Scholarly Paper

Identification of Geotechnical-Related Problems

Impacting Cost, Schedule, and Claims
on Bridge Construction Projects
Pramen P. Shrestha, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 1; and Krishna P. Neupane 2

Abstract: Changes made during the construction period generally generate claims, cost overruns, and schedule delays. Although there are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

publications relating to these concerns, because of geotechnical reasons on transportation projects there is a dearth of studies specifically
focusing on bridge projects. Therefore, this study aims to learn the causes of claims, change orders, and cost overruns associated with
geotechnical reasons for bridge projects. It also focuses on the impacts of geotechnical-related problems and identifies measures for their
mitigation. For this study, survey questionnaires were received from 53 state DOTs engineers and from 43 engineer consultants. Through the
survey, nine geotechnical-related problems from the design phase were identified. Based on analysis, the top four geotechnical-related prob-
lems with negative impacts on the costs, schedules, and claims of bridge projects were found as lack of sufficient boring locations, mis-
classified or mischaracterized soil, dewatering due to seepage problem, and design change in superstructure. The survey results also showed
that the three major preventive measures to reduce geotechnical-related change orders were reported as the designer should have detailed
knowledge about the geotechnical information of the project site, detailed site investigation with a experienced consultant, and development
and implementation of minimum standards for subsurface investigation and site characterization. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-
4170.0000375. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geotechnical; Change orders; Cost growth; Schedule growth; Claims.

Introduction The geological condition of the subsurface cannot be known

without detailed site investigations in bridge projects. With unpre-
Normally, construction projects are planned to be completed on dictable site conditions, sufficient information from the geotechnical
schedule and on the estimated budget. In reality, because of geo- investigation is required for practitioners to know about the geotech-
technical and other relevant reasons, the schedule and budget may nical risks that can impact change orders, claims, and cost and sched-
change. The geotechnical reasons can generate claims, cost growth, ule overruns on bridge projects. A common cause of subsurface
and schedule growth in civil infrastructure construction projects. failure in bridges is the lack of knowledge about the ground condi-
Therefore, this study intends to explore the geotechnical issues that tions. Unpredictable ground conditions can also lead to remarkable
cause the claims, change orders, and cost and schedule overruns in cost overruns and time delays in bridge construction projects. By
bridge projects. Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) found that cost growth due to using various methods of field and laboratory testing, site inves-
change orders is a common phenomenon in transportation projects. tigations can reduce these ground uncertainties. However, cost and
Similarly, Alnuaimi et al. (2010) stated that a small alteration in the time limitations, as well as the acumen and insight of the geotech-
construction project could bring claims and disputes between an nical engineer and geologist who are directly involved in the proj-
owner and contractor. Many publications discuss the causes and im- ect, have control over the site investigations scope (Goldsworthy
pacts of claims and change orders on cost and schedule overruns in et al. 2004).
various types of construction projects such as building, highway, tun- Geotechnical investigation is the process of evaluating the geo-
nel, hydropower, and water infrastructure projects. However, there logical, seismological, and soil conditions that affect the project
are a limited number of research papers analyzing the claims, change safety, project cost effectiveness, design, and completion time of a
orders, and cost and schedule overruns due to geotechnical reasons. bridge construction project (US Army Corps of Engineers 2001).
Cost and completion time of bridge construction are interconnected
1
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, with the subsurface conditions of the construction site. If geotech-
Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, nical risks are present in a bridge construction site during the
NV 89154 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001 construction period, it will increase the construction cost and com-
-6362-2315. Email: pramen.shrestha@unlv.edu pletion time of the project and create disputes between the contrac-
2
Project Engineer, New Jersey Dept. of Transportation, 1035 Pkwy. tor and the owner. Experienced consultants affiliated with the
Ave., Trenton, NJ 08625; formerly, Graduate Student, Civil and Environ- project from the feasibility stage can consider the geotechnical risks
mental Engineering and Construction, Howard R. Hughes College of in a proper way with the help of their previous experience, which
Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154. Email: krishna helps to reduce the risks during the construction of bridge projects
.neupane@unlv.edu
(Hoek and Palmeiri 1998).
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 31, 2019; approved on
September 9, 2019; published online on January 24, 2020. Discussion
The scope of this study focuses on the standards and methods
period open until June 24, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted used for geotechnical design, as well as their causes and impact on
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs claims, change orders, and cost and schedule overruns, and iden-
and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, tifies remedies in bridge construction projects. The main objectives
ISSN 1943-4162. of this study are the following:

© ASCE 04520005-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 • To identify the geotechnical design standards and subsurface in- The impact of change orders on cost growth and schedule
vestigation methods used during bridge design; growth has been studied by many researchers. The study found
• To identify and rank the causes of geotechnical-related change that change orders had detrimental effects on both the cost and
orders and their impact on claims, as well as cost and schedule schedule growth of school building renovation projects built under
overruns in bridge projects; the DBB method (Shrestha and Zeleke 2018). Change orders also
• To determine the appropriate costs of geotechnical investiga- have negative effects on costs and schedules of new school building
tions during the design phases of bridge projects; and projects built using the DBB method (Shrestha et al. 2019). How-
• To identify measures taken by owners and consultants to miti- ever, it was found that in DB building projects, change orders are
gate such geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects. lower than DBB projects, and did not have any effect on schedule
growth (Shrestha and Fathi 2019). Regarding highways, research-
ers have found a negative impact of change orders on cost and
Literature Review schedule growth in large and small highway projects (Shrestha
and Maharjan 2018, 2019). Another study found that change orders
Much literature exists related to the causes of change orders,
reduced the construction intensity of road maintenance projects
claims, and cost and schedule overruns in construction projects.
(Shrestha et al. 2017). Another study found that the impact of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Further, the impact of change orders on cost, schedule, and produc-

