FDOT Emergency Travel Alert: For information on the current situation, please visit the following
page - 
Construction
|
A big item is Partnering. Recently we have had great success with both D-1 and D-7. Last week we had an Executive Partnering meeting for the Mega I-75 project with D-1 and the Anderson folks were amazed at the attitude, cooperation and enthusiasm the D-1 folks had for the process. Possibly the importance of this process has not been reinforced in all Districts as the folks down here. Response: Partnering is practiced and promoted |
|||
|
Interpretation of EEO requirements, DBE, and trainees is different in all Districts. There needs to be a simplified system for interpretation so everyone is consistent. This is huge in my humble estimation. Response: Agree that a separate meeting with the EEO office is needed to address the different interpretations. We have been receiving comments from contractors at district meetings and recognize that there are inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Lots of discussion on wage rates and numbers of trainees. EEO office has to be involved with this issue. District Compliance managers have the authority to reduce the numbers of trainees required for a project. Need to address EEO rules about allowing a person to be trained as a crane operator and then later be trained as a roller operator – issue would be the rate being paid to the trainee. Also, need to consider factors associated with different skill levels. Define escalation process for EEO issues – do interpretations go to EEO Office or SCO?
Brian sent an email to the construction industry on December 11, 2007 requesting feedback. Brian is working with Sylvia Barge, Art Wright, and Kim Smith to put together a plan to resolve compliance inconsistencies across Districts |
|||
|
CQC requirements change not
by District but by Project Administrators that work side by side in
the same office. There needs to be a handbook of absolute necessary
paperwork and avoid double the paperwork on many items.
|
|||
|
We have had some issues with the design engineer using the Cad files and aerial views projects that are out dated to design projects. This causes a tremendous amount of RFIs. The design engineer admitted that he did not have enough information to design the project but did anyway to meet the FDOT budget.
Response: How widespread is this issue? Seems to be isolated or random. If there are examples, let us know so we can take it up with the district. EOR’s have made complaints to contractors about this – this is a FDOT issue. |
|||
|
We also have to provide a log book and have a certified testing
firm provide documentation for widening projects as to proctors,
densities, etc. on the excavated subgrade that is not disturbed
prior to us placing the rock or asphalt base. |
|||
|
The main complaint we have is trying to finish the punch list.
DOT Maintenance will add to the punch list, what needs to be
added to the DOT’s punch list, most of which is not included in
the plans. After meeting on-site with Maintenance and DOT it
takes up to ten days to get a response on what the contractor is
responsible for. During this time we are using contract days.
This issue happens on the 90% completion and final acceptance.
Most of the time, DOT will disregard maintenance’s punch list
because there request is not included in the plans. But, they
seem to disregard, especially on final acceptance the use of our
contract days deciding if we need to complete this work or not.
|
|||
|
E.E.O.: The Department makes reference to two documents relative
to E.E.O. guidelines: A Task Team has been formed to identify any inconsistencies between Districts regarding processes, provide clarification on areas of concern, improve processes where needed and address training needs of the Resident Compliance Specialist and the Contractors staff whose job responsibility includes contract compliance. Specific processes currently under review are: OJT to clarify how the number of trainees should be assigned to a project and enrolling trainees in multiple classifications Adding a Chapter to the EEOCC Work Book that provides guidance on formal Contract Compliance Reviews to assist the contractor in preparing and understanding the compliance review process
|
|||
|
There are different requirements when submitting the Certificate of Sublet Work and what is required with the form. District 1: · Submit an Attachment A which outlines all of the items, pay item numbers, quantities and the unit price between the Prime and the Department. · Submit a Schedule A which outlines the same information as above except that the unit price is the amount that the Prime will be paying the sub. · Must specify on the Certification of Sublet Work whether the sub is a DBE or Non-DBE and separate the dollar amount between “specialty work” and “normal work”. District 4: · Submit Schedule A which is sent to the sub as an attachment to their subcontract. · Does not require distinction between DBE and non-DBE or “specialty work” and “normal work”. District 5: · Recently revised procedure to match D-4. Response: All districts need to refer to the new form. The columns for sublet specialty and sublet normal have been removed. DBE/Non DBE information is still required. The contractor must provide enough information through the Schedule A spreadsheet to determine which pay items are being sublet, the amounts, and the cost. For sublet calculations, the amount will be calculated based on the actual contract unit prices unless there is a partial sublet. For partial sublets, use the unit prices from the actual sub-contract. We addressed language of CPAM 5.5 regarding certified payrolls – required for all FA projects. See Ananth’s email of 6/2004 on when specific certified payrolls are required. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/memos/Emails/2004/Sublet%20v%20Rental.pdf |
