PDF Recommended Contract Practices For Underground Construction Second Edition Sarah H Wilson Editor Ebook Full Chapter

Recommended contract practices for
underground construction Second

Edition Sarah H. Wilson (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/recommended-contract-practices-for-underground-co
nstruction-second-edition-sarah-h-wilson-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Underground engineering planning design construction

and operation of the underground space 1st Edition Bai
Yun
https://textbookfull.com/product/underground-engineering-
planning-design-construction-and-operation-of-the-underground-
space-1st-edition-bai-yun/
Construction Contract Claims Changes and Dispute

Resolution 3rd Edition Paul Levin
https://textbookfull.com/product/construction-contract-claims-
changes-and-dispute-resolution-3rd-edition-paul-levin/
The NEC4 engineering and construction contract : a

commentary Third Edition Eggleston
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-nec4-engineering-and-
construction-contract-a-commentary-third-edition-eggleston/
Ground Engineering Principles and Practices for

Underground Coal Mining 1st Edition J.M. Galvin (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/ground-engineering-principles-
and-practices-for-underground-coal-mining-1st-edition-j-m-galvin-
auth/
Guide to JCT Standard Building Contract 2016 1st
Edition Sarah Lupton (Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/guide-to-jct-standard-building-
contract-2016-1st-edition-sarah-lupton-author/
Guide to JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016 1st

Edition Sarah Lupton (Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/guide-to-jct-minor-works-
building-contract-2016-1st-edition-sarah-lupton-author/
Guide to JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 1st Edition

Sarah Lupton (Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/guide-to-jct-design-and-build-
contract-2016-1st-edition-sarah-lupton-author/
True Crime Second Edition Wilson
https://textbookfull.com/product/true-crime-second-edition-
wilson/
The Clockwork Dynasty A Novel 9th Edition Wilson Daniel

H
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-clockwork-dynasty-a-
novel-9th-edition-wilson-daniel-h/
Recommended
Contract Practices
for Underground Construction
Second Edition
Edited by Sarah H. Wilson
Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME), Inc.
12999 E. Adam Aircraft Circle
Englewood, Colorado, USA 80112
(303) 948‑4200 / (800) 763‑3132
www.smenet.org
The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) is a professional society whose more than 15,000
members represent professionals serving the minerals industry in more than 100 countries. SME members
include engineers, geologists, metallurgists, educators, students, and researchers. SME advances the world‑
wide mining and underground construction community through information exchange and professional
development.
Information contained in this work has been obtained by SME from sources believed to be reliable. However,
neither SME nor its authors and editors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published
herein, and neither SME nor its authors and editors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages
arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SME and its authors
and editors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional
services. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or
other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be
sought. Any statement or views presented here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of SME.
The mention of trade names for commercial products does not imply the approval or endorsement of SME.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher.
ISBN 978‑0‑87335-459-2
eBook 978‑0‑87335-460-8
Copyright © 2019 Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
Cover image courtesy of McMillen Jacobs Associates. Photographer Susan Bednarz

Title page image courtesy of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Photographer Robin Scheswohl
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Wilson, Sarah H., editor. | Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration (U.S.), publisher, sponsoring body.
Title: Recommended contract practices for underground construction / edited
by Sarah H. Wilson.
Description: Second edition. | Englewood, Colorado : Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration, Inc., 2019. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019013294 (print) | LCCN 2019013554 (ebook) | ISBN
9780873354608 | ISBN 9780873354592 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780873354608 (Ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Underground construction contracts--United States.
Classification: LCC KF902 (ebook) | LCC KF902 .R43 2019 (print) | DDC
343.7307/862419--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019013294
Copyright © 2019 Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. All rights reserved.
Contents
PREF ACE TO TH E SECOND EDIT ION �� vii
ACK NOW L ED GM ENTS �� ix
C H A P TE R 1 REL ATI ONSH I PS �� 1
Introduction �� 1
The Stakeholders � � �� 2
The Contract�� 3
Improving Relationships �� 4
Conclusions and Recommendations �� 6
C H A P TE R 2 PROJECT PL ANNI NG � � � � � �� 9
Introduction �� 9
Roles and Responsibilities in Planning� � �� 1 0
Needs Assessment� � � � � � �� 1 0
Feasibility Study� � �� 1 1
Alternatives and Environmental Analysis�� 1 2
Regulatory Approvals, Permits, Easements, and Property Acquisitions� �� 1 4
Conceptual Design�� 1 7
Establishing the Implementation Plan�� 1 7
Conclusions and Recommendations �� 2 0
References�� 2 1
C H A P TE R 3 SU BSU RF ACE COND I TI ONS � � �� 2 3

Introduction �� 2 3
Importance of Comprehensive Subsurface Investigations�� 2 4
Implementation of a Subsurface Investigation Program�� 2 7
Use of Geotechnical Reports as Contract Documents �� 3 1
C H A P TE R 4 RI SK M ANAGEM ENT � � �� 3 9
Understanding Risk �� 4 0
Image courtesy of WISKO America


iv Contents
Risk Management Is a Process � � �� 4 1

Use of the Risk Register in Procurement � � � � �� 5 1
Responsibilities of the Parties for Risk Management � � �� 5 4
Insurance Codes of Practice� � � � �� 5 4
CH A P TE R 5 D ESI GN � � � � � � �� 5 9
Delivery Methods� � � � � � � � � � �� 5 9
Initial Design�� 6 0
Design Development �� 6 1
Design Documents�� 6 5
Design Review�� 6 7
Construction Support� � � � � � � � �� 7 0
Testing and Commissioning/Operations and Maintenance �� 7 2
Value Engineering Change Proposals � � �� 7 3
CH A P TE R 6 CONSTRU CTI ON M ANAGEMENT �� 7 7
Need for a Specialized Construction Manager �� 7 7
Selecting a Construction Manager � � �� 7 8
Scope of Work�� 8 1
CH A P TE R 7 COST ESTI M ATES � � � � � � � � � � � � �� 8 7
Cost Estimate Applications �� 8 8
Preparing Cost Estimates�� 9 0
Factors Affecting the Cost of Underground Construction � � � � �� 9 2
Establishing the Contract Time of Performance� �� 9 3
Contingencies �� 9 4
CH A P TE R 8 SCH ED U L ES � � �� 9 9
Realistic Schedule: Design/Construction/Testing/Completion�� 9 9
Schedule Preparation � � � � �� 1 0 0
Evolution of Underground Construction Scheduling Needs� �� 1 0 1
Schedule Models for Underground Projects�� 1 0 2
Interim Milestones: Substantial/Final Completion �� 1 0 5
Liquidated Damages� � � � � � � � �� 1 0 6
Contents v
Scheduling Constraints �� 1 0 7
Scheduling Specifications� � �� 1 0 8
Cost- and Resource-Loaded Schedules� �� 1 1 0
Approval or Acceptance of a Contractor’s Schedule� �� 1 1 1
Subcontractor Scheduling Problems �� 1 1 2
Short-Term and Partial Schedules� �� 1 1 2
Forensic Scheduling �� 1 1 2
Monte Carlo Simulations �� 1 1 3
Conclusions and Recommendations �� 1 1 3
References�� 1 1 4
C H A P TE R 9 PRI CI NG AND PAYM ENT P R OVISIONS � � � � �� 1 1 5

