From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items
Date: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:22:29 PM

I was wondering if we should ask what the max wind speed or "pull" load will be? By pull I mean a
truck pulling on the bollard.

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Mar 15 11:59:05 2008
Subject: Fw: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items

Hard to imagine this being the case but this is what their data supports. I have a hard time envisioning
the bollards holding up after a smuggler hooks up a tow rope and tries pulling it down.

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Flossman, Loren W (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat Mar 15 11:36:14 2008

Subject: Re: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items

Already have. Based on Baker calcs, the foundation will fail before the bollards break out of concrete

(b) (6)
Chief, Design Branch
(b) (6)

-------------------------------
Sent while away from the office

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6)

CC: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat Mar 15 10:06:14 2008

Subject: RE: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items

Regarding item 1, it is my understanding that the proposed reduction in bollard length does NOT reduce
the bollard's resistance to overturning. Once the development length (minimum embedment required to
transfer design load from bollard to reinforced concrete) has been obtained, any additional length is just
adding unnecessary cost.

(b) - can you have the structural engineers verify?

(6)
(b) (6)
PF225 Program Manager
Engineering and Construction Support Office
CESWF-PM-EP
(b) (6)

_____

From:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:03 AM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items

(b)
(6)

In response to the 11 proposed action items below;

1. OBP does not approve this option. Reducing the embedment will make the bollards more
vulnerable to being pulled down.

2. OBP approves this option as it will eliminate the use of grappling hook ladders.

3. OBP would like to see drawings for proposed diagonal bars before commenting.

4. OBP approves drill holes over lifting loops.

5. OBP prefers the square plate on top of diamond with 45 degree north to south angle as
designed by OBP and (b) (6) Flat bollards are not an option and do nothing to address the anti-
perch requirement. The last design distributed by Army Corps (b) (6) that proposes a
continuous plate doesn’t seal the bollards and will not prevent water intrusion, needs to be angled at
least 45 degrees and must not allow for someone to use the top to wedge a foot to stand. The last
design as presented is not approved by OBP.

6. OBP approves this provided the bolt is welded and/or low-profile.

7. This option will need to be addressed once the 4 gauge availability issue is resolved.

8. OBP approves this option; raising the grout line only reduces vulnerability

9. OBP approves this option; enhancing panel interlocks will reduce tampering.

10. Each of these segments have patrol road width issues, without road improvement, the wider
version is not acceptable. If any decision is or has been made to eliminate the narrow Normandy
Design, OBP was not advised nor did not approve!
11. OBP disagrees with reducing the wind load capacity for any section below 110 mph. In all areas
along the southwest border are subject to wind sheer damage. For example, California Sectors are
subject to Santa Ana Winds that each year reaches over 100 mph.

These design changes are significant and should not be decided upon during a teleconference call. I
believe these all need to be discussed in person with all appropriate personnel involved.

(b)
(6)

_____

From:(b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:50 PM

To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Fence Tool Kit Value Engineering Action Items

All

Provided below are the action items I noted from our conference call this morning regarding the
PF225/VF300 fence tool kit Value Engineering recommendations.

1. P-1, P-2, PV-1: Reduce bollard height/length by 3 ft by reducing the embedment in concrete
foundation by 3 ft (the foundation trench depth and concrete foundation would remain 5 ft). Estimated
savings (b) (5)

2. P-2: Lower top horizontal bar to 7 ft from top of fence to reduce "climbing" capability. No cost
impact.

3. P-1: Reduce the number of horizontal bars. Evaluate the feasibility of installing diagonal bars.
Estimated savings TBD.

4. P-3B-15: Remove lifting loops from the top of the bollards and replace with lift holes drilled into
the top of each bollard. Estimated savings TBD.

5. PV-1: Discuss with OBP leadership the feasibility of reducing the height/length of the "short"
bollards by 1 ft and removing the mitered edge cuts at the top of the bollards and replacing with plates.
Estimated savings TBD but thought to be in the (b) (5) relative to PF225.

6. PV-2: Eliminate extending double wire gauge mesh into the concrete foundation by installing an
angle iron bolted to the concrete foundation and attaching the mesh panels to the angle iron with
bolted connections to be tack weld. This will also remove the need to re-excavate VF-1 if/when it is
converted to pedestrian-vehicle fence. Estimated savings TBD but thought to be "significant".

7. PV-4: Raise the grout level in the bollards to a height of 10 ft to reduce vulnerability to cutting.
Estimated cost increase TBD but thought to be relatively "minor".

8. PV-4: Evaluate the feasibility of enhancing the panel interlocks for panels to reduce vulnerability
of panels being pushed apart. Estimated cost increase TBD but thought to be relatively "minor".

9. VF-2B: Limit the use/deployment of VF-2B as it costs approximately(b) (5) more per mile
than VF-2A (VF-2B's footprint is approx. 1 ft narrower than VF-2A). If VF-2A was used on segments HV-
1 through HV-4 instead of VF-2B, looking at a savings of approximately (b) (5)

10. Remove wind design speed notes from the PF225 standard details and clarify on the tool kit's
notes page when 90 mph vs 140 mph design conditions are to be used relative to foundation designs.

11. LMI to finalize draft report and distribute for review comment, and then final.

* Corps/Baker to revise the designs immediately relative to action items 1-4, 6-7 & 10 and to
investigate the feasibility of item #8

* LMI to prepare/submit updated draft report by NLT 21-Mar (Item #11)

* SBI TI PMO to discuss/resolve action item 5 with OBP by NLT 14-Mar.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks

(b)
(6)

Secure Border Initiative - Tactical Infrastructure

Program Management Office
(b) (6)