New information on the freeway extension
This morning I came across an article about the I-580 freeway extension on the Northern Nevada Business Weekly site. Unlike the recent RGJ article, this one addresses some of my gripes about the change in contractors. (See my entry for Oct. 24, 2007.)
Regarding the new contractor's plan to use fill to construct the Galena bridge, the article quotes an NDOT engineer as saying, "We have allowed them to move forward with it. We accept it and we approved the drawing, but we don’t actually approve the whole process itself. That is too much liability for NDOT to take."
What the heck does that mean? Did original contractor Edward Kraemer & Sons want NDOT to be liable for Kraemer's alternative suggestions for safely constructing the bridge? Is that why the contract with Kraemer was terminated?
The article implies the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management were consulted about the new construction plan because it says they rejected the new contractor's first plan.
It also says NDOT was able to sell "some $5 million in steel for the truss built by Edward Kraemer & Sons" as scrap. It doesn't say how much NDOT got for it or how much it cost to cut it up and move it off the site.
UPDATE 11/12/07: In re-reading the NNVW article, I think I mis-read the part about selling the steel as scrap. I guess I missed the part where the NDOT engineer says "Fisher Sand and Gravel (my emphasis) also caught some breaks." The paragraph immediately following that statement says, "It (my emphasis) was able, for instance, to sell as scrap some $5 million in steel for the truss built by Edward Kraemer & Sons." In re-reading those two sentences, it appears to me now that "it" refers back to Fisher rather than NDOT. So NDOT (we) paid for $5 million worth of steel and NDOT gave it to Fisher? (I still think NDOT paid to have it cut up and moved.) Yes, that was quite a break.
Regarding the new contractor's plan to use fill to construct the Galena bridge, the article quotes an NDOT engineer as saying, "We have allowed them to move forward with it. We accept it and we approved the drawing, but we don’t actually approve the whole process itself. That is too much liability for NDOT to take."
What the heck does that mean? Did original contractor Edward Kraemer & Sons want NDOT to be liable for Kraemer's alternative suggestions for safely constructing the bridge? Is that why the contract with Kraemer was terminated?
The article implies the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management were consulted about the new construction plan because it says they rejected the new contractor's first plan.
It also says NDOT was able to sell "some $5 million in steel for the truss built by Edward Kraemer & Sons" as scrap. It doesn't say how much NDOT got for it or how much it cost to cut it up and move it off the site.
UPDATE 11/12/07: In re-reading the NNVW article, I think I mis-read the part about selling the steel as scrap. I guess I missed the part where the NDOT engineer says "Fisher Sand and Gravel (my emphasis) also caught some breaks." The paragraph immediately following that statement says, "It (my emphasis) was able, for instance, to sell as scrap some $5 million in steel for the truss built by Edward Kraemer & Sons." In re-reading those two sentences, it appears to me now that "it" refers back to Fisher rather than NDOT. So NDOT (we) paid for $5 million worth of steel and NDOT gave it to Fisher? (I still think NDOT paid to have it cut up and moved.) Yes, that was quite a break.
Comments