caracol ekam-arch peer review

Transcription

Architectural Peer Review of Caracol EKAM Housing, Haiti – March 16, 2012 (Rev. April 16, 2012)
Construction Documents for 750 Permanent Houses on the Caracol EKAM, Haiti
Architectural Peer Review
March 16, 2012 (Rev. April 16, 2012)
Peer Review Author:
Greg Higgins, Architect – coordinator
Peer Advisors:
William Austin, Architect, AIA
Graham Hubenthal, Architect
Supporting Advisors:
Christopher Andrews, Architect & Town Planner
Aldy Castor, MD, President, Haiti Resource Development Foundation
Stuart Leiderman, Environmental Refugees and Ecological Restoration Specialist
Gigi Pomerantz, MSN, FNP-BC
Patti Stouter, Vernacular Design Consultant
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Introduction and Background
Summary of Peer Review
Caracol EKAM Construction Documents
Caracol EKAM Site Plan
Floor Plans
Roof Design
Questions for USAID
Redesign Caracol EKAM
Endnotes
2
2
4
5
8
13
14
15
17
Appendix 1: CEEPCO Federal contract synopsis – design professionals of record
18
Appendix 2: Excerpts from USAID Final Solicitation on International Building Code (IBC)
19
Appendix 3: Excerpts from the International Residential Code (IRC)
19
1
1
Introduction and Background
On December 14, 2010, the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) approved the “New Settlements
[1]
Project” to be implemented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Information provided by the IHRC states, in part;
“This is a housing project that will occur in two geographic areas: Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haitien
Development Corridors. USAID intends to develop 15,000 pre-prepared housing site lots for the
construction of homes. USAID itself proposes to build about 4,000 homes on these lots and to solicit an
additional 8,500 housing units from other partners.
USAID has prepared a project plan for the construction of the first 750 houses. Environmental
assessments have been completed for four sites and are currently being finalized on five additional sites.”
On October 24, 2011 almost a year from IHRC approval, USAID issued a pre-solicitation notice for a project
entitled, “Construction of 750 Permanent Shelter Houses on the Caracol EKAM”. [Section 3] An excerpt from
page 8 of the notice reads:
“The program also aims at providing safe, durable and affordable housing models that the Government of
Haiti (GOH) can adopt to reconstruct the affected areas in other low income housing settlements. In
implementing this housing program, USAID hopes to provide a model for larger-scale development and
reconstruction efforts. The program will serve to meet the backlog of shelter by increasing IDP (Internally
Displaced Persons) access to safe, durable and affordable housing within development corridors in Haiti.
This Phase-1 will kick-start the program by preparing the site for the construction of 1500 core housing
units…”
The construction documents - bid documents - referenced in this review and found in the Solicitation are the
result of a USAID contract awarded to CEEPCO Contracting, LLC of Beltsville, Maryland. [Appendix 1]
This Caracol EKAM housing development is in proximity of the Caracol Industrial Park, which is now under
[2]
construction.
2 Summary of Peer Review
On June 30, 2011, USAID issued a draft press release entitled “Caracol EKAM Site Development – Northern
[3]
Corridor” that states its intention to build residences on up to fifteen hundred lots on undeveloped land:
“The purpose of the program is to provide a culturally appropriate modest dwelling for the Caracol EKAM
site, made preferably from local materials that can be easily repaired or expanded and that are capable of
safely resisting the geo-hazards of the country.”
After an extensive review of the construction documents we have concluded that the Caracol EKAM housing
project design as documented fails to meet the USAID criteria quoted above. Extensive consultation with
Haitians living abroad and with NGO aid workers with on-the-ground experience in Haiti as well as experts on
Haitian culture has convinced us that the Caracol EKAM housing project design is substandard, inadequate
and anything but “culturally appropriate”.
We discovered that the Caracol EKAM development is in a region USAID and the Government of Haiti (GoH)
[4.5]
have identified as at “HIGH RISK” of flooding, earthquakes and hurricanes.
The region where this
2
development is located experienced a devastating earthquake in 1842,
[7]
the area may be due for a similar seismic event at any time.
[6]
and seismologists largely agree that
We found no environmental assessments or impact reports for this project. From a site planning standpoint,
the Caracol EKAM development is extremely dense, monotonous and devoid of many of the obvious basic
amenities associated with community life. The 1500 units are all identical, grouped in blocks of 20 units, in
rows placed approximately seven feet apart (2.08m). The units themselves are inhospitable, with one small
2
interior room of just 104 square feet (9.6m ) - labeled “LIVING”.
“Pit” toilets, or latrines, are located in a tiny space labeled “BATH” that has no bathing or shower facility – and
