Tag: INDOT

ICI and INDOT Team Up to Keep You Safe

Posted on by admin_ici

Ashley Aiken, ICI Manager of Safety & Transportation Issues, had a successful collaboration meeting on July 16 with the INDOT Utilities and Railroad Division regarding steps we can take to ensure safety for the industry in the field during construction. We specifically addressed the recent concerns involving unmarked utilities. The team, led by Director Michael Jett, is committed to making safety a top priority. Additionally, the INDOT team plans to send representatives to future ICI safety meetings to hear directly from the field with a goal to relay any trends and messages back to their utility coordinators.

Aiken will be attending the bi-annual INDOT Utilities and Railroad Peer Group and Consultant meetings in the fall and will share ICI’s mission and best practices. The INDOT team has expressed its desire to help in any way possible to mitigate risks involved during utility and railroad coordination. We are confident that our partnership will continue to grow and look forward to future collaborations.

INDOT Payroll Procedure Change

Posted on by Dan Osborn
Source: Indiana Department of Transportation

CPMS Manual

019 | Contractor Payroll Management Solution

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I would like to introduce you to your new Contractor Payroll Management Solution, or CPMS. Say goodbye to hundreds of payroll emails, printing to PDF, and the SiteManager attachment process. No more confusion as to whether payroll has been required, received, or reviewed. As of July, new payroll will be entered by your Prime into CPMS. (Any payroll prior to July 1 will need to be entered the previous way.)

The new visual interface will use data entered into DWRs by your field personnel to determine which contractors were working and when. Your contracts and all approved contractors will show up when you log in, and which required payrolls have yet to be received. The more accurate your DWRs the better, as CPMS will hold your Prime, sub, and even trucking payrolls; so instruct your HTs to be thorough, and if they miss something, feel free to override. Additionally, it is still on the Prime contractor to upload payrolls, whether CPMS has marked it or not.

Feel free to look through the CPMS Manual and familiarize yourself with the interface, as, barring any last-minute setbacks, the system is planned to be ready for July 1, 2019.

A separate manual is available for contractors, as the Payroll will be managed by your Prime. This manual is available here, please feel free to forward it on to your Prime.

Updates on this project, Construction Management, and other resources are available on our SharePoint. And as always, feel free to email us with any questions or other comments. Together, we will make this coming year the best yet.

Thank you,

Kenneth Gootee
Construction Management, Operations Analyst
100 N. Senate Ave, IGCN Suite 925-CM
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Form FHWA-1273

Posted on by Andria Hine

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently completed a review of a sample number of subcontracts executed for performance on federally funded Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) highway contracts. FHWA found that a significant number of contracts did not contain form FHWA-1273, Required Contract Provisions, Federal-Aid Construction Contracts. This form must be physically incorporated into subcontract agreements as required per federal regulation 23 CFR 633.102 (e). Section (e) language is shown below:

(e) The contractor shall insert in each subcontract, except as excluded by law or regulation, the required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA-1273 and further require their inclusion in any lower tier subcontract that may in turn be made. The required contract provisions of Form FHWA-1273 shall not be incorporated by reference in any case. The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the requirements contained in the provisions of Form FHWA-1273.

Prime contractors may insert the language of form FHWA-1273 into the body of their subcontract document or include a statement requiring compliance to the form contents with a reference to a subcontract attachment. Prime contractors may not reference the form only or reference an external link to the form.

INDOT appreciates your compliance effort.

If you have questions, please contact ICI’s Dan Osborn at (317) 634-7547.

INDOT: Important Prequalification Update

Posted on by Andria Hine
Chris Serak, Prequalification Director, Ethics Officer, Indiana Department of Transportation (317) 234-2215

Thursday, November 8, 2018

INDOT Contractors:

The prequalification division is undergoing changes, all geared toward making the process of becoming prequalified simpler, more accessible, and eventually, more affordable. I apologize in advance for the length of this message,  but it is important that you read it in full, as it includes information about several important changes to the contractor prequal process.

