Geotechnical Information Practices in Design-Build Projects (2012)

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

40 CHAPTER FIVE DESIGN-BUILD POST-AWARD DESIGN PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION NCHRP Synthesis 376 (2008) describes the design phase of a DB project as “the phase where the ultimate quality of the constructed facility is quantified through the production of construction documents.” A 2004 study of DB quality man- agement stated, “Quality cannot be assumed into the project. It must be designed and built into the project in accordance with the DB contract itself” (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004). Achieving high-quality design demands informa- tion-rich and frank communication between the owner and the design-builder’s staff during the design phase (Ernzen et al. 2000; Beard et al. 2001). Partnering is one tool that has been used to enhance communications on DB projects (Allen et al. 2002), and DBIA’s Manual of Policy Statements states, “DBIA advocates both formal and informal project partnering and considers the partnering philosophy to be at the foundation of design-build delivery” (DBIA 1998). Partnering Design-Build Projects with Geotechnical Issues Partnering has been used successfully in transportation proj- ects since the late 1980s. Its central concept is to bring the various parties to a construction contract together and create an environment of open communication and trust. “Open communications is the key to any partnering process” (Ern- zen et al. 2000). A study of the Texas DOT’s early DBB part- nering program found that partnering provided an effective means to control both cost and time growth (Gransberg et al. 1999). Similar research on NAVFAC’s DB partnering process reached the same conclusions and demonstrated the benefits of applying partnering principles to DB projects (Allen et al. 2002). Ernzen et al. (2000) completed a study of the Arizona DOT’s partnering efforts on a major DB project in Phoenix, and concluded, Design-build by its nature lends itself to the partnering concept. The partnering concept ideas of increased communication, alignment of goals, and development of a dispute resolution system fit perfectly with design- build’s overarching theme of single-point responsibility for the owner. Increased pressure because of schedule compression typical of most design-build projects makes partnering a vital necessity (Ernzen et al. 2000). Most formal partnering programs are initiated before design commences. Partnering facilitates conflict avoid- ance during the initial stages of design as the geotechnical investigation and its subsequent design reports are com- pleted (Ernzen et al. 2000). “Actual partnering” begins during the design-builder’s team-building period as the pro- posal is developed during the procurement phase between the designers and constructors on the design-builder’s team (Allen et al. 2002). Additionally, during the DOT’s procure- ment phase, internal partnering efforts often involve inter- nal DOT lawyers, engineering discipline areas, procurement personnel, and others. Many DOTs use the principles of part- nering to cement positive working relationships with exter- nal stakeholders such as state environmental agencies, and pre-award partnering efforts can have the same effect on the project as the DB team partnering before contract award. Figure 3 shows the survey responses on DOT policy requir- ing partnering on DB projects, separated by the experienced DOTs and the less experienced DOTs. All but three agencies require partnering on DB projects. Those three DOTs (Min- nesota, Montana, and Utah) encourage partnering, but their contracts do not mandate a formal partnering session. Hence all the respondents, regardless of DB experience, agree that partnering adds value to DB project execution, which leads to the conclusion that some form of partnering clause is used in most DOT DB contracts. FIGURE 3 Survey results for partnering requirements on DB projects Note: Of the 17 DOTs that reported having fewer than 5 DB projects, 10 did not respond to this question. The first opportunity for the DOT and design-builder to conduct formal partnering occurs at contract award. The first partnering meeting must be designed to develop com- munication pathways that are critical to furnishing specific design information, as well as owner preferences for tried-

41 and-true geotechnical engineering design solutions, to the design-builder’s design team. It should also build the com- munications structure to ensure that the designers on the owner’s and designer’s teams are aware of critical geotech- nical information, and to incorporate the constructors in the geotechnical design information exchange to make sure that final designs are constructible and conform to the means and methods assumptions reflected in the price proposal (Ernzen et al. 2000). For DB projects with significant geotechnical issues, experience has shown that a second partnering meet- ing held after the geotechnical investigation and geotechni- cal design report is completed creates an opportunity to talk through and resolve potential changed site conditions issues, thereby avoiding adverse schedule impacts (Higbee 2004). Changing the Design Administration Culture The culture shift from DBB design administration to DB design administration requires that both the owner and the design-builder agree at the outset of the project to create a