Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Headquarters Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Independent peer review finds design issues at Fort Lauderdale police headquarters; engineers say problems are fixable
Summary
A third-party peer review identified 16 design and documentation items for the new Fort Lauderdale Police Department headquarters, including concrete shear-wall and column foundation concerns; reviewers and city officials said the issues are remediable and remediation plans and contract negotiations with the original engineer are underway.
An independent structural peer review of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department headquarters released to the commission on June 3 identified multiple structural, serviceability and documentation items that require resolution, but reviewers and city staff said the issues are fixable and remediation is in progress.
Weiss/Janney (WJE), the third-party reviewer, summarized 16 findings covering three categories: life-safety items that relate to extreme-event margin-of-safety (for example, shear wall capacity under extreme wind loading), serviceability items (deflections, movement compatibility with building envelope/glazing) and missing or unclear documentation for future engineers. WJE's associate principal told commissioners that "everything that we put in our findings ... is fixable."
What city staff said: Anthony Pardo (assistant city manager) and AECOM, the design team, have been engaged in exchanges with WJE and the city. Pardo provided a construction-status update on Phase 1 remediation work that addressed an earlier slab deflection issue: micropiles, epoxy injections and column jackets were underway or complete in the affected zone. Staff said the project is about 90% complete on many contractor milestones, but remaining work includes interior finishes, pavers, skylight work, landscaping and final fire-alarm testing.
Key technical items: WJE identified shear-wall capacity concerns at full design loads and raised foundation-capacity questions for some columns; the reviewers noted that some design assumptions (for example, roof live loads called out as 30 psf on drawings) exceed minimum code live loads (20 psf) and that reducing design assumptions or using measured material strengths could resolve some foundation capacity questions. The peer reviewer also recommended steps such as upgrading sliding bearings at an expansion joint and clarifying certain code-provision interpretations related to structural integrity.
Insurance and contractor responsibility: Commissioners and the public asked about errors-and-omissions insurance and AECOM's contractual responsibility. City staff confirmed they have certificates of insurance and are negotiating an amendment to AECOM's contract to reflect remediation responsibilities; attorneys were scheduled to continue discussions with the design firm that week. Assistant city managers and risk management said the city holds certificate-of-insurance documentation and staff were pursuing financial recovery and contract credits where appropriate.
What happens next: WJE, AECOM and city staff said they would continue weekly meetings to exchange targeted calculations, material-strength test data and proposed rectification designs. Staff said final remediation steps will be reviewed by the building official and the city's structural plans examiner as part of standard review before final acceptance of the building.
