Subject: Results of 2013 Review of Oregon Department of Transportation s Quality Assurance Program for Asphalt Concrete

Transcription

1 Oregon Division 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, Oregon February 14, (fax) Mr. Thomas Lauer PE Chief Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation 4040 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, MS # 1 Salem, OR In Reply Refer To: HEO.2-OR Subject: Results of 2013 Review of Oregon Department of Transportation s Quality Assurance Program for Asphalt Concrete Dear Mr. Lauer: The enclosed report contains the results of the Federal Highway Administration review of the Quality Assurance Program for Asphalt Concrete of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The review evaluated ODOT's current QC/QA practices in relation to Asphalt Concrete acceptance, and provided specific recommendations to strengthen ODOT's program to conform with 23 CFR 637. We appreciate ODOT's willingness to contribute to this review. Greg Stallmach, Construction Quality Assurance Engineer, Cole Mullis, Pavement Services Engineer and Andrew Clark, Region 3 Quality Assurance Coordinator, provided highly beneficial technical and institutional knowledge. The review commends two project crews from Regions 1 and 2 for working with the review team in the timeline given to make this report possible. Below is an abbreviated list of recommendations. For asphalt mixtures ODOT should increase the minimum number of Independent Assurance (IA)/ Verification tests from the current 10% of the QC tests to a minimum of seven per project, to increase the likelihood of detecting a difference in the QC test results and the IA/Verification test results. It should be noted that the current testing frequency will not need to be changed for larger projects. ODOT should pool test results and use the F&T statistical analysis of results to provide validation on each test used in the pay factor to ensure that the contractors perform accurate testing.

2

3 Oregon Department of Transportation Quality Assurance Program for Asphalt Concrete December 2013 Report prepared by: Anthony Boesen Oregon FHWA Division Office 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR FINAL REPORT

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Background... 3 Purpose and Objective... 7 Scope and Methodology... 8 Team Members... 9 Successful Practices Observations and Recommendations Conclusion Action Plan Appendices... 19

5 Executive Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted two stewardship reviews of the Oregon Department of Transportation s (ODOT) Quality Assurance (QA) Program used for the acceptance of asphalt pavements. The first documented FHWA review of the ODOT QA program was conducted in At that time, FHWA provided ODOT with specific recommendations for its QA Program. In 2013, FHWA conducted this follow-up review to determine those specific areas of risk which had been addressed, and to identify additional areas of improvement. The review looked at the Asphalt Pavement components of the Quality Assurance Program at ODOT with an emphasis on the validation and use of contractor quality control (QC) test data used in ODOT s acceptance decision. Asphalt Pavement is typically the highest dollar value bid item on projects and considered the highest risk item for overpayment and long term performance. The Team developed eight recommendations to assist ODOT in improving the asphalt pavement quality assurance program. Recommendation 1: For asphalt mixtures ODOT should increase the minimum number of Independent Assurance (IA)/ Verification tests from the current 10% of the QC tests to a minimum of seven per project, to increase the likelihood of detecting a difference in the QC test results and the IA/Verification test results. It should be noted that the current testing frequency will not need to be changed for larger projects. Recommendation 2: ODOT should pool test results and use the F&T statistical analysis of results to provide validation on each test used in the pay factor to ensure that the contractors perform accurate testing. Recommendation 3: ODOT should change the sampling location for IA/Verification samples to a location near the paver. Recommendation 4: ODOT should obtain verification samples and develop validation procedures for smoothness test results. As a first step, ODOT could check several projects using the high speed profilometer that is used for the Pavement Management System. Long-term, ODOT needs to have equipment available to verify smoothness results on Federal-aid projects that use smoothness as a pay factor. Recommendation 5: ODOT should reevaluate the limits used in the percent within limits (PWL) acceptance specification. This would allow ODOT to better distinguish between good processes and outstanding processes

