Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

Things are progressing in the usual manner so I’m going to summarise a few of points of interest from over the last week or so. In no particular order.

1. I’ve inherited a Cadet this week. He is an exchange student, currently at the University of North Dakota studying Construction Management. He was essentially dumped in my lap late last week as the Lieutenant who is supposed to be looking after him is out this week. Since I am the only military guy in the office at the moment I went to the airport to pick him up and he is ‘reporting’ to me. Since it was pretty much out of the blue I’ve just been trying to get him inducted, fam’d up on the vehicle fleet, online and then sending him off to the Gym!

2. The slides below were presented at a recent talk to the USACE by the Designer of Record (DOR) for one of the projects here. It is a risk assessment tool. I thought I’d stick it up out of interest for everyone to see as it’s something a little different to what I usually see.

Excerpt from DOR presentation. Step 1.

Excerpt from DOR presentation. Stage 2

Excerpt from DOR presentation. Stage 2

Excerpt from DOR presentation. Stage 3

3.  There have been a few developments at the Central Utility Plant (CUP).  I had an RFI come through about a column mounted Jib crane, which took me by surprise for a few reasons, not least because I didn’t know what a column mounted jib crane was.  A quick Google search sorted that out.  The next issue; there is nothing in the specs about the crane at all, or anywhere else, other than a note on the contract drawings giving direction about minimum hook heights, weight capacities, conformance to CMAA-70 and a requirement to swing 180 degrees.  A cut from the drawing is below:

Excerpt from contract drawings.

Now, Damo has probably noticed that the crane appears to be mounted into the Web of the column; more on this later. Specifically the RFI that I got was to accept a proposed off the shelf solution. It contained some product data and drawings etc and requested that the RFI be sufficient for acceptance without a formal submission. I had a few reservations about this, I had also noticed that the crane appeared to be mounted in the web of the column. And that it appears to be over nothing, even when cross referenced with other drawings. I sent a question to the client asking what the intent of the crane is but have thus far heard nothing. Nobody here seems to know what its for either.

The designer reviewed the RFI and had no issue with the actions that the crane would impose on the column but I still had misgivings, specifically with regards to how the Contractor was intending to mount the crane (welded plate I guess) and maintain the 180 degree reach. I therefore asked for a formal submission with the connection details articulated more clearly than a manufacturers drawing which, in my opinion, won’t work as required. I spoke with the Contracting Officer’s Representative about this because the designer will be able to charge to look through the submission because it will be out-with the originally agreed submission requirements.

4.  Specialized (sic) Engineering are the QC sub-contractor that conduct tests such as concrete slump, soil compaction, weld integrity and the like.  For my structure they are required to come and check bolt tension, weld and plumb of the building.  The most interesting thing, for me, of the last Specialized visit was the apparatus used to test the plumb.  The Bazooka bob is an enclosed steel tube with a string tied at one end and measured increments at the other.  It extends out and attaches to the steel magnetically.  It is 10’-5” with increments of measurement of 1/8^th of an inch at the base.  A measurement of 2/8” at this distance represents the 1/500 allowable deviation from vertical so if the string falls outside of this you know that the column is deficient.  Simples.  All the measurements taken on site were within tolerance.

5. The cooling towers (a mechanical feature which will eventually sit in the CUP) submission is being bounced around from Principal Contractor to USACE to Client to USACE to…   The proposed towers (by the Principal Contractor (PC) were submitted a while ago and returned as deficient with c. 21 comments.   The PC re-submitted the same towers with, what I consider, rebuffs to the client comments. I was in a meeting yesterday where the client essentially ‘kicked off’ at the situation questioning why it was that clearly erroneous submissions were being sent in, especially since the crux of the issue is that the cooling towers proposed are so far away from the Basis of Design (BOD). Again the PC had an answer along the lines of “we can ask for a variance to the BOD,” to which the client pretty much said “provide what we ******* ask for in the specs.” Fair enough – it was a heated meeting.   This is interesting, not just because of how stubborn the PC is being but also because the cooling towers in the BOD are anchored to the steel building at 12’ centres. The PC preferred towers are anchored to the building at 14’ centres. You can no doubt guess at what spacing the steel frame has been erected, snapped, decked and welded.

6. Another BOD issue; I am lead LEED representative at the moment whilst the actual lead LEED lady is on maternity leave. (LEED is essentially the same as BREAM). I have split responsibilities with another guy from the office who is also here temporarily. I reviewed my section (recycled content and regional materials) and had a scan through the rest of the submittal before passing the it to the other guy. I noticed that the PC had made a comment that they were making no effort to submit the 3^rd party VOC certification required by the specs for Environmental Air Quality because the material suggested in the BOD didn’t come with it as a matter of course. I gather that they got this information from speaking to the manufacturer named in the BOD. I advised him to ‘E code’ (re-show) the submission and request the PC to send of material to a 3^rd party lab for testing and certification. What interested me about this was that the material and manufacturer named in the BOD wasn’t compliant with the specs as a matter of course. I am waiting out to see if the PC gets back to me on this issue or if they will just send the material off for testing. The cooling towers issue hints at the former.

7. Another area of contention has been due to backfilling activities (and I mean to echo Guz’s sentiments about good and bad engineers, but also add in ‘Lucky’) For me the issue started when I spotted a sub contractor backfilling some utilities into fairly wet excavations. What didn’t help was that there was water ponding in the weld pits and there was no effort to remove it prior to backfilling. To me this seemed ‘a bit weird’ as a gut reaction although admittedly I wasn’t clued in on the method of backfilling in the specs. I made a call to the PC and said I think the water should be pumped out of the weld pits as a minimum, prior to backfilling, and went to lunch. When I got back from lunch someone from the mechanical team came up and shook my hand for a ‘good catch.’ Apparently what I had witnessed was out of spec (shock) but also another in a long line of deficient practices with respect to the placement of utilities. Whilst I was at lunch the civils project engineer went to have a look at the site, taking along with him 2 other QA reps and some of the mechanical team. The PC superintendent noticed the collection of people and called his QA team . The PC was requested to prove that they had been backfilling properly to which one of their team jumped into the excavation and promptly sank in soil, which was presumably not within 3% of the optimum moisture content called for in the spec. This is an ongoing issue which could well form the basis of a TMR but the point I make here is to echo something I am sure I have heard around PEW but I cant attribute it to anyone in particular; if something doesn’t look right, it probably isn’t. I was fortunate to be passing by the activity when it happened or it mightn’t have been noticed.

In other news:  This.