A more focussed week…
Fewer topics but with more devils in the detail this week.
EDC SolarWall:
The contractor is busy working away on the 65% design solution buthas submitted a risk analysis (more a project management risk assessment than anything else) I offered suggestions on minimising risk to supply chains by having a floating stock and to help coordination between the facility and the work details by having primary and back up work plans. Discussion and costing of aesthetic options for the wall supports continues.
Ashley Reservist Centre
I am helping to identify a laboratory that can conduct the relevant testing for the core samples. It seems we’ve never had petrographic testing done before on any of these jobs. We have also liberated some core samples that came from the foundations a couple of weeks ago. From photographs that were sent in from site I pointed out (almost reluctantly) that the rebar was way too close to the surface – so now we may not even be able to trust the foundations it’s built on! This becomes more of a mess as time goes on. We liberated the cores so that they too can be tested. How this will be held against the contractor I do not know – the likelyhood is that it will simply be recorded in the logs for in the event of future defects arising. Personally I feel that if this was a civilian owned contract they would be in the thick of litigation by now, but the cost to the tax payer is already too high for what we are getting for this project.
C4 ISR Tobyhanna
This is a new one to play with. This is a completed structure that overran (suprise suprise) due to monumental mess ups with the design provided by USACE. The project was for a finishing centre for vehicles where they undergo re-fit and and spreayed etc. It went out to tender with an electrical design that didn’t even cover the requirements for the spray booths themselves and as such the whole thing was not fit for purpose. The re-design then changed the structural design and several revisions to the project were required. It appears the main contractor entered into several sub-contracts and now as a result of the iterative redisgn process, huge delays and changes he is hitting USACE for litigation / request for equitable adjustment in the region of $1.25M with more to come……
The letter itself is a 40 page document with an accompanying five inch thick file of exhibits. I have devised a tool for collaborating between the many disciplines that are going to have to pour through this and have conducted the first iteration of input. The intention is to pin as many issues at the lowest level before raising outstanding issues to the next level and formulating a coordinated response. I managed to catch the ear of the District Commander recently and he reckoned the whole thing wouldn’t be settled for less than $2M…so I reckon it’s not as bad as it could have been. I am now working through the various issues and conducting triage on the fall-out tasks. The country is 16 Trillion in debt and I understand why! I am trying to minimise this as much as possible but in a fair manner…. I will also be holding a bring and buy sale to help relieve the national debt. This will go on for some time.
And in other news:
After successfully conducting investigations in Spanish for the Harpersferry Project – I have now successfully used my English skills to order a pizza on the phone…it’s surprising how many folk can’t understand a word I say. [Yes Roy that’s no different to normal I know – it must be a Yorkshire thing].
Child number one is now back with us in the US. We now need to occupy him for 13 weeks (suggestions welcomed). He was seriously unimpressed when the first thing we did was take him to the social security office so we can apply for a work permit for him. We will soon have him in a sweat shop somewhere downtown.
For Sale – Cheap sweatshirts (coming soon)
Only 2 shootings nearby this weekend….and no face eating…which is a bonus.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Matt
An interesting read. It is amazing how public and private projects differ and who pulls whose strings. At least you are getting some excellent experience with contracts and the ins and outs of the various clauses.
Producing a building without any provision for spray booths is a mistake that you would expect from a first year PET student and not a ‘professional’.
can you not get child number one to write any of your reports for you?
When we were in New Orleans there were far fewer shooting than you experience.
60 PET(C) is now well under way with questions already been asked about the Structures Exam!!
All the very best
Neil
Pesumably the issue with the foundation rebar lies in the reduced protection from corrosion and not from fire. Otherwise you may have a need to adddress this in order to provide safe egress – Think the states understsands the concept of progressive collapse after a period of subjection to fire now. If it is corrosion concerns there might be options to treat your concrete to reduce its permeability or to retro fit cathodic protection. Either way there is no reason why the client should need to accept a significant uplift in risk and similarly not necessarily any reason why this situation should require demolition and rebuild – it can be mitigated whilst in service and presumably at the cost of the contractor…..
Could Child 1 not go out and spot road kill or provide inspriration for ‘art’ by running off with the daughter of a Country and Western singer?
Regards,
ichard.
Richard,
Yes, the issue with the foundations is that the building is kind of almost finished. Roof on and everything. They had to drill the cores due to an oversight in locating duct work and it was at this point that we noticed the shoddy rebar work. Several bars far to close together, and a whole layer with about 15-20mm of cover. The foundation sections are vertical and mainly underground now. A pit was dug out to take the cores and now we’re looking at how to deal accordingly. Can cathodic protection really be retro-fitted in this case?
OK, Yes you can retro fit cathodic protection. It comes in two main flavours (flavors) active and passive. Active involves transformers and induced currents and is for serious ongoing corrosion issues where there is a need to push back. Passive is much as it suggests attach an annode and allow it to work for you whilst disappearing gracefully. Only need is to make sure you have enouhg annode to last the life of the structure less the bunce that the bars have anyway. Nasa have patented a paint of annode which is quite clever in that not only can you add to it if necessary, it coveres the structure so water breaching it and getting to the rebar provides its own electrical connection thereby initiating protection.
Now,…. If this is something that needs to be considered there will need to be an owner of the residual risk, which will depend upon the set up of the initial contract and specification. If the deal was that the contractor installs according to drawings then you need to transfer the failure to do so into a risk of early life maintenance and associated failure/treatment/replacement which they need to mitigate against. Ideally therefore the matter is raied as an issue for the contractor to solve so that he then takes on the subcontractor that designs and installs anodic protection leaving your client with one oint of contact and an easy target if there are problems down the line. If you design and spec the protection you create a dual pathway for later issues and oportunity for divide and conquer on the contractors part.
Presumably the reinforcement was made up into cages an there is reasonable connectivity throughout. This can be checked if anodes are being fitted by exposing the bar at the connection sites and testing continuity from site to site. But now we’re in the weeds. Option B is to expose the whole of the side of the foundation (not in one go!) clean it down and paint it with a sealant to lenthgth the water pathway so that you regain the level of protection originally provided by design. Do let me know how this pans out.
Regards,
Richard.
Many thanks Richard – I look forward to impressing my colleagues with my new-found knowledge of protection! – Will certainly let you know how it pans out.
I think you might want to look at the actual threat before wading in too deep. Is it aggressive ground, are you worries about sulphate (sulfate) attack or water ingress? where is the water table? What sort of footings are they pile caps, ground beams…?? Also whose problem/risk is it?