Assuring Quality in Geotechnical Reporting Documents 

FHWA GEC 014

August 2016

Sponsored by

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Infrastructure

FHWA-HIF-17-016
{cover back blank}
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation

(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for

the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to

ensure continuous quality improvement.
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-HIF–17-016

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Assuring Quality in Geotechnical Reporting Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 14 August 2016

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Jim Sheahan, P.E., Aaron Zdinak, P.E., and Jerry DiMaggio*, P.E.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

HDR

11 Stanwix Street, Suite 800

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

*ARA, Champaign, IL 61820-7233

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-15-F-00049

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Bridges and Structures

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Technical Manual

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COR: Cynthia Nurmi

FHWA Technical Working Group: Barry Siel, P.E., Brian Collins, P.E., Silas Nichols, P.E., and Scott 

Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.

16. Abstract

This document presents information intended to assist users with effectively incorporating Quality 

Assurance (QA) into the preparation of Geotechnical Reporting Documents (GRDs), which includes 

reports and other documents that communicate geotechnical data, analysis and recommendations. This 

document draws extensively from Department of Transportation (DOT) experience across the United 

States. Interviews from several state DOTs were used as a basis for developing QA guidance and applying 

it to alternative contracting methods (ACM). This manual discusses the distinction between Quality 

Control (QC) and QA, and guidance is provided on the interactive process they play in the development of 

GRDs. The use of checklists and QA documentation is discussed in this document, and FHWA-ED-88-053

is referenced as a basis for developing agency/owner specific checklists.

17. Key Words 18.Distribution Statement

Quality assurance, Design Build, Design-Bid-Build, Construction Manager/

General Contractor, Geotechnical baseline report, Geotechnical data report

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 93

Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm

ft feet 0.305 meters m

yd yards 0.914 meters m

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 squaremillimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 squaremeters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 squaremeters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

fl oz

gal

ft3

yd3

VOLUME

fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters

gallons 3.785 liters

cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters

cubic yards 0.765

cubic meters NOTE: volumes

mL

L

m3

m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

o

F

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Fahrenheit 5 (F32)/9 Celsius

o

C

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

m meters 3.28 feet ft

m meters 1.09 yards yd

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA mm2 squaremillimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 squaremeters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz

L liters 0.264 gallons gal

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF

ILLUMINATION

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inc h lbf/in2

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

(Revised March 2003)
PREFACE

The documents used to communicate geotechnical site conditions, design and 

construction recommendations to bridge and roadway design, and construction 

engineers, and contractors bidding projects, are geotechnical reporting documents.

The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive guide for State DOTs and 

other transportation agencies to apply quality assurance procedures in the preparation 

and review of geotechnical reporting documents (GRDs). This includes communication 

procedures and suggested roles and responsibilities of the owner agency, consultants, 

and contractors, for a variety of GRDs, as well as different project delivery and 

contracting methods.

The distinction between Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) is discussed, 

and guidance is provided on the interactive process they play in the development of 

GRDs. This document does not include the application of a QA program to the 

preparation of contract plans or to construction activities, but it does discuss the 

importance of interaction and communication between design and construction staff, 

including the project geotechnical specialist during construction. 

This guidance includes procedures for development of a QA plan for geotechnical 

reporting documents, which includes strategies for the review of geotechnical 

information for QA completeness.

This document considers Alternative Contracting Methods (ACMs) such as Design-Build 

(DB), and Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) that are being used, in 

addition to the standard Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method. It also takes into consideration

that owner control of, and involvement in, a project varies with the project delivery 

method and contracting method used. Depending on the delivery method and 

contracting method used, QA can be the responsibility of the owner agency, the 

contractor, or a third-party agency and is often shared between the parties.

This document discusses the required and appropriate types and levels of 

communication between the owner agency and the entity preparing geotechnical 

reporting documents based on the contracting method and project delivery method. It 

also discusses appropriate content, organization, quality assurance and roles and 

responsibilities for the multiple types of contracting and project delivery methods and 

types of GRDs. 

Finally, the use of checklists and QA documentation is discussed, including existing 

checklists, development of additional checklists for new technologies, the use of ACMs, 

and Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs). These can be used by State DOTs and other 

transportation agencies in QA reviews of GRDs and serve as useful aides for agencies 

in efficient review and in assuring quality of GRDs. It is envisioned that these checklists 

may also be useful to anyone responsible for performing QC and QA reviews of GRDs.
Page i 

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE....................................................................................... 1

1.2 DEFINITIONS AND KEY TERMINOLOGY .................................................................. 4

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 – CONTENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING 

DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 APPLICATIONS TO ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS......................... 14

CHAPTER 3 – CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING 

DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................................16

3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 16

3.2 DESIGN-BID-BUILD................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents................................................................ 18

3.2.2 Alternative Delivery Methods........................................................................... 19

3.2.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and Contractors 19

3.2.4 Communications.............................................................................................. 20

3.3 DESIGN-BUILD.......................................................................................................... 21

3.3.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents................................................................ 21

3.3.2 Alternative Delivery Methods........................................................................... 22

3.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and Contractors 22

3.3.4 Communications.............................................................................................. 24

3.4 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR....................................... 25

3.4.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents................................................................ 25

3.4.2 Alternative Delivery Methods........................................................................... 26

3.4.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and Contractors 26

3.4.4 Communications.............................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 4 – IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL 

REPORTING DOCUMENTS.......................................................................................................28

4.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 28

4.2 OWNER AGENCY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS FOR GRDS.................... 28

4.3 QA CHECKLISTS AND DOCUMENTATION ............................................................. 29

4.4 THE QA DOCUMENTATION PROCESS – EXAMPLE PROJECTS.......................... 32

4.5 CLOSING COMMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF QA PROGRAMS FOR GRDS 33

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................35
Page ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Design Process with Construction Phase Relation for Alternative

Contracting Methods

Figure A-1: Design-Bid-Build (DBB) 

Figure A-2: Design-Build (DB) 

Figure A-3: Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)

Appendix B – QA Processes for Alternative Delivery Methods 

Figure B-1: Design-Bid-Build (DBB), preliminary design Design-Build (DB), and 

Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/CG)

Figure B-2: Design-Build (DB) 

Appendix C – QA for Example Project

Exhibit C-1: GRD for Preliminary Design (DBB ACM) 

Exhibit C-2: GRD for Final Design of Roadway (DBB ACM) 

Exhibit C-3: GRD for Final Design of Structures (DBB ACM) 

Exhibit C-4: GDR (DB ACM) 

Exhibit C-5: GRD for Final Design of Roadway (DB ACM) 

Exhibit C-6: GRD for Final Design of Structures (DB ACM) 

Exhibit C-7: Blank General Information Form

Appendix D – Summary of Interviews with Owner Agencies (DOTs)
Page 1 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

This Guidance Document is intended to provide assistance to effectively incorporate 

Quality Assurance (QA) into the preparation of Geotechnical Reporting Documents

(GRDs), which includes reports and other documents that communicate geotechnical 

data, analyses and recommendations. It addresses the quality of subsurface 

investigations, data summary and analysis of that information, the use of appropriate 

design analyses and the quality of those analyses, the incorporation of performance 

requirements and consideration of constructability in the development and 

implementation of design and construction documents. As part of this Guidance 

Document development, the current FHWA publications and their associated checklists 

have been reviewed, as well as more recent technical advances. Relevant and 

applicable considerations from these documents have been incorporated throughout.

Verification of QA of construction plans, while a critical component of an overarching QA 

plan, is beyond the scope of this document. Additionally, QA during construction, which 

is also critical to the successful completion of a project, is beyond the scope of this 

document. The importance of continued coordination between design and construction 

staff during plan development and construction is clearly acknowledged and considered 

important, particularly when subsurface conditions vary from those anticipated in 

design, or performance and monitoring requirements are included in construction 

documents.

GRDs can be of many types and formats. These can include, for example, Geotechnical 

Data Reports, Geotechnical Baseline Reports, Foundation Reports, Geotechnical 

Design Memos, as well as others that may be defined by owner agencies. Email

specific to one or more design elements on a project and sufficiently thorough in their 

content may be suitable and acceptable under specific circumstances that are 

discussed in subsequent sections of this document. Regardless of the format used and 

who is preparing a GRD, appropriate Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance 

procedures must be followed.

Multiple GRDs can be necessary and required by the owner for many reasons, 

including, but not limited to, the owner’s practices, program development and project 

phasing, modifications to the project scope and the use of alternative contracting or 

alternative delivery methods.

In 1979, the publication of “A Guide for In-house Review of Proposals and 

[Geotechnical] Reports” by the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE, 

1979) was self-described as “The guideline materials prepared in support of the ASFE 

Report/Proposal Review Program are suitable for use by individual firms for in-house 

analysis of their own reports and proposals.” This is believed to be one of the first 

significant efforts to bring an organized QA program to geotechnical investigations and 

reports. Quality Control and Quality Assurance have since become a more significant 

factor and an integral part of a QA program for work by other disciplines (roadway, 
Page 2 

structures, drainage, etc.), as well as for individuals involved in development of designs 

and construction documents. 

It is important to understand the distinction between QC and QA in this process. There 

are many definitions that can be found in the related literature, as well as in the manuals 

of practice for Quality Management developed by transportation agencies. A broad 

definition of QC for GRDs could include checking of all subsurface information, 

analyses, specifications, details and special requirements for accuracy and their ability 

to meet the requirements provided by the owner or by the standards of practice, if not 

included in the owner’s standards. These are discussed in Chapter 2 and elsewhere in 

this document. A broad definition of QA and QA Reviews for GRDs is the process by 

which QC is verified for those documents.

Often, an Independent Technical Review (ITR) may be performed for a specific design 

element on a project by an independent geotechnical specialist (GS) using the 

information available and the results compared with those developed by the project GS. 

ITRs of GRDs are not within the scope of this document; however, an ITR can be a 

valuable tool in the project QA program.

The publication by the FHWA in 1985 entitled “Checklists and Guidelines for Review of 

Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications,” which was revised in 

2003 (FHWA, 2003), carefully addresses the quality in Geotechnical Reporting 

Documents (GRDs), as well as the incorporation of that information into construction 

documents. That document incorporated eight checklists for specific geotechnical 

features as stated in the introduction. 

The review checklists and technical guidelines can be classified as a component of the 

Quality Assurance process since they are provided to verify that the information in the 

GRD is accurate and adequate to meet or exceed project requirements and assist the 

highway and structural engineers in:

• Reviewing both geotechnical reports and plan, specification and estimate 

(PS&E) packages

• Recognizing cost saving opportunities

• Identifying deficiencies or potential contract dispute issues due to inadequate 

geotechnical investigation, analysis or design

• Recognizing when to request additional technical assistance from a geotechnical 

specialist

Since these checklists were introduced by FHWA, they have been widely used and, in 

some states, are still in use. According to various state DOT interviews conducted (see 

Appendix D), some DOTs have modified the FHWA checklists or developed their own 

requirements to be met, which are often specific to their conditions and needs.
Page 3 

For this document, geotechnical specialists (GS) are defined as “those individuals 

responsible for the geotechnical aspects of project design, construction and monitoring 

of geotechnical features for project design elements (structure foundations, earth 

retaining structures, ground improvement, earthworks, etc.).” These individuals could

include geotechnical engineers, geologists and engineering geologists experienced 

working with the necessary project design elements. Those developing and responsible 

for the GRDs should be registered professionals in accordance with the requirements of 

the states in which a project is located.

The more recent development and increased use of ACMs and the phased design 

development process by different parties (ADMs), along with the associated demanding

project schedules create a much more complex interaction between owners and their 

designers, as well as contractors. Further complicating the situation, these services are 

often being performed and/or modified in one area of a project as construction is 

underway on another component of work. The current direction of the transportation 

industry to more heavily rely on ACMs requires heightened focus on Quality Assurance 

by all parties involved in developing and delivering the project.

The key components, tasks and objectives of this document include, as a minimum: 

• Development of an outline of the work elements/tasks and parties involved in the 

various ADMs and ACMs including their relationships, roles and responsibilities 

from the project development phase to completion of documents for construction, 

with a focus on geotechnical reporting documents (GRDs)

• Completion of a specific review and summary of the owner agency’s role in 

preparing bidding documents that assures quality of geotechnical features 

throughout the entire process from project development to construction

• Incorporation of considerations associated with the owner agency’s need to 

assure quality in geotechnical reporting documents when using all forms of 

ADMs and ACMs, including Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) and other 

similar contracting tools

• Discussion and guidance on types and levels of communication between owner 

agencies and the entity preparing the GRDs

• Discussion of the appropriate content and organization, quality assurance, roles 

and responsibilities for the various ACMs and the types of GRDs

• Guidance for development of checklists that can be used by State DOTs and 

other transportation agencies in reviewing GRDs

QC and QA during construction (implementation of the plans and specifications) are not 

addressed within this document. 
Page 4 

1.2 DEFINITIONS AND KEY TERMINOLOGY

Alternative Contracting Methods (ACMs) – Methods used by owner agencies to 

contract for design and construction of highway projects. Methods include, but may not 

be limited to, Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Design-Build (DB), and Construction 

Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC).

Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs) – Methods used to perform geotechnical 

engineering work and provide Geotechnical Reporting Documents (GRD) for highway 

projects. This could include, for example, in-house work by owner agency geotechnical 

staff, in-house work by geotechnical staff from a full-service Architectural/Engineering 

(A/E) firm, or work subcontracted to consultants specializing in geotechnical 

engineering.

Construction Plan Development – The project development phase which includes 

preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of a project.

Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) – The CM/GC ACM consists of 

two phases: design and construction. The owner contracts with a design engineer and a 

contractor and provides coordination during design. The contractor acts as the 

construction manager during the design process and offers constructability and pricing 

feedback on design options, as well as identification of risks based on the contractor's 

established means and methods. This process also allows the owner to be an active 

participant during the design process and make informed decisions on design options. 

When the owner considers the design to be complete, the contractor then has an 

opportunity to bid on the project based on the completed design and schedule. If the 

owner, designer and independent cost estimator agree that the contractor has 

submitted a fair price, the owner issues a construction contract, and the construction 

manager then becomes the general contractor. An alternative for the owner would be 

for the contract to be bid based on the plans developed.

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – This is the traditional contracting method in which the 

project design for all project elements is taken to the 100% level resulting in plans and 

specifications for construction that are used for bidding. The geotechnical investigation 

is taken to the 100% level and one or more GRDs are developed to provide final 

recommendations for all design elements. Contractors are invited to offer bids for the 

project, and the owner typically awards the contract to the lowest bidder qualified to 

execute the work. Construction begins after award. Allowance is often made for offers of 

Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) by the contractor on some design element with 

the intent of providing a cost savings to the owner while still meeting the objectives of 

the project design. Value Engineering (VE) proposals are also generally accepted 

during the bid phase, as well as during the Construction Phase, with an objective similar 

to the ATC and a sharing of cost savings provided with the proposal, if accepted. 
Page 5 

Design-Build (DB) – With this ACM, the project design is taken to about the 30% level, 

which may also be called Preliminary Design, after which selected contractors are 

invited to prepare price proposals for the projects based on the preliminary plans and 

the project requirements outlined in the contract documents provided. The scope of the 

geotechnical investigation performed for the Bid Phase varies based on owner 

approach and may be to the level required for Preliminary Design or Final Design. 

Results are provided in a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) or possibly a Geotechnical 

Baseline Report (GBR). The bidding contractors select an engineering team to develop 

the design to an adequate level that allows submission of their bid based on available 

information carried forward during the Bid Phase. Selection of a successful proposal 

may be based on low price or the Best Value rating system that considers the price as 

well as qualifications of the contractor and the design engineer, as well as other factors. 

Final Design and construction are completed by the successful bidder after selection. 

Projects may use a Public-Private-Partnership (P3) as a method to finance a DB 

project. P3 projects routinely include a combination of public and private funding, a 

concession and operations component, preservation requirements and warranties. A P3 

is not considered an ACM within this document.

Design Consultant – Individual or firm who is under contract to provide engineering 

services to owner agencies, other consultants or contractors.

Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) (ASCE, 1997) – An interpretative report of 

geotechnical conditions for a project that is included in contract documents. Its primary 

purpose is to establish a contractual statement of the geotechnical conditions 

anticipated to be encountered during project construction. Risks associated with 

conditions consistent with or less adverse than the baseline are allocated to the 

contractor, and those significantly more adverse than the baseline are accepted by the 

owner. An additional purpose of the GBR is that it presents the geotechnical and 

construction conditions that form the basis for design.

Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) (ASCE, 1997) – A report which summarizes factual 

geotechnical information obtained for a project and is included in the contract 

documents. The document includes, but is not limited to, a summary of desk study 

research, field investigations, laboratory testing and other information obtained for the 

project without providing design or construction recommendations. This document can 

also be provided in other formats, including a memorandum.

Geotechnical Features (FHWA, 1997) – Structure foundations, retaining walls, bridge 

approach embankments, landslides, ground improvement techniques, material sites 

(borrow sources, quarries).

Geotechnical Report (GR) (FHWA, 2003) – A tool used to communicate the site 

conditions and design and construction recommendations to the roadway design, bridge 

design and construction personnel.
Page 6 

Geotechnical Reporting Documents (GRD) – Documents used to communicate 

geotechnical site conditions, design and construction recommendations to the 

engineers designing project elements including bridges, roadways, drainage, etc., and 

construction engineers, and the contractors bidding the work, are geotechnical reporting 

documents. These documents take many forms, including: Geotechnical Data Reports,

Geotechnical Engineering Reports, Foundation Investigation Reports, Geotechnical 

Baseline Reports, Foundation Reports and Geotechnical Design Memos, emails, 

among others. Quality Assurance must be incorporated into the preparation of all 

geotechnical reporting documents.

Geotechnical Specialist (GS) – The individual responsible for the geotechnical 

aspects of project design, construction and monitoring of geotechnical features for 

project design elements (structure foundations, earth retaining structures, ground 

improvement, earthworks, etc.). The GS could include geotechnical engineers, 

geologists and engineering geologists experienced with the necessary project design 

elements. Typically, the GS who develops the GRD is required to be registered in the 

project state if the owner is a Department of Transportation. 

Owner Agencies – State Departments of Transportation and other transportation

agencies responsible for coordination and control of contracts to design and construct 

highway projects.

Project Design Development – All engineering work associated with development of 

designs for highway projects including, but not limited to, conceptual studies, 

preliminary design, and final design resulting in the completion of plans and 

specifications for construction. Each of these components could be characterized as

part of the design phase of project development. 

Quality Assurance – All planned and systematic activities implemented within the 

quality system that verifies a product or service fulfills quality requirements.

Quality Assurance Audits – Reviews by Geotechnical Specialists or trained specialists 

in Quality Assurance procedures that verify the Quality Assurance Reviews have been 

completed.

Quality Assurance Reviews – The process of reviewing Quality Control 

documentation to verify those activities have been performed.

Quality Control – The operational techniques and activities used to verify requirements 

for quality.

Special Service Consultants – Individuals or engineering firms that specialize in 

specific project elements utilized in highway construction including, but not limited to, 

earthworks, foundations, retaining walls, ground improvement and geotechnical aspects 

of pavements (drainage, subgrades and unbound pavement courses). This would also 

include, for example, corrosion, seismic and constructability specialists.
Page 7 

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

This document is organized as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction, This chapter is an introduction to the objectives of this 

document, including the background and history leading to the current means and 

methods being used to design and construct transportation projects. It also addresses 

the history of incorporating Quality Assurance into transportation projects, focusing 

particularly on geotechnical reporting documents developed in this process. This 

chapter provides definitions of key terminology used in the document.

Chapter 2 – Content and Quality Assurance of Geotechnical Reporting Documents, This 

chapter describes the types of GRDs and their content, as well as the Quality 

Assurance process.

Chapter 3 – Considerations in Development of Geotechnical Reporting Documents,

This chapter includes a discussion of factors considered in the document and 

introduces ACMs as a key change to traditional practice. Principal methods in use are 

defined and described, including the project design development process and the 

geotechnical reporting documents relative to the ACMs. Flow charts are utilized to

illustrate the relationships.

Chapter 4 – Implementation of Quality Assurance for Geotechnical Reporting 

Documents, This chapter introduces the development and use of checklists as part of 

the Quality Assurance process including those available from the FHWA, their use, their 

timing in the project schedule, communications involved and the responsibilities of the 

parties involved. This chapter also introduces results of surveys conducted with a 

number of State DOTs regarding their Quality Assurance practices and procedures for 

GRDs including considerations related to procedures for ACMs. This chapter discusses 

relevant aspects of interviews with State DOTs regarding this document’s objectives 

and their practices.
Page 8 

CHAPTER 2 – CONTENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF 

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING DOCUMENTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the content, organization, and types of GRDs that would be 

generated using the Alternative Contracting Methods (ACM) discussed in this 

document. This discussion includes the scope and methods of associated 

investigations, analyses and the recommendations that are developed, as well as their 

incorporation within construction documents. This includes discussion of quality 

assurance in the development and use of GRDs.

The content and formats for GRDs can vary depending on many factors, including the 

project scope, project schedule and the ACM used. The intent is to document and 

communicate information from the Geotechnical Specialist (GS) to others involved in 

delivery of a project. The information can vary from a summary of purely factual data 

and observations to one which includes analyses and design recommendations based 

on the data. Each GRD is created for one or more purposes and, therefore, is intended 

for a specific audience.

The purposes of GRDs are, as a minimum, to:

• Provide information used during project programming to establish the scope of 

work for projects with significant geotechnical features (e.g., landside mitigation)

• Provide project management personnel and owners an adequate preconstruction understanding of impacts that geotechnical considerations will/may

have on cost and schedule, as well as other project considerations such as 

environmental, traffic and constructability

• Provide design disciplines with the geotechnical information they need to develop 

their designs, as well as construction plans and specifications

• Provide contractors with the information they need to develop a complete and 

competitive bid with an acceptable level of risk that is also cost effective for the 

owner

• Provide information that will allow project construction staff to recognize and 

understand site subsurface conditions at the time of design development prior to 

construction 

• Provide owners with information that the contractor has met minimum accepted 

levels of investigations and design requirements (code requirements), as well as 

provide information for future design elements, improvements, new construction, 

and maintenance
Page 9 

GRDs can take many forms and have many titles, particularly given the various ACMs 

in use and the design development processes. GRDs can vary from comprehensive

reports to a single-page document, a memorandum or even an email. Examples with 

suggested applications include:

• Comprehensive Geotechnical Reports (GRs) with results of all office studies, site 

investigations, laboratory test results, analyses of conditions relevant to multiple 

design elements (e.g., structures, roadway, drainage, etc.) and recommendations 

for design and construction. This format would be common for Design-Bid-Build 

(DBB) projects. 

• Geotechnical Reports (GRs) focused on one phase of the design, (e.g., 

preliminary, intermediate, final).

• Geotechnical Reports (GRs) focused on one design element, such as a bridge or 

retaining wall, a drainage culvert or a stormwater retention pond. This format 

could be used on DBB projects having limited, specific scope. It may also be 

used on DB projects for a specific design element to allow development of final 

design and plans for that element so construction can begin on that element 

while the remainder of the project is being investigated and designed for 

construction. It could also be used with the CM/GC ACM for specific portions or 

elements of a project as they are evaluated and summarized.

• Geotechnical Data Reports (GDRs) containing factual information and data from 

an office and field investigation and laboratory testing program for design 

elements of a project. These are typically developed by, or for, the owner and are 

used for Design-Build (DB) contracts. They are provided to proposal teams as a 

basis for developing designs and costs for the pursuit phase of the project.

Owner agencies typically indicate any supplemental investigations required are 

the responsibility of the contractor.

• Geotechnical Baseline Reports (GBRs) containing factual information and data 

with interpretative baseline conditions to be used as a basis for design 

development and as a contractual statement. GBRs can be used for DB projects 

and most often for projects with complex geotechnical features such as a tunnel.

• As indicated previously, GRDs can also be developed as memos or even emails, 

which are expeditious formats for covering a single design element or the 

modification of an element covered in a previous GRD. This format can be 

especially useful for DB projects where modifications may occur as work 

progresses and rapid documentation of evaluations and modifications is required

(e.g., a Request for Information and Design Change requests). 

The definition of a geotechnical report, referred to herein as a Geotechnical Reporting 

Document or GRD, is borrowed from the FHWA publication “Checklist and Guidelines 

for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications” 

(FHWA, 2003). The definition within that reference states, “The geotechnical report is 
Page 10

the tool used to communicate the site conditions and design and construction 

recommendations to the roadway design, bridge design and construction personnel.” 

One of the more important words in this definition is “communicate,” which means 

something much more than “summarize.” 

The FHWA reference also indicates there is basic information that the GRD should 

provide, including:

• A summary of all subsurface exploration data, including a subsurface soil 

and/or rock profile, exploratory logs, laboratory or in-situ test results and 

groundwater information (FHWA, 2002)

• Interpretation and analysis of subsurface data

• Specific engineering recommendations for design

• Discussion of conditions for solution of anticipated problems

• Recommended geotechnical special provisions (and details)

As noted previously, the term GRD would include reports having many specific titles 

depending on topics covered and terminology an owner agency may choose to use, for 

example, Geotechnical Report for ...Roadways, ...Bridge Foundations, ...Landslide 

Remediation, etc. In addition, it may be titled a Preliminary Geotechnical Report, an 

Interim Geotechnical Report, a Final Geotechnical Report, a Foundation Report, or in 

some other way. In some cases, a Technical Memorandum may be a suitable title, 

particularly for an intermediate GRD or relatively brief report that summarizes and 

documents a study of a specific design element during design development on a project 

using any of the ACMs discussed in this document, but especially for the DB and 

CM/GC Contracting Methods. For small projects or when final design is incremental for 

design elements, the GRD may be a memorandum or even an email. Regardless of the 

format used for a GRD, the QC and QA process should be followed and include the 

project title, the design element(s) covered, dates and names of the GS preparing it, as 

well as the QC reviewer. As indicated elsewhere in this document, related 

documentation, details and supporting analyses should be available and included with 

the GRD. In the case of memos or emails, this information may not be conveyed with 

the initial GRD submission, but should have been completed and can be made part of 

the final GRD which follows.

In addition, a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) is typically developed for use on DesignBuild projects. The GDR is a GRD, except that it is a factual report typically containing a

summary of all subsurface exploration data obtained for use of DB proposal teams, 

including a subsurface soil and/or rock profile, exploratory logs, laboratory or in-situ test 

results and groundwater information (FHWA, 2002), without analyses or design 

recommendations.
Page 11

Analyses and recommendations for relatively minor or localized modifications to a 

previously submitted GRD could also be incorporated as an Addendum to that GRD. 

This could allow the modification to be included in the final document and not require 

duplication of background information contained in the initial GRD.

A suggested format for GRDs (but not GDRs) derived from the FHWA Technical 

Guidelines Manual (FHWA, 2007), which could be modified depending on the size and 

content of the report includes:

• Title Page

• Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Procedures and Results

o Field Investigations

o Laboratory Testing

• Summary of Analyses

• Discussion (of subsurface conditions and design considerations, including 

geology, seismicity and geologic hazards) 

• Recommendations (for design and construction of project elements)

• Construction Recommendations (including construction observations, testing 

and instrumentation)

• Figures (e.g., Location Map, Drawings, etc.)

