Geotechnical News • March 2016
49
GEO-INTEREST
Dispute resolution in geotechnical engineering practice –
Some lessons learned
M.A.J. (Fred) Matich, John L. Seychuk, Gordon C. McRostie
Abstract
The scope of applied geotechnology
has increased greatly since it was
introduced into modern engineering
practice by prominent pioneers in the
profession. Geotechnical expertise
is increasingly applied in conjunc-
tion with other specialty fields and
to a broad range of end uses includ-
ing design, construction and perfor-
mance. More formal contractural
arrangements have evolved together
with greater expectations by clients.
Notwithstanding significant advances
in the state of practice, disputes
unfortunately still arise which require
resolution by arbitration or litigation.
Avoidance of claims and exposure to
risk is an important issue. The Authors
provide lessons from their experience
particularly to benefit younger mem-
bers of the geotechnical profession.
Introduction
The scope of geotechnology as applied
to practical problems has increased
greatly since it was introduced into
modern engineering practice in the
early 1930’s with Terzaghi taking a
leading role among the pioneers in
this specialty field as represented, for
example, by the participants at the
First International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing (ICSMFE) in 1936. There was a
pronounced increase in scope in the
years immediately after World War II
as applied soil mechanics (as it was
known then) benefitted progressively
from factors such as advances in field
exploration and laboratory testing
equipment, significant improvements
in analytical capability, research, and
the increased availability of students
graduating in this speciality, from
prominent Universities. At the same
time, it became increasingly applied
in conjunction with other specialty
fields and to a broad range of end uses,
including design, construction and
performance of structures. More for-
mal contractural arrangements evolved
together with greater expectations
from Clients.
There was a significant capability in
applied soil mechanics in Canada prior
to World War II. This included a num-
ber of prominent engineers who had
made a specialty study of this field,
and also designers and constructors
with experience-based success in han-
dling foundations and earthworks mat-
ters. Younger geotechnical engineers
learned that they could benefit greatly
by consulting such pioneers, particu-
larly on the practical factors involved.
The lesson of benefit from mature,
experienced-based peer review is very
much valid today.
With time, geotechnical engineer-
ing became increasingly diversi-
fied and technologically advanced.
Concurrently, consulting geotechnical
engineering services provided on a
commercial basis, grew rapidly, and
in the process acquired vulnerability
to errors and associated liabilities. As
business enterprises, firms offering
geotechnical engineering services had
to pay appropriate attention to con-
tractural and legal matters and in due
course were obliged to carry profes-
sional liability insurance, and adopt
other defensive measures. Despite
best efforts by technical specialists,
disputes occurred due to problems
such as “changed soil conditions” with
resort to dispute resolution measures,
including litigation. The risks and
available defensive measures are
undoubtedly well known to manage-
ment and experienced senior technical
personnel in consulting geotechnical
engineering firms. Younger geotechni-
cal engineers should also give them
due cognizance. The avoidance of
problems, to the extent possible, is
stressed in this paper, and some “les-
sons learned” are provided against the
possibility that they may be of benefit
to the younger members of the geo-
technical profession in Canada.
The Authors each began their careers
in consulting geotechnical engineer-
ing firms a few years after World War
II although their career paths differed
in important respects. They are still
actively involved professionally in
consulting. The “lessons learned” are
thus necessarily made from the per-
spective of the Authors varied experi-
ence, and it is hoped that they may be
of value as well to the many younger
geotechnical engineers not engaged in
consulting.
Whereas this paper is intended for the
benefit of younger engineers in the
profession, in the Authors’ experi-
ence the avoidance of pitfalls which
lead to formal dispute resolution of
geotechnically-related factors, is
of major importance to all relevant
parties, including owners, designers,
constructors, operators, etc. The topic
