Case History 110
===

[00:00:00] Liz: Welcome to the GBA case history series, brought to you by the GBA podcast. My name is Elizabeth Brown and I am the principal geotechnical engineer at JLT Consultant.

[00:00:11] Abi: Abi Corbett, a project consultant at SME.

[00:00:15] Liz: So today we are gonna be discussing GBA case history number 110, which is a real world construction project that, well, let's just say it went a little sideways. So it's a classic case of what can go wrong, did go wrong, and it's a treasure trove of lessons we can all learn from no matter where you stand in the construction world. You know what's fascinating about this case is that it all starts with a seemingly simple project.

[00:00:49] Abi: And you know, it's always the projects you think that will be so simple that explode into a nightmare.

[00:00:56] Liz: Oh, that's so true. So this project [00:01:00] was for some additions to an elementary school and a middle school, so relatively simple.

[00:01:06] Abi: Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Two school additions is like a standard project. What could really be that hard?

[00:01:13] Liz: So it all begins with the decision that the school district makes. So a seemingly simple one at the time, but oh boy does it come back to bite them. They decided to use different design teams with different specs for each school, even though they were all gonna be built at the same time.

[00:01:33] Abi: What different teams, different specs. That's just setting you up for confusion, miscommunications right off the bat.

[00:01:44] Liz: I know. So now let's enter the member firm on the project. So they're gonna be the geotechnical engineers. So they do their due diligence, they conduct their investigations, and they come up with clear recommendations for the field material. [00:02:00] It's to be used for this project. So you know the material that they're gonna use to build the building pads and the foundation, right, so that they gotta get it right from the get go.

[00:02:11] Abi: Right. They probably had to lay out those specific requirements for the soil types, almost like a recipe for that strong foundation, because I know not all soil is created equal.

[00:02:23] Liz: Oh, absolutely. You're right there. So you've gotta have the right ingredients, right, to stick with your metaphor there. So really they're being thorough with their specs.

[00:02:35] Abi: Super thorough, and I think I saw they even went a step further and they were like, Hey, just to be extra sure, let's submit samples for the fill for pre-approval, and then make sure that you test the soil regularly during the whole placement.

[00:02:51] Liz: Right, exactly. Let's make sure we're gonna build this thing solid, right? It's a school. We don't want anything bad happening. It sounds like they're trying to do everything [00:03:00] by the book, you know, cover all their bases, make sure that this project is gonna be right. Right. They're trying to be proactive,

[00:03:08] Abi: I mean, it sounds like it.

[00:03:10] Liz: but here's where things, you know, kind of start to veer off course for us. The school district, for reasons completely unknown, decided to stick with those separate design teams and specs.

[00:03:25] Abi: Oh boy. Of course they did.

[00:03:26] Liz: And you guessed it. Neither set of specs lined up perfectly with what the member firm had actually recommended.

[00:03:34] Abi: So you're thinking with all these mismatch pieces, now something's bound to go wrong.

[00:03:40] Liz: Oh, absolutely. You know it. So now at the elementary school, they didn't even bother to reference the geotech report in their specs at all. Instead, they dug up some old irrelevant roadway spec for select Backfill,

[00:03:58] Abi: What you're [00:04:00] literally just describing a red flag.

[00:04:02] Liz: exactly. Why use what was prepared for this project? So it's like using a recipe for chocolate chip cookies when you're really trying to bake a birthday cake. Just not gonna work out right.

[00:04:19] Abi: You know, that's always a good analogy, and they basically ignore expert advice and set themselves up for the serious problems. What about at the other school? Do they follow the recommendations there?

[00:04:32] Liz: Well, sort of, I mean, the middle school specs, they at least referenced the geotech report. So that's a step in the right direction. They referenced building codes, but instead of requiring the rigorous testing and oversight that we were previously talking about, they basically said, okay, contractor, you handle the testing and you make sure everything's up to snuff.

[00:04:57] Abi: Wait, that's a lot of [00:05:00] responsibility riding on the contractor shoulders.

[00:05:02] Liz: Yeah, and a lot of trust.

[00:05:06] Abi: Wouldn't it be standard practice for the general contractor to inform the subcontractor about all that testing? Where does everyone's responsibility begin and end?

[00:05:17] Liz: You'd think so, right? But remember, we've got this fragmented set up, different design teams, different specs that don't align. So the stage is set for, some murky waters.