Revised Statement Form

First, we have obtained approval for a revised Statement of Contractor’s Experience and Financial Condition. The new form is attached, including revised instructions on page 5 and 6. Our objective was to make the application process simpler by reforming aspects of the document that most commonly create problems for contractors.

We eliminated the affidavits from the Organization sections, including for both the certified minutes and business entity type. Now applicants are only required to list the Company’s officers/members/partners and individuals authorized to sign on page 22, and where applicable, to identify the Company’s representative businesses and representative businesses authorized to sign for the Company on page 23. The revised pages are in the form of certified minutes, but do not require individual affidavits. With regard to business entity type, applicants are only required to list their business entity type on page 1. There is no separate business entity type affidavit.

Beyond the certificate of review and certificate of audit contained pages 8 and 9, which have not been changed, only one signature of the Company is required on the revised Statement (page 24). This signature both certifies the minutes contained on pages 22 and 23, and attests to the truthfulness of the information contained in the remaining Statement. The notary requirement has also been eliminated. The Statement must only be signed an individual who is duly authorized to sign for the Company, and in turn, designated as familiar with the Company’s books and records. This person should listed on page 22 as someone authorized to sign for the Company.

The new Statement can be used immediately. As introduced below, submittal of the Statement must be done electronically beginning January 1, 2019. The Statement is a fillable PDF and can be completed on your computer and uploaded to the ITAP application as outlined in the attached User Training Document.

New ITAP Application

In order to eliminate paper, and to enable a more efficient review process, we have launched the Contractor Prequalification Application (CPQ) in ITAP. Please enroll your firm with ITAP immediately, if you have not already done so. You must first enroll the firm, and then register each individual who will use the application. Instructions for enrollment and registration are contained on the attached User Training Document, and also linked to on page 5 of the revised Statement.

Once you have enrolled your business and individual users, you must request access to the Contractor Prequalification Application in ITAP. Instructions for requesting access to CPQ are provided in the attached User Training Document and outlined in the instructions on page 5 of the attached Statement.

After access to CPQ is approved, you can use the Multiple File Upload Tool (MUFT) to upload electronic copies of your firm’s new or renewal Statement, request for modification, and request for reconsideration. Instructions for using the MUFT are provided in the attached User Training Document and outlined in the instructions on page 5 of the attached Statement.

Beginning January 1, 2019, please use the MUFT in CPQ to submit all new and renewal statements, requests for modification, and requests for reconsideration. The prequalification division will work with you to make the submittal process as efficient as possible. Please contact myself or Jose with questions about using the CPQ. We very much appreciate your buy-in as we roll out an electronic submittal process.

Development of Full Online Application Module for Contractors

The MUFT in CPQ will serve as the interim mechanism for electronic submittal of documents as we develop a fully integrated online module for contractor prequalification. We will be providing more information regarding the electronic module, including online and in-person training, when we are closer to launch. Our goal is to have a beta version ready for testing by the start of 2020, and the full application module online by the end of the year. But if development goes as well as it has to date, we could launch by the spring of 2020.

Either way, the prequalification division will be working closely with ICI to ensure the module is the best it can be, accounting for the needs, concerns, and general input of the contractor community. You can always call or email a member of the prequal team to discuss this process and provide individual input.

Revised Prequalification Process for Over-height Vehicle Escorts

Here forward firms wishing only to serve as escorts for over-height vehicles traveling through Indiana, can obtain prequalification for the new Work Type 0213, Over-height Vehicle Escort. To obtain this work type a firm must only complete the general business information on page 1 of the Statement, and submit evidence that the firm has the required certifications. Firms that have Work Type E(a) may continue to serve as over-height vehicle escorts without obtaining the new Work Type 0213. See the attached Escort Prequalification Memo for complete information.

Roadside Maintenance Contracting

INDOT is now contracting for most roadside maintenance work. Currently, INDOT is planning to let around fifty (50) contracts for such work, worth approx. $20M. The average value per contract is between $200-500K. Please see the attached Roadside Maintenance Contracting Memo for more details, including the work types under which this work will be let, which include the new Work Type 0189, Litter and Debris Removal.