no lavatory for hand washing. The “BATH” is adjacent to another tiny space labeled “KITCHEN”, showing a
sink but no running water or drain. There is no provision for cooking, with the possible exception of an electric
hot-plate. The design of this project ignores basic sanitary guidelines. Essential health and hygiene has
been ignored, and this in a country with a rampant cholera epidemic.
The roof assembly, consisting of thin steel decking screwed to wood blocking and fascia boards, and the
0
metal atypically doubles as the ceiling for all interior and exterior spaces. The roofing could heat up to 185 F
during most days and will therefore radiate heat into spaces below, rendering the house potentially
uninhabitable. The entire wood roof structure is designed to be nailed together without steel brackets. This is
unacceptable in the Caribbean where residences are frequently battered by hurricane-force winds. Because
the design provides no closure over the perimeter walls, the roof assembly will be subjected to hurricane force
winds inside and out. Under these conditions, uplift forces will likely tear the roofing from the wood members.
With these and other obvious architectural design deficiencies, we fervently urge an intervention to prevent
the Caracol EKAM housing project from becoming a blighted slum or public health disaster resulting in added
despair for the Haitian people. We hope this critical review, while not to be construed as comprehensive or
complete, will be used to improve this and future USAID projects.
Millions of generous and taxpaying Americans, and others worldwide, have given money to safely resettle
hundreds of thousands of Haitian earthquake victims. We are convinced that, however urgent the need for
housing, the Caracol EKAM project will only worsen the excruciating homeless problem. We are appalled
that USAID touts this project as a “model” for replication in multiple locations. Our detailed findings that follow
explain further why we feel this way.
This peer review has been assembled by practicing architects with over 100 years of accumulated
experience. Our critique applies time tested principles, standards and just plain common sense, integral to
the profession of Architecture. We have also been advised by a panel of individuals with expertise on
important issues facing Haiti. We appreciate that Haiti is a sovereign nation, with a unique vibrant culture,
and so we hope that Haitian architects and engineers will read this review and concur with our findings.
We recommend to USAID staff, and all concerned, a graphic essay prepared by Patti Stouter entitled “Haitian
Wisdom for Aid Builders”. Her work draws on research on Haiti’s architectural vernacular, and displays a
variety of traditional approaches for establishing culturally appropriate Haitian housing. The graphic essay
was published in March, 2010, shortly after the earthquake: http://haiti-patrimoine.org/?p=271 .
We also recommend an excellent document on Haiti and town planning called “Haiti Regeneration – Creating
an Exemplar Community of Cottages & Townhouses”. This document also draws on Haiti’s architectural
vernacular traditions for inspiration, and was prepared by a team called the Haitian & International
Environmental Design Alliance, directed by Christopher Andrews, Architect:
http://www.kleiwerks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/AMWH-GOH-BBBC-PAP-071910-1117-1-Screen.pdf .
We believe that a people-centered domestic architecture, respectful of Haiti’s traditions and employing Haitian
craft persons and artisans, should be an essential part of Haiti’s post-earthquake future.
3
3 Caracol EKAM Construction Documents
Basis for Review Documents
To follow our review of the construction documents [Documents] and other information pertaining to USAID’s
Solicitation Number SOL-521-12-000003, readers can open USAID’s Federal Business Opportunity web page:
FedBizOpps: USAID “Construction of Permanent Shelters”
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=63efc12ffe1d3b613781b2dd4e4ab03a&tab=core&_
cview=1 . Solicitation notice No. SOL0521-12-000003. Original posting date, October 24, 2011
Find the following files at USAID’s FedBIzOpps web site at the right side of the page:
A) PRESOLICITATION NOTICE:
Final_version_Solcitation.pdf
B) SPECIFICATIONS:
Caracol_EKAM_House_Specs_9-29-11.pdf
C) DRAWINGS:
House_AS_details.pdf
D) SITE PLAN (Key Plan):
C-O-C-O.pdf
E) EKAM SITE LAND PLAN:
EKAM_Land_Plan-052611.pdf
F) AMENDMENT #3 (Vendor Q&A):
Amendment #3
General comments on the Documents:
 The critical observations which follow are based on the files listed above. It is not entirely clear what
entity prepared the Documents. According to a USG inventory of Federal contracts, CEEPCO
Contracting, LLC (Beltsville, Maryland) was awarded a contract of around $9 million to undertake multiple
facets of the project, including (it appears) acting as contractor for site work for the Caracol EKAM
housing project [Appendix 1]. On their website, CEEPCO says that it provides Architectural and
Engineering services. However, the Documents do not identify CEEPCO professionals as responsible for
the design, rather non-CEEPCO design professionals with offices in South Florida.

