First Tandem Pick Over an Operating Transit Station

Years in business are not the test. The test is whether comparable work, current procedures and the people who will execute them can be evidenced. On the present record the company cannot fully demonstrate it:

• Comparable experience: cantilever work exists, but tandem picks over a live facility do not appear in the record. The transit interface, the consequence of a dropped load and the sequence constraints are the new elements.
• Procedure currency: the 2016 document names a crane the company no longer owns, so it cannot govern the critical lift. An outdated procedure is worse than a missing one because it looks like compliance.
• Temporary works: the shoring design will be reviewed by the engineer of record, but the erector must still show it can build and remove the tower as designed.

Evidence to close the gaps: project profiles and references for comparable cantilever picks; a current critical lift plan naming the actual crane, configuration, load charts and radii; a shoring erection/removal sequence signed by a qualified engineer; documented briefings and a dry run; and resumes plus training records for the crew. Where direct experience is absent, a mock-up or a supervised first pick with the engineer present is a legitimate substitute if it is documented before the work.

The order matters because the critical lift plan and the shoring sequence constrain each other; writing them in parallel without a single owner produces a plan that cannot be executed.

• Week 1 - gap analysis and ownership. Assign one procedure owner (project manager or erection engineer). List every operation the project requires and mark which existing documents cover it.
• Week 2 - draft critical lift plan. Crane supplier provides load charts and configuration; temporary works engineer provides tower reactions. The lift plan cannot be finalized before the tower loads are known.
• Week 3 - draft shoring erection and removal sequence, including the cantilever support condition at each stage.
• Week 4 - internal review by superintendent, QCM and a competent person; reconcile field practicality with the design assumptions.
• Week 5 - engineer-of-record review and transit authority interface review. Build in time for comments; this is the gate most likely to slip.
• Week 6 - crew briefing and dry run, then issue as controlled documents.

Owners: PM for schedule and interfaces, erection engineer for content, superintendent for constructability, QCM for verification records. Each gate produces a signed record, which is what an auditor will look for.

Experience is relevant evidence, but it is not self-proving, and the issue is narrower than the superintendent's overall career. The question is whether he can execute this temporary works sequence as designed and recognize when field conditions depart from the design assumptions.

A defensible approach:

1. Define the role. He is the execution lead, not the designer. The engineer of record owns the shoring design; the superintendent owns sequence, verification and stop-work decisions.
2. Convert experience into evidence. A short resume tied to specific projects, a structured interview on cantilever and shoring sequences, and references from engineers he has worked with.
3. Close the specific gap. Temporary works awareness training or a documented briefing by the shoring engineer, plus attendance at the engineer-of-record review.
4. Observe him once. During the dry run, have the engineer and QCM confirm he can walk the crew through the sequence and the hold points.

This respects the 25 years while producing an auditable record. Saying experience is enough invites an auditor to ask what was actually verified; saying experience counts for nothing damages trust with the person who has to run the job.