New Approach to Regulating Prequalification Status & Introduction to the Contractor Prequal Team

Lastly, as many of you have probably heard or experienced, the prequalification division is undertaking a more proactive approach to regulating contractor prequalification at the time of renewal and during the term of a certificate. The singular goal is to facilitate the best partnership possible between INDOT and the industry- NOT to eliminate partnerships. Punitive measures will continue to be a very last resort, but will be exercised where appropriate. Our first step will always be to open a dialogue, and to bring contractors together with INDOT construction personnel to discuss perceived performance issues. These meetings are a forum for discussion, never a firing squad. I can give you my personal assurance I will never allow a meeting to turn into the latter. That said, you can also rest assured I will not tolerate blame shifting and/or combative attitudes. I spent the last six (6) years as a trial attorney in private and public practice. In that role, my job was to facilitate reasonable compromise, and where that wasn’t possible, advocate vigorously for my client in the courtroom. I bring that same mentality to my role as Prequalification Director, with my first instinct always to seek common ground and to mediate a reasonable conclusion, with the best interest of both sides in the driver seat. 99 times out of 100, that best interest is a continued, but strengthened, partnership.

While I may sometimes be the voice for the team, it is the individual members that bring the expertise necessary to accomplish our mission. Our Prequalifications Engineer, Jose Murillo, is a licensed professional engineer, with extensive private practice experience as a designer. Jose has been in the field his whole career and vets all new and renewal applications, as well as all potential prequalification matters. Jose uses his expertise to ensure firms are awarded an appropriate prequalification status, and to identify problems on project sites as they arise. Greg Christoff is our Prequalification Auditor. He has vast experience as a comptroller for private construction firms. He uses that knowledge and experience in the industry to audit the financial information of firms to ensure the appropriate work capacity is awarded and maintained. Greg will be performing regular desk audits of firms during the term of a certificate to identify financial and affiliation issues, including the need to raise or lower a firm’s aggregate or work type rating.  You may receive requests for information from Greg throughout the duration of your certificate. Aggie Wagoner is our Prequalification Specialist. She has extensive experience with INDOT and knows how things work bureaucratically. Aggie also manages the logistical aspects of the Prequalification Committee and helps build and track contractor matters. Aggie’s attention to detail and organization are critical to the division. We are currently looking for a new Prequalification Analyst, as our previous analyst, Fred Bartlett, recently retired.

Please feel free to reach out to Jose, Aggie, Greg, or myself to discuss the above, or anything related to prequal.

Chris

NEW Contractors Statement of Experience and Financial Condition (Fillable PDF).pdf
User Training Document for ITAP and CPQ.pdf
Escort Prequalification memo 10-31-2018.pdf
Roadside Contracting Memo.pdf

 

INDOT Standards Committee Actions Update – September 2018

Posted on by Dan Osborn
Summary prepared by Indiana Constructors, Inc. Staff

Effective Date Range: Jan. 1, 2018 to Sept. 1, 2018

 

 SECTION 100

SECTION – 108.01 Unapproved Sub-Contractors

Issue: We have received questions from several district construction staff about payment for work performed by unapproved sub-contractors. This issue has been discussed at length and we feel we do not have legal footing to not pay for acceptable work performed by unapproved sub-contractors per our current specification. Therefore clarification is needed in section 108 of the Standard Specifications to allow for nonpayment of work done by unapproved subs.

Solution: Incorporate the necessary revisions to 108 to ensure that the standard specifications are correct and consistent with current field practice.

RSP: 108-C-260
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION – 108.09 Failure to Complete on Time

Issue: The Department’s current liquidated damages rates schedule has not been updated in near a decade and therefore not in compliance with 23 CFR 635.127 which require INDOT to review the rates at least every 2 years and provide updated rates to FHWA for approval.

