Geo questions for HQ – Solar Wall RFI’s – Concrete issues on reservist centre – Country and Western Radio sucks.
Took some leave while the kids were here and took the opportunity to visit Washington DC and Baltimore to see the museums and monuments etc. Apparently we’re still just as embarrassing to the kids as ever. Lukas is now home safe and we pack Adi off tomorrow so that naked house can resume.
HQ PROJECT
The design has been out with the contractors for a while and bids have been received. They are to be assessed on value engineering criteria as well as price but there has been a large number of RFI’s submitted that need to be answered. The majority are to do with geotechnical issues and uncertainties with the piling requirements. We have a group called Geotech within USACE who did the original design and a lot of the cross-issues that related to contractual issues have been ironed out. The next step will be to consolidate the RFI’s and distribute and release ammendments to specifications and drawings to ensure that the contractors have an opportunity to revise their submissions before the final award is released.
Key issue at the minute is that the original specification stated ‘no blasting’ for the foundations etc but on a subsequent issue the wrong document specification was adjusted and released. This had 5 pages of specs on how blasting will take place. The facility big wigs are not willing to allow blasting to take place as we are near to a live airfield and family housing and the use of the work ‘explosives’ seem to make them jumpy. We have arranged a meeting for next monday to try and convince them that we can actually blast without knocking aeroplanes out of the sky or killing small children. The main reason for this is that the project is likely to suffer to the tune of $2M if we now deny the contractors this method of removing rock.
ASHLEY RESERVIST CENTRE
More developments with insufficient quality control with concrete pours on behalf of the contractor. USACE now needs to work out if they make the contractor rip out existing sections and re-pour and how the contractor can begin to rectify their actions. Am considering offering my services to look back though the records and come up with proposals for how we proceed with minimal impact to the project. (request advice from PEW staff as to whether this is a browny point scoring opportunity for review.)
There are also issues with the proposed method of nailing ceiling boards to corrugated steel sheets…..apparently nails don’t go through corrugated steel too well. I immediately started to try and come up with various suggestions on how we could overcome this, but this is a big no no. USACE avoids at all cost telling the contractor how he should do something because if this subsequently turns out to be a problem, they have no comeback, whereas if the contractor submits a proposal and USACE agrees to HIS proposal, the contractor still carries the risk. I am now potentially in a bizarre situation where I can suggest ideas to the contractor, who would then have to suggest them back to me, so that I might approve them……I’m sure there’s a catch somewhere in there!
SOLARWALL PROJECT
I have also been getting my head around the Solar Wall project on building 2001 here on the base. We had some RFI’s for structural as built drawings for the racking systems inside the warehouse (as they support the roof) and also for wall construction details so that the structural engineers can demonstrate that the existing walls can support the solarwall product. This was initially passed to the Client (Defence Logistics Agency) as they actually hold all drawings pertaining to the facility. The structural engineers are not content that they have sufficient information from the older sections of the building and want to work from ‘assumptions’. The Client is not willing to spend more time looking through their historical records (as they have spent many hours already and are busy). The structural engineers are unwilling to send someone in person to look for additional drawings as they are in Texas and the Client is now understandably peeved.
I have been discussing other hierarchy issues and have been trying to understand where various responsibilities lie and where different bucks stop. In the end I still get the ‘shared responsibility’ line and have decided that I will push all matters but in consultation with the others before addressing the contractors direct. Ultimately I wouldn’t be willing to allow the design to be ‘proven’ with such vague assumptions and will insist on some additional action on behalf of the structural engineer (SE). In the spirit of mutual cooperation I will arrange for myself and another project engineer to try and tackle the drawings issue provided the SE sends a local representative to assist. I will also investigate the feasibility of removing existing wall sections to see how they were built. If this turns out to be a 10 man and a crane type of job then it’s probably too much effort. If it’s 2 men and a screwdriver then the SE can get his rep down here pronto….especially seeing as the total value of this is $3.8M and it would be unwise to allow him to carry such risk. I have held a separate meeting with the client to get him to confirm that he will be willing to assist in any reasonable way with the removal of existing wall panels. This meeting also revealed that the Client has undertaken a similar project previously but without the assistance of USACE as the dollar value was below the threshold. This means we now must extract as much history and lessons learned as possible. If this were a civilian client this would not be a problem because it’s in their best interests from a financial point of view, but for a government agency as a Client, this is less of a concern because the money is not theirs and for them it is good to be able to offload the responsibility to a third party.
Other developments include refining of the submission requirements and that some initial submittal requirements can be deleted all together. These are things such as environmental assessments and historical building impacts. The whole project is aimed at improving energy efficiency and by definition it is a inappropriate to try and justify or score points in a discrete manner. The whole thing is a big tick in the box so no further work is required. Historically the building is deemed by the client to have no significance and therefore no heritage is affected. My next step will be to press the contractor for a revised schedule and to highlight key areas that need lead times and also to tie in the schedule with his submittal requirements.
IN CAR COMMUTING ACTIVITIES
Tried to see if the telephone messaging option for blogging would allow me to save time and make better use of the daily commute….it is not recommended. I will stick to e-mail to update blogging.
My dead animal road kill observational skills are improving. I can now readily identify rabbits, foxes, skunks and possums. I am unsure about a particularly chubby looking thing that might be a Marmot of some sort. Will have to wait until another one dies as they don’t age well in the highway.
