|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-005
|
|
Topic: |
Environmental Process
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Request that the NDDOT Streamline it's material source clearence process.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
The process was updated. Mark Gaydos provided the AGC with a summary of the new process for distribution to its members.
|
|
Action Taken: |
The process was finalized through the supplemental specifications. The changes were sent to Ken Russell.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-016
|
|
Topic: |
Quantity of Overlay Concrete
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Ron Mack asked that payment for the quantity of overlay concrete be paid for by batch tickets from the mobile concrete mixer.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
The Department agreed to the change.
|
|
Action Taken: |
Supplemental specification language was sent to Committee Co-Chair Ken Russell.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-001
|
|
Topic: |
Asphalt Overlays on Guardrail Embankments
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Request the NDDOT discontinue the practice of placing asphalt under guardrail.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
Nathan Haaland completed a report on alternatives for review by NDDOT management. He will summarize his findings at the November 10th meeting.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-038
|
|
Topic: |
Feed Point Location
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Some DOT projects require the contractor to perform this work.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
The usual policy is for the NDDOT to provide this information. The NDDOT will ensure that this information is provided in advance.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
A memo will be sent next week to Design, Bridge, and Local Government Divisions outlining the issue. Project contacts will be asked to ensure compliance with NDDOT policies.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-040
|
|
Topic: |
Partial Acceptance of Traffic Signals
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
772-03
Final Inspection will be made 30 "or more" days after the initial inspection. This language can be taken incorrectly and the Engineer can schedule this inspection whenever they want.
Final Acceptance: can be delayed if the Engineer adds work therefore prolonging payment of electrical and communications costs.
Maintenance of signal or flashing beacon through the extended acceptance period is the responsibility of the Contractor. This should be limited to the original contract, any maintenance on change order items that prolong the acceptance period should be reimbursable through the Department.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Replace "30 or more" phrase with "30 to 45" days after the initial inspection or add the phrase "approximately 30 days after punch list items on the initial inspection are corrected."
Eliminate the requirement that requires the Contractor to pay the electrical & communication costs entirely. Add a provision for "partial acceptance" of the signals.
Maintenance should be limited to the items that have not been accepted.
|
|
Decision: |
James Ruud and Jack Smith met on this topic. Jack Smith will provide James, Ken and Mark with Minutes from the meeting. The next step is to meet with NDDOT Planning and Programming and Fargo District Employees to discuss possible solutions.
|
|
Action Taken: |
A draft specification is being written. A copy will be sent to the AGC prior to the November 10th meeting. After AGC suggestions are incorporated, the specification will be presented to DOT personnel as a recommended change.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
08-002
|
|
Topic: |
Asphalt Ride Specification - Smoothness Assurance Module
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The NDDOT may consider adding a Smoothness Module to the current Ride Specifications for Asphalt Projects.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
This item is still being worked on by the NDDOT Ride Committe. The issue will be tracked by the Spec Committee and if a Subcommittee is needed it will be formed.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
This item will be combined with a concrete ride specfication agenda item at the November 10th meeting. This item number will be discarded.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-010
|
|
Topic: |
Micro Surfacing and Slurry Seal
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
AGC is suggesting that the production testing frequency of 300 tons be changed to 500 tons.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
The NDDOT recently changed the Sand Equivalent from 45 to 60. With the change the NDDOT intends to keep the frequency the same for this season and consider the change next season.
|
|
Action Taken: |
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-043
|
|
Topic: |
Paint Monitoring System
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Assist the NDDOT in specifying electronic paint monitoring systems. Virgil Muscha - Swanston Equipment will assist the NDDOT.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
When the NDDOT is ready, Virgil will meet with the NDDOT to discuss the pro's and con's of the system.
|
|
Decision: |
NDDOT Management Technical Services to contact other states that use the system to learn more from their experiences.
|
|
Action Taken: |
Tim Marthe - Epic Solutions is working on providing Technical Services with contact information. Technical Services will contact Kentucky DOT and Ohio DOT for more info.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
08-018
|
|
Topic: |
Lane Rental
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The NDDOT is considering applying a lane rental special provision. In an upcomming project.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
Jack Smith has received industry comments. The comments will be incorporated into his report to management this week.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-001
|
|
Topic: |
Blending Depth
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The depth of existing asphalt as shown on the plans should have varied between 3.25" and 6.00" with an average of 4.77". The actual asphalt depth encountered in the field was between 4.5" and 12" with an average of 8.1". Another issue related to this is how the cores are evaluated and recorded in the plans. The cores on this project were divided into two portions: HBP and Bituminous Base. How is HBP differentiated from Bit. Base?
