NO NEW TALES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. NEW TALES WILL BE POSTED
WHEN RECEIVED.
MARCH 2006
The topographic survey indicated that a manhole lid was labeled "GAS". The
survey noted that the structure was filled with debris and "smelled". The
utility atlas indicated an abandoned gas line in the vicinity. A water
line was to be constructed adjacent to the manhole. The "smelly" manhole
turned out to be part of a sanitary sewer system that was still in operation. The
plans were prepared to remove the abandoned gas line, since the gas company responded
that they did not have any facilities in the area. When the manhole
was excavated with a single tug from a large backhoe, a lot of faces showed
surprised looks and a lot of people were affected. Topo once, Check twice.
FEBRUARY 2006
A construction layout provided a single stake at a radius return. The stake
was labeled "3FT O/S". The plans called for a catch basin and
curb at the radius. The center of the drainage structure was placed from
the stake, so the sewer was laid through the drainage structure. The curb
crew used the stake for the back of curb, so the curb ran across the
top of the structure. The pavers came and went. After inspection,
the curb was re-laid to expose the opening to the structure, leaving a major
turnout at the radius return that was not intended. The intersecting street
matched the curb at the end of the radius, making it about two feet off-center
with the rest of the block. The street stands today as a reminder to communicate
before you excavate.
JANUARY 2006
A vehicle detector loop was to be placed on an intersecting side street
following the installation of a signalized intersection. No work
had been done on the side street. The plans contained a note,
a pay item for sawcutting the loop and the lead-in wire, and a standardized
detail for the placement of the loop in the pavement. The project
had been delayed by snow, and the signals were to be inspected the
following week. The construction superintendent and the resident
engineer were not on site. The sub-contractor arrived to perform
the saw-cut. A lite snow began to fall. The saw-cut depth
was 3/4-inch. The office engineer was new to the project, but
handed the sub-contractor a copy of the detail, paced off the distance
to the loop and went back into the trailer. The sub-contractor
sawed the lead-in line - through the snow-covered pavement - across
a bridge expansion joint, bridge deck a second expansion joint and
a reinforced approach slab.
DECEMBER 2005
The "boiler plate" signal plans called for buried conduit
to be run from a loop detector to the controller, a distance of approximately
450 feet. The quantities did not cover the driveway replacement,
pedestrian cross-walk or the box culvert that had to be crossed
between the detector and the controller. To add insult to injury,
a "Buried Cable" sign post was called for by station and
offset. The sign post was driven directly through the signal
conduit by the sign sub-contractor after final landscaping and a
light snowfall had covered all evidence of a trench. The designer
was on the spot for the repairs, since the work was done according
to plan.
NOVEMBER 2005
A signalized intersection was to be widened and the signals were
to be modernized. This required the installation of temporary traffic
signals in order to control the approaches during construction. The
phasing of construction as shown in the plans necessitated the relocation
of the temporary traffic signal poles and signal heads three separate
times. Standardized details were used, but the location of the pole
guy wires was not shown. The guy wires bracing the temporary poles
crossed two driveways on one corner and one driveway of another business
at the intersection. In addition, the alteration of the profile reduced
the clearance from pavement to bottom of signal head during the second
and third stages. The pay item did not cover the movement of the
temporary poles or the relocation or adjustment of the signal heads.
The construction change order delayed the project, caused a claim
for lost business.
OCTOBER 2005
The plans called for lighting conduit to be trenched adjacent to
the outside roadway shoulder for the entire length of a new freeway
project - extending several miles. The conduit was to be trenched
at a depth of 30 inches. The plans also called for the placement
of subsurface underdrain beneath the outside shoulder for the entire
length of the project, outletting every 350 feet and at low points
in the profile. The plans considered the underdrain to be part of
the subgrade placement and suggested that the underdrains be in place
and operational once paving was completed. Since the road was not
to be opened to traffic until the interchanges at either end were
completed, the lighting was considered to be a late stage item, to
be placed from the completed shoulder. The drilled foundations hit
a few of the underdrain outlets, but the more costly operation was
the repair and replacement of all of the underdrain outlets which
the conduit trenched across.
SEPTEMBER 2005
This one was worth over $1 million in 1981, so imagine what it could
cost today:
A sewer trench was proposed along the base of a retaining wall. The
drainage and the structural designers had not coordinated. The wall
was built and the prime contractor left the site. The sub came
in and trenched for the sewer as the plans indicated. The base of
the wall slid towards the trench and it took millions from the designer's
pocketbook to add unattractive soil nails to the face of the wall
to keep it in place.
AUGUST 2005
This one was worth over $1 million, and was fortunately caught by
the client prior to advertising for bids: The southbound
pavement was not tallied in the quantities.
Click here to post a tip
or an anecdote that can help someone improve their plan quality.
Red
Pencil, Limited
