CPR Issues - Consistent, Predictable, Repeatable

CPR Issues
Asphalt Related

1.	Comment: When we (the contractors) are reporting/recording our HMA spread rates, we always show what was placed. We have been directed in the past and present, to back out of the daily spread rates to show no more than 5%, and show the rest as waste. We obviously contest that for the reasoning of having correct resource records of what was placed on the project, and the overall project spread rate at final.
	Response: The contractor should report the actual quantity placed (even if it is outside the +/- 5% limits). The contractor should not back out the daily spread rates to show no more than 5% and show the rest as waste. Reporting the actual quantity placed provides a record of actual pavement thickness (based on spread rate), as well as, provides a record of the contractor's asphalt placement regarding spread rate tolerance. In other words, you have a record of where and when the contractor placed mix within tolerance and where they placed mix outside tolerance. Reporting it any other way results in project records that do not reflect the actual quantities and actual project field conditions, in addition, they don't reflect situations where the contractor was outside tolerance on spread rate.

2.	<class="msonormal" style="margin-left:0in;" align="left">Comment: If we are to show what was placed, should we be certifying the quantities as placed, and should the Department be doing the deduction for anything over 5%?</class="msonormal">
	Response: The contractor should show the amount of asphalt placed and should be certifying the asphalt quantities as placed. The Department should be doing the deduction for any amount of asphalt over 105% at the end of the project. Daily spread rates may exceed 105%, as the 105% limit is not to be done on a daily basis, but rather on a project-wide basis at the end of the project. The contractor and inspection staff should take appropriate action to bring the spread rate within the +/- 5% tolerance (if the daily spread rate exceeds 105%), but the daily tonnage paid for is not reduced on a daily basis.

3.	Comment: What is the District Construction Office's (DCO's) take on this?
	Response: These are statewide answers to your questions.

4.	Comment: IV test data
	District X automatically sends QC manager IV test results in a timely manner. With District Y we often have to request each time to get this information. This should be automatic that Districts send all info immediately to contractor QC Manager.
	Response: The Materials Manual (3.1.4.1.1.1 Sampling and Testing) requires that: "The samples should be tested at the DMO Laboratory or another accredited/qualified laboratory as approved by the District Materials and Research Engineer (DMRE). Each sample should be tested no later than the following work day and all concerned parties should be notified (including the Producer and/or Contractor) of the results within one work day following the completion of the testing." It was also noted that Contractors should be able to see the test results through LIMS if they have Level I security.

5.	Comment: Bike Path
	Current 334-5.1.2 spec includes "bike/shared use paths" as exception to acceptance testing. The specs do not differentiate between bike path or bike lane...the terminology for "bike lane" is not referenced in the specs. This isn't even district to district difference, this is job to job... CEI to CEI. As example; Design often calls for bike lane striped adjacent to roadway, such as 16' wide pull, with 12' striped for lane and 4' striped for bike lane. Some projects interpret that 4' as "bike path" and we must include on roadway reports separate in order to differentiate as "nondensity" areas. Other projects interpret that 4' bike lane as roadway and require it be treated as a 16' pave lane with full acceptance responsibility.
	Response: Bike paths are separate pathways physically separated from mainline pavement. Since they experience very little (if any) vehicular traffic, density testing is not required. Bike lanes are adjacent/connected to mainline lanes and are subjected to traffic (especially in cases where a bike lane is between the mainline lane and a turn lane). Therefore they are subject to density testing. However, due to their width and the small percentage of designated bike lanes when compared to total lane miles, statistically speaking, less than 1% of all roadway cores will occur in a designated bike lane.

6.	Comment: District X and District Y - IV Program is vastly different- District Y has no materials lab and does not copy the contractor on results.
	Response: The District Y has a lab in south Florida (Snapper Creek) and in Central Florida they use consultant labs. Theoretically, whether they do or do not have their own lab should not impact the Contractor as the same process should apply. District Y said they will make sure they copy the Contractor on test results in the future.

7.	Comment: District X - Construction offices - some want QC reports sent to PA immediately, others do not, they get it from VT.
	Response: We'll review each of the forms and either communicate the time frames established in the Specs to the Districts or add time frames to Specifications.

