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.

47 INTRODUCTION Quality management (QM) is an overarching term that describes all the tasks undertaken during planning, procure- ment, design, and construction to ensure that the final con- structed project conforms to the requirements agreed upon by the owner, its internal and external design engineers, and the construction contractors that will build the project (Leahy et al. 2009). The fundamental need for quality does not change with the type of project delivery method used (Finnish Road Administration 2003). In the traditional DBB method, the owner performs the design with in-house assets or hires a design consultant on a design contract. Thus, the owner can influence the contractual level of project qual- ity during the design phase before the construction contract is awarded. The final design documents are integrated with the construction contract and referred to as the “construction documents.” From the geotechnical perspective, since the design is complete, the geotechnical engineering is complete and a remaining risk to quality is the possibility of differing site conditions (Smith 2008). This is not the case for the geotechnical engineering requirements in DB project delivery. With DB, the final geo- technical design documents are a deliverable that flows from the awarded DB contract, and by definition the construction contract is awarded before the design is complete, dimin- ishing the owner’s ability to influence the level of quality portrayed in the details of the completed design (Beard et al. 2001). Most DB projects are designed and built by con- tractor-led teams (e.g., a general construction contractor as prime with the design being furnished through a design sub- contract) (Songer and Molenaar 1996). This arrangement can lead to a concern that the “fox may be guarding the hen- house,” a criticism that has plagued DB since its inception (Keston Institute 2007). A 2002 study by Ernzen and Feeney titled “Contractor-Led Quality Control and Quality Assur- ance Plus Design-Build: Who Is Watching The Quality?” looked at Arizona DOT’s DB program and addressed the issue by comparing project QA compaction and sieve analy- sis test data on a DB project (where the design-builder had been assigned the responsibility for QA) with data from a similar traditional DBB project. It found the following: Analysis of the data shows that despite a highly compressed schedule, the quality of the material on the project exceeded the project specifications and was similar to the quality of work completed for the state under traditional contracting methods with an Arizona DOT-operated quality assurance program (Ernzen and Fenney 2002). As a result, the owner’s clear communication of the requirements for not only the quality of the constructed proj- ect but also the quality of its design is important to DB proj- ect success. To accomplish clear communications, all DB contract parties must understand the definition of quality in the context of a given project’s geotechnical requirements. Definitions for Design and Construction Quality in DB Projects Defining quality is difficult at best and impossible at worst. The determination of the required minimum values is part of the specification writing process that occurs during design. Since shifting design liability is one of the benefits touted in the literature (ADOT 2001; WSDOT 2004; Potter and McMahon 2006), prescriptive specifications create the danger that the owner will unintentionally assume design liability for the geotechnical performance of the features of work for which it prescribed test values (Gonderinger 2001; USACE 2009). The literature furnishes a number of opera- tional definitions for quality. Table 26 compares the defini- tions found in the literature and categorizes them according to the fundamental definitions provided by the American Society for Quality (ASQ). The ASQ maintains a “quality glossary” that seeks to furnish standard definitions for quality terminology (Nelsen 2007). Transportation Research Circular E-C137 (Leahy et al. 2009) is a Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance Terms. It should be noted that those two sources of quality definitions were not written recognizing the intricacies of DB project delivery. However, a study of DB RFPs (Grans- berg and Molenaar 2004) identified and defined a number of separate approaches that public owners use to articulate the QM requirements for DB projects. Quality Management Theory Applied to Geotechnical Issues in Design-Build Projects “Highway construction specifications have been evolving from prescriptive (method-based) to alternative types that are designed to ensure that the initial quality and in-service CHAPTER SIX DESIGN-BUILD GEOTECHNICAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