6 Recommendation 6: To ensure the security of the retained samples, ODOT should either: Take immediate possession of the samples; or Secure the samples in a manner that the samples cannot be manipulated by the contractor. Recommendation 7: ODOT should modify the elements of their composite pay factor for hot-mix asphalt to include the field mixed, lab compacted air voids. Recommendation 8: ODOT should develop or implement an electronic data collection and analysis tool to more effectively use test result data

7 Background The FHWA Oregon Division Office last provided written approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) materials quality assurance (QA) program on October 20, The program has continued to evolve since that time. FHWA reviewed the materials QA program in 2005 and provided ODOT with recommendations. The implementation status of the previous recommendations was reviewed as part of this review and is summarized in Appendix A. This assessment is to review the ODOT QA program to ascertain the status of their implementation of the Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 637 Subpart B, Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction (23 CFR 637B). The review looked at Oregon DOT s QA program; specifically at the validation and use of contractor quality control (QC) test data used in ODOT s acceptance decision for asphalt paving. The review also looked for successful practices that could be shared with other state DOT QA programs. Material practices were examined at the ODOT Construction Section, Regional Laboratory, and at the project levels. Active construction projects in Regions 1 and 2 were reviewed. Organizational Structure The QA function is located within the ODOT Construction Section. ODOT has five geographical regions. Each region has a regional laboratory, with supporting mobile labs used for larger projects. The five regional laboratories perform QA testing. The regional laboratory managers report to the Construction Quality Assurance Engineer. In total, Quality Assurance Technicians (QAT) are working in the regional laboratories. The central materials laboratory located in the ODOT Construction Section in Salem maintains AASHTO accreditation, provides mix design and construction resources, and performs dispute resolution testing. Quality Assurance (QA) Program There is one Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC) per ODOT region with an assistant and three or four Quality Assurance Technicians (QAT). ODOT s materials QA program is outlined in the ODOT Manual of Field Test Procedures (MFTP). The MFTP is designed to be used by contractor and agency technicians for guidance, reference, and instruction related to the sampling and testing (including testing frequencies) of construction materials, and to determine conformance to ODOT specifications

8 Contractor test results are used in the acceptance of all field tested materials identified in the QA program/mftp, including asphalt pavement. ODOT refers to the Quality Assurance samples as the IA/verification sample since it is used for both verification and Independent Assurance (IA). Samples are taken by contractor staff and witnessed by ODOT QA personnel. Every sample is divided with the contractor; one portion is for the contractor s IA, one for ODOT s IA/verification and a third held for dispute resolution. The contractor takes possession of the third portion until such time dispute resolution is agreed upon. The IA/verification portion is tested at ODOT regional labs, while dispute resolution is tested by the ODOT central lab. The QA sampling frequency is 10% of QC frequency. If a QA test does not pass specification requirements of the IA divided sample, the ODOT Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) investigates. The material may be retested and the third portion is sent to the Central Office for testing and dispute resolution. Independent Assurance (IA) program The State compares the IA test result with the result of the corresponding divided sample. The IA tolerances use AASHTO precision statement tolerances. Some of ODOT s tolerances are tighter as a result of an agency reevaluation last year. The QCCSs also serve an IA function to evaluate test procedures and witness technician procedures. The PM is ultimately responsible for verifying that the Contractor and Quality Assurance Coordinator (Region Lab) test results are within IA parameters. Technician Qualification Program ODOT works in cooperation with industry on technician certification programs. The initial certifications are valid for three years with the exception of the Concrete Strength Testing Technician certification. The certification renewal period is five years for all certifications except: Concrete Strength Testing Technician, Concrete Control Technician, Certified Mix Design Technician, and Certified Asphalt Technician II. The Concrete Strength Testing Technician is valid for a six year period and Concrete Control Technician and Certified Asphalt Technician II are valid for a three year period. Recertification for Certified Mix Design Technician is required every two years following the initial three year certification. ODOT also has a procedure for disqualifying technicians (revocation process). ODOT participates in the Western Alliance for Quality Transportation Construction (WAQTC) partnership. ODOT cooperates in an informal tracking system with the Western States - 4 -

