25 Aria Isle Dr · Lot 4 · The Woodlands, TX Foundation Decision Brief · Rev 0 · 2026-04-29
DOC  Foundation Decision Brief STATUS  Decision Pending BEFORE  2026-06-01

What's under
the house

A 7-foot-deep discovery beneath Lot 4 — buried tree stumps, decomposing biomass, and saturated organic clay — has rewritten the foundation plan. The decision facing this build is no longer cosmetic; it is structural, expensive, and time-sensitive.

Current foundation budget
$280,000
Latest revision · Apr 28, 2026
Likely revised cost
$700K – $850K
Hybrid system per geotech
Net delta to project
+$420K – $570K
Project total → ~$2.85 – 3.0M
Continue
01 The Discovery

The borings tell the truth about this lot.

On March 31, 2026, Quartet Engineers drilled two new test borings — B-1 and B-2 — within the proposed building footprint, to a depth of 10 feet. The findings are signed and sealed by Vijay K. Jha, P.E. (Texas License #114340) and dated April 16, 2026.

What they found is consistent with this site's geological history: a lakeside lot historically filled over former wetland. The upper 3 feet are uncontrolled fill. Below that, soft sandy clay with very high plasticity (PI = 33). Below that — and this is the part that changes everything — a layer of dark gray silty sand containing tree stumps and swamp debris.

Decomposing organic matter does not stop settling. It is, as a foundation engineer would put it, an unacceptable bearing condition for a luxury home. Groundwater sits at 13 feet below grade. Any solution must work around both problems.

0 – 3 ft
Fill material / Sandy Lean Clay (CL)Top soils, root fibers — non-engineered fill
3 – 6 ft
Soft Sandy Lean Clay (CL)Pocket pen 0.5 TSF · LL 47 · PI 33 · 62.5% passing #200
6 – 10 ft
Dark gray Silty Sand (SM)"Heavy organic matters, tree stumps, and swamp debris"
13 ft
Groundwater tablePer April 2025 investigation; lakeside lateral seepage risk
0 ft 3 6 10 13 ▽ 20 25 FILL · SANDY CLAY SOFT SANDY CLAY ORGANIC + STUMPS SILTY SAND GROUNDWATER ▽ COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL (deeper than borings) GRADE SOIL PROFILE · BORINGS B-1 / B-2
"Due to the lakeside groundwater conditions and the underlying soil profile, it is recommended that the proposed building structures and pool also can be supported on a foundation system comprised of Helical Piles to a minimum depth of 20 ft below the existing grade."
— Quartet Engineers Corporation · Addendum 2 · April 16, 2026 · sealed by Vijay K. Jha, P.E. · TX License #114340
Renderings · 25 Aria Isle Dr · Allen Bianchi Architects
02 Three Paths

Three foundation systems — only one is recommended.

The geotechnical addendum points at one solution. Two others are presented here for honest comparison: the original design (no longer compliant), and full soil replacement (raised in conversation, but not endorsed by the engineer).

No longer compliant
Option 01

Drilled Bell-Bottom Piers + PT Slab

The original design

⚠ PIERS BEAR IN BAD LAYER

Drilled piers under a post-tensioned slab — the design Lane Concrete priced at $280K. To make this work over the new soil profile, piers would need to drill 30–40 ft (vs. ~18 ft) at larger diameter, plus the same 4 ft over-excavation at the top. Real risk that geotech and inspector will not approve drilled piers in saturated organic soil at all.

Estimated cost
$460K–
$730K
Schedule
6–8 weeks
Recommended
Option 02

Helical Piles + Grade Beams

Geotech's recommendation

20 FT MIN ✓ BYPASSES BAD LAYER

Steel screw-in piles installed by torque to a minimum 20 ft, anchoring in deeper competent soil. Pile caps + reinforced grade beams + structural slab. Plus 4 ft of soil over-excavation per geotech requirement. Capacity verified pile-by-pile by torque correlation at install. Fastest of the viable options.