|||
|
Bidding: The level of work applied by the Department to answer pre-bid questions varies from District to District. District 5: Excellent. The use of the web page to display questions and answers is very user friendly. D-5 is always prompt in answering questions and will take time to discuss your concerns. Turnpike: Hot and cold. If the questions are relatively simple, or just a mere clarification, the questions usually get answered. Once the questions become involved, the likelihood of an answer is diminished. District 4: This District is the least responsive to all questions. The majority of our questions over the past year have been answered by “bid it as you see it” or with no response at all. Response: The Department is working towards an enterprise web application for posting bid questions and answers. Currently D1, 5, and 7 have district versions. Other districts are encouraged to move towards this pilot system but no deadline has been mandated, yet. The districts should make every effort to answer questions, and contractors are encouraged to ask questions early. Discussed the process being used in D1, 5, and 7. Districts need to be looking at questions and if there is a significant question/problem being identified, a decision needs to be made whether or not to slip the job in the letting. Thinks all districts need utilize the Q&A process. This is a Developmental Spec now. |
|||
|
Construction: Most inconsistencies are from District to District, but these issues can also occur from project to project within the same District. CPPR: D-1 uses the CPPR grading system as proposed in Ananth’s PowerPoint presentation on the FDOT website. D-4 has made comments to the CEI on SR 70 in St. Lucie County that the Ranger’s CPPR is too high and that no one should have a 100 score. If we earn 100, we should get 100. The Turnpike appears to be more punitive with the CPPR grading than the other Districts. A CEI has said that by writing DWLs, they can keep the Contractor busy writing letters. Response: Contractors should get whatever grade they earn. SCO looks at data regularly on grades. Grades statewide average around 95. Some contractors do get grades of 100. Industry still frustrated by letters from project personnel. Reminded DCE’s that DL’s are required to be issued by either the Senior PE (CEI) or RE (inhouse). Project Solve: The Turnpike is the only District using it. This is a good project tool for answering questions and processing submittals. Response: Optional proprietary software is used by the Turnpike, web based. Turnpike will make presentation at next DCE meeting for all districts to consider. Straightedge: D-1, on two separate projects, did not require the presence of the District Asphalt Engineer to attend and approve the straightedging of the final surface course. The Turnpike requires that the Asphalt Engineer attend and approve the straightedging. Response: Most districts do not require the presence of the Asphalt Engineer, like the Turnpike. It should not matter, if straightedging is performed properly. Turnpike Response: DCE memo 13-06 required each District to independently respond to issues regarding the quality of the rolling straightedge operations. The Turnpike proposed assigning the acceptance responsibility to Turnpike personnel rather than CEI personnel to ensure consistency. The Turnpike has never caused a delay to an operation due to unavailability of personnel. Discussed memo 13-06 and it’s use of the district bituminous engineer present on the project during the straightedging on the project. Most contractors do see FDOT representation on the projects during the straightedging. Striping: The Turnpike does not allow layout paint (the light, white skip lines used by striping subs for layout) to show anywhere not covered by the permanent paint. These layout marks fade in less than 2 weeks and provide for a “cleaner” final striping presentation. None of the other Districts have this requirement. Response: Most districts felt that white will fade away. Turnpike Response: Specification 710-5
requires the use of "tack points" at appropriate intervals for use
in aligning stripes, and set a stringline from such points to
achieve accuracy. It seems that an "industry standard" has evolved
into "painting" the stringline. The Turnpike provided to SCO photos
taken Sept. 28, 2007. The striping was completed on August 7, 2007.
