Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claims, Change Orders, and Overruns (2016)

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

67 APPENDIX B Survey Responses (Web-Only) RESPONDINg AgENcIES Agencies responding to the survey are shown in Figure 2 in chapter three. Additional responses were received from the Washington, D.C. DOT and the Central, Eastern, and Western Federal Lands Highway Divisions. APPENDIX B1—SummARy TABlES Three large summary tables provide the responses to all questions for all respondents. The first table contains responses to Parts One and Two. Responses on this table are coded with numbers corresponding to the relatively lengthy selections from the question response options. The key for these numbers is provided in Appendix B2. This first table is a convenient method for identifying an agency’s response to a particular question quickly, or for evaluating all responses to a particular question quickly. The other two tables in Appen- dix B1 include data from Part Three of the survey. APPENDIX B2—KEy fOR SummARy TABlES WITh RESPONSE cOuNTS APPENDIX B3—RESPONSES TO ShORT ANSWER quESTIONS

1 2 3 3b 4 5 5b 6 7 8 9 9b 10 10b 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Agency Difficulty Problems Min Req's? AASHTO? Exceed? State Specific? Share Bid Docs? Geophysic s? Database? Changes? Result of Changes? Incentives? Result of Incentives? Sig Problems? Sig Benefits? Claims a Problem? Sources of Concern? Freq changed? D-B Effect? Ground claims allowed? % Due to Subsurface Subsurface a Problem? Subsurf Freq changed? Susurf D-B Effect? Alabama 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 2 Alaska 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 1 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 Arizona 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 1 5 5 6 3 2 1 5 6 3 Arkansas 1 2 2 #N/A 4 2 #N/A 1 4 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 California 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A 1 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 3 3 5 6 3 2 1 3 6 3 Colorado 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 3 #N/A 2 3 5 5 6 3 2 #N/A 5 6 3 Connecticut 1 2 1 2 4 1 3 #N/A 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 2 6 3 2 1 1 2 3 DC 2 2 2 #N/A 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Delaware 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 2 2 #N/A 3 #N/A 1 1 5 5 6 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A FHWA Centra 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 6 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 2 FHWA Easter 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 FHWA Weste 4 1 1 5 2 2 #N/A 1 2 2 1 6 2 #N/A 1 3 2 5 6 3 2 1 1 6 2 Florida 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 2 #N/A #N/A 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 Georgia 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 Hawaii 2 2 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 3 2 2 2 4 6 3 #N/A 1 2 6 3 Idaho 2 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 2 4 2 #N/A 1 4 1 2 3 2 3 6 3 2 1 #N/A 6 3 Illinois 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 Indiana 2 2 1 5 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 2 #N/A 1 1 3 5 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 Iowa 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 4 6 3 2 1 1 6 3 Kansas 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 1 3 4 3 3 2 1 3 4 3 Kentucky 4 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 #N/A 1 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 Louisiana 1 2 1 1 4 2 #N/A 1 4 1 1 3 2 #N/A 1 1 2 4 5 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 Maine 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 1 6 2 #N/A 2 1 3 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 Maryland 3 2 1 3 3 2 #N/A 1 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 Massachusett 2 3 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 Michigan 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 1 4 2 Minnesota 2 1 1 3 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 3 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Mississippi 2 2 1 2 2 2 #N/A 1 2 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 3 3 2 3 4 6 1 2 2 3 6 1 Missouri 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 Montana 4 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 #N/A 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Nebraska 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 3 6 3 2 1 1 3 3 Nevada 4 2 1 5 3 2 #N/A 1 1 3 2 #N/A 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 New Hampsh 1 1 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A #N/A 2 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 New Jersey #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A New Mexico #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A New York 2 2 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 2 5 6 1 2 1 2 6 1 North Carolina 1 1 1 5 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 6 2 #N/A 3 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 North Dakota 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 3 4 5 3 2 2 3 3 3 Ohio 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 3 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Oklahoma #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Oregon 4 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 #N/A 1 2 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 Pennsylvania 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 #N/A 1 5 2 1 5 6 3 2 #N/A 3 6 3 Puerto Rico #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Rhode Island 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 4 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 4 2 3 4 6 2 2 2 2 6 2 South Carolin 1 2 1 3 4 1 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 3 2 1 South Dakota 1 1 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 Tennessee 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 3 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 3 3 4 6 3 2 1 2 2 3 Texas 2 1 1 5 2 2 #N/A 1 3 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 3 4 6 3 2 1 1 3 3 Utah 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 4 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 Vermont 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 #N/A 2 1 3 2 4 4 1 2 3 2 4 1 Virginia 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 Washington 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 #N/A 1 5 1 1 3 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 1 3 2 West Virginia 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 2 1 1 6 3 2 1 1 6 3 Wisconsin 2 2 1 5 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 2 Wyoming 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 Part 2 - ConstructionPart 1 - Geotech

