Case History 13 === 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 the principal geotechnical engineer at JLT Consultants Abi: And I'm Abi Corbett, a project consultant at SME. Today, we're gonna get into case history 13, and this one really highlights how your technical decisions, communication gaps, and client relationships all kinda intersect. And what's super interesting here is that the technical work wasn't really the biggest problem. It was everything floating around it Liz: Exactly. So like scope, communication, and really how the firm handled the client afterward, it all comes into play. So let's go through it together. Abi: Okay. So this project is basically a 10-story office building, and the geotechnical member firm was brought in pretty early, which is normally a good thing, right?[00:01:00] Liz: Exactly. Abi: But because the project was just kind of in a conceptual phase, the architect, who was acting on behalf of the owner at this time, asked the member firm to submit an oral proposal. Liz: Hmm. Okay, so this is interesting. So the member firm actually provided two options. One was a lower cost, like bare bones scope with just three borings before preparing recommendations for footings, underfloor drainage system, and the basement wall. Abi: Exactly. And the other option was a much more comprehensive scope. It included everything you just said about that first scope, plus there were some deeper borings, more lab testing, and like a full settlement analysis. Liz: And really, something to bring up is providing the two options, especially this early where the project was just in the conceptual phase, that's not [00:02:00] unormal, right? It's, it's kind of common of, "Hey, you're still figuring things out. Here's some different options to get you going," knowing that more than likely you're gonna come back after they have a better plan put in place, you know, to better define your scope. Abi: Exactly. Liz: So after, the proposals, the architect recommended the better scope, and of course the owner chose the cheaper one. Abi: Yeah, it kind of feels very similar to what we've been seeing all the time in these case histories. And knowing that these proposals weren't written down, we don't really know how much the architect sold it. We're just kind of going off of their word that they pushed the owner for it. And let's be real, some owners, no matter what you said anyway, they're just gonna value saving those upfront dollars versus mitigating risks later on. Liz: Oh, absolutely. And in this case, I mean, that decision kind of set the tone for [00:03:00] everything that followed. But really, I think it's important to, to remember here that these were oral proposals, like nothing written. I mean, that's not a good thing Abi: Yeah, and it's not like the member firm was giving that proposal directly to the owner either. Like, there's a go-between with the architect Liz: Right. So who knows what could have been, misconstrued. Abi: So once they get rolling, the subsurface conditions were actually pretty complex. There's clay, groundwater, and they even found a sand layer, in one of those just three borings. Liz: Oh, and of course it's only in one, right? So it's not consistent across the site, which just happens. So the firm produced a report recommending formed footings directly beneath the basement floor, but they also casually mentioned a foundation alternative with deep drilled and footings. Abi: And that's definitely where things start going off track here. Liz: [00:04:00] Right, because they really didn't fully evaluate that alternative, right? They casually had mentioned it, so they didn't clearly define the limitations of their recommendations. Abi: Right. Not only that, the report's just missing key information, like a truly detailed structure description, and the project manager forgot to identify the column loads. Liz: Oh, that is huge because what that means is that the recommendations, they're not tied tightly to the actual design. And remember, this project is conceptual, which means things are likely to change. I don't know how many times I've, you know, prepared a report for a project and then you roll the clock forward and then the scope of what's actually being built has significantly changed. And so then we have to come back and be like, "Hey, you know, time out. The recommendations in this report are based [00:05:00] off of, say, a one-story structure, and now you're gonna build a three-story. Like, we need to do some further analysis." So that's something to remember here. Abi: Yes, 100%. And realistically, the member firm wasn't really involved in most of those decisions. And that's kind of where we start seeing another major change. The basement was eliminated, and accordingly, the architect just planned to switch to the drilled shafts. Our member firm did get a chance to inform the architect that they really should be engaged again. That way, they could delineate the extent of that sand layer we mentioned. Liz: But the firm isn't brought back to do any additional borings even though they recommended it. Abi: And at the same time, those column loads are increasing significantly. Some of the footings were getting as large as 16 feet in diameter. Liz: Wow. So now you have larger, more [00:06:00] demanding foundation elements without any updated or additional geotechnical data to support it. Abi: Exactly. And not only that, during construction, one of those large under reams began to cave in, and so the architect substituted three smaller footings and then decided to do the same for several other large footings elsewhere. Liz: Oh, wow. So the redesigns in the field actually end up costing about $125,000 in added costs. But remember, the geotech wasn't involved in any of those changes. Abi: And not only that, that's back in 2017. I was kinda curious what that might look like, in today's dollars, and it's a lot closer to 170,000. So now we're at that point where the client is obviously gonna ask the firm to explain why their services couldn't prevent that [00:07:00] overrun. Liz: And really, this is a critical moment in our story here. Instead of engaging constructively, the CEO responds defensively. Abi: Yeah. So he's super upset and felt like the owner was basically calling his professional competence into question. And I mean, he showed it. He wrote a letter to the owner, and I mean, it damaged the trust immediately. But surprisingly, the owner ended up bringing the member firm back in on another project, and this one's a 28-story office. Liz: Okay, interesting. And even though everything goes well technically this time, payment issues arise and the firm escalates to legal action. Abi: Which, as you can kind of assume, [00:08:00] triggered a countersue. The client decided to go after the member firm on that first project and claimed that there was professional negligence that caused that cost overrun. Liz: Oh, man. So at the advice of their counsel, the legal counsel, the member firm chose to settle. The owner quickly accepted the offer. They dropped their claim and promptly paid the bill on the second project. But, at this point, that relationship is essentially over. Abi: Yeah, I mean, there's two chances there to get it right, and I mean, even that second opportunity to really mend fences and it's just really, really hard to come back from all that. Liz: Agreed Abi: So let's talk about some of those big lessons here. First and foremost, scope matters. Liz: Oh, absolutely. If the scope isn't sufficient, I mean, the engineer's ability to manage risk is limited from the [00:09:00] get-go. So I mean, really don't forget to, to limit your scope soley because of fees Abi: Yeah. And don't let yourself rush just knowing that maybe the fee isn't as high as you would need to spend the right amount of time on something. I feel like if that project manager even was able to pay a little bit more attention in the report, some of the issues might have gone a different way in that first project. Liz: Yeah Abi: So the second big lesson here, I think, is communication. And it's not just communicating to the architect, our go-between. I think we need to focus on communicating with the actual client Liz: Yeah, and sometimes in these situations, I mean, the, the architect acts as the owner's representative. And so there's times when you have no communication with the actual owner, as well. And I think especially if you're having issues, it's important to be able to reach out to [00:10:00] the owner to express, "Hey, what, what's going on?" Abi: Right. And that kind of leads us to the, in my opinion, biggest takeaway, which is when those conflicts pop up, it really matters how you handle it. Like, you don't just have to be the most technically sound. You have to be able to understand how to communicate that not everything is going to plan. Liz: Right. And the CEO he had multiple opportunities to strengthen their, their relationship but didn't take them, kind of went the opposite direction. Abi: Yeah. It really feels like ego got in the way, and that just ended up costing the firm future work. Liz: Right. So the, really this case is a great reminder that geoprofessional services are, they're high risk by nature, but there's things that we can do to help to mitigate that. Abi: Exactly. Managing risk isn't just about doing really [00:11:00] sound engineering. It's communication, it's documentation, and it's really truly working on relationships. Liz: Yeah, absolutely. And really, if you take anything away from this today, it's that don't let short-term cost decisions or emotional reactions compromise your long-term success Abi: That's super well said. Thank you all for joining us today. 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 our LinkedIn posts