United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 23, 2007 

The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu 

Chairman 

Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Subject: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Procurement of Pumping Systems for 

the New Orleans Drainage Canals

Dear Madam Chairman: 

To avoid flooding in New Orleans after a rain storm, the city’s Sewerage and 

Water Board pumps rainwater from the city into three drainage canals at 17th

Street, London Avenue, and Orleans Avenue, which then flows unrestricted into 

Lake Pontchartrain. The maximum amount of water that the Sewerage and Water 

Board can pump into these drainage canals is 10,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) at 

the 17th Street Canal, 7,980 cfs at the London Avenue Canal, and 2,690 cfs at the 

Orleans Avenue Canal. While critical to prevent flooding from rainfall, these 

canals are vulnerable to storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain during a hurricane, 

and consequently are lined with floodwalls along both sides to protect storm 

surge from overtopping the canals and flooding the city. However, during 

Hurricane Katrina, several breaches occurred in the canal floodwalls allowing

significant amounts of water to enter New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain. 

In its efforts to restore pre-Katrina levels of hurricane protection to New Orleans 

by the June 1st start of the 2006 hurricane season, in late 2005, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) considered strengthening the drainage canal 

floodwalls but decided to postpone this effort due to cost and time constraints. 

Instead, the Corps decided to install three interim closure structures (gates) at the 

points where the canals meet the lake. These gates would be closed during major 

storm events to prevent storm surge from entering the canals and potentially 

breaching the canal floodwalls and flooding the city. With the gates closed, 

however, rainwater cannot flow from the drainage canals into Lake Pontchartrain 

and large capacity pumping systems are needed to pump water out of the canals 

and into the lake. Due to space constraints along the canals and the limited 

amount of time it had before the start of the 2006 hurricane season, the Corps 

GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
decided to procure 34 large-capacity hydraulic pumping systems1

 to provide the 

most pumping capacity possible by June 1, 2006. The Corps acknowledged that 

its decision to install the gates and provide pumping capacity that was less than

what was needed to keep the city dry could result in some flooding by rainfall but 

believed that the risk from a hurricane-induced storm surge was far greater than 

the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall. In mid-2006, the Corps decided to procure 

six additional hydraulic pumping systems, thereby bringing the total number of 

pumping systems to be installed along the three drainage canals to 40. 

During the process of acquiring, testing, and installing the pumping systems for 

the drainage canals, many concerns were raised by the media about potential 

problems with the operation of these pumping systems, and you asked us to 

examine the (1) specifications and requirements of the contract and the basis for 

selecting the supplier of the pumping systems; (2) concerns identified during 

factory testing and the Corps’ rationale to install the pumping systems in light of 

the factory test failures; (3) actions the Corps has taken to address the known 

problems with the pumping systems; and (4) pumping capacity that existed on

June 1, 2006, the capacity that currently exists, and the capacity that is planned 

for the 2007 hurricane season. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed the Corps’ plans for the three interim 

gates and temporary pumping systems for the three New Orleans drainage canals. 

(Unless otherwise noted, the pumping systems discussed in this report are the 

temporary ones installed at the three canals.) We reviewed documentation, 

including e-mails, correspondence, and other documents related to the solicitation 

process, contract specifications, factory test results, performance requirements, 

and the Corps’ plans for increasing pumping capacity through 2007. We visited 

the 17th Street Canal and observed the pumping systems. We interviewed 

officials from (1) Corps Headquarters, New Orleans District, other Corps districts, 

and members of the Mississippi Valley Division’s independent team reviewing 

issues related to the contract and pump performance; (2) Moving Water Industries 

Corporation and two other pump suppliers that bid on the solicitation; and (3) the 

architectural and engineering consulting firms under contract with the Corps. We 

conducted our work from late-March through mid-May 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On May 17, 2007, we provided a briefing to your staff on the results of this work. 

This report summarizes the information presented in that briefing and officially 

transmits the slides used during that briefing. 

 1

 A hydraulic pumping system is one where pressurized fluid is used to transmit power from the 

engine to the pump motor and impeller. This allows for greater flexibility in the placement of the

engine and the pumping system because they are connected by hydraulic lines. 

