Article Business Practice

AGS data: improving the flow

- by

Mark Shaw of the Business Practise Working Group recently attended a meeting of the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) Technical Committee to further explore areas of common ground with respect to IT and e-Commerce.

Three main issues were discussed:

  • Online Bidding
  • Electronic Tendering Protocol
  • The use of AGS data format

Online Bidding

Both the AGS and FPS have now published position papers concerning the use of on-line bidding for the procurement of geotechnical contract.  Both organisations have expressed some reservations. The full position papers can be found on the AGS and FPS websites (www.fps.org.uk and www.ags.org.uk).

Electronic Tendering Protocol  

A survey of AGS members carried out in 2003 revealed that nearly 75% of those who responded had tendered for contracts based upon electronic information and of those 75% indicated that tendering based upon electronic information had not saved them any time. The main reasons highlighted for this were:

  • Poor Indexing (Can’t find the right information).
  • Too much irrelevant information (Information Overload)
  • Fixed formatting (Not able to manipulate the data provided)

In an attempt to address this situation, the FPS and AGS have prepared a joint protocol for the presentation of electronic data when provided for tendering purposes. The purpose of the protocol is to encourage good practice with respect to indexing, the provision of relevant information, and the use of open electronic formats when inviting tenders based upon electronic information.

The AGS and FPS are seeking to promote the protocol within standard specifications for geotechnical works such as the new specifications for Site Investigation and the specification embedded walls.  A copy of the protocol is provided below.  If you have any comments to make on the protocol or how and where it should be promoted please contact Dianne Jennings at ags@ags.org.uk.

AGS Data  

The AGS data format is long established as the preferred format for exchanging electronic geotechnical and geo-environmental data within the UK and increasingly in many other countries around the world. The advantages in rapidly sharing data in a universal format between different organisations are clear and yet there are still many organisations still not using the format. The “cry” from the site investigation contractors is that AGS data is not being demanded by their clients. The “cry” from end users, such as FPS members, is that the data is not available.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that most site investigation contractors are both willing and able to produce AGS data and equally many sub-contractors and sub-consultants are keen to use AGS data.  There seems to be some blockage in the chain preventing the data getting from source to user (see diagram).

The FPS and AGS have agreed jointly to attempt to clear this blockage, focusing in the first instance on the use of AGS data by piling contractors.

This problem is trying to be addressed from both ends:

  • The FPS has requested its members to routinely ask for AGS data when tender invitations are received without it. Although this may not always elicit data, the regular request should help build awareness that there is a need for the data.
  • The AGS is seeking to encourage site investigation contractors to promote the need for AGS data and to make it readily available. Simple actions make include :
  • Using the AGS data format logo on boreholes and reports to indicate that AGS data is available.
  • Making AGS data available on request either free, or for a very nominal charge (giving due consideration to their contractual obligations).
  • Being aware that when requested the AGS data is needed rapidly, typically within half a day from receipt of the request, for tendering piling contractors.

Quite understandably site investigation contractors may feel it inappropriate to provide the information to an organisation that is not their client.  This difficult issue is still being considered further by the Business Practice working group.  In the meantime, a questionnaire is being prepared to gather the thoughts and views from site investigation contractors and this will be distributed later in the year.

If you have any comments or thoughts on any of the issues raised please contact Dianne Jennings who will put you in contact with the relevant working Group member.

Article Data Management

A new perspective in geological mapping

- by

A new on-line service called CENTREMAPSlive® provides a means to buy custom extracts of geological mapping in a uniquely accessible
new format.

In the past geological mapping has either been available as a paper map or data for use in GIS systems. The former offers limited interaction
whilst the latter requires often complex software and a lot of effort to output a professional looking map; particularly where the user is looking for mapping on a site by site basis.

CENTREMAPSlive® uses a layered PDF format which can be quickly ordered and downloaded from the site.  A sample can be download from
the web site www.centremapslive.co.uk by going to the ‘geological mapping’ section.

On opening the document the user clicks the ‘Layers’ tab to reveal the option to turn on and off layers such as Bedrock, Superficial, Faults
and more all overlaid on the most up to date Ordnance Survey mapping. This intuitive design means the user can quickly choose to see as
much or as little information as required without having to buy several maps.

