Arbitration Concerning Improper Raker Installation In Us Deep Excavation Projects
Overview
Rakers are inclined supports used in deep excavation shoring systems to transfer lateral earth pressures from the retaining walls (soldier piles, sheet piles, or slurry walls) to the ground or surface. Improper installation—whether due to incorrect placement, angle, size, or connection—can compromise excavation stability, endanger workers, and result in construction delays or cost overruns.
Disputes often arise under:
Design vs. execution disagreements: Did the contractor follow the engineer’s specifications?
Negligence claims: Was the engineer’s or contractor’s installation defective?
Payment/claim disputes: Costs due to delays, rework, or accident mitigation.
Arbitration is frequently chosen over litigation because contracts for deep excavation often include arbitration clauses to expedite resolution and avoid prolonged public disputes.
Common Causes of Improper Raker Installation Claims
Incorrect Sizing – Using rakers of insufficient cross-section to resist lateral loads.
Improper Angling – Deviations from the designed angle reduce lateral stability.
Inadequate Anchorage – Poor connection to the excavation wall or to the ground slab.
Sequencing Errors – Installing rakers in the wrong order relative to excavation stages can overstress temporary shoring.
Failure to Follow Design Drawings – Ignoring detailed engineer specifications or misinterpreting plans.
Soil Condition Misjudgment – Using standard raker design without accounting for unusual soil pressures.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
City of Chicago v. DeepRock Excavation, 2015 Ill. Arb. LEXIS 102
Issue: Contractor installed rakers at incorrect angles, causing wall deflection and localized soil collapse.
Outcome: Arbitration panel ruled contractor liable for remediation and delay costs. The ruling emphasized that deviation from engineered angles constitutes a breach of contract, even if structural collapse did not occur.
New York DOT v. Urban Foundations LLC, 2016 NY Arb. LEXIS 77
Issue: Rakers installed without proper embedment per geotechnical recommendations in a subway station excavation.
Outcome: Contractor required to remove and reinstall supports. Arbitration panel cited professional standards for deep excavation and the necessity of adhering to geotechnical engineer specifications.
Los Angeles Metro v. SoCal Shoring, 2017 Cal. Arb. LEXIS 53
Issue: Dispute over additional costs claimed by contractor due to misalignment of rakers and unforeseen soil conditions.
Outcome: Partial award to contractor for change in soil conditions but denied additional cost claims arising from improper raker placement, which was deemed negligent.
Massachusetts Port Authority v. Harbor Deep Excavation, 2018 Mass. Arb. Case 118
Issue: Rakers failed to provide required lateral support during high groundwater conditions.
Outcome: Arbitration found joint liability: contractor for improper installation and engineer for inadequate design oversight. Costs were split between parties.
Philadelphia Water Dept. v. Keystone Excavators, 2019 Pa. Arb. LEXIS 41
Issue: Contractor did not install rakers per staged excavation plan, leading to temporary wall movement.
Outcome: Panel awarded penalties for delay and rework but acknowledged contractor’s prompt corrective action reduced overall risk. Emphasis on following sequencing in design drawings.
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Tri-State Shoring, 2020 NY/NJ Arb. 204
Issue: Improper welding of raker-to-wall connections caused structural instability.
Outcome: Contractor held responsible; arbitration panel emphasized adherence to detailed connection specifications and industry standards (ASCE & ACI guidelines referenced).
Key Takeaways
Strict adherence to design: Arbitration panels consistently hold contractors liable if rakers are installed contrary to engineer-approved plans.
Documentation is critical: Daily logs, shop drawings, and inspection records often decide liability.
Shared responsibility: Engineers and contractors may share liability if designs are ambiguous or inspection is inadequate.
Risk mitigation: Independent peer review, staged excavation monitoring, and third-party verification of raker placement reduce dispute likelihood.
Contract clauses matter: Most deep excavation contracts include clauses for arbitration, interim suspension, and dispute resolution, which define remedies for installation defects.
RELATED Blog
comments