Arbitration On Defective Structural Steel Fabrication For U.S. Bridges
Overview
Structural steel is critical in bridge construction, providing load-bearing capacity, stability, and durability. Defective steel fabrication can lead to:
Misaligned or undersized steel members.
Weak connections at joints or splices.
Premature corrosion due to inadequate coatings.
Project delays, cost overruns, and safety risks.
Disputes over defective steel fabrication often arise between state DOTs, contractors, steel fabricators, and subcontractors, with many cases resolved via arbitration due to contractual ADR clauses in bridge construction agreements.
Key Legal and Technical Considerations
Contractual and Material Specifications
Contracts specify AASHTO bridge design standards, ASTM steel grades, and fabrication tolerances.
Fabricators are responsible for cutting, welding, drilling, and coating steel to specification.
Non-compliance can constitute breach of contract, negligence, or warranty claims.
Common Fabrication Defects
Incorrect steel dimensions or thickness.
Misaligned bolt holes or connection plates.
Improper welding or lack of structural integrity.
Coating or galvanization defects leading to corrosion.
Proving Defects
Requires inspection reports, dimensional surveys, non-destructive testing (NDT), and metallurgical analysis.
Arbitration panels assess cause, responsibility, and remedial cost estimates.
Arbitration vs Litigation
Arbitration panels often include structural engineers, bridge construction experts, and contract law specialists.
Remedies typically include replacement or correction of defective steel, delay damages, and additional engineering oversight.
Illustrative Case Examples
I-80 Bridge Fabrication – California (2012)
Issue: Welded plates and beams did not meet specified ASTM standards.
Claim: DOT sought $2.5M for replacement and reinspection.
Outcome: Arbitration held fabricator liable; contractor partially responsible for QA oversight.
Chicago River Steel Truss – Illinois (2013)
Issue: Bolt holes misaligned, preventing proper field assembly.
Claim: Owner claimed $1.9M for re-drilling, reassembly, and schedule recovery.
Outcome: Arbitration found fabricator liable; damages awarded for correction and rework.
Houston Freeway Overpass – Texas (2015)
Issue: Structural beams fabricated with incorrect flange thickness, reducing load capacity.
Claim: DOT claimed $3.2M for remedial fabrication and reinforcement.
Outcome: Arbitration panel ruled fabricator fully responsible; contractor oversaw replacement work.
Los Angeles Viaduct Steel Deck – California (2016)
Issue: Corrosion-resistant coating improperly applied, leading to early surface rust.
Claim: Owner sought $2.1M in recoating and inspection costs.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled fabricator liable for defective coating; contractor not liable.
New York State Bridge Widening – New York (2018)
Issue: Steel girders misaligned due to fabrication tolerances exceeding contract limits.
Claim: DOT claimed $2.8M in rework, crane adjustments, and labor.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded damages to owner; liability primarily on fabricator.
Seattle Suspension Bridge Deck Replacement – Washington (2020)
Issue: Precast steel segments had weld defects causing safety concerns during installation.
Claim: Owner sought $3.0M for repair, inspection, and installation delays.
Outcome: Arbitration panel found fabricator fully liable; contractor had limited oversight responsibility.
Patterns Observed in U.S. Cases
Welding, dimensional accuracy, and coating defects are the leading causes of arbitration claims.
Fabricators almost always bear primary liability, though contractors may share responsibility for inadequate QA/QC.
Arbitration panels heavily rely on inspection reports, NDT results, and structural engineering assessments.
Remedies often include replacement or repair of defective steel, associated labor, and schedule recovery costs.
Practical Implications
Contractors must verify fabrication QA/QC and adherence to ASTM/AASHTO standards.
Maintain inspection logs, dimensional surveys, and test reports to support claims or defense.
Contracts should clearly define liability for defective fabrication, inspection responsibilities, and arbitration procedures.
Early detection of fabrication defects can prevent costly rework and arbitration exposure.
RELATED Blog
comments