5 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight. And per my reply, whomever’s responsibility it was to validate that — or to assign someone to validate that — is at fault.
- explaininjs 4y agoNot 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?