9 Alliance (13 states) to track decertified technicians and prevent them from working across state borders. The Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon (APAO) and Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association (OCAPA) provide the training for the certification classes. ODOT personnel administer and proctor the certification tests. Laboratory Qualification The ODOT Central Laboratory is AASHTO accredited. ODOT has five regional laboratories that perform aggregate, soils, and asphalt testing. ODOT uses a lab certification program which certifies all QC and QA testing facilities. ODOT requires contractor laboratories to be certified by ODOT Central Laboratory personnel once per year. Contractor calibration services are conducted by a NIST traceable company meeting ISO/IEC requirements. The same criteria are used for ODOT labs. There is an up-to-one-year lab certification suspension if intentional misrepresentation is found. Equipment Calibration ODOT uses an independent calibration service company for some equipment. Lab equipment with annual certification requirements is normally calibrated by an outside entity and is identified by a tag showing the latest calibration date. Quality Control (QC) Program A Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) reports to the Project Manager (PM). ODOT requires the contractor to submit a QC program that is reviewed and accepted by the QCCS. The QCCS performs oversight of contractors field placement activities with the assistance of ODOT inspectors. This oversight includes a 10% verification of contractors QC. The contractors QC testing must be performed by certified technicians in a certified lab. The QA personnel also work with the PM to monitor and provide oversight of the contractor QC. ODOT does not require contractor QC plans to be project, or process, specific. Most contractors only provide the minimum level of QC testing and monitoring that is required by the contract specifications. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) ODOT specifies asphalt binder using the PG grading system and specifies Superpave hot mix asphalt mix designs. In addition, ODOT requires the mix design be evaluated using the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. AASHTO T 283 is used for moisture sensitivity. The contactor is required to perform a mix design and submit the data to ODOT. ODOT reviews and accepts the mix design based on a paper review. Mix design raw materials may be requested by ODOT in order to verify the mix design in the laboratory. All mix designs must be completed by a Certified Mix Design Technician (CMDT)

10 Initial binder acceptance is based upon refinery compliance on a bill of lading. During production, two quart samples are taken from every 1000 tons of HMA produced and submitted to ODOT s central lab. Acceptance of additives may be based on product compliance/certification documents and also on whether it is on the Qualified Product List. HMA sampling for volumetrics is taken at drum discharge at the plant. Currently, density acceptance is by nuclear gauge. If IA test for Maximum Density Test (G mm ) does not meet the tolerances, an investigation is completed by the QCCS and the need for a retest is determined by the QCCS. ODOT uses the moving average maximum density of five to compare the retest value for the next comparison. After a retest is done, the test result that is furthest from the moving average is discarded. QC volumetric testing is run on a sample from every sublot of 1,000 tons. QA tests are run on a frequency of 10% of the QC testing rate. The contractor averages five tests for each sublot for density for QC. ODOT uses an inertial laser profiler to determine asphalt pavement smoothness. ODOT verifies asphalt content by requiring the asphalt plants to have asphalt meters, and production records. The pay factor for asphalt content is determined using the ignition oven test

11 Purpose and Objective The purpose and objective of this assessment is to review the ODOT QA program to ascertain the status of ODOT s implementation of Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 637 Subpart B, Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction (23 CFR 637B). The review looked at Oregon DOT s QA program; specifically at the validation and use of contractor quality control (QC) test data used in the Agency s acceptance decisions for asphalt paving. The review also looked for successful practices that could be shared with other state DOT QA programs

