Report: Fixing Waller Creek Tunnel design flaw could cost millions (proposed, current)

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

I completely agree. We routinely use outside counsel. BUT WHEN WE DO, it is VERY clear that the approval was on the advice of outside experts.

Of course! It would be pretty nonsensical and financially irresponsible to purchase the services of an expert, then basically have staff re-do the work to ensure that it's accurate. The reason that consultants exist in large part is because public agencies don't routinely keep huge professional staffs on salary.

Originally Posted by scm53

Which the agenda annotation - for some reason - doesn't indicate.

...which is not a de facto indicator that the review by city staff was incompetent or inconsistent with normally accepted standards for staff review of a consultant study. It could be simply that the agenda item was poorly written. Occam's Razor...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

...which is not a de facto indicator that the review by city staff was incompetent or inconsistent with normally accepted standards for staff review of a consultant study. It could be simply that the agenda item was poorly written. Occam's Razor...

Or that the scope of the contract with the design firm didn't include a review of the CVC applicability. I see all kinds of poorly written contracts, RFPs, etc. I'm not quite as sanguine as you and Don Quixote that this is completely a failure of the design firm with zero staff culpability.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Or that the scope of the contract with the design firm didn't include a review of the CVC applicability. I see all kinds of poorly written contracts, RFPs, etc. I'm not quite as sanguine as you and Don Quixote that this is completely a failure of the design firm with zero staff culpability.

Well, since the city said in May that it wouldn't have to pay for the mistake, while you're getting bent out of shape about a report from April...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Well, since the city said in May that it wouldn't have to pay for the mistake, while you're getting bent out of shape about a report from April...

You are grasping at straws to find something to argue about. That is the city's opinion - which you are free to put complete faith in. There is another side, and even the city is uncertain enough to approve $1.8M in legal fees to fight it out.

[riaelise]

Waller creek = river walk rip off?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

You are grasping at straws to find something to argue about. That is the city's opinion - which you are free to put complete faith in. There is another side, and even the city is uncertain enough to approve $1.8M in legal fees to fight it out.

It would be unusual for the city to invest 1.8M in a lawsuit it wasn't likely to win. The fact that they did so indicates that they have a great deal of confidence in the case.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Or that the scope of the contract with the design firm didn't include a review of the CVC applicability. I see all kinds of poorly written contracts, RFPs, etc. I'm not quite as sanguine as you and Don Quixote that this is completely a failure of the design firm with zero staff culpability.

Didn't say that at all. It's you who is making (obliquely) an accusation of staff incompetence, staff malfeasance, etc. So, it's OK to make sweeping generalizations as long as it is in line with your thinking. Gotcha!

That said, I agree that the scope could have been written poorly, the RFP may not have included a provision for design review. THAT said, any design firm that ignores or gets wrong something as simple (onerous, but simple) as the CVCs is not a design firm i'd like to work with.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Didn't say that at all. It's you who is making (obliquely) an accusation of staff incompetence, staff malfeasance, etc. So, it's OK to make sweeping generalizations as long as it is in line with your thinking. Gotcha!

You may choose to put your faith in city staff. I look at the history of this project - sold to the voters at $25M in the '98 bond election. By 2002, "It is determined that the amount appropriated by the bonds is not sufficient to cover all costs for the Waller Creek Tunnel project." 2004 price tag is up to $68M. By 2007, cost is up to $124M. New 2011 cost estimate goes up to $147M and the decision is made to place $55M of the cost on all water utility users, city wide, through a $5/yr drainage utility surcharge starting in 2015 (as there was doubt as to voters approving such cost overruns in a new bond package).

Not exactly "sweeping generalizations", huh? Biggest overrun in city history, next to STNP. So if this latest little contretemps does absolve staff, as you believe, a 600% overrun is evidence enough of malfeasance of an unimaginable degree.

[Marshall Gibson LP]

"RELEASE OF THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VERIFICATION OF ALL DATA, INFORMATION, AND CALCULATIONS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, AND ADEQUACY OF HIS/HER SUBMITTAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION IS REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE BY THE CITY ENGINEERS."

This note is required to be on the cover sheet of all site plan applications which are signed and sealed by a Texas P.E. You can't even get an application through completeness check without this note. It's a CYA note that basically absolves City staff from catching any and all code and ordinance issues. If the consulting engineer fights it, expect this cover sheet to come into play.

What's likeliest, is that the engineer's insurance company's attorney will go into arbitration with the City's attorneys and negotiate percentages of blame. Failing that, they go to court. Given the amount of money involved here, that is not out of the realm of possibility as it would take a VERY long court battle to cost $45 million (or some percentage thereof).

[mayfair44]

The redesign, as currently proposed, is expected to be a cost neutral solution.

Statement on the Redesign of the Waller Creek Intake Structure