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
State in the standard specifications, section 306.04D that if the actual average asphalt depth varies by more than 20% that this is a changed condition and an equitable adjustment can be requested by either party.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
Clayton Schumaker will outline the Department's current process and rationale at the November meeting.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-002
|
|
Topic: |
Chain Link Fence Installation
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Section 752.03B Chain Link Fence Installation. Right of way chain link is usually installed "late season" in low areas when ditches are wet and do not dry. Concrete truck access for fence post installation is extremely poor which causes installation delays. Over time these wet areas are susceptible to "frost heave" of the posts due to the concrete footings used for the posts.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Allow an alternate 4 foot driven line post anchorage similar to MnDOT plate 932K. This was used on two projects in the Bismarck District and one in the Fargo District. This foundation type will result in bid cost savings and a quality, on time installation with lower future maintenance costs to the NDDOT.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The NDDOT added driven posts as an option.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
09-002
|
|
Topic: |
Payment for Chips on Seal Coat Projects
|
|
Type of Action: |
Information Only
|
|
Background Information: |
The NDDOT is evaluating cost saving measures on various project types. Excess cover coat material(chips) on seal coat projects was looked at and it was found that the excess chips are being swept into the ditch.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Past practices had designers pay for the chips by the "ton". According to current Specification (Section 420) it states that chips can be paid for by the "ton" or by the "square yard". The NDDOT may design future projects that pay for chips by the "square yard".
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The AGC will provide feedback on the concept at the November 10th meeting.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-003
|
|
Topic: |
894.05.B.4.j - Slip Base Assembly (Perforated Square Tube)
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Slip base assembly used in conjunction with perforated square tube sign posts. Have installed and had good results across the country as well as the Fargo District Office (Lyle Landstrom). Had submitted before and was told everything looked good except for 2 questions the department had. Unfortunately we never recieved those 2 questions so we could reply.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Allow Slip Mate slip base assemblies as an approved equal to those manufactured by Unistrut Corp. This will provide competition for DOT business and for contractors which will result in cost savings and superior performance.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
Technical Services is reviewing the performance of Slip-Mate Bases already installed in the state. 50% complete.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-002
|
|
Topic: |
770.05 and 772.05 - "System" Bid Items
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
We are seeing more plansets using lump sum("System") bid items for electrical items. There are a few issues with bidding these "systems".
1. How does the field engineer track quantities to make sure parments are keeping up with materials installed if they don't have unit pricing? How does the DOT verify that they haven't overpaid a contractor? Some of these "systems" are hundreds of thousands of dollars. In our experience the last couple of years these "system" items have been behind in payment throughout the project, which isn't generally the case in standard unit priced contracts.
2. What happens when the quantities in the table are incorrect? The feild engineer has no way other than a change order to compensate the contractor for extra work.
3. A lot of times there are disclaimer notes associated with lump sum items that basically say table listed quantities are for informational purposes only. What happens if an item is missed? Will the contractor be compensated? A blanket note like this puts all of the risk on the contractor.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Stop using the "system" bid item and use the standard DOT pay items as shown in section 770.05 and 772.05. This way if one unit is installed it is paid for on the next pay estimate.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-004
|
|
Topic: |
Traffic Signal Foundations
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Concrete foundation designs have a dramatic change when the signal mast arm increase from 50' to 51'. The diameter of the foundation increased from 3' dia to 3.25' dia and from 11' deep to 18.5' deep. How is this explained?
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The foundation that brought this to the committee's attention was designed to take into account fatigue loading. The NDDOT is in the process of determining if the Standard Drawing should take into account this loading type as well.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 09-005
|
|
Topic: |
Traffic Signal Inspection
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Plan notes stating that inspections would not be done in a temperature less than 50 degrees, wind speeds greater than 15 mph, or rain or snow.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
This note appears to greatly limit the time of year an inspection can be conducted. If a signal was completed after November 1st would the DOT have a signal operate through the winter uninspected?
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
09-006
|
|
Topic: |
Critical Path Specification
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
A revised critical path specification was provided to the AGC for comment.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
Initial comment stated that section 4.a would be difficult to accomplish. More comments to follow from the AGC.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-023
|
|
Topic: |
Adverse Weather
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Tom Olson requested that 108.04.C.3 be modified to add the word "normal" before "adverse weather."
