FDOT Emergency Travel Alert: For information on the current situation, please visit the following
page - 
Construction
· US 441 had two Project numbers. It was decided by FDOT after we got into the job, but before it became too much of a problem, to run the lots as if it was just one project using the lead number on the plans as the project number. I believe this is in specs now. Later on SR 429, a Turnpike project, the CEI insisted on changing lots each time we crossed from one project number into the other. This eventually became so confusing that they combined lots from the two Project numbers. This is something that needs to be addressed before starting any project with multiple project numbers.
Response: DCE Memo 19-05 ( dated August 05) addresses this. The lead project FPN would be used for all of the reporting and it would be treated like one project. The first scenario (US 441) is correct. The second scenario (Turnpike) appears to have been handled incorrectly.
Turnpike Response: DCE Memo No. 19-05 (Documenting Asphalt Quantities on Multiple Financial Identification Number (FIN) Projects Under One Contract) is dated August 23, 2005. The three Western Beltway (SR 429) Turnpike projects began in May, July and November of 2004. The memo became effective in the middle of the project and that is why we changed during the project.
One thing that may be a concern. When D5 has a failing IV sample, and our tests have looked good, they come back the next day and get another IV test instead of just requiring us to stop production. I don’t know how District 1 is handling these situations.
Question: Why is it of concern that they come back and resample versus just shutting you down?
If IV has a failure, but QC (and VT if applicable) results haven’t indicated a problem, and we can’t see a cause for the failing result, we have been allowed to keep running and IV would get another sample the next shift. Of course, if they have a failure we are going to be looking at potential causes immediately and reporting what we find, if anything. This would include additional PC tests being run. If we find a problem we would stop and address it and the mix represented would be subject to evaluation.
Response:
The District is following the requirements of Materials Manual 3.1,
and is using good judgment. We tell the Districts not to require
the Producer to shutdown their operations unless we have a good
reason to (the reasons are listed in MM 3.1), and if they have any
questions about their data, then they should get a follow-up sample
as quickly as possible.
SPEC 334-5.7.1
“Take samples as directed by the Engineer for Independent
Verification testing. “
“If any of the results (IV TEST) do not meet the requirements of Table 334-4, cease production of the asphalt mixture until the problem is adequately resolved (to the satisfaction of the Engineer), unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Engineer that the problem can immediately be (or already has been) resolved”.
- The current method of recording the daily asphalt roadway report is done by an individual Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This method works well on smaller projects; while Excel is a powerful tool small mistakes can be easily made creating a paper work nightmare. On large projects these daily roadway reports are plagued with common mistakes. The most common error is the carryover numbers being incorrect.
Response: The report can be completed either on the Excel spreadsheet (electronically) or through the use of the PDF report (manually).
- Projects usually contain multiple of asphalt pay items and numerous mix designs. Keeping track of current lots and previous adjusted totals on a large and fast paced job compounded with constantly switching pay items and mixes can easily create mistakes. You can easily have hundreds of individual Excel files by the end of a project.
Response: Under the current system, this is correct. Each Pay Item requires its own roadway report. The new roadway report being piloted in District 5 allows multiple Pay Items on the same report. Kevin Price (DAB) has suggestions to improve the form and will communicate his suggestions to D5.
- Another issue will be if a revision to an asphalt roadway report needs to be made. A domino effect is created by the need to adjust all previous adjusted totals of the subsequent reports also needing revisions.
Response: It is not necessary to go back and make corrections. The correction should be noted on the corrected version. Based on the example below, the September 21st report would show the corrected values, with a note indicating that an error occurred on August 21st. The Prep and Doc Manual (9-12.2) has been updated to provide this guidance.
Example: Today is Sept 17th and if an error was discovered on August 21st page 2 of 4 reports, ALL reports from that report to Sept 17th must be corrected. This can affect pay quantities as well as the monthly certification of bituminous materials.
I was hoping that that FDOT is / will pursue a different program like Access or other program in keeping track of these roadway reports. I believe projects large and small could benefit from a single program with a single file. This program must be able to keep track of the multiple pay items, lot numbers/sizes and previous totals. When generating new daily reports automatically fill in previous information. Allow for simpler revision if needed.
Response: FDOT has no plans to go to Access. We are piloting a new roadway report worksheet in District 5, which includes a number of the options you are describing.
Materials Bulletin 06-07 (DCE 08-07): This bulletin was issued to give the Districts flexibility in staffing VT technicians at the asphalt plants during production. Each District will determine their own staffing plan and submit it for approval. This will result in different Districts performing things differently. Many producers have facilities in more than one District and we often utilize our personnel at other plants. This will require contractor personnel to be familiar with the specific requirements for each District in which they operate. This is contrary to Brian Blanchard’s effort to standardize procedures between Districts.
Response: The asphalt plant VT is no longer required to be continually present at the plant when the plant is producing mix for FDOT. There are a number of problems associated with pulling the VTs out of the plants, and depending on the available resources of the district, it might need to be addressed differently. All of the plans for this must be approved by the Central Office (SMO) so there will be consistency statewide. Please note that this is an internal Department issue, and should have minimal impact on Industry.
Has any district exercised the options available to them by DCE memo to reduce VT testing? D6 has submitted and gotten approval of its plan for the past year. D1 and 7 has submitted request to SMO but has not gotten approval yet. D5 is considering this. FDOT can publize the districts’ plans for the benefit of the contractors. Also, the District’s plan can be discussed at the Pre-Construction Meeting.
Different Districts have different requirements for documentation on the roadway reports with respect to turnout construction. District 5 does not require drawings, unless the turnout constructed differs from the plan drawings, whereas District 4 requires them.
Response: The asphalt roadway report has been revised to no longer require drawings. This will accommodate the electronic submission of the report.
District 5 has developed their own asphalt worksheet, which is not used in other Districts. Additionally the District 5 worksheet does not require reporting the spread rate for tack coat, which is required in other Districts.
Response: This worksheet is being piloted in District 5 – if it’s successful, we’ll implement it statewide. The Statewide Forms Task Team will make the decision. The tack issue will be addressed by them. The Task Team is made up of representatives of the following: State Construction Office, State Materials Office, D-2 Construction, D-5 Construction D-6 Construction, D-5 Materials, Anderson-Columbia, Ajax, Atlantic Coast, and Community Asphalt.
D5 form is piloting and Forms Task Team will review and consider it for State use. Team will have to address tack. Contractors are presently certifying this to FDOT. FDOT is taking value from contractor and checking spreadrate of the tack.
District 2 requires a new asphalt mix design every time a new RAP stockpile is produced. In District 4 and 5, no new mix design is required provided the properties (gradation, AC content) are comparable to the original RAP material utilized to develop the design.
Response: Unless there is a significant change in the RAP, a revision to the design would be allowed in District 2. If the RAP changes significantly, then a new design would be required.
In some districts, like District 3, revisions aren’t allowed due to the diversity in materials. Districts must consider the amount of variation in the rapp material.
There was discussion on the definition of ‘significant”. SMO has taken position that if the change in RAP requires a change in the binder content, then a new mix design would be required.
After talking with my people, it appears that we are ok with the daily paperwork and reporting sequence. The only comment that I can make at this point would be to have all the daily information summarized into one sheet rather than 3 separate reports (qc tests, roadway and ticket cover).
Response: We’ll forward the comment to the forms Task Team.
