For constructability, the six companies were required to build structures between 18 and 30 feet in height, as well as 6 feet below ground. During the test, engineers also looked at “how feasible it would be to construct the prototypes in other environments, based on their observations during the construction of the prototypes,” according to the GAO report.
The evaluations found that
all four concrete prototypes had “extensive” construction challenges, the most serious of the four categories, meaning they would need the most work to meet CBP’s requirements.
Of the four prototypes made of alternate materials, two had “substantial” challenges, the next category down, and the other two had “moderate” challenges. None presented “minimal” challenges, the fourth category requiring the least amount of work.
The report’s summary of the results said the sloping terrain presented a special challenge for the constructability of the prototypes.
“This assessment included factors such as whether the foundation would accommodate slope changes, distance from the border required during construction, weight of the construction materials, and the equipment — such as cranes or concrete trucks — needed during construction of the prototypes,” the report concluded.
For engineering design, CBP required the prototypes to be cost-effective to build, maintain and repair, and that they accommodate several operational and design elements.
Most significantly, the agency required that the structures be able to be built in slopes of up to 45 percent. But the testing and evaluation found that only half of them met that standard, and would still require some work to accomplish that. Another three were deemed to “be impractical for slopes over 15 percent,” nearly a third of what was specified. Notably, the evaluation found that the eighth structure “could not be constructed on any slope without a redesign.”
Engineers from CBP and USACE found that six of the eight prototypes needed “extensive” or “substantial” work to “accommodate surface drainage,” one of those required elements, given the propensity for flood waters and rain to flow across both sides of the border. The other two structures needed only “minimal” changes, according to the report.
CBP asked that the prototypes accommodate gates that Border Patrol uses along certain sections to access the other side of the structure, especially in areas where the barriers are built north of the actual borderline. The evaluation found that
six of the prototypes needed “extensive” or “substantial” work to meet that requirement, while the other two needed “moderate” changes.
“What that tells me is that
the government doesn’t know what they want yet,” Patrick Malyszek said. He’s the president of M3 Federal Contract Practice Group, a New York-based firm that provides consulting services to private contractors interested in bidding on federal government projects.
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us