Estimated cost
$700K–
$850K
Schedule
3–5 weeks
Not endorsed
Option 03

Full Soil Replacement

Raised in conversation

10 FT EXCAV GW INTRUSION ⚠ DEWATERING REQUIRED

Excavate the entire 0–10 ft layer across the building footprint plus 3 ft beyond perimeter. Haul off ~6,300 cy of contaminated material. Replace with engineered select fill. Build conventional foundation on top. Quartet did not recommend this — only 4 ft of replacement. Groundwater at 13 ft sits 3 ft below the floor of the excavation; rain or lateral seepage from the lake floods the hole.

Estimated cost
$1.1M–
$1.3M
Schedule
6–10 weeks
★ The geotech's actual recommendation

The hybrid that works.

Quartet's signed addendum prescribes a two-part system that combines the best of replacement and deep foundation: 4 feet of engineered fill at the surface, and helical piles to 20 feet anchoring in competent soil deeper down. Neither alone is enough. Together they bridge over the bad and rest on the good.

  • 4 ft replacement handles the uncontrolled fill and soft clay at the top.
  • Helical piles bypass the organic / swamp debris layer entirely.
  • Avoids the open 10 ft excavation, dewatering, and weather risk.
  • Avoids the negative skin friction and caving issues of drilled piers.
  • Pile capacity verified at install — every pile torque-tested.
  • Fastest schedule of the three viable approaches.
ENGINEERED FILL (4 FT REPLACED) SOFT CLAY ORGANIC LAYER (BYPASSED) SILTY SAND ▽ GW @ 13 FT COMPETENT BEARING SOIL 20 FT MIN RECOMMENDED HYBRID FOUNDATION SYSTEM
03 What's at stake

The cost picture, scaled.

All four cost ranges plotted on a single axis. The bar represents the low-to-high estimate; the dark mark on each bar is the most-likely landing zone. The original $280K budget is shown for reference — every viable option is materially above it.

Original budget lineFoundation, driveway & flatwork
$280KBaseline
Option 01 — Drilled piers + replaceNo longer compliant as drawn
$460–730K+$180–450K
★ Option 02 — Helical piles + 4 ft replaceGeotech recommendation
$635K–1.07MLikely $700–850K
Option 03 — Full 10 ft replacementNot endorsed by geotech
$880K–1.61M+$800–1,025K
$0$500K$1.0M$1.5M$2.1M
Current project budget
$2.40M
Per latest revision · Apr 28, 2026
→
Revised project budget
~$2.85–3.0M
After foundation revision per geotech recommendation
04 Schedule reality

The June 1 start is at risk.

The original schedule allocated 39 days for foundation work. Each option carries different downstream consequences for framing, dry-in, and the final October 2027 completion. Helical piles are the only option that can recover schedule — not just consume it.

Original plan
39 days
Option 01 · Drilled piers + replace
6–8 weeks
Option 02 · Helical piles + 4 ft replace
3–5 weeks
Option 03 · Full replacement
6–10 weeks
05 The Paragon question

Whose recommendation is this?

A separate concern — independent of the geotech's findings — is whether the builder of record's verbal preference for soil replacement is aligned with the owner's interest, or with the builder's.

The geotech findings are real.

The Quartet report is signed by a licensed Texas P.E. with his license number on the document. Falsifying findings would risk his license and the firm's A2LA accreditation. The findings are physically verifiable by anyone who drills another test pit at the same location. Paragon used the same geotech firm as the original April 2025 report — if the goal had been a manipulated finding, switching firms would have been the move.

But the recommendation is not.

Quartet's written recommendation is helical piles plus 4 ft replacement. Per direct conversation, Paragon has been pushing pure soil replacement — the more expensive Option 03. That gap is the question worth scrutinizing.

Where the margin sits

Helical piles(Option 02)
Specialty subcontractor (Magnum, RAM Jack, Atlas) keeps most of the margin. The general contractor takes a 10–20% markup on the sub's bid. Job ends in 5–10 days. Few change-order opportunities.
Soil replacement(Option 03)
Earthwork is the GC's traditional in-house scope — excavation, dewatering, fill, compaction testing, conventional pour. The GC keeps all the margin. Job runs 6–10 weeks with multiple opportunities for change orders ("hit unexpected groundwater," "select fill prices went up," "extra week of dewatering").