Agency Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware FHWA Centra FHWA Easter FHWA Weste Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusett Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampsh New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolin South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Total Burdget for New Const Total Claims Cumulative Cost of Claims Cumulative Contract Cost for Claims Proj Number of C.O.s Cumulative Cost of C.O.s Cumulative Contract Cost for C.O. Proj Number of Overrun Projects Cumulative Cost of Overruns Cumulative Contract Cost for Overrun Pr $2,631,998,578 10 $1,403,125.01 $56,219,846.74 5141 $129,409,984.18 $3,983,188,127.09 670 $79,887,955.89 $1,859,489,863.58 659,503,578.20 11 1,566,256.22 41,505,834.86 751 114,459,911.80 1,126,147,224.63 121 112,484,791.10 607,960,778.10 ? ? ? 31,777 $412,376,072.93 $13,468,849,347.87 1046 $252,510,247.11 $7,751,183,814.81 4.25B (+/-) 30 (+/-) 15M (+/-) 250M (+/-) 2100 (+/-) 250M (+/-) 5.5B (+/-) 70M (+/-) 5.4B 2009 -2013....$5,981,384,378; average per year =$1,196,276,875.00 total claim from 2009 -2013 = 13,495; average per year = 2699 total cost from 2009 -2013= $304,812,465; Average per year =$60,962,493.00 2009 -2013....$5,981,384,378; average per year =$1,196,276,875.00 2009 - 2013 = #13,495; average = # 2699 per year total cost from 2009 -2013= $304,812,465; Average per year =$60,962,493.00 2009 - 2013 cost = $5,981,384,375.00 not availble total cost from 2009 -2013= $304,812,465; Average per year =$60,962,493.00 not availble $2,463,368,000 ???? 127068000 ???? 377 $62,447,370 4.8 billion 4 958000 9553000 9582 25275000 6 billion 945 164000000 3263000000000 ms from FY2009 (inclusive) throug 84 from FY 2009 through 11/24/20 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $4,637,526,502 288 $41,122,109 $724,534,540 7,129 $303,857,082 $4,637,526,502 370 $351,898,292 $2,152,902,786 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A +/- $325Million per year 9 +/- $1.65 Million Not Available 3,649 $34.3 Million Not available Not available not available not available 850 million na na na na na na na na na Part 3 - All Claims, Change Orders, and Cost Overruns

Agency Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware FHWA Centra FHWA Easter FHWA Weste Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusett Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampsh New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolin South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Total Claims Cumulative Cost of Claims Cumulative Contract Cost for Claims Proj Number of C.O.s Cumulative Cost of C.O.s Cumulative Contract Cost for C.O. Proj Number of Overrun Projects Cumulative Cost of Overruns Cumulative Contract Cost for Overrun Pr 1 466,923.55 7,967,260.26 28 4,825,993.56 72,751,278.79 15 1,556,037.43 48,031,061.35 0 0 0 210 (+/-) 10M 5.4B 105 5M 600M 2009-2013= 625; average 125 per year 2009 - 2013= $51,719,015 2009 - 2013 = $2,924,330,145.00 @009 - 2013= 625 NOS. 2009 - 2013= $51,719,015 2009 - 2013 = $2,924,330,145.00 not availble 2009 - 2013= $51,719,015 2009 - 2013 = $2,924,330,145.00 ? ? ? 34 $7,577,000 ???? 39 $4,325,214 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Not available Not available Not available 246 $10,949,562 $1,494,574,813 Not available Not available Not available #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0 since 2009. 0 0 Not available not available not available not availabel not available not available na na na na na na na na na Part 3 - Subsurface Claims, Change Orders, and Cost Overruns

71 APPENDIX B2—KEy fOR SummARy TABlES WITh RESPONSE cOuNTS Tables for each question of Parts One and Two are presented. The tables are similar to the ones presented throughout chapter three of the Synthesis. The number “code” from Appendix B1 is listed with the accompanying question selection. Question 1 Please select the response that best describes your agency’s experience with site characterization: Key Site characterization is generally not difficult. 1 22 43% Site characterization is often difficult because of highly variable subsurface conditions. 2 23 45% Site characterization is often difficult because select types of soil/rock are difficult to characterize. 3 1 2% Site characterization is often difficult because of highly variable subsurface conditions AND select types of soil/rock that are difficult to characterize. 4 5 10% Question 2 Please select the response that best describes the design, construction, and performance problems your agency has experienced as a result of subsurface conditions: Key My agency experiences relatively few design, construction, and performance problems resulting from subsurface conditions. 1 17 33% My agency experiences a modest number of design, construction, and performance problems resulting from subsurface conditions. 2 32 63% My agency experiences frequent design, construction, and performance problems resulting from subsurface conditions. 3 2 4% Question 3 Does your agency formally specify minimum (or recommended minimum) subsurface investigation requirements for all projects? Key Yes 1 44 86% No 2 7 14% I don’t know. 3 0 0% Question 3b If yes, please select the item below that best describes the minimum requirements: Key The minimum requirements are those prescribed in AASHTO specifications and guidelines. 1 7 16% The minimum requirements are documented in agency-specific provisions, but are generally consistent with those prescribed in AASHTO specifications and guidelines. 2 28 64% The minimum requirements are documented in agency-specific provisions, but substantially exceed those prescribed in AASHTO specifications and guidelines. 3 5 11% The minimum requirements are documented in agency-specific provisions, but are materially different from those prescribed in AASHTO specifications and guidelines (e.g., involve different techniques and procedures than are addressed in AASHTO specifications 4 3 7% Other, please specify: 5 0 0% The general minimum requirements are documented in agency specific publications, but are generally less stringent than those prescribed in AASHTO specifications and guidelines. 6 1 2% Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