• Appendices

o A - Boring and Test Pit logs, etc.

o B - In-situ Test Results

o C - Laboratory Test Results

o Other Appendices as necessary: photos, instrumentation data, 

analyses, etc.

The report should include a summary of limit states (strength, service and extreme), as 

well as loading conditions (compression, tension, lateral) for strength, service and 

extreme limit states and performance requirements (post-construction deformations and 

phase construction or sequencing). This information should be obtained from, and 

developed in coordination with, structural and other engineers preparing designs.

Regarding borings and other subsurface investigation methods used for a project, it is 

very important that a suitable standard of practice is used to obtain and present that 

information since it forms the basis of designs and recommendations, as well as 

construction methods. Many owner agencies may have their own requirements, in 

addition to the following: 
Page 12

• References for the location of borings and other explorations using the project 

coordinate system or accurate offsets from an established project baseline and 

determining their elevations using the reference system used for the project 

design plans. Ground survey and/or GPS methods can be used for this, which 

will allow accurate plotting of boring locations on plans and subsurface profiles. 

The same system can be used to accurately locate field observations, such as 

wet areas, depressions, historical instabilities and sinkholes.

• Accurate measurement of sample depths in borings, soundings and in-situ tests. 

• Use of AASHTO, ASTM or other standards of practice methods for Standard 

Penetration Tests (SPT), Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT), undisturbed

sampling, rock coring and other procedures, as well as logging methods such as 

soil and rock classification, determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD), etc. 

• Groundwater information, including prevention of skewed information influenced 

by drilling methods (e.g., hollow stem augers, casing advancer with water, rock 

coring, etc.). 

• Field observations during drilling, including communications with drillers, which 

could include obstructions or difficult drilling or other features that might 

influence design and construction.

Borings logs and other field information that are reported and used in evaluations 

should include names or initials of those generating the information, as well as the 

responsible individual for QC checking of the information that will be used in evaluations 

and submitted with the GRD. Other field information could include the location and 

logging of rock exposures, landslides, sinkholes, seepage areas, and other relevant 

geotechnical features observed.

Similarly, laboratory testing should be performed by an AASHTO R18-accredited 

laboratory using AASHTO, ASTM or other suitable standard testing methods, which are 

referenced on the report forms along with the recommended test data from the 

referenced standard. The report should indicate who performed the tests, as well as 

verification that a QC review was performed on the test procedures, interpretation

(completed by a GS representing the geotechnical engineer of record), and results by 

the appropriate GS. 

A summary of the geo-material parameter interpretation, methods and procedures used,

analyses, computations and results should be included with the report, particularly 

pertinent information which supports a conclusion and/or recommendation. A complete 

set of analyses and computations should be prepared for documentation, but may not 

necessarily be included in the GRD. However, documentation in the GRD should 

indicate that calculations have been prepared, checked and are available upon request. 

This information could include stability analyses, computations for settlement and lateral 

deformations, deep foundation nominal resistances, shallow foundation nominal 

resistances, etc. Analyses should follow procedures designated by the owners’ manuals 
Page 13

or, if not specified, procedures in AASHTO or FHWA publications or references. In 

particular, analyses and computations that are in support of conclusions and 

recommendations should be developed by, and checked by, an individual experienced 

with that analysis method as part of the QC procedures. This checking would, for 

example, include a close review for accuracy and reasonableness of the data used for 

the analyses, computations, any models, parameters, and output from computer 

software. 

The definitions of QC and QA used by agencies may vary to some degree, and two are 

included here as examples:

DOT-A 

Quality Control – The on-going comprehensive, independent checking and 

verification of activities leading to a final product that meets or exceeds 

project requirements.

Quality Assurance – The actions necessary to create confidence that the 

Quality Control process has occurred.

DOT-B 

Quality Control – The process performed to ensure conformance with valid 

requirements.

Quality Assurance – Planned, coordinated and continued activities performed 

to measure processes against predetermined critical requirements.

Key elements in the definitions for Quality Control are believed to be “independent 

checking” ... “to ensure” ... “a final product meets or exceeds project requirements.” 

Note that these QC requirements would also be a component of QA. 

Finally, an important and related item which may not be typically viewed as part of the 

GRD content, but which can create problematic situations, is how the report is intended 

to be used. It is critical, and cannot be overstated, that the GRD must be reviewed with 

the design engineers for various disciplines on a project. Clearly communicating the 

relevant findings, conclusions and any recommendations affecting the work product of 

each technical discipline is a must for project success. It is also important that the final 

plans and specifications for the project or any element of the project be reviewed by the 

project geotechnical specialist prior to acceptance by the owner agency for construction 

to verify that the recommendations have been properly incorporated. The guidance 

provided above is vital to the successful implementation of Assuring Quality in 

Geotechnical Reporting Documents and should be clearly addressed as part of a GRD 

QA review program.
Page 14

Quality Assurance and Quality Control considerations are addressed in many FHWA 

references, including FHWA ED-88-053, 2003 (FHWA, 2003), FHWA Geotechnical 

Technical Guidance Manual (FHWA, 2007), the various FHWA Technical Manuals 

available and the SHRP2-GeoTechTools website (www.geotechtools.org). The QA/QC 

content varies in scope and content with some related to quality during the Design 

Development phase of the project and others related to quality during the Construction 

Phase. To differentiate, the objectives of this document solely address QC and QA 

during the Design Development Phase of the project. To expand further, it is intended 

that the QA would focus on the technical content of the GRD and on development of 

plans (including details) and specifications (PS&E) that will result in successful 

construction and performance as planned. Quality Control and Quality Assurance during 

construction (implementation of the plans and specifications) are not addressed within 

this document. 

Additional discussion and recommendations for implementation of QA in GRDs is 

provided in Chapter 4. This includes the use of checklists and other actions, all of which 

are focused on achieving project success.

Many owner agencies have developed their own requirements, standards and manuals 

for geotechnical investigations, including spacing and depth of borings, type and 

frequency of sampling and testing in soil and rock, and the use of alternate field 

investigation methods (e.g., CPT). There may be requirements for analysis and 

evaluations as well, and these would be typically tied to AASHTO requirements. There 

may be other specifics that have been developed and included in their “manual” based 

on local experience and common issues in their area. Their directives can also include 

the format and content of the GRDs and specifications, along with details specifically 

developed for construction and monitoring during construction. These directives can, 

and often do, offer a system about which the Quality Assurance program for that owner 

agency is developed.

2.2 APPLICATIONS TO ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS

As will be discussed in Chapter 3, GRDs during the project phases associated with the 

three ACMs considered could include: 

Design-Bid-Build

• Planning

• Preliminary Design

• Intermediate Design

• Final Structure/Bridge Design

• Final Design or Final Roadway Design, if separate Structure /Bridge Report 

prepared

• Report for Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) or Value Engineering Study (VE)
Page 15

Design-Build

• Planning

• Preliminary Design

• Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)

• Intermediate GRDs for project elements or parts of project

• Final Structure/Bridge Design summarizing all structures/bridges

• Final Roadway Design summarizing all roadway elements

Construction Manager/General Contractor

• Planning

• Preliminary Design

• Intermediate GRDs for project elements or parts of project

• Final Structure/Bridge Design summarizing all structures/bridges

• Final Roadway Design summarizing all roadway elements

Chapter 3 discusses who may prepare these GRDs for each ACM based on the delivery 

method used, but in each case the owner agency should institute procedures that will 

be followed by the project geotechnical specialist for geotechnical investigations 

whether utilizing procedures in their own manual or by reference to other applicable and 

acceptable procedures (e.g., AASHTO, FHWA, etc.). Required Quality Control and 

Quality Assurance procedures should also be developed by the owner agency and be in 

place also as discussed in Chapter 3. 

Quality assurance for technical features of the investigations can be based on checklists 

and documents discussed in 2.1. Verification that the procedures were completed would 

be based on the delivery method, but a Quality Assurance Audit by the owner agency 

would verify that the QA review had been completed.
Page 16

CHAPTER 3 – CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT OF 

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING DOCUMENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The introduction of Alternative Contracting Methods (ACM) into the transportation 

industry has had a significant impact on owner agencies, consultants and contractors.

While many projects are still being delivered using the traditional Design-Bid-Build 

(DBB) ACM, the use of Design-Build (DB) ACM has become more popular - in part, due 

to its ability to reduce the time required to deliver fully-completed projects (design 

through construction) and, in the case of Public-Private-Partnerships (P3s), the method 

and timing for financing those projects. 

Use of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) method is not as 

common as DB, in part because it does not offer the same reduction in the time for 

project completion; however, it is being used and does offer close coordination between 

the design and construction elements, both of whom are contracted with, and under the 

full direction of, the owner agency. This ACM is intended to develop a cost-effective

constructible design that can still include the use of innovative and new technologies 

while allowing the owner to control the project direction, work directly with the design 

consultant and better understand and potentially mitigate risks. This ACM may be 

especially advantageous on some projects that are complex and very sensitive to 

budget constraints.

Appendix A contains schematic flowcharts (Figures A-1, A-2 and A-3) intended to 

illustrate the design development process for each ACM presented in the following 

sections. As noted, the project development process can extend into the bid phase of a 

project and even overlap with construction, which can introduce challenging situations 

into a quality assurance program. The flowcharts also show common GRDs to illustrate 

the process, though their titles and specific intent can vary based on the agency 

definitions, requirements and the project scope. The discussion of Quality Assurance in 

this document is relative to the preparation and use of GRDs during the Project 

Development process (excluding PS&E) and does not include the implementation of 

Quality Assurance (QA) controls during construction.

Within each respective ACM, there exists multiple Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs) 

that highlight the relationship between the developer of a specific GRD and the 

subsequent parties involved with the overarching Quality Assurance process (of which 

Quality Control is part of). GRDs for the various stages in design development, which 

could include planning, preliminary design, final structure design and final roadway 

design with the contracting method, could be delivered by one of, or a combination of, 

several Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs). This could include in-house staff from the 

owner agency (e.g., DOT Geotechnical Staff), in-house staff of a design consultant 

under contract directly to the owner agency or by a sub-consultant/consultant under 

contract to either the design consultant or the owner agency, respectively. 
Page 17

Appendix B, in addition to illustrating the GRD development and Quality Assurance 

process, presents the various ADMs for DBB, DB, and CM/GC and the relationship 

between document production and the QA process. Specifically, Figure B-1 is intended 

to illustrate the ADMs that can be used with the DBB, preliminary design DB, and 

CM/GC ACMs (ADMs 1 through 4) to develop GRDs and provide QA. The ADMs for 

DBB, preliminary design DB, and CM/GC are:

• Method 1: All efforts are completed by the owner agency using their staff 

Geotechnical Specialist (GS)

• Method 2: Owner contracts with a consultant (with in-house GS)

• Method 3: Owner contracts with a consultant (using a GS subconsultant) 

• Method 4: Owner contracts directly with a GS consultant

Figure B-2 illustrates the ADMs for DB ACMs. The ADMs for DB final design, in addition 

to the four listed above for preliminary design, include:

• Method 5: Contractor contracts with a consultant (with in-house GS)

• Method 6: Contractor contracts with a consultant (using a GS subconsultant) 

• Method 7: Contractor contracts directly with a GS consultant

Keeping in mind the definitions of QC and QA presented in Section 1.1 and 1.2, for 

each of the seven ADMs shown, there are four components and generally four roles in 

the steps of the process for each GRD, including: 

• Individual who is responsible for preparing the GRD

• Individual who performs the QC of the GRD

• Individual who is responsible for QA review of the GRD

• Individual who is responsible for QA audit of the project

Depending in part on the size and scope of the project, these four individuals should 

generally all be different people (however, that is not always the case), and those 

performing the QA audits are not required to be a GS. 

It will be important that a system is in place to assure that the GRDs have been 

developed for the project design elements, consistent with requirements of the contract 

and applicable standards, whether they are developed by the owner, AASHTO, FHWA 

or other standards of the industry. Also, it is critical that the geotechnical 

recommendations are properly incorporated in the plans and specifications. With this in 

mind, it is important to understand the difference in skill-sets between an individual 

responsible for QC and one responsible for QA.

A QC reviewer must understand the technical details of the calculations, exploration 

logs, laboratory test results, etc., and confirm the accuracy of these undertakings 

through a system of checking, updating, and confirming noted deficiencies have been 

resolved. A QA reviewer (and auditor) must maintain a much broader picture of the full 

project and understand how the detailed analyses and recommendations will impact 

development of the construction documents, including how this information is 
Page 18

communicated from a risk management standpoint. In short, QC reviewers confirm and 

document the accuracy of the technical efforts required to support project development, 

where as QA reviewers confirm and document the appropriate QC has been completed.

The following sections discuss these three principal ACMs in use for design and 

construction of transportation projects. With respect to the development and use of the 

GRDs and their QA, topics that are addressed include:

• General form and content of GRDs prepared during the course of a project for 

each of these contracting methods

• Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs) that are used to provide the GRDs and 

their QA 

• Roles and responsibilities of owner agencies, consultants and contractors

• Communications that should occur during the course of the program between 

the participants

Portions of the QA program for geotechnical reporting documents vary by contracting 

method and can be the responsibility of the owner agency, the consultant, the 

contractor or other parties involved in the project. It may - and often does - include an 

independent, project-wide auditing system to verify that QA reviews are being 

conducted for work by all disciplines involved in the project development phase.

