- Pat Moore

Expert Witness Testimony

McKay/Moore Now Offering
ADA Compliance Testing and Review

Introducing Adela Santisteban, ADA Consultant

Building Code Review: Provide code reviews using appropriate code. Experience with the following codes: UBC, SBCC, New York State Building Code, Canadian Building Codes. Adela's technical skills also include AutoCAD R11, R13 & R14. 3-D Modeling ( R13 & R14), AutoLisp, and Rebis AutoPlant.From 1991 to November 1998, Adela worked as a Civil/Structural Designer at NEPCO, Redmond, WA, where she was responsible for design and coordination of all architectural with other engineering disciplines. She performed building code studies, reviewed plant design for permitting purposes and code compliance, and was responsible for ensuring ADA compliance in building design. She coordinated all work with mechanical installations for industrial & commercial settings, maintained architectural products files, and developed and revised as necessary building specifications in coordination with statements of work.  For Adela's complete resume, please click here, or call the office to have a copy mailed to you.When I approached Adela about consulting for McKay/Moore, she responded, "you are asking about something I enjoy doing. I have felt for awhile that there is (or must be) an unrecognized need for ADA and code specialists. I would be very interested in doing work specifically in this area... providing code review (general and ADA compliance) services. Documenting the exact interpretation of code compliance is particularly useful to firms when questions arise months after building design decisions have been made, especially when project staffing has changed. I am very comfortable with this and have a couple of forms I developed to do this with, so that a client would have a ready, easy to refer to, document for reference." In discussing ways in which Adela's services might benefit our clients, she suggested the following: " a client could run a design through for ADA compliance, I could review, make the changes, and return the drawings. I am well aware of space and design changes that would have to be reviewed with varying disciplines regarding this as well. I always look for the simplest, most economical way to rework spaces that are not in compliance."

United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)

COMPUTER and WWW Hints:
E-mail Virus Protection-A Simple Plan from the Webmaster of Strabo.com

"Be careful about running attachments. In other words, don't.

If you get a word doc, or an excel spreadsheet, don't open it unless you were expecting it. [If there is any doubt, pick up the telephone and CALL the sender for verification.] If you have to open it, and it says that there are macros, don't open it... keep in mind that some of these macro viri will disable macro checking in your programs, so you may not get warned at all.

Basically, don't put yourself at risk, and you are unlikely to get a virus..."

One of the more interesting projects we have worked on recently was a materials take-off for the Palau Neco Center, a 25,000 sf, two-story shopping center, located in Koror. Venne Beauchamp, who has twenty years' experience with pre-engineered buildings, did the take-off on architectural and structural, and Angeline consultants Frank Frisbie (electrical) and John Morgan (mechanical) provided quantities on those systems. Our client was responsible for shipping all materials to Guam and from there to Palau and, since the closest supplier to the site would be somewhere in Indonesia, it was essential that they have a very detailed and accurate quantity takeoff. As drawings were not yet at construction documents level, it was incumbent upon our estimators to draw on their expertise and experience to project what should be on the drawings, ferret out conflicting information between drawings and specifications, and point out unfeasible construction types given the locale and site circumstances.  The client was very pleased with McKay/Moore's consultants' ability to find a number of potential pitfalls and to suggest appropriate remedies. [For my part, I am also very pleased to have such experienced and knowledgeable consultant support.]

Every so often, we get e-mail humor worth passing along. I couldn't resist sharing the following:

How Specs Live Forever

The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.

Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts. So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Thus, we have the answer to the original questions. The United State standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.

Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's