In recent years, the topic of safe working platforms has experienced increased atten- tion in the U.S. It’s Complicated Taube outlined a prospective bidding process that demonstrates the complexity of the working platform conversation. “Imagine a scenario where a general contractor has ground improvement within his scope, and let’s say the ground improvement is either design-build or the ground improvement allows for several alternates,” he opined. “The GC is getting multiple bids, and different contractors might be approaching the job using different techniques, and each specialty subcontractor would have different equipment that they’re proposing to use on the job for these different techniques.” “So now”, added Taube, “the general contractor is in a position where they have the contractual responsibility to provide a safe working platform. However, there will not be enough time prior to the bid to figure out what the working platform is, and so the GC will typically make some allowances. Further complicating matters, added Taube, is that the site will change. Even if a specialty contractor has bid documents and borings, conditions change between the time those borings are taken to the time that the work is performed, which can affect the design of the working platform.” 98 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019 “Let’s say the borings are collected in summer when the groundwater is lower, but the work is done in the springtime when the groundwater is higher and closer to the surface,” imparted Taube. “Also, what if the work is being done in the winter and we know there’s going to be a lot of snow? If you are working in wet weather or dry weather, there could be significantly different working platform design and maintenance requirements. Significant grading or cut and fill could take place between the time the project is put out to bid and the time the work is performed. “It’s not a simple issue at all.” Outlining the Responsible Party “One of the problems we’re grappling with at the moment is who takes responsibility for not just designing the platform, but also for the long-term maintenance of the platform,” replied Gildea. “Identification of the responsible entity is the crux of this issue and it must be part of the solution,” expressed Siegel. He says that as the party with the overall site control, the owner should bear the responsibility for a proper working platform, but that in practice, it doesn’t often work that way. “In reality, the very important consideration of the working platform can get obscured in the bidding process as multiple parties try to shed the liability using their contracts.” As a project cost, the working platform can become a so-called bargaining chip in the bidding process. According to Taube, because working platforms are not well defined, general contractors and bidding parties are not in a position to put a lot of extra money or allowances for them. “Unfortunately, the working platform can become part of the currency of the bid,” he answered. “In other words, sometimes we will say that we require a certain thickness of working platform and we might hear, ’Your competitor only needs 1 ft (305 mm) instead of 2 ft (610 mm). Can you do it with a 1 ft (305 mm) thick working platform?’…It puts the subcontractor in a position of possibly accepting a less substantial quality or even no working platform.” The consensus of the Working Group is that the responsibility for providing a safe working platform needs to be acknow- ledged by controlling entities and con- sidered an integral cost for every project. “If
