Feb 12, 2015 5 min read

WAYNESBURG – The general contractor on the West Greene Elementary School construction project places blame for the collapse of the 31-foot high retaining wall at the rear of school on the wall’s faulty design.

Liokareas Construction Co. filed suit Wednesday with Greene County Court against West Greene School District, seeking damages in excess of $4 million for additional work it was required to perform partly in response to issues involving the failed retaining wall.

The wall, about 741 feet long and 31 feet high at its highest point, collapsed the night of Nov. 6.

The wall was designed by ACA Engineering Inc., a sub-consultant to the district’s architect, The Hayes Design Group.

District Superintendent Thelma Szarell Thursday declined to comment on the suit. A spokesman for ACA could not be reached for comment.

Kevin Hayes of Hayes Design Group said neither he or his attorney completely reviewed the company’s complaint, and he could not comment in detail.

“I will say, generally, we don’t agree with the assertions put forth by Liokareas,” Hayes said.

“We believe the assertions are very one-sided, favoring them, and we don’t think that it is fair at all to the school district and the other professionals involved.”

Liokareas claims neither the district nor its consultants fully investigated subsurface water or subsurface soil conditions at the site.

Neither a global stability analysis for soil conditions underneath and above the wall nor a slope stability analysis were completed in preparing the wall design, the company said.

Liokareas said it expressed numerous concerns about the design of the retaining wall from the outset of the project.

The company first notified the district of problems in July 2013, less than a month after being given the notice to proceed with construction, when it encountering “unforeseen surface conditions” and observing slips on the hill side.

When the hill side continued to slip, the company in January requested information about the soils, global stability and wall design from the district, Hayes and ACS. It received no response, it said.

Concerned about the safety of its workers, the company said it hired its own consultant, Geo Mechanics Inc., to review and analyze the subsurface conditions.

In March 2014, Geo Mechanics presented findings to the district and stated a global stability analysis should have been performed by ACA.

“If soil shear strength parameters used to design the wall were wrong, then the wall design will be wrong,” a Geo Mechanics representative said.

Construction Engineering Consultants Inc., which completed the geotechnical subsurface investigation for the district and ACA for use in design of the wall, also sent a letter to the district construction manager in March regarding the wall, the suit claims.

CEC started in its letter “the wall design was not based on our test results, but instead on test results that were directed by ACA Engineering that we feel are not conservative enough,” the suit said.

Instead of recognizing the underlying design issues, the district and its consultants asked Liokareas to perform “piecemeal” corrective work on the wall.

The district refused to pay Liokareas for the corrective work, the suit said. It also later asked the contractor to add additional manpower, equipment and supervision for work at the site without additional compensation.

In April 2014, the district hired its own consultant, Garwin Boward Beitko Engineering, to evaluate the wall design.

The engineering firm submitted its report to the district later that month. The firm stated in its report “the wall design does not meet the generally accepted local standards of care.”

The firm cited the slide-prone area and the bearing capacity and height of the wall on the soil and concluded the “retaining wall at the site is potentially unstable.”

Leokareas said the district refused to share this report with it or warn the company of the danger to its workers posed by the “potentially unstable” wall.

A gap in the wall was noticed by the district in late October and was attributed by district consultants to settlement, the suit said.

Liokareas claims it began measured movement of the wall in October and shared its information along with its continuing concerns about its workers’ safety with the district in a letter dated Oct. 30.

At the same time, ACA “was more concerned about the aesthetic appearance of the wall,” the suit said. ACA asked a contractor Oct. 30 to provide a concrete mix to match the color of the wall, it said.

On Nov. 3, the district’s construction manager expressed concern the wall was becoming unsafe in an email to Hayes and ACA, the suit said.

Two days later, Nov. 5, ACA responded: “Based on our site visits and measurements through Nov. 5, 2014, 90 percent of the completed retaining wall is functioning as designed.”

A day later, Nov. 6, the wall collapsed.

“The fact that the retaining wall collapsed during the night averted a human tragedy that could have easily resulted, had the collapse occurred during the day when numerous Liokareas workmen were present on the project site,” the suit said

Leokareas also is seeking additional costs attributed to the wall construction as well as for trucking costs required to move additional dirt from the site, excusable delay-related costs and additional uncompensated work.

The company also claims it is owed $747,625 in withheld payments.