72 Question 4 If minimum subsurface investigation requirements are formally specified, is it common for the actual scope of subsurface investigations to exceed the minimum requirements for specific projects? Key Minimum requirements are not formally specified. 1 0 0% Yes, the scope for subsurface investigations commonly exceeds the minimum requirements. 2 6 14% Yes, the scope for subsurface investigations occasionally exceeds the minimum requirements. 3 23 52% No, the scope of subsurface investigations rarely exceeds the minimum requirements. 4 15 34% I don’t know. 5 0 0% Question 5 Does your agency have a “state-specific” manual and/or specifications that describe requirements and practices for site characterization? Key Yes 1 40 78% No 2 11 22% I don’t know. 3 0 0% Question 5b If yes, please provide a link(s) to an online version of the manual or specifications, or upload the document(s) as an attachment below. Key Manual is not available for sharing. 1 5 13% Upload the document(s) 2 3 8% Link to the document(s): 3 32 80% Question 6 Does your agency require geotechnical information be included with bid documents for bridge projects? Key Yes 1 49 100% No 2 0 0% I don’t know. 3 0 0% Question 7 Select the answer that best describes your agencies historical use of geophysical measurements for site characterization: Key My agency routinely uses geophysical methods for site characterization. 1 5 10% My agency occasionally uses geophysical methods for site characterization. 2 27 53% My agency rarely uses geophysical methods for site characterization. 3 16 31% My agency never uses geophysical methods for site characterization. 4 2 4% I don’t know. 5 1 2% Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

73 Question 8 Does your agency maintain a database of subsurface information? Select the response that best describes your agency capabilities. Key Yes, my agency maintains a GIS-based database of subsurface information. 1 16 31% Yes, my agency maintains an electronic database of subsurface information, but the database is not GIS-based. 2 20 39% No, my agency does not maintain a database of subsurface information, but we do retain hard copy records from past projects that can be accessed when needed. 3 12 24% No, my agency does not maintain a database of subsurface information, and it is difficult to access historical records of subsurface information. 4 3 6% I don’t know. 5 0 0% Question 9 Has your agency implemented specific changes to site characterization practices in the last five years? Key Yes 1 18 35% No 2 33 65% I don’t know. 3 0 0% Question 9b Please select the statement below that best describes the perceived impact of the specific changes in terms of the number of claims, change orders, and overruns. Key The changes have led to a noticeable increase in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 1 0 0% The changes have led to a marginal increase in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 2 0 0% The changes have not noticeably affected the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 3 7 39% The changes have led to a marginal decrease in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 4 4 22% The changes have led to a noticeable decrease in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 5 2 11% %8256.dnopser ot ecneirepxe tneiciffusnI I don’t know. 7 0 0% Question 10 Are there provisions in your agency’s design code that provide incentives for performing site characterization in excess of the minimum requirements or for performing specific site characterization activities? Example incentives might include permitting use of more advantageous load or resistance factors for projects with more extensive site investigations or for relaxation of some site characterization requirements if special techniques or procedures are used (e.g., geophysics). Key Yes 1 8 16% No 2 41 80% I don’t know. 3 2 4% Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

74 Question 10b Please select the statement below that best describes the perceived success of the practice in reducing the number of claims, change orders, and overruns. Key Practice has not noticeably affected the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 1 4 50% Practice has produced marginal reduction in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 2 0 0% Practice has produced substantial reduction in the occurrence of claims, change orders, and overruns. 3 0 0% Insufficient experience to respond. 4 2 25% I don’t know. 5 2 25% Question 11 Has your agency experienced significant performance problems that can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices? Performance problems can be related to design issues, QA/QC issues, or any issue that can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices. Key Yes 1 21 42% No 2 26 52% I don’t know. 3 3 6% Question 12 Does your agency have notable examples where site characterization practices have led to accelerated project delivery or reduced costs for construction and operation of transportation facilities? Key Yes 1 15 29% No 2 25 49% I don’t know. 3 11 22% Question 13 Are claims, change orders, and cost overruns considered to be a significant concern within your agency? Key No, they are not considered to be a significant problem. 1 8 16% They are recognized as a problem, but they are not a priority concern. 2 13 26% They are recognized as a problem and are a priority concern. 3 23 46% They are recognized as one of our agency’s most significant problems. 4 2 4% I don’t know. 5 4 8% Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

75 Question 15 Has the magnitude and/or frequency of claims, change orders, and overruns changed over the past 10 years? Key Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has decreased significantly. 1 4 8% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has decreased slightly. 2 5 10% No, the magnitude and/or frequency has remained about the same. 3 15 30% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has increased slightly. 4 5 10% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has increased significantly. 5 3 6% I don’t know. 6 18 36% Question 16 Is project delivery mechanism (design-bid-build, design-build, public- private partnership, construction manager/general contractor) perceived to have a significant effect on the incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders, and/or cost overruns? Note this refers to all claims, not just those that could be attributed to subsurface conditions. Key Yes 1 14 28% No 2 17 34% I don't know. 3 19 38% Question 17 Are contractors prevented from filing claims against your agency based on changed conditions related to ground conditions or based on unforeseen subsurface conditions? Key Yes 1 2 4% No 2 46 96% Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Question 14 If claims, change orders, and cost overruns are a recognized problem within your agency, what is the primary source of concern regarding the claims, change orders, and cost overruns? Please select all that apply. Key They are not a recognized problem. 1 7 14% They significantly impact the agency budget. 2 23 46% They significantly impact public perception of the agency. 3 15 30% They significantly impact time allocation of agency resources, resulting in opportunity losses. 4 24 48% Other 5 12 24% Number of Responses

