Geotechnical Reports

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 04:15 pm:    I am constantly fighting to get the geotechnical report out of the Contract Documents. So many people - owners, consultants and architects included, feel a need to incorporate these reports - what amounts to a set of recommenations and opinions. Is there a really good article anyone knows of that walks through the pros and cons of doing this (heavily slanted towards the con side of things)? I have searched the CSI Specifier database several times and come up empty. I am looking for something I can send to folks for their edifcation, rather than have to explain it over and over again. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: Lynn_javoroski Post Number: 29 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 04:27 pm:    The CSI MOP lists "Information Available to Bidders" under Bidding Requirements. Bidding Requirements are not part of the Contract Documents (in an ideal world) but are included in the Project Manual. See FF030 and the figures CD-2 and CD-3. FF050 has more information and the article "Information Available to Bidders" could be copied and sent to clients/owners. I have also simply included a reference to a geotechnical report in the Instructions to Bidders and indicated that it was available for review at some location. Robert E. Woodburn, RA, CCS, CCCA,CSI Senior Member Username: Bob_woodburn Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 05:41 pm:    For everyone's convenience, I often include the soil report in the Project Manual, introduced by, and immediately following, Document 00300 Information Available to Bidders - but I always include some form of the following disclaimer in that document: "The information and recommendations in this report are the sole responsibility of the Preparer. Neither the Owner, the Architect, nor any of the Architect’s consultants warrant the accuracy, the adequacy nor the applicability of the information contained in the soil report. "The soil report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site, or the current state of variable conditions such as groundwater levels. Should actual subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from reported conditions, changes in the design and construction of foundations and/or earthwork will be considered, and may be made, and a corresponding adjustment may be made to the Contract Sum." Once or twice I have been directed to state that the report is specifically included as part of the Contract Documents (it isn't, otherwise). In such cases, the following additional paragraph can be useful: "In the event of conflict between the recommendations in the soil report and other requirements of the Contract Documents, request an interpretation from the Architect. In the absence of such interpretation, the more stringent or more expensive provision shall govern." Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 05:46 pm:    We typically include the geotechnically reports as an attachment to Information Available to Bidders. We list all information available including surveyor information. Sometimes we do not include the attachment and only advise the bidders the information is available for there review in our office or the office of the Owner. MF 04 will change the title of "Information Available to Bidders" to "Available Information" and "Bidding Requirements" will change to "Procurement Requirements". I know this was not a part of the question, but just want the intelligent folks that read this discussion forum to understand the changes that are being proposed. Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 06:01 pm:    I recommend you include only the soil boring logs from the soils report. This is very important information to the bidders. I do not include the narative information. I rewrite it into specification form in the Earthwork sections. If the client, CM or any other folks insist on publishing the full soils report, I delete Sections covering earthwork to avoid conflicts. As anonymous says soils reports are not specifications only recommendations. I have mentioned to many of my soil engineer friends that they should learn to write specifications. Absolutely no luck so far. PS Even though I use them I really do not believe disclaimers are ever adequate. You are publishing possibly misleading information and you cannot avoid reponsibility for it. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: Specman Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 07:40 pm:    I, too, do not like to bind the geotechnical (or soils) report with the project manual. So far I haven't had an owner require that I do so. As previously mentioned, I also list the report as "Information Available to Bidders" and indicate where a copy can be obtained. This makes the report available to those who really want to review it without giving any indication (whether legally or not) that the report is part of the contract documents. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: John_regener Post Number: 101 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 12:18 am:    I recently experienced a planchecker who understood the nature of geotechnical reports: that they are produced to provide the designers with information regarding the owner's property. Typically, they are not intended for construction. That is, the typical spec writer cop-out to provide aggregate base "as indicated in the Geotechnical Report" or to compact backfill "as noted in the Geotechnical Report" won't work if everyone recognizes what the Geotechnical Report actually says. What did work on a couple of recent projects was to reference the portion of the Geotechnical Report that did in fact address how earthwork was to be performed. The geotechnical engineer essentially wrote an appendix in the Geotechnical Report that described how excavation, backfilling and compacting were to be performed: a specification. I include a document in the 0 series, 00320 - Geotechnical Data, that identifies the report or reports and refers to where the report may be viewed. If it is to be included in the Project Manual, it is included as an Appendix following Division 16. This is something that I think MF 2004 should recognize. There are documents included with the Drawings and Specifications which are not Contract Documents but which need a place to be filed. I also think that Appendices are where schedules (color schedule, signage & graphics schedules, preliminary construction schedule, and other "available information") can be bound between the covers of the Project Manual. I think the key is to get the scope of geotechnical reports to include a summary or specifications about earthwork that the architect and civil engineer can reference in Division 2 specifications. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 07:57 am:    Available information certainly goes beyond soil borings. In renovation projects, bidders want to know about abestos and other hazardous materials. I would never state, "the building is clean." We simply include the report of hazardous materials showing what was tested and what was found. Let the bidders interpret the information and determine their comfort in bidding the project. If we have specific removal requirements, we specify those requirements. Other reports on investigations, testing, etc. may be helpful to the bidders on repair projects. Why not provide the bidders with the complete information? This is not a specification, it's available information. We will include Owner safety proceedures, secruity proceedures, and other special project proceedures by reference in our project manuals for nuclear work. We make sure these document are obtained by the bidders. We don't reproduce them in the project manual because of the volumenous nature of the document, but they are a part of the contract requirements. Geotechnical Report are necessary information if dewatering is required or if you bid the soil work as unclassified and it is the responsibility of the Contractor for unsuitable soil and rock. Many Contractors are very adept at reading these reports and we have never had a problem by providing the bidders with information in our possession. It is usually what they don't know that hurts the project and Owner. David E Lorenzini Advanced Member Username: Deloren Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 08:41 am:    I know this is expanding the subject of geotechnical reports, but I support John's position that Appendices are a good solution to those reports that the owner, many times a public agency, requires to be included in the project manual. These reports are necessary for bidding (procuring) the project, and it is difficult to argue with the client on the basis that we can't include them because their format is not 3-part and they aren't considered sections. I have had topics such as Methane Protection, Traffic Signalization, Audio/Visual, Stone Columns (foundation system), & Sports Lighting. These are documents that were prepared by the consultants directly for the owner and most do not follow the three-part format. If the use of Appendices is accepted for these situaltions, the next step is to decide on a common method of numbering. In the past I have used the closest MasterFormat number preceded by a two-letter prefix that identifies the appendix title. The following is an example of some that I have used: APPENDIX A - METHANE PROTECTION Section MP-02200 - Earthwork Section MP-02751 - Geomembrane Section MP-02752 - Geotextiles Section MP-10101 - Miscellaneous Safety Equipment and Signs Section MP-11551 - Centrifugal Blowers Section MP-13451 - Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) and Control Panel Section MP-15100 - Valves Section MP-15410 - Plastic Pipe and Fittings Section MP-15892 - Pressure Vessels Section MP-16010 - Electrical Section MP-16480 - Motor Control APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION Section TS-02893 - Traffic Signal Equipment APPENDIX C - AUDIO/VIDEO Section AV-01340 - Design-Build Submittal Procedures Section AV-16830 - Gymnasium Audio-Visual System Section AV-16835 - Auditorium Audio-Visual System APPENDIX D - STONE COLUMNS SC-02249 - Report and Specifications for Vibro Stone Columns APPENDIX E - SPORTS LIGHTING SL-16527 - Sports Lighting Some of them are issued in a separate volume when they are very large. Some of them are only used in Phase 1 of a multi-phase project. My hope is that the MFETT will consider this need to publish supporting documents in the standard, even if it is a recommendation only. In any event, the most practical place to locate them is at the end of the project manual, even if they are referenced by a document under Information for Bidders. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: Doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 44 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 09:03 am:    Here's another issue regarding "soils" reports. They are not Contract Documents,,, but what if your Civil or Structural Engineers includes notes on his drawings such as "Prepare subgrade in accordance with the Soils Report"? By doing so, hasn't he, by default, made the requirements/recommendations therein Contract Documents? I fight this battle on nearly every job! David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:15 am:    As do I. Once they include such a reference, I believe there could be made the case that they have just rendered the Soils Report a Contract Document (or at least some portion of it). This illustrates several points: 1. Many, not all, civil and structural engineers have a lack of understanding of why the soils report is information, and not a contract document. 