change orders on cost and schedule growth is significantly lower
tivity has been extensively researched. There is also an abundance
than that of DBB projects (Shrestha and Fathi 2019). In DB high-
of literature on geotechnical-related change orders in construction
way projects, change orders were higher than DB water and waste-
projects. The following subsections highlight the literature.
water projects, and the impact of change orders on schedule growth
was more significant in highway than in water and wastewater
Literature on Causes of Change Orders, Cost and projects (Fathi et al. 2019).
Schedule Overruns, and Claims
One of the causes of change orders is the complexity of a project, Literature on Geotechnical-Related Change Orders
and the complexity increases as the size of a project increases
(Anastasopoulos et al. 2010). The leading causes of change orders The engineering properties of soil and rock are significantly
in highway projects were fuel and asphalt price adjustments, con- variable from one location to another. That is why in civil engineer-
tract omissions, owner-induced enhancements, and contract item ing projects, ground engineering risks play a significant role in
overruns (Taylor et al. 2012). Halwatura and Ranasinghe (2013) the financial, as well as technical, hazards (Institution of Civil
identified that the causes of change orders in highway projects in Engineers 1991).
developing countries were poor estimation, unforeseen site condi- Gould (1995) found that subsurface investigation created two
tions, political pressure during the construction stage, poor inves- types of geotechnical-related claims during construction. The first
tigation, and client-initiated variations. Recently, Shrestha and type of claim was the difference between the real site conditions
Shrestha (2019) identified the causes of change orders in road and the site conditions shown in the design. The second type of
maintenance contracts. The study found the main causes of change claim was the revelation of unexpected and atypical physical con-
orders in highway maintenance works are incorrect work scope, ditions at the site. Gould also found that there are four main reasons
errors in the estimate, changes in the original plan, and changes for these claims: insufficient skill and knowledge to deal with local
in specifications for materials, as well as failure to verify the work geology during construction, lack of investigation methods that
site conditions before signing a contract. could fully define ground conditions, misconceived properties of
In new road projects, the major causes are change in design, the ground, and unexpected ground conditions that could not be
unforeseen site conditions, deterioration of the project, inconven- determined by even precise subsurface investigation. Gould recom-
ient access to the site, poor communication, weather conditions, mended conducting a detailed subsurface investigation to reduce
rework, and improper construction methods (Serag et al. 2010; these types of claims.
Mahamid et al. 2012). Recently, researchers conducted a Delphi Some studies were conducted to determine the impact of sub-
study to determine the causes of change orders in road maintenance surface investigations on construction cost overruns. A study with
contracts and found that incorrect work scope, errors in the esti- the help of 58 transportation projects in the United Kingdom
mate, changes in the original plan, and changes in specification found that 75% of the projects had more than 10% cost overruns,
were the main causes to have change orders in chip seal, striping, and 50% of these cost overruns were due to geotechnical causes
asphalt overlay, slope repairs, and debris removal maintenance (Mott MacDonald and Soil Mechanics 1994). The most common
work (Shrestha and Shrestha 2019). geotechnical causes of cost overruns were seepage and ground-
Semple et al. (1994) conducted research to identify basic causes water, encountering materials different in classification from
of claims in construction in order to minimize construction claims those predicted, and replacement of supplementary inappropriate
and disputes. Semple et al. identified that an increase in the extent material. Mott MacDonald and Soil Mechanics also claimed that
of the work, weather, confined access, and escalation were the most there was indirect cost overrun resulting from delay and disrup-
common causes of those claims. Changes in design, extra work, tion associated with subsurface condition claims and change
and errors were also included in increase in scope. With the help orders. Another study found that the impact of differing site con-
of a survey, Semple et al. found that the claims generally existed ditions on a construction project had a higher impact on schedule
due to the following reasons: contract ambiguity, project delay, than on cost (Amarasekara et al. 2018). Similarly, Amarasekara
project acceleration, excessive change orders, extra work time, et al. (2018) argued that if the differing site conditions clause
and different site conditions (Zaneldin 2006). Zaneldin (2006) also is not present in the contract, it will be difficult for the contractor
suggested some basic methods to reduce these claims, which in- to get claim from the owner because the court can rule in any di-
clude assigning a pragmatic time for the design team, providing rection (Hanna et al. 2014).
clear and real contract documents, avoiding ambiguity in contracts, The risk of bridge foundation failure is heavily dependent on the
establishing a proper record keeping system, and generating quantity and quality of information obtained from a geotechnical
collaborative and problem-solving perspectives. site investigation aimed at characterizing the underlying soil

