re: $60M Allen football stadium deemed 'not safe,' will close this season

I will tell you how this will play out more than likely. The insurance company/companies for one or more of the entities in the next paragraph will pay for this problem.

There are four major entities with liability assumptions involved. 1.) The General Contractor 2.) The Testing Company
3.)The Concrete Supplier 4.) The Concrete Place and Finish sub (unless the GC self performs that scope which is rare these days due to issues exactly like this)

The Structural Engineer and the Architect will only share any liability if it is shown that there was a design flaw. If so, throw them in the mix.

I have been involved in this type of process before and you can hardly imagine the amount of blame game and finger pointing going around in this case. Right now, there are meetings upon meeting going on between all parties and everyone involved is forming their premise on why they are not to blame. I can tell you almost with certainty that most everyone is pointing fingers at the concrete supplier claiming the concrete was bad and not to design specification. The concrete supplier is saying it was delivered to the specification of the Structural Engineer. The Structural Engineer is saying the design is not the issue...it is something else. Concrete supplier will not challenge the SE and probably has no grounds to anyway. The supplier will focus attention on the testing lab. The testing lab will refer back to all documentation showing where the mud was sampled and cured properly in a moisture room and all concrete placed was within design specification. The owners rep will take offense because he hired the testing lab and there is no way the infallible lab could perform faulty testing(which is actually fairly common). Focus will intensify on the concrete supplier as he is merely a supplier. Dozens of tests will be done including core samples, Windsor probes and actually calculating cement/aggregate/chemical/water ratios in the placed mix on the concourse.

In the end, the testing lab will avoid any blame even if they contributed to the problem. Owners Reps never, ever blame the lab they hired. They are the only ones whose job performance is never questioned even if evidence is shown to be otherwise. The place and finish company is probably off the hook as well. The SE, unless it can be demonstrated that the actual issue was a design flaw rather than a production flaw is off the hook. The place and finish company will skate.This will come down to the GC and their concrete supplier for the project. There is a possibility that they might share blame but more than likely, the supplier will be found at fault. Their insurance company will end up paying out the money to tear out and re-pour the concourse.

I went through two of these type scenarios before. It is not fun for anyone involved, and shouldn't be. Saw an entire 3rd level lightweight concrete floor have to be evacuated, reformed and re-poured after two floors above had already been formed and poured. That cost our insurance company around $750k. Will be surprised if this comes in under a million,as the article implies.