Top 10
GBA provides hundreds of highly effective resources developed to satisfy the unique needs of geoprofessionals, giving members essential tools for achieving success. However, we also know that it can be overwhelming to sort through them all. So to help, we’ve compiled a list of the top 10 GBA resources by numbers ordered over the last six months. This is a great place to start your exploration of GBA’s resources, or to get acquainted with a publication loved by your peers and “new to you”.
The list below is the top 10 GBA resources, in order by popularity, with the most ordered resource at the top. Topics cover a wide range of geoprofessional business issues, so there is certain to be something on this list that could help your business succeed. Select a title to learn more and order it today.
Top 10 GBA Resources
GBA BEST PRACTICES: TABOO WORDS
This is the updated version of previously published Practice Alert on Taboo Words which examines language use, in a series of Best Practices Documents. This one focuses on six “taboo words”: certify, inspect, monitor, supervise, safety, and represent. The six are not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves. How they are used and their context are important. Nonetheless, the consequences of using any one of them improperly can be so severe, many risk managers believe the words should be used only on a carefully considered, by-exception basis.
GBA BEST PRACTICES: AVOIDING ABSOLUTES
Absolutes are words that connote an extreme condition; e.g., absolutely no exceptions. They are most commonly thought of as modifiers – adjectives and adverbs – but also occur as nouns, pronouns, and verbs. In common or colloquial parlance, they usually are harmless. However, when they are used by professionals within an instrument of professional service, correspondence, or other written communication (electronic or otherwise), or when they are spoken by professionals while acting in a professional capacity, absolutes are almost always inappropriate.
GBA GUIDE TO THE IN-HOUSE REVIEW OF GEOPROFESSIONAL REPORTS
The publication provides step-by-step instructions – as well as overarching concepts – for report writers and reviewers. Organized into three principal content areas to help reviewers consider major issues and to give report writers a clear framework for preparing reports and considering reviewers’ comments, the guide addresses a report’s ability to satisfy the contractual obligations it was intended to fulfill; the quality of its technical and risk-management content; and the clarity of presentation. Supplemental materials include a report-control log, copies of GBA’s widely used report-insert sheets (geotechnical, environmental, and construction-materials engineering and testing), and three best-practices monographs covering “taboo” words, absolutes, and “slipshod synonyms.”
GBA BEST PRACTICES: INTERVIEWING THE RIGHT WAY
Interviewing is one of the least-trained roles throughout the engineering industry. When you don’t interview in the best way for the role you’re hiring for – you may miss out on the hire that impacts your business growth for years to come. Interviewing also involves a significant number of legal do’s and don’ts. Employers must understand the rule of law related to interview and application questions to ensure they’re performed in accordance with state and federal regulations.
GBA BEST PRACTICES: PROJECT-RECORDS RETENTION
This is the updated version of previously published Practice Alert on Project-Records Retention. Accurate records are critically important for resolving a dispute or defending a lawsuit. Not having the information you need when you need it can be disastrous. But sometimes retaining too much information can be disastrous, too. This revised publication gives recommendations on what project records you should keep and what not to keep. It also gives recommendations on how long and where those records should be kept. It is a guideline for the firms, but this will be also depend on the company policies.
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS FOR PROJECT MANAGERS
Effective Project Managers are key to the success of all geoprofessional businesses. GBA recognizes development of highly effective Project Managers requires training, experience, and mentorship in numerous areas. GBA has developed, with support of member-firm volunteers, a Project Manager essential skills training course to support and augment training available by member-firms.
The foundation of this 11 module Project Manager course has been generously donated by a GBA member firm. While the slides have been rebranded by GBA, there may be content or concepts that are specific to this GBA member firm and may require slight modifications to make presentations appropriate for your firm. This course will help you introduce and discuss the essential skills needed as a Project Manager.
This 11 module Project Managers course covers the following topics:
1.Understanding responsibilities of a Project Manager;
2.Communicating about the project effectively with the client, project team and management (including written documentation);
3.Generating new business opportunities and winning proposals;
4.Understanding client requirements;
5.Planning the project scope, schedule and budget;
6.Negotiating client contracts;
7.Coordinating project resources (including subs);
8.Monitoring and managing project scope, budget and schedule;
9.Establishing the appropriate quality of deliverables;
10.Monitoring and managing cash flow, including invoicing and collections; and,
11.Leading the project team.
