Basic HTML Version
www.geotechnicalnews.com
Geotechnical News • March 2013
35
GROUNDWATER
Figure 2. Sketch of the excavation: plan view of the hidden pit full of
rubbish.
were not as severe as nowadays. Yet,
the incurred extra expenses were
unexpected and significant. For the
engineering company, it meant that
their fees had to be increased because
the cost of the project was increased.
Dispute and settlement
The contractor threatened to sue the
owners, who threatened to sue the
geotechnical company. The consulting
engineer threatened to sue the geo-
technical company, but took care to
not threaten the owners. The discus-
sion between the three parties and
their attorneys quickly progressed, but
without informing or calling upon the
professional liability insurance. Dur-
ing the first meeting, the head of the
geotechnical company acknowledged
that only BH-1 and -5 were real, the
three other BHs being hypothetical.
Considering the similarity of initial
results (stratigraphy, nature of soils,
compactness, and water table posi-
tion), the geotechnical company had
decided to fabricate the logs of the last
3 BHs, based on the results of the first
two BHs.
The debate about the incurred costs
was especially interesting. The
attorney of the geotechnical company
made it clear that, whatever his client
had done, the dump was real. There-
fore, even if the owners had known its
presence before hiring the contractor,
the rubbish had to be excavated, and
replaced with an acceptable com-
pacted backfill. At the end of the first
meeting, the confusion and embarrass-
ment were palpable.
During the second meeting, the discus-
sion focused on the delays due to lack
of preparation, increased financial
needs to negotiate with the bank and
related extra costs, etc. After that, a
confidential agreement was reached
between the three parties at a third and
final meeting.
Conclusion
This case history teaches us a few
things. First, unprofessional work
may be kept secret. Here, it received
a financial penalty, in private, but this
did not harm the professional’s stand-
ing. Next, since the professional never
called upon his professional liability
insurance, one may infer that the
unprofessional work never produced
an increased premium. Finally, since
both the case and its settlement never
went public, as they would have
in court, the professional order or
corporation was kept unaware of the
situation. This is a negative aspect of
the confidentiality rules, which work
against the order or corporation’s man-
date to protect the public.
References
Chapuis R.P. 2010. Using a leak-
ing pool for a huge falling–head
permeability test. Engineering
Geology, 114(1–2): 65–70.