What 60 Years Of Geotechnical Work Has Taught Us About Risk

Laurel Johnson, Senior Principal, SME® | Published on April 23, 2026

In construction, the margin between success and failure is often measured in inches underground and fractions of a percent in professional fees. Yet time and again, one of the most consequential early decisions on a project is driven by one of the smallest line items in the budget: geotechnical engineering and construction materials testing. 

After more than 60 years, 130,000 completed projects, and thousands of active projects every year, we’ve seen one lesson that is unmistakably clear: 

 What looks like small savings in geotechnical or construction-phase services often becomes a major driver of overruns, delays, and safety issues. 

Why Geotechnical Risk Is Different

Geotechnical engineering is unlike almost every other discipline on a project. Structural, architectural, and civil designs are based largely on conditions that can be seen, measured, and verified at the surface. Geotechnical recommendations are developed from limited subsurface data, often one 4‑ to 6‑inch diameter boring every 50 to 100 feet, and sometimes even less. 

That means: 

  • Subsurface conditions are inferred, not fully known 
  • Soil and rock conditions vary laterally and vertically, often over short distances 
  • Construction will almost always encounter conditions no report can predict with complete accuracy 

 

This uncertainty isn’t a flaw; it’s the nature of the ground. It is why experienced owners and contractors retain the same geotechnical engineer through construction, so interpretations can be refined in real time as actual conditions are exposed. When that continuity is broken, particularly to reduce fees, decisions are made without context, and geotechnical risk increases immediately. 

When Clear Guidance Becomes “Open To Interpretation”

One of the most common sources of preventable delays occurs when the engineer who authored the geotechnical recommendations is not retained during construction. What should be a five-minute clarification call instead becomes: 

  • Days of emails moving up and down the chain of command 
  • Field crews waiting for direction or shut down entirely 
  • Testing agencies and contractors trying to “interpret” intent from a PDF 
  • Overly conservative or impractical recommendations applied out of caution 

 

We see the same pattern repeatedly: 

  1. Clear recommendations become “open for interpretation” 
  2. Interpretation turns into re-interpretation
  3. Re-interpretation becomes analysis paralysis
  4. And the delay is labeled a “geotechnical issue”

 

In reality, the answer was already in the report or could have been confirmed in minutes by the engineer who wrote it. Or, the issue isn’t a lack of information; it’s the absence of the person best equipped to interpret it. 

The False Economy of Low-Fee Testing

On most projects, geotechnical engineering and construction testing fees represent approximately 0.5% to 1.0% of total construction cost. 

The “savings” often pursued include selecting a different, lower-fee testing firm, cutting scope, disregarding responsiveness, and chasing 10-20% savings of the 0.5% total construction cost. Meanwhile, ground conditions remain one of the largest sources of change orders, disputes, delays, and claims in construction. 

We consistently see projects where a lower-fee testing firm misinterprets the geotechnical report, field staff lack the authority or experience to make real-time decisions, contractors pause work waiting for answers, and conservative “cover-yourself” advice drives unnecessary excavation, replacement, or redesign of fill and materials. What should have been resolved with a phone call instead becomes a schedule impact no one planned for. 

When Continuity Matters More Than Price

We are routinely brought back after a “low fee tester” has already been selected. 

The reasons are strikingly consistent: 

  • The testing firm does not understand the basis of design 
  • Recommendations are treated as isolated checklist items 
  • Field conditions are escalated slowly or incorrectly 
  • Practical solutions are replaced with overly conservative defaults 

 

In contrast, when the original geotechnical engineer remains involved: 

  • Observed conditions are immediately reconciled with design intent 
  • Subsurface variability is anticipated, not discovered too late 
  • Decisions are made faster, with less disruption 
  • Risk is actively managed, not passively deferred 

 

High performing owners and contractors do not view geotechnical services as a commodity.
They view them as risk management. 

A Final Word To Owners and Contractors

After 130,000 projects, one pattern is clear: 

Projects do not fail because geotechnical fees are too high.
They failed because geotechnical risk was undermanaged. 

Reducing scope or selecting services based primarily on price does little to change whether problems occur. It only changes how prepared the project team is to respond when they do. 

And they will. 

If you remember only one thing, remember this: 

  • Ground conditions will vary 
  • Questions will arise during construction 
  • Time and clarity matter more than marginal fee savings 
  • The cheapest answer is rarely the most defensible one 
  • The most conservative answer is rarely the most practical or cost-effective one 

 

Selecting geotechnical engineers and construction testing firms based on value, continuity, responsiveness, and judgment, not just price, remains one of the lowest cost, and highest return decisions a project team can make. 

After six decades, we have yet to see a project regret being too prepared for subsurface risk.