A pattern of opacity around scope and pricing has been forming in the email record since April 2 — independent of the foundation question, and worth tightening up regardless.

Interior · 25 Aria Isle Dr · Final Renderings
06 Independent verification

Six ways to verify what neighbors did.

Nearby lakeside lots in Aria Isle / Section 16 share the same geology. What worked next door is high-quality evidence for what should work here. Cost of investigating: a few phone calls and an afternoon. Sequence below ordered easiest-first.

EFFORT
01

Call Ken Anderson & Associates (KAACM)

KAACM is the East Shore Design Committee's permit coordinator. They have every approved foundation plan in Section 16 on file. Rudi Anderson and Rochelle Anderson are existing contacts. Zero financial stake in the outcome.

"Can you share what foundation systems were approved for the most recent custom homes in Section 16, particularly other lakeside lots?"
EFFORT
02

Pull Montgomery County permit records

Building permits are public record. Search by address through the county's permit/inspection portal, or in person at 501 N. Thompson, Conroe, TX. Pull permits for the 6–10 most recent builds in the section — an afternoon's work.

EFFORT
03

Ask helical pile contractors during the bid process

When sending RFP packages to Magnum Piering, RAM Jack Houston, and Atlas Foundation Co., ask each one: have you done helical pile installations elsewhere in Aria Isle? At what depth and capacity? If multiple firms confirm prior installations in the same section, that's near-conclusive evidence.

"Have you installed helical piles on other lakeside lots in The Woodlands? Can you share past projects and customer references?"
EFFORT
04

Have Quartet talk directly to Dunaway

Vijay Jha already offered (April 10) to call the structural engineer and walk through soil conditions. That call should happen without Paragon in the room. Ask: how many other reports has Quartet done in this immediate area? What's the typical foundation system?

EFFORT
05

Talk to the Lot 3 neighbor

Lot 3 is already in correspondence — they restored the corner-marker posts on April 10. That's a non-awkward thank-you-and-quick-question opportunity. Custom homeowners typically love to talk about their build, and you may also get unfiltered subcontractor reviews.

"Quick question — what foundation system did you end up using? Soil findings have us looking at a few options and would love to know what worked for you."
EFFORT
06

Drive the section

Aria Isle is small. Drive it, photograph contractor signs at any home under construction, look up addresses in MCAD records to see build year. Note any houses 5+ years old that have had time for settlement issues to manifest. Combined with #1, this gives you the full picture in two weeks.

07 This week

What to do, and when.

Sequenced action plan for the next two weeks. The June 1 groundbreaking depends on three things closing in May: Dunaway REV 1 structural plans, foundation-type decision, and HOA REV 1 approval. Every item below feeds those gates.

Today / Tomorrow
Email Rudi Anderson at KAACM asking about foundation patterns approved for Section 16 lakeside lots. One paragraph. Zero downside.
This week
Send formal RFP packages to Magnum Piering, RAM Jack Houston, and Atlas Foundation Co. for helical pile + cap design and pricing. Include Quartet's Addendum 2 and Dunaway's most recent structural drawings. Ask each: "Have you installed in Aria Isle?"
This week
Send a separate earthwork RFP (4 ft over-excavation + select fill scope) to Lane Concrete and one alternate dirtwork sub. Earthwork should not be bundled with deep foundation — different specialties.
This week
Email the Lot 3 neighbor — friendly thank-you for the corner-marker restoration, with a quick question about their foundation system. Custom-home neighbors usually share generously.
This week
Pin down Paragon's position in writing. Email Igor and Andrei: "Quartet's Addendum 2 recommends helical piles to 20 ft plus 4 ft of soil replacement. Can you confirm in writing whether you are recommending we follow this recommendation, or proposing an alternative? If alternative, please explain why and provide cost estimates for both approaches."
Next week
Schedule the Quartet ↔ Dunaway call. Vijay Jha already offered. Have your structural engineer ask the geotech directly — with Paragon not in the room — what foundation system they would build on this lot if it were their own house.
Next week
Request a Schedule of Values from Paragon in AIA G703 format, line-by-line, material/labor split. This is what Yasamin already asked for and didn't receive. Inability or unwillingness to produce one is diagnostic.
Next week
Have Dunaway revise the structural foundation plan to helical pile + grade beam as part of REV 1. If Quartet ↔ Dunaway call confirms the approach, this is the engineering deliverable that lets HOA REV 1 close in May.
Next week
Update the budget xlsx and construction schedule. Foundation line $280K → $700–850K. If helical, foundation phase shrinks from 39 days to 3–5 weeks — you may pull framing start earlier and recover schedule lost to the geotech delay.
Three reports · Two firms · 2025–2026