© ASCE 04520005-2 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 conditions. Goldsworthy et al. (2004) found that a small increase in performance (e.g., cost and schedule growth, construction intensity,
investment on the subsurface investigation resulted in cost savings claims). None of the studies had ranked the causes of geotechnical-
of up to four times the money invested during the construction related change orders and the severity of these impacts on cost,
phase. Hoek and Palmeiri (1998) collected data of 84 tunnels, 64 schedule, or claims of bridge projects. To fill this knowledge gap,
thermal plants, and 71 hydroelectric plants to determine the main this study mainly focuses on ranking of causes of geotechnical-
geotechnical risks and their impacts on cost and schedule overruns. related change orders and rating of their impacts on claims, change
It was found that the main geotechnical risk in these projects was orders, and cost and schedule overruns on bridge construction proj-
unexpected site conditions, which caused cost and schedule over- ects. Additionally, a recommendation to minimize geotechnical-
runs. Due to the unexpected site conditions, the cost and schedule related change orders on bridge projects will also be explored.
overruns were found to be 27% and 28%, respectively, compared to
estimated cost and schedule. Hoek and Palmeiri recommended con-
ducting detailed site investigations during the design phase to reduce Methodology
the impact on cost and schedule overruns. Another study recom-
Fig. 1 shows the research methodology used in this study.
mended keeping the clause in a DB contract so that it can help
After defining the scope and objectives of the study, the authors
to cover the risk during the construction phase (del Puerto et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

extensively searched the literature on change orders including

2018). In this study, del Puerto et al. found that the nested DB land-
geotechnical-related changes and their impacts on project perfor-
slide repair clause helps a DB contractor to successfully address the
mance. Based on the literature review, a questionnaire was devel-
geotechnical-related risks during the construction phase.
oped for a survey with geotechnical engineers employed in state
A study was conducted to determine the causes of geotechnical-
DOTs and consulting firms. After the data were gathered, they were
related change orders in bridge, pavement, and resurfacing projects
analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. At the end,
of the Indiana DOT (Prezzi et al. 2011). Prezzi et al. found that out of
the conclusions and the recommendation from this study will be
300 projects analyzed, 84 had geotechnical change orders that in-
provided.
creased the cost of the project, on average 1.3% of the total estimated
project costs. The total change order cost was found to be 10% of the
total estimated project cost. The major causes of geotechnical-related Questionnaire Development
change orders were failure to identify poor subgrade condition and To conduct the national survey, a questionnaire was designed in the
inaccurate estimation of erosion control material, riprap, and geotex- Qualtrics survey tool. The questionnaire was divided into three sec-
tile. The main recommendations for minimizing the geotechnical tions. The first section consisted of the personal information of
change orders were drilling additional boreholes, understanding the respondent including the respondent’s name, the name of the
of site condition, and preparing a design checklist that addresses agency, address, education level, and experience in design and
issues commonly encountered during the construction period. construction in bridge projects. The second section consisted of ques-
The most common causes of geotechnical-related change orders tions related to causes and preventive measures of geotechnical-
in a different study were the groundwater table being higher than related change orders and their impact on cost, schedule, and claim
expected, misclassified or mischaracterized subgrade, unpredicted performances in bridge projects. Similarly, in the third section,
rock confronted at the time of foundation construction, and mis- questions related to the method of subsurface investigations and the
characterized rock for drilled shaft construction (Boeckmann and guidelines for such investigations were included. Participants were
Loehr 2016). The study determined that about $10 million per state asked to rank the causes and preventive measures of geotechnical-
DOT was annually spent on geotechnical-related change orders, related change orders, and their impacts on cost and schedule
which is equivalent to 7% of the cost of all claims, change orders, overruns and claims in bridge projects. For rating the impact of
and cost overruns in highway and bridge projects. The survey geotechnical-related change orders on project performance, a 1–10
found that state DOTs are generally using four standards for Likert scale was used: 1 showed the impact has a very high negative
subsurface investigation: the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface impact, 10 shows a very high positive impact, and 5 shows no im-
Investigations and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)— pact. The respondents were asked to determine the geotechnical
Bridge Design Specifications, the National Highway Institute (NHI)
Manual on Subsurface Investigations, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHWA) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, and the
agencies’ own geotechnical investigation guidelines.
Some studies have determined the estimated costs spent on the
geotechnical investigations of bridge and highway projects. The
geotechnical design cost of DBB highway and bridge projects is
estimated to be about 3% of construction cost (Mott MacDonald
and Soil Mechanics 1994; National Research Council 1984). How-
ever, when Kim et al. (2009) conducted a study to determine the
geotechnical investigation cost for DB bridge and highway proj-
ects, the cost was found to be lower than that of DBB projects.
With the help of nine DB projects of North Carolina’s DOT, it
was found that the geotechnical investigation cost ranged from
0.18% to 1.15% of the total contract prices, whereas traditionally
this percentage is considered 3%–5% of total project costs.

Gaps in Literature
The literature review found studies regarding causes of geotechnical-
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
related change orders and their impact on construction project

