conditions were not reasonably foreseeable to the contractor with the information available to it outside the contract documents; (3) the contractor in fact relied on the contract representation; (4) the conditions differed materially from those represented; and (5) the contractor suffered damages as a result.