8.	Comment: Reporting - District X does not use the Excel database for R/W reporting. District Y and District Z do.
	Response: It is the Contractor's option to select either the spreadsheet (Automated Version) or the paper version of the Asphalt Roadway - Daily Report of Quality Control (Form #'s 675-030-20 & 675-030-20A). The Department should not be forcing you to use either one, but rather the Contractor should select one and use it throughout the entire project.
	Update Projects let July 2015 and after: Due to changes in how the pay quantity adjustments are calculated, the Asphalt Roadway - Daily of Quality Control - Automated Version (Form # 675-00-20A) is required for conventional (i.e. pay item) projects let July 2015 and after The Automated version of the Roadway Report determines the tonnage-weighted Gmm (Gsb for FC-5) and pay quantity adjustment for each pay item and therefore must be used on projects let July 2015 and after.

9.	Comment: Some Districts (or Construction offices specifically) require you to break out intersections on road reports because of non-density and some don't care. Some Construction offices are inflexible with making adjustments with random number samples (e.g. If a core falls near a high traffic area open to cross traffic some are unwilling to move it, there is a safety risk; another example is in front of a fire station or a school entrance.)
	Responses: For Contracts Let After January 2013: Since all asphalt in a LOT (including density & non-density asphalt) is paid for at the LOT's Density Pay Factor, it is not required to separate out non-density and density areas such as intersections. Report the asphalt as it is placed on the project (typically in 5 truck pulls) and do not separate out density and non-density areas. For Contracts Let Before January 2013: Intersections are defined as "Density Testing Exceptions" and paid for per the Specifications at a Density Pay Factor =1.0. Contractors must document intersections as non-density areas on the QC Roadway Reports.<class="msonormal" style="text-align:justify;"> The intent of the random numbers is to get a random sample. However, safety concerns should prevail when project personnel are making any coring location decisions. Areas of safety concern may include such areas as:</class="msonormal">
	Core located too close to traffic In front of Fire Station, Hospital, or other areas of safety concern

10.	Comment: Some Offices set their Core locations out right after the rolling is complete; some wait until the very end of the shift when there is very little time to cut and patch them all - Lane closure restrictions and a lack of hot patch is a problem.
	Response: District field personnel must work with the contractor to provide coring locations in a reasonable time frame so core locations can be marked on the roadway in a timely fashion. Usually there is adequate time between compaction and when cores are cut, therefore there is adequate time to for the District to provide core locations.

11.	Comment: On a 2 lane road with a 12" or a 24" offset some offices will allow movement of core locations, some won't. The core rig sticks out into live traffic...
	Response: See discussion of coring safety concerns discussed previously.

12.	Comment: 338 Value Added Pavement
	Several times at meetings over the years it has been discussed that the FDOT acknowledges that FC-5 is not the best application in cross-overs, etc. At one point, at least in District X, they stopped paving FC-5 in the cross-overs, just paving the mainline and the turn lanes up to the bull nose. As I understand, the public complained about the pavement being "unfinished" and they resumed placing FC-5 in these areas. On some projects I've seen where they design FC-9.5 or FC-12.5 in the cross-over area, with FC-5 on the roadway and turn lane. Regardless, it has been discussed the raveling is an issue with FC-5 in these areas and the FDOT does not expect us to warrant that situation, where they know it is not the best use for FC-5 However, they have never put that into the warranty spec to exclude these areas. We have "raveling" in one location on US 27 that contractor looked at and said is in a crossover. By spec, FDOT construction is simply enforcing the 338 spec, but that is contrary to discussions of "understanding" at spec committee meetings with the materials office.
	Response: Agree. The State Materials Office (Sholar) will modify Note 1 in Table 338-3 with the following language, "An exception to this requirement is raveling of FC-5 in Category 3 locations."