© ASCE 04520005-3 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 design cost of a bridge project that will reduce geotechnical-related Demographics of Respondents
change orders.
The education level, bridge design experience, and bridge con-
The recommendations to minimize geotechnical-related change
struction experience of the participants were requested in the sur-
orders in bridge projects were also ranked. The recommendations
vey. The findings of these demographic responses are presented
found from the literature were included in the questionnaire and
subsequently.
participants were encouraged to add new recommendations, if
necessary, and rank them in order of higher importance to lower Education Level of Respondents
importance. The majority of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree, followed
by a master’s degree. About 3% of the respondents had doctorates.
The data distribution showed that all of the respondents had a mini-
Survey Participants Selection mum of a bachelor’s degree. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the
The survey participants were geotechnical engineers working in education level of the respondents.
state DOTs and geotechnical consulting firms responsible for
bridge design and construction. Initially, the email addresses and Bridge Design Experience
phone numbers of 110 geotechnical engineers working in state In this survey, almost half of the participants (48%) indicated that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DOTs, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and they had less than 6 years of experience in bridge design. More than
250 geotechnical engineers working in consulting firms were gath- 20 years of experience was a distant second with 20%, and the
ered. The contact addresses of these participants were gathered 11–15 years’ experience category was the last with almost 8%.
by using state DOTs and consulting firms’ websites, LinkedIn, and The bridge design experience of the respondents is shown in Fig. 3.
personal contacts. Then these individuals were contacted by email Bridge Construction Experience
and phone to determine whether they would be interested in filling Fig. 4 illustrates that participants having less than 6 years’ expe-
out the survey questionnaire. rience in bridge construction were in the majority in the survey.
Similarly, as with bridge design experience, participants with more
Data Collection than 20 years of experience were the second most common, and the
16–20 years’ experience category was the least common in the
At the beginning of the survey, email invitations describing the re- survey.
search objectives and the participants’ involvements in this study In the survey, a total of six questions were asked of participants.
were sent. If there was no response within 15 days, a follow-up The participants were asked to rate the geotechnical design stan-
email was sent. A survey questionnaire was distributed to the indi- dards and types of subsurface investigation methods used during
viduals who responded through the web link of Qualtrics. If the bridge design. The participants were also asked to rate the causes
respondents did not respond after two emails, then one of the au- of geotechnical-related change orders based on their impact on cost
thors called to request their participation in the study. A total of 162 and schedule overruns, as well as on the claims of bridge projects.
participants confirmed that they would participate in the survey. Additionally, the respondents were asked to rate the impact of geo-
Therefore, the authors sent the survey questionnaire to all of these technical change orders on cost, schedule, and claims of bridge
participants by email with a link to the Qualtrics online survey. projects. The participants were also asked to estimate the cost that
must be invested for a geotechnical investigation so that the
geotechnical-related change orders could be reduced in bridge
Data Analysis
The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and stat-
istical tests. The causes of geotechnical-related change orders and
claims were ranked using the relative importance index (RII)
method. Similarly, RII was used to rank causes and preventive mea-
sures of geotechnical-related change orders, and the impact on
claim and cost and schedule overruns. Eq. (1) was used to find
the RII value

PN
i¼1 W i
RII ¼ ð1Þ
A×N
Fig. 2. Education level of respondents.

where W i = rank assigned by the ith responder; A = highest rank;

and N = total number of respondents.

Results
A total of 96 people responded to the questionnaire, a response rate
of 59%. Some respondents immediately filled out the survey, and
some took up to 2 months to complete the survey. The engineers of
the following eight state DOTs did not respond the questionnaires:
Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina,
West Virginia, and Washington. The demographics of the respond-
Fig. 3. Bridge design experience of respondents.
ents are described in the following.

© ASCE 04520005-4 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 Table 2. Ranking of use of subsurface investigation methods for bridge
project
Method used Sample size RII value Ranking
SPT 85 0.88 1
CPT 82 0.46 2
Geophysical method 79 0.44 3
Vane share test (VST) 79 0.35 4
Falling weight deflectometer test 78 0.33 5
Hydraulic conductivity test 80 0.33 6
Pressuremeter test 79 0.31 7
Fig. 4. Bridge construction experience of respondents. Remote sensing 77 0.30 8
Flat plate dilatometer test 79 0.30 9

design projects. At the end, the participants were asked to provide

recommendations to reduce the impact of these change orders on on cost overruns. The results of the RII analysis showed that lack of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the cost, schedules, and claims of bridge projects. The findings of sufficient boring locations was the top-ranked cause for cost over-
the study are described in the following. runs in bridge projects, followed by misclassified or mischaracter-
ized soil and level of groundwater table higher than expected. The
RII values also show that there is not much difference between the
Ranking of Types of Geotechnical Design impact of causes between the third-ranked and eighth-ranked causes.
Standard Used
From the literature, it was found that three major geotechnical de- Ranking of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
sign standards were used in bridge design. Therefore, the partici- Order Causes on Schedule Overrun
pants were asked to rate these standards based on the frequency of
The respondents were asked again to rate the impact of
use in their job sites. The results of the RII analysis showed that
geotechnical-related change order causes on schedule overruns of
the first preferred design standard was the AASHTO Manual on
bridge projects. The rating was done one a 1 to 10 scale, with 1
Subsurface Investigation, followed by the FHWA Geotechnical
representing high negative impact and 10 low negative impact. The
Engineering Circular No. 5 and the NHI Manual on Subsurface
RII analysis showed that the top two ranked causes were similar to
Investigation (Table 1). Not all of the respondents rated each of
those for cost overruns (Table 4). However, in this question, design
these responses, so the sample size in the table shows the number
change in superstructure was also ranked second with misclassified
of respondents who rated each standard.
or mischaracterized soil. Similarly, dewatering due to seepage
problems, level of groundwater table higher than expected, and
Ranking of Subsurface Investigation Methods variation of piling quantities due to the selection of the wrong pile
type for a particular soil type were ranked third. The RII results
The respondents were asked to rank the major subsurface investi- showed that the majority of causes had similar impacts on schedule
gation methods used by their agencies for geotechnical investiga- overruns in bridge projects because their RII values are very close.
tions in bridge projects. A total of nine methods were mentioned
and are given in Table 2. Based on RII analysis, it was found that
the top three ranked subsurface investigation methods used by Ranking of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
the respondents were the standard penetration test (SPT), cone pen- Order Causes on Claims
etration test (CPT), and geophysical method. Of these three meth- The survey again asked the respondents to rate the impact of
ods, the SPT method was overwhelmingly ranked first by the geotechnical-related change order causes on claims in bridge proj-
respondents. ects. Table 5 gives the results of the analysis. The RII analysis