We are aware of controversial issues pertaining to the Caracol Industrial Park project, and the 20,000
[8,9]
jobs it is purported to eventually offer, to which the Caracol EKAM housing is linked.
Larger issues
related to the Caracol Industrial Park, while we consider important, are beyond the scope of this
architectural peer review which focuses on the layout of the Caracol EKAM housing development, and the
specific units involved.

USAID’s Solicitation makes reference to the International Building Code (IBC). In one instance, the
document states, “The IBC will prevail for infrastructure.” [Appendix 2] Since USAID invokes the IBC
in their Solicitation, we have included references and excerpts from the International Residential
Code (IRC), which is part of the IBC, and demonstrate that the “core” houses shown do not meet the
most critical requirements of the IBC or IRC. [Appendix 3]

Bidders were instructed to provide a Bill of Materials for two detached units separately. A ”Detached
Core House” with one small interior room, and a “Expanded Detached Core House”, which adds two
small bedrooms. The Solicitation implies that the first 750 units will be of the “core” type, without
bedrooms. This is also implied (in two publications referenced earlier) by the words: “The purpose of
the program is to provide a culturally appropriate modest dwelling <snip> that can be easily repaired
[2,3]
or expanded <snip>….”
Since reference is made to units that “can be easily repaired or
expanded”, it appears that 750 one-room “core” houses will be constructed initially.
4
4 Caracol EKAM Site Plan (Key Plan)
Exhibit 1: Portion of “Key Plan” (site plan) – 1534+/- houses shown (form C-O-C-O.pdf)
Site Plan Notes:

Although site work (grading, roads, utilities, electric service, etc.) is not part of the Solicitation, we
think it is important to appreciate the scale of the Caracol EKAM project, and consider the
implications of building a densely packed residential development of 1500+ houses in tropical Haiti;

See also “EKAM_Land_Plan-052611.pdf” for proposed uses in the larger rectangular blocks (soccer
field, schools, administration building). These structures and/or uses are not part of this USAID
Solicitation. Information on topography is not available;

Hatched line (shown surrounding all blocks) indicates drainage trenches. The size and configuration
of these trenches is not described in the Key Plan. It appears Sheet C-0 is the only civil engineering
sheet accessible on-line in the Solicitation;
.
5
Comments on the Site Plan:

This layout of 1500+ dwellings is extraordinarily uniform, monotonous, and violates numerous
principles inherent to sound urban design, such as place-making, mixed use and diversity, visual
[10]
cues for orientation – a few of the planning principles discussed in “Principles of New Urbanism”.

A little over three feet (1 meter) is all that separates the front of the house from the property line. A
drainage trench is indicated encroaching beyond the property line, leaving insufficient room for tree
planting along the street. This likely will eliminate the opportunity for occupants to plant shade trees
to mitigate overheating and to express their individuality;

Side yard space (distance between houses) is slightly less than seven feet (2.08 meters). Such close
proximity will negatively impact residents’ privacy – especially with unprotected wall openings;

The planting of trees will very likely not be possible in these narrow side yards, an important element
in tropical environments for shading buildings as well as people;

At each square block of 20 units, the ratio of hard surface (primarily metal roofing) to ground surface
is approximately 1:3. Information on soil conditions is not available, such as the soil percolation rate
(amount of rainwater absorbed over time). There is a concern that rainwater run-off from roofs could
lead to localized flooding, and possibly even flood the pit toilets;

The high density of hard metal surfaces (roofing) to absorbent surfaces (ground) also brings up a
0
concern that the metal roofing, which can reach temperatures as high as 185 F during sun-lit days,
could create an urban heat island effect, as described by the EPA in their publication, “Reducing
[11]
Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies”.
This concern should be investigated, especially
given that the metal roofing specified for this project is not factory painted, and therefore it is
exceptionally absorbent of infra-red solar radiation;

Air pollution: it is a concern that the dense concentration of 1500+ pit toilets, as well as the likelihood
that cooking will be done with charcoal, will generate unhealthy and noxious conditions;
6
Exhibit 2: Blow-up portion of “Key Plan” (site plan)
Comments on the “Block Plan” – portion of “Key Plan”, Sheet C-0:

Water Service: From the streets, a ½ inch diameter PVC pipe is shown terminating with the word
“kiosk” in the rear common area of each block. We can surmise that at some point a structure (kiosk)
over a cistern will be installed for access to potable water. The Documents provide no information on
how kiosks will serve households for drinking, cooking, bathing, household hygiene, etc. It seems
apparent that this ½ inch pipe will serve the occupants of twenty residential units (presumably using
buckets). Further, pipes supplying water to single residences in the United States are typically oneinch diameter;

Site drainage: Hatched line (around perimeter of all blocks) indicates drainage trenches. The size
and configuration of these trenches is not described in the Documents provided. Note that most
drainage trenches terminate in the back yard of each residential block. There is no indication as to
where the rainwater runoff will go, or otherwise be controlled to avoid localized flooding.

