« PrejšnjaNaprej »
February 7, 1973 Robert L. Dragoo (Exh. 39) con- additional 16-foot spinner, the procerning Cen-Vi-Ro's difficulty in ob- curement of additional forms and taining qualified personnel at the hydrostatic testing equipment,16 the compensation offered. Mr. Dragoo addition of two key supervisory confirmed the accuracy of his state- personnel and the hiring and trainment at the hearing (Tr. 1206, ing of additional pipe repairmen. 1207).
Cen-Vi-Ro presented a revised pipe
laying schedule, dated September Suspension of Pipe Laying 28, 1964 (note 14, supra), which Operations
contemplated a suspensation of pipe
laying operations for the period Cen-Vi-Ro's original construc
November 3, 1964, until February 1, tion program, dated April 13, 1964 (Exh. 77), contemplated that laying ties of acceptable pipe could be man
1965, in order that sufficient quantiof pipe for Specifications DC-6000 would commence on August 1,
ufactured to assure economical lay1964.13 At a meeting on October 28,
ing operations. Representatives of 1964, attended by representatives of
R. H. Fulton pointed out that the the Bureau, Cen-Vi-Ro and R. H.
proposed suspension represented
minimum down time and proposed Fulton, Cen-Vi-Ro conceded that overestimation of the capabilities of
that pipe laying operations be dis
continued in mid-November 1964, the 20-foot spinner and other pipe
and resume May 1, 1965 (letter manufacturing problems made the
dated October 30, 1964, note 14, original schedule impossible to
supra). Pipe laying operations were meet.14 Among the measures to im
discontinued on November 21, 1964, prove pipe production discussed at
and resumed on May 10, 1965 (Tr. the meeting was rebuilding the 20
1843). The suspension necessarily foot spinner,15 the installation of an
reduced Cen-Vi-Ro's revenue 17 and
12 Tr. 1841. In fact, the subcontractor, R. H. Fulton, did not commence laying operations (66'' pipe) until September 2, 1964 (Tr. 1841 ; Inspectors Dally Report, dated August 27, 1964). By September 21, 1964, the supply of 66-inch pipe had been exhausted and R. H. Fulton skipped a section of the line and commenced laying 54-inch and 60-inch pipe (Tr. 1842).
14 Letter, dated October 30, 1964, Exh. 9. These statements are attributed to Mr. S. R. "Duke" Hubbard, vice president and general manager of Cen-Vi-Ro (Tr. 1095). The Board finds that the letter accurately reflects events at the meeting (Tr. 563, 677, 1844).
15 Mr. Franklin testified that the gyro spinner was essentially out of production from September 1, 1964, to January 1, 1965, for modifications and machining of forms which were sent to Fort Worth and Los Angeles (Tr. 559). A total of 760 pipes had been produced on this spinner by November 16, 1964
(Tr. 1862). While the gyro spinner had previously been used for the manufacture of 32 miles of 87-inch X 40-foot pipe for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (Oakland, California), this was not RCP pipe (Tr. 565, 566, 595). Mr. Franklin expressed the opinion that the machine was capable of producing good quality pipe under proper supervision, i.e., skilled operators (Tr. 614).
16 Mr. Franklin stated that production during this period was sometimes curtailed awaiting additional forms (Tr. 562). This testimony is confirmed by a memorandum from the resident engineer dated October 22, 1964 (Exh. S) and Inspectors Daily Reports, dated August 3, September 11, 21 and 26, and October 16, 19, and 20, 1964.
17 It appears that Cen-Vi-Ro received approximately 60% (less 10% retainage) of a pay item for pipe accepted but not laid (Franklin memoranda of March 1 and May 1, 1963, Cen-Vi-Ro Correspondence).
resulted in Cen-Vi-Ro carrying a tions DC-6000, were manufactured large pipe inventory for the suspen- in the south plant. As in the north sion period.
plant, Cen-Vi-Ro experienced diffiUnder date of September 23, 1965, culties in manufacturing cages havCen-Vi-Ro and R. H. Fulton en- ing cover and spacing of steel within tered into amendments of Cen-Vi- permissible tolerances (Inspectors Ro Purchase Order No. 10 to R. H. Daily Reports, dated February 1, Fulton under Specifications DC- 3, 4, 11, 18, 26, and 27, 1965, Exh.