Ranking of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change

Order Causes on Cost Overrun Table 3. Ranking of impact of geotechnical-related change order causes on
cost overrun
The causes of geotechnical-related change orders that impacted cost,
schedule overruns, and claims were identified by the literature re- Geotechnical-related cause Sample size RII value Ranking
view. Then the survey asked the respondents to rank these causes Lack of sufficient boring locations 85 0.65 1
based on their negative impacts on the cost overruns of bridge proj- Misclassified or mischaracterized 80 0.60 2
ects. Nine main causes were identified and were included in the sur- soil
vey. The respondents ranked these causes based on their impact Level of groundwater table higher 81 0.57 3
than expected
severities in bridge project cost overruns. Table 3 gives the results
Dewatering due to seepage 81 0.56 4
of the ranking of these causes based on the severity of their impacts problems
Design change in superstructure 80 0.56 4
Prescribed soil treatment method 81 0.55 5
Table 1. Rating of use of geotechnical design standard for bridge project was not suitable for particular site
conditions
Sample RII
Variation of piling quantities due to 81 0.55 5
Design standard used size value Ranking
the selection of the wrong pile type
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation 79 0.75 1 for a particular soil type
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 78 0.65 2 Mismatch in pile quantities 81 0.54 6
NHI Manual on Subsurface Investigation 76 0.62 3 Erosion and sediment control 79 0.48 7

© ASCE 04520005-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 Table 4. Ranking of impact of geotechnical-related change order causes on Table 6. Rating of impact of geotechnical-related change order on cost
schedule overrun overrun
Geotechnical-related cause Sample size RII value Ranking Rating of impacts Number of respondents Percentage
Lack of sufficient boring locations 79 0.63 1 Negative impacts 49 60.5
Misclassified or mischaracterized 77 0.59 2 No impacts 31 38.3
soil Positive impacts 1 1.2
Design change in superstructure 78 0.59 2 Total 81 100
Dewatering due to seepage 76 0.57 3
problems
Level of groundwater table higher 77 0.57 3
than expected
Variation of piling quantities due to 77 0.57 3 Table 7. Rating of impact of geotechnical-related change order on
the selection of the wrong pile type schedule overrun
for a particular soil type Rating of impacts Number of respondents Percentage
Prescribed soil treatment method 77 0.56 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

was not suitable for particular site Negative impacts 48 60.8

conditions No impacts 29 36.7
Mismatch in pile quantities 78 0.52 5 Positive impacts 2 2.5
Erosion and sediment control 77 0.44 6 Total 79 100

have a negative impact on the cost overruns, indicating the geotech-

Table 5. Ranking of impact of geotechnical-related change order causes on nical change orders would increase the costs of the projects. About
claim 38% respondents stated that it would not have any effect on the cost
Geotechnical-related cause Sample size RII value Ranking growth of bridge projects. One respondent mentioned that it would
Lack of sufficient boring locations 77 0.67 1 have positive effect on the cost overrun.
Misclassified or mischaracterized 76 0.62 2
soil Rating of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
Level of groundwater table higher 76 0.58 3 Orders on Schedule Overrun
than expected
Variation of piling quantities due to 76 0.58 3 A similar question was asked of respondents about the impact of
the selection of the wrong pile type geotechnical-related change orders on schedule overruns of bridge
for a particular soil type projects. Table 7 gives the results of the analysis. The results were
Prescribed soil treatment method 75 0.58 3 similar to those of the impact on cost overruns. In this question, two
was not suitable for particular site respondents said that geotechnical-related change orders would
conditions have positive impact on schedule overruns.
Design change in superstructure 77 0.58 3
Dewatering due to seepage 75 0.57 4
problems Rating of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
Mismatch in pile quantities 77 0.52 5 Orders on Claims
Erosion and sediment control 76 0.44 6
The respondents were again asked to rate the impact of
geotechnical-related change orders on claims. Table 8 gives the re-
sults, and about 75% of the respondents stated that they would
shows that the top two ranked causes that have negative impact on have negative effects on the schedule overrun, and the rest of the
claims were similar to those of cost overrun and schedule overrun. respondents stated that there would not be any effect on schedule
However, there were four causes that tied on third-ranked cause for overrun due to geotechnical-related change orders. None of the
a claim: level of groundwater table higher than expected, variation respondents stated that they would have a positive effect on the
of piling quantities due to the selection of the wrong pile type claims of the bridge projects.
for a particular soil type, prescribed soil treatment method was not
suitable for a particular site condition, and design change in
superstructure. Estimation of Geotechnical Investigation Cost on
Bridge Projects

