action. Ask for clarity and do not be afraid to request a change order to remedy the problem. Even the best-reviewed contracts may not have certain sections relevant to the project being constructed. If a contract compliance requirement does not make sense, do not try to circumvent the process; ask for clarification and guidance on how to proceed, and submit a request for a change order, if warranted. Be mindful of the reviewer In developing a design submittal, keep the owner’s reviewer in mind. A pitfall when developing design submittals is that the engineer is intimately familiar with the problem and the information being used for the design. What may be obvious to the engineer could be completely unknown to a potential reviewer. Be clear and specific about the design element being addressed within the submittal. For example, do not just state that the design is for a mechanically stabilized earth wall. Be specific — state the intended purpose of the wall, its dimensions, the loading requirements (i.e., service or limit state), code and reference documents, the type of reinforcement, constructability concerns, and any potential issues with long-term maintenance (e.g., corrosion). Missing or incomplete information is a cause for excessive reviewer comments, which can have an impact on the timeliness of the review process and on the overall project delivery schedule. When including calculations, whether in the body of the text or as an appendix, exercise care so that they are presented in a clear and logical sequence, and are referenced to an appropriate source or code (with the section of the reference or code, when possible). In addition, the design solutions or results should be clear so that they can be easily followed by a reviewer. Communication and OTS reviews Within DB contracts, planned discipline task force meetings and as needed over the shoulder (OTS) reviews provide additional opportunities to mitigate the risk of a noncompliant design submittal. For these tools to be effective, there must be a spirit of partnering between the DB team and the owner along with willingness for open and honest communication. OTS reviews can be particularly effective in involving the owner’s discipline leads in the process and being familiar with the approaches being undertaken. When used frequently and openly, OTS reviews can minimize surprises, resolve potential conflicts, provide opportunities for clarification and guidance, and eliminate excessive com- ments from reviewers that can delay a design from proceeding to RFC. This is a very practical risk management strategy to ensure the submittals are reviewed timely and with minimal comments that require additional time to resolve. Coordination and avoiding silos Another potential risk is stove piping between disciplines, which is especially critical between structural and geotech- nical design elements. For example, structural submissions may not require any explanatory text and may logically present a series of compliance equations (e.g., with AASHTO standards) and whether those standards have or have not been met. Conversely, geotechnical submissions that lack clarity and are difficult to review can represent a significant risk if they do not present a clear understanding of the variability and uncertainty in the design process and why certain decisions were made. Coordinating between design sub- mittals is essential, as structural and geo- technical engineers share and rely on parameters affecting temporary works and permanent works (e.g., shallow and deep foundations and retaining systems). Historically, a single engineering entity would have been responsible for the design of the deep foundation system, which would have included the subsurface investigation, development of soil pro- perties, design parameters and structural elements. These roles have now been separated on most projects, and, during parallel design efforts from each dis- cipline, the coordination of information is a risk element that also requires attention. As design submittals are being prepared, the assumptions made during design must be internally consistent. For example, the loads and design must be clearly com- municated and be the same in each sub- mittal and cross-referenced accordingly. A potential breakdown between sub- mittals is when one discipline will not report all elements that affect its design because certain aspects will be the responsibility of another discipline. This failure to link design elements between disciplines can create confusion and difficulty for reviewers to confirm that contractual compliance is being satisfied. The core element in successfully delivering a DB project is that the DB team is one team not separated by disciplines, where integrated submittals are essential for successfully completing a design and constructed system. An approach to mitigate this risk would be for a single entity to be responsible for the entire design element. Consistency and QA/QC Another element of a DB project is that the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) for a design submittal is the responsibility of the collective DB team. Verification and spot-checking is the owner’s responsibility. This is yet another area that is somewhat overlooked, which can result in unnecessary risk in assessing whether a design is compliant and RFC. If a submission includes typographical errors, mislabeled figures, incomplete information or unclear language, there is a high risk that the reviewer will be concerned that the work element did not receive the attention it deserved, will meet the standard of care and be contractually noncompliant. Moreover, QA/QC can be particularly difficult to manage if the engineering team elects to distribute design elements to the team’s other geographic offices. While it may serve a business function, distri- buting work for resource leveling or engaging specific capabilities not available at the project location can introduce concerns with coordination, consistency, standards and compatibility when integrating the work products from various locations. Management must give due consideration to these issues and their effect on quality and delivery when assigning project personnel. DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2018 • 79
