5 More Case Histories Refreshed

GBA Publications Committee

Learn from others. Don’t repeat the mistakes of the past! GBA Case Histories are being used by our members for loss prevention discussions in support of professional development and mentoring. That is why GBA case histories are so valuable, and why GBA is updating them all, while adding new ones, too. Five more Case Histories have been re-issued.

CASE HISTORY NO.81: Download Here
Not knowing your client’s preferences and expectations can be expensive, as one member learned on a nuclear power plant project. The client orally authorized the Member Firm to begin construction materials engineering and testing (CoMET) services and dictated the format for test reporting. The project manager complied, but learned the client was dissatisfied during a collection call. He thought the problem had been solved by changing procedures, but the client’s demand letter proved him wrong.

CASE HISTORY NO. 82: Download Here
A client planning to purchase a site said “enough is enough”  after contamination was discovered. The site’s owner was willing to pay for additional services, however, so the project moved forward. But that was a serious mistake,the Member Firm learned. If only the firm had spent 30 minutes inquiring about the new client’s reputation, $84,000 worth of litigation could have been avoided.

CASE HISTORY NO. 83: Download Here
An optimistic scope of service should be implemented by highly qualified staff, not junior employees. A Member Firm submitted the lowest bid for a project, assuming it could rely on its experience with a similar site about a half-mile away. The low-cost employees assigned to the project failed to realize that dune sand could cover the peat deposits of former marshes.

CASE HISTORY NO. 84: Download Here
A Member Firm’s preliminary estimate did not bring  in the anticipated engagement, so it just forgot about it.But not only had the estimate been used as a final report, it was applied to a project whose size was changed. The GBA-Member Firm learned what it should already have known: The size of a risk is often inversely proportional to the size of the project. In this case, a hoped-for $50 profit cost the firm well over $2.5 million, not including the value of the time it had to spend or the opportunity cost.

CASE HISTORY NO.85: Download Here
A firm, retained on an on-call basis, conducted 282 moisture and density tests during  back filling of utility lines in a housing subdivision. Ten months after completion of the infrastructure, the ground surface and sidewalks settled over the sanitary lines in three areas. The principal-in-charge reviewed test data, spoke with the resident engineer on the project, and learned that his firm’s responsibility was slight. Nonetheless, he provided $6,000 worth of remedial services to fix the problem and convinced the contractor to contribute even more. By doing so, he avoided litigation and gained a “client for life.”

GBA Case Histories are FREE to all Members.