I-35W Final Report due shortly 3

[Qshake]

Yes, that is where this is going and even to the point of having consultant companies peer review entire sets of calculations. This is common practice in the UK. I think that MnDOT now requires peer reviews for bridges greater than 200' spans.



Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

greybeach,

"major errors in sealed calculations way too often", this is really disturbing. I hope the US engineering system fixes this gaping hole, what is the PE stamp really worth then?

VOD

 

[Qshake]

VOD and others - This has been a disturbing trend in the American market and I'd like to know how others handle it. These days clients want everything faster and for less money. This puts immense pressure on design firms to produce, produce and produce.

Sadly in the old days when this mistake was made, I feel there was always more time to review. Obviously this incident doesn't bear that out, but overall, I think we had more time then than we do now.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[graybeach]

Qshake and VOD,

I am also very disturbed. There should be some consequence for the PE who seals flawed work. Besides me placing a mental black mark next to their name, I don't know how that would work.

I work on the client's side and really try to extract quality work from consultants. One big problem I see is that work is not carried out in an orderly manner at the beginning. The consultant just starts out tossing a bunch of stuff together from previous jobs instead of thinking things through. This puts them in a catch-up position from day one. Clients wanting things faster is certainly an issue, but so is consultants agreeing to produce things faster when they can't do it correctly.

I too wonder how others handle this.

 

[bridgebuster]

graybeach,

Here's my $0.02:

First there's the financial reality of the consulting business. Clients have a bottom line cost for a project. Most agencies are fair. On the consultant end some accountant who runs the company sets an effective multiplier that needs to be achieved. So we end up backing into a labor cost to keep the accounting department happy. This usually means using lower priced, less experienced people to do a job.

We can't have people sitting around billing their time to overhead. So we end up overstaffing a job, trying to find productive work for everyone. As a result, the PM or project engineer doesn't have time to think things through before getting into production. He's too busy with finding busy work for people.

Sometimes, agencies take a hard line about the price. They don't want to pay what is fair and reasonable. As someone i worked for many years ago said, "Engineers are like prostitutes fighting over a customer." We'll take a job at a low price and roll the dice.

I agree with QShake about schedules. Sometimes they're not realistic and the job suffers because no one has had the time to develop a realistic work plan. On the other hand, when projects are delayed and drag out well beyond the original schedule things are forgotten, new people get involved; a new learning curve starts.

I also think there's too much reliance on computers in the belief that they can produce a job in less time. I find that CAD drafting often takes longer than when it was done by hand. There's also a reluctance to question computer output - seems like some forget GIGO - a few months ago one of the younger engineers here analyzed a statically determinate truss and came up with results for a number of that were completely wrong. I ended up doing it by hand because she couldn't figure out why. All I kept hearing was that the STAAD people told her the model was correct.

Anyway, I think I rambled on enough.

 

[Dinosaur]

Graybeach,

I have had many similar experiences, on both sides of the fence. The public wants everything perfect, but nobody wants to pay for perfection. I also have found significant errors in final work from other engieers. Sometimes the errors result from an over reliance on corect computer generated results; sometimes a careless error that should have caused a reviewer to scratch his head and say, "This answer just can't be correct." and unfortunately some just don't know they are in over their head. For my part, I understand not a civil engineers are adept at solving structural problems. What I don't understand are the many who choose to be structural engineers that are not adept at the work. With the budgets we are working within, I don't see the problem getting fixed either. That doesn't mean that I think this problem can be fixed by money alone.

 

[jorton]

bridgebuster,

Wow. We don't work at the same place do we?

In all seriousness, I think you summed it up well. I think your extended schedule comment is dead on. Roadway project schedules make it very difficult to maintain continuity on the bridge design teams. There are usually many months and often a year or more between the concept, preliminary and final design phases. There is often another 6 months to a year before shop drawings are reviewed. Everybody has to stay busy with the work that is available at any given time. It is not unusual for each phase of the bridge design to be handled by a different person, and the learning curve starts over again.

 

[bridgebuster]

jorton,

thanks for your reply. You never know, we might work for the same company given the size of my employer - then again, I think things are the same in most mid-sized & large firms.

