← Back to overall timeline
Increment 0410 May 2027Recreation Center / HVACGood path

Conflict prevented; differing-site-condition REA

Trainees prevented the stage/HVAC conflict, but Outer Heaven now invokes the Differing Site Conditions clause and seeks $21,600 after a delivery opening shown on the Government-furnished floor plan proved to be sealed.

Scenario descriptions

The situation, for each audience

Keep the trainer context out of trainee packets and read-aloud materials.

Trainee facing · Read aloud

Current situation

Because you compared A-02 with B-02 and B-03, identified the shared overhead-space conflict, and changed one requirement before award, you prevented the Government from buying two incompatible completed systems.

Your team incorporated either A-06, which lowers the stage top and support grid, or B-05, which reroutes the HVAC distribution around the western stage area. The selected revision was placed in the affected task-order package before you said both packages were ready to award.

The completed stage and HVAC system now clear one another, and neither contractor must perform avoidable rework. During HVAC equipment delivery, however, Zanzibar Mechanical discovers that the vehicle-sized eastern opening shown on the Government-furnished Recreation Center floor plan is not available for delivery. Outer Heaven planned its delivery and the subcontractor's fabrication sequence around the 12-foot bay shown on that drawing.

At the delivery site, Outer Heaven immediately emails the Contracting Officer under FAR 52.236-2. The message states in present tense that the physical condition differs from the Government-furnished drawing, preserves the wall for inspection, and warns that mitigation is creating additional cost. To maintain the required completion date, Zanzibar disassembles the prefabricated air-handling unit, carries the components through personnel doors, and reassembles and retests it inside.

Outer Heaven Builders then submits a $21,600 request for equitable adjustment under the Differing Site Conditions clause. It characterizes the sealed opening as a latent physical condition materially different from the contract drawing, references its timely notice, and requests no time extension. You do not personally recall ever having seen bay doors in that building. Decide whether the Government should accept or reject the request, and explain why.

Trainer only · Do not issue

Facilitator context

Use at Increment 4 only when the team identified the interface, incorporated either A-06 or B-05, and then said both packages were ready to award. Begin by crediting the team for the specific preventive revision it selected, then issue AG-01, AG-02, and AG-03. AG-03 is deliberately timely and precedes mitigation, so trainees may not dispose of the request merely for late notice. The remembered absence of bay doors is only a nudge; do not volunteer a site visit or the condition of the eastern wall.

Release AG-04 only if trainees ask whether a site visit occurred, whether Outer Heaven attended, what the eastern wall looked like before award, or for equivalent photographs or attendance evidence. AG-04 shows both the prime's attendance and a plainly visible masonry wall where AG-02 depicts the two bay openings. Walk FAR 52.236-2 in order: notice is satisfied, but the visible wall was neither a latent condition nor an unknown unusual condition. B-02 and FAR 52.236-3 required verification of reasonably ascertainable access and handling conditions, and FAR 52.236-21 required the contractor to submit the visible drawing/site discrepancy before relying on its own interpretation. Those facts support rejection for lack of entitlement.

Offer only acceptance or rejection, and ask trainees to justify the selection before revealing the outcome. Accepting without investigating the pre-award visibility record is poor analysis. Rejecting is strong only if grounded in the clause's defined conditions and the AG-04/site-investigation facts—not merely firm-fixed-price status, a belief that the Government drawing never matters, or an incorrect assertion that notice was late. If accepted, require support, funds, and a written bilateral supplemental agreement; a written REA rejection is not automatically a contracting officer's final decision on a claim.

Trainer clue bank

Regulatory signposts

8 sources

Direct trainees to a citation when they need a narrower clue. Have them apply the contract’s actual clauses, current thresholds, local policy, and the facts before treating any signpost as dispositive.

Release 01

Give initially

3 records

These establish the decision without answering the factual questions trainees should identify.

AG-01

Outer Heaven differing-site-condition REA and cost summary

Requests a $21,600 price adjustment under FAR 52.236-2, incorporates the contractor's mitigation costs, references its prompt AG-03 notice, and requests no completion-date extension.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
View PDF Download PDF Download Word
AG-02

A-03 Government-furnished Recreation Center floor plan

Reissues the same A-03 floor plan that formed part of the HVAC requirement package and shows two 12-foot bay openings on the eastern wall.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
View PDF Download PDF Download Word
AG-03

Contemporaneous differing-site-condition notice

A present-tense email sent before the wall is disturbed or delivery mitigation begins. It identifies the drawing/site difference, invokes FAR 52.236-2, preserves the condition for inspection, and warns that additional costs are being incurred to maintain the required schedule.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
View PDF Download PDF Download Word

Release 02 · Oral inject

Trainer addition

1 prompt

Give only after trainees have read and discussed the event. Use it to narrow attention without disclosing the answer.

After trainees discuss the initial REA record, ask: ‘What is the difference between a patent condition and a latent condition, and why does that distinction matter here?’ Do not define the terms for them immediately. If needed, direct them to FAR 52.236-2 and FAR 52.236-3, then ask what preaward evidence would show whether the sealed opening was reasonably observable.

