June 26 - July 2, 2002

BACK, PERHAPS IN ONE PIECE
Did you miss me last week? After convincing my wife to allow me to "experience" Space Mountain at DisneyWorld, I most certainly missed you. In case you're curious, the ride is fully enclosed form of roller coaster. Your body is provided with positively frightening encounters. G-forces come at you from strange directions. In nearly total darkness. I do not recommend it for the faint of heart. Or the sane of mind. Vacation over, I return to Michigan's construction industry. Shaken and fully stirred.

UTTER CONTENTIOUSNESS
On June 18 the U.S. Senate approved, on an 84-14 vote, its own version of a federal backstop for insurers providing coverage for acts of terrorism. House legislation, which differs considerably from the Senate bill, was adopted last December, so Washington observers anticipate intense debate when the two bills come up for reconsideration in conference committee. As always, the big stumbling block is money. The White House, Senate Democrats, and Republicans in the House are divided over how much insurers should have to pay - as well as how to best shield businesses from lawsuits arising from attacks. Yet, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedies, the need is quite apparent. A considerable number of reinsurers have simply stopped providing terrorism coverage. Without that backing, primary insurers have become reluctant to provide it in the policies building owners can now buy. Under the Senate measure, Uncle Sam, in essence, would become the reinsurer of last resort for terrorism. It calls for primary insurers to be responsible for a portion of claims, with the amount varying according to each insurer's share of the market. The government - funded by us taxpayers - would then be responsible for 80% of the remaining claims if the attack cost less than $10 billion, and 90% if damages totaled more. For purposes of comparison, the latest estimate of the damage to insured property at New York City's World Trade Center is $20.3 billion, according to a report issued June 18 by the Insurance Services Office Inc. of New Jersey. The ISO says its estimates are based on approximately 49,000 insurance claims, consisting of 30,000 personal, 15,000 commercial, and 4,000 automotive. The firm calls the attack the "costliest U.S. catastrophe ever," exceeding the inflation-adjusted $19.6 billion in damages attributed to 1992's Hurricane Andrew. Critics of the Senate bill say it lacks reasonable limits on punitive damages. The House legislation reportedly has reasonable limitations built into it. President Bush has stressed that any federal terrorism insurance bill that reaches his desk "must include reasonable litigation procedures" to protect the victims of terrorism from also being victimized later by predatory lawsuits.

MURRAY'S NEW ACCOLADE
A very distinguished professor, known in Detroit for his presentations before the Great Lakes Fabricators & Erectors Association, has garnered one of the highest honors an engineer can achieve. Thomas M. Murray, the Monatgue-Betts Professor of Structural Steel Design at Virginia Tech's Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering. This recognition is only extended to those who have made important contributions to engineering theory and practice. Prof. Murray has been singled out for his leadership in developing criteria for floor serviceability as well as for his significant contributions to structural steel design engineering. One such contribution is his development of techniques for building lightweight floor systems that reduce vibrations in large, composite steel structures. You find his knowledge spelled out in AISC Design Guide No. 11: Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity, which he co-authored. The guide is used extensively by structural engineers throughout North America. Prof. Murray received his doctorate from the University of Kansas and, before coming to Virginia Tech in 1987, served 17 years on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, the last of which he spent as a distinguished visiting professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He is a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and has won multiple honors from the American Institute of Steel Construction, including its T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award.

FATAL ERROR
The collapse of a steel truss Feb. 12 on an expansion project at the Pittsburgh, Pa., convention center may have been caused by the use of the wrong kind of bolt. That observation was made by Robert Elmendorf, a metallurgist, during a June 5th coroner's inquest. According to his testimony, nonheat-treated nuts with a depth of less than one inch were used to fasten the ends of 18 inch long pins that connected the truss to a caisson. However, two inch deep, heat-treated nuts should have been used. The non-heated treated, smaller nuts apparently lacked sufficient strength and had less thread. An ironworker was killed in the accident. During the inquest ironworkers who worked on the project reportedly said they'd received no instructions from the steel erection subcontractor about what nuts were to be used.

NO SURPRISES HERE
Structural engineers run some pretty high risks when it comes to professional liability claims. That's the conclusion of a recently disseminated study. The DPIC Risk Drivers study analyzed 8687 claims files covering 1996-2000, measuring the relative risk of design work by design discipline, type of project, and other, related factors. It revealed that not only are structural engineers more likely than other design professionals to experience claims, they're typically more costly. Structural engineers accounted for 16.1% of the claims dollars identified in the report. Yet they accounted for only 6.7% of the fees generated by the policyholders included in the study group. After mulling over these results and comparing it with related data, DPIC has determined the four non-technical factors that contribute to liability claims. Topping the list are communications issues, which were cited as a contributing factor in 27% of the claims filed. Coming in at a close second are project team capability issues, contributing to 24% of claims filed. Ranked third is client selection, followed by negotiation and contract issues. "These non-technical issues are at the heart of most disputes and set the scene for errors, omissions, and claims," says Steve Mauck, DPIC's chief claims officer. "They also represent a controllable risk factor." If you'd like to study more detailed information from DPIC's Risk Drivers study, contact Tom Owens at 800/277-8533 ext. 217 or e-mail him at tom_owens@rsausa.com.

BACK ON THE TABLE
Thanks to a June 19 vote in the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pension Committee, once more the construction industry must turn its attention to attempts to establish another federal ergonomics standard. In 2000 the Occupational Safety & Health Administration adopted such a standard for general industry but most construction was excluded from it. That standard was repealed in March 2001, after the Bush Administration came into office. Last April OSHA then announced a plan to issue voluntary guidelines for individual industries. Apparently not content with this, U.S. Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), introduced S 2184, which calls for the U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL) to develop a new ergonomics standard within two years. That's the bill the committee passed, by an 11-10 vote. As it is presently written, S 2184 unfortunately takes a "one size fits all industries" approach, meaning that construction would be included in this new attempt to define acceptable ergonomic practices on the job. It also requires the new ergonomics standard to be as strong - or even stronger - than the 2000 standard OSHA tried to implement. My people in Washington say the proponents of S 2184 will attempt to attach its language to another piece of legislation to ensure its passage, A probable carrier could be the DOL's appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.

DEAL'S A DEAL
Recent editorials by Joe Hunt, president of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers, as well as Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, have stressed the importance of honoring no-strike commitments in Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) and National Maintenance Agreements (NMAs). Mr. Hunt told Iron Workers the agreements provide union members with a contractual obligation to continue working while disputes over contract administration or jurisdictions are being resolved. He said his members need to "personally show our owners and contractors that not only are Iron Workers safe, skilled, and productive, we can also be trusted to keep our word." In the June edition of the IBEW Journal, Mr. Hill expressed similar sentiments. Voicing concern over reports of work stoppages by IBEW members on PLA projects, he wrote: "If we give our word to be part of a system, we can't walk off the job on a whim when things go wrong…We demand that employers live up to their word and in doing so we must also demand the same of ourselves." According to some construction industry observers, violations of no-strike clauses in PLAs, especially over jurisdictional disputes, have been increasing over the past two years. This has raised concerns over "ammunition" being provided to the critics of PLAs and MLAs. Why bother with these agreements, such critics may begin to ask, if their no-strike provisions are being ignored? It only takes a single bad apple to spoil a barrel.

Questions? Comments? Idea?
Please submit your responses to the Great Lakes Fabricators & Erectors Association as soon as possible. You can call our new offices in downtown Detroit at 313/309-2000. Or you can drop an email to Guy Snyder at guysny@concentric.net or call him at 313/961-9217. We hope to hear from you soon!