 

[graybeach]

I hear you Bridgebuster. This is definitely the situation in our industry.

I am starting to think making owners responsible for design flaws would be a very good thing. Maybe it will force them to establish realistic schedules and pay more for quality engineering. In any case, more requirements for peer reviews means more work for the civil/structural profession, so they will have to pay either way.

Meanwhile, I try to structure RFPs with firm scopes and qualification requirements. Sometimes I am even able to justify not taking the low bid.

 

[jorton]

I'm not sure that I am enthusiastic about becoming a peer reviewer.

1. It doesn't pay nearly as much as actually performing the design.
2. The peer reviewer has no control. The designer retains all control in addressing or even acknowledging the peer review comments.
3. If the designer goes to court, the peer reviewer is going with him.

So basically there is less money, less control but the same exposure to litigation. Even if the peer reviewer is faultless he has still incurred the lost time, lost litigation cost and tarnished name.

Also, will it give the designer a false sense of security? I can foresee folks extending beyond their reach and/or not being as thorough because they have a peer review to back them up. Maybe I'm just pessimistic today?

 

[bridgebuster]

graybeach,

How does your agency typically contract for services?

One agency we do a lot of work with uses a qualifications based proposal and they specify how many resumes and projects to include and how many pages for a technical approach. They try to amke life easier. They're usually fair with the fee negotiation. Our problem comes later on when our accounting department dictates the multiplier they want.

Another agency usually uses a dollars per point selection- Bid/Proposal Score. We've never had any success winning work this way. There's two reasons: They use a boiler plate scope of engineering services that is generally far in excess of the anticipated construction scope and cost.

When we try to price the job based on the scope weend up with a bare labor cost that is way high - add in a high overhead and we're dead in the water - but the agency always directs everyone to price the job based on the engineering scope as written. When I look at a winning "bid" I know that they can't do it for that price. Unfortunately, our business development people have never tried to find out what part of the scope of services will never be required.

We've won bridge inspection jobs based solely on price; competing against other pre-qualified firms.

 

[concretemasonry]

It sounds like the above discussion is why the State of Minnesota went with a design-build package and a complicated system to evaluated the individual proposals and leave the major responsibility in one lap. The fast track schedule required probably had something to do with it also.

The winning package was about $40,000,000 over the other proposals, but they did the work to comply and understand the scope and requirements. - Fortunately they finished 2 months early and collected a bonus. The group did some other projects in the area, not nearly as many as the unsuccessful proposers.

I still wish I could find out exactly how and when the designs were verified/checked, but the gross liability rests with the prime contractor and its engineers.

 

[HgTX]

"The winning package was about $40,000,000 over the other proposals, but they did the work to comply and understand the scope and requirements."

Um, I doubt very much that any of the other contenders did not do the work to comply and understand the scope and requirements.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[concretemasonry]

The other bidders were all lower, but according to the bidding/prposals for the desgn/build package they did not do enough to be awarded the contract.

The others were not amateurs, but the proposals did not rate high enough to get awards. - They were out-sold and ended up being out-performed since the awarded company also collected a $20,000,000 +or- bonus for early completion in compensation for the 24x7 schedule, overtime and winter heat.

The other proposers were well known contractors that have done a many big projects in the area and are currently doing numerous traditional projects that are the typical design, low bid, construct, inspect and complete jobs. The winning proposer was a consortium that has also done some local projects in addition to other national projects.

It looks like a game where someone was out-sold and out-presented using the same documents. The result has been successful - so far.

Dick

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

greybeach et al.

All very good points and realities. Here in Ontario, not saying we have this figured out either, but there is a rating system that the Ministry of Transportation gages consulting firms based on many factors and prequalifies consultants for varying complexity of work. In our situation, cost is not the only factor and there are many times firms have won with a much higher fee. This is a model that Clients may want to consider, we should all play a part in improvement of the industry. Keeping the public in the loop and aware of the far greater benefits will eventually bear fruit.

 

[HgTX]

To say the losers "ended up being out-performed" is unfair--they never got a chance to perform, so how does anyone know how they would have done?