[00:05:31] Abi: Okay, so the misaligned specs, potentially unclear communication channels, and then a whole lot of pressure riding on the contractor. I'm sure nothing could ever go wrong.

[00:05:42] Liz: Oh, absolutely. So construction begins, and the general contractor gets a sample of that fill that they wanna use. He gets it tested and gets it approved.

[00:05:51] Abi: Okay. I mean, the contractor starting off right?

[00:05:55] Liz: Oh, you would think so. But you know how they were requiring all those [00:06:00] additional soil tests, you know, the ones that they kind of emphasized there. So during those routine tests, the project manager noticed some odd variations in the density and moisture levels of that fill. So you know it's funny how those little data discrepancies can be those early warning signs.

[00:06:21] You know, those red flags.

[00:06:23] Abi: Yeah, and just that odd little discrepancy can just really appear minor.

[00:06:30] Liz: Yeah. Very subtle, but definitely unusual. Unfortunately, those little inconsistencies. They really just didn't set off any, major alarm bells, like it wasn't enough to really catch anybody's attention.

[00:06:45] Abi: Oh, so they're kind of just brushing it under the rug, huh? It seems like an opportunity to catch a problem Pretty early on though.

[00:06:54] Liz: Yeah, I agree. It totally does. It really highlights how important it is to have, that [00:07:00] culture of observation, like being attentive and really looking at your data. You know, sometimes it's those little details, maybe those gut feelings, right? That they can really be that first clue if maybe something's not quite right.

[00:07:15] Abi: So they're moving the project forward, even with these little subtle red flags. What's gonna happen next?

[00:07:22] Liz: Here's where things get really interesting. So picture this. It's evening. A senior representative from the testing firm is driving by the construction site when he spots something not quite right.

[00:07:36] Abi: What's not quite right

[00:07:38] Liz: So they had bulldozers and mixing equipment down by the detention pond, and he is like, Hey, wait a minute. There's something not right here.

[00:07:49] Abi: and you're telling me the senior rep really just happened to be driving by.

[00:07:54] Liz: I know, right? It's like a detective story almost. This guy, this senior representative, [00:08:00] you know, he's been in the game for years and his experience told him that this activity was not standard practice.

[00:08:08] Abi: So he had that spidey sense tingling.

[00:08:11] Liz: Oh yeah, you know it. And so being the sharp guy that he is, right? 'cause he has all this experience, he decides it's time to investigate.

[00:08:19] Abi: Okay. That's a great plan. What did he find?

[00:08:23] Liz: Well, he discovered that the Earthwork subcontractor, they'd been mixing the approved film material with some other native soil from the site. We're not talking just any soil that they're mixing the approved stuff with. We're talking, you know, some really heavy, sticky clay. You know, that kind, that turns into a slippery mess when it gets wet.

[00:08:49] Abi: Oh, not good. They're basically compromising the entire integrity of the building pads just by using that unsuitable soil mixture. I'm also, it's no wonder the [00:09:00] early test results were off.

[00:09:02] Liz: Right, and you know this testing firm rep, thankfully he's seen this kind of thing before, so he knew that there was something fishy going on.

[00:09:13] Abi: That experience is really paying off. So what happens? Do they just kind of let them keep going?

[00:09:20] Liz: Oh no, thankfully not. So this testing firm rep, he immediately contacts the member firm and they waste no time and getting in front of the school district about what's actually going on on their project site. So work on the project comes to a screeching halt.

[00:09:40] Abi: Oh, whoa. So it's truly like a full-blown crisis on our hands. What are they gonna do next?

[00:09:47] Liz: Well, that member firm knows that they've got to get to the bottom of this. They take a whopping 79 samples from the building pads, and then they send them off to the lab for [00:10:00] testing.

[00:10:00] Abi: Okay, so what does the test say?

[00:10:04] Liz: Well, the results, they're alarming. They raise some more flags. 73% of the samples don't meet the project specifications.

[00:10:16] Abi: I am out 73%. That's huge. Honestly, it sounds like they kind of dodged a bullet though. What happens if they don't catch this?

[00:10:27] Liz: It could have been disastrous. You gotta remember those building pads that's like. The foundation for the entire structure to sit on. So if they're not stable, the building could settle unevenly, lead to cracks or structural damage. Worst case scenario, likely not gonna happen. But worst case scenario, the whole building could collapse.

