Introduction

In 2019 a Procurement of Ground Investigation Steering Group survey was carried out. The survey was a collaboration between the Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (AGS), British Drilling Association (BDA) and Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). It built upon the AGS/BDA 2017 survey ‘Spotlight on the industry’ which identified that poor procurement of ground investigation was amongst the top three concerns of the responders.

The purpose of the survey was to identify the level of understanding of, and detail the concerns with, the current procurement processes for UK ground investigation services. The results have been extensively used over the last two years to drive improvements through the procurement process and forms the basis of many decisions for the direction this action has taken, including the third revision of the UK Specification for ground investigation (The Yellow Book) due to be published mid 2022.

Twenty one (21) questions were posed dealing with type of organisation, experience, size of projects and going onto familiarisation with contract mechanisms and documentation and concluding with questions on the way forward and improvements that could be made in the procurement process.

The following is a short summary of our analysis of the survey results concentrating mainly on views expressed regarding the way forward for the industry; a more detailed article is due to appear on the AGS website shortly which will deal with the responses received question by question. The full survey results are available on the AGS website.

Summary analysis

Respondents

Questions 1 to 10 looked at the details of the respondents in terms of affiliation, experience and qualifications, location and size and also their role in the procurement process.

Responses were received from 175 individuals as indicated in the graphic below. Those affiliations not identified (18%) include BGS, Geological Society, GSHP Association, EIC, DPI, FAME, ICE, RCE Association and the ACE. This is clearly a small but active proportion of the ground investigation community.

The majority of respondents are members of the AGS (59%), BDA (30%), BGA (23%) and FPS (10%). There are some multiple affiliations of course which makes the totals greater than 100%.

Over 80% of respondents had more than 11 years’ experience and were at least at senior engineer level. Advisors/consultants and specialist ground investigation contractors provided nearly 85% of the responses with over 90% degree qualified or of chartered status.

A fairly even distribution of ground investigation organisations across the United Kingdom was indicated. Companies appear to work across the UK with about 50% considering themselves to be national contractors though with fewer in Northern Ireland. Some 20% of respondents considered they were engaged in global activity.

It is not clear from the responses what proportion of the respondents were geotechnical designers with a knowledge of the proposed construction for which the ground investigation was being proposed. However, some 40% of responses were from ‘Specifiers’ and a further almost 40% from ‘Estimators’ and ‘Procurer/Buyers’.

Improving the Procurement Process

The latter part of the survey dealt with questions around how the procurement process should be improved going forward.

Q19 presented a series of statements relating to GI Procurement and respondents were asked to rank these according to importance.

The results showed that the vast majority of participants considered that good formal Specifications with the objectives of the investigation outlined and the provision of a Bills of Quantity was necessary. There was a strong view that the tenderer’s estimator should always assess the risks and make allowances for them in the tender return.

A more detailed analysis of the two main respondent groups i.e., Advisor/consultants and Specialist ground investigation contractors reveals that there is general agreement in the responses to these questions. The low return rate from other groups (10 or less responses per group) means that it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions for them.

The biggest disparity in opinion between the two main groups is regarding the statements that the contract is always awarded to the most capable rather than lowest cost. Also, the statement that the Designer should always specify the methodologies required appears to be more heavily divided in terms of opinions of the two parties.

At Question 20 respondents were asked ‘in thinking about the future of the ground investigation industry what changes from a list of 10 factors provided could most improve the procurement process’.

The results of the responses are summarised below in terms of assessed importance.

By far the greatest factor identified was that procurers should have a good understanding of ground investigation process and there was considerable support expressed for Early Contractor involvement. Conversely the increased use of framework contracts, adopting new methods for measuring contract costs and establishing a protocol for pre-measuring The GI works without resorting to Compensation Events was seen as having the least potential impact in improving the procurement process.

Again, a more detailed analysis of the two main respondent groups i.e., Advisor/consultants and Ground investigation contractors reveals that there is general agreement in the responses to these questions.