Introduction �� 1 1 5
Philosophy of Contract Pricing Provisions� �� 1 1 5
Firm Fixed Price Contracts �� 1 1 6
Problematic Payment Issues� � �� 1 1 7
A+B Bidding �� 1 2 5
Payment for Design Costs: Design-Build Projects�� 1 2 6
Reference� � � � � � � � � � � � �� 1 2 8
C H A P TE R 1 0 CONTRACTS �� 1 2 9
Contract Law and Underground Construction� �� 1 3 0
Factors That Shape Underground Construction Contracting�� 1 3 1
Procurement Options: Delivery Methods � � �� 1 3 2
Selection of Delivery Method� �� 1 3 6
Procurement Options: Pricing Methods � � � � �� 1 3 6
Procurement of Professional Services� �� 1 3 9
Owner’s Option to Pre-Purchase � � � � �� 1 4 0
Contract Documents �� 1 4 1
Construction Contractor Qualifications � � � � �� 1 4 3
C H A P TE R 1 1 CH ANGES �� 1 4 7
Change Avoidance �� 1 4 8
Notice� � �� 1 4 9
Determining Merit�� 1 5 1
Differing Site Conditions �� 1 5 1
Force Majeure �� 1 5 2
Pricing Methodology �� 1 5 3
Elements of Cost � � �� 1 5 5
Extended Overhead �� 1 5 7
Overhead and Profit� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� 1 5 8
vi Contents
Performance Bond �� 1 5 9
Bidding to Finish Early�� 1 6 0
CH A P TE R 1 2 D I SPU TE RESOL U TI ON �� 1 6 3
Dispute Management and Avoidance Tools� �� 1 6 4
Dispute Resolution Methods �� 1 6 7
CH A P TE R 1 3 I NSU RANCE � � � � �� 1 7 9
Overview of Insurance Concepts and Relationships Involved�� 1 7 9
Insurance and Surety Products for Underground Construction �� 1 8 1
Relationship Between Contractual Responsibilities and Insurance� �� 1 8 8
Insurance for Joint Ventures �� 1 9 1
Unique Insurance Considerations for Alternative Delivery�� 1 9 2
Use of Consolidated Insurance Programs�� 1 9 4
CH A P TE R 1 4 SU M M ARY OF RECOM M ENDA T IONS � �� 1 9 9
Relationships�� 1 9 9
Project Planning�� 2 0 0
Subsurface Conditions �� 2 0 0
Risk Management� � � � � � �� 2 0 1
Design �� 2 0 2
Construction Management �� 2 0 3
Cost Estimates� � � � � � �� 2 0 3
Schedules� � � � � � � � � � �� 2 0 4
Pricing and Payment Provisions �� 2 0 4
Contracts� � � � � � � � � � �� 2 0 5
Changes � � �� 2 0 6
Dispute Resolution� � � � �� 2 0 7
Insurance� � �� 2 0 7
AD D I TI ONAL READ I NG �� 2 0 9
I ND EX �� 2 1 3
Preface to the Second Edition
A successful underground project is one where relationships are strong, the objectives as
understood by each party are met or exceeded, and the work product serves its stakeholders
and is maintainable in a way that fits with the project vision. High-level metrics for project
success relate to safety, quality, schedule, and budget.
In 2008, the Underground Construction Association of the Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration (UCA of SME) published the first edition of this book to provide
guidance for contracts from conception through construction. Its aim was to recommend
improvements to underground contracting practices during all project stages. It also
presented roles and responsibilities for project participants to promote better contracts—
and thus better projects.
That first edition became a resource for the underground industry. Intended to serve
as a concise source of guidance for drafting and implementation of contract provisions, it
is recognizable as just that by an ever-increasing number of industry members. Although
not intended as a how-to manual of practice for the various topics, it points out issues that
are specific to the underground industry and that drafters of contract language must under‑
stand to prepare documents that can result in successful projects.
This second edition was undertaken by the UCA of SME because the underground
industry has undergone numerous changes over the last decade. Changes in tunneling tech‑
nology, more common use of design-build as a contracting mechanism, and many lessons
learned have sparked some creative contract approaches. Still, there are too many proj‑
ects that are not as successful as they could be. Project managers new to the industry—
perhaps representing an entity debuting its first underground project—make assumptions
about roles, responsibilities, and even what constitutes a successful project. This can lead to
misaligned goals, inefficient problem solving, and ultimately unresolved disputes. A better
understanding of the specialized nature of the underground industry with respect to the
topics covered in this book and certain contracting approaches can usher in success for all
project participants. This edition provides an opportunity to discuss updated recommenda‑
tions based on lessons learned over the past 10 to 15 years.
A better understanding of the specialized nature of the underground industry with respect
to the topics covered in this book and certain contracting approaches can usher in
success for all project participants.
Image from Shu-Hung Liu/Shutterstock

vii
viii Preface to the Second Edition
The editor of this book received guidance and input from a diverse group of profes‑
sionals. We convened at industry conferences to update the first edition, discuss new
chapters for state-of-practice approaches to project elements, and collaborate on recom‑
mendations. Recommendations in the first edition have been modified to address different
practices in the art of underground construction and the lessons learned over the past 10
years. Throughout the book, topics are addressed that highlight underground practices. The
guidance provided herein is based on a significant amount of collective experience and is
aimed at getting and keeping everyone on the same page with the contracting approach and
roles/responsibilities described throughout this document.
Although representatives from all reaches of the industry participated, it is worth
noting that women contributors played a significantly larger role in this second edition;
the UCA of SME clearly recognizes there is a growing number of women practitioners
and leaders in underground construction. The names of some of these leaders appear in
the Acknowledgments as oversight committee member, chapter authors, workshop partici‑
pants, and even as inspiration for the second edition.
Included are chapters on relationships, project planning, subsurface conditions, risk
management, design, construction management (now its own chapter), cost estimates,
schedules, pricing and payment provisions, contracts, changes, dispute resolution, and a
new chapter on insurance. Recommendations for each of these topics can be found at the
end of each chapter and are also compiled in Chapter 14, “Summary of Recommendations.”
The recommendations contained in this edition are intended to guide owners and their
engineers in developing and administering contracts, and to give contractors a better under‑
standing of the rationale behind contract provisions.
Our goal is that more underground projects in this country can be best projects, where
improved relationships and fair contracts enable all project participants to personally
invest in cost-effective, profitable projects, ensuring the continued health of the
underground industry.
The best projects are the ones with the good stories, and the ones that team members
look forward to building and to working on every day. Our goal is that more underground
projects in this country can be best projects, where improved relationships and fair contracts
enable all project participants to personally invest in cost-effective, profitable projects,
ensuring the continued health of the underground industry.
Acknowledgments
This study of contracting practices was updated by the editor under the direction of an over‑
sight committee sponsored by the Underground Construction Association of the Society
for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (UCA of SME). The oversight committee members
represent stakeholders that have major roles in underground construction: design engineer,
owner, contractor, and supplier. The committee includes
■■ Robert Goodfellow, Aldea Services Inc. ■■ Pamela Moran, Schneider Moran, Inc.
■■ Leon “Lonnie” Jacobs, Frontier-Kemper ■■ Matt Preedy, Sound Transit
Constructors, Inc.
Primary chapter authors of this edition are
■■ Brian Cooper, Gallagher ■■ Karen Kubick, San Francisco Public

■■ William W. Edgerton, McMillen Jacobs Utilities Commission (retired)
Associates ■■ Patricia Parker, San Francisco Municipal
■■ Amanda Elioff, WSP Global, Inc. Transportation Agency
■■ Brian Fulcher, McMillen Jacobs ■■ Michael F. Roach, Traylor Bros., Inc.
Associates ■■ Scott Shylanski, EPC Consultants, Inc.
■■ Joseph Gildner, Sound Transit ■■ George Teetes, Schnabel Engineering
■■ Brian Hammel, Gallagher ■■ Sarah Wilson, McMillen Jacobs
■■ Matt Koziol, Schnabel Engineering Associates
■■ Dave Young, Mott MacDonald LLC
The following members of the industry provided extensive review of manuscript drafts,
commenting on the topics covered and the recommendations made herein:
■■ Chris Bennett, AECOM ■■ Gregg Davidson, McMillen Jacobs