[00:10:50] Abi: Terrifying. Okay. But they uncover this major problem. Work gets halted and everyone's starting to feel the heat. I'm kind of [00:11:00] imagining there's some finger pointing going around. Who's gonna take the fall for this one?

[00:11:05] Liz: Yeah, sure. There's finger pointing. And as you might accept, and as you might expect, the subcontractor responsible for the earthwork. Totally trying to shift the blame,

[00:11:17] Abi: Of course they are.

[00:11:19] Liz: So they're claiming, Hey, it's their fault. We were never told about the specific testing requirements. We didn't know mixing soil was such a big no-no. They even tried to point the finger at the general contractor saying they were just following their instructions.

[00:11:37] Abi: That's just unfair. They're relying on the general contractor for guidance. And didn't the contract actually specifically outline those responsibilities?

[00:11:48] Liz: Well, you're right to question that. It does raise questions about the clarity of communication and the chain of command on the project. And you're absolutely right. The contract did [00:12:00] state that the subcontractor was ultimately responsible for compliance with the specifications. They tried to argue that they were just following the general contractor's lead, but that argument did not hold up in the end.

[00:12:14] Abi: Just that classic case of he said, she said, with everyone just protecting themselves. How does this one shake out?

[00:12:22] Liz: Well, the case ended up going to arbitration.

[00:12:27] Abi: Just that mini trial we've talked about before. Right?

[00:12:30] Liz: Yeah, kind of. But instead of going to court, you have an independent expert come in and decide who's right.

[00:12:38] Abi: Okay. So what did the arbitrator decide?

[00:12:41] Liz: Well, they ultimately sided with the general contractor leaving the subcontractor on the hook for the hefty cost of having to remove and replace all of the non-compliant field material. So definitely a costly lesson for that subcontractor.[00:13:00] 

[00:13:00] Abi: Oof. That one's really gotta hurt. But honestly, it sounds like the whole situation was just a cascade of mistakes and miscommunication.

[00:13:11] Liz: Yeah, it's like a perfect example of how easily things can go wrong when those crucial elements are not in place.

[00:13:20] Abi: So I have a feeling there's some valuable lessons buried in all this mess.

[00:13:25] Liz: Oh, absolutely. This is where it really gets fascinating.

[00:13:28] Abi: So let's dig in.

[00:13:31] Liz: Okay. So this whole situation is a prime example of how a seemingly simple project can spiral completely out of control. One thing that really strikes me is how the member firm handled this whole situation.

[00:13:49] Abi: Right. Okay.

[00:13:51] Liz: Despite being dragged into this dispute. Through no real fault of their own. They really stepped up and [00:14:00] demonstrated a strong sense of professionalism and integrity.

[00:14:04] Abi: I really like that. I feel like they didn't shy away from their responsibility.

[00:14:08] Liz: No, not at all. Come on, they could have really easily just thrown up their hands and said, Hey, you know, we issued our recommendation, not our problem. If you didn't follow it. But they didn't do that. They took ownership. They conducted a thorough investigation, and ultimately they helped protect the school district from what could have been a major disaster.

[00:14:30] Abi: They really just went above and beyond to ensure the safety and wellbeing of. Everyone involved, even when you know it wasn't really their obligation. It's pretty nice to see that kind of accountability though.

[00:14:44] Liz: Oh. It's commendable of them really. They even went so far as to reward that senior guy who saw what was going on. That stopped by and saw the problem, made sure that he was recognized for what he did.

[00:14:58] Abi: That really is the [00:15:00] right move.

[00:15:01] Liz: Yeah, that kind of recognition, it boosts morale, right? It makes you feel good. Oh, hey, I did my job and I got, recognized for doing a good job. But it also sends like a powerful message to the whole team, right? Like that whole firm of, hey, your attentiveness, right?

[00:15:18] You're taking the initiative. It's valued. We appreciate it. Even if that means, uncovering some of those uncomfortable truths they see what you mean. It kind of sets that positive example. It fosters that, that culture that every company wants. And that's so important in our industry.

[00:15:37] Abi: Absolutely. It's really just one of those I see you do it, so I might as well do it too. But let's zoom out a little bit farther and help out the listeners. What are the key takeaways today?

