HEAVY HIGHWAY SPECIFICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
OCA Conference Center
Friday, September 21, 2018
10:00 a.m.
TO: Heavy Highway Specifications Committee
FROM: Chris Engle
AGENDA
- Call to order – 10:05 a.m.
- Introductions
- Approve meeting minutes of May 11, 2018 - Approved
- General discussion
- LPA projects – delay in DBE Utilization Plan submission
Has been a problem for some LPA projects. Tina Collins has made some changes and thinks it may have helped. She was unable to replicate the problem internally to ODOT.
The other issue is security. Bid is exposed and this makes it desirable to hold back your bid as long as possible. Considering revising to align with locals’ processes (those submitting bids on paper). Suggestion from members to accept 15 or 20 minutes after bid opening. Could also allow contractors to choose to be nonresponsive on a low bid if it is days later. Suggestion to turn in on paper with bid by members.
LPA Advisory Group is meeting soon, may be good to bring it up there.
- DBE Materials & Supplies Vendors
September 1 change to DBE MSVs – ODOT has met with them and gone over their NAICS Codes. Seems to have been implemented smoothly due to ODOT’s measured approach in implementation.
Question asked if existing jobs were affected – no, the conditions in place at time of bid govern.
- DBE price quotes & negotiations
ODOT concern is that prices are not being negotiated. Prices in DBE quotes have been, in some cases, obviously dictated by the prime. Need to be able to quote their own price and use their own trucks with their own employees driving (or long term leased trucks). ODOT will be meeting with DBE trucking companies to explain these issues. Giving the DBEs a rate to accept or not work is not a good faith negotiation. If different trucking companies quote different rates, they will all want the highest rate once they find out you are paying a higher rate. ODOT concern that truckers are not getting a separate price for prevailing wage work. Some contractors do have this in their contracts, but not all. There is a prevailing wage add on in some contracts.
Question was asked by B&G Trucking – If they send out a price at the beginning of the year to all the prime contractors and say that this price is good for all projects that year, and the primes use that price, and B&G affirms the DBE Utilization Plan, then that is okay? ODOT – yes.
- Prevailing wage – trucks
Depends on how long they sit on the job. ODOT can’t ask FHWA for 1:1 trucking credit for DBEs/non-DBEs until this is under control. Truck drivers are asking ODOT (about 50 per year) to investigate whether or not they should be paid prevailing wage based on how long they are on project. Rule is 20% of the time in a week. Federal is three minutes. Once they are on the project (within limits of a project). The problem is (as ODOT sees it) is that very few are tracking it. If truckers are the only ones with records, ODOT will rely on their records. If DBEs are giving 1099s to their employees, they probably have not been paid prevailing wage. If Contractor does a time study for specific operations as the project goes on, and it shows that the time spent on the project is de minimis, then you are okay paying less than prevailing wage. Rules will be distributed to the Committee with minutes.
ODOT is satisfied with the method Kokosing uses for tracking. They have a “truck boss” on the project. Give each truck driver a book. Every time they enter and leave they enter the time.
Question was asked about a 12 mile resurfacing project. Does the whole 12 miles count as being on the project, or just the area near the paving operation? According to ODOT, the entire 12 miles counts as being on the project.
- Trucking and Good Faith Efforts (GFEs) – Discussed what is required when a DBE trucking firm does not show up after agreeing to work and signing affirmation.Need to terminate and replace if possible.If not, submit GFEs (describe situation and lack of opportunity to replace and/or efforts made to find replacement work) in accordance with PN 13.
- Electronic bulletin boards?
Most, if not, all employees have cell phones or email – could they acknowledge receipt as acceptable to replace the bulletin board. ODOT says no, public needs to be able to see as well. Can talk about it, but FHWA is currently reviewing ODOT’s compliance at this time and is insisting on strict compliance.
- Prequalification fee for software
Brad Jones indicated that it was his decision to implement $100 fee (one time) to recoup cost of software. It had been cut from Construction’s budget, and Brad felt it was important to implement because it was such a great improvement, and this was the only way he could come up with to pay for it now. It has been a success with members.
- C-92 approvals – timeliness
- C-92s for subs that do not submit payrolls
- C-92s for DBEs
All are being posted at the same time. ODI didn’t know if they had been submitted earlier. Tina made it so as soon as they come in in SiteExchange they are posted. Approval dates are posted after that. Has gotten faster. Office of Contracts worked to improve situation.
- Committees
- 100 spec committee
- Table 109.05-4 – substitute an Engineer or Asst. Superintendent for clerk if no clerk is on project?
Field overhead in table has clerks included, they aren’t used as much anymore. Want to be careful how they are described – if it’s a specific title, it may cause problems for those who want the verbiage to the letter. Make sure it’s described generally. OCA to send suggested language to be considered.
- Time extensions for VECPs
Current S 1113 says no time extensions allowed for VECPs. If D/B Team needs additional design time that would extend completion date but not increase traffic impacts, would definitely be considered. Traffic impacts are major consideration for ODOT.
- 104.02 adjustments on VECPs
Contractors would like to keep 104.02 adjustment for quantities that are reduced by a VECP. The basis for the adjustment would be the quantity after the VECP. Further nonperformances would result in an adjustment if over 25% of the VECP quantity. May be some technical issues with implementation. Not something that comes up often. OCA to submit language.
- Weather days
Contractors are experiencing a “domino effect” with rain days on projects scheduled consecutively.
Gary Angles recommends working with the Districts to work something out on a case by case basis. If unable to do so, go through Dispute Resolution Process.
- Need to be on site?
If a Contractor has several projects going on, and cannot get to work to work on any of them, common interpretation is if Contractor is not on site, it’s not a rain day. It’s a significant cost to the industry to pay show up time, and most of the time it hasn’t been a problem if you call the Engineer/Inspector and let them know you won’t be in that day.
However, it does get tricky when you have an operation involving a great deal of resources and call it off based on a forecast, and everyone agrees to postpone, but then the weather changes. Contractors believe they should be granted a weather impact in that situation. Gary Angles recommends working it out on project if possible. Discuss at pre-con.
Need to add discussion at DCE meeting.
- LDs on Saturdays & Sundays
If crews are remote and far from home, if they are sent home for the weekend and there is no interference with traffic when work is not going on (e.g., line striping, RPMs), it does not seem reasonable to charge LDs. Example – Completion date is 9/30, contract work is not done until 10/31, spec book reads 31 days LDs. Work only takes place Monday through Friday. Couldn’t the weekends be waived? Gary indicates it’s a Director decision, but they agree there would be no impact to traffic in those situations.
- LDs and waivers for punch list work
Punch list work should only be for days actually interfering with traffic.
- MOT LDs – contractors leaving zones up past permitted times
ODOT District 12 and Brad Jones asked for this to be on the agenda – Restrictions set up for lane closures, ramp closures, etc., with what would appear to be substantial LDs ($100/minute, e.g.). Contractors are making “business decisions” to keep closures in place when the cost exceeds the LDs. On I-90 in Cleveland, this gridlocked a few Interstates for hours after the closure was removed.
ODOT is looking at increasing the LDs moving forward to further deter these extended closures. A spreadsheet is being developed for this purpose. ODOT will be reasonable for things outside the Contractor’s control. Figures could possibly be used to calculate savings for a VECP.
- Earthwork spec committee
- Construction layout stakes in the e-construction age
Item 623 – Used to have grade stakes everywhere. GPS equipment – Contractors do not use near as many. Only have to provide every 100’ to 1000’ depending on size of job, and then only at edge right-of-way or construction limits.
Some kind of staking is necessary – pipe crossings, toe of slopes, structures. Issue with rovers is ODOT’s inspection staff is not able to use them across the board. Only person on project with CADD experience is usually Project Engineer. Want to better define what a minimum amount of staking would be.
Need to review 623 in a more comprehensive manner to catch it up with technology. Group can be put together with knowledge to revise specs.
- Pavement spec committee
- Overpaving 6” on SS 806, MOT issues?
ODOT is concerned with safety issues – taking cores at joint puts an employee in close proximity to traffic.
- Overuse of release agents (pictures)
Truck drivers are using excess release agents in some instances. ODOT has asked asphalt plant monitors to be aware of this and watch for it.
- 455.02.A.4.QCP will be required to stay on project throughout concrete pour – upcoming change
Clarified in 2019 C&MS.
- Structure spec committee
- Revisions to 501.05.A & B
Issues with Engineered Drawings – who is at meeting, who is able to make a simple change as designated by the Engineer of Record (Quality Control). Make sure the project keeps moving. Drawings should be less specific or allow more options. Could use 5 or 6 different cranes.
- Item 512
- Requirement to fill air entrainment holes with grout vs. 100 grit finish.
Need to specify a size of air entrainment hole that does not need to be filled. Use another type of product? Tex-Coat? Kentucky uses a high build product, acrylic. Sherwin Williams does not require 100 grit profile.
Chem-Masters and Poly-Carb had a lot to do with the existing spec, including 100 grit profile requirement.
Surface prep is removing all grout from the holes and requiring regrouting, and then the surface prep blows it out again.
Get example pictures from Dallas Elswick for surfaces that are acceptable and not.
Need to have a meeting to address these issues.
- Projects requiring sealing subcontractors to coat surfaces of air entrainment holes with sealer.
Will be addressed with the rest of the spec.
- Hydraulics committee
- Item 611 - 703.11 structural backfill – will no longer allow waste sand
Will be in the October update of SS 800. Was inadvertently added as an acceptable product when 703.11 was changed.
- Changes to SS 832
Revised significantly after Hydraulics Spec Committee addressed comments from OCA members.
Considered changing reimbursement after a ½” storm to a 2” rain event. Was only intended to replace DAMAGED BMPs, nit those knocked over. If there is a problem with a BMP being consistently damaged by a ½” rainfall, you are probably using the wrong BMP. Language was clarified to reflect the intent, and Hans agreed to keep the rain event at ½”.
SWPPPTrack software was added as a separate pay item at members’ suggestion.
The SWPPP will have to be produced as a phased plan – an initial plan, and then as significant phases are achieved. A lot of plans are made on the final build out site plan, and that will not suffice in the future.
Concern is that many SWPPP designers do not have the technology to produce the initial plan or other phases. Need to get with Dave Slatzer to ask for an additional site plan as a deliverable from the plan designer (consultant or ODOT).
Need to clarify that the existing condition plan is only one needed at the beginning of the project. Also need to get with DCEs to make sure the Districts know this. Have already discussed with designers.
Prices for SWPPPs will go up substantially.
Will have prices for commonly used BMPs not listed in Appendix F will be contained in SWPPPTrack, but cannot publish. Should help with having to negotiate with each project.
- Traffic & Roadway committee
- 614.15, 614.16.B. - where is the cost and payment of pavement marking removal supposed to be included? Is it supposed to be costed into the LS MOT bid item or in the various WZ pavement marking bid items?
OCA members prefer that pavement marking removals be a separate item. Intention of ODOT is that the existing marking removals are included in the lump sum, removal of temporary markings are included in the individual items of temporary pavement markings. Contractors only have two weeks or so to determine removal quantities, whereas ODOT/consultants have many months to calculate these quantities. Second, would prefer all removals to be in the lump sum if can’t have it as a separate quantity.
OCA to propose language for consideration.
- WTS testing – concerns
ODOT has taken on all WTS testing. ODOT has expressed concern that classes have not been filled. Contractors indicated that they can’t pull their people in off projects currently.
Concern expressed that not enough reference material had been provided to those in attendance. Dan Groh said that would be rectified, no one should have to bring anything to the test, ODOT will provide all materials.
Test is 40 questions, need to get 32 correct to pass. The time period to take the test overall is two hours, but there is included time to get everyone signed in, etc., the test itself is 90 minutes long.
The test had been set up so that each question needed to be answered before moving on to the next, that you couldn’t go back and answer a question. Dan reported that had been looked into, and it was his understanding it had been fixed.
- Timelines and definitions re: NO EDGE LINES signs
With microsurfacing and chip seal projects, there are varying interpretations as to when the 14 day clock starts and is reset. Dab Groh clarified that the clock starts when the line is obliterated – the Contractor has 14 days to either put something down at that spot (either another line, or a layer of pavement, or crack sealing, berming, etc.).
Agreement that Type III markings should be separately itemized so that Contractors would know the intent. This is only an issue in rural areas, not freeways, and has been particularly difficult with the increase in chip sealing and microsurfacing projects.
Need to further discuss with Construction as to best ways to address.
- Contractors required to log existing pavement markings
Contractors are being asked to log existing markings and replace them. How does this relate to the requirement that the Engineer approve the layout prior to replacement? New standards also dictate that the marking be place in new locations.
Language in 614.06 is “Do not start marking operations until the Engineer or Engineer’s representative
- Next meeting:November 16, 2018, 10:00 a.m.
- Adjournment – 1:58 p.m.
P:\COMMITTEES\HEAVY-HIGHWAY SPEC\MINUTES\2018\H+H Minutes 9-21-18.doc