The PowerPoint format of this course has been developed so that it can be given in a group setting by a leader in your organization or used as a self-teaching tool by an individual. The course can be delivered all at once in an 8-hour day, or a module at a time as time permits. Each module contains a short quiz at the end to confirm clarity on the topics presented. Each module also includes a printable completion certificate. Module 11 includes a printable and framable Course Completion Certificate for those that have completed all the modules of this course.
GBA BEST PRACTICES: GO NO GO CHECKLIST
There are very good reasons why we would choose not to spend time and effort pursuing a client or a project. GBA’s Business Practices Committee has prepared a comprehensive, simple to use, Go/No-Go checklist for your use. The goal of the go/no go check list is to evaluate opportunities to see if they are the ones which will be beneficial for the firm currently and in the future. This checklist may be a tool you use to evaluate opportunities in new sectors, new clients, or a new line of service for your firm.
MESSAGE TO CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS: PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE
Done right, quality assurance (QA) can save time and money; prevent claims and disputes; and reduce risks. Many owners don’t do QA right because they follow bad advice.” And when that happens, a project’s civil engineers and structural engineers may face just as much risk as the owner and the project geoprofessionals. This GBA “message” offers guidance project design professionals can pass on to owners to help all parties lower their risks. Some of the important information conveyed:
Most construction materials engineering and testing (CoMET) firms – they’re the firms that provide QA – are not accredited.
Many CoMET QA personnel are not certified for what they do or at all.
Properly calibrated equipment is essential; many firms don’t have it.
CoMET QA field-representatives require good judgment. They cannot do an effective job by just filling in blanks.
Select CoMET consultants carefully. They’re the last line of defense.
Take advantage of CoMET consultants’ knowledge and experience. Have them serve as active members of the project team from project start to project finish.
Another firm’s field representatives will not report issues to the geotechnical engineer of record; don’t split responsibilities.
How QA services are contracted for is important, especially when special inspections also are involved.
The so-called “low-cost providers” want owners and design professionals to believe all CoMET firms are alike, because – were that actually the case – lowest fee would mean best value, and that seldom, if ever, is true.
GBA BEST PRACTICES: E-COMMUNICATION
This GBA Best Practices replaces Practice Alert 46 which focused on e-communications,. It is revised to address recent usage and offers more suggestions to the problems. .As its title suggests, covers e-mail, instant messaging texting, and the use of Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and so on. It is organized as a series of five problems, each accompanied by suggested solutions. The five problems are:
•failure to treat e-communication as formal communication,
•considering e-communication impermanent,
•thinking some employees are not affected,
•overreliance on e-communication, and
•failure to develop or enforce an effective e-communication policy.
Each problem is accompanied by a series of suggested responses.
CONTRACT REFERENCE GUIDE, FOURTH EDITION
This new edition not only provides significant updates from the prior editions, but also includes important new topics, such as Climate Change, Indemnities and Hold Harmless Provisions in Favor of the Consultant, and Instruments of Professional Service.
Since contracts that reflect a fair and balanced allocation of risk and reward are essential to any risk management program, we hope that this Guide will help to promote the success of your firm. The Guide includes sample recommended language, supported by explanations of the legal issues involved in each, and suggested negotiation strategies. The Guide was designed to foster good risk management while maintaining and enhancing client relationships.
A great tool for project managers and others!
TOP 10 CASE HISTORIES
GBA CASE HISTORY # 115
DON’T DROWN YOUR SORROWS…YET
A GBA-Member Firm was hired to assess whether a proposed facility was buildable. The original project scope did not include final design or construction observation services. The Member Firm was later contracted to assess the exposed subgrade at the project site, where static the issues related to the groundwater and that they were reserving the right to hold the firm responsible for the additional costs incurred.
The Member Firm remained involved in the project and took steps to strengthen the client relationship. The Member Firm’s suggestions along the way resulted in considerable savings and the project was finished within budget – and the Member Firm avoided a lawsuit.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 46
SEEING IS BELIEVING
The Member Firm performed a pre-purchase Phase-2 ESA at a manufacturing site where non-friable asbestos has been disposed, the area covered, and approved by state regulators. A year after the new owner occupied the facility, state regulators identified exposed asbestos caused by erosion along a small stream that divided the property. However, “the property” was actually two parcels, the one where the firm had conducted the ESA and the second where most of the asbestos exposure was occurring. After the EPA sent a notice of financial responsibility to the new owner, the owner sued the Member Firm. Following almost three years of negotiation, a settlement was reached.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 110
SUSPICIOUSLY VARIABLE TEST RESULTS? TAKE A CLOSER LOOK…THE SOONER THE BETTER
The public-school district (the “District”) retained the Member Firm to perform geotechnical-engineering studies for several buildings at two sites. The Member Firm’s geotechnical reports both contained identical recommendations for “select” fill to be used in constructing the building pads for the schools.
