Re: NCDOT and paving contractor in I-40 dispute

John Lansford <jlnsford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Mike Tantillo" wrote:
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> >> The concrete overlay of 10.8 miles of 4 lanes of concrete pavement,
> >> would have been a daily operation that took place over a period of
> >> weeks. That is how long it would take to perform a construction
> >> operation like that. I would be surprised if it took less than 3 weeks,
> >> in good weather.
> >
> > It took at least 3 months in the fall of last year.
> >
> >> On any of those days of this concrete overlay work operation, the
> >> state's resident engineer for the project, had the responsibility,
> >> through directing the work of his construction inspectors, to make sure
> >> that the joints were being cut to the designed depth. The joint-cut
> >> design would have been clearly shown on the project's design plans.
>
> Well, when Kozel can show his experience of NCDOT plans and
> construction procedures, perhaps someone can rely on his expertise.
> Until then, you can take his opinion for what it is worth; zero.

Johhny Ad-Hominem stikes again.

What I posted above would be generally accurate industry-wide. I base
that on having worked as a highway construction inspector, as well as
having observed and studied highway construction for over 35 years.

If the official project plans and documents were unclear about how to
perform the operation, that is a major problem; if they -were- clear
about how to perform the operation, then the question arises as to why
the NCDOT resident engineer didn't enforce the design -- also a major
problem.

> NCDOT construction plans come in two parts. The plan sheets
> themselves and the "contract and proposal" package. That package is a
> bound book that describes both the standard practices and any special
> procedures that this one project requires. Since the concrete bonded
> overlay was a relatively new procedure on interstate projects, it
> would not surprise me to find the cutting depth and procedure spelled
> out in the special instructions part of the proposal package, and not
> in the plans themselves. The contracts and proposals book is as much
> a part of the project as the plans are, but are not online. Note that
> I have not read this particular project's C&P package, but I have had
> a concrete bonded overlay on a project before, and that is where the
> cut depth was specified, not in the plans.

Ok, since the "contracts and proposals book is as much a part of the
project as the plans are", then what I posted "the joint-cut design
would have been clearly shown on the project's design plans" is
conceptually accurate.

If what Lansford wrote above is correct, then all the details of how to
perform the operation would have been present in the official project
and contract documents that the resident engineer and the contractor
utilize on the project.

Did 1) the NCDOT resident engineer for the project fail in his job to
properly inspect this construction operation, 2) or did this person
misinterpret the project and contract documents, 3) or did some
higher-level NCDOT employee contradict the resident engineer on the
inspection of this construction operation, 4) or were the project and
contract documents unclear on the design and implementation of this
construction operation?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
.

Loading