to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, building codes, and rules and regu lations.” Although SES had no duty to verify that the prevailing wage rates were in accordance with the law, SES had a duty, as we note above, under the contract to know local conditions and matters affecting cost, which would include labor. Section 3.12.3 does not relieve SES of this duty. SES further asserts that the case law supports its contention that it can recover damages from the City for providing the incorrect prevailing wage rate even though the contract required SES to investigate local conditions and know matters affecting cost. See Shintech Inc. v. Group Constr., Inc., 688 S.W.2d 144, 150 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ) (<HOLDING>); IT Corp. v. Motco Site Trust Fund, 903
holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor holding that contractor could recover damages from owner for misrepresenting site conditions despite contractors right to investigate site before bidding because owner represented that data it included in contract was sufficient information for contractor to prepare its bid holding that contractor could recover damages from owner for losses due to delay although contractor agreed to assume responsibility for timely completing work for agreed compensation because owner agreed to be liable for causing delays in contractors work schedule holding that where owner and contractor frequently discussed progress of construction project and advancement of money by owner to contractor and contractor misappropriated some of the money debt was not excepted from discharge under bankruptcy code  523a2 because owner did not show that contractor had intent not to perform when the agreement was made