RAP and Responsibility 1

[lovethecold]

There is a discussion between my supervisor and I concerning rammed aggregate piers and who has the ultimate responsibility. Ultimately it comes down to the contract agreements etc, but how are many of the agreements/contracts written in your experience to establish who is responsible for the final product; the designer/contractor or independant testing laboratory who is making the observations during installation.

There was a project in which we declined to bid on the testing. The construction documents basicly stated the testing laboratory was to establish that each of the installed rammed aggregate piers would meet the designed strength. To my knowledge the firm I work for has never performed any observations of their installation, but we see many places where they would be a good intermediary between shallow spread footings and piling. My supervisor has some reservations about making recommendations for them due to the fact (as he stated) that many contracts are written by the owner/architect to hold the testing firm responsible the final product.

I do not disagree with him if contracts are normally written that way. I have difficulty in believing that contracts are typically written in such a manner so as to place responsibility on the observer who did not design nor construct the rammed aggregate pier. It seems the me the independant lab is there to observe the actual installation and to determine whether they were installed according the design specs, not to say that they meet the design strength.

I am looking for comments on what your experience has been and who ultimately has responsibility for the final product, and whether or not I am correct in my assertions.

 

[TDAA]

My limited experience with the Geopiers company was that they had the responsibility. The geotech lays out the general guidelines, they do the design of the pier, install it, load test it to confirm the design. The testing company is there for oversight and documentation.

No matter what, with any foundation, you all share risk. The lawyers will fight out how much is yours when something goes wrong.

 

[Ron]

If you work for a testing laboratory and are tasked with observing the placement of ANYTHING, you should not accept the responsibility for the outcome. Forgive my bluntness, but if your boss would sign a contract such as that he's nuts! That's a basic premise of the QO/QA/QC concept. Never, never, never put yourself in a QC position as a testing laboratory. Try not to put yourself in a QA position, but sometimes unavoidable. That leaves QO (Quality Observation). That's where you want to be because you have NO control over any of the procedures, procurement, processes or outcomes.

Contracts generally do not place that responsibility on an observer. To do so is inconsistent with an appropriate contract responsibility chain. An "independent" lab is intended to be just that...independent of the process, so that they have no conflict with their decision process and the outcome. If your payment is contingent upon someone else achieving a specific result, you have a bad contract. Further, at one time, contingent fee contracts were considered unethical in engineering; however, the US Supreme Court struck that from our code of ethics in the late 1970's.

 

[lovethecold]

Ron -
Forgive my bluntness, but if your boss would sign a contract such as that he's nuts!

My boss would never sign such a contract, hence the reason we did not bid on the project I refered to. I have seen them walk from projects that could have been lucrative, but had a bad risk to reward ratio.

TDAA -
No matter what, with any foundation, you all share risk. The lawyers will fight out how much is yours when something goes wrong.

True. I am trying to establish from the wider audience how much risk might actually be ours with a contract properly written as Ron suggested above.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[BigH]

Lovethecold - is RAP the normal term for Rammed Earth Piles? I have always use RAP as recycled asphalt pavement . . .
Someone has to do QC and QA . . . just be careful that you limit your liability - you report, they decide (ooooh, Fox News, eh?)

 

[lovethecold]

hmm, to my knowledge RAP refers to rammed aggregate piers, not saying that it holds the patent on using it though.

you report, they decide (ooooh, Fox News, eh?)

LOL

 

[BigHarvey]

Good sense would make you partly responsible if the method is not adapted to the soils and loads involved ( the contractor should refuse to do it if he believe it's going to fail ). If the method is appropriate then the contractor is responsible for doing it well.

 

[msucog]

agreed that it's the geopier's responsibility and not the testing firm (the testing firm is responsible for performing their tests and not the outcome of the structure--a structural engineer doesn't try to make the testing firm responsible for their design of a concrete column just because the testing firm make concrete cylinders for the concrete). it's the same principle as with mse walls...the wall designer is responsible while the testing firm performs tests/observations to provide to the designer for the designer's approval/rejection. the testing firm documents what is happening. in all reality, the geopier folks should hire a testing firm if anything is to be "verified"...the owner's testing firm is there to document what they see (ie. for the owner's sake--not to take over the responsibility of the design from the design engineer). now if the testing firm designed the geopiers (and not simply supplied strength test results from the geotechnical exploration) then the testing firm owns more responsibility. that is why testing firms should not be supplying "design parameters" if they are not intending to design the things (and again, same for mse walls). providing test results and/or a generalized summary of the test results doesn't mean that they provided "design parameters"...the designer must look at all the data and make an engineering judgement as to what is appropriate for their design based on the encountered conditions, test results, intended factor of safety, erratic nature of the subsurface conditions, expected performance of the structure, etc etc.

make sure your contract clearly states what you are doing on the project (and maybe even include specific that you are not responsible for). if you see language that says otherwise, bring it to everyone's attention and plainly state that it is incorrect (and document all the conversations). also, keep in mind that special inspections are finally becoming more and more a part of everyday construction which means that "word of mouth" agreements may not be enough when the contract documents state something otherwise. document document document and be aggressive to clarify contradictions and incorrect contract language. that's my thoughts for what it's worth.

 

[davep043]

I work for a contractor who designs and installs rammed aggregate piers, but not of the patented "Geopier" variety. Typically, the specifications require the RAP designer to submit design drawings and installation procedures from an appropriately licensed engineer, including calculations that show the RAP system will perform in accordance with the sprcified requirements. The RAP installer usually must also submit a final certification that the RAP system was installed in accordance with approved procedures and will perform as designed. Often, the engineer's testing agency is required to observe the installation, and to certify that the RAPs have been installed in accordance with the approved plans and procedures.

I have never seen a specification that requires the testing agency to certify that the RAPs will perform as intended. Just as an inspector can certify that the appropriate reinforcement was placed in a concrete beam, and that the concrete met the strength requirements and was placed in accordance with the specs, the inspector did NOT design the beam, and cannot certify that it will perform as intended.

In real life, however, if something DOES happen, everyone involved will be included in lawsuits, including geotechnical engineer, structural engineer, inspection agency, general contractor, and specialty RAP subcontractor. In those cases, everyone loses, except the attorneys.

 

[fattdad]

I consider the use of RAPs along the line of a design-build contract. Why should the owner's rep (you) step into the shoes of the designer and take on their liability?

f-d

¡papá gordo ain’t no madre flaca!

 

[lovethecold]

Thanks for the comments. We never did take that job on. And there has been some reservation to provide RAP recommendations as an alternative for that reason. I was wondering if the statement of liability for the particular job was typical. It seems not to be the case at all.

We just finished up a Geopier installation job. As others said, our involvement was only to observe and report what we saw. Nothing else.

Again, thank you for the responses.

 

[vtgeotech13]

rammed aggregate piers are a design build system.

It's possible that the construction documents were written based on a misunderstanding of who was to take responsibility.

It sounds like your recent experience was more typical.

If you have these issues in the future you could suggest that your supervisor discuss the contract with the owner and agreed upon liability. If you are still having problems, you could try discussing it with the RAP designer, whom might be be able to help you out.

 

[sunny7uc]

What if the building settles as RAP was not designed to the right depth or adequate diameter was not constructed. Modulus Test/Plate Load test is meaningless without utilizing basic soil mechanics. I think Engineer of record is liable, even for all design build work...isnt that true?