expert in Washington, D.C., in July 1967. This position, however, was abolished in October 1968 when GSA decentralized its contract administration to the GSA regions. The in-house expert's responsibilities included

--establishing a system to monitor the adequacy of subsurface testing,

--reviewing the adequacy of the testing orogram for
individual projects,

--providing onsite expertise if subsurface problems
developed, and

--providing expert testimony before GSA's Board of
Contract Appeals.

Because of continued costly foundation design and construction problems, GSA hired a consultant to analyze eight public building projects and to identify methods of minimizing these problems. The consultant's report, dated March 22, 1976, discussed the causes of these problems and contained recommendations to assist GSA in minimizing such problems in the future. One of these recommendations was that GSA develop an in-house expertise in soil engineering. In addition he recommended that SA

--stop relying on the contractor for all aspects of
foundation support systems and

--insure that the architect and the construction con-
tractor have soil engineering expertise.

As of October 1, 1976, GSA officials had not decided whether to implement these recommendations. Correspondence from GSA's regional offices generally favors the development of in-house expertise, either centrally or on a regional basis.

ADDITIONAL TESTS WOULD HAVE

REDUCED POTENTIAL LIABILITY

The Government is not responsible for additional costs or time delays under the differing site conditions contract clause unless the contractor experiences unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, differing materially from those specified in the contract documents or those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the work being performed.

In this case, the contractor argued that the volume of water encountered, the existence of certain underground obstructions, and certain other problems were conditions which were not and could not be anticipated during his bid formulation. The contractor could argue that these conditions were unusual and not his responsibility unless they were identified during subsurface tests and specified in the contract documents.

The absence of specific data in the contract, however, does not necessarily establish Government liability. GSA believed that the conditions encountered were not unuscal for the construction location. If GSA had demonstrated that the contractor knew or should have known that these conditions existed, the Government's potential liability would have been significantly reduced.