Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

philmatu t1_j7lbv1w wrote

Reply to comment by PsuedoSkillGeologist in MTA spent twice as much on Second Ave subway consultants as it did on its construction by NYY657545

I see time and time again that the agency doesn't have adequate staff (both in numbers and competency) to create clear requirements and contracts. This leads to vendors bidding for that set of requirements and a markup (to deal with the agency's incompetency), then when the project fails, change orders ensure further revenue streams. Then the agency does soul searching to figure out where it went wrong. It's a vicious cycle that costs all of us in the end.

4

PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7lz9w9 wrote

Without a doubt. I’d have no consultations if owners got their shit together.

I’ve presenting risk sharing models at ASCE that I believe would be the best solution for differing site conditions and design flaws. Even the questions at the end of the presentation were adversarial.

Every Job has change orders. And every owner and contractor seems to be looking for ways to make or save money. Both sides want to shift risk instead of addressing the issue that COs WILL happen. Instead of working out the semantics beforehand on what constitutes a ‘shared change’ they live in denial until they’re hiring consultants and design engineers to prove their side right. Once the smoke clears. The only profitable parties were the lawyers and consultants.

Nobody, and I mean that literally, Nobody can predict how the earth will behave in subterranean NYC. Meaning that you will always have a DSC. Why not accept this upfront and share the risk? Why? Because the owner wants to claim means and method and the contractor wants to pretend like they didn’t foresee the CO.

It’s all reactive instead of proactive. Because you can’t claim you didn’t see it coming if you try to be proactive.

Keep in mind this is a very broad generalization. Every CO is different. Some are slam dunks by the contractor and some are just wishful thinking.

The truth is that it’s never one party’s fault. But it is one party’s responsibility to build the structures. That means there’s an inherent opposition in what is supposed to be civic duty.

3

philmatu t1_j7m154o wrote

Surprisingly in 2011 my agency hired some MIT grads to design a system internally and become the integrators... mind you this system failed 6 times before. That model was so successful and cheap that it was transferred to 10 other projects, but most of the engineers left and weren't replaced with equally intelligent people. I'm the last of that wave and I'm simply too overwhelmed and overworked to keep up with the contract demands, so stuff naturally slips through the cracks. I care, but there isn't enough of me to keep up. As a result, many contracts are going up in cost and COs are happening, simply because I don't have time (nor resources) to create proper requirements to meet the deadlines imposed on me. It's purely become reactive. I agree

2

PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7mcsqi wrote

Sorry you gotta deal with this man. Why is it happening? I keep seeing the same names moving up to higher agency positions and the people I felt were competent engineers are now going Private or working for the contractors.

It’s a problem on both ends and of course my experience is anecdotal. But it seems like they push away talent to the higher paying private sector because they’d rather get 2 incompetent engineers for the price of 1 competent one.

Either way I appreciate what you do. I know it’s extremely difficult. And my resentment against agencies (much like corporations) is in their leadership. Those that seem to be ‘cruising’ when the reality is they have the ultimate responsibility to taxpayers.

Same can be said with my side. The nefarious GCs that intentionally start a project anticipating COs and find ways to double dip on contract work and CO work. They ruin it for everyone that believes in the concept of civic duty.

2