6 ms·

Four out of 20 gates! That is ludicrously sloppy. I enjoy that their recourse for such a failure in design so far has been to "write a strongly worded letter".

by nawgz 4y ago

Four out of 20 gates! That is ludicrously sloppy. I enjoy that their recourse for such a failure in design so far has been to "write a strongly worded letter". Is there some kind of protection for the builder that is preventing them from being sued? Is the airport body governing this actually the one that failed? What a bizarre situation

Flammy 4y ago
Probably a Design-Build bid, based on how other large infra has worked here in Seattle (See: Hw 99 Tunnel). It appears the 4/20 work with smaller planes, so merely may not have been need until now. Local reporting has a few other issues mentioned about specific gates, which to me sounds like a "Our contract says you have 30 days to reply to our letter informing of issues before xyz happens". So purely posturing before mediation before lawsuits. But we'll see. For anyone interested, I found the local media coverage was higher quality: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...
karpierz 4y ago
As written in the article: > ... the Port is counter-suing Clark to recoup costs involved in fixing the gate layout fiasco.
acomjean 4y ago
usually design documents are stamped by a "professional engineer" (PE) licensed by the state. They're names on the documents and they're supposed to check them. I used to be a civil engineer and for the earthworks the PE always had us checking things. especially grades in the areas around the perimeter. Our initials were on it but the PE stamped it. We did catch a few things where the plans called for a "wall" because if we did our 3/1 grading we'd meet existing over the property line. Not sure how the engineering works for airports.
- stonogo 4y ago
  It works exactly the same way. There is an engineer of record associated with all the plans. The design-build contractor says they were told to build it this way in the contract. The Port of Seattle disagrees. This dispute is over what the Port actually contracted for. It's not reall a matter of shoddy engineering.
simondotau 4y ago
Some entity must have been responsible for ensuring that the technical drawings satisfied the technical requirements. If this entity exists, they were at fault here. If the entity doesn't exist, the entity responsible for assigning that responsibility is at fault.
- explaininjs 4y ago
  The argument is that the technical requirements given to the construction company do not match the requirements currently being stated by the Port: > “The Port is now identifying modifications to gate design based on operational considerations that were not contemplated in the program requirements in our contract,” [a Clark Construction representative] wrote. > Clark’s latest legal brief, filed in late February, asserts that the contract documents defining the work “specifically state that Clark was to design the Project to accommodate narrowbody aircraft at Gates A6 and A8, not widebody aircraft.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...
  - simondotau 4y ago
    Right. And per my reply, whomever’s responsibility it was to validate that — or to assign someone to validate that — is at fault.
    - explaininjs 4y ago
      Not really, you said the technical drawings had to be validated against the technical requirements. By Clark's account, those two were in sync. What wasn't in sync was the ports "general ideas" about what they wanted from the transaction and the technical requirements they produced attempting to encode those "general ideas". Unfortunately there's not a great way to validate those, at least that I see. Pay for a better engineer to sit in on your years of meetings rambling about what the "future of the port" will be?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
It's hard to sue when you ordered four narrow body Gates and then have buyers remorse later. This is the case that the Builder is making

by nawgz 4y ago

Flammy 4y ago

Probably a Design-Build bid, based on how other large infra has worked here in Seattle (See: Hw 99 Tunnel). It appears the 4/20 work with smaller planes, so merely may not have been need until now. Local reporting has a few other issues mentioned about specific gates, which to me sounds like a "Our contract says you have 30 days to reply to our letter informing of issues before xyz happens". So purely posturing before mediation before lawsuits. But we'll see. For anyone interested, I found the local media coverage was higher quality: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...

karpierz 4y ago

As written in the article: > ... the Port is counter-suing Clark to recoup costs involved in fixing the gate layout fiasco.

acomjean 4y ago

usually design documents are stamped by a "professional engineer" (PE) licensed by the state. They're names on the documents and they're supposed to check them. I used to be a civil engineer and for the earthworks the PE always had us checking things. especially grades in the areas around the perimeter. Our initials were on it but the PE stamped it. We did catch a few things where the plans called for a "wall" because if we did our 3/1 grading we'd meet existing over the property line. Not sure how the engineering works for airports.

stonogo 4y ago
It works exactly the same way. There is an engineer of record associated with all the plans. The design-build contractor says they were told to build it this way in the contract. The Port of Seattle disagrees. This dispute is over what the Port actually contracted for. It's not reall a matter of shoddy engineering.

simondotau 4y ago

Some entity must have been responsible for ensuring that the technical drawings satisfied the technical requirements. If this entity exists, they were at fault here. If the entity doesn't exist, the entity responsible for assigning that responsibility is at fault.

explaininjs 4y ago
The argument is that the technical requirements given to the construction company do not match the requirements currently being stated by the Port: > “The Port is now identifying modifications to gate design based on operational considerations that were not contemplated in the program requirements in our contract,” [a Clark Construction representative] wrote. > Clark’s latest legal brief, filed in late February, asserts that the contract documents defining the work “specifically state that Clark was to design the Project to accommodate narrowbody aircraft at Gates A6 and A8, not widebody aircraft.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...
- simondotau 4y ago
  Right. And per my reply, whomever’s responsibility it was to validate that — or to assign someone to validate that — is at fault.
  - explaininjs 4y ago
    Not really, you said the technical drawings had to be validated against the technical requirements. By Clark's account, those two were in sync. What wasn't in sync was the ports "general ideas" about what they wanted from the transaction and the technical requirements they produced attempting to encode those "general ideas". Unfortunately there's not a great way to validate those, at least that I see. Pay for a better engineer to sit in on your years of meetings rambling about what the "future of the port" will be?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It's hard to sue when you ordered four narrow body Gates and then have buyers remorse later. This is the case that the Builder is making