Inadequate site investigation

A report by the Ground Board of the Institution of Civil Engineers on inadequate site and groundinvestigations leading to construction delays and additional costs

I Thomas Telford, London 1-

Published for the Institution of Civil Engineersby Thomas Telford Ltd, Thomas Telford House, 1Heron Quay, London E14 4JD First published 1991

A CIP cataloguing record for this report is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 7277 1645X

0 The Institution of Civil Engineers, 1991

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except forfair copying no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permisson of the publisher. Requests should be directed to the Publications Manager, Thomas Telford Ltd, Thomas Telford House, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. Printed in Englandby Faygate Printing Services, Faygate, Horsham, West Sussex.

Foreword
Continuing national disquiet concerning the late completion of construction projects and high-cost overruns which have been attributed to inadequate site investigations cannot be ignored. Something positivemust be done quickly to improve the situation. Factors influencing the outcome of site investigation include the initial pressures of time and money, and also the interrelationships and working climate between politicians, clients, land-owners, designers, site investigation specialists and main contractors, as well as the technical aspects of design, execution and interpretation of the results. First there must be an awareness programme to alert clients to the inherent risks associated with site investigation. Now, and in the future, it is vital that financial decision-makers appreciate that you pay for a site investigation whether you have one or not. Ground is a vital elementof most structures and as much care and attention should be given to itas is routinely given to the other aspects of the engineered structure.In this respect ground investigationisaninterdisciplinary subject and professionals with special training and experience in geotechnical engineering should be involved. It is essential to maintain a continuous thread of responsibility for the geotechnical input of a project, starting with the feasibility studies and extending through to project completion. In this report a series of national guidelines are proposed to encourage improved uniform practices in site and ground investigations in the UK . G. S. Littlejohn Chairman of the Ground Board February 1991

Acknowledgements
The Ground Board wishes to thank all the local associations and the secretariat of the Institution of Civil Engineers who devoted much time and effort to deliberations on which this report is based. The Boardis also deeply indebted to many organizations and individuals who provided helpful comments.

Contents
Principal findings, conclusions and recommendations 1 . Introduction 2. Scale and nature of the problem 2.1. Industrial buildings 2.2. Commercial buildings 2.3. Low-rise buildings 2.4. Roads and bridges 2.5. General remarks 3. Expenditure on site and ground investigations 4. Site and groundinvestigation practice 4.1. General 4.2. Procurement 4.3. Definition of contract work 4.4. Methods of obtaining tenders 4.5. Placing and defining responsibilities 4.6. Conditions of contract 4.7. Technical specifications 4.8. Planning and design 4.9. Execution and supervision 4.10. Interpretation and utilization of data 5. Contractual claims related to unforeseen ground conditions 6. Conclusions 7. Recommendations References Appendix 1.Guidelines on ground investigation practice Appendix 2. Criteria for the preselection of specialist contractors Appendix 3. Members of the Ground Board, ICE
1 2 2 2

3 4 5 5 6 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 16 17

18 19
19 22 24 25 26

Principal findings
Based on various reports over the past 25 years it has been shown that in civil engineering and building projects the largest element of technical and financial risk lies normally in the ground (sections 2 and 5). A statistical review of 5000 industrial building projects by the National Economic Development Office (NEDO) has shown that about half of the projects overran by one month or more. 37%of a representative group of 56 case study projects suffered delays due to ground problems. Without exception on second-hand sites unforeseen ground conditions were met during construction (section 2.1.1). In an analysis of 8000 commercial building projects, NEDO found that one third of the projects overran by more than a month; a further third overran studies by up to one month. 50%of a representative group of 60 on-site case suffered delays due to unforeseen ground conditions (section 2.2.1). Following a review of over 200 roads and bridges where early remedial costs 1 0 0OOO (1988 prices), the National Audit Office has expressed exceeded concern at the high costs associated with geotechnical problems. Geotechnical problems on eight road and six bridge projects resulted in extra work costing 18 million (section 2.4.1). On ten large highway construction projects, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has observed that the final cost wasaverage on 35%greater than the tendered sum. Half of this increase was due to inadequate planning of ground investigation or poorinterpretation of the results (section 2.4.1).

Principal conclusions
Clients are concerned about delays and escalating costs of construction U K . The delays are frequently attributed to inadequprojects throughout the ate site and ground investigations (section 2). It is not clear which factorsof the construction processcontribute to inadequate site investigation. In addition to the technical aspects of planning, execution and reporting, it is necessary to consider also the contractual environment between all parties (section 4.8). Most construction activities involving the ground are sufficiently close the to critical path for any delay to those activities to affect the whole project (section 5). The consequences of inadequate investigations are not only severe for the design and construction phases of a project but are even more serious when 2.5). continued into full-lifecosting (section Inadequate site investigations can arise from a lack of client awareness, inadequate finance, insufficient time and a lack of geotechnical expertise (section 4). Positive action must be taken now by the construction industry and clients its to improve this intolerable situation.

Principal recommendations
A geotechnical awareness programme should be organized for clients and engineers to highlight the significance of ground oncivil engineering and building projects and the benefits of executing site investigations, particularly with the involvement of a geotechnical specialist (sections 4.2, 4.9 and 7.1.1). A national specification and method of measurement for site and ground investigation should be introduced (sections 4.3,4.7 and 7.1.2).

A national procurement guide should be produced for clients,highlighting the essential aims and benefits of site investigation, and how these can be achieved by following appropriate procurement routes (sections 4.2 and 7.1.3). National guidelines on the extent and intensity of investigations should be published to indicate the minimum requirements for a complete range of construction projects (sections4.8 and 7.1.4 and Appendix 1). As a contractual requirement all investigations should be carried out under a formal quality assurance system (sections 4.9,7.1.5 and 7.6). All factual geotechnical reports which are relevant to a project should be made available to all the parties involved in the planning, design, tendering and construction of the project (sections 4.10 and 7.2).

1. Introduction
This report establishes the scale and nature of the problems of inadequate site and ground investigations * which lead to construction delays and additional costs. Current investigation practices are described with particular reference to procurement, design, execution and interpretation, from which conclusions have been drawn. Recommendations are made to improve practice for the benefit of the construction industry and its clients.

2 . Scale and nature of the problem

2.1. Industrial 2.2.1. Financzal

buildings

considerations

According to a report issued by NEDO,' industrial construction in the early 1980scomprised factories where most of the buildings were steel-framed single storey units, often with a two-storey office block. Of the 8000-9000 projects started each year, 66% cost less than 50 000 each, but these accounted for only 10%of the total output. Few projects were valued at more than 2 million. The total output for industrial building was valued at 2943 million in 1980, which represents 20% of all new construction, and 3020 million for 1987. Based on a statistical review of 5000 projects and a detailed analysis of 56 industrial projects completed during 1980-81,theNEDO report showed that the average duration of construction for industrial projects ranged from 5 months 1.5 million), (for projects costing 100 000) to 12 months (for projects costing and that about half of the projects overran their planned times by one month or more. Moreover, '37% of the case studies suffered delays due to ground problems -water, rock etc. -although such problems occurred on both fast and slow projects.' The report also noted that much industrial construction took placeon second-hand sites, and that 'Without exception these projects met unexpected ground conditions during construction.'In general, projectson greenfield sites were constructed up to 2 months faster than those on reused land. The sites in the cases reviewed often contained man-made obstructionssuch as foundations and services. Information about their nature and location was missing or inaccurate or had not been pursued with sufficient determination. Ground problems included soft spots in recycled ground and industrial waste which required piling, waterlogged ground, rock in ground, methane pollution, and ex-colliery waste which required deep compaction.

2.1.2. Physical

dificulfies

*
2

Site and ground investigations are defined i n section 4.1 where a ground investigation is part of the In practice, both terms are used frequently by non-specialists broader processof site investigation. to mean the same type of investigation.

Many of these incidents can be detected by deskstudy; nevertheless the client shouldbe madeawarethatitissfillpossibleforanunforeseenrisktooccurandthismust bejudged against its financial implications.

