WSDOT secrets: Inside the 520 Bridge investigation
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Putting together an investigation into a major public works project like the 520 bridge is a complex process involving expert sources, numerous interviews and poring through literally thousands of public records. As a result of the KOMO 4 Problem Solver investigation we've discovered that all six of the first concrete pontoons built by prime contractor Kiewit Construction in Aberdeen developed leaks once they were towed to Lake Washington. And now some experts are concerned about the structural integrity of those pontoons and their ability to withstand a severe windstorm.
The Washington State Department of Transportation says it has been transparent in the process of revealing the problems with these pontoons whereas numerous sources and their own documents tell a somewhat different tale. Now we want to open up the process of our investigation so you can see many of the thousands of public records we relied on for evidence.
Some of the most important public records are the videotaped inspections of the pontoons after they were taken out of the dry dock basin where they were built in Aberdeen and floated, first in Grays Harbor and then ultimately towed to Lake Washington where they are now being hooked together to form the floating platform for the new bridge.
On October 19, the WSDOT Public Records Division gave us 27 DVDs containing hundreds of hours of video inspections as the result of a disclosure request we made on September 10. We've strung together just a few of those video inspections here, some from each one of the six pontoons which are designated T, U, V, W and VNW and VSW.
Pontoon U
(See videos from Pontoons T, V, W and VNW and VSW)
It's important to note that we'd originally requested these videos at the end of August; here is the string of our e-mail request to the head of WSDOT Communications, Steve Pierce, saying he'll send us a disc.
A week later, this is how he responded, telling us WSDOT had posted five single videos, not 27 discs' worth, onto its website and we could access them there.
Additionally all audio had been edited out of the videos.
In mid-September WSDOT told us it only had one leak, identified in video as an internal leak in Pontoon V. Aside from all the other video evidence the Problem Solvers were waiting for on the other pontoons, there was also this diagram that shows there were leaks, identified in green in the document below, into at least 12 interior cells or compartments within Pontoon V.
Another important set of records include reports and/or investigations by experts either internally or hired by WSDOT or contractor Kiewit. The first is a report by the firm Buckland & Taylor, hired by Kiewit, to assess the cracking and spalling (concrete damage) created when the pontoons went through a process called post-tensioning, which is designed to strengthen the overall structure.
Pontoon designers within WSDOT put together a response to the B&T report. Both of these reports are highly technical in nature.
In August, an expert panel hired by WSDOT, released it's own report and in simple terms concluded that if contractor Kiewit closely followed the original design drawings by WSDOT and the concrete curing methods outlined by a previous test project then there should be no repeat of the problems experienced with the first pontoons.
Many of the problems with the concrete damage to the pontoons have been attributed to a "design flaw" by everyone from Secretary of Transportation Paula Hammond to Governor Chris Gregoire. The question is, where did the design flaws originate?
The pontoon construction is being built under what's called a "Design-Build" contract. As outlined in this 2009 e-mail before the contract was awarded, the successful bidder will do much of the final engineering for the pontoons. Numerous e-mails from contractor Kiewit point fingers at WSDOT for design problems.
But WSDOT internal communications show serious concerns about the level of design work being performed by Kiewit. Finally there is this report by a WSDOT engineer outlining where they believe contractor Kiewit has not performed all tasks required by the contract.
To try to get to the bottom of the design issue, we've asked to speak to the two main WSDOT engineers who, according to the documents we've received, are raising questions about the work performed by Kiewit: Jugesh Kapur and Patrick Clarke. We understand Kapur is the head of WSDOT's Bridges and Structures Division and he has been used as a spokesman for projects in the past. Clarke is listed as the Design Supervisor for the Pontoon Construction Project. Sources informed us last summer that Clarke had been removed from oversight at the Aberdeen casting basin, though WSDOT denied that in an interview in September.
Our requests to interview both men have been denied by WSDOT. We were told it would not be "appropriate."