48 performance of highway pavements meet the expectations set at the design phase” (Gharaibah and Miron 2008). The paper from which this quote was drawn presents a model called the “advanced quality system” (AQS). Although the paper’s focus was on the development of warranty specifica- tions for highway pavements, the AQS model can be adapted to apply to DB geotechnical projects, as shown in Figure 4. Essentially, the AQS is the typical cycle of continuous quality improvement (Smith 2001; Panchmatia 2010). The model has been modified to reflect the following sequence. It starts with the preliminary geotechnical design informa- tion, criteria, and specification input provided by the agency to competing design-builders in the DB RFP. Next, it follows the chronology of post-award activities completed by the design-builder through the owner’s verification/acceptance of constructed geotechnical features of work to the post-con- struction performance evaluation based on instrumentation. It ends with lessons learned, which are then fed back into the system to improve the geotechnical design criteria package for the next DB project. The critical point in the process is at the beginning of the cycle, when the design-builder executes the final geo- technical site investigation and verifies the design assump- tions used in the price proposal. This is where the quality of the agency’s RFP input is tested against the facts found after award. If there is no significant difference, then the cycle continues with minor adjustments being made to the assumed geotechnical design solution to account for actual conditions. If there is a significant difference, then the DB contract’s DSC clause comes into play and a change order is negotiated to adjust the project’s price and schedule. FIGURE 4 Advanced quality system model applied to geotechnical aspects of DB projects [Source: After Gharaibeh and Miron 2008]. Gharaibeh and Miron (2008) advocate capturing the link- age between design-production-performance in a historical database for use in future projects through the preceding pro- cess. At this early stage of the DB project delivery process, no construction has been completed, so no performance quality can be measured on the structure itself. However, because the preliminary geotechnical information contained in the RFP did not accurately reflect actual conditions, the agency has an opportunity to reevaluate the decision-making pro- cess used to arrive at the geotechnical information package used in the solicitation. The fundamental idea of capturing this type of lesson is expressed in WSDOT’s DB guidelines: TABLE 26 COMPARISON OF AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR QUALITY DEFINITIONS WITH DEFINITIONS FOUND IN THE LITERATURE ASQ Quality Type ASQ Definition (ASQ 2007) E-C137 Definitions (Leahy et al. 2009) Owner DB Quality Approach (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004) Relative “loose comparison of product features and characteristics” “end-result specifications” “Quality by Specified Program: The RFP requires the design-builder to sub- mit a proposed QM program which complies with an owner-specified pro- gram in the proposal, and the owner verifies this compliance.” Product-Based “precise and mea- surable variable… reflect differences in quantity of some product attribute” “performance-based specifications” “quality assurance specifications” “Quality by Performance Criteria: The RFP requires the design-builder to submit a proposed technical solution which is responsive to owner-furnished technical performance criteria, and the owner competitively evaluates it.” User-Based “fitness for intended use” “performance-related specifications” “Quality by Evaluated Program: The RFP requires the design-builder to sub- mit a proposed QM program of its own design in the proposal, and the owner competitively evaluates it.” Manufacturing-Based “conformance to specifications” “material and meth- ods specifications” “Quality by Specification: The RFP requires the design-builder to submit pro- posed technical solutions which were responsive to the owner’s prescriptive technical specifications, and the owner verifies this compliance during the design submittal process.” Value-Based “conformance at an acceptable cost” “value engineering” “warranty specifications” “Quality by Qualifications: The RFP requires past performance and/or per- sonnel qualifications which indicate the owner is concerned about the qualifi- cations of the DB team. It is vague or silent on specific requirements for a DB QM program.” “Quality by Warranty: The RFP requires some type of performance warranty or maintenance bond.”