Release 03

Give only after trainee prompting

1 record

Use the prompt as a release gate; close-enough trainee questions should count when they seek the same underlying fact.

Prompt / triggerHandoutExercise purpose
PromptAsk whether a site visit occurred, whether Outer Heaven attended, what the eastern wall looked like before award, or for photographs or attendance evidence
HandoutAG-04
Preproposal site-visit photograph and attendance record
Draft document availablePDF · 2 pages · Editable Word copy
View PDF Download PDF Download Word
PurposeShows Outer Heaven's attendance and a plainly visible masonry wall where AG-02 depicts the two bay openings, supplying the intended factual basis for denial.

Facilitation lens

What a strong analysis should surface

  1. A targeted pre-award design revision prevents conflicting Government requirements from becoming contractor rework.
  2. AG-02 makes Government responsibility facially plausible, and AG-03 prevents an easy rejection based on untimely notice. FAR 52.236-2(a) still requires the asserted condition to fit one of the clause's two defined categories.
  3. Outer Heaven characterizes the sealed opening as a Type I latent physical condition materially different from the Government-furnished floor plan. The Contracting Officer must promptly investigate after notice; timely notice alone does not establish that a plainly observable wall was latent or that the contractor is entitled to an adjustment.
  4. The trainee's lack of personal memory of bay doors is a prompt to seek evidence, not evidence by itself. Do not reveal AG-04 unless the team asks an equivalent pre-award visibility question.
  5. Differing-site-condition fact 1 - AG-03 is prompt written notice before the condition is disturbed, so rejection merely for late notice is not supportable.
  6. Differing-site-condition fact 2 - AG-04 proves that Outer Heaven attended the preproposal site visit and that two masonry-infilled former bays were plainly visible from the Government-led route before proposal submission.
  7. Differing-site-condition fact 3 - B-02 required field verification of access; FAR 52.236-3 places reasonably ascertainable transportation, handling, access, and facility conditions within the contractor's site-investigation responsibility.
  8. Differing-site-condition fact 4 - The visible wall conflicted with AG-02/A-03. FAR 52.236-21 required the discrepancy to be promptly submitted to the Contracting Officer; the intended record contains no pre-award inquiry or written determination.
  9. Differing-site-condition conclusion - On the complete intended record, the sealed opening was patent rather than latent or unknown. It therefore does not fit FAR 52.236-2(a)(1) or (a)(2), and the contractor assumed the reasonably ascertainable delivery condition. Entitlement fails before quantum is evaluated.
  10. The contractor's disassembly and reassembly mitigated delay and preserved the required completion date, so AG-01 requests $21,600 but no time. Mitigation may make a supported cost reasonable; it does not create entitlement.
  11. Accepting without investigating the visible-condition evidence is a poor decision. Rejecting is strong only when trainees articulate the clause elements and developed facts rather than relying on firm-fixed-price status or ignoring the timely notice. A written REA denial is not automatically a contracting officer's final decision on a claim.
  12. For any accepted adjustment, verify support and funds, negotiate as appropriate, and execute a funded bilateral supplemental agreement consistent with FAR 43.103 and 43.204.

Trainer-controlled decision menu

Available response options

2 options

Offer options in plain language and accept equivalent trainee analysis. Do not reveal the assessment labels. Use each availability gate before accepting a contextual response, and use the trainer line to redirect a superfluous answer immediately.

How to run this node: First credit the team for incorporating A-06 or B-05, then issue AG-01, AG-02, and AG-03. AG-03 supplies timely notice under the Differing Site Conditions clause. Offer only acceptance or rejection and ask the team to justify its selection before revealing the consequence. Do not mention AG-04; release it only if trainees ask an equivalent site-visit, attendance, photograph, or pre-award visibility question.

AG1Weak

Accept the $21,600 Differing Site Conditions REA as submitted.

Available when
Initially available
Trainer line
“AG-02 and timely AG-03 make the request facially plausible, but accepting without investigating whether the condition was latent or plainly observable skips FAR 52.236-2(b). AG-04 shows that the contractor attended the site visit and could see the infilled openings; the condition was not latent or unknown. The Government would pay $21,600 despite failed entitlement.”
Leads next
After the team explains its rationale, identify the missed investigation and entitlement error. Execute the modeled $21,600 bilateral adjustment only as the consequence of that decision; no later branch follows.
AG2Strong

Reject the $21,600 Differing Site Conditions REA.

Available when
Initially available as a disposition; fully supported after trainees request and use AG-04
Trainer line
“AG-03 was timely, so lateness is not the reason. AG-04 shows a patent masonry wall visible at the attended site visit; FAR 52.236-3 placed reasonably ascertainable access and handling conditions on the contractor, and FAR 52.236-21 required prompt submission of the drawing discrepancy. The condition therefore does not fit either FAR 52.236-2(a) category.”
Leads next
Require the team to explain the clause elements and evidence, then issue a written REA rejection. If the team rejects merely because the order is firm-fixed-price or because it incorrectly treats AG-03 as late, identify that as the right selection for the wrong reason; no later branch follows.