7. Upon learning of the project, Edward Cruz and another officer of the corporation, Evaristo Cruz, picked up available contract documents from Huth, reviewed the documents and inspected the job site with those documents in hand.
8. Cruz bid $10.00 per square foot for removal of rock from trenches within a two-foot pay width.
9. Upon commencement of the work, Cruz encountered rock at much higher levels than were indicated on the test borings shown on the plans. As a consequence, Cruz removed 27,124 cubic yards of rock from the two-foot pay width, not 8,050 as was estimated.
10. The Authority paid Cruz for all of the 27,124 cubic yards of rock removed, at the rate of $10.00 per cubic yard.
11. Cruz advised the Authority and Huth fully as to the difference in the subsurface rock conditions.
12. Cruz was forced to employ more costly and time-consuming techniques to remove the rock because of the greater quantity of rock removed as opposed to that which it would have been obliged to remove had the rock been as indicated by the test borings.
13. Cruz was also required to excavate rock from a greater width than the estimated two-foot pay width, and was, therefore, required to backfill the increased trench area with stone and to pave and restore the surface over a greater than anticipated area.
14. Jack McSherry, who was employed as Chief Construction Engineer, testified in deposition that test borings in Lancaster County were extremely unreliable because of the unpredictable nature of rock in Lancaster County, but there was no warning in the contract documents as to such unreliability. Furthermore, McSherry testified that no test boring results can ever be used to accurately estimate rock quantity unless such borings are taken at five-foot intervals.
15. McSherry testified further that he could not understand why the borings were included in the plans or why the estimate was computed to be 8,050 cubic yards, instead of a round figure such as 8,000 or even 10,000, in light of the extreme unreliability of such test borings in the Lancaster County area.
16. Allen Forbes, Executive Director of the Authority, testified that he was responsible for estimating the quantity of rock and that he based his estimate on the test borings. He also testified that no rock overrun in the entire sewer project was as great as that in this case.
17. Forbes testified further that he was informed during the construction of the sewer that Cruz was encountering more rock than that which had been estimated.
18. Calvin Levis, President of Huth, testified that Huth generally does not utilize test borings because of their great unreliability, and that it was a mistake to include such information in the plans.
19. Elmer Wagner, Vice President of Huth, testified that Huth occasionally makes test borings but does not include such information in plans.
20. Cruz did not obtain a written work order prior to performing the additional work necessitated by the overrun of rock.
21. Cruz did not submit a claim for this work along with its first estimate after completion of its work.
On these facts, Cruz contends that it based its bid of $10.00 per square yard upon the information in the contract documents, including the test borings and the estimate of 8,050 square yards of rock to be removed from the two-foot pay width.
The Authority counters that there are two reasons why Cruz cannot recover. First, the contract documents preclude reliance on the information, and such information is excluded from the contract documents by the terms of the documents. Second, plaintiff was required to obtain a written work order to perform the extra work and was required to submit a claim for this work with the first estimate after the work was completed.
The documents do include exculpatory clauses regarding physical conditions of the construction site. There are four pertinent provisions in the "Information for Bidders" section of the specifications. They are:
"10. CONDITIONS OF WORK
Each bidder must inform himself fully of the conditions relating to the construction of the project and the employment of labor thereon. Failure to do so will not relieve a successful bidder of his obligation to furnish all material and labor necessary to carry out the provisions of his contract. Insofar as possible the contractor, in carrying out his work, must employ such methods or means as will not cause any interruption of or interference with the work of any other contractor.