Comment

2.1.3. Conclusions Although the NED0 report observed that constructiondelays, caused by inadequate site investigations, were considerable, itconcluded that: 'variations due to unexpected site or soil conditions may be unavoidable' and as a COquence, argued that in any particular case a balance should be struck between the substantial cost of an exhaustive site investigation and the risk of extra cost and delay arising from an inadequate one. In this regard, the report found that 'practice tends to err the in direction of paying too little attentionto investigatory work.' As a result of the survey, the NEDO report recommended that as much information as possible should be obtained before asite is purchased. Furthermore, the design team should take full responsibility for advising on the need for and nature of site investigation.It was also suggested that separate contracts for site preparation could be helpful in ensuringthat any problems are dealt with at the appropriate stage.

2.2. Commercial

buildings 2.2 .l.Financial considerations

In the fast-growing commercial market-placeof multi-storey highly serviced buildings such as office and shopping developments, hotels, private hospitals and leisure centres, the total output in 1986 was valued at 4226 million. Of the lo00 such projects started each year, at that time 400 schemes represented over half of the total output and cost individually more than lmillion. Over half of all works were offices and another quarter were shopping developments. Demand was heavily concentratedin the South East and one third of the total work was in Greater London. studies, detailed informationon 260 other rojects Drawing on 60 on-site case and a statisticalanalysis of 8000 commercial building projects, NED$ found that 'unexpected ground conditions delayed one in two projects.' Besides unforeseen ground being encountered, other recorded problems included a site over an Underground station which produced piling difficulties, differential settlement which led to foundation problems, old underground chambers, tunnels and shafts, an unknown spring, site flooding which required groundwater lowering, the underpinning of an adjacentbuilding,rocky ground, a sloping site which proved difficult, undetected ground/groundwater conditions which led to change a in concrete design, existing massive foundations which could not be removed and wells.

2.2.2. Physical dificulties

Many of these incidents canbe detected by desk study.

Comment

2.2.3. Conclusions

The NEDOreport considered that although building sites were often difficult in terms of legal and planning requirements, as well as having demands and constraints imposed on the building operation by conditions on the ground, the most frequent explanation of overruns andlong delays (more than 10 weeks) was unforeseen obstacles in the ground. It was also noted that ground works and foundations for newbuildings can be time-consuming and absorb up to one third of the construction time (although only 10%of the contract value). According toNEDO, owners and developers take risks with conditions on their sites, and often investigations are inadequate. For example, mostground problems were unforeseen, either because a site investigation had failed to detect the problems or, more frequently, because the close follow-on of redevelopment after demolition did not leave room for thorough investigation of the site.
3

Clients should be persuaded that siteinvestigation should be undertaken for every site. Without a properlyprocured, supervisedand interpreted ground investigation, dangers which lie beneath the site cannot be known.

Comment

2 . 3 . Low-rise buildings 2.3.1. Financd considerations

According to the Building Research Establishment (BRE)3 little attention has been paid to ground conditions associated with low-rise buildings, such as domestic houses. Problems which are costly to solve have arisen because these buildings are normally founded on relatively simple foundations at shallow depths where the soil tends to be more variable and compressible than it is at depth. Furthermore, brick structures are particularly sensitive to differential foundation movements. The National House Building Council4pays out on claims having a total value of 5-11 million each year, over half of which are related to geotechnical problems. Traditionally, expenditure on ground investigations has amounted to 0.10.2% of construction costs? Mostof this small investment has been spent on a limited number of trial pits and boreholes. The BRE has described a variety of ground problems related to low-rise buildings (see Table 1) which were associated with particular combinations of site conditions, ground conditions and the design of the buildings.
Table 1. Groundproblems and low-n'se buildin2 Differential settlement or heave of foundations or floor slabs Soft spots under spreadfootings on clays Growth orremoval of vegetation on shrinkable clays Collapse settlements on preexisting made ground Mining subsidence Self-settlement of poorly compacted fill Floor slab heave on unsuitable fill material Soil failure Failure of foundations on very soft subsoil Instability of temporary or permanent slopes Chemical processes Groundwater attack on foundation concrete Reactions due to chemical waste or household refuse Variations during construction Removal of soft spots to increase depth of footings Dewatering problems Piling problems

2.3.2. Physical dificulties

A significant number of ground problems for low-rise buildings arise due to lateral movements which are often ignored (see ref. 6).

Comment

2.3.3. Conchsions

The BRE concluded that thorough ground investigationswere most important for low-risedevelopment, and that with limited finance available for trial pits and boreholes more effort should be concentrated on desk studies, including air photographic interpretation, during the initial site investigation. For example, air photographs could be used to detect slope instability and old Ordnance Survey maps might highlight contaminated or infilled ground. Some form of desk study was considered by the BRE to be a prerequisite for any competent foundation design for any structure, however small.
Desk studies and routine ground investigations should be planned and interpreted by,

Comment

or with theassistance of, ageotechnical specialist, i.e. aprofessional with special training and experience in geotechnical engineering.
4

The interpretation ofaerial photographs is not a routine practice and training will be requiredto protide thenecessay skills.
2.4. Roads and

bridges 2.4.1. Financial considerations

The Department of Transport, the Scottish Development Department and the 1000million Welsh Office (the transport departments) together spent well over in 1988-89 on the construction and maintenance of the national road system which covers 9500 miles of motorways and trunk roads and 14 500 bridges and other structures. Within their design lives all roads and bridges require maintenance, but in a number of cases the transport departments have incurred substantial expenditure onmaintenance and repair earlier than was expected at the time of construction. Following a review of 210 roads and bridges with remedial costs which O O , the National Audit Office (NAO) in 198g7noted eight road exceeded 100O and six bridge projects where geotechnical problems resulted in extra work costing in total 18 million. The NAO examined the procedures for identifying and analysing the causes of expenditure on premature maintenance, and expressed 'concern at the high remedial costs associated with geotechnical problems.'

Geotechnical problems can arise from several factors such as poor design, bad comtruction implementation and poor routine maintenance, as well as inadequate ground investigation. The problem of inadequate ground investigation has also been highlighted by Tyrrell et a18 Based on an analysis of ten large highway constructionprojects,
they found that 'the final cost was on average 35% greater than the tendered sum, and half of this increase was directly attributable to inadequate planning or interpretation of ground investigation.'

Comment

This inadequate planning is considered to be ground investigation planning. High remedial costs can be misleading, as they frequently ignore additional costs which would have been incurred in any event to deal with theadverse condifions.The report by Tyrrell et al. was based on projects carried out in the 2970s and early 2980s. Ifi s understood that the2990 final cost was on average 28% greater than the tendered sum.

Comment

2.4.2. Physical difficulties

2.4.3. Conclusions

The NAO report stated that inadequate ground investigationsled, for example, to the use of unsuitable materials, or poor drainage causing embankment failures and, while designs were altered, delays in construction. As a result of its survey, the NAO recommended that the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office should carry out cost-benefit analyses to review whether or not spending more on site investigations would save money in the long run.

