Load Testing with a Difference– 25 NOV 16
So Bridge 1 is complete. This is the temporary structure that cuts across our site and provides access to adjacent phases. Its construction will facilitate our basement excavation in due course. Broadly speaking it is a motorway over bridge. It spans 80m over 9 spans (the largest of which is 18m) has a 7.3m carriageway with a maintenance footpath on either side. It has been delivered on time, on schedule and possibly to budget… Probably not to budget as the client’s scope was so vague that the trade contractor has taken him to town with additional items. I have spent the last month or so compiling Site Instructions to complete the bridge in line with the client’s intent.
Bridge 1 Aerial View – An adjacent phase 40T artic can be seen on the bridge ready to be offloaded
Bridge 1 – Deck View
Most recently, I have hosted a series of visits from various client representatives that have not just moved the goal posts but completely changed the sport… The design brief was cast in stone well over a year ago. The structure of the temporary bridge was to be designed as a private access road and therefore Highway regulations did not apply in their entirety. Clearly, the client and designer cherry picked areas (crash barrier rating and bridge loading for example).
From my perspective, the past month or so has been challenging, the client’s expectations are wholly unrealistic. My “favourite” client check was the load testing dry run conducted last week. Photos below:
Porsche Load Testing
The test to confirm the ground clearance for sports cars was successful as the Porsche did not ground out at any point. However, from my perspective, given that the gradient was dictated by the existing road profile at the entrance to the site and the final road level at the permanent HALO Bridge. How could the bridge deck profile have been altered had the sports car test failed? Answers on a self-addressed postcard please.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Rich, how long do site instructions take in the UK? They are only a days work here. What goes into them? Have I missed something. Sketches, markups, focussed instruction. Reference to clauses in contract. End with as per the conditions of the contract.
Doug
A very good question… If we were PC I suspect the process would take a day however, Bouygues UK are in the Construction Management role.
Therefore the laborious process is as follows:
1. Site Team draw up the requirement (McClure). These will contain a detailed scope of work, sketches and ensuring our wording covers everything (McGee has stung us on a couple of SI).
2. Bouygues UK QS verification – Invariably the QS will have some queries with respect to requirement, relevance and some times difference of opinion as to whether the item is included in the contract.
3. AECOM QS Verification – Process as above (AECOM is the client’s financial cost consultant). Also with invariably the same queries
4. SLW (Second London Wall) Project Management Verification – Process as above and again with further queries.
5. Final signature by BPSDC (the client).
The above process can take anything up to 2 or 3 weeks… Generally tying down the one man from the client side is the tricky bit (I think it’s easiest to grab him on the Golf Course!).
HOWEVER, depending on the likely cost a quotation may be requested first – in other words the instruction is only to provide a quotation and the process is still as long with the outcome being a quote that the client may or may not accept. Assuming the client is content with the quotation a second instruction is then required for the works to proceed.
It is really challenging at my level to manage and frankly crap…
Part of the long winded process is that in simple terms, since the client is a Malaysian Fund, fiscal responsibilities are not delegated and major financial decisions need to be referred to higher.
That guy wouldn’t have made it past the front gate without a beacon on his vehicle. I hope he has full PPE in there with him to don before he steps out!
Well spotted Chris
Do as I say not as I do – The client has now walked/driven on to phrase 3 bridge with incorrect PPE, no induction and no insurance three times – including bringing the marketing team on site to discuss painting the galvanised crash barriers…
Thankfully, I have now completed the handover paperwork and the deck is the responsibility of the site wide logistics contractor (Clipfine)