Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

AL DOT Awards $1.2M Bridge Painting

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

A Florida contractor has been awarded a $1.2 million contract to clean and coat the bridge over Perdido Pass in Orange County, AL.

The $1,298,992 bid by K.V.K. Contracting Inc., of Tarpon Springs, FL, bested that of eight others ranging up to $2.9 million. The Alabama Department of Transportation had estimated the painting contract at $2.9 million to $3.6 million.

US Army Corps of Engineers

The Perdido Pass Bridge won several engineering awards in 1989 and 1990 for consultant Volkert Engineering.

The project involves cleaning and recoating about 194,000 square feet of structural steel surfaces on the existing bridge over Perdido Pass. The steel will be abrasive blast-cleaned to SSPC-SP 10 (near white) and coated with an inorganic zinc-epoxy-urethane system. The existing coatings contain lead; containment is required.

About the Site

Perdido Pass, the mouth of the Perdido River, forms a water passage that connects Perdido Bay with the Gulf of Mexico two miles (3 km) west of the Alabama/Florida state line. The Alabama State Route 182 highway bridge in Orange Beach spans the pass with two openings.

After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010, the entrance to Perdido Pass was closed and a barrier system installed to control tidal flow of oil entering from the Gulf of Mexico.

Reported by Paint BidTracker, a construction reporting service devoted to identifying contracting opportunities for the coatings community. Visit us on Facebook!

Comment from Robert Cohan, (12/15/2011, 7:06 AM)

Wow, $6.18 / square foot.....

Comment from Tim Race, (12/16/2011, 8:55 AM)

Robert I calculate $6.70/square foot. Nonetheless, having investigated fraudulent painting practices on dozens of state DOT bridge painting jobs, I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that at this price there is a high probability that work performed will not be in substantial compliance with the specification. Please note that I am in no way suggesting that either the contractor or the DOT have any intent of defrauding the tax payers.

Comment from Thomas Mayer, (12/16/2011, 4:31 PM)

If the bridge won engineering awards in 1989 & 1990. that would imply that was when it was built I think. If so, the first fraud is the consultant who says that there is Lead on the bridge.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (12/19/2011, 8:13 AM)

Thomas, while it was becoming less common - lead paint certainly could have still been used on a bridge in 1990. You may be thinking of the September 2, 1977 ban on consumer/household lead paint.

Comment from William Feliciano, (12/19/2011, 8:17 AM)

The article says inorganic zinc. I wasn't aware that inorganic zinc was something you could easily apply in a field blasting/painting scenario. I thought it was relegated mostly to shop painting.

Comment from Steve Stroud, (12/20/2011, 12:12 PM)

What measures will be used to contain/capture the blasted existing coating which contains lead?

Comment from shane hirvi, (12/21/2011, 2:00 AM)

Looks like a pretty straight forward bridge painter. The structure appears to be flat and uncomplicated. Fairly easy to rig and contain--you arent dealing with a lot of crazy elevation changes, it looks like there is an arc so maybe you have to add an additional cable or two on the outsides, you have the road deck as a top(which helps in being water tight allowing for more working days instead of fixing tarps), top to bottom of the containment would be fairly short in height(saving you in tarp costs). The piers appear to be concrete and it looks like some of the spans are as well but im not sure I havent looked at the drawings. On a comlicated bridge you can spend hundreds of man hours per containment on striping/touch-up. I use striping/touch-up together because whatever you choose to call the activity it amounts to the same thing--you stripe when specified and touch-up to achieve 100% coverage on your other coats. When you don't have to dump 2,3,4 or 5 times the amount of man hours in striping/touch-up as any other activity--there is money to be made at 6.70 a square foot. Depending on the amount of connection points per containment it should go fairly rapidly. You obviously arent going to make millions on a 1.3 million dollar contract but you are going to feed the families of your employees and have a little left over to buy some new equipment. As far as there existing a "reasonable degree of certainty that at this price there is a high probability that work performed will not be in substantial compliance with the specification" I've got to say that such a statement(offered with a disclaimer or not) is needlessly inflammatory to both the contractor and to that of the Alabama DOT. Such statements serve no purpose when debating the merits of the low bid contract system other than to give a black eye to the parties mentioned in this article. Mr. Tim Race, you have an excellent reputation as a consultant/inspector and I respect what you do greatly. I mean no disrespect to you personally or professionally by my opinion of your statement. I have worked in multi billion dollar facilities and on some $5000 tank jobs and I can tell you that there isn't much of a difference in expertise, of the workers (at almost any level), other than the size of the paychecks cashed. Good luck to K.V.K. Contracting, Inc. and to the Alabama Department of Transportation with this project.