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The DOT had concerns about how this change will affect working day contracts. The DOT will look further into the Virginia DOT specification Tom Olson recommended.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-024
|
|
Topic: |
Force Account
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The AGC states that 109.04 does not give guidance for pricing differing site condition changes. The DOT brought up that the guidance is the project engineer develops the adjustment sans profits. If the Contractor disagrees and negotiation fails, they have the ability to file a claim.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The AGC will review force account rates and submit an increase request.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-025
|
|
Topic: |
Delays
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The AGC noted that the only additional compensation for delay or suspension in 104.06 is for equipment idle time. Mr. Olson stated that a Contractor could incur addtional costs that should be added to this section.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
The DOT recommends combining this with item AGC 08-031.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
AASHTO and most other states give very little guidance on calculation of claims and direct the Contractor to justify the claim. The DOT will review Colorado's specification as recommended by Mr. Olson.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-028
|
|
Topic: |
Elimination of Items or Partial Items
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Tom Olson recommended an opportunity for unit price adjustments if bid items or any portion there of are found unnecessary.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The DOT responded that this is already covered under section 104.03.B. The DOT will, however, investigate MnDOT section 1905 per Mr. Olson's recommendations.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-029
|
|
Topic: |
Damage to Utilities
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Section 105.03 currently provides that the contractor is
responsible for damage to utilities. While that certainly is appropriate where the utilities are shown in the Contract or marked by the North Dakota One Call System, this should not be the contractor's financial responsibility absent such circumstances.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
The contract language should be modified as follows:
Damage to utilities [shown in the Contract and/or located by the
North Dakota One Call System] shall be corrected at the
Contractor's expense.
|
|
Decision: |
The Contractor is responsible to get reimbursed from the liable party.
|
|
Action Taken: |
Any actions, if any, to be taken on this item will be for the next comprehensive section 100 rewrite.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-030
|
|
Topic: |
Section 108.04G
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
There is no time frame provided in this contract section on when the Engineer will respond to a time extension request. It is important that contractors receive a response as soon as possible after the delay event occurs. This is true for a number of reasons, including: First, under Section 108.05B, the NDDOT may terminate the contract if the contractor "[f]ails to perform the work with sufficient resources to assure the prompt completion of the work." Without knowing whether a time extension will be granted, the contractor is at risk of having to either accelerate its work (and incur the related cost or attempt to back-charge the NDDOT) or risk being in default of its contract. Second, attempting to accelerate the work needlessly (i.e. where the NDDOT grants a time extension after acceleration efforts) can adversely affect the quality of the construction. Third, it can adversely affect the scheduling of labor, equipment and materials and therefore the entire job) by creating uncertainty of what is the project completion date (i.e. will it be extended or not), and therefore when work should/must be performed.
ISSUE #2
This contract clause also provides that additional time will not be granted for delays due to "inclement weather." While additional time should not be granted for 'normal' inclement weather (which both can and should be anticipated), the same is not true for 'abnormal' inclement weather.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
The Department should outline a specific number of days for the contract time extension review process.
|
|
Decision: |
The Department checked AASHTO and the 50 states. The research found that 37 states do not specify a time. The Department recognizes the importance of replying promptly and questioned if this change was needed.
|
|
Action Taken: |
Actions taken to this specification, if any, will be done in conjunction with a comprehensive section 100 rewrite.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
AGC 08-032
|
|
Topic: |
Shop Drawing Submittal Approvals
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
Sections 764.03I, 770, and 894.08 do not specify a number of days the DOT will review submittals. This creates uncertainty for contractors bidding these items.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
The is looking at potentially adding timeframes to these sections.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
09-004
|
|
Topic: |
Equipment Rental Rates Specification
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
The standard specifcations refer to the Department's Equipment Rental Rates Manual for Force Account work reimbursements. The manual is not available online or typically requested.
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
Add the needed information to the standard specifictions.
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
A proposed specification will be sent to the AGC for the November 10th meeting.
|
|
|
|
Agenda Number: |
09-005
|
|
Topic: |
Concrete Pavement Ride Specification
|
|
Type of Action: |
Decision Required
|
|
Background Information: |
|
|
Suggested Solution: |
|
|
Decision: |
|
|
Action Taken: |
|
|
|