13.	Comment: In general, when one department/district of the FDOT recognizes an issue, or a differing interpretation of the specifications, they are too slow in getting specs changed (if ever) or following through with statewide/district memorandum as clarification ....leaving the Contractor to re-fight the same battle each and every job.
	Response: Asphalt Specifications are modified every 6 months after significant industry discussion and review. The Department frequently meets with the asphalt industry throughout the year where Specification issues are raised and addressed. Industry personnel participate in our Specification development teams and are an integral part of making Specification changes. DCE Memos/Materials Bulletins are issued throughout the year to address issues requiring more immediate attention than can be provided by 6 month Specification changes. Interpretation issues are, and will continue to be, routinely discussed at District Bituminous Engineer Teleconferences/Meetings, as well as, at District Construction Engineer Meetings. If there is a specific concern, please contact Rich Hewitt (State Construction Office 386-943-5305) or Greg Sholar (State Materials Office 352-955-2920) to discuss your concerns. Additionally, Industry concerns can be addressed through Jim Warren of the Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida at 850-222-7300.

14.	Comment: Use of oscillating rollers
	When the FDOT recognized the use of oscillating rollers for use in "static mode only" areas they revised Table 334-7 with this obscurely written hieroglyphic. "If the Engineer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only, or for all one inch thick lifts, compaction shall be in the static mode. No vibratory mode in the vertical direction will be allowed. Other vibratory modes will be allowed, if approved by the Engineer. In either case, the specification limits will be as follows: 92.00+3.00." The bolded sentences were added to address the allowed use of oscillating rollers. Why don't they just say the Contractor can use oscillating rollers at reduced density requirement when static mode or non-vibratory compaction required. We are having problem getting anyone outside the FDOT (i.e. OOCEA-Expressway Authority, County) to read these sentences as allowance for gyratory compaction.
	Response: The Specification was written in this manner to provide greater flexibility, however, it does seem to be misinterpreted a lot. The State Materials Office (Sholar) will modify Specifications 334-7 to explicitly address oscillatory rollers and eliminate confusion.

15.	Comment: What are the in-place air void limits?
	When lab test fails air voids and we perform in-place testing there seems to be varied interpretation of what is acceptable for in-place evaluation of air voids. Some Districts have a different range for In-Place air void requirements. There is no acceptable range on paper anywhere.
	Response: This issue is very much dependent on the situation and requires engineering judgment. (For example, low air voids on the first lift of base on a low traffic roadway would not be as critical as low air voids on the final lift of structural asphalt on an Interstate project.) Setting a range will be too restrictive. One idea was to discuss the allowable air void levels at an upcoming DBE meeting and establish some guidelines.

16.	Comment: The specs typically refer to the "Engineer". Who is that?
	Sometimes it may be the CEI, sometimes the FDOT rep, sometimes the design Engineer, sometimes the FDOT asphalt engineer/specialist.
	Response: Per Specification 1-3 Definitions, the Engineer is, "The Director, Office of Construction, acting directly or through duly authorized representatives; such representatives acting within the scope of duties and authority assigned to them." In practice, it depends on the issue involved and who has been delegated authority to make the decision. This is done in order to avoid requiring the Director of the Office of Construction make every decision on every project. Decisions are delegated to the appropriate personnel. This allows project decisions to be made at the lowest possible level in an efficient timeframe. However, if agreement cannot be reached at any level, the contractor is afforded the ability to raise the issue up the ladder within the District or State Offices. This system allows more efficient decision making to occur at the project level, and also affords alternatives to address major decisions and disagreements at higher levels within the Department.

17.	Comment: If EAR/Delineation passes for acceptance in-place, why does the CPF not change?
	The specs clearly define the calculation for Composite Pay Factor, using the QC data. But there is no provision that allows for replacing that data with EAR/Delineation test data once a failed test comes up...that failing test data is still used for CPF determination. The intent is that the CPF be representative of the LOT...using the associated test data. However, if failing test results determined by EAR/delineation to not be representative of the LOT/sub-LOT, then it is reasonable to expect that failing test data be removed from CPF calculation and replaced with the accepted EAR/Delineation.
	Response: This is not a consistency issue, but rather is a specification issue. The bottom line is the random sublot sample represents the entire sublot, and will not be replaced by delineation cores. No changes will be made.