Another reason to interview Clarke; his e-mails also raised the question of missing rebar connections called "hook bars" that are supposed to strengthen the connections between pontoons. WSDOT says it will not accept the pontoons until these missing bars are fixed but we've seen no documentation that WSDOT designers have approved any structural fix for this.
Another important section of public records includes the photos that document the concrete damage before the pontoons were floated out of the casting basin.

In addition to extensive cracking there was also what's called 'spalling' where sections of concrete break or crumble away; there was concrete damage with literally every one of the first six pontoons. The cracks and ultimate leaks once the pontoons were floated spurred a series of e-mails regarding repairs.
These records represent only a fraction of the documents obtained by the Problem Solvers through the course of our investigation, but they are a representation of some of the most critical pieces.
---
KOMO News will continue looking into the problems with the new 520 Bridge pontoons. If you have information you'd like to share, please contact us by email or phone at 206-404-4350.
Have a question or comment about our investigation into the 520 Bridge construction? Post in the comments below and Tracy Vedder and Executive Producer Sarah Garza will be responding through the day on Friday.
The Washington State Department of Transportation says it has been transparent in the process of revealing the problems with these pontoons whereas numerous sources and their own documents tell a somewhat different tale. Now we want to open up the process of our investigation so you can see many of the thousands of public records we relied on for evidence.
Some of the most important public records are the videotaped inspections of the pontoons after they were taken out of the dry dock basin where they were built in Aberdeen and floated, first in Grays Harbor and then ultimately towed to Lake Washington where they are now being hooked together to form the floating platform for the new bridge.
On October 19, the WSDOT Public Records Division gave us 27 DVDs containing hundreds of hours of video inspections as the result of a disclosure request we made on September 10. We've strung together just a few of those video inspections here, some from each one of the six pontoons which are designated T, U, V, W and VNW and VSW.
Pontoon U
(See videos from Pontoons T, V, W and VNW and VSW)
It's important to note that we'd originally requested these videos at the end of August; here is the string of our e-mail request to the head of WSDOT Communications, Steve Pierce, saying he'll send us a disc.
A week later, this is how he responded, telling us WSDOT had posted five single videos, not 27 discs' worth, onto its website and we could access them there.
Additionally all audio had been edited out of the videos.
In mid-September WSDOT told us it only had one leak, identified in video as an internal leak in Pontoon V. Aside from all the other video evidence the Problem Solvers were waiting for on the other pontoons, there was also this diagram that shows there were leaks, identified in green in the document below, into at least 12 interior cells or compartments within Pontoon V.
Another important set of records include reports and/or investigations by experts either internally or hired by WSDOT or contractor Kiewit. The first is a report by the firm Buckland & Taylor, hired by Kiewit, to assess the cracking and spalling (concrete damage) created when the pontoons went through a process called post-tensioning, which is designed to strengthen the overall structure.
Pontoon designers within WSDOT put together a response to the B&T report. Both of these reports are highly technical in nature.
In August, an expert panel hired by WSDOT, released it's own report and in simple terms concluded that if contractor Kiewit closely followed the original design drawings by WSDOT and the concrete curing methods outlined by a previous test project then there should be no repeat of the problems experienced with the first pontoons.
Many of the problems with the concrete damage to the pontoons have been attributed to a "design flaw" by everyone from Secretary of Transportation Paula Hammond to Governor Chris Gregoire. The question is, where did the design flaws originate?
The pontoon construction is being built under what's called a "Design-Build" contract. As outlined in this 2009 e-mail before the contract was awarded, the successful bidder will do much of the final engineering for the pontoons. Numerous e-mails from contractor Kiewit point fingers at WSDOT for design problems.
But WSDOT internal communications show serious concerns about the level of design work being performed by Kiewit. Finally there is this report by a WSDOT engineer outlining where they believe contractor Kiewit has not performed all tasks required by the contract.
