The impact of those funding disparities is apparent in several ways. Most of our university professors have a limited knowledge of real design issues, real construction issues, or the day-to-day challenges of our industry because funding options lead them away from the state of practice. Faculty from this generation are less likely than in the past to be in tune with industry issues and to provide aid in the form of solutions to problems; instead, they are more likely to provide expert testimony on disputes when the work is over. In general, researchers today who “buck” the system to do practical work are therefore in the minority. This reality also hinders the educational experience of college students and leaves a disconnect between what is being published in scholarly journals and what practitioners want to read. Relinquishment of Legal Responsibilities. There has been a focused effort to transfer geotechnical risks contractually. The effort to make all risk someone else’s problem is remarkable in terms of attempting to transfer responsibility for site conditions and delays. As an example, below is exculpatory language that has become common related to statements of differing site conditions: “The records of subsurface investigations are not a part of the bid package or contract, but are available to all bidders for informational purposes only. There is no warranty or guaranty, either expressed or implied, that the subsurface investigation records disclose the actual conditions that will be encountered during the performance of the work…” How can this language make sense; it’s the owner’s land/ground. This risk transfer flows downhill, with most members of our geocommunity being closer to the bottom than the top, with subcontractors being at the bottom. Such contractual language often gets in the way of collaborative solutions because of the owner’s or construction manager’s perception that the contract language gives them no risk. Courts often rule otherwise, but at what burden of legal fees? Baseline and interpretive reports lessen this risk on some projects, but their use is not widespread. Risk transfer is often more important than the bid price. Greater Reliance on Design-Build Approaches. The evolution of design-build has led to designs that are less conservative, which is a good thing. However, this approach can sometimes lead to a lack of clarity, or can even cause a conflict between quality control and QA expectations. Questions such as the following still need to be asked by someone: Is the construction documentation adequate? Have expectations been defined in advance? Even so, what happens when the Engineer of Record on the design-build team is comfortable with a design approach, but the owner’s engineer is not? the construction process and getting feedback on constructability are very positive developments. Design-build is here to stay, but there will still be some bumps as consulting companies, various agencies and owners make the transition. The end result of these consulting, research and legal climate changes is that they have created boundaries between the various sectors in our industry. This trend is not new in construction, as 106 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2020 As design-build procurement has evolved, some design firms have accepted this less traditional environment, while others have been resistant. Working for, or with, a contractor, is different than working for an owner! Overall, I believe that having designers be a part of obvious from the wise words decades ago of the late Ralph Peck (NGI Publication 207, 2000). The influential civil engineer noted back then that “Construction deserves more attention in design. Our permanent structures are too often designed as if they come into existence without the necessity for being constructed.” He added that “The academic climate encourages finding a subject for investigation that can be pursued at the desk or in the laboratory until all aspects have been exhausted. The subject is likely to be chosen more for convenience than for significance.” Ultimately, he explained the crux of why cross-disciplinary knowledge is so essential to geo-industry experts (which are from wonderfully diverse backgrounds these days): “In my view, nobody can be a good designer, a good researcher, a leader in the civil engineering profession unless he understands the methods and the problems of the builder.” Enhanced Cross-disciplinary Engagement Our industry has a major role in the development of all aspects of our world’s infrastructure. If we want to optimize foundation- construction efforts in terms of cost, schedules, quality, safety and sustainability, we must change how we work. Here are ways we can bring back a better focus to construction in our industry: • Consultants and researchers must accept the importance of construction-related knowledge and seek opportunities to get experience and gain understanding, as should organizations and companies. • Organizations must follow DFI’s lead with achieving a diverse membership and providing industry-focused research funding and practice-focused internships to facilitate communication across artificial boundaries. • ADSC should consider expanding the Faculty Workshops to include DFI and ASCE Geo-Institute participation. Holding them more often would help as well, and encouraging consultants to participate. • Contractors should support faculty with case history presenta- tions, and by offering construction videos and transparent real- life lessons learned. • • Designers should seek more input on constructability from multiple contractors and use that input. Everyone should avoid attributing all workplace challenges to the incompetence of contractors. They work in the geologic environ- ment and in urban settings that are fraught with unexpected circumstances, especially when subsurface characterization has been inadequate. In summary, it is time to deepen our interactions and knowledge across our industry. We need a broader perspective, greater empathy, and enhanced communication and collaboration between all members of our community — including designers, teachers, researchers, builders, suppliers and equipment manufacturers and owner/agencies. That change starts with you.
