when compared to the actual design process, which is usu-ally
many months to a year or more.
General contractors are expected to review and gather
sub-contractor prices and bid on the job, all usually within a
three- to five-week period. Keep in mind the design itself was
already completed by a design team many months prior to
the general contractor coming into the picture.
What about the addenda?
Addenda is a tool to catch errors, gather feedback from the
contractors bidding on the work and allow for adjustments.
It’s always the same – often cumbersome – process.
Addenda are issued and have to be plugged into the giant
tender set by the general contractor at the right location.
Then it has to be reviewed against what the general contrac-tor
is already pricing so that the design team can make any
necessary adjustments. It’s no wonder that most general con-tractors
wait for all of the addenda to be determined before
taking a hard look at the tender in its final state. That often
leaves general contractors with as little as four or five busi-ness
days to review it all.
General contractors are also often presented with contract
clauses which essentially require them to accept the chosen
design as the best method and to take on all risks and respon-sibilities
for the project; no matter the potential pitfalls.
A general contractor needs subcontractors to ensure the
positive outcome of a project. General contractors must
ensure that the product put forth by the subcontractor will
meet the exact criteria outlined in the design and that the
subcontractor can help to meet or improve the overall sched-ule.
Oftentimes a general contractor accomplishes this by
binding the subcontractor to the prime contract in an effort
to make them responsible for the risk factors associated with
their scope of the project, as well as any other risk factors of
the prime contract that can be tied to them.
Design clarity and understanding are important
Is the tender in clear and plain language so that contractors
can make enough sense out of it to price it in a four- or five-week
(more likely a one-week) period? Do the designers take
the time during the design process to ensure that the plans
and specs are unambiguous and understandable?
What about the design process for the design-bid-build
project? Do the designers themselves have enough of a
budget to ensure a proper design and accurate specifications
– therefore reducing the risk of cost overruns and extras? Do
owners force too much competition and are they simply facili-tating
a race for the bottom by getting a low-price designer on
the project, which will result in the tender package suffering?
The general contractor-owner relationship is not the
only place extras occur. Extras also occur in the geotechni-cal
subcontracting and dirt subcontracting world too. Extras
can happen when deep foundations can’t reach the required
depth or are impeded by obstructions. Extras also occur
when dig/replace approaches encounter unexpected soil or
groundwater conditions, which always end up increasing
the volume of required material, or the length of time that
construction will take. Extras can also happen when the
groundwater is not well defined or the soil ends up being dif-ferent
than what was expected.
For geotechnical projects, owners and designers luckily
have a range of alternative ground improvement solutions for
challenging soils. Ground improvement fortunately takes a
work-smart approach to challenging soil sites, making it nec-essary
to have a clear understanding and plan for variances
in soils. When scoping out and identifying the best approach
to complex soil challenges, it is important to note that not
all ground improvement approaches are created equal or are
appropriate for all soil conditions.
It’s common in the geotechnical world for consultants
to not be given the budget and project scope to understand
the differences between various proprietary design-build
geotechnical techniques; particularly when it comes to deter-mining
which methods will work for which soil conditions. It
is important for project teams to consult with specialty con-tractors
to ensure the systems they are recommending will
perform as required.
If the scope of a geotechnical investigation cannot be prop-erly
outlined, perhaps a small “extra” during the geotechnical
work should be pushed by the geotechnical engineer to the
owner – particularly when that’s the right thing to do to avoid
much larger problems later during construction. Unless the
geotechnical investigation has enough depth, quality and
resolution, it becomes harder to price work accurately and
a light geotechnical investigation can often result in extras.
What might be perceived as upfront savings on geotechni-cal
scope during the design phase can result in a much higher
cost in the long run. If a geotechnical consultant advises that
more geotechnical work and materials are required on a proj-ect,
it may be wise to take heed.
BUSINESS
HXDYL/123RF 52 Q1 2019 www.pilingcanada.ca
/profile_hxdyl
/www.pilingcanada.ca
