Geotechnical Scope of Work 2

[btk1]

I am looking for a generic geotechnical scope of work that I can use when asking for proposals from geotechnical engineering consultants. This would be helpful and would provide a level playing field for the development of the proposal. Does anyone have a checklist version for a scope of work that they would be willing to share? I am primarily interested in services related to building construction. Any contributions would be appreciated.

 

[BigH]

I'll give more thoughtful answer later - but this kind of genericism suggests a pause for thought. I've seen many from firms and some are absolute garbage. They try to cover all bases. They talk about rock (when, in fact, you won't find any on a particular site) - they talk about fancy tests that would not be done in routine investigations, etc. In one, we were supposed to do "all the tests that could be done" on each and every sample collected. If we were to do it - it would have cost 10x more than the drilling, collection of samples and report. So what do you do then? I think that if you want to get a level playing field, develop a relationship with a geotech who might not be interested in every little job and arrange for him to write up your TOR for each project. For 5 or 6 hours of work on his part, you would get a meaningful TOR for geotech investigations. Still, pick two or three reputable firms and let them submit detailed proposals. If the job is big enough - offer them each $500 or so as seed money so they don't feel they are wasting their time. Remember the old adage - "You only get what you pay for." Generic TOR are a fine ideal, but to make them cover all conditions is unreasonable and will lead to firms saying they'll do the world, but will barely do the state/province.

 

[Grouser]

Go to the ASFE website:

http://www.asfe.org/

Look at the publications listing. They have sample contracts, etc., etc., etc. Just reading the breadth of the topics will give you a respect for the complexities involved in running a sucessful geotechnical consultancy.
Don't shop price, shop value.

Good luck and

 

[DBNodurf]

I don't know about "leveling" the playing field; this is essentially making it a commodity. Use the results of the proposal development process as an indication of which firms really know what they need to do! Not all engineers are equal, but this is what the desire to have a generic proposal has as a fundamental premise.

D. Bruce Nothdurft, MSCE, PE, PG, M.ASCE, etc, etc,...
Principal Engineer/Geologist
Atlantic Geoscience & Engineering
Charlotte, NC

 

[btk1]

Thank you each for your comments. However, it appears each of you has misinterpreted my inquiry. In the past when asking for proposals from geotechnical engineers, I have found that unless I can provide a clear and concise scope of services, the proposals received (even from long-standing relationships) vary in terms of services provided and assumptions made. I am in no way promoting “fee shopping” or reducing the consultant to a “commodity”. As an engineer myself, I am somewhat annoyed that fellow professionals jump to that conclusion so fast. I am simply looking for a comprehensive list of potential scope of work items that I could use when asking for proposals.

 

[MRM]

Of course, what everyone is saying is that the site and project type dictate what the work scope will be. There is no way to really level the playing field.

Here’s a fictional example:
So you tell me you have a building to construct. How big is it in plan? 10,000 square feet. Ok, 5 borings to 20 feet deep outta do it. What? It's 10 stories tall? Ok, 10 borings to 50 feet deep. What? The site is where? All kinds of swamp plant life is growing on the site? Our experience tells us that there could be deep peat deposits in that area. Ok, make those borings 100 feet deep and now we'll need to use the off road rig, which is $500 more for mob-we could be talking caissons now. What? The building is actually a hospital with equipment that can only tolerate 1/4" in 50' differential settlement in the foundation? Make that 15 borings to 100 feet except for two which should be made to bedrock-probably talking a hefty foundation now. What? Three other buildings of similar size have experienced lots of structural distress due to foundation movement? Make all 15 to bedrock, Stat. What? There’s a 3 story deep basement planned? Wait, you made a mistake and the project we’re talking about is not in Minnesota after all, but rather in Colorado? Let’s start over. Who’s the project funded by? Wait a minute, we never get our money from them on any other projects. They need to pay you before you pay us, right? Our firm is really too busy right now, but XYZ Soils, Inc. would probably be happy to do the work for you. No, wait make that ZYX, Inc….they’re out of Denver.

Just a little example of how every aspect of the project may change the scope. I'd go with the geotech you have the best relationship with, one you trust not to charge you all kinds of unnecessary fees, and one that knows his or her stuff.

