Geotechnical Scope of Work

[btk1]

I am looking for a generic geotechnical scope of work that I can use when asking for proposals from geotechnical engineering consultants. This would be helpful and would provide a level playing field for the development of the proposal. Does anyone have a checklist version for a scope of work that they would be willing to share? I am primarily interested in services related to building construction. Any contributions would be appreciated.

 

[Lutfi]

Here are some of the items I ask for on my projects:

1. Safe soil bearing pressure recommendations
2. Water table elevation
3. Estimated settlement
4. Foundation type (shallow, deep)
5. Depth of footing bottom
6. Compaction requirements
7. Backfill requirements
8. Paving requirements for drives, roads and parking lots
9. Subgrade modulus (k) for slab on grade design
10. Augured pile design (diameter and depth)
11. Soil boring log with blow count
12. General soil types in the immediate vicinity
13. Horizontal and vertical soil permeability for drainage calculation
14. Pile capacities based on various types and sizes of piles
15. Retaining wall parameters, if required
16. Determination of fixity point location

I can go on and on and on; but this will be a start.

It is also expected from you to provide them the following:

1. Project name, location
2. Building type
3. Types of foundations desired or anticipated
4. Preliminary footing loads
5. Foundation plan and site plan, if available


I like to work with one or tow geotechnical companies. I use them repeatedly due to their expertise and qualifications. I do not like to request bids. Good accurate report is more important to me than cheap report. Also consider them supporting you during the design and construction. Believe me; you will get what you pay for.

Good luck

 

[BigH]

Lufti has good points. but what he indicates is the answers he needs - but your point goes beyond that in that you also are implying the scope of the field work/lab work that will be done to get the answers - otherwise, your level playing field will be on a bit of a tilt. (I believe that you posted this in a geotechnical thread too - try to post in one or the other; geotechs are usual members of this forum too.)

I had one project where - where 4 bids were requested for a major transportation LRT project and we got back prices of $12k, $20k, $30k, and $75k. Since a geotech did the review and recommended the consultant for the client, the $75k firm got the job. Why? They were most complete and had enough field/testing work in their scope to be able to do justice to the job. It turned out that this was quite fruitous. The $12k firm couldn't do more than a couple of shallow boreholes and the expensive firm found a large infilled valley that had to be contended with during design.

 

[Focht3]

[blue]BigH[/blue] makes a great point. I had a similar experience - from the consultant's side. We were selected to do the geotechnical study for a replacement dam in San Antonio about 10 years ago - lead design firm wasn't keen on borings behind the existing structure and within the lake area. I finally convinced them these were needed.

What did we find? For the most part, the same conditions encountered at the abutments. But - we encountered the old river channel in one of the borings. It was about 15 feet deeper than the lead designer had assumed based on the historical records. It was handled during design, and we were able to discuss the issues at that time -



Please see FAQ731-376 by [blue]VPL[/blue] for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.