Trenchless for Gas Infrastructure Magazine Launches in 2019

The Northeast Chapter of NASTT has launched a magazine that will be beneficial to the gas industry across the United States.

The inaugural issue of Trenchless for Gas Infrastructure magazine is now available as a complementary download. Trenchless for Gas Infrastructure magazine provides understanding, knowledge and technical innovations regarding the specific application of trenchless technology methods for gas distribution and transmission networks.

Trenchless for Gas Infrastructure is focused on the utility and application of trenchless methods in gas distribution pipeline repair and new construction programs. Content includes articles and case studies demonstrating the benefits of using trenchless technology to repair replace and upgrade gas distribution networks.

The magazine is distributed to senior gas operations and construction executives, engineers and consultants, reaching gas utility LDCs across the US. It is also available as a free download on the NASTT website.

Five Rules for Contractors Who Want to be Paid What They Deserve Without a Legal Fight

Today’s blog post is a guest post from Ted Roberts. Ted is a Minnesota-based attorney and NASTT member focused on helping contractors steer through project disputes and other legal obstacles. He welcomes feedback about this article and may be reached at ted@tedrobertslaw.com or on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/hddlawyer. His website—www.directionaldrillinglaw.com—is currently under construction.

In this article I share five rules for getting paid faster with fewer objections. The five rules are distilled from my experience litigating lawsuits stemming from horizontal directional drilling projects. Reflecting on what the parties were fighting about in those cases, I tried to come up with a set of “best practices” that, had they been followed in the cases I handled, might have prevented a lawsuit in the first place or at least reduced the time and expense needed to resolve it.

Any contractor who implements these practices will see three benefits. First, the contractor will encounter fewer objections to payment. Second, any objections will be resolved sooner without the need to resort to a lawsuit. Finally, any payment disputes will be resolved on better terms—that is, the contractor will see more money sooner. While there exist additional ways to avoid claims on a project, I have focused on actions contractors can take without much trouble or expense.

As detailed below, the five rules are:

  1. Write down the important stuff.
  2. Treat your contract as a rulebook, not something to be signed and filed away.
  3. Thoroughly document any extras now, not later.
  4. Preserve your lien and bond rights.
  5. Make sure the contract you want is the contract you get.

Write down the important stuff.

Easy to remember and easy to do: document important communications and events in writing, when they happen. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that many lawyers would be out of a job if more contractors lived by this principle: “If it’s not in writing, it never happened.”

While most of us know that contracts should be in writing, many contractors still find themselves fighting over incidental agreements and commitments made during the project’s performance. Because these are often the result of a conversation or meeting, no one bothers to make a record. While I am not suggesting that someone transcribe everything said on the job site, my own experience suggests that many disputes could be avoided had the parties documented their agreement in writing.

Here are some examples of the types of discussions and agreements that should be documented:

  • Agreements about the cause or mitigation of any defective work or property damage.
  • Commitments to pay for extra work or changes in the work.
  • Agreements to accept non-conforming work or a substitute performance.
  • Agreements to modify the original contract, including agreements to ignore (that is, “waive”) any contract requirements.
  • Agreements to modify the schedule or project deadlines.

Unless the contract requires something different, written documentation need not be lengthy or formal: a quick email can be enough, or a hand-written note signed by both sides.

Treat your contract as a rulebook, not something to be signed and filed away.

Good construction contracts anticipate and address the issues most likely to cause problems on an HDD project. These include what are commonly known as “project risks” or “construction risks”: delays, frac-outs, and unexpected subsurface conditions, for example.

All of these risks can negatively impact the project by either increasing either the time or costs required to complete the work. The occurrence of any of these events should trigger an immediate review of the contract. Chances are, the contract will provide specific instructions on how the contractor should respond, especially if the contractor intends to ask for additional time or money as a result. More often than not, the contract will require written notice and other documentation within a short period of time. A contractor who ignores these requirements is at risk of losing any rights to additional time or money.

Events that impact a project’s schedule and cost are not the only reason to take a second look at your contract. Refer to your contract whenever:

  • The parties want to modify the contract’s terms or the scope of work.
  • One of the parties has defaulted—that is, failed to perform—on one of its obligations.
  • One of the parties wants to terminate or abandon the contract before completion.