design administration system that supports the development of a design that responds fully to the DB contract. This is particularly critical with regard to the project’s geotechnical aspects. Since the geotechnical design will occur at the earli- est stages of the process, it is often on the critical path, and any failure to jointly work through the problems identified by the full-scale geotechnical investigation could threaten the entire project’s schedule. The WSDOT’s DB guideline articulates this requirement as follows: Partnering should be considered an integral part of the Design Quality Control/Quality Assurance program. A partnering agreement is recommended to handle disputes. In addition a separate procedure for conflict resolution should be developed and agreed to by the partnering participants (WSDOT 2004). The WSDOT survey response included the following com- ment, which describes a tool for expediting any DSCs that may be encountered in these critical early stages of the DB project: We [assign] all changed conditions under a certain dollar amount (different amounts for different contracts) to the contractor’s risk. If that threshold is exceeded, then the department pays for the costs above the threshold. This is an elegant solution to a potentially thorny prob- lem. Including this mechanism in the DB contract affords the design-builder an opportunity to include an appropri- ate contingency in its proposed price without adding extra money to cover the possibility that the agency will not rec- ognize a DSC claim. It also bounds the agency’s liability for this particular type of uncertainty. A national design-builder’s DB project administration manual expresses the same sentiments about the impor- tance of changing the design administration culture for DB projects: It is vital for the long-term success of the project to involve the owner/client in a relationship where everyone understands the roles and responsibilities of the client as well as the executing team. Indeed, design/build is the ultimate partnering relationship (Centennial Contractors 2004). Both parties to the DB contract recognize the value in formally agreeing to work together during the design phase to achieve the required levels of quality in the ultimate project. Open communication is the catalyst to making the design administration culture shift. WSDOT again provides an example of the owner’s role in DB design administration after the shift is complete. WSDOT is expecting a proposed project that meets the design criteria and can be further developed for construction….WSDOT is expecting to be available in a matter of hours or days, not days or weeks, to answer questions and provide feedback during the process. We would like to operate under a partnering environment with over-the-shoulder reviews, if possible. WSDOT will not be approving the design or construction, the Design- Builder will have the responsibility for ensuring the project proposal is correct. The Design-Builder will likewise have the responsibility for correcting any mistakes made in the proposal process, unless the mistakes are the result of an unclear RFP (WSDOT 2004). The survey contained a question regarding DOT part- nering policies on projects with significant geotechnical aspects, and 84% of the respondents indicated that they used formal partnering on their DB projects. Therefore, it appears that most DOTs have at least a foundation in place to build the communications conduit that will help produce a quality geotechnical design for a DB project. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCESS The post-award geotechnical design process for DB projects is established by the DB contract itself, and it has three com- ponents that prescribe the work process. 1. The requirements articulated in the DB RFP. 2. The agency’s DB guidelines, which are incorporated by reference in the contract. 3. The contents of the winning DB proposal, which spell out the design-builder’s specific approach to the geo- technical design. Agency-Controlled Design Process Features The agency is able to control two of the three documents that define the geotechnical design process in a DB project. Table 22 contains a list of design criteria, specifications, standard design details, and references from a content analysis of the

42 17 DB guidelines and the 46 solicitation document sampled for the synthesis. It is apparent that the amount of specific geotechnical information required in the agency-developed documents is sparse. There are two possible explanations. First, each of the solicitation documents contains a list of documents incorporated by reference, which usually include the agency’s geotechnical design manual. Thus, the expec- tation is that the design-builder will follow those proce- dures and produce essentially the same design deliverables required in a similar DBB project. One guide states that the intent is to “use the Department’s existing systems to the extent possible, changing or adding only as necessary to facilitate the design-build method of contracting” (WSDOT 2004). Second, the DB guidelines are meant to furnish gen- eral guidance applicable to all types of projects, rather than specific direction on each disciplinary area such as geotech- nical engineering. Nevertheless, the paucity of specific information indi- cates a gap in the body of knowledge. Future research as to what types of geotechnical information should be contained in agency-level DB