Follow Cohen Seglias on LinkedIn Follow Cohen Seglias on LinkedIn
Follow Cohen Seglias on Twitter Follow Cohen Seglias on Twitter
Follow Cohen Seglias on Facebook Follow Cohen Seglias on Facebook
Follow Cohen Seglias on Youtube Follow Cohen Seglias on Youtube
30 Years in Business
Learn more About Us
Browse by Last Name
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

    Government Contracting Database

    Bid – Anticipating Costs

    Because the differing site conditions clause alleviates the need for contractors to insert speculative contingency costs in their bids, it reduces inflated bidding, and the government presumably saves money by getting lower bids. See Youngdale & Sons Constr. Co. v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 516, 527 (1993); North Slope, 14 Cl.Ct. at 257; Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193, 219 (1987), aff’d, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Weeks ). The government may further reduce the contractor’s need to pay its bid by furnishing as much information about the site to the bidders as it can. Youngdale, 27 Fed.Cl. at 527. Iacobelli Const., Inc. v. Cty. of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 23–24 (2d Cir. 1994). Contractors are not bound to know that which only an expert could derive from the bidding materials. North Slope Technical Ltd. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 242, 252 (1988).

    Updated: July 25, 2018

    Looking for additional government contracting resources?

    Search Our Database

    Capabilities