The evidence
beneath the lot.

Two independent geotechnical firms studied 25 Aria Isle in early 2025. Between them, they drilled eight borings to depths of 20–40 feet, performed lab tests, and produced sealed reports. Both reached the same conclusion — drilled piers at fifteen to eighteen feet. A third report — an addendum dated April 2026, based on two new shallow borings, by the same engineer who signed the second report — recommends helical piles instead. This document explains how the reports compare and where they diverge.

10 borings
Drilled across 3 reports
8 in 2025 (deep, SPT-sampled) · 2 in 2026 (shallow, excavation)
2 firms
Independent investigations
Geoscience Engineering & Testing · Quartet Engineers
3 reports
Sealed engineering documents
Two consistent · one outlier
01 The two firms

Two firms with very different profiles.

Both firms are real, accredited Texas geotechnical engineers with no public disciplinary record. But they sit at opposite ends of the credibility spectrum on the dimensions that matter for a contested foundation finding: how long the firm has been operating, how many engineers it employs, how long its lab accreditation has been in place, and what the sealing engineer's track record looks like.

Geoscience Engineering & Testing, Inc.
Houston · Founded 1987
Years operating
38 yrssince 1987
Approx. staff
~38per LinkedIn
A2LA accreditation
ISO 17025both scopes thru 5/2027
Houston offices
2Heights + The Woodlands
Telfryn L. John, P.E.
PRESIDENT · TX LICENSE 62665
MSc Engineering Geology, Imperial College London (1981). ~40 years at PSI, Raba-Kistner, Wood Group, Kleinfelder and Gorrondona before founding GETI.
Active member, Foundation Performance Association (Houston-area structural/geotechnical forensics group).
Quartet Engineers Corporation
Houston · Founded 2015
Years operating
11 yrssince 2015
Approx. staff
~11per ZoomInfo
A2LA accreditation
ISO 17025~1+ year (recent)
TBPE registration
F-17380~2017–19 issuance
Vijay K. Jha, PhD, P.E., PMP
PRINCIPAL · TX LICENSE 114340
PhD/MS/BS, Moscow State Automobile and Road Technical Institute (1989–1998). Additional MS Computer Science, Oklahoma City University.
Texas PE license number 114340 implies issuance ~2018–19. Owner-operator who personally seals firm output. Same engineer signed both Quartet reports below — including the addendum that reverses his earlier design.
02 Where they drilled

Ten borings, plotted.

All ten boring locations from the three reports, composited to scale on a single site map. The eight original borings (4 by Geoscience, 4 by Quartet) covered the building footprint, the pool location, the driveway, and the lakeside back of the lot to depths of 20–40 ft. The two addendum borings sit in similar zones to the originals — but only went 10 ft deep.