2. And a lack of understanding of the implications of their actions. 3. That it's easier to reference the Report, rather than write a properly researched and prepared specification section. 4. That some, not all, Project Architects lack the same understanding, for allowing such general notes to slip through unchallenged. 5. That the specifications writer needs to be the primary clearing house for any general notes that appear on the Drawings, including the consultants.' When wearing the QA/QC hat, I have the consultants delete such notes and references from their documents. When wearing the specifications writer hat, I include the following (among other clauses) in Document 00320: "A. The Geotechnical Investigation Report bound herein is for Bidder’s convenience and information only, and is not a warranty of subsurface conditions. B. The complete text of the Report may also be examined by qualified Bidders at the office of the Architect, and where documents are on file for bidding purposes. C. The Report is made available for Bidder's information only, and is not a Contract Document. D. The information contained in the Report represents design criteria, recommendations, and guidelines that were utilized as the basis of design for the engineering of the earthwork operations, paving design, and foundation design indicated in the Contract Documents. No changes in this design criteria will be considered or permitted." I think specifically identifying the contents of the report as "design criteria" helps reiterate that the information is not binding as construction contractual requirements. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: Davemetzger Post Number: 51 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:35 am:    If the "design criteria" are solely for the use of the design team in designing paving and foundations, and in writing the applicable specification sections, then including the statement that "No changes in this design criteria will be considered or permitted" is irrelevant to the contractor, and in my opinion, can be confusing. If, however, the statement is meant to imply that the contractor is bound by the design criteria, that in effect makes them contract requirements. I review the geotechnical report and incorporate applicable "criteria/recommendations/whatever you want to call them" into the specification sections for earthwork and other Division 2 work, so that they become contarct requirements. There is no reference to the geotechnical report. I also have the civil and geotechnical (and structural, as applicable) engineers review and comment on these sections. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 11:44 am:    The MOP is mute on the subject of Appendices (unless someone can direct me otherwise). I often toss things [stuff that project managers insist on including - a wiring diagram, a game line sketch, a cut sheet, the soils report] in an Appendices section of the Project Manual as other respondents have mentioned they do. What sort of liability do we incur in doing this? In the event that an inconsistency is discovered between an appendix and a portion of the contract documents, what can the design team point to as proof that Appendices are, in fact, not Contract Documents? I don't like having to include a Series 00 section describing, for example, the geotech report and incorporating the report just after. Is this how folks deal with other types of appendices? I find this awkward, especailly when dealing with public work and Owner has full set of Series 00 documents heavily gone over by their "legal" eagles. Dennis - can you shed any light on this? How do others deal with appendices to ensure that they are not construed as Contract Documents, but "available information?" Robert E. Woodburn, RA, CCS, CCCA,CSI Senior Member Username: Bob_woodburn Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 01:08 pm:    I second Dave Metzger's reservations about the statement that "No changes in this design criteria will be considered or permitted" as unwarranted and unwise. As he points out, it's at least confusing, and possibly worse... However, I take exception to the widely- (and tenaciously-) held "conventional wisdom" that every effort should be made to exclude such documents from the Project Manual. If a soil report is explicitly identified as "information available to bidders, included only for their information and convenience," if responsibility for it is explicitly placed on the preparer, and if the responsibility of the owner, architect and the architect's consultants is explicitly disclaimed (in words similar to those cited in at least two posts above, including one of my own), why make the information difficult to obtain by requiring that bidders visit the architect's office to read it, as if it were precious, lurid or secret? Is it really "information available to bidders, but only briefly, at our place (no copying permitted!), and at significantly greater expenditure of time and effort"? Anything we can do to see that bidders have all the available information tends to increase their confidence level, which makes for better bids. So it helps the owner (and us) as well. Full disclosure says to bidders, "This is all the information we have; for what it's worth, we're letting you have it too." Bidding is hard. Why make it harder, throwing unnecessary obstacles in the bidders' path? Give 'em a break! This attitude appears to be due to a (justified) desire to keep from being responsible for it. So, include the appropriate disclaimer, and organize the Project Manual and its Table of Contents, where the seals are usually affixed (the