Summary

The most important issues identified regarding improvements centred around the following themes:

1. The first priority was identified as the procurer should have a good understanding of the ground investigation process and method. This reflected concerns regarding non specialists being involved in the process without a full understanding of the issues.
2. The development of a GI focussed NEC contract or one specifically for GI was also considered to be a major priority based on the cumulative response from the two questions as flagged above. This was particularly supported by the Ground Investigation Contractors. This was also associated with significant support for improved training in the use of the NEC contract for GI
3. There was general agreement that early contractor involvement can be valuable in choosing an appropriate ground investigation design particularly where there are more specialist and perhaps less commonly specified requirements.
4. The revision of the existing ground investigation specification to make it as prescriptive as possible and an improved BoQ was necessary to create a level playing field during tender assessment.

As noted above a more detailed article is due to appear on the AGS website shortly which will deal with the responses received question by question.

Acknowledgements

Author Stewart Jarvis, Associate Director, Arup with acknowledgements to David Farmer and Mersade Cartwright, Arup for assistance with the original survey data and presentation.

 

Authors
Julian Lovell, Managing Director, Equipe Group
Jon Rayner, Director SH&E, EUR – UK & Ireland, AECOM

Introduction

Recently there have been a number of serious incidents/accidents involving drilling machines and recent site safety audits and inspections have discovered poorly maintained machinery and lack of demonstratable operative competency.  This article explores the risk to safety posed by plant and in particular the compliance with health and safety legislation and guidance relating to drilling machines which are used on almost every geotechnical project whether that be a dynamic sampling machine or rotary piling machine.

Legislative Framework

There are numerous pieces of health, safety and environmental legislation which apply to ground investigations, but the control of the common safety aspects of construction work, of which ground investigation is undeniably part of, relies heavily upon the implementation of and compliance to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, 2015 (CDM).

HSE also publishes guidance to help people to understand what the law says, to help duty holders comply with the law and to give technical advice. HSE guidance, which is generally not specific to a particular industry and further guidance including British Standards and industry specific guidance, may be used by the regulator and the courts to demonstrate that good practice has been followed.

This guidance is not compulsory, but the HSE advises that if you do follow it, you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. If an incident occurs, health and safety inspectors and prosecutors will check for compliance and duty holders may well be found liable of a torte of negligence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and face a financial penalty and or a custodial sentence. If an incident occurs from a known and documented risk(s), then this will be looked upon unfavourably, if it is demonstrated as being ‘reasonably forseeable’ risks, which have not been managed and monitored sufficiently.

The operation of drilling machines is governed by a number of specific legislative statutes and guidance most notably the Machinery Safety Directive, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) and BS EN 16228 – Drill Rig Safety. The obligations under these parts of the legislative framework almost entirely rest with the manufacturers, buyers and users of the equipment (the Contractors). However, Clients and Designers must not forget their obligations under CDM as they also have a duty to engage with competent Contractors and must make suitable arrangements for managing a project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources. In respect of Client duties, the regulations clarify that arrangements are suitable if they ensure that the construction work can be carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks to the health or safety of any person affected by the project.

The Knowns

The AGS and BDA Safety Working Groups have published a number of safety guidance, safety alerts and Client’s guide documents to bring these safety issues to the attention of the industry.  The AGS is also currently preparing a number of Client Guides which will provide guidance on known safety issues relating to ground investigation activities and in particular the machines and methodologies being used.

The data for these documents have been derived from a programme of independent post-delivery (pre-use) inspections commissioned over the past three years principally by AECOM and delivered by Equipe, which itself resulted in production of the AECOM Drilling Operating Standards Industry Working Group (DOSIWiG) document series. It is these DOSIWiG documents which will form the basis of the AGS Client Guides.

A total of 114 inspections were carried out over a period from September 2019 to November 2021 and involved 18 different ground investigation contractors. The graphic below provides a summary of the key safety non-conformities found during the inspections.

Throughout this programme, the major safety issues have remained consistent; a lack of awareness of legislative requirements, inadequate guarding of both the drill string and hot parts and under-rated or damaged lifting accessories including wire rope defects. The programme has determined that those employing, managing and operating the machines have little awareness of what full machinery compliance looks like. It has also identified a general poor understanding of what is required to fully comply with PUWER & LOLER (where applied) by those responsible for daily compliance inspection of the machines, with the industry often reliant too heavily on the manufacturers of the machines.