76 Question 20 Has the magnitude and/or frequency of claims, change orders, and overruns that can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices changed over the past 10 years? Key Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has decreased significantly. 1 2 4% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has decreased slightly. 2 6 12% No, the magnitude and/or frequency has remained about the same. 3 22 45% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has increased slightly. 4 6 12% Yes, the magnitude and/or frequency has increased significantly. 5 1 2% I don’t know. 6 12 24% Question 21 Is project delivery mechanism (design-bid-build, design-build, public- private partnership, construction manager/general contractor) perceived to have a significant effect on the incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders, and/or cost overruns that can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices? Key Yes 1 11 22% No 2 22 45% I don't know. 3 16 33% Number of Responses Number of Responses Question 18 What percentage of claims, change orders, and cost overruns experienced by your agency can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices? Please estimate or calculate the percentage of such claims, change orders, and cost overruns by number (i.e., quantity or frequency), not cost. Key Less than 20 percent. 1 30 64% 20 to 40 percent. 2 14 30% 40 to 60 percent. 3 3 6% 60 to 80 percent. 4 0 0% Greater than 80 percent. 5 0 0% Question 19 Are claims, change orders, and overruns resulting from subsurface conditions or site characterization practices considered to be a significant concern within your agency? Key No, they are not considered to be a significant problem. 1 18 38% They are recognized as a problem, but they are not a priority concern. 2 15 31% They are recognized as a problem and are a priority concern. 3 13 27% They are recognized as one of our agency’s most significant problems. 4 0 0% I don’t know. 5 2 4% Number of Responses Number of Responses

77 APPENDIX B3—RESPONSES TO ShORT ANSWER quESTIONS Some responses to the short answer questions were quite long, so the responses to all short answer questions are presented in their own section of the appendix. Indiana INDOT Geotechnical Manual consistent with FHWA & AASHTO Texas Frequency of sampling is similar to AASHTO guidelines, Texas primiarially uses the Texas Cone Penetrometer insitu test for assessing the strength of the profile. This is supplemented as needed with conventional sampling and laboratory testing. Nevada FHWA Manuals plus AASHTO design specifications North Carolina NCDOT guidelines (Manual) Wisconsin The general minimum requirements are documented in angency-specific publications, but are generally less stringent that those prescribed in AASHTO specs and guidelines. FHWA Western Federal Lands Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) Chapter 6 and Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) Illinois We provide slightly less than AASHTO but provide a field unconfined compressive strength. our biggest problem is getting the boring at the substructure location due to traffic and rig access. Alabama http://www.dot.state.al.us/mtweb/Testing/testing_manual/doc/pro/ALDOT398.pdf Alaska http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcspubs/index.shtml# Arizona http://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/MaterialsGroup Colorado Manual is not available for sharing. Connecticut http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublications/gtman_3-05.pdf#42832 DC Manual is not available for sharing. Delaware http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/bridge_design/pdf/bdm-06-substructure-design.pdf FHWA Central Federal Lands PDDM-TGM (search) FHWA Eastern Federal Lands http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/ Florida http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/Manuals/SFH.pdf Georgia http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/DesignManuals/DesignGuides Idaho http://itdportal/sites/DES/Materials%20Construction/Manuals/Materials%20Manual/Materials%20Manual%20Printable- %20July%202011.pdf Illinois http://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals-Guides-&- Handbooks/Highways/Bridges/Geotechnical/Geotechnical%20Manual.pdf Indiana http://www.in.gov/indot/files/GTS_2010GTSManual_2012.pdf Iowa http://www.iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/manual.html?reload Kansas on kdot website Kentucky http://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational-Resources/Policy%20Manuals%20Library/Geotechnical.pdf Maine http://www.maine.gov/mdot/technicalpubs/bdg.htm Massachusetts The massdot bridge manual edition 1.2 is available on the massdot website. A massdot geotechnical manual is currently a working draft and not available online but chapter 5 can be shared. Michigan http://www.michigan.gov/documents/GeotechnicalInvestigationsAnalysis_116819_7.pdf Minnesota http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/geotmanual.html Missouri http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:321_Geotechnical_Engineering Montana http://mdtinfo.mdt.mt.gov/mdt/manuals.shtml Nebraska Uploaded manual. New York https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau/gdm North Carolina https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Geological/Documents/08-04-04_Subsurface%20Investigations%20Manual.pdf North Dakota http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/chapter7/DM-07_tag.pdf Ohio http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Geotechnical/Pages/SGE.aspx Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/pages/geotechnical_design_manual.aspx Pennsylvania Manual is not available for sharing. Rhode Island http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/about/research/Geotechnical.pdf South Carolina http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Geotechnical.aspx Tennessee Manual is not available for sharing. Utah Uploaded manual. Vermont http://vtransengineering.vermont.gov/sites/aot_program_development/files/documents/materialsandresearch/MandRSoilEI_11- 01_VTrans_Subsurface_Investigation_Process.pdf Virginia http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bu-mat-moi-3.pdf West Virginia http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/files/WVBDML%202006.pdf Wisconsin Selected "Upload manual", but I don't see it? Wyoming Manual is not available for sharing. California Based on my experience we perform similar practices for site characterization as perscribed in the AASHTO LRFD BDS. FHWA Western Federal Lands Geologic site interpretation is a key component in evaluating the type and frequency of the subsurface characterization program. We investigate for many more wall structures than for bridge structures. Louisiana Two exploration points are now commonly prescribed for bridges ~100' long as opposed to only one. Mississippi GEC 5, TMD20-14 Nevada If FHWA Manuals requirements exceed AASHTO's, we generally use FHWA requirements. Texas See above under question 3. 5. Link to "state-specific" manual and/or specifications: 3. Please briefly describe unique agency practices (Please select the item below that best describes the minimum requirements) 3. Other (Please select the item below that best describes the minimum requirements) 5. Please briefly describe any differences in practices or requirements for site characterization relative to those prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