Bearing in mind that earthworks and pavement foundations represent major cost elements of highway schemes, there have been suggestions that the transport departments should ernploygeofechnicalspecialistsinall their regional offices. In this way the departments can ensurea geotechnical presence throughout the planning,design and construction of each project.

comment

2.5. General remarks

None of the national reports referred to report what site or ground investigations, if any, were carried out. It is therefore not possible to diagnose any inadequacies associated with the site investigation or ground assessment or their extent.
5

Another unknown in relation to constructiondelays is the amount of experience that the planning/site management teams had and thereforethe likelihood of their being able to carry out the work in the proposed time-scale. Many clients express dissatisfaction with the quality of site and ground investigation work and value for money.9 It may be readily argued that inadequate investigations lead to delay and increased engineering costs but, more important, such inadequacies can seriously affect the full-life financial performance of a structure. Their effect on internal rate of return, cash flow and other economic parameters should be determined to demonstrate the overall risks involved. Despite the uncertainties involved, the amount of material sampled from the ground influencing, or influenced by, the structure is invariably low compared with the testing, considered routine and rarely questioned, for the quality control of concrete and steel. This inconsistency is not logicalwhen the ground forms part of the engineered structure. It is not realisticto expect asite or ground investigation to revealconditions in their entirety, but provided the data areanalysed and interpreted correctly such investigationswill reduce the level of residual risk associated with unfore seen conditions to one which is recognized as tolerable within the project in terms of the consequences of such events. Risk analysis, as a management tool, should be considered byengineers to demonstrate in financial terms the benefits of comprehensive site and ground investigations. Programs could be generated to quantify the effects of ground investigations on the cost and time uncertainties of geotechnical activities. Ground conditions may be divided into two categories: natural and manmade. Unforeseen natural conditions include strata or substances not discovered by investigatory work, whereas unforeseen man-made conditionsmay also result from the way engineers interpret ground investigation data or model the groundfor design or construction purposes. In either category it should be appreciated that geotechnical engineering knowledge of the ground conditions depends on the extent and quality of the ground investigations. Such knowledge and the control of workmanship are more significant to fulfillingthe fundamental requirements than is the precision used in calculation models and the choice of safety factors." Given the scale of the perceived ground-related problems which have been highlighted in reports on buildings and highways, there is clearly a need the for profession toexamine ways in which more clients may obtain better long-term value for money.

3. Expenditure on site and ground investigations

The Economic Development Committee for Civil Engineering (EDCCE) observed in 1968" that there was little scope for reducing prices in ground investigation without seriously impairing the quality of the work. Since that date, Uff and ClaytonI2have reported that, in real terms, prices havebeen forced down further, so that investigation today is often basedon minimum cost and maximum speed. This inevitably increases the risk of poor quality work. Based on the results (54% returns) of a questionnaire survey conducted in 1987 by the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, many organizations have estimated their expenditure on site investigation as a percentage of total project costs.I3 Other r e p ~ r t s ' ~ ' ~site o n investigationcosts have been used to calculate the amountsactually spent by clients. These estimates are shown in Table 2 together with the average percentages reported by clients. There is a wide variation in financial allocation to site investigation among the different types of client and consultant. This should not be so if the basic requirement is to produce satisfactory guidance to the project designer. The
6

investment parameters should relate to the project, notthe views or callingof the professionals involved. All consumer groups perceive the costs of site investigation to exceed real costs by a considerable margin. this In regard, consumers were also asked if they thought that sufficient money was spent on site investigation. Of those who replied nearly 50% thought that on average the amount spentshould be more than doubled.
Table 2. Funding of site investigation projects aas percentage of total project costsz3
Consumer Questionnaire replies: mean % spent Calculated: % spent

clients Government authorities

Manufacturing/commerce Civil engineering contractors Developers/builders Consultants Architects Multidiscipline consultants Civil engineers Structural engineers

2.21 0.76
0.85

0.72
0.29

0.29 0.22 0.23 0.11

0.14
0.23

0.92 1.94 0.23

0.29

Average

0.W

0.16 0.21

In judging routinely what cost should be allocated tosite investigation it has been suggested that a funding range (expressed as a percentage of the total project costwhere known) should be recommended.As an example,the BRE5 recommends a minimum figure of 0.2% for small projects such as low-rise buildings. Such recommendations on minimum spending could give practical backing tothe professionals when they propose a scale of investment. The solution to the problem, however, is not justto spend more moneyon more ground investigation. In many cases, greater benefits for the client can be obtained at little or no extra cost simply by better planning of the investigation using a geotechnical specialist (see also section4.8). Much money can be wasted by covering sites with regular grids of boreholes and extensive programmes of routine tests, rather than targeting investigations towards areaswhere information is required and by using more appropriate methods of investigation. The client or the project management team often does not employ a geotechnical specialist (see section 4.2) and may therefore not always appreciate the significance of appropriate and adequate ground investigations. As a consequence, insufficient time and/or money are allocated for a realistic ground investigation. On occasions clients without a geotechnicalawareness present ground investigation reports of one investigation for a different development on the same site. In such circumstances the client is often unwilling to pay for further investigation.
Given the additional expense often associated with inadequate investigations, it is apparent that initial payment is usually achieved via insurance claims. The costs of insurance provision are borne directly by the industry and ultimately by the client.The

Comment

have one or not'. adage is 'you pay for a site investigation whether you

4. Site and ground investigation practice

4 . 1 . General
A site investigation is an essential preliminary to construction, by which geotechnical and other relevant information which might affect the construction or performanceof a civil engineeringor building project is acquired. In accordance with current UK guides to good practice (e.g. BS 593018), the primary aims of a site investigation include

(a) to advise on the relative suitability of different sitesor distinct areas of

one site for the positioning of structures or services

(b) to allow adequate and economic design of both temporary and permanent works (c) to discover and evaluate possible problems in the construction of both temporary and permanent works ( d ) to reduce the risk of unforeseen ground conditions, thereby decreasing the likelihood of changesin design and constructionmethods, delaysand consequent claims (e) to appraise likely changes in the environmentalconditionsof the site and adjacent areas due to the construction and operation of the project.
A site investigation will normally proceed through the following stages

(a)desk study (examinationof existing information about the site including

the engineering geology) (b>site reconnaissance (visual examination of the site and its environment) (c)preliminary ground investigation, if judged appropriate, to facilitate the design of the detailed ground investigation ( d ) detailed ground examinationfor design and construction (ground investigation, topographic and hydrographic survey and special studies) (e)supplementary investigations during construction. The ground investigation is the physical examination of a site and provides geotechnical data which are representative of the subsurface conditions and relevant to the Ground investigation usually involves drilling, boring and digging trial pits, together with in situ sampling and testing, and laboratory testing. Geophysical exploration may alsobe used. With the increasing use of marginal and derelict land, geochemical explorations may be included to determine the level of contamination?' . Guidelines on groundinvestigation practice are listed in Appendix 1

BS 5930, published in 1981, is not sufficiently specific to ensure consistent good practice. For example, under sampling procedure (clause 19.4.2) the drop weight or sliding hammeris not defined in terms of location, weight or stroke and yet these details are important to ensure thatthere is no pull-back during driving. Although important, theshortcomings of BS 5930 are not considered to beasserious as a lack of competent supervisionand reporting of site investigationdata (see sections 4.9 and 4.10). Although thereisacaseforfheupdatingofBS5930,theBritishSfandardsInstitution (BSI) is concentrating its support on Eurocode 7.l' As a member bodyof the Comite' nao or updated British standEuropien de Normalisation, the BSI will encourage not ards if thesame subject is to be covered by European standards. Given this strategy, the construction industry should encourageits geotechnical specialists to participate in the work of the European drafting groups of Eurocode 7. The topic and scopefor each group is expected to be agreed Ey the Eurocode 7 Panel in 1991. All such work should be organized through the BSI International Geotechnics Co-ordinating Committee. If the draft directive on civil liability for damage caused by wastt? is implemented, there will be an increased need for ground investigations to include chemical and
8

Cornme@

biological information. In this regard, ground monitoring techniques should be developed which are capable of measuring low concentrations of contaminants. Research in collaboration with environmental scientistsshould also be encouraged for theevaluation of contaminant concentrationlevels which are considered safe.
The EDCCE report" identified methods of competition and conditions of contract as causesof poor ground investigation,and it ofis considerableconcern to note that nearly 20 years later, Uff and Clayton12highlighted the following primary causes for shortcomingsin ground investigation

(a)unfair or unsuitable methods of competition (b)inappropriate conditions of contract (c)inefficient and inadequate supervision ( d ) inadequate and unenforceable specifications of work.
These aspects of ground investigation practice are now reviewed.

4.2.