49 Ultimately, WSDOT will own responsibility for Changed and Differing Site conditions. As such, it is necessary for WSDOT to establish a baseline for design-builders to develop their technical and price proposals (WSDOT 2004, italics added). To foster continuous improvement, the agency would con- sider what would have been done differently during prelimi- nary engineering to characterize the actual site conditions more accurately and furnish the “baseline for design-build- ers.” That analysis would be folded into the remaining agency geotechnical QM activities to put it into the “design-produc- tion-performance” linkage required by the AQS model. One possible outcome might be a change in the agency’s DB pre- liminary engineering milestone schedule to permit additional time and funding for a more developed geotechnical design information and criteria package on future projects of this type. The North Carolina DOT has done this very thing and now budgets an amount for preliminary geotechnical investi- gations for DB RFPs based on the analysis of past DB projects (Kim et al. 2009). Arkansas State Highway and Transporta- tion Department DB guidelines (2006) require that the pre- liminary geotechnical engineering analyses be sufficient to “set the basis for determination of changed conditions, and establish preliminary project cost estimates.” VDOT has developed and maintains its own version of the ASQ inte- grated geotechnical database, with the following objective: The purpose of this project [the integrated geotechnical database] was to develop a practical, comprehensive, enterprise-wide system for entry, storage, and retrieval of subsurface data. The resulting product satisfies the work flow requirements of VDOT and streamlines the delivery of geotechnical information (Hoppe et al. 2011). The above discussion leads to the conclusion that there is a need for future research in the area of applying QM theories, such as the AQS, to the development of preliminary geotech- nical engineering and site investigation plans on DB projects where there is a significant potential for geotechnical issues to arise that cannot be resolved before issuing the DB RFP. The research would seek to establish a relationship between (1) the risk of cost and time growth owing to DSCs, and (2) the amount of money and time an agency spends on the prelimi- nary site investigation and geotechnical engineering analy- sis. The ultimate deliverable would be a stochastic risk-based decision-making tool that DOTs could use to estimate the cost/ benefit of decreasing geotechnical uncertainty before advertis- ing a DB project. This would also be useful for DOTs that are considering public-private partnerships as a tool to quantify changed conditions risk for potential concessionaires. GEOTECHNICAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT ISSUES QM is implemented in DB project delivery using a systems approach involving three primary components (Smith 2001; Panchmatia 2010): 1. Personnel: Each party to the DB contract has clearly defined roles and responsibilities that line up with the unique qualifications and past experience each brings to the project. 2. Plans: The DB project’s quality requirements must be addressed in a written document that spans the project delivery life cycle, starting at procurement, running through design and construction, and ending with final acceptance and payment. 3. Procedures: The DB project’s QM plan is imple- mented through a standard set of quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures that define the process for final acceptance of the project’s technical features of work. This section will discuss the above components to the QM system in the geotechnical context of a DB project based on the results of the survey, literature review, and other research instruments used in the synthesis. Qualifications, Roles, and Responsibilities Chapter four concluded that the qualifications of the geotech- nical designers and the past geotechnical project experience of the companies on the DB team are critical to achieving quality in the constructed DB project. This conclusion can be extended one level down to the qualifications and experi- ence of the personnel whose primary roles are to implement the QM program on a DB project. Additionally, the person- nel involved in the geotechnical design and construction QM tasks must possess the requisite technical knowledge to ensure the quality of both the design products and the con- structed project. Another significant issue involves the redistribution of tra- ditional DBB QM roles and responsibilities in a DB project. One of the major motivations for using DB project delivery is to shift design liability from the owner to the design-builder (ADOT 2001; Gonderinger 2001; WSDOT 2004). To effec- tively transfer design liability to the design-builder, a DOT must also transfer many of the traditional QM responsibili- ties. The survey asked respondents to indicate which party to the contract was assigned the responsibility for completing each QM task in the geotechnical aspects of the DB proj- ect. Figure 5 shows the consolidated output from the survey on that question. Four primary entities were assigned spe- cific QM tasks. Two are part of the owner’s team (i.e., the agency staff and the agency-hired consultant) and the other two are the design and construction staff working on the design-builder’s team. One can see that with the exception of routine construction inspection and quality control test- ing, the agency staff retained the responsibility for the list of QM tasks found in the survey question. If the agency and design-builder assignments are combined, QC testing is the

