THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700


S U M M A R Y


DIARY: December 18, 1991 10:24 AM Wednesday; Rod Welch

Richard at Morrison Knudsen called on engineer for Broadwater.

1...Summary
....Comment
...........Engineering Professional Standards


..............
Click here to comment!

CONTACTS 

SUBJECTS
Voith Contract Closeout
Scope Statement
Engineering Management, 911011
Interview Engineers
Evidence & Burden of Proof
Engineering, Professional Standards
Contract Disputes

0809 -    ..
0810 - Summary
0811 -
081101 - MK declines to submit a proposal on Broadwater.  They recommend Percy
081102 - Dawson, who is already set for an interview tomorrow.
081103 -
081104 - We had an interesting discussion on the industry standards for review
081105 - of contractor shop drawings, and will continue this next Monday in SF.
081106 -
081107 -
0812 -
0813 -
0814 - Morrison Knudsen  415 442 7300
0815 -
081501 - Richard advised MK feels the size of the job in relation to the
081502 - potential legal disputes that might arise, make the income too low for
081503 - the risks and time required of top people.  This is the same basis
081504 - position given by Bectel, ref SDS 4.
081505 -
081506 - He said MK recommends that DNRC interview Percy Daswon who has done a
081507 - lot of consulting for MK on designing hydro electric projects and
081508 - fixing construction problems.  Percy was formerly the Chief Engineer
081509 - for the Pelton Water Wheel Company.  I understood Richard to say that
081510 - this company invented some of the fundamental inovations in hydro
081511 - power works.
081512 -
081513 - Richard says he cannot think of a better person to advise DNRC on
081514 - solving hydro electric problems.  I advised that we heard about Percy
081515 - from another source and he is scheduled to come in for an interview
081516 - tomorrow morning.
081517 -
081518 -
081519 -
0816 -

SUBJECTS
Voith Contract Closeout
Opinion Contract Requirements,
Industry Standards, 911005
Expert opinions
Submittals, complete review, 911118
Engineering, Professional Standards
Contract Disputes
Evidence & Burden of Proof

1511 - Progress
1512 -
151201 - We discussed the level of engineer review that should occur in various
151202 - situations.  Richard asked rhetorically whether an engineer should
151203 - examine the shop drawings of a computer chip.  I explained the
151204 - circumstances under which this might or might not be necessary, at
151205 - least how I would advise a client.
151206 -
151207 -         [Note:  the discussion for today, was followed up at Richard's
151208 -         office in SF at ref SDS 6 line 101617.]
151209 -
151210 -
151211 -    Richard characterized the issue as an engineer specifying the
151212 -    condiments or the cook, in distinguishing a "performance"
151213 -    specification or a "construction" spec.  Richard advanced the
151214 -    proposition that the engineering review cannot possibly cover all
151215 -    the details.  You cannot tell the contractor how many threads
151216 -    should be on a pipe or how long the pipe should be.
151217 -
151218 -    You have to lay down very clearly in detail what the performance
151219 -    will be.
151220 -
151221 -    Comment
151222 -
151223 -    I explained one approach to deciding the level of engineering
151224 -    review is to examine the level of detail in the specification.  If
151225 -    the spec says there are to be submittals of shop drawings and the
151226 -    unit is to meet certain criteria, then the shop drawings have to
151227 -    show that such criteria are in fact adequately met.  Further the
151228 -    contractor must point out where his shop drawings vary from the
151229 -    specified criteria and/or industry standards for design of similar
151230 -    work.
151231 -
151232 -           Engineering Professional Standards
151233 -
151234 -           There is a publication discussed with Jeff at ref SDS 2 line
151235 -           081001, which may treat this matter.
151236 -
151237 -
151238 -           [Note:  this type of issue later became the subject of a
151239 -           Prodigy dialog on engineering standards, ref SDS 7 line
151240 -           131308.]
151241 -
151242 -
151243 -    Using the example of the computer chip, if the chip is a
151244 -    standardized product that can be identified as a part number with
151245 -    identifiable performance capability, then the engineer review is
151246 -    simply to see that this part number or an equivalent is included in
151247 -    the shop drawings, and if an equivalent is offered, the engineer
151248 -    should investigate to whatever degree is required to ascertain
151249 -    whether what is submitted is in fact equivalent.  The initial
151250 -    effort is to demand the contractor provide evidence of equality. If
151251 -    the engineer lacks expertise to evaluate the evidence, then the
151252 -    engineer should obtain outside expertise to report on the matter.
151253 -    After approval, the engineer should check to make sure this chip
151254 -    was actually installed in the work, and if it is not, should reject
151255 -    the work and direct the contractor to correct it.
151256 -
151257 -    Alternatively, if a computer chip is not specified by part number,
151258 -    but rather is specified to accomplish certain performance criteria
151259 -    with respect to materials, functionality, structure, interface,
151260 -    power consumption, connectibility, etc., then it would seem that
151261 -    the engineer review would have to cover these points.  If the
151262 -    engineer lacks the expertise to examine the chip design, it must
151263 -    obtain the necessary support from an outside source that is able to
151264 -    evaluate the submittal in relation to the specified design criter-
151265 -    ia.
151266 -
151267 -    Richard feels there is no question the contractor must submit what
151268 -    the contract calls out to be submitted.  He feels there is a lot of
151269 -    turmoil in the industry on the scope of review, and that it is a
151270 -    very difficult question because of liability.  Sometimes an owner
151271 -    limits the amount of money the engineer can spend on review.   I
151272 -    mentioned that was not the case here.
151273 -
151274 -
151275 - I will stop by next Monday to meet him and discuss this matter a
151276 - little further.
151277 -
151278 -
1513 -
1514 -