guidelines and in RFPs for projects with significant geotechnical aspects is recommended. The value would be to sensitize agency personnel and consultants who develop DB solicitation documents to the need to evaluate the requirements for geotechnical input and output at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the decision to use DB project delivery is indeed a good decision, and to see that efforts are made to develop the preliminary geotechnical information necessary to encourage competitive/responsive proposals. One DB guideline describes it this way: “It is par- ticularly important that WSDOT staff be able to define the basic objectives of the design-build project very early in the process” (WSDOT 2004). Design-Builder-Controlled Design Process Features Table 23 shows the results of the two content analyses for the output required of the winning design-builder during the post-award geotechnical design process. As with the previ- ous table, the frequency of most observations is low. This rate is affected by the same two reasons as Table 23: incorpo- rated references and generalized guidelines. A third reason may also be in play here. A number of the agency guidelines encourage agency personnel to have a hands-off approach regarding design directives. Below is a common clause from a DOT DB guide: The design-builder usually has the responsibility for any project specific geotechnical or subsurface investigations beyond what WSDOT provides… As the design-builder is ultimately responsible for the design, wherever TABLE 22 CONTENT ANALYSIS OUTPUT FOR AGENCY-CONTROLLED POST-AWARD GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN Post-award Design Criteria, Specifications, Design Details, and References Number of Observations Agency Guidelines (No./%) Solicitation Documents (No./%) Use of geotechnical baseline report as a contract document 5 29% 3 7% Use of geotechnical baseline report as a reference document 3 18% 1 2% Geotechnical safety factors mandated 5 29% 6 13% Geotechnical design values mandated 6 35% 11 24% Preliminary design of geotechnical features of work completed 3 18% 11 24% Use of performance verification and measurement methods mandated 0 0% 14 30% Test piling mandated 3 18% 13 28% Instrumentation mandated 3 18% 14 30% Methods for mitigating high-risk geotechnical conditions specified (e.g., landslides and contaminated soils) 8 47% 8 17% Pile foundation design specified 2 12% 3 7% Bridge foundation design specified 1 6% 3 7% Documents Incorporated by Reference FHWA Administration Checklist 3 18% 15 33% FHWA Geotechnical Instrumentation 1 6% 3 7% FHWA Geotechnical Circular 4 0 0% 4 9% FHWA Geotechnical Circular 5 1 6% 2 4% FHWA Geotechnical Circular 6 0 0% 11 24% AASHTO Standard Specifications 3 18% 12 26% FHWA Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations 0 0% 5 11% FHWA Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 1 6% 2 4% AREMA Manual of Recommended Practice 0 0% 1 2%

43 possible WSDOT project personnel should resist the temptation to insert their preferences or solutions into the RFP (WSDOT 2004). Again, this supports the need for future research to deter- mine the value of including detailed requirements for geotech- nical design output in DB guides and solicitation documents. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REVIEWS The formal method for exchanging detailed geotechnical design information is through the contractual design review process. Although there is no standard definition for the composition of geotechnical design review, most agency DB guidelines typically address how a design review should be conducted (Mn/DOT 2001; WSDOT 2004). The North Car- olina DOT provides specific guidance for DB geotechnical design reviews in a two-page document that lists “design cal- culations and supporting documentation in the geotechnical design submittals for the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit’s review and acceptance” (NCDOT 2009). According to a design-builder’s DB procedures manual, the greatest single obstacle to timely completion is the own- er’s design review process: “Design reviews will always be on the DB project’s critical path because the consequences of proceeding at our own risk without assurance that what we build will ultimately be acceptable to the owner are unac- ceptable” (Centennial Contractors 2004). Many owners believe that there is a difference between “approving” a submittal and “accepting” a submittal (Mn/ DOT 2001; WSDOT 2004). For the most part, however, courts have been not willing to differentiate the two terms. This is particularly true when an owner that has substantial technical expertise and resources (as do most DOTs) tries to shield itself from responsibility by “accepting” rather than “approving.” Consequently, the owner of a DB proj- ect should carefully decide which submittals it will simply “review” and those which it will influence or act upon. Most owners select DB to compress the project delivery period (Songer and Molenaar 1996), which creates a sense of urgency during early design efforts that is not present in a tra- ditional DBB project. Attempting to impose the traditional linear process—design submittals followed by reviews, and then by resubmittals to address comments—amounts to attempting to execute a DB project with a DBB mentality (Pappe 2008). As a result, the issue of how the agency will satisfy its statutory responsibility for due diligence to ensure geotechnical design