Hidden ground conditions

1. Whether a Government construction contract containing the Differing Site Conditions clause, project-wide subsurface boring logs, drawings depicting construction traffic on the affected bank, and an amended solicitation authorizing barge-based work may be construed to make no representation whatsoever about the physical suitability of the affected bank for the construction operations the project required. 2. Whether the Federal Circuit may reject a Type I differing site condition claim as a matter of contract interpretation by treating the absence of a boring at the precise location of a latent failure as dispositive, notwithstanding evidence that the contract documents, read as a whole, indicated stable conditions suitable for top-of-bank construction operations. 3. Whether, in a Government-drafted construction contract containing ambiguous or incomplete site-condition information, the Government may avoid responsibility under the Differing Site Conditions clause by characterizing its own drawings, traffic designations, and available geotechnical information as nonrepresentative after performance reveals latent subsurface failures.