The district retained different design teams for the two schools and the Project Specifications for the two schools, not surprisingly, differed significantly. Neither were completely consistent with the recommendations that the Member Firm provided in their geotechnical-engineering report.
A field representative testing compaction of the building pad fill identified inconsistencies and discovered onsite mixing of native soil with import material, a clear violation of the geotechnical recommendations. The earthwork sub-contractor was forced to remove and replace the structural fill for nearly all of completed pads which triggered a legal dispute. The Member Firm avoided losses emphasizing the importance of field representatives that knew project specifications, observed daily field activities closely, and communicated with project management to identify construction defects and potential risks.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 44
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE WHERE YOU WOULD LEAST EXPECT TO FIND THEM
The Member Firm performed a Phase-1 ESA for an industrial building developer on “greenfield site.” A chlorinated solvent was discovered when the consultant performed a more rigorous study for a prospective purchaser. After reaching an oral agreement with the state regulatory agency, the agency’s management refused to commit their decision in writing and the prospective purchaser backed out. After bad publicity spread, the developer’s next deal had to be discounted $1MM. The developer initiated a suit against the Member Firm and the owners of two suspected contamination sources but the Member Firm was able to settle the claim.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 96
“BALANCED EARTHWORK” SOUNDS EASY AND CLEAR. RIGHT?
Member Firm provides environmental, geotechnical, civil engineering/surveying services for a school project. Shortly after groundbreaking for the project, the constructor asks for design changes to achieve an earthwork balance for the project. As the number of associated problems multiply, so do the costs. A lawsuit within the parties made things even worse.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 34
INSURANCE POLICY FEES ARE BASED ON RISK.
GEOPROFESSIONAL FEES SHOULD BE TOO
The Member Firm performed a geotech study and provided three foundation options for a new parking garage for a health clinic. The owner wanted the parking garage constructed within a year and chose to rely on a fast-track strategy. The construction-manager’s site superintendent hired a pressure-injected-footing constructor who submitted a not-to-exceed bid without reviewing the Member Firm’s geotech report. After three of four test piles failed to achieve required capacity, the constructor stopped construction claiming differing subsurface conditions. Problems and negotiations continued with a large claim for extras.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 55
CLIENTS LOOKING FOR THE LOWEST COST HAVE HIGH EXPECTATIONS
The Member Firm performed a limited-scope investigation of an auto-parts manufacturing site on a low bid. After reviewing the remediation alternatives developed by a previous consultants, the Member Firm provided a proposal for excavation of contaminated material although the amount was unknown and may extend beyond the area readily accessible for excavation. As excavation proceeded, contamination was identified at the edge of a building. The manufacturer’s manager directed the firm’s project manager to backfill the excavation and submit a report to the county’s department of environmental affairs (DEA). The DEA required further excavation and the CEO of the manufacturer expected the Member Firm to perform the work at no cost to the manufacturer. The Member Firm refused and the manufacturer sued. TheMember Firm agreed to settle but had to forfeit part of their fee.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 108
OUT OF SCOPE ASSISTANCE CAUSES PROBLEM
Member Firm provides a geotechnical engineering report and COMET services, including earthwork and foundation construction observation, for the construction of 5-story, wood frame senior living facility on undeveloped land known for expansive clay soils. About four years after construction was completed and the facility was occupied, sanitary sewer lines began backing up and the lower-level floor slab began to show heaving-related distress. After very costly repairs were completed, the client filed construction-defect claims against all the design firms involved.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 99
THE OWNER CAN’T AFFORD TO BUILD THIS —NOW WHAT?
Member Firm provides geotechnical engineering and COMET services for a two-story office building on a 60 ft tall fill-slope. When the owner’s budget was not sufficient, things got interesting and project quality suffered.
GBA CASE HISTORY # 01
BEWARE! A FRIEND’S SMALL PROJECT CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FIRM’S HEALTH GEO
The Member Firm performed a preliminary geotech study to estimate foundation-construction costs for a small housing development. The project stalled and years later the developer sold the land with the geotech report to another developer. The new owner retained a different firm for a geotech study for the new project. When the new geotech firm identified problematic soils necessitating a deep foundation system, the new owner filed a $650,000 claim against the Member Firm alleging negligent misrepresentation. Adamant that the suit was unjustified, the Member Firm’s CEO finally acquiesced and accepted a $70,000 settlement offer from the new owner rather than risk the uncertainty of a jury trial.