78 Alabama Boring logs are always included in the plans and the contractor is given notice that they can request a copy of the foundation report from our office. In a few rare instances, the report has been included in the contract documents. Alaska Boring logs are attached to the bridge drawings and sealed by the State Foundation Engineer. Foundation Geology Report is made available to bidders. Arizona Geotechnical Foundation Report Geotechnical Data Report Arkansas Report California Boring Records Log of Test Borings Laboratory test data Down hole geophysical data Rock cores Colorado Reviewed, accepted, and PE stamped geotechnical report. DC -Boring logs -Soil characteristics/classification -Soil tests -Dewatering plan Delaware borings log and GWT FHWA Central Federal Lands Bridge Foundations reports that include boring information and seismic information in high seismic areas. FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Boring logs and a subsurface profile is included in the bridge plans. A geotechnical engineering report is included in the bid package as information to bidders. FHWA Western Federal Lands Physical data includes all geotechnical reports and memoranda written and compiled for each project. The reports/memos contain the description of the surface and subsurface investigations, the results of the investigations, interpretation/characterization of subsurface materials and conditions including geologic interpretation and mapping, laboratory test results and interpretations of soil and rock tests, evaluation of hazards (geologic hazards including geochemical such as acid rock drainage and asbestos (typically of greatest concern for mass rock excavation and utilization in grading projecs but possible consideration for bridge projects)), seismic analysis, site specific geologic and geotechnical construction considerations, FLMA/partner agency restrictions and requirements Florida Cone sounding, test boring and lab testing results; muck probe results, foundation requirements, shallow foundation size and bearing elevation, deep foundation type and minimum tip elevation, required bearing resistance. Georgia Bridge Foundation Investigations and soils reports for info only Hawaii Boring informaion and reference to the geotechnical report are included in the project plans. Idaho Boring logs, descriptions of subsurface condition, field test results, any subsurface condition that may cause problems during construction. Illinois just boring logs and rock cores Indiana Geotechnical Report as well as a table showing loading conditions and pile driving criteria for each support. Iowa Subsurface soil profile sheets that depict all borings performed. Kansas all geotechnical reports and design memos Kentucky Subsurface Data Sheets which contain laboratory test data & soil classifications and SPT blow counts & CPT data (when applicable) Louisiana Boring log data which includes location, soil classification, Atterberg Limits, moisture content, unit weight, SPT value/UU strength value, %passing #200 Maine Project-specific Geotechnical Design Reports for highway and bridge projects are posted as PDF's on our agency's website along with the bid documents. Maryland Boring and Drive Tests Sheets are part of the bid plans that present the soil description and SPT information and if rock is encountered, recovery, a rock classifcation, and RQD is supplied. plan sheets Massachusetts Boring, test pit and probe logs are on all plan sets. Geotechnical Reports are provided/refrenced bid docs. Deep foundation testing are routinely performed during construction but requirements specified on plans. Michigan Soil boring logs, field testing and laboratory testing is included in the bid documents (all factual information). Minnesota Abbreviated boring logs plotted on bridge survey sheets. Mississippi Geotechnical report for subject bridge. Missouri Boring logs Montana we include the boring logs for all projects where a subsurface investigation occurs Nebraska Boring Logs and estimated pile lengths and bearing capacity are provided on the bridge plans Nevada Boring logs are also included on the plans, and geotechnical report is available on line and reference by the Special Provisions and the General Notes on the plans. New York Any and all geotechnical information used in the design of the bridge project. Boring logs, laboratory testing, and any other factual information. North Carolina We include with the bid documents for information purposes only. They are not part of the bid document. North Dakota Boring Logs Ohio Required information is outlined in our Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations, linked in question 5.b above Oregon Geotech logs in bid plans, reference to geotech reports in bid plans Pennsylvania Plotted Test Boring Logs are a part of the Structure Plans. Geotechnical design parameters (soil or rock) used for design. Temporary excavation support parameters. Soil profile plans and applicable geologic cross sections are provided on large projects or projects with complicated geologic conditions. Rhode Island The Geotechnical Data Report is included with the bid documents South Carolina Geotechnical Data Report South Dakota Subsurface sheet detailing site characteristics. Tennessee Project Geotechnical Report and all related Special Provisions. Texas Soil borings, TCP penetration tests, soil description, water suface elevation, critical laboratory test results. Utah Soil Data Sheets, Lab Data for DB projects, pile driving requirements, minimum driving resistance, minimum hammer energy Vermont Boring logs and locations are shown ont he plan sheets. Geotechnical engineering reports are included in the contract documents on more complex bridge and roadway projects. Geotechnical data reports with design criteria are included in the contract documents for projects with large mast arm and sign support foundations. Virginia Boring logs are nailed to the bid documents. Geotechnical report for information only and available upon request. Wisconsin A graphic representation of the borings are included in the bridge plan. The Geotech report is NOT included. Wyoming * Geotech report and table summarizing recommendations for footings, piling and drilled shafts * Log boring sheet plan view and section summarizing the site and drill holes 6. Please describe the geotechnical information required to be included with bridge project bid documents.