adequacy must be determined before the DB contract commences. “Since the design work is usu- ally fast tracked, it is imperative for the PM [project man- ager] to have the design review team in place and ready to go upon award of the contract” (ADOT 2001). The Mn/DOT confirms the ADOT approach in its guide when it specifies three objectives to be achieved in the design review process: Place the primary responsibility for design quality on the design-builder and its designer(s). Facilitate early construction by the design-builder. Allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products while not relieving the design-builder from its obligation to comply with the contract (Gonderinger 2001). Two primary issues must therefore be addressed regarding the review of geotechnical design submittals and products: 1. The appropriate number of design reviews. 2. The content of each design submittal to be reviewed. Appropriate Number of Design Reviews The literature review found that the number of design reviews required by owners varies across the nation. However, NCHRP Synthesis 376 (2007) identified three main approaches: TABLE 23 CONTENT ANALYSIS OUTPUT FOR DESIGN-BUILDER PROPOSED POST-AWARD GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN Required Post-award Design Deliverables No. of Observations Agency Guidelines Solicitation Documents Final Geotechnical Investigation/Test Results 8 47% 25 54% Final Geotechnical Report 4 24% 23 50% Preliminary Design of Geotechnical Features 4 24% 10 22% Geotechnical Design Approach Narrative 4 24% 8 17% List of Geotechnical Assumptions 2 12% 3 7% Test Piling Program Report 3 18% 11 24% Foundation Certification Package 2 12% 10 22% Instrumentation/Monitoring Program 3 18% 13 28% High-Risk Geotechnical Conditions Mitigation Analysis 8 47% 8 17%

44 • No formal review before final (release-for-construc- tion) design review, • One review before the final design review, • Multiple reviews prior to the final design review. In many of the documents reviewed in the content analysis, the design-builder is directed to request informal reviews that allow the owner to provide more frequent input to ensure that the final design will meet the contract require- ments. These reviews are often called “over-the-shoulder” or “oversight” reviews to indicate that the design process will not stop to wait for comments from the informal review pro- cess. Table 24 summarizes the categories of design reviews and the corresponding percentage of occurrences in the NCHRP Synthesis 376 (2007) content analysis. TABLE 24 REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGN REVIEWS No. of Reviews % Projects NCHRP Synthesis 376 Content Analysis Comments No review prior to final 15% Owner still provides oversight and com- ments informally One review prior to final 56% Can be anywhere from preliminary design until just before the final design review Multiple reviews prior to final 29% The exact number of reviews can range from two to a separate review for every major feature of work Source: Gransberg et al. (2007). No Mandated Reviews When no owner-mandated design review checkpoint is required before final design, the burden of design compli- ance is placed fully on the design-builder. In theory, this is one of the benefits of utilizing DB project delivery. How- ever, the owner must still provide assurance that the con- tract will be completed with all the requirements met in a timely manner. In the RFPs analyzed in the NCHRP Synthe- sis 376 study, 41 mentioned the design review requirements. Fifteen percent used the approach of no owner-mandated design review checkpoints before the release-for-construc- tion design review. Mn/DOT detailed its design review approach an RFP for one of its first DB projects as follows: “The Department will participate in oversight reviews and reviews of early construction as part of its due diligence responsibilities” (Mn/DOT 2001). The agency used the fol- lowing verbiage in its DB RFP for the Hastings River Bridge project, a project with significant geotechnical issues: Contractor shall furnish the Released for Construction Documents and other Design Documents to Mn/DOT… Contractor shall obtain Mn/DOT’s Acceptance of the Released for Construction Documents … Mn/DOT shall have the right to review and comment on all Released for Construction Documents and other Design Documents for compliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents… (Minnesota DOT 2010). The term “released for construction” means that the design-builder’s engineer-of-record has reviewed and approved the design and is certifying it as ready for final review by the agency. Since much of the design effort relies on the final geotechnical design, allowing the design-builder to proceed with this particular effort without interruptions for mandated agency design reviews preserves the project schedule and permits the design-builder to bring the final design to “released for construction” stage as expeditiously as possible. Mn/DOT utilizes “over-the-shoulder” design reviews as the primary mechanism to make input during the design process and defines these as “The over-the-shoul- der reviews are not hold points that restrict the progress of design… they are simply reviews of the design as it pro- gresses and opportunities for Mn/DOT to provide comments and feedback on the design” (Mn/DOT 2005). As seen in the Hastings Bridge case study in this synthesis, the “hands- off” approach to