Cowboys Practice Facility Collapse: NIST Finds Serious Design Flaws
The story of the collapse of the Dallas Cowboys practice facility collapse continues to point towards serious design flaws as the culprit. The National Institute of Standards and Technology press release regarding its report states that the practice facility collapsed, “under wind loads significantly less than those required under applicable design standards”. A full copy of the draft NIST report and accompanying slideshow are quite interesting. The design and construction firm involved in the project has consistently claimed that severe weather conditions were to blame; however, the NIST report expressly concluded that wind speeds at the time of collapse were well below design loads and further that the demands at code required wind loads exceeded the structure capacity of the facility.
The practice facility was a steel frame structure with a tensioned fabric covering. The practice facility collapsed on May 2, 2009 during a windstorm. Twelve people were injured in the collapse, which left a scouting assistant permanently paralyzed and broke the neck of a special teams coach. The video report embedded with this post includes some harrowing footage prior to and during the collapse.
The factual backdrop of this disaster is fairly remarkable in the rapid and extensive dirt exposed relative to the project. As seen from the timeline prepared by The Dallas Morning News (this and the other links are free, sign-up is required), Cover-All Building Systems and its subsidiary, Summit Structures, designed and built the Cowboys practice facility. Cover-all suffered a warehouse collapse in Philadelphia that the Cowboys were aware of prior to hiring Cover-all for the practice facility project in 2003.
Reports following the filing of suit on the Cowboy practice facility matter have pointed to far deeper problems. It appears that the person who handled initial structural calculations on both the Philadelphia and the Cowboys’ facility was a trainee and unlicensed. Cover-all fired the engineering director of the Philadelphia and Cowboys facility projects. The person identified as the lead engineer of the project stated he had little to do with the project, worked for Summit only briefly, and had been hired to build small farm buildings. After the completion of the Cowboys’ project, the engineering director’s successor warned Cover-all management in 2004, "We can't continue to operate this way or we're going to kill somebody."
The Philadelphia collapse eventually resulted in a very large verdict against Cover-all. The Cowboys expressed some concerns regarding their facility and Cover-all eventual reinforced the facility roof, but that obviously was not sufficient to stave off the collapse.
There are a couple takeaways from this horrible event:
- Follow your instincts – if you are worried about your designer or contractor, there are probably good reasons
- Follow up on licenses, codes and inspections – reports indicate that permits were not pulled for the 2008 retrofit work as required
- Get second opinions when reasonable and required
- Know the qualifications and background of key personnel
- Don't assume
- To quote both my wife and Ronald Reagan, Trust but Verify!!
Image: Copyright Silver Smith, 2009
Frightening how easily something like this can happen when one is less than vigilant. There was a similar (though not as big) incident here around Richmond. I wrote about it at Musings (http://bit.ly/3Jbur9)
I remember that Chester collapse Chris - were you in that case at all?
For better or worse, no. I heard all about it from contractors at the next AGC meeting though.
Sad case for sure, it always hits home big time when you are called as counsel to represent either plaintiff or defendant in a case involving serious injuries or death. Definitely a sobering experience.
I agree. It makes it hard to be objective like we need to be.
Thank you for this very interesting post. Reading it made me recall the complexity of design and construction and how every project is a complex system that can fail from the most remote cause. Interesting in this case that the Cowboys had some knowledge of the Philadelphia situation but may not have taken appropriate action to protect themselves. Does this not make them somewhat responsible for the collapse too? What about those circumstances when the owner and/or others had no forewarning of trouble as in this case? The largest projects in the country are routinely covered under some form of controlled insurance program that would likely have sufficient coverage and limits for all participants to cover this type of claim. That is not necessarily true for this project or projects under $30 million in construction cost. For those projects, contracts and administration (verification) are essential to ensure that sufficient insurance is in place in the event of a catastrophe like this.
Hi Cary - thanks so much for the visit and the thoughtful comments!
The same thought struck me about the Cowboys potentially have more problems than egg on their face. This may come to a head given that I believe I read that Summit (the subsidiary of Cover-all that apparently actually performed the project) declared bankruptcy. If their coverage posture is similar to their apparent design and construction practices, who knows what is out there for coverage. Finally, the Cowboys not only had advance warning about the Philly collapse, but also expressed concerns, had some limited retrofit work ... and the retrofit work apparently was not permitted and inspected.
They may be a tougher reach, and there may also be some resistance from the injured parties to go after the Cowboys, but you really hit on something I was thinking as I read all the articles as well.