Another point to ponder is about the time of bids were out there were a lot of questions about steel availability and deliveries. At the time I was involved in one project that was delayed for a considerable time due to structural steel deliveries. At the same time I heard of a couple of jobs in the Northeast USA where several projects were reworked to use concrete instead of steel. That didn't help much as they ran into the avowed cement shortage.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
I-35W Final Report due shortly 3
- Thread starter bridgebuster
- Start date
- Status
Qshake--exactly. It can't possibly be coincidence that three significantly less costly steel alternatives lost to a more expensive concrete alternative. My completely unsubstantiated belief is that they just plain wanted concrete, but were afraid or perhaps even unable to put that in the contract requirements. (I've seen one industry scream when another's product is given preference when they think it ought not to be; perhaps the Powers That Be didn't want to deal with possible legal challenges on that front.)
I talked to someone from one of the losing teams who said they'd considered a concrete alternative, but the steel alternative cost less (and of course both would have been structurally adequate), and if they'd simply been told there would be a preference for concrete, they would have put that alternative forward. The winning team perhaps out-guessed more than out-sold. It does happen. Sometimes you guess wrong about what the client's hidden agenda is, and you lose; sometimes you guess right and you win.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376
I talked to someone from one of the losing teams who said they'd considered a concrete alternative, but the steel alternative cost less (and of course both would have been structurally adequate), and if they'd simply been told there would be a preference for concrete, they would have put that alternative forward. The winning team perhaps out-guessed more than out-sold. It does happen. Sometimes you guess wrong about what the client's hidden agenda is, and you lose; sometimes you guess right and you win.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376
One item to note is that the winning team engineer does not do steel, only concrete. And I know that they heavily market in Minnesota. I think the combination of ambiguity in the bid specs and agency fear of steel along with good marketing the by winning engineer is what won this contract.
Regards,
Qshake
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
concretemasonry
Structural
Qshake -
I agree with your general concept, but I am not sure where the marketing efforts came from (engineering firm, contractor/consortium or marketing consultant).
First, all of the designs from the various proposers must be considered to be adequate for the engineering purpose.
Second, because it was a design-build system with a tight schedule, the design must meet the site and possible weather conditions in order for the contractor to do the job on time and profitably, so it was a joint effort (single responsibility) and not a low bid situation where many could be accused of contributing to problems.
Third, all the parties were making proposals using the same documents, requirements and knew the rating system in advance used to determining the award.
If you look at the proposals available, there was a dramatic difference in the quality of the presentations, the information provided, previous projects and the attention to the public concerns after the bridge went down and a vital lifeline for the economic community was severed. The economic benefits of half of the reduced community cost for the early completion was determined by the MNDOT engineers. - I remember being required to take economics as part of my engineering curriculum in addition to the economics portion of my highway classes.
The winning proposal stressed the engineering ability, history and willingness to make the project wotk and satisfy the needs of the highway users (and some of the bike path people).
The run of the mill traditonal firms went the route of a bridge to provide a low price, which was not good enough to meet the proposal rating system. It is like the old saying, "You can always do it cheaper", but it might not be right for the conditions and future needs.
It is unfortunate that engineers (I am one) are usually so poor at revealing their value, what they have done (beyond photo boards, resumes and normal, routine presentations) and what they can do to justify the cost of good engineering. Engineering (including proper construction knowledge/experience), like all professions must be willing to promote the benefits or at least make them openly available. - Unfortunately, the associations and groups we rely on just do not have a budget to really do this, so you only see it when it is needed to be shown.
Even the carpet bagging political candidates (with $40,000,000 budgets) would not touch the question of the contracts and awarding methods. It is fortunate that the bridge was not completed before the National Republican Convention or politics could have gotten into the mix of opinions.
Just promote the value of engineering openly and not just internally.
Dick
I agree with your general concept, but I am not sure where the marketing efforts came from (engineering firm, contractor/consortium or marketing consultant).
First, all of the designs from the various proposers must be considered to be adequate for the engineering purpose.
Second, because it was a design-build system with a tight schedule, the design must meet the site and possible weather conditions in order for the contractor to do the job on time and profitably, so it was a joint effort (single responsibility) and not a low bid situation where many could be accused of contributing to problems.
Third, all the parties were making proposals using the same documents, requirements and knew the rating system in advance used to determining the award.
If you look at the proposals available, there was a dramatic difference in the quality of the presentations, the information provided, previous projects and the attention to the public concerns after the bridge went down and a vital lifeline for the economic community was severed. The economic benefits of half of the reduced community cost for the early completion was determined by the MNDOT engineers. - I remember being required to take economics as part of my engineering curriculum in addition to the economics portion of my highway classes.
The winning proposal stressed the engineering ability, history and willingness to make the project wotk and satisfy the needs of the highway users (and some of the bike path people).
The run of the mill traditonal firms went the route of a bridge to provide a low price, which was not good enough to meet the proposal rating system. It is like the old saying, "You can always do it cheaper", but it might not be right for the conditions and future needs.
It is unfortunate that engineers (I am one) are usually so poor at revealing their value, what they have done (beyond photo boards, resumes and normal, routine presentations) and what they can do to justify the cost of good engineering. Engineering (including proper construction knowledge/experience), like all professions must be willing to promote the benefits or at least make them openly available. - Unfortunately, the associations and groups we rely on just do not have a budget to really do this, so you only see it when it is needed to be shown.
Even the carpet bagging political candidates (with $40,000,000 budgets) would not touch the question of the contracts and awarding methods. It is fortunate that the bridge was not completed before the National Republican Convention or politics could have gotten into the mix of opinions.
Just promote the value of engineering openly and not just internally.
Dick
Dick -
I'm not really really being critical of the winning work or any of the firms in the winning team. I do admit to a bias in your third point that all teams knew the requirements. I think the requirements were very ambiguous, and in my opinion they favored an accelerated solution.
The accelerated solution is where the winning team made a historical decision in my opinion. Knowing that a concrete bridge would take longer to build how can we set up our operations to ensure (or minimize risk) to win over the conventional solution, steel. It's apparent now that the work is complete that the gamble paid off and it really reflects well on the team and industry as a whole that we can overcome the odds when we put our minds to it.
I only mention the marketing aspect as the winning engineer does only concrete bridges and will typically move into a market that is ripe and begin to market the heck out of concrete bridges and the like. To my knowledge they've been doing the Minnesota market since the Wabasha bridge and along with that time invested the collapse of a STEEL bridge worked well in their favor. So I suppose in summary I'm just saying that the company had the benefit of advanced marketing for concrete bridges and the coincidence of the failure of a steel bridge.
I'm not begrudging the winning team a well deserved win.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
I'm not really really being critical of the winning work or any of the firms in the winning team. I do admit to a bias in your third point that all teams knew the requirements. I think the requirements were very ambiguous, and in my opinion they favored an accelerated solution.
The accelerated solution is where the winning team made a historical decision in my opinion. Knowing that a concrete bridge would take longer to build how can we set up our operations to ensure (or minimize risk) to win over the conventional solution, steel. It's apparent now that the work is complete that the gamble paid off and it really reflects well on the team and industry as a whole that we can overcome the odds when we put our minds to it.
I only mention the marketing aspect as the winning engineer does only concrete bridges and will typically move into a market that is ripe and begin to market the heck out of concrete bridges and the like. To my knowledge they've been doing the Minnesota market since the Wabasha bridge and along with that time invested the collapse of a STEEL bridge worked well in their favor. So I suppose in summary I'm just saying that the company had the benefit of advanced marketing for concrete bridges and the coincidence of the failure of a steel bridge.
I'm not begrudging the winning team a well deserved win.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
Interviews with some of the original design people. Not much new but some information about the design process. It looks like part of the design process was left out or not recorded.
Final report has been issued. Failure attributed to design error by Sverdrup and Parcel. Gusset plates should have been twice as thick. Original calculations not found, so not clear if error was by commission or omission.
NTSB finds that gusset plate deficiency never found in any of the inspections or assessments because it is the usual assumption that the connections are more conservatively designed than the members.
NTSB finds that gusset plate deficiency never found in any of the inspections or assessments because it is the usual assumption that the connections are more conservatively designed than the members.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question