Rating of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change The participants were asked to recommend the percentage of the
Orders on Cost Overrun total cost required for geotechnical investigation during the design
phases of bridge projects. The result of this survey showed that a
The respondents were asked to rate the impact of geotechnical little less than two-thirds of the respondents estimated that the geo-
change orders on cost overruns of bridge projects. In this question, technical investigation cost should be 3% or more than 3% of the
the respondents provided ratings from 1 to 9 based on the impact total cost of the bridge projects (Table 9). The rest of the respond-
of change orders on cost overruns. Any rating in between 1 and 4 ents stated that the cost of geotechnical investigations in a bridge
showed that the impact of these types of change orders would in- project should be less than 3% of the total project cost.
crease the cost overruns. Similarly, if a 5 rating was provided, it
showed that there was no impact on cost overrun. Any rating above
Recommendations on Reducing Cost and Schedule
5 showed that it would have positive impact on cost overrun (that
Overruns and Claims on a Bridge Project
means there would be cost decrease in the bridge projects). Table 6
gives the overall ratings of the respondents. The results show that The final question was related to recommendations for minimizing
about 61% of the respondents said that such change orders would the costs and schedule overruns, as well as claims, on bridge

© ASCE 04520005-6 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 Table 8. Rating of impact of geotechnical-related change order on claim standards used, apart from the three previously mentioned: the
Rating of impacts Number of respondents Percentage New York State DOT (2019), South Carolina State DOT (2019),
North Carolina State DOT (2019), Idaho State DOT (2019),
Negative impacts 61 75.3
Arizona State DOT (2019), Ohio State DOT (2019), Florida State
No impacts 20 24.7
Total 81 100 DOT (2019), Minnesota State DOT (2019), Virginia State DOT
(2019), California State DOT (2019), Pennsylvania State DOT
(2019), Montana State DOT (2019), and Alaska State DOT (2019).
From the survey it was found that most of the respondents were
Table 9. Cost estimation of geotechnical investigation in bridge projects using nine subsurface investigation methods. However, two of the
Rating of impacts Number of respondents Percentage respondents reported that their companies also used a rock coring
method for the subsurface investigation while designing bridge
Below 3% 20 38.5
projects. According to one participant that was a consultant, “in-
3% or greater 32 61.5
Total 52 100 sufficient protection of pavement subgrade from wet weather”
was also one of the geotechnical-related problems causing cost
overruns, schedule overruns, and claims during road pavement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

construction.
Other recommendations for reducing cost and schedule overruns
projects due to geotechnical-related change orders. Some of these
and claims in bridge construction due to geotechnical problems rec-
recommendations were put in the questionnaire based on the liter-
ommended by participants were budget control by technical staff;
ature review and some were added by the respondents. The re-
spondents were asked to identify the recommendations and also geotechnical training for nongeotechnical personnel; minimum tip
rank them in order. Table 10 gives the results of this analysis. It elevations for piling, not just bearing capacity; involvement of geo-
shows that there were eight major recommendations to reduce technical designers in the earlier stage in the project; detailed site
the cost and schedule overruns as well as claims due to geotechnical investigation; performing a load test prior to design, or confirmation
reasons. According to the RII analysis, the top three recommenda- piles prior to construction to confirm design; local experience of
tions provided by the respondents were the designer should have the geotechnical consultant; in-house experience and knowledge
detail knowledge about the geotechnical information of the project of project site; and more extensive laboratory testing to determine
site, detailed site investigation with a experienced consultant, and soil setup, soil relaxation, and soil consolidation.
development and implementation of minimum standards subsur-
face investigation and site characterization.
Conclusions

Discussion This study was conducted to determine the use of design standard,
subsurface investigation methods, and the ranking of geotechnical-
In response to the question related to geotechnical standards related causes based on their impact on cost, schedule, and claims
used for bridge design, some of the participants mentioned other on bridge projects. The study also collected data about the impact
of geotechnical-related change orders on cost and schedule over-
runs as well as claims on bridge projects. At the end, the partici-
Table 10. Ranking recommendations to minimize cost and schedule pants were asked to provide and rank the recommendations to
overruns and claims due to geotechnical reasons reduce the cost and schedule overruns and claims on bridge projects
because of geotechnical reasons. The survey was sent to state DOT
Recommendation Sample size RII value Ranking
geotechnical engineers as well those working in private consult-
Designer should have detailed 83 0.89 1 ing firms.
knowledge about the geotechnical The study results show that the preferred standard for geotech-
information of the project site nical design was the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investiga-
Detailed site investigation with 82 0.86 2
tion, followed by the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular
experienced consultant
Development and implementation 83 0.84 3
No. 5. Regarding subsurface investigation methods, the highest-
of minimum standards for ranked method was SPT. Other methods, e.g., CPT and geophysical
subsurface investigation and site method, were ranked a distant second and third. This showed that
characterization the majority of geotechnical engineers working in state DOTs or in
Choose the appropriate pile type for 83 0.80 4 private consulting firms agreed on their first preferred method of
a particular soil type, with more design standard and method of subsurface investigation.
accurately predicted pile lengths The survey also found that the major cause of having
Accuracy of boring locations 83 0.78 5 geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects was lack of
Causes of geotechnical change 83 0.78 6
sufficient boring locations. During the design phase, sufficient bor-
order should be routed through the
geotechnical office, which helps to
ings were not conducted, which increased geotechnical-related
design for reducing that type of change orders during the construction phase. Other causes of hav-
change order in the design period ing geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects were
Intraagency training and 83 0.78 7 misclassified or mischaracterized soil, level of groundwater table
communication to improve the higher than expected, dewatering due to seepage problems, and
implementation of surface design change in superstructure. The first two causes could be due
information to insufficient borings conducted during the design phases of the
Specification needs to be more 82 0.76 8 projects. Because the borings were not enough during design,
solid in the problematic areas such geotechnical engineers mischaracterized the soil and could not de-
as subgrade treatment and piling
termine the exact levels of groundwater.