Solution: The objective of the effort is to establish new liquidated damages rates that closely approximates the actual average daily CE costs associated with the size of the projects in the state. A study was performed between FHWA and the Department by which a new schedule was derived and agreed upon.

RSP: 108-C-260 
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

SECTION 200

SECTIONS 207 and 214 – Subgrade and Geosynthetic Confining System

Issue: Section 207 – Subgrade has a number of issues. There has been a lack of clarity on the subgrade soils requirements, and no requirement for proofrolling currently exists. Also, there is confusion about the intended scope of payment for items included in other pay items such as geotextile. A need for a geosynthetic confining system for certain subgrade treatment types has been identified.

Solution: Subgrade soil requirements and subgrade treatment types have been placed into a table. Editorial changes have been made throughout to organize the construction specifications. A requirement for proofrolling has been added. A Geosynthetic confining system has been added to certain subgrade treatment types, and edits to section 214 have been made accordingly.

RSP: 207-R-669 and 214-R-670 
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

SECTION 300 (NO ITEMS)

SECTION 400

SECTION 401.18(c) – Smoothness Correction

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: To clarify the intent of the bump correction specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches.

RSP: 400-R-667 and 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 410 – QC/QA HMA, SMA Pavement

Issue: When determining bulk specific gravity, SMA specs still require AASHTO T 275 (Paraffin) to be used when the percent water absorbed exceeds 2.0. Recently the 401 and 402 specs have been changed to AASHTO T 331 (Corelok). There are also a few other minor edits that were made in the 401 section that should be made in the 410 section

Solution: Revise language in 410 to require AASHTO T 331 for testing consistency and match revisions in the 401 section.

RSP: 410-R-667
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2017

 

SECTION 406 – Tack Coat Application

Issue: Tack coat application consistency varies widely in the field. Best practices are routinely not followed as evidenced by the commonly seen “corn rows”. It was noticed that the 406 section is lacking in basic direction regarding cleaning and uniformity of application.

Solution: Revise language for clarification and consistency

RSP: 406-R-676
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 1, 2018

SECTION 500

SECTION 501.25 – Pavement Smoothness

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: In order to clarify the intent of the bump correction specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, any potential rounding of bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches. This range is more in line with the original intent of the bump grinding specification.

RSP: 400-R-667 and 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 501.25(c) – Pavement Smoothness

Issue: The grinding of current pavement bumps over 0.3 inches, as identified by profilograph traces, has been questioned as to whether it is intended to include a range between 0.25 inches to 0.34 inches due to the presumed Department rounding range.

Solution: In order to clarify the intent of the bump correction Specification, the significant digits for a pavement bump will be increased and will be represented as 0.30 rather than 0.3. With this revision, any potential rounding of bump corrections would range from 0.295 to 0.304 inches. This range is more in line with the original intent of the bump grinding specification.

RSP: 501-R-668
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 502.04 – PCCP, Slump

Issue: Mix workability is an ongoing struggle for applications that involve concrete delivered via ready mix trucks. INDOT specifications generally limit slump to four inches, but contractors prefer a slump of approximately five inches to ease placement and finishing. Contractors typically add water to the mix on-site in order to improve the workability. However, adding water after batching is high risk to INDOT since it increases the water-cement ratio of the batch which may exceed the specification limit resulting in poor durability and can also create non-uniform mixtures. Sprinkling water to the surface of concrete for finishing is also highly detrimental because it significantly increases the water-cement ratio which creates a much less durable wearing surface and promotes scaling. The current slump restrictions promote conflict at the jobsite to police the addition of water to both the delivery truck and to the surface of the plastic concrete for finishing. However, it is extremely difficult for INDOT project personnel to continuously monitor and control the addition of water.

Solution: There is nothing inherently detrimental about using properly designed concrete mixes with moderately higher slump than is currently allowed by the specification. Ready mix concrete suppliers have the ability to chemically modify concrete slump with admixtures. This does not increase the water-cement ratio, but improves workability and finishability. Increasing the allowable slump will permit mix producers to properly design and supply mixes that are workable as delivered. This will dramatically reduce the contractor’s incentive to modify the mixes at the jobsite by adding water.

