• “Eleven days after the concrete was poured, and seven days after the CSL test, the contractor conducted ‘chipping’ on Pile 3. This is a practice in which they jackhammer away at the top of a pile until we are satisfied we have hit solid, pure concrete. Chipping on Pile 3 showed that the concrete had set. The chipping record was supplied to your reporter.”

• “Seven days after the concrete was poured, and three days after the CSL test, Caltrans tested Pile 3 using “Gamma-Gamma Logging” (GGL) technology. This test shows whether there are significant anomalies in the concrete. The test showed that Pile 3 had no significant anomalies. A record of this Gamma-Gamma Logging test was supplied to your reporter.”

• Twenty-eight days after the concrete was poured, and 24 days after the CSL test, Pile 3 was subjected to a ‘cylinder break test,’ which showed the concrete in Pile 3 was set and solid. Information on this test was supplied to your reporter.”

“Take the very test results that your reporter bases this entire story upon, the Crosshole Sonic Logging test conducted by Olson Engineering,” Dougherty writes. “In his story, your reporter writes that Olson detected the ‘problem concrete’ in Pile 3 in 2007 and ‘suggested new sonic tests.’ This is not accurate. Olson suggested new sonic tests or a gamma-gamma test. Caltrans performed the GGL tests, consistent with Olson’s suggestion, three days after the cross hole sonic test and seven days after the concrete was poured. This test showed the concrete had no significant anomalies and had the required density. Again, the reporter was given all this information but he omitted Olson’s suggestion that gamma-gamma tests could be performed in lieu of sonic tests, creating the false impression that Caltrans failed to verify the safety of the pile.”

Dougherty adds that The Bee’s reporting on Pile 8 “similarly relies on conclusions invented by the reporter. He asserts that Pile 8 had ‘inferior concrete,’ was ‘plagued by test and construction problems’ and was beset by ‘construction abnormalities’ without providing any evidence to support this editorializing.”

In a story appearing in the Saturday, June 9 edition of The Bee, Scott Lebar, newspaper’s senior editor for investigations, said in a written statement that Piller’s investigation was conducted “in a detailed, fair and accurate way, and we will assess the agency's concerns in the same careful fashion.”

“We asked Caltrans officials to talk to us to explain their objections, on the record, and they rejected our request,” Lebar said. “In an initial assessment of the written key points made by the agency, we found they misstate what the story reported.”

Joyce Terhaar, The Bee’s executive editor and senior vice president, said in a statement that “it’s unfortunate that public officials are not discussing the issues raised by independent experts and their own documents.” Terhaar said the paper will continue to investigate and hopes that Caltrans officials will meet to discuss any findings. “The best way to ensure accurate reporting in the public interest is with an open discussion,” she said.