Case History 73 === Liz: [00:00:00] Welcome to the GBA Case History Series, brought to you by the GBA Podcast. My name is Elizabeth Brown, and I'm a principal geotechnical engineer at JLT Consultants Abi: And I'm Abi Corbett, a project consultant at SME Liz: And today's episode is one of those situations that feels like almost surreal. You've got a completed project and everything looks right, testing even confirmed it, and yet someone is insisting that it is still wrong Abi: And really not just wrong, but wrong enough to try to direct you to tear it all out and rebuild Liz: Ooh, ouch. Which , as you can imagine, where things, you know, kind of, they kind of start to escalate quickly Abi: Yeah, escalate just a little bit. So let me lay out the story just a little bit. A contractor completes installation of an electrical duct bank on a Department of Defense project. [00:01:00] From a constructive perspective, it really was standard work. Nothing crazy here Liz: Right? Nothing flashy, right? It's the kind of installation that, you know, if done correctly, which it appeared to be, you move on and the, the project keeps going Abi: Exactly. So, soon after completing the work, the contractor submitted their pay application, and they really just expected to close out that portion of the job and move on Liz: Well, I mean, why wouldn't they? I mean, they did everything like they were supposed to. But, you know, it, instead of, "Hey, here's a pay application, I'm gonna get paid," they got a rejection. Not a question, just a hard stop Abi: That's gotta be pretty surprising and frustrating. Plus, the reason behind it? A DoD inspector claimed the concrete was non-compliant because it had been placed using spading instead of mechanical vibration Liz: And [00:02:00] the inspector tied that to ACI 318, but really that's a building code for structural concrete Abi: Exactly. And so that's where things are starting to feel off in general. The duck bank wasn't a part of a building. It was an underground utility construction project. It basically means there's a completely different set of specifications that's gonna govern this work Liz: Exactly. So from the contractor's perspective, they weren't just being questioned, they were being told to remove compliant work based on a misapplied standard. Somebody didn't fully understand what standards applied where Abi: I can't imagine how frustrating that is So at this point, the contractor kind of has a choice. You comply and just absorb the cost or you push back. And like, let's be clear, this isn't a small fix. Removing and reinstalling a duct bank is disruptive, it's costly, and [00:03:00] realistically it's causing delays for every other part downstream Liz: Right. So, it's a big deal to the, to the overall project. So, I mean, really they did what many seasoned contractors would do. They brought in legal counsel and prepared to challenge the decision Abi: And , instead of just relying solely on legal arguments, they did something that's truly important here. They invested in technical validation Liz: Yeah, so what they did is they hired a GBA member firm to conduct a forensic evaluation. So they kind of went that step above and they're like, "We're gonna prove that what we did meets standards." Abi: Exactly. And the project manager from this firm, she was really spot on. She approached the case super methodically because she knew her findings are more than likely gonna end up in court and probably be heavily scrutinized Liz: [00:04:00] Right, and I love this part because it's exactly how you want to see forensic work handled in a situation like this. They're comprehensive, they're disciplined, they know, hey, this is gonna be scrutinized and reviewed, so they're making sure that they're doing the best job that they can Abi: And the member firm's project manager, she didn't even just rely on documentation. She reviewed the plans and specs, she examined, the testing and construction records, but she also visited the site, took photos, got core samples, conducted lab analysis. She even went as far as interviewing the people that were actually on site during the placement Liz: Wow. Like talk about being thorough. She was turning over every stone to make sure that they fully were doing their due diligence. So I mean, it's kinda cool, right? Because she wasn't forming an opinion just based off of assumptions. She was reconstructing what actually happened and [00:05:00] then making decisions and determinations Abi: It feels like that should be automatic for anyone, is like get the data, get the evidence, then make an opinion. But I mean, maybe not. Liz: Right Abi: So after , all the legwork she went through, her conclusion was clear. The work met the project requirements. There's no structural issue. There's no violation of the specifications. Truly no justification for removal and replacement Liz: Which really logically that should have resolved this issue. But you know, of course it didn't. It had to keep dragging out Abi: Exactly. It wouldn't be a case history if not. So despite being handed a detailed, well-supported report from the contractor's CEO, the project's contract manager still refused to approve that payment Liz: What the heck, man? That's crazy. Abi: Yes Liz: I mean, really [00:06:00] at that point, hey, they've , done everything to prove their point. They're, they're, like, at a critical moment because now this isn't just a technical disagreement, it's a dispute that's going to have to be settled elsewhere Abi: And the contractor, they followed the advice of their legal counsel and basically just demanded that formal hearing Liz: And really that's where things shifted from a construction issue into a courtroom style showdown Abi: That's right. The smackdown's coming. So actually both sides did decide to bring in expert witnesses Liz: On one side, the member firm's project manager who conducted the forensic investigation Abi: And on the other side, a PhD professor presenting as a forensic specialist Liz: And from the start, you could see a very big contrast in approach [00:07:00] between the two expert witnesses Abi: Exactly. The professor focused heavily on ACI 318, arguing that because the contractor didn't vibrate the concrete, they failed to meet the standard of care. He claimed that they should have known to vibrate in that situation, and even if there was a question between the standard of care and the project specifications, they should have submitted an RFI before proceeding Liz: And he framed it all in, , very absolute terms. So as if, like, there is no room for interpretation. This is it. This is law Abi: Which we know this world has a lot of gray area, so I thought that was an interesting way to approach this one Liz: I agree Abi: So then we go into cross-examination Liz: And that is where the case really starts to get interesting Abi: So the contractor's