Can you have NDA's regarding that amount of money in a non-profit?

Looks like there's a county government involved so it all is available under FOIA

.

Succinctly put Kelly.

While I definitely agree with what you're saying, there are a couple of problems with that approach.

Note: The "you" in the following comments is an imaginary generalization only...

1) They have to know who to call. How do they even know you exist?

2) They have to trust you and your opinion. Maybe you have a grudge. Maybe you want to do the work yourself.

3) They have to know enough to understand what you're saying. "Mechanic A says $10K, Mechanic B says $20K" Are they quoting the same work? Same parts? I don't know.

4) They have to try and find a consensus. Even the arbitrator hard a tough time of that.
"Respondents presented the expert testimony of Doyle McCormack to counter the
testimony of Mr. Sobczynski. Although Mr. McCormack disagreed with many of the opinions of Mr. Sobczynski, Mr. McCormack's testimony tended to corroborate Mr. Sobczynski's
opinions regarding labor cost."

You have two people accepted as experts in the field. They must have had some pretty significant differences of opinion for it to be noted in the summary. Given that when you're bidding a project, who do you listen to? I know my choice, but then again, I'm not the guy who doesn't know any of the names.

Obviously those of us who've worked in the industry for years know and trust you. But we'd also be the same people who've heard through the grapevine "Don't hire Billy Bob's Boilerworks, it won't end well"

If the people you mention aren't "plugged in" well enough to know who not to talk to, they're also not plugged in well enough to know who to trust.

Another factor is there are often two sides to every story. We had another contractor come in and badmouth us to a new manager. "They should have replaced all those ties. They should have upgraded that rail to a bigger section..." When asked about it, we replied that we had given quotes for exactly that, only to be told, time and time again, they didn't have the money, it was a low speed yard track, bubble gum it together on the cheap. Finally we said "We're done. Hire them, and see how you like what they charge for a while..." Obviously, if you ask them, we're the bad guys.

To All

Many years ago a member of the ASME locomotive boiler committee member was upset about an incident at one of the boiler week meetings where a fellow member who is respected in the industry went on a rampage about Mechanical Engineers. Given the number of engineers not only in the ASME but also involved with the development of the steam locomotive this is quite impressive. Another time someone was promoting a calculation of some sort for boilers. When it was pointed out by a mech engineer that the calculation only worked for boilers between a certain size the solution for the presenter was to try to force it thru anyway.

The best way to find information is to communicate. The place for it is not on a discussion board but develop your own private network of people. Will it be perfect ? No. But working together you can get a lot of intel. It is also important to study and understand the scope of the work to be done even if you are not planning to do it.

Robby Peartree

I tend to be a believer in the idea that there are two sides to every story.

While we have seen the "Construction Industry Arbitration Tribunal" decision, some questions come to mind in reading it. One, as I look at the Tribunal's background via their web site, it seems to be focused on the building construction industry, not locomotive boilers. They did reach out for help from those that they considered to be known boiler experts which to me highlights, or confirms, the idea that the AAA was out of their area of expertise here. I would have preferred a panel of experts, 5 or 6 people perhaps, not two who tended to disagree with one another.

None of us have seen the actual contract, nor the actual wording regarding the buy American requirement. Found this bit online:

"The Buy American Act requires Federal agencies to procure domestic materials and products. ... The provisions of the act may be waived if the head of the procuring agency determines the act to be inconsistent with the public interest or the cost of acquiring the domestic product is unreasonable."

In this case, was it waived? Was the waiver in writing?

I am also fuzzy as to the implied FRA requirement for "mill test reports." I'd like to see such a key element of the decision reference the specific code requiring this specific language.

Was this a fixed price contract or T&M? This gets to the question of why so much money was paid before any inspections of the work were performed.

Again, there are two sides to every story. We do not have the whole story. A lot can be learned here.

J.R. May

It's a very rare and simple story that is limited to just 2 sides.......

We will never know the whole story about this or any other lawsuit. It really has no bearing on the industry other than how not become ensnared in a lawsuit. I would have thought that most of that would be pretty basic knowledge. Beyond behaving in an ethical manner, it is equally important to use prudence when executing a contract from either side. It is worth noting though, that some people just like to argue. I would also venture a guess that both parties will find that this issue and the level and publicity to which it arose will ultimately cause others to use an abundance of caution when dealing with either party in the future.


With respect to Kelly's post:

I'm sure we can all agree there a number of good quality contractors ranging in price from "economy" to "premium." Unfortunately, if you don't start with a person of quality even when checking references, your whole path will be skewed. There are many journeymen in this industry who seem to owe their allegiance to the guru/ contractor/ shyster who gave them their start. I can personally think of several "steam experts" who would jump at an opportunity to run others into the ground let alone testify against each other in legal proceedings, despite having never really accomplished anything other than "working on" a certain number of steam locomotives... and unfortunately all of the "experts" I'm thinking of seem to have a following of people who sing their praises.

Whenever someone asks me for such a recommendation, I usually try to lead them to their own conclusion. What has this person actually accomplished? Have they ever finished a project of the type you require? Did they give you any references? Which contractors in the industry do they like? (If they make everyone else out to be idiots, this should be a red flag)

This is very strange. I posted a reply but, as posted, the site merely quoted the note I was replying to. Probably my legendary computer skills at work again.

Here's what I was trying to say:

I've been involved in rail industry arbitrations both as a litigant and as an arbitrator. I don't have any knowledge of this particular dispute, but here's what it looks like to me.

The underlying argreement between the contractor and the locomotive owner must have had an arbitration clause, requiring any disputes to be submitted to arbitration. One of the parties must have gone to court, either to have the court decide the dispute itself, or to enforce the arbitration clause. In either case, the court's response would have been to compel arbitration, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Now that the arbitrator has made his award, the issue before the court will be whether to enforce it. Under the FAA, the grounds for a court to refuse to enforced an arbitration ward are VERY limited. So I would expect the award to be enforced.

Deleted my idea because it pretty much sucks, I guess.

Or, come to the annual fall convention and meet people face to face, both contractors and their customers. I pretty much discount opinions people on the net express about other people. Anybody can post anything without having to prove their case.

Or... ask what projects they have worked on and then go see for yourself the quality of work. Even better... casually ask the engine crew how it runs since the last rebuild!

... because no railroader would ever complain about anything, unless it really deserved it. *sarcasm*

I would wager that "asking the engine crew" is how a lot of the shysters stay in business. Asking someone who relies on second (or third)-hand information is not really a wise way to learn about things. Just because someone runs an engine does not mean they fully understand what the last contractor was paid to do or how well they did it. Anyone is qualified to give an opinion but, not everyone is qualified to give good advice.

A visual inspection of an operational locomotive provides very little insight about the quality or the amount of work that was done to the engine... unless of course you're talking about a painter.