Ashton, P and Gidado, K (2001) Risk associated with inadequate site investigation procedures under design and build procurement systems. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Research has shown that the use of Design and Build procurement system is rapidly increasing in the UK construction industry. A Client needing to have one point of responsibility that is willing to take all of the construction risk seems to be one of the main reasons for the spiral increase. As part of an on going research programme the work described in this paper has indicated that a large proportion of design-and-build contractors have reported difficulties when carrying out substructure works as a result of uncertain ground conditions. The research has established that these were mainly due to the direct consequence of actual site conditions being different to those portrayed by the initial Site Investigation (SI) reports. SI reports are generally based upon current procedures outlined by the Building Research Establishment (BRE, 1987, 1989) and the Building Standards Institution (BSI) Code of Practice for Site Investigations (BS 5930:1981). This paper has identified the factors that bring about discrepancies in SI information and has reported significant problems that result from inadequate SI procedures. This paper is based on data and information collected using 1000 questionnaires sent to construction practitioners. The work is also supported by case studies of selected construction projects in the UK.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | site investigation; uncertainty; risk management; design and build; procurement |
| Index terms: | risk management, case study, construction practitioner, site investigation, procurement system, construction project, ground condition, construction industry, design and build, questionnaire, building research, programme |
| Subjects: | professional development, data collection methods, project controls, industry analysis, risk assessment, geotechnical engineering, research management, contractual arrangements, production management |
| Topics: | Information Management, Risk Management, Research Practice, Time Control, Procurement, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here