As you can see, this does not fade away in "two or three weeks" as
claimed. Signs: Permanent sign contractors utilize the FDOT program for printing the final products. When making the largest signs, pixilation occurs in the program and there is a slight overlap between colors that is usually only visible when standing less than 20 feet away as you would during a visual inspection. All of the Districts understand the issue with the FDOT program and accept the slight line overlap except for the Turnpike. Acceptable signs are being redone at great expense to the subcontractors. Response: Bob Shafer will get additional information and send it to Bob Burleson and Stefanie Maxwell. QPL: This item is an inter-district inconsistency. Certifications are QPL items are being asked for submittal on some projects but not others in D-4. Response: Follow the requirements of the spec for certifications. Perf. Turf: There are two projects on SR 70; side-by-side. One project has the Performance Turf pay item and stipulates all sod. It also has a topsoil pay item. The adjacent project does not have a topsoil item and specifies seeding in certain locations as part of the Performance Turf. Not knowing the suitability of the onsite excavation material puts bidders in a difficult situation as to deciding what to do to make the seed last. Response: Performance turf should have a pay item for finished soil layer. We have relayed the concerns about inconsistency between designers on use or nonuse of finished soil layer to Jim Mills since he was involved in earlier discussions on this. Industry needs information on labs that can perform testing – need to find out which labs can perform these tests and let industry know. · On another level, I don’t see the need for any of the QC plans that have to be submitted. I feel they are just reiterations of the specifications. Based on discussions with other qc managers, I think there is discrepancies between districts as to what information is to be included in the document. Response: Districts should follow the checklist in the CPAM. If districts have a history of problems in an area, it could be added to the QC plan. Industry added that problems should be addressed with that one contractor, not all contractors. Too many peripheral areas are being added in. Consider a presentation for CQC past, present, and future. Will work with Kevin Price and Bob Burleson for Construction Conference. · I don’t know if problems with the turnpike authority are up for discussion with this group but issues concerning expediting the delineation and EAR process need to be addressed. Density Log Book - Each district has their own ideas of how it should be filled out. Lot indexes, reduced frequency testing, water tables, subgrade lines, ect... everyone has their own ideas how these things are to be documented and none of them are the same. ECI: The log book forms have been modified to address following issues: 1. LOT index sheet. 2. Reduced frequency testing 3. Water table documentation. This is the link to the new forms. http://ombnet.dot.state.fl.us/forms/formsbyofficedetail.asp?office=MATERIALS+OFFICE Turnpike Response:
We acknowledge that some responses exceed your expectation. Our goal
is to achieve a response time of 14 days without sacrificing
quality. When an issue is critical to your schedule, we recommend
you bring it to our attention at the Weekly Progress Meeting so that
we can prioritize and expedite the review. EAR’s – industry concerned over time it takes to get the responses. FDOT says often requires additional information. We should take D5 draft EAR scopes to the District Bituminous Engineers meeting for them to consider for statewide use. · Project documentation - Who gets what? Specs state that asphalt reports are submitted to the engineer. There are many engineers and they all think they need it and that we are required to give it to them. Response: Too many people asking for the same information. FDOT should be clear on what is sent to whom. Project Administrator, or identified delegate, should be the one receiving the information from the contractors. · Preconstruction submittals - Specs require an unrealistic timeline for QCP and quantity submittals. My last contract did not get returned to my office until 19 days after award. I am not allowed to work on a project until the contract is returned and in hand. Some districts enforce the specs to the letter and others realize the there is a conflict, perhaps an adjustment to the spec is needed. After all the contractor cannot work on anything covered by the QCP until it is approved, so for the most part if it is submitted prior to beginning the work (maybe at the precon) I doubt there would be an issue. Response: SCO will look into the timeframes. Issue centered around LS jobs – submit quantities, QCP, job schedule within 21 days of award. FDOT asked to look at changing timeline from 21 days of award to 21 days of execution. · Quality control as a whole is misunderstood. Most of the department folks that were around when this stuff started are gone and the new people have no idea how we got where we are today. These new people have expectations well above what is required and do not care about the ramifications of their actions. Some of the CEI firms think that all they have to do is watch QC “inspectors” do all the work that they used to do. Response: Industry expressed general concern about lack of experience of CCEI’s in contract administration. · I could write a book documenting all of the issues we have had through the years and I can say that the department has tried to correct issues as they popped up but the one thing we are still missing is clear guidance. Summaries of the specifications that outline what is required and by who. General discussion. · Standardized forms with clear instructions.
