“I don’t see why a public entity
should accept anything less
than A-l work from anyone.”
— Wayne Daigle
Science Center construction quality questioned
Cont. from page 1
Rice suggests that some of
the joints were cut from one to
three weeks after the pouring
of the concrete.
All four men—Fisher, Rice,
Lee and Singleton—agree that
sandblasting the concrete
worsened the appearance of
the cracks. Singleton pointed
out, “It (the cracking) is a little
more noticeable than some
areas because it is sandblasted,
and when you sandblast, it
kind of beads the crack
out.. .but if there was any error
at all, it was in sandblasting the
concrete, I would tiiink.”
Fisher, Rice and Lee also
agree that the cracks in the
courtyard are not a structural
problem, but rather, “an
aesthetic problem.”
Foundation Cracks
Further cracking problems
have also developed in the
above-ground foundation
footings of the Pauling Center
buildings. The vertical cracks
run from the base of the footing
to the top, and often complete
ly through from one side to the
other.”
T; ■
Wayne Daigle, a profes
sional engineer for the city, of
West Linn, observes, “There’s
Page 6
something amiss here, there’s
just no consistency.” Daigle
continues, “Within this 30 foot
section of footing there are nine
cracks. It’s evident to me that
the fracturing that runs through
the footings is not in the least
acceptable,”
Asked about the footing
cracks, Fisher replied, “The
footing cracks are not a struc
tural problem, nor are they all
that uncommon. I can show
you several places around
Barlow (Hail) that have similar
cracks.”
Considering possible causes
of the cracking, Daigle and Jim
Harris, an employee of a
Portland engineering firm, sug
gested that the concrete mix
might have been too wet, or
that the concrete was over
worked, or a combination erf
-both. If the concrete were too
wet it could cause a large
amount of shrinkage. If the
concrete were overworked, it
could break down the adhesion
of the concrete as it set up.
“You can screw up concrete
just as much by overworking it
as you can by putting in too
much water,” Daigle explain
ed.
Both Daigle > and Harris
believe a functional problem
may develop in the building in
the future. If water were to run
into the cracks and freeze, it
could enlarge the cracks
through erosive chipping,
possibly causing water to seep
into the building. Harris" said'
this problem could occur “a
year to two down the road.”
Workmanship
In all of the deficiencies in
the Pauling Center pointed out
by Fisher, Rice, Lee, Daigle,
and Harris, a common factor
alluded to has been substan
dard workmanship by the con
tractor.
“Basically the work does not
show any acceptable level of
skill, in my opinion,” stated
Two principal problems in- Rice.
the landscaping workmanship
Daigle reiterates, “I jdon’t
have come to the attention of
landscape architect, Andy see why a public entity should
accept anything less than A-l
Rice.
Rice cites improper prepara work from anyone.”
tion of the grass seed bed and
An example, according to
uneven distribution of the grass
Rice, of less than adequate
seed. “The plans»called for an
workmanship, is the sandblast
even and dense growth of
finish on the courtyard. “If you
lawn,” Rice commented, “and
judging by the patchwork
look at the work out there.
growth of grass, this standard
you’ll see that there’s a great
.was not attained,1’.
deal of variation in the intensity
Rice also points out that the of the sandblasting which
contractor p’rovided some would indicate that the atten
wrong~types of plant materials,
tion given to the work was in
which had to be replaced.
adequate. A person who was
“Basically,” Rice elaborates,
really sensitive and careful with
“the landscape problems keep
the work would have been
coming up over and over
more careful when he came to
again: inadequate plant
those saw-cut joints,” Rice
material, improper grading of said:
seed beds (lawns), which they
In fact, • the workmanship
proceeded to finish in the same
improper way.”
was of low enough standards
Landscape Work
that a deficiency report w
ed with Contractors, Inc
the College through the
of Don Fisher.
In order to acquire a pie
equipment or service ce
over $1,000, the College
quired by state law to seek
ten bids. Then, unless thè
der is unable to fulfill the
lege’s needs, or the Cc
chooses to turn down alia
is required to accept the 1
bid offered.
“It’s getting very diffidi
get quality work on public
jeCts,” mentioned Rice.]
difficulty is that with p
works contracts, you md
thing competitively to and
who, without reason
doubt, will be able to ped
the work,” Rice explained
you can prove that the con
tor failed to do the work if
past, you can eliminate his
otherwise you have to at
it.”
College President <1
Hakanson replies, “The]
tractor has to respond
specifications. All of the <
tractors bid on the same d
specs, and if the chosen!
tractor doesn’t adhere to I
specs, he can be held lej
responsible.”
Clackamas Community Colle?