RSP: 502-R-678
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2018

 

SECTION 503.06 – PCCP, Random Crack Remediation

Issue: Section 503.06 provides the remedies for random cracking in PCCP. The spec is currently too permissive in the repairs available for longitudinal cracking that is more than 18” outside of the longitudinal joint. The reasoning is that within 18” of the longitudinal joint cracks will be held tight by the tie steel, but outside of 18” there is no steel to restrain the cracks. It is also difficult to determine the actual cause of cracks outside of 18 inches. Therefore, repairs such as stitching may not provide an adequate long-term solution and the pavement may not survive the design life without excessive maintenance.

Solution: Require remove and replace as the only repair option for longitudinal and skewed cracks in pavement that are more than 18 inches from the longitudinal joint.

RSP: 503-R-671
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

SECTION 600

SECTIONS 601, 911.02(f) and 926.03 – Guardrail, Treated Lumber and Alternate Material Guardrail Blocks

Issue: The transition to MGS w-beam as the Department standard for guardrail supports the AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Agreement for installing MASH-compliant safety hardware. The MGS w-beam guardrail standard drawings were approved as revised during the May 2017. Standards Committee meeting (RPD 601-R-658d). Revisions to the Standard Specifications were not included. Revisions to SS section 601 are necessary to add the MGS w-beam guardrail and to differentiate it, where necessary, from the current strong-post w-beam guardrail. MGS w-beam guardrail system uses the same components as the current strong-post w-beam guardrail – w-beam rail section, assembly bolts, steel or timber post, timber or composite blockout. However, the MGS w-beam guardrail assembly makes the system distinctly different.

Solution: Revise the Standard Specifications sections 601, 911.02, and 926.03 to complement the MGS w-beam standard drawings and the July 1, 2018 (letting) sunset date for guardrail end treatments. “MGS w-beam guardrail” is used to differentiate the system from “w-beam guardrail” in both the specification and the pay items.

Section 601 revisions:

  •  Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Revise “wood” to “timber” to be consistent with MGS system FHWA eligibility letter and standard drawing callouts.
  • Add “MGS w-beam guardrail” into the section and distinguish its use (where appropriate) from “w-beam guardrail”.
  • Add sunset date when the 27 3/4” end treatment cannot longer be substituted for a 31” guardrail end treatment. [Prior to July 1, 2018: NCHRP 350 compliant, 31-in. or 27 ¾-in. plus height transition. After July 1, 2108: MASH compliant, 31-in only.]
  • Add requirement for the contractor to provide the manufacturer’s FHWA eligibility letter for both end treatments and impact attenuators. Update language to “NCHRP 350 or MASH”. The approved materials list will control whether devices have been crash tested under NCHRP 350 or MASH.
  • Revise method of measurement and basis of payment, and add MGS pay items.

Section 911.02(d) revisions:

  • Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Add language that restricts the use of a timber post for w-beam guardrail and explicitly allows steel or timber for MGS w-beam guardrail. [The w-beam guardrail did not pass MASH with timber posts. The w-beam guardrail did pass MASH with steel posts but the w-beam rail element tore.]

Section 926.03 revisions

  • Revise “block” to “blockout” to be consistent with MASH terminology.
  • Update language to “NCHRP 350 or MASH”.
  • Revise certification requirements to providing an FHWA eligibility letter. IDM sections 49-4.0 thru 49-9.0 are under review and will be provided at a later date.

