which will permit the reviewing agency to minutely check the dimensions shown for these anchor bolts. 2. Many times our drawings are disapproved because there is not an official approval of some piece of equipment which is to be connected to embedded items in the concrete. 3. Electrical drawings showing layout of conduit and sleeves through concrete are not reviewed by structural people and, hence, when we begin construction in the field, we are oftentimes stopped because the approval of an electrical drawing is not considered to be approval of a blockout through a concrete floor. 4. Although the contract drawings are often schematic in nature, the re viewing authorities are prone to red-pencil mark our construction drawings which are of necessity produced to show the exact location of the work to be constructed. It is doubtful that any two people working from the same schematic would made identical layouts, and it is certainly not conceivable that the engineer working for the contractor who makes layouts on the most economical basis would make a layout in perfect agreement with the thinking of the theoretical design engineer. 5. Contract specifications and design criteria are vague and plans in many instances are completely nonexistent. Yet the contractor is expected to produce shop drawings of an article which will gain the approval of the theoretical design engineer without having access to his basic knowledge. A typical example of this problem is the interpretation of the shock requirement specifications and its superimposition on vibration isolators for air-conditioning equipment. This mingling of two sets of specification data has resulted in an exotic design of a vibration isolator in no way recognizable as a standard manufactured article. 6. In many cases disapproval actions are the result of the volume upon volume of submittal data that is required of the contractor by the architect and by the Corps of Engineers. In many instances data which has been approved on an article has been lost in the archives. Subsequent submittal of a construction drawing may result in disapproval, simply because in the tremendous volume the reviewing agency is unable to find the previously approved shop drawings. This results in disapprovals and our having to initiate investigations and then furnish information to the architect so that they can finally find their own copies of approved shop drawings and complete the necessary review for approval. The tremendous workload imposed on the contractor is not confined to the general contractor himself. It is also passed on to all of our subcontractors, who in turn are required to pass this cumbersome, burdensome chore on to each of their vendors and subtier subcontractors. The magnitude of this task could not possibly have been foreseen prior to the submission of a bid for this contract. However, there appears to be no way that the contractor can obtain any relief from either the standpoint of the financial burden, or of even greater importance, the time-consuming delays which such an unusual condition has created. Discrepancies in drawings and specifications requiring clarification by Corps of Engineers Dimensions for spacing inserts embedded in missile silos. No specification for material of which pins were made for structural steel fabrication and installation. Location of bolts in pattern E, missile silo, embedded anchors. Location of pattern G, embedded items in missile silo. Discrepancy in angles between the radio beams. Dimension of columns between basement and main floor, powerhouse. Interference between reinforcing steel and unistrut inserts in missile silos. Obsolete and blurred plans. 760 Hinges thresholds between tunnels and floor slabs. Discrepancies in bolts, spring clips and shock mounts. Advice on manufacturing dimension tolerances-standardized equipment. Grounding installations. Tunnel excavations and methods. Discrepancies in drawings and specifications requiring clarification by Corps of Engineers-Continued Mounting heights light fixtures drawing, 88-E-2. Location of anchor bolts for Joy compressors, standardized equipment. Tunnel drawings. Grounding rods, missile silo No. 1-B. Method of connecting tunnels to structures by using expansion anchors. Specifications not clear, and conflict with notes on plans. Powerhouse footing excavations. Discrepancies in tunnel drawings. Clarification of dampproofing requirements. Location of pipe supports and tunnels. Discrepancies in dimensions, propellant terminal structure and miscellaneous embedded items. Follow-up on discrepancy, propellant terminal embedded item. Welded connections splice plates and spring beams. Generator foundation design. Specificatious on clean room D scaling and inspection. Specification on ventilation equipment supports, anchorage devices. Data on deep well pumps. Data on water analysis. Electric gates, power supply. Discrepancy in door and vestibule portal silo dimensions. Specification on flexible hose. Location of grounding cables. Circuit breaker trip ratings elevators. Subgrade for powerhouse floor slab. Floor slabs design for elevator loads. Manholes and cover materials. Additional data on floor slab design for elevator loads. Discrepancy in shock mount knee bracing dimensions. Powerhouse spring beam dimensions. Shock mount supports, powerhouse, Discrepancies in type H bracing on spring beams. Clarification of control units TV system. Reinforcing in powerhouse floor slabs. Type D connections for structural installations. Elevator motors. Dimensions in powerhouse, basement. Dimensions on bolt patterns for embedment in concrete. Spacing of channel rings cable trays. Conduit for crib receptacles. Tunnel grades. Splice details elevator guide rail plates. Grounding in airmen's ready room. Additional clarification required to be included in modification No. 11. Clarification of specifications on raised floor system. 81 3590 Electrical conduits and junction box 1400, missile silo. Circuits and panels for power to battery chargers. Installation of standardized equipment and change in layout dimensions. Anchoring devices for vessels, propellant terminals, standardized equipment. Elevator discrepancies. Location of pipe sleeves. Standardized equipment shop drawing discrepancies. Light fixture mounting arrangements, launcher area filtration. Interferences and heat exchange locations. Vibration isolators, Joy compressors, standardized equipment. Discrepancies in drawings and specifications requiring clarification by Corps of Engineers-Continued Discrepancies in light fixtures installations. Anchor bolts for Keenan's vessels. Discrepancy in valve margin requirements and standardized equipment. 143 5810 144 5775 145 5788 Fog nozzles. Wiring for compressors and dryers. 