3.2 DESIGN-BID-BUILD

3.2.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents

Early in the project development process, a planning study illustrated in Figure A-1 may 

be conducted to evaluate alternative alignments and roadway grades, bridge and 

culvert locations, as well as other design elements so as to examine the impacts of a 

project, develop planning level cost estimates and select an alignment. A GRD may be 

developed for this stage and, if so, it might be based on existing, available geotechnical 

information, a field reconnaissance and possibly a very limited subsurface investigation.

A preliminary study may be conducted to advance a project to a design level that would 

include more detailed studies leading to selection of a of semi-final alignment and 

grade, as well as alternative structure arrangements, preliminary culvert types and sizes 

and preliminary right-of-way impacts. Preliminary slope designs may be developed 

during this stage to evaluate potential property impacts. A GRD at this stage may 

include borings and testing at specific locations, geotechnical evaluations and 

preliminary recommendations for roadways, as well as structures and other design 

elements.
Page 19

Subsequent to the preliminary study and its associated GRD, a final design 

geotechnical investigation and GRD would typically be conducted and be specific 

enough to allow final design of all elements other than bridge structures including cut 

and fill slopes, earthwork evaluations, settlement, stability, ground improvement, 

monitoring systems, retaining walls, culverts, and other specific elements including, but 

not limited to, subgrade and pavement section designs. Investigations and GRDs for 

final design of each or all of the bridge structures may be developed separately at this 

stage. All of these GRDs for final design should include reference to existing special 

details and specifications or develop new details and specifications for the design 

elements. In some cases, constructability and risk management studies or workshops 

may be conducted between preliminary design and the completion of final design.

It is possible that during the bid phase of a project the contractor could be allowed to 

submit an Alternative Technical Concept (ATC) or a Value Engineering (VE) proposal

for consideration by the owner agency. It is also possible that the owner agency could 

allow submission and consideration of a VE proposal after award as well. In these 

cases, a GRD specific to the design elements may be required to support the ATC or 

VE.

3.2.2 Alternative Delivery Methods 

GRDs for the various stages in design development could include planning, preliminary 

design, and Interim GRDs on specific design elements. A Final GRD should be 

generated at the completion of design to summarize the geotechnical investigations, 

analyses and final recommendations. This could be delivered entirely by in-house staff 

from the owner agency (e.g., DOT Geotechnical Staff), by the in-house geotechnical 

staff of a design consultant under contract directly to the owner agency or by a subconsultant geotechnical specialist under contract to either the design consultant or the 

owner agency.

Figure B-1 in Appendix B is intended to illustrate the ADMs that can be used with the 

DBB ACM to develop GRDs and provide QA. 

3.2.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and 

Contractors

For projects using the DBB contracting method, the roles and responsibilities of these 

parties relative to development of GRDs and their implementation into project design 

plans and specifications are summarized as follows: 

Owner Agencies - It is the owner’s role and responsibility to:

• Provide the minimum requirements for the geotechnical investigation and 

methodologies to be used either directly or by reference.

• Provide relevant design standards, geotechnical performance requirements,

including specifications.
Page 20

• Provide QA requirements to be fulfilled for the project and verify that they have 

been completed through their QA audits. This would apply to not only 

geotechnical documents, but documents for all disciplines.

• Possibly provide some or all of the services included under consultant’s role.

Consultants - The role and responsibility of consultants if they are performing 

geotechnical investigations and developing GRDs is to:

• Review and understand the scope of the project and the geotechnical needs.

• Perform the investigation and analyses consistent with owner requirements 

and/or industry standards (e.g., AASHTO, FHWA, etc.). 

• Develop recommendations, including existing or new details and specifications 

necessary to implement recommendations.

• Verify that recommendations, including details and specifications, have been 

properly included in the plans and specifications.

• Perform and document Quality Control and Quality Assurance reviews of the 

GRDs.

Contractors - The primary role and responsibility of the contractor is to:

• Familiarize themselves with the GRDs and develop an understanding of the 

geotechnical conditions on the project prior to developing a bid. 

• Construct the intended work elements per the plans and specifications.

• Notify the owner agency if there are variations in any conditions from those 

anticipated that may require modification of construction plans.

3.2.4 Communications

Communications with respect to development of GRDs using this contracting method 

should include the following: 

• A scoping meeting to establish the level of geotechnical effort for the project, 

identify geotechnical risks, and other items that all parties should be aware of. 

• A pattern of periodic meetings between the owner, the project designer and the 

geotechnical specialist responsible for developing the GRDs during each phase 

of design through completion of plans and specifications (PS&E). These 

meetings should discuss the status of design, as well as the geotechnical 

investigation, including any modifications to the design elements or conditions 

encountered during investigations or analyses that could impact design of project 

elements. Minutes should be developed to document discussions and allow 
Page 21

implementation of the conclusions and any planned actions developed at the 

meetings.

• Review of GRDs by the owner agency representatives and the design engineers 

followed by coordination meetings to discuss questions and issues that affect the 

GRD results and use of any recommendations.

3.3 DESIGN-BUILD

3.3.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents

As illustrated in Figure A-2 in Appendix A, some GRDs using this ACM may be similar 

to those for the DBB method, while others are different. Although this contracting 

method is intended to allow the use of innovative construction methods by the DB 

Team, the most prominent reason for its use is to reduce the time required to move 

through final design and construction by starting construction on items right after 

preliminary plans are approved for construction. 

There may be an early planning study of the alignment alternates. For example, as 

described for the DBB ACM, a GRD could be developed using the same methods and 

procedures used for DBB projects.

The geotechnical investigation and GRD for the preliminary design, which is typically 

used to generate plans for price proposals for the shortlisted Contractor Teams, would 

typically be presented as a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR), which is defined in 

Section 1.2 and discussed in Section 2.1. The GDR, prepared by the owner agency or a 

consultant to the owner agency, generally contains boring logs, geotechnical profiles 

and cross sections, laboratory tests and other site-specific information that is related to 

the preliminary design scheme, but with no specific recommendations. The scope and 

amount of information from a subsurface investigation provided in the GDR varies, but 

may be greater than typical for this stage of design because additional information may

reduce the real or perceived risk of variations in subsurface conditions. This could 

cause either conservative pricing of proposals to cover unknown or assumed risk or 

result in a potential for claims, if allowed, for unforeseen conditions encountered when 

final design investigations are conducted by the DB Team’s geotechnical specialist.

A Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR), which is also defined in Section 1.2 and 

discussed in Section 2.1, has been frequently used for tunnel projects, but has not been 

commonly used for other transportation projects. The GBR includes information that 

would be included in the GDR, but it also includes an interpretation of geotechnical 

conditions for the project that is incorporated into the contract documents. This then 

establishes a contractual statement or “baseline” of the anticipated geotechnical 

conditions to be encountered with the intent of helping to manage the distribution of risk 

between the owner and the contractor. Risks associated with conditions that are 

consistent with or less adverse than the baseline are allocated to the contractor, and 

those that are more adverse than the baseline are accepted by the owner. Some 

investigations may be allowed or completed during the bid or proposal phase of the 
Page 22

project, and ATCs may be allowed, but the investigations for final design are typically 

conducted by the GS for the successful DB Team after selection. In these cases, the 

GS is contracted with the contractor and, while it may be required that GRDs are 

consistent with those for the DBB process (e.g., Structure GRDs, Final Design Roadway 

GRD, etc.), investigations can follow many formats based on the contractor’s 

construction schedule.

One of the many challenges for the geotechnical specialist with this contracting method 

is the potentially aggressive schedule for conducting the investigation and completing 

the Final Design GRDs. In some cases, Interim GRDs may be developed to provide 

final design recommendations for one portion of an alignment or a specific bridge on the 

alignment so that construction may begin while the remainder of the alignment and 

design elements are investigated. Ultimately, these Interim GRDs could be assembled 

to provide the Final GRD required by the owner’s standards and technical provisions. 

This presents challenges to QA in GRDs, not only for the content of the GRD, but for 

the incorporation of recommendations into the plans and specifications.

For DB projects, the level of design development by the DB Team during the price 

proposal (bid) phase typically varies depending in large part on the complexity of the 

subsurface conditions and the project. However, design at this stage must be developed

to a level that will allow the Design Team to develop a justifiable price (bid) proposal, 

which will be based on information provided in the GDR and any supplemental 

information obtained during the bid phase.

The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) must clearly 

indicate the proposal ranking factors (low price or best value and, if best value will be 

used, how that will be determined). The RFQ and RFP must also clearly indicate what 

guidance must be followed, what technologies and materials are acceptable and those 

which are not allowed. Finally, the QA procedures to be followed must be specifically 

addressed. QA requirements would address submittal content and schedule, review 

periods and tracking system for disposition of comments.

3.3.2 Alternative Delivery Methods

Figure B-2 in Appendix B refers to the same four ADMs shown on Figure B-1 for 

preliminary design with the DB ACM. For final design, there are three unique ADMs for 

DB shown in Figure B-2. Note in Figure B-2 that Steps 1 through 3 during final design 

involve work by the GS directly or indirectly under contract with the contractor. These 

methods would be used for any final design GRDs after selection and are especially 

important due to the challenges described in Section 3.3.1. For this reason, the QA 

process must be well organized and efficiently completed.

3.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and 

Contractors

Under the DB Contracting Method, the Roles and Responsibilities of the owner agency, 

the consultant and the DB Team differ from other ACMs.
Page 23

Owner Agency

• Provide the minimum requirements for the geotechnical investigation and 

methodologies that must be used either directly or by reference.

• Provide technical provisions, including relevant design standards and 

specifications including any special geotechnical requirements and performance 

limits (e.g., maximum amount or time for settlement) or control design features

and construction methods (e.g., pile types, wall types, etc.) used.

• Provide a GDR (Geotechnical Data Report) that will be used as a basis for 

development of price proposals and will minimize risks of contract disputes for 

unforeseen conditions. The GDR will also minimize the risk of conservative price 

proposals to account for variations of conditions, provide sufficient information 

for evaluation of cost effective designs by the Contractor DB Team and facilitate 

the use of innovative designs. Quality Assurance of the GDR and any previous 

GRDs (e.g., Planning Phase) prepared in advance of the GDR would be the 

responsibility of whomever prepares those documents, whether it is prepared by 

the owner’s in-house staff or their consultant. A project audit would then verify 

that a QA review was conducted. This process would use an ADM shown in 

Figure B-1. 

• Provide Quality Assurance requirements to be fulfilled for preparation of the 

GRDs developed during final design of the project and establish a process for 

verification. This would apply not only to geotechnical documents, but 

documents for all disciplines. This is illustrated by ADM 5, 6 or 7 in Figure B-2 

except for GRDs prepared during the bid phase.

• Incorporate “over-the-shoulder” reviews into the project schedule. These are 

regular meetings held between the owner’s representatives and the contractor’s 

team to discuss the status of design and any technical or contractual questions 

that may arise during final design.

Consultant (includes design consultant and the project GS from in-house staff or subconsultant performing geotechnical investigations during developing of GRDs)

• Review and understand the project scope and the geotechnical needs.

• Project GS reviews available information including the GDR to develop bidphase design recommendations, which should be documented in a GRD (e.g.,

bid phase Geotechnical Report). In this case, Steps 1 through 3 of the QA 

process shown in Figure B-2 would be completed, but Step 4 may be 

completed later (during final design, if selected). 

• If selected, the project GS performs a final design investigation and analyses 

consistent with owner requirements and/or industry standards (e.g., AASHTO, 

FHWA, etc.).
Page 24

• Develop final design recommendations, including necessary details and 

specifications and document within a GRD. As described, this process could 

involve several GRDs for portions of, or specific design elements on, the 

project.

• If not specified by the owner’s documents or the contractor, develop a QA plan

addressing the process of developing the GRDs and addressing geotechnical 

recommendations within the plans for construction using all 4 steps in the 

process. 

Contractor

• During the bid phase for the project, coordinate with the design consultant - at 

regular intervals and as often as necessary - to reach agreement on the design 

elements and construction requirements. This includes interpretation of 

conditions by the project geotechnical specialist and the development of bid

phase recommendations.

• If selected, coordinate with the design consultant on scope and schedule for 

design and construction, allowing for supplemental geotechnical investigations 

and analyses, if necessary, to meet the project requirements and allow 

development of geotechnical recommendations.

• Require a GRD or multiple GRDs that address all design elements and provide 

recommendations with details and specifications that are understood and agreed 

upon before construction of the elements begins.

• Implement a QA plan, if not developed and required by others involved, with 

necessary documentation, beginning at the bid-phase of the project.

• Notify the design consultant and the project geotechnical specialist if there are 

variations in any conditions from those anticipated so that effects on the design 

performance can be considered, and modifications can be made, if necessary.

3.3.4 Communications

Communications with respect to development of GRDs using this ACM should include 

the following:

• The RFP should clearly communicate geotechnical expectations, both of the 

investigation and design of project geotechnical features and performance 

requirements (e.g., maximum settlement for a bridge abutment). 

• During Preliminary Design, the owner agency should conduct periodic meetings 

with the designer (owner agency or consultant) and the project geotechnical 

specialist responsible for developing the GBR and/or the GDR. The level of the 

investigation should be reviewed based on the items noted in Section 3.3.1, if it is 
Page 25

not already described in the owner’s standards and procedures for investigations 

on projects using this contracting method. 

• During Pre-Final Design (Bid-Phase), the owner agency should conduct

meetings with proposers (bidders) to explain the project, technical provisions and 

requirements and significant items related to bid development design and final 

design, if selected. This would include questions related to development of final

geotechnical recommendations.

• During Final Design, the owner should provide a contact for questions and 

consider holding periodic meetings with the DB Team representatives to discuss 

design status and any questions, including those related to GRD development 

and implementation.