The data is supported by both a bedrock and a superficial geology legend which only lists rocks found in the supplied mapping.

In addition to the familiar BGS 1:50,000 geological mapping, BGS GeoSure is available offering a rating of land stability for 6 different factors comprising: Slope Instability; Shrink-Swell; Running Sand; Compressible; Collapsible and Soluble Rocks.

Andrew Terry, Manager
CENTREMAPS® / CENTREMAPSlive®

www.centremapslive.co.uk

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Testing times for soils

- by

The Environment Agency has issued a revised version of its MCERTS policy for the chemical testing of soils. The Agency established its Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) to ensure high standards of environmental monitoring, and in 2003 it extended the scheme to include soils testing. The Agency’s policy is that the MCERTS standard should apply to all chemical testing of soil where the results are submitted to the Agency for regulatory purposes.

This latest version of the policy clarifies the Agency’s position on in situ testing. The Agency believes that in situ testing has a valuable complementary role to play in improving the quality of site investigation and remediation as well as reducing costs. Appropriate on site testing can be used for improved targeting of conventional sampling, better spatial delineation of contaminated areas, and the development of conceptual site models.

The document has been published on the Land Contamination section of the Agency’s web site at:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/590825/?version=1&lang=_e

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Modernising Waste Regulation – Environment Agency Update

- by

Exemptions

Under new procedures “simple” exempt activities can now be registered by calling the National Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506506.   Trained advisors will provide basic advice and offer the option of registering by phone, email or using a two page form. An online web based system will also be introduced in the future. More complex exemptions, including all chargeable exemptions, will continue to be dealt with by local Area staff who have to undertake a site specific risk assessment.

Waste Licensing

“Fixed licences” are now available for the most popular waste activities (such as transfer stations and compost activities).   Working plans or site specific risk assessments are no longer required.  The application form is simpler and licences are slightly cheaper and quicker to obtain, particularly if planning permission is already in place. Applications should be made locally in the same way as previously.

Fixed licences will not be subject to change. Variations in operations may require a bespoke licence, as at present.

Environment Agency, April 2006

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

The problem of made ground

- by

The categorisation, analysis and reporting of ‘made ground’ is a recurring nightmare for the modern laboratory. Traditionally a by-product of land reclamation schemes, a container of the stuff can contain traces of anything from steel, concrete and brick to nappies and Coke cans – and that’s on a good day.

Ask anyone from the engineer taking samples at the coalface to the men in white coats analysing them, and you will find that there is no all-encompassing approach to deal with the ‘made ground’ conundrum. Nevertheless, with brownfield sites being universally hailed as the sustainable way forward, now, more than ever before, is the time to seriously evaluate the methods employed both on-site and in the laboratory and try to circumvent the insidious ‘no easy answer’ maxim.

Much of the confusion goes back to the introduction of the Environment Agency’s Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) for the chemical testing of soils. Any laboratory operating under this banner has to submit results that fulfil both the general requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and the specific method validation and performance requirements of MCERTS. The latter is problematic for laboratories dealing with made ground, inasmuch as it requires samples to conform to specific sample matrices in order for the results to become accredited. For relatively unadulterated soils, this has meant the creation of soil classification categories such as ‘loamy soil’, ‘sandy soil’ or ‘clay type soil’. It is worth noting that while some geotechnical engineers may see this as a tenuous oversimplification, it is widely regarded as the best available approach and has the full endorsement of the Environment Agency and UKAS – albeit based on economical drivers. Made ground’s inherent ambiguity throws a rather obtrusive spanner in the works when faced with these basic matrices and prompts all manner of interpretive stances and questions. Some good starters for ten: can you report made ground results as accredited? Is it possible to report them as ‘unaccredited’ to make it clear to the engineer that the sample does not fall into a clear defined matrix?

It isn’t just an issue of categorisation – the whole process, from preparation to final report, is divested of any consistency as laboratories adopt their own approach by asking questions such as do we dry the sample? Do we mill the sample to uniform particle size? Do we discard anything over 2mm? Do we ignore everything that is not soil? None of these methods will provide an inaccurate result per se, but each has the potential to give a misleading picture of the site.