To try to get to the bottom of the design issue, we've asked to speak to the two main WSDOT engineers who, according to the documents we've received, are raising questions about the work performed by Kiewit: Jugesh Kapur and Patrick Clarke. We understand Kapur is the head of WSDOT's Bridges and Structures Division and he has been used as a spokesman for projects in the past. Clarke is listed as the Design Supervisor for the Pontoon Construction Project. Sources informed us last summer that Clarke had been removed from oversight at the Aberdeen casting basin, though WSDOT denied that in an interview in September.
Our requests to interview both men have been denied by WSDOT. We were told it would not be "appropriate."
Another reason to interview Clarke; his e-mails also raised the question of missing rebar connections called "hook bars" that are supposed to strengthen the connections between pontoons. WSDOT says it will not accept the pontoons until these missing bars are fixed but we've seen no documentation that WSDOT designers have approved any structural fix for this.
Another important section of public records includes the photos that document the concrete damage before the pontoons were floated out of the casting basin.

In addition to extensive cracking there was also what's called 'spalling' where sections of concrete break or crumble away; there was concrete damage with literally every one of the first six pontoons. The cracks and ultimate leaks once the pontoons were floated spurred a series of e-mails regarding repairs.
These records represent only a fraction of the documents obtained by the Problem Solvers through the course of our investigation, but they are a representation of some of the most critical pieces.
---
KOMO News will continue looking into the problems with the new 520 Bridge pontoons. If you have information you'd like to share, please contact us by email or phone at 206-404-4350.
Have a question or comment about our investigation into the 520 Bridge construction? Post in the comments below and Tracy Vedder and Executive Producer Sarah Garza will be responding through the day on Friday.
Why is KOMO the only one who thinks there is a conspiracy. Here is another positive story about the repairs and condition of the pontoons ! http://kxro.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/520-pontoons-still-in-good-condition/
Â
Hugh Jardon: You are full of it. KOMOâs reporting shows the defects for what they are. Not the spin offered by WSDOT in the Times article. Nice Troll thoughâ¦
Based on your insults, I can better understand your ignorance.Â
When you have nothing to offer in response to the many comments posted here other than lame defense posts of this indefensible situation and are called out for your partisanship, you now resort to the âI am insultedâ ploy. You have no insight with respect to my intelligence, and have offered no useful commentary in this screed. I can only infer then that you are working diligently to shout down reasonable perspectives voiced here in response to the outrageous state of these pontoons that are supposed to be built to withstand whatever nature throws at them for the next 75 years. I only ask that you identify who you are carrying water for in your efforts to subvert the reasonable discourse that has erupted due to the video evidence that KOMO has shared with the Washington State taxpayers on this mega project. Pathetic!
 @Transpopro I couldn't agree with you more here!!
thanks for reinforcing my, and others opinions of your credibility.
Please read the attached Seattle Times article to get a realistic story about the bridge pontoons. KOMO is not providing fair and balanced reporting.
Â
http://seattletimes.com/text/2019676918.html
Â
 @Hugh Jardon The Seattle Times article is a joke. All it does is echo back what WSDOT management and Kiewit have said. That's NOT investigative reporting!!! I can only conclude that if a reporter starts to ask questions, then you're going to categorize the exchange that follows as "unfair and unbalanced reporting".
Thanks to KOMO for bringing us the facts about that higly suspect DOT. Tonight as I was crossing Snoqualmie Pass, I heard on KOMO radio that the DOT was sending thirteen snow removal trucks to keep the pass open. The only problem with that was that shortly after I saw about ten DOT trucks headed out of the pass toward Easton, where there was no snow on the road! After I made it home safely, I checked the DOT camera shots to view the results of snow removal efforts. The pass was a mess with totally snow-covered roads and a requirement for chains on all vehicles. I wondered if those DOT sanders were lost in Easton as another example of DOT incompetency.
Seems that the construction adminastration needs overhauled. Who is Jerry Lenzi? Seems as if Mr. Lenzi is responsable for the adminastration. Way to honor you professional integraty Mr. Clarke
Based off what I am reading and knowing how construction goes and the lack of proper documentation. The contractors are opening themselves up to a giant lawsuit depending on how the contract was written. Not having the proper documentation will not stand up at all in court.