• During Construction, maintain communications with contractor and Design Team 

to verify status of work, verify related plans and specifications are being 

implemented properly and discuss any questions related to completion of design 

and construction consistent with project requirements.

3.4 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR

3.4.1 Geotechnical Reporting Documents

Early in the design development process, a planning study illustrated in Figure A-3 may 

be conducted to evaluate alternate alignments and roadway grades, bridge and culvert 

locations, as well as other design elements so as to examine the impacts of a project, 

develop planning-level cost estimates and select an alignment. A GRD may be 

developed for this stage and, if so, it might be based on existing, available geotechnical 

information, a field reconnaissance and possibly a very limited subsurface investigation.

A preliminary study may then be conducted, and it would include more detailed studies 

leading to selection of a semi-final alignment and grade, as well as alternate structure 

arrangements and preliminary culvert types and sizes and preliminary right-of-way 

impacts. Preliminary slope designs may be developed during this stage to evaluate 

potential property impacts. A GRD at this stage would likely report the results of borings 

and testing at specific locations, geotechnical evaluations and preliminary 

recommendations for roadways, as well as structures and other design elements.

Subsequent to the preliminary study and the associated GRD, a contractor would be 

engaged by the owner to review the preliminary plans and offer comments, including 

recommendations to continue with final design without changes or incorporate 

modifications that would improve constructability and/or reduce construction costs. 

These recommendations could affect any part of the preliminary design. As a result of 

these proposed recommendations, the design engineer would modify the preliminary 

plans, and the GS would perform supplemental investigations and analyses with 

associated recommendations. The results of this work would be summarized in a GRD, 

which could be an intermediate report rather than a final GRD. These intermediate
Page 26

GRDs for final design can be used to develop the Final GRD, including reference to 

existing special details and specifications or develop new details and specifications for 

the design elements.

The QA program is very similar to the one used for the DBB contracting method since 

the GRDs could be developed by the owner’s geotechnical staff or by a consultant 

under contract to the owner. The content of the GRDs might vary depending on the 

reviews and interaction between the three parties involved in the final design 

development process.

3.4.2 Alternative Delivery Methods 

GRDs for the various stages in design development could include planning, preliminary 

design, and Interim GRDs on specific design elements evaluated in conjunction with 

contractor recommendations during interactions, and with approval of the owner. A Final

GRD should be generated at the completion of design to summarize the geotechnical 

investigations, analyses and final recommendations. This could be delivered entirely by 

in-house staff from the owner agency (e.g., DOT Geotechnical Staff), by the in-house 

geotechnical staff of a design consultant under contract directly to the owner agency or 

by a sub-consultant geotechnical specialist under contract to either the design 

consultant or the owner agency.

Figure B-1 in Appendix B is intended to illustrate the ADMs that can be used with the 

CM/GC ACM to develop GRDs and complete the QA review. Note that the ADMs are 

essentially the same as those for the DBB ACM, as well as the preliminary design 

phase of DB. 

3.4.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Owner Agencies, Consultants and 

Contractors

For projects using the CM/GC contracting method, the roles and responsibilities of 

these parties relative to development of GRDs and their integration into project design 

plans and specifications are summarized as follows:

Owner Agency

• Provide minimum requirements for the geotechnical investigation and 

methodologies to be used either directly or by reference.

• Provide relevant design standards, geotechnical performance requirements

including specifications.

• Provide QA requirements to be fulfilled for the project, and verify that they have 

been completed through QA audits. This would apply to not only geotechnical 

documents, but documents for all disciplines.
Page 27

Consultants (performing geotechnical investigations and developing GRDs)

• Review and understand the scope of the project and the geotechnical needs.

• Perform the investigation and analyses consistent with owner requirements 

and/or industry standards (e.g., AASHTO, FHWA, etc.). 

• At each stage of study during design, perform investigations and analyses and 

develop recommendations, including details and specifications necessary to 

implement recommendations.

• Document geotechnical investigations during design in GRDs, including Interim 

GRDs addressing interactive studies of contractor-proposed schemes.

• Perform and document QC and QA reviews of the GRDs. 

Contractor

• Review and discuss proposed project objectives and preliminary design, 

including geotechnical information and recommendations in the GRD.

• Provide alternate schemes/treatments for selected design elements and review 

with owner and design consultants, including the project GS. 

• Review designs for alternates with owner and design team, including details 

and specifications.

• If selected for construction phase, construct the intended work elements per the 

plans and specifications.

• Notify the owner agency if there are variations in any conditions from those 

anticipated that may require modification of construction plans.

3.4.4 Communications

Communications during design with respect to development of GRDs and final plans 

using this contracting method are essentially the same as for the DBB contracting 

method described in Section 3.2.4, except that the contractor should be part of the 

Team meetings after being brought into the project.
Page 28

CHAPTER 4 – IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR 

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING DOCUMENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on implementation of a Quality Assurance (QA) program for 

Geotechnical Reporting Documents (GRDs). While the value of a QA program for GRDs 

is generally recognized, its content and procedures used may vary. Based on interviews 

with a representative sample of owner agencies (DOTs) across the country, it appears 

that checklists are not a consistent part of the QA process, but when used, they have 

often been derived from the FHWA Checklists publication (FHWA, 2003), and are 

commonly adapted to the owner agency’s process and requirements for developing 

GRDs. It also appears that QA program requirements for GRDs developed for project 

design elements are essentially the same for all of the Alternative Contracting Methods 

(ACMs) and the Alternative Delivery Methods (ADMs), with a few exceptions.

This chapter also includes discussion and examples to illustrate the value provided by a 

QA program for GRDs and its link to Quality Control (QC). This includes the 

development and use of checklists, which are a subset of the QA process, and the 

process used by GRD reviewers in the documentation for a QA program. It also 

discusses considerations for ACMs and ADMs.

4.2 OWNER AGENCY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS FOR GRDS

An examination was made of related manuals or handbooks established by several 

owner agencies, and some observations are offered to illustrate the content of some QA 

programs. Current versions of these manuals or handbooks are typically available free 

of charge for digital download. To avoid the potential for broken or non-existent links in 

the future, the reader may locate the downloadable documents by completing an 

internet search using the information contained in the References section of this 

document.

The Florida DOT’s Soils and Foundation Handbook (FDOT, 2016) includes detailed 

procedures and guidelines for:

• Subsurface investigations of highways and related structures, as well as other 

design elements

• Laboratory Testing

• Materials (Soil and Rock) Descriptions, Classification and Logging

• Field Instrumentation

• Analyses and Design

• Presentation of Geotechnical Information (i.e., GRDs)

• Construction and Post-Construction
Page 29

A section in the handbook addresses procedures and responsibilities for Design-Build 

Projects with the three typical phases of these projects, including:

• Planning and Development Phase

• Technical Proposals and Bidding Phase

• Design/Construction Phase

The Utah DOT (UDOT), which has utilized the CM/GC Contracting Method on several 

projects, has a Manual of Instruction [UDOT, 2014 (1)] that outlines and defines 

Geotechnical Report Requirements. They also have a document entitled Project 

Delivery Network Geotechnical Design QC Checklists [UDOT, 2014 (2)], which is 

designated to be used as “... a tool to assist the project team in verifying all work is 

produced with due diligence, using acceptable industry standard techniques, available 

resources and data, and reasonable decisions by competent professionals.” It 

continues, “The checklist is a tool and cannot replace the sound judgment and 

experience of competent professionals.” And, “It is the Design Team’s responsibility to 

verify the quality of project documents before distribution.” (Note: Highlight of “before” is 

within the document.) 

The North Carolina DOT’s Guidelines & Procedures Manual for Subsurface 

Investigations (NCDOT, 2011) defines requirements for geotechnical investigations and 

includes Geotechnical Review Checklists and Technical Guidelines that are patterned 

after the FHWA, 2003 document, but include reference to the Design-Build Contracting 

Method, which is frequently used by the NCDOT. The following comments (included in 

the introduction to these guidelines) stress the importance of providing a quality GRD:

“The importance of preparing adequate geotechnical documents cannot be 

overstressed. The information contained in the documents is referred to often during the 

design period, construction period, and frequently after completion of the project 

(resolving claims).” The document also contains an Appendix which references 

Standard Special Provisions for Roadways, Structures and Geotechnical features that 

are considered relevant to the GRDs.

These state agencies (and most all that were interviewed) have manuals that define the 

geotechnical investigations required by them for projects, including GRDs. Their QA 

programs do vary. Refer to Appendix D for a summary of comments from interviewed 

DOT representatives.

4.3 QA CHECKLISTS AND DOCUMENTATION 

Use of a documentation process by owner agencies for QA of GRDs may be more 

important than ever due to the complexity of project requirements, site conditions and 

schedules, particularly using the DB ACM and due to the number of individuals involved 

in the process, many of whom are external to the owner agency. This section discusses 

checklists that exist or can be developed to document the QA process for technical 

features, as well as the plan development process.
Page 30

The General Information Form (GIF) included and used with examples in Appendix C 

is offered for use with QA reviews of all GRDs or as a guide for development of a similar 

summary form by others. The two-page GIF is intended to serve as a cover for the QA 

review of any GRD and identifies the ACM, as well as the ADM, used. The form has 

been developed to document basic information for any GRD review including:

• Project Title

• Project Contracting Method (DBB, DB, CM/GC, other)

• QA Reviewer and Firm/Agency Affiliation

• GRD Title

• GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memorandum, Email)

• GRD Author and Firm

• GRD Author/Firm Client (Owner, Contractor, Other)

• Project Component(s) Covered (Roadway, Structure, Other) Project Design 

Development Stage (Planning, Preliminary, Final) 

• QA Review Level (Discipline Level Review; Project Level Audit)

It allows for the attachment of review comments to specifically communicate any items 

in need of discussion or clarification. Those comments could be shown on a copy of the 

GRD itself, summarized in a memorandum or email, or be included in a cover letter 

summarizing the QA review. Checklists such as those developed by the FHWA (FHWA, 

2003) or developed by agencies can also be attached to provide an indication that the 

GRD meets the QA review requirements or is being returned for modification and 

resubmission. The reviewer is identified, and the QA Review Level is indicated as well 

(Refer to Figures B-1 and B-2).

The second sheet of the GIF allows for an indication of specific checklists that are 

attached and of related general comments. The General Information Form would 

identify and verify the GRD content and presentation, as well as the technical project 

design elements. A blank copy of the GIF is included in Appendix C (Exhibit C-7) for use

with or without modifications.

It is noted again that the QA review of construction plans and specifications is not and 

would not be included in the checklists being discussed since the plans are not a GRD. 

It is important, however, that a QA review of the plans be performed to verify 

geotechnical recommendations from the GRDs are properly incorporated. 

The related FHWA checklists (FHWA, 2003) focus on the site investigation, the 

geotechnical features on the project (e.g., embankments and cuts, landslides, retaining 

structures, structure foundations, ground improvement technologies), and the 

development and content of the GRD. The checklists can be used directly by an owner 

agency or adapted to the Manual of Practice of an owner agency.

Some newer technologies and materials, as well as the ACMs and ADMs in use, are not 

specifically included in the available FHWA checklists. Examples include the DB ACM, 

one for Geotechnical Data Reports (GDRs) and a checklist for micropile foundations.
Page 31

Since there have been advances in existing technologies and development of new 

technologies since the FHWA 2003 document was published, additional checklists can 

also be developed and added. An example would be for micropile foundations that are 

not mentioned in FHWA 2003, but are currently accepted and used in practice, including 

their incorporation into AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications several years after 

FHWA 2003. In this case, a new checklist can be added to the library available for use 

in QA reviews.

There are also many manuals and references developed by FHWA and others which 

summarize design, construction and monitoring methods for traditional and new 

materials and technologies. This guidance should be utilized in reviews and evaluations, 

where applicable, including development of checklists. The FHWA documents can be 

accessed by visiting the FHWA website: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

or, for more specific information: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/index.cfm

In addition, there are valuable and useful, relevant resources at the interactive TRB 

SHRP2 website GeoTechTools.org, which includes up-to-date guidance on over 

50 technologies:

http://www.geotechtools.org/

This website includes technical information for each technology in the following areas:

• Geotechnical Design Process

• Catalog of Technologies

• Technology Selection, which includes (for each technology):

o Technology Fact Sheets

o Photos

o Case Histories

o Design Guidelines

o QC/QA Procedures

o Specifications

o Bibliographies
Page 32

The GeoTechTools website includes information on many traditional and new 

technologies and materials, for example: Aggregate Columns, Deep Dynamic 

Compaction, Compaction Grouting, Jet Grouting, MSE Walls, Vibrocompaction, and 

many others. Micropiles are the only conventional structural deep foundation support 

system included. The subsection within the website which contains “Technology 

Information,” includes information on QC/QA for the specific element, but it focuses on 

construction procedures and documentation. However, it can serve as a very useful tool 

for QC and, therefore, QA in GRDs by guiding the GS through the development of 

appropriate checklists that will verify the design approach and assumptions. As 

mentioned earlier, other sources of information which can be useful for development of 

checklists are the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circulars (GECs), as well as other 

technical publications which are available through the FHWA website.

In addition to incorporating technical features for new and existing technologies into the 

development of checklists, some other features that should be incorporated into the 

checklists for the QC/QA review of GRDs would include: 

• Documentation of the assumptions made during analyses and the preparation of 

recommendations. This includes, for example, loads and load combinations for 

strength, service and extreme limit states and performance requirements. 

• Documentation of calculations and analyses performed that support 

recommendations with verification that they have been checked by the GS of 

record or a qualified representative GS. Note that it is recommended there

should be a requirement that these calculations and analyses be provided to the 

owner agency within the GRD or as a separate document.