If, in addition to that head-scratching list of questions, you consider the fact that the commercially driven nature of redevelopment schemes has turned laboratories into high-tech, scientific conveyor belts, the complexities of the problem becomes increasingly pronounced. It is a crossroads situation reliant on good judgement, experience and, above all, a decent sample. It is impossible to overstate the critical nature of the latter point: without a comprehensive sample, the laboratory cannot do its job. In other words, it cannot capture the essence of a site’s industrial legacy and act as a signpost to the appropriate action.

Though MCERTS has to a certain extent raised the standards in the laboratory, it missed an opportunity by not offering any guidance to the geotechnical engineer on the best available techniques (BAT) for sampling, storage and transportation; nor does it elaborate on the consequences of incorrect, inappropriate or inadequate sampling. The reason the EA has put the onus on the laboratories is understandable – to allow continuity of testing pre- and post-MCERTS – but the resultant confusion and knowledge deficit, particularly with regards to sampling, is less than satisfactory.

As throwing legislation at the problem is unlikely to be constructive, the best achievable course of action is to engender a milieu of interdisciplinary compatibility fuelled by open lines of communication, intellectual communality and the symbiotic sharing of knowledge. Geoscientists should learn how to adequately describe their sample, how to make the sample manageable for the laboratory and to understand the laboratory machinations of sample preparation, analysis and reporting. By the same token, chemists should acquire some field experience, learn about the conditions engineers face on-site and educate themselves on the processes that inform geotechnical sampling techniques.

If the question of how to produce consistently accurate results from made ground is reducible to a single answer, it can only be to ask more questions: what are the limitations of the selected analytical method? If there are limitations, do they matter in this case? On what basis is the data reported? Does it match the basis on which my acceptance criteria are calculated? Has the sample data been generated in ideal conditions using ideal standards which are unlikely to represent the conditions on my site? Add a soupçon of communication, wait for MCERTS to catch up and we’re well on our way.

Andrew Buck PhD, MSc, CSci, CChem, FRSC is the Technical Director of Envirolab (www.envlab.co.uk)

Article Contaminated Land

BS10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites, code of practice (2001) due for review

- by
Tags: contaminated

This review will be carried out by the BSi EH/4 Committee.  Following on from the official announcement, expected shortly, there will be a three month period in which to make comments on this British Standard.

Comments can be sent directly to BSi, following the announcement details.  Alternatively, comments can be sent to Peter Rodd (peter.rodd@jacobs.com), who will present them to the committee, by the end of August.

Peter Rodd
Jacobs GIBB Ltd

Article Loss Prevention

Semple Fraser adds Scottish dimension to Loss Prevention

- by

The Loss Prevention WG has been aware for some time that the alerts and advice issued to Members apply to English law only.

However this is set to change, with a new alliance with Semple Fraser, a leading commercial law firm in Scotland with a Construction Group that are willing to give a Scottish dimension to the AGS guidance.

Steven Francis (Eversheds), Chairman of the WG said, “We welcome this opportunity to improve our advice to Members and look forward to working with Semple Fraser to help our Scottish Members”.

AGS Members are invited to identify those areas – or existing AGS documents – which they think should be regarded as priority for Semple Fraser’s attention.

Article Business Practice Data Management

AGS guides the way

- by

AGS Client Guides are intended to help Members get their message about good practice across to clients and to reassure Clients that these are actually industry views – not just the aberration of a particular individual or company.

Building on the often quoted (but possibly unsubstantiated) view that clients will only read a single sheet, most of the Guides are a single A4 card – with straightforward layout and even some illustrations.   They are intended to be handed or sent to clients as part of pre contract negotiations, or accompanying tenders, or as part of routine mail shots.

Copies are available from the AGS on request (without charge) or can be downloaded from the website (see Publications).

Available Guides:

  •  CDM – Client Obligations in Site Investigation Contracts
  • A Client’s Guide to Site Investigation
  • Desk Studies
  • AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation Contracts (Issue 2)
  • AGS Data Format
Article Business Practice Data Management

Deadline looms as the ICE introduces the 3000 series

- by
Tags: ICE membership

Members with agreed training schemes need to get these rewritten by Autumn 2006 in order to accommodate the changes being made by the ICE implementing their new membership documents.

What has changed?

Progressive Route

A Progressive Route from Incorporated to Chartered has been introduced to facilitate earlier qualification.

Broader Membership

Geologists, ecologists, hydrogeologists, and those in many other disciplines will now have the opportunity to take advantage of membership of ICE.

All ICE members are eligible to apply for registration as Chartered Environmentalists (CEnv).

Increased emphasis

In addition to the changes identified above, the 3000 Series introduces increased emphasis on Health, Safety and Welfare, particularly in the context of holistic risk management. Similarly, ICE’s competence requirements for sustainable development have been revised.

For further information, go to: http://www.ice.org.uk/downloads//Series3000(1).doc 

Article Business Practice Data Management

What could training do for your company?

- by

Whether you want to improve your relationship with a client, find ways of reducing the cost of your Professional Indemnity, retain your present staff or even sharpen your company profile, training is a valuable and cost-effective resource.

Why is training of value?

The answer is, because “knowledge” brings opportunities to your company and rewards to your personnel.

Awareness: A trained person can take advantage of an opportunity they recognise, as and when it occurs. This is most clearly seen in drilling, logging, sampling, description and testing. The member of staff who senses that something “is not right” or “does not add up” or is “something you ought to know” can save you time, money and reputation: and not only you. To offer your clients a service that is staffed by “eyes” and “brains” presents them with a sensible way to cut costs as an alternative to rigid, inadequate, GI born of their unhappy experience. Here is a real way to improve effectiveness. Value for money arising from trust in good work can become the basis for commercial flexibility: a point of relevance to your insurer. The training now available provides employers with practical and authoritative guidance for their staff, who may have come into this industry from a variety of backgrounds – not all of them geotechnical.

Integration: Knowledge enables separate pieces of data to be combined, so that the activities which generate them lead towards a whole – in this case, the geological, geotechnical and geoenvironmental model of the ground. Staff who know how their data fits together form a team that enables these models to be created. Without them the data can remain as data and never inform those who need to know.

Reward: Many managers of today had their university fees paid and have been able to convert the knowledge they gained into a career that supports a comfortable standard of living. Many younger staff have been denied this and are being denied this. Training is therefore a real reward for staff who need it. It is worth more than cash to them because they, like you, can convert it into a standard of living. Even if they leave for a better paid job sometime after the training you have provided, is that a good reason for keeping them ignorant? Is your company the better for their ignorance? And would you be so concerned if someone trained by a competitor could be found?

Recruitment: Is this a time  you realise you are on your own? The employment agency is incompetent, your competitors are chiselling crooks, you cannot turn the work around and could lose that client? You could have avoided the worst of this by training the staff you have; how much easier life would be if they could cope with more than the tasks for which they were recruited. Perhaps there was neither the time nor the resources for you to do this – but if there had been, would you have taken advantage of it? Would you have trained your company so that it could cope with fluctuating work loads and times of staff shortage? Would you appreciate being able to recruit someone with a recognisable level of practical training, and immediately useable skills, and not just have to rely on “x-years experience” with someone else?

If the answer to any of these issues has been “yes” then training has something very real and positive to offer you.

But when could you take advantage of this?

Training is happening now

There was a time when most companies did train their staff; some still do but they are a minority. The culture has gone and Business Management theory is firmly to blame. Cutting training was an easy economy to make at the time.there was a pool of trained staff.”use those trained by others.besides it opens up mobility in the market place and tests their market value.” Well, where are the Business Managers now we are in trouble? The common sense culture of investment in training needs to be re-established

Training is now available across the entire range of competences within the industry – but it is early days. Information on this can be found on the home page of the AGS web site ( look under Training and see also the Members Day 2006 Report).

Training is dynamic and flexible.   The provision being created now and described in the Members Day Report of 2006, can respond to your needs, but first depends upon you appreciating that it is there and can be used to your benefit. As you read this there could be a member of your staff “picking it up as they go along” from someone who does not understand “it” either.a time bomb of false economy waiting to damage your company.

How has this happened?

For training to exist three requirements must be met:

  1. there has to be a provider,
  2. it has to be financially affordable, and
  3. there has to be some reward in return.

First Steps initiated training with its course on Soil and Rock Description for BS 5930 – provided by Emerson and Moore and popular since the day it started. From this start other courses have followed and a full list of these can be found on www.firststeps.uk.com: click on “Courses and Training”. These courses are hands-on practical training where at least 50% of the course time involves the trainee actually learning a practical skill. Readers will note that the Geotechnics Section at the BRE is now involved.

First Steps and BRE are now providers for our industry across the complete range of competences. The opportunity now exists for you to improve your company through training. If your company needs training that is not currently provided, or wishes to give a course not commonly given, then contact Christine Butenuth to arrange it. First Steps and BRE are not only providers of their own training but a vehicle for training provided by others; the AGS is providing one of its own courses through this training vehicle (The generation of Information from AGS formatted electronic data to be organised by Steve Walthall).  Costs have deliberately been set to remain affordable but this is an issue that could become a problem: training will only remain affordable if sufficient members come forward to be trained: the demand is there and the supply also – what needs to develop is the habit of training.

The rewards for training have to be both corporate and personal: corporate benefits have already been outlined. Personal benefits are essential and start with a certificate that is worth more than the paper on which it is printed. First Steps and BRE have asked the AGS and GF to approve courses of training and certificate them, so that those attending have a document that is “currency” recognised by other employers within geotechnics: in this the AGS certificate will differ from the usual CPD which can be allocated to almost any course regardless of its value. Progress with this is underway thanks to Jonathan Gammon in his capacity as Chairman of the Business Practice Working Group and Leonard Threadgold in his capacity as champion for Training.

Too good to be true?

It could be if too few members come forward for training. The present arrangements must be sustainable. In general it costs £250 to train one person per day (the cost of a few determinations of PI or a couple of metres of core) and the arrangements described need in the region of 300 people a year. Three people from one hundred companies a year. It sounds reasonable but only you can make it so.  Think of the benefits!

Michael de Freitas, Christine Butenuth, Hilary Skinner (First Steps)  

 

Article Data Management

AGS training takes First Steps

- by

The AGS welcomes the BRE and First Steps initiative and look forward to working with them to develop courses relevant and useful to Members.

The Data Format WG are the first to seize the opportunity and are already working with First Steps to develop a course on electronic data (non software specific) aimed particularly at new users.  The WG will provide the content and speakers and the first course will run in October.

Companies with a training need are invited to contact First Steps to discuss their requirements.

While the AGS is pleased about this development, and will co-operate to assist Members, the relationship with First Steps is not exclusive.  The Business Practice WG has taken on responsibility for training in general and will be happy to work with other training providers to cater for Members’ interests.

Article

Copyright Regulations Potential Loss Risk or a Hidden sources of Revenues

- by

Every document issued in the pursuit of producing site investigation information is in some way affected by:

Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 SI No. 2498

Many people are unaware of the important changes in the law brought about by the enactment of these regulations in October 2003. The key point of note with respect to site investigation work is the changes in the law regarding the copying of documents for research. This is a key factor in the production of desk studies.

There is useful a document available for download from the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) at:

http://www.cla.co.uk/support/business/guidance-for-businesses.pdf

It states in this document that:
“..under the old law, copying undertaken for research or for private study was an exception; provided that the copying could be classed as ‘fair dealing’..”

It goes on to say that:
“Under the new law, any copying for research or private study, which is carried out for a commercial purpose, will require prior permission from the copyright owner or a CLA license to permit certain copying.”

Conversely documents produced by business are now better protected and rights to further payments for multiple reproductions of reports are inherently supported more strongly by the change in the law.

There may be exceptions to the regulation where the documents being produced incorporate copies of other works are expressly for the use of a court of law or recognised arbitration body. However, individual circumstances should be checked as there may be case specific exceptions.

The CLA operates a free help line to answer queries about copyright and the need for licenses: 0800 085 6644

Loss Prevention Measures

1. Obtain a copyright license relevant to your business.

2. Where an item is not covered by the license obtain permission to copy from the author, or rights owner.

3. Study CLA guidance in this area.

4. Protect your own copy right, where appropriate.

5. When producing documents consider what reasonable charge you might make for its reproduction in advance of being asked.

6. If you chose to allow reproduction seek legal advice on the reliance others may place on it as a result of you granting permission for copying and distribution.

TC White
Marquis & Lord