KOMO is truly crying wolf here. Watch the interview with the Secretary of Transportation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X--IoB_jdyA&list=UUmWr7UYgRp4v_HvRfEgquXg&index=2&feature=plpp_video
Â
So, Hugh, how long before the water rusts the wall rebar beyond the required design strength?
I have an idea why there are imperfections in the pontoons, the concrete available today is junk! I worked in concrete construction most of my life, as did my dad and brother. I've seen first hand the decay in quality over the years. The mixture for concrete has gone from four main ingredients (gravel, sand, Portland cement and water) to a concoction of various chemical additives and 'produce it cheaper, increase profit' material substitutions guaranteed to sabotage any construction project. If I want to pour quality concrete at my house, I mix it myself! Oh, and one more thought, if one hollow pontoon should fail, rapidly fill with water and sink, will the others somehow break away, or will they all end down in 'Davy Jones' Locker'?
..."A point to note in reinforced concrete structures is that if full advantage is to be taken of the high strength of the steel reinforcement that surface of a beam, for example, which is under tensile stress <B> is allowed to crack "b". This allows the steel to carry <b> all "b" the tensile forces"....
CSWIP 3.4U Underwater Inspector Controller \ chapter-Deterioration of offshore concrete Structures, 2011 manual.
Â
..."The recommended minimum cover of concrete over reinforcement in very severe conditions, such as surfaces exposed to seawater is 60 mm" (3.4u manual) ... This standard is not applicable here, but what is?
What was the ph of the water in making the concrete?
What studies have been done to examine the effects of the marine life on the structures? (yes, marine life can destabilize a structure over time).
Â
My point is some of the apparent defects are easily opined on, others less so to the point of being counter intuitive. Only a qualified Engineer for the specific task at hand is the one to accept or reject works. All of this should have been addressed before the Contract was let.
If the pontoons fail the plaintiffs lawyers will find these experts, did the WSDOT consult them (the experts) before letting the Contract?
If not, they are incompetent.
 @Mark DuPriest Obviously, you're more than a bit incompetent yourself. If not, then you're already taking advantage of Washington's newly passed marijuana law. I've been practicing engineering for almost 40 years now and have very little understanding of what you just said as far as any relevance to these pontoons.
Some other factors are at play here as well. Locations and treatment of construction joints, placement of snap ties or form hardware attachments and tendons, excessive jacking on poorly placed post tensioning tendons, premature form stripping, etc. The problem is that when lay people perceive that there is a problem, then the engineering in place to protect the publicâs interest has failed to keep the project out of the publicâs eye. Try rejecting a major contractorâs work sometime and you will know the joy of âexpertsâ parsing the letter and the intent of the Contract Documents to the nth degree. I assume that you as well as I have enjoyed this level of scrutiny on a major public project in the past. I would bet that the public is not to date been fully informed about the nature and severity of the issues regarding these pontoons and will have to dig deep through investigative reporting like this to fully understand what risks we as taxpayers are taking on this project.
I just want to say thank you to Tracy and the KOMO staff that are investigating this story. Â Whatever the cause or whoever is at fault, none of it would come to light without the hard work of Tracy and the KOMO staff. Â The state would rather cover things up than admit mistakes and mismanagement. Â I applaud any news organization that is doing investigative journalism -- there's no other way to hold our wasteful and pompous government accountable.
 @Phippster So in agreement with this reporting team. Kudos to their determination and tenacity. Does anyone else notice a parallel with this investigative reporting and that of 40 years ago with Watergate? Lies, CYA answers, and long-winded excuses...
I can't believe how close the rebars are to the surface of the crumbling concrete. It's as if the contractors just skim coated it.Â
This comment has been deleted
@Sally Jo After my experience with the DOT as a group of incompetent, indifferent robots, I am ready to believe any negative publicity about that degenerate DOT. They can't even get the the tolling on the 520 Bridge correctly. How will they deal with a massive problem that could cause equally massive amounts of death: those pontoons?