The Unknowns

The data highlighting these safety issues have been obtained from large projects and from organisations who already implement an approved subcontractors audit process. Whilst the Client’s competency checks and onboarding process are vigorous, these non-conformities would not have been identified without the benefit of the independent pre-use inspections. So how many non-compliant machines are in use today?

The independent pre-use inspection initiative has provided invaluable insight and, more importantly, data which can be analysed and used to create targeted guidance for the industry. The data suggests some improvement, but do the ongoing and consistent trends suggest that these issues are still not being seen to be significant by those appointing, engaging and managing drilling contractors?

The reason for the continuing lack of compliance is not clear but anecdotal evidence suggests that perhaps it is due to these non-conformities not being seen to be serious or a potential causal effect for incidents/accidents. Many parts of the industry believe that when a wire rope fails, it will ‘fail to safe’ as any load being carried will simply drop safely to the bottom of the hole. Recent site accidents would indicate otherwise.  Likewise, a belief exists that the lack of paperwork does not inherently make a site or equipment unsafe, but lack of structured and recorded checking can allow unsafe equipment and operations to continue.

These attitudes are clear signs of a juvenile industry safety culture which is not learning the lessons from the wider construction industry. Time and effort are being spent on discrediting safety practices or identifying reasoning why they shouldn’t be applied to the ground investigation industry, rather than adopting cross industry best practise. Why?

Time, money and effort should be balanced against risk, at least this is what the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 tells us. However, when there is an inherent race to the bottom to win work, anything which adds cost is challenged by the industry, as the industry is governed by those competing for the work.

Is this to the benefit of the Clients? Clients will follow current industry guidance, setting these safety standards within specifications, project standards, etc. under the assumption that this constitutes best practice and will ensure a safe project. The reality is that these standards are watered down to keep the industry lean and value for money in the eyes of those appointing them, while retaining risk to those engaging in the work activities.

Summary

Looking past the industry guidance, it is clear from the data that not enough is being done to ensure safety within the industry, with 52% of drilling machines still being deemed not fit for use. The AECOM pre-use inspection programme provides evidence that there are significant problems regarding compliance of drilling machinery legislation. Without such a programme these drilling machines would have been defective when in use – machines which require operatives to work continuously in close proximity to them.

Whilst Contractors will continue to carry the largest obligations regarding compliance, Client’s also have obligations under CDM 2015.

Clause 30 – ‘the client is required to make suitable arrangements for managing the project so that health, safety and welfare is secured.’ and

Clause 31 (f) – ‘Arrangements should include setting out the means to ensure that the health and safety performance of designers and contractors is maintained throughout’.

An independent pre-use inspection programme is a tool which can be used by Clients and Designers to meet obligations applicable to the safe use of plant and machinery and should, if adopted, lead to significant improvements of compliance and therefore safety within these areas.

Clients can greatly help the industry to manage and maintain the machinery safety by instigating this or a similar approach on their projects. This will ultimately reduce safety accident and incidents, and in turn reduce harm, project delays, maintain client reputation and increase productivity by the use of good quality, fully compliant machinery.

SuRF UK have recently published updated guidance on Sustainable Management Practices (SMP’s) which include 15 sustainable management practices posters.

The SMP’s are “relatively simple, common sense actions that can be implemented at any stage in a land contamination management project to improve its environmental, social and/or economic performance”. ‘SMPs can be used to improve the benefits (e.g. resource efficiency, community satisfaction) or reduce the negative impacts (e.g. spillages, complaints, cost) of a project, leading to project ‘sustainability gains’, without requiring a formal sustainability assessment’. The SMP document describes a simple process to encourage sustainable thinking, decision making and action across all land contamination management activities by using SMPs’. The process could also be applied to geotechnical projects.

The posters include topics such as ‘Set project milestones to ensure periodic review and optimisation of activities’, ‘minimise vehicle miles’ and ‘don’t allow plant and equipment to run for no purpose’.  These posters could be used in a variety of ways to encourage sustainable thinking, for example:

• As a suitable ‘Sustainability Moment’ in a meeting;
• As a slide in a presentation
• At project commencement
• As an aid in a site briefing

The document and posters can be accessed at the following link: https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/surf-uk/21-executing-sustainable-remediation/84-sustainable-management-practices