If you have different costs from several different firms for the same project and site, call them and ask what their assumptions were. You might find that one misunderstood the project type, or is unfamiliar with the area, or is actually really really familiar with the area.

 

[VAD]

Hello btk1:

Your response to the comments by BigH and others is of interest as I can see your point and as well those of the others.

To answer your question warrants me asking you some questions and hopefully you can use these to formulate your RFP. I cannot state all possible questions as these would depend on site characteristics and proposed building layout and loads.


1.Do you know any thing about the ground that you are to place the structure on or within.

2. Do you have plans of the proposed building re architectural layout.

3. Are preliminary loads available

4. Do you require to have internal roadways-parking lots etc.

5. Would there be underground services to be constructed re pipelines, parking etc

6. Is your structure to be close to an existing one.

7. Is your structure to be situated close to a hillside etc.

8. Is there any past issues in the area about swelling and other problematic soils.

9. Was an environmental screening of the site undertaken. If so what are the comments.

10. And So On and So forth

How much do you intend to spend for a geotechnical report based on what you have conceived would be the important questions required to be answered.

Are you prepared to be flexible if the drilling etc turns up some unusual conditions which may require further work.
or do you expect no change to the cost.

Have you appraised the Client of the likely costs that may be incurred with doing a geotechnical investigation.

Is the Client willing to retain a geotechnical Engineer for the project, just the same as he would an architect or structural Engineer or is the project to be the responsibility of the Architect or Structural Engineer getting information from a geotech who is obscure to the Client. In this case the Architect or Structural Enginer pays the bill out of his agreement with the Client. In such an event what the Architect's or Structural Engineer allowance for the geotechnical work. Was this obtained through an estimate from a geotechnical Engineer. Some shop around to get the cheapest price, since the cheaper then one can make some more off the deal. This is not intended to be personal but a reflection of what happens in this type of work to all of us.

I hope that the above questions and those presented as comments by others would allow you to decide yourself on the RFP that you require as in the end you are the only one whose honesty,integrity and fair play can allow the playing field to be truly level.

As an aside, I recently was asked to provide a price for providing a soils report for 4 apartment buildings with 4 stories and underground parking together with geometric and pavement design of a roadway to the site and tying in to the main street system. The roadway was less than a km but required acceleration and deceleration lanes curb and gutter and side walk pavement. No other information was provided.

I was presumably the only consultant solicited and was provided some preliminary architectural plans at my request. I visited the site and in preparation for the work I spent about half a day laying out the building sites within the parcel as this was not done as yet. In this excersize I laid out prelim stakes for my holes which was to be 8. I also planned backhoe test pits at the same time to understand the ground conditions for the underground parkade etcetc. I then arranged for one call and met with the Utility company to determine any utilities. Following this I wrote a 2 page site evaluation report outlining what I proposed dong and reasons for same etc.

This was intended in July I am still awaiting the final go-ahead despite that it was a done deal and this was required relatively quickly. However, while I could have gone ahead and done the field investigation I decided that it would be appropriate to send in my proposed fee. This was estimated at around $16K. After about 2 months I enquired about the project and was told that the Architect is still awaiting approval from the Client. This could be entirely true, but my experience tells me different, but I can be surprised.

All the best, and hope you understand some of the issues. I am sure that this pervades all of the civil disciplines to some extent or the other

[Cheers]

 

[btk1]

It is quite obvious from the sarcastic response from MRM & others that trying to develop a scope of work for the geotechnical consultant, so that he/she has a better understanding of the project, is not embraced by all. Personally, I would think that having a complete scope of work presented to you prior to developing a fee proposal would be helpful. However, it appears that is not the case.

Further, I did not indicate that I would be sending out an RFP to multiple consultants and shopping services. I am simply looking for meaningful input from geotechnical engineers on developing a list of typical services that may or maynot be used on any particular project. I could then use the list to quickly identify for the geotech what scope items would be included in the project. The items may include the following:

--General
-Description of subsurface soil conditions at the site, the location of any known earthquake faults, mines, walls or anything else that might affect the proposed building.
-Review of site geology and how it will impact allowable soil values.
-Log of exploratory borings summarizing the soil conditions encountered and the results of the laboratory testing as well as a plan indicating the number and location of the borings and elevations related to a common benchmark or datum, and depth.
-Recommendations of suitable foundation systems for structure.
-Influence of foundation construction on existing foundations and recommended mitigation measures as required.

