Geotechnical Report Reference
Geotechnical Report Reference
(OP)
Design documents often make the reference 'Reference Geotechnical Report'. As an example, an underslab detail may indicate the subgrade to be prepared per Geotechnical Report or similar language.
It is my understanding that the geotechnical report does NOT constitute a design document; even where it may be referenced in the specification and/or drawing.
Interested in other's experience with this issue.
It is my understanding that the geotechnical report does NOT constitute a design document; even where it may be referenced in the specification and/or drawing.
Interested in other's experience with this issue.





RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
In my opinion, it's a cop out to refer to the Geotechnical Report in the design. It's our job as EOR's to convert the Geotechnical Report to a design document.
If you have looked at a Geotechnical Report there are a lot of "mays" and not enough "shalls."
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
Reference to 'Geotechnical Report', can constitute a wide variety of information. If its a factual report that is referred to (boreholes, trial pits, lab testing etc, without detailed interpretation of results), this must be considered a contract document?
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
The geotechnical recommendations should be used for design and to produce drawings and specifications based on those recommendations. To simply refer to a geotechnical report in lieu of providing correct drawings or specs is begging for a claim. It also appears lazy, and I would be careful dealing with a lazy engineer.
It is common practice, however, to reference the geotechnical report as part of "Information for Bidders". This both helps the contractor for earthwork, trench issues, etc. and prevents the contractor from claiming an unforeseen conditions change order assuming soils issues are picked up by the geotech.
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
This is different than providing the Geotechnical Report so that the bidders can get a complete idea of what information the Engineers know. For instance, maybe there's rock near the surface. Providing the borings discloses this. This doesn't affect the design, but certainly affects construction. If you know that and didn't disclose it, you could be facing a claim.
The downside of providing the Geotechnical Report is that sometimes there are options you don't need the contractors to know. If you picked pile foundations when spread footings were given as an option, don't think the contractor won't be in the owners ear, asking to change.
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference
What should be part of the contract documents, in my view, if the risk warrants, is a base line geotechnical document which describes to the best way possible what problems are anticipated and provides the scope that up to a specific problem, it is the contractor's responsibility and subsequent to that the onus is on the owner. Such as the percentage of an excavation that has large boulders (say greater than 1 or 2 m3) - up to that amount, the contractor must have included in his price; however, if this is exceeded, the cost would be borne by the owner. Similarly about excavation in rock - what percent is rippable; what percent would require blasting, etc.
I agree, though with JC and jgalla on the "cop-out" point of view.
RE: Geotechnical Report Reference