Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge • Hacker News Board

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#51

Post by vacri » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 6:46 AM UTC

ChuckFrank wrote: post #29

manifesto wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just searched on Delta.com. If you book a week ahead, the price for a round trip ticket in First/business class ranges from $6,000 to $11,000, so spending 10k in a month is "normal".

Why would you need to book a week ahead? And why would you go first/business class? It's a huge project, there's got to be scheduled client side meetings, and those should be scheduled months in advance.

The answer to this question: "And why would you go first/business class?"

Is this statement: "It's a huge project"

Apart from getting far enough along in your career to be handling huge projects and therefore probably entitled to some cream, it also just doesn't make sense from a business point of view - save a few thousand on a flight, but the extra fatigue makes good decision-making harder.

Put another way: who should be using business class, if the decision-makers of a huge project shouldn't be?

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#52

Post by dsl » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:02 AM UTC

ChuckFrank wrote: post #28

swampthing wrote: post #14

It seems like the author is trying to make the assertion that all sorts of poor decisions were made - it'd be helpful to have a comparison to other similar projects, in order to make that determination. Otherwise, these could be completely routine issues for all I know (as a layperson). If you took any software engineering project, and described it by detailing all the mistakes in isolation, it would look like a comp…

The weld is really the key difference here. For welds to be structurally sound, and for them to work in the calculations that have been performed for the structural integrity of the structure, they have to meet a certain standard. These welds didn't. The company said that they themselves would state whether those standards were met. So this would be more akin to a computer chip manufacturer, where every Nth chip is f…

Yeah, the welds are a big deal here.

The entire design was done assuming proper welds. When they accepted substandard welds, nobody went back and did the calculations that probably would have shown they needed twice as many supports.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#53

Post by vishaldpatel » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:06 AM UTC

Boy, it'd be great to know more about each commentator before reading their expert opinion on the subjects of project management, procurements, bridge-building, government agency function and anything else relevant to the topic.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#54

Post by saraid216 » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:07 AM UTC

pijsong wrote: post #24

jacques_chester wrote: post #2

I feel that the title is misleading. Caltrans faulted by practicing terrible project management. If someone underbids the next contractor by $250 million on a job they've never done before, you're supposed to politely laugh them out of the room. Edit: for the benefit of those now arriving, the title and link have been changed.

caltrans and california gov ... just way too corrupted

Accepting a lower bid isn't an example of corruption.

This is the equivalent of buying a startup's product on the chance they figured out how to provide value more cheaply. That's not corruption; that's basic market forces.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#55

Post by reedlaw » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:22 AM UTC

glesica wrote: post #43

ChuckFrank wrote: post #21

What a fiasco. This story just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So many lessons to be learned about a flawed bidding and construction process. And from what I see, it's immune to politics. No party can take the higher ground. Public sector graft and private sector lying, cheating and thieving, both need to be stopped and big, small government, or running government like a business doesn't seem to help. Instead, worki…

This is exactly the right attitude in my opinion. Wherever there is money to be made, be it public or private sector, thieves will show up with big smiles and sharp suits on. Consequences are the only thing they understand, and prison sentences are the only true consequences for white collar crime (fines just become a cost of doing business, the only thing you can't get back is time).

Unless the fines are 2-3 times the amount stolen. That would cut into the legitimate portion of their income and likely be a strong deterrent.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#56

Post by div » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:37 AM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #47

jacques_chester wrote: post #2

I feel that the title is misleading. Caltrans faulted by practicing terrible project management. If someone underbids the next contractor by $250 million on a job they've never done before, you're supposed to politely laugh them out of the room. Edit: for the benefit of those now arriving, the title and link have been changed.

> If someone underbids the next contractor by $250 million on a job they've never done before, you're supposed to politely laugh them out of the room. Most of the time, you can't, at least not for government projects. Because of procurement laws and rules (designed, among other things, to allegedly be transparent and to provide accountability), a government body is required to accept the lowest bid from the contracto…

Odd. I've been involved in a few government bidding processes in Europe, and detailing past projects was always a major part of what we'd get graded on.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#57

Post by rwallace » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:39 AM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #54

pijsong wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

caltrans and california gov ... just way too corrupted

Accepting a lower bid isn't an example of corruption. This is the equivalent of buying a startup's product on the chance they figured out how to provide value more cheaply. That's not corruption; that's basic market forces.

If you look carefully at the full text, it's clear the fiasco made no economic sense, and there was bribery and corruption involved.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#58

Post by dnautics » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:46 AM UTC

cmelbye wrote: post #41

pijsong wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

caltrans and california gov ... just way too corrupted

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

in this case the administrators are probably not malicious, they are thinking, "I'm doing society a solid... I should be entitled to a due". It's only malicious if they actually have a modicum of introspection.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#59

Post by aragot » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:55 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #49

Love the pictures of the bridge. The scale is amazing. Wouldn't it be nice if these were projects we could be proud of? It is a little hard to understand how serious it all really is. It sounds like inspections were quite rigorous. Past half way down the article, there's two pictures, one of the internals of a box girder, and right below it, a 10mm crack in a tack weld. I mean, the scale differential of the two image…

I find there aren't enough incriminating pictures/infography in the article. This kind of technical detail only speaks to people with a mechanics background.

For example, a pole will be much weaker if there is an abrupt section change in the middle, even if it's a bigger section. This is counter-intuitive until you learn what the forces look like in metal.

Same goes for welding and cracks. Do you know what happens when a 19-ton propeller has a crack? It breaks while spinning and launches the weighted wing at a few dozen m/s. The French aircraft carrier is lucky the wing was sent to the bottom of the ocean [1].

Which leads me to the next topic: Will politicians state that welds are too complicated for them just like computer things?

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1325...

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#60

Post by dba7dba » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 8:03 AM UTC

The article is focused on faulty management/supervision. It should've focused on HOW the contract went to the Chinese firm in the first place. I'm sure they build find cranes for ports but they never built a bridge.

Obviously I have no link to point to or solid proof but here's what someone told me. Hearsay it may be but I will just throw it out there.

Initially it looked like a Japanese company was going to get the contract. However after a Californian trade mission to China (headed by ex-Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger) returned, the bid went to the Chinese firm. I was told it was quite unexpected.

Not saying Arnold Schwarzenegger was somehow convinced otherwise but I think it's possible one of his advisors were convinced otherwise and than convinced Arnold Schwarzenegger to give the contract to a chinese firm.

Hopefully the truth will come out in a formal inquiry. Hopefully.