, , 6000 and R. H. Fulton Purchase 100). Some pipes had defects such Order No. 1050 to Cen-Vi-Ro under as fallouts, rocky bells, circumferspecifications DC-6130 (Exhs. 25, ential and longitudinal cracks and 81F; see also Cen-Vi-Ro Corre- broken and cracked spigots. (Inspondence). The amendments pro- spectors Daily Reports, dated Febvided for the revision of the ruary 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 24, 26, and existing production construction 27; April 1, 2, 7, 15, 19, 23, and 29, schedules so as to complete the Bu- 1965, Esh. 100.) A total of 188 RCP reau contracts on or before March 1, pipe units, sizes 42 inches and below, 1967, for the waiver by R. H. Fulton were rejected for all causes prior to of all claims against Cen-Vi-Ro May 15, 1965.19 based on prior schedules and com- Cen-Vi-Ro experienced difficulties mitments, for the substitution of manufacturing high head NCP pretensioned pipe manufactured by pipes that would successfully pass Gifford-Hill-American in lieu of the hydrostatic tests.20 Some of these NCP high head pipe manufactured pipes were downgraded, i.e., they by Cen-Vi-Ro for Specifications were accepted at a lower head than DC-6130 and for a lump-sum pay- for which they were designed.21 Mr. ment of $100,000 to R. H. Fulton.18 Murray, Cen-Vi-Ro's production Cen-Vi-Ro's claim for reimbursement of this sum is considered infra. 19 Exh. 94. Mr. W. B. Murray testified that
in addition to problems encountered on DC
6000, the south plant had insufficient floor Specifications DC-6130
space in stripping and spinning areas (Tr.
918). See also the memorandum written by As we have previously noted Cen- Mr. Murray, dated July 8, 1965 (Cen-Vi-Ro
Correspondence). Vi-Ro, as subcontractor to R. H.
20 Tr. 925, 926; Inspectors Daily Reports, Fulton under Specifications DC- dated June 3, 10, 11, 15, 21, and 25, 1965, 6130, completed a facility (south
Exh. 100. The specifications required each
unit of NCP pipe to be tested and to withplant) for the manufacture of RCP stand a pressure of 125% of the design head
for four minutes without cracking and withpipe in diameters of 42-inch and
out leakage appearing on the exterior surface below on or about February 1, 1965 (Subparagraph 79.1.(2), Specifications DC
6130). (note 10, supra). RCP pipe in di
21 Tr. 930, 931 ; Murray memorandum, dated ameters below 54 inch for Specifica- July 8, 1965, note 19, supra. Cen-Vi-Ro manu
factured only 865 NCP pipe units (Exh. 93).
Exhibit 81W reflects that of a total of 590 18 Mr. Franklin testified that the $100,000 pipe units designed for heads of 150 to 250 payment was to settle a claim by R. H. Fulton feet, 310 were downgraded due to hydrostatic of twice that sum (Tr. 381, 382).
test failures at the design head.
February 7, 1973 manager for the period January to alia, review pipe manufacturing July of 1965, testified that the proc- problems. 22 Mr. Rippon's visit to the ess of making NCP pipes was new, Cen-Vi-Ro plant was followed by and was more complicated and more that of Mr. R. C. Borden, Bureau sophisticated than the process of liaison engineer, during the period making RCP pipes (Tr. 924). April 20-23, 1965. Mr. Borden testi
At the time of his replacement as fied that upon his return to Denver production manager by Mr. Herrera a determination was made to furin July of 1965, Mr. Murray wrote nish guidelines to the project as to a memorandum detailing the diffi- the scope of permissible repairs, culties in producing NCP pipes and such as the size of fallouts and rock recommending that all NCP pipes pockets which could be repaired.23 with heads above 150 foot be sub- Under date of May 13, 1965, the contracted or “farmed out” (note 19, project engineer 24 addressed a letsupra). Mr. Murray was of the
to Cen-Vi-Ro, reading as opinion that Cen-Vi-Ro could not follows: produce the high head NCP pipe economically and that substitute 22 Tr. 1998. Mr. Rippon made a visit to the
Cen-Vi-Ro plant during the period March 15pipe could be purchased from other
17, 1965 (Travel Report, dated September 13, sources at a lower cost (Tr. 932). As 1965, Exh. 138). He concluded that pipe
manufacturing problems were attributable to we have already noted, Cen-Vi-Ro
a lack of quality control and that a detailed subcontracted the manufacture of a investigation was required in order to deter
mine proper corrective measures. large quantity of pipe to Gifford
13 Tr. 1707. These determinations and others Hill-American, substituting preten- were furnished the project by a telegram
from the Chief Engineer dated May 12, 1965. sioned concrete pipe for NCP
The telegram is referred to in Mr. Borden's (Exhs. 25 and 81F).
