As prescribed in 36.503, insert the following clause:
Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work (APR 1984)
(a) The Contractor acknowledges that it has taken steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work, and that it has investigated and satisfied itself as to the general and local conditions which can affect the work or its cost, including but not limited to (1) conditions bearing upon transportation, disposal, handling, and storage of materials; (2) the availability of labor, water, electric power, and roads; (3) uncertainties of weather, river stages, tides, or similar physical conditions at the site; (4) the conformation and conditions of the ground; and (5) the character of equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during work performance. The Contractor also acknowledges that it has satisfied itself as to the character, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be encountered insofar as this information is reasonably ascertainable from an inspection of the site, including all exploratory work done by the Government, as well as from the drawings and specifications made a part of this contract. Any failure of the Contractor to take the actions described and acknowledged in this paragraph will not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty and cost of successfully performing the work, or for proceeding to successfully perform the work without additional expense to the Government.
(b) The Government assumes no responsibility for any conclusions or interpretations made by the Contractor based on the information made available by the Government. Nor does the Government assume responsibility for any understanding reached or representation made concerning conditions which can affect the work by any of its officers or agents before the execution of this contract, unless that understanding or representation is expressly stated in this contract.
(End of clause)
[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 34761, July 3, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 6× “DX 1 at 34 (incorporating 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (a)). 15 RDA justifies the failure to conduct an independent inspection, explaining that most of the deterioration affecting the wharf could not be observed from the deck’s surface.”
H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
“See 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (1997). That clause provides in pertinent part as follows: (a) The Contractor acknowledges that it has taken steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work, and that it has investigated and satisfied itself as to the general…”
S. Comfort Builders, Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 124 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, the clause at 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (Apr.1984) (incorporated by reference into the contract through 48 C.”
Manuel Bros. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (a). The plaintiffs expert confirmed that if a contractor does not inform itself of the soil conditions at a project site, they assume the risk of the type of soil a contractor will encounter.”
Hoffman Constr. Co. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 184 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” JX 2 at 81; 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (a). Bidders were also informed that GSA would be conducting two guided building tours on specified dates but that “[inspection of the existing building plans as noted elsewhere is to be coordinated separately.”
North Slope Technical Ltd. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 242 (Ct. Cl. 1988).
“236-3, 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (1986); 25 (2) North Slope should *253 have obtained additional data on subsurface conditions from the Office of the Alaska District Engineer in Anchorage (the availability of which was pointed out in the bidding documents); (3) North Slope lacked an…”
Hahnenkamm, LLC v. United States, 104 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
“48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 . Those provisions also re- lieve the Government from responsibility of conclusions made by the contractor and clarify the Government is not responsible for “any understanding reached or representa- tion made concerning conditions .”
Rma Eng'g S.A.R.L v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 . 5 In addition, the Contract incorporated a number of other standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions, including FAR 52.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3(a) — 1 case
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“DX 1 at 34 (incorporating 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (a)). 15 RDA justifies the failure to conduct an independent inspection, explaining that most of the deterioration affecting the wharf could not be observed from the deck’s surface.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3(b) — 1 case
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“DX 1 at 34 (incorporating 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-3 (a)). 15 RDA justifies the failure to conduct an independent inspection, explaining that most of the deterioration affecting the wharf could not be observed from the deck’s surface.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.