All of the above assumes that your contract actually has something to say about these issues. Good construction contracts will address these issues and most do.

Some contracts, especially lower-tier subcontracts, do not. I have encountered more than one subcontract limited to a one-page proposal, without much else. If you are dealing with such a contract, then proceed with caution and consult a lawyer.

Thoroughly document any extras now, not later.

It is not uncommon for a contractor to incur additional, unexpected costs on a project through no fault of its own. Delays, contract changes and extras, and differing site conditions may all negatively impact the bottom line. And a contractor may have the right to be reimbursed for these costs. But a right to payment is only half the battle. The legal right to be paid means nothing if the contractor is unable to show what its actual costs were.

You may have heard this in math class: “Show your work.” This is also a good rule to follow when documenting any extras on a job. A contractor who is incurring extra costs should keep two goals in mind. The first goal is to segregate the extra costs so they can be easily distinguished from costs related to the work under the contract. The second is to show that the extra costs were the result of a specific cause; for example, extra costs attributable to delayed site access.

Detailed contemporaneous documentation can only help your cause. Paper the file. Was your work or equipment damaged? Assign a separate job-cost accounting code and document the damage and repairs with photographs and daily work records. Did you attempt to limit or contain your costs? Document that. If your schedule was impacted, make any necessary changes to your schedule. Was the matter discussed? Any discussions, agreements, and resolutions should be noted in writing when they happen.

Here’s what NOT to do. Do not wait until the end of the project and attempt to “guesstimate” your extra costs. Back-of-the-envelope cost calculations are rarely acceptable, either to those paying the bill or to a judge and jury sitting in a courtroom.

Preserve your lien and bond rights.

Mechanic’s liens and payment bonds are among the most valuable tools available to an unpaid contractor. This is so for two primary reasons. First, lien and bond claims allow a contractor to recover its attorneys fees in most cases. Second, both offer another source of payment—a second set of pockets—to pursue when your customer is either unwilling or unable to pay. And if your customer is insolvent, or declares bankruptcy, a lien or bond may be your only way to get paid.

Liens and payment bonds are often not treated with the respect they deserve. The leverage and power of a lien or bond claim should not be underestimated. A contractor with a valid lien or bond claim is a lot harder to ignore and a lot more expensive to fight. The threat of attorney’s fees, or the pressure exerted by the owner of property that has been liened, may be enough to motivate the other side to drop its objections and resolve a payment claim sooner.

Here’s a rough guide for contractors wanting to keep these two weapons in their arsenal. Before starting work on a project, a contractor should, either by itself or with the help of a lawyer, answer these three questions:

  1. Do I have the right to file a lien or a payment bond claim if I am not paid?
  2. If so, are there any notice or filing requirements I must satisfy before starting the work?
  3. If I am not paid, what are the notice and claim requirements I must follow after completing the work?

Of these three, the third is the one most often bungled. Know this: many lien and bond laws impose strict deadlines upon a contractor wanting to assert a claim. Many contractors allow these remedies to lapse as they continue to negotiate with their customer. For this reason, I suggest that contractors know what they need to do before starting the work and, as they close out their project, calendar any deadlines for filing a lien or taking action against a payment bond.

Make sure the contract you want is the contract you get.

Expensive claims and lawsuits do not happen simply because something goes wrong on a project. Even if a project’s costs suddenly increase because of the unexpected—bad geotechnical conditions, for example—an expensive lawsuit is unlikely if the issue has been addressed by the parties’ contract.

The seeds of a lawsuit are often planted before the work is even started, when the contract is formed. This can happen when both sides believe they have entered into a contract but harbor different understandings about their rights and obligations. Unfortunately, many contractors do not fully appreciate the risks posed by the contract formation process until it is too late.

