This is new way of thinking and a new way of doing business. It is a challenge to all concerned because each party has to be honest with themselves and the way they portray themselves to others, accept one another’s areas of expertise, knowledge and limitations and work towards a common goal.
The civil construction industry is short staffed and lacking in skills across the board. We need a new approach which requires some smart thinking and a change in attitude. We need people who will ask, listen and learn.
Introduction
I have worked in the civil construction industry all of my life. I started with Blackley Construction about 15 years ago and during this time I have seen the industry change substantially, and in many ways not for the better. The civil engineering industry as a whole, not just the trenchless side is suffering from a lack of skilled staff across the board, operators through to engineers.
This means that we need different relationships within our working environment to better achieve project goals. This new relationship requires the individuals and companies involved to be more realistic and honest about their levels of knowledge, skills and experience.
They also need to be prepared to:
- Ask questions about things they don’t understand
- Listen to the answers they get and assess the implications for the project
- Learn from the process and the experience of others.
As an industry and an industry group we need to look hard at ourselves and then start to consider how we can make a greater impact on the wider civil construction industry. The majority of documents and specifications are basically rubbish or they are a poor attempt or excuse to pass on a lack of preparation or lack of knowledge and understanding to someone else, generally the contractor. Poor documents can be a result of inexperience, a fear of asking questions, an inability to listen to the answers or a refusal to improve an understanding of the project and technology.
Dollars and sense
Price is affected by the perception of risk and the development of smart thinking – engineering, construction methodology and materials selection. If everything was equal, there would be no winners or losers, the client would simply get what they pay for, no more or no less, and the contractor would be paid for what they do, no more, no less.
However all too often we get documents that specify;
- Inappropriate technology
- Unachievable performance requirements, by specifying one type of technology and the performance of another.
- Materials or machinery that is not readily available or not available at all.
- A lack of understanding of the risks involved.
- An insufficient tender period to allow for appropriate research and pricing.
Many of these issues would go away if people would ask, listen and learn. As a result of poor documents and a lack of understanding from clients, consultants and other contractors, we have had to structure our business to better cater for the documents we now get and the inexperienced staff who are trying to administer them. We now offer a route investigation service, a service location operation and we have just employed an on site clerk of works to keep track of the work program, the supply of information, document failings and variations.
When the document fails to perform, this generally results in the introduction of additional risk to pricing the job. If the risk is interpreted correctly and priced accordingly, then you generally miss the job. If you win the job with the risk included in the price then the client will loose if the risk does not eventuate. If you did not price the risk correctly, you will probably win the job and if the risk occurs, you will lose.
Case study – directional drilling
This is the classic example of miscommunication and lack of understanding between the parties regarding the technology involved. Ask, listen and learn has to be applied by all of the parties but on this project communications failed and cost all of the parties a considerable amount of money.
The original specification called for the installation of a 400 mm diameter PE pipe on a grade of 1:500 at an average depth of 3.5 metres and a curved alignment over a length of 130 metres. The project was in central Wellington on reclaimed land with heavy surface traffic including trolley buses. Extensive underground services were present and there was a possibility of a number of unknown services as well.
The contract had a number of hold points to help manage the risk. Preliminary discussions, prior to tender, looked at the issue of grade, alignment, service location, pipe usage and site restrictions. Unfortunately a lot of the issues raised during these discussions did not make it back into the final agreement or they were later forgotten or unable to be recalled. This was then compounded by changes in staff. The same problem also arose with regard to the various site discussions that had taken place during the construction. Unfortunately, the average drill operator is not that good with documentation from a contractual perspective. This lack of support paper then creates problems when people can not recall previous meetings and discussions.
The preliminary discussions covered items including;
- Drilling accuracy and the electronics used vs. the specification.
- The way a directional drill actually works and the accuracy potential and limitations of the drilling operation.
- The accuracy of the existing services information.
- The purpose of the installed pipe and its actual installation requirements.
- And a host of other things that impacted on the job.
A key misunderstanding at the early stages was that the pipeline was a pressure line to link two existing sewer systems in an emergency overflow situation. It was stated that grade was not critical but this meant different things to different people. For a drain layer or an engineer it means a uniform straight line between two points. For a directional driller it means a start and finish point and make it happen, especially in a pressure situation; but not so on this job.
Slumps
We had three slumps occur at the surface after the pipe had been installed. We were told by the consultant that this was caused by the cavity created by the drilling process.
