Two issues with the keyed answer (Owner pays per §3.7.4):
- The 10,000 sf was the GC’s own field measurement. A Type I differing condition requires the actual condition to differ from the Contract Documents, but no document ever indicated 10,000 sf, so there’s nothing for the 16,000 sf to “differ” from.
- The GC calling it “concealed” doesn’t make a structure concealed in the legal sense. In the GC’s own words, the structure was temporary. A temporary structure is readily identifiable as such on a site visit. This isn’t a case where a permanent structure was later removed and changed the scope. The GC should’ve known at bid time that part of the plaza couldn’t be measured. The prudent move is an RFI for the obstructed area, not an unqualified number. That’s a known unknown and a duty-to-inquire situation, not a Type I concealed condition. If a box on the table blocks part of the surface, you don’t guess the tabletop area and complain later — you either try to measure it or you ask.
As written, isn’t this a bid due-diligence failure under §3.2.2 (GC pays) rather than a compensable concealed or differing site condition?
Many thanks in advance.