Geotechnical Information Practices in Design-Build Projects (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SUMMARY GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION PRACTICES IN DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS Mitigating the risk of differing geotechnical site conditions is never simple, but risk miti- gation is even more difficult in a design-build (DB) contract awarded before a complete subsurface investigation is completed. The FHWA’s Special Experimental Projects No. 14—Alternative Contracting (SEP-14) was introduced in 1990 and by 2009 had autho- rized more than 400 DB highway projects. In June 2010, FHWA announced its “Every Day Counts” (EDC) initiative to address the rapid renewal of the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. The program is designed to accelerate the implementation of immediately available innovative practices. Hence, the FHWA EDC focuses on innovations that have already been successfully employed by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and are no longer considered “experimental,” as the SEP-14 label implies. “EDC is designed to identify and deploy inno- vation aimed at shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of our roadways, and protecting the environment… it’s imperative we pursue better, faster, and smarter ways of doing business” [italics added]. It is worth noting that Administrator Mendez changed the “better, faster, cheaper” mantra to “better, faster, and smarter.” This relieves the pressure on a state agency to find the cheapest solution to obtain federal-aid funding. The EDC program identified DB project delivery as one of the tools to achieve its aims. Past research has shown that owners select DB primarily to accelerate a project’s sched- ule, and that the major hurdle to achieving that goal is obtaining the owner’s permission to release the design for construction. Because geotechnical investigation and design is usually the first design package that must be completed and geotechnical uncertainty is usually high at the time of DB contract award, the design-builder’s geotechnical design- ers are under pressure to complete their work and enable foundation and other subsurface construction to commence. Successfully managing the geotechnical risk in a DB project is imperative to achieving the requisite level of quality in the finished product. The purpose of this synthesis is to benchmark the state of the practice regarding the use of geotechnical information in DB solicitation documents and contracts. The high- level federal encouragement through EDC for state DOTs to accelerate project delivery by using DB elevates the need to manage geotechnical risk while expediting geotechni- cal design to a critical project success factor, and makes the results of this synthesis both timely and valuable. The synthesis was based on a comprehensive literature review; a survey of U.S. DOTs, which received responses from 42 states (response rate = 84%); a content analysis of DB solicitation documents from 26 states; a content analysis of DB policy documents/guide- lines from 12 state DOTs and 5 federal agencies; and interviews of 11 DB contractors whose markets encompass more than 30 states. The synthesis also furnishes three legal case studies (Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia) on cogent geotechnical issues and four geotechnical engineering case studies (Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, and Montana) that illustrate the methods transportation agencies use to deal with geotechnical issues on DB projects. Conclusions were drawn from the intersection of independent sources of informa-

2 tion from the survey, case studies, and literature. The major synthesis conclusions can be summarized as follows: • DOTs typically select DB to accelerate project delivery. • DOT design approval is a major hurdle to starting construction. • Geotechnical uncertainty is always high until the post-award site investigation and geotechnical design report can be completed. • Because geotechnical and site engineering is the first major design package and the one with the highest pre-award uncertainty— – It must be completed as expeditiously as possible. – The DOT needs to reduce the impact of geotechnical uncertainty as expeditiously as possible. • The above leads DOTs to manage this risk by the following measures: – Requiring the design-builder’s staff to include highly qualified and experienced geotechnical personnel; – Assigning the agency’s most qualified geotechnical personnel to DB project oversight; – Mandating the use of geotechnical design solutions in which the agency is confi- dent; and – Retaining most, if not all, of the traditional quality management (QM) roles and responsibilities for geotechnical features of work. • These procedures are facilitated by the following effective practices: – Enhanced communication in the proposal preparation phase ¥ Confidential one-on-one meetings to clarify request for proposal intent and to present potential alternative technical concepts (ATC). ¥ Utilizing confidential pre-approved ATCs to enhance innovation in geotechnical design and subsurface construction means and methods. ¥ Permitting design-builders to request/obtain additional site investigation before submitting a proposal. – Explicit differing site conditions clauses that: ¥ Permit expeditious resolution of discrepancies between pre-award and post- award geotechnical conditions. ¥ Risk sharing clauses that quantify the design-builder’s exposure to geotechnical risks, with the DOT assuming everything above that threshold. – Expedited design review and acceptance procedures that may include one or more of the following techniques: ¥ Restricting the DOT to a single interim design review before final release for construction review. ¥ Maximizing the use of formal and informal over-the-shoulder design reviews. ¥ Permitting release of geotechnical design packages for construction before the remainder of the design is complete. – The DOT treats the geotechnical and design QM program differently than the remainder of the project by increased agency involvement in the geotechnical aspects of quality assurance, quality control, verification, and acceptance (DOT survey results).