“Although inspectors asserted that no undocumented water was added to the concrete, forensic testing in the SSTC suggests a presence of 36% more water than was documented by the concrete provider and the inspector.”
Ladies, if you have a recipe that has 3 or 4 ingredients, and you add 36% more of one ingredient than the recipe calls for (and add the other ingredients in exactly the same amounts that the recipe calls for), then what will be the result? … The same applies for concrete.
Inspectors, take it from George Washington: "It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."
“The effects of extra water and improper curing should have been detected during testing, but concrete specimen samples upon which test results relied were not representative of the in-situ concrete. … However, records do not indicate that the test results from cylinders collected at the two locations were ever compared by the contractors. As a result, the differences were not identified or investigated, and the same batch performance differences relative to specifications were not detected.”
Translated: Concrete in test cylinders cured in a protected environment (e.g., lab) is not the same as concrete exposed to freezing temperatures during curing. DUH!
“By late 2010, design, construction, and inspection personnel were aware that proper concrete thickness was not always being achieved, yet effective corrective measures were not taken, and the problem persisted throughout the period of the major construction project activities.”
Analogy: The store’s employees are aware of problems; but, the store’s owners are ignoring them. DUH!
“The three pour strips on the 330 and 350 levels were each constructed in a different manner and neither of the pour strips on the 330 level was constructed in a manner that conformed to the design requirements identified in the structural drawings. … The east pour strip on the 330 level was poured without post-tensioning tendons but with mild steel reinforcement, while the west pour strip on the 330 level was poured without posttensioning tendons and without sufficient steel reinforcement in one direction.”
“Problems with structural design and construction were identified by late 2010, and repeatedly discussed in subsequent Project Management Team meetings, but were not effectively addressed.”
“Recommendation 6: Those professionals whose lack of diligence resulted in the pour strip construction deficiencies should be held accountable.”
How the public recovers $120+ million that has been wasted on this lemon was not addressed in the IG's report. In fact, the 165-page .pdf document doesn't address why and how more than $120 million has been wasted on the SSTC. It mostly talks about what whould be done on future projects.
YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT, Montgomery County IG Edward Blansitt and Montgomery County Chief Administrative Officer Timothy L. Firestine. The public wants to know HOW and WHY $120+ million of the public's money was wasted on THIS project. Was it because of crony capitalism, a.k.a. public-private partnerships, where public contracts are awarded sole source, without competition to friends of politicians?
The SSTC is a lemon. We, the public, want our money back, regardless of how and why the SSTC became a lemon.
No comments:
Post a Comment