Prescan Environment: Featured in Water Challenge

An important point that emerged during the determination of the formats is the pre-scan phase and its duration. During this pre-scan phase, a wide range of topics is examined in general terms to determine the feasibility of a project at a specific location. At the same time, this is also a challenging phase because, for many topics, specialized nuances play a major role at that stage. For example: what about archaeology, cables and pipelines, natural values and ecology, soil, unexploded ordnance, and so on… And can we say with certainty whether or not further investigation is necessary for that specialized topic?

We have discussed with the agencies how we will attempt to quickly divide the assessment of all these topics into three categories, as shown in the table below.

Particularly within the programme , we also want to determine at that stage whether we are facing a “showstopper” that requires us to find an alternative location, or whether we can proceed with further planning at the site where we see an opportunity to strengthen the water system. This distinction also characterizes the difference from the programme , which focuses primarily on existing assets. In the Water Challenge, we work on improvements to the water system and, to that end, create new assets that increase the capacity or control capacity (maneuverability) of the water system. In this regard, there is greater flexibility than in the programme . Opportunities for improvement in the water system can, in principle, be found throughout our entire working area and are therefore not tied in advance to the location of an existing asset. This means that, particularly in that pre-scan phase, it must become clear—even without overly in-depth research—whether we can proceed at the proposed location.

We have recognized, together with the consulting firms, that—especially when there is uncertainty about the usefulness and necessity of further research—we, as the client and the contractor, can end up spending a considerable amount of time debating the matter. It is better to voice those doubts, sit down together, and clearly articulate what is needed to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with further research. Often, this will also involve determining who bears the risk for that decision. In such cases, we as the client must sometimes be willing to help the contractor by taking on that risk. After all, we are working with taxpayer money and want to use it responsibly. We must also be willing to discuss whether further research is truly necessary to avoid the risk of a project-stopping issue.

Jan Zijp and Maarten Poort