Laserfiche WebLink
Western Dam Engineering <br />Technical Note <br />20 <br />Photo 3.Contractor testing rock bolts with engineer <br />oversight <br />Recently, more owners and regulators are moving toward <br />having an independent representative of the owner being <br />responsible for most, if not all, of the quality control <br />testing, and the contractor’s responsibility is limited to <br />providing access, assistance with obtaining samples, or <br />providing any specialty equipment needed for the testing <br />of installed products (e.g., equipment for pull testing of <br />rock bolts or soil nails). A potential benefit of this trend is <br />to limit conflicts of interest for QC testing by moving the <br />contractor out of the position of verifying his own work <br />product, thereby obtaining better control over the QC <br />product. Potential disadvantages involve the increased <br />coordination efforts required between the third party <br />tester and the contractor, diminished control over <br />schedule, and extra time requirements for testing <br />personnel to be on site (stand-by time), which can result <br />in added cost. <br />Regardless of which path is chosen, the established path <br />of contractor submittals and engineer approvals needs to <br />be maintained. This would apply to pre-submittals such <br />as steel certifications for rebar, reactivity and strength <br />testing for particular concrete mixes and aggregate <br />sources prior to production, gradations for commercial or <br />off-site material sources prior to import, etc. <br />Owner as Part of the Team <br />Don’t forget the owner – keeping them involved is critical <br />to project success, especially when some decisions may <br />involve risk impacts. The best way to do this is by <br />requiring periodic on-site project coordination meetings. <br />These meetings allow the contractor, engineer, and <br />owner to discuss project status, change orders, delays, <br />and changing site conditions. Don’t forget to take careful <br />minutes of these meetings and distribute to all in a timely <br />manner. Inviting regulatory agencies can be prudent. <br />Weekly summary reports are also helpful for ensuring all <br />“team” members are informed and involved. <br />Submittals are the key! <br />Allowing the contractor flexibility, while maintaining <br />engineering oversight is done with proper and timely <br />submittals and submittal reviews. The requirement for <br />the contractor to submit shop drawings that show just <br />how certain components of the construction are to be <br />assembled is an example of how the review process <br />should proceed with respect to team effort specifications. <br />The engineer reviews the shop drawings for adequacy <br />and completeness using a clear process for commenting <br />and return for changes and eventual approval. <br />Including a clear summary submittal list in a Submittal <br />Section of the specifications is important. The submittal <br />list fields should include: <br />·Submittal name <br />·Due date <br />·Review time <br />·Contractor PE approval required <br />·Specification reference <br />·Comments <br />References <br />The following references provide additional tips on <br />specification requirements for dam construction. <br />New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (2008),Technical Specifications for <br />Dams <br />Montana Department of Natural Resources (2012),Specification <br />Requirements for Dams (Technical Note 8) <br />Colorado Division of Water Resources (2007),Rules and Regulations for <br />Dam Safety and Dam Construction