Geotechnical Construction Monitor Ethical Question 2

[tch549]

Here is a scenario: The contractor is installing fairly large power pole structures (240kV, l=90' d=2.0') and I am working as a geotech monitor for the soil conditions in the foundations of the wooden pole structures. The engineering specs state that ALL pole foundations must be backfilled with a well graded sandy gravel.

The contractor says, "The design engineers don't have a clue! We have been doing this for 30+ years! Help us out would ya!? Just write on your sheet that we put gravel in the base of the hole!" (in a more subtle way than that of course). In the back of your mind you think, "hmm...I am very inexperienced, and not sure if these guys are trying to bamboozle me, but maybe they know what they are talking about...because now that I think about it: If the base material is already quite firm and un-disturbed, wouldn't the placement of a compacted gravel fill settle more than the in-situ material beneath it anyway?". I always learned that any re-worked fill can never be as throughly compacted as a very dense in-situ material.

So I decide to document the gravel being placed in what I deemed as competent foundations (based on the spec of course), while I knowingly allowed the contractor to omit the placement of gravel in these foundations.

IS THIS WRONG? I was always told throughout education that you learn the most once you are out in the field...I feel, and fear, that I am coming to a realization of how things are really done in the construction industry behind the backs of engineers. I want to know if what I decided to do was terribly unethical, or was I going with the norm? Also, I am questioning whether these guys have good intentions or bad (i.e. do they really know what they are doing? can I trust them? or are they just trying to swing in and make a buck while pinning the liability on me?).

Here is another example scenario: 98% compaction must be met. After much tamping and water added, material can not get higher than 96.5% from the densometer. On visual inspection, the material is very hard packed and you believe that its the hardest its going to get. Rather than waste the contractors money (and also hurt your relationship with them) by making them dig up, replace and repack the material, is it ethical to pass the area desipte the inadequate density reading? Especially if you are dealing with highly variable native material.

I guess in a nutshell the question is "as a monitor, is it okay to intentionally allow the contractors to disregard aspects of the engineering specs that are held by the experienced construction workers to be unnecessary or too conservative?"

I am not sure if this is too technical for this thread category or not, but it seems like right place for it. Since I will eventually become a civil engineer, I would like to learn more on how these issues should be dealt with ethically and possibly make changes to the way I approach these compromising situations in the future. Thanks a lot for reading and I would greatly appreciate any help I can get.

 

[Ron]

My answer to both of your questions/scenarios is an unequivocal "NO". As you progress in your career you will have contractors attempt to compromise your ethics all too often. Each time you yield, it becomes easier to do so the next time. Don't start it and you won't have to stop it.

In your first scenario the contractor gave you the standard "we've been doing it this way for 30 years". If you've ever been on a construction site and you haven't heard this you're deaf. Yes, they've been doing it the same way for 30 years. They rarely get tagged with failures after the first year because that's when their warranty expires. Unfortunately many contractors don't have 30 years of experience...they have 1 year of experience, 30 times. If you don't enforce the specifications (after all..the contractor bid to those specs and has a contractual obligation and often a statutory obligation to follow them), then you are compromising your ethics, the ethics of the profession, and increasing your liability and your company's liability. Why do that just you can appear to be cooperative???

In your second scenario, there are several things you can do to help. One is you can require a check on the Proctor to see if the material parameters are correct. I'd start there. Then you can look at the contractor's procedures to see if he needs to change something. Your scenario can be a common occurrence in slightly clayey, silty fine sands. If they are not brought to just over optimum moisture prior to compaction, they will "bridge" over and feel hard as a brick, but without achieving compaction. If compaction cannot be achieved, there are really only two reasons for that...wrong material comparison parameters or wrong procedure being used by the contractor.

Solve the problem...don't give in the a whiny contractor.

 

[bpattengale]

Ron pretty much summed it all up in his post. Don't give in to the contractor. The plans were designed and engineered using certain assumptions and if you weren't involved with that you may not see why things are done a certain way.

You do learn a lot in the field, but a lot of it is about constructability. Sure it fits on paper, but it may not be possible to build it that way in the field.

In the end your job is to ensure that the project is built to the specifications. Stick to your guns and point to the specifications for back up. If the contractor gives you greif over it or refuses to do it, call up your supervisor and get him involved.

On a separate note don't simply dismiss what contractors say without any thought. Some contractors do know what they are doing and if they something looks wrong at least look at it. It could save a lot of money or prevent a problem later in constuction. We all make mistakes and sometimes they're not caught until the thing is in the ground.

If you're not sure why things are done a certain way, when you have a chance talk with the EOR and ask. More then likely they'll explain the reasoning behind it.

