More FIGG Engineering Failures 4

[EPCI-Steel]

I have not seen it mentioned anywhere on this board, but FIGG has been involved in two major bridge debacles here in Texas. They designed two new cable stayed ship channel bridges, one in Houston and one in Corpus Christi, each with a total construction cost just shy of 1 billion. Well the construction had been halted on both bridges (each close to 50% complete) for most of the year due to major design deficiencies and FIGG has been removed from both projects by the State after being given a chance to prove or modify their design in light of the third party reviews.
New engineering companies have taken over the projects, and currently everything is in stasis as the way forward is decided. I drive by these monuments to wasted tax dollars frequently and it just makes me angry.
I'm posting on my phone so no article links right now but a quick Google search will waste hours of your time with the reports that have already been made public detailing the shortcomings of the current design.

 

[thebard3]

...when the contractor screws up, the contractor owns it. When the gov't screws up, they blame the contractor, and then the taxpayers own it.

Witness the Salesforce Transit Center and Bay Bridge fiascos.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[1503-44]

CWB1 Yes. The engineer responsible for the design needs to lose his lincense. My point exactly. I also say that the design engineer most likely was NOT a direct employee of "the government". Do not confuse a government employed engineer working as a "contract manager" with a "design engineer".

ATSE

Yes many governments own facilities. Many governments have engineering departments, etc, etc. They typically are responsible only for letting and supervision of contracted works, which may include facilities of many kinds. Usually they ensure that the contract is executed according to the plans and specification, actually issued by their engineering contractors, that work is progressing according to schedule, review of inspection reports, resolution of deviations and corrections, the design engineer being responsible for technical conformance, that progress payments are made and correspond to actual progress and participate in cost and change order control. They seldom, if ever produce designs of their own for actual construction. They ensure that what is constructed matches the engineer's of record requirements, drawings and specifications. But none of that is related to my question concerning a contractor that was forced to build something outside of the scope of his original bid over the contractor's stated objection, where that contractor had any responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of the design. djs stated above that a contractor was forced to build a shore protection. He may have (mistakenly) agreed to so, but that is not being forced to do so. Lets see the details on how he was forced to build it.

So in which California government department will I find this construction division and please give one example where a contractor was forced to build something that deviated from the work as bid, to which he had found objectionable.

 

[ATSE]

-thirtytwo
You may be asking these questions honestly, but you are unfamiliar with the actual workings of both Caltrans and DWR. Both organization exercise significant oversight of construction work, direct contractor work during unforeseen conditions (which always come up during drilling, earthwork), do many of their own repairs by state staff, and also act as regulators.

Whether the contractor was directed to construct poorly gov't designed work or directed to deviate from approved, does that really matter? The gov't was in charge of letting the contract, all the design, inspection, and final approval.

If you need an example of how a state gov't can spend tens of millions of dollars on repairs and maintenance over many years that results in a complete disaster, read just a little on the Oroville 2017 event. No one else to blame.
There are many examples of this on a smaller scale as well.

I've worked in the public sector and private section, as an engineer and a contractor. You clearly have good intentions, but you don't how bad contracts can be written, how much of a bully a gov't owner can be, and how incompetent the actual execution can really be.

 

[1503-44]

I'd like to hear more about djs' example. I know there are omnipotent entities that control all aspects of the work. I've worked closely with many state owned, national oil companies and not even the entire state of California has the kind of power that SaudiAramco wields. That said, it would still be unusual even for them to actually force a contractor to do something that was outside of original scope. They would prefer, and seemingly always can, show you exactly what spec was included in the contract requirements that you bid on that requires you to do exactly as they demand, but I don't think anybody was talking about those kinds of situations. 99.9% of construction contracts are not executed in that manner, at least outside of California, but I did say "any", so thanks for those examples.

So, djs, what were you talking about? How was that contractor forced to build to demands supposedly outside of the original scope of work? Was it a Caltrans project, or other omnipotent owner?

 

[ElronMcK]

-thirtytwo, because you keep asking:
On the contractor side, say, the City of Berkeley, when you sign a construction contract, you promise to accept additional work during the course of the project. Which is exactly what happened to me as a design-build contractor. Berkeley's city attorney made sure to remind us that they would sue us out of existence if we didn't perform this unanticipated work (another contractor didn't perform, so we had to accept their work semi-related to our scope). I wouldn't believe it myself, except I lived through it.

 

[1503-44]

"On the contractor side, say, the City of Berkeley, when you sign a construction contract, you promise to accept additional work during the course of the..."

LOL Sorry, but why would you sign a contract like that? Of course if you sign away your soul, you're literally in for a hell of a ride. Glad you survived though. OK, I think I get the picture now. One of the hardest concepts I had to to learn was when to say, "No bid. Thanks for the opportunity". There are some clients (predatory) that you just dont want to work with. Better to go broke looking for other work. The end result is the same, except that you get to enjoy a beer instead of an IV stuck in your arm. If you can't find a client that wants to succeed together, its better to fail on your own.

 

[CWB1]

he engineer responsible for the design needs to lose his lincense. My point exactly. I also say that the design engineer most likely was NOT a direct employee of "the government". Do not confuse a government employed engineer working as a "contract manager" with a "design engineer".

Disagree completely. Design mistakes happen. Miscommunications happen between customer and engineer. Crap happens. I would never suggest removing someone's license for an honest mistake. Moreover, if the govt "contract manager" is an engineer and does not have another engineer attending design reviews and inspecting construction with the firms doing the work, then they have failed both ethically and legally to protect public safety and the govt (their employer/client). In private industry an internal engineer is always responsible for reviewing/supervising outsourced design work, failing to manage the contracted firm on the basis of "not my job" is a great way to lose millions, end up canned, and on an industry blacklist for unethical behavior.