--Mat Foundation
-Allowable soil bearing values for mat foundation embedded in native soils at grade. Include values for the following load cases: dead plus live, dead plus live plus wind/seismic.
-Static modulus of subgrade value for developing vertical soil springs for the following load cases: dead plus live, seismic.
-Allowable passive lateral earth pressure on vertical faces of mat foundation.
-Estimate of deformation required to develop passive pressure for developing horizontal soil springs.
-Coefficient of friction on underside of mat foundation.

--Site Items
-Recommendations for site slab-on-grades such as sidewalks including recommended procedures for subgrade preparation and criteria for testing subgrade preparations for compliance with the specified procedures.
-Design values for cantilevered site retaining walls including: allowable and ultimate bearing pressures, active pressure, passive pressure, coefficient of friction, other surcharge criteria, appropriate combinations of resisting elements and methods of surcharge loading.
-Evaluate necessary groundwater control measures to be taken during construction.
-Evaluate necessary groundwater control measures to be taken after construction is complete (permanent dewatering, etc.).
-Provisions for the control and drainage of surface water.
-Estimate of potential impact of expansive soils and mitigation methods as required.
-Presence of alkali or other deleterious material in sufficient quantities to affect concrete or steel either during construction or after completion.
-Suitability of site excavated material for use as fill or backfill material and general availability of suitable off-site fill.
-Backfill and compaction requirements for excavated material and for engineered fill.

I would like to further develop the potential scope of work, but it appears I won't be finding any assistance within this group.

 

[DBNodurf]

ok, ok... you do have an excellent point; it is nice to have an idea how detailed the structural engineer needs the investigation to be before you develop the scope...

as the old adage goes, it isn't that we geotechs need better models in order to better predict soil behavior, its that we need higher quality data to put into the more-than-adequate models we already have.

The biggest problem is there are too many "engineers" out there that don't understand the inherent assumptions of their testing and investigation methodologies; there are too many "engineers" around here who try to develop a report around DCP "test" results, or try to predict settlement of any soil using SPT data and the Terzaghi SPT:settlement "correlation" which was developed for SANDS!

I wish soils professors would preface their Intro to Soils classes with the statement that it is for those who DON'T plan to be geotech engineers, rather than for those who do; those who don't tend to sleep thru it because they don't understand they need a basic understanding so they can interact better with the geotechs, etc.

let me think about your original question more and perhaps I can actually be of assistance!

Regards,

D. Bruce Nothdurft, MSCE, PE, PG, M.ASCE, etc, etc,...
Principal Engineer/Geologist
Atlantic Geoscience & Engineering
Charlotte, NC

 

[BigH]

btk1:

I am sure that almost all geotechnical engineers would love a proper scope of work coming from the structural or design consultant for which they could develop their programme. In my original thread, though, I was warning that many times some of these "generic" requests include everything plus the kitchen sink. In other words, the RFI includes unconfined compression tests to be done on all samples and 90% of the samples are sand. Such wording in an RFI is fraught with misunderstandings, then, and the level playing field doesn't exist.

You seem to be quite astute and are willing to go to the trouble of clearly elucidating the scope for the project - type(s) of structures, heights, loadings, basements, etc. In other words you are tailoring a RFI from a generic list whereby you strike out the unnecessary points (i.e., items on rock when all know that you have 150 ft of sand and clay deposits at the site). Such information is greatly appreciated and will most surely go to getting more of the geotechnical consultants to be "responsive".

Several lists of questions or points for identifying the deliverables (including yours) have been put forward. These are good to define the clear scope of the work.

Now, besides the types of deliverables you want (your lists), given that the field work the drilling with proper supervision by a trained geotechnical engineer or Sr. technician accounts for typically in the order of 50% to 60% of the geotechnical's cost, to ensure that all are on the same page, I would suggest that you should present the expected programme of work - say even to the extent of specifying the number of boreholes, depths, types of sampling, in situ tests, etc. so that all the consultants you ask know what is expected. Critically, the level of the field work is proportional to the experience of the data logger, you should insist strongly that all field work be logged by an experienced geotechnical engineer or Sr. field technician. To let the driller log the hole will lead to many problems - some of which I have put forth on other threads.