12 Scope and Methodology The review looked at the Asphalt Pavement components of the Quality Assurance Program at ODOT with an emphasis on the validation and use of contractor quality control (QC) test data used in ODOT s acceptance decisions. Asphalt Pavement is typically the highest dollar value bid item on projects and considered the highest risk item for overpayment and long term performance. Material practices involving the regulations were examined at the ODOT Construction Section, Region laboratory, and project levels. Active construction projects in Regions 1 and 2 were reviewed. Appendix A includes a comparative list of observations from the 2005 QA review and the observations from the 2013 review. Itinerary July 23 Opening meeting at ODOT Materials Lab, and night project review in Region 2 July 24 Meeting with QCCS for Region 2 project, and night project review in Portland July 25 Central Lab Tour, and close out with FHWA Division Office July 26 Close out with Oregon DOT - 8 -

13 Team Members FHWA Review Team: Dennis Dvorak, Pavements and Materials Engineer, Resource Center Pavement and Materials Team Tim Ashenbrener, Pavements and Materials Engineer, Resource Center Pavement and Materials Team Anthony Boesen, Operations Engineer, Oregon Division Office FHWA Contacts: Oregon Division Phillip Ditzler Division Administrator Emily Lawton Assistant Division Administrator Jeffery Graham Operations Engineer (Region 1) Dustin Woods Operations Engineer (Region 2) Oregon DOT contacts: Greg Stellmach Construction Quality Assurance Engineer Cole Mullis Pavement Services Engineer Andy Clark Region 3 Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC) Bill McKay Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) Cyndi Twite Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) (David Evans & Associates) Greg Haffner Project Manager (WH Pacific) Ron Larson Project Manager (Region 1, Beaverton Office) Glenn Kruger Project Coordinator (Region 1, Beaverton Office) Tony Nguyen Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) (Region 1, Beaverton Office) - 9 -

14 Successful Practices Commendations Commendation 1: The State is commended for their Technician Certification Program including their partnership with the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon and Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association. Joint state and industry training helps foster uniformity and trust. Commendation 2: The State is commended for the annual meeting for the Quality Control Compliance Specialist (QCCS) including both ODOT and consultant employees. This face to face meeting facilitates the sharing of ideas and networking among the individuals that administer the program on a daily basis. Commendation 3: The State is commended for reviewing and updating the Independent Assurance (IA) tolerances. Reviewing and updating the IA tolerances helps improve material quality. Commendation 4: The State is commended for researching subject areas to improve the program such as: Review of the Oregon Department of Transportation Specification and Pay Factors for Asphalt Concrete Pavements, David Newcomb, John Epps and Bailey Hewes, Draft Report, Texas Transportation Institute; Investigating Premature Pavement Failure Due to Moisture, Final Report, SPR- 632, Todd Schultz, Oregon State University; Analysis of QA Procedures at the Oregon Department of Transportation, Final Report, SR-650, David Sillars, Oregon State University. Commendation 5: The State is commended for their internal audits of the QA program that are conducted by ODOT Audit Services. Ex: Construction Quality Assurance Follow-Up Audit; Report No : All Recommendations Implemented or in Progress

15 Observations and Recommendations Observations and Recommendations Opportunities for Improvement (In Priority Order): Observation 1: ODOT samples and tests asphalt mixtures at a frequency of 10% of the contractor s quality control (QC) tests. Contractors QC tests are conducted at a frequency of 1 per 1,000 tons. This is one of the lowest frequencies of any State DOT when contractor s tests are used in the acceptance decision. More verification sampling and testing is needed. For averaged sized projects with a minimum frequency of 10% of the QC samples, there are not enough QA samples taken to make a conclusion about the material being placed on the project. Based on the Analysis of QA Procedures at the Oregon Department of Transportation, Final Report, SR-650 as shown on Tables 4.2 and 4.3, there is an increased risk of improper payment. Additionally, this is demonstrated in Appendix G of the Optimal Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications, FHWA-RD The majority of states have a QC frequency of 1 per 1,000 tons similar to ODOT and the current QC frequency is acceptable. Some examples of frequency of verification tests include: State Ratio of Verification to QC Tests California 1:3 Kansas 1:4 Florida 1:4 South Dakota 1:5 Wisconsin 1:5 Recommendation 1: For asphalt mixtures ODOT should increase the minimum number of IA/verification tests from 10% of the QC tests to a minimum of seven total per project to increase the likelihood of detecting a material difference. It should be noted that the current testing frequency will not need to be changed for larger projects. Observation 2: ODOT validates the contractors results by checking the Independent Assurance (IA)/verification results with the specification limits. An IA check is also conducted by splitting a sample and using a tolerance to compare ODOT s IA/verification result with the contractor s portion