There was a factor in the bidding that had to do with rating the qualificiation of team. In the presentation I saw, the ratings for the top handful of contenders were in the 90s for the top one and down to the 60s for the others. That was a completely subjective factor; there's no way that anyone able to put together a submittal of that nature is only 60% qualified to handle the job, or that they were only 2/3 as qualified as the top bidder.

This is being touted as a great example of A+B bidding where they got to consider factors other than low bid, but the way I see it, they just got to pick whoever they wanted for undisclosed reasons (like maybe they wanted a concrete bridge, not a steel one, but were afraid to piss off the steel industry by putting that in their requirements) and completely sidestep the financial side of the bidding process.

(No, I'm not an interested party; I don't work for a design consultant, a contractor, or a fabricator, and I don't live in MN.)

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[graybeach]

Bridgebuster et al,

We prefer lump sum contracts for engineering work, and we grill "low bidders" (I hate using term for design professionals) to make sure they understand the scope. We try to root out and reject low ball proposals. We can do this because our civil work is usually pretty small potatoes (compared to designing large bridges), and we have capable in-house engineers.

I wonder if the current economic situation will make matters worse or better.

 

[concretemasonry]

By saying "out performed", I was referring to the entire effort including the presentation that had to addresss the intent and specifics required for the proposal. - Some may use the term "out sold", but the early completion is part of the total performance package.

Before the proposal due date, the winning consortium meet with many local groups because of the logistics and traffic. After the project started, they had site tours regularly and every engineering and construction group around was at the site at least once where the construction people and design people were available. The proposal even included options on the color of the bridge and the shape of the piers since the site is very visable.

The early completion was due to a number of factors.

1. The contractor secured an area near one end of the bridge to construct a heated shelter to start making the concrete elements in February, virtually on site and only had to haul the others to the opposite side of the river over an adjacent bridge at night. It was vitually an on-site precast plant near the ready-mix plant.

2. The spring and summer weather was good and the contractor used a lot of overtime (24x7) to take advantage of that. This permitted the on-site finishing concrete to go in early and not encounter the typicial weather problems possible in October, Novemeber and December. Concrete temperature and curing was not a problem. A few years ago, the area got 28" of snow in October.

3. The bridge was basically built on a solid, known limestone foundation.

4. Because of the locations of the I35W exit ramps north and south of the bridge, traffic ended up being diverted well around the actual construction area.

MNDOT did a good job of adding temporary lanes to several roads and divert the traffic around the area without total jam-ups, but over-all travel times were definitely increased. The trucks using I35 were forced to use alternate routes or take the loop freeway, which caused some problems 10 to 20 miles away. Unfortunately, the sister route to I35W is I35E that goes through St. Paul and a portion is limted to 45 mph and trucks are not permitted and it is called a "boulevard", although many people refer to it as a "learners freeway". The time, traffic delays, extra mileage were all a part of the the formula that provided the big completion bonus (half of the extra cost to the community).

Because of the disaster, there was a big inspection effort made in Minnesota on all bridges. Many problems were found, at least one major bridge is being replaced and several replacement dates were moved up significantly and the inspection procedures have been revised, so there was a silver lining in part of the black cloud. Since most of the problems found related to steel, the choice of concrete was generally approved by the public after the actual contract award. No one complained that the project was completed early.

It was an interesting project to observe. It was a good job of selling, engineering, construction and public relations. I assume the engineering was sound, since the firms have built many bridges around the country. It is not my place to check the designs even if I was a bridge inspector at one time in my past life before I was registered.

 

[unclesyd]

Back to checking another's calculations. Here is short paper on some of the nuances of same.

http://www.varmintal.com/HOW2CHEK006.pdf

 

[Qshake]

It's also noteworthy that of the four bidders in I35, three went with steel and one with concrete. The three steel bidders were all in the mid to high 60s and the concrete alternate was in the 90s.

I don't think it coincidental that a steel bridge collapses and a concrete bridge goes up.

Nor do I buy into the argument that the three bidders didn't do the work to deserve the win either. I believe all bids were earnest.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.