Browse Forums Building A New House 1 Feb 09, 2020 1:52 pm $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests (p). Why don't builders quote building contracts with the maximum soil problem scenario added to customers quotes/contracts? Are they afraid they'd lose their budgeting customers due to maybe right extra costs?? Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 2Feb 09, 2020 1:58 pm Builders quote on good clean, solid land. Variations are usually 'discussed' but only ever quantified when the appropriate tests and qutoes have been undertaken. I incurred approx $20K variation for hitting rock/shale which did not come up in the soil tests. I do know however that the business taking the soil samples on my site, took 4 spots and reported on the best 2.(naturally not drawing unnecessary attention to the impending Rock excavation costs. The rock was encountered for my pool and back yard. Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 3Feb 09, 2020 9:10 pm Ijc Why don't builders quote building contracts with the maximum soil problem scenario added to customers quotes/contracts? Because there are too many variables possible so, as mentioned, the initial quote will be based on 'ideal' ground conditions and assuming the minimum is required to fulfil building regulations so the default price is usually based the most favourable soil conditions. Best that can be hoped for prior to soil testing would be getting a sliding scale of quotes from the builder in the event a less favourable soil classification (H1, H2 etc) are encountered under the site. A P classification is not quite as simple as that as all it means is that there are other conditions in the ground to consider in slab/footing design apart from swelling clay. Those reasons will be specified in the soil report along with a recommendation on how to address them or if further investigation is needed. Remember that 20K is just an estimate so check what is included and what isn't. GLO incurred approx $20K variation for hitting rock/shale which did not come up in the soil tests. That's pretty poor. Any half-decent geo investigation should provide anticipated excavation conditions as a minimum, especially where in-ground pools are proposed. GLO the business taking the soil samples on my site, took 4 spots and reported on the best 2.(naturally not drawing unnecessary attention to the impending Rock excavation costs. It's probable there is a less 'nefarious' reason behind the report content and you should query it with the soil testing company. It may not help you now but if you suspect questionable practices it is worth taking further or clarifying for others benefit. But bear in mind a geotech investigation and a soil test to determine site classification (M, H, P etc) are not the same. The soil testing company may have reported the worst conditions as per AS2870. Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 4Feb 10, 2020 1:35 pm When we built, we asked the salesman to incorporate the worst soil type into the quote. He added an extra $25000 and we ended up with E soil and he was pretty much spot on. Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 5Mar 18, 2020 7:53 pm The norm is always to allow for standard construction, once final drawings and engineering come into play then this is when you may be struck with more costs. Pre-planning and investigation is key to getting a solid price and a quality job. I'd like to see the investigation undertaken prior to the contract signing though, that it very frustrating. Registered Building - Always happy to help where I can and simply loves the game. DM me if you need help in VIC. Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 6Mar 18, 2020 8:34 pm worldofmud GLO incurred approx $20K variation for hitting rock/shale which did not come up in the soil tests. That's pretty poor. Any half-decent geo investigation should provide anticipated excavation conditions as a minimum, especially where in-ground pools are proposed. GLO the business taking the soil samples on my site, took 4 spots and reported on the best 2.(naturally not drawing unnecessary attention to the impending Rock excavation costs. It's probable there is a less 'nefarious' reason behind the report content and you should query it with the soil testing company. It may not help you now but if you suspect questionable practices it is worth taking further or clarifying for others benefit. But bear in mind a geotech investigation and a soil test to determine site classification (M, H, P etc) are not the same. The soil testing company may have reported the worst conditions as per AS2870. Before I built i found out that my neighbour had an M Grade slab so i was hoping for the same. I was right, The Soil tests drilled in 3 places, but only reported 2. Possibly to preference the least alarming options. Admittedly, i was hoping for a sturdier foundation, and i got it! But i totally agree, the Geo investigation should also have been completed in the pool location as it was also part of the new build. Unfortunately, they get you by the proverbial! Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 7Mar 18, 2020 9:00 pm Best piece of advice, get the soil test done independently, or if you pay a deposit that includes a soil test/contour survey, request that they agree to give you both reports. Re: $20,000 engineering placed on contract after soil tests 8Mar 24, 2020 12:22 am GLO worldofmud GLO incurred approx $20K variation for hitting rock/shale which did not come up in the soil tests. That's pretty poor. Any half-decent geo investigation should provide anticipated excavation conditions as a minimum, especially where in-ground pools are proposed. GLO the business taking the soil samples on my site, took 4 spots and reported on the best 2.(naturally not drawing unnecessary attention to the impending Rock excavation costs. It's probable there is a less 'nefarious' reason behind the report content and you should query it with the soil testing company. It may not help you now but if you suspect questionable practices it is worth taking further or clarifying for others benefit. But bear in mind a geotech investigation and a soil test to determine site classification (M, H, P etc) are not the same. The soil testing company may have reported the worst conditions as per AS2870. Before I built i found out that my neighbour had an M Grade slab so i was hoping for the same. I was right, The Soil tests drilled in 3 places, but only reported 2. Possibly to preference the least alarming options. Admittedly, i was hoping for a sturdier foundation, and i got it! But i totally agree, the Geo investigation should also have been completed in the pool location as it was also part of the new build. Unfortunately, they get you by the proverbial! You may be being a little harsh on the geo testing firm -it sounds more likely that they provide soil testing to allow site and slab class in terms of AS2870. In terms of that document, they have reported the most alarming and worst-case scenario. The other tests which didn't get to full depth would have shown more favourable ground conditions as per AS2870 because the document is mainly concerned with houses built on clay soils because it accounts for 60% (I think) of all AU homes built. Or, for 40% of all houses built a slab/site classification (M, H1 etc) does not control construction costs so unless you know for certain that clay extends to tens of metres below the site: 'Provide soil tests/boreholes sufficient to classify the site and allow design of slab and footings in accordance with AS2870' = A question that may end up being a costly error but 'Provide geotechnical investigation and reporting sufficient to fulfil Council requirements, provides information for structural design and construction of the development including footing/slab design, retaining wall pressures, drainage requirements, excavation methods/required equipment, the stability of temporary and permanent excavations, compaction/fill parameters as well as any other relevant recommendations' = The correct question that will likely save money In your case, I'd wager the developer requested something similar to the first question and got a cheap investigation that fulfilled the minimum requirements. If the second was requested you would have a decent case for making a claim. That sucks! Hope it all works out. Good to move away from steel anyway for all your reasons, but it's also thermally poor. 16 17871 As is per usual for many of the past failed RWH regulations, it is probably traceable to a bureaucrat who's ego overrode the need to seek the appropriate expert… 1 1005 |