<p><p><h2>Summary of Example Specifications</h2><div class="grayed-title subsection"><strong>Specification Name/Number:</strong> DGI-Menard Vacuum Consolidation Method Statement and Specs</div><strong>Reference(s):<br></strong><em>DGI-Menard</em></p><p>This document is not a traditional specification. DGI Menard is a ground improvement contractor and the document serves more as a description of the technology and the techniques used by the company. The document alludes to certain geotechnical instrumentation that can be installed to monitor the site during consolidation, but provides no performance based acceptance criteria. This specification is clear and well organized. The risk appears to be fairly shared between the contractor and the owner. The document indicates that DGI Menard will install a number of performance based instruments for the owner’s engineer (inclinometers, piezometers, settlement plates, etc.).</p><p>This document refers to in-house engineering design and does not mention construction equipment. The document makes reference to geotechnical instrumentation that can be installed for the owner’s engineer, allowing flexibility for the engineer to define acceptance criteria. The document is lacking in its description of construction methods and procedures. The document lacks critical sections because it is not a true specification, but contains some useful information about the technology.<br><div class="grayed-title subsection"><strong>Specification Name/Number:</strong> Chinese Specification</div><strong>Reference(s):<br></strong><em>People’s Republic of China</em></p><p>This specification is very brief and is written in bulleted form. The specification was originally written in Chinese and was translated to English. It has some grammatical errors and confusing wording. This is a very basic method specification that focuses on geometric and material standards and construction procedures. The specification alludes to several performance based QC/QA verifications (e.g., settlement measurements, in situ and laboratory testing), but they are not described in detail. The specification is organized in a logical manner, but lacks certain sections. The risk appears to be fairly shared or shifted slightly toward the owner because of the lack of clear QC/QA procedures and acceptance criteria.<br>The specification provides very clear and modest geometric, material, and construction equipment requirements that the contractor must achieve during the installation. The method requirements outlined in this specification are not excessive. The specification does not require elaborate or complicated construction procedures. The specification does a good job of describing geometric, material, and equipment requirements (e.g., drainage layer, membrane thickness, pump suction values); however, the specification does not clearly describe the consequences of failing to meet these requirements. The specification also lacks a full description of the preferred installation method and grounds for rejection.<br>This is a very brief specification and it lacks critical sections. Most importantly, the specification does not provide a thorough description of the installation procedure and acceptance criteria.</p></p>