RSP: 601-R-660
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: July 19, 2017

 

SECTION 601 – Guardrail

Issue: The transition to MGS w-beam as the Department standard for guardrail supports the AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Agreement for installing MASH-compliant safety hardware. The MGS w-beam guardrail standard drawings were approved as revised during the May 2017 committee meeting (RPD 601-R-658d). The MGS Long-Span is detailed on sheet 8 of the approved RPD 601-R-658d. The minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT post is shown to be included with the MGS Long-Span, Type 1 and Type 2 for both the detail and the pay item. For designer and construction clarity, we believe the pay item for MGS Long-Span should only run between the outermost CRT posts and the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the MGS Long-Span should be paid for separately. The minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT post, may also include a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, or transition. By separating the MGS Long-Span and minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail into two pay items, it should clarify that guardrail end treatments, terminal end anchors, and transitions are paid for as each, even though they may be included in the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail.

Solution: Revise sheet 8 of the approved RPD 601-R-658d by: Changing the following description, “MGS Standard Post Spacing” to “Minimum MGS w-beam guardrail”. The minimum length given on the sheet is not for MGS standard post spacing (6′-3″) but for a minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail which could include a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, transition, or an omitted post in accordance with RDP 601-R658d sheet 6.

  • Revising the limits of the MGS Long-Span, Type 1 and Type 2.
  •  Adding dimensions of the minimum length of MGS w-beam guardrail required upstream and downstream of the outermost CRT posts.
  • Editing the last sentence of Note 1 to state, “This length may include the length of a guardrail end treatment, terminal end anchor, or transition.
  • Removing the reference to the table in Note 1. Text added to clarify the limits of the MGS Long-Span in the RSP 601-R-660. A revision to the pay will not be required. The current pay item unit for MGS Long-Span is Each.

RSP: 601-R-658d, 601-R-660
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

 

SECTION 604 – Curb Ramp Elements

Issue: The curb ramp element depths have not been shown on previous standard drawings and are not shown on the current Standard Drawing Series 604- SWCR. In addition, the curb ramp element depths are not given in the Standard Specifications. The curb ramp element depths has been in question in the field and needs to be noted. After meeting with Greg Pankow and Rob Goldner, it was decided to include the curb ramp element depths in the current Standard Drawing Series 604-SWCR.

Solution: Revised the Standard Drawing Series 604-SWCR to include the depth of the curb ramp components, sheets 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11.

STND DWGS: 604-SWCR Series
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: N/A
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 615 – Monuments, Markers and Parking Barriers

Issue: RSP 615-R-020 WOOD POST PARKING BARRIER has a revised statement that clarifies that the cost of backfill, disposal of surplus materials and all other necessary incidentals shall be included in the cost of the pay items shown in the 615 section but due to limiting Basis for Use for this RSP “Required for all contracts with the Parking Barrier Wood Post pay item” only, this revised statement was missed in contracts with other 615 pay items.

Solution: To discontinue use of mentioned RSP and to create new with the Basis for Use to be included in contracts with any 615 pay items. Also, to be incorporated into 2020 Standard Specifications.

RSP: 615-R-666 
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 622 – Landscape Planting

Issue: Standard Drawing series 622-LSPL (Landscape Planting) do not reflect proper installation methods.

Solution: Revise the 622-LSPL Standard Drawings to provide clarification and proper installation methods.

STND DWGS: 622-LSPL-01-11
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: N/A
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 629 – Plant Growth Layer

Issue: Problems have been encountered when phosphorus within existing soils is found to be extremely low. The rates that would need to be added to the soil to bring the mixture into current acceptable range would be detrimental to newly planted vegetation. Since phosphorus is absorbed within the soil structure very slowly, there would also be an increased potential for runoff of excess phosphorus reaching bodies of water.

Solution: Reducing the acceptable range of phosphorus for topsoil mixtures from the existing 46 – 110 ppm to 20 – 80 ppm will help eliminate the detrimental effects on newly planted vegetation. Also, a limit (150 lbs. per acre per year) will be placed on the quantity of phosphorus that can be placed within a soil mixture. Both of these efforts will help eliminate the risk of excess phosphorus within new topsoil mixtures.

