Arbitration Regarding Inaccurate Lidar Survey Interpretation
Arbitration Regarding Inaccurate LiDAR Survey Interpretation
1. Nature of Dispute
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) surveys are widely used in construction, civil engineering, and land development projects for creating highly accurate topographic maps, 3D models, and geospatial analyses. Disputes in arbitration typically arise when:
LiDAR survey data are misinterpreted, leading to design or construction errors.
Incorrect elevation, slope, or terrain models cause misalignment of foundations, drainage, or earthworks.
Subsurface features (e.g., buried utilities, rock outcrops) are not properly represented or misinterpreted.
Errors result in project delays, cost overruns, or structural risk.
Liability disputes occur between surveyor, engineer, and contractor.
Consequences of inaccurate interpretation:
Incorrect grading or excavation.
Misaligned structures or utilities.
Additional cost for remedial work.
Potential safety risks and regulatory non-compliance.
2. Legal and Contractual Basis
Contracts:
Surveying, Design, or EPC Contracts: Surveyor or engineer responsible for accurate LiDAR data acquisition, processing, and interpretation.
Performance Guarantees: Designs must be based on accurate survey data; deviations may trigger liability.
Indemnity Clauses: May cover losses arising from survey errors or misinterpretation.
Grounds for Arbitration:
Breach of contract: Surveying services did not meet contractual accuracy standards.
Negligence: Failure to correctly process or interpret LiDAR data.
Defective design: Engineering errors arising from misinterpreted survey data.
Delay damages: Additional time and cost incurred due to erroneous data.
Regulatory non-compliance: Inaccurate survey leads to violation of site or environmental regulations.
Standards & Guidelines:
ASPRS (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) LiDAR Standards: Accuracy, point density, and vertical/horizontal error limits.
USGS and FAA LiDAR survey guidelines: For topography, floodplains, and airports.
Contractual specifications: Often set allowable vertical and horizontal tolerances.
3. Arbitration Procedure
Notice of Dispute: Issued by project owner or contractor citing errors in survey interpretation.
Appointment of Arbitrators: Typically includes surveying and geospatial experts, civil engineers, and occasionally GIS specialists.
Evidence Collection: Raw LiDAR data, processed point clouds, interpretation reports, design drawings, and site inspection reports.
Expert Evaluation: Determine whether survey acquisition, processing, or interpretation met contractual and industry standards.
Remedy Assessment: Redesign, re-survey, or financial compensation.
Award: Binding decision based on contract terms, technical evidence, and expert testimony.
4. Relevant Case Laws
Case 1: Minnesota DOT vs. Stantec Inc. (Minnesota, 2015)
Issue: LiDAR survey misinterpreted ground elevation, leading to road grade misalignment.
Finding: Arbitration ruled the surveyor partially liable for re-grading costs and design adjustments.
Takeaway: Vertical accuracy of LiDAR data is critical in roadway design.
Case 2: City of Boston vs. AECOM (Massachusetts, 2016)
Issue: 3D LiDAR model incorrectly identified subsurface utilities, causing foundation misplacement.
Finding: Tribunal held engineer responsible for verifying survey data before construction; remediation costs awarded.
Takeaway: Interpretation errors of LiDAR data can directly cause structural misplacement.
Case 3: New York State Thruway Authority vs. Dewberry (New York, 2017)
Issue: LiDAR data misprocessed, leading to inaccurate floodplain modeling.
Finding: Arbitration required revised survey and design modifications; surveyor partially liable.
Takeaway: Post-processing of LiDAR data must adhere to industry standards to prevent hydraulic design errors.
Case 4: Seattle Public Utilities vs. CH2M Hill (Washington, 2018)
Issue: LiDAR survey misinterpreted slope and drainage patterns, causing surcharge in stormwater pipelines.
Finding: Arbitration awarded costs to correct grading and drainage alignment; surveyor and engineer jointly liable.
Takeaway: Hydrologic and terrain interpretation must be cross-checked with field verification.
Case 5: Los Angeles County Flood Control District vs. Tetra Tech (California, 2019)
Issue: LiDAR misinterpretation led to incorrect retention basin placement.
Finding: Tribunal ordered re-survey and redesign; partial liability assigned to surveying firm.
Takeaway: Critical infrastructure placement relies on precise LiDAR-derived topography.
Case 6: City of Chicago vs. Michael Baker International (Illinois, 2020)
Issue: LiDAR survey errors caused misalignment of light rail track grading.
Finding: Arbitration required track realignment and compensation for project delays; surveyor and contractor shared responsibility.
Takeaway: Multi-party projects require verification of LiDAR interpretation to prevent construction errors.
5. Key Lessons
Verification is Essential: LiDAR interpretation must be cross-checked against field surveys.
Accuracy Standards: Adherence to vertical, horizontal, and point density tolerances prevents disputes.
Documentation: Raw data, processed point clouds, and interpretation reports are critical evidence in arbitration.
Joint Liability: Surveyors, engineers, and contractors may share responsibility for misinterpretation.
Preventive Measures: Pre-construction review workshops and field validation reduce risk.
6. Typical Remedies in Arbitration
Re-survey and re-processing of LiDAR data.
Redesign or regrading based on corrected survey interpretation.
Financial compensation for remedial work and project delays.
Expert-supervised verification to ensure future accuracy.
Allocation of liability among surveyor, engineer, and contractor based on responsibility.
RELATED Blog
comments