design review used in Minnesota led to the design-builders proposing an external peer review of the geotechnical designs for the problematic north embankment on that bridge, The expert’s duties were to “advise and per- form a peer review of the LTP [load transfer platform] and the lightweight fill used in the transition between the CSE [column stabilized embankment] and the existing embank- ment” (Behnke and Ames 2010). The primary issue in the use of this process is for the agency to be able to demonstrate that it has discharged its statutory responsibility of “due diligence” (FHWA 2011). Minnesota uses the oversight approach referenced above. The Arizona DOT follows a similar procedure that it describes as follows: Over-the-shoulder-reviews are performed while the design is being developed. They are proactive in nature, informal, interactive, and intended to catch omissions and oversights that may lead to a major redesign of the work (ADOT 2001). Arizona also uses a design review procedure that is uniquely well-suited to geotechnical design deliverables. It is called the “early construction review” and is reserved for design products that will be released for construction before the design is 100% complete. “The intent is to ensure that enough detail has been provided in the plans to allow construction to begin and that ADOT’s minimum design standards are maintained” (ADOT 2001). This process rein- forces the due diligence requirements and allows the agency to obtain the necessary level of comfort with the design qual- ity of early geotechnical features of work scheduled in sup- port of achieving an aggressive project delivery period.

45 The WSDOT approach to the no-review process also clarifies the obligations of both the agency and the design- builder with regard to delaying construction waiting for design reviews to be completed: WSDOT will not perform an official review that might be interpreted as acceptance or approval of the design, after the acceptance of the proposal…However, construction is not required to wait for Department responses to submittals. The review teams must understand that timely reviews, checking for contract compliance, are in everyone’s best interest (WSDOT 2004, italics added). Single or Multiple Design Reviews A single formal design review before the review of the final released-for-construction documents provides an interme- diate point for the owner’s review team to verify that the design complies with the contract requirements and a mile- stone to check that it is progressing according to the sched- ule. The major advantage of this approach is the avoidance of lost design effort by furnishing a prescribed review that indi- cates the owner’s satisfaction with the design details before moving onto final construction documents. The Mississippi DOT uses this approach for their DB projects. An example is provided here: The CONTRACTOR will prepare and submit a single preliminary design submittal for the entire project. Preliminary design shall include roadway plan and profile, bridge type, selection layout, drainage, erosion control, signing, architectural and traffic control plans. MDOT will review Preliminary Design Submittals within 21 Days of the submittal… (Mississippi DOT 2005). The Mississippi DOT also provides for an “optional design review” with the following RFP clause: At the request of the CONTRACTOR, MDOT will provide optional design reviews on design packages as requested by the CONTRACTOR. MDOT as appropriate will review optional design Submittals within 14 Days…. (Mississippi DOT 2005). Mississippi’s optional design review concept inside the single review approach would work well with the early geo- technical design products. It would give the agency’s geo- technical engineers an opportunity to become comfortable with the early foundation design assumptions without need- ing to stop the entire design process just to review a single feature of work. Many (30%) of the RFPs reviewed in the content analy- sis required more than one official owner review before the design can be released for construction, which was also found in 29% of the RPFs studied in NCHRP Synthesis 376. In one RFP, The Maine DOT required that “formal design package submittals shall be made…at the 50% and 80% design development stage of any design package intended to be RFC [released-for-construction]” (Maine DOT 2010). Maine also includes an “early release for con- struction” design review process targeted at the geotechni- cal elements of bridge projects. The process is described as follows: The Design-Builder has the option to RFC design plans for a particular bridge element. Early release can be for driving piles, constructing the footings and or foundation, and submission and approval of the superstructure in order to meet procurement schedules. The Early Release process requires submission of the design plans of the particular bridge element, associated computations, and QC/QA documentation … and a description of the elements to be released. The plans and computations shall be sealed by a Maine Licensed Professional Engineer. Plans should note that they represent an early release submittal and shall identify exactly what element is to be released. Any items shown on the design plans that are not to be RFC shall be clouded and cross-hatched within the clouds (Maine DOT 2010, italics added). In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) changed its DB design reviews policy and