Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge • Hacker News Board

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#111

Post by bagosm » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 5:34 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #106

I've never been involved in bridge contracts, but all the highway construction contracts I've seen have specified performance bonds sufficient to finish the project in case of problems. I thought this was a requirement for any project that gets federal money (which is effectively any highway project at all). It's surprising that an article this long wouldn't even mention whether the bonds proved sufficient, how much…

That's exactly the question I asked some minutes before you. This doesn't have an answer still? I find it perfectly ok for something to start to corrode but the maintenance work should be there to fix it...

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#112

Post by Shivetya » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 5:36 PM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #102

Shivetya wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to understand how this fiasco is any different from Boston's big dig? Are we just posturing because it was a Chinese company? Neither was bid/priced right and both have/had safety problems. Welcome to the world of government contracts, big projects tend to be vastly different than what is proposed or agreed too. Hence I am confused as to why the controversy this time.

So your argument is, because government projects are usually problematic, we should not be calling attention to new problematic projects? Doesn't that seem a little... fatalistic?

I am not aware of many if any actually big government projects that are not problematic. However I do think the story was full of underhanded/indirect Chinese bashing, if not just plain foreigner bashing; like the quote "unaccustomed to the rigor of American construction rules". I guess they are just too stupid to do business in the real world, and this in the state that wants to waste billions on a train to nowhere.

Frankly I am amazed at how much oversight there isn't on billion dollar plus projects. You would think there should be more than one agency, in particular neutral non government agencies that should be required to sign off on projects that crest a certain dollar amount.

This is not to say that big government projects are all bad, they do lay ground work for many private companies to build on. Look as Space X, it would not be where it is today if not for NASA but it is a better choice for many things that NASA because of its big government mentality are not good at anymore. We only have to look at the recent boondoggle that was the ACA's main website to understand that oversight by non politically aligned, no government groups, is warranted.

TL;DR.

Yes, a lot of China bashing going on, to redirect the ire from its rightful spot, inept government with no real oversight. There needs to be "civilian" oversight on large government projects, appointed by industry experts.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#113

Post by acomjean » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

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.

usually the wording is "lowest bid from a qualified contractor"

If the the contractor is not qualified they should be removed from the bid. In NY there was a list of contractors no longer able to bid state jobs that had to be checked as well.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#114

Post by acomjean » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #106

I've never been involved in bridge contracts, but all the highway construction contracts I've seen have specified performance bonds sufficient to finish the project in case of problems. I thought this was a requirement for any project that gets federal money (which is effectively any highway project at all). It's surprising that an article this long wouldn't even mention whether the bonds proved sufficient, how much…

I was involved in a lot of state landfill construction (my Civil Engineering days). That Bond was a big deal for a lot of companies.

The owners (county and village) were good and wouldn't release payment for work that didn't meet the spec. The prospect of payment or lack thereof is a great motivator. Contractors knew the rules up front and it made our lives as inspectors for the owners much easier. Not that they didn't test you continually to see what they could get away with. These things start at the top.

Oragne County landfill Expansion (a landfill they built and then had to stop and restore wetlands) was before my time but companies lost a lot of money on it and it was a good cautionary tale. Google seems to have very little knowledge about it.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#115

Post by trhway » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

>"Caltrans overrode bridge welding codes"

that is my favorite here. Sounds like poetry.

>"Tony Anziano, chief executive for toll-bridge work, made at least 64 visits to Shanghai, stayed in one of the city’s most luxurious hotels and spent more than $300,000 on travel during construction."

if tales of Chinese corruption and kickbacks is even a bit true (and knowing Russian corruption i tend to believe in Chinese too :) these $300K are juts unrecognizable under microscope peanuts compare to what was most probably transferred to some accounts on Cayman Islands and in some other peculiar jurisdictions.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#116

Post by alxndr » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

eots wrote: post #96

Totally off-topic, but did anybody else notice the chocolate-starfish graffiti on one of the beams pictured in the article?

I think that sort of graffiti/art for-and-by the workers is common on bridges in the Bay Area, if not elsewhere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Bridge_Troll

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#117

Post by lotsofmangos » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:00 PM 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…

Cracks act as focal points for stress. A 10mm crack in the wrong place can cause surprisingly large metal structures to tear in half, with the stress staying focused on the tip of the crack as it grows. In fact, the larger the structure, the worse the problem can be as the forces tend to be correspondingly bigger.

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#118

Post by morganw » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #106

I've never been involved in bridge contracts, but all the highway construction contracts I've seen have specified performance bonds sufficient to finish the project in case of problems. I thought this was a requirement for any project that gets federal money (which is effectively any highway project at all). It's surprising that an article this long wouldn't even mention whether the bonds proved sufficient, how much…

no federal money used:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110705/wire/107051072...

"California decided not to apply for federal funding for the project because the "Buy America" provisos would probably have required purchasing more expensive steel and fabrication from United States manufacturers."

It's still part of I-80, though. Are there not requirements for the bid process and construction standards independent of funding?

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#119

Post by wil421 » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

>The California Department of Transportation agreed to contract the company known as ZPMC in 2006 because it had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.

This is absolutely crazy. What kind of person hires a company to build a bridge that usually builds cranes? (A politician)

When I was still in college I met a Project Manager who was building a new building for my University. The project was going very wrong because they hired a residential building company to build a commercial building.

Dont force a square peg in a round hole. (No amount of money will help it fit)

Re: Troubled welds on the Bay Bridge

#120

Post by Noted » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 8:21 PM UTC

dba7dba wrote: post #61

austinz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the citizens of countries such as Japan, Canada, and Turkey should be offended that their governments are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to 'foreign' companies in the U.S. for (e.g.) the F-35 fighter?

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Check the comment he responded to, it was definitely on topic