critical importance of which is underestimated, IMO), so that parts of it (such as those cited in Document 00300 and/or included as appendices) are explicitly excluded from those documents that are signed and sealed by the design professional of record. We never have such qualms about citing ASTM and other standards, which are routinely incorporated into the contract documents by reference. Everyone understands that they are promulgated by others, not by the professional of record, who is responsible only to the extent that such references are appropriate or not. Soil reports, and similar documents such as asbestos surveys, should be regarded in the same way - they are prepared by others - but, since they are usually unique to the project, every effort should be made to make them truly (and conveniently) "available to bidders." In other words: Identify and disclaim authorship and responsibility - but bind them in. Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: Jo_drummond Post Number: 71 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 02:28 pm:    Sorry, I can't agree with binding documents such as soils reports, hazardous materials reports, etc. into project manuals. List them as reference material, and tell the contractors and bidders where they can look at them, or where they can buy a copy, but don't bind them in, not as appendices, not as anything. The architect is responsible for everything between the covers of a book with his name on it, whether he wrote it or not. He is also responsible for every sheet in a set of drawings with his name on the cover sheet, so he should not bind in surveys, boring reports, work done under separate contracts to the owner, and so forth. Suppose there is a big error, like a property line is drawn wrong, and a building encroaches on public property, or on somebody else's property. The architect's neck will not be saved by a weak "I didn't do it, I just put it there for convenience", argument. I think it's a terrible idea to bind in documents that don't belong there, and I work hard to convince my clients of the danger. If all else fails, suggest that they talk to their insurance carrier. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: Wpegues Post Number: 216 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 03:49 pm:    Jo, I couldn't agree with you more. I have no problem creating nice covers and coordinating sending such documents to the printer for the Owner bound in their own separate volumes as a courtesy service, but physically putting them into the project manual is inappropriate. If there is a major project where the geotechnical engineer, civil, and tons of other consultants all on board under the same contract and coordinated by the Architect - then it is more correct to include it in the project manual as the work of the Architect. I have had more than one of those. But my typical (95% or more) contracts in the office the only consultants that are part of the Architect's work are structural and MEP. The most typical addition to that group is Landscaping. Civil is very rare, and geotech has been on board as part of the group in only 3 projects in the past 26 years. Yet in all of them, the same single contractor is doing all the work as a single contract with the Owner. One of the points that I think that many are missing here is that they are falling into the conceptual trap Project Manual means it is produced by the Specifier or Architect. The MOP provides locations where different documents of different kinds can be assembled. Those that are produced by, or where the Architect has contracted with consultants or contracted to coordinate them, appear in the project manual as issued by the Architect for his scope of work. Where other designers and engineers are separately responsible to the Owner and not the Architect, then they can assemble their documents in a project manual that is appropriate to their scope of work. I see no problem with that. Most of the time my projects end up with 2, double sided printed books. That the work or others appears in their own books (that make up for the contractor what would be the project manuals for the entire contract he is to build), it is even easier for him to deal with it. He can see the separate scopes of work as they are presented. And if something such as a soils report is provided for information only, that is easily taken care of whether it is separately published in documents from the Owner, or if it is an informational document that is part of the Architect's coordinated scope of work. What I refuse to do is let the earthwork and foundations related sections simply refer to the soils report with verbage that tries to turn them into contract documents. We actually send our earthwork sections to the Owner's geotech and civil engineers (as well as our structural engineers) and input their comments, return a combined draft for all to approve were we are doing the earthwork and foundations sections. We have never had any problem getting them to actually specify something. If they provide 'guidance' type verbage, it is returned to them to reword it. Typically they do. I also like to make sure that a project manual is assembled in volumes that have content grouped together not only in accordance with the overall guidance of MasterFormat, but also as appropriate for its printing and use over the life of the project. I often break out the bidding and informational documents into a seprate volume. They are listed together in the MF, and they are related. After the contrat is signed, they never need to be printed again. If they are in volume 1 with many other things, they get reprinted later when its not necessary. Each volume that is part of our scope of work contains a table of contents at the front of the volume that list the content of all volumes in our scope. That is, a single table of contents that is printed into the front of each volume. William Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 06:12 pm:    Thanks David L. for the suggestion. The MFETT will take this issue up at our November meeting. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 08:40 am:    Jo writes, "The architect is responsible for everything between the covers of a book with his name on it, whether he wrote it or not." I could not disagree more. If this is true, the the architect is responsible for all engineering drawings after the cover sheet of the drawing set with his name on it, whether he drew it or not. The architect is responsible for all drawing sheets with his professional seal(s) on them and all Specification Sections which he certifies as his work on the Certification Page of the project manual and places his professional seal(s) and signature next to that list of Specification Sections. Note the terms Specifications and Sections were used intentionally to indicate NOT Documents nor Appendix. The architect is also not responsible for Specifications prepared by other consultants (licensed and unlicensed, who may or may not be under contract of the architect) nor the owner's Conditions of the Contract or other owner documents. This is why we do NOT place our professional seals on the cover page of the drawing set but on each sheet we claim authorship. We do NOT place our professional seals on the cover of the project manual, but on the certification page that identifies the Sections of the Specification that we claim authorship. Placing one's professional seal(s) on a cover MAY imply the person claims authorship and therefor responsibility for all work contained in the drawing set or project manual. I agree that multi-volumes are best in that it is easy to seal one volume and not the other and I use this practice when practical, but sometimes, just like the drawing set, everything gets bound together. I do not believe this implies a claim of one author nor changes the responsibilities identified in the Owner-Architect Agreement. In Jo's examle of a property line being drawn wrong. Liability would fall on the person or enity who made the mistake. If the owner's surveyor gave the owner and the architect the wrong information, would the architect be responsible to personally survey the property to verify the professional land surveyor has done his job properly? Of course not! I had this happen and the professional land surveyor had the problem. The Architect was paid additional services to redesign the project and minimize the problem, after the fact. The problem is not to include information in a project manual and exclude it. The issue is how to correctly identify work of the parties responsible for the preparation of that work. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 02:31 pm:    The assignment of responsibilities varies by legal jurisdiction, terms of the agreements between parties and factual evidence. In that milieu I do not believe that it makes any differences where. or how, you publish incorrect information. Implying responsibility by its location in the specifications would only contribute fodder for depositions. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: Rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 24 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 04:16 pm:    <<The architect is also not responsible for Specifications prepared by other consultants (licensed and unlicensed, who may or may not be under contract of the architect) nor the owner's Conditions of the Contract or other owner documents.>> ......unless otherwise agreed to. My agreement for specification services contains a statement to the effect that all specifications I prepare are subject to the review and acceptance of the Architect [my client]. I do this not so much as my desire to escape any responsibilities, which I can not do legally, but rather my strong belief that the architect should know what is happening in their project. In the absence of clear communications, specifiers everywhere try to read the minds of the designers - sometimes successfully, sometimes not; or things get added late in the project and specifier never gets the word. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 07:52 am:    Good point Ron. My point was that a design professional is responsible for was he or she seals as their work. There is always the responsibility to review, coordinate consultants work, and the privity of contracts. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 02:04 pm:    Interesting debate all, but I am still looking for answers to my questions: 1. Anyone know of any article on cons of incorporating geotech reports in ConDocs out there available for distribution? 2. Anything in the MOP or an AIA document that defines Appendices as things that are NOT part of the ConDocs? 