Procurement

Table 3 shows the frequency with which different categories of client instigate site investigation services in the UK. It is shown that private consultants and government authorities are responsible for 60% of the market. Once a site investigation has been commissioned, the client's appointed manager, whether an in-house member of staff, an independent consultant or a specialist contractor,has overall responsibility for the suitability of the site investigation procedure. Table 4 lists the types of site investigation manager used in the UK and by government authorities.
Table 3. Site investigation commi~sionin$~

Category of client Private consultants Government authorities Manufacturingindustry

Commerce Civil engineeringcontractors

Frequency of instigation:%
35 25 4 7 11 15 3

Developers/builders
Others

Table 4. Managers of site investigation projects13

Site investigation manager

Government: %
5 0.5
18

National:%
9 7 12 33 30 4 5

Architect Project manager Site investigationfirm Civil engineer Structural engineer Geotechnical personnel Other

38.5 20 9 9

The national figures show that only 16% of projects are managed by geotechnicalspecialists, i.e. the use of qualified and experienced geotechnical managers is the exception rather than the rule. Uff and ClaytonI2 state that the fundamental cause of shortcomings in the ground investigationindustry liesin the methodsof procurement used,because they inhibit the proper use of expertise and allow those involved to take on duties which they are unable to perform. They recommend that there should be an identified,experienced, well-qualified geotechnical engineer associated with every project from conception to completion. Two suitable systems of procurement are also identified

(a)system 1:the use of a geotechnicaladviser with the separate employment

of a contractor for physical work, testing and reporting as required

(b) system 2: the use of a single contract for geotechnical expertise together
with physical work,testing and reporting. Whichever system is adopted, the design professional and any geotechnical adviser should pay particular regard to the need for careful preselection of tenderers, and to the limits on the number of tenders which are invited. The preselection of tenderers should be based on the same criteria for all (see Appendix 2). Clients should be advised that when procuring a ground investigation it is contrary to theirlong-term financial interest to attempt to obtain work at prices lower than those which would result from selective tendering.

For site investigation projects which involve consultants withgeotechnical expertise, system 1 has been used successfully for many years. There is no evidence to suggest that system 2 has been widely implemented for routine site investigation work across the
UK. A national procurement guideshould be produced for clients which highlights the

Comment

essential aims and benefits of site investigation, and how these can be achieved by following appropriate procurement routes.
The majorelements which makeup a system of procurement are

(a)the way in which the contract workis defined (b)the method by which an acceptable tender is obtained (c)the placing and definition of responsibility
These elements are now described.

4.3. Definition of contract work

The form of contract is usually a choice between method and end result; most contracts are based on the former. Incurrent practice, undue emphasis appears to be placed on physical work and its quantity and it is not adequately appreciated that the quality or reliability of the data produced is dependent on the degree of supervision and control. Where the work is defined by method and quantity one of two pricing mechanisms is normally encountered: a bill of quantities coupled with a specified method of measurement, or a schedule of rates for the provision of plant and personnel. The first method is the more common, but Uff and Clayton12 state that the technical specifications covering working methods and test procedures are usually insufficiently detailed, so that they permit rejection of only the most obviously deficient work.

Without a basis of common standards of work, specialist contractors complain of unfair competition, I n the absence ofproperly defined specifications and standards, and without adequate enforcement through supervision, fhe sfandard of investigation work produced is unpredictable (see also section 4.7).
4.4. Methods of

Comment

obtaining tenders

Both the EDCCE"and U f f and Clayton12have recommended the discontinuation of open competitive tendering based on price alone.To illustrate how the industry responded during 1983-87,Table 5 shows that there has been a significant increase in the use of selective competitive tendering by most consumers. The trend is encouraging, and selective tendering on the basis of some form of specification and bill of quantities is the most frequent method of procurement in the UK?2

10

Often used:% Private consultant Open tendering 1987 Open tendering 1983 Selective tendering 1987 Selective tendering 1983 Negotiation 1987 Negotiation 1983 Government Open tendering 1987 Open tendering 1983 Selectivetendering 1987 Selective tendering 1983 Negotiation 1987 Negotiation 1983 Manufacturinglcommere Open tendering 1987 Open tendering 1983 Selective tendering 1987 Selective tendering 1983 Negotiation 1987 Negotiation 1983 Contractors Open tendering 1987 Open tendering 1983 Selective tendering 1987 Selective tendering 1983 Negotiation 1987 Negotiation 1983

Sometimes used:% 16 4 14 15 48 22 2 18 25 55 25 46
11

Rarely used:%

Never used:%

7 0 80 59 19 45 4 18 54 18 6 9
0 0 22 14 22 29

16 0 2 7 10 7 17 0 2 0 17 18 22 0
11

61 96 4 19 23 26 77 64 19 27 52 27 67 86 34 43 12 14 64 69 28 48 52 27

14 33 43 33 43 6 0 20 20 25 46

0 33 14

15 22 35 28 6 9

15 9 17 6 17 18

Table 5. Comparison of procurement methods 1983-8?3

Six or more tenders are usually invited from contractorschosen by the engineer or client, on the basis of their reputation, ability to carry out the work or past performance. The client is then virtually bound to acceptthe lowest tender.

In spite of the encouraging trend,preselection is not applied systematically and some clients still ask for local companies to be placed on lists of tenderers. These contractors may be relatively inexperienced, and their inclusion leads to long tender lists, and inhibits serious bidding by specialist contractors. Longunbalanced lists lead to wildly fluctuating prices and quality. Preselection doesnot work unless all the tenderers are selected by the same searching criteria (see Appendix 2).

Comment

4.5. Placinand de lning responsibilities

The contractual arrangements commonly used in ground investigation make it difficult to determine theextent of the responsibilitiesundertakenby eachparty: the investigation contractor, the engineer and the client. In addition, the variability of ground and groundwater, which influences procedures, makes it difficult toidentify the source of any error or omission. These factors, coupled with the practice of defining contractual obligations by reference toactivities rather than the quality of results, often make it practically impossible to apportion blame.
1 1

In terms of responsibility, Uff and Clayton12conclude that the client is best served by dealing with only one contracting party, so that there is no doubt about responsibilities.

Irrespective of the fom of contract, a prerequisite is a clearidentification and definition i s based of the responsibilities of each party to the contract. For example, if the contract s on a performance specification for field instrumentation the investigation contractor i clearly responsible. A method statement, however, tends place to the responsibility with the engineer.
4.6. Conditions
Ground investigations are frequently carried out under the ICE Conditions of

Comment

of contract

~ontract.2~
The results of the survey reported by Peacock and Whyte13showed that 30% of consumers used no formal conditions of contract, and fewer than 14% of replies mentioned the ICE Conditionsof contract for ground in~estigafion?~ Both ICE forms of contract require the designation of an engineer who is assumed to provide a full design for the investigation and the necessary supervision for the work. Under these conditions the contractor's duties in relation to the implementation and management of the site investigationoperations do not extend to ensuring suitability of the work. In other cases, the client may not appoint an independent engineer or the consulting engineer may have limited geotechnical knowledge. such In circumstances the control and direction of the investigation work may be left to the contractor. On small contracts, for example,the client may invite quotations directly from specialist site investigation contractors. In practice, the form of contract varies; there is often no standard specification,although the contractor may offer hisown specification,and supervision of the work is usually carried in the standard form out by the contractor.These circumstances are not reflected of contract (ICE Conditionsof Contract, 5th edn).

The ICE Conditions of contract for ground investigation indicate that in the absence of an independent engineer, the client should nominate an appropriate individual to act as the engineer who may,for instance, be employed by the contractor. It is further assumed that geotechnical specialists wilf be involved in the work. When used, the ICE ground investigation contract works satisfactorily and there is little justification in repfacin this o m of contract by the flexible model contract 35 f proposed by Barnes and Perry. Providing theseruices of a geotechnical specialist are part of the contract management, the wording of the various conditionsof contract is not a significant contributory factor to the adequacy of site investigation.
4.7. Technical specifications
Government departmentsand rofessional bodies have published specifications for ground investigation19,q627 which provide excellent guidelines. However, engineers do not follow them as a routine procedure. In current practice the technical requirements of the quality of work are often covered by reference to the procedures recommended in B S 593018for site work and BS 137728for laboratory testing. Alternatively,a specification maybe put together using abstracts from several specifications; this often leads to ambiguities, errors and omissions. It is clear that there is no commonly accepted standard specification, and on small projects the contract documentation may not include a specification. In reviewing the Department of Transport (DTp)and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) specifications for ground i n ~ e s t i g a t i o n ' a ~ working #~~ party of the Association of Geotechnical Specialists29concludedthat a new national specification should be produced, to be acceptable to the full range of professionals in the civil engineering and building industries.

