Contract specifications are not generally written by engineering geologists; however, we are sometimes called upon to contribute portions of the specifications or to review them. The wording employed in contract specifications is a constant source of later claims, many of which come about through the observance of changed conditions. Specifications should be written in clear and concise descriptions of what is desired in terms of site preparation and construction. Words that cannot be defined by a construction operation should not be used in specifications.
The purpose of well-written specifications should be to provide information that will allow bidding contractors to make reasonable estimates of the cost required to complete the project. Certain types of construction activities, particularly rock excavation for tunnels and underground structures, will require additional information such as rock hardness and other parameters of interest to tunnel boring machine and rock blasting experts.
acknowledged receipt or have reviewed such information.
Changed conditions claims (see Chapter 8) are probably the most frequent of all legal issues involving the engineering geologist. The provision for changed conditions is usually placed in construction documents in order to avoid shifting the entire responsibility for risk assumption on the contractor. Changed condition clauses written to recognize the possibility of occurrence of variations in geologic conditions that affect the manner in which construction is undertaken or in the stability measures employed on the project.
Engineering geologists should be aware of the potential for such claims on their project, especially if the geologist is assigned duties as owner's representative during construction. Two main lines of protection are available and should be employed against changed conditions. In the first, site exploration should be planned to anticipate and encounter a variety of geologic conditions which may be expected to occur on the basis of regional geology, physiography, geomorphology, stratigraphy, etc. Secondly, the individual assigned the task of site representative must be alert and continually making observations of all types during construction. In this connection, the owner's geological or geotechnical representative should make frequent inspections of all open faces or surfaces as they are exposed, and should photograph (including an appropriate scale object) these surfaces. Indications of pending changed conditions claims are centered about any slowdown in the rate at which the contractor has been proceeding on the project, or at a given segment of the site, or in difficulties that the contractor may be experiencing in meeting his or her schedule production goals. These delays mean financial loss to the contractor, and the owner's representative must be aware of these conditions and notify his or her superiors and the owner at the earliest instance.
If the owner's representative is an engineering geologist, the observations and photographs should be accompanied by frequent face and wall maps showing the lithologic type of rock, its state of weathering or alteration and its structural features (discontinuities) and their attitudes. A record of the size of muck produced in rock excavation projects may also prove extremely useful in later defense of the client.
Communications on one sort or another are the root source of many of our problems in professional practice. Each engineering geologist should take care in selection of words for proposals and contracts. The essence of this care is discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, so suffice to say that words that imply a warranty or guarantee of conditions must be avoided at all costs; these are words such as all, certainty, is, will, can. Think of the damaging implications of, "In all aspects at the site, Modelo Formation beds can be seen to represent stable conditions and are an ideal medium for construction cut slopes."
SUMMARY
Proposals, negotiations and contracts should be written or undertaken with a careful mind toward the reasonability of what is being said and what will be attempted according to the words with which such actions and documents are constituted. Care is the single most important underwriting effort that can be made to make these documents and meetings fruitful endeavors for the engineering geologist.
Professional work should not be undertaken without a carefully-executed, written agreement between the consultant and the client. The agreement is one of a number of forms of communications that are necessary to engender a good and stable relationship between the consultant and the client, one which will bring continued opportunities for professional work in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter (Chapter 3 in the 1st and 2nd editions of the Professional Practice Guidelines) was written from the experiences of practice on the part of the primary author (A.W. Hatheway) and members of the profession who provided comments, suggestions and examples of documents, some of which were orignially reproduced in the earlier editions of the Guidelines.
It is most appropriate to make note of the influence in this writing that has come from the presence and publications of the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) of Silver Spring, Maryland, which is now known as the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. ASFE has sponsored the successful Institute of Professional Practice (IPP) for a number of years. The primary author has been strongly influenced by his attendance at IPP and by the series of loss-prevention materials that have been published by ASFE.
We are especially indebted to the following members of the Association who responded to the call to assist in the original (1981) compilation. Raymond T. Throckmorton, Jr., Franklin, Tennessee, a past president of AEG, identified the contributors and managed their most helpful participation.
Los Angeles, CA
EBASCO Services, Inc.
Greensboro, NC Robert M. Valentine
Woodward-Clyde Consultants Houston, TX
Civil & Geotechnical Engineering Evanston, IL
David Woodhouse
Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc.
Upper Newton Falls, MA
SELECTED REFERENCES
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1986, ASFE contract reference guide: Silver Spring, Md. 84 p. ($60.00, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.) The Guide includes 75 contract provisions, explanation of the provisions, and an overview of contracts.
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1992?, Terms for geotechnical engineering services: Silver Spring, Md. ($10.00, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.) This model contract covers standard of care, site access and conditions, sample disposal, construction monitoring, discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials, and other items.
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1992?, Standard form of agreement for preliminary site assessment services: Silver Spring, Md. ($10.00, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.)
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1992?, Standard form agreement for subcontract laboratory services: Silver Spring, Md. ($10.00, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.)
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1992?, Standard form subcontractor agreement for drilling services: Silver Spring, Md. ($10.00, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.)
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1990, Institute of Professional Practice (IPP), Introduction to professional practice: Silver Spring, Md. ASFE intensive, in-depth educational program for design professionals moving into management positions, includes a 26-week home study course and a 2 1/2 day seminar at the end of the course.
1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.)
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, 1992?, Would you sign this contract? a message to clients: Silver Spring, Md. (One copy available to non-members, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.) Flyer describing the kind of contract an experienced and qualified consulting engineer will accept.
Baltimore Engineer, 19??, Words can kill: the "certification" issue: reprinted by ASFE, Silver Spring, Md. (One copy available to non-members, see Chapter 1, Resource List 3, for ASFE address.)
Hatheway, Allen W., 1979, Reasonability in subsurface exploration: viewpoint of the consultant to the owner: Paper presented at Symposium on Reasonability in Engineering Geology, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Pierce, J.D., Jr. (chairman) and L.R. Oliensis (ed.), 1976, Construction contracts: Practicing Law Institute, New York City, NY, 623 p.
Vince, C. Roy, 1979, Implication of liability claims: Paper presented at Symposium on Reasonability in Engineering Geology, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.