- Email: [email protected]
IMS risk evaluation system for financing and insuring tunnel projects
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19 (2004) 334
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust
WTC 2004
IMS risk evaluation system for financing and insuring tunnel projects I. McFeat-Smith a
a,*
, K.W. Harman
b
IMS Tunnel Consultancy Ltd., Hong Kong b Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd., Hong Kong
Tunnelling works have become progressively more risky, due to their increasing scale and sophistication as well as the variability of the geological conditions in which they are being constructed. This, coupled with risk avoidance by many clients in Asia for example, is leading to a high frequency of disputes and litigation over contract and insurances claims. As a result new initiatives are expected soon from insurers that will impact upon clients, designers and contractors requiring a higher standard of risk management and the implementation of a new code of practice for such works. (Anon, 2003) Whilst the new code is an important first step it does not go far enough in the experience of the writer in helping the tunnelling industry identify, quantify and manage major inherent risks in tunnelling works today. A series of case histories of completed tunnel projects covering the widest range of tunnelling methods, ground conditions and risks types has been used as a basis for identifying the nature of the risks commonly encountered in major tunnel projects. This research was presented in previous work by the writers together with a quality risk assessment system recommended for use in conjunction with the IMS risk evaluation system. The IMS system (see Table 1 below) has been developed from the writersÕ experiences and a data bank of over 50 major projects largely undertaken in Asia covering all aspects of tunnelling activities and related risks. The scoring system has been tried and tested by evaluation of all 17 case histories. This check has demonstrated that the system works well in terms of providing a simple assessment of the project risk level, risk categories and risk types. This approach guides the user towards identification and evaluation of real engineering risks to be mitigated when conducting risk assessments for projects. A reporting format is included to provide separate sections for financing and insuring purposes. Keywords: Tunnelling; Risks; IMS; Risk-assessment; Insurance
Table 1 Risk categories and risk types evaluated in IMS system Terrain, constraints Ground investigation, ground conditions Water issues Design and specification Complexity of works Tunnelling methodology Precedence & experience Management Contract Commercial, Commercial A Programme, Programme A
*
Type, man-made Extent, ground characterisation and variability of conditions Predictability, achievability of specifications and likely impact Robustness of design and specifications and their implementation Ease of access, layout and complexity of working faces Ground control, support, excavation, sophistication and applicability Of type and scale of works Management systems (including sub-contractor) and site culture Quality of contract documents, risk sharing and partnering Relative value of contract to available funds and previous works, percentage risk relative to contract value from risk assessment system Quality – level of detail/mode of preparation and contribution, percentage risk relative to overall programme from risk assessment
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2552-9219; fax: +852-2552-1387. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. McFeat-Smith).
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2004.01.030
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19 (2004) 334
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust
WTC 2004
IMS risk evaluation system for financing and insuring tunnel projects I. McFeat-Smith a
a,*
, K.W. Harman
b
IMS Tunnel Consultancy Ltd., Hong Kong b Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd., Hong Kong
Tunnelling works have become progressively more risky, due to their increasing scale and sophistication as well as the variability of the geological conditions in which they are being constructed. This, coupled with risk avoidance by many clients in Asia for example, is leading to a high frequency of disputes and litigation over contract and insurances claims. As a result new initiatives are expected soon from insurers that will impact upon clients, designers and contractors requiring a higher standard of risk management and the implementation of a new code of practice for such works. (Anon, 2003) Whilst the new code is an important first step it does not go far enough in the experience of the writer in helping the tunnelling industry identify, quantify and manage major inherent risks in tunnelling works today. A series of case histories of completed tunnel projects covering the widest range of tunnelling methods, ground conditions and risks types has been used as a basis for identifying the nature of the risks commonly encountered in major tunnel projects. This research was presented in previous work by the writers together with a quality risk assessment system recommended for use in conjunction with the IMS risk evaluation system. The IMS system (see Table 1 below) has been developed from the writersÕ experiences and a data bank of over 50 major projects largely undertaken in Asia covering all aspects of tunnelling activities and related risks. The scoring system has been tried and tested by evaluation of all 17 case histories. This check has demonstrated that the system works well in terms of providing a simple assessment of the project risk level, risk categories and risk types. This approach guides the user towards identification and evaluation of real engineering risks to be mitigated when conducting risk assessments for projects. A reporting format is included to provide separate sections for financing and insuring purposes. Keywords: Tunnelling; Risks; IMS; Risk-assessment; Insurance
Table 1 Risk categories and risk types evaluated in IMS system Terrain, constraints Ground investigation, ground conditions Water issues Design and specification Complexity of works Tunnelling methodology Precedence & experience Management Contract Commercial, Commercial A Programme, Programme A
*
Type, man-made Extent, ground characterisation and variability of conditions Predictability, achievability of specifications and likely impact Robustness of design and specifications and their implementation Ease of access, layout and complexity of working faces Ground control, support, excavation, sophistication and applicability Of type and scale of works Management systems (including sub-contractor) and site culture Quality of contract documents, risk sharing and partnering Relative value of contract to available funds and previous works, percentage risk relative to contract value from risk assessment system Quality – level of detail/mode of preparation and contribution, percentage risk relative to overall programme from risk assessment
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2552-9219; fax: +852-2552-1387. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. McFeat-Smith).
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2004.01.030