Geotechnical News • June 2016
21
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION NEWS
5. Clarify how the specified require-
ments will be enforced, and
specify clear financial penalties in
case of non-compliance. Be aware
that a specification for uninterrupt-
ed measurements with less than
four hours downtime for repairs
will lead to high service cost for
those who respect the specifica-
tions. Indeed, the monitoring
contractor will need to have one or
more highly trained specialist(s),
equipped with all repair and
replacement equipment, paid on-
call, and probably housed in close
vicinity to the project.
Monitoring budget and
procurement
Rule number 3: Ensure that there is
an adequate monitoring budget. Allo-
cating an insufficient budget might
end up in wasted money.
Often given insufficient attention,
sometimes forgotten, the budget
allocated to the monitoring will have
a major influence on the quality and
usefulness of the data that will be
obtained. For geotechnical construc-
tion a general rule of thumb is that
1% to 2% of the construction budget
is generally adequate for a compre-
hensive monitoring program. Of
course this in only a general idea as,
following rule number 1, the extent
of monitoring depends on the project
needs, in particular the degree of risk.
On a site with no risks the budget can
be zero, on a site with complex issues
the budget could be 4% or more. With
proper monitoring put in place, risks
can be significantly reduced, therefore
potentially saving huge costs. Alter-
nately, if the monitoring budget is too
low, the data provided may be of such
bad quality that it will prove unus-
able, and whatever small amount was
spent on the monitoring will be wasted
money.
Rule number 4: No low-bid procure-
ment for services of the monitoring
contractor
Selecting the monitoring contractor
based on low-bid is not recommended.
In North America the practice is very
much state/province dependent, but
in most cases the low-bid method is
selected, whether in public or private
tenders.
In Europe the technical proposal is
now considered carefully in public
tenders, and acceptance is regularly
given to the best proposal after an
analysis of both cost and technical
issues. However in private tenders,
i.e. when the monitoring contractor is
selected by the construction contrac-
tor, then in most case the low-bid will
be chosen.
This brings further case to the defend-
ers of the fact that the monitoring
contract is better placed directly
with the owner, rather than through a
construction contractor. This subject
has already been much discussed in
previous GIN issues.
One could argue that it is up to
monitoring contractors to avoid low
bidding. It is a complex decision to
decide on the financial limit below
which it is better not to do the job. But
accepting a contract below that finan-
cial limit will result in not being able
to provide quality data, thus putting
both the job and the company’s reputa-
tion at risk.
Project management
Rule number 5: Provide strong
enforcement of the specifications.
It is important for the owner and the
project designer to ensure they will
have the power to demand high qual-
ity data during the project duration.
It is not as trivial as it may appear to
enforce, during the contract, what was
stated in the specifications: the pres-
sure of the day-to-day site activities,
the complexity of leveraging on a
contractor or, even more complicated,
a construction contractor’s subcontrac-
tor, all lend themselves towards cut-
ting corners and taking liberties with
the specifications. Financial penalties
are a possible way to maintain this
pressure. This is only achievable if the
specifications state clearly the rules,
enforcement and verification of those
rules.
Monitoring contractor
Rule number 6: Ensure that the
monitoring contractor’s team is expe-
rienced and focused on data quality.
Even with modern day automatic
instruments, the final quality of the
monitoring relies mainly on the qual-
ity of the monitoring contractor’s team
on site and off site.
The project manager on a large moni-
toring site acts as the leader for the
whole team. The project manager is in
a difficult position in that he is also the
guarantor, on behalf of his company,
of the financial success of the project.
A good project manager will under-
stand the necessary balance between
financial and technical success. The
search for data quality must be at the
forefront of the whole company and
hierarchy to ensure the proper deci-
sions are taken, even in difficult times.
The whole team should be trained
regularly to be able to perform tasks in
an optimum manner. Many monitoring
tasks appear simple at first, but can
easily lead to false results when not
carried out properly. At least one engi-
neer, not necessarily the project man-
ager, should be the quality “control
tower”, capable of solving any specific
technical difficulties, and training the
team to check their readings and to
detect their own mistakes. It is desir-
able to have a good proportion of the
monitoring team, and especially those
in direct contact with the owner and
Figure 2. Team work and under-
standing what we measure. Credit:
Comet Photoshopping / Dieter Enz