RSP: 629-R-630
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

SECTION 700

SECTION 702.04 – Structural Concrete, Slump

Issue: Mix workability is an ongoing struggle for applications that involve concrete delivered via ready mix trucks. INDOT specifications generally limit slump to four inches, but contractors prefer a slump of approximately five inches to ease placement and finishing. Contractors typically add water to the mix on-site in order to improve the workability. However, adding water after batching is high risk to INDOT since it increases the water-cement ratio of the batch which may exceed the specification limit resulting in poor durability and can also create non-uniform mixtures. Sprinkling water to the surface of concrete for finishing is also highly detrimental because it significantly increases the water-cement ratio which creates a much less durable wearing surface and promotes scaling. The current slump restrictions promote conflict at the jobsite to police the addition of water to both the delivery truck and to the surface of the plastic concrete for finishing. However, it is extremely difficult for INDOT project personnel to continuously monitor and control the addition of water.

Solution: There is nothing inherently detrimental about using properly designed concrete mixes with moderately higher slump than is currently allowed by the specification. Ready mix concrete suppliers have the ability to chemically modify concrete slump with admixtures. This does not increase the water-cement ratio but improves workability and finishability. Increasing the allowable slump will permit mix producers to properly design and supply mixes that are workable as delivered. This will dramatically reduce the contractor’s incentive to modify the mixes at the jobsite by adding water.

RSP: 702-R-679
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: April 19, 2018

 

SECTION 706.03 Bridge Railings

Issue: In 2017 INDOT identified significant deterioration in slip formed bridge railings and an investigation to determine the cause was conducted. Cores were taken from the railings of four bridges that were placed from 2001 to 2016. It was determined that the deterioration was advanced freeze-thaw damage that was caused by two main issues. The first issue is that the mixes used had very low slump which does not allow the mix to flow very well resulting in poor consolidation. The railing mixes also have a high cement content and are difficult to properly hydrate with a low slump. Contractors subsequently have to increase vibration and/or use less optimally graded mixes in order to place the mix and comply with the specifications. It is also difficult to adequately air entrain concrete that has very low slump and undergoes excessive vibration. The second issue is that the steel configuration in the standard drawing is very tight near the top of the railing which further restricts the flow and consolidation of concrete mixes that are already stiff. The current configuration also does not provide the cage with enough rigidity to resist movement from pressure and vibration inside the mold.

Solution: The specification currently restricts slump for slip formed railing to between 0” and 1”. When mixes are properly designed railing can be slip formed at higher slumps. Increasing the slump will allow for much better consolidation with less compaction effort. It will also allow better hydration of the cementitious materials and air entrainment. The contractors may choose to achieve the higher slump with chemical admixtures which does not change the water content, but if water is increased the mixes will still be well below the allowable maximum water-cement ratio. Contractors will still have to use mix designs that facilitate their equipment setup and provide a finished product that meets the dimensional tolerances. The slump requirements will be revised in section 706.03 for slip formed railing to 1 3/4 in ± 3/4 in. The requirement to include a water-reducing admixture in slip formed railing will be waived if the railing concrete contains silica fume in accordance with section 709.05(e). The standard drawing is being reviewed for possible changes to the steel configuration and is not part of this proposal. The spec changes in this proposal can stand on their own.

RSP: 706-B-306
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: March 15, 2018

 

SECTION 709.05(e) – Alternate to Concrete Sealers

Issue: Section 709.05(e) allows the use of an alternate concrete mix design in lieu of surface sealing for barrier rail and bridge railing. The alternate mix design must include one of two supplemental cementitious materials (SCMs), silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). The specification has been in place since the late 1990s and multiple research projects over the past few years including SPR-3104 by Frosch (2010) and SPR-3864 by Weiss (2016) have further emphasized the significant benefits of including SCMs in concrete. The benefits include reduced permeability, increased durability and reduced strains. The alternate mix option is also attractive to contractors since it eliminates an operation and they do not have to wait 28-days to apply clear sealers. The problem is that the current specification is restricted to railing.

Solution: Revise section 709.05(e) to include bridge decks, bridge approaches, pier and bent caps, and mudwalls.