79 Colorado Using new drilling techniques to obtain core for strength testing and description. Producing a manual of practice for guidance. FHWA Central Federal Lands Developed new soil and rock characterization manual for CFL. FHWA Western Federal Lands Upgraded the seismic analysis for bridge foundations. Added direct shear test apparatus to our internal lab testing capabilities. Developed standard description guidelines for soils and rocks. Introduced use of Lidar imagary as standard practice. Currently actively progressing with development of GIS database for site evaluation and investigation data. Florida Increase frequency of borings for highly variable sites, berform borings at every drilled shaft when nonredundant, require surveyor location of bridge borings & hand-held GPS location of roadway & pond borings, require borings for deep foundations to extend well below anticipated tip elevations Indiana LRFD based design, cut down the spacing of borings, introduced new lab & field testing, eliminated the use of nuclear gauge for compaction testing, increased the use of CPT testing, use of DCPT & LWD testing for compaction control, used intelligent compaction on several projects, increase the use of chemical modification of foundation & subgrade soils etc. Iowa Number of borings and boring depths were adjusted to be more compatible with LRFD-substructure guidelines. Kentucky More use of CPT. Louisiana gINT electronic data is now a deliverable upon completion of exploration SPT Hammer energy is measured and reported SPT standard is being enforced, not allowing the test to end with premature blows as had been the case. Maine For high risk geotechnical sites a supplemental QA check has been implemented to assure adequate exploration and design analyses are conducted. Missouri MoDOT collects and runs more soil strength and rock core tests to conform with recommendations from University of Missouri study on LRFD resistance factors. Montana we use more in-situ methods, geophysical, and the SPT is not relied on as much as it used to be Nebraska Have added use of cpt. North Carolina We are in the process of increase using CPT and more soil testing. Oregon greater care in landsldie prone areas South Carolina Greatly increased with the implementation of LRFD, seismic, and our new design manual Vermont We now take borings on all roadway projects whenever a reclaimation alternative is being considered. Virginia re-issued the geotechnical engieering manual of instructions (see provided link). Wyoming We have increased the amount of insitu testing and sampling for bridges, landslides and some roadway investigations. Idaho Reduce required number of test hole if geophysic tests are performed. Missouri Use results from University of Missouri LRFD study. Nevada AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications Pennsylvania Higher resistance factors (0.55 vs 0.45 for spread footing on soil) and lower factors of safety (1.3 vs 1.5 for global slope stability) are permitted for better site characterization. South Carolina We allow them but by approval. Typically our minimums are very substantial to begin with. They are in our manual. Virginia enhanced strength data beyond SPT n-value will allow the use of greater strength (or lower safety factor) in design. In-situ testing can be used in lieu of up to 50 percent conventional borings. Wyoming * A database of laboratory and field testing data for soil and bedrock is maintained * A database of PDA and WEAP and design data is maintained for Bridges * (These data records are in progress) Idaho Provisions are not available for sharing. Missouri http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=751.37_Drilled_Shafts Pennsylvania ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%2015M.pdf South Carolina http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Geotechnical.aspx Virginia http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bu-mat-moi-3.pdf Wyoming Provisions are not available for sharing. Missouri approximately 4 to 5 yrs ago Nevada Long standing practice as code allowed. Pennsylvania I don't know. South Carolina 2008 Virginia 2012 Wyoming 2009 10. Link to provisions (Are there provisions in your agency’s design code that provide incentives for performing site characterization in excess of the minimum requirements or for performing specific site characterization activities?) 10. Briefly describe provisions (Are there provisions in your agency’s design code that provide incentives for performing site characterization in excess of the minimum requirements or for performing specific site characterization activities?) 9. Has your agency implemented specific changes to site characterization practices in the last five years? 10. When were provisions established? (Are there provisions in your agency’s design code that provide incentives for performing site characterization in excess of the minimum requirements or for performing specific site characterization activities?)

