TCF Task 242 – Managed Motorway Ground Investigation Process Improvement

Lean Project Improvement Presentation Slides

Objectives

Understand how Ground Investigations are currently undertaken

Develop an improved process with realistic timescales Ultimate deliverable would be a best practise guide

(beyond the scope of this commission)

Original Commission and Appraisal Work

Ground Investigation (GI) surveys on Tranche 1 Managed Motorway schemes were perceived to be costly in terms of budget and programme. These issues were perceived to be related to the procurement and delivery mechanism utilising the MAC.

Jacobs was originally commissioned to prepare a business case for setting up a national ground investigation framework

Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

Jacobs collected and collated data following request for information covering: Procurement route Scope of work Programme Costs Traffic Management Other comments

Data was received from 4 managed motorway schemes, 3 other motorway schemes, 2 highway schemes and 2 existing frameworks

Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

Single occurrence GI costs Since GI is conventionally

undertaken as a phased process, in some instances, this is just the cost so far

Time M4 / M5 anticipated 67 shifts,

actual 75 shifts MMM anticipated 10 weeks,

actual 20 weeks Not all schemes provided

data!!!!

£0

£100,000

£200,000

£300,000

£400,000

£500,000

£600,000

£700,000

£800,000

£900,000

M1 J10 to13 MM

M4 / M5 M40 M62 J18to 20 MM

M60 J15to 12

M60 J8 to12 MM

Other

Traffic Management

GI Works

Supervision

Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

Procurement routes: Many routes are currently implemented No single option presented itself as an ideal solution Framework:

Advantages include one-off procurement and greater consistency / visibility of rates

Disadvantages include: Initial set-up time / costs, may not overcome traffic management issues Lack of integration with the MAC and other network operations Cost and programme could still be key issues if not procurement related.

MAC Advantages include knowledge of the site, TM, quicker mobilisation

(operational planning expertise, integration with other network occupancy, etc)

Disadvantages include perceived excessive costs, programme overruns lack of ownership and under resourcing management of the GI

Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

Cost and programme comparison: Little evidence that rates are inconsistent or unreasonable

across procurement routes Procurement route has little effect on programme

Traffic Management: Greater control and flexibility of TM if GI procured through MAC Undertaking TM flexibly, managed by short-term programming

and effective communication improves efficiency In some instances, TM costs were approaching half the cost of

the investigation Technical scope for the GI can significantly affect cost &

programme if change is required during the works.

Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

Outcome: Large quantity of factual and anecdotal evidence collected Procurement is not necessarily the issue – jumped to a

solution without fully understanding the problem Findings relate to issues around:

Traffic Management Planning Process Appropriate technical scoping and specification

Measure

What generally happens:

Prepare Desk Study &

Scope Initial GI

Procure GI

Undertake GI

Testing & Reporting

Design Development (during Stage 2) Detailed Design (during Stage 5)

Scope Detailed GI

Procure GI

Undertake GI

Testing & Reporting

Construction (design may change further)

Scope Supplementary

GI

Procure GI

Undertake GI

Testing & Reporting

GI data is used to manage the geotechnical risks associated with the construction of infrastructure and is used to inform the design. The ultimate objective is to produce a safe

design that is technically and commercially efficient.

Traditionally GI is a phased process aimed at reducing uncertainty and risk as a scheme develops. Initial GI undertaken based on “initial design” and used to gain a general

understanding of the ground conditions, design develops, detailed GI required, design possibly changes further, supplementary GI required, etc, etc

PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

Is known to have occurred

more than once in Stage 2

Is known to have occurred

more than once in Stage 5

M62 J25-30

£400,000

M62 J25-30

£95,000

M62 J25-30

£200,000

Measure

Manchester Managed Motorway Value Stream Mapping exercise

Key issues encountered: Adverse Weather Discovery of Services CDM Co-ordination Scope Quality MAC Pricing Landowner Objections Great Crested Newts

Measure

What went well: No accidents / incidents Weekly GI progress meetings Consultants came together

for a common approach Management of network

occupancy AOne+ and Costain flexibility

What could’ve gone better: Too many designers / CDMCs Technical specification more

appropriate to the operating environment

Insufficient on-site management Project Sponsor unfamiliar with

the process Greater time and effort required

in the preparation for the works (planning of shifts, access and network occupancy)

Lack of permanent site ecologist Time of year – weather,

embargos

Summary of Manchester Managed Motorway GI

Measure

Value Adding / Non-Value Adding process map

Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document

Measure

NVA elements identified: CDM Role Consideration Specification submission to MAC Mobilisation TA process to approve the use of Sonic Borehole Technology Discovery of Services Pegging Out Services Great Crested Newts Landowner Objections

Measure

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Workshop held on 14 February, key failure modes and causes: Failure to do boreholes in planned locations due to services in

the verge found during GI (see next slide) Delay appointing single CDM-C role – too many CDM-Cs /

Designers, lack of appreciation Reworking of GI scopes due to design changes and additions GI design – change in GI technique to reflect operating

environment during the works

Measure

Services located in the verge are “pegged” out by the TechMAC using similar images / information

On site the GI Contractor has no indication where exactly the services (cables) are or how many

The number of services in the verge and the inability to work around them forced the GI Contractor to move to the hardshoulder during the night

