2 ms·

This demonstrates a total and complete lack of understanding of how large scale construction projects like this work. You really believe the main issue is "get

This demonstrates a total and complete lack of understanding of how large scale construction projects like this work. You really believe the main issue is "getting the old equipment out" and "the new equipment in"? Your plan sounds like an amazing way to create a tremendous amount of safety risk, shoddy work, or a project that runs forever.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> You really believe the main issue is "getting the old equipment out" and "the new equipment in"? No, I was responding to a specific complaint made upthread. > Your plan sounds like an amazing way to create a tremendous amount of safety risk, shoddy work, or a project that runs forever Do you have any basis for this? The change-over requirement for midstream cost adjustments (above a threshold) works well enough for e.g. aerospace subcontractors. It adds delays in the short-term but promotes better behavior in the long.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > It adds delays in the short-term A delay in this project is a safety risk. They are trying to have a working spillway by Nov 1, so if unexpected rains cause another extreme inrush into the lake they can handle it by releasing >100,000 cfs from the spillway. Without that ability, they are risking failure of the emergency spillway and the flooding[1][2] of a large part of the central valley. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVcGUvE3BBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVcGUvE3BBc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0Hc56vJ2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0Hc56vJ2Y
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    You're correct in observing that change-over processes are less-frequently implemented for time-sensitive work. I was making a broader point around our public-sector low-bid auction process. For this type of work, the best process would avoid appointing a single contractor. Unfortunately, that would also require more expertise in the public officials allocating work, a concentration we find politically toxic in America.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> You really believe the main issue is "getting the old equipment out" and "the new equipment in"? No, I was responding to a specific complaint made upthread. > Your plan sounds like an amazing way to create a tremendous amount of safety risk, shoddy work, or a project that runs forever Do you have any basis for this? The change-over requirement for midstream cost adjustments (above a threshold) works well enough for e.g. aerospace subcontractors. It adds delays in the short-term but promotes better behavior in the long.

pdkl95 9y ago
> It adds delays in the short-term A delay in this project is a safety risk. They are trying to have a working spillway by Nov 1, so if unexpected rains cause another extreme inrush into the lake they can handle it by releasing >100,000 cfs from the spillway. Without that ability, they are risking failure of the emergency spillway and the flooding[1][2] of a large part of the central valley. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVcGUvE3BBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVcGUvE3BBc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0Hc56vJ2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0Hc56vJ2Y
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  You're correct in observing that change-over processes are less-frequently implemented for time-sensitive work. I was making a broader point around our public-sector low-bid auction process. For this type of work, the best process would avoid appointing a single contractor. Unfortunately, that would also require more expertise in the public officials allocating work, a concentration we find politically toxic in America.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]