Ron Bumann Construction Practices Specialist State Aid for Local Transportation 1123 Mesaba Avenue Duluth, MN.. 55811 cell: 218/310-1644 [email protected] http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/ sect_construction.html
Mar 27, 2015
Ron Bumann
Construction Practices Specialist
State Aid for Local Transportation
1123 Mesaba Avenue
Duluth, MN.. 55811
cell: 218/[email protected]
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sect_construction.html
Mn/DOT AUDIT
STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
FISCAL YEAR 2010
SINGLE AUDIT
11 City/County Projects Audited Fiscal Year 2010
• St. Louis County $1,895,908• Cook County $3,159,060• Kittson County $809,842• Kittson County $774,234• City of St. Michael $2,153,763• City of Moorhead $17,720,630• Traverse County $1,441,828• Goodhue County $2,996,740• Steele County $3,875,394• Martin County $2,443,450• City of Richfield $25,224,918• City/County Project Total $62,495,767
FINDING 1 – ADDITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION NEEDED TO ATTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH MATERIALS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIDGE
CONCRETE AND STEEL
Certified Mill Test Reports were not obtained for 18% of the bridge structural steel valued at $4.8 million.
Monthly concrete aggregate quality testing not done.
Material passing the #200 sieve for coarse aggregate testing, required as part of aggregate quality testing, was not done.
Slump tests not taken after corrective action.
Project personnel missed concrete admixture testing for the air entraining agent and water reducer.
After receiving written instruction to ensure that the concrete was properly mixed, the Contractor continued to place concrete into the roadway that was not properly mixed.
All 4 Quality Assurance (QA) tests for material passing the #200 sieve for coarse aggregate did not meet requirements, with results ranging from 1.08 to 2.39 percent compared to the standard of 1.0 percent. All 4 Contractor Quality Control (QC) tests met requirements. Acceptance is based on QA results. Project personnel did not perform additional Quality Assurance (QA) testing required to verify corrective action taken. Project management was unaware of the tests not meeting requirements of which was identified by the audit.
Cores for thickness not taken
FINDING II – NEED TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH MATERIALS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR
PAVING CONCRETE
Questioned costs totaled $1.3 million, a significant improvement over the Fiscal Year 2009 Grading and Base Materials Control questioned costs total of $9.9 million. However, the Audit Report recommends taking appropriate action as necessary to hold responsible personnel accountable.
Bitumen Content – Sample and test prior to placement.
Quality Assurance Gradations – Review the Random Sampling Gradation Acceptance Method.
Moisture Content – Requirement of Quality Compaction, unless modified in the special provisions.
Grading & Base Reports are required to be submitted to the Grading and Base Office.
Review specifications for crushing requirements.
FINDING III – IMPROVEMENTS NOTED FOR GRADING AND BASE MATERIALS CONTROL
COMPLIANCE
Review the special provisions and Schedule of Materials Control for testing requirements.
Review the special provisions and specifications placement requirements.
FINDING IV – NEED TO COMPLY WITH MATERIALS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR STABILIZED FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION
Project personnel did not ensure that the Notification of Intent to Perform a Bridge Demolition was submitted to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 10 days prior to the start of demolition as required.
Project personnel used a “Local Bridge Replacement Program Asbestos Screening Tool” to assess asbestos for a bridge removal. The screening tool did not address other regulated materials, such as lead. The bridge materials included lead paint. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 61.145 requires an inspection prior to demolition. Minnesota Rules Chapter 4620.3 requires the inspection to be performed by a person certified by the Minnesota Department of Health.
These processes are required regardless of funding types.
Proper documentation of disposition of materials is crucial to the requirements.
FINDING V – BRIDGE AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid /index.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sa_construction.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/index.html
http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/pavement/bituminous/ bituminous.asp
% Density (2)
SP Wear, and SP Shoulder (4%
Void)
% Density (2)
SP Non-Wear, SP Shoulder (3% Void)
Mat Density Pay Factor A
Traffic Level2 & 3
Traffic Level4 & 5
93.6 and above 94.6 and above 1.03(3) 1.05(3)
93.1 – 93.5 94.1 – 94.5 1.02(3) 1.04(3)
92.0 - 93.0 93.0 - 94.0 1.00 1.0091.0 - 91.9 92.0- 92.9 0.98 0.9890.5 - 90.9 91.5 - 91.9 0.95 0.9590.0 - 90.4 91.0 - 91.4 0.91 0.9189.5 - 89.9 90.5 - 90.9 0.85 0.8589.0 - 89.4 90.0 - 90.4 0.70 0.70
Less than 89.0 Less than 90.0 (4) (4)
DRAFT / NEWTable 2360.6-B4
Payment Schedule for Maximum Mat Density
% Density (2)
Long. Joint (Confined Edge)
LJ Pay Factor B(Confined Edge)
% Density (2)
Long. Joint(Unsupported
Edge)
LJ Pay Factor C(Unsupported Edge)
Traffic Level2 & 3
Traffic Level4 & 5
Traffic Level2 & 3
Traffic Level4 & 5
92.1 and above 1.02 (3) 1.03 (3) 91.0 and above
1.02 (3) 1.03 (3)
91.6-92.0 1.01 (3) 1.02 (3) 90.1-90.9 1.01 (3) 1.02(3)
89.5-91.5 1.00 1.00 88.1-90.0 1.00 1.0088.5-89.4 0.98 0.98 87.0-88.0 0.98 0.9887.7-88.4 0.95 0.95 86.0-86.9 0.95 0.9587.0-87.6 0.91 0.91 85.0-85.9 0.91 0.91
Less than 87.0 0.85 0.85 Less than 85.0 0.85 0.85
DRAFT / NEWTable 2360.6-B4a LJ (5)
Payment Schedule for Longitudinal Joint Density
(SP Wear and SP Shoulder (4% Void)
% Density (2)
Long. Joint (Confined Edge)
LJ Pay Factor A(Confined Edge)
% Density (2)
Long. Joint(Unsupported
Edge)
LJ Pay Factor B(Unsupported Edge)
Traffic Level2 & 3
Traffic Level4 & 5
Traffic Level2 & 3
Traffic Level4 & 5
93.1 and above 1.02 (3) 1.03 (3) 92.0 and above
1.02 (3) 1.03 (3)
92.6-93.0 1.01 (3) 1.02 (3) 91.1-91.9 1.01 (3) 1.02(3)
90.5-92.5 1.00 1.00 89.1-91.0 1.00 1.0089.5-90.4 0.98 0.98 88.0-89.0 0.98 0.9888.7-89.4 0.95 0.95 87.0-87.9 0.95 0.9588.0-88.6 0.91 0.91 86.0-86.9 0.91 0.91
Less than 88.0 0.85 0.85 Less than 86.0 0.85 0.85
DRAFT / NEWTable 2360.6-B4b LJ (5)
Payment Schedule for Longitudinal Joint Density (SP Non-Wear and SP Shoulder (3% Void))
Crow Wing County
Pine County
Hubbard County - Benedict
St Louis County - Ely
St Louis - Ely
Park Rapids
Norman County
CSI – Patcher
Douglas County
City of Duluth
Clay County
Clay County
Park Rapids
Park Rