Being scammed or is this a legitimate issue?

[ouachita]

This is very true. I develop subdivisions and this is standard practice.

Having worked in countless housing developments doing the site development, the only part of the lot if it was filled, that needs to be compacted is the building envelope. That is the place where the house will be built. The size of the envelope is determined by the size of the house to be built. It's usually big enough where the builder can shift around where the house will be built. The areas outside of the envelope can be filled and not compacted. I've seen where those areas are filled with top soil.
What could be going on here is the PB dug down and didn't hit virgin ground or the material used to fill is unsuitable to build on. What he probably wants to do is dig down some more and bring it back up to grade " the bottom of the pool " with the crush and run, and put it in lifts and compact each lift to get something suitable to build on.
At any rate you can get a soils engineer to take a look at the site and he can determine if the fill is suitable to build on. I would do this if you don't trust what the PB is telling you.
Just my 0.02. ��

 

[Desterline]

$10,000 for digging a hole, disposing of the soil, trucking in 320 tons of crushed stone and placing it in said hole is _not_ an unreasonable price for that work. Whether or not you actually need it is an unanswered question.

I know this is obvious, but branches do not grow underground. Any branches is a pretty clear sign that there was some type of fill operation there. Being that it was not under the building, I doubt there were any records kept about the fill operation. Likely it was just an attempt from the builder to dispose of the dirt left over from your foundation/basement/etc.


One other interesting anecdote. Many years ago I was (tangentially) involved with a _large_ office building being built. It turned out they had some soil problems and the principal engineer was working on designing a special foundation to overcome the problem. The first meeting when they presented the new estimate (several million dollars) for this foundation, somebody asked "why not just dig a giant hole and fill it with stone?" Turns out that could be done for about 1/10 the price of the "engineered" solution. There's about 150,000 tons of stone under that building today.

 

[SunnyOptimism]

$10,000 for digging a hole, disposing of the soil, trucking in 320 tons of crushed stone and placing it in said hole is _not_ an unreasonable price for that work. Whether or not you actually need it is an unanswered question.

Agreed.

I do remember my PB clearly stated to me that there were certain areas of NE Tucson that had very loose and sandy soil not the typical desert caliche (hard pan). He told me that if the excavators hit any of that then there would be an additional charge for fill and reinforcement. He could not estimate the cost up front and he said he hated telling people that since a lot of other PBs don't in order to keep the cost low, but he was up front about it. His contract stated that it was the homeowners responsibility for the work area to have soil with a minimum of 90% compaction. At the time I thought that was just legal boilerplate but I see now how it comes into play.

I thought it was just here in my local area but it sounds like an issue no matter where you dig. Too bad the OP's PB wasn't more honest about that sort of thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gwegan]

You need a soils or civil engineer to evaluate the situation. Even if the PB is correct before spending the 10K get an engineer to take a look at it.

 

[TreeFiter]

So a lot of people on here are taking the stance that the pool builder is trying to screw you. Some went as far as to suggest that since the PB isn't a geotechnical engineer he couldn't possibly know what hes talking about. Think about it this way; if this company has been building pools for any length of time, they have probably dug a few holes and seen a fair amount of soil. Just because they don't have a degree in dirt doesn't mean they can't see a problem when there is on. You said there were some branches in the ground. That right there tells me that it most likely isn't virgin soil. Branches tend to land on top of the ground not 6 feet under it. If the house was only built 2 years ago, there hasn't been a whole lot of time for settling. You might be fine, but it depends on how much of the ground was disturbed, what types of soil, how much debris is present, etc.

If they say it will cost you $10k to straighten it out, they might be right. It will cost you at least $1000 per day to get a machine and an operator on site. Then add about $400 per triaxle load of gravel (maybe more). Then add to that any manpower that will be necessary. $10,000 doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

If you are really concerned, call an engineer. Be prepared to pay them a hefty chunk of change to tell you what is going on. Keep in mind that they might come out, tell you exactly what the pool builder did, then charge you another $2,000.

 

[n240sxguy]

You could always just tell them to dig til they hit virgin soil. You could be the only one in town with a 15 ft pool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gwegan]

Maybe its because I come from a state where almsot all inground pool plans are signed off by an engineer. Or maybe its my big job construction background where the engineer was only a phone call away. Whether the PB is absolutely correct or a total scam artist. I think a review by an engineer is warranted. Then you know the best engineering solution.

By the way I suspect the PB is correct. But I think his solution may be over kill. Excavating down and compacting soil in lifts as you go up may work. Less base and a thicker shell with more rebar may work. These are alternatives that may be less expensive and may be better then the PBs solution. I also suspect that you could get a site visit and a letter or oral instructions for a lot less than $2000, but I don't know local prices or customs.