Surface water management issues do not appear to be addressed in the Documents provided in the
Solicitation.
7
5 Floor Plans
Exhibit 3: From Sheet A-1 – Detached Core House Floor Plan
Comments on the Core House Floor Plan:

Area of concrete floor slab = 293.32 SF (29.25m ) Less PORCH = 246.6 SF (22.9m );

The floor area of the “LIVING” room is 104 SF (9.6m ). This area does not meet the minimum
IRC requirement that; “Every dwelling unit shall have at least one habitable room that shall have
2
not less than 120 square feet (11.2m ) of gross floor area.” [Appendix 3]

No sleeping room has been provided as is required by the IRC definition for “DWELLING UNIT”:
“…permanent provision for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation”; [Appendix 3]

In this instance, the LIVING room is more accurately described as a sleeping room, and the porch
likely used as “living” space;

Openings in the masonry walls are unprotected except for louvered shutters. These openings
cannot be considered windows; they are unframed, unglazed and unscreened, and offer no
protection from insects, animals, weather and intruders. The louvered shutters are insufficient for
privacy and security;

Specifications for doors, door jambs, louvered shutters and shutter hardware are not included on
the plans or in the Specifications [Caracol_EKAM_House_Specs_9-29-11.pdf];

Metal security grillwork for the openings, common in Haiti, has not been provided;

There is no provision for insect screens over the wall openings or between the wood rafters;

The KITCHEN is not provided with a potable water supply, nor is there a drain for wastewater;

The BATH has no provision for bathing or for any kind of personal hygiene care – infants, children
and adults. There are no provisions for taking a shower or bathing indicated anywhere in the
Solicitation or Documents;

There is no indication that the 55 gallon drum is covered (lid, screen); no tap is provided for using
the rainwater from the drum. A 55 gallon drum of water could be depleted in a few days without
rain. It is not clear what this catchment water would be used for, or how.
2
2
2
8
Exhibit 4: From Sheet A-2 – Expanded Detached House Floor Plan
Comments on the Expanded Core House Floor Plan:

Area of concrete floor slab = 460.7 SF (42.8m ). Less PORCH = 414 SF (38.5m );

The floor area of the smaller bedroom is 63.6 SF. The IRC stipulates that “Other habitable rooms
2
shall have a floor area of not less than 70 SF (6.5m )”; [Appendix 3].

The IRC also stipulates that all bedrooms are required to have a closet [Appendix 3].
is no provision for storage of any kind in either floor plan type;

Adding on two small bedrooms to the “Detached Core House” would be well beyond the
capability, economically and technically, of most owner-builders. Removing the concrete block
wall at the LIVING room is a formidable task, a common problem when expanding masonry
buildings. We dispute that the “Core” unit can be “easily expanded”.
2
2
Note there
9
Exhibit 5: From Sheet A-1 – “BATH” Portion of Detached House Floor Plans
Comments on the “BATH” Floor Plan:

Room area = 21.8 SF (2.0m )

It is not “culturally appropriate” to locate pit toilets (latrines) within a living area. To locate pit
toilets immediately adjacent to a KITCHEN, where food is prepared, seems to violate basic
principles of sanitation. Haitians typically locate toilet facilities at the far corner of lots, away from
the house;

The pit toilets are mixed waste type (urine is not diverted). This type of latrine would require
continuous applications of significant amounts of mulch to suppress odors;

Two pedestal toilet seats are shown. There are two four feet deep pit tanks below each floor
opening (12 inch diameter drop holes), separated by a concrete block wall. It seems apparent
that only one pit tank is in use at any given time. Documents state (Sheet A-3) that “Hole sealed
when pit is not in use”, with no indication as to how it is sealed;

Amendment #3 of the Solicitation (bidder Q&A) states that the “pedestal with seat cover will be
provided by the tenant.” The configuration and detailed design of the pedestal will be critical to
achieve proper hygienic functioning of this “plumbing fixture”.