Travel Reports, dated May 18, and June 9, 1965 (Exhs. 20 and 23), and has been furpursuant
Board's call of The May 13 Letter and The May 15, August 18, 1971.
24 Mr. Crane, as justification for the letter, 1965, Inventory
testified that while it appeared now that the
quality of the pipe was improving, there was Mr. C. O. Crane, the project con
no way of telling whether the defect rate of
pipes produced in the last two weeks of April struction engineer for the Bureau, had improved (Tr. 2001, 2071), as alleged hereinafter “project engineer,” testi
by Cen-Vi-Ro (Exh. 5L, pp. 4 and 7; Produc
tion Quality Graph). We have considerable fied that he became concerned about
difficulty accepting this testimony since it the large number of pipes with apparently rests on the assumption that Cen.
Vi-Ro had thousands of pipes in inventory flaking interiors and other defects
which had been neither inspected nor tested manufactured by Cen-Vi-Ro in the by the Bureau. As we find infra (note 59), this
assumption is not in accordance with the early months of 1965 (Tr. 1994,
faets. The Bureau apparently had no difficulty 1995). He stated he considered that in concluding that a good grade of pipe was
being produced after May 10, 1965 (see page a state of emergency was developing
9 of Special Report, dated May 21, 1965, and that he requested Mr. Frank Exh. 83).
20 Exh. 5E; Exh. 5N, pp. 12 and 13. An Rippon of the Chief Engineer's
identical letter was addressed to R. H. Fulton Office to visit the project and, inter under Specifications DC-6130 (Exh. 81C). ing pipes previously accepted, in 3. Experience has been that extensive accordance with criteria in the repair to bells and spigots has impaired
The importance of the Canadian River concrete that will result in poor bond beProject Aqueduct and the exacting per- tween the concrete and the steel will not formance that will be required in delivery be permitted. of municipal water on a continuing and 5. All pipe having transverse (circumuninterrupted basis make it imperative ferential) cracks that extend through that only first quality pipe be used in its wall of pipe will be rejected. The possiconstruction.
bility of these cracks opening further due Your Plainview plant, manufacturing to beam action from handling and backpipe for this Project, has continued daily fill loads is too great to allow use of such since work was initiated to produce some pipe. questionable and unacceptable pipe with 6. Pipe cracked longitudinally for submany sections leaking so badly they have stantially the full length will be refailed to pass the hydrostatic tests. jected. All pipe containing shorter longi
The specifications, by reference to the tudinal cracks must be hydrostatically concrete manual, state that repairs to
tested. Pipe failing to withstand the reconcrete pipe shall not be permitted when quired test pressure for 20 minutes withimperfections or damages are the result out leakage or showing evidence of of continuing failure of the contractor to extension of cracks under pressure will eliminate cause (sic) of imperfections or
be rejected. damages. You are expected, under your
7. Failure to observe specifications recontract, to exercise quality control in quirements in respect to saturated steam the manufacturing processes and to exer
curing will be cause for rejection of all cise care in handling of pipe at all times pipe in the steam curing chamber. to produce a quality product.
8. Any other defects shall be judged Since corrective measures to eliminate conformably with above. causes of imperfections have not been ac- 9. All permissible repairs will be made complished at this date, and since pipe promptly and within a few days after units which leak under hydrostatic tests the pipe is manufactured. continue to be produced, I find it neces
The above requirements apply to pipe sary to invoke the following require
that has been manufactured and/or rements :
paired as well as newly manufactured 1. Pipe sections with large fallouts on
pipe. the interior surfaces will be rejected, and The letter was hand-carried to only those pipe with fallouts of approxi
Cen-Vi-Ro by Mr. Vern Grantham, mately one square foot or less are acceptable for repair.
assistant project engineer, on May 2. All pipe with scaling or loose and
13, 1965.26 On May 14, 1965, an inweak interior surface material will be spection of pipes in the yard, includrejected.