80 Alabama Before letting a project, the geotechnical section was not provided the time required to perform a thorough geotechnical investigation and once the project was let, significant problems in the subsurface were found at a significant expense to the state. Arkansas We have had significant issues with unstable cut slopes. Delaware may be at the bridge design FHWA Western Federal Lands Primarily the identification of the extent of weak subgrade soils that require subexcavation during construction. Project Managers are reluctant to agree to the Preliminary Engineering expense of extensive ennough subgrade investigations to accurately delineate the length, width, and depth of weak subgrade soils. Lack of detail often results in contract change orders, usually to increase the amount of subexcavation Idaho Significant settlements of bridge approach embankments due to existence of soft, organic soils. Indiana poor subgrade soils, compaction, and poor drainage etc. Kentucky Pile Overruns, Subgrade Problems, Long-Term Slope Stability Problems, Shale Breaking Down in Embankments Louisiana Single borings on 100' bridges have been standard practice for many years. With the switch to LRFD methods our design group requested that an additional boring be taken to bound the bridge site to reduce the risk of driving piles in unknown site conditions Massachusetts Obstructions. lack of anticipated capacity or ease of perceived drilling conditions. greater than anticipated capacity or difficult perceived drilling conditions. constructability issues associated with ground known or unknown subsurface or substructure conditions. Michigan Slope stability issues in existing slopes and constructed slopes. Mississippi Lack of adequate boring information has resulted in excess overexcavation, unexpected rock excavation, etc. Nevada Unanticipated soft subgrade conditions Caliche Boulders Caving soils New York Unknown underground conditions always affect the performance of projects. Oregon Landslide failures, unanticiapted South Carolina The manual was an attempt to reduce these. Texas Misscharacterization of the soil profile. This resulted in the need for additional soil borings, redesign and delays to the project schedule. Utah On DB projects, inadequate characterization of liquefaction, lateral spread and seismic slope instability. Virginia Depending on whom you ask, the answer is either yes or no. . . I (Carl Benson) will say yes. The performance problem that I see relates to whether the boring log correctly conveys the nature of the subsurface conditions. Consider two cases, the presence of voids and the depth to unscourable rock. Regarding the former, if a driller is committed to coring runs that are equal to the length of the core barrel, a simple block-off of water pressure half-way through the run could easily result in ground-up rock core and loss of recovery. Often we'll see water loss in limestone at some depth that corresponds to low recovery. Such water loss is often considered a void. Then at a lower depth, we'll see another interval of water loss, which would seem to negate the presence of the upper void. Regarding the latter matter of scour, I'll offer the following: HEC-18 seems to imply that RQD >50 is non-scourable. Well, in typical geotechnical exploration for earthwork and grading, we are reluctant to put on the core barrel until we have auger refusal. Is that the best approach for scour evaluation? It is quite likely that we should put on the core barrel at the first opportunity (i.e., residuum with 60/6" or such). If we auger grind rock at abutments, we'd never know whether an otherwise excavatable rock is prone to scour. West Virginia Wyoming We have good success in characterizing soil and bedrock conditions for surfacing sources, structures and landslide and rockfall designs. We have had some issues in predicting soft soil improvement and rock excavation which can vary depending on weather and contractor issues. 11. Has your agency experienced significant performance problems that can be attributed to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices?

81 Alaska Brotherhood Bridge Widening, in Juneau, Alaska. Deep soil borings and advanced liquefaction analysis resulted in a reduction Arizona ADOT projects No H8479, H8480 We have completed geotechnical investigation and recommendations before the design stage, thus expedidited the project schedule and potentially identified significant cost savings for construction. Delaware use CPT and SPT Indiana Performing more borings upfront (CPT &SPT)to better describe the site conditions and the utilization of chemical modification for the treatment of poor & wet foundation and pavement subgrade soils has significantly reduce the time for construction. Louisiana Data for our Interstate Median Cable Barrier Projects have been primarily CPT data, which is a economical and rapid test compared to a conventional boring. Cost savings for these are estimated to be ~40% compared to conventional borings of equal depth. This cost savings is increased when accomplishing the task with in-house crews versus consultants. We have several large projects that are either design-build or have been paid for by a private entity(casino) that have used a mixture of full-depth borings and CPT to characterize the site, which has reduced the amount of cost and field time for geotech exploration. These are the I-49 Ambassador Caffery Interchange, I-49 LA 318 Interchange, and the I-220 Cove lane Interchange. Maine Comprehensive geotechnical investigations and supplemental boring programs based on requests of proposers have allowed accelerated project delivery using the design-build project delivery method. Michigan All Design-Build project in MDOT that the majority of the geotechnical investigations done prior to advertising the project. This reduces unknowns, reduces cost and shortens the project time line since there is usually significant time and cost associated with drilling, sampling and testing. Missouri performed Geotechnical baseline borings and report for design-build project for the final phase of the Route 364 extension in St. Charles Co in Missouri. Nevada Moana I 580 Interchange. $2 million savings. This was a CMAR project. CMAR provided the means to discuss potential risks with contractor and perform additional investigation to reduce risks. Another example is the use of O cell testing to reduce the size of drilled shafts for the proposed CC 215/US 95 Interchange, resulting in a $4 million cost saving. New Hampshire Geophysics were proved to save money on projects where less explorations were required. Additionally down hole televiewer has aided significantly in the rock characterization for the design of bridge foundations. Pennsylvania I cannot estimate magnitude however we have spent millions of extra dollars on construction in karst in the past and now with a combination of site charactization techniques (many borings, groundwater monitoring and geophysics) our projects go without significant unexpected conditions. South Carolina We do not track Wyoming Efficient and effective geotechnical practices and experienced personnel generally result in a reduction in cost overruns, change of conditions and claims for many projects, i.e., all types of structures, surfacing sources and landslide and rockfall designs. The Geology Program uses an accelerated project delivery procedure for letting emergency landslide and similar projects. Vermont Early charaterization of the foundation support conditions helps in the decision process to reuse existing foundations. When exisiting foundations can be reused, project delivery is accelerated and a savings of up to 40% of the project cost can be realized. Alaska They have a potential to significantly impact the budget but have not in recent history. Arizona I don't know California Claims and change orders in my experience do not regularly delay projects, but the claims process after a project is complete can continue for years. Colorado Don't know Delaware I don't know FHWA Western Federal Lands Increased costs during construction mean that the owner agency needs to provide additional matching funds under the current funding legislation for Federal Lands projects. Indiana Budget and time delays during construction Louisiana Some change orders violate the designer's intent and should require the Project Engineer who makes the change to re-stamp the plan change - If we are even notified about the change at all. Minnesota Project Budget and most important impact to the critical path on a project. Nevada They significantly impact project budgets and schedules. New York They create changes that affect the stability and budgeting for the Capital Program. South Carolina time of construction,delays 14. Other (If claims, change orders, and cost overruns are a recognized problem within your agency, what is the primary source of concern regarding the claims, change orders, and cost overruns?) 12. Does your agency have notable examples where site characterization practices have led to accelerated project delivery or reduced costs for construction and operation of transportation facilities?