Comment from Tim Race, (12/21/2011, 12:17 PM)

Shane you are spot on in suggesting that my comments are provocative, however, I don't think that they are either needless or without purpose. I gave you the consultant/owner perspective and in response you more than adequately presented a contractor perspective. Isn't that what this forum is all about? I presented the readers with a commentary based on facts and experience. I said owner beware and you told us why the price might not be impossible, again based on facts and experience. Sounds like a conversation to me. And to further this conversation .... Alabama DOT updated its paint specifications in 1991 to include inorganic zinc primers in most of its paint systems. I am not aware of what systems they used circa 1989-1990. It is quite possible that the lead in the existing paint is the trace amount typical of many zinc-rich coatings. If that is the case, then it's likely that Class 3 or 4 containment will be required rather than Class 1 or 2 as would be likely if the existing system has a red lead primer. With regards to the use of inorganic zinc for field work - some do it, most don't do it, and I never recommend it. Most state DOTs use an organic zinc primer for field work. No honest person sells a service or product for less than it costs them to produce (unless you are amazon selling a kindle!). Faced with delivering an end-product that costs more to produce than they will be payed, a construction contractor can (a) deliver and lose money, (b) default, (c) seek a change order, or (d) deliver a substandard product. Some honest construction contractors unintentionally underbid projects, but still deliver and take their lumps. There are construction contractors that specialize in the art of the change order. They prey on poorly written or ambiguous specifications or bank on the unforeseen condition. I like these pretend honest guys even less than the catch-me-if-you-can low ball artists. The low ball construction contractor knows that their bid is below cost, but they expect to turn a profit in any case by delivering a substandard product. What does substandard bridge painting look like? Here is what I have seen on bridge painting contracts bid below cost that entail SP-10, containment and disposal of hazardous lead paint waste: spent abrasive dumped on ground, blasting less than SP-6 including no blasting at all, poor blasting and painting at piers and abutments, no blasting at containment contact points, poor or no blasting of cross frames - especially the tops, no blasting below cross frame attachment points, no edge grinding, no grinding of slivers, steel grit that has been painted over, painted over pack rust, excessive caulk-by-the-foot, no or poor blasting of box girder interiors, and especially poor work over traffic lanes. These observations are based on over 100 post job inspections. It's probably safe to assume that the more egregious offenders also employed substandard containment and industrial hygiene practices. Although not within the realm of my investigations, some of these below cost jobs also involved bribery. State inspectors and contractors have gone to jail for their offenses. One particularly creative process employed by some construction contractors is to reduce the payroll tax they owe by under-paying and under-reporting wages while compensating workers with inflated expense payments. AGAIN, I am not saying that any of this discussion necessarily applies to the Perido Pass Bridge. However, the bid price of $6.70 per square foot is substantially below the government estimate of $14.55 to $18.55 per square foot. I estimate that substantial non-compliance occurs on about 75% of bridge paint jobs bid below cost.

Comment from shane hirvi, (12/22/2011, 2:16 AM)

I am traveling, and hate posting in my iPhone, so this response will be fairly short. Tim, this post provides context to your earlier statement. Often times when people make statements, without providing context, these statements can interpreted in whatever way the reader chooses. By responding to you I was merely attempting to put spark to the fuse you left with your post. This is a debate/conversation that I would like to engage in. Whether ones perspective is from a contractor, a consultant, an inspector, paint/tech rep, dot inspector/engineer/chemist this is perhaps the paramount debate/conversation in the industry. I have to get my amazon purchased kindle wrapped and under the tree.

Comment from Stephen Pinney, (12/22/2011, 10:08 AM)

Tom: Granted that is probably not red lead primer but there is enough lead contained in that painting system to envoke the regulations. Tim: Agree that $6.70 is a low price but if, in fact, the structure is a simole one, a knowledgable contractor can do it for that. William: If the painters understand the application characteristyics of IOZ, it is perfectly feasible as a field applied coating. NASA at the Cape uses it all the time when the atmosphere is solely marine.

Comment from Paul Archambo, (1/3/2012, 11:36 AM)

Ok I must be missing something. Alabama DOT estimate is 2.9 to 3.6 and they award it to someone for 1.2. I do not see how anyone at Alabama DOT in their right mind would think it can be done to spec or be done safely. I think we will probably be reading in here about some more bridge painter falling to their death. When will we learn the people who come in so low that they can hardly pay for the materials cut costs in the safety of the workers. I hope I am wrong. SAFETY JOB 1 !!!!