May 13 letter was begun (Tr. 1519; the function of joints. Pipe having imperfections or damaged areas that ex
Inspectors Daily Report, dated tend over six inches of gasket area in the bell or four inches in the spigot will be
20 Tr. 2003. However, the criteria for repair rejected. Any repairs to gasket areas
of fallouts (only those of one square foot
or less were repairable) and rocky bells (only shall be made against precise forms and
those of 6-inches or less in gasket areas were dimensions accurately checked to assure repairable) were applied prior to the May 13 that pipe is installed with joints within letter (Inspectors Daily Report, dated the approved tolerances.
April 30, 1965). See also Tentative Instruc
tions to Concrete Inspectors, dated May 7, 4. Extensive repairs to rock pockets 1965, furnished in response to the Board's in bells and lack of consolidation of the call of August 18, 1971.
February 7, 1973 May 13, 1965). This inspection will be hydrostatic (sic) tested before any be referred to as the “May 15 in
repairs are made to the crack. Pipe fail
ing to withstand the required test presventory." At this time there were
sure for 20 minutes without leakage or between 12,000 and 13,000 pipes in
showing evidence of extension of cracks the yard for the two contracts (Tr. will be rejected. Pipe passing the re846, 1515, 1516, 1714). The inven- quired test pressure will be accepted tory of pipes under DC-6000 was
without additional repairs.
2. Short longitudinal cracks which completed prior to May 21, 1965
were repaired prior to May 13, 1965, (page 3 of Special Report, note 24,
and not hydrostatic (sic) tested, may be supra). However, see tabulation
hydrostatic tested without additional reentitled "Change of Inventory pair work. The pipe will be rejected if it Status as of 5-16-65" attached
fails to pass the required test.
3. Circumferential cracks which apto memorandum, dated May 27,
pear only on outside of pipe should be hy1965.27 During this inventory,
drostatic (sic) tested before repairs, to 2,877 pipes (54- through 72-inch) determine if crack extends through the were rejected under DC-6000, and pipe wall. The pipe will be rejected if it 337 pipes (18- through 27-inch)
fails to pass the required test. Pipe that were rejected under DC-6130.28
pass the test without leakage or exten
sion of the crack may be accepted withOn May 24, 1965, the resident en
out repairs. gineer issued a memorandum (Exh.
4. Grout leakage at seams may be re5N, p. 17) which stated :
paired before tests are made if cracks are In accordance with requirements set
not evident after all defective concrete forth in letter dated May 13, 1965, from
is removed. The repaired pipe will be reProject Construction Engineer to Cen
jected if it fails to pass the required test. Vi-Ro of Texas, Inc., and R. H. Fulton,
7. Drummy areas of poor consolidation Contractor, the following will govern the
similar to those appearing at gyro ring acceptance of pipe after hydrostatic
areas may be repaired prior to testing tests :
only if the drummy concrete can be re1. Pipe cracked longitudinally for sub
moved by shallow excavation. All other stantially less than the pipe length * must
pipe showing evidence of poor consolidation of concrete will be tested without re
27 Exh. 22. The tabulation bears the initials “LWL," presumably Leigh W. Lloyd of CenVi-Ro, and the date "May 25, 1965."
24 Tabulation, dated April 18, 1967, Exh. 60, and undated tabulation, Exh. 94. The total of 2,877 pipes rejected under DC-6000 does not include 404 pipes marked for special hydro on that date (tabulation dated May 25, 1965, note 27, supra). The tabulation dated April 18, 1967, states “Supersedes previous tabulations."
23 "Substantially less than the pipe length" does not appear to have been clearly defined until the chief plant inspector's memorandum of March 31, 1966 (Exh. 5N, pp. 32, 33) which appears to be limited to reclaims and which after referring to Cen-Vi-Ro's contention that pipes which dripped on the test stand would heal within seven days and to an amendment to Subparagraph 67.j. (2) effected by the Chief
Engineer's letter of January 20, 1965, provides in pertinent part as follows:
"The following defects are a basis for rejection regardless of whether it (sic) leaks or not:
"1. Pipe with longitudinal cracks over 12 the length of pipe.
"2. Pipe with more than 1 crack if cracks are over 4' in length.
"3, Shorter longit. cracks which extend under pressure.
“4. Completely unconsolidated gyro areas.
“5. Cir. cracks in spigot or barrel which appear on inside and outside of pipe wall.
"0. Pipe with more than 2 core holes repaired. Pipe with 2 repaired core holes are acceptable if they pass hydro provided cores are not within 6 feet of each other."