16 The IA/verification tests are done at a rate of 10% of the contractors QC tests. The current process does not impact the contract payment if the contractors QC results significantly vary from the IA/verification test results. There is no statistical validation of the contractors QC results through methods such as F&T. There is a potential bias in test results between the contractors results and ODOT s results that can result in an improper payment due to the lack of proper validation. States that validate contractor results through F&T or other means report contractors have welcomed the validation. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, item #12. Recommendation 2: ODOT should pool test results and use the F&T statistical analysis of results to provide statistical validation on each test used in the pay factor to ensure accuracy of tests used for payment. Observation 3: ODOT typically samples asphalt mixtures at the plant between the drag slat conveyor and bucket elevator. The current sampling method allows the contractor to know when the IA/verification test will be taken before the mixture is produced. This creates an increased potential that non-representative mixtures will be sampled and tested for the validation and acceptance processes. Recommended sampling locations should be near the paver as part of a change from a process control system to an acceptance control system. Sampling near the paver would capture material variability caused by transportation and placement. About half of the states sample asphalt mixture near the paver, even more commonly amongst those states west of the Mississippi River. Oregon DOT is the only State that samples asphalt mixture in the plant. The rest of the States that sample asphalt mixture at the plant do so randomly from loaded trucks. Adequate steps can be put in place to maintain a safe work site. Sampling near the paver will also identify concerns with mix quality and constructability issues. A number of States have implemented a sampling certification so that contractor staff involved in the laydown and compaction operations can take the samples. In other states, this has allowed a reduction in state staff involved in asphalt mixture sampling since project staff can oversee the sampling procedure. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, items #14a and #24. Recommendation 3: ODOT should change the sampling location for IA/verification samples to a location near the paver. A location near the paver would allow the sampling to better represent the material that is being used on the project. Observation 4: ODOT s process for accepting pavement quality with smoothness testing does not include verification testing. Verification samples need to be taken independently of the contractor s samples as described in CFR (a)(1)(ii)(b). In order for the contractor s results to be

17 included in the acceptance decision, validation procedures with ODOT s results need to be developed. Procedures may include: a. Use of profiler equipment certifications (ODOT has an acceptable practice); b. Profiler operator certifications (ODOT has an acceptable practice); c. Validation of the contractor s results with ODOT s results. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, item #13. Recommendation 4: ODOT should obtain verification samples and develop validation procedures for smoothness test results. As a first step, ODOT could check several projects using the high speed profilometer that is used for the Pavement Management System. In the long-term, ODOT should have equipment available to verify smoothness results on a routine basis. An Implementation Plan should be developed to identify the timeline for implementing verification testing for smoothness on every Federal-aid project that includes pavement smoothness as a pay factor. Some examples of verification testing for smoothness can be obtained from Illinois DOT and Colorado DOT. Suggested Implementation Plan Year 2014: Minimum of 1 project per Region Year 2015: Minimum of 2 projects per Region Year 2016: 50% of all projects Year 2017: 75% of all projects Year 2018: Complete implementation Observation 5: The majority of contractors are routinely getting nearly the maximum bonus (1.05) on their asphalt production. ODOT is encouraged to refine and strengthen the percent within limits (PWL) acceptance specification for hot-mix asphalt. If all contractors achieve a bonus close to 1.05, there is really no distinction between the contractors with average versus outstanding process control. A statewide average bonus should realistically be around 1.01 to The contractors that are able to achieve a bonus of 1.05 would then be able to use the confidence in their process to give them a competitive edge at the time of bidding, resulting more meaningful bonuses. The current specification limits are wider than most other state specifications. If revised specification limits are implemented based on ODOT project data, a PWL of 75 will not require that the material be removed and replaced