Improve

Improvement Workshop held on 22 March 2011 to: Validate the current situation Validate occurrences on Manchester Managed Motorway Test macro improvement options Test process improvement options

Why do we need to do GI on Managed Motorway schemes? To manage the risks to obtain a safe and economic design To obtain a level of confidence in ground condition

GI very rarely affects the gantry locations

Improve

Current situation validated: M62 Junction 25 to 30 about to undertake third GI – attributed to

design changes Birmingham Box Phase 3 about to undertake second GI – design

changes and need to determine foundation (pile) solution

Manchester Managed Motorway GI validated against occurrences on Birmingham Box: Programme pressures lead to limited planning time Competition on network for road space booking (TM) The GI design / work scope didn’t properly understand and reflect the

constraints of the operational environment

Improve

Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI Contractor undertakes GI during Construction Phase. The

key differences between current situation are: No GI pre-construction Would require more designer input during construction Potential saving on TM duplication, i.e. during options then

construction Significant reduction in the chance of service strikes and the

ongoing need to re-position exploratory holes Potential lack of appreciation of major geology features / issues Dependence on site environment Could increase risk allocation leading to issues with target cost

Improve

Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI What would we do?

Set out and agree approach to GI and geotechnical certification (Statement of Intent).

Desk Study – Preliminary Sources Study Report Isolated GI to target key risk areas, i.e. 1 or 2 boreholes during pre-construction to

augment PSSR. Challenge the need for GI at this stage and require rigorous justification.

Prepare matrix of foundation solutions for Deliver Partner to undertake Target Cost including risk allocation

During construction: TM established on site Verges cleared (services, barriers, etc) Undertake GI at exact locations Testing and interpretation Select foundation solution Structural and geotechnical certification Construction Feedback report to capture GI data

Improve

For / Benefits: The perfect “pull” project Design fixed and GI undertaken with

certainty Significant pre-construction cost saving GI only undertaken once – cost savings Efficiency – TM, verge clearance, site

welfare Stakeholder interface more controlled Standard solutions deliver potential

efficiency Potentially forces Designer / Delivery

Partner to value manage the GI

Against / Disbenefits: Potential to impact duration of

construction period Increased pre-construction risk The AIP (structures certification) process GI in construction could be blocking the

site Conservative foundation solutions Greater designer input during

construction (good or bad – undecided!!) Implications on perceived rigid structure

of PCF

Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI

Macro Improvement Options

Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI Designer / Delivery Partner has one opportunity to undertake

GI. The key differences between current situation are: The need for GI is challenged Undertake GI once Undertake GI as late as possible during Stage 5 detailed design Greater chance of design fixity during detailed design

Improve

Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI What would we do?

Agree approach – prepare Statement of Intent Prepare Preliminary Sources Study Report Prepare strategy, scope and specification and challenge the need for GI Procurement Move into Phase 5 – Delivery Partner appointed Undertake GI The GI would then be used during Detailed Design and Target Cost

preparation with the objective is to reduce / manage risk allocation

Improve

For / Benefits: Cost saving by undertaking once GI results / findings can inform

the detailed design Should reduces risk (time / cost)

during preparation of Target Cost

Follows the current PCF process Fewer site visits, potentially

reduces impact on stakeholders Potentially forces Designer /

Delivery Partner to value manage the GI

Against / Disbenefits: The GI is still undertaken before

target cost design freeze, i.e. the design may change

Potential inflexibility of undertaking single GI

Potential to over scope GI if it’s only undertaken once

Still has many of the potential disadvantages of the current approach in terms of potential costs / delays / TM / conflicts in network occupancy

Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI

Improve

Further points to consider from the workshop: GI is only undertaken during construction stage of Network

Rail’s electrification schemes Design the GI (techniques and scope of work) with the

operating environment in mind Don’t assume GI needs to be undertake immediately Two hit GI is the traditional way for green-field schemes We are not Value Managing GIs Agreed by Designers and TAA at the workshop that no GI in

pre-construction phase should be the starting point

Improve

Lessons learned: Agree roles and responsibilities at the start Understand the constraints, embargos, working times, etc Write the specification for the GI with due regard for the site constraints Recognise all constraints include services, working space, barrier, fencing, lane

restrictions, etc Get to know and liaise with the MAC and Network Operations Managers Resource the site works adequately (day to day project management) Engage with the Environmental Coordinator early Agree GI Scope / Specification with TAA around a table Agree format of the pricing schedule early (inc. level of detail) Undertake GI as late as possible in the programme

Improve

High-level process: Undertake GI during construction should be the default route Project Sponsors, Project Managers and TAA would need to be

convinced to undertake GI earlier

PCF Stage 2 – Options PCF Stage 5 – Pre-Construction PCF Stage 6 – Construction

Data Gathering

Preliminary

Sources Study

Report

Undertake GI

during

construction

Yes

No

Undertake isolated

GI for key risks if req

Scheme Concept and Outline

DesignPreliminary Design

Environmental and Economic

AssessmentsDetailed Design Target Cost Construction

Prepare strategy,

scope &

specification

Undertake

single stage GI

Testing &

Reporting

Prepare strategy,

scope &

specification

Undertake GITesting &

ReportingKey decision

This is the default route

This is the non-preferred route