18.	Comment: Definition of intersections with regard to straight-edge exception.
	330-9.4.5.2 states "straight-edge testing will not be required in the following areas:...intersections, etc." Not in the spec, but contractor has been told that intersection defined from stop bar.
	Response: This was discussed at the most recent Flexible Pavement Meeting and industry agreed with the stop bar to stop bar definition of intersections. The SMO (Sholar) and SCO (Hewitt) will modify the Specification to reflect the definition in the straightedge area of the Specifications.

19.	Comment: There is a difference in tolerance range allowed for aggregate gradation versus hot-mix asphalt gradation. This variance allowed in aggregate can sometimes contribute to swings in hot-mix gradation. A consistent stream of aggregates makes for a better hot-mix asphalt product.
	Response: The asphalt specifications are based on typical variability in Florida and take into consideration the variability of the aggregate at the mine. No changes are warranted.

20.	Comment: When pulling mainline through an intersection, why would we stop our paperwork and report the intersection as non density. Then pick up with density on the other side.
	Response: Intersections are defined as "Density Testing Exceptions" and paid for accordingly (i.e. Density Pay Factor =1.0). Contractors must document intersections as non-density areas on the QC Roadway Reports (Asphalt Roadway - Daily Report of Quality Control).

21.	Comment: Some Districts want you to show your spread based on 105% of the gmm. Everything else is shown as waste. This mainly happens when there is a bust in the Base. I feel we should report it where and how it's placed and the deduction should come at Final Estimates not the roadway.
	Response: See response on CPR website. Contractors should document actual spread rate as paved. The District should not be requesting a modification different from actual spread rate. This was discussed with the District in question and will be discussed with the other Districts as well.

22.	Comment: On the Roadway Report why is not a selection for Overbuild and when placing the target spread you should be able to input 0-300Ib/sy. Currently you have to plug in a whole number.
	Responses: Report Selection for Overbuild - Selections for "Intended Use" are tied to Pay Item Numbers for pay asphalt, so the appropriate mix type and traffic level should be selected on the Roadway Report. As such, an "Overbuild" selection would not be applicable. To assist with record keeping, you can type "Overbuild" in the "Desc." Column, if desired. Target Spread rate Range- Since we want to alert the form user when the spread rate is out of tolerance, a target thickness is entered and the form calculates a target spread rate and alerts the user when an "Actual Spread Rate" is out of tolerance. Again since overbuild is paid with the same pay items as other asphalt (that do have specific target spread rates), we need to confine the target spread rate to a specific value rather than the suggested range (0-300 lbs/sy).

23.	Comment: There are no cells on the Roadway Report for Load Temps. Some PA's want to see load temps on the tickets. As you know tickets get lost.
	Response: Specification 330-6.3 Mix Temperature- requires temperatures to be taken at the plant and roadway and the temperatures be recorded on the respective delivery ticket. (see screen shot of Specification below). While there are spaces to record temperatures on the paper version of the report, these are not required to be completed, but are likely a carryover from the old paper form. There are no plans to require re-entering the data on the Automated version (spreadsheet) of the QC Roadway Report (Asphalt Roadway - Daily Report of Quality Control Form # 675-030-20A).
	As far as losing tickets is concerned, truck tickets are project records and must be collected and carefully maintained. While an occasional lost ticket may occur, lost tickets should not commonly occur.
24.	Comment: Some PA's want the entire nights packet at the end of the shift (Roadway Report, Cross slopes, Straight Edge Report) Others only want the Road Report and the rest of the information either at the end of the Lot or end or the Project.
	Response: We'll review each of the forms and either communicate the time frames established in the Specs to the Districts or add time frames to Specifications.

25.	Comment: Your idea "Bike Path" to "Bike Lane..? Density or non Density?
	Response: Bike paths are separate pathways physically separated from mainline pavement. Since they experience very little (if any) vehicular traffic, density testing is not required. Keep in mind we still want density. Bike lanes are adjacent/connected to mainline lanes and are may be subjected to traffic. Therefore they are eligible for density testing. However, due to their width and their small percentage when compared to total lane miles, statistically speaking, less than 1% of all roadway cores will occur in a designated bike lane.

