Horizontal Drilling

[Sojisub]

I have a project where the contractor is using Horizontal Driving to install fusible PVC in the ground. During the reaming operation, they were running into rock which damaged their drill bits. Now they are claiming cost for repair to their drill bits and delay in their operations. There was a soil report but not for that location. Is this a justifiable claim? Should the contractor expect to run into some rocks?

 

[JedClampett]

Changed conditions should be covered in the front ends of the contract.
If your Geotechnical Report didn't mention boulders or cobbles, the contractor can rightfully claim that they didn't expect any. Whether or not that's realistic is another story, but realistic assumptions aren't contractually expected.

 

[dik]

I would suggest that if the geotech report was for a different project, but represented as for that site, then an extra to contract is warranted. He could not have inferred conditions based on the information he was given. I recently had a project where I was to embed soldier piles into rock. The geotech report showed refusal, and went no further. I found out later, the owner didn't want to pay for additional drilling. The contractor damaged his rig because refusal was glacial moraine 'rocks' and not bedrock. Recommendation for payment was easy...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[bimr]

Impossible to say without a review of the Contract. That's the purpose of the Contract.

 

[PEinc]

Was rock expected to be encountered? Was the drilling expected (from the supplied borings) to be in soil only? Were the drill bits meant for soil or rock?

http://www.PeirceEngineering.com