■■ Mike Bruen, Stantec, Inc. Associates
■■ Ben Campbell, Barnard Construction ■■ Anthony Gallo, Schiavone
Company, Inc. Construction Co. LLC
■■ Greg Colzani, Jacobs Engineering ■■ William Hansmire, WSP Global, Inc.
Group, Inc. ■■ Alan Howard, Brierley Associates
Image courtesy of Traylor Bros. Inc.

ix
x Acknowledgments
■■ Alan Johanson, San Francisco Public ■■ Rich Redmond, AECOM

Utilities Commission ■■ Dave Rogstad, Frontier-Kemper
■■ Steve Klein, WSP Global, Inc. Constructors, Inc.
■■ Michael Lehnen, Mott ■■ Bob Rubin, Bob Rubin Construction
MacDonald LLC Disputes Avoidance and Resolution
■■ Justin Lianides, Mott MacDonald LLC ■■ Art Silber, Mott MacDonald LLC
■■ Alfred Moergeli, Moergeli+Moergeli ■■ Tim Smirnoff, HDR (retired)
■■ Erika Moonin, Southern Nevada Water ■■ Michael Torsiello, WSP Global, Inc.
District ■■ Rick Vincent, Northeast Ohio Regional
■■ Chuck Morganson, HNTB Sewer District
Corporation ■■ Adam Wirthlin, Wirthlin Consulting
■■ Zach Munoz, Los Angeles County Group
Metropolitan Transportation Authority ■■ James Wonneberg, McMillen Jacobs
■■ Guido Perez, MST Global Associates
■■ Anthony Pooley, Jacobs Engineering ■■ Brian Zelenko, WSP Global, Inc.
Group, Inc. ■■ Derek Zoldy, Hatch, Ltd.
■■ Mark Ramsey, HNTB Corporation
In addition, a workshop was held at the North American Tunneling Conference in

Washington, D.C. At this workshop, the following participants discussed the various chap‑
ters and proposed recommendations:
■■ Jim Brady ■■ Alfred Moergeli

■■ Matthew Crow ■■ David Mullen
■■ Gregg Davidson ■■ Brad Murray
■■ Daniel Dobbels ■■ Mark Ramsey
■■ Amanda Elioff ■■ Mike Roach
■■ Chris Feeney ■■ Bob Rubin
■■ Brian Fulcher ■■ Mina Shinouda
■■ Anthony Gallo ■■ Rajul Teredesai
■■ Giuseppe Gaspari ■■ Fulvio Tonon
■■ Brian Hammel ■■ Michael Torsiello
■■ William Hansmire ■■ Patrizio Torta
■■ James Hartzel ■■ Rick Vincent
■■ David Henley ■■ Wayne Warburton
■■ Alan Howard ■■ Brian Zelenko
■■ Milind Joshi ■■ Derek Zoldy
■■ David Jurich
Acknowledgments xi
The editor is grateful to these individuals and others who made comments during the plan‑
ning, writing, and editing of this book. Thanks go to Brenda Bohlke for the inspiration to
produce this second edition. Special thanks also go to Julie McCullough for her excellent
technical editing and to Seth McGinnis for his inspired graphic design. Lisa Rode and
Amanda Elioff provided insightful consistency review on a very short turnaround. And the
SME book publishing group, led by Jane Olivier, provided insightful guidance and a final
product of the highest quality.
Finally, it is important to recognize the work of the authors of the first edition, which was
the foundation for this second edition:
■■ Christopher Bennett ■■ Ed Plotkin

■■ David H. Corkum ■■ Robert A. Pond
■■ William W. Edgerton ■■ John Reilly
■■ Michelle D. Ginder ■■ Robert (Red) Robinson
■■ Howard Handewith ■■ Bob Rubin
■■ David Hatem ■■ W.D. (Toby) Wightman
■■ Tom Peyton
William Edgerton, editor of the first edition, served as experienced and trusted adviser
and listener through every step of the process, from inception to final proofing. He could
not have been more generous with his time and insights. Without him, this book would
not exist.
Chapter 1
Relationships
I N TR O D U C TION
On underground projects, where even seemingly small problems can result in major cost
and schedule impacts because of the typically linear nature of construction, the relationships
among the project participants are major determiners of whether the project is accom-
plished successfully and with few disputes.
Many projects that were technically very difficult, with lots of changes and “rainy days,”
have been accomplished with few disagreements and no disputes. There have also been
many projects that were not as technically challenging but were contentious from the first
hour and were eventually resolved in litigation. What makes some projects run smoothly
and others travel the unpaved road? The difference seems to be in the relationships of the
project principals: representatives of the design engineer, construction manager, owner
agency, and contractor.
It is not easy to develop positive relationships among these participants. Although
they have a common goal of delivering a successful project, their definitions of success are
slightly different, and they are pushed and pulled by different drivers and constraints. Yet,
the project proponent must find a way to unify them around some common objectives and
provide a framework in which they can build productive relationships. The primary vehicle
for this is the contract.
The contract sets the stage for how relationships are created and how they evolve
throughout the project. If the contract sets the stage for an orchestra, where each member
plays a different instrument in harmony, there is a good chance of success. If it instead sets
the stage like a boxing ring, the project participants are likely to square off like adversaries
in a prizefight.
The personal and institutional relationships that form at the beginning of a project and
evolve through all of its phases may be the most crucial, yet most fragile, part of the entire
project delivery process. The coming together of disparate groups of people with different
interests and different bosses (for the most part), but with a common objective, is necessary
for successful project completion. The way these groups work together is a fundamental
Image © Fulcher/Elioff Collections
1
2 Chapter 1
determinant in how successfully the many challenges on a major construction project are
met. These interpersonal relationships, and in particular each party’s respect and apprecia-
tion for the objectives of the other parties, are the key factors in progressing the work and in
whether disagreements develop into disputes and how they are resolved.
This chapter discusses the various stakeholders in an underground construction
contract, how their fortunes are tied to sometimes unforgiving contract language, and the
importance of creating contracts that help establish successful working relationships among
the stakeholders.
T H E S TA K E H O LD ERS
Most heavy civil construction is procured for governmental or quasi-governmental agencies,
but it is the public that stands to gain the most from the project over time. As the ultimate
beneficiaries of the project, members of the public are the ultimate risk takers with respect
to project success or failure. However, they are not the only ones:
■■ Design engineer. Although the design engineering firm’s direct economic risks are
usually modest, risks to its reputation are significant because the engineer’s future
business depends on a selection process that is not based on price but on good press
and good relationships with the owner. High-quality work, technical expertise, and
responsiveness are components of these relationships. This relationship with the
owner may differ to some extent for design-build (DB) contracts.
■■ Construction manager. The construction manager may be an extension of the
owner’s staff, but in underground work, the job is more often handled by a separate
consulting firm whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the resources of all the
other parties to achieve the stated objectives and to keep roles and responsibilities
clear. The construction manager plays a pivotal role in facilitating the relationships
among all of the other stakeholders. It is important that the construction manager
understands this role and does not simply act as an advocate for the owner and
against the contractor. This is not always easy given the direct financial consulting
relationship between the owner and the construction manager; however, a good
construction manager is guided by the agreed-on overall objective of a successful
project.
■■ Owner agency. In most underground construction projects, the public is repre-
sented by the owner agency. How well its employees perform on the project will
hurt or help their careers, depending on how they are judged by their superiors as
well as how the agency is judged by the public and media. The careers of the public’s
representatives, the politicians, also depend on their constituents’ perceptions that
the project was a success.
■■ Contractor. On publicly advertised projects where the winning contractor is selected
on the basis of price, the contractor stands to benefit (i.e., profit) only from the
contract in hand. While highly desirable, the good opinion of the owner or engineer
at job completion weighs far less in obtaining the next job than being the low bidder.
By contrast, in a private or quasi-public setting, where best value and invited bid
procurements are the norm, the potential for future contracts makes winning and
keeping the owner’s favor at least as important to the contractor as the financial result
of any particular project.
Relationships 3
TH E C O N TR ACT
Whether the contract for a construction project is written specifically for that project or is a
standard that the owner has used for decades on various kinds of construction, it is likely to
be offered to bidders on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with essentially no opportunity to nego-
tiate terms. Some such contracts are reasonably equitable, meaning they allocate responsi-
bility for each given aspect of the contract to the party that has most control of that aspect.
Other contracts contain harsh, unfair, or inequitable terms. These are likely to yield fewer
bidders, higher bids, constant contentiousness, and greater legal costs. Despite these draw-
backs, they remain unchanged. Some of the most common reasons for this are as follows:
■■ Agency standards, municipal ordinances, state laws, and federal procurement
laws often mandate some or all of the terms of a contract without respect for the
unique requirements of particular types of construction, including underground
construction.
■■ Changing standard contracts requires time, resources, and shared political will,
which are in short supply at many public agencies.
■■ Creating more equitable contracts may require public officials and public servants
to risk public criticism for being soft on high-profile contractors and big business.
Owners with inequitable contract terms, such as denial of time extensions for directed work,
are quick to observe that bidders are not forced to bid if they do not like the terms. And
the owner has the right to assume that unfavorable terms are acceptable to the contractor
as long as the contractor signs the contract. This viewpoint, however, ignores the market
realities that apply to construction companies and, particularly, specialty contractors such as
tunnelers. Not every bid is successful, and a contractor that bids only when all the contrac-
tual stars are aligned will have no work and, in short order, no revenue and no company.
Therefore, rather than focusing on the difficulties that may be associated with creating
more equitable contracts, owners should remember that holding the project principals to
harsh and inequitable terms has many negative consequences. For example, allocating all
the risk to the contractor is counterproductive, as it frequently leads to increased costs
and delays to the owner through inflated bid prices, disputes, claims, and litigation (see
Chapter 4). Other harsh contractual language makes project relationships less resilient
when things go wrong.
This is particularly risky on underground projects, because the typical underground
project presents far more opportunities for things to go wrong than does the typical
aboveground project:
■■ Unlike aboveground construction, very little underground construction can be
concurrently done. A small problem underground can have huge cost and schedule
impacts if it shuts down the heading or slows progress.
■■ Underground construction is highly uncertain. Even with extensive (and expen-
sive) subsurface investigation, it is impossible to foresee every challenge that may be
encountered underground.
■■ Most underground projects are true megaprojects, with massive budgets, long sched-
ules, and many participants. Complexity adds risk.
■■ Underground construction carries a high velocity of cash flow and the potential for
significant financial losses.
4 Chapter 1
In this pressurized and uncertain environment, it is critical for the parties to be working to an
equitable contract that encourages productive problem-solving and discourages unhelpful
contentious behavior and the blame game.
It is critical for the parties to be working to an equitable contract that encourages

