HEAVY HIGHWAY SPECIFICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
OCA Conference Center
Friday, November 16, 2018
10:00 a.m.
TO: Heavy Highway Specifications Committee
FROM: Chris Engle
MINUTES
- Call to order – 10:05 a.m.
- Introductions
- Approve meeting minutes of September 21, 2018 - Approved
- General discussion
- Request to add contractor email addresses to bid list – OCA members requested to have an email address added to the Plan Holders List on ODOT’s website.Would expedite communication.Currently a fax number is listed.Although some still use a fax to quote, most are now using email.ODOT agreed to look into this and see if it is practical to do so.
- DBE paperwork – examples of accepted submittals – ODI is working on PN 007.It will include the updated DBE trucking language and MSV changes.Trucking guidance will include expectations for getting quotes and negotiating in good faith with DBE trucking companies.Should be available for comment in mid-December.
- LPA projects – electronic DBE Utilization Plan submittal – Have not been able to replicate the delay between submission and acceptance email.Also concerned that it is not secure and contractors’ bids are viewable by competitors.Don’t need a password to get on.Could submit a false bid by competitor.Suggestion to have submission required within 15 minutes.There would not be sufficient time to do anything with the DBE bids in that timeframe.Also suggestion to use AASHTOware for LPA projects.
ODOT allowing DBE Utilization Plans would be done on case-by-case basis, per ODI. Committee members objected, would rather know one way or the other, rather than having to ask a pre-bid question each time. ODI agreed to look at allowing paper or electronic submissions across the board, as long as LPA time stamps when they were received if paper.
Prompt Payment software has been upgraded. ODOT is looking for feedback. Affirmation is now done so that you don’t have to go into each project to affirm. Less than 50% of projects are now doing affirming prompt payment. Meeting has been scheduled to gather input from CRL & Prompt Payment Task Force.
No longer planning on using B2G. They have no solution for Prompt Payment. Payroll batch issues have been worked out.
- Railroad Protective policies – difficulties in obtaining – Shelly & Sands’ worst case was nine months to get their policy.Other contractors related similar experiences.Concern that third party administrator.This subject will be brought to Rich Behrendt’s (ODOT Railroad Highway Coordinator) attention.Requested examples be sent in to Chris Engle and Gary Angles for resolution.Railroads are dealing with a lot of retirements and that may be part of the issue.Will be on next month’s agenda.
- Timely payment issues – Up to this point, the problem has largely been limited to change orders for work going over plan quantity and force accounts.Gary Angles has been responsive in resolving individual issues.Jeff Peyton can help on LPA projects.
Most all contractors are experiencing some projects NOT writing two estimates per month. Often items are missing from an estimate. Contractors are reluctant to use CA-D-11 because if you itemize deficiencies, it can delay the estimate. Contractors will, however, call a major oversight to the PE’s attention. Some contractors said they have listed deficiencies, but they were not addressed in subsequent estimates. Some find an email is better than addressing it on the CA-D-11. Some PEs will accept whatever the Consultant inspectors turned in, which often don’t include all items.
Need to review makeup of Timely Payment Task Force and set meeting.
ODOT, as part of an ODOT/FHWA/OCA group addressing DBE issues, is looking at ways of getting more productivity out of people in the field to ensure change orders are produced more quickly.
Contractor invoicing was discussed as a solution. Some concerns expressed by Contractors. Could set it up so that the review had to be completed within a set period of time otherwise payment should be made. Many other states require contractor invoice. ODOT has piloted invoicing for some smaller projects, but it was not pursued further.
- Estimating
- Issues when not using conventional unit bid items – Railing (includes removal, replacement, tie bars), temporary pavement (Type A, but was variable thickness and had other items are included), lump sum items with several items included.
Portions of structures removed – D-5 project was broken down extensively, item by item.
Would prefer to have Unclassified Excavation as a Lump Sum in general. Very difficult to get agreement on quantities.
- Pre-bid questions/answers – We had previously discussed having a conference call to clarify pre-bid questions.ODOT doesn’t think this is likely.Discussed uploading files for clarification.Looking at having an ftp site for this purpose.ODOT will look into and let us know.