3. Is it appropriate to include Appendices in the Project Manual? Randy Cox (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:21 am:    I see two risks associated with the geotechnical report. The most frequent risk appears to be the difference between bid prices and actual construction costs. A less frequent (but certainly one with a higher dollar amount if it occurred) risk appears to be the risk that some subsoil condition causes damages after construction is complete. BID PRICE AND CONSTRUCTION COST I understand that you are all concerned with liability, but (currently) as a project manager for a general contractor, my concern is that all my competitors and I are bidding on the same scope of work, and that we do not own unforeseen conditions. That issue is minor when there is an engineer predicting pile lengths, specifying all the shoring, bracing, and/or sheet piles that will be needed for excavation and construction. Unfortunately that is not always the case, but contractors always need to generate their bid from something. Accurate information allows for a more accurate (and generally lower) bid. The real question is who should be taking the risk that the engineer's report is sufficiently accurate for us to use. Less information makes it less clear what we are bidding on, and what we are not including in our bid. It appears that some of the individuals posting believe that the GC (rather than the Owner) should carry that risk - or have experienced Owners who expect the Designer to carry the risk. POST CONSTRUCTION FAILURE I have no experience in this arena, so I can only do the typical guy thing and make wild assumptions. If there was a post construction failure, everyone would be tied into a mess of litigation whether or not the soils report was included in the manual. Presumably, the soils report would have been used for design purposes, so witholding the document (by not including it in an appendix as is common custom) may in fact be used by a clever lawyer to the designer and specifier's detriment. OTHER SCENARIOS I am certain that other scenarios must exist, but I can’t think of them. YOUR 3 QUESTIONS 1. I don't know of any article on the cons of incorporating geotech reports. I do know that it is common practice to include Geotech reports in our area. 2. I don't know of "appendices" definitions in the MOP or AIA documents. If you have a definitions section, you could include it there. 3. I am neither a lawyer nor a specifier, but I think it is appropriate to include appendicies in the project manual. I am an Architect, and during the 15 years before my life in the contractor world, I prepared construction documents. My approach was to provide all bidders with all information available to me. I physically attached it to the drawings or specifications except where it was too large (eg, full sets of as built drawings). Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 04:43 pm:    Randy: "engineer's report is sufficiently accurate for us to use". Every soils report I see is written for a design professional to use, not the Contractor. How do you bid, and then protect yourself, when the soils report states: "The Soils Engineer recommends a compaction of not less than 98% Standard Procter, however a lower density may be adequate where settlement would not be a problem." This is the type of narative in a typical report. Do you want to decide whether settlement is a problem in a competitive bidding situation. If the specification says 90%, which do you bid, the soils report or the specification? For bidding you need only a good specification. Soils reports are not specifications. Randy Cox (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 05:48 pm:    Richard, First: I guess I had an image of the boring logs, and pit logs and the bit of description and boilerplate with them, and I was thinking of times we have been left to our own devices in identifying what protection we would need for excavations. (In the ideal world they would have been in the spec, or we would have sent an RFI during bidding and received a complete and useable response.) Please note, I am only speaking of the bid phase, once someone has the contract they hire an engineer (or the design engineer steps up) to design the shoring, and sheathing. Second: We know that soils reports are not specifications. We always use the specifications in the manual. Third: Finally the light dawns on me that your Owner’s contract needs something identifying what information (or document) takes precedence over other information (or documents). All the jobs on my desk now were contracted with the 1987 AIA documents, so I don’t know offhand if A201 was modified in 95 to correct the weakness seen by most of the people we work with. Half the contracts on my desk include Supplementary General Conditions, modifying the AIA A201, and one of the universal modifications is a clause added to 1.1.1 of AIA A201 identifying what information (or document) takes precedence over other documents. Please e-mail me at rcox@biltriteconstruction.com if you want to discuss this in more detail. Randy Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: Davemetzger Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 06:04 pm:    >>one of the universal modifications is a clause added to 1.1.1 of AIA A201 identifying what information (or document) takes precedence over other documents<< Paraphrasing from AIA Document A511 "Guide for Supplementary Conditions", a principle of A201 is not to establish a precedence among the contract documents, ie that all documents are complementary. If the owner insists that a precedence be established, A511 does give one (to modify 1.2.1), but even so, it explicitly states that drawings and specifications are of equal precedence. And geotechnical reports are not in the listing in A511, because they are not contract documents. Richard HIrd (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 07:50 pm:    Randy: As stated earlier in this string I agree you should have the boring logs. As for your second comment about your practice, you are bidding against folks that just see an inconsistancy to exploit. Further I see a lot of canned Masters on earthwork that has no relationship to what is explained thoroughly, though not "specified", in the soils report. I also see a lot of folks that rely totally on the soils report. In all cases you are at a disadvantage in your assumption. David comments covers the third. However I think a lot of folks will be in for a surprise that soils report is not a matter of contract. It would take one heck of a lawyer to throw out the soils report when there are foundation problems.