productive problem-solving and discourages unhelpful contentious behavior and
the blame game.
That said, although the contract is prepared by the owner agency, not all contract prob-
lems can be laid at the owner’s doorstep. Many projects deteriorate because of parties that
ignore explicit contract language or do not understand or respect their contractual roles
and responsibilities, either usurping or ceding control. Frequent examples are contractors
that insist on design changes and construction managers and designers that dictate means,
methods, and construction work plans. These failures are to be avoided as much as the
failure to establish an equitable contract in the first place.
IM P R O V I N G R E LATI ONSH I PS
Owners, construction managers, engineers, and contractors have been accustomed to tradi-
tional roles and specific methodologies that have existed for generations, but underground
work has become more complex and contracts encompass many new social, performance,
and technical requirements. Therefore, the underground industry must develop project
methodologies that promote effective personal and institutional relationships and early
resolution of differences. Three such methodologies have been used, with varying degrees
of success:
1. Alliancing is one such relationship-based methodology and is a delivery method that
uses the contract documents to create a nonadversarial relationship in which all the
parties’ interests are aligned. Typical elements of alliance contracts are shared risks
and rewards, monetary incentives for achieving certain objectives, and alternative
governance structures. (This concept is discussed further in Chapter 10.) Although
this methodology has been used with varying degrees of success in the petroleum
industry, and for certain infrastructure projects, especially in Australia, it has not
been widely accepted for use on publicly owned projects in the United States.
2. Another methodology that emphasizes the relationships between contract parties is
partnering. For most underground projects, the long duration of the contract means
that change is inevitable, and the single common thread in achieving a successful
outcome is the ability for the parties involved to communicate with each other in
a positive manner, recognizing each other’s specific concerns and objectives. This
ability to communicate requires an in-depth understanding of human behavior and
the dynamics of group decision-making, which are not topics typically covered in
engineering schools. Indeed, to generalize, these are skills that engineers typically do
not usually have in great supply. Nonetheless, for jobs of long duration, virtually all
projects require such skills, because not everything that happens can be predicted in
advance and accounted for with contract language (see also Chapter 12).
The philosophical basis of partnering is that the underlying problem in many
situations is the parties’ inability to communicate. In addressing this shortcoming,
Relationships 5
the parties are asked to understand and accept the objectives of the other side and
recognize that all parties want to do the right thing. Partnering has been adopted as
a standard, noncontentious way to resolve issues before they get out of hand. The
partnering process typically includes representatives of the owner, the construction
manager, and the contractor, and is designed to begin right from the contract award
and continue through the whole job. Recognizing that the parties all have a stake
in the successful outcome of a project, the partnering process emphasizes the need
for them to talk freely as equals, trusting that budding disputes can be worked out
fairly and amicably. For a successful partnering outcome, the project owner must
assume the leadership role in creating the ethical environment of good faith and fair
dealing. Experience within the United States has demonstrated that most contrac-
tors will respond in a positive manner if such an attitude is initiated by the owner;
however, when that attitude is not present, not even partnering can make a successful
outcome.
Because relationships on underground projects have often been adversarial, the
parties cannot be expected to spontaneously begin partnering. They need someone
to explain the process, guide them, and ride herd on the unbelievers and procrasti-
nators. Thus was born the partnering facilitator, who is part teacher, part cheerleader,
part psychologist, part evangelist, part enforcer, and part camp counselor. Some
facilitators are honest, skilled, and effective, and some are not. Experienced facilita-
tors are essential to the process, and the best way of finding a good facilitator is by
seeking the recommendations of those who have used them on previous projects.
Even when partnering is being used effectively, it does not resolve all of a proj-
ect’s relationship problems, especially as the politically broadened definition of
stakeholder brings a host of third parties to the table, including those with no real
financial stake in the completed project. Some partnering theorists argue that the
partnering sessions should include not only the primary contracting parties, but
also adjacent property owners and representatives of governmental jurisdictions,
funding entities, and permit agencies. In practice, the inclusion of these participants
has not proven helpful in most cases, because partnering sessions need to focus on
detailed problem-solving that is necessary for successful project completion but is
typically not particularly relevant to third-party stakeholders. For certain DB proj-
ects that require third-party approval of final design, targeted partnering sessions
have been successful.
A successful partnering outcome requires senior executives of all parties to
agree on their common expectations and to be committed to designing processes
for achieving them. One of the processes that has been successfully implemented is
the issue resolution/escalation ladder, where the focus is on resolving issues at the
lowest possible level. Partnering failures have occurred when the best intentions of
the project executives are not shared with the project staff, who are on the front line.
All of the personnel who interact on a day-to-day basis with their counterparts must
believe in the concepts of good faith and fair dealing that have been agreed to by the
project executives. This includes project managers, superintendents, project and field
engineers, inspectors, subcontractors, major suppliers, and safety representatives. It
also includes new staff members who arrive after the initial partnering sessions. This
makes the ongoing, usually quarterly, partnering update meetings a crucial element
6 Chapter 1
to the project’s continued success. The (positive) partnering attitudes expressed by

