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
PROPOSED BEST PRACTICES FOR ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR) FOR TAILINGS DAMS
In January 2017, GBA hosted over 50 industry leaders, including subject matter experts, regulators, owners, and practitioners for a Tailings EoR Workshop in Denver, Colorado. This event was made possible thanks to the generous contribution of several GBA member firms and in collaboration with the United States Society on Dams (USSD), the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), the Canadian Dam Association (CDA), and others, the event was designed to identify concerns of filling the role of the EoR for tailings dams and develop guidance for those working on such projects in the United States and abroad.
This document was prepared by the Tailings Engineer of Record (EoR) Task Force to the Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Chaired by Kimberly Finke Morrison, P.E., R.G. and co-chaired by Robert Snow, P.E.
This Proposed Best Practices guideline provides recommendations from an informed body of geotechnical engineering practitioners for defining the roles and responsibilities of an EoR for a tailings dam or CCR dam to enhance safety, environmental suitability, and social sustainability.
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: TABOO WORDS
This Best Practices document examines language use and 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.
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES
Geoprofessional Business Association’s (GBA) Tailings Engineer-of-Record (EOR) Task Force published a Business Brief to inform and educate Member-Firms of the ever-increasing levels of risk associated with tailings-related work. The Task Force illustrated the risk by including recent tailings dam failures in Canada and Brazil.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN REPORT
GBA has updated its number one, all-time most-popular resource – Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report. Some of the language has been modified (e.g., “This Report” instead of “Your Report”), at least one new term is used (“confirmation-dependent recommendations”), one section (about use of drilling logs) has been eliminated, and two sections – one about mold, the other about showing the report to bidders – have been modified substantially. Literally millions of copies of the previous versions are in print or virtual print. Only GBA-Member Firms have the right to use the document “as-is.” As-is use by nonmembers may be considered fraudulent in addition to being a violation of intellectual-property laws and GBA’s copyright. Member Firms get them for free and may use them without restriction for as long as they remain members. Nonmembers may order one to see what we suggest, but they may not copy or store the document, nor may they use its language. GBA encourages nonmembers to join so they, too, can use this important report insert. Get your copy now!
Only GBA-Member Firms are permitted to use the document as an insert sheet. Others may use it as a model for development of their own advisory document.
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 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: INITIAL CURING OF CONCRETE TEST SPECIMENS IN THE FIELD: Who’s Responsible for ..
ACI Standard 301-10, Specification for Structural Concrete, sets forth ambiguous requirements for initial curing of concrete test specimens in the field, requiring the contractor to “provide space and source of electrical power on the project site for facilities to be used for initial curing of concrete test specimens as required by ASTM C31/C31M, for the sole use of the Owner’s quality assurance testing agency.” Does “space” mean that the contractor must set aside an area at the construction site where the construction materials engineering and testing (CoMET) consultant or some other party will place or construct initial curing facilities? Or does “space” mean “an environmentally controlled space” for initial curing in the field? Because uncertainty and confusion are common precursors of delays, disputes, and claims, and because CoMET consultants are likely to be blamed for any that occur, CoMET consultants need to take appropriate action to help the project team avoid related problems. This Best Practices document provides valuable guidance.
This is a revised version of a previously Practice Alert and it has been updated by COMET experts.
GBA BUSINESS BRIEF: NAVIGATING NEW HORIZONS : BEYOND gINT NEW ERA IN GEOTECHNICAL DATA
GBA’s Business Technology has prepared a Business Brief to help geoprofessionals navigate the new market of vendors and products that has emerged in the wake of news that support and updates for geotechnical software product gINT will cease in 2026. This Business Brief may serve as a starting point on your journey and is for information only.
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.
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 groundwater was observed, consistent with the Member Firm’s prior report. The Member Firm was told that they didn’t do enough to call out 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 NO. 117
DISASTER AVERTED… THE POWER OF A PEER REVIEW
A GBA member firm was hired to peer review the geotechnical exploration report completed by a non-member firm at the site of a new warehouse with a mezzanine level.
The GBA member firm’s review revealed the original report – completed by the non-member firm’s inexperienced engineer, who lacked senior staff support – used limited consolidation tests at shallow depths and a reliance on correlations to estimate ground settlement. The GBA member firm noted that the stress overlap of the large footings supporting the mezzanine level was not considered, thereby underestimating the amount of settlement the footings could undergo.
The non-member firm quickly understood that without the peer review, they could have been in a lawsuit that would have cost them many times their fees. The GBA member firm gained additional work with the developer thanks to a successful project outcome and built on their relationship as a trusted consultant.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 116
WENT FISHING… CAUGHT A WHALE
A GBA-member firm was hired to evaluate and design the repair of a sheet pile dock at a food processing plant. The owner was pleased with the design but did not have the capital to construct the full repairs and tasked the engineer with devising a temporary solution.
In the early morning hours on the first day of mobilization for the project, the dock collapsed and the project immediately shifted from repair to replacement. Daily, it seemed, new problems or concerns arose, and the geotechnical engineer was on-site to make observations, answer questions, and present solutions.
Through the extraordinary efforts of the contractor and trust from the owner, the project was completed before the plant’s operating season began and the geotechnical engineer was made to look like a hero.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 1
BEWARE! A FRIEND’S SMALL PROJECT CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FIRM’S HEALTH
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.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 4
COMPROMISE MUST BE PART OF YOUR BUSINESS STRATEGY
The Member Firm performed a geotechnical-engineering study for a major structure and recommended drilled shafts that would require permanent casing. The drilled-shaft constructor offered an innovative “value-engineered” approach to remove the casing and save money. Unfortunately, construction problems developed and resolution required extensive investigation, testing, redesign, and big dollars. Surprisingly, by sharing responsibility and costs, litigation was avoided.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 9
DON’T OVERLOOK THE DETAILS OR BE READY TO PAY THE BANK
After performing the geotech study and CoMET services during initial construction for a four-story building, the Member Firm’s services were interrupted for the relocation of utility lines. Because of the delay, fill was being placed simultaneously in several locations and density testing was limited. As the steel erection began, one row of footings began settling. Investigation revealed inadequate fill compaction and loss of soil into the sewer lines that had been abandoned and left unplugged. The repair costs were shared by all parties.
GBA CASE HISTORY NO. 2
CLIENTS WHO DON’T FOLLOW ADVICE SHOULD BE SOMEONE ELSE’S CLIENT
The Member Firm performed a geotech study for a repeat client, a custom-home builder, to identify potential groundwater problems for construction of a two-story home near the flank of a ridge. It was a hand-shake deal. Despite recommendations for drainage provisions and construction monitoring, the client went silent. Two months after completion, the basement began experiencing cracking, buckling, and water seepage. While admitting he ignored important recommendations, the client representative wanted the Member Firm to contribute money to help pay for repairs. In exchange for a full release, the Member Firm contributed a token amount for the repairs and quickly walked away.
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 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 NO. 5
IF THE BUS DRIVER DOESN’T HAVE A LICENSE, GET OFF THE BUS GEO
The architect for the church retained the Member Firm to perform a limited-scope geotech study for a federally-funded retirement home. Only boring logs and a brief letter report to the structural engineer were needed for the design of a pile foundation. Unfortunately, the design was not within the budget and the structural engineer refused to change the design and withdrew from the project. The replacement structural engineer redesigned the foundations and satisfactory load tests were performed but the federal agency balked until a geotech study was provided for the revision. A new geotech was retained but after the agency reviewed their report, the agency directed that a mat foundation be used. The church filed suit against the original Member Firm for the new costs.