2 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Summary 

The Corps’ decisions to acquire the 34 hydraulic pumping systems were focused 

on satisfying its commitment to have pumping capacity on the drainage canals in 

place by June 1, 2006—the start of the 2006 hurricane season. In order to increase 

the likelihood that pumping capacity would be in place when needed, the Corps 

utilized several tools to expedite and streamline the acquisition process. The 

Corps appears to have had a valid reason for each of the iterative decisions it 

made at each stage of the procurement process. The cumulative effect of these 

decisions resulted in one supplier—Moving Water Industries Corporation—being 

in the strongest competitive position to receive the contract for the pumping 

systems. 

Factory testing of the pumps occurred from March through May 2006, and 

revealed several problems with specific components of the pumping systems. As 

a result of the concerns identified during factory testing, the Corps had no 

assurance that the pumping systems would operate to capacity when needed. 

Nevertheless, the pumping systems were installed as planned because the Corps 

believed that it was better to have some pumping capacity along the drainage 

canals during the 2006 hurricane season rather than none. The Corps also believed 

that many of the problems identified during factory testing could be resolved after 

installation. 

Since June 1, 2006, the Corps has continued to take steps to correct known 

performance problems with the pumping systems, including uninstalling them to 

make some repairs. Specific problems that have been addressed include 

replacing some components that were undersized, such as springs and motors; 

rewelding of some critical structural welds; and revising certain start-up 

procedures. 

On June 1, 2006, the Corps had installed 11 pumping systems, and by July 2006, it 

had installed 34, although it is uncertain how much of the theoretical capacity of 

these pumping systems would have worked and for how long. By June 1, 2007, 

the Corps plans to complete the reinstallation of all 40 pumping systems that have 

been repaired and each has been tested for between 45 minutes to 2 hours, thus 

providing greater assurance that they will perform as designed during the 

upcoming 2007 hurricane season. By mid-August 2007, the Corps plans to expand 

pumping capacity at the 17th Street and London Avenue canals by adding 19 

additional pumps, acquired under another contract with a different supplier. 

However, the total planned pumping capacity will still not meet the Sewerage and 

Water Board’s drainage needs to keep the city from flooding during a hurricane 

when the canal gates are closed. First, weaknesses in some canal floodwalls will 

continue to restrict the amount of water that can be pumped into the canals to 

about 69 percent of their maximum capacity. Second, even if these restrictions

are lifted, the Corps’ capacity to pump water out of the canals would only be 

about 82 percent of the maximum capacity that the Sewerage and Water Board 

can pump into the canals. 

3 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Agency Comments 

We obtained oral comments on our draft briefing slides at a meeting with the 

Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other senior Corps 

staff. In commenting on the slides, these Corps officials concurred with our 

findings and conclusions, and stated that they were very helpful in pointing out 

weaknesses in the Corps’ approach and would help them develop procedures to 

prevent similar problems from occurring in the future. The Corps also provided 

us with technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. 

- - - - - 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this 

report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. 

At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Defense, the Commanding 

General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 

appropriate congressional committees. We will also provide copies to others upon 

request. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you and your staff have any questions or need additional information, please 

contact me on (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of 

this report. Major contributors to this report were Edward Zadjura, Assistant 

Director; James Dishmon; Terry Dorn; Christine Frye; Moses Garcia; Bradley 

James; Richard Johnson; Stephanie May; Kenneth Patton; Alyssa Weir; and, 

William Woods. 

Sincerely yours, 

Anu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

 

Enclosure 

4 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure 

May 17, 2007 1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Providing Pumping Capacity to 

the New Orleans Drainage Canals

5 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.)

May 17, 2007 2

Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection 

System

6 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 3

Background

• The New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board pumps 

rainwater from the city and into the three drainage canals, 

which flow into Lake Pontchartrain

• Maximum pumping capacity of the New Orleans Sewerage 

and Water Board into the drainage canals is 10,500 cfs for 

the 17th Street Canal,1 7,980 cfs for the London Avenue 

Canal, and 2,690 cfs for the Orleans Avenue Canal

• During Hurricane Katrina, several breaches occurred in the

canal floodwalls which allowed storm surge to enter the city

1 The Canal Street Pump Station, operated by Jefferson Parish, may pump up to 160 cfs of the 10,500 cfs

maximum capacity into the 17th Street Canal.

7 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.)