 

[Ron]

bpattengale made some very good points. You can learn a lot in the field...not only what you shouldn't do, but what you can do and what works.

Another point about the EOR...put yourself in his/her shoes...would you want someone who does not know the design assumptions deciding to compromise your design? As BP noted, talk to the EOR...then you'll have an explanation for the contractor that goes beyond "it's in the specs, so do it".

 

[kelowna]

There is and there will never be a good valid reason to lie or to falsify records. If the project requirements are wrong, there are better alternatives or canot be achieved, there are procedures to deal with those issues in the open(change orders, re-analysis, RFI, NCR,...) with proper paperwork and to everybody's satisfaction (or almost everybody).

I can not see any valid reasons to deal with a problem by sweeping it under the carpet or by creating another, larger problem.

Sorry to say, but what you have done is wrong.

By the way, I get the 'we have done it like this for ever' excuse all the time. Whenever I get it my answer is on the lines of 'Men could beat up women for ages, that did not make it right'.

 

[Ron]

So I decide to document the gravel being placed in what I deemed as competent foundations (based on the spec of course), while I knowingly allowed the contractor to omit the placement of gravel in these foundations.

Housetim...
I missed this in my initial quick read of your post.
Reading Kelowna's post made me go back and read yours more carefully. You asked "Is this wrong?" I'm hoping you've posed this as hypothetical premise. If you actually did this, it is very wrong!! I would fire someone for such action. It is unethical and undermines the trust that people should be able to have in engineers and inspectors.

 

[msucog]

if it is truly no big deal, then the engineer of record should have no problem entertaining a request from the contractor to change it. ultimately, the contractor is there to follow the plan/specs. the eor has the final say since it's their stamp/butt on the line. if you have suggestions/concerns then discuss it directly with the design engineer. and if you worked for me and i found out that you knowingly documented lies, i'd fire you on the spot. as soon as you start falsifying documents, no good can come of it regardless of how small/trivial it is. don't compromise your own integrity for the sake of making what you think is a pal or to make your day a little bit easier and free from conflict. in other words, do your job.

by the way, as a former contractor i now look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking with some of the crap we did...but then again, "they'd been doing it that way for 30 years". and apparently had been doing wrong for 30 years. a contractor's job is to get it done...and this usually has little/no regard for "true" quality. never trust a contractor...NEVER EVER TRUST A CONTRACTOR.

 

[photoengineer]

My take is that providing a cert saying something was done when in fact it wasn't is really bad, and you probably should let the EOR know of your mistake ASAP. The US government throws people in jail for this type of thing.

A couple of real life examples: One tower of the new CityCenter Las Vegas was built with the wrong kind of steel. I don't know if this was a contractor substitution or engineering error. But you can easily imagine it was contractor substitution.

A 12 story building fell over in China when contractors removed soil from one side of the building and dumped it on the other.

Lastly, a bunch of people died in a Hyatt Regency hotel many years ago when a design change was made that significantly weakened a pedestrian overpass inside the hotel. The EOR did a bunch of calcs and designed a link in a certain way, and then the engineers in the field modified the design without consideration to the stress in the beam.

 

[rowingengineer]

I've dropped back into the site on an off chance every now and then just to see what’s going on. One day I found a contactor dragging the mesh, apparently he buys enough to do one pour and in-between the inspection and pour he moves. I have also found a guy removing inspected reo from a wall. We went back through a few of their previous projects; let’s just say that my client’s lawyer had a field day, and there out of business.

AKA never trust a contractor, or subcontractor or a builder and for that matter never trust a developer.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it

 

[JLSeagull]

While supporting construction it is little trouble to issue a request for information (RFI) to engineering in a manner that offers the contractors suggested point of view for easy selection. This permits the engineer to see things from the contractors point of view before simply restating their original instructions.

While preparing to support a project at a fabrication site we had a meeting regarding "maintenance and preservation" of equipment delivered that would not be operating for a few years. The construction manager spoke to the engineering team as if they were idiots explaing "This is not our first rodeo." This is one of those salty phrases used by contractors. However I can assure that the fabrication yard never lubricated or stroked any valves or rolled any motors during the project. The superintendents typically stayed in their offices without venturing into the yard. This too is common among contractor managers.

 

[kelowna]

Housetim

This is currently an issue very close to my heart because recient events at my current project. With a bit more time and reading some of the other answers, I would like to elaborate on my response. We are being to harsh on you.

As I said, what you did is wrong. But it seems to me that you are not completely responsible for this. It would appear that your company has left you out in the cold, supervising a contract with no support of somebody more senior, and if you have to ask for advice in an internet forum, you would assume that there is nobody you could talk about this in your organization. I think of the junior people that work with me and if they did not have any support... well it is tough sometimes!

