Alviti Grilled on Identical Washington Bridge Reports From Different Inspectors

Alviti Grilled on Identical Washington Bridge Reports From Different Inspectors

Rhode Island House Minority Leader Mike Chippendale grilled officials as to why four different inspection companies submitted Washington Bridge reports that had the “exact same verbiage, including spelling errors” at the Rhode Island State House on Monday. 

Chippendale (R-Dist. 40, Foster, Glocester, Coventry) raised the question during the nearly four-hour Joint House Committee on Oversight and Senate Committee on Rules, Government Ethics & Oversight hearing. 

The Washington Bridge, which spans the Seekonk River on the Interstate 195 corridor, was abruptly closed down on December 11, 2023 due to a critical failure of some bridge components.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

As GoLocal reported, House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Patricia Serpa (D-Dist. 27, West Warwick, Coventry, and Warwick) said the body "can't take any action" — but wanted answers. 

WATCH THE FULL HEARING HERE

In his back-and-forth with officials on Monday, Chippendale first questioned changes made to report photos, which Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti defended. 

“The format of these reports, these photos and the details that are on them, they’ve been going around for quite some time. Document integrity — I think it was noted early on that there were some misalignments and text things that were out of whack,” said Chippendale. 

“I saw them…but the explanation was that if there were corrections, they were corrections to make them correct,” said Alviti of the changes made. 

“I would like to request all the original photos for all of the reports in question as well as the inspection reports from the inspectors on the ground,” said Chippendale. “We have some inconsistencies in the photos — where people are pointing out that the dates are manipulated. You can see there are two different type faces used at different levels etc, etc. That calls into question if anything in the report can be relied on.”

“No, it does not,” said Alviti. 

“It certainly does to me,” said Chippendale.

“I think that’s a reflection of the poor editing capabilities of whoever made the edit to it — I don’t know. I don’t know if it means anything more,” said Alviti. “That information on it, I believe however it was made is accurate and correct.”

 

Identical Reports Called Into Question 

“Why over four years, and this period with four different inspection companies, do we have reports that have the exact same verbiage including spelling errors, the exact same dates underneath on photos, why is that happening if this original information is getting to DOT,” asked Chippendale. “Why are we seeing the same verbiage?”

“I have asked that same question,” said Alviti. 

“Now I’m asking and hopefully I’ll get an answer,” said Chippendale.

Alviti then went on to provide his explanation of why this occurred — saying that different engineers simply left in previous inspection language when submitting their reports. 

“The answer is this — the reports themselves and the format of them and even the system that’s used for reporting was developed from an AASHTO standard. It’s a national standard of bridge reports….with the review and approval of the FHWA. This is the way we’re going to report on it, this is the method we’re going to use,” said Alviti. 

“Part of that reporting process is a system that these companies go on, as a central depository for their inspection reports and there are some fields of information that they fill in that are pre-populated with some of the original information,” said Alviti. “So that if no change is in place — that text, even though the contractor and engineering consultant that’s performing it is a different contractor, they’re using a pre-formatted text that they just leave in place if the condition they find is the same as the one that preexisted.”

“That’s the explanation that I got of why some of those fields of information appear to be the same, even if there was a misspelling from year to year, because there was no change in that particular aspect of that bridge inspection therefor the next company populating those forms left that data the way it was,” added Alviti. 

“Great. So when we get the original (reports) we’ll be able to see if that consistency remains,” said Chippendale. 

“All of this goes to the lack of faith that the best practices have been employed up until this point which led us to where we are,” Chippendale added.

“The best practices were employed, but the best practices aren’t perfect — but they certainly have served the purpose of keeping people alive through a difficult process,” said Alviti.