However, we do not create cavities because we use drilling fluids and we supplied a copy of a paper from Arizona State University, backing up our stance. We believe the first slump was caused by undermining an existing service trench and extracting a fairly mobile bedding sand during the first back cutting operation and the required exit of the cutter and re-entry to the get beyond the first obstacle.
The second slump, we have no ideas. On excavation there were no signs of collapse in the profile, the fluid was where it should be, there were no signs of drop out into the fluid but there was a slump at the surface some 3 metres above the bore path.
The third slump revealed a cavity approximately 2 metres long and around 150 mm high. It was about 1.5 metres above our bore path. It looked like it had been there for a while however, it was hard to tell and probably unlikely due to the volume of traffic.
It was then suggested that the fluids were the wrong type or mix, this statement came from people who did not know that we used fluids until we told them. They asked to inspect our fluid design, which was fortunately based on a recommendation from Bariod. From a drilling perspective the fluids performed well but the consultant still expected it to dry like concrete even though it was within a tidal water table.
The client had a consultant under contract for the supply of all services. This consultant then hired another consultant to design the pipeline and prepare a contract for the work. As the work slowly turned to custard the client employed an additional consultant to try and resolve the issue between the contractor and the other consultants. While this new consultant made every effort to get a handle on the situation, he had absolutely no experience with any form of Trenchless Technology.
The first consultant prepared a detailed specification, after asking and listening, for the work. This was quite descriptive of the process but once the custard started to rain down, the consultants view became that the contractor was the expert and he should have sorted it out.
Unexpected obstacles
As stated, the document had a number of key hold points where the work could be halted and if necessary cancelled and the contractor paid for his efforts. This was a good feature of the document and the main reason why we decided to take the project on. While these key points were discussed at various times during the project, neither side documented them to any degree. When it turned to custard we heard comments that the contractor ignored this aspect of the contract and failed to notify the consultant as required. However it would appear that the consultant had forgotten about the clerk of works on site full time. How could they not be aware of what was happening?
During the pilot bore we hit three significant obstacles which we were not allowed to expose. As it turns out each of these interfered with the design pipe layout which meant that the project was not viable from the start, regardless of our ability to drill at 1:500.
The major obstruction was a 600 mm diameter brick and concrete culvert which was unknown at the time. It was 13 metres from the end of the pilot bore and we hit it on the way out, deflecting the drill head, and we were not able to expose it to investigate or remedy the situation.
We hit it big time during the back cutting, in fact after half a day boring away at it on the way back we shut the project down for a few days while we went away and built a new cutter because we thought we were chewing on a hard log because we had some timber in our cuttings. This timber later turned out to be railway sleeper sized boxing which was used for formwork around the culvert and then left in place. Even though this obstacle caused us considerable grief, the consultant would not allow us dig it up and expose it. Interesting though, as part of the “÷rain of custard’ we were again informed that no one explained to the consultant that this obstacle could impact on the final outcome of the project.
My argument here is that the client has employed the consultant assuming some level of technical competence and as a contractor working on these projects it is fair that we should be able to assume this to be so. Just as the consultant expects the contractor to demonstrate a level of competence and experience based on the attributes process, one would assume that the consultant has been through the same attributes process with the client. If this is in fact the case, who is telling stories? When the custard falls it is sometimes surprising to see how people react and who puts their hand up.
In summary, this was only part of all of the dramas involved with this project and the final outcome cost all of the parties concerned. Even though questions were asked and answers supplied, they meant different things to the people involved. What appeared to be obvious to some, wasn’t obvious to others. The early lessons offered to both parties weren’t learnt until the end and by then it was too late.
Where to from here?
Who are the right people and how do we get them involved? From my perspective, it all comes down to attitude and honesty. We need people who want to ask, listen and learn. To do this we need people who are prepared to work together to produce a successful outcome for the client. People have to accept one another’s expertise and limitations. People have to be honest with themselves and the way they present themselves to others. This is the “÷new thinking’ challenge for the industry.
The challenge is setting up a contractual relationship where the four parties, including the materials supplier, have the opportunity to use their experience and expertise to produce what the client requires for a price they are prepared to pay. Everybody wins, nobody loses, and everyone gets what they are entitled to and what they have earned.
The relationship triangle of principal, consultant and contractor provides an opportunity for everyone to ask, listen and learn. The result of this equation is equal contribution. The challenge is to look at yourself, be honest with yourself and be honest with the industry.
This is an edited version of Mr Binns presentation to the Trenchless Australasia Conference 2008.