I-40 bridge becomes $11M dispute between state, builders

FILE — An Interstate 40 sign is shown in this 2019 file photo.
FILE — An Interstate 40 sign is shown in this 2019 file photo.

A Colorado-based highway construction joint venture and the Arkansas Department of Transportation are at loggerheads over who must pay for an additional $11 million in costs over a stalled $100.6 million project to build a new bridge on Interstate 40 over the White River.

The joint venture, which includes Parson Construction Co. and CJ Mahan Construction Co., objects to the agency's insistence that it pay for replacing a pier cap on the bridge over concerns the concrete wasn't set properly last August in the midst of a lightning storm that interrupted the work.

Executives for the joint venture, appearing at a legislative hearing Wednesday afternoon, maintain that the storm should have triggered an "act of God" clause in which the department would shoulder the expense.

Moreover, the executives said extensive engineering analysis and a review by a third-party expert of the pier cap shows the structure is sound and doesn't need to be replaced.

Replacing the pier cap, they said, will further delay completing the project, likely into next year, especially if high water slows construction.

No work has been done since November when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released water from above Bull Shoals dam. Recent rains have aggravated conditions at the site.

The joint venture was awarded the contract in November 2016. If the pier cap isn't replaced, the bridge likely would be finished before the end of the year, according to the companies' executives.

Further complicating matters, the Highway Department's deputy director and chief engineer, Emanuel Banks, said in a letter dated Feb. 14 that the joint venture has 10 days to advise whether it will replace the cap or "allow it to remain in place while appealing the Highway Department's decision through an appeal to the Arkansas State Claims Commission."

A map showing the location of the White River bridge.
A map showing the location of the White River bridge.

If Parson-Mahan doesn't intend to replace the pier cap or file an appeal, the department will initiate "default proceedings," a rarely invoked procedure, Banks said.

If a contractor is found in default, it falls to a surety company insuring the contract to find another contractor to complete the job.

Tony Geach, a vice president with Parson Construction Co., which has an office in Westminster, Colo., said the joint venture wants to put the matter behind it but hasn't decided how it will move forward.

"We want to continue to work with ARDOT to get a quick resolution," Geach said after the legislative meeting. "We haven't made that determination yet. We're going to respond shortly."

He expressed satisfaction with being able to air the joint venture's concerns before lawmakers even though the committee's co-chairman, Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, made clear the committee wasn't going to litigate the issue. The project is in Dismang's district.

"We just wanted to bring to light the process and make sure everyone is informed of what the potential impacts would be," Geach said. "I think we did that today."

Geach and four others representing the joint venture appeared before the Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council, which is overseeing an ongoing review of the department's policies and procedures.

The review is being conducted under a Bureau of Legislative Research contract with McLean, Va.-based Guidehouse LLP -- formerly known as PricewaterhouseCoopers -- and runs through Dec. 31. The maximum amount that the bureau will pay to Guidehouse is $722,463.19 under the contract.

Two Guidehouse representatives at Wednesday's meeting said they hope to have recommendations and a road map of how to implement the recommendations in April.

Both members of the joint venture have considerable experience in building bridges. Parsons is a 75-year-old company that specializes in critical infrastructure, such as bridges, as well as products for the defense and intelligence markets. It has a workforce of more than 13,000 engineers, scientists, programmers and trades craft personnel.

CJ Mahan Construction Co. of Columbus, Ohio, said it has built hundreds of bridges in its 40-year existence, including four Ohio River crossings, four cable-stayed suspension bridges and the tallest bridge in Virginia.

The White River project is replacing a 51-year-old bridge that the Transportation Department has said is structurally deficient. It carries between 31,000 and 36,000 vehicles daily, according to agency traffic counts east and west of the bridge, which crosses the White River about 50 miles east of Little Rock.

At issue was a concrete pour that begin at 11 p.m. on Aug. 23. The pour was for a pier cap, which is a structure that sits on top of one set of piers to support the bridge and driving surface. It is 120 feet long, 8 feet wide and 10.5 feet tall and sits about 60 feet above the river. One pour requires nine truckloads of concrete.

The pour was interrupted for 2½ hours because of a lightning storm.

The interruption of the pour had the potential to create essentially two layers of concrete within the cap that doesn't have the strength a solid pour would have. But joint-venture executives said a retarding agent used in the concrete mix design increased the time the concrete needed to set to five hours, which they said all but eliminated the possibility a plane, or "cold joint," existed within the pour.

The joint venture didn't receive notice the pour was rejected until three days after the work was done. The pour underwent several rounds of engineering analysis that the joint venture said concluded the pier cap was sound.

"We see no reason for the cap to be torn out and replaced," said Scott McNary of McNary Bergeron & Associates of Connecticut, who specializes in concrete design and was brought in by the joint venture to review and analyze the testing.

The pier cap is the 17th and final one poured on the project.

And if the department required the pier cap to be replaced, it should be under the "act of God" provision in the contract, which would require the department to pay for it, the executives said.

The department's chief counsel, Rita Looney, took questions from lawmakers but said the department would respond to them at a later subcommittee meeting.

As a matter of policy, resolution of contracting disputes are settled before the state Claims Commission, she said.

But joint-venture executives say going to the claims commission is a costly and time-consuming method to resolve disputes.

The joint-venture already has four disputes before the Claims Commission involving the bridge project. Most are related to high-water delays in which the department declined to suspend the project. That resulted in renting heavy equipment, including several 150-ton cranes, for $30,000 a month, which they were unable to use, the executives said.

The issues involving the pier cap were because of the joint venture's choices, Banks said in his letter. They included electing to conduct the pour on a night with a questionable weather forecast, electing to resume the pour and creating the cold joint in the cap and electing to dispute the cap removal rather than replacing the cap and filing a claim.

The joint venture's "actions are delaying and increasing impacts to the completion of this project," Banks wrote.

Metro on 02/20/2020

Upcoming Events