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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Seeing Farzad's letter reminds me of the same situtation that SEAOC and ATC
went through a few years ago.  At that time, both parties agreed that ATC
would not compete with member engineers on projects.  Now it looks like the
same situation exists with SAC.  However, my comments are going to address
another issue that I'm not sure SAC, SEAOC, ATC, or CUREe have thought

SAC was formed specifically to research and address a problem stemming from
the Northridge earthquake.  The group solicited funding from FEMA and the
California Office of Emergency Services to address the issue of steel
moment frame damage.  FEMA and OES were able to fund this group as it was,
and is, a non-profit entity engaged in educational pursuit.  FEMA has very
specific rules regarding the funding of private non-profit organizations as
CUREe knows from their proposal on wood shear walls.

Should SAC pursue this course and get the project, even if it is only the
research side, the place their non-profit status in jeopardy.  This, in
turn, could lead to a de-obligation of funds from FEMA.  I do not believe
that SAC, ATC, CUREe, or SEAOC can afford to pay back the millions of
dollars that have been spent on the SAC project since Northridge.

There is no reason for SAC to propose on this project.  This is a project
for a consulting firm, not a consortium of individuals.  There is no reason
why SAC can not contact the successful firm to discuss their involvement in
the research phase.  If SAC needs reseach money then they need to contact
FEMA , NSF, or some other grant funding organization.

Rick Ranous