May 17, 2007 4

Background

• In late 2005, the Corps considered strengthening the 

drainage canal floodwalls but decided to postpone this effort

due to cost and time constraints

• Instead, the Corps decided to install temporary gates and 

procure 34 large-capacity hydraulic pumps to obtain the most 

pumping capacity possible by the June 1st start of the 2006

hurricane season 

• Because the Corps considers hurricane-induced storm surge 

from Lake Pontchartrain to be the greater risk, it intends to

close the gates during major storm events to prevent storm

surge from entering the drainage canals and potentially 

breaching the canal floodwalls and flooding the city

8 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 5

Background

• With the gates closed, rainwater cannot flow into the lake and 

large capacity pumping systems are needed to pump water

out of the drainage canals and into the lake

• The Corps acknowledged that its decision to install gates and 

provide limited pumping capacity could result in some

flooding by rainfall but believed this risk was much lower than

the risk posed by storm surge

• In mid-2006, the Corps decided to procure 6 additional 

hydraulic pumps to increase the pumping capacity at the 17th

Street Canal

9 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 6

Background

10 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 7

Questions

• What were the specifications and requirements of the 

contract and what was the basis for the selection of the

supplier for the pump systems?

• In light of the factory test failures known to the Corps, why

did it install the pump systems?

• What pumping capacity existed on June 1, 2006, and what

actions has the Corps taken to address the known problems 

with the pump systems?

• What is the current pumping capacity at the drainage canals 

and what are the Corps’ plans to increase capacity during

the 2007 hurricane season? 

11 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 8

Scope and Methodology

• We reviewed the Corps’ plans for three interim closure 

structures (gates) and temporary pump systems on the three 

New Orleans drainage canals (unless otherwise noted, the 

pump systems discussed in this briefing are the temporary 

ones installed at the three canals)

• We reviewed documentation, including e-mails,

correspondence, and other documents related to the 

solicitation process, contract specifications, factory test

results, performance requirements, and the Corps’ plans for

increasing pumping capacity through 2007

• We visited the 17th Street Canal and observed the pump 

systems

12 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 9

Scope and Methodology

• We interviewed officials from (1) the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers at Headquarters, the New Orleans District, other

Corps districts, and members of the Mississippi Valley 

Division’s independent team reviewing issues related to the

contract and pump performance; (2) Moving Water Industries 

(MWI) Corporation and the other two pump suppliers that bid 

on the pump solicitation; and, (3) the architectural and 

engineering consulting firms contracted by the Corps 

• We conducted our work from late-March through mid-May 

2007 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards 

13 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.)

May 17, 2007 10

Contract specifications and requirements

Process Used to Identify Pumping Options:

• The Corps contracted with two architectural and engineering 

consultant firms (consultants) to

• determine available technical options that could meet the 

Corps’ time, space, and pumping capacity needs,

• conduct the associated market research, and

• survey pump equipment suppliers

14 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 11

Contract specifications and requirements

• On the basis of some technical analysis, the consultants 

concluded that the 60-inch hydraulic pump was the best

alternative for the Corps because installation of 

• electric shaft pumps would require the use of auxiliary equipment and have greater space requirements, and 

• smaller sized hydraulic pumps would require more pumps 

to be installed to provide the same amount of pumping capacity

• The consultants' limited market research indicated that more

than one supplier had specifications for a 60-inch hydraulic 

pump, but only MWI had actually built a pump of this type 

and size 

15 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.)

May 17, 2007 12

Contract specifications and requirements

• The consultants contacted both MWI and FPI (another pump

manufacturer) regarding their pumps, and met with MWI 

• Of these two suppliers, the consultants identified MWI as the 

only supplier who had actually manufactured the 60-inch 

hydraulic pump with a 60-inch impeller; FPI’s design for a 60-

inch pump included only a 54-inch impeller

• The consultants believed that MWI could deliver the 34 60-

inch pumps that the Corps needed on schedule

• The consultants had conferred with MWI as they were 

developing the design for the gates and pump stations along 

the drainage canals

16 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 13

Contract specifications and requirements

• Process used to develop the specifications included in the 

Corps’ Request for Proposal (RFP)