• Documentation that subsurface exploration logs (borings, CPT, etc.) have been 

prepared in accordance with owner’s required procedures and that the 

information has been checked by the GS of record or their qualified 

representative GS.

• Verification that the GRD includes a provision indicating the limitations 

associated with its use. This would include allowing the GS of record an 

opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify recommendations 

have been properly incorporated and that there have been no changes in the 

design elements for which the GRD has been developed.

4.4 THE QA DOCUMENTATION PROCESS – EXAMPLE PROJECTS

The QA process is illustrated with an example project constructed using two ACMs 

(Case 1 DBB and Case 2 DB) with QA of the GRDs using different ADMs. Appendix C 

contains a series of exhibits that illustrate how the General Information Form, 

supplemented by checklists, could be used to document the QA process for a project 

using the different ACMs and ADMs. For these examples, the FHWA checklists have 

been used; however, each agency should develop their own checklists using those from 

the FHWA or those developed by their staff based on information from FHWA, 
Page 33

AASHTO, industry standards or their own practices. This includes checklists for design 

elements that are not in the referenced FHWA checklist because they were not 

developed at the time of that publication (FHWA, 2003). Examples include micropile 

foundations, soil nailing and continuous flight augercast piles. In addition, checklists 

have not been developed for use with GDRs prepared for use with the DB ACM.

For simplicity, the example project is assumed to contain the following design elements:

• Roadway grading, including embankments and cuts in soil and rock

• One bridge structure supported by drilled shaft foundations

Case 1 illustrates the QA process for the DBB ACM with reviews developed for:

• Preliminary Design GRD – See Exhibit C-1 

• Final Roadway Design GRD – See Exhibit C-2 

• Final Structure Design GRD – See Exhibit C-3 

Case 2 illustrates the process if the DB ACM were used and QA reviews were 

developed for the following GRDs, although there could be others added on an actual 

project.

• Preliminary Design GRD (Same as DBB) – See Exhibit C-1 

• Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) – See Exhibit C-4 

• Final Roadway Design GRD – See Exhibit C-5 

• Final Structure Design GRD – See Exhibit C-6 

Note that the Preliminary Design GRD for the DBB, Exhibit C-1, has been included in 

Case 2 to illustrate that the Preliminary Design for a DB project would be performed 

using the same process as a DBB project. In addition, a Geotechnical Data Report 

(GDR) is typically generated and provided to DB teams for use in developing proposals, 

as well as in final design by the selected firm.

As shown in Figures B-1 and B-2, these examples illustrate Step 3 of the QA review 

process conducted by a geotechnical specialist (GS). Although not shown in the 

example, a project or program level audit (Step 4) could also be conducted to verify that 

the Step 3 QA has been completed. This could be a project or program representative 

who is responsible for auditing QA reviews of multiple disciplines that contribute to the 

PS&E development, thereby verifying communication and coordination between 

disciplines during completion of design and development of the PS&E.

4.5 CLOSING COMMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF QA PROGRAMS FOR GRDS

The importance of a Quality Assurance program for GRDs cannot be over emphasized, 

and its use with DB and CM/GC is especially important since the interaction between 

the owner agency, the engineering consultant, the geotechnical specialist and the 

contractor is more complicated and schedule driven than the more traditional DBB

contracting method. It also introduces the use of ADMs. While use of the CM/GC 

contracting method allows the owner agency to maintain full control of the design and 

construction schedule, this ACM also includes the simultaneous coordination between 
Page 34

the owner agency, the design consultant, the GS and the contractor. The need for 

ongoing communication and coordination between the parties involved is heightened 

and relies even more heavily on the implementation of a strong QA program than the 

traditional DBB ACM. 

A system for QA of the GRDs is discussed in this document. It is intended that this 

document will assist in obtaining that objective and providing a successful project.
Page 35

REFERENCES

ASCE (1997). “Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Underground Construction - 

Guidelines and Practices,” The Technical Committee on Geotechnical Reports of the 

Underground Technical Research Council, American Society of Civil Engineering and 

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers.

FDOT (2016). Florida DOT, Soils and Foundation Handbook.

FHWA (1979). “A Guide for In-house Review of Proposals and Reports” by The 

Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers.

FHWA (1997). “Training Course in Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering,” NHI 

Course 13231- Module 1 (FHWA HI-97-021 Subsurface Investigations).

FHWA (2002). Subsurface Investigation – Geotechnical Site Characterization 

Reference Manual, FHWA –NHI-01-031.

FHWA (2003). “Checklists and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and 

Preliminary Plans and Specifications,” FHWA ED88-053.

FHWA (2007). FHWA Technical Guidelines Manual.

NCDOT (2011). North Carolina DOT, Guidelines & Procedures Manual for Subsurface 

Investigations. 

NCHRP (2008). “Quality-Assurance in Design-Build Projects, A Synthesis of Highway 

Practice” NCHRP Synthesis 376 by D. Gransberg, J. Datin and K. Molenaar.

UDOT(1) (2014). Utah DOT Geotechnical Manual of Instruction.

UDOT(2) (2014). Utah DOT, Project Delivery Network - Geotechnical Design QC 

Checklists. 
Appendix A 

Design Process with Construction Phase Relation 

for 

Alternative Contracting Methods 



Appendix B

QA Processes for Alternative Delivery Methods 
B1

Notes:

Consultant – Design Consultant who may have in-house Geotechnical Specialists (Consultant’s GS) or subcontract geotechnical services (GS 

Subconsultant) 

GS Consultant – Firm providing only geotechnical services directly to the owner 

Geotechnical Specialist (GS) – Refer to Section 1.2 of Guidance Document. GS in Step 1 must be licensed in project state. 

QA Representative – Quality Assurance Representative 

Figure B-1 QA of GRDs for Alternative Delivery Methods - DBB, CM/GC and Preliminary DB (ACMs)
B2

Notes: 

Consultant – Design Consultant who may have in-house Geotechnical Specialists (Consultant’s GS) or subcontract geotechnical services (GS 

Subconsultant) 

GS Consultant – Firm providing only geotechnical services directly to the contractor 

Geotechnical Specialist (GS) – Refer to Section 1.2 of Guidance Document. GS in Step 1 must be registered in project state. 

QA Representative – Quality Assurance Representative 

Figure B-2 QA of GRDs for Alternative Delivery Method with Design-Build (ACM) 
C1 

Appendix C - QA for Example Projects

Case 1 DBB ACM

C-1 GRD for Preliminary Design

C-2 GRD for Final Design of Roadways

C-3 GRD for Final Design of Structures

Case 2 DB ACM

C-4 Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)

C-5 GRD for Final Design of Roadways

C-6 GRD for Final Design of Structures

C-7 Blank General Information Form
C2 

Exhibit C-1 

Example Project - Case 1 (DBB ACM) 

GRD for Preliminary Design

(Refer to Figure B-1, ADM 2) 
C3 

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

 

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ X DB____ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer ______ John J_ohns ______ on, P___E _ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ______XYZ ______ DO___ T _____

GRD Title: _G____ eotec__hni _____ cal R___epor ___t f__or P___rel___ iminar ____y D___esi___ gn –__R___ out___ e 149____ 2, S___ect___ ion __123____

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) _____ Geot__ec___hni___ cal _R___ epor___t __________ 

GRD Author and Firm: ___ Henr___y P___ ete,__ PE___; A___

BC E_n___ gine___erin___ g; 1243 _____So___ il Dr_, ___ Sisk___ le, V___A 12345 ______ 

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency __X__ Contractor _______ Other_______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ S X tructure ____ X Other ______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ___X___

Final Design: _______ 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ___X_ No ____ (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer ___J__oh___n J___oh__ns___on,_ P___.E___. _____ Date: ___08/__0___ 3/2016 _____

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C4 

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

____ X A – Site Investigation Information

____ X B – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Comments: 

General: Project is at Preliminary Design. One structure is on the project and

foundations will be addressed in final structures geotechnical report. Checklists

reference FHWA 2003 unless otherwise noted.

-Items A.5 and A.6a-d, no field test data or photographs were obtained during this

investigation. Will be obtained as necessary during Final Design Roadway Investigation.

-Items B.9 and 10, no special usage at this time for excavated soils. Shrink-swell

factors will be provided in the GR for Final Roadway Design.

-Items B.13-15, will be addressed and final recommendations provided in the GR for

Final Roadway Design.
C5 

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Preliminary Design

X 

X 

X 

X 

X-N/A

X-None

X 

X 

X-N/A

X 

X 
C6 

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Preliminary Design

 
C7 

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Preliminary Design

 
C8 

Exhibit C-2 

Example Project - Case 1 (DBB ACM) 

GRD for Final Design of Roadway

(Refer to Figure B-1, ADM 2) 
C9 

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

 

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ X DB___ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer __________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________ John Johnson, P.E. XYZ DOT

GRD Title: ____________________________________________________________ Geotechnical Report for Final Design – Route 1492, Section 123 

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) ______________________________ Geotechnical Report

GRD Author and Firm: __________________________________________________ Henry Pete, PE; ABC Engineering; 1243 Soil Dr, Siskle, VA 12345_

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ X Contractor _______ Other_______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______ X 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______

Final Design: _______ X 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ X (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer ____________________________ John Johnson, P.E. Date: _____________ 08/03/2016

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review ____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C10

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

____ X A – Site Investigation Information

____ B X – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Comments: 

-General: Project is at Final Design for Roadway and other elements except for bridge

structure. Final design recommendations for bridge structure will be provided after final

design investigation and completion of geotechnical report. Checklists reference

FHWA, 2003 unless otherwise noted.

-Item B.9, there was no special usage for excavated soils. 

by contractor at an approved waste area.

All will be disposed of offsite
C11

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
C12

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

 
C13

Example Project: Case 1 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

 
C14

Exhibit C-3 

Example Project - Case 1 (DBB ACM) 

GRD for Final Design of Structures

(Refer to Figure B-1, ADM 2)
C15

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

Part 1 - General Information Form

 

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ X DB___ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer __________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________ John Johnson, P.E. XYZ DOT

GRD Title: ____________________________________________________________ Geotechnical Report for Final Design – Route 1492, Section 123 Bridge

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) _________________ Geotechnical Report _____________

GRD Author and Firm: __________________________________________________ Henry Pete, PE; ABC Engineering; 1243 Soil Dr, Siskle, VA 12345 _

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ X Contractor _______ Other________ 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______ X 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______

Final Design: _______ X 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ X (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer ____________ John Johnson, P.E. ____________ Date: __________ 08/03/2016 __

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C16

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

____ X A – Site Investigation Information

____ B – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H X – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed) 

Comments: 

-General: See Geotechnical Report for Final Design of Roadway for related

recommendations. Checklists reference FHWA, 2003 unless otherwise noted.

-Item H.4, no static load test is required for this design based on previous experience

with drilled shafts in the area. 

-Item H.6, shafts are obtaining bearing in rock socket. Casing will be required due to

loose sands and high groundwater table. Designers decided to leave casing in place to

control risk of caving and possible detrimental impact to rock socket and bearing

surface.

-Item H.8, no boulders encountered in explorations.
C17

Example Project Case 1 – GRD for Final Design of Structures

 
C18

Example Project Case 1 – GRD for Final Design of Structures

 
C19

Exhibit C-4 

Example Project - Case 2 (DB ACM) 

Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)

(Refer to Figure B-2; Figure B-1, ADM 2) 
C20

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

 

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ DB____ X P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer __________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________ Jacob M. Smith, P.E. XYZ DOT

GRD Title: ____________________________________________________________ Geotechnical Data Report – Route 1492, Section 123

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) ______________________________ Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)

GRD Author and Firm: _______________________ Zeke L. Allen, P.E.; ABC Engineering ___________________________ ; 1243 Soil Dr, Siskle, VA 12345_

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ X Contractor _______ Other________ 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______ X X 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______ X 

Final Design: _______ 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ X (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer _______________________ Jacob M. Smith, P.E. Date: _____________ 08/03/2016

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C21

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

X1 ____ A – Site Investigation Information (GDR for DB Project)

____ B – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Comments: 

-General: Project is in Preliminary Design for a DB ACM. Checklists reference

FHWA, 2003 unless otherwise noted.

1

Checklist not specifically for GDR. Notes are used to supplement as necessary.

As no recommendations are contained, Site Investigations checklist is appropriate.
C22

Example Project: Case 2 – GDR for D-B 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

GDR

X-None

X 

X 
C23

Exhibit C-5 

Example Project - Case 2 (DB ACM) 

GRD for Final Design of Roadways

(Refer to Figure B-2, ADM 5) 
C24

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

 

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ DB_X ___ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer: __________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________ Alvin L. Zunk, PE LMN Engineering 

GRD Title: ____________________________________________________________ Geotechnical Report for Final Design – Route 1492, Section 123

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) ______________________________ Geotechnical Report (GR)

GRD Author and Firm: __________________________________________________ Jeffery M. Stadler, PE; LMN Engineering; 301 Fines Dr, Turk, PA 21234 _ 

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ Contractor _______ X Other_______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______ X 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______

Final Design: _______ X 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ X (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer ____________________________ Alvin L. Zunk, PE Date: _____________ 08/03/2016

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review ____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C25

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

____ X A – Site Investigation Information (GDR for DB Project)

____ B X – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Comments: 

General: Project is at Final Design for roadway and other elements except for bridge

structure. Final recommendations for bridge structure will be presented in the Structure

Geotechnical 

FHWA, 2003

Engineering Report after Final Design Investigation. Checklists reference

unless otherwise noted.