Comment

12

The new specification should be prepared using the ICE specificationas the base document, and comprehensive notes for guidance should be included. DTp features such as accredited drillers, access and reinstatement responsibilities, and comprehensive data on sampling, in situ testing and laboratory testing should be added. Furthermore, the specification should be extended to cover topics such as contaminated ground, geophysics, work over water, traffic management, computerized data andquality assurance requirements.

A single national specificationwith appropriate notes for guidance would greatly reduce by tenderers in becoming familiar with different documents. It the time currently spent would also reduce the potential for inappropriate tendzrs due to misinterpretation of the various documents. There is a need for a nationally accepted specificationwhich can be easily understood by site operatives andis enforceable by supervisoy staff. The specification should bemodular. I t should define thelimits of accuracy, quality of materials, equipment to be used and detailed operational procedures. In the absence of clearly and properly defined contract specifications, and without their adequate enforcement through supervision, the standard of ground investigation work willbe unpredictable.

Comment

4.8. Planning

and design

Site investigations oftensufferfrom the rush and tumble associated with planning pressures, provision of access, last-minute changes in scheme layout and construction deadlines. There appears to be an inadequate appreciation by clients, planners and administrators of the importance of site investigation and the need toallow adequate time for its planning, design and execution. It is also vital that the site investigation should be directly relevant to' the final lines and levels of the project. Schemes change as a result of political and environmental influences, such as those produced at public inquiries, and geotechnical design may depend on the extrapolation of site investigation data derived for other locations. Where sea outfall tunnels or roads are constructed along changed routes or buildings are repositioned, the original site investigations may have been fit for their intended purposes but may not be relevant for the projects in their new positions. There is a failure to realize that ground is complex and even when strata inconsistencies becomeapparent further investigation is often omitted. There is frequently a lack of flexibility in the design approach to site and ground investigations. Only small investigations can be controlled adequately by one person. Normally site and ground investigations, and subsequent geotechnical design, require input from geotechnical specialistswith different skills and expertise, e.g. a geotechnical engineer, an engineering geologist, a geophysicist and a groundwater hydrologist. Ground investigation is an interdisciplinarysubject, and the differences in the experience of such specialists must be appreciated if the design of investigations is to beimproved. In current practice, ground investigations are carried out primarily to provide data for use in the design of permanent works. Thedesign requirements for temporary works are generally different from those for permanent works and the sampling and laboratory testing carried out may be insufficient for the former. The separation of the site exploration team from those responsible for the design and constructionof the project can lead to poor communicationbetween the various disciplines, which may in turn lead to a lack of awareness or appreciation of the requirements of others. It is vitally important to recognize the links between site investigation, planning, design and construction.

13

It i s a prerequisiteof all successful projects that adequate time and funding be devoted to site investigation. At the planningstage, extreme care must be taken to establish the correct contractual environment to ensure an effective interrelationship between the s client, site investigation specialist, engineering designer and main contractor. I t i thought by some that thisis not always the case. Site and ground investigations should be conducted as operations of discovery. Investigations shouldproceed in logical stages and planning should be flexible so that work canbe varied as necessa y in the light of new information.'8 In other words, after each stage of a site investigation it should be possible to assess the degree of uncertainty that remains in relation to vital aspects of the ground. This observational approach should allow the best engineering strategyto be developed. The important phasingof investigations will be easier to implement if the client is advised at the outsetthat phasing may be a contingency requirement. Designers of site and ground investigationsshould attempt to answer the following questions.
(a) What is known about the site? (b) What is not known about the site? (c) Whatneeds to be known?

Comment

A person who cannot adequately answer all these points probably has insufficient expertise to design the investigation. A provisional bill of quantities and associated specification forfurther investigation

works should be provided in the main contract documents, so that clients and enginens can instigate in an orderly way investigations which mayin the long run prove to be beneficial economically to both the client and the contractor, and also the project as a whole. If designers of investigations were to assess the cost of each week's delay during construction caused by unforeseenground conditions,it would enable them to influence the level of site investigation activity. Those with the whole of the view project available to them would be less likely to follow a predetermined patternof investigation which takes little account of the consequences of non-discovery of obstructivefeatures.
An important trend is the increasing sensitivity of construction methods to ground conditions. For example, different tunnelling methods have different sensitivities to variations of the ground. Major costs may be incurred when a tunnel-boring machine encounters ground with properties for which it not was designed, but hand methods of tunnelling can often be varied without excessive cost. Certain piling and ground improvement methods can present the same problems. In order to establish minimum requirements for the extent and quality of ground investigations, Eurocode ' ' 7 recommends that the difficulty and complexity of each geotechnicaldesign should be clearly identified.To facilitate this, three geotechnical categoriesare defined. Eurocode 7 further states that ground investigations should be planned to take into account the construction and performance requirementsof the proposed structure. However, designenmust be aware that complex ground conditions associated with relatively simple structures may still lead to construction or performance inadequacies, and so a flexible approach is necessary in all situations.

National guidelines on the extent, intendyand quality ofground investigationsshould be produced for theben+ of clients, plannersand engineers. These guidelines should follow the philosophy of Eurocode 7 on geotechnical categories. Thepracticeof havingonlyonepersonor organization co-ordinatingall thedecisions with respect toground investigationonanyoneproject is recommended (seealsosection 4.5).The decisions should be relatedto the project design, and takeaccount of construction methods where these are known.
14

Comment

Valuable information can be obtained from desk studies at low cost, but insufficient attention is given tothis preliminary phase of a routine site investigation. A guide to the information required in desk studies is provided in BS 593018and a list of sources is given by Dumbleton and West?' As an example, the routine check-list recommended by the B E 3 for desk studies associated with low-rise building is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Desk study checklist for low-rise building3 Topography, vegetationand drainage Does the site lie on sloping ground, and if so what is the maximum slope angle ? Are there springs, ponds or watercourses on or near the site ? Are there or were there trees or hedges in the area of proposed construction ? Is there evidence of changes in ground level, e.g. by placement of fill or by the demolition of old structures ? Ground conditions What geologicalstrata lie belowthe site and how thick are they ? What problems are known to be associatedwith this geological context ? Is the site covered by alluvium, glacial till(boulder clay) or any possible soft deposits? Is there available information on the strength and compressibility of the ground ? Is the subsoil a shrinkable clay ? Does experiencesuggest that groundwater in these soil conditions may attack concrete ? Is there evidence of landslipping either on or adjacent to the site or on similar ground nearby ? Is there, or has there ever been, mining or quarrying activity in this area ? Are there coal seams under the site ? The proposed structure What area will the buildings occupy ? What foundation loading is specified How sensitive is the structure likely to be to differential foundation movements ? What soilsinformation is required for the design of every likely type of foundation ? Is specialist geotechnical skill required ?
~ ~ ~~ ~~

Invaluable information can often be obtainedfrom an investigation of geology, geomorphology, aerial photographs and archival research. Theseshould be essential steps in any deskstudy. Additional ground types (e.g. limestones which are subject to dissolution, peat or contaminated ground) could be included in the check-list to provide early warning of potentially difficult ground conditions.
With reference detailed to ground investigation, monitoring of groundwater is often totally inadequate and greater use of piezometers is recommended in order to identify water levels and monitor their movements. Since there is a general tendency to underestimate the importance of piezometric data in d e sign, piezometers in sealed response zones should be installed as a matter of course in most boreholes. An understanding of hydrogeology is also needed. In thepast little attention has been paid on a routine basis to the chemical arise due compositionand physical microstructureof the ground. Problems can to inadequate consideration of mineralogy because the potential effects of chemical and physical changes (e.g. moisture variations) may not be identified by traditional laboratory tests. Examples of such ground problems include softening of lime stabilization, expansion of bentonitic fractions of volcanic rocks, alkali silica reactions and different forms of sulphate attack. Increased use of ground probing (e.g. piezoconesounding andgeophysical techniques) should be encouraged to help with the interpolation of ground strata between boreholes, and to try to locate anomalies.