18 The current specification averages the individual nuclear density results for each sublot and uses the sublot average in the PWL calculation. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, items #11 and #23. Training on PWL is available from the National Highway Institute. The FHWA Resource Center has a PWL Workshop available as well. Recommendation 5: ODOT should strengthen their PWL acceptance specification to better distinguish between the contractors with good and outstanding processes by reevaluating the specification limits using ODOT project data. ODOT should use the individual nuclear density readings in the PWL calculation since using the sublot average has resulted in lowering the specification limit by 1%. Analysis or a research project should be conducted to reevaluate current specification limits based on current project data. Observation 6: There is no security of the retained (3 rd party) samples that are in the possession of the contractor. Split samples of each quality control test are used for dispute resolution, investigation, or backup samples. The contractor has possession of these samples and as a result ODOT cannot confirm the security of the samples. These samples may be manipulated by the contractor or replaced by known passing material. As specification limits are revised based on project data and implementation of these recommendations, there could be an increase in disputes. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, item #25. Recommendation 6: ODOT should either: Take immediate possession of the samples; or Secure the samples in a manner that cannot be manipulated by the contractor. Observation 7: The field mixed, lab compacted air voids are not included in the acceptance and payment of hot-mix asphalt. Currently, ODOT uses quality characteristics of asphalt content (26%), gradation (26%), moisture content (8%), and field mixed, field compaction (40%) to pay for the hot-mix asphalt. Long-term performance of hot-mix asphalt pavements has been shown to be correlated to the field mixed, lab compacted air voids. There is often little or no correlation of the long-term performance to the gradation. Approximately 40 states use field mixed, lab compacted air voids as part of a pay factor. The portion of the pay equations for gradation could be removed and replaced with the field mixed, lab compacted air voids

19 Repeatability concerns with field mixed, lab compacted air voids are being addressed on a national basis. Some of the areas being investigated include type of gyratory, mold diameter, and internal angle. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, item #9a. Recommendation 7: ODOT should modify the elements of their composite pay factor for hot-mix asphalt to include the field mixed, lab compacted air voids. Observation 8: ODOT generates a great deal of testing data as part of their Quality Assurance Program that is not readily available to project staff. Electronic data collection and analysis tools will allow ODOT staff to store and statistically analyze test result data electronically. This will assist with the project and programmatic use of the data. It would be easier to implement proper validation and comparisons of test results with an electronic data base. Further, this will allow for efficient analysis to develop and refine the Quality Assurance Program s procedures and tolerances. This is a carryover from the 2005 report, items #14a, #15a and #19. Options for developing an electronic data system for project data include: 1. The Laboratory Information Material System (LIMS) that is used in the central lab could be enhanced to include the field data. 2. An off the shelf system like AASHTOWare Project SiteManager Recommendation 8: ODOT should develop or implement an electronic data collection and analysis tool to more effectively use test result data

