Contractor cites design flaws and oversight for damage to Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which received a $14.7 million no-bid contract to refurbish the reflecting pool, said the liner’s tearing resulted from inadequate primer application and incompatible chemicals, contradicting the president’s claim of vandalism.
Atlantic Industrial Coatings, the firm tasked with renovating the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, said the newly installed blue liner peeled and tore because of "human oversight" and a flawed repair plan. The company’s August report indicated that crews did not apply enough primer in some areas, preventing proper bonding of the liner layers. It also noted that the contract design called for two chemicals to be applied in separate layers, a combination the company described as "very uncommon" and ultimately incompatible; the top layer heated beyond the tolerance of the underlying material, causing blistering and separation.
The contractor, which was awarded a $14.7 million no-bid contract in the spring, said it is "contractually obligated" to correct the defects and is proceeding with repairs under the project warranty. The renovation was accelerated to meet the July 4 deadline for the nation’s 250th-anniversary celebrations.
Federal prosecutors had charged several individuals with vandalizing the pool in early July, but a court filing on July 31 indicated that interior-department information pointed to installation errors rather than vandalism. The White House, citing President Trump’s remarks, continued to attribute the damage to "major vandalism," while a spokesperson for the interior department did not directly address the contractor’s findings.
President Trump, in a post on his social platform, acknowledged that the project was rushed and that the contractor made errors, but maintained that vandalism was responsible for most of the damage, describing the contractor’s mistakes as limited and "relatively inconsequential."