As drawn, the centerline of the pedestal and toilet seat is approximately 10 inches from the
sidewall. Minimum distance required by the IBC is 15 inches. An adult will be unable to sit
comfortably on this toilet seat;

There is no lavatory provided for hand washing;

There is no provision for taking showers, either in the “BATH” or elsewhere in the project;
2
[12]
10
Exhibit 6: From Sheet A-3, portion of Section 3
Comments on the “BATH” Section drawing:

The space between the roofing and the top of the concrete block walls is open, providing no
acoustical or olfactory privacy;

A “vent block with fly screen” is shown at the floor level, while, as noted, the entire wall perimeter
at the ceiling is open to the outdoors, and therefore to insects and vermin;

Access to waste pit contents is afforded by a “12” X 24” REMOVABLE SLAB COVER FOR PIT
CLEANING & MAINTENANCE”. It is not evident how human waste can be removed from the
tank, especially because of the long reach into the pits, and the flat bottom does not facilitate
waste accumulation below the access openings.
11
Exhibit 7: From Sheet E-1 Electrical Plan
Comments on the ELECTRICAL PLAN:

Sheet E-1: all electrical conduit and devices are surface mounted on the masonry walls;

The Electrical Panel ‘A’ is mounted on the LIVING room wall. For safety reasons, electrical codes
(NEC, NFPA, ICC) require a dedicated clear space in front of the Electrical Panel, typically three
feet square (nine square feet). The presence of the electrical panel will seriously compromise the
livability of this tiny LIVING room;

It is likely wind driven rain will enter spaces through louvered shutters and at the openings
between all rafters and outriggers. Therefore, all outlets should be GFI (ground-fault interrupt)
and the Electrical Panel waterproof (W.P.).
12
6 Roof Design Comments
Exhibit 8: From Sheet S-1, Section 1
Exhibit 9: From Sheet S-1, Section 2

Wood blocking appears to be secured by nails through the side of 2x10 wood rafters into the end
grain of blocking, and/or by toe-nailing. Neither method is considered adequate to resist wind
uplift pressure in hurricane prone regions. It is standard engineering practice to use steel
connectors to transfer wind loads when using dimensional wood framing;

There is no roof sheathing: Therefore the steel decking will need to carry shear loads (primarily
from high winds) via the wood blocking. This approach will likely fail in hurricane force winds.
[13]
Dynamic wind pressure testing of the roof assembly is strongly advised;

No wood blocking is included behind fascia boards for strength and alignment;

A 12 inch overhang is insufficient for shading concrete block walls, and to deflect wind driven rain
away from the structure, especially wall openings;

Steel decking is rarely, if ever, used as roofing material for residences. It is primarily used “for
[14]
support of roofing materials” as a substrate, such as support for concrete floor and roof slabs.
Decking side laps are likely to leak, unlike conventional corrugated steel roofing and other types;

The Specifications [Section 10, Steel Decking] calls out G90 galvanized steel decking (zinc
2
coating of 0.90oz/ft ). Exposed galvanized steel decking oxidizes rapidly, absorbing infra-red
0 [11]
solar radiation and driving temperatures as high as 185 F
– and, since roofing is also the
ceiling of all interior spaces, reradiating heat will likely overheat the occupied rooms below;