26.	Comment: In areas of "Match Existing Cross Slope"... lf you mill out 3" and put back 3" isn't that matching existing? Why the need to complete a cross slope report.
	Response: Accumulating errors of milling depth and paving depth can result in cross slope that does not match existing. Physically measuring the milling and paving cross slopes (rather than depths) provides more accurate cross slope readings and better assurance "match existing" occurs.

27.	Comment: On the Straight Edge Reports, the disposition code should be filled in by management. Not the Tech's in the field. Pa's are saying that the form is incomplete because we are not having our Tech's fill this column out.
	Response: Disposition Codes should be filled out by the appropriate personnel within the company, then the completed form can be submitted to the Department. From CPAM 11.2 - Testing and Correction of Surface Deficiencies on Asphalt Pavement

28.	Comment: QC Plans (Construction & CEI Offices)
	Some CEI/construction offices are using QC plans to utilize as a construction plan. They will hold up an approval of a QC plan until we incorporate some sort of language that they may want in a QC Plan. An example; we had an issue with getting off the road on time and the CO pulled our QC Plan. Obviously QC has nothing to do with MOT, but now they want us to write something in the transportation section of HMA about being off the road on time, hence having the ability to now stop production because the QCP was pulled.
	Response: Agree. Instead of suspending the QCP, Deficiency Warning Letters and Deficiency Letters should be used to address situations where the contractor is breaching contractual obligations.

29.	Comment: District X pulls cores every lot (our Lots are 2000 tons).
	Response: From DBE Meeting Minutes: The Materials Manual sets a minimum frequency of one IV sample (which includes cores) per 4000 tons and to be consistent within their district. Discussed IV sampling frequencies: District 1/7: 1/4000 tons at plant and roadway unless there’s a problem District 2: 1/lot at the plant (either 2000 or 4000 tons); if lot size is 2000 tons they get roadway cores every other lot. District 3: 1/4000 tons plant and roadway District 4/6: 1/2000 tons at plant and roadway (they have the roving VT Pilot Program) District 5: 1/lot regardless of lot size TPK: 1/lot regardless of lot size at roadway and plant. Occasionally miss a sample so they make sure they get one/4000 tons. All agreed to use 1/4000 tons unless there is a justifiable reason to increase frequency.

30.	Comment: Recommendations on defective material. District X and district Y made an internal pat with construction offices that the contractors are not to be included on recommendations from them. Their agreement is that the CO would forward the recommendations, and which sometimes they don't. Sometimes the DMO will make a favorable recommendation and the CO will deviate from it. We have been denied to actually see the DMO's recommendation on occasions. Sometimes we've been forced to play sandbox games just to get a copy of the Disposition of Defective materials. We say give the DDM process back to us, and that will eliminate the secret squirrel non-sense.
	Response: The DMO deals with the Project Administrator who then deals with the Contractor. The vast majority of the time Construction concurs with Materials' recommendations. Timeliness may also be an issue - Contractor calls the DMO and asks about the status of an EAR and DMO steers them back to the PA. If there is a disagreement on the recommendation, then it goes to the SCO for a final ruling.

31.	Comment: 92% Non-Vibe Density Target - Can the specification be changed so that the contractor has the option to use either target range after review of the first production lot of a new mix? Right now the construction offices are not going to deviate from the specification language.
	Response: The PWL Spec limits are not symmetrical for density - if the contractor goes static, the upper side of the specification limit stays the same, so the contractor doesn't need the option. MPR is the same also.

32.	Comment: 20 Day submittals for QCP and Schedule of Values. Please request change for 30 days prior to construction. One of the big differences is the set up in District X and Y. District X has construction offices and District Y has operations centers. I like the construction offices better because chain of command is much more clear and Issues seem to get resolved quicker.
	Response: Depending on resources and locations, the Department has both construction offices and operations centers, however, issues should be handled the same within either office type. This goal of consistency will be communicated to the Construction Offices and Operations Centers.