• The Corps did not have an existing technical specification 

for a 60-inch hydraulic pump

• The consultants drafted a specification for the RFP based 

on technical specifications and descriptions of the pump 

contained in catalogs published by MWI and FPI

• The consultants told us that they had provided the Corps 

with a generic specification because any reference to a

specific supplier had been removed

17 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 14

Contract specifications and requirements

• Our analysis of the RFP equipment specifications indicate that they

more closely matched MWI’s than FPI’s catalog descriptions

• The testing specifications used for the RFP were identical to those 

published by MWI, which included an open sump test requirement

• After another supplier complained that the open sump test

requirement was restrictive because only MWI had an open 

sump, the Corps amended the RFP to delete this requirement

• This more stringent test requirement was incorporated into the 

contract at the time of award because it was offered by MWI as

part of its proposal and accepted by the Government

18 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.)

May 17, 2007 15

Contract specifications and requirements

• Given the limited period of time before the start of the 2006

hurricane season, the Corps contracted for the pumps under

statutory authority allowing for use of other than full and open

competition procedures when the agency’s needs are of an

unusual and compelling urgency 

• Using this authority, the Corps streamlined parts of the

acquisition process:

• RFP was issued on Jan. 13, 2006; contractors’ proposals 

were due on Jan. 18, 2006; and contract was awarded on 

Jan. 27, 2006

• Limited market analysis was conducted to identify

potential products and suppliers

19 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 16

Contract specifications and requirements

• RFP prescribed the method and mechanism by which the 

pumping capacity would be provided, rather than using a 

performance specification approach in which the offerors

propose the method or mechanism they would use to meet

requirements for pumping capacity

• The Corps expected these steps to reduce the delivery time 

for the pumps by at least 25 days

20 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 17

Basis for vendor selection

• The Corps received 3 proposals in response to its RFP

• Suppliers submitted pricing information and technical 

proposals, and made oral presentations to the Corps

• Corps officials told us their preference was to award one 

contract to one vendor for ease of administration and 

perceived economies of scale; however, to encourage 

competition the RFP allowed for multiple contracts 

• The Corps evaluated proposals on a best value basis making 

cost-technical tradeoffs between price and technical 

merit/quality

21 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 18

Basis for vendor selection

• The Corps’ five-member Source Selection Evaluation Board 

evaluated offers using the following factors in order of

descending importance:

• Technical Approach

• Project Management

• Past Performance

• Small/Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation

• Price

• The Source Selection Evaluation Board rated MWI’s proposal 

significantly higher than the other two proposals received

22 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 19

Basis for vendor selection

• MWI’s proposal included commitments from suppliers

and subcontractors to deliver the necessary pump

components

• MWI was believed to represent the best chance of

meeting the Corps’ critical schedule of June 1, 2006

23 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 20

Basis for vendor selection

• MWI offered a firm fixed price of $26.6 million (based on the

government estimate of $25.6 million, MWI’s price was within 

2.8% of the government estimate)

• The Contracting Officer determined that MWI’s price was fair

and reasonable so no discussions were conducted

• Based on the evaluation results, a firm fixed price contract

was awarded on Jan. 27, 2006 to MWI

• The total price of the contract was increased by about $5 

million for delivery incentives and subsequently by about $4

million for acquiring 6 additional pumping systems

• As of May 4, 2007 the Corps has paid MWI $28,583,950

24 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 21

Additional Pumps Acquired Under Another

Contract 

• Subsequent to awarding the contract for the 34 pumps, the Corps in

June 2006 released another RFP for additional hydraulic pumps with

the same specifications as the original RFP for the MWI contract

• This procurement was protested to GAO because the requirement 

was restrictive to one supplier and it called for an extremely short 

proposal turn around and equipment delivery time

• The protest was withdrawn when the Corps agreed to cancel the RFP 

and write one with broader specifications

• This RFP also included government inspection and rejection of 

unsatisfactory equipment, field tests for reliability, and inspection and

X-ray examination of welds, if needed, and that resulted in a different 

vendor supplying different types of pumps that met the Corps’ needs

25 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 22

Factory test concerns

• We identified the following concerns with the testing 

conducted on the hydraulic pumps acquired under the

contract with MWI

• The Corps and MWI lacked a comprehensive testing plan 

designed to identify and resolve problems before

shipment

• Because of schedule and performance concerns, factory 

testing parameters changed several times, for example 

the Corps discontinued some tests and added others

• Limited provisions for field testing were included in the 

contract—with no criteria for desired end result or

success of test

26 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 23

Factory test concerns

• Some of the factory test requirements in the contract

• were inconsistent with the Corps’ guidance, for example the requirement for open sump testing was contrary to

the Corps’ guidance, which limits testing for pumps 24-

inch and larger to model testing

• lacked specificity, for example the requirement to obtain 

pump performance curves did not outline how curves

were to be obtained, and

• did not always identify what results constituted acceptable performance or what was needed to ensure performance