There will be times in which the project specifications and plans will be incorrect or will not adjust to the site conditions, or times in which a change makes sense. In those cases there are established mechanisms to do the right thing and record it. There is no problem on changing drawings or specs, but procedures must be followed and the outcome recorded.

For example, if the soil is competent and no gravel is required, great! the contractor sends a letter, request for change, RFI, whatever the form is called. He suplies his reasons and back up documentation. The Engineer reviews and approves/rejects/comments. You move on. It should never be the decision of a junior site inspector and it should always be recorded.

Also, now you are in a very weak position with the contractor. He knows that you bent the rules, he could try to get you to bend them again and again and again, at some point it will be too much and you have to say enough. I would suggest you find somebody senior in your organization, take him for lunch/coffee, and talk to him confidentially about this mess.

On another issue. I would like to say that although there are very many contractors that are not to be trusted (as other people here has said), there are many that can. I work for a contractor and I resent the generalization. On my watch things are done properly! I could also give examples of engineers not behaving ethically or not doing things properly, but that is not the point of this discussion.

 

[JLSeagull]

Obtaining field experience early in your career is a very good thing. Field experience helps with engineering judgment. Field experience also makes it more difficult for other engineers, contractors, clients, vendors etc. to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[HgTX]

I'd just like to restate a point that others have made:

If you do agree with the contractor that what's in the specs isn't necessary, then you go through the normal RFI process, or pick up the phone and call the EOR, or write a letter yourself authorizing the change if you have the authority to do so (which someday you may have). All of these are valid means of achieving something other than what is given in the contract. Then, you document exactly what was done.

Never, ever, EVER falsify records. EVER.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[TDAA]

Quite the e-tongue-lashing you have received. kelowna is right, not all are bad, but the ones that ask you to do something against the spec (without following the proper channels) are.

The answer is not to tell them that they cannot omit it due to the spec. But isn't that your job? NO, you are there to monitor. If they do not want to put it in, they don't have to. On the flip side, you have to write it down that they did not put it in, then you have to notify the EOR that it was not done, and lastly, you should get it in writing when they say it is OK to omit.

So what is the contractor's motivation to put in the gravel? It is the risk that the EOR tells them to take it out, and do it right, or they do not get paid.

If you have a contractor questioning the spec, point out that they should follow it, and if they do not, you will have to document it and pass it on.

Take the next bit of downtime to call the EOR/your boss, and tell them that the contractor thinks they are full of it, and why, and ask them what their take on the situation is.

 

[ColonelSanders83]

In my opinion, you have dug yourself into quite the hole. From what I have read you have one option.

You need to sit down with your boss and come clean immediately, exactly what you allowed, what you falsified, the whole nine yards. Tell him you thought it would be ok at the time based on the contractors "years of experience", but a few discussions with other more experienced engineers has shown you that this was very wrong. You then have to ask him to help you resolve the matter as quickly possible. Do whatever it takes, but you probably won't be able to come out of this unscathed. The more time you allow to slide by the worse things are likely to get.

Everybody starts out a rookie, and everybody makes mistakes, what separates the good engineers from the Bloody dangerous ones is how those mistakes are handled after their realization. Don't sweep it under the rug, it will only come back to haunt you. At the end of the day most people know it takes a big man to fess up to something like that. Your boss will likely get the EOR involved and it may turn out to be ok as built, but you won’t know until he gets blesses what has been done.

Just my two cents worth.


Always remember, free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

 

[PeterStock]

If I was his boss and he came to me and told me what he did, he might keep his job. If I found out on my own, he would be out that day. Go to your boss today.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[stevenal]

A lot of focus above on the structural adequacy of the backfill. While important, this is only part of the concern here. The bidding contractors are supposed to be competing on a level field, that is they bid to the specs. Allowing one to effectively bid to his own specs gives that contractor an unfair advantage.

You might enjoy reading ScottyUK's signature line:

http://www.eng-tips.com/userthreadparticipate.cfm?handle=ScottyUK

 

[HgTX]

stevenal makes an excellent point, which is something I've had to explain to fabricators/contractors who want to do it "their way". If "their way" costs less, then sometimes they are only allowed to do it (assuming it's structurally adequate) if they pay the owner back money, because they bid and are being paid based on the more expensive option.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[RacingAZ]

What's in it for you? Why would you go out of your way, stick your neck out and lie on your report. It is not just wrong, it is illegal and a cause for termination if your employer finds out.

The way to deal with this kind of scenario is to tell the contractor that the issue is between him and the design engineer. You're just there to observe and document the work. As a field monitor, you are not the approving authority to let someone deviate from the specs.

Just like what others said, you may have to fess up to the boss to save your integrity but don't be surprised if you might also be out of a job by doing so.