Comment

15

Sampling and delineation of soft materials often require sophisticated methods, but a great deal of useful information could be gained by greater use of simple hand tools such as probe penetrometers and vane testers.

Recent@ developed in situ testing techniques using self-boring pressuremeters and dilafometers should be exploifed more in ground invesfigafionpractice. In order f o be cost-effective, such tests should be specified andsupervised by geotechnical specialists.
4.9. Execution and supervision

Comment

Although no distinction is drawn in the ICE forms of c ~ n t r a c ? ~ # in ~the ~ oACE r Conditions of Engagement?' the type and degree of supervision required in ground investigation is different from that required during a construction project. Inthe latter case, it is generally sufficient for supervision to detect any defect in the finished work before itis covered up. In ground investigation, supervision should ideally be continuous if inadequacy is to be detected. For example, a good quality standard penetration test requires attention not only to the test equipment and method of test, but also to the method of boring to reach the test location, the position of the casing relative to the bottom of the boring, and the water levels within the boring, beforeand during the test. The end product is a number, the accuracy of which can be known only if all these matters have been observed,reported on and considered. For supervision to be effective, the person towhom it is entrusted should

(a) be fullyaware of the aims of the investigation and the expected ground
conditions

(b)be experienced and competent in the field and laboratory techniques in

Use

(c)have delegated powers to alter the size and scope of the investigation as
it proceeds.'2

Supervision of ground investigation can becarried out only when the work is in progress. In this way the detailed procedures can be monitored continuously and the supervisor can amend, if necessary, the scope of the investigation as it proceeds. The supervisor should have geotechnical expertise and experience, u s well as practical knowledge of different exploration techniques. The training needs of site investigation superoisors and the current training pm'sion by the investigation industry should beassessed by the Association of Geotechnical Specialists, the British Drilling Association or other appropriate bodies.
Efforts have been made to publicize UK geotechnical expertise including the personnel employed in ground investigation, e.g. ref. 32. Through the British Drilling Association's accreditation scheme for drillers and the National Measurement Accreditation Service for laboratories, the quality of personnel, equipment and procedures should improve. One way to test that procedures are adequate is to subjectthem to a quality assurance system. Quality assurance, as defined by BS 5750p3 is gradually gaining acceptancein the UK constructionindustry and the Government, which funds a substantial proportion of site investigation in the U K , is actively promoting the use of Britishstandards and quality systems. The quality assurance systemfor the site investigationmust includeeveryone involved, fromdriller to client, and should be part of a quality assurance s y s t e m for the whole project, so that site investigation is not divorced from the design and construction phases of the project. Quality assurance has been an integral part of offshore site investigation for many years and was greatly refined through experience in the North Sea. A BSI quality assessment schedule relating to ground investigations and foundations sets out common quality practices forthe site investigationindustry?3
16

Comment

Since all new constructionhas to consider ground conditions, for the purposes of both design and construction, it is likely that there are too few professional gwtechnical engineers and engineering geologists working in the UK construction industy. To assess the situation it would be useful if an organization such as the Associationof GeotechnicalSpecialists could establish how manygeotechnical specialistsare currently working and potentially available to the industy, compared with market needs (e.g. the number of projects startedeach year). If a shortfall is confirmed more courseson site investigation technology should be introduced into undergraduate and continuing professional development programmes for civil engineers, architects, builders and planners.
4.10.
Boreholes provide only a microview of the ground at their specific locations.

Comment

Interpretation Interpretation of the ground conditions between boreholes is a matter of judgeand utilisation ment by the engineer and/or geologist basedon his knowledge and experience. of data Ground investigation data should be interpreted by experienced people and
the results should be assessed during the period of the site work, thereby enabling any necessary additional work to be carried out. Adequate time needs to be given to tenderers for main works if they are to assess thoroughly the data provided. A large amount of factual data can begenerated by aground investigation, which a tenderer has to assimilatedurirlg the tender period. The time-scale may show that the tenderer does not have adequate resources to assess thoroughly all the data. There is evidence of inadequate communication of ground datato the contractor which has led to incorrectassumptions by the contractor as to the best methods for carrying out the ground andfoundation work. With the implementation of Eurocode 7, the geotechnical engineer may in future be required to produce a geotechnical report which will vary greatly depending on the type of design. For simple designs, a single sheet may suffice. The report will normally include

(a)a description of the site, its past history, usage and surroundings (b) a description of the ground conditions (c)a description of the proposed construction, including actions ( d ) design valuesof soil and rock properties, including justification (e)statements on safety requirements (p list of items to be checked during constructionor requiring maintenance. Although a controversial proposal, it is the view of the Ground Board that all factual geotechnical data, and wheneuer available a separate interpretative report relevant to the project, should be made available to all tenderers who place relianceon ground data. This would give tenderers theopportunity toform apictureof thesiteconditions without having to wade through just the factual data. Such an interpretative report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, should describe only theground conditions and the groundwater regime,and give a summa y of the enginemngproperties relatingto thernaterialspresent. Theinterpretativereportshould notincludedesignrecommendationsconcemingparameterssuchasearthpressuresand bearing capacities rehted to earthworks, foundations and retaining walls. A nationally accepted methodof digitizing factual ground data on to floppy disks for computer processing and transfer from one organization to another would facilitate assessment by geotechnical specialists both for the designer of the works and tenderers. I t would enable easy and rapid data searching and subsequent plottingof ground strata and laboratory test results. As an example, the computer could be instructed via a processingprogram tosearch thedatabaseforand plot undrainedshearstrengthagainst depth for a particular stratum.
17

Comment

Given considerations of copyright the transfer of such information should be made only tothose organizations involved in the project. Other groups might negotiate with of an investigation. the owner for the factual results

5. Contractual claims related to unforeseen

ground conditions
When unforeseenground conditionsoccur during construction, they may result in a change in the permanent works, the temporary works or the method of construction. If the permanent works are affected, the engineer will be obliged toissue a variation to the contract and award an extension of time if the contract is likely to be delayed beyond the contract completion date. Some risk of unforeseen ground conditions is therefore borne by the client. If the contractors temporary works or methods of construction are affected, the contractor may have to make a claim for additional money and extension of time. The claim will usually be decided on in relation tothe ground conditions 23, that could reasonably have been foreseen by an experienced contractor (ref. 5th edn, clause 12). Clause 11 of the ICE Conditions of Contract, 5th states that the contractor,before submitting his tender, must satisfy himself as to the nature of the ground so far as is practicable. In realityit is not normally practicable for contractors to carry out their own pre-contractground investigationswithin the time-scale of the tender period. They invariably have to rely on the ground investigation data supplied to them at the time of tender. Some riskof unforeseen ground conditions is therefore borne by the contractor. Any delay due to unforeseen ground conditions may lead to the disruption of other construction activities and delay the whole of the works. An example would be where an excavation is delayed by unforeseen groundwater. The contractor has to install a dewatering system and this delays the completion of the excavation. However, this delay pushes concreting work into winter months and this work is further delayed because of cold weather. While the excavation is delayed the contractor has to do other work out of sequence. The consequential cost of the overall delay and disruption can far exceed the direct cost associated with dealing with the unforeseen conditions. It maynot be possible toevaluate fully the realized financial risk associated with unforeseen ground conditionsuntil after construction has been completed. The resultant delays often lead to contractual disputes. The largest element of technical and financial risk is normally in theground. As the risk of unforeseen ground conditions is borne by the client and the contractor,

Comment

it is obviously to the benefit of both parties that they understand the extent and consequences of the risks they accept. Better siteand ground information, included in the contract,is an important part of a better quality of service to the client. The engineer and the ground investigation contractor should be encouraged to provide more skill in pursuit of the best product. The client should be apprised by the engineer of thefinancial risks at all stages,from project conception to completion. Otherwise, an uninformed client is unlikely to be sympathetic to a speedy resolution of a realized risk for which he has to pay. As claims for unforeseen ground conditionsform the largest proportion of contractual claims, geotechnical specialists should be more closely involved in the supervision of construction. It is essential that geotechnical specialists are involved at the earliest opportunity wheregroundproblems and potential claims are envisaged to ensure that (a) apprupriate remedial measures or design changes are carried out (b) accurate records are obtained of the ground actually encountered

(c) any supplementary investigation that may mitigate the problems is implemented. It would be useful if completed projects, both successful and those which have incurred significant claims related to unforeseen site conditions, could be analysed to ascertain their technical and contractual elements. The technical problems could be categorized to establish particular areas of site investigationdeficiency,and study of the contractual aspects might highlight the conditions and procedures which are unhelpful to successful construction.

