89

Seal A.B. Placing, linol. CC.

Dec. 13, 1960

Dec. 22, 1960

90

Trane and Fed. Pacific, connection between water chiller and switchgear..

91

Lox piping crib and supp.,

M.S.

Dec. 19, 1960

92

Not issued.

V. STANDARDIZED EQUIPMENT CONTRACTS

There were assigned to us by the contracting officer, supply contracts awarded by him to Compu-Dyne, Inc., Wallace & Co., Nordberg Manufacturing Co., LOX Equipment Co., Joy Manufacturing Co., Federal Pacific Electric Co., and Keenan Supply Co., totaling $4,311,759 under the provision of the contract that contemplates this action. These assignments were protested on the basis that several of the firms were totally and completely incapable of performing the work as needed under the construction schedule by which we had to function and because some were financially unable to carry the burden of such a contract. Further, the conditions under which these supply contracts were let were incomplete and inconsistent with the requirements of our basic responsibilities. There has since been found many areas under which the supply contracts were deficient as to total responsibility and requirements. These areas, we are now told, are our responsibility since such inured to us under the assignment. We, of course, maintain that such and all other items of the assignment must stand the test of reasonableness, completeness, and legality. The Government would not permit us to employ marginal or incapable subcontractors in our basic job, yet the Government did so in these supply contracts, and has attempted to since force upon us the resulting obligations.

The administration of the supply contracts has been extremely difficult since the Government and its several agencies throughout the country have found it necessary to consistently interfere with production, scheduling, manufacture, design, organization, and managerial prerogatives of these firms. Many meetings have been held through the Nation and contacts have been made by Government personnel by which the work and the schedule of these contracts were affected. The Government did in fact assign these contracts but did not relinquish control over them. This condition has resulted in a chaotic situation and in an administrative burden to us of incalculable impact. Since these supply contracts did not tie in in any way to our corresponding responsibilities, duties and responsibilities were directed to be absorbed by us and for this we not only expect adequate compensation, but also adequate time extensions for the delays encountered.

By the standardized equipment supply contracts the materials and equipments are supposed to be shipped from the manufacturer's plant by commercial transportation and we are specifically directed by the contract specifications to include no money in our bid for same, being required only to receive same at the railhead as designated in Rapid City, S. Dak. Obviously, the contractor has no intervening responsibility between the time these materials are shipped from the supplier's plant and the time we shall have received and stored same in a reasonable manner and installed the items in the final system; yet, by numerous directives the Government has forced upon us the intervening responsibility of cleaning, testing, inspecting, and processing. This situation has also affected our assigned suppliers and it has created incalculable damage to our progress. and to our program, and to our cost.

The Nordberg engines bought by the Government were incomplete and were of such design as to be inconsistent with the requirements of the contract drawings. This required a reprocessing on our part of the entire powerhouse piping and it also caused us to purchase, under a directive of the contracting officer, material from Nordberg that obviously should have been included in the original purchases.

A typical example of the confusion extant in the administration of standardized equipment contracts is the incompatible electrical interconnections between equipment furnished by two of the standardized equipment suppliers. On September 8, 1960, we advised the Corps of Engineers that equipment furnished by the Trane Co. did not have electrical connections compatible with the power source furnished under Federal Pacific Electric Co.'s supply contract. On September 13, 1960, the Corps of Engineers advised us that the problem had been referred to the architect-engineer for investigation. On December 23, 1960, the Corps of Engineers directed that we implement a program to provide for compatible electrical connections for this equipment. We were advised in this directive that the changes would be included in a future modification to be designated by No. 90. Along with the directive the Government did not furnish the contractor with any new drawings, any new specifications, or in any way convey to us what changes would be made in this equipment. We were advised that the Sacramento district of the Corps of Engineers, would deal

directly with the standardized equipment contractors and would furnish them with drawings, specifications, etc., and would conduct any negotiation of price for accomplishment of the changed work. As of this date we do not have any documentation as to the nature of the changes that are to be required. Therefore, the work being performed by our electrical subcontractor cannot even be planned, since we have no knowledge of the changes which are to be made.