MORE COMMENTS RECEIVED OCT. 1: · I could only give you what I know from a QC side of things, Well on the District level, 1 and 7 are the same people (Bartow) and obviously no variance there. I have no problems what so ever with District’s 1 & 7 handling of procedure. We have dealt with District 5 also who basically has there own way of handling procedures but were not far out of range from District 1 and 7. They both do a great job with handling discrepancies between procedures and variance with in there Construction Offices. But the Turnpike and local CEI offices can definitely cause some difficulties with doing business differently then others. Response: Industry sees this as more of a CEI consultant issue about them not knowing the current specs, current memos, current procedures, etc. Industry seems to do much better on in-house jobs than Consultant jobs. Jon’s opinion is that his in-house staff tends to do more smaller projects that turn over faster and are more repetitive of process while consultant projects are typically longer durations and CEI’s don’t seem to be keeping up with the changes. Industry asked for FDOT early reviews of CEI performance upfront rather than having to have the contractors escalate the issue over the CEI’s head – concerned about affects on CEI attitude on the project in dealing with the contractor. Proactive role of the FDOT in early project meetings. Industry requested that the QC/QA guidelines be expanded. · (1)The CEI Construction Offices can overdue things at times or may not be current with procedures that aren’t exactly written word for word. The CEI’s will also pull procedural information from the Departments website which may be outdated. Sometimes they will email me the guidelines they have and I wonder where they got them. CEI Offices seem to almost always be in their own world. A good example would be: We recently had a CEI tell us to change information on a roadway report (width and station numbers) or we will not be paid on the entire monthly estimate until it’s done. They were specifically going off the plans, and did not (and still don’t) understand that the roadway reports are going to show the project “as built” for future information purposes. It was found through investigation that that the prime over cut in those areas in which obviously needed to be filled. Granted that material was unapproved and not part of the planned construction quantities, but it had to be reported as it was placed with in a FDOT maintained project limit. The quantity of material was shown as waste and commented in the remarks section for the reason of the waste. They remained stiff about it and waived a deficiency letter in our face until we did it their way. Between numerous phone calls and having upper structure Department personnel involved, we were correct and the reports were to remain as is. The downfall to this was that the CEI now had somewhat of resentment and it also took up a half a day of making phone calls to resolve a minor issue because of arrogance and interpretation on their part. This is not an uncommon occurrence, and I find myself in a defensive position when dealing with most of the CEI offices to protect us. Also, I find myself protecting the integrity of the hard work put forth by the Department and Contractors in getting everyone on the same page and maintaining it when dealing with certain CEI offices. I don’t want to say it’s all the time but I generally have a different disposition at the beginning of a project dealing with a CEI rather then an FDOT Office. I find myself spending a lot of time teaching or getting them to the right people or place for current procedures. Personally, I don’t mind it and consider it a part of my job as a knowledgeable contractor to help them help us build a quality project, but it does cause friction when basically I have to go out side of their office to get resolution on an issue that I already knew the answer to. I would say that about 70% of the CEI offices seem to be out of the loop on general contraction practices that the FDOT and Contractors have currently evolved too, in which both parties have learned what it takes to make projects run smoothly. They also tend to be more administrative then constructive. The CEI offices that are current or are on the same page are the firms that have hired skilled/experienced FDOT employees. Generally dealing with FDOT Construction Offices, we can work out issues among ourselves without going to District or to higher levels. Most of the time when there is something that is questionable or in doubt, we all will make a few phone calls to get definitive answers and move forward. CEI’s tend to really make that process difficult, as they seem to be insulted over guidance. · (2)The Turnpike-I don’t know where to begin. They are in a world of their own, in which they will not deny. (a) My first issue I had with them before the project even began was the “Asphalt Plant Worksheet”. We were literally bullied into using that form. It was not an FDOT requirement to utilize that form and the VT was told that they were not allowed to verify any Lots until we utilized that form. I was told in the Pre-Construction meeting “that’s correct its not a required FDOT form, but its required by the Turnpike”. Twelve Lots through the project we were utilizing all the required forms and not the new APW, and when we had an issue they would not even look at the data until all the info was put on the new database worksheet for the entire project. Response: Most districts replied that they make the Asphalt Plant Worksheet optional for contractor use. Turnpike Response: This is a conscientious decision that we made based on the system wide benefits. Two contractors have complained but provided no fatal flaws. We would like to continue based on our operating goal of