N Lake Woodlands LOT 4 · BLOCK 1 · SECTION 16 House footprint POOL ARIA ISLE DRIVE B1 25 ft B2 20 ft B3 20 ft B4 20 ft B3 40 ft B1 25 ft B2 25 ft B4 6 ft B2 10 ft B1 10 ft ~30 ft apart 0 50 100 ft approximate boring positions composited from three sealed reports · not to scale of legal survey

Hover any boring on the map for full soil findings →

Geoscience Engineering
Feb 2025 · 4 borings · 20–25 ft
Independent investigation, full SPT borings with 2-inch sampler. Sealed by Telfryn L. John, P.E. (TX 62665).
Quartet Original (QGH-25-0113 R0)
Apr 2025 · 4 borings · 6–40 ft
Standard SPT borings drilled by EG Drillers with 140-lb auto hammer. B-3 reached 40 ft at the lakeside back of the lot.
Quartet Addendum 2
Mar 2026 · 2 borings · 10 ft only
Excavation method — no SPT blow counts, no lab test data on the new logs. Same engineer (Vijay K. Jha) as the original report.
Spatial note Quartet's original B-3 (40 ft, drilled at the back of the lot near Lake Woodlands) and the addendum's B-2 (10 ft, also at the back of the lot near the lake) sit roughly 30 feet apart — close enough that the same firm should expect the same soil. The deep boring at 6–10 ft logged stiff sandy lean clay with measured shear strength of 0.52 TSF and OSHA Type B classification (cohesion 1,030 psf). The shallow boring described the same depth interval as "silty sand containing tree stumps and swamp debris." Both are signed by the same engineer.
03 What they found at 6–10 ft

The contested layer, side by side.

The disagreement between the three reports is concentrated in the soil at 6–10 ft below grade. This is the layer where the addendum reports tree stumps and organic matter, and where the eight prior borings reported firm-to-stiff cohesive clay with measurable strength parameters. Side-by-side, the quantitative gap is unmistakable.

PARAMETER
GETI · FEB 2025
B-3 lakeside · 20 ft total
QUARTET · APR 2025
B-3 lakeside · 40 ft total
QUARTET · APR 2025
B-1 / B-2 footprint · 25 ft each
ADDENDUM · MAR 2026
B-1 / B-2 · 10 ft only
Soil descriptionat 6–10 ft
Firm-to-stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) with sand pockets
Stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL)
Silty Sand (SM) "containing heavy organic matters, tree stumps, and swamp debris"
Pocket penetrometerTSF
0.75 – 1.0
2.00
2.50 – 3.50
— not measured
Unconfined compressionTSF
— not run at this depth
1.03
0.56 – 1.65
— not measured
Shear strengthTSF
0.40
0.52
0.28 – 0.83
— not measured
Liquid Limit / PIplasticity
LL 23 / PI 8
LL 27 / PI 14
LL 27–38 / PI 14–26
LL 15 / PI 3 low — inconsistent w/ organic content
OSHA classificationcohesion-based
Type C cohesive, soft
Type B c = 1,030 psf
Type A or B c = 560 – 1,650 psf
— not classified
Sampling methodfield protocol
SPT split-spoon, 2-in. sampler continuous flight auger
SPT, 140-lb auto hammer, 30" drop auger + rotary, EG Drillers
SPT, 140-lb auto hammer, 30" drop auger + rotary, EG Drillers
Excavation no SPT, no hammer specs on log
Boring depthvs. proposed bearing depth
20 ft 2.0× design pier depth
40 ft 2.2× design pier depth
25 ft each 1.4× design pier depth
10 ft 0.5× helical pile depth — never reached the proposed bearing strata

All eight prior borings — including two Quartet borings drilled adjacent to where the addendum borings would later be placed — found firm-to-stiff cohesive clay at 6–10 ft with measurable cohesion of 560–1,650 psf. None reported organic matter, tree stumps, or swamp debris. Cohesions of that magnitude are physically incompatible with organic muck. The addendum's two new borings did not measure cohesion, shear strength, plasticity index in any form that could be cross-checked against the prior data set, and used a different (lower-rigor) sampling method.

04 What they recommended

Three reports, three foundation calls.

Each report's foundation recommendation, on its own terms. Two converge on drilled piers at 15–18 ft. The addendum diverges to helical piles at 20 ft and reverses the same firm's earlier prescription.