82 Florida With the delivery mechanisms noted, the liability of discovery and corrective action falls solely on the Contractor. Illinois claims will be reduced Louisiana DB is perceived to have fewer claims than DBB due to more communication regarding specifications and procedures and what is allowable and what is not. Maine The perception is that design-build and CMGC contracting methods reduce claims, change orders and cost overruns. While our agency has completed several design-build contracts, we are just now embarking on the first significant CMGC contract. Minnesota contract overages due to claims, changes order and overruns are less on design build projects than on bid build projects. Also, it is apparent that the contractors conduct themselves differently on design build projects vs bid build pertaining to the way that they mitigate delays. Mississippi It isn't a perceived effect. Each delivery method comes with its own probability and cost for overruns, claims, and change orders. Missouri For design-build projects MoDOT has a team that works with the DB construction-design team to alleviate change orders and claims. Nevada No experience with PPP. Design-bid-build often results in greatest incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders or cost overruns. Design build allows us to select a good design build team, but subsurface characterization becomes a cost that is often minimized during the design build process. CMR seems to have the least incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders or cost overruns. Risks are determined early allowing for additional site characterization to reduce risks. New Hampshire The baseline geotechnical report has variability and is not as "complete" as a a design bid build. New York Some believe that Design-Build will lessen the Department's responsibility for change orders, and some believe that Design- Build will create more situations that require change orders. South Carolina Less claims Utah We seem to have had our worst experience with DB projects. Vermont There is a change in risk alocation and with that change comes and increase in claims. Also, for our Agency, some of these contracting methods are relatively new so there is a learning curve that all parties go through with any new process. Illinois claims will be reduced Maine The perception is that design-build and CMGC contracting methods reduce claims, change orders and cost overruns. While our agency has completed several design-build contracts, we are just now embarking on the first significant CMGC contract. Minnesota same answer as the previous question.... again the big thing is the way the contractors conduct themselves when mitigating delays on design build vs bid build Mississippi Same answer as previous question. Nevada No experience with PPP. Design-bid-build often results in greatest incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders or cost overruns. Design build allows us to select a good design build team, but subsurface characterization becomes a cost that is often minimized during the design build process. CMR seems to have the least incidence or magnitude of claims, change orders or cost overruns. Risks are determined early allowing for additional site characterization to reduce risks. New Hampshire The incidence of claims is higher on design build as the baseline geotechnical reports are not the same as a design bid build. New York See previous answer to similar question. South Carolina less claims Utah It seems like we have seen a higher incidence and magnitude of claims on DB projects. Virginia following scope validation (180 days after contract award) there is no further claim period on design-build projects. Vermont Same comment as 16. 16. Design-build (all claims): Please explain the perceived effect. 21. Design-build (subsurface claims): Please explain the perceived effect. FHWA Eastern Federal Lands The answer to Q. #23 includes projects classified as Emergency Relief of Federally Owned Roads (ERFO), which could be considered reconstruction work. Also, the answer to Q. #23 includes projects awarded from 2010 through end of 2014. Q. #27 through #29 include projects awarded prior to 2010, but sill active in 2010 and through 2014. Q. #30 and #32 include projects closed from 2010 to end of 204. Florida All claim information is stored as scanned images in our EDMS. searchable records are not readily available. However, one could build a database of the claim information but it would take a great deal of resources to complete. Georgia estimates base upon percentages of performance measures tracked by GDOT. Indiana 1) There are contracts that were let in 2012 and 2013 that are still under construction that may incur additional change orders. 2) All change orders recorded for the contracts let from 7/1/2008 (FY 2009) to 6/30/2013 (FY 2013). 3) These data had a lot of filtration and customization for the purpose intended. Maryland Maryland SHA only tracks Change Orders. We do not track claims or overruns. South Dakota When it asked total number of CCOs since 2009, I wasn't positive if that meant to include 2009. The data I provided is from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2014. Data could be increased by 20% if you meant to include 2009 in the data set. FHWA Eastern Federal Lands The answer to Q.#38 also includes change orders that were and were not due to subsurface conditions or site characterization practices. Some changes orders include multiple change items, some of which are not related to subsurface conditions. The sum of the changes related only to the earthwork items is $1,556,037, which is the answer to Q. #41. Also, responses to Q. 37 to 42 are for projects within a time frame from 2010 to end of 2014. Georgia estimates based on limited internal tracking Indiana These data are collected and customized for the purpose of presentation and are not populated in one location. The numbers can be changed depending the criteria chosen such as based on letting year or actual year when the CO took place or the year the project was completed. Maryland Maryland SHA just tracks costs for Change orders with coding that relates to differing site conditions. Oregon Oregon DOT does not track claims or overruns related to subsurface conditions. After 42. Please use the comment field below to add any explanation, qualification, or clarification to your responses. After 32. Please use the comment field below to add any explanation, qualification, or clarification to your responses.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-27204-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 2 7 2 0 4 9 9 0 0 0 0 Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claim s, Change Orders, and Overruns NCHRP Synthesis 484 TRB