20 Conclusion The review looked at the Asphalt Pavement components of the Quality Assurance Program at ODOT with an emphasis on the validation and use of contractor quality control (QC) test data used in ODOT s acceptance decisions. Asphalt Pavement is typically the highest dollar value bid item on projects and considered the highest risk item for overpayment and long term performance. The Team developed eight recommendations to assist ODOT in improving the asphalt pavement quality assurance program. Recommendation 1: For asphalt mixtures ODOT should increase the minimum number of Independent Assurance (IA)/ Verification tests from the current 10% of the QC tests to a minimum of seven per project, to increase the likelihood of detecting a difference in the QC test results and the IA/Verification test results. It should be noted that the current testing frequency will not need to be changed for larger projects. Recommendation 2: ODOT should pool test results and use the F&T statistical analysis of results to provide validation on each test used in the pay factor to ensure that the contractors perform accurate testing. Recommendation 3: ODOT should change the sampling location for IA/Verification samples to a location near the paver. Recommendation 4: ODOT should obtain verification samples and develop validation procedures for smoothness test results. As a first step, ODOT could check several projects using the high speed profilometer that is used for the Pavement Management System. Long-term, ODOT should have equipment available to verify smoothness results on Federal-aid projects that use smoothness as a pay factor. Recommendation 5: ODOT should reevaluate the limits used in the percent within limits (PWL) acceptance specification. This would allow ODOT to better distinguish between good processes and outstanding processes. Recommendation 6: To ensure the security of the retained samples, ODOT should either: Take immediate possession of the samples; or Secure the samples in a manner that the samples cannot be manipulated by the contractor. Recommendation 7: ODOT should modify the elements of their composite pay factor for hot-mix asphalt to include the field mixed, lab compacted air voids

21 Recommendation 8: ODOT should develop or implement an electronic data collection and analysis tool to more effectively use test result data. The Review Team determined that the staff assigned to conduct acceptance testing is adequately trained and qualified. ODOT, in conjunction with industry, is providing quality training with certifications. The review team also identified four successful practices

22 Action Plan ODOT should respond to this report within 90 days of receipt, with expected actions or justification for current practice. FHWA will check on a yearly basis on updates to the above recommendations and report this to FHWA management

23 Appendix A The following is a list of items from the Quality Assurance (QA) Review of the Oregon Department of Transportation in The numbers reflect the same numbers on the 2005 report: 9. The State is commended for investigating, and strongly encouraged to move toward the use of, the following items: a. Air voids in the acceptance and payment of hot mix asphalt. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, see Observation 7. b. Control on the initial production lot to ensure compliance of the specifications and the contractor s ability to adequately produce, place, sample, and test the mix. Resolved. ODOT is working with the contractor on the initial production, c. Use of cores for acceptance and payment by leaving the nuclear gage as a quality control tool. Still an issue; but not sufficiently high priority to place in the 2013 plan. 10. The State is commended for their research program underway to determine the cause of the recent premature asphalt failures. As an example, there is a study underway on the pro-active use of lime antistrip. Resolved 11. The State is commended for their use of, and strongly encouraged to continue refining and strengthening, their percent within limits (PWL) acceptance specification. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, see Observation Validation of the contractor test results needs to be strengthened. a. The State needs to provide standard guidance for validating the contractor s test results with the State s verification test results. We recommend using a statistically based method of comparing the State s test results to the contractors test results with the F-test & t-test. Carry over to 2013 recommendations. ODOT is working on proposal to implement for mix and density F-test & t-test comparisons

24 b. The State needs to increase the use of independent samples that are taken above the number that is indicated in the current procedures (10%) and provide an independent evaluation of the test data. Carry over to 2013 recommendations. 13. Improve the validation procedures of the contractor s results for smoothness. a. Use of profiler certifications. Resolved. ODOT started profiler certifications last summer. b. Lock outs on electronics so that data cannot be manipulated. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation 4. c. Validation by State. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation 4. ODOT checked three projects last summer and will add more next year. 14. Validation of the contractor test results needs to be strengthened. a. We recommend that the samples are taken from the roadway. If not from the roadway, than another suggestion is to sample from the truck at the plant. When a QAT arrives at the plant they can immediately pull the next truck out of line to sample. This discourages a contractor from attempting to make mix modifications at the plant while the QAT is setting up and preparing to sample from the plant discharge. In essence, the QAT is no longer announcing their intent to sample with their arrival at the plant site. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation 3. b. We recommend providing the QCCSs with electronic data collection and analysis tools to allow them to validate test results and compare test results more effectively. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation 8. c. We recommend the roles and responsibilities of the QCCS position be revisited to increase the efficiency and productivity of the position. Some of the QCCS responsibilities could be shifted to the QAT or project inspectors. Resolved