 @Sally Jo I question where all these one or two-post people are coming from that only post here to defend the company or the state. The Seattle Times is covering this, too. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019593025_pontoons03m.html
 @Sally Jo Deleting your posts only proved my point. Thanks so much!
@Just_Mike @Sally Jo
The Times posted their article on Friday, the day before the weekend ahead of the national election, and promptly buried it on Saturday along with all the comments about the article. They even suppressed the comment count so one could not see it on the âmost commentedâ article page even though other articles had fewer comments than this one. The point is, there appears to an effort by the Times to do the minimum reporting, post the report ahead of a busy weekend, and bury the article so that only the most curious reader could find it one day after it appeared in their paper. Kudos to KOMO for sticking with this important story.
This comment has been deleted
@Sally Jo Oh, so do you work for the company that manufactured the faulty pontoons? The beer-driniking DOT bridge designers may possibly have created faulty work. It's all part of the same lack of accountability in the DOT and acceptance of shoddy work from contractors. Methinks I sense some personal involvement in this on your part.Â
Excellent work KOMO, this is one reason why the media still matters.
Guess what tax payers of Washington - we will and are paying for it! ... DimWit Construction do it right or make room for someone who can do it right! else be ready for a massive lawsuit on your arse when this floating brick turns into the titanic!
The way this project is going, we're going to have the SR 520 Titanic
There are significant Federal Funds in this project. It would be interesting to read the monthly Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) report to the Federal Agency on this project to view their take on this situation. This report should be open to the public as well.
 @Transpopro There may well be some federal indictments before this investigation is fully concluded.
Enough is enough. This is NOT a time to take short cuts or bury our heads in the sand. Fix the problems now so this doesn't add to the financial misfortune our state is already dealing with.
Sure it's an inconvenience to the folks that rely on the 520, but I'm sure they would rather deal with it now (as they already have made alternative commuting methods) rather than have the damn thing sink & kill people in the process & then have to wait years again to have it inspected & rebuilt.
I agree with most on here that WDOT officials should be held accountable for their obvious, blatant mis-management!
C'mon....... this is ridiculous that KOMO has to do this in the first place. This should have been addressed by Kiewit right off the bat thru their QC. They should have contacted WDOT about the issue & WDOT could have been out to look at the issue & then could have checked that the new one met & exceeded State & Federal standards.
Kiewit has a bad reputation in more states than ours. They should be removed of all bidding in the future.
Hey Tracy Vedder, look into their track record in Utah. Some of the same complaints/ problems!!!!!!
Paula Hammond needs to go, period.
Said it before and I'll say it again. Start over. New WsDoT management/oversight, rebid the contracts, fine Keiwit and force them to 'eat' these unsafe pieces of garbage they have built. Amazing how we can't build something they did 50+years ago to the same level of quality.
Â
Do it before someone gets hurt driving across a sinking bridge.
Those are not cracks those are holes! places were there is missing cement you can not just pour new in there and call it good. If you do that it will create a cold seam and be a spot for failure big time any one who works with concrete knows that!
KOMO, what firm and which individuals (3.4u Underwater Inspector or equivalent) inspected and signed off on these assets?
What are their credentials and experience?
Â
Based on the photos even I, a "green" 3.4u Underwater Inspector can see they are faulty and not up to the task.
Â
WSDOT when considering letting the Contract did you inquire if the Contractor had any relationship or knowledge of The Society for Underwater Technology and Robert Gordon University?
Did the Contractor access or are they aware of the substantial knowledge base of underwater concrete structures, well documented, based on oil/gas structures? Secifically Norweigen spar platforms?
Â
If not, I question your ability to judge competancy in this field of technology.
@Mark DuPriest
I understand that these pontoons are casted in a dry dock so all inspection should be able to be done in dry conditions. Having said that, I had to dive to inspect some floats that another contractor screwed up to see what the problems were before I had to reject them.