27 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 24

Factory test concerns

• Factory testing was conducted from March through May 2006

• Hydrostatic tests for leaks: Performed and passed

• Performance tests:

• About mid-April, due to concerns about the time

required to perform these types of tests and the

mechanical problems observed with the hydraulic

motor assembly the Corps stopped performance 

testing and added endurance testing to help isolate the

cause of the problems with the hydraulic motor

assembly

• As a result, only 1⁄4 of Rineer motor/pump impeller

systems were performance tested before shipment, some of which were later found to have problems

28 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 25

Factory test concerns

• Endurance tests:

• The Corps requested a 5-hour endurance test, which was 

later changed to a 3-hour test due to schedule concerns

• Endurance tests were conducted and passed on 

hydraulic drive parts of the pump systems (including 

spares), although some required several test attempts

after correcting non-hydraulic component failures 

• MWI conducted one 24-hour endurance test as requested 

by the Corps but only at 1/3 of the full operating pressure

due to testing limitations at the factory

29 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 26

The Corps rationale for installing the pumps

• Despite the incomplete and/or unsatisfactory results of the

initial factory tests, due primarily to problems with the 

hydraulic drive parts of the pump systems, the Corps 

installed the pump systems because it believed that the

hydraulic drive parts of the pump systems had satisfactorily

completed the endurance tests and that

• Any amount of pumping capacity that would help mitigate

rainfall-related flooding would be beneficial in the event

that the gates had to be closed due to a hurricane or

storm, and

• Any performance problems with the pump systems could 

be resolved after they were installed on the canals

30 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 27

Pumping capacity for the 2006 hurricane 

season

• As of June 1, 2006, the Corps had installed 

• 5 temporary pump systems on the Orleans Avenue Canal 

with a theoretical capacity of 915 cfs 

• 0 temporary pump systems on the 17th Street Canal

• 0 pumping capacity on the London Avenue Canal (there 

were 6 temporary pumps installed on the London Avenue 

Canal but the gates were not functioning so pumping

capacity was not an issue)

31 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 28

Pumping capacity for the 2006 hurricane 

season

• Shortly after the beginning of the 2006 hurricane season, the

Corps added capacity at the three canals (including portable 

pumps) as shown on the following three charts

• Although by July 2006 all 34 pumps had been installed, due 

to pump performance problems during factory tests, it is

uncertain how much of this theoretical pumping capacity 

would have worked and for how long

32 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 29

Pumping Capacity Trend for the 17th Street 

Canal (June 1, 2006 – August 15, 2007)

33 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 30

Pumping Capacity Trend for the London Avenue 

Canal (June 1, 2006 – August 15, 2007)

34 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 31

Pumping Capacity Trend for the Orleans Avenue

Canal (June 1, 2006 – August 15, 2007)