Geoscience · Feb 2025
Telfryn L. John, P.E. · TX 62665
Drilled Straight-Shaft Footings
Bearing depth
15 ft
Net allowable
1,500 psf
Skin friction
75 psf
Factor of safety
2.5
Also offers post-tensioned slab and pier-and-beam as alternates. PVR < 1 inch — no major fill replacement required. Pool on 22-ft drilled shaft.
Quartet Original · Apr 2025
Vijay K. Jha, P.E. · TX 114340
Drilled Straight-Shaft Footings
Bearing depth
18 ft
Net allowable
3,200 psf
Skin friction
190 psf
Factor of safety
3.0
Same firm and engineer who would later sign the addendum. Includes 24-inch remove-and-replace, post-tensioned slab option, full PTI parameters. PVR 0.97 in. — within tolerance. Pool on drilled piers.
Quartet Addendum · Apr 2026
Vijay K. Jha, P.E. (same engineer)
Helical Piles + 4 ft Replace
Bearing depth
20 ft min
Net allowable
— deferred
Skin friction
— deferred
Site prep
48 in. R&R
Bearing pressure and capacity calculations explicitly deferred to "the helical pile company / contractor." Reverses the firm's own April 2025 drilled-pier design from the same lot.
★ The pattern

Two of three reports recommend drilled piers.

The two firms that did the original investigations agreed that 6–10 ft below grade at 25 Aria Isle is firm-to-stiff cohesive clay — a soil that supports drilled piers without difficulty. The single report that diverges drilled half as deep, used a less precise sampling method, and didn't measure the shear strength, plasticity, or cohesion of the material it described as organic muck. The honest structural call is to weight all three reports against each other — not to pivot foundations on the most recent piece of paper that arrived.

DOC  Update — After the Engineering Call DATE  2026-05-07 STATUS  Direction confirmed

What the engineers
actually said

On May 7, 2026, Anna and Juan (Dunaway structural) and Rohan (geotechnical) joined a call with Kanti, Yasamin, Murat, and Isaac to reconcile three soil reports and decide whether to follow Quartet’s addendum recommendation literally. They didn’t. The conclusion is cleaner, cheaper, and already drawn.

No replace
4 ft soil over-excavation
Not required — slab is structural on void boxes
~$600K
Revised foundation estimate
vs ~$770K when 4 ft replacement was assumed
Plans OK
Latest Dunaway issue is the one
Helicals + void boxes — already drawn
01 What was concluded

Two engineers, one answer: helicals on void boxes, no soil replacement.

The crux of the meeting was a simple question: does Quartet’s “remove and replace 4 feet of soil” recommendation actually apply to this design? Two engineers, one geotechnical and one structural, independently said no — and explained why.

Rohan
Geotech expert“If you are putting all the loads on the piers and nothing on the soil, the topsoil is not needed to be changed. The 4 ft replacement is a general recommendation for foundations bearing on soil.”
Anna
Dunaway structural“Our foundation is actually designed with void boxes. The slab is supported only in the foundation locations — it’s in reality a true structural foundation.”
Juan
Dunaway structural“Helicals and shafts are the same thing — both end-bearing deep foundations. We moved to helicals because the heavy steel-frame loads needed more capacity than reasonable-diameter shafts could give.”
Anna
On the issued plans“The last thing we did was change to helicals on void box due to the soils reported. If you want to move forward with helicals, this foundation is the one to utilize.”
“You don’t need that dirt removed and replaced for the four foot from the last addendum. So you can go shafted, with no field replacement per our discussion.”
— Juan, Dunaway structural · May 7, 2026
Renderings · 25 Aria Isle Dr · Allen Bianchi Architects
02 What is a void box?

A void box turns a slab into a bridge.

A void box (also called a carton form or void form) is a corrugated cardboard or compressible-cellulose former placed underneath a concrete slab between the supporting elements — piers, pile caps, or grade beams.

While the concrete cures, the void box holds the slab up at the correct elevation. Then, over weeks to months, it absorbs moisture and progressively deteriorates, leaving an air gap between the bottom of the slab and the soil below. The slab no longer touches the ground. It is held up entirely by whatever the grade beams are sitting on — in this house, the helical piles.

