geotech report - division 2?

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

Author Message Kevin G. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 10:19 am:    The state of Illinois just updated their division 0 document for state work, and one of the changes has me a little... well, I think I should be concerned. They have moved 'Geotechnical Data' from 003132 to 023200 - after reading through some past posts on here (and reading Mr. Geren's 'Keynotes' article on the subject), I brought it up to one of the project Architects here at my office, concerned that we might be opening ourselves up to future liability. It didn't bother him, since the state requires the Architect to hire the Geotech Engineer in the first place. Granted, that scenario does seem different to most of the other examples I've come across (where the owner hires the geotech directly), but I still have a nagging suspicion that we would still be taking on more risk than we would be expecting on future state projects. Does the architect hiring the geotech directly really change the risk associated with making the geotech report a part of the construction documents? Or is my initial instinct headed in the right direction? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 666 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 10:38 am:    There are some government agencies in this area that require the Architect to hire the surveyor and the geotechnical report. They then require that the site surveys and geotechnical reports be incorporated into the Contract Documents. I chalk this up to a certain degree of ignorance on the part of these public owners. While it can increase the liability of the design team, I have to believe it can also increase the liability of the Owner as well. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 632 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 11:52 am:    Such requirements reflects an ignorance of the nature of geotechnical reports. While geotechnical reports should be made available to the contractor as an informational document, they should never be made a part of the contract documents. Geotech reports are not written to be enforceable and typically include a number of options for the design team. If the purpose is to define the basis for changed field conditions there is another type of report that the geotechnical engineer can produce. Suggest you talk to the geotechnical engineer and then try to have the client accept this alternate document. Inclusion of the classical geotechnical report in the contract documents increases the exposure of the client to claims for extra work. Because the architect hired the geotechnical engineer he would be a party to the claims. If things do not get built as intended because of the confusion this could also expose the architect to increased liability. The fact that the state required you to hire the geotechnical engineer only increases your liability exposure Suggest you discuss this with your E&O insurance carrier and your company lawyer. Obviously your in house architect does not have the background needed in this situation. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 121 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 12:34 pm:    The decision to move geotech reports to 023200 was likely made without reading the intended content of this section in MasterFormat: It is for investigations & monitoring conducted by the contractor. The commentary explicitly indicates that 003132 is the location for geotech data provided to bidders. Once that distinction is understood, it should be a no-brainer to place it in the appropriate location. Not that this helps with standards of a governing agency, which have a momentum of their own. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 12:36 pm:    Our office has always included the geotechnical reports as an informational appendix regardless of who hires the engineer. We have used section 02 3200 to indicate that the report is for informational purposes only and to refer the bidder to the appendix that contains the actual report. Not sure if this actually reduces our exposure or not but it gives us some piece of mind. Of course if soil borings (and record drawings, when available) note a subsoil condition we transfer that information to the contract documents so it can be included in the base bid. IE: if the report indicates an old submerged floor slab that needs to be removed to accommodate foundation excavation we always transfer that information to the plans and specs. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1180 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 12:57 pm:    As Jeffery stated, the Division 02 location is for specifying requirements when the contractor is directed to perform the geotechnical investigation. If a geotechnical investigation is already conducted and a report prepared prior to the preparation of the contract documents, then there is no need to have the contractor perform the work; thus, the Division 02 section is not applicable and the completed report is made part of Division 00's available information. I would suggest that their department's legal counsel weigh in on the issue. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Anne Onimous Member Username: anneo Post Number: 3 Registered: 10-2013 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 01:20 pm:    If you look at how 00 is organized, the recommendations of CSI in the PRM (now Practice Guides), and the enumeration of the Contract Documents per AIA Agreement form, it becomes clear that documents 005000+ are typically intended to remain a part of the Contract for Construction, and the rest of 00 (except the cover page and TOC) is for mainly for bidding a.k.a. procurement, intentionally excluded from being part of the Contract. This removes uncertainties and inconsistency from the final Contract by including that which is a known and definite scope. 