7720 HARDESON RD BASE FILE 2016-01-01 MF Import

.w ^ September 20, 1581 iverett Building iept. r,verett, vlashington Lec.r Iir. Callz.h�n: in my cpinion, the discrep;�ncies th�t i er_countered during the brief period th=�t I proviled inspection on the c:e�. rrop Industricl 'rroject ticould h,�ve m:teri�lly <ffectea the str��ctur.l integrity of the structt.res involved, if they had �;one uncorrected. ihe i'reouency cnd n_.ture of these ciscrepGncies, the constructicn pr�otices underlying them and visible repetetive omissions of resteel, reilecti.ng ��on- tinuing unf�mili+,.rity with the plrns, aroused my concern that simil,r discrepr..nci.es might ha,ve �one undetecteri in �;revious construction. �his possibility, �;,hich i first �:.ddressed in my initial inspection of .;u�ust 1`J, h�s probably been r:dequ�.tely called to 3�our ��tteni,ion. :his letter, sumr,:srizing some of r„y inspection experience� on the project, is prepc•.red in the belief that it m�:y prove helpful in the event this preject is ever �.nvolved in court ::ction. 1n this letter, i propose to e;:�.r�ine some factors th�:t =�re ordin�.rily not covered in routine irspection reports, but ��:hich ]. believe apprec- i<:bly Gffect construction quality. ::n this �roject, factors of tnis nature include: - the Centractor's coni;inuing unfamiliarity with the p14ns - use of unskilled 1Gborers in work norm�•lly performed by skilled trades - freouent inadvertant and intention�l depe•.rtures from the p12ns �rithout prior nutification of or approva� from the sngineer or i,ity a�, working superintendent extensively engaged in equipmeat operution end laborer activities instead of normal superintendant duties - departure from customary and proven construction practices - £ailure to schedule irispections and to prepare for upcoming wo.rk in �- timely manner ,:nd - c4reless �:nd costly mistakes requirin� the rep�.ir or repl�cement of previous �•:orlc. �onstructioti practices �,,�ill be surun�:rized : s Uriefly rs possible �znder the m: jor he_�.din�s beloo�. -tS_L�l�:l�.�.ii�r iJl'li:iL - �urrently visible reb�:r omissions �,.iri ;:�iss�ng :and h•,;.ph �za'rd pla.cement of resr,�el, es oLscrved i:i mv in�n�cti.o�is, �_ppe�r to chur.��.ctez•ize the ironwork on this project. This hae been adequately covered in my inspection reports i-nd i o;ill merely look a.t saver�:l prectices. ln n;y experience, it i�, customary (and i believe economic�:l) to employ experienced ironworlcers on � project of this size. :_11 iron�vork on the project wr,_s perfor�r:ed by l�borers. it is �.lso customary on : project of this size to have the resteel det<.iled by the supplier. fi;.d this pr<.ctice been followed, it seems probable, for example, thr.;; the bend-outs speci£ied by the ingineer in lieu of riowels (and pref- eruble fbr Uevert�l ree.sons) �•:ould nave been det�iled, shop formeri end delivered ty the steel comp�,ny. :'here is no indic.�tion tli. t the Con- tirc�.ctor ever icentifi.ed the need ior this rc�teel iten. � J