Using Shop Drawings as Leverage 5

[SteelPE]

Another shop drawing question...

So I have a project that is currently going to construction. I was asked to review the rebar shop drawing for conformance to our design. I have reviewed them but have refused to submit the drawing to the contractor as I have some concerns regarding the subsurface conditions of the building site.

At the beginning of the project we were submitted a geotechnical report that outlined challenges and how to overcome those challenges utilizing some special geotechnical elements. Design of geotechnical elements was to be completed by a specialty contractor brought in to remedy the situation. The specialty contractor would require input from me, the structural engineer. Since I have not heard a peep from the contractor regarding anything geotechnical related I am refusing to submit reviewed rebar shop drawings until I know issues with the subsurface have been corrected (or until I know the plan for remediation). I don't particularly care what the GC does, I am just concerned that our foundation design was based upon allowable bearing pressures given in the geotechnical report and I just want to make sure we are achieving those pressures otherwise the foundation design in invalid. I am worried that once I submit the rebar shop drawings the GC will rush to build the foundation leaving everyone with a mess to deal with.

Pressed for a response the GC came back and said their plan was to remove and replace undesirable soils in accordance with the geotechnical report. The problem with this statement....... the geotechnical report went out of it's way to say removal and replacement was not economically feasible given the site conditions (size of site, depth of excavation, site contamination, water table etc) and gives no direction for allowable bearing pressure if this method is chosen.

The GC is now demanding that I review the rebar shop drawings are submit them or the project faces delays which will be my fault. Which I am still reluctant to do.

Am I wrong to refuse this request until we know what is to be done with the site issues?

 

[kipfoot]

I'd say be careful with this. You don't want to put yourself in position where you can be liable for a delay in the project.

You might consider, however, returning the shop drawings marked 'rejected' with a big note about you can't be sure that this foundation rebar is correct until you get confirmation about the subsurface. Put it back in their court.

 

[flight7]

You aren't wrong but your situation is precarious. You might write a letter stating that the foundation design is predicated on X, but it appears that X will not be done and therefore the foundation installation must not proceed. If the contractor intends to do Y instead, then redesign is necessary. Have a conversation with the owner and/or whoever your direct client is before you send anything, and address the letter to them. But get your position in writing before the situation deteriorates.

 

[structSU10]

Yea I may process them with a comment regarding subsurface to conform to geotech report requirements. Perhaps a note saying modification may be required to foundation design pending geotech solution. They can fabricate rebar at their own risk from that point, and if they move ahead you have a clear direction that things may not be OK if the soil issues weren't addressed.

 

[phamENG]

I wouldn't hold the shop drawings. I might reject them and indicate that the required soil improvement may alter the rebar layout and so it needs to be submitted prior to or along with the rebar shops to ensure coordination. But I wouldn't hold them.

You could also put them on notice that you will not sign off on any special inspections of the foundations until you have a report of the soil improvements being done correctly.

I didn't read kipfoot's post...looks like he beat me to it.

 

[bones206]

The geotechnical engineer should be out in front on this. Maybe the lever to pull is rejecting the submittal, saying they have to resubmit with a sealed letter from the geotech or revised geotech report with design parameters based on the GC's proposal to remove and replace.

 

[Enable]

Thanks kipfoot. That's a tactic I've never used but will now surely be considering.

 

[JoelTXCive]

I agree with Kipfoot and others. I would reject the submittal based upon not having the final geotech info.

That way you can redirect the conversation over to the geotechnical issues. Right now, you are stuck in the middle.

 

[CrabbyT]

Why not just mark it up with a note stating something like this, and mark it "approved if subsurface conditions have been rectified, and not approved if they haven't"?

Contractor shall ensure that subsurface conditions are rectified in accordance with the project design documents. See drawings x, y, and z. See geotechnical report, pages X and Y. Engineering does not approve of this submittal if the subsurface conditions have not been rectified.

 

[human909]

Why not just mark it up with a note stating something like this, and mark it "approved if subsurface conditions have been rectified, and not approved if they haven't"?

Because that is the "Pontius Pilate" approach and washing your hands of the issue, making it not your problem.

I believe as an ethical engineer that is concerned about public safety it is better to do your best to ensure that suitable geotechnical issues are in place. kipfoot's response makes sense

 

[Enable]

Not only that..."approved BUT yadda yadda" will be read as approved. And likely nothing good will happen with the foundation in the interm, and afterwards SteelPE will feel immense pressure to sign off on something once it's all built. They shouldn't feel pressure, given their qualification, but that's in an ideal world. In reality we all trade risk for cash and they will feel pressure. Better not to put themselves in that spot to begin with, and kipfoot's solution does just that.

 

[dik]

That's the first time I've heard of having a problem site and putting the onus on the contractor, or, am I reading this correctly?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[LOTE]

Is the geotech still involved on the project?

 

[oldrunner]

Could you hold the approval until the special solution is provided to you for approval as per the contract? I have had the concrete trucks sent away because the geotech and I were having an argument. Can get messy.

 

[dik]

The more I look at this, I think you have two different issues... Check that you can do this contractually, else you may be facing a delay claim.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

Seems to me that you've got written evidence that the selected ground treatment method invalidates the RC design and the shop drawings. Therefore reject.

 

[jhnblgr]

What makes we’re the soil testing results. How big of loads and differential settlements?
What was the recommended soil remediation design? Seems like we aren’t getting the full picture. Was the method selected economically feasible or even constructable?

Did this get effectively communicated to the contractor and owner?

Do you have the authority to delay? Are you contracted to do inspections? Is there a third party inspector? Legal implications for delays can be costly.