 

[thebard3]

CWB1- Agree completely. An engineer should lose their license if they prove to be negligent, incapable, unethical or just incompetent. I think that fits the FIU bridge scenario. Also, the government oversight and inspection process was equally responsible in that case. As far as the Texas bridges under discussion, FIGG seems to now be banned from federally funded projects. If so, then whether or not there are any design problems here is irrelevant.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[1503-44]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" Honest mistakes happen all the time. If the pilot honestly thought he had enough fuel to get you to London, but you found yourself swimming in mid Atlantic, would you not want his license revoked?

The rocket engineers of the Columbia disaster voiced their concerns about the infamous O-rings, but unfortunately had no authority to ensure that they were redesigned. Not sure if they had any responsibility or not to do so, but if they did, it didn't work out. What is pretty sure is that someone reviewing a design submittal for conformance, is rarely qualified to do any design. That's why inspectors are not PEs.

A contract engineer, "inspector", or a "plan reviewing engineer" if you will, is not required to be a PE, because he doesn't design anything. He ensures conformance to the specs and dwgs made by the EOR. Furthermore their experience in what they may be reviewing is not sufficient to do any design. Who gets to do dwg review even at engineering companies; the new guy. Or maybe the guy is a PE Electrical by training and experience, but there are prestressed concrete bridge girders on the dwg he's looking at today. It maybe just fine if all he is doing is checking conformance, but you want him to do what, recognize that there are not enough strands in some cable, do a redesign on a napkin and call the mayor?

In private industry you are correct, the internal engineer reviews plans of outside work and is responsible for its success, but when I do that, I do not redesign the contractor's work. I tell him I need an acceptable solution. Why? Because I usually don't have experience, and certainly not the time, to run enough CFDs, or the latest pipe stress programs to do so. These projects take 100Ks design hrs. Scott could beam me up to Enterprise when I finished. And there is another reason.

Outsourcing design is also a tool used by private industry and gov both to separate responsibility and avoid future liability when possible. If our facilities don't work, we want a very large and well insured engineering contractor, or constructor to sue for damages and make it right. They long ago found out that my bank account doesn't hold enough billions to make it worthwhile to give me any responsibility for that. I can't be monetarily responsible, so why make me legally responsible. Shareholders aren't interested in legal anyway. For which I am very glad. Maybe I'll get fired some day if things go badly, maybe not. I would love to know enough about subsea production facilities operatig 1000m underwater to be able to design them, or redesign them for the contractor if necessary, but about all I can do there is tell the contractor that the dwgs dont show the right orientation or the distance from the platform is short by 50m. Nobody is an expert on everything these days.

Do you want gov to hire an army of experts to do PE level design reviews and redesign of everything? I don't think that's practical. Or have the gov responsible for AND doing the design. Wasn't the last time they did that for the Manhatton Project, or was it the Panama Canal?

 

[SwinnyGG]

Am I missing something here? I can't find anything in these articles that indicate a specific failure on Figg's part with regard to the design of these bridges. All of them mention some connection to the blame Figg received for the Miami pedestrian bridge debacle. Are these changes the result of knee-jerk reactions to the change in Figg's reputation, or are there actual design shortcomings that are known to exist?

Edit:

After further googling, here is COWI's report on the bridge design which lists their concerns:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6801932-COWI-report-on-Ship-Channel-Bridge.html#document/p1

 

[1503-44]

OP says "design deficiencies". Your link mentions "Illegal procedure" is another problem area.
I would think its better to stop things before construction begins, rather than full scale testing on what design deficiency actually means. There does appear to be some serious concerns about something to get a stop work order.

 

[CWB1]

A contract engineer, "inspector", or a "plan reviewing engineer" if you will, is not required to be a PE...

In private industry you are correct, the internal engineer reviews plans of outside work and is responsible for its success, but when I do that, I do not redesign the contractor's work. I tell him I need an acceptable solution. Why? Because I usually don't have experience, and certainly not the time, to run enough CFDs, or the latest pipe stress programs to do so. These projects take 100Ks design hrs.

Every building/planning dept I have ever interfaced with in my travels has had one or more supervisory staff PEs responsible for the army of engineers and trades inspectors beneath them. I'm sure subordinate engineers are occasionally unlicensed, but IME most tend to be bc they want to be promotable should their boss leave. A favorite gripe/concern of mine as a non-CE is actually the limited experience many of these municipal engineers have vs the broad range of responsibilities, I know several mid-late 20-something city/town engineers with responsibility for everything from water quality to building inspection.

As to private industry, prior to my current contract design engineering role I spent most of the last decade at several Fortune 50s managing contract firms' work on large multi-year programs $10M+. As you said, ultimately I have always been held directly responsible for the project's success. If the contracted firm fails then I fail, so its my responsibility to sit in design reviews and correct their mistakes. No, I do not run every CFD but I had dam well better have enough experience with that product's design and analysis to spot "garbage in = garbage out" quickly and know the details of their engineers' work intimately. Blindly trusting that a firm is competent is a guaranteed losing proposition and a quick way to the unemployment line, even before one considers the ethics of "managing" work which you're not qualified to perform.

 

[1503-44]

Right. Look for the obvious and pass it down to one of the engineering contractor's experts is all I can do, and not a lot more in my own field either. The last pipeline & marine terminal I worked was $4.5B so there was a lot going on. No time for getting into those details. You just have to catch what you can and hope they get it right in the end. Fortunately I always work with the best engineering contractors out there and even small mistakes are rare. Harder is framing the big picture, then keeping them inside it.