better business practices. This was done by TP as request to reduce paperwork. It proven by TP to effectively reduce paperwork and identify who is to receive the information. The form requires internet access and this is a problem with some contractors as their plants do not have internet access. Industry should get on board with the form’s use and TP has found way in interim to work around those contractors not having internet access by allowing contractor bring the electronic files to TP and they will upload/dump the data. Ken Morgan will bring this back to the Bituminous Engineer’s Meeting for further consideration. Demo at Construction Conference. (b) EAR handling-Basically we all know that District is the final word on approving a scope for an EAR. I will call the District Bituminous Engineer of district’s) 1 and 7 and go through the details of a particular failure and give him my intended scope and the testing to be preformed. This tends to speed up the process so the procedure can be preformed in a timely matter for contract time limitations. We can usually have an EAR extracted from the roadway within a week of the failure with District 1 and 7. Unless I call about a question on the “Asphalt Plant Worksheet” I cannot get the Bituminous Engineer for the Turnpike to even return a phone call. I forwarded a scope to the PA, who forwarded a DDM to the Turnpike with the attached scope that took exactly 31 days for them to respond. The response was a denial letter that basically had re-written our entire scope to the way they felt that the EAR should be preformed along with its procedure of the analysis review of the Data. Huge difference in the way they handle EAR’s and the way District 7 and 1 handles it. We currently have 40 contract days left on a project with them, and have had a problem with the response time of an initiated DDM with an EAR scope. An EAR scope was forwarded on September 19 and has 47 core extractions to be preformed. I have sent 2 emails and left numerous messages to the DBE and his assistant and have still have not received a response. The PA has also attempted to expedite a response in our progress meetings. Can we push for a time limitation for District to respond to an initiated DDM for failures? Turnpike Response: We acknowledge that some responses exceed your expectation. Our goal is to achieve a response time of 14 days without sacrificing quality. When an issue is critical to your schedule, we recommend you bring it to our attention at the Weekly Progress Meeting so that we can prioritize and expedite the review. (c) Shutdown on failures. This is another way that they control us and treat us like children in controlling our own mix. We do not for any reason want to put mix out there that is substandard for the obvious reasons that we may have to take it up or lose money on pay factors. We had a failure in Lot 9 that was our first failure and prior to it the mixes have been running well. I sent an email to the PA and copied the Turnpike in stating that we had some rain and believed that the stockpiles had unknown moistures and will run a P/C samples until we were satisfied with the results of the mix. District 1,7, & 5 would be more then satisfied because they have given us the responsibility to deal with our own material. If we don’t fix the problem then that’s more material or cost that were going to eat because the CQC specs have been written to make us responsible for our production. The Turnpike said no, you’re going to do it this way prior to producing; “3 PC tests need to be acceptable and demonstrated that the problem has been adequately resolved” “If those P/C test are acceptable then pull another PC sample in the first 100 tons of production”. Industry Comments – some think that wasteful to produce 100 tons of mix that can’t be placed on the road. Turnpike Response:
On 2/12/07, the QC test failed air voids. Per DCE memo 04-06 and
subsequent S.A., producer sent e-mail notice and continued
production. On 2/13/07, the IV failed asphalt content. Per
specification 334-5.4.4, the producer must shut down or demonstrate
the problem can be resolved. We required 3 PC tests to gain our
satisfaction. On 2/14/07, production resumed. We acknowledge that we
do ask for 3 Process Control tests before resuming production when
the producer doesn't know what went wrong or when successive
failures occur. As a finishing general statement Districts 1,7, and 5 both the FDOT construction and materials offices are close enough in procedures that I don’t see many differences with them. I’m sure that their offices have to deal with different contractors and their construction procedures/abilities differently also. As far as those 3 districts are concerned, I have no complaints about small differences with some procedures as they have really come along way from the old days. CEI offices tend to break chops and look for ways to hurt us and almost take things personal when they are corrected. Its feels like the CEI’s are not part of the partnering that has come about with the FDOT Offices and the
Contractors. The Turnpike is a beast all on its own, and you pretty
much better do it their way and they don’t give a darn how anyone
else is doing it. Turnpike Response:
We do incorporate other Districts best practices when they do not
jeopardize quality or violate specifications.
General comments: Bob suggested that at least once a year at the bituminous engineer’s meeting, they invite a contractor that works in each district to discuss asphalt issues. Suggested this be done at one DCE meeting annually. Suggested this also be done with the District Compliance Offices. Bob mentioned that FTBA and the CCEI group are meeting to discuss what they dislike about each other, and what they dislike about FDOT. Expect constructive feedback from these meetings. |
|||