The American Galvanizing Institute projects exposed G90 steel decking will reach “5% red rust” in
[15]
around 15 years in a tropical marine environment.
This may be optimistic. Environmental
inputs (rainfall, salinity, sulfur dioxide, relative humidity, temperature) for the Caracol site should
be determined to better predict the longevity of zinc coatings at Caracol EKAM. We estimate that
common factory painted “cool” roofing would add approximately $1.00/SF US to the cost of metal
roofing and carry a 25 year finish warranty, and would likely provide service well beyond the
warranty period.
13
7 Questions for USAID
1) DOCUMENTS: The names of design professionals appear on Solicitation Documents, but there are
no accompanying signatures of US or Haitian Government officials or staff in positions of authority
(presumably the project’s clients). Did anyone in authority within the US or Haitian Governments
review and approve, by signature, the Caracol EKAM Documents?
2) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The IHRC’s announcement of the “New Settlements Project”,
[1]
approved December 14, 2010, states as follows:
“USAID has prepared a project plan for the construction of the first 750 houses. Once procurement activities
commence, a planned start date will be available. Environmental assessments have been completed for
four sites and are currently being finalized on five additional sites.”
Also, CEEPCO’s activities under their non-competitive (“non-competed”) Federal contract states that
they are to prepare a “Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Entire Permanent Shelter
Program.”
a) How is “environmental assessment” defined in this context?
b) Where are these assessments available for reading?
c) Has the scope of the “entire permanent shelter program” been defined?
d) EKAM: What does EKAM mean? Why is it used for this project?
3) DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD: On their website, CEEPCO Contracting, LLC describes
itself as providing architectural and engineering services, but the names of the design professionals
that appear on Contract Drawings are located in Florida. Who are the professionals who actually
designed the project?
4) MODEL HOUSING: USAID has described the Caracol EKAM project as a “model for larger-scale
development and reconstruction projects.” This suggests that USAID envisions these additional
projects will be very similar to the Caracol EKAM housing development, including neighborhood
configuration and the “Core” house plans in the Documents. Is this USAID’s plan and what precisely
does USAID mean by “model”?
5) VALUE ANALYSIS: Were the “core” houses subjected to Value Analysis or Value Engineering
assessments (VA/VE), especially with regard to using concrete block construction?
6) SANITATION: The project design appears to ignore basic sanitation requirements for a project of this
size (toilet waste, hand cleaning, showering, and hot water). Has the design passed an official Public
Health review?
7) EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Does USAID, or the designated manager of Caracol EKAM, have a plan
for response to medical and fire emergencies?...or police protection for the inhabitants?
8) COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Management of a large densely populated settlement requires
professional expertise for maintaining healthy conditions and basic civility. This will require resources
and funding on a continuing basis. Who will be the Owner of Record and who will manage the
Caracol EKAM development?
9) HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY: The “Key Plan” shows 1500+ houses that are identical, and without any
discernable provision for houses that are wheelchair accessible. Does USAID plan to provide
accommodations for disabled individuals in any of the Caracol EKAM houses?
10) SIDEWALKS AND ROADWAY SAFETY: In reviewing the “Key Plan” it appears there is no provision
for sidewalks. What considerations have been made for the safety of pedestrians, especially
children, traversing the proposed neighborhood?
14
11) DWELLER RATIO: In a USDS “fact sheet”, it was reported that eight housing sites have been
“secured” by USAID and that these sites “will furnish housing or housing finance for 5000 households,
[16]
or 25,000 beneficiaries.”
Does this mean that each house is expected, on average, to house a
family of five?
12) SCHOOLS: The Caracol EKAM “Land Plan” indicates that four primary schools, a high school, and an
administration building are to be included in the development. Does USAID have plans to go out to
bid for construction of these facilities so they are completed before housing is occupied?
13) SEVERE WEATHER SHELTER: Have provisions been made for safe emergency shelter for the
residents of Caracol EKAM to take refuge in during a hurricane?
14) LOAD PATH CALCULATIONS: In Amendment #3 of the Solicitation a potential bidder asked this
question: “I presume the drawings already take into account the effect of earthquakes or hurricane
requirements. Is this correct?” USAID Answer: “Correct”.
Is USAID in possession of load path calculations for the houses presented in the Documents,
prepared by a licensed structural engineer, and stamped?
15) PROJECT DESIGN GUIDANCE: Has the Caracol EKAM project followed USAID’s “Project Design
[17]
Guidance” process for approving this project?
16) PROJECT STATUS: Has USAID received bids from qualified contractors for construction under this
Solicitation? If yes, are the bid results available for public review?
8 Redesign Caracol EKAM
This peer review was conducted by architects sharing a common interest in the well-being of the Haitian people
and who share a common belief that principles inherent to the profession of architecture should be applied to
