CONSTRUCTION DEFECT RECOVERY FROM SURETY: THE SINKING BUILDING TALE PRESENTATION AT DES CLIENT WORKSHOP OCTOBER 8, 2014 BOB BOURG, DES CLAIMS AND DISPUTES MANAGER LINDA SULLIVAN-COLGLAZIER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

BACKGROUND – PROBLEM DISCOVERED $3,345,000 for Building Replacement Project Final Acceptance October 2007 Early 2009, the building had a major sanitary sewer line blockage – cleared April 2010 another major sanitary sewer line blockage Video camera inspection – shows break in line Arrangements made to repair the break in the sewer line during the college’s June break

BACKGROUND – BIG PROBLEM DISCOVERED June when sewer line exposed the magnitude of the problem was fully determined To uncover the sewer pipe for repair the existing slab ‑ on ‑ grade was cut open and removed After the slab ‑ on ‑ grade was removed, it was evident that the concrete slab ‑ on ‑ grade had separated from the gravel sub ‑ grade.

REALLY BIG PROBLEM DISCOVERED There had been significant soil settling in the area surrounding two footings of the building and the broken sewer line Reinforced concrete pad footing had differentially settled Non ‑ shrink grout pad on top of the concrete footings measured up to 4 inches thick (should be only 1.5 inches) Concrete when poured had spread into void between slab ‑ on ‑ grade and gravel sub ‑ grade several inches.

AREA OF SETTLEMENT (IN RED)

OPINION OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS: Pipe failure and footing settling was the result of: non ‑ consolidated, loose gravel fill material in the area beneath the footings majority of the settling occurred during construction sometime between the pouring of the footings and when the slab ‑ on ‑ grade was placed, probably when the steel superstructure was erected Footings needed to be stabilized with helical anchors before the repair work could be done

THE FIX To remediate the problems and stabilize the building, the structural engineering consultant recommended: Stabilize the existing footing supporting the steel tube columns with helical anchors; Fill the voids below the bottom of the existing slab ‑ on ‑ grade with URETEC soil stabilization; and Stabilize the non ‑ consolidated material to prevent further settling below the bottom of the existing sewer pipe by injecting URETEC along the length of the exposed pipe.

THE DEMAND “The state is seeking to recover its costs and expenses for investigation, design, and construction related to repairs on Joan Stout Hall on the Clark College campus. The repairs were necessary to fix damage to a sewer pipe and prevent further settling under two footings due to defective construction during the original building construction. The amount the state is seeking to recover is $484, for the repairs, plus any additional costs incurred.”

SO WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? AND WHEN? What we first thought What we found out What the experts were able to show

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Original construction documents called for removal of existing columns and footings down to solid original ground Had the contractor constructed the building according to the original construction documents, the original columns and footing would have been removed and all soil down to the solid original ground would have been removed Specifications required excavated area to be backfilled with structural fill Area directly beneath the two footings would have been compacted structural fill on top of solid original ground Settlement would not have been a problem.

WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED - MODIFICATION During the excavation of the footings, GC requested modification of requirement to remove the entire existing column and footing Instead GC requested approval to cut the existing column off and leave the footing and remaining column in place Approval with specific direction on how this was to be done was given to GC by architect in an “Existing foundation must be removed to a point minimum 6’-0” below the bottom of the new footing and backfilled with structural fill.” If built per the modified specifications, area directly beneath the two footings would have been more than 6’ of compacted structural fill. This would have minimized settlement and it would not have been a problem.

WHAT HAPPENED All of the evidence clearly demonstrated that GC and sub did not construct the building according to the modification directive given by the architect: Visual inspections and subsurface testing showed loose fill, not the required compacted structural fill beneath the footings GC and the excavation subcontractor stated there was no excavation below grade during the building construction in the area where the two footings settled (They stated there were no old columns or footings there) GC did not properly construct the building and as a result the footings settled breaking sewer pipe and threatening building’s structural integrity

HERE ARE THE COLUMNS INSIDE OLD BUILDING

WHAT WERE THE RISKS OF LITIGATION?

END RESULT OF MEDIATION WITH SURETY Settlement between the State and Contractor. As consideration for the mutual promises contained herein, Contractor, through various insurance carriers (“Participating Insurers”), shall pay to the State the sum of : Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($350,000.00), made payable to “Clark College.”

THE END Any questions?