I-35 / US 30 Flyover Progress

[scottie33]

Anyone have any new insights on what is going on with these bridge piers on the I-35 to HWY 20 Fly-Over bridge?

The furthest South pier was already poured, demo'ed, and repoured. They have spent the last 3-4 weeks chipping concrete off the top of the pier and looks like they are setting up to do the same thing on the 2nd bridge pier from the South.

Also, they mobilized two (2) Manitowac 2250s, I think, a few weeks ago to lift the bridge deck beams into place but they are nowhere near being ready for them.

I can only imagine them spending about $100k/Month on crane rentals for them to just sit there.

What a catastrophe it would appear...

 

[Acylum]

Do you mean 30?

 

[cyclone87]

They poured some or maybe all of the piers about 30" too tall is what I've heard. Now the piers have to be shortened. Not a good look for the DOT or whoever has the contract. About a month ago the project was supposed to be completed by this November. Not sure how this changes the timeline now.

Edit: Hearing it was the cast-in-place anchor bolts they had in the wrong location now and not the height.

 

[isufbcurt]

They poured some or maybe all of the piers about 30" too tall is what I've heard. Not a good look for the DOT or whoever has the contract. About a month ago the project was supposed to be completed by this November. Not sure how this changes the timeline now.

So they just missed the mark? lol

 

[ajk4st8]

They have the wrong anchor bolts at the top of the piers and have will have to redo most of them.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

If you look at the 1st, 2nd & 3rd piers for the exit from 35 N to 30 W while driving eastbound on 30 (with the 1st pier being the one that is actually attached to the bottom of the ramp), the 2nd pier is visibly lower than the slope of the 1st & 3rd piers, meaning the off ramp would have a dip in the middle of the curve. It's clearly visible to the naked eye.

 

[CyArob]

Sounds like they've got a great contractor out there. Didn't they already have to completely re-do one of the piers?

 

[VeloClone]

If you look at the 1st, 2nd & 3rd piers for the exit from 35 N to 30 W while driving eastbound on 30 (with the 1st pier being the one that is actually attached to the bottom of the ramp), the 2nd pier is visibly lower than the slope of the 1st & 3rd piers, meaning the off ramp would have a dip in the middle of the curve. It's clearly visible to the naked eye.

If you have ever installed a door you know that is exactly what wood shims are for. No big deal.




<Jimlad>

 

[JP4CY]

Sounds like they've got a great contractor out there. Didn't they already have to completely re-do one of the piers?

Yes the South one was completely demolished and redone.

 

[throwittoblythe]

Lowest price is not always the lowest cost.

 

[Farnsworth]

Lowest price is not always the lowest cost.

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

 

[Cy94]

Measure twice. Pour once.

 

[EnhancedFujita]

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

I'd guess this is on the contractor. Unless the screw up was on the plans, which it could then fall back to the engineering company that designed it. Somehow I bet there are a bunch of lawyers involved at some point.

 

[Doc]

This thread is bringing back memories of Professor Klaiber lecturing us on how you don't pour concrete, you place it. Pouring implies it's a liquid and we don't want concrete truck drivers thinking it's a liquid.

 

[JSmoove]

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

Usually the way the contract is written is that the work isn't eligible for payment until accepted by the engineer. Now if the plans showed wrong elevations and the contractor built the bridge as specified in the plans then the state wouldn't have as much of a leg to stand on.

 

[JayV]

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

Depends on who is at fault. Were the plans wrong? Did the something get marked wrong in the field by the surveying/staking crew? Unless it's completely obvious as to who is at fault there will be finger pointing, and likely lawyers involved to determine who pays for the mistakes and rework. May end up being a combination of factors and parties.

 

[SCyclone]

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

On a job of this magnitude, the low bidder is bound to complete the project for the price he bid - unless circumstances out of his control caused delays/problems/overruns. Particularly where the government is involved, they aren't about to allow additional charges when work is done incorrectly.

 

[VeloClone]

Even if there are mistakes on the plans it is expected that there will be a reasonable amount of errors on plans. In my experience there have to be an extraordinary amount of errors for errors and omissions insurance to cough up for additional costs. If it was simply an error by the contractor they are responsible for R&R (remove and replace) however you can count on them submitting multiple change orders from here on out to try to recoup some of their losses.

 

[NickTheGreat]

Lowest price is not always the lowest cost.

But it'll usually get the bid. Then change-order out the ass later on!

 

[Sousaclone]

How does this all work though? Who foots the bill for all the screw ups? I assume it's written into the contracts, but shouldn't the contracting company be footing the bill for all this, not the state?

Like others have said, it depends on who's mistake it is. If I (as the contractor, which I happen to be), make something 36" tall instead of 3'6" tall, then that is on me. If however the designer said 36" tall on the drawings and actually wanted it 3'6" tall, then I'm submitting a change order for extra work and delay, which the state would then be responsible for.

A lot of that stuff is normally caught by the contractor, but beam seats, or top of concrete slab elevations are hard for the contractor to back check, especially for smaller contractors that don't have tons of engineering staff supporting them.