Fixing Responsibility for Project Delays Due to Weld Defects

Achievements and Results

• Factors contributing to project delay examined
• Testimony provided to assign responsibility for project delays

The Problem

Recently, this expert provided testimony to assist in fixing responsibility for project delays due to weld defects. The issue that triggered delays was clearly associated with shortcuts taken by field contractor in quality control. An element that factored in the length of the delay was shortcuts taken by the owner and owner representatives in project development.

The specifications called for application of ASME welding codes. In other words, a variety of quality control (QC) measures were required. Among them was radiographic inspection of a specific portion of the welds. When a weld failed a radiographic inspection, the code requires that two additional welds completed by the same welder be examined. The process of examining two additional welds for each bad weld is continued for several steps until a point where all welds completed by a specific individual must be examined. This requirement in turn establishes the need for each welder to stamp each and every weld so back tracking can be conducted if needed.

In order to facilitate the QC process as well as a number of other practical concerns like hydrotesting, the practice of maintaining piping isometric drawings and weld maps has become commonly accepted.

The Solution

In the situation in question, there was evidence that the field contractor intentionally misapplied weld stamps. It was assumed that the objective was to both use unqualified welders and to pass unqualified welds. In any case, this action destroyed the credibility of the QC process, because there was no ability to confidently back track to previous welds after a failed radiograph was found. As a result, several thousand welds had to be 100% retested.

One confounding issue was that the owner and the owner's representatives had made the choice not to follow standard practice and create isometric drawings and weld maps. In order to proceed with rework efficiently, piping isometric drawings had to be prepared and all insulation had to be removed so the location of all welds could be determined and recorded on isometrics. This issue tended to extend the length of time required for rework.

The plaintiff argued that the poor quality control and falsification of documents precipitated the entire situation by the defendant. The Defendant argued that their responsibility was mitigated by choices that the owner made. In fact, the owners' decision not to use normally accepted practices to facilitate quality control could be construed as an indication that they were receptive to taking shortcuts to save time and money.

Benefits Realized

The expert provided testimony on his findings. In conclusion, neither the owner nor the field contractor will be fully compensated for their losses. The only way to avoid the losses was to avoid the decision to take shortcuts by both parties.

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.