[00:15:51] Liz: Oh man. I think one of the biggest takeaways here is that strong relationships are absolutely crucial in [00:16:00] any construction project.

[00:16:01] Abi: No doubt at all.

[00:16:04] Liz: And it sounds like the member firm had really cultivated a good working relationship with the school district and the design professionals involved that it probably helped them navigate through this tricky situation a lot easier than, if they're dealing with adversarial parties.

[00:16:23] Abi: You hit the nail on the head, open communication, a foundation of trust that can make all the difference, especially when things start to get messy. Just like we've seen in this case, things can get very messy.

[00:16:36] Liz: Oh, for sure. And it's not just about having that friendly rapport, right? It's really about fostering a culture of clear and consistent communication throughout the entire project.

[00:16:48] Abi: Exactly from the first geotech report to those detailed construction documents everyone involved on the team really needs to be on the same page, right?

[00:16:58] Liz: Oh, absolutely. [00:17:00] And that doesn't always come easy. It requires. Dialogue. It requires, communication, stepping out there, and everybody needs to be able to feel comfortable asking questions or clarifying doubts or making sure that that there's that shared understanding of what are the project goals, what are the requirements, what are we trying to achieve?

[00:17:20] Abi: It really makes me wonder like what are the concrete steps the project teams can take to. Prove their communication and then they just basically can avoid these misunderstandings in the first place.

[00:17:32] Liz: For starters, regular site meetings where all parties are present, I mean, that really is a must.

[00:17:38] Abi: Getting everyone there and on the same page is a lot easier when everyone's a regular attendee.

[00:17:45] Liz: Oh, agree. And it's also important to establish those clear channels for communication, right? Like designating points of contact for each team and documenting the decisions that are actually made.

[00:17:59] Abi: Oh, [00:18:00] documentation I feel like is that key player in so many of the games we play. It brings to mind the mountain of paperwork and emails that we often see on these projects. It's easy to get bogged down by it. But the case really highlights how crucial a paper trail can be.

[00:18:18] Liz: Oh, it's like an insurance policy. When those disputes arise as they often do, you need that documentation to back up your actions and your decisions. Think about all the emails and meeting minutes and test results, change orders. They all paint a picture of what actually happened throughout the project. They can absolutely be crucial in resolving, those disagreements in protecting everybody involved.

[00:18:46] Abi: Right, so it's not just ticking boxes and then filing away paperwork. It's really creating a comprehensive record that can serve as evidence if things start going sideways.

[00:18:57] Liz: Exactly. This case [00:19:00] also really brings to light the importance of co services.

[00:19:04] Abi: Wait, what's Coad again?

[00:19:06] Liz: Oh, so it's construction materials, engineering, and testing.

[00:19:10] Abi: Okay. Right, right, right. I knew that one.

[00:19:13] Liz: So these services, they're basically there to ensure that all the materials being used in construction, that they meet those required specs. It's like having a quality control expert on site, making sure that everything's being built according to plan. And that the materials are up to par.

[00:19:34] Abi: That makes sense. So in this case, opting for a more comprehensive CoMET approach, rather than limiting that on-call option, they really could have potentially prevented the entire situation.

[00:19:49] Liz: Oh yeah. It's quite possible. Having a dedicated CoMET professional involved throughout the project, they would've flagged some of those inconsistent soil tests results early on, [00:20:00] or even noticed that, the contractor was mixing soil and they shouldn't have been.

[00:20:04] Abi: Ooh. Yeah. It would be really nice if somebody truly raised those red flags.

[00:20:11] Liz: Exactly. It's not just checking the box and following the procedures. I mean, it's really about that extra layer of expertise and oversight to catch potential problems before they snowball into major headaches.

[00:20:24] Abi: And that actually highlights another critical takeaway here, and that's the importance of experience and expertise.

[00:20:33] Liz: Right, exactly. So just like we talked about earlier. Like that gut feeling or the ability to spot those red flags, that often comes from years of experience in the field. The new guy may not always be able to to know or recognize when things aren't quite right.

[00:20:49] Abi: And not even those people just in the field, everyone on the project from the designers, the engineers, yeah, the contractors and the subcontractors, but it's not enough to just [00:21:00] have your technical skills. You need to have that judgment, that intuition, that stuff that just follows experience.

[00:21:07] You get to anticipate those potential problems and then you can make more sound decisions when you're under the pressure.

