56
Geotechnical News • March 2016
GEO-INTEREST
A defensive measure common to many
(if not most geotechnical reports in
Canada at least) is the use of “fine
print” in the form a disclaimer type
section at the end of the report titled
“Statement of Limitations and Condi-
tions” (or similar) dealing with such
topics as standard of care; use of the
report; interpretation of the report; risk
limitation; services of sub consultants
and contractors; control of work and
job-site safety, etc. Another example
of this, is that drawings generally
include notations to the effect that the
soil conditions have been established
only at borehole locations and that
they may vary between boreholes.
An important defensive measure for
younger engineers (whether in the
consulting field or employed by Own-
ers, Designers or Contractors) is to
be familiar with in-house precedent.
This can be accessed through study of
archives, or through individual senior
representatives or internal review
boards. It begins with critical check-
ing and review of all phases of the
work on a given project, including
the administrative aspects. Review by
external, independent experts is also
a well-established prudent measure
whether initiated by engineers in the
consulting field or by Owners who
establish Advisory Panels or Geotech-
nical Review Boards, e.g. Syncrude
Canada Ltd’s Geotechnical Review
Board. (McKenna, 1998). In larger
Geotechnical consulting organizations,
special mentoring sessions can also be
used to advantage.
Amatter of considerable importance
identified by many authors on the topic
of dispute resolution, is communica-
tion in a number of significant respects.
Firstly, in maintaining close contact
with the client and thus the project
on which service has been provided,
and then in the follow-through liaison
with the Designers, involvement dur-
ing construction in a monitoring role,
and in post-construction monitoring.
(Geotechnical Engineers associated
with organizations, other than those
in the consulting sector, may have
good opportunities to see projects
through all of these phases). Secondly,
in recording via appropriate written
communication all relevant aspects and
discussions of the consultant’s involve-
ment in the project and thirdly, in the
choice of terminology used in engi-
neering reports or other project cor-
respondence. Good advice on possible
pitfalls is provided by Insurers e.g. XL
Insurance 2004 and the Legal Profes-
sion, e.g. Stieber, 1997 and the Loss
Control Bulletins by Legal Experts
contained in Naismith, 1986. A quote
from this Reference is of particular
interest, namely
“Problem solving in
engineering is principally by means of
numerical and graphical procedures
while problem solving in law is almost
entirely by means of words.”
Signifi-
cantly, XL Insurance 2013 indicates
that communications issues are a
primary factor in 39% of claims count
and 29% of claims dollars.
Various geotechnical experts have
presented standards, rules, guidelines,
or “commandments” purportedly to
assist geotechnical engineers to stay
out of difficulty but also to benefit
Owners, Designers and Contractors,
as end-users. Cases in point include
Koutsoftas, 1998, Naismith, 1986, and
Matich, 1997.
Commentary
In terms of resolution of disputes
involving geotechnical projects, it
is pertinent to note that within the
Authors’ collective experience, several
thousands of such projects have been
completed successfully, including
some where significant problems were
encountered and resolved expedi-
tiously and to the satisfaction of all of
the parties involved. A comparatively
small number of projects became
contentious with potentially serious
consequences and required resolution
by ADR methods or, in the extreme,
resolution through litigation. The
Authors believe that this experience
is probably representative of others in
consulting geotechnical engineering
practice in Canada.
Comments by way of summing up are
listed in brief below.
i. Effective communications with
the End-user: This is important
particularly in the early stages.
Ideally, it should continue through-
out the service life of a project.
ii. Research the site background: A
good understanding of the lo-
cal (site) and regional geology
together with the history of the site
and environs is vital.
iii. Scope of the Site Investigation:
This should be adequate enough to
investigate site features reflected
in the geological and historical
assessments, as well as the require-
ments of the Project from design,
construction and operational
standpoints.
iv. Know End-User Requirements:
Applied Geo-technical engineer-
ing is generally not carried out in
isolation but for a specific end use.
It is important to know the design,
construction, and operational
aspects of a Project (as applicable)
and the particular characteristics of
the many end-uses to which geo-
technical engineering is applied.
v. Know Specialized Techniques:
These interface with applied geo-
technics in a wide range of ways.
vi. Maximize Involvement: Take
advantage of every opportunity
(preferably through direct means
such as work on specific projects)
to learn about the various end-uses
to which geotechnology is applied.
vii. Adequate Documentation: It is
of vital importance to cover all
aspects of applied geotechnical
engineering on a given project
with appropriate documentation,
obviously in the contractural terms
of reference, but also in all other
steps throughout involvement in
the Project.
viii.
Technical Findings: Ad-
equacy and accuracy of the facts
are obviously essential, as are ap-
plication of appropriate analytical