assure that best practices are used to rebuild Haiti. We also believe that US tax dollars should be leveraged to
accomplish long lasting dignified habitation for the Haitian people. This review is unsolicited and was undertaken
by independent architects, registered in the United States, on a volunteer basis.
The authors of this peer review are dedicated to an objective analysis of the construction documents made
available by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The peer review is based strictly on
the source material found in USAID’s Solicitation Number SOL-521-12-000003. It is possible that certain items
shown in the construction documents and described here as deficient have been corrected during the bidding
process, or in some other manner. The review is not intended to be comprehensive or complete. We are
unaware of the status of this project as of the date of this review.
We found no evidence that the design of this project has evolved from the participation of the Haitian people who
will be most impacted by it, including future occupants. We found no evidence that any official within the
Government of Haiti has reviewed or approved the construction documents found in the Solicitation. And no
environmental assessments or impact reports could be found.
We are fully aware that the Caracol EKAM housing development has generated controversy because of its
location, and potential environmental impacts, and that it was conceived to provide housing for garment workers
at the Caracol Industrial Park, which is now under construction. This review is limited to a critique of the design
and construction documents of the Caracol EKAM housing project, and does not involve the Industrial Park.
Environmental impacts, land use and settlement pattern concerns, while vitally important issues that should be
fully addressed, are not within the scope of this peer review.
15
Nevertheless, we conclude this peer review by quoting from a study concerning the Caracol Industrial Park, which
was prepared well in advance of the Caracol EKAM project. The study, titled “Development of the Industrial Park
Model to Improve Trade Opportunities for Haiti”, is primarily an analysis of economic issues pertaining to the
garment industry worldwide and Haiti’s potential for further development. It was prepared by KOIOS Associates
and submitted to the Inter-American Development Bank in September of 2010. The study discusses site
selection criteria for the North Corridor of Haiti and makes the following recommendations about housing for
[18]
garment workers:
“Construction of new housing, some of which is likely to house people who work in the park, is a
pressing need. The Consultants, however, recommend strongly against building large housing
developments adjacent to the industrial park, since these will fail to integrate with nearby
communities, and could be left, stranded, without employment or access to services, if factories shut
down. Many communities in Soviet Bloc towns and cities experienced this trauma as Communism
collapsed and many large industrial and mining operations shut down or were sold. Housing
development should instead take place in the context of an overall regional development plan and
should be integrated with existing communities.” (Page ix)
“It would be a mistake to begin to construct worker housing in any location in the absence of an
approved regional land-use plan” (Page 72).
To the best of our knowledge no “overall regional development plan” or “approved regional land-use plan”
exists, and the Caracol EKAM housing development is completely isolated from existing communities.
We strongly recommend that USAID not award the contract to build the Caracol EKAM housing
project as designed and that a complete redesign be initiated immediately.
End of Architectural Peer Review – Endnotes and Appendices follow.
16
9 Endnotes
[1] Interim Haiti Recovery Commission “New Settlements Project”, approved December 14, 2010:
http://en.cirh.ht/reports/000000_New_Settlements_Project.pdf
[2] SONAPI – “Details on Park Development “- Reference to “culturally appropriate modest dwelling”:
http://www.ute.gouv.ht/caracol/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=168&lang=en
see also “DOCUMENTS”: http://www.ute.gouv.ht/caracol/en/document
[3] USAID: “Caracol EKAM Site Development – Northern Corridor” (draft), June 2011:
http://haiti.usaid.gov/work/docs/infrastructure/110630_ekam_draft.pdf
[4] “Haiti: Multi-Hazard Risk, Major Disasters and Severity (1998-2010)”, U.S. Department of State:
https://hiu.state.gov/Products/Haiti_MultiHazardRiskMajorDisasters_2010Feb23_HIU_U139210.pdf
[5] “Analysis of Multiple Hazards in Haiti”, prepared by GoH, March 26, 2010 (map above on page 46):
http://gfdrr.org/docs/Haiti_Multi-Hazard_RiskAssessment_Report_EN.pdf
[6] Cap-Haitien earthquake – 1842: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_Cap-Haitien_earthquake
[7] “Significant Earthquakes on the Enriquillo Fault System, 1500-2010” Seismological Society of America,
February, 2012: http://www.seismosoc.org/society/press_releases/BSSA_102-1_Bakun_et_al.pdf
[8] Haiti Grassroots Watch, “Haiti – Open for Business”:
http://haitigrassrootswatch.squarespace.com/haiti-grassroots-watch-engli/2011/11/29/haiti-open-for-business.html
[9] Article: Miami Herald, March 29, 2011: “20,000 jobs – Caracol Industrial Park”:
http://www.ute.gouv.ht/caracol/en/the-miami-herald/146-some-20000-jobs-to-be-created-at-new-industrial-park-inhaiti
[10] Principals of New Urbanism: http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/downloads/pinelandsalliance_84.pdf
[11] EPA: “Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies”
http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/pdf/CoolRoofsCompendium.pdf
[12] Discussion of “pit toilets”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_toilet