the project executives must be understood by all project staff. Good leadership by the
executives results in successful project outcomes.
3. A derivative of partnering, which may help in some cases, is the appointment of
a project neutral, an individual whose task is to bring about an effective and swift
solution to project problems as they occur. The project neutral must have the respect
and confidence of the parties, initially and throughout the project, and should have
experience with the kind of work being done. The project neutral spends a lot of
time at the project site, attends all meetings of substance and, when an issue begins
to fester, steps in to identify and resolve it. Although project neutrals have no formal
authority and are neither arbitrator nor mediator, they serve as ombudspersons for
all and advocates for none, deriving power only from mutual respect. In effect a
shuttle diplomat, the neutral’s goal is to keep the construction work and the contract
work moving at the same pace without unnecessarily creating a disadvantage to any
party. The benefit of such an approach is that it facilitates communication among the
parties, albeit through a third party. (The dispute resolution board, a type of project
neutral, is discussed in Chapter 12.)
The risk management process (see Chapter 4) can also be used to foster productive project
relationships. In this process, the risk register and risk meetings and workshops are used
as opportunities to begin and carry on difficult discussions about technical project issues
without reference to commercial solutions. These conversations are focused on all parties
working together to reduce the likelihood of occurrence and the impact of identified risks.
This partnering exercise consists of a collaborative brainstorming exercise that promotes
working relationships and camaraderie as well as a mutual respect between the parties that
bears fruit throughout the project.
Other contracting methods that encourage working relationships to reduce disputes
include the Portland approach (see Chapter 10) and construction manager at risk/
construction manager–general contractor (CMAR/CMGC) (see Chapter 2).
When the parties can understand each other’s issues and concerns before developing
a position from which it is difficult to retreat, the project’s goals are more likely to
be achieved.
In some cases, the big problems are not really perpetuated by a poor appreciation of the
other party’s concerns, but by genuine disagreements over large amounts of money—issues
of “you bet your company and I bet my career” magnitude. Although small things are easy
to be diplomatic about, large issues are more difficult to resolve. Nonetheless, when the
parties can understand each other’s issues and concerns before developing a position from
which it is difficult to retreat, the project’s goals are more likely to be achieved.
CO N C LU S I O N S AND RECOM M END ATI ONS

As you read the rest of this book, be mindful that, although contracts for construction of
underground works may seem antiseptic and soulless engineering and legal transactions,
they are in fact the manifestation of many human relationships—from recognition of the
need for a facility to the cutting of the ribbon and banking of the last check. The industry’s
Relationships 7
objective of establishing better contracting practices should be viewed as an attempt to

ensure that underground projects have more in common with the symphony than the
boxing ring, as noted at the beginning of this chapter. Achieving this requires equitable
contracts that set the stage for productive interpersonal relationships in an environment
where the individual people working on the contract are routinely being pushed and pulled
in different directions within the highly pressurized environment of a complex project.
■■ Recommendation 1-1: The contract terms should align risk and financial respon-
sibilities of the participants with the party that has control, and each party must
embrace its own responsibilities.
■■ Recommendation 1-2: All underground projects should include partnering as a
method to highlight the executives’ attitude of good faith and fair dealing, which
is critical to the success of the project. The project executives must establish the
ultimate project objectives, honestly communicate with each other about issues and
concerns, lead by example, and ensure that their communication policies flow down
to all the project participants.
■■ Recommendation 1-3: Owners should avoid inequitable terms in the contract
language. Such harsh, unfair, or inequitable terms will likely yield fewer bidders,
higher bids, constant contentiousness, and greater legal costs.
Chapter12
Chapter
Project Planning
I N TR O D U C TION
The goal of project planning for an underground project is to produce a high-quality project
implementation plan for a facility that will meet agreed-on objectives in a cost-effective and
timely manner. The planning process guides and enables decision-making about project
feasibility, construction and delivery methods, schedule, and cost. It is also the phase at which
some regulatory approvals are obtained and buy-in is sought from adjacent third parties.
The outcomes of these activities can either advance or stop a project. To promote
informed decisions, project planning should be sufficiently thorough and rigorous to allow
accurate assessment of the need for the project and of the relative advantages and disadvan-
tages of alternatives that will meet the owner’s objectives and required levels of service.
Owners generally have existing planning processes that are thorough and proven, and
can easily be adapted to underground projects. This chapter provides recommendations
for using a typical planning process to define underground project parameters in ways that
promote good contracting practices. It discusses key elements of project planning including
the following:
1. Needs assessment
2. Feasibility study
3. Alternatives and environmental analysis
4. Regulatory approvals, permits, easements, and property acquisitions
5. Conceptual design
6. Establishing the implementation plan
Although these elements can be viewed as discrete activities that are progressively more
focused on a selected project approach, there is usually some overlap. For example, presenting
the alternatives for environmental approvals may require a level of conceptual design of
multiple alternatives. At the commencement of planning, the planning team must review its
planning process and determine the optimal approach and resources to proceed smoothly
through planning to the implementation plan that serves as the basis for preliminary design.
Image courtesy of Traylor Brothers, Inc.
9
10 Chapter 2
RO L E S A N D R E SPONSI BI L I TI ES I N PL ANN ING

Underground projects are among the most multidisciplined in heavy civil construction
and may draw on specialists in civil engineering, structural engineering, geotechnical engi-
neering, mechanical and electrical engineering, ventilation, fire and life safety, environ-
mental management, architecture, urban planning, traffic management, risk management,
insurance, construction management, and construction; all in addition to project-specific
specialists in such areas as trackwork and traction power (for a rail tunnel), water resources
(for a water/wastewater tunnel), and highway engineering (for a roadway tunnel). If a
project is part of a larger program, these interdependencies add complexity, and the project
team will likely also include a program manager to help facilitate these interfaces.
Most owner agencies do not have full-time employees who are subject matter experts
in the preceding fields. As such, during project planning, the owner will need to prepare a
resource plan for the project to ensure that specialty professional services, which may be in
high demand, are secured at the right phase of the project. For any project where an under-
ground alternative is being considered, the owner should engage people who are experienced
in underground construction. Some owners contract for all the underground professional
services and make the consultants completely responsible for the resulting outcome. Other
agencies are able to provide some of the technical specialties in-house, and they establish an
integrated project team that includes both their own employees and consultants.
The planning team will generally include the owner’s representatives (in-house or consul-
tants) in relevant technical disciplines and in risk management, insurance, and procurement.
The owner’s operational and maintenance staff should participate to ensure that the neces-
sary criteria are included and the conceptual engineering in particular considers ongoing
operational requirements. The owner will likely need to engage an underground designer for
the planning phase. In addition to design, cost, and schedule expertise, the designer typically
also provides or subcontracts for geotechnical engineering, environmental management,
and any other technical disciplines required during planning because of specific project
needs or risks. As such, the owner’s engaged design firm usually plays a significant leadership
role in the planning process, regardless of whether it continues to provide design services in
final design as part of a design-bid-build (DBB) project or hands over its work as part of a
bridging design process to the final designer of a design-build (DB) project.
NEE D S A S S E S SM ENT
Ideally, prior to the start of project planning, the owner will clarify the required levels of
service. This may include qualitative and quantitative parameters for level of reliability,
operational capacity, economic viability, and community and public objectives. The levels
of service set the stage for the planning team to develop a needs assessment document that
surveys the gap between the current conditions and what is required or desirable.
This is also the stage at which the owner should define other key parameters required for
the planning process to move forward. For example, it should do sufficient preliminary risk
work to establish an overall risk strategy and risk tolerance level, and to identify any major
project risks that could require further investigation or review during planning (e.g., risks
to the surrounding infrastructure or the potential for significant community opposition). A
preliminary schedule should be prepared, which should consider needed utility relocation,
Project Planning 11
The Value of Underground Construction
When the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) district assessed the placement of
its airport extension, which opened in 2003, BART originally considered an aboveground
alternative, but community leaders determined that the value of saving the aboveground space
for residential and commercial uses justified the greater cost of placing the airport extension
underground.
easement/property acquisition and land approvals, permits and coordination with adjacent
projects, environmental review, and project complexity.
F E A S I B I L I TY STU D Y
The intent of the feasibility study is to determine whether a project will be built to address
the identified need. Considerations in the study include technical feasibility, legal require-
ments, political and community support, and economic viability. The following sections
highlight recommendations related to some of the key considerations.
Building Underground
The feasibility stage is generally when owners consider whether to include one or more
underground options for the project, to be evaluated in more detail in the alternatives anal-
ysis. As part of this, owners should consider the intangible value of building underground,
which, although it is generally more expensive, saves aboveground space for uses that might
not be feasible underground and may also offer other land development opportunities for
the aboveground space (see the box “The Value of Underground Construction”).
Ground Conditions and Other Technical Considerations