An example of the many problems encountered in the assigned supply contracts was the omission of vital parts from the contract awarded to Joy Manufacturing Co. Although there is evidence in the standardized equipment contract and also in the general contract, that the original intent was for all supply contractors to furnish all required anchoring and holddown devices, the Omaha district engineer ruled that Joy Manufacturing Co. was not required to furnish the vibration isolator for the C-12 compressor. Joy did furnish vibration isolators for other compressors. We were directed to provide the vibration isolator for the C-2 compressor. We have proposed to the Corps of Engineers a vibration isolator which our vendor designed on the basis of the scant information contained in the specifications. This vibration isolator could not be constructed within the space limitations provided in the contract drawings. We were given a stop order to stop work on the level I floor of the equipment terminal. This stop order was later rescinded and a modification issued to change the design of the vibration isolator. At this time we do not have the equipment required for installation of the vibration isolator and the subject compressor. Our contract work has been seriously delayed by this apparent design deficiency and by lack of complete purchasing under supply contracts.

VI. DRAWINGS

This contract is very unique in its requirement for the production and submission for approval of construction drawings. These construction drawings are actually a composite of the many design drawings produced by the architect, and appear to have been required in order that the architect's designs may be coordinated, thereby passing to the contractor the responsibility for basic design. To date we have submitted for approval 781 construction drawings. Changes and revisions made on these drawings, mostly as a result of reviews by the Corps of Engineers and the architects, have resulted in 1,365 revisions to these drawings. We have initiated 232 transmittals to the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of obtaining approval of our composite construction drawings.

In addition to the drawings mentioned in the above paragraph, our suppliers of structural steel, miscellaneous iron, and reinforcing steel have produced 603 detailed drawings. Due to changes and clarification of discrepancies by reviewing authorities, there were 302 revisions made to these drawings. In obtaining approvals, we have initiated 115 transmittals to the architect-engineer.

In making transmittals to the Corps of Engineers and/or the architects for their review and approval actions on our construction drawings, together with our own normal distribution to our field forces, we have made 82,000 full size reproductions of these construction drawings.

Under a normal construction contract, the contractor expects to utilize the contract drawings produced by the architect-engineer and furnished to the contractor by the Government. On this particular project, it is impossible to use the architect-engineer's contract drawings for construction purposes without the enormous amount of shop drawings, supplemental design drawings, criteria, etc., enumerated above. Salient features of a particular structure may occur throughout any of the some 800 contract drawings which were furnished to us for this project. It would be an almost insurmountable task for a construction crew working in the field to review and utilize the information contained on so many drawings in the set. Attached hereto is a list of some of the major discrepancies which we have discovered in making our construction drawings requiring written clarifications from the Corps of Engineers, and in many cases from the architect-engineer. As you may see, there are more than 250 of these major discrepancies listed. In addition, during the production of our composite drawings, we were able to eliminate many minor discrepancies, such as conflicting dimensions shown on architectural drawings, structural drawings, electrical drawings, mechanical drawings, etc. If we were able to satisfy ourselves which dimension or which layout was correct, event though discrepancies existed, without resorting to clarification by the Corps of Engineers, we incorporated what we interpreted to be the correct configuration into our construction drawings, and merely requested architect or Corps of Engineers verification during approval. In most cases our request for verification on a construction drawing was completely ignored by the architect and the Corps of Engineers. In this respect, it appears that both the Corps of Engineers and the architect are reluctant to assume responsibility for making decisions regarding minor discrepancies. It appears that a written request for a clarification, even though minor in nature, is required in order to obtain a decision from the architect or the corps.

Although the construction contract does infer that composite construction drawings are to be produced by the contractor and furnished to the Corps of Engineers, this requirement has by directive been expanded to include production and submission of drawings covering every minute detail of the construction work. We are continually harassed by letters and telephone requests from the Corps of Engineers office and field forces for additional drawings and approvals of minute details. Our construction work is constantly being stopped and held up because the Corps of Engineers inspector on the site does not have an approved drawing showing all dimensions, all embedded items, all electrical work, all mechanical work, and all of the many facets of the overall construction program. Our drawings are constantly disapproved because of the lack of some attendant feature of the work which in most cases has absolutely no bearing on the pertinent subject. Some typical examples, in general terms, of the disapproval of drawings bcause of a lack of subsequent work having been previously approved are as follows:

1. Anchor bolt layouts for bolts to be embedded in concrete are quite often disapproved because there is not an official approved copy of a piping layout

65773-61 -10