Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claims, Change Orders, and Overruns (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 66-83
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 66... ...
67 APPENDIX B Survey Responses (Web-Only) RESPONDINg AgENcIES Agencies responding to the survey are shown in Figure 2 in chapter three.
|
From page 67... ...
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?
|
From page 68... ...
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 ?
|
From page 69... ...
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 (+/-)
|
From page 70... ...
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.
|
From page 71... ...
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.
|
From page 72... ...
73 Question 8 Does your agency maintain a database of subsurface information? Select the response that best describes your agency capabilities.
|
From page 73... ...
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.
|
From page 74... ...
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.
|
From page 75... ...
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.
|
From page 76... ...
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.
|
From page 77... ...
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.
|
From page 78... ...
79 Colorado Using new drilling techniques to obtain core for strength testing and description. Producing a manual of practice for guidance.
|
From page 79... ...
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.
|
From page 80... ...
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.
|
From page 81... ...
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.
|
From page 82... ...
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)
|
From page 83... ...
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 .
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.