6. Conclusions
Clients are concerned about the delays and escalating costs of construction projects throughout the UK. Based on a review of technical reports on practice over the past 25 years, the delays are frequently attributed to inadequate site and groundinvestigations. It is not clear whichfactors of the construction process contribute to inadequate site investigation. One has to consider not only the purely technical aspects of planning, execution and reporting, but also the contractual environment between all parties - the client, site investigation specialist, d e signer and main contractor. Most major construction activities involving the ground lie on or are sufficiently close to the critical path for any delay to that activity to affect the whole of the project. The consequences of inadequate investigations are shown to be severe for both the engineering and construction phases of a project but are probably even more serious when continued into full-life costing. Inadequate site investigations can arise from a lack of client awareness, inadequate finance, insufficient time and a lack of geotechnical expertise. Positive action has to be taken now by the construction industry and its clients to improve this intolerable situation. Siteand ground investigationsand their planning, design and appraisal must be fully integrated into the project design and construction process. Experienced geotechnical engineers and/or engineering geologists should be responsible for site and ground investigations.Where this expertise is not held within the project design group, geotechnical specialists should be added to the team. Of the technical shortcomings in the design of ground investigations a recurring theme is the inadequate attention given to obtaining reliable piezometric level data in order to gauge groundwater levels and their movements with time, coupled with inadequate interpretation of the data resulting from a limited understanding of hydrogeology.

7. Recommendations
The ICE should establish a broadly based steering group to carry out the following tasks. Its membership should comprise representatives from organizations such as the ICE, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects,the Departments of Transport and the Environment, the British Geotechnical Society, the Association of Geotechnical Specialists, the BritishDrillingAssociation, the Geological Society, the British Tunnelling Society, the Building Engineering Confederation, the National House-Building Council, the Association of Consulting Engineers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
0

A programme of awareness should be implemented with other professions (clients, planners, architects, engineers, builders and quantity surveyors) and organizations such as insurance and property development companies,

19

with the aim of highlighting the significanceof site and ground investigation on civil engineering and building projects. The awareness programme could include
(a) stage 1

(i) publication of this ICE Ground Board report and press releases, and associated meetings (ii) circulation of findings, recommendations and available guidelines to all organizations involved in education and training courses related to the construction industry ( b ) stage 2 (iii) publication of a series of national site investigation guides over the next two years covering the topics of procurement, planning and design, quality assurance, specification and methods of measurement (iv) a publicity campaign for (iii), coupled with a conferenceon site and ground investigations. A national specification and method of measurement for site and ground .investigationsshould be created, based on the current ICE specification? but augmented to accommodate the philosophy of Eurocode 7 and new topics such as contaminated land. This single reference should provide a uniform standard for improved site investigation practice and its supervision. Clients should be advised by their professional consultants of the need for careful preselection of tenderers and rigorous acceptance criteria when seeking ground investigation services. To support this approach, a national procurement guide should be produced for clients, highlighting the essential aims and benefits of site investigation, and how these can be achieved by following appropriate procurement routes. To assist the preliminary planning of site and ground investigations, the value of desk studies should be highlighted and more detailed guidelines should be published on the extent and intensity of investigationsrelated to type and uniformity of the ground and the size and type of development. These national guidelines (including check-lists where appropriate) should be written in a formthat enables developers and planners to appreciate the basic requirements of adequate site investigations. Quality management systems (quality assurance) (e.g. B S 575d3) should be developed for site and ground investigations whereby auditing and assessment concentrate on demonstrating that a reliable management system is in operation and that responsibility can be traced throughout. All factual geotechnical data, and whenever available a separate relevant interpretative report, should be made available to all tenderers who place reliance on ground data. Risk analysis,as a management tool, should be considered byengineers to demonstrate in financial terms the benefits of comprehensive ground investigations. A reviewof completed contracts, both successful and unsuccessful, should be undertaken by the ICE or others to study the nature of claims related to ground conditions. A key objectiveis to determine the extent of these claims and delays which are caused byinadequate site investigationsand conditions of contract.A thorough assessmentof theeffectsof thecontractual environment between the client, site investigation specialist, designer and main contractor should be made. Factual ground investigation data should be digitized by geotechnical specialists to nationally a accepted standard for ease of processing and transfer by and assess computer. This should reduce significantly the time required to sort the large amount of data generated by comprehensive ground investigations.

20

Quality assurance should be considered as a contractual requirement to ensure that the client's specificationis met. The management system should define who is qualified to take ground investigation decisionsand ensure that that person is properly trained. The aim should be to create chains of communication and working procedures for instruction which help to do routine things well.

You pay for a site investigation

whether you have oneor not

21

References
1. NATIONALECONOMICDEVELOPMENTOFFICE. Faster buildingfor industry. NEDO, London, 1983. 2. NATIONALECONOMICDEVELOPMENTOFFICE. Faster building for commerce. NEDO, London,1988. 3. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Site investigationfor low-rise building: desk studies. Bldg Res. Dig.,1987, No. 318. 4. JOHNSON R. Symposium report on quality management in geotechnical engineering. Ground Engng, 1990,23, Oct., 23. 5. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Site investigation for low-rise building: procurement. Bldg Res. Dig.,1987, No. 322. 6. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION.Code of practice for foundations.BSI, London, 1986, BS 8004. 7. NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE.Qualify control of road and bridge construction. HMSO, London, 1989. 8. TYRRELL A. P. et al. An investigation of the extra costs arising on highway Crowthorne, 1983, SR contracts. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 814. 9. THOMAS TELFORD.Investigation of value. New Civ. Engr,1987,5 Mar., 14. 10. EUROCODE 7 DRAFTING PANEL. Common unified rules for geotechnics, design. British Standards Institution, London, 1989, Eurocode 7,lst draft. 11. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING. Contracting in civil engineering since Banwell. HMSO, London, 1968. 12. UFF J. F. and CLAYTONC.R. I. Recommendationsfor the procurement ofground investigation. ConstructionIndustry Research and Information Association, London, 1986, SP 45. 13. PEACOCK W. S. and WHYTE I. L. Site investigation practice. Mun. Engr, 1988, S, Oct., 235-245. 14. ROWE P. W. The relevance of soil fabric to site investigation practice. Ghtechnique, 1972,12, June, 193-301. 15. GREEN P.A. Ground and materials investigations for road schemes, needs and methods. Proc. Instn Civ.Engrs, 1968,41,635-638. 16. MATHESON G. D.and KEIR W. G. Site investigationin Scotland. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1978, LR 82. 17. GROUND ENGINEERING. The investigation business - a matter for concern. Ground Engng, 1974, May, 26-34. 18. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of practicefor site investigations. BSI, London, 1981, B S 5930. 19. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. Specification and method of meusurmentfor ground investigation.HMSO, London, 1987. 20. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of practice for the identification of potentially contaminated land and its investigation.BSI, London, 1988, DD 175. 21. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. Framework directiveon civil liubilify fordamage caused by waste. EC, Brussels, l989,75442/EEC. 22. RYS L. G. and WOOD I. R. A question of priority - product before procurement in site investigation practice: assessing BS 5930. Site investigation practice, edited by A. B. Hawkins. Geological Society, London, 1986, Engineering Geology SP 2,349-355. 23. INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERSet al. Conditionsof contract and forms of fender, agreemenf and bond for use in connection with works of civil engineering construction. ICE et al., London, 5th edn, 1973; 6th edn, 1991. 24. INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS. Conditions of contract for ground investigation. Thomas Telford, London, 1983. 22

