« PrejšnjaNaprej »
February 7, 1973
pable of testing two pipes at a time, that Cen-Vi-Ro personnel on occaproved to be inadequate. The need sion marked pipe for special hydro for additional hydrostatic testing and that there was a relationship equipment was apparent by October between hydrostatic tests and the of 1964 (Tr. 338, 526, 527, 680; number of defective pipes (Tr. 534, memorandum, dated October 22 and 535). Testimony that Cen-Vi-Ro letter dated October 30, 1964, Exhs. personnel at times marked pipes for 8 and 9). Cen-Vi-Ro installed addi- special hydro was confirmed by Mr. tional testing equipment at a date Herrera, Mr. Thomas, chief plant not certain from the record.
inspector for the Bureau, and by Mr. Franklin testified that the ad- contemporaneous memoranda (Tr. ditional testing came about because 705, 1409, 1410; Inspectors Daily of special hydrotests (Tr. 339). He Reports, dated May 4 and 11, 1965). stated that the practice originated The Hydrostatic Test Study (note at an early date in pipe production 162, supra) reflects that there were on pipes which were not acceptable a total of 42 pipes tested for Cen-Vito the Bureau based on visual exam- Ro quality control of which 15 ination and not finally rejected in failed the test. The Board finds that order that a determination of Cen-Vi-Ro participated in and
whether the pipe was acceptable agreed to the practice of conducting could be made. He further stated special hydrostatic tests on otherthat one of the purposes of special wise doubtful pipes in the early hydrotests was to convince Bureau stages of production. inspectors that pipes with apparent
The chief plant inspector testified minor defects were sound (Tr. 340, that pipes upon which the Bureau 341). He conceded, however, that in
required special hydrostatic tests the initial stages of pipe production
were pipes with obvious defects special hydros were the result of a
which would otherwise have been joint effort by Cen-Vi-Ro and Bu
rejected.165 However, he also testireau personnel, that such tests were a means of determining the viability 105 Tr. 1399, 1408. We note at least three
instances of pipes marked for special hydro of repaired pipes 164 and that some
because of alleged improper cure (Inspectors of the early special hydros were con- Daily Reports of August 31, September 2 and
October 27, 1964). It is at least doubtful that ducted at Cen-Vi-Ro's initiative
these pipes had obvious defects. In any event, (Tr.343,529,531). He also admitted the test established by the contract for proper
was compressive strength of concrete
cylinders. See also Inspectors Daily Report, 164 The earliest indication of special hydro- dated November 20, 1964, which indicates static tests is an Inspectors Daily Report, pipes were subjected to special hydros bedated June 27, 1964, which states that four cause of being vibrated only during charging pipe joints were tested : one of which had a of the form and because of being spun while patched bell, one had a slump patch, one had the form was only one-half full of concrete. A minor repairs to bell and barrel and one had memorandum, dated March 25, 1966, written drummy areas at gyro rings. Thereafter the by Mr. Herrera, stated that although four practice of marking pipes for special hydro 20-foot pipes manufactured on March 18, 1966, is mentioned frequently in Inspectors Daily passed hydrostatic tests, the Bureau required Reports.
four more pipes of the quantity manufactured
fied that the Bureau required special pipes marked for special hydro had hydros because they questioned the increased to 668 as of May 14, 1965. seriousness of the defect and to give Page 4 of the Special Report, dated the Bureau another means of judg- May 21, 1965 (note 24, supra), states ing the extent of the defect (Tr. that 377 special hydro tests had 1400, 1511, 1512). As we have seen, been conducted through May 15, most pipes with gyro area concrete 1965, of which 178 resulted in failwere required to be tested as a con- ure. The report also indicates that dition of their acceptance. If the there were 231 rejects for failure to pipes passed the test they were gen- pass the hydrostatic test out of a erally accepted without the necs- total of 631 tests, including lot, spesity of repairs unless the Bureau cial and retests, representing 2.17 questioned the structural soundness percent of 10,639 pipes produced of the pipe (Tr. 1400). The Gov- through May 15, 1965. It appears ernment asserts that this resulted in that the number of pipe marked for undoubted savings to Cen-Vi-Ro special hydro was decreased to 404 (Brief, p. 89). The Bureau also re- as a result of the May 15 inventory quired hydrostatic tests on pipes (Tr. 1607, 1608; tabulation attached with major repairs such as repairs to memorandum, dated May 27, to bells and spigots, fallouts, impact 1965, note 27, supra). Mr. Thomas damage and longitudinal and cir- testified that the decrease came cumferential cracks in order to test
about because pipes previously the repaired areas (Tr. 1399, 1400, marked for special hydro were re1412). If the repairs were properly jected (Tr. 1608). Of course, any classified as major, this practice was,
such decrease was temporary since of course, fully in accord with the Cen-Vi-Ro was required to conduct Concrete Manual.
