Eyat wrote:Most of the drawbacks ... is a success.
Is there any reason why the necessity of other conditions should not be written into law? You seem to have stated that they are already important.
That is actually what gets you in trouble if you use a boilerplate type document in a bid, different projects in different areas require different conditions. Its important that the person putting it together has actually thought about it specifically not just in generalities because it is when there is a surprise (contaminated soil for instance) is when cost over runs happen because once you have a company under contract you can no longer go out and get a competing price to keep them honest. Also at least in my state the courts have shown themselves to be unwilling to completely enforce the giant book of specifications that the state DOT issues as sort of a blanket against bad construction when the project starts to snowball.
TBH, most public engineering around where I live is mediocre (or even awful in a significant portion of cases), and horrible in aesthetics.The roads around where I live are relatively nice, but the public buildings, for example, are almost universally terrible (at least as far as buildings go). I know of one well-built school in the area, and one well-built library. That is out of at least 40. None of the federal buildings are more than adequate, as far as I know. The old city halls are somewhat better. I do not know if that is because of lowest bidder system, but I certainly have heard of cases where lowest bidder leads to worse designs. In any case, the idea that more should be done to create higher quality public construction projects is something we all agree on.
I cannot really speak to aesthetics (not really my department) but I have noticed most government buildings are designed to look edifice-like and lack a certain flair but that is probably the point. by not-well built do you mean falling apart or ugly?
To give an example, my high school had a greenhouse built toward the morning sun with asbestos in the walls. It was being released in the 120+ degree F greenhouse, and had to be removed. It was also too hot for anything to grow. The ventilation system in the same school had a maximum airflow rate of 3-4 CFM that was exaggerated to 6-7 CFM in the official measurements (still below acceptable guidelines of 30CFM, and even below the 15 CFM set especially for the school). It also originally had welding exhaust being pumped into classrooms. I know this because I had a teacher with permanent brain damage and thyroid problems because of it. Further, the roofs leak and many classrooms have mold. It also looks like a prison. It was designed by a prison architect who himself was jailed for fraud. In terms of local public buildings, I would say this is about normal. At best, it is towards the lower end of normal.
Well the asbestos seems like a classic case of seemed like a good idea at the time, assuming it was built at the time everything was made of asbestos, if you were to jail everyone who put asbestos in a building there would be no 60 year-old architects. But beyond that all of these problems you list point towards a lack of construction inspection and/or plan review. Contractors will always try to cut corners whether they are the lowest bidder or no-bidder look at those death traps haliburton built for showers in Iraq. Their electricity wasn't put in up to code and no one called them on it.