25. BARNES N. M. L. and PERRY J. G. A naosfylecontractforengineeringprojects. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1987. 26. ASSOCIATION OF GROUND INVESTIGATION SPECIALISTS. Specification for ground investigations. Ground Engng, 1979,12, No. 5,56-67. 27. INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS.Specificationfor ground investigufion with bill of quantities. Thomas Telford, London, 1989. 28. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods of test for soil for civil enginem'ngput.poses. BSI, London, 1975, BS 1377. 29. ASSOCIATION OFGEOTECHNICAL SPECIALISTS. A nationalspecification for ground investigation.AGS, London, 1990, Working Party Report 1. 30. DUMBLETON M. G. and WEST G. Preliminary sourcesof information for site investigations in Britain. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1976, LR 403. 31. ASSOCIATION OFCONSULTING ENGINEERS. ACE ConditionsofEngugement. ACE, London, 1981. 32. BRITISH GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY. Geotechnicul directory of the W K 298788. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1988. 33. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Quality systems. BSI, London, 1987, BS 5750. (See also Qualify assessment schedule, BS 5750, Part 1: Ground investigation and foundations.)

23

Appendix 1. Guidelines on ground investigation practice

Since 1975 various steps have been taken to improve the extent and quality of ground investigations. Publications or accreditation schemes include the following.

By the BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION.Site investigations. BSI, London, 1981, BS 5930. construction industry asa BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of practice for the identification of whole BSI, London, 1988, DD 175. potentially contaminatedland andits investigation.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods of test forsoilfor civil engineering purposes. BSI, London, 1990, BS 1377. UFF J. F. and CLAYTON C.R. I. Recommendations for the procurement ofground investigation, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, 1986, SP 45. WELTMAN A. J. and HEAD J. M. Site investigation manual. ConstructionIndustry Research and Information Association, London,1983, SP 25.

Conditions of contract for ground investiBy the INSTITUTIONOF CIVIL ENGINEERS. gation. Thomas Telford, London,1983. Institution of Civil Engineers INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS. Specificationfor ground investigation with bill ofquantities. Thomas Telford, London,1989. ROBB A. D.Site investigation.Thomas Telford, London,1982. Also, a wide range of conference proceedings on in situ testing and field instrumentation.

By the Government

BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. A review of routine foundation design practice. Bldg Res. Dig., 1987, No. 104. BUILDINGRESEARCHESTABLISHMENT.Site investigation for low-rise building: desk studies. Bldg Res. Dig., 1987, No. 318. BUILDINGRESEARCHESTABLISHMENT.Site investigation for low-rise building: procurement. Bldg Res. Dig.,1987, No. 322. BUILDINGRESEARCHESTABLISHMENT.Site investigation for low-rise building: the walk-over survey. Bldg Res. Dig., 1989, No. 348. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. Specification and method of measurement for ground investigation.DTp, London, 1987.

By the BRITISH DRILLING ASSOCIATION. Directory of UK facilities. BDA,Brentwood, 1990. investigation Accreditation scheme for drillers. industry BRITISH DRILLING ASSOCIATION.
NATIONAL MEASUREMENT ACCREDITATION SERVICE.

Accreditation

scheme for testinglaboratories.

ASSOCIATION OF GROUND INVESTIGATION SPECIALISTS.Specification for ground investigations.AGIS, Hayes, 1979. (AGIS is no longer active.)

Other efforts BRITISH GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY.Directory ofgeotechnicalspecialists. BGS,

London, 1988. CLAYTON C.R. I. et al. Site investigation - a handbook for engineers. Granada, London, 1982. HEAD K. H. Manual of soil laboratory testing. Pentech, Plymouth and London, 1986. NIXON I. K. and CHILD G. H. Site investigation. Civil engineer's reference book, 4th edn, chap. 10. Newnes-Butterworth, London,1989. Also various conferenceproceedings of the British Geotechnical Society and the Engineering Group of the Geological Society. 24

Specifications and method statementsrelated to the technical issuesof ground investigations are well documented. Less apparent are specific guidelines on the extentand intensity of investigations related to typeand uniformity of ground and type and size of structure. No hard and fast rules exist for the determination of location and frequency of boreholes. Eachsite should be individually assessed, togetherwith the proposed development.1935 Nevertheless thereis a case for providing more detailed guidelines to assist planners and designers of ground investigations,and to highlight the basic investigation requirements for the benefit of clients. Theseguidelinesare m substitute forthe employment of experienced geotechnicalspecialists. Theaccreditation of drillers or testing laboratories will not eliminatethe need for site supervision of ground investigationsby geotechnical specialists. The trainingneeds of site supervisors should be assessedtogether with their necessay provision.

Comment

Appendix 2. Criteria for the preselectionof specialist 12 contractors

The following criteria should be taken into account in the selection of specialist contractors for inclusion in a finaltender list

(a) numbers, types and quality of

(i) field equipment (ii) laboratory equipment and facilities (b) availability of any special equipment expected to be relevant to the particular investigation (c)Numbers, experience, qualificationsand length of service of (i) professional staff (ii) drilling personnel and supervisors (iii) laboratory and field technicians ( d ) whether or not equipment and personnel are permanently retained and, if they are not, theirstatus and availability (e)previous performance on (i) routine investigation work (ii) projects comparable with that under consideration (f, the quality of geotechnical reports on other projects CS> status, ownership and apparent financial standing of the company or firm. Proper consideration of these matters requires at least one visit to the companys premises, and is likely also to involve meeting key personnel and visits to sites, the plant depot, and the laboratory.
A pre-tender standard questionnaire could be used, to be completed in part by the

Comment

potential tendererand part by the designer. Care is required to ensure that thepre-selected specialist contractor does not subcontract important elementsof the work to inexperiencedfirms or personnel.

25

Appendix 3. Members of the Ground Board, Institution of Civil Engineers

*ProfessorG. S. Littlejohn, BSc, PhD, FICE, FIStructE, FGS (Chairman),University of Bradford *N. R. Arber, BEng, PhD, MICE, Travers Morgan Consulting Group P. A. A. Back, BSc, DPhil, FEng,MICE, Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners H. M. Bedelian, OBE, MA, FIHT, FEng, FICE, Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd I. F. Christie, BSc, PhD, FICE,Consultant *C. Craig, MSc, FICE, FIStructE, Soil Mechanics Ltd J. D. Findlay, MSc, MICE, FGS, Stent Foundations Ltd *ProfessorM. C. Forde, BEng, MSc, PhD, MICE, University of Edinburgh University of Wales Professor J. D. Geddes, BSc, PhD, FICE, FASCE, FIHT, FGS, College of Cardiff P. M. Guthrie, ACGI, BSc, MSc, DIC, FGS, MICE, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick& Partners T. S. Ingold, MSc, PhD, FICE, FIHT, FASCE, Consultant F.M. Jardine, MSc(Eng), Construction Industry Research and Information Association J. F. P. Jones, BSc, MSc, PhD, FICE,University of Newcastle-uponProfessor C. Tyne J. A. Lord, MA, PhD, MICE,Ove Arup & Partners University of Strathclyde Professor A. McGown, BSc, PhD, MICE, MIHT, FGS, T. W. Mellors, BSc(Eng1, MSc, DIC, PhD, MICE, MIMM, FGS, Consultant M. J. Sands, BSc, FICE, Hercules Piling Ltd

*Member of drafting and editing team.

26