© ASCE 04520005-7 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 The analysis showed that the top two ranked causes of References
geotechnical-related change orders based on their impacts on
bridge project costs and schedule overruns and claims were similar.
Based on the severity of causes, the respondents ranked lack of Works Cited
sufficient boring locations and misclassified or mischaracterized Alaska State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical procedures manual.” Accessed
soil as the two most important causes that impact the cost, schedule, August 8, 2019. http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/desmaterials/mat_geology
and claims of bridge projects. However, the respondents stated that /pop_geotechman.shtml.
the level of groundwater table being higher than expected could Alnuaimi, A. S., R. A. Taha, M. Al Mohsin, and A. S. Al-Harthi. 2010.
have higher impact on cost overruns and claims but not as much “Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of COs on public construction
projects in Oman.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (5): 615–622. https://
impact on schedule. According to these participants, design change
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000154.
in superstructure had more impact on schedule growth than on cost
Amarasekara, W. D. L., B. A. K. S. Perera, and M. N. N. Rodrigo. 2018.
overrun and claims. The overwhelming majority of the respondents “Impact of differing site conditions on construction projects.” J. Leg.
stated that the geotechnical-related change orders had detrimental Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (3): 04518006. https://doi.org/10
effects on cost and schedule overruns as well as on claims of bridge .1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000257.
projects. Some of the participants mentioned that they might not
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Anastasopoulos, P. C., S. Labi, A. Bhargava, C. Borda, and F. L.

have any effect on cost, schedule, or claims of a project. A few Mannering. 2010. “Frequency of change orders in highway construc-
individuals stated that they would decrease cost and schedule tion using alternate count-data modeling methods.” J. Constr. Eng.
growth. The authors opine that these individuals might be thinking Manage. 136 (8): 886–893. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
about change orders that reduce the work scope or improve the de- -7862.0000198.
Arizona State DOT. 2019. “Geotech services.” Accessed August 8, 2019.
sign, which help to reduce the costs and schedules of bridge
https://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/bridge/guidelines
projects. /geotech-services.
When asked about the costs to be spent on geotechnical-related Boeckmann, A. Z., and J. E. Loehr. 2016. Influence of geotechnical inves-
design, the majority of survey participants stated that the cost of tigation and subsurface conditions on claims, change orders, and
the geotechnical design should be 3% or more of the total cost of overruns. NCHRP Synthesis 484. Washington, DC: Transportation
bridge projects. This finding is accordance with the estimations Research Board.
done by previous studies and standards (Mott MacDonald and Soil California State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical manual.” Accessed August 8, 2019.
Mechanics 1994; National Research Council 1984). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services/manuals/geotechnical
The major recommendations provided by the participants to re- -manual.
duce geotechnical-related change orders in bridge design so that del Puerto, C. L., D. D. Gransberg, and M. C. Loulakis. 2018. “Contractual
approaches to address geotechnical uncertainty in design-build public
they have less effect on costs, schedules, and claims were that
transportation projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (1):
the geotechnical designer should have detailed knowledge of the 04516010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000202.
site and a detailed site investigation should be conducted before Fathi, M., P. P. Shrestha, and B. Shakya. 2019. “Change orders and sched-
designing the bridge project. The participants also thought that ule performance of design-build infrastructure projects: Comparison
the minimum standards for subsurface investigation and site char- between highway and water and wastewater projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dis-
acterization must be developed and implemented during the design pute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (1): 04519043. https://doi.org/10.1061
phase of the bridge project. /(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000353.
The primary contribution of this study to the body of knowl- Florida State DOT. 2019. “Soils and foundation handbook.” Accessed
edge is that the survey identified the preferred used of geotechnical August 8, 2019. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs
design standards as well as subsurface investigation methods. The /default-source/structures/structuresmanual/archivedstructuresmanuals
/sfh2000.pdf?sfvrsn=b392bc8a_2.
findings also help project engineers identify the main causes of
Flyvbjerg, B., M. K. S. Holm, and S. L. Buhl. 2004. “What causes cost
geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects. The study overrun in transport infrastructure projects?” Transp. Rev. 24 (1):
clearly shows that geotechnical-related change orders are detri- 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164032000080494a.
mental to cost and schedule overruns as well as claims of bridge Goldsworthy, J. S., M. B. Jaksa, W. S. Kaggwa, G. A. Fenton, D. V.
projects. The study laid out some of the recommendations to Griffiths, and H. G. Poulos. 2004. “Cost of foundation failure due to
reduce these change orders, so that projects can be completed limited site investigations.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Structural and Foun-
without legal implications. The authors are extending this study dation Failures, 398–409. Seattle, Washington: Semantic Scholar.
by gathering data for pavement projects because pavement projects Gould, J. P. 1995. “Geotechnology in dispute resolution: The twenty-sixth
have also encountered change orders related to geotechnical Terzaghi lecture.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (7): 523–534. https://doi.org/10
issues that have detrimental effects on construction phases of .1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:7(523).
Halwatura, R. U., and N. P. N. P. Ranasinghe. 2013. “Causes of variation
the projects.
orders in road construction projects in Sri Lanka.” ISRN Constr. Eng.
2013: 1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/381670.
Hanna, A. S., J. R. Swanson, and D. G. Aoun. 2014. “Proper risk allocation
Data Availability Statement during construction: Differing site conditions.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Res-
olut. Eng. Constr. 6 (4): 04514003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA
All survey data used during the study are available from the .1943-4170.0000146.
corresponding author by request. Hoek, E., and A. Palmeiri. 1998. “Geotechnical risks on large civil engi-
neering projects.” In Proc., Int. Association of Engineering Geologists
Congress, 1–11. Rotterdam, Netherland: A.A. Balkema.
Idaho State DOT. 2019. “Materials manual.” Accessed August 8, 2019.
Acknowledgments https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/Materials/materials_cover.pdf.
Institution of Civil Engineers. 1991. “Inadequate site investigation.”
The authors would like to thank all the respondents who spent their London: Thomas-Telford. https://www.scribd.com/document/340140190
valuable time to provide their input during the questionnaire survey /Inadequate-Site-Investigation-pdf.
for this study. Without their active participation, the study would Kim, K. J., C. A. Kreider, and M. D. Valiquette. 2009. “North Carolina
not have been possible. Department of Transportation’s practice and experience with design