hydrostatic tests on many of the reAn Inspectors Daily Report, jected pipes in order to obtain their dated December 7, 1964, indicates acceptance. While we have some that 462 pipes had been marked for
doubts in the matter, we accept as special hydro as of that date, that
accurate the number (1,801) of spe52 had passed and that there were
cial hydrostatic tests shown on the 410 remaining to be tested. The Hydrostatic Test Study (note 162, number of pipes requiring special supra). There is no persuasive evihydrostatic tests had increased to dence of the number of these tests 583 as of February 12, 1965 (mem- which were for the purpose of testorandum, dated February 18, 1965, ing major repairs. However, we note note 45, supra). The Cumulative that Cen-Vi-Ro lists 153 special Daily Pipe Record (note 59, hydros under DC-6000 as “repair supra) reflects that the number of
tests” (Exh. 5N, p. 11). Mr. Peteron that date to be hydrostatically tested be
son testified that these were tests on cause one of the pipes developed a longitudinal pipes with major repairs (Tr. 1008, crack at 50-foot head after the test period of 20 minutes had elapsed.
1009). This figure appears to be low
February 7, 1973 based on Cen-Vi-Ro's evidence of (Inspectors Daily Report, dated pipes marked for major repairs as August 17, 1965, Exh. 100). of May 7, 1965 (note 59, supra). Re- The project engineer also considsults of these tests are not shown by ered that all pipe with circumferthe record.
entially cracked spigots should be As indicative of the Bureau's at- hydro-tested notwithstanding the titude of desiring the maximum crack appeared on only one side of amount of hydrostatic testing, Cen- the pipe and that test results on Vi-Ro points to the testimony of Mr. pipes with this kind of defect manuHubbard that he was told by the factured recently had been good project engineer in May of 1965 that (Inspectors Daily Report, dated if it was up to him all pipe sections November 8, 1965). Another indicaon the job would be hydrotested tion of the Bureau's attitude toward (Tr. 1097, 1118, 1119). The project hydrostatic tests is that in a discusengineer testified that Mr. Hubbard sion concerning selection of pipes as complained as to the great number representative of the lot for lot tests, of hydrostatic tests and admitted in- Cen-Vi-Ro was advised that if the quiring of Mr. Hubbard as to what best appearing pipe was selected, all it would cost to hydrostatic-test all that appeared to be less than the pipes (Tr. 2031). He stated that he best would be marked for special did so because of concern over the hydro and that increasing the lot large number of patched and re- test period would also result in paired pipes being placed in the line. more special hydros (Inspectors The memorandum from the assist- Daily Report, dated December 30, ant project engineer dated Febru- 1964. See also note 165, supra.) ary 18, 1965 (note 45, supra), states Mr. Franklin testified that Cenin part "Inspection appears ade- Vi-Ro's start-up problems were agquate and special hydros and repairs gravated by an excessive number of should be requested to maintain con- special hydro tests (Tr. 349, 350). trol of quality of finished pipe.” A While he conceded that he made no memorandum, signed by Mr. Her- written protest to the Bureau of the rera, dated November 8, 1965 (Cen- practice of conducting special hyVi-Ro Correspondence), states that dro tests (Tr. 532), we find that he inspection crews are needlessly se- verbally protested to the chief plant lecting excessive joints for special inspector that the Bureau was rehydros. Mr. Hubbard was of the jecting and special hydroing too same view (Tr. 1106). The project many pipes (Inspectors Daily Reengineer is reported to have advised port, dated September 17, 1964). the chief plant inspector to mark Mr. Murray confirmed that there some pipe for special hydro in order were verbal protests of a number of to obtain a better check on the pipe special hydros (Tr. 846). It is, since several 20-foot pipes repre- therefore, clear that the Bureau was senting lot tests had recently failed aware at a relatively early date in
pipe production of Cen-Vi-Ro's dis 10, 1965, which placed the Bureau satisfaction with the large number on notice that Cen-Vi-Ro considof hydrostatic tests (Tr. 759, 2031; ered that the letter of May 13 efmemorandum dated February 18, fected changes to the specifications 1965, note 45, supra, Inspectors and would increase contract costs. Daily Reports, dated February 6, Howe
However, Cen-Vi-Ro was respondJune 1, and 29, 1965. See also Spe- ing directly to the Bureau's May 13 cial Report, dated May 21, 1965, letter and the only reference to adnote 24, supra). Cen-Vi-Ro recog- ditional testing in this letter is that nized the practice of conducting all pipes having shorter longitudispecial hyrostatic tests when it re- nal cracks, that is less than substanquested reduction of the soak pe- tially the full length of the pipe, riod for such pipe (letter of Novem- must be hydrostatically tested. ber 30, 1964, Exh. 12). Cen-Vi-Ro's There is no evidence that Cen-Virequest was approved by the Bu- Ro was aware at this time of the reau in a letter, dated December 30, resident engineer's memorandum of 1964 (Exh. 13). By letter, dated May 24, 1965, to pipe inspectors conApril 6, 1965 (Exh. 18), Cen-Vi-Ro cerning special hydrostatic tests. It requested approval to eliminate, at is, of course, clear that Cen-Vi-Ro its option, the soak period on all complained it was required to test special hydrostatic test pipes. The far more pipe than required by the letter concluded with the following specifications at the meeting of statement:
July 24, 1965 (page 8, Notes on By eliminating the soak period, more
Meeting, note 46, supra). Cen-Viquestionable pipe can be proven to be Ro again recognized the practice of adequate and meeting all spcification re- special hydrostatic testing when it quirements.
