GI Subcontractors Siteworks Evaluation Checklist (non-contaminated sites)
Name of person completing feedback
*
First Name
Last Name
E-mail address
*
In case of queries
Project number
Project name
Total Project Design Cost (£)
Capital Value of Project (£)
Original project budget value of GI (£)
GI Tender price based on Spec. & BoQ (£)
Final total value of GI (including lab testing) (£)
Final lab testing value of GI (£)
TGP total time in hours from design of GI through to receipt of final factual report
Time (hrs)
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
S7/D7
Total overall time (hrs)
Was the subcontractor employed by the Principal Contractor?
*
Yes
No
Contract used
Tony Gee / Bespoke / ICE etc.
GI Contractor Company
*
Main GI Contractor contact for Works (Email, Phone Number)
Contact details for main GI Contractor
GI Contractor office/sub office
Country
Please Select
UK
Other
If other please specify:
Where can the GI Contractor operate?
Nationally
North East
North West
Midlands
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Laboratory/(Laboratories) used (if known)
Date of GI: from
/
Day
/
Month
Year
Date Picker Icon
to
/
Day
/
Month
Year
Date Picker Icon
Type of exploratory method used
*
Trial Pitting
Cable Percussion
Dynamic Sampling
Rotary Coring
Windowless/Window sampler
Cone Penetration Testing
Dynamic Probing
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Trial Pitting
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Cable Percussion
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Dynamic Sampling
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Rotary Coring
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Windowless/Window sampler
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Cone Penetration Testing
No. undertaken
Total length (m)
Average advancement rate (m/hour)
Dynamic Probing
Geophysics undertaken?
*
Yes
No
Total Standing time claimed (hours)
Laboratory testing undertaken?
*
Yes
No
Health and Safety
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was the required PPE worn? (Hi-Vis/Hard Hat/gloves/boots/eye/ear protection)
Did the operatives hold the required certification? (BDS/PTS/etc.)
Were the GI subcontractors welfare facilities adequate?
Was traffic safety/management adequate?
Was site security/fencing adequate?
Did the GI contractor provide or participate fully in the site safety briefing?
Did the GI Contractor provide the appropriate RAMS in advance of the works?
Score
Health and Safety score
Out of
Health and Safety Score
Any comments on Health and Safety
Housekeeping
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
At the time of tender or negotiation, was the GI Contractor prompt, positive and interactive in enabling the contract/deal to be closed?
Was the GI Contractors site supervision proactive in resolving delivery and additional cost issues?
Did the GI Contractor abide by the Specification?
Was the worksite tidy?
Were the BH locations reinstated to the best of the subcontractors ability?
Were the co-ordinates and levels of exploratory holes taken?
Was adequate permanent professional supervision specified and provided?
Were CV's provided for all supervising staff?
Did the GI contractor avoid damaging any crops/fences/buildings etc?
Score
Housekeeping score
Out of
Housekeeping Score
Any comments on Housekeeping
General intrusive investigations
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was a pre-investigation walkover undertaken with the subcontractor?
Were the exploratory hole locations CAT scanned and permit to dig issued?
Was access to the proposed location adequately considered/provided? (gates/access roads etc.)
If hand dug inspection pits were required, were they deep enough?
If gas monitoring was required during drilling, was this undertaken at the correct place on the rig?
If water was required on site, was this provided sufficiently?
If required, did the contractor have a licence to extract water from hydrants?
Were the rig operatives competent and experienced?
Score
General intrusive investigations score
Out of
General intrusive investigations Score
Any comments on general intrusive investigations, including any difficult access considerations
Back
Next
Cable Percussion
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Was the rig/cable/shackles etc in good condition?
Was the cable test certificate available on request?
Were the tripod leg cross bars in place?
Did the Contractor have sufficient casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? (typically 15-20m a day, depending on ground conditions). If not why not?
If water was required, was it provided?
Was a positive hydraulic head maintained?
Was backfilling with bontonite or grout correctly undertaken?
If a skip was required to dispose of arisings, was it provided?
Score
Cable Percussion score
Out of
Cable Percussion Score
Any comments on Cable Percussion
Rotary Coring
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Was the quality of core recovery acceptable?
Did the Contractor have sufficient drill rods and casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the correct type of flush used? (Air/Water/Mist/Polymer)
Was the correct core barrel used? (Single barrel -only hard rocks/Double barrel - General coring/Triple barrel - soft rocks)
Were cores being handled to minimise damage? (core boxes/waxing/etc.)
Were sub-samples of the core being taken at relevant intervals?
Was the minimum core diameter as per the specification?
Were core run markers being used in the core boxes? If not give reasons in comments.
Was the rate of progress acceptable (typically 10-15m a day, depending on ground conditions) if not why not?
Was backfilling with bentonite or grout correctly undertaken?
Score
Rotary Coring score
Out of
Rotary Coring Score
Any comments on Rotary Coring
Window/Windowless Sampling
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Did the contractor have sufficient rods and casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? If not why not?
Score
Window/Windowless Sampling score
Out of
Window/Windowless Sampling Score
Any comments on Window/Windowless Sampling
Dynamic Sampling
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Did the contractor have sufficient rods and casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? If not why not?
Score
Dynamic Sampling score
Out of
Dynamic Sampling Score
Any comments on Dynamic Sampling
Cone Penetration Testing
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Did the contractor have sufficient rods and casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? If not why not?
Were dissipation tests undertaken at the correct depths?
Score
Cone Penetration Testing score
Out of
Cone Penetration Testing Score
Any comments on Cone Penetration Testing
Dynamic Probing
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was there sufficient space for the rig to work safely?
Did the contractor have sufficient rods and casing to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? If not why not?