50 only task that is more often assigned to the design-builder than the agency. Figure 5 illustrates the results. The survey also asked the respondents if their QA program for geotech- nical design and construction was different on DB projects than the one used on DBB projects. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents answered “no,” including almost half of the DOTs that completed more than five DB projects. This result explains the QM task assignments shown in Table 27. FIGURE 5 DB quality versus DBB quality. The Table 27 output contradicts the survey responses for the same set of roles and responsibilities found in NCHRP Synthesis 376: QA in DB Projects (2004). However, it must be noted that the NCHRP Synthesis 376 study looked at QM in the overall DB project and did not focus directly on the geotechnical aspects. Table 28 is a comparison of the two surveys. Note that the output was converted to relative per- centages of totals in each study to account for the differ- ence in sample sizes. This comparison shows that the DOTs responding under NCHRP Synthesis 376 were more willing to shift QM responsibilities for routine review of design and construction submittals to the design-builder than the DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis, where they focused on submittals related to the geotechnical aspects of the DB project. This leads to the conclusion that agen- cies retain most of the traditional roles and responsibilities related to geotechnical QM tasks on DB projects. Quality Management Plans The cornerstone of a DB project’s quality management pro- gram is the QA/QC plans that are developed, reviewed, and approved before the work begins. The survey queried its TABLE 27 DISTRIBUTION OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOUND IN THE SURVEY Quality Management Task Design-Builder’s Construction Staff Design-Builder’s Design Staff Agency-Hired Consultant Agency Staff Quality Control Testing 55% 5% 18% 21% Routine Construction Inspection 37% 7% 22% 35% Independent Assurance Testing/Inspection 11% 0% 43% 46% Technical Review of Material Submittals 22% 15% 24% 39% Technical Review of Shop Drawings 13% 23% 25% 38% Approval of Post-award QA Plans 6% 3% 27% 64% Punch List 18% 16% 25% 41% Acceptance Testing 17% 7% 30% 46% Verification Testing 16% 5% 28% 51% TABLE 28 COMPARISON OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOUND IN THE GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR SYNTHESIS 42-01 WITH THE RESULTS FROM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 376 OVERALL DBQM SURVEY Quality Management Task Design-Builder NCHRP Synthesis 42-01 Agency NCHRP Synthesis 42-01 Design-Builder NCHRP Synthesis 376 Agency NCHRP Synthesis 376 Quality Control Testing 61% 39% 84% 16% Routine Construction Inspection 43% 57% 69% 31% Independent Assurance Testing/Inspection 11% 89% 12% 88% Technical Review of Material Submittals 37% 63% 50% 50% Technical Review of Shop Drawings 37% 63% 68% 32% Approval of Post-award QA Plans 9% 91% 8% 92% Punch List 33% 67% 30% 70% Acceptance Testing 24% 76% 14% 86% Verification Testing 21% 79% 13% 87%

51 recipients regarding the geotechnical QM plan development process in the procurement, design, and construction phases of the DB project delivery period. Table 29 shows the out- put from five questions regarding the perceived importance of QM plans in each phase of project delivery. Again, the data are broken into two subpopulations: DOTs that have completed more than five DB projects and those that have less experience. The weighted average of the ratings shows that experienced DOTs place a higher importance on the QM plans than those with less experience. It also shows that both groups place their highest importance on the design phase aspects of QM, and both agree on the value of involving the construction contractor in the geotechnical design. The Table 29 output leads to the conclusion that the design QA plan is perceived as the most important aspect of the geotechnical QM planning process. It also implies that a successful DB design QA plan includes specific procedures for involving the construction contractor in reviewing the constructability of geotechnical designs, as well as details on how the agency will be involved in the design QA pro- cess through its role of oversight, review, and acceptance of design deliverables. The Mn/DOT uses the following objectives for its design quality management plans: • “Place the primary responsibility for design quality on the design-builder and its designer(s). • Facilitate early construction by the design-builder. • Allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products while not relieving the design-builder from its obligation to comply with the contract” (Gonderinger 2001). These objectives validate the conclusion drawn in the previous paragraph. First, by placing “primary respon- sibility” on the design-builder, the DOT is allocating the responsibility for developing a process that guarantees design quality, as well as placing design liability with the party that can best manage that risk (Dwyre et al. 2010). Second, “facilitating early construction” demands that the design of geotechnical features be highly constructible in order to build them without delays induced by poorly developed designs, which demands that the