reduced the num- ber of mandated design reviews from four (30%, 60%, 90%, and final) to two (intermediate and final) (USACE 2007). The change was made to decrease potential delays during government reviews. In a personal communication with the author, Joel Hoffman of USACE (2010) explained the rationale: “Philosophy is that once the designer of record approves construction and extension of design submittals, the builder can proceed—don’t wait on us, unless there is a specific government approval required.” This and the previ- ous discussions in this section lead to the conclusion that the appropriate number of design reviews is a function of the need for the design-builder to maintain an aggressive schedule. If the project is not schedule-constrained, the DB design reviews can afford to inject more design review points, whereas design reviews can be minimized on a fast- track project. Table 25 shows the results of the solicitation document content analysis with regard to the use of over-the-shoul- der design reviews and provisions for optional early design reviews that might be used to gain an early resolution to geo- technical design issues. It shows that experienced agencies are far more likely to use the over-the-shoulder and optional early design reviews than those with less experience. This leads to the identification of two effective practices for geo- technical design reviews. First, the use of over-the-shoulder design reviews creates a mechanism for geotechnical per- sonnel to have input into the design without causing the design-builder to pause for a formal review. Second, the inclusion of optional early design reviews for design pack- ages gives the design-builder an opportunity to gain agency concurrence on the geotechnical design approach when it is most needed, rather than having to wait for the first formal design review.

46 TABLE 25 DESIGN REVIEW OUTPUT FROM SOLICITATION DOCUMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS Design Review Types DOT < 5 DB Projects DOT > 5 DB Projects Single or Multiple Design Reviews Before Final 5 9 Over-the-Shoulder 1 17 Optional Early Design Reviews 3 12 CONTRACTOR’S PERSPECTIVE The design-builder interviews yielded valuable information regarding the geotechnical design process. Respondents were asked to rate the impact on final geotechnical quality of a number of components to the DB design process. The majority (67%) believed that the use of geotechnical perfor- mance criteria/specifications had a major impact, and more than half stated that being given detailed design criteria also promoted design and construction quality. They were less supportive of being required to use agency standard specifications and design details; one interviewee indicated that the standard specifications eliminated the possibility for innovation and turned the selection process into a “low- bid” selection. A majority also cited multiple design reviews (7 of 11), sequential design reviews by different agency design person- nel (8 of 11), and agency personnel’s willingness to accept over-the-shoulder design reviews (9 of 11) as challenges on all DB projects. In a similar vein, six respondents stated that the owner’s unwillingness to specify satisfactory corrective action to deficiencies found in over-the-shoulder and formal design reviews was a major challenge to completing the geo- technical design process and getting the construction docu- ments released on time. CONCLUSIONS The analyses discussed in this chapter resulted in the follow- ing conclusions: • A partnering clause of some form is used in most DOT DB contracts. • The appropriate number of design reviews is a func- tion of the need for the design-builder to maintain an aggressive schedule and the technical complexity of the scope of work. A project that is not schedule- constrained or without significant geotechnical issues affords the owner the opportunity to inject more design review points, whereas design reviews can be mini- mized on a fast-track project. Additionally, the following effective practices were iden- tified in this chapter: • All survey respondents, regardless of DB experience, agree that partnering adds value to DB project execution. • Effective partnering (sometimes termed “true partner- ing”) starts in the procurement phase with the owner minimizing the amount of “exculpatory verbiage” (Christensen and Meeker 2002) in the RFP. • Effective partnering is promoted by the agency expressing a sincere willingness in its solicitation documents to both share geotechnical risk (Allen et al. 2002) and seriously consider not only ATCs but also broader alternative approaches to the geotechnical design (Ernzen et al. 2000). • Experienced agencies use over-the-shoulder design reviews to create a mechanism for agency geotechnical personnel to have input into the design without stop- ping the design process, thereby facilitating progress on early DB work packages. • Including the option for early design-builder-requested design reviews on specific design packages creates the opportunity to gain agency concurrence on the ade- quacy of the geotechnical design at the point when it is most needed, rather than having to wait for the first formal design review. The following suggestions for future research are made: • Future research is recommended on the types of geo- technical review steps that should be contained in agency-level DB guidelines and in RFPs for projects with significant geotechnical issues.