-Item B.9, there is no special use intended for excavated material except as

embankment. Waste material will be hauled off by the contractor to an approved

waste area.
C26

Example Project: Case 2 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
C27

Example Project: Case 2 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

 
C28

Example Project: Case 2 – GRD for Final Roadway Design

 
C29

Exhibit C-6 

Example Project - Case 2 (DB ACM) 

GRD for Final Design of Structures

(Refer to Figure B-2, ADM 5) 
C30

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: Route 1492 Section 123_____________________________________

 

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ DB__X __ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: _____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer __________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________ Alvin L. Zunk, PE LMN Engineering 

GRD Title: ____________________________ Geotechnical Report for Final Design ________________________________ – Route 1492, Section 123

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) ____________ Memorandum __________________

GRD Author and Firm: __________________________________________________ Jeffery M. Stadler, PE; LMN Engineering; 301 Fines Dr, Turk, PA 21234 _

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ Contractor _______ X Other_______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______ X 

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______

Final Design: _______ X 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ X No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___X No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ X (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer Alvin L. Zunk, PE 08/03/2016 ____________________________ Date: _____________

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review ____ X Project/Program Level Audit ____
C31

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

X ____ A – Site Investigation Information (GDR for DB Project)

____ B – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H X – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Comments: 

-General: See Geotechnical Report for Final Design of Roadway for related

recommendations. Checklists reference FHWA, 2003 unless otherwise noted.

-Item H.4, no static load test is required for this design based on previous experience

with drilled shafts in the area. 

-Item H.6, shafts are obtaining bearing in rock socket. Casing will be required due to

loose sands and high groundwater table. Designers decided to leave casing in place to

control risk of caving and possible detrimental impact to rock socket and bearing

surface.

-Item H.8, no boulders encountered in explorations.
C32

Example Project Case 2 – GRD for Final Design of Structures

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
C33

Example Project Case 2 – GRD for Final Design of Structures

 
C34

Exhibit C-7 

Blank General Information Form
C35

Geotechnical Reporting Document (GRD) Quality Assurance Checklist

 

Part 1 - General Information Form

Project Name: _________________________________________________________

Project Contracting Method: DBB _____ DB____ P3 ___ CM/GC ___ Other _____

Note: If other, describe here: ____________________________________________ 

QA Reviewer _________________ Firm/Agency Affiliation: ____________________

GRD Title: ____________________________________________________________

GRD Type (e.g., GR, GDR, GBR, Memo, Email) ______________________________ 

GRD Author and Firm: ___________________________________________________ 

GRD Author/Firm Client: Owner Agency ____ Contractor _______ Other _______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________ 

Project Component(s) Covered by GRD: Roadway ____ Structure ____ Other ______

Note: If other, describe here: ______________________________________________

Project Development Stage

Planning/Conceptual: _______ Preliminary Design ______

Final Design: _______ 

If other than above, describe here: _________________________________________

Note: Use appropriate Checklist Form based on Project Information. 

Copy of Review Comments Attached: Yes ___ No ___

Copy of QC Checklists Attached: Yes ___ No ___

Accepted: Yes ____ No ____ (If NO, return for modification and resubmission.) 

Signature of Reviewer __________________________ Date: _______________

QA Review Level: Discipline Level Review____ Project/Program Level Audit ____
C36

Part 2 - Checklists Attached (Attach Specific Applicable Checklists)

____ A – Site Investigation Information

____ B – Centerline Cuts and Embankments

____ C – Embankment over Soft Ground

____ D – Landslide Corrections

____ E – Retaining Structures

____ F – Structure Foundations – Spread Footings

____ G – Structure Foundations – Driven Piles

____ H – Structure Foundations – Drilled Shafts

____ I – Ground Improvement Techniques

____ J – Material Sites 

____ K – (add as needed)

____ L – (add as needed)

____ M – (add as needed)

____ N – (add as needed)

Checklists reference FHWA 2003 unless otherwise noted.

Comments: 
Appendix D

Summary of Interviews with

Owner Agencies (DOTs)
D1 

Executive Summary

As part of the study to prepare this Guidance Document, several DOT agencies across 

the United States were contacted and interviews were conducted. The purpose of the 

interviews was to obtain examples of relevant practices being used by the owner 

agencies. In each case the same specific questions were used. The states were 

selected in large part based on their use of alternative contracting methods. While it is 

recognized there are other transportation agencies that have used these methods as 

well, and their views would be of equal interest, it was necessary to limit the number of 

DOTs contacted. In some cases those interviewed offered supplemental commentary. 

Agencies interviewed included the Colorado DOT, Florida DOT, Maine DOT, Minnesota 

DOT, North Carolina DOT, South Carolina DOT, Utah DOT and the Virginia DOT.

The following questions were asked: 

1 - Do you have a program for QA of GRDs? If yes, who is responsible?

2 - Do you have someone who is responsible for project QA? If yes, who would that be? 

(Note: This is intended to differentiate between someone who performs QA of GRDs 

and someone who manages and is responsible for the project QA program, which 

would track the GRD QA.)

3 - Do you have a QA Guidance Document (w Checklists?) and a tracking system?

4 - How does your QA system account for ACMs and ADMs?

5 - If you have a system, how is performing? Is it being used? Is there something that 

would make it better?

6 - Are they using the FHWA Pub ED-88-053 August 1988, Rev February 2003 – 

Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and 

Reports? Other documents?

7 - Other questions/comments based on discussion?
D2 

Based on the interview results, some notable observations are offered:

• Most but not all had a formal QA program for GRDs and several indicated they 

had used the FHWA, 2003 checklist as a format for their own system. Also that 

their system was generally based on requirements in the geotechnical manuals 

of required practices.

• Some states that had an organized program rose to the district offices and others 

rose to the state office level.

• Most indicated their QA system for GRDs were the same for any of the ACMs or 

ADMs. In a few cases the size and scope of the project caused the QA reviews 

to be performed by sub-consultants to the agency.

• Most who had a QA system, were satisfied with the system in place. 

A summary of the responses along with HDR’s representative and the individuals 

contacted at the DOTs follows.

Question 1 - Do you have a program for QA of GRDs? If yes, who is responsible?

Colorado DOT (per Jim Starick-HDR Irvine, CA)

• Mr. David Thomas, CPG, PE. Soils and Geotechnical Program Manager, Colorado 

DOT

Mr. Thomas indicated that CDOT uses a two-tier review process for all geotechnical 

deliverables. This involves first the review by a licensed PE, and finally the review by a 

licensed PE and Geologist (or just PE as necessary). There is no specific protocol for 

who does the QA review, only that they are uninvolved in the project. The Soils and 

Materials Program Manager has ultimate responsibility for all QA throughout the 

department, and personally reviews every document that goes out with a PE stamp on 

it.

Florida DOT (per Jerry DiMaggio, ARA) 

• Mr. Larry Jones State Geotechnical Engineer, Central Office Tallahassee

• Mr. Rodrigo Herrera, Assistant State Geotechnical Engineer, Central Office 

Tallahassee
D3 

FDOT does have a formal Quality Assurance program GRDs and has had one for some 

time. The responsibility for the program resides with the State Geotechnical Engineer in 

Central Office. Project level reviews are conducted by either the District Geotechnical 

staff or Central Office depending on the category of project or a specific project feature. 

Category 2 projects or features (e.g., Bridge) are conducted by Central Office.

The technical requirements for geotechnical features are addressed in depth with the 

FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook, FDOT Standard Specifications, and project 

scope requirements for specific project RFPs.

Some time ago Central Office and Districts developed a series of spreadsheets to 

conduct project reviews. These spreadsheets involve and are somewhat based on the 

FHWA checklists. There are common items to the District spreadsheets but local soil 

and rock conditions and project requirements may be focused, added or omitted based 

on regional specifics.

Maine DOT (per Aaron Zdinak - HDR Glen Allen, VA)

• Ms. Laura Krusinski, P.E. - Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Maine Department of 

Transportation (MaineDOT) Bridge Program

MaineDOT geotechnical relies heavily on the MaineDOT Bridge Design Guide (BDG), 

August 2003 with updates through 2014, which outlines appropriate QA/QC activities, 

checking guidelines and documentation. There is also a QA/QC checklist for PS&E 

documents and Preliminary Design Reports (PDRs) are subject to meetings with 

management and are ultimately approved by the Assistant Program Manager; part of 

the MaineDOT geotechnical requirements is that “checked” calculations are submitted 

with the geotechnical reporting document as an appendix.

MnDOT (per Steve Olson – HDR, Minneapolis, MN)

• Mr. Rich Lamb, PE – Foundation Design-Build Engineer, MnDOT

MnDOT does not have a program or particular person responsible for project QA. 

However, each specialty group independently performs their own QA. The Geotechnical

Group QA process seems to be very simple. There is an originator of the GRD and a 

separate person to review. The GRD is signed by the Foundation Engineer that may or 

may not be the reviewer of the original document.

North Carolina DOT (per Brian Keaney - HDR Raleigh, NC)

• Mr. John Pilipchuk, LG, PE, State Geotechnical Engineer for the NCDOT

• Mr. Scott Hidden, PE, Support Service Supervisor of the GEU

• Mr. Kevin Miller, LG, Geotechnical Investigations Supervisor of the GEU
D4 

NCDOT GEU does not have a formalized system for review of geotechnical 

deliverables. They added that there is no specific protocol for who does the QA reviews, 

but there is a review performed by the Project Geological Engineer and then through the 

Area Geological Engineer. In certain circumstances, the State Geotechnical Engineer 

reviews the bridge foundation engineering recommendations. All documents are 

reviewed by the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit (GEU), but just not in a 

formalized manner or documentation process. NCDOT has a rating system that is 

provided to the Consultant for each geotechnical deliverable. This rating system is 

currently undergoing changes.

South Carolina DOT (per Brian Keaney – HDR Raleigh, NC) 

• Mr. Nick Harman, PE Geotechnical Support Engineer for SCDOT

SCDOT does perform Quality Assurance reviews and they are performed to verify that 

the documents were produced or were adhered to, in accordance with SCOT’s 

Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM). The reports are read, questions may get asked, 

and comments are generated in a semi-standardized comment form that goes back to 

the Consultant.

The individual region’s program manager is responsible for performing the QA reviews, 

which are submitted to the individual region design manager. Depending on workload, 

the review results may go directly to the support geotechnical engineers in the Central 

office. Many of the reports go to the Geotechnical Support Engineers for review.

Utah DOT (per Nick LaFronz – HDR Phoenix, AZ) 

• Mr. Darin Sjoblom, PE

• Mr. Keith Brown, PE

The UDOT Geotech Section does QA review of all geotechnical consultant reports and 

provides comments/questions that have to be addressed. The reviewers assure that 

comments are addressed and, as part of the UDOT Structures Division QA process, the

Geotechnical Unit provides a signed form stating that all comments have been 

addressed.

VDOT (per Aaron Zdinak - HDR Glen Allen/Richmond, VA)

• Mr. J. Michael Hall, PE – VDOT Central Office, Structures and Bridge Geotechnical

VDOT does not necessarily have a formal program, but has a written policy that 

describes to in-house personnel and consultants what shall be included in GRDs. The 

policy is the Materials Division Manual of Instruction (MOI), specifically Chapter 3 

(Geotechnical) of the MOI. VDOT does not mandate that these documents take on a 

specific form; no report templates (other than for boring logs) are mandated. Mr. Hall 
D5 

indicated the MOI is managed by Mr. Benson in the CO Materials Division, but it is not 

his responsibility to “police” the districts and consultants to confirm the MOI is followed. 

Question 2 - Do they have someone who is responsible for project QA? If yes, 

who would that be? (Note: This is intended to differentiate between someone who 

performs QA of GRDs and someone who manages and is responsible for the 

project QA program, which would track the GRD QA.)

Colorado DOT

For larger projects, it may vary who is in control of the overall QA process. However, 

generally there is a Project Manager (PM) who is in charge of monitoring QA throughout 

all major disciplines including Geotechnical. 

Florida DOT

The upper management of FDOT is fully aware and acknowledges the Geotechnical QA 

process but input and management of the program is fully and completely managed and 

coordinated by the FDOT Geotechnical staff. There is no direct or indirect involvement 

from a centrally focused QA manager or program.

Maine DOT

Responsibility for documentation that QC and QA have been completed is generally 

described in Chapter 1 of the MaineDOT BDG, as summarized in the response to 

Item 1. For both DOT lead and consultant lead projects, the MaineDOT Bridge Design 

Guide indicates the QA personnel are expected to perform an appropriate level of check 

or review, namely an Independent Design Check (for geotechnical components, e.g., 

piles, spread footings, slopes) or a Design Review (for geotechnical reports). All 

geotechnical reports are checked and reviewed by experienced QA geotechnical 

engineers only. Management of the QA program for GRD’s is undifferentiated from, and 

integrated within, the performance of project QA.

North Carolina DOT

There is no one person responsible for Project QA, it is the specific regional offices that

perform the reviews of internal and consultant submitted documents.
D6 

South Carolina DOT

There is no one person responsible for Project QA. As mentioned in the response to 

No. 1, the reports pass through the Program Manager for the region for circulation and 

assure reviews are in compliance with the SCDOT GDM. 

Utah DOT

Each project is assigned to a geotechnical engineer to provide oversight, and the GRD 

QA responsibility is assigned to this geotechnical oversight engineer. The DOT has a 

Quality Engineering group that sets policy and audits QA procedures. Mr. Stewart is in 

charge of this group, but does not track the GRD QA.

VDOT

No. VDOT’s geotechnical duties are divided among District Materials, Central Office 

(CO) Materials, and CO Structure and Bridge personnel. Numerous persons within 

these groups are involved with preparing or reviewing GRDs. There is the assumption 

that every GRD is reviewed by someone, but it is not documented in a manner to 

confirm it occurs. With the different methods in which projects are delivered (P3, D-B, 

(PPTA)) and the trend to reduce internal staffing, it is possible that some GRDs are not 

reviewed. No person has been identified as the responsible party.