RSP: 709-C-256
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 718 – Geotextiles for Underdrain

Sec 718 has been revised and there are five geotextile Types for the underdrain application and underdrain Sec 718.10. The current Pay item only has one.

RSP: 718-R-673
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

SECTION 800

SECTION 801 – Law Enforcement Officers

An RSP was approved to add a pay item to add Indiana State Law Enforcement Academy trained officers to assist with work zone safety.

RSP: 801-R-672 / 801-R-672A
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Nov. 15, 2017

 

SECTION 801 – Signs – “Next Level Roads”

Per Governor’s request, a recurring plan detail with shop drawings and typical placement locations has been generated.

SDs: 801-TCSN-02, 801-TCSN-04 and 801-TCSN-05
EFFECTIVE DATE: Jan. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 805 – Wireless Vehicle Detection System

Issue: Currently the repeaters and receiver processors for wireless vehicle detection systems cannot be mounted on a sign post. Some cost savings could be realized if sign posts were allowed to support these devices. In addition, the sign posts are much easier to move if the repeaters need to be relocated after a speed limit change or as tree growth begins to interfere with the wireless communication signal strength.

Solution: Revise the recurring special provision for wireless vehicle detection systems to allow a receiver processor or a repeater to be mounted on a sign post.

RSP: 805-T-173
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 805 – Signal Pole Foundations – Standard Drawing Correction

Issue: The standard pay items for the signal pole foundations are now based on the size of the foundation. However, the standard drawing for the signal pedestal pole foundation refers to it as a type A foundation.

Solution: Change the title of the standard drawing and add a note to reference the older terminology.

RSP: 805-SGCF-03
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 805 – Single Arm Traffic Signal Cantilever Structure – Standard Drawing Correction

Issue: Two of the dimensions in the standard drawing for a single arm traffic signal cantilever structure are incorrect. The signal arm mounting height can exceed 22 ft. but hand hole B must be 6 in. from the top cover.

Solution: Correct the dimensions on the standard drawing relating to the signal arm mounting height and hand hole B.

RSP: 805-TSCS-02
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: NO
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

SECTION 900

SECTION 902 – PCC Sealers and Healers
Issue: A frequency manual change to PG binder sampling frequency resulted in confusion as to how to handle a failed PG binder sample, because the current specification was based on daily sampling.

Solution: Revise to ensure clarity. Eliminate lot and sublot system, as it is no longer relevant. Add statement that failed test applies to week’s production.

RSP: 902-C-258
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 902.01 (a and b) – Asphalt Emulsions
Issue: There is little to no oversight in our current emulsion acceptance procedures.

Solution: Implement ITM 593 which is already in place and mimics our current approved binder supplier program.

RSP: 902-R-674
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018

 

SECTION 909.02(b) – Epoxy Intermediate Paint
Issue: Some products have a shorter pot life than currently specified in 909.

Solution: Revise to require manufacturer recommended time for pot life.

RSP: 909-C-257
EFFECTIVE DATE: Feb. 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 910.18 – Fence, Fittings and Gates
Issue: The steel laboratory at OMM performs one hundred or more tests per year on fence and fence materials that rarely fail and pose little to no risk to the Department if they do fail. This laboratory time could be better used on more critical materials. This also reduces the time spent sampling the materials in the field.

Solution: Revise 910.18 to accept all fence and fence materials by Type C Certification. A draft Frequency Manual revision is also attached.

RSP: 910-C-259
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Sept. 21, 2017

 

SECTION 918.01 – Geosynthetic Materials
Issue: Sec 918 is not clear enough regarding the Approved Material List and ITM 806. Also, minor revisions to the properties are needed to expand the current Approved Material List.

Solution: Sec. 918 been revised to include ITM 806 references to help Vendors provide correct documents for material approval. Minor revisions to the properties are included to expand the Approved Material List.

RSP: 918-R-675
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2018
2020 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: YES
APPROVED: Jan. 18, 2018