Score
Dynamic Probing Score
Out of
Dynamic Probing Score
Any comments on Dynamic Probing
Trial Pitting
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
If a digger was used, was there sufficient space for the machine to work safely?
Did the Contractor have sufficient equipment to achieve the depth specified?
Was the rate of progress acceptable? If not why not?
Score
Trial Pitting score
Out of
Trial Pitting Score
Any comments on Trial Pitting
Installations and on site measurements
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Were standpipes/piezometers installed as per the specification? (response zones etc.)
Were groundwater strikes adequately recorded? (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Score
Installations and on site measurements score
Out of
Installations and on site measurements Score
Any comments on installations and on site measurements
Sampling
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Were soil/rock samples taken as per the specification?
Were soil/rock samples clearly labelled and stored adequately?
Was the hole purged before water samples taken?
Were water samples clearly labelled and stored adequately?
Score
Sampling score
Out of
Sampling Score
Any comments on sampling
In-situ testing
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Were onsite tests undertaken as per the specification?
Score
In-situ testing score
Out of
In-situ testing Score
Any comments on in-situ testing
Programme
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Did the subcontractor complete the works to the programme? If not why not?
Score
Programme score
Out of
Programme Score
Any comments on programme
Daily Records
Were the draft records provided at the beginning of the next working day?
*
Yes
No
N/A
Did the records indicate the following:
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Exploratory hole number
Day and date
Equipment and technique used
Diameter and depth of casing
Depth at which water was added and volume
Depth of change of stratum
Description of stratum
Type of samples and depth over which they were taken and length of undisturbed core sub-samples recovered.
The method used and the number of blows for driving open-tube samples
Records of groundwater strikes (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Details of any installations
Water level readings in previously installed standpipes/piezometers
Details of any backfilling
Details of any times (o'clock) not spent advancing the BH (standing time/dayworks etc.)
Type of drilling fluid
Type of core barrel and bit used
Depth of start and finish of each core run
Core diameters and depths of change in core diameter
Depth and or extent of any loss of return of drilling fluid
TCR and percentage recovery with information as to possible location of any core loss for each core run
Score
Daily Records score
Out of
Daily Records Score
Did the records indicate the following:
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Exploratory hole number
Day and date
Equipment and technique used
Diameter and depth of casing
Depth at which water was added and volume
Depth of change of stratum
Description of stratum
Type of samples and depth over which they were taken and length of undisturbed core sub-samples recovered.
The method used and the number of blows for driving open-tube samples
Records of groundwater strikes (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Details of any installations
Water level readings in previously installed standpipes/piezometers
Details of any backfilling
Details of any times (o'clock) not spent advancing the BH (standing time/dayworks etc.)
Score
Daily Records score
Out of
Daily Records Score
Did the records indicate the following:
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Exploratory hole number
Day and date
Equipment and technique used
Depth of change of stratum
Description of stratum
Type of samples and depth over which they were taken and length of undisturbed core sub-samples recovered.
The method used and the number of blows for driving open-tube samples
Records of groundwater strikes (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Details of any installations
Water level readings in previously installed standpipes/piezometers
Details of any backfilling
Details of any times (o'clock) not spent advancing the BH (standing time/dayworks etc.)
Score
Daily Records score
Out of
Daily Records Score
Did the records indicate the following:
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Exploratory hole number
Day and date
Equipment and technique used
Depth at which water was added and volume
Depth of change of stratum
Description of stratum
Records of groundwater strikes (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Details of any installations
Water level readings in previously installed standpipes/piezometers
Details of any backfilling
Details of any times (o'clock) not spent advancing the BH (standing time/dayworks etc.)
Score
Daily Records score
Out of
Daily Records Score
Did the records indicate the following:
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Exploratory hole number
Day and date
Equipment and technique used
Depth of change of stratum
Description of stratum
Records of groundwater strikes (depth of hole and casing, readings at 5 min intervals over 20 minutes)
Details of any installations
Water level readings in previously installed standpipes/piezometers
Details of any backfilling
Details of any times (o'clock) not spent advancing the BH (standing time/dayworks etc.)
Score
Daily Records score
Out of
Daily Records Score
Any comments on Daily Records
Laboratory Testing
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Did the subcontractor complete the works to programme? If not why not?
Were all specified tests undertaken?
Did the laboratory provide rapid feedback on non-complient samples?
Was all testing UKAS accredited? If not, state the non-complient tests in the comments section.
Score
Laboratory Testing score
Out of
Laboratory Testing Score
Any comments on Laboratory Testing
Reporting
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was the factual report submitted in a timely manner?
Was the AGS data provided in a timely manner and error free?
Were the exploratory hole logs in accordance with BS 5930:2015?
Did the corebox photographs comply with the specification? (graduated scale/labels/depth range of drill run/etc.)
Was the SPT hammer calibration certificate included in the report?
Score
Reporting score
Out of
Reporting Score
Reporting
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was the factual report submitted in a timely manner?
Was the AGS data provided in a timely manner and error free?
Were the exploratory hole logs in accordance with BS 5930:2015?
Was the SPT hammer calibration certificate included in the report?
Score
Reporting score
Out of
Reporting Score
Reporting
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was the factual report submitted in a timely manner?
Was the AGS data provided in a timely manner and error free?
Were the exploratory hole logs in accordance with BS 5930:2015?
Score
Reporting score
Out of
Reporting Score
Reporting
*
No.
Yes.
N/A
Was the factual report submitted in a timely manner?
Was the AGS data provided in a timely manner and error free?
Score
Reporting score
Out of
Reporting Score
Any comments on Reporting
Total score
Total Out of
Total Score
Please provide general feedback on the subcontractors used
Submit
Should be Empty: