CPR Issues - Consistent, Predictable, Repeatable

CPR Issues
Materials Related

1.	Ken Morgan, Turnpike - Approval Process for Polymer Slurries Issue: A spec change allows polymer slurries on miscellaneous drilled shafts and includes a table with info needed for approval. Approval is project based and involves submittal of about 50 pages of documents. Ken is concerned that process may lead to inconsistent approval. He would like an approved list for statewide use. Dave said this was just discussed at State Geotechnical meeting last week.
	Response: The group agreed that if the manufacturer submits the required information the product can be approved one time and listed for statewide use. Maintaining a list on the Geotechnical website will eliminate duplication of documents. District 2 recommended that State Materials Office (SMO) continue working with Juan at the State Construction Office (SCO) till website is current.

2.	<class="msonormal" style="margin-left:0in;" align="left">Issue: Districts 4 & 6: Concrete producer wants to submit required documents electronically prior to plant inspection to expedite the inspection process. District Materials Office could review documents prior to visit. Mayur concerned about proprietary documents becoming subject to public records request. Is this something we want to pursue? District 5 thinks going to their SharePoint for review is better than collecting and storing the files. District 1 suggests District Concrete Engineers should discuss this first. </class="msonormal">
	Action: Tom Byron will coordinate a meeting of the concrete engineers to establish a consistent process.

3.	Issue: LIMS Service Request - Ken Zinck proposed making the District 2 LIMS online service request form a statewide form on the SMO website.
	Response: The group agreed to create a form for statewide use on SMO website.

4.	Issue: District 2 asked if districts were requiring a Paving Level 2 inspector on miscellaneous asphalt projects. Jim pointed to the specification that does require this.
	Response: Jim said he Bituminous Engineers will discuss this at their next meeting to ensure all are requiring what the spec requires.

5.	Issue: District 5 - Asked about reviewing current Employee Performance System rating criteria to ensure consistency.
	Response: A document defining the core competency measures for supervisors is being circulated for review. Several Districts have already reviewed and updated the process accordingly. An additional competency document and work activity examples will also be sent to all DMREs.

6.	Issue: District 3 - A contractor proposed a cost saving initiative to that would allow him to close lanes and pave during the day rather than at night when the temperature is too low for applying the ARMI layer. Are other districts flexible with lane closure restrictions?
	Responses: D2, D5, TP - All 3 have been flexible in certain cases, provided they received no negative feedback from the public. D2 stated it was always conditional on no negative calls. If someone complained the closure was halted. D4, D6 - Both have done this on two projects, but stopped for safety concerns. Jim Musselman recommends discussion at Chief Engineers Staff meeting.

7.	Issue: SMO - Curing Compound approvals. Response: Richard DeLorenzo said they are updating the approval process to require the manufacturer to certify and label drums of curing compounds. This will replace the system of having FDOT provide labels for the drums and give better control to the Department.

8.	Tim Ruelke, State Materials Office – Pay Reduction for Plastic Properties Issue: The Disposition of Defective Materials (DDM) form is used to resolve all failures of concrete plastic properties. The DDM is completed even if the Engineer authorizes placement of the concrete with failing plastic properties. The Materials Office lists the failing properties test as an exception to certification if any of the materials represented by the tests is placed and remains in place. The resolution of the failure is then documented. If it is a failing acceptance test, and the truck is not yet fully discharged, the remainder of the truck is normally rejected and initial testing begins. If placement stops upon the discovery of a failing test, does Construction apply the plastic property penalty to only the portion of the load that was placed, or the entire load?
	Response: Per 346-12, a payment reduction should not be applied to any portion of the load if the Contractor stops placement after a failing plastic properties test. The Spec only contemplates a pay reduction for continued placement after a failing test.