SI ASSISTANCE TO THE HUMAN INSPECTOR

ERDC TN-DOER-I4

August 2000

"The most important single lesson to be learned by both the Contractor's project personnel

and the Government inspector is the value of good documentation of the facts. Facts are

evidence. Evidence is the essence of the negotiation and litigation process.

The job record must be accurate, complete and made clear to those who must rely upon

it during attempts to settle disagreements at the job level and later in the courts. Good

documentation is direct and does not contain emotional statements, and if opinions are

stated they must be justified. Attempts to mislead or to falsify the record usually fails to

achieve the purpose intended and is a very poor practice on either side. Good

documentation is made as the events occur. Recollection of facts after the events is never

as good as a contemporaneous record. A lawyer cannot be expected to get a good decision

at the bargaining table or before the judge if the facts were not properly documented.

When the claim becomes an appeal of the CO (Contracting Officer) decision, the process

of discovery begins in earnest and efforts to generate new evidence becomes a necessity

for both sides. The documentation of the facts is then questioned by attorneys on both

sides. The accuracy, truthfulness, and the appropriateness of the documentation becomes

an issue. It is at this time that the adequacy and quality of the documentation becomes

apparent. To find that the documentation which the CO relied upon in his decision is, in

fact, faulty is the surest way to receive an adverse decision from the Board. Attorneys are

trained to find flaws in the data and they capitalize on faulty information and missing

facts that are pertinent to the dispute. The discovery process gives them ample opportunity

to question all the documentation and to gather new data that may cast doubt on the official

record. Documentation is easy to do at the time events are transpiring but faulty

documentation is very difficult to correct or change after the facts are obscured...The

record should be thoroughly, accurately and faithfully documented, and those at the upper

levels of authority must constantly review and understand the significance of the daily

documentation." (Sanderson 1992).

In summary, those contemporaneously-collected data which may be used in contract litigation must

be scientifically sound, unbiased, and generally accepted as accurate.

Because the Corps' dredging requires frequent interactions with other Federal and State agencies,

the "facts" the Corps collects about dredging activities must be acceptable to those agencies. The

necessity for these interactions also constrains the types of data to be collected, the methods of data

collection, and analysis/reporting methods.

SI ASSISTANCE TO THE HUMAN INSPECTOR: Hopman (1986) suggested the SI concept

as a way to eliminate the need to have Corps inspectors onboard dredges 24 hours a day. Clearly

an automated monitoring system could not possibly collect all the different types of data (visual,

verbal, etc.) needed to fulfill all of the inspection responsibilities. Therefore, the SI is not intended

to totally replace Corps dredging inspectors. However, it will collect, analyze, and report the

parameters that help Corps inspectors accomplish their mission more efficiently.

A major accomplishment of the HDPSI work unit was polling the Corps' dredging community to

identify the SI system functions that would best meet their needs. The personnel interviewed