Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 CASE CC6 - Tower Base Plate, E. Mifflin
Problem:
Excessive machining.
Symptom: A base plate in an insulator replacement assembly was found to be
inadequate.
Collection of Facts: Another plate of much better strength was procured by a
government official. This higher strength plate was one (1) inch thicker than
the original, so the procurer specified the plate be machined to the thinner
thickness. Had the official and/or his agent consulted with the engineer who
discovered the original deficiency, the extra machining could have been
omitted. The extra machining at least tripled the cost of the material.
Solution: Keep the technical people informed.
They may be able to help save
some money.
CASE CC7 - Specification Definition for Fill, A. H. Wu
Problem: Interpretation of 4 inches of "porous fill" to be installed under a
Contractor interpreted the porous fill as being a
5 inches concrete slab.
borrow sand or clean sand in his bid, and he is claiming $8,600 for a change
order for using concrete sand as porous fill as directed by the ROICC.
Collection of Facts: The spec did not specify the requirement for "porous
fill." However, the legend and symbol used in contract drawings indicate the
porous fill is coarse gravel.
ASTM C 33 No. 57 size material should have been defined as "concrete gravel",
not "concrete sand". This was an error in the specification. The barrow
material (SM or SC) which the contractor planned to use as compacted fill was
also planned for use as porous fill. Such a deviation is not permissible
because it would not comply with the requirements on the contract drawings.
Solution: The porous fill should be interpreted as gravel material, and
specified as such, with the size ranging from l/4" to 2-l/2" or other similar
material selected by the designer. Be careful in specifying porous fill.
ROICC's should check with design EIC when interpreting contract requirements.
CASE CC8 - Sewer Pipes, A. H. Wu
Problem: There was a contract dispute regarding requirements for a storm
drain placed at the Anacostia Naval Station. The contractor argues that water
was not a problem at the Anacostia jobsite.
Symptoms: The contractor contends that the specification requirement for a
dewatering system is to prevent the sides and surface of the excavation from
becoming soft. Since this did not happen, he felt he had fulfilled the intent
of the contract. Furthermore, the contractor contended that the requirement
to remove water to one foot below the trench floor is unrealistic since the
soil is clay-like and impervious. The contractor argued that the conditions
in the trench bottom were abnormally soft, not due to water content, and that
125
|
 
|
|
|
||