For any underground project, one of the most significant aspects of technical feasibility is
the ground—that is, the type of ground, expected behavior during construction, and the
amount of groundwater encountered during excavation. During initial feasibility studies,
the owner and planning team must learn enough about the anticipated ground conditions
to effectively evaluate the risks associated with them. Some information may be available
from desktop studies or from earlier projects constructed in the area, and some geotechnical
explorations may need to be completed as part of the planning process. This can occur at the
beginning in the feasibility stage or later during the planning process, depending on project
needs that include but are not limited to site and environmental factors (see Chapter 3 for
details on the phasing of subsurface investigations).
Other critical aspects of technical feasibility to be considered are ground conditions or
other project elements that lend themselves to particular construction means and methods,
and any environmental regulations or community agreements that may limit space for
staging, restrict spoils handling, or limit construction to specific hours. All of these will
affect cost and schedule and should be considered during planning.
Long-Term Value
Project cost and derived benefits are often the most important considerations for an
owner. During feasibility evaluations, preliminary cost estimates are developed based on
12 Chapter 2
feasibility-level design drawings to assist in the alternatives analysis that will follow. These
estimates assist the owner to evaluate the various alternatives on a like-for-like basis, consid-
ering life-cycle costs and long-term value.
Preliminary cost estimating during feasibility should establish clear assumptions,
including a definition of project scope and appropriate levels of contingency that can be
applied uniformly across all projects to enable realistic comparison of the options. However,
owners must recognize that these estimates are limited by being done at a very early level of
design development and with a lack of understanding of issues that may arise during design
and construction. Although efforts should be made to produce an accurate cost estimate,
the cost estimated at the feasibility stage should not be used to finalize a budget number. It
should be progressed during conceptual design and then developed further in preliminary
design. At this stage of development, the estimators should prepare a cost estimate that
establishes a cost range. For federally funded projects, this estimate should use federal guide-
lines for allocated and unallocated contingencies, soft costs, and ancillary costs. This range
should allow for “unanticipated costs,” variability in market conditions, and variabilities
in the cost of the final scope of work. Throughout the project development cycle, the esti-
mators should track hard and soft costs by percentage, and periodically reassess escalation
factors, soft costs, actual costs, and overall market factors to ensure that the projected cost
range remains a reasonable projection.
AL TE R N A TI V E S AND ENV I RONM ENTAL ANA LY SIS

After weighing the tangible and intangible values of a project in the feasibility stage, the
owner will decide whether to proceed with the project. At this stage, most planning teams
will then commence an alternatives analysis that includes environmental analysis and
a preliminary risk evaluation to validate that the project can be built in the anticipated
ground conditions within the desired time frame and for the desired cost. For a project with
an underground alternative, the analysis usually also includes comparison of the advantages
of less community impact with a higher risk of unknowns, cost and schedule variability
resulting from unpredictable geological conditions, and lower life-cycle costs resulting from
longer design life and less maintenance.
For a project with an underground alternative, the analysis usually also includes
comparison of the advantages of less community impact with a higher risk of unknowns,
cost and schedule variability resulting from unpredictable geological conditions, and lower
life-cycle costs resulting from longer design life and less maintenance.
The purpose of the alternatives analysis is twofold: (1) define and measure the alter-
natives against the project goals, and (2) select a preferred alternative. As discussed in the
introduction to this chapter, the alternatives analysis will likely overlap with the regula-
tory approval process. In addition, securing regulatory approvals may require some level of
conceptual design of multiple alternatives. The environmental approval process typically is
the gate for progressing the selected alternative to conceptual design.
Project Planning 13
Defining and Measuring Alternatives Against Project Goals

The first objective of the alternatives analysis is to further define the specific requirements
that satisfy the project goals and to develop and document alternatives and solutions with
related costs and schedules. The requirements and their relative importance must be clearly
detailed. The owner’s operational and regulatory requirements must be identified and
analyzed to ensure that the applicable design inputs and parameters have been considered
in developing conceptual solutions. Typical considerations include the following:
■■ Clear problem definition
■■ Scope of work
■■ Schedule limitations and restrictions
■■ Budget limitations and life-cycle costs
■■ Environmental implications
■■ Review of similar configurations in establishing operational parameters
■■ Political realities and community acceptability
With respect to community acceptability, it is notable that numerous agencies are adopting
environmental justice and community benefits policies that will further require owners to
get input from people who are representative of the neighborhood where projects are being
constructed. This requires a closer look at the neighborhood demographics and burden of
the project than has previously been required. Planning teams should be mindful of these
impacts and the need for input and allow sufficient time to undertake this thoughtfully
and accurately.
The design criteria should also be developed. Many owners have established standard
criteria that can be used. The design criteria will clarify
■■ System functionality,
■■ Site and environmental considerations,
■■ Equipment qualifications,
■■ Fire protection,
■■ Safety,
■■ Water quality,
■■ Reliability/operability,
■■ Codes and standards,***
■■ Quality control,
■■ Regulatory agency compliance (current and future),
■■ Basic operational and maintenance needs,
■■ Project life-cycle expectations (75, 100, 150 years), and
■■ Right-of-way requirements and availability.
In association with defining the design criteria, the team should identify the design docu-
mentation that will be required, any necessary environmental mitigation, real estate and
right-of-way needs, required agency submittals, encroachment permits, and utility coordi-
nation for each alternative.
Selecting a Preferred Alternative

Most planning teams use the documented alternatives analysis to select a preferred alterna-
tive for conceptual design, an activity that proceeds in parallel with the regulatory approval,
permitting, and other processes described in the next section of this chapter.
14 Chapter 2
As these elements of the planning process proceed in parallel, several iterations of the
alternatives analysis may be required to assure that all the requirements have been identified
and potential solutions have been developed. Each iteration should provide a clearer and
more complete statement of the design requirements.
The planning team should define decision-making criteria for the selection of the alter-
native, including that the preferred alternative must meet or exceed the expected levels of
service. The team may elect to compare alternatives with a triple bottom line evaluation of
financial, environmental, and social/local factors.
RE G U LA TO R Y APPROV AL S, PERM I TS, EASEMENT S, A ND P R OP ER T Y