builder be involved in the design QA process through constructabil- ity reviews, biddability reviews, and other preconstruction service tasks. Third, it speaks to the agency’s involvement in design QA through its oversight role. Presumably, a typi- cal design QA plan produced for a Minnesota DOT DB project would fulfill these objectives. Changes in the Traditional Quality Assurance Procedures to Accommodate Design-Build Delivery Agencies are not making many changes to their QA proce- dures with regard to roles and responsibilities to implement the geotechnical aspects of DB contracting. However, the one major issue found in the literature is the pace at which the agency QA procedures must be conducted in DB proj- ects. This returns to the original theme of agencies selecting DB project delivery to accelerate the project’s schedule and taking advantage of the single point of responsibility within the design-builder’s team for both design and construction to start building before 100% design completion. A study commissioned by the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy Research (2007) reached the fol- lowing conclusion: It seems to be apparent that implementing DB requires a well-qualified technically competent staff at the agency to achieve success. Several respondents indicated that they assigned their best engineers to DB projects and that imple- menting DB required them to exercise a great deal more engineering judgment… [E]xperienced agencies agree that DB projects require the most experienced agency engineers (Keston Institute 2007). Therefore, the major change in DOT QA policy for geo- technical aspects appears to return to the first category (personnel qualifications) by assigning well-qualified, expe- rienced geotechnical engineers to oversee the geotechnical aspects of DB projects. TABLE 29 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN RATED IMPORTANCE IN EACH PROJECT PHASE Phase Procurement Design Construction Rated Importance to Geotechnical Success Specific Geotechnical Reference in Proposal Design QA Plan Specific Geotechnical Reference in Proposal Construction QA Plan Early Contractor Involvement in Design QA Plan Agency Involvement in Design QA Plan Agency Involvement in Construction QA Plan <5DB >5DB <5DB >5DB <5DB >5DB <5DB >5DB <5DB >5DB Average 2.3 1.8 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.6 Essential =1 2 3 2 4 7 10 5 12 3 7 Important =2 4 13 2 9 4 6 5 4 7 8 Not Important =3 5 0 7 3 0 0 1 0 1 1

52 PERCEIVED IMPACT OF DESIGN-BUILD ON ULTIMATE PROJECT QUALITY Since quality is inherently qualitative, the perceptions of agency personnel play a large part in how the impact of DB is assessed within an agency. In public policy, perceptions are often just as important as facts (Keston Institute 2007). Legislative action is heavily influenced by perceptions, and as previously discussed, implementation of DB for public infrastructure projects has had to overcome the perceptions that DB project delivery would result in an inherently poor- quality and possibly unsafe final product because the design- er’s fiduciary loyalty has been moved to the builder’s team. One report on DB implementation classifies perceptions as “barriers to broad acceptance” (Byrd and Grant 1993). One respondent to the survey summarized the perception issue in the following survey comment: From a geotechnical perspective, we would not choose the DB process if we had a choice. The DB’s [design- builder’s] primary intent is to increase profit and tighten schedule, so quality tends to suffer on DB jobs. When the uncertainties associated with the geotechnical aspects of a typical DBB project are translated to a DB proj- ect, the perception that the agency may be forced to accept inferior quality can become an overwhelmingly powerful force inside the project team. Another survey respondent expressed the sentiment in this manner: “There is a tendency to accept lesser quality geotechnical work resulting from the lack of a contractual method of dealing with [geotechnical requirements] as independent issue.…” The literature review also found that one major internal barrier to implementing DB is the perception that the agency will lose control over the design details and thus end up with less than satisfactory quality (FHWA 2006; Keston Insti- tute 2007). An interesting discussion of the issue of percep- tions creating a barrier to implementing DB was published in 2005. Although it is specifically directed at architectural projects, its content applies equally to transportation. The article states that “architects have groomed a cultural per- ception that builders can’t be trusted” and as a result par- ticipating in a DB project must be inherently unethical. The author goes on to state, “That perception [that DB is unethi- cal] subsequently contributed to many bidding and contract- ing laws that made design-build cumbersome or impossible in the U.S.” (Nicholson 2005). Although this perception appeared to be a major issue as the modern era of DB was starting in the mid-1990s, it certainly must be viewed as an aberration today. This is evident by, for instance, the proliferation of legislation that authorizes the use of DB on all types of projects across the country. Nevertheless, the perception of the owner’s loss of control remains, as shown by the survey comments cited above. Thus, the synthesis research attempted to measure the perception of DB’s impact on project quality in the general survey and compared it with the facts obtained in the