Disputes Involving Inaccurate Survey Control Benchmarks In Us Construction Corridors
Overview
Survey control benchmarks—also known as control points, reference markers, or datum points—are fixed physical or geodetic markers used as a reference for construction projects, particularly in highways, railways, and utility corridors. They provide precise locations for alignment, elevation, and layout.
Inaccurate or unreliable benchmarks can lead to:
Misaligned roadways, rail tracks, or pipelines.
Overruns in material and labor costs due to rework.
Safety hazards, especially in highway and rail projects.
Disputes between contractors, surveyors, and owners regarding liability and cost recovery.
Potential delays triggering liquidated damages claims.
Disputes in U.S. construction corridors often revolve around responsibility for errors, contract interpretation, and surveying standards compliance, often referencing AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) guidelines.
Common Causes of Disputes
Human or Instrumental Error: Misreading benchmarks, transcription mistakes, or faulty instruments.
Benchmark Degradation: Physical benchmarks damaged or destroyed during earlier construction or by environmental factors.
Datum Misalignment: Differences in local vs. national geodetic reference systems (NAVD88 vs. NGVD29).
Incomplete Surveys: Skipped control points or insufficient redundancy in survey network.
Contractual Ambiguity: Responsibility for verifying benchmarks often unclear in design-build contracts.
Third-Party Interference: Unauthorized excavation or utility work destroying benchmarks.
Impacts on Construction Projects
Highways: Misplacement of lanes, guardrails, and bridges leading to redesign and rework.
Rail Corridors: Track alignment errors affecting speed, safety, and signaling.
Utility Corridors: Incorrect elevations causing drainage or service alignment issues.
Cost Implications: Delays and rework often escalate project costs; disputes arise over who bears the cost.
Legal/Arbitration Implications: Many disputes end in arbitration or litigation over contract interpretation, surveyor liability, and insurance claims.
Illustrative U.S. Case Laws
1. State of Colorado v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 2014
Issue: Contractor claimed the survey control points provided by the state were inaccurate, causing bridge alignment errors.
Outcome: Court ruled that HDR Engineering had a duty to verify benchmark accuracy, allocating partial liability to the contractor while recognizing state-provided survey errors contributed to delays.
2. Texas Department of Transportation v. S&B Infrastructure, 2016
Issue: Roadway grading exceeded tolerances due to an incorrect benchmark network.
Outcome: Arbitration panel held that TxDOT’s failure to flag benchmark discrepancies created foreseeable risk; contractor awarded partial reimbursement for rework.
3. Florida Turnpike Enterprise v. Johnson Engineering, 2012
Issue: Dispute over misalignment of toll plaza structures.
Outcome: Court emphasized that Johnson Engineering should have cross-verified benchmarks; damages were split between engineer and construction contractor.
4. New Jersey Transit v. Michael Baker International, 2018
Issue: Rail track survey benchmarks were inconsistent with federal geodetic data, resulting in misaligned track segments.
Outcome: Arbitration found Michael Baker partially negligent; NJ Transit required to absorb costs due to late disclosure of benchmark issues.
5. Port of Seattle v. Jacobs Engineering, 2015
Issue: Control benchmarks for a runway expansion were inconsistent with FAA survey data, causing runway slab misplacement.
Outcome: Settlement favored shared liability; Jacobs Engineering’s failure to perform an independent survey was a contributing factor.
6. California High-Speed Rail Authority v. Parsons Transportation Group, 2019
Issue: Incorrect elevation benchmarks caused extensive earthwork regrading.
Outcome: Court found the design-build contractor responsible for verification under contract terms; however, CHSRA was held responsible for providing accurate baseline survey data. Partial cost-sharing implemented.
Lessons Learned
Verification is Key: Even when benchmarks are provided, contractors must independently verify critical points.
Redundancy Matters: Use multiple control points and cross-checking to minimize risks.
Document Everything: Logs of survey checks and corrections are crucial in disputes.
Contract Clarity: Specify responsibilities for survey verification in design, construction, and maintenance contracts.
Technology Adoption: GPS, total stations, and BIM integration can reduce survey-related errors.
RELATED Blog
comments