You say gravelly soils. Could you be a little more descriptive, with attention to the fine fraction? Also, 90% of which proctor?
Your situation sounds very much like a few problems I have investigated. The typical scene was a moderate to deep (10' to 20') backfill was placed, compacted and tested. Ground water was very close to the bottom of the trenches and surface waters were usually not well controlled. Within a few months, Settlement was about 5% to 8% the total fill depth.
After the initial finger pointing and gnashing of teeth,there was very little doubt that the fill was placed to the original project requirements, 90% of Proctor. The contractor complained the soils were wet and slightly pumping. The majority of the test results were slightly dry of 'Optimum Moisture and Density was usually less than 94%. Due to observations of others (not the contractor or the testers), it is not believed the contractor was severely 'cutting corners' or the testing was compromised.
However the job compaction requirements were were not well considered. The 90% referred to the Std Proctor, ASTM D-698. The soils were 'Gravelly' but had clayey and silty fines. The fines are often sandy CL-ML (My practice has been blessed with an exceptional amount of CL-ML in the area). When the Modified Proctor Test ASTM D-1557 was performed, the Optimum Density increased 7 to 11 lbs/ft3 and the Optimum Moisture dropped 4% to 6%.
When the repairs were made, the contractor favored placing the fill slightly wet of the 'Optimum Moisture' and the compaction test results were mostly in the 94% to 96% range, without a lot of effort. The soils did not have a tendency to 'slightly pump' during compaction. The Dry Unit Weight of the fills increased about 6% to 12%. Fills are good after 2 to 4 years.
I know that at least one of my cases is a rather exceptional soil for my area, a gain of 11 pcf and drop of 6% moisture when going from a D-698 to a D-1557.
Just a suggestion.