# Understanding the General Conditions of the Construction Contract \[Exercise B\] Q9

**URL:** <https://community.blackspectacles.com/t/understanding-the-general-conditions-of-the-construction-contract-exercise-b-q9/7906>\
**Category:** Project Management\
**Tags:** real-world-practice\
**Created:** [August 20, 2026, 7:40am UTC](https://community.blackspectacles.com/t/understanding-the-general-conditions-of-the-construction-contract-exercise-b-q9/7906 "2026-08-20T07:40:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![knyckchau](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/community.blackspectacles.com/knyckchau/32/1604_2.png) [@knyckchau](https://community.blackspectacles.com/u/knyckchau)\
**Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 7:40am UTC](https://community.blackspectacles.com/t/understanding-the-general-conditions-of-the-construction-contract-exercise-b-q9/7906/1 "2026-08-20T07:40:04Z")

</div>

Two issues with the keyed answer (Owner pays per §3.7.4):

1. 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.
2. 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kiaragalicinao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/community.blackspectacles.com/kiaragalicinao/32/1607_2.png) [@kiaragalicinao](https://community.blackspectacles.com/u/kiaragalicinao)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2026, 4:49pm UTC](https://community.blackspectacles.com/t/understanding-the-general-conditions-of-the-construction-contract-exercise-b-q9/7906/2 "2026-08-27T16:49:59Z")

</div>

@knyckchau Thank you for your question! I replied to this thread here:

> [@PjM | Understanding the General Conditions of the Construction Contract \[Exercise B\]](https://community.blackspectacles.com/t/pjm-understanding-the-general-conditions-of-the-construction-contract-exercise-b/7630/2):
>
> @knyckchau wrote in with this question: The key distinction is that A201 §3.2.2 requires the contractor to become generally familiar with site conditions, but it does not require the contractor to perform exhaustive investigations or measurements to verify the Contract Documents. Here, the question establishes that the additional concrete was concealed by a temporary structure and was not reasonably discoverable when the original field measurement was taken. Given those stated facts, the cond…

We have dedicated threads for each Real-World Practice exercise, which you can access by clicking the “Discuss in the Community” button within the exercise on your dashboard. It’s a great way to ask questions and collaborate with peers in further discussions about the content.

Best,

Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB  
Product Coordinator  
**[Black Spectacles](https://www.blackspectacles.com/en-us/)**