Risk Allocation Disputes In U.S. Geotechnical Design-Build Contracts
Overview
Geotechnical design-build contracts involve site investigation, foundation design, earthworks, and soil stabilization. Risk allocation disputes occur when:
Differing site conditions are discovered during construction.
Soil or groundwater conditions differ from the geotechnical report.
Contractors encounter unforeseen subsurface hazards, such as rock, debris, or contamination.
Liability for design errors, construction delays, or remediation is disputed.
In U.S. geotechnical design-build projects, contracts frequently attempt to allocate risk between owners, contractors, and design engineers, but ambiguity can lead to arbitration disputes.
Key Legal and Contractual Considerations
Risk Allocation Clauses
Design-build contracts often specify:
Owner-responsible risks: subsurface investigations, existing utilities, environmental conditions.
Contractor-responsible risks: design errors, construction methodology, and quality control.
Ambiguous or conflicting clauses can trigger disputes over who bears cost and schedule impact.
Common Sources of Dispute
Differing site conditions (DSC) clauses triggered by unexpected soil, rock, or groundwater.
Inadequate geotechnical data provided by the owner.
Design errors leading to foundation or slope failures.
Delays caused by unforeseen remediation work.
Proving Risk Responsibility
Requires geotechnical reports, subsurface investigations, as-built records, and expert testimony.
Arbitration panels assess:
Contract language and risk allocation clauses.
Actual vs. anticipated site conditions.
Contractor’s compliance with design and construction standards.
Arbitration vs Litigation
Arbitration panels typically include civil/geotechnical engineers, construction lawyers, and contract specialists.
Remedies may include cost recovery, schedule extensions, and shared liability determinations.
Illustrative Case Examples
I-95 Bridge Foundation – Florida (2012)
Issue: Unexpected soft clay layers required additional deep foundations.
Claim: Contractor sought $2.7M for remediation and schedule extension.
Outcome: Arbitration found risk shared; contractor reimbursed for additional foundation costs but schedule relief partially granted.
California Highway Embankment – California (2013)
Issue: Unforeseen groundwater seepage impacted slope stability.
Claim: Owner claimed $1.9M in corrective works; contractor claimed additional costs for dewatering.
Outcome: Arbitration apportioned liability; owner bore part of groundwater risk, contractor responsible for slope remediation.
Chicago Transit Tunnel – Illinois (2015)
Issue: Rock outcrops not identified in geotechnical report, requiring blasting.
Claim: Contractor sought $3.1M in unplanned excavation costs.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded cost recovery to contractor; risk classified as differing site condition covered under contract.
Houston Flood Control Levee – Texas (2016)
Issue: Soil contamination delayed embankment construction.
Claim: Contractor claimed $2.5M; owner denied, arguing contractor assumed environmental risks.
Outcome: Arbitration found partial responsibility with cost-sharing; remediation costs divided per contract risk allocation.
New York Subway Station Expansion – New York (2018)
Issue: Design error in retaining wall underestimated lateral earth pressure.
Claim: Owner claimed $3.2M for wall reconstruction.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled design-builder responsible for wall failure; damages awarded for reconstruction and delay.
Seattle Light Rail Geotechnical Works – Washington (2020)
Issue: Unexpected high groundwater levels required additional dewatering and monitoring.
Claim: Contractor sought $2.8M for remediation and schedule recovery.
Outcome: Arbitration allocated risk based on contract; contractor compensated for dewatering but schedule relief limited.
Patterns Observed in U.S. Cases
Differing site conditions, groundwater, and soil variability are the most frequent triggers of disputes.
Arbitration panels often split risk based on contract language and foreseeability of conditions.
Contractors typically bear design and construction method risks, while owners may bear unknown environmental or subsurface risks.
Remedies include cost reimbursement, schedule extension, and shared liability determinations.
Practical Implications
Clearly define risk allocation for subsurface, environmental, and geotechnical uncertainties in design-build contracts.
Conduct thorough site investigations and document baseline geotechnical conditions.
Maintain logs of unforeseen conditions, change orders, and communications with the owner.
Early identification of differing site conditions can reduce arbitration exposure and improve project cost control.
RELATED Blog
comments