attorney started by asking the professor about the actual [00:08:00] real-world experience they have Liz: Which is interesting because it revealed something quite surprising. This PhD expert witness, he could only recall being on about three construction sites in his entire career Abi: Now, I don't know about you, but that's not exactly what I'm expecting when someone's testifying as a, quote, "expert" about construction practices. Liz: Right? There's , so much that's learned, on a construction site versus, like, design. Like, being actually on construction sites and seeing how things are actually built is just so, it's so valuable. So it's kind of an interesting situation there. Abi: No doubt Liz: So then really here comes another care, key point is that this technical expert, he hadn't even visited this project site that he's testifying about at all. He hasn't even stepped foot on the site[00:09:00] Abi: And that's what really confused me. So he's got the minimal experience in general on sites, and then didn't even take that step. I mean, how do you base your opinion solely on photographs in this situation? Liz: Right. I mean, like, photographs are great and all, and they help a ton, but, , actually being on site and walking around and seeing things from different angles and perspectives is just so valuable. Which really anyone in the field knows that you can never fully capture real conditions in a photograph Abi: Absolutely. And that might be the most damaging moment of this entire case, honestly Liz: Right. So really then the attorney challenged the professor's definition of standard of care Abi: And after some pretty intense questioning, the professor admitted he'd altered the definition. He added a little bit of his [00:10:00] own language and even omitted, like, really important context that really can't be, omitted, especially in court, let's be real Liz: Man, it really at that point, it's not just about being wrong. Like, talk about totally ruining your credibility Abi: Right? And once credibility is, like, undermined in a case like this, I mean, really any case if you start going at credibility, everything's gonna erode around it Liz: Yeah, it's, it's a bad thing there. So now let's compare that to how the member firm's project manager presented her case Abi: Right. I mean, as you can guess, she didn't rely on sweeping statements or, like, these very rigid, tight interpretations and definitions Liz: And what I liked is that she walked through what she did, like step by step. I did this, we did this, this is what I observed, and this is how those observations led me to these [00:11:00] conclusions, right? So like very thorough of the process and her thought process, right? As to, hey, this is how I came to this conclusion Abi: It's not just based on theory or just, like, straight up opinion. This is step-by-step, no shortcuts kind of forensic work Liz: Right. And she, she leaned on those actual test results to demonstrate performance, not theory, like actual results Abi: I mean, there's a huge difference between saying something should fail than demonstrating that it didn't Liz: Exactly. And she also anchored her testimony in establishing guidance for experts, reinforcing that determining the standard of care requires more than a personal opinion Abi: Right. They can't just decide that , ACI 318 just happens to apply there. Like, you have to go to the established guidance, not just one professor who's been on a [00:12:00] site three times maybe. Liz: Exactly Abi: So she's adding another layer of credibility. She's not just presenting findings, but she's really showing that she's following the recognized best practices in this Liz: And really in the end, the judge sided with the contractor. And I'm sure that a lot of that has to do with how well they presented their information and they did their due diligence and were - thorough Abi: Exactly. The ruling was so clear. The opposing expert's arguments just weren't even persuasive Liz: And importantly, the contractor wasn't just paid, they were awarded costs and fees as well Abi: It really is a happy ending for the GBA member firm and the contractor in this one, which we don't see that often. Liz: Right. Usually there's a fees to them involved Abi: Exactly. So the attempt to force the removal of compliant work really just didn't fail here. It came with financial [00:13:00] consequence for the project owner and the DoD inspector Liz: Right. So really, I think that there's some deep lessons here that go just beyond the obvious Abi: No doubt. One of them is about context. These standards, they don't exist in isolation. They have to be applied in the correct setting at the right time Liz: And using the wrong standard, like even if it's a valid document, it can completely distort the outcome Abi: you can't just apply a certain document just because you want to. Liz: Right Abi: So another lesson is really about evidence over authority Liz: Right. I mean, it goes to show that just because somebody has credentials, right, like the, the expert witness with the PhD, like that doesn't mean that their conclusions are going to hold up under the scrutiny Abi: Absolutely. This case really shows the more grounded, methodical approach is gonna [00:14:00] carry way more weight than just a "I'm the authority on this" sounding person. Liz: Right. Well, and then there's also the professionalism Abi: Right. It's not all about just our technical skills, but it's how we're gonna approach our role and especially when our role is an expert Liz: Exactly. Like, are you evaluating the facts or are you just advocating for a position? Abi: Yeah, because those are two very different things here Liz: Right. You kinda, you gotta be able to read, read the situation. So what stands out to me is how close this came to going a completely different direction Abi: Right? So if the technical case hadn't been built so carefully from really just the beginning of these claims happening, or if those inconsistencies hadn't been exposed during the trial, it could have resulted in [00:15:00] unnecessary demolition, reconstruction, and just way more fees and costs that no one was expecting Liz: And really a delay to the project. I mean, project delays are hugely costly as well. Really this is a good reminder that outcomes like this don't happen by accident. , They really come from doing thorough work and standing behind it when it really matters Abi: That's the truth. Well, that's all we have for today's episode. I hope you were able to take away some useful information that will help you and others at your firm make good risk-based decisions in the future. If this episode resonated with you, or if you have a potential case history to write, we wanna hear that story. Email us at info@geoprofessional.org or comment on one of our LinkedIn posts. Thanks for listening. We'll catch you next time