jmcquown wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Sheldon" <PENMART01@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" <rjy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40
>>>> years is not old for a bridge.
>>> More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet
>>> my bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's
>>> actually there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was
>>> called out... likely not in error, more at typical construction
>>> project graft. The powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.
>> When I looked at the before picture I thought, what, were toothpicks
>> not available? Looked like Tinker Toys. Of course, I'm not an
>> engineer, and steel is deceptively strong. Apparently not *that*
>> strong.
>>
> When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant. He said
> government contracts were the *worse* because the contractor was forced to
> lowball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the work using quality
> materials and not go over cost. Obviously many contractors don't adhere to
> the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says, they use inferior and hence
> cheaper materials to get the job done. Go over cost and they're not likely
> to get another big government contract. Big catch 22 at the expense of
> safety.
>
<snip>
> Jill
>
>

Either Ray is an idiot or you were drunk at the time (or both). A
contract is a contract. If they "go over cost" they eat it. They don't
pass it on to the government and they wouldn't be at risk of not getting
another government job.

Stick to cooking Hot Pockets (or whatever is on sale).

Dan