In my experience, this problem—both sides having conflicting ideas about the nature of their agreement—is present in a lot of disputes that end up in litigation. Common scenarios include Here are three ways I’ve seen this happen on HDD projects:

  • In the middle of a project, Contractor A subcontracts with Contractor B to complete some HDD crossings. Contractor A’s contract with the project’s general contractor incorporates the project’s specifications. Contractor A’s subcontract with Contractor B is silent on this issue. After things go wrong, the two contractors litigate the question of whether Contractor B and its work is, like Contractor A, bound by the project specifications.
  • In the middle of a project, Contractor A hires Contractor B to complete some HDD crossings. After a telephone conversation about the conditions that Contractor A has encountered so far, the parties sign a contract consisting of little more than a description of the work and price. After mobilizing to the project, Contractor B discovers that neither water nor lodging is available within 60 miles. To make matters worse, Contractor B encounters geotechnical conditions inconsistent with what Contractor A had described. After things go south, the parties litigate the issue of whether Contractor A had misrepresented the project’s subsurface conditions and whether Contractor B had a right to assume that water and lodging would be nearby.
  • Contractor provides Owner with a price proposal for HDD work. The proposal includes a term sheet that includes provisions that entitle Contractor A to be paid for stand-by time and to adjust its price upwards if the geotechnical conditions are different than those indicated. Owner asks Contractor to sign a contract that reflects Contractor’s price but does not include the contractor’s term sheet. If Contractor signs the contract, there is a substantial risk that its term sheet has been nullified. As a result, the Contractor has effectively agreed to take on greater risk during the project, without an increase in its price.

Here’s the point: a contractor’s mishandling or misunderstanding of the contract formation process can be financially disastrous if things go wrong. Contractors can manage risks they know about and price their work accordingly. But unknown risks are more difficult manage effectively and as a result more costly if they occur.

Here are five ways to make sure the contract you want is the contract you get:

  1. Anything important to you or your price should be in writing, in your contract. “In your contract,” means the written documents that both sides have agreed to. It does not mean your bid or proposal, unless the contract expressly says it does.
  2. Do not rely or depend upon agreements and statements that precede your contract, unless they also find their way into the written contract.
  3. Do not rely on industry “customs” and “practices” to get what you want. A judge or jury will not care if it’s customary to pay stand-by time, or that no money is paid for an incomplete crossing, if neither issue is addressed in the contract.
  4. Make sure your set of contract documents is complete. This is a bigger problem than many contractors realize. Most subcontracts contain “flow down” clauses, provisions that incorporate the terms in an upstream contract; for example, the agreement between the general contractor and the project’s owner. The two contracts are not always consistent and, in some cases, the terms in the upstream contract may override or nullify the terms in the subcontract. If your contract incorporates other agreements or documents, it is important that you obtain and review these documents before signing the contract.
  5. Increase your contract literacy. Given that most contracts are signed without the involvement of a lawyer, most contractors would benefit from a better understanding of how contracts work and, especially, how to spot and understand terms most likely to cause trouble. Such terms include those that limit a contractor’s right to recover losses caused by the other side, indemnity clauses, warranty provisions, and disclaimers. To be honest, I have no idea how contractors wade through the legal mumbo-jumbo that passes for contract drafting these days, other than to learn from trial and error. However they do it, contractors should empower themselves to understand the terms commonly included in construction contracts and the business purposes they are meant to serve.

Closing Thoughts

Nobody wants to fight over a claim for extra money or time. Lawsuits are expensive not only in terms of fees paid to lawyers and experts, but also expensive in the time and resources that required to deal with them. The occurrence of a project risk alone lead does not usually lead to an expensive legal fight, though some type of significant cost-impact like a delay or differing site condition is a necessary ingredient. The expensive disputes that end up in court usually also entail some type of misunderstanding or mismanagement of the contracting process. The five rules discussed above, if successfully implemented, should go far in avoiding such missteps.

Robbins TBM Overcomes Multiple Caverns to Make Breakthrough

Galerie des Janots Main Beam completes Arduous French Drive

In April 2019, a Robbins 3.5 m (11.5 ft) diameter Main Beam TBM broke through into open space, completing its 2.8 km (1.7 mi) long tunnel. It was not the first time the machine had encountered open space: twice during tunneling, the machine hit uncharted caverns, the largest of which measured a staggering 8,000 cubic meters (283,000 cubic ft) in size.

The obstacles overcome at the recent breakthrough are a significant achievement, said Marc Dhiersat, Project Director of the Galerie des Janots tunnel for contractor Eiffage Civil Construction. “We are proud to have led a motivated and conscientious team to the end of the tunnel who worked well without accidents despite the many technical difficulties encountered.”