AC Q U I S I TI O N S
All discretionary approvals and formal agreements that will be required during implemen-
tation must be identified during the planning phase to ensure that they can be resolved in
time for construction to commence. Underground projects often require more regulatory
approval than aboveground projects.
Required permits will include regulatory, resource, and encroachment. As the project
matures and the footprint is refined, real estate and right-of-way agreements must be initi-
ated. At times, these can drive the project critical path. For transit and highway projects,
utility agreements for water, wastewater, discharge of dewatering, and storm water manage-
ment will be necessary. For water/wastewater projects, these requirements must be resolved
even if within the same agency. The ability to relocate facilities and utilities, and the cost of
so doing, must be investigated at this juncture. A real estate appraiser should be included
on the team to establish the value of properties being taken in either fee or as temporary
construction easements. The conceptual design–level cost estimate (see the “Conceptual
Design” section) should include these costs, and the acquisition process should be reflected
in the integrated project schedule.
It is highly recommended that the planning team evaluate the scope and schedule of
other projects occurring in the area to improve coordination. This is also required to assess
cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis. Projects occurring in the right-of-way will
require investigation to verify the location of live and abandoned utilities. At some stage of
development, this may require pot-holing, depending on the quality of as-built records. As
mentioned in the discussion of the feasibility study and detailed in Chapter 3, some geotech-
nical investigation may commence and may be ongoing throughout project planning.
Environmental Documentation
The primary federal environmental and land use regulation affecting the construction
industry, including underground construction, is the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA). NEPA requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared
for all major federal actions that significantly affect the environment. Many states have
also promulgated state environmental policy acts, which have similar requirements, for
example, the California Environmental Quality Act and its requirement for an environ-
mental impact review.
After completion of the EIS and other environmental documentation, regulators will
issue a record of decision (under NEPA) and other relevant approvals that will certify one of
the project alternatives for further development. At this stage, permitting and other activi-
ties can commence concurrently with conceptual design of that alternative.
Project Planning 15
Permits
The permitting process is the controlling aspect of regulatory compliance. Underground
projects require many permits from planning through construction. For efficiency, some
permits should be owner-furnished, while some are more properly the responsibility of the
contractor.
Permits that affect the final design of the facility and that require a long lead time
(see Chapter 5) are typically secured by the owner, usually sufficiently in advance to be
included as part of the procurement solicitation. Owner-furnished permits needed early
in the planning phase include various land use approvals and environmental permits (e.g.,
those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and,
in Washington State, the Department of Ecology). When these permits are obtained in
advance of contractor selection and the provisions are incorporated into the final design
documents, applicants can provide more meaningful bids, and this is recommended. For
many agencies, permit acquisition is done during the design phase. In California, the owner
is required to obtain a tunnel classification from the California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) prior to advertising (CCR 1996), and this is typically
done during final design when detailed geotechnical information is available.
Although underground solutions do not uniformly result in more or fewer regulatory
hurdles than aboveground solutions, large underground projects in jurisdictions where
similar projects have not previously been constructed often create new precedents in the
local jurisdiction. For example, a fire marshal may need to prepare an interpretation of
building code requirements for occupied underground facilities, or new codes may need to
be created for new classifications of facilities.
Other permits, particularly those that are related to the means and methods of construc-
tion and may require a shorter lead time, are better furnished by the contractor. These
include administrative permits, local or county construction wastewater permit discharge
authorizations, temporary noise variances, demolition permits, hazardous material abate-
ment permits (e.g., for asbestos and lead), construction-generated waste and spoils disposal
permits, tunnel excavation, and temporary shoring permits. Because many details required
for issuance of such permits depend on the contractor’s means and methods, it makes sense
for the contractor to work directly with the permitting agency in obtaining them. (See the
box “Effectively Addressing Multijurisdictional Issues.”)
Effectively Addressing Multijurisdictional Issues
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) was involved in a court-ordered 15-year
effort to clean up Boston Harbor, which required a variety of complex tunnel projects involving
a high risk of personal injury to workers. The contracts for the first projects, implemented in
1989–1990, gave the contractors the responsibility for tunnel rescue. However, after the award,
a separate memorandum of understanding between MWRA and the local fire departments gave
a supplemental role in tunnel rescue to the fire departments. In practice, once the local fire
departments were brought into tunnel rescue efforts, the potential for conflicts and delays in
rescue efforts increased. In later contracts, MWRA delegated primary tunnel rescue responsi-
bility to the local fire department, which helped avoid many of these conflicts. MWRA provided
funding to equip and train the local fire department for tunnel rescue.
16 Chapter 2
All needed approvals, permits, and reviews should be included in the project critical
path schedule. Prior to securing agreements, there are often numerous activities that must be
completed, particularly in cases where land acquisition is necessary. Creating and managing
the schedules for these approvals can reduce the risk of later delays. For some permits, envi-
ronmental review and completion of the 100% final design submittal may be required. In
the event that the DB project delivery method is intended, where final design will not be
developed until after a contractor has been selected, the owner will need to detail the permit
requirements in the contract documents and ensure that the permitting authorities can
process the required documentation within the specified time frames.
Affected Third-Party Agreements

Agreements with third parties, such as adjacent land owners, utility owners, or govern-
ment agencies, may be required for design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the
project. The need for such agreements must be identified as early as possible. For example,
if a third party is providing support services for the project, such as power supply, the
owner will probably need to negotiate an agreement with the third party before the agency
having jurisdiction will grant permits. Even if it is not strictly necessary, it is beneficial to
establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to obtain cooperation. Attention needs
to be directed to these issues, so they do not delay time-sensitive planning processes. These
MOUs may have long durations, typically over a year’s time.
Rights-of-Way and Underground Easements

