is there anything -- since the report we just heard from l.p.i. was preliminary, is there anything that we should sort of wait for as far as the concluesiveness of your recommendation on the fix or was this just a preliminary fix concept? >> i don't believe so because -- was of the fact that this -- because of the fact that this bypasses the area. i think everybody knows the area where the failure occurred, and it completely goes around that area. so no, i don't believe so. i don't know what the scheduling is. i suspect that by the time all these models are revealed in the timeline that mr. vecchio revealed, that will probably be before this fix is installed. regardless, i think, and i think most people who have been looking at this agree that this is a pretty fault-free approach not to have to worry about any further revelations from the finite elements analysis. >> director chang, i think that the peer review panel is next. he can shed some light -- because we would not move forward until we get their concurrence on the design fix. as bruce ment

what isn't in here what happens if that group doesn't necessarily agree with l.p.i.'s finding and wants to do additional testing. is that another threes to do additional testing. we go ahead without them doing the testing? >> that was what -- the peer review panel want some initial reports. we'll know next wednesday. we'll have a meeting. we're meet acing at the l.p.i. . we'll know at that point if requiring additional testing. we'll figure out if that's parallel or if that hold up the process. it depends on the type of testing. it maybe just clarifying testing more than anything. it depends on what the test is. >> i imagine the expectations. here we are and here's the report, not everyone may agree with the report's finding. we need to make sure it gets done right. >> let me clarify, we're not going to go into the findings phase until all the parties are satisfied and all the testing has been completed. that's what dennis was alluding to. our goal is to have consensus and also to have conclusive results. we need to know the cause. we need to have consensus with the c

the presenters in this order will include l.p.i.'s president, robert vecchio, followed by thornton thomasetti's bruce gibbons, the structural engineer of record, m.t.c. peer review will be introduced by andy fremier, and mike engelhart speaking to the peer review's view on what's this interim step of data collection. we view it as a critical step in validation of the structural steel, which in itself will be a strong component in developing the criteria to examine and evaluate the entire facility. i do understand that webcor, skanska herrick representatives are here to answer questions if needed towards the end. but with that, i'll introduce mr. robert vecchio to speak to the material findings out in the field. >> good morning, directors. i'm robert vecchio. i'm the chief executive at l.p.i., inc, in new york, and we have tested the samples that have been removed from the transit center. in this slide presentation that i have here today, there's some information -- some of the slides are here for informational purposes only, and i'll

we brought him onto review what l.p.i. is doing in their stage of the work. we have a fairly broad range of expertise, as andy mentioned. we do have experts on fracture investigations and then more broadly, structural engineering, structural design, and with brian cozy, kind of the bridge expertise. we think we have a pretty good panel that's qualified to look at what's going on. and then, again, as additional issues come up, we'll ask m.t.c., you know, to bring on additional experts. we're probably going to bring on one additional expert very soon to participate in the stage of the study looking at other areas at the transit center where there may be similar conditions prone to brittle fracture where we have the conditions that were similar to what occurred on fremont street to see if there's anything like that anywhere else on the transit here. so we're bringing in a specialist and looking at shop drawings and -- to help with that process and to review what's being done by the tjpa team. so that's who we are. so in terms of our marching orders that we have

the samples were then shipped to l.p.i. laboratory in new york.he testing facility agreed upon by all parties, including the peer review panel. testing is underway to determine the cause of the fissures. we expect the results later this month to tell us the findings and determine a repair. after, we will did he right lane open a schedule for implementing the repair and opening the facility. i assure you, we will work as quickly as we can, but we must ensure a trusting and thorough investigation to win back the trust of the public at large. i would like to thank the peer review panel members for providing us with over sight, expertise, valuable input and for their expeditious reviews. later in the agenda, the tgpa construction manager will provide more construction details as part of the update on the transit center closure. moving to phase two in the downtown extension, we received the final comments from the federal transit administration for the supplemental environmental documents on friday of last week. we have since discussed with them the co