owner of a potential DSC. This time is termed the “notification period,” and it is getting ever shorter — used to usually be 21 days and has gradually shortened to 24 hours in some instances, which is a difficult, if not impossible, criterion for the contractor to meet. Kalson opined that the most effective approach to recover from a DSC claim is related to the Doctrine of Superior Knowledge. In essence, what an owner knows can hurt them. If the owner has infor- mation that was not provided (e.g., addi- tional geotechnical reports that exist for that particular jobsite or for surrounding job- sites) to the contractor at the time of bidding, the contractor can recover from the DSC because of its lack of knowledge of the information that was available to the owner. Kalson concluded with two items that are essential to improving the current situation: 1. Greater investment in subsurface investi- gations (i.e., pay me now or pay me later) 2. Define a more reasonable notification time The General Contractor’s Perspective Steve Saye, P.E., senior geotechnical engi- neer at Kiewit Engineering Group, pro- vided the perspective of the general contractor. Saye suggested that everyone’s interest is best served by having the project team focus on how to deal with subsurface conditions rather than spending time and effort defining the subsurface conditions. He offered a solution that should be universally applied to address risk appropriately — utilizing a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) is an effective way to manage subsurface risk. Using an example of the construction of about 16 mi (25.8 km) of elevated highway in Hawaii, Saye shared the benefit of having and using a GBR, which was based on soil borings at intervals ranging from 500 to 1,000 ft (152 to 305 m) along the alignment. The GBR The easiest way to win a DSC is related to the Doctrine of Superior Knowledge. What they know can hurt them. provided ground conditions that could be easily visualized, and the estimating team could reasonably understand the conditions to be addressed. In this case, the GBR provided soil profiles, not just soil boring logs, which showed what subsurface conditions could be expected between boring locations for preparation of the bid. The owner’s reasoning for using the GBR was to help define the contractual ground rule for the bidding process, which related to the allocation of the geotechnical risks as opposed to merely the definition of the geotech- nical risks. Therefore, the contractor was able to rely on the baseline informat ion when Rick Kalson preparing the proposal. The Specialty Contractor’s Perspective George Burke, P.E., senior risk manager at Hayward Baker, spoke to the perspective of the specialty geotechnical contractor. Throughout his tenure, he has observed a wide variation in the quality and thoroughness of geotechnical site inves- tigations. Burke noted that specialty contractors must increase their prices to account for risk, and this is especially the case when the sub- surface characterization is inadequate. Regardless of what a The use of a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) is the best way to manage subsurface risk. site investigation reveals, the subsurface conditions are what they are, which are exactly what will be encountered during construction. For example, a specialty contractor may drill more than 1,000 holes for a ground improvement system for a project in which the geotechnical investigation compr i sed three soi l borings. Not surprisingly, DSCs a re f requent ly encountered while the work is going on thereby Steve Saye requiring quick decision making. Time is critical. In some cases, the DSC may render ineffective the ground modification technique being applied by the specialty contractor. The majority of the panelists agreed that the responsibility for changes in subsurface conditions should remain with the owner. Burke noted that this was in the best interest of all parties, including the owner. The Geotechnical Engineering The specialty contractor may drill over 1,000 holes for a ground improvement system on a project where the geotechnical investigation Consultant’s Perspective Victor Donald, P.E., senior vice president and senior principal at Terracon Con- sultants and chair of the DFI Subsurface Characterization for Deep Foundations Committee, concluded the panel dis- cussion from the perspective of the geotechnical engineering consultant. As the national director for geotechnical services, he represented the perspective of more than 500 geotechnical consultants across the U.S. He noted the various ambiguities that prevail in this work, such as the term “Geotechnical Engineer of Record,” which is difficult to understand when one firm performs the exploration and subsurface characterization, another provides geotechnical designs, and yet another is engaged during construction to observe the 1,000 drill holes made by the specialty contractor, as mentioned by Burke. Donald agreed consisted of three soil borings. George Burke with Saye and the other panelists in that proper sub- surface characteri- zation is essential for the best competitive construction bids, and that the concept of a GBR can pro- vide great value to a project. However, the GBR, as it is understood and used today, is also ambiguous, with the industry having little understanding of its value as a con- tract document as it is currently being used in practice. The time has come for a standardization of the GBR concept, and it should include a thorough review of the geologic setting, with ample provision of publicly available information and exploration work performed near the site. Using Kalson’s suggestion that an easy and effective way to recover from a DSC claim is via the Doctrine DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2018 • 85