One of the advantages of building underground is that it usually involves fewer impacts
to third-party property owners. This is especially true if the tunnel or other underground
facility can follow public rights-of-way, such as streets or other publicly owned property.
Nonetheless, an underground project may require the acquisition of property for both
temporary and permanent use.
Temporary rights of entry are sometimes required to secure access for geotechnical and
other investigations conducted during the planning and design process. Initial agreements
for access to private property to install, maintain, or repair underground utilities are gener-
ally the responsibility of the owner. When a tunnel needs to cross under private property,
even that of quasi-governmental organizations such as pipelines or railroads, underground
easements must be obtained. Also, such easements should consider not only the limits of
the subsurface likely to be affected by the construction but also reasonable construction
tolerances. For soft-ground tunnels, the anticipated ground subsidence will likely be a
major factor in the ability to obtain the required easements, and thus some level of design
may have to be completed to identify this risk. Occasionally, an owner may acquire the
fee interest in property needed for undergrounding if the property will be impacted so
severely by the installation of the underground facilities that the affected property will lose
its previous or intended utility. The nature and scope of the project will dictate the types of
property interest to be acquired.
Typically, underground construction projects require temporary construction ease-
ments for staging areas, temporary working areas around portals and shafts, and traffic
management. Permanent easements are required where operational facilities will remain (see
the box “Staging Areas”).
Project Planning 17
Staging Areas
For water and wastewater projects, staging area locations can control horizontal alignment.
Spacing staging areas too far apart can negatively impact overall construction duration and
increase excavation risk.
For transit projects, staging areas are required at both open-cut and mined stations, because
much construction activity must take place at those sites. Traffic maintenance is usually a major
factor in minimizing public impact.
Although tunneling and underground construction may be less invasive than surface
work along most of the tunnel alignment, the shaft and portal staging areas typically are
subject to a greater impact. Locating the staging areas is one of the most significant project
planning activities. If adequate staging areas are not provided, the cost of additional ease-
ments will be incorporated into the bid price, and construction logistics will become more
complex. In some cases, it may be beneficial for the contractor to arrange for temporary
easements directly with the property owner.
C O N C E P TU A L D ESI GN
After selection and approval of the selected alternative, the designer and relevant members
of the planning team will fully develop and document the conceptual design of the selected
alternative. This typically represents approximately 15% of the final design and is docu-
mented in what is known as a conceptual design report, conceptual engineering report, or
facility plan. The document usually includes the following:
■■ Scope of work
■■ Design criteria
■■ Conceptual design sketches or drawings
■■ Consequences and risk assessment
■■ Regulatory permits needed for design, construction, and operation
■■ Real estate and/or right-of-way acquisition requirements
■■ Encroachment permits needed from other jurisdictions
■■ Utility coordination requirements
■■ Storm water management requirements
■■ Coordination with other projects
■■ Conceptual design-level cost estimate
■■ Integrated project schedule
The conceptual design-level cost estimate can usually be relied on, with appropriate contin-
gencies, to serve as a budget number that can be published to funding agencies, boards of
directors, and others. (Chapter 7 discusses cost estimates at different stages of design.)
Following conceptual design, the owner may elect to introduce a technical review panel,
a peer review structure, or a value engineering team (see Chapter 5).
E S TA B L I S H I N G TH E I M PL EM ENTATI ON P LA N
The implementation plan functions, alongside the conceptual design report, as documenta-
tion of key decisions made during the planning process that will guide the implementation,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“He did it in a way that none would ever discover. He trusted Higgins, and
Sabine was an accident. Perhaps ... perhaps ... he did it to keep me here ... to
save the thing he believed in all his life.”
It was a horrible thought which she tried to kill, but it lingered, together
with the regret that she had never finished what she had begun to tell him as
they stood by the hedge talking of the letters—that one day Jean might take
the name of John Pentland. He had, after all, as much right to it as he had to
the name of de Cyon; it would be only a little change, but it would allow the
name of Pentland to go on and on. All the land, all the money, all the
tradition, would go down to Pentland children, and so make a reason for
their existence; and in the end the name would be something more then than
a thing embalmed in “The Pentland Family and the Massachusetts Bay
Colony.” The descendants would be, after all, of Pentland blood, or at least
of the blood of Savina Dalgedo and Toby Cane, which had come long ago
to be Pentland blood.
And she thought grimly, “He was right, after all. I am one of them at last
... in spite of everything. It’s I who am carrying on now.”
On the morning of the funeral, as she stood on the terrace expecting Jean
and Sybil, Higgins, dressed in his best black suit and looking horribly
awkward and ill at ease, came toward her to say, looking away from her,
“Mr. O’Hara is going away. They’re putting up a ‘For Sale’ sign on his
gate. He isn’t coming back.” And then looking at her boldly he added, “I
thought you might want to know, Mrs. Pentland.”
For a moment she had a sudden, fierce desire to cry out, “No, he mustn’t
go! You must tell him to stay. I can’t let him go away like that!” She wanted
suddenly to run across the fields to the bright, vulgar, new house, to tell him
herself. She thought, “He meant, then, what he said. He’s given up
everything here.”
But she knew, too, that he had gone away to fight, freed now and moved
only by his passion for success, for victory.
And before she could answer Higgins, who stood there wanting her to
send him to Michael, Miss Egan appeared, starched and rigid and wearing
the professional expression of solemnity which she adopted in the presence
of bereaved families. She said, “It’s about her, Mrs. Pentland. She seems
very bright this morning and quite in her right mind. She wants to know
why he hasn’t been to see her for two whole days. I thought....”
Olivia interrupted her quietly. “It’s all right,” she said. “I’ll go and tell
her. I’ll explain. It’s better for me to do it.”
She went away into the house, knowing bitterly that she left Miss Egan
and Higgins thinking of her with pity.
As she climbed the worn stair carpet to the north wing, she knew
suddenly a profound sense of peace such as she had not known for years. It
was over and done now, and life would go on the same as it had always
done, filled with trickiness and boredom and deceits, but pleasant, too, in
spite of everything, perhaps because, as John Pentland had said, “One had
sometimes to pretend.” And, after all, Sybil had escaped and was happy.
She knew now that she herself would never escape; she had been too
long a part of Pentlands, and she knew that what the old man had said was
the truth. She had acted thus not because of duty, or promises, or nobility, or
pride, or even out of virtue.... Perhaps it was even because she was not
strong enough to do otherwise. But she knew that she had acted thus
because, as he said, “There are things, Olivia, which people like us can’t
do.”
And as she moved along the narrow hall, she saw from one of the deep-
set windows the figure of Sabine moving along the lane in a faint cloud of
dust, and nearer at hand, at the entrance of the elm-bordered drive, Aunt
Cassie in deep black, coming along briskly in a cloud of crape. No, nothing
had changed. It would go on and on....
The door opened and the sickly odor of medicines flooded the hallway.
Out of the darkness came the sound of a feeble, reed-like voice, terrible in
its sanity, saying, “Oh, it’s you, Olivia. I knew you’d come. I’ve been
waiting for you....”
THE END
Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island
June 4, 1925
St. Jean-de-Luz, B. P., France
July 21, 1926
Typographical errors corrected by
the etext transcriber:
lay figure=> clay figure {pg 6}
sarcely giving=> scarcely giving
{pg 205}
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY
AUTUMN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

PDF Recommended Contract Practices For Underground Construction Second Edition Sarah H Wilson Editor Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Recommended Contract Practices For Underground Construction Second Edition Sarah H Wilson Editor Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recommended contract practices for

underground construction Second

Underground engineering planning design construction

Construction Contract Claims Changes and Dispute

The NEC4 engineering and construction contract : a

Ground Engineering Principles and Practices for

Guide to JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016 1st

Guide to JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 1st Edition

True Crime Second Edition Wilson

The Clockwork Dynasty A Novel 9th Edition Wilson Daniel

Copyright © 2019 Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Cover image courtesy of McMillen Jacobs Associates. Photographer Susan Bednarz

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

PREF ACE TO TH E SECOND EDIT ION  �� � � � � �� � � � �� �� �� �� � � � �� � � �� �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � � vii

ACK NOW L ED GM ENTS  �� �� �� � � �� � �� �� �� �� � � � � � � � �� � � � �� �� �� �� � � � �� � � � � �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � � �� � � � � � ix

C H A P TE R 3 SU BSU RF ACE COND I TI ONS  � � �� � � �� � � � �� �� �� �� � � � � � �� � � � � � �� �� �� �� � �� � � �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� � 2 3

Image courtesy of WISKO America

Risk Management Is a Process  � � �� � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� � �� � � � � �� � � � �� �� �� �� � � � � � �� � � �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � � � � 4 1

C H A P TE R 9 PRI CI NG AND PAYM ENT P R OVISIONS  � � � � �� � � �� � �� �� �� �� � �� � � �� �� � � � �� �� �� �� � 1 1 5

Image from Shu-Hung Liu/Shutterstock

Primary chapter authors of this edition are

■■ Brian Cooper, Gallagher ■■ Karen Kubick, San Francisco Public

■■ Chris Bennett, AECOM ■■ Gregg Davidson, McMillen Jacobs

Image courtesy of Traylor Bros. Inc.

■■ Alan Johanson, San Francisco Public ■■ Rich Redmond, AECOM

In addition, a workshop was held at the North American Tunneling Conference in

■■ Jim Brady ■■ Alfred Moergeli

■■ Christopher Bennett ■■ Ed Plotkin

Image © Fulcher/Elioff Collections

It is critical for the parties to be working to an equitable contract that encourages

to the project’s continued success. The (positive) partnering attitudes expressed by

CO N C LU S I O N S AND RECOM M END ATI ONS

objective of establishing better contracting practices should be viewed as an attempt to

Image courtesy of Traylor Brothers, Inc.

RO L E S A N D R E SPONSI BI L I TI ES I N PL ANN ING

The Value of Underground Construction

Ground Conditions and Other Technical Considerations

AL TE R N A TI V E S AND ENV I RONM ENTAL ANA LY SIS

Defining and Measuring Alternatives Against Project Goals

Selecting a Preferred Alternative

RE G U LA TO R Y APPROV AL S, PERM I TS, EASEMENT S, A ND P R OP ER T Y

Effectively Addressing Multijurisdictional Issues

Affected Third-Party Agreements

Rights-of-Way and Underground Easements

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

START: FULL LICENSE

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

PREF ACE TO TH E SECOND EDIT ION �� vii

ACK NOW L ED GM ENTS �� ix

C H A P TE R 3 SU BSU RF ACE COND I TI ONS � � �� 2 3

Risk Management Is a Process � � �� 4 1

C H A P TE R 9 PRI CI NG AND PAYM ENT P R OVISIONS � � � � �� 1 1 5