You, though, could also ask for alternative programmes from the geo consultants based on their experience and knowledge of the general site conditions.

Most geotechnical consultants, while they like to be sole-sourced to a project, realize that in most cases, bids are necessary evil - not by you, but generally by your client. Most of us have no problems with this and we, as a group, I opine, were not expressing a problem if you were to go and ask 2 to 4 consultants to submit their work programmes/proposals. I wouldn't take umbrage, even slightly, of any of the comments given by the geotechs in this regard.

I hope that this presents some additional thoughts to this thread. The complexity that you might end up with will, however, have covered every conceivable angle of every conceivable aspect of the geotechnical engineering field - then it will be a matter of striking off those items that aren't needed - and that may not be an easy thing to do.

- oops, and don't forget mold!!

 

[Focht3]

[blue]btk1[/blue]:
I hope that you are still with us. I have re-read this thread and would like to offer a few observations.

First, I would ask you to re-read your September 4, 2003 post. It seems clear what you were seeking. What is not clear, however, is what you have already developed and how you plan to use our input. Most of the geotechnical engineers on this forum have received what I will politely call "lazy RFPs." Requests for services that are all inclusive and will be chosen only on the basis of cost. (In my experience,) these usually come from architects and the large chain stores (Wal-Mart, Albertson's, Target, etc.) But a fair number come from structural engineers, too. Please understand that we are frustrated with these kinds of requests - they treat geotechnical engineering like a commodity, not engineering services.

Your September 24, 2003 post shows that you have put a good bit of thought into your RFP concept. I strongly suspect that you would have gotten a very different response had your September 4 post read more like your September 24 post. One post shows effort and thoughtfulness; the other is ambiguous (from our perspective.)

One final thought in this post: perhaps you should use the RFP items as more of a checklist to evaluate the completeness of the proposals you receive, prompting you to ask questions of the proposers. For example, your September 24 post included the following item:

-Static modulus of subgrade value for developing vertical soil springs for the following load cases: dead plus live, seismic.

Frankly, that item would be a real problem for me because there is no such thing as "the" value of soil modulus of subgrade reaction, or 'k value.' The k value depends on too many factors that are generally unknown when the geotechnical report is written, so it is impractical to ask for its inclusion in a geotechnical engineering design report. Unless the report is written essentially "after the fact." In my opinion, geotechnical engineers that provide k values in their design reports clearly don't understand what they are providing. That is, unless the report contains a lot of conditions and disclaimers about how that k value was developed - and what limited conditions it is good for. That usually doesn't happen...

I hope that you are still checking this thread - we can all learn from one another. But we can't continue the dialogue if you won't participate.

I look forward to your response.



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[Robert168]

Sudden and unpredictable changes in subsoils make a generic geotechnical scope of work, if there is, unusable.

 

[DBNodurf]

The most consistent thing about soil is its inconsistency!

D. Bruce Nothdurft, MSCE, PE, PG, M.ASCE, etc, etc,...
Principal Engineer/Geologist
Atlantic Geoscience & Engineering
Charlotte, NC

 

[eltiberon]

Btk 1,
It seems to me that you think the above posters are trying to be difficult. They are simply trying to let you know that there is not a generic scope of work
because there is not a generic job/site.

What I think you mean (?) is when you go to a geotech consultant with "this is what we know and this is what we need to know" you want to know what tests
they should be coming back with. I commend your desire to understand why they are recommending certain tests and to know if they are just speaking out of
their rears. (On the other hand, we get many requests from engineers for a certain test when it's not what they need at all because they don't know what it
actually does!)

It is better if you can work with one (or a small number of firms) so you can say "I want to know this" and they can reply with "To know that we need to
know this, this, and this. So we recommend these tests and this is why." That is why a good relationship can be so important. Unfortunately, a list of the
tests that could be used to determine each piece of information would be huge with all sorts of disclaimers and "if"s as factors change from job to job and site
to site.

One good place to start is what the area (city, county, state etc.) requires for the type of project proposed.

Hope this helps