25 d. Include succession planning for QCCS, etc. Resolved. The succession plan varies from Project Manager to Project Manager; each PM has developed his/her own program. State is conducting annual QCCS meetings. 15. Several improvements should be made to the Quality Assurance program. a. We recommend the State develop electronic data collection and analysis tools to more effectively use test result data Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation 8. b. The State should consider moving the comparison of test results and resolution of discrepancies away from the Project Manager s chain of command. Not changed, ODOT will be leaving the program as it is. Still an issue, but not high enough priority to place in the 2013 plan. 16. Several improvements should be made to the Independent Assurance (IA) program. a. We recommend developing a standard method for documenting, analyzing and comparing IA data. Resolved b. The tolerances that are used for comparing IA test results should be examined; particularly the Gmm. Resolved 17. Timely resolution of discrepancies in IA, specification, compliance, and validation need to be documented and included in the project files. Resolved. ODOT uses the Form 4040 to document the faster resolution. 18. The State should establish a specified periodic re-evaluation for each product that appears on the Qualified Products List. a. Higher risk products may need to have additional validation and higher test frequencies. Resolved, ODOT on a yearly basis will reevaluate higher risk products

26 19. The State is encouraged to develop a process to store and statistically analyze test result data electronically and use this analysis to develop and refine the Quality Assurance procedures and tolerances. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation The State is encouraged to reevaluate the smoothness specification requirements to ensure the present parameters are acceptable. a. Reduce the amount of exclusion areas to improve ride in those areas. Still an issue, but not high enough priority to place in the 2013 plan. b. Ride bonus - ensure a bonus is only provided for superior ride quality and don t allow the majority of contractors (regardless of quality) to achieve the full ride bonus. Still an issue, but not high enough priority to place in the 2013 plan. c. Balance the material quality and payment with the smoothness quality and payment so contractors won t put emphasis on solely one or the other during production and laydown. Still an issue, but not high enough priority to place in the 2013 plan. State has gone to the IRI system of pavement smoothness from the PI in system. ODOT is starting a smoothness testing validation program. 21. The State is encouraged to have the Central Office assess the QA Program s consistent implementation statewide. Resolved with annual QCCS meeting. 22. We recommend the State require the QC technicians to certify each of their test results. As an example, most states require a certification (i.e. statement) for the technician s signature to indicate that the report reflects the actual test results obtained. Resolved 23. The majority of contractors are routinely getting full bonus (1.05) on their asphalt production. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation

27 24. The QATs are announcing their sampling of the mix to the contractor by arriving on site, making contact with the plant QC technician and then sampling from the plant discharge. This allows time for a contractor to make changes to the mix production and transition to a different mix by the time it is sampled by the QC technician. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation The security of the retained (3rd party) sample possession by the contractor. The possession and storage of retained 3rd party samples or dispute resolution/backup samples should be taken immediately by the Agency. Manipulation of the samples or replacement by known passing material could occur when the contractor takes possession of the samples. Carry over to 2013 recommendations, See Observation Accumulation of additional QC samples or test results that may be selected and used for payment or substituted for failing test results should not be allowed regardless of whether the PM/QAT and contractor agree to this beforehand. Resolved 27. Lack of a timely response and resolution of discrepancies and failing test results. Resolved. ODOT uses the Form 4040 to document the faster resolution. 28. The construction staffs apparent lack of confidence of the QA test results. Resolved 29. The FHWA Division Office requested a QA program for precast and prestressed concrete items and is waiting for this information. Resolved. ODOT has QA program for precast and prestressed concrete items

28 Oregon Division Report prepared by: Oregon FHWA Division Office 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, Oregon FAX: For additional copies of this report, contact us