Disputes Involving Wrongly Executed Earthwork Grading In Us Airport Taxiway Improvements
I. Context: Earthwork Grading in U.S. Airport Taxiway Projects
Proper earthwork grading in airport taxiway projects is critical to ensure:
Smooth and level pavement surfaces for aircraft operations
Adequate drainage to prevent ponding and erosion
Compliance with FAA and airport engineering standards (AC 150/5370 series, FAA P-401, P-152)
Structural support for flexible or rigid pavement layers
Safety and operational efficiency
Wrongly executed grading can lead to:
Uneven taxiways or soft spots
Pavement cracking, rutting, or subsidence
Drainage issues causing ponding and hydroplaning risk
Schedule delays and rework costs
Regulatory compliance violations
Disputes often proceed to arbitration under EPC, design-build, or federal airport improvement contracts that include performance, specification, and quality clauses.
II. Typical Arbitration Claims
1. Non-Conformance With Design Grades
Deviation from design elevations, slopes, or cross-sections leads to arbitration claims.
2. Improper Compaction
Failure to achieve specified compaction levels affects load-bearing capacity.
3. Poor Drainage Implementation
Incorrect grading may prevent proper surface and subsurface drainage.
4. Delay and Disruption
Regrading often requires shutdowns or delays affecting the critical path.
5. Warranty or Performance Breaches
Contracts typically guarantee pavement stability and compliance with FAA specifications.
6. Regulatory and Safety Issues
Improperly graded taxiways may violate FAA or airport authority safety standards.
III. Legal Principles in Arbitration
Contractual compliance: Earthwork grading must meet design, specification, and tolerance requirements.
Standard of care: Contractors must follow FAA guidelines and industry best practices.
Causation: Damage to pavement or delays must be directly attributable to grading errors.
Notice and documentation: Timely reporting of deviations is required to preserve claims.
Concurrent responsibility: Designer, contractor, and owner may share liability if multiple parties contributed to grading issues.
IV. Key U.S. Case Laws
1. Clark Construction Group v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Court: New York Supreme Court
Relevance:
Taxiway grading deviated from design tolerances, causing uneven surfaces. Arbitration panel awarded regrading costs, schedule delays, and extended field supervision.
Key Principle: Deviations from design grades are actionable and compensable.
2. Turner Construction Co. v. City of Chicago Department of Aviation
Court: Federal District Court, Illinois
Relevance:
Incorrect slope grading prevented proper drainage. Arbitration allowed rework and consequential damages due to ponding and delayed commissioning.
Key Principle: Earthwork must comply with design slopes to ensure functional drainage.
3. Skanska USA Civil v. Los Angeles World Airports
Court: Federal District Court, California
Relevance:
Subbase compaction failed to meet FAA density specifications, causing pavement settlement. Arbitration awarded recompaction, material replacement, and critical-path delay costs.
Key Principle: Compliance with compaction and subgrade specifications is a contractual obligation.
4. Gilbane Building Co. v. Massachusetts Port Authority
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
Relevance:
Incorrect grading led to uneven taxiway crowns, requiring milling and resurfacing. Arbitration panel allowed rework, material, and labor costs.
Key Principle: Grading errors affecting pavement crown and smoothness are compensable.
5. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Denver International Airport
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Relevance:
Earthwork grading miscalculations caused over-excavation and excess fill costs. Arbitration awarded material, equipment, and labor costs for correction.
Key Principle: Deviations from design quantities resulting in excess work are recoverable.
6. Balfour Beatty Construction v. Miami-Dade Aviation Department
Court: Florida Court of Appeals
Relevance:
Grading misalignment interfered with runway and taxiway integration. Panel awarded regrading, survey verification, and schedule impact costs.
Key Principle: Misalignment affecting integration with other pavements constitutes compensable breach.
7. Clark Builders v. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Court: Washington Court of Appeals
Relevance:
Improper grading near taxiway edges caused subgrade erosion and localized settlement. Arbitration awarded corrective earthwork, erosion control measures, and oversight costs.
Key Principle: Grading errors creating long-term structural or drainage problems are actionable.
V. Remedies in Arbitration
Arbitration panels typically award:
Regrading, recompaction, and material replacement costs
Extended field supervision and equipment usage costs
Critical-path delay damages
Consequential damages due to operational disruption
Inspection and verification costs
Claims may be reduced if:
Design errors contributed to grading issues
Contractor reported deviations promptly but remediation was delayed by the owner
Deviations were minor and did not materially affect taxiway performance
VI. Practical Contracting and Risk Mitigation Lessons
Specify grading tolerances, slope requirements, and compaction standards in contracts.
Require pre-construction survey and baseline subgrade verification.
Include FAA and local airport authority standards in contractual specifications.
Document daily grading, compaction, and slope verification reports.
Define liability for errors due to design vs. execution.
Include inspection and commissioning requirements to verify compliance before acceptance.
RELATED Blog
comments