The water tunnel, located below the community of Cassis, France, is an area of limestone known for its groundwater, karstic cavities, and voids.  The limestone, combined with powdery clays, made for difficult excavation after the machine’s March 2017 launch.  At the 1,035 m (3,395 ft) mark, the crew hit a cavern on the TBM’s left side.  The cavern, studded with stalactites and stalagmites, was grazed by the TBM shield.  The crew had to erect a 4 m (13 ft) high wall of concrete so the TBM would have something to grip against.  The TBM was then started up and was able to successfully navigate out of the cavern in eight strokes without significant downtime to the operation—the process took about two weeks. Despite the challenges, Dhiersat thought positively of the TBM throughout the ordeal: “This has been the best machine for the job due to all the geological difficulties.”

The first cavern, while the largest, was not the most difficult void encountered. The machine was averaging 20 to 22 m (65 to 72 ft) advance per day in two shifts after clearing the first cavity, with a dedicated night shift for maintenance.  While excavating, a combination of probe drilling and geotechnical BEAM investigation—a type of electricity-induced polarization to detect anomalies ahead of the TBM—were used. Crews ran the excavation five days per week, achieving over 400 m (1,310 ft) in one month. This performance continued until the 2,157 m (7,077 ft) mark, when the machine grazed the top of an unknown cavity that extended deep below the tunnel path. The structure measured 22 m (72 ft) long, 15 m (49 ft) wide, and 14 m (46 ft) deep, or about 4,500 cubic meters (159,000 cubic ft) of open space.

Crews probed in front of the cutterhead and began work to stabilize and secure the cavity with foam and concrete, as well as excavate a bypass gallery. “After filling much of the cavity (1,500 m3/53,000 ft3), our biggest difficulty was to ensure the gripping of the machine: We needed six bypass galleries and four months of work to reach the end of this challenge,” said Dhiersat.  For the last 600 m (2,000 ft) of tunneling, “we were finally in good rock,” he emphasized. Overall rates for the project averaged 18 m (59 ft) per day in two shifts, and topped out at 25 m (82 ft) in one day.

“The cooperation with Marc and his team on site was very good and we always enjoyed their professionalism and commitment to the project and the task. This, without any doubt was key for the success we achieved,” said Detlef Jordan, Business Manager Robbins Europe. “For us, it was satisfying and motivating to see that, by working together and joining the efforts of all partners on the project, the best and most successful outcome can be achieved. This commitment for decades has been at the heart of success in the tunneling industry, but it has not always been observed on other recent projects.”

Galerie des Janots is one of fourteen operations designed to save water and protect resources, which are being carried out by the Aix-Marseille-Provence metropolis, the water agency Rhône Mediterranean Corsica, and the State Government. The Janots gallery, once online, will replace existing pipelines currently located in a railway tunnel—these original pipes have significant deficiencies with estimated water losses of 500,000 cubic meters (132 million gallons) per year. The new tunnel will increase capacity to 440 liters (116 gallons) per second.

Image 1: Contractor Eiffage Civil Construction celebrates the April 2019 breakthrough of a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) diameter Robbins Main Beam TBM in Cassis, France.
Image 2: Despite challenges including karstic limestone and clay, the Robbins TBM at Galerie des Janots achieved rates of 18 m (59 ft) per day on average, and topped out at 25 m (82 ft) in one day.
Image 3: The Robbins machine overcame tough conditions including two uncharted caverns, the largest of which measured a staggering 8,000 cubic meters (283,000 cubic ft) in size.
Image 4: The first cavern, encountered at the 1,035 m (3,395 ft) mark, was grazed by the TBM shield on one side and was studded with stalactites and stalagmites.

Robbins Crossover TBM completes Turkey’s Longest Water Tunnel

XRE Machine completed National Priority Water Line set to go Live in March

Excavation of Turkey’s longest water tunnel came to an end on December 18, 2018. To get there, a 5.56 m (18.2 ft) diameter Robbins Crossover (XRE) TBM and the contractor JV of Kolin/Limak had to overcome dozens of major fault zones and water pressures up to 26 bar. The completed national priority water line is set to go into operation in March 2019.