35 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 32

Actions taken to address problems with 

certain components of pump systems

• Known component problems and fixes

• Gear oil circulation pumps—undersized motors caused 

overheating 

• Replaced with larger motors 

• Denison hydraulic pumps—air pockets in hydraulic lines,

caused hydraulic pumps to run dry and become damaged

• As an interim fix, the Corps revised its start-up procedures

• The Corps also added a priming valve to 34 pumps to

keep hydraulic lines primed and will retrofit these pumps

with a permanent fix but a schedule has not yet been 

determined

36 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 33

Actions taken to address problems with 

certain components of pump systems

• Welds—suspected weak welds on pump housing which 

could cause pump failure, and on hydraulic piping which 

could cause leaks

• Rewelded some critical structural welds and pressuretested hydraulic piping

• Rineer motor—undersized springs, caused pulsation in 

hydraulic lines

• Upgraded to stronger springs in Rineer motor

37 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 34

Pumping capacity for 2007 hurricane 

season and plans for additional capacity

• On June 1, 2007, Corps plans to have 40 pump systems 

installed with the following capacity

• 17th Street - 18 temporary pump systems with 4,000 cfs 

and portable pumps with 1,600 cfs will provide a total of

5,600 cfs or 73% of restricted canal capacity and 53% of

maximum canal capacity

• London Avenue - 12 temporary pump systems with

2,665 cfs or 53% of restricted canal capacity and 33% of

maximum canal capacity

• Orleans Avenue - 10 temporary pump systems with

2,220 cfs or 117% of restricted canal capacity and 83% of

maximum canal capacity

38 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 35

Pumping capacity for 2007 hurricane 

season and plans for additional capacity

• Within practical testing parameters, as the Corps has 

reinstalled the pump systems at the drainage canals, it has

tested each one from between 45 minutes to 2 hours, and

believes that the known problems are being fixed and that

each pump system should operate as designed

• As of May 15, 2007, the Corps has reinstalled and tested 

35 pumps and plans to reinstall and retest the remaining 5 pumps by May 24, 2007

• According to the Corps, it is not possible to test each pump

system for an extended period of time or to test the entire

system due to limitations in simulating the amount of water 

that would be present in the canals and the lake during an 

actual storm event

39 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 36

Pumping capacity for 2007 hurricane 

season and plans for additional capacity

• Additional plans for the 2007 Hurricane Season

• Installation and testing of 19 vertical direct-drive pump 

systems (11 on the 17th Street Canal will provide 4,180 

cfs and 8 on the London Avenue Canal will provide 2,700 

cfs)

• 14 portable pumps will provide 1,600 cfs at the 17th Street

Canal 

40 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 37

Pumping capacity for 2007 hurricane 

season and plans for additional capacity

• The total planned pumping capacity provided by all 

temporary and portable pumps to be installed by August

2007 will meet the restricted level of water that the Sewerage 

and Water Board can pump into the canals, given the current

status of the canal floodwalls

• As a result of the restricted water levels allowed in the

drainage canals, there still may be some flooding in parts of

the city in the event that the canal gates are closed due to a 

hurricane or storm

• Furthermore, some questions remain regarding the actual 

capacity of the pump systems due to the differences in the

specifications (a larger clearance between the impeller and 

housing)

41 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 38

Illustration of the 17th Street Canal with the

additional vertical flow pumps (in circle)

42 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 39

Conclusions

• The Corps’ decisions were focused on satisfying the primary

requirement to have pumping capacity in place by the start of

the 2006 hurricane season 

• In order to increase the likelihood that pumping capacity 

would be in place when needed, the Corps utilized several 

tools to expedite and streamline the acquisition process

• The Corps appears to have had a valid reason for each of the

iterative decisions it made at each stage of the procurement 

process; the cumulative effect of these decisions resulted in 

MWI being in the strongest competitive position to receive the 

contract

43 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 40

Conclusions

• Although factory testing revealed problems with the pumps,

and the Corps had no assurance that the pump systems would 

operate to capacity when needed, the Corps installed these 

pump systems to provide some pumping capacity during the 

2006 hurricane season

• Since June 1, 2006, Corps has continued to take steps to 

correct known performance problems

44 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 41

Conclusions

• By June 1, 2007, the Corps plans to complete reinstallation of

the 40 pump systems that have each been tested for 45

minutes to 2 hours thus providing greater assurance that they

will perform as designed

• By mid-August 2007, the Corps plans to expand temporary

pumping capacity at the 17th Street and London Avenue 

canals by adding 19 additional pumps of a different design

45 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
Enclosure (cont’d.) 

May 17, 2007 42

Conclusions

• However, total planned temporary and portable pumping 

capacity will not meet the Sewerage and Water Board’s

drainage needs to keep the city from flooding during a 

hurricane when the canal gates are closed for 2 reasons:

• Weaknesses in some canal walls will continue to restrict

the amount of water that can be pumped into the canals 

from the city to about 69% of their maximum capacity

• Even if these restrictions were eased or lifted, the Corps

would have pumping capacity equal to about 82% of the 

maximum canal capacity

(360822) 

46 GAO-07-908R Corps’ Efforts to Provide Pumping Capacity 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER