Prescriptive Specification Design: The Impact on Cost and Constructability – Case History

"This paper outlines how specification driven design has made Toronto Area transit infrastructure projects more expensive than similar private projects, and provides a case study of the results of an excavation at Launch Shaft 1 (LS1) for the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project in Toronto, Ontario. The paper will describe the impact specification driven design parameters can have on design economy, constructability, and schedule and will suggest an alternative approach utilizing the Observational Method. As a result of the initial specification based design, Isherwood was retained by both the General Contractor and the Specialty Excavation Shoring Contractor to provide value engineering leveraging the Observational Method to improve constructability and construction schedule. By using well known, accepted design methods coupled with local experience in lieu of the specified design pressures and parameters, the redesigned bracing scheme reduced construction cost and schedule. This excavation case history can be a lesson learned for future transit projects.The City of Toronto has been developing its transportation network since the mid 1800’s. “Canada’s First Subway” along Yonge Street opened in March 1954 (TTC 1954), with a few additions to the subway network through to the 1980’s. The following two decades marked a long period of slow development due to recessions, budget cuts, and politics along with several cancelled projects. To fill the gap left by years of underfunding, several new transit projects are now under construction in the city as a part of Metrolinx’s $50B, 25 year, “The Big Move” initiative (Metrolinx 2013). The work on these types of infrastructure projects is highlighting a different and developing challenge within the tendering and design specification structure we will call Prescriptive Specification Design (PSD).PSD is a method used within contract specifications to control design risk on a project by applying conservative design methods, factors of safety, or other parameters to make a “fool proof” design. It is akin to requesting a colouring by numbers approach from a painter. There are inherent risks of using this method of tendering a project including increased project costs, longer construction schedules, and decrease of overall project economy. In PSD, the Owner “owns” all of the design risk on a project, including any additional costs due to changed site conditions. However, the Contractor commonly “owns” the risk of any deviations from the design specification they pursue, therefore making any improvements to the design, cost, or schedule less desirable from the Contractor’s point of view. The impact of this type of strict specified approach to design has been seen in transit infrastructure projects in the Toronto area. Figure 1 outlines the range of specified AEPD design pressures as a function of excavation height (H) specified for use in Toronto underground transit projects since the 1970’s to present day. A clear trend can be seen with respect to increased design pressures specified. The ranges shown for each project are intended to account for the potential differences in soil conditions for the highly overconsolidated glaciated soils in the Toronto area. The graph also highlights the typical range, in blue, for the industry practice in Toronto for comparison."