Small Town News

Bridge firm seeks to dismiss lawsuit

---

Consultant says it has no contract with DelDOT

The consultant named in a $19.6 million lawsuit for geotechnical work on the Indian River Inlet bridge approaches has fired back at. the Delaware Department of Transportation.

MACTEC Engineering & Consulting Inc. filed a motion March 31 in Sussex County Superior Court to dismiss the case.

DelDOT filed the suit in Superior Court against

Figg Bridge Engineers Inc. and its geotechnical subconsultant for failure to properly account for the way soU would settle under the earthen roadway embankments. The suit alleges MACTEC is in breach of contract and negligent in providing informatioa

The state is seeking damages to cover construction costs of the original earthen embankments, their partial removal and other related damages.

The Georgia-based company, claims the lawsuit should be dismissed because MACTEC has no contract with DelDOT and was not hired by the state. In addition, MACTEC claims, the lawsuit should be filed not in Superior Court, but rather in Chancery Court, the court with jurisdiction over negligent misrepresentation.

The state has until Monday, May 2, to file a response to MACTEC's motion. A hearing has been scheduled for July.

The suit alleges that on numerous occasions from August 2004 to January 2006, MACTEC's own engineers, as well as other project participants, warned MACTEC the soft clay soil beneath the embankments could be squeezed sideways and that the embankments were settling unevenly. The suit also alleges MACTEC miscalculated the way the embankments would settle.

Subcontractor MACTEC was responsible for geotechnical analysis for earthen embankments on each side of the inlet. The embankments were to be

used as the northbound and southbound approaches. Most of the embankments were removed.

Once DelDOT abandoned plans to use the earthen approaches, a $150 million design was selected featuring support piers instead of the embankments.

Construction of the new bridge is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

MACTEC contends the embankments could have been used in the original bridge design even though DelDOT knew and understood that the original bridge would never be built and that any other bridge design would require changes be made to the embankments.

According to the motion, "Because DelDOT does not have a contract with MACTEC, it cannot sue MACTEC for breach of contract."

In addition: "The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over DelDOT's equitable claim for negligent representa-tioa"

In a February press release, MACTEC listed several key points highlighting DelDOT's responsibilities and supporting its position. Among those were:

As early as 2003 and 2004, all parties, including DelDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, approved the bridge design.

In November 2005, after the original bridge design had been

canceled, DelDOT went ahead with construction of the embankments for the original bridge knowing that any other bridge design would require embankment changes or the removal of large sections of the embankments.

Geotechnical information presented to DelDOT by an independent firm in August 2007 was based on incorrect assumptions and minimal information. MACTEC also alleges DelDOT refused to share this information

with the design team.

In April 2008, geotechnical-monitoring data showed the embankments had reached the required settlement and the original bridge design could have been constructed without removal of the embankments.

"DelDOT's causes of action brought against MACTEC are valid and in the correct court to seek redress for its involvement with the failed embankments," said DelDOT spokesman Geoff Sundstrom.





© 2011 Cape Gazette Lewes, Delaware. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from Cape Gazette