152 6320 Anchor bolts at missile silo. Thread data on strainer nozzles. Nordberg generator foundation. Cleanings of tank 10 and 11. Undersized conduit for alarm system control cables. Conflict between conduits at junction box No. 1400 and 4 inch firewater piping. Heat exchange unit CC-HE-IP. Paint finish at Weberwall. Type CV, high pressure glove valves. Antenna silo elevator feeder breakers. Discrepancies in drawings and specifications requiring clarification by Corps of Engineers-Continued 9821 A.C. supports. Korfund vibration mounts. Guide rail support installation. Conflict between escape hatch and cable trays. Unistrut inserts in blast locks. Heating coil at launcher filtration. Hose reel and heating coils for antenna silo doors. Anchoring devices at neoprene closures. Add steel to support AC units. Missile silo fire water supports. Shock supports in the missile silos. Missile silo fire water supports. Modification 35 revision to fuel crib. Support for fan F-1 in the launcher filtration. Latch housing at portal silo. Relocation of LOX subcooler T-401. Blast lock No. 2 escape hatch. Food service equipment specifications. Under-sized conduits for alarm system control cables. Structural facilities for supporting A.C. units. Equipment terminal level I. Shock supports in missile silo. Conflicts on Drawing 07-C35 and 07-C36. Location of hydraulic control panel. Orientation target. Roller guide supports. Launcher air filter heating coils. LOX catch pot in missile silo crib. 2.4 KV switchgear. Elect. for hydraulic portal silo. Pilot valve artesian well 1C. Blockout 1B Control Center 10 x 10. Power supply test control station. NRS valves w/limit switches. Elevations equipment terminals. Hyd. panel for instrument tube. Inserts blast lock. Cable tray in blast locks. Elect. switchgear-water chiller. Conduit holes in firewall. Well vent seals-Bellows. J-M gaskets. Nozzles-location on standardized equipment vessels. Cable tray-duct-Antenna Silo. J.B. 1400-Missile Silo. Solenoids-Inst. Tube. Fasteners for electrical items to structural. T. & S. cable tray supports. VII. SUBMITTALS FOR APPROVAL To date we have forwarded for approval a total of 656 submittal packages. We have also made 219 resubmittals of packages where approval actions did not permit proceeding with the production and delivery of equipment items, but required resubmittal before a tentative approval could be given. There still remain many items which have not received a final approval, and further resubmittals will be required before we are able to complete our procurement and delivery of materials to the jobsite. There does not seem to be a realistic approach to the review and approval of materials which we proposed to utilize. A major difficulty in this respect is the result of the administration of the architect-engineer review through a separate contract between Daniel, Mann, Mendenhall & Johnson & Associates and the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has instructed the architect to place the most literal interpretation possible on specifications and contract drawings. Any deviation, no matter how minute, which we propose cannot be approved by the architect. The architect must mark this proposal with a disapproval action and before any deviation can be permitted, a cumbersome negotiation with the Corps of Engineers, the architect, and the contractor is required and results in a modification of the contract to provide for any minor changes. This oftentimes creates serious delays in approval actions which appear to be quite acceptable at the time of our proposal, but cannot be approved and procurement authorized for lack of a commitment on the part of the Corps of Engineers. There are numerous instances when the Corps of Engineers will reverse or change an approval action which has been previously given to a transmittal by the architect-engineer. There are also numerous instances when the architect has re-reviewed at a later date and changed a previous approval action. Shortly after the award of this contract, it was recognized that there would be grave difficulties in obtaining materials which required shock testing. In a preliminary conference regarding the possible difficulties, it was decided that a tentative approval would be given to shop drawings which would permit the manufacturers to proceed with the production of a sample article that could be shock tested. This was the result of the manufacturers' being reluctant to produce an article before any tentative approval thereof, and the attendant risk of having an article disapproved for other reasons than its ability to withstand shock. The contractor reluctantly agreed to make a preliminary submittal which would be given a tentative approval, and then make a complete resubmittal along with shock-test data. Soon after this procedure had been initiated, the contractor recognized that we were engaged in a battle of paper submittal which could serve no useful purpose. We proposed that the tentative approval be given to an article and that resubmittal not be required. We have within the last 2 weeks received some relief in this respect. After a submittal has been made, and given a tentative approval, rather than make a complete resubmittal of 23 copies of all documents, we are now only required to make a submittal of the shock test data itself, after which the tentative approval on the original submittal is amended by letter. This change in the requirements for submittal of shock-testing data does not offer much relief to this contract, but will certainly be a great relief on any future contracts. Contract specifications in many, many instances, refer to the use of items of standard manufacture. However, when our submittals are made, a literal interpretation of the specification is then used, which precludes the use of standard manufactured items. The interpretation of the contract documents made by the contractor often differs from that made by the architect-engineer. Also, a different interpretation may be put on a specification by a manufacturer who considers his standard items to be equal to that specified, although deviating in minor instances. This particular difference in interpretations has created enumerable problems and delays in the procurement program. VII. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we believe the foregoing report points out some of the difficulties, inertia, lack of coordination between contractor and Government agencies, and other costly and delaying factors, which we are required to overcome in the execution of this contract. We have been seriously and financially damaged as a result, and only decisive, positive, prompt action will allow the completion of our work on time. |