Question 3 - Do they have a QA Guidance Document (w Checklists?) and a 

tracking system? 

Colorado DOT

CDOT uses a proprietary in-house guidance document with some checklists. This is 

referred to as a “Manual of Practice” which is in draft form and is not publically available. 

Mr. Thomas indicated the checklists were not used as a pass-or-fail type review 

methodology, but only as an outline as to what should be looked for during a review 

process. Discussion from other questions indicated that this document was inspired by 

and borrows from the FHWA ED-88-053. A specific tracking system did not exist other 

than the two-tier protocol mentioned in Question 1.

Florida DOT

There is a guidance document as outlined above. Tracking of all comments and 

disposition/ resolution is performed through the FDOT Electronic Review System (ERS). 

In a separate email, Mr. Jones provided links (see below) which provide general 
D7 

information on this system and several other guidance references related to QA. 

Mr. Jones also agreed to provide an example project review spreadsheet.

It was also mentioned that although the Geotechnical Program Quality Assurance 

reviews (not performance aspects of geotechnical features), they are addressed in the 

formal QA process reviews conducted by the Construction and Structures Offices. 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/Manuals/SFH.pdf

http://www.fdot.gov/designsupport/ProjectReview/ERC/default.shtm

Maine DOT

MaineDOT does have a formal checklist for Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) 

submittals and a formal review and “sign-off” of Preliminary Design Reports (PDRs). 

They are general and intended to document if the project elements have adequately 

been addressed. The system in use within MaineDOT builds upon the requirement for 

thorough QC documentation, where the QA confirms that project elements have been 

appropriately addressed. QA checklists are lacking and would be a beneficial addition to 

the current system.

MnDOT

MnDOT does not have a QA Guidance Document and generally does not use a 

checklist. They have a MnDOT Geotechnical Engineering Manual, dated 2013, that 

contains process and procedures in field exploration, lab testing, reporting, etc. MnDOT 

does not have a formal QA tracking system.

North Carolina DOT

NCDOT GEU relies on the Project Manager to assure the proper process and 

procedures have been followed. NCDOT has relied on the FHWA ED-88-053 Checklist 

in the distant past but much less over time. This FHWA reference may be provided to 

newer employees as a guidance document in order to assist them to know what should 

be in a report.

Portions of this checklist are in the current NCDOT Geotechnical Guidelines & 

Procedures Manual for Subsurface Investigations which is dated from 2004.
D8 

South Carolina DOT

SCDOT does not rely on checklists. The guidance document is the GDM. The tracking 

system is the comment form that is generated by the reviewer and forwarded to the 

Geotechnical Design Sub-consultant.

Utah DOT

The QA is part of the UDOT Project Delivery System, and includes checklists. 

VDOT

The MOI likely qualifies as QA Guidance Document, but VDOT does not have a 

formalized QA program nor a method for tracking GRDs. The MOI is extensive, but it 

does not contain a checklist.

Question 4 - How does their QA system account for ACMs and ADMs?

Colorado DOT

The QA system used is the same regardless. Mr. Thomas expanded on this answer by 

mentioning that the geotechnical department is considered an ‘internal consultant’, and 

their review is on a document-by-document basis rather than a project-by-project basis.

Florida DOT

This would be a general or specific discussion depending on the response and practice 

of the agency. The QA system and approach and involvement by FDOT does not vary 

much by the by the type of project delivery method (D-B-B, D-B, CM/GC) or PPP 

projects. FDOT has considerable experience with D-B projects but no experience with 

CM/GC. FDOT has completed several P3 projects. Although the general approach may 

not significantly vary, the focus in terms of geotechnical feature performance may vary. 

For example, long-term deformations may not be as important for P3 projects as 

compared with D-B since performance long-term would be a responsibility of the P3 

team. This approach is reinforced by the strong emphasis which FDOT places on 

specific technical guidance in their respective technical references and guidance.

On some special projects such as the Port of Miami Tunnel FDOT required that the 

design team hire a QA reviewer with specific experience and knowledge in tunneling. In 

addition FDOT also hired an independent QA reviewer who worked directly for the 

department.
D9 

Maine DOT

MaineDOT is a D-B leader in New England with the first successful project completed in 

the mid-1990s. They have also completed one CM/GC project successfully and a 

second CM/GC project is in progress. Department reviews of D-B and CM/GC design 

plans and submittals consist mainly of checks to ensure that contract requirements and 

design criteria are being followed and that the D-B’s design quality management plan is 

being followed. Formal QC/QA documentation is included with all D-B submittals. 

Procedures for alternative delivery methods are mentioned in the Division 1-- - Design 

Build General Conditions. . Checklists, QC/QA documentation and Comment/Resolution 

Forms have proven to be effective for geotechnical QC and QA reviews for Alternative 

Contracting Mechanisms, as well as Alternative Delivery Methods.

MnDOT

All projects have some form of GRD, one of the types described in the first bullet above. 

MnDOT does not have a different process or procedure for specific contract or delivery 

methods.

North Carolina DOT

The QA system NCDOT has in place, is the same, regardless of the alternative 

contracting or delivery process.

South Carolina DOT

The QA review system is the same regardless if it is DBB or D-B process. SCDOT may

have had one 3P project in the past, and has no experiences with CM/GC. 

SCDOT geotechnical reporting documents consist of Data Reports which are added to 

D-B contracts or a Baseline Report which contains additional information than a data 

report and provides some indication of what to expect for bridge and roadway

foundations. 

Other reporting documents in D-B-B, include a Preliminary and Final Design Reports, 

and a Site-Specific Seismic Response Report. 

Utah DOT

It is really not different than on standard D-B-B projects, but sometimes on a large D-B 

project a geotechnical consultant performs the QC/QA and UDOT act in an oversight 

role.
D10

VDOT

N/A. Unaware of any specific guidance beyond what is included in the MOI.

Question 5 - If they have a system, how is performing? Is it being used? Is there 

something that would make it better?

Colorado DOT

Question and response are not indicated in Summary Memorandum.

Florida DOT

It is believed that the current system is performing well. The current system is being 

used on a routine basis. This qualitative assessment of its effectiveness has a very low 

occurrence of major and repeat issues occurring during construction or related to post 

construction performance.

In the few cases where repeat occurrences has occurred supplemental guidance has 

been added to the Soils and Foundations Handbook. The example of punching bearing 

capacity was mentioned and the Soils and Foundations Handbook currently includes a 

requirement for this limit state check and a recommended method of analysis.

Maine DOT

The current system is performing well, and was recently reviewed and improved upon. 

One specific element that has enhanced the current system is the requirement for 

review “hold points” during project development. Currently, there are two specific points 

where MaineDOT QA occurs, one at the final Geotechnical Report and one at the 

Preliminary Design Report. Fields have been added to the Preliminary Design Reports 

to document the need for additional borings and geotechnical analyses to ensure all 

AASHTO and FHWA requirements are satisfied in final design. More “hold points” would 

be expected to provide a greater level of control over the approach and process 

elements of a project where input may be most beneficial and useful – more 

collaborative and less strict review. Additionally, having checklists to capture the intent 

of the additional “hold points” would enable the creation of the “paper trail” for 

documentation of the process. Currently, this is an area for improvement in the process. 
D11

MnDOT

As per other responses, MnDOT does not have a formal QA system. No additional 

comments were provided.

North Carolina DOT

No response provided.

South Carolina DOT

SCDOT is satisfied with their current process, but sometimes there is so much volume 

of reporting documents. One thing that SCDOT wants to eliminate is consultants relying 

on the SCDOT to provide the QC of the geotechnical documents. If GRDs are not in 

accordance with the Manual then the Geotechnical Consultants will be contacted to 

discuss. 

Utah DOT

UDOT has a QA system, and it seems to be becoming more intense over time. The 

Structures Division QA system that we are part of is very rigorous.

VDOT

N/A. As mentioned previously, the formality of the system exists in the MOI. 

Documentation and compliance with specific QA requirements are not tracked in 

standardized manner.

Question 6 - Are they using the FHWA Pub ED-88-053 August 1988, Rev February 

2003 – Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and 

Preliminary Plans and Reports? Other documents?

Colorado DOT

As mentioned in the response in Question 3, above, CDOT used the FHWA reference in 

the development of their proprietary internal Manual of Practice. No other documents 

were noted. 
D12

Florida DOT

The FHWA checklists are used routinely as part of the spreadsheets mentioned above.

Maine DOT

Yes, MaineDOT is aware of the FHWA publication and the checklists contained there in.

However, the checklists tend to be too general for wide application on their projects and 

the desire is to have more flexibility. There is an inherent understanding of the value of 

project specific checklists, but the FHWA sheets are too general to be useful. Having a 

structured form to allow MaineDOT provide comments on particular project elements 

would be useful; more narrative for engineer explanation as opposed to checking a 

“Yes” or “No” box for a general project element. Checklists should include some method 

to document the QA review comments and how they were resolved.

MnDOT

MnDOT does not use FHWA Publication ED-88-053 guideline or the checklists. Their 

guideline is the MnDOT Geotechnical Engineering Manual. They do not typically use a 

documented checklist. However, a conscious effort is made to address site specific 

issues in each GRD, such as weak compressible soil, potential effects of shallow 

bedrock, etc. MnDOT commented on FHWA Circulars as beneficial reference manuals.

North Carolina DOT

The current FHWA PUB ED-88-053, Revised Feb 2003 is not being used. The NCDOT 

would be receptive to using this guidance document but with some of the features 

mentioned in the previous answer to No. 5.

South Carolina DOT

SCDOT does not use FHWA - ED-88-053, Revised Feb 2003. Much of what controls in 

their geotechnical design are the seismic aspects and the current checklist is silent on 

this information.

For some aspects of geotechnical reporting or design which are not in the manual, 

SCDOT refers to AASHTO Standards for guidance. 
D13

Utah DOT

UDOT does not use the publication; however, they have checklists that appear 

consistent with the publication in our MOI, but not as many and not as detailed.

VDOT

Yes. VDOT is aware of the document, but unaware that it had been revised. Don’t 

believe it is used by the Department for the purpose of QA. VDOT does reference 

documents in the MOI as guidance. These documents are generated by organizations 

such as FHWA, USACOE, and other State agencies. Hyperlinks to access these 

documents are provided with the MOI, and QA/QC requirements of these documents 

are intended to apply.

Question 7 – Other questions/comments based on discussion?

Colorado DOT

CDOT mentioned that it was beneficial and that they write their own recommendations 

and reports in addition to reviewing reports and design deliverables from outside 

consultants. It was also mentioned that as ‘internal consultants’ they were expected to 

bid competitively against other consultants, whose work they were also expected to 

review.

Florida DOT

No other questions or discussion points were addressed.

Maine DOT

Infrequent deficiencies in the quality of GRDs are noted but most of the time they occur 

when the in-place QA system is circumvented and not executed as intended. In general, 

having the requirement for calculations to be part of the GRD and having MaineDOT 

staff review the GRD for reasonableness with some quick calculation review seems to 

maintain an acceptable level of quality in the GRDs. MaineDOT is turning towards an 

emphasis of identifying high geotechnical sites (surficial geology maps, landslide hazard 

areas, historical soils reports, etc.) in order to alert designers to these elements before 

execution of a geotechnical study. Having a checklist of specific geotechnical hazards to 

be considered and including it with a preliminary design report would be beneficial in 

aiding designers to focus efforts on those high risk items. Functionally, because 
D14

MaineDOT’s geotechnical program is “fragmented” or decentralized (Highway-, 

Pavement Design, Bridge, Multimodal, Materials Testing and Exploration), getting a 

coordinated QA program is difficult.

MnDOT

The primary GRD is the Foundation Analysis and Design Report (FADR). FADR is very 

similar in style to formal reports typically submitted by consultants (i.e., report style with 

letterhead, etc.). Another document is Technical Memo (TM) also similar in style to 

consultant’s TM (i.e., memo format similar to this document). They also have single 

page Foundation and Other Recommendation document for pile foundation design that 

include specific recommendations for each structure (abutments, piers, etc.). For 

Design Build projects they have also provided Geotechnical Data Reports (GDR) which 

is a factual document without recommendations for use by the design team. The 

Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) is not currently utilized by MnDOT. Finally, the 

MnDOT Geology Group generates Contact Report pertaining to aggregate pit/rock 

quarry study and also report of geophysical survey results.

All GRDs have 4 main parts; project description, investigation/lab results, analysis, and 

recommendations.

An interesting comment was that GRDs are not often included in contract documents 

when designed in-house.

MnDOT Geotechnical takes pride in accurate location and elevation of borings, with 

Global Positioning, a check against contour files, and final survey check.

North Carolina DOT

The guidance document as a result of this study should be flexible since adherence to 

State standards are important; it needs to be able to provide a checklist as to why is the 

reporting document adequate (or inadequate), why were certain subsurface programs 

or designs implemented. The document should be in some form of a database.

South Carolina DOT

Mr. Harman noted that they would like to know “what should be in a good geotechnical 

report.” A guideline for focusing on the design team is important. It should explain the 

performance requirements so that the team can follow them in the design deliverable, 

including the geotechnical report documents. 
D15

Utah DOT

No response provided.

VDOT

The development and implementation of a QA program might be a good way to 

overcome some of the challenges of having reduced staff.

Supplemental question and response:

Do you routinely experience deficiencies in GRDs that you have reviewed either 

prepared by in-house or external consultants? If yes, how might that be improved upon?

Yes, deficiencies are noted. Having a formal and documented QA plan that is 

implemented would be effective in reducing the deficiencies commonly observed.