This is the difference between a slab-on-grade and a structural slab. A slab-on-grade rests on the dirt; if the dirt swells, heaves, or settles, the slab moves with it. A structural slab spans like a bridge between deep foundation supports. The dirt below is allowed to do whatever it wants; the slab doesn’t care.

This is exactly why the 4 ft soil replacement is not needed here. Quartet’s recommendation assumes the foundation is bearing on the upper soil. It is not. It is bearing on helical piles driven 20 ft below grade. The top 4 ft of bad soil is irrelevant to load transfer.

Why
Texas expansive clay regionsSoil that swells when wet and shrinks when dry can crack a slab-on-grade in a few seasons. Void boxes decouple the slab from this movement entirely.
Material
Wax-coated corrugated cardboardEngineered to compress under controlled load. Commercial brands include SureVoid, VoidForm, Carton Forms. Biodegradable; deteriorates in 3-12 months.
Caveat
Every load must reach the piersRohan’s warning: some void-box designs still rest exterior-wall grade beams on soil. Confirm with Anna that every grade beam in REV 1 is pile-supported — not just the slab.
VOID BOX · SLAB-AS-BRIDGE DETAIL 5″ STRUCTURAL SLAB VOID BOX (CARTON) VOID BOX (CARTON) … air after decay … air after decay GRADE FILL · UNCHANGED SOFT CLAY · UNCHANGED ORGANIC LAYER · BYPASSED SILTY SAND ▽ GW @ 13 FT COMPETENT BEARING SOIL LOADS → PIERS 20 FT MIN
☆ The system as actually designed

Helical piles, void box, no replacement.

Strip the 4-foot soil replacement out of the “recommended hybrid” in Tab 01 and what remains is the system Anna already issued: helical piles to 20 ft, pile caps, reinforced concrete grade beams over those caps, and a structural slab held up by void boxes between them.

  • Helical piles bypass the organic / swamp debris layer entirely.
  • Grade beams sit on pile caps — not on soil.
  • Slab spans on void boxes — not on soil.
  • Topsoil left as-is. If it settles or heaves, the structure does not.
  • Pile capacity verified at install — every pile torque-tested.
  • Plan set already issued; no Dunaway REV 1 required for this change.
Tab 01 hybridhelicals + 4 ft replace
Tab 03 systemhelicals + void boxes
Helical piles to 20 ft
Helical piles to 20 ft
Over-excavate top 4 ft
Skip — topsoil left as-is
Engineered select fill
Skip — no fill needed
Slab bearing on fill
Slab on void boxes — structural
Total ~$700K–$850K
Total ~$555K–$700K
3–5 weeks + earthwork stage
3–5 weeks total
03 What changes

The decision brief in Tab 01 is mostly still right.

The cost stack and the action list update; the core thesis (helicals over piers, do not pursue full soil replacement) holds. Specifically:

Cost
Foundation budget drops by $80K–$150KThe over-excavation + select-fill line is gone. Most-likely landing zone moves from ~$770K to ~$600K. Project total ~$2.67M–$2.82M instead of $2.85M–$3.0M.
Plans
No Dunaway REV 1 needed for foundation typeAnna confirmed the latest issued set is already on helicals with void boxes. Action item #8 (“have Dunaway revise to helical”) is already done.
Schedule
No earthwork stage to scheduleDrop the “separate earthwork RFP” (action item #3 in Tab 01). Foundation phase is purely deep-foundation install + pile caps + grade beams + structural slab.
Paragon
The conflict-of-interest framing softensThe 4-ft replacement was a generic geotech default, not necessarily Paragon manipulation. Pinning Paragon’s position in writing is still useful, but no longer urgent. The owner now has two independent engineers on record that no soil replacement is needed.
Option 03
Pure soil replacement is doubly deadIt was never endorsed by the geotech, and now the technical premise (“the slab needs good soil under it”) is gone too. Don’t spend another paragraph on it.
04 New risks & open items

Three things to verify before locking helicals.

