Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing
Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing
(OP)
Hello all, I am a heavy/highway contractor and I am preparing a DRB Response. My claim is that the owner project representative improperly tested compaction on embankment we were building in order to cause false negatives (failures). This caused my co. to incur considerable monetary damage. I know that procedure is critical when using a moisture density gauge, but my question is: How critical??? Note: The inspector did not perform proctors on half of the tests taken when the owners specifications outline the specific procedure to follow.....??? Thanks everyone!





RE: Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing
i'm a little curious as to what magnitude monetary damage you incurred. if the tests failed, then i would expect that grading activites halted until that area/lift was remediated or corrected. was the soil too wet to achieve compaction? can you provide a few more details of the circumstances?
RE: Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing
How critical is the procedure?
This is not an easy one to answer, especially if you do not know the procedure. (what part was poo poo'ed)
The gauge should be documented as stable. (you need to do some Troxler googling) The procedure should be done as stated in the owners test procedure, and as outlined in the gauges operators' manual.
"The inspector did not perform proctors on half of the tests taken when the owner's specifications outline the specific procedure to follow...?"
I am guessing the spec.s required sampling and Lab testing in order to obtain Moisture Density Curves/Proctors from Pit and or Cut areas used for embankment.
If tests were failing routinely, someone (your folks) should have verified which proctor the tests in question were based on.
There "should" be supporting documentation representing at least some of the alleged improper tests. If you can acquire it.
If you are saying "after the fact" that you were dealt with unfairly and cannot prove it, well you may be out of luck.
Did anyone witness testing? Specific comments?
RE: Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing
Too, the nuke should have been calibrated against, say, the sand cone (which most consider to be "more true") and the moisture content should have been calibrated to known values (taken from field tests). These aspects have been discussed in other threads on the issue of using nukes. Do you have details on the last time the nuke was "calibrated", it's repair history, leak tests, etc. These are issues that you can bring out - not that they are, in themselves, a touchdown, but bringing out these kind of things that should be in the testing company's SOP on QC testing might be appropriate to show doubt. Did the QC testing company have a SOP or QC Manual for such testing? Did (do) they follow it?
Was there questionable differences in the delivered material's grain size that might suggest different MDDs be required/used? Did you, as a contractor, carry out any QC testing for your own records? Most contractors on projects I have been working on for the last many years are required to carry out QC testing - the client or engineer provide verification testing for QA purposes. Was this the case? There are differences permitted from your QC and their QA verification testing that wouldn't "fail" your work. Did you carry out trial compactions, i.e., 4 passes = X% MDD, 6 passes = Y%, 8 passes = Z%?
All things to consider.
RE: Dispute Resolution/Improper Compaction Testing