The 31.6 km (19.6 mi) long Gerede Water Transmission Tunnel is an urgently needed project due to severe and chronic droughts in the capital city Ankara. Its final leg, a 9.0 km (5.6 mi) section of extremely difficult ground including sandstone agglomerate, limestone and tuff, was just one section in the middle of a tunnel widely considered to be the most challenging ever driven by TBMs in Turkey. “I’ve had the chance to study and visit the majority of mechanized tunnelling projects in Turkey since the 1980s. The Gerede project is one of the most challenging projects among them,” said Dr. Nuh Bilgin, Professor of Mine and Tunnel Mechanization at Istanbul Technical University and Chairman of the Turkish Tunnelling Society.

The Robbins XRE TBM was called in to complete the tunnel, which was at a standstill after using three Double Shield TBMs from another manufacturer. Those machines encountered incredibly difficult geology including massive inrushes of mud and water. The Kolin/Limak JV had to develop a new strategy given the unexpected ground conditions. They contacted The Robbins Company, who suggested a Crossover (Dual-Mode Type) TBM for the remaining section of tunnel. “The Crossover TBM provided great ease and versatility during the entire project with frequently changing ground conditions. The TBM was equipped with features such as increased thrust, two-speed gearbox, and modular screw conveyor. It was capable of giving the necessary responses in different geologies, which was our most important asset in achieving our goal,” said Barış Duman, Project Manager for the Kolin – Limak JV.

“The challenging part for us was to design and manufacture a TBM that could complete the difficult section of the Gerede Tunnel where two other competitor TBMs had failed,” said Yunus Alpagut, Robbins representative in Turkey. The specialized machine was designed to statically hold water pressure up to 20 bar, a failsafe that none of the standard Double Shield TBMs had been equipped with. A convertible cutterhead was also provided that was designed for ease of conversion between hard rock and EPB modes, and with cutter housings that could be fitted with either disc cutters or tungsten carbide tooling. To cope with difficult ground, the Gerede machine was also equipped with the Torque-Shift System, multi-speed gearing allowing the machine to function as either an EPB or a hard rock TBM. This function is done by adding another gear reduction–heavy duty pinions and bull gears accommodate high torque at low speed, allowing the machine to bore through fault zones and soft ground without becoming stuck.

The Crossover machine was assembled in spring 2016 after crews excavated a bypass tunnel to one side of one of the stuck Double Shield TBMs. An underground assembly chamber allowed the machine to be built in the tunnel using Onsite First Time Assembly (OFTA). “The logistics of getting components through the existing tunnel were the most challenging thing. The assembly chamber was 7 km (4 mi) from the portal. The water inflow of 600 l/s (159 gal/s) made it difficult to get the materials to the machine,” said Glen Maynard, Robbins Field Service Site Manager.

Despite the challenges, the machine began boring in summer 2016 and within the first 50 m (160 ft) of boring had successfully passed through the section that buried the original Double Shield TBM. The machine was required to be used in EPB mode as it encountered water pressures up to 26 bars, alluvium, flowing materials, clay and a total of 48 fault zones. Water pressure was lowered by draining the ground water through the rear shield probe drill ports, which were equipped with normally-closed ball valves. Probe drilling was done on a routine basis to get through the ground conditions. “Together with the difficult geological conditions the travel time to reach the TBM within the tunnel had effects on TBM performance. Despite this constraint, the tunnel excavation achieved a best day of 29.4 m (96.5 ft), best week of 134.6 m (441.6 ft) and a best month of 484 m (1,588 ft),” said Duman.

“We had many challenging areas with water and high pressures up to 26 bar along with alluvial material in fault zones. Ground pressure on the shield body caused squeezing conditions in clay. In these regions, we were able to quickly pass through by keeping the TBM advance rate, cutterhead rpm and screw conveyor rotation speed at the ideal level. Ultimately, we think our decision to select a Crossover TBM was correct,” continued Duman.

With tunneling complete, the pipeline is on track to open in March 2019. The tunnel will convey water from the Gerede River to Çamlıdere Dam, which provides potable water for the Ankara city water system.

