Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: CalTrans Screw Up

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In your example, if the engineer specified #5s @ 16" when #4s @ 16" are
adequate, then shame on the engineer especially when the project is being
paid for with public funds. In this case, the engineer should be held
accountable. The only way this example can be compared to the weld issue is
if the contractor omitted the welds.

Regards,
Bill Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Howard <lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: CalTrans Screw Up


>As most of the rest of us, I do not really know the facts behind this
issue.
>However, we have been involved in some similar circumstances that may
account
>for what is happening here.
>If the Contractor did not conform to the welding specifications that he bid
on,
>then he would owe the Owner a refund for the work he did not perform as
>specified.  When the engineer reviewed what was actually provided, he may
have
>determined that it was adequate.
>
>A similar example could be that if the drawings called for wall reinforcing
to
>be #5 bars @ 16 inch spacing, and the Contractor only provided #4 @ 16"
o.c.,
>then the construction could be called defective.  However, upon evaluation
by
>the engineer, he finds that he was conservative in his design and #4 @ 16"
o.c.
>are adequate, then no repair is necessary.  But the General Contractor is
still
>obliged to credit the owner with the difference between what he bid on and
what
>was provided.
>
>I am not saying that this is actually what happened here, but this is one
>scenario I can think of where it would make sense to call the construction
>"defective", and at the same time no repair is necessary.
>
>Lynn