literature. First, the survey respondents were asked how they felt the quality of their DB projects compared to their DBB projects. Figure 5 shows the response divided by levels of experience. It shows that most respondents believed that the quality of the geotechnical features on DB projects was not degraded as a result of DB project delivery. The survey also asked the respondents to articulate their perceptions of the impact of various DB project factors on final project quality. The results are shown in Table 30. The weighted average in the last column of Table 30 allows the impact of each factor to be rank ordered. It shows that the two factors with the most impact on quality are related to the qualifications and past experience of the geotechnical person- nel on the design-builder’s staff. Once again, it did not matter how a survey question was asked or which aspect of the DB project it referred to; geotechnical success in DB contracting is primarily a function of the quality of the people who will execute the geotechnical design, design review, and construc- tion tasks required by the project. The next factor involved the use of agency-mandated geotechnical specifications and design details. This factor attempts to address the agency geo- technical personnel having a level of comfort with the design by requiring geotechnical design solutions with which the agency has past experience and in which the agency has con- fidence. The involvement of the constructor in the design pro- cess, thereby assuring a constructible design, was rated fourth in impact on final quality. Enhanced constructability equates to a reduction in the risk of schedule delay (Friedlander 2003; Smith 2008; Kim et al. 2009). A recent study of the impact on quality posed by alter- nate project delivery methods asked essentially the same questions of its DOT survey respondents (Shane et al. 2011). Figure 6 compares the results of this synthesis with those found by Shane et al. (2011). It must be noted that in order to make this study’s output comparable to Shane, the Shane Likert scale ratings were reversed to coordinate with those shown in Table 27. If one neglects the relative difference in the rated level of impact and looks at the rank each group placed on each factor, all but two factors shared a rank that was equal to or only one rank different in each study. Hence, there are two major differences in the way DOT respondents perceived quality impact on the overall DB project versus only the geotechnical aspects of the DB project. First, the Shane study ranked agency interactivity during the design phase fourth, while this study ranked it seventh. Second, the use of agency standard specifications and design details was ranked sixth by Shane versus this study’s rank of third.

53 TABLE 30 SURVEY RESULTS—IMPACT OF VARIOUS FACTORS ON THE GEOTECHNICAL QUALITY OF DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS. Factor Very High Impact = 1 High Impact = 2 Some Impact = 3 Slight Impact = 4 No Impact = 5 Weighted Average Qualifications of the Design-Builder’s Geotechnical Staff 8 16 2 1 0 1.85 Design-Builder’s Past Project Experience With Geotechnical Issues 4 19 3 1 0 2.04 Use of Agency Geotechnical Specifications and/or Design Details 12 6 5 4 0 2.06 Early Contractor Involvement in Geotechnical Design 8 9 8 2 0 2.15 Amount of Geotechnical Information Expressed in the Procurement Documents 7 10 6 3 1 2.3 Use of Geotechnical Performance Criteria/ Specifications 7 11 4 1 4 2.41 Quality Management Plans 4 7 11 4 1 2.67 Level of Agency Involvement in the QA Process 3 7 11 4 2 2.81 Agency Interactivity with Geotechnical Design Team During Proposal Phase 1 5 9 4 7 3.42 Agency Interactivity with Geotechnical Design Team During Design Phase 5 12 4 5 1 2.44 Warranty Provisions 2 4 8 5 8 3.48 FIGURE 6 Comparison of the perceived impact of various factors on the quality of DB projects [Source: Synthesis 42-01 and Shane et al. 2011].

54 The differences are actually complimentary. The required use of agency-mandated geotechnical specifications and design details on DB projects reduces the agency’s need to be involved during the actual design process. This then permits the expeditious review of geotechnical engineering products and facilitates the use of design QA oversight practices such as the over-the-shoulder review. The literature (Christensen and Meeker 2002; Higbee 2002; Papernik and Farkas 2009) and the agency DB guidelines (WSDOT 2004; ASHTD 2006; DoD 2010) promote the concept that prescriptive design requirements in the DB process limit the ability of the design- builder to innovate. However, obtaining innovative design solutions requires the agency to spend the time necessary to satisfy its statutory due diligence requirements, which could create schedule delay and nullify the benefits gained from the innovative design (Beard et al. 2002; Koch et al. 2010). Thus, the delivery process for any given project seeks to optimize the costs and benefits of engineering innovation with the need to deliver the project within both schedule and budget constraints (Koch et al. 2010). Comparing synthe- sis survey results with the results published by Shane et al. (2011) suggests that agencies are willing to sacrifice potential technical innovation for proven performance that can reduce schedule risk. Adding weight to this conclusion are the issues discussed in chapter four regarding a heightened level of interactivity by experienced DOTs with competing proposers through the use of