protested what it regarded as a This request was approved by the seven-day time limit on retesting Bureau.166
formerly rejected pipes imposed by It might be considered peculiar the chief plant inspector's memothat appellant did not specifically randum of March 31, 1966, which raise the issue of excessive special pipes were being tested as part of hydrostatic tests in its letter of June
the reclaim program to prove their
competence (letter of April 18, 188 Letter of May 19, 1965 (Exh. 5F). While 1966, note 111, supra). Since the Cen-Vi-Ro's request to eliminate the soak period was in terms limited to special hydro
Bureau was clearly aware of Cenpipe, the project engineer testified (Tr. 2024) Vi-Ro's position that it was being and the contracting officer found (par. 69, Findings of Fact) that the waiver applied required to perform too many speto all hydrostatic tests. It apparently applied
cial hydrostatic tests and since we to RCP pipes under DC-6130 also. There is some evidence that the elimination of the soak regard Cen-Vi-Ro's letter of June period contributed to the high incidence of test failures on pipes stored in the yard for
10, 1965, as sufficiently broad to enextended periods (Herrera memoranda, dated compass a claim for any alleged March 23 and May 31, 1966, Cen-Vi-Ro Correspondence).
changes stemming from the BuFebruary 7, 1973 reau's May 13 letter (it is clear that which would heal with seven days the resident engineer's memoran- cannot be classified as failures.168 dum of May 24 was based on the
Because of limited test facilities, May 13 letter), the Board finds that Cen-Vi-Ro could not, as a practical Cen-Vi-Ro's failure to protest in matter leave pipes on the test stands writing the number and practice of for extended periods of time (Tr. special hydrostatic tests does not 866, 1104). preclude the assertion of the instant We have little difficulty in conclaim. 167
cluding that Subparagraph 67.i.(2) As high as 64 percent of pipes of the specification which provides subjected to special hydrostatic in part that pipes shall withstand tests for individual defects (gyro the specified internal pressure for at area concrete) failed the tests while
least 20 minutes without cracking 45.6 percent of all pipes so tested
and without leakage appearing on failed the tests (Hydrostatic Test
the exterior surface establishes adeStudy, Exh. 64). The study indi- quate criteria for determining failcates that approximately 86 per
ure. We also readily agree with Cencent of tests on pipes representing Vi-Ro that pipes which exhibited lots and 77 percent of pipes involved
minor dripping on the test stand in check tests passed the tests. The
but which healed and ceased to drip Bureau has recognized that the fail
within one week were acceptable inure rates would be higher if each
sofar as hydrostatic tests are conpipe was tested (p. 4, Special Re
cerned. 169 However, we think it port, note 24, supra). Cen-Vi-Ro, as
163 While the Bureau occasionally accepted we have seen, objected to testimony pipes which dripped on the test stand on the
basis of a judgment the pipes would heal (Tr. concerning test failures and by im
864, 865, 1406, 1407, 1853 ; Inspectors Daily plication to the introduction of the Report, dated January 18, 1965), as a general
rule such pipes were rejected unless they test study in the absence of a clear
healed while under the prescribed test presdefinition of failure in the contract. sure within a one-week period (Tr. 702, 865,
909, 1406; Inspectors Daily Report, dated Cen-Vi-Ro's position is based on
July 30, 1964). the final sentence of Subparagraph 1 By letter, dated January 20, 1965 (fur
nished in response to the Board's call of 67.i.(2) of the specifications which
August 18, 1971), the Chief Engineer authorprovides that “Slow forming beads ized the acceptance of pipes under Specifica
tions DC-6000 in accordance with the final of water that result in minor drip
sentence of Subparagraph 77.1.(2), Specificaping which can be proven to seal tions DC-6130, which reads, "Where slow and dry within one week while
forming beads of water result in minor drip
ping, the pressure may be released and the under the prescribed test pressure
pipe unit may be retested within 1 week and will be considered acceptable.” Cen
if no dripping is evident during retest, the
pipe unit may be accepted for use." The letter Vi-Ro therefore asserts that pipes described the requirement that the pipe remain
under pressure as unintended and unnecessary.
There is only fragmentary evidence (Inspec187 It is noteworthy that none of the written tors Daily Report, dated August 30, 1965) of protests by Cen-Vi-Ro resulted in any written any recognition of this authorization prior to modification of the May 13 letter and direc- the chief plant inspector's memorandum of tives based thereon.
March 31, 1966 (note 29, supra).