oncluding Remarks by the Session Chairman

ERDC TN-DOER-T4

December 2001

removed extra material, the contractor owed the owner the cost of containing the excess material

on site. If that was, in fact, the owner's cost for containment, then that is the way it should have

been handled. The incentive side of it was that the owner also specified in the contract a tolerance

of about a foot. And if the dredging contractor left any material within that tolerance (i.e., the

achieved grade that he left material in) then the owner paid the dredging contractor $15 per cubic

yard for every cubic yard that was left in that 1-ft [0.3-m] tolerance. So those are financial-based

penalty incentives that will help one achieve the level of performance that an owner is trying to

achieve with this type of contract.

Session Moderator: That kind of project illustrates real out-of-box thinking of what can be done

with incentives in contracts. So, we know that we can incorporate incentives in our contracts. We

also know that we can incorporate liquidated damages as well. We have identified some excellent

experiences (lessons learned) with this type of contracting.

Concluding Remarks by the Session Chairman: Co-chairs Phillip Spadaro and Norman Franc-

ingues expressed their deep appreciation to all for attending the session. Mr. Francingues thanked

the speakers and the audience for their enthusiastic participation in the session. He also thanked

the sponsors, WEDA, PIANC, and the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program

for agreeing to organize and present this special session at the 21st Meeting of WEDA.

Mr. Francingues recognized the excellent afternoon of presentations by speakers who obviously

knew their business and the topic of environmental dredging. Much of the discussion was about

what environmental dredging was and was not and what it should or should not be. There were

varying perspectives on what should be done in the future to get better at this topic of cleanup

dredging. He concluded with the following personal observations about the session.

"Environmental dredging can be defined as dredging that is done to reduce the overall

environmental risks posed by contaminated sediments. It consists of a number of

components or parts beginning with a crucial initial characterization of the sediment and

concluding with the ultimate disposition of the dredged material. Each of the parts in the

process is important and each has a cost and a risk assigned to it. The overall goal of an

environmental dredging project should be minimization of both costs and risks.

"The dredging industry obviously has demonstrated a significant capability to assist both

the regulator and regulated to achieve high standards of environmental cleanup with

dredging technologies. Significant advances have been made in both the precision and

accuracy of dredges to the point of being almost as advanced as our ability to characterize

and scope the environmental cleanup targets or end points. However, there is the

recognition of the need to use highly skilled and properly trained operators if we are to

implement environmental dredging technologies to achieve the project goals. This

requirement should become part of the contract specifications bid package. In addition,

we have learned about the advantages and disadvantages of incentive contracting to

reduce the amount of material being dredged and disposed in confined disposal sites, but

more innovation is needed in contracting for environmental dredging projects.