Assessment of State Agencies’ Practices in Managing Geotechnical Risk in Design–Build Projects

Abstract

Policies and procedures of state highway agencies for articulating geotechnical information and requirements on design–build (DB) projects are the means to manage the geotechnical risk. Successful approaches and practices to managing geotechnical risk not only reduce the level of geotechnical uncertainty for both the owner and the competing design–builder but also distribute the remaining geotechnical risk between the parties. Discussed here are the differences with regard to geotechnical risk management, aspects of the DB procurement process, and contract aspects between state departments of transportation (DOTs) with experience delivering projects using the DB process versus those that are not as experienced. Results are presented from two independent sources of information: one was obtained through a literature review of aspects related to geotechnical requirements and management of DB projects and the other was obtained through an online survey of 38 state DOTs. Results of the study statistically demonstrate the value of DB experience in managing geotechnical risk and, accordingly, a set of recommended practices for agencies that are relatively new to DB project delivery, during both procurement and contract formation, is presented.

Critical Comparison of Progressive Design-Build and Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery Methods

“…A study by Castro-Nova et al . on DB geotechnical risk management found that fixing the price before conducting the geotechnical investigations and subsurface characterization caused competing design-builders to “include a large contingency in the proposed price to cover the worst possible case” ( 11 ). The same study identified a statistically significant difference in the perception of the geotechnical risk between DOTs geotechnical personnel and competing design-builders.…”

“…One of the rarely used mechanisms for aligning the scope and budget is making changes to the initial project risk profile. The highway industry has a long history of risk-shedding regardless of project delivery method ( 3 , 4 , 11 , 12 ). This is mainly because in DBB and traditional DB, the project price is fixed at the time of the contract award.…”

“…The downside is that construction contractors and design-builders must include contingencies to account for the risk transfer from the owner. If those risks are not realized, for example, no differing site conditions are encountered during construction, then the owner still pays for the unrealized risks because the contingencies are buried in the unit prices and lump sum contract amounts ( 11 ).…”

Safety Assessment of Emergency Training for Industrial Accident Scenarios Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Gray-Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment

“…The purpose of a safety assessment is to identify and weigh threats and vulnerabilities to obtain the overall safety level of the assessment object [33]. Specifically, these assessments are based on the idea to qualitatively or quantitatively analyze the risk factors in the system and the hazards that cause accidents [34]. The safety assessment system for training scenarios is a large and complex multi-factor system.…”

Comprehensive Safety Evaluation of Emergency Training for Building Ruins Scenario Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process-Grey Fuzzy Evaluation

“…Safety assessment involves qualitatively or quantitatively analyzing the risk factors and hazards that cause accidents in a system [25]. The establishment of a safety evaluation index system for the training scenario of building collapse ruins should follow the principles of scientificity, comprehensiveness, systematization, comparability, and feasibility [26]- [28].…”