33.	Comment: We see a lot of inconsistency in interpretation of the standard indexes, particularly concerning the 600 series and MOT. Interpretation of plan notes is also all over the place. I have a job now that the CEI interprets the plan note about not having traffic on a milled surface to mean cars never go on a milled surface, even in an intersection. They had us do the intersections in 4 quadrants instead of milling the mainline straight through.
	Response: Plan Note about no traffic on milled surface. Without knowing the project details it is tough to say whether traffic could have been placed on it. In the future, consult with the Engineer of Record to determine if there are engineering reasons for keeping all traffic off of the roadway (ex. pavement structure remaining is too thin) or if some traffic could be placed on it to accommodate a more convenient construction sequence.

34.	Comment: We have some recurring issues in District X with whether or not a sublet is required for trucking. They also want the job guide schedule, which District Y never asks for. District X also has their own erosion control plan format. They want to see everything shown in the tables sketched out on the roadway plan sheets, District Y is fine with just using the stations in a table. District X has its own supplemental spec that requires 30 day cure period for thermo, District Y is fine with 14 days, Material certifications and the way they are handled also varies widely. There are some differences in the districts, but there are big differences between FDOT and CEI managed projects as well even amongst different offices in the same district, They all use the same CPAM, but just like with the specs they all have their own interpretation, I guess it's the bible, Amazing how so many different religions could be based a on different interpretation of the same book.
	Response: Districts must follow the Specifications and CPAM in order to ensure consistency Statewide regarding project requirements. This will be a continuing discussion topic at statewide meetings and subject of reviews in the districts.

35.	Comment: EAR turn-around time...spec allows for EAR, but does not stipulate any sort of time frame for Engineer to review and respond.
	District X has historically responded within a week. However, there are times when FDOT takes up to 3 weeks. Often times, milling/resurfacing projects do not have 3 weeks excess time for such lengthy review and new construction projects often does not have such luxury of time within phases. We do appreciate if extra time is needed for proper evaluation, but there should be some responsibility on FDOT's part to be timely.
	Response: This is a key performance measure for some districts - but the exact turnaround time varies by district. Typically it gets through the DMO in less than a week but there are some issues that delay the process which are out of the DMO's control since the process also includes Construction. Everyone agreed that a two week turnaround is reasonable for EAR's to be processed through both Materials and Construction.

36.	Issue: A contractor misplaced the white copy of one asphalt ticket used for miscellaneous asphalt. The Project Administrator (PA) has a yellow copy of the same ticket, but the final estimates office informed the PA that unless they have the white copy that says customer on the bottom of it, they cannot pay for the asphalt. Is it appropriate to withhold payment for not having the correct ticket copy (or even misplacing a ticket)?
	Response: The Department should pay for the asphalt in accordance with applicable Specifications. Loss of one ticket (the white copy), when a different color copy is available, is not an appropriate reason to withhold payment. An occasional lost ticket will occur and not paying the contractor for asphalt we normally pay for is not an option. If there is a recurring issue of losing tickets, then it may be necessary to take additional (and potentially punitive) action. However, in the case of losing one copy of a ticket when another copy is available, the contractor should be paid for the asphalt.
37.	Issue: How should cross slope measurements and tolerances be handled on areas of projects where the cross slope is shown as "Match Existing" on a typical section?
	Response:
		1. Milling- will be conducted for depth in accordance with the Plans and project specifications. 2. Paving- will be placed by spread rate in accordance with the Plans and project specifications. 3. Smoothness- Meet the surface requirements in accordance with the project specifications. 4. Measure Cross slope after the milling is completed. 5. Measure Cross slope after finish roller has completed operations. All cross-slopes taken will be for informational purposes only. The above direction is for areas with typical sections denoting "Match Existing". New projects where a typical section in the plans contains a design cross slope and projects on existing roadways where cross slope correction is being done to achieve a specified cross slope are required to meet the design cross slope within cross slope tolerances noted in the plans and specifications.
38.	Comment: On small projects with 2,000 tons or less of structural and friction course asphalt, the Specifications state the asphalt is accepted by visual inspection (testing is not typically performed). If asphalt base is used, is the asphalt base also accepted based on visual inspection (not typically tested)?
	Response: Yes. On projects, with structural and friction course asphalt accepted by visual inspection, the asphalt base under that structural and friction course asphalt will also be accepted based on visual inspection.