© ASCE 04520005-8 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005

 build contracts geotechnical perspective.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2116 (1): Resolut. Eng. Constr. 1 (3): 04519009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
47–52. https://doi.org/10.3141/2116-07. LA.1943-4170.0000299.
Mahamid, I., A. Bruland, and N. Dmaidi. 2012. “Causes of delay in road Shrestha, P. P., and M. Fathi. 2019. “Impacts of change orders on cost and
construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 28 (3): 300–310. https://doi.org schedule performance and the correlation with project size of DB build-
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000096. ing projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 11 (3):
Minnesota State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical engineering manual.” 04519010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000311.
Accessed August 8, 2019. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials Shrestha, P. P., and R. Maharjan. 2018. “Effects of change orders on cost
/geotmanual.html. growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity of large highway
Montana State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical manual.” Accessed August 8, projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (3): 04518012.
2019. https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/materials/geotech https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000264.
_manual/chapter01.pdf. Shrestha, P. P., and R. Maharjan. 2019. “Effect of change orders on cost and
Mott MacDonald and Soil Mechanics. 1994. Study of the efficiency of site schedule for small low-bid highway projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Res-
investigation practices. Project Rep. No. 60. Crow Thorne, Berkshire, olut. Eng. Constr. 11 (4): 04519025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
UK: Transport Research Laboratory of the Dept. of Transport. LA.1943-4170.0000323.
National Research Council. 1984. “Geotechnical site investigations for Shrestha, P. P., K. K. Shrestha, and T. K. Kandie. 2017. “Effects of change
underground projects.” Washington, DC: US National Committee on orders on the cost and schedule of rural road maintenance projects.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tunneling Technology, National Academy Press. J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517010. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000227.
New York State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical design manual.” Accessed Au-
Shrestha, P. P., K. P. Shrestha, and H. Zeleke. 2019. “Probability of change
gust 8, 2019. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical
orders and the effect on cost and schedule for new public school build-
-services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau/gdm.
ings.” J. Eng. Constr. Arch. 26 (6): 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1108
North Carolina State DOT. 2019. “North Carolina State DOT internal
/ECAM-01-2018-0017.
manual”. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources
Shrestha, P. P., and H. Zeleke. 2018. “Effect of change orders on cost and
/Geological/Pages/Geotechnical-Manuals.aspx.
schedule overruns of school building renovation projects.” J. Leg. Aff.
Ohio State DOT . 2019. “Specifications for geotechnical explorations.” Ac- Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (4): 04518018. https://doi.org/10
cessed August 8, 2019. https://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and .1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000271.
-construction/bridge/guidelines/geotech-services. South Carolina State DOT. 2019. “South Carolina State DOT geotechnical
Pennsylvania State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical engineering manual.” Ac- design manual”. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://www.scdot.org
cessed August 8, 2019. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms /business/geotech.aspx.
/Publications/Pub%20293.pdf. Taylor, T. R. B., M. Uddin, P. M. Goodrum, A. McCoy, and Y. Shan. 2012.
Prezzi, M., B. McCullouch, and V. K. D. Mohan. 2011. Analysis of change “Change orders and lessons learned: Knowledge from statistical analy-
orders in geotechnical engineering work at INDOT. FHWA/IN/JTRP- ses of engineering change orders on Kentucky highway projects.”
2011/10. West Lafayette, IN: Joint Transportation Research Program, J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (12): 1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1061
Indiana Dept. of Transportation and Purdue Univ. /(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000550.
Semple, C., F. T. Hartman, and G. Jergeas. 1994. “Construction claims US Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. “Engineering and design: Geotech-
and disputes: Causes and cost/time overruns.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. nical investigations.” Accessed June 12, 2019. https://www
120 (4): 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994) .publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals
120:4(785). /EM_1110-1-1804.pdf.
Serag, E., A. Oloufa, L. Malone, and E. Radwna. 2010. “Model for quan- Virginia State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical engineering.” Accessed August 8,
tifying the impact of change orders on project cost for U.S. roadwork 2019. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (9): 1015–1027. https://doi -MOI-III.pdf.
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000206. Zaneldin, E. K. 2006. “Construction claims in United Arab Emirates:
Shrestha, K. K., and P. P. Shrestha. 2019. “Change orders on road main- Types, causes, and frequency.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (5): 453–459.
tenance contracts: Causes and preventive measures.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.006.

© ASCE 04520005-9 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2020, 12(2): 04520005