[00:21:14] Liz: Yeah, it's like saying you don't know what you don't know. Like sometimes, you know, the most valuable asset on a project is that seasoned professional who can spot a potential issue that maybe a less experienced team member might overlook.

[00:21:29] Abi: I couldn't agree more realistically, that seasoned professional literally just drove right by at the right time in this case.

[00:21:38] Liz: I know, right? That's amazing. So we can't underestimate the power of observation and just being in the right place at the right time. Like that senior rep was. But you know, look aside this case is a powerful reminder that investing in experienced professionals can be one of the best decisions that a project team can make.

[00:21:59] Abi: [00:22:00] Absolutely, and to sum up what we've talked about so far. This case really underscores the importance of strong relationships built on trust, open communication, meticulous documentation, comprehensive approach to the services and a team with the right experience and expertise.

[00:22:19] Liz: Those are really some solid takeaways.

[00:22:22] Abi: And I have a feeling there's still more to uncover though, you mentioned there was some legal nuances.

[00:22:29] Liz: Oh, absolutely. In those legal details, they offer some valuable insights that can help all of us navigate the sometimes treacherous waters of construction disputes.

[00:22:40] Abi: Let's take a little bit of a dive into the legal stuff, 'cause I'm ready to hear some more. What were the legal takeaways that you took from this one?

[00:22:50] Liz: This is where the case gets really interesting. During the arbitration process. The subcontractor's attorney, well, they try to use the member firm's [00:23:00] own words against them.

[00:23:02] Abi: And how did they go about that?

[00:23:05] Liz: Well, they zeroed in on the specific language that the member firm had used in their geotech reports, particularly the phrase general contractor. They argued that by using that term, that member firm was implying that the general contractor was solely responsible for things like submitting fill samples and conducting those tests.

[00:23:32] Abi: Oh, so they're trying to shift the blame entirely to the gc, even though the contract, as we talked about earlier, clearly stated that the subcontractor was the ultimate responsible party for compliance.

[00:23:46] Liz: Exactly. They were trying to, cherry pick specific phrases and twist the meaning to create this narrative that benefited their client. Meanwhile, they were completely ignoring the broader [00:24:00] context of the contract and the contractor's own obligations.

[00:24:04] Abi: It's definitely a good reminder that our words really matter, and especially in a legal situation, it's like a high stakes game of Scrabble where every single word has the potential to make or break your whole case.

[00:24:20] Liz: I don't wanna play that game. But it's a great analogy and this highlights how crucial it is to have clear language in your construction documents, from the contracts to the specs, to meeting minutes, and all of your correspondence.

[00:24:37] Abi: Yeah, it's not enough to just document everything. You need to do it carefully, precisely, and you might even wanna anticipate how someone might. Misinterpret your language, whether on purpose or not down the line, and honestly, that's kind of exhausting.

[00:24:55] Liz: Oh, absolutely it can be, but unfortunately it's [00:25:00] essential to protect yourself and to protect your firm. Having a skilled lawyer on your team that can make a world of difference in navigating these, legal complexities. They can help you craft airtight contracts. They can review documents for potential loopholes, and even guide you through the often confusing world of legal procedure proceedings.

[00:25:22] Abi: Oh yeah, so having a good lawyer, it's like having a translator for the legalese and the almost a strategist for those chess matches.

[00:25:32] Liz: Oh, exactly. They're like your advocate. They're there to guide you through that legal maze. And this case underscores another important point, and that is to be very aware of how your words can be twisted. You know, how they can be used against you.

[00:25:49] Abi: It sounds a little paranoid, but it definitely sounds better to be safe than sorry.

[00:25:55] Liz: Oh, absolutely. It's not about necessarily being [00:26:00] paranoid, it's about being proactive or anticipating those potential pitfalls. Now remember the opposing counsel they're not your friend. Their job is to represent their client's interest, even if it means, bending the truth or exploiting those loopholes.

[00:26:19] Abi: Unfortunately that makes sense. So besides having that good lawyer, what else could we do to protect ourselves from a legal trap?

[00:26:29] Liz: Documentation, documentation. Documentation, right? It is key. A clear paper trail can help refute those false claims. It provides evidence to support your position. I don't know how many times I've heard, right? If it's not documented, it didn't actually happen. So, you gotta have that documentation. So that you're taking steps to mitigate risks.

