Ambiguous Scope of Work (SoW)
Ambiguous Scope of Work (SoW)
This post delves into the lessons learned from a floodwall project where the scope ambiguity led to a cascade of challenges, impacting customer satisfaction, design schedule and budget. The project is further complicated because of the floodwall's existing subsurface foundation encroaching onto city property.
The lessons learned from this post are the consequences of a project that didn’t go as planned for what appeared to be a simple project—designing a floodwall. The project was to demolish part of an existing rod iron fence that joined with an existing brick wall and gate entrance that also interfaced and abutted next to city property. The following part of the deliverable was to design a flood wall, in length that was around two blocks long and just under 10 feet high, that included using the existing gate entrance and replacing it in the “exact” location of the existing wall. The rod iron fence was to be demolished since it didn’t offer any protection against flooding. The project design schedule was for around eight months and consisted of a 35%, 65%, 95%, final submittal.
At the beginning of the project, I should have known better than to continue with the design of the floodwall without getting more clarification of what the scope of work was. I continued though, partially, because we had had several coordination meetings with the customer (e.g., kickoff meeting to review the scope) and I was slightly embarrassed, as the PM, that I wasn't entirely confident in what the project deliverables were at this point. During the site visit, we noticed that there was a tremendous amount of utility infrastructure on both sides of the customer’s property and the city’s property. Later in the project, I was told by our civil design engineer that we needed to consider doing a ground penetrating radar (GPR) investigation because the site survey, which included a subsurface utility engineering (SUE) investigation, revealed a 16” watermain near where the floodwall’s foundation was to be designed/constructed. Eventually, we subcontracted a watermain GPR investigation to better identify the location of the watermain. Unfortunately, the GPR investigation was inconclusive because a bed of backfill over the watermain interfered with the readings; however, an electronic depth measurement device supplanted the GPR device and was successful, albeit the accuracy and reliability results are limited and are factors to consider. The project continued and eventually it came time to submit the 35% design deliverable, which overall was good. Shortly after the 35% design review meeting the customer informed us that the wall needed to be moved so that none of the wall, including the subsurface foundation,
would encroach onto city property. This requirement is a change since we were told to design the wall in the “exact” location of the existing rod iron fence. Nonetheless, there was still the concurrent issue of the proximity of the city watermain to the wall. I suppose I was resting on my laurels not subcontracting the GPR investigation sooner and instead relying on the city’s GIS data to provide a better understanding of the location of the watermain; the concern was the footer being in the “zone of influence” of the watermain. A footing analysis was conducted to determine where the pressure would be exerted on the watermain at its highest. We are currently awaiting the response for an RFI to the city inquiring about the capacity and material of this watermain. Given the age of the watermain and its corresponding records, it is probable that the response will not provide much, if any, information. Meanwhile, the customer has stated that they want us to avoid "potholing" or even “soft digging”, to determine the location, condition, and material of the watermain to ascertain if the current foundation design is acceptable. There is another ongoing issue if we do proceed with the potholing investigation because there is a water table that sits around the elevation of the watermain, which would then further delay the project. After all, it would trigger environmental regulation requirements.
Conclusion
The lesson learned is to fully understand the project’s deliverables even if you have to admit to others that you're unsure and maybe, in the process, not meeting expectations. Pay now or pay later, but you got to pay at some point. Don’t rely on an ambiguous scope of work that can be interpreted differently. Conduct as many meetings as needed until you are confident in having a thorough understanding of the project's deliverables. Be proactive on potential project issues. I should have worked the GPR investigation much sooner since the schedule has been delayed. Also, if there is a project that is being designed next to another adjacent property that may require easements—coordinate closely with all stakeholders. As far as the outcome of the project is concerned, that is yet to be determined.