[13] “A Case for Standardized Dynamic Wind Uplift Pressure Test for Wood Roof Structural Systems”:
http://www.iawe.org/Proceedings/11ACWE/11ACWE-Hill.pdf
[14] Steel Deck Institute: RD1.0 – 2006 Standards for Steel Roof Deck: http://www.sdi.org/ansi/R1SDIANSI.pdf
[15] American Galvanizers Association, “GalvInfoNote 1.6” – time to 5% red rust:
http://www.galvinfo.com/ginotes/GalvInfoNote_1_6.pdf
[16] USDS: Facts on U.S. Government’s Work in Haiti: Caracol Industrial Park, Dec. 28, 2011 (Eight housing sites):
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/12/20111228161117su0.1474208.html#axzz1mHqvHnAm
[17] USAID “Project Design Guidance”, December 9, 2011:
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/policy_planning_and_learning/documents/PD_Guidance_Final.pdf
[18] KOIOS: “Development of the Industrial Park Model to Improve Trade Opportunities for Haiti”, September, 2010
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=36190078
17
APPENDIX 1: CEEPCO’s Federal Contract Award Synopsis – Design Professionals of Record
547 F021 SITE PREPARATION 7200
7200 7200
HAITI 29-Sep-11
NOT
COMPETED
FIRM FIXED PRICE
"THE PURPOSE OF THIS AWARD IS TO:
1) REQUEST THE CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM A PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PEA FOR THE
ENTIRE PERMANENT SHELTER PROGRAM.
2) COMPLETE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE DETAILED ENGINEERING PLANS
PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT II.
3) PERFORM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY
1598 HOUSING UNITS ON THE CARACOL EKAM SITE.
4) OBLIGATE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,876,726.86 TO FULLY FUND THE AWARD; 5)POP FOR
THE PEA IS 50 DAYS FROM SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT MODIFICATION.
6) THE POP FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK IS 9 MONTHS." CEEPCO CONTRACTING, LLC
$9,200,511.00
AID521C1100002
187402586
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
FY11 Q4
CEEPCO’S award description above is found here (click on “find”, enter “Ceepco Contracting”; or click on
number 547 in the list at the left): www.usaid.gov/business/USAID_FY2011_Service_Contract_Inventory.xlsx
CEEPCO’s web site: http://www.ceepcocontracting.com/
Haiti projects discussed in these documents:
http://www.ceepcocontracting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=13
http://www.ceepcocontracting.com/html/ceepcointernational.php
The following design professional’s names appear on the Construction Documents:
Alberto Llorente, Architect, Miami, Florida
(Sheets A-1 thru A-3, E-1)
Luis Rodriguez, PE, Miami, Florida
(Sheets S-1 thru S-3)
Key plan (Site plan): Emile Amedee, PE
(Sheet C-0)
18
APPENDIX 2: Excerpts from USAID’s Solicitation referencing the International Building Code (IBC):
Section 4: Contractor Quality Control Program (Pages 86-87): The successful contractor will comply
with all applicable national, provincial, and local environmental laws and regulations. The International
Building Code (IBC) will prevail for infrastructure. Accepted North American codes and standards (e.g.
ASTM, NCMA, CCI etc.), as well as accepted practice will govern areas not specifically addressed by the
international codes.
Detailed working drawings and specifications are intended to be complementary. If work is shown on one
but not the other, the contractor shall perform the work as described on both documents consistent with
the objective of the contract documents to produce the intended best results. The order of precedence will
begin with the intention of the working drawings.
Codes, Standards, specifications (Page 89): The design was done in accordance with all applicable
local and national Haitian codes, standards and specifications. In general recognized US codes were
followed such as the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code, the International Building Code (IBC),
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and similar recognized US codes as outlined in the
construction plan general notes and details found in the plans and specifications in attachment II. The
contractor will execute the construction of the site development as per the design plans and the core
house details which also specify which codes will be enforced.
APPENDIX 3: Excerpts from the International Building Code – 2009 Edition (IBC):
The International Residential Code (IRC) is part of the International Building Code (IBC). Excerpts from the
IRC, shown below, can be found here: http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_2012_3_sec004.htm
IRC Section R304: MINIMUM ROOM AREAS
R304.1 Minimum area. Every dwelling unit shall have at least one habitable room that shall have not less
2
than 120 square feet (11.2m ) of gross floor area.
2
R304.1 Other rooms. Other habitable rooms shall have a floor area not less the 70 square feet (6.5m ).
Exception: Kitchen
IRC Section R306: SANITATION
R306.1 Toilet facilities. Every dwelling unit shall be provided with a water closet, lavatory, and a bathtub
or shower.
IRC Section R202: DEFINITIONS
“Sleeping Room” (Bedroom) Any enclosed habitable space within a dwelling unit, which complies with
the minimum room dimension requirements of IRC Sections R304 and R305 and contains a closet, an
area that is useable as a closet, or an area that is readily convertible for use as a closet. Living rooms,
family rooms and other similar habitable areas that are so situated and designed so as to clearly indicate
their intended uses, shall not be interpreted as sleeping rooms.
PRODUCT_SERVICE_CODE
PRODUCT_SERVICE_CODE
19

caracol ekam-arch peer review

Transcription

Similar documents

2013 media kit - Bigmediamiami

Issue 7 - Caracol

CONGOLESE WORLD AFRO POP SOUL music

FATHER JOSEPH - APF-USA

Konpasyon ak Kouraj 2013 Update

here - Global HELP

Présentation PowerPoint

Feb 2012 - GalcomUSA