|
From time to time, ECO is involved as expert witness in disputes, or litigation involving grouting or grouting related projects. ECO’s position is that it is only interested to assist the legal counsel for parties with technical matters, based on th
From time to time, ECO is involved as expert witness in disputes, or litigation involving grouting or grouting related projects. ECO’s position is that it is only interested to assist the legal counsel for parties with technical matters, based on the analysis and interpretation of factual information. ECO rejects cases in which it is asked to provide expert testimony that goes against sound, professional grouting practices or to assist and endorse frivolous claims for extra financial compensation or to develop excuses for bad or inadequate engineering.
One of the cases, in which ECO provided extensive assistance to the legal counsel for the contractor, was settled in 2005. It involved a tunneling contractor who also performed pre-excavation grouting to prevent the lowering of the water table below certain levels during tunneling. The Engineer enforced a fundamentally flawed specification pertaining to pre-excavation grouting and the way it was supposed to control ground water levels. The Engineers’ hard-line approach holding the contractor to these flawed specifications eventually pushed the contractor out of business. The grouting program necessary to control the ground water would have cost a multiple to the cost of the tunneling program. Moreover, the Engineer failed to disclose that, at a similar project, next to the one under construction, grouting had completely failed to control the lowering of the water table during tunneling. In actuality the Engineer stated in the contract documents that the previously executed grouting program worked exceptionally well! ECO – in the absence of several undisclosed facts (which became only available after years went by) - made the case that the specified grouting program, in order for it to deliver the requisite results, had to accomplish a reduction of the hydraulic conductivity of the rock to a fraction of a Lugeon, something that was not compatible with the crude grouting program, specified by the Engineer (which he alleged had worked very well) and which was not economically feasible. ECO further made the case that the crude grouting program during the previous grouting program could NOT have worked, contrary to the assertions by the Engineer. Eventually the information pertaining to the allegedly successful grouting program (on the adjacent project) was “discovered”, proving the statements (about its alleged success) in the contract documents were incorrect…
ECO is interested in shedding light on cases through the application of sound engineering principles and not hollow rhetoric. Because of the contracting background of ECO’ s Principal Engineer, ECO is comfortable in working on behalf of the Owners, Contractors or Engineers
© 2002 ECO Grouting Specialists Inc.
Site design and hosting by PairoWoodies
|