[00:26:52] Abi: Absolutely. I feel like I hear the documentation thing all the time, but it's totally true and makes complete [00:27:00] sense. So they get a combination of careful documentation, some legal expertise, and then that healthy dose of awareness and caution is really the way to go.

[00:27:11] Liz: Yeah, exactly. Now there's another interesting legal aspect of this case that's worth mentioning. So you remember how the member firm had suggested alternate select fill materials in their geotech report?

[00:27:24] Abi: Yeah, and they gave the school district some options, I'm guessing, right? Like in case the ideal crush, stone or gravel wasn't readily available.

[00:27:34] Liz: Yeah, exactly. It's a fairly common thing to do, but the subcontractor's attorney, they seized on that phrase and they tried to morph it into alternate select fill mix.

[00:27:48] Abi: Uh.

[00:27:50] Liz: Yeah, exactly. So they were implying that the subcontractor had actually proposed a specific mix that had been pre-approved by the member firm.[00:28:00] 

[00:28:00] Abi: So again, we're just going back to manipulating language to fit your own narrative, even though it's not an accurate representation of what actually happened.

[00:28:11] Liz: Right. So the member firm had only approved a sample of the select fill itself, not any particular mixture. But the subcontractor's attorney was trying to create this impression that the member firm had signed off on their, you know, soil mixing scheme.

[00:28:32] Abi: Old move. Does that even work?

[00:28:35] Liz: Thankfully, no. The arbitrator saw right through it. He totally recognized that it was a misrepresentation of the facts, but it still highlights how even a seemingly innocuous phrase can be twisted and exploited in a legal battle.

[00:28:54] Abi: So it sounds like this whole case really was a masterclass in the power of language [00:29:00] and the importance of being aware of legal implications of our words.

[00:29:05] Liz: Oh, absolutely it was, and it really underscores the need for, ongoing education and professional development. The construction industry is constantly evolving and it's crucial to stay informed about changes in regulations and best practices and legal precedents.

[00:29:22] Abi: Absolutely. We can't just rely on what we learned in school or on those first couple jobs. We have to continuously update our knowledge and skills to navigate this complex and truly ever-changing world.

[00:29:35] Liz: Oh, absolutely. Okay, so now before we, wrap this whole thing up, I do think it's worth reiterating one crucial point. That's even when you've done everything right, you can still find yourself facing a claim or a dispute. You know? It's just kind of the nature of the beast.

[00:29:54] Abi: how do you even protect yourself from that kind of beast?

[00:29:58] Liz: Well, kind of like we've talked before, I [00:30:00] think the proactive risk management is key. And this involves things like. Looking ahead and trying to identify potential risks early on, and then taking steps to mitigate those risks, and then having a solid plan in place for dealing with disputes when they arise.

[00:30:20] Abi: So it's not just that whole react to the problem as it comes. They really need to anticipate it and put safeguards in place and basically set up a legal safety net.

[00:30:31] Liz: Yeah, exactly. And that includes things like, having a strong contract in place or documenting everything thoroughly. Again, that documentation word, maintaining the open communication with all parties, and of course. Having that skilled lawyer on your team, so they're ready if needed.

[00:30:50] Abi: Definitely want them on your team, and really knowledge is power in these situations. The more informed and prepared we are, the better equipped we'll be to handle [00:31:00] whatever comes our way.

[00:31:02] Liz: Oh, absolutely. So this case, it really highlights how everything's interconnected in a construction project. From those designs and specs to the contracts, the materials used, the communication between parties. It's all part of this complex web.

[00:31:18] Abi: If just one of those threads comes loose, the whole thing starts to unravel.

[00:31:24] Liz: Yeah, exactly. So let this case serve as a reminder to be meticulous. Be aware of those potential pitfalls and always strive for clarity, transparency, and excellence.

[00:31:36] Abi: Wise words. Well, that pretty much brings us to the end of this fascinating construction case. Hopefully all these listeners have gleaned some value of insight, some practical takeaways from this tangled web of events. Knowledge is power. So stay informed, stay vigilant, and keep those bulldozer running.

[00:31:59] Liz: That [00:32:00] concludes this episode of the Case History Series brought to you by the GBA podcast. I hope that you are able to take away some useful information that will help you and others at your firm make good risk-based decisions in the future.