Image 1: To achieve their recent breakthrough, the Kolin/Limak crew, including Barış Duman – Project Manager of Kolin – Limak JV (7th from left), had to guide the Crossover XRE TBM through multiple fault zones and withstand water pressures of up to 26 bar.
Image 2: The Robbins team and contractor JV of Kolin/Limak pause during Onsite First Time Assembly (OFTA) of the TBM more than 7 km (4 mi) from the tunnel portal.
Image 3: Geology encountered in the Gerede tunnel included a mix of volcanic rock including tuff, basalt, and breccia, giving way to sedimentary formations like sandstone, shale, and limestone, all punctuated by fault zones that contained clay and alluvium.
Image 4: The Crossover TBM launched in summer 2016 and within the first 50 m (160 ft) of boring was able to pass through a difficult fault zone where one of the original, non-Robbins Double Shield TBMs was stuck.
Image 5: The Gerede Water Transmission Tunnel is considered by many to be the most difficult TBM-bored tunnel in Turkey.

The Green Communities Committee (GCC) Announces Sixth GCC Approved Option 1 Project: the Trenchless Technology Project

The Green Communities Committee (GCC) is pleased to announce the availability of a sixth GCC approved Option 1 project to assist local governments in meeting their climate action goals – the Trenchless Technology Project.

Local Governments from across British Columbia have demonstrated strong leadership in signing on to the BC Climate Action Charter and committing to work toward reducing GHG emissions and taking actions to make their communities more complete, compact and energy efficient.

Since 2007, the joint Provincial – UBCM Green Communities Committee (GCC) has worked with local governments to assist them in achieving these goals, including developing a common approach for carbon neutrality.

In 2011, the GCC established the Carbon Neutral Framework for BC local governments that included 4 steps (measure, reduce, offset/balance and report) and two types of projects – Option 1 and Option 2 projects – that local governments can undertake to reduce GHG emissions within their communities as a way of balancing their corporate GHG emissions.  Option 1 projects are pre-defined projects approved by the GCC. Option 1 projects are pre-defined projects approved by the GCC. Option 2 projects are projects proposed and undertaken by the local government and validated and verified by third parties. The GCC has previously developed and approved five Option 1 GHG reduction projects – supported by five related project profiles.

This GCC communiqué announces the sixth GCC-approved Option 1 project: the Trenchless Technology Project. The Trenchless Technology Project profile provides guidance on estimating the emission reductions associated with using trenchless technologies, rather than conventional open-cut trenching, for capital projects to upgrade, repair, replace or construct water or wastewater utility pipes. An accompanying GCC Carbon Calculator enables local governments that undertake eligible capital projects that use trenchless technology to replace utility pipes (general maintenance projects are not eligible) to estimate the amount of emission reductions realized.

The Trenchless Technology Project profile and the GCC Carbon Calculator can be found on the BC Climate Action Toolkit Carbon Neutral page.

For more information, including information about whether the Trenchless Technology project profile may be used to help balance local government 2018 GHG corporate emissions, please contact the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at PLUM@gov.bc.ca.

37th Annual International No-Dig – Florence 2019 – Call for Abstracts Closes March 15

The International Society for Trenchless Technology (ISTT) and the Italian Association for Trenchless Technology (IATT) are currently accepting abstracts submitted electronically for the 37th International NO-DIG Florence 2019.

The Deadline for abstract submission is March 15, 2019. Finals papers are due on July 15, 2019. Each participant can present up to 2 abstracts.

The Scientific Committee of the 37th International NO-DIG Florence 2019, proposes the following Paper Topics:

  1. Trenchless Technology Case Studies
  2. Environmental and Sustainability Benefits of Trenchless
  3. Research and Development
  4. Mapping and Inspection of Underground Utilities
  5. Infrastructure Financing for Utility Projects
  6. Horizontal Directional Drilling
  7. Microtunneling/Pipe Jacking/Auger Boring
  8. Trenchless Pipe Replacement
  9. Pipe Lining and Coatings
  10. Contracts

Authors are encouraged to select a topic of their interest.

For each topic please described:

  • A new application and/or
  • environmental and soil conditions and/or
  • up to date equipment and/or
  • material used and/or
  • performance of the No-Dig Technique applied.

Aspects such as Financing and Contracts are of interest as well, especially if connected to the use of Trenchless Technology.

The focus of each paper should be the innovation that can keep increasing the application of Trenchless Technologies.

Together with an Exhibition, containing the state-of-the-art technologies, the Conference Programme will be an empowering way for a wider knowledge of NO-DIG construction.

Visit the conference website for details.