DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE - SOME LESSONS LEARNED

Miroslav (Fred) Matich, J.L. Seychuk, Gordon C. McRostie

In the proceedings of: GeoQuébec 2015: 68th Canadian Geotechnical Conference & 7th Canadian Permafrost Conference

Session: Uncertainty, Reliability, and Risk / Incertitude, fiabilité, et risque

ABSTRACT: The scope of applied geotechnology has increased greatly since it was introduced into modern engineering practice by prominent pioneers in the profession. Geotechnical expertise is increasingly applied in conjunction with other specialty fields and to a broad range of end uses including design, construction and performance. More formal contractural arrangements have evolved together with greater expectations by clients. Notwithstanding significant advances in the state of practice, disputes unfortunately still arise which require resolution by arbitration or litigation. Avoidance of claims and exposure to risk is an important issue. The Authors provide lessons from their experience particularly to benefit younger members of the geotechnical profession.

RÉSUMÉ: La portée de la géotechnique appliquée a grandement augmenté depuis son introduction dans la pratique de l™ingénierie moderne par les pionniers de la profession. L™expertise géotechnique est de plus en plus souvent appliquée de concert avec d™autres spécialités, ainsi que pour un large éventail d™utilisations finales incluant la conception, la construction et la performance. Des dispositions contractuelles plus formelles ont évolué conjointement avec des attentes grandissantes de la part des clients. Malgré les avancées significatives dans la pratique géotechnique, des litiges surviennent malheureusement encore, nécessitant une résolution par arbitrage ou contentieux. Éviter les réclamations et l™exposition au risque est un élément important. Les auteurs offrent une série de leçons tirées de leur expérience, au profit notamment des plus jeunes membres de la profession géotechnique. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The scope of geotechnology as applied to practical problems has increased greatly since it was introduced into modern engineering practice in the early 1930™s with Terzaghi taking a leading role among the pioneers in this specialty field as represented, for example, by the participants at the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE) in 1936. There was a pronounced increase in scope in the years immediately after World War II as applied soil mechanics (as it was known then) benefitted progressively from factors such as advances in field exploration and laboratory testing equipment, significant improvements in analytical capability, research, and the increased availability of students graduating in this speciality, from prominent Universities. At the same time, it became increasingly applied in conjunction with other specialty fields and to a broad range of end uses, including design, construction and performance of structures. More formal contractural arrangements evolved together with greater expectations from Clients. There was a significant capability in applied soil mechanics in Canada prior to World War II. This included a number of prominent engineers who had made a specialty study of this field, and also designers and constructors with experience-based success in handling foundations and earthworks matters. Younger geotechnical engineers learned that they could benefit greatly by consulting such pioneers, particularly on the practical factors involved. The lesson of benefit from mature, experienced-based peer review is very much valid today. With time, geotechnical engineering became increasingly diversified and technologically advanced. Concurrently, consulting geotechnical engineering services provided on a commercial basis, grew rapidly, and in the process acquired vulnerability to errors and associated liabilities. As business enterprises, firms offering geotechnical engineering services had to pay appropriate attention to contractural and legal matters and in due course were obliged to carry professional liability insurance, and adopt other defensive measures. Despite best efforts by technical specialists, disputes occurred due to problems such as ﬁchanged soil conditionsﬂ with resort to dispute resolution measures, including litigation. The risks and available defensive measures are undoubtedly well known to management and experienced senior technical personnel in consulting geotechnical engineering firms. Younger geotechnical engineers should also give them due cognizance. The avoidance of problems, to the extent possible, is stressed in this paper, and some ﬁlessons learnedﬂ are provided against the possibility that they may be of benefit to the younger members of the geotechnical profession in Canada. The Authors each began their careers in consulting geotechnical engineering firms a few years after World War II although their career paths differed in important respects. They are still actively involved professionally in consulting. The ﬁlessons learnedﬂ are thus necessarily made from the perspective of the Authors varied experience, and it is hoped that they may be of value as

Access this article:
Canadian Geotechnical Society members can access to this article, along with all other Canadian Geotechnical Conference proceedings, in the Member Area. Conference proceedings are also available in many libraries.

Cite this article:
Miroslav (Fred) Matich; J.L. Seychuk; Gordon C. McRostie (2015) DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE - SOME LESSONS LEARNED in GEO2015. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Geotechnical Society.

@article{263,author = Miroslav (Fred) Matich; J.L. Seychuk; Gordon C. McRostie,title = DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE - SOME LESSONS LEARNED,year = 2015}