003000 Available Information is placed with this in mind. Geotechnical reports are not intended to be a contract document. They contain recommendations as a precursor to design. They include uncertainties. When a report is interpreted by a specialized design professional into definite contractual obligations, it is suited for Division 02 Existing Conditions. Government projects tend to vary from what CSI and AIA recommend, by including bidding documents in the Contract anyway. You can point out the standards and the reasons for them in case it helps. They will likely want to have an all-encompassing contract but that can backfire by inflating the prices contractors are willing to bid, and perhaps in the courtroom based on precedents that the Owner not the Contractor owns the site and benefits from endless digging of unforeseen obstructions. In the long run more taxpayer dollars may be saved by reasonably allocating risk. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 633 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 01:31 pm:    The classical geotechnical report has information the contractor must know about but it also contains additional discussions of alternatives. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 428 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 07:41 pm:    We have never included an actual Owner provided soils report in the specifications. But we have often included a single page formatted with the specifications that notes that such is thing was created by so and so, who titled it like this and issued it on that date, and that the Owner would be happy to give you a copy if you ask. We then note that all assumptions in the report need to be verified. This mini-section is given a number in the 00 series, but if I dig back in files to older work using Master Format 1995, I do find examples of it being listed as 02010 - Subsurface Investigation. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 680 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 02:37 am:    The Division 00 section is under the general heading of information available to the Contractor. The Division 02 section was for subsurface investigation to be performed by he Contractor. Kevin G. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 11:10 am:    Thanks to all for your input. At the same time that I posted here, I also sent an email to the state to ask why the change was made. I received a response this morning from one of the state civil engineers, and the gist of his response was that, in his opinion, the change should not have been made. Granted, he also said that he was not the one who made the change, and that he may not win the argument to move it back... so, I'm not too sure what the outcome will be, but there's at least a chance that the (A/E provided) geotech report can move back to division 0. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 709 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 12:16 pm:    While I agree that Division 00 is the appropriate place for the geotech report, keep in mind that it is the list of contract documents in the Agreement that determines whether a particular document is a contract document. So while this is a valuable discussion and we should wholeheartely support following MasterFormat, the bottom line is - it really doesn't matter (in relation to what is a contract document)where you locate any particular document. What matters is what the Agreement says. (Now, I wonder how many projects shortcut the need to include the list of contract documents in the Agreement?) George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Kevin G. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 03:25 pm:    I just received a follow-up response from the State, and it's not quite what I was hoping for. Thought I'd share the relevant portion of the email for anyone else it might affect: I have talked with several people here at CDB. Short answer is that the geotechnical report will remain in Division 2 – Existing Conditions. The Contracts Section of CDB and the Chief Procurement Office (CPO) review the Division 0 and 1 documents at 100% and make final recommendations prior to approval for bidding. They did not want the report in the paperwork they are reviewing. Apparently, after a few months of negotiating to the current Division 0 & 1 docs it was moved. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1551 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 01:48 pm:    I have worked for firms where the geotechnical engineer was hired by the architect, but as time went on it was more often by the owner. A typical project manual, regardless of who hired the geotech, included geotechnical information for contractor's information only. (And sometimes it was not bound in the PM.) However, the recommendations portion of the geotechnical engineer's portion was NOT included; only the borings and test pit data. A drawing indicating location of each test was also included. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 02:45 pm:    For the FAA and other quasi government clients where tremendous amounts of load bearning paving is the largest component of the work (think airports and the like), the geotech report is commissioned by the civil engineer. The civil engineer bases their design on the geotech report and standard soil profiles for the area, and includes the geotech report as an addendum in the project manual. Often the information was also included on the drawings, in the form of a series of drawings that showed borings and other data. The geotech report and drawings are stamped and signed by the geotech's P.E.