Mr Country and Western singer man is starting to get to me now. Today he sang about how he can leave his door unlocked and how cool it is to drive a pickup truck (and actually have a use for it – unlike the city folk). Yesterday he was unhappy because because his wife left him (assuming it’s his wife – he referred to her as ‘my girl’) but at least his faithful dog is still with him. A while back he was actually happy because he got some sort of new tractor but I assume ‘his girl’ has left with the tractor as he was particularly miserable about the whole affair. I normally get through about half a song before I have to turn it off – I am afraid I may build up a tolerance to country music….and that’s not cool.
AND IN OTHER NEWS
I am now the proud owner of a Maryland driver’s licence having gone through the indignity of having to take my test again. It took all I had to mask the bad habits picked up over the years. The worst bit was trying to pretend I knew where the wind-screen wiper controls were in the wife’s car when it started raining during the test. The examiner probably wondered why I kept switching the over-drive on and off, but hey, it’s not a fail criteria. The whole thing did almost came to an unceremonious end when prior to the test I presented the clerk with my 3-hour drug and alcohol awareness certificate (framed) and she realised the contempt I hold for the whole system. She’s clearly very proud of their bureaucracy.
Until next time.
McFry
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Matt,
Busy stuff! Just getting over the horrendous images conjoured up by ‘naked house’ and now ready to comment…
Ashley Reservist Centre – normally I woud leap in and say that the concrete issue is excellent TMR territory; the caveat that you need to over come first is that in this instance I underatand that you are the client and therfore stand to gain nothing from accepting anything other than specification. To do so means you take on long term risks in event of early life failure but probably cannot show a balancing gain in terms that are auditable at a later date i.e. you have no cash register through which the contractor can make payment for the transfer of risk and any quid pro quo won’t show up at a later enquiry into what went on. USACE could be blamed if a non spec item fails before the end of its design life so unless there is a good reason why you want to help out the contractor and doing so does not risk compromising your position you’re not going to win friends in your camp by doing so.
If you can overcome the issues above such that it is seen as advantageous to investigate QA options (it may be that you can show investment into the project to catch up programme or cover spec changes as a return for the effort involved in agreeing some risk transfer) this is a great TMR – let me know and I’ll go on some more…
The roof nailing risk transfer scenario is normal. Be aware you are ‘discussing theoretical scenarios’ with the contractor not making suggestions – professionaly suggestions would be your design and your liability under UK law regardless of contract! This does raise interesting questions about the contract and design responsibility which if you haven’t really drilled down into yet you should. It would probably also make a reasonable TMR – talk to Gregg.
Solar Wall Project – Working from assumtions os fine as long as they feature on the risk register and come with a series options and points at which the reality will be known. Standard IPB stuff really. Fine example of the designers risk assessment elimination vs mitigation and transferred risk. This is a good oportunity to consider what the big levers are, how much play each one might have and what that might mean in terms of effect/risk.
The ‘shared responsibility’ line is an excellent oportunity to ask what the split is on pain/gain and how it is assessed, how float time is allocated and when costs become claimable. Dig into those contract terms and mechanisms! This is where having complete confidence in your basic technical knowledge (contracts in this instance) means you can be a much more effective PM. ask incisive questions and be ready for any of the various responses you might get. The more you mention this reigning in of your desire to co-operate for productivity the more it looks like a TMR that investigates the contract tender, award and mangement on USACE projcts has legs. One test of its utility is ‘if this was raised at CPR would it show good professional attributes to be able to explain clearly and concisely and discuss confidently in comparision to other arrangements?’. I’d give it a thumbs up.
I did once read a good technical paper on specimen preservation by rapid compression and solar dehydration that considered the effects of using a rubber roller about 12″ wide and 3′ in diameter inducing about 8 tons force to rapidly compress a specimen on a well drained planar macadamised surface and then driying it in situe. Hedgehogs were the subject (it was a UK based piece of writing), and the observation was that they can last for several weeks on the roadside after the truck has passed which is much longer than those that are not similarly compressed and dried! Potential TMR – I doubt it…
P.S. Have momentarily contemplated the concept of ‘naked office’ and returned to drinking strong coffee instead
Thanks you two, I now have disturbed visions of both a naked house and a naked office! This is not the blog interaction I was expecting!
Matt, I’ve just attended a CIBSE/ASHRAE conference where the USACE approach to Zero Carbon was presented by a speaker from the DoD. He showed the solar wall system (transpired solar collector to the E&M fraternity because it sounds more complicated) you describe as part of the overall USACE strategy to take a large proportion of the estate off grid and become less fossil fuel reliant, the targets are quite demanding and driven by Government and security concerns, the driver that Rich describes, do you have any oversight of how well this is performing as a whole?.
I you are thinking of doing a TMR on this or any of the other sustainable initiatives let me know and I’ll have a geek fest.
Mark
Mark – I was quite sceptical at first about the actual savings compared to installation costs on the solar walls (and even more dubious when nobody here could tell me anything!) The SME’s are based in a different office and I liaise with them almost daily and also the Client has done these projects before. They do a comprehensive ‘as is’ energy survey before installation and then continue to monitor with live results being published on web-sites (with wiggly graphs and everything!) Do you want me to get hold of some info for you (other than the sales pitch stuff)? The ball park figure if you beleive the hype is that they pay for themselves within 4 to 6 years…..so I wonder why we don’t all have these. I’m fitting one to the wendy house in the garden.