 @Transpopro You are an Engineer that specializes in seawater degradation on concrete structures?
Qualified by education, training and experience to design a IRM protocol?
Â
 @Transpopro Pleased to meet you.
I agree with your statement about dry inspection.
I am a 3.4u Underwater Inspection Controller that does not inflate his "green" experience in this field. That being said I have 8 years as a diver and 22 yr's as a ROV operator/supervisor/sub-enginneer nearly all in the oil/gas industry.
Titles aside I have only been trying to convey that individuals with specific education, training & experience combined with expertise in this sector of underwater technology offer opinions regarding the engineering.
Specifically did the WSDOT employ the experts to evaluate the Contracts before they were Let?
It's late (-3 UTC) I'll try to get back regarding the rest. (ie IRM)).
Yes, I am an Engineer. I have significant experience with concrete structures, both in design as well as construction of structures exposed to seawater as well as other caustic environments. Short of observing concrete defects underwater, most of the inspection of the pontoons can be accomplished at the dry dock prior to flotation with the exception of the pontoon bottom.  I will need further explanation from you on your definition of âIRM protocolâ prior to commenting on that one. Are you an Engineer as well?
 @Transpopro Underwater Inspectors are used because the structure is designed to spend it's functional life immersed in water. Underwater Inspectors routinely inspect dry structures. An inspector that is unfamiliar with the effects of water on the structure are unsuitable.
WSDOT who is TWI ?
No?......
http://www.twi.co.uk/
If you have a bias against non-American founded sources than who is their American counterpart?
To my limited knowledge there is none, which is why Contractors from around the world have to go to TWI for certain certifications; including but not limited to several levels of Underwater Inspection.
Probably designed by the same engineers who built the Evil Knievel ramp on Hwy 16 in Tacoma.
 @mstipton That was actually CH2M Hill, not that anyone will admit it.
KOMO, if you have not yet, you need to upload all documentation to a website so that the public can access at any time.
WSDOT management appears to be inadequate for this project. Their quality-control and acceptance of assets appears to need an overhaul.
Accountability is lacking.
Â
Â
The logical thing to do is fire the contractor, but this being the WSDOT, they'll let them finish the project at our expense, then pay to have another company (likely staffed with the same people) "fix" it. Remember how long it took to fix the 520 tolling issues? Remember how the contractor got out of being massively penalized for their screw-ups? Maybe it isn't just the contractors that need to be replaced, but also top-level WSDOT management.
REcall how they handled the 520 tolling?  The contractor messed up big time, but was never terminated because of all the time that was invested. And we still see reports of mistolling and a stonewall when people try to correct it.  I'm not seeing a different approach here. There will be a absolute gold rush of contracts to repair this before it sinks, emergency bond issuance to repair it, expanded regional transportation fees to fund repairing it, etc. Where is the incentive to actually do it right? It used to be vested within the American work ethic, do it right for the long term. Pride in one's work. "I built that!"  That's gone now that we are the land of "No consequences for bad work, choices or lifestyle".
Get your wallet out Washington.This is gona be spendy....................
Government oversight is a great idea, but history has taught us that you don't inspect quality into a product. It is designe and built in. If devations need to be made, they must be identified as early in the production process s possble. Contractor integraty is the absolute attribute and actve progressive government contract administration is essential.
 @Sicnarf ..."but history has taught us that you don't inspect quality into a product."...
Can you explain or rephrase that?
It makes not sense to me as written.
BTW- English is my native language and I am college educated.
@Mark DuPriest @Sicnarf It means just because you inspect it, it doesn't mean it is high quality. If it where designed correctly quality would speak for itself.
Â
I am not college educated but I make a lot of money. Go figure.
 @just_sayin68 @Sicnarf ..."just because you inspect it, it doesn't mean it is high quality."...obviously.
Any inspection program has a pre-defined assestment criteria.
Standard Quality Control.
Only the results of the inspection determine it's quality.