pre-approved ATCs and one-on-one dis- cussion/clarification sessions on allowable technical design solutions before proposals are submitted. Combining selected design detail and specifications mandates with preproposal approval of geotechnical design approach appears to provide a vehicle to manage technical and schedule risk on the geo- technical features of a DB transportation project. CONTRACTOR’S PERSPECTIVE Table 31 contains the output from the design-builder inter- views (sorted in order of impact) and can be compared with the owner survey responses in Table 30. It shows that owners and contractors agree that qualifications and past project experience have the greatest impact on the geotech- nical quality of the project. The same can be said for early contractor involvement in geotechnical design and the use of geotechnical performance criteria and specifications. The contractors rated geotechnical QM plans as having more impact than the DOT survey respondents. This may be because they were referring to their own internal plans. They also cited “implementing a joint design QA/QC plan” as a challenge in most projects. Follow-up question- ing revealed that the issue was both internal and external. First, the DB design team was reluctant to allow construc- tion team input to interfere with their process; second, 10 of 11 contractors cited agency distrust of the design- builder’s design team as a challenge to getting geotechni- cal design product released for construction. To reinforce this idea, 9 of 11 cited “developing a geotechnical QM plan that meets the agency’s expectations” as a challenge on all DB projects. Thus, QM planning appears to play an impor- tant role in the design-builder’s geotechnical risk mitiga- tion planning. Table 31 also shows that 45% rated the use of standard specifications and details as well as the level of geotechni- cal information contained in the procurement documents as having a major impact on quality. This output must be interpreted in the context of the question: impact on final constructed project quality. Although the level of geotechni- cal information in the RFP was found to influence the way TABLE 31 IMPACT ON FINAL DESIGN-BUILD GEOTECHNICAL QUALITY—CONTRACTOR RESPONSES Factor Very/High Impact Some/Slight Impact No Impact Qualifications of the design-builder’s staff 91% 9% 0% Design-builder’s past project experience 82% 18% 0% Quality management plans 82% 18% 0% Early contractor involvement in geotechnical design 73% 27% 0% Use of geotechnical performance criteria/specifications 64% 36% 0% Level of agency involvement in the geotechnical QA process 55% 45% 0% Detailed geotechnical design criteria 55% 27% 0% Use of agency specifications and/or design details 45% 45% 9% Level of detail expressed in the procurement documents 45% 45% 9% Warranty provisions 18% 55% 27%

55 design-builders perceived and subsequently priced the risk, Table 31 shows that the ultimate quality of geotechnical fea- tures of work was found to be a function of something other than the pre-award information. One might argue that the contractors’ responses indicate that the impact of QM plans on developing highly qualified and experienced geotechni- cal personnel is indeed the critical factor to geotechnical quality in a DB project. CONCLUSIONS The analyses discussed in this chapter resulted in the follow- ing conclusions: • The agencies that responded to the survey retain most traditional roles and responsibilities for QM on geo- technical QC/QA tasks. • The design QA plan is perceived as the most important aspect of the DB geotechnical QM planning process. • Achieving satisfactory quality of geotechnical design and construction deliverables in DB contract- ing is perceived to be most affected by the qualifi- cations and past experience of the people who will execute the geotechnical design, design review, and construction. • Comparisons of the synthesis survey results with the results published by Shane et al. (2011) on DB proj- ect quality shows that agencies are willing to sacrifice potential geotechnical design innovation for proven performance as defined by agency-mandated design details and specifications, and are using this mecha- nism to manage schedule risk. This chapter also identified the following effective practices: • Experienced DOTs require the geotechnical engineer- ing design QA plan to include specific procedures for involving the construction contractor in reviewing the constructability of geotechnical designs, as well as details on how the agency will be involved in the design QA process through its role of oversight, review, and acceptance of design deliverables. • Combining selected design detail and specifications mandates with preproposal approval of geotechnical design approach provides a vehicle to manage techni- cal and schedule risk on the geotechnical features of a DB transportation project. The following are suggestions for future research: • There is a need for future research in the area of applying QM theories such as the AQS to the development of pre- liminary geotechnical engineering and site investigation plans to support DB projects with significant geotechnical issues that cannot be resolved before issuing the DB RFP. • Research that explores the concept of optimizing tech- nical risk of unfamiliar/innovative geotechnical design approaches with schedule risk would furnish DOTs guidance on the amount of prescriptive design content that should be included in projects with significant geo- technical issues.