ODOT is asking themselves pre-bid questions in some instances to clarify (“heads-up” for contractors). Often ODOT is trying to get info out before the weekend so that info doesn’t wait for signatures and publication of an addendum. Question was asked if ODOT could identify that it is their own question. Contractors would give the question more weight if it were known to be coming from ODOT.
- Committees
- 100 spec committee
- Proposed changes
- 108.06.F. – Agree that it should be looked at on a case by case basis.Biggest issue is excusability.Contractors believe these concurrent delays should not be subject to damages.This change is on hold.
- PN 15 – Need to discuss need to include FHWA-1273 in subcontracts with ODI.Seems that it’s unneeded in the eConstruction era.
- PN 108 & 109 – Updated to “will” forfeit rights to pursue claim from “may”.This mimics the language in the C&MS.ODOT will continue to entertain claims that don’t meet deadline if they believe there is merit.If Contractor asks for extension, they have routinely been granted.Eric Kahlig recommends ODOT implementation of an automatic email by ODOT to remind Contractors of approaching deadlines.
With regard to interest, ODOT would like to have it addressed within the claim itself. Problems occur when a claim is agreed to, approved by Controlling Board, and interest is requested after the fact. If Contractors include interest in claim request, it will be considered.
Also included ODOT provide documents at least two weeks in advance of Step 2 meeting.
- PN 129 – Some districts are using this on road closures.They want to increase the LDs to reflect the cost to the public.OCA believes this use was not the intent of that note.Concern expressed over anticipated days in this type of contract – shouldn’t be used in that situation.
Concern was expressed by Committee over time frames given to microsurfacing. The scheduling requires a lot of work prior to the micro and once it’s complete. Designers do not seem to be taking this into account and only using the time for the micro production work.
- PN 137 – Award is based on the base bid, not the alternate.Sometimes the alternate can include the additional DBE costs.Agreed that the language should be changed to the “awarded” bidder.
- PN 139 – Bid budget is published, award is based on who can get the most additive alternates within the bid budget is awarded.Otherwise awarded to low bidder.DBE concerns discussed.Contractor will be aware of how much will be included in bid.Alternates will be limited to 5% of the budget.Types of projects will generally be the same type of work (e.g., guardrail, crack sealing).Will often be locally funded projects.
- MOT LDs – contractors leaving zones up past permitted times – Contractors have been making business decisions to stay on road past allowed times.There were inconsistencies in how the LDs were calculated between districts.LDs have been calculated (mostly increased), and published on ODOT’s website.PN 127 is the flag for this change.
Will look at specific scenarios on a case by case basis for violations outside the Contractor’s or sub’s direct control.
- Earthwork spec committee – No items.
- Pavement spec committee – New grinders that do not damage pavement will be allowed by new specs.
SS 806 – ODOT is looking at ways to address the safety of the people that are taking the cores near lane lines (joints).
- Structure spec committee
- Item 512
- Meeting to discuss revisions. – December 11.
- Hydraulics committee
- Changes to SS 832 – Updated for next posting.Some significant changes, quite a bit of industry input.
- Traffic & Roadway committee
- WTS testing – concerns – schedule is out on web.Scheduled through March.Test was initially set up so that you couldn’t go back to a question.Some confusion as to whether or not this is fixed.
Disagreement between ODOT and Contractors as to whether or not the questions are all work zone related.
Trying to change OCA course so that they can take our training to prepare the test.
Recent test - only 2 out of 15 passed. 100% of those retaking have passed.
- Possibility of requiring barrels in tapers for daytime (in addition to night time) closures – One of the districts proposed this.Contractors are all for it.Anything that makes something safer is preferred.Will incorporate into costs if standardized.
- Penalties for leaving up signs when no longer needed (lane closures, etc.) – Some Contractors have left up signs indicating lane shifts, closures.Concerns over consistency and enforcement.Recommended talking to the Safety Officer for the Contractor to address.Need to at least make sure they are covered.
- Permitted lane closure map – Currently in process of moving to traffic count platform.Will use current counts, breaking up into half-hour segments and change from seasons to months.Hoping for early 2019 implementation.
- Next meeting:TBD
- Adjournment – 12:40 p.m.