The meeting confirmed the system but surfaced three items that need to close before the foundation is unambiguously safe to start.

Verify
Risk 01

Can helical contractors hit the spec'd torque in this sandy soil?

Rohan flagged that Quartet’s addendum gave no bearing capacity for helicals — punted to “the helical pile company.” Sand is workable but variable. Before locking the system, get at least two helical contractors on record that they can deliver the capacities Anna specified on the legend.

Action
RFP to Magnum Piering, RAM Jack, Atlas Foundation
Include Quartet Addendum 2 + Anna’s pile-capacity legend. Ask each: “Confirm you can hit the torque-to-capacity correlation in this stratigraphy.”
Verify
Risk 02

Are all grade beams pile-supported, or do exterior walls bear on soil?

Rohan’s second warning: some void-box designs leave exterior-wall grade beams resting directly on soil. If those settle, the exterior walls crack regardless of how good the slab is. Verify with Anna that every grade beam in the issued plan set sits on a pile cap.

Action
Email Anna with one specific question
“In the latest issued foundation plan, are all perimeter and interior grade beams supported on pile caps, or are any beams designed to bear on soil?”
Pricing
Open 03

Helicals vs. drilled shafts — cost-similar?

Juan’s point: structurally the two systems are equivalent. The decision should come down to install cost. Murat’s task from the meeting was to get pricing on both. If they’re close, take helicals (faster, weather-tolerant, every pile torque-verified). If shafts are materially cheaper and contractor confirms the diameter Anna needs, shafts are equally valid.

Owner
Murat Ozevin
Also collecting the neighbor-build samples Isaac offered to forward to Anna and Juan from his other Aria Isle / East Shore projects.
05 Revised this week

What changes in the action list, and why.

The original Tab 01 action list had nine items keyed to a soil-replacement scenario and a Dunaway REV 1 that hadn’t happened yet. Six survive, two are dropped, and two are newly important.

Drop
Earthwork RFP for 4 ft over-excavation + select fill. Rohan and Anna agree this isn’t needed if every load reaches the piers. Don’t solicit a quote you won’t use.
Drop
Have Dunaway revise to helical pile + grade beam in REV 1. Already done. The latest issued plan set is the foundation system. (Confirm in writing with Anna for the file.)
Today / Tomorrow
Email Anna a one-line confirmation: “Are all grade beams pile-supported in the latest issued plan, or do any bear on soil?” (Risk 02 above.)
This week
Send formal RFP packages to Magnum Piering, RAM Jack Houston, and Atlas Foundation Co. for helical piles + caps. Include Quartet Addendum 2 + Anna’s pile-capacity legend. Add the explicit ask: “Confirm capacity is achievable in this stratigraphy.”
This week
Murat: get pricing on helicals vs. drilled shafts from the same contractors. If close, take helicals. (Open 03 above.)
This week
Email Rudi Anderson at KAACM asking about foundation systems approved on Section 16 lakeside lots. One paragraph; zero downside.
This week
Email the Lot 3 neighbor — friendly thank-you for the marker restoration, with a quick foundation-system question. Custom-home neighbors share generously.
This week
Wait for Isaac to forward two-or-three foundation plan samples from other houses he’s designed in Aria Isle / East Shore. Forward to Anna and Juan as additional data points.
This week
Pin down Paragon’s position in writing, but reframed: “Per our May 7 engineering call, Quartet’s 4-ft replacement is not required because the slab is structural on void boxes. We’re moving forward on helicals + void boxes per Dunaway’s issued plan. Please confirm and provide your installation pricing for that scope.”
Next week
Update the budget xlsx and construction schedule. Foundation line $280K → ~$600K (most-likely), not $700–850K. Drop the earthwork phase. Foundation phase still 3–5 weeks; possibly pull framing start earlier than baseline.
Next week
Request a Schedule of Values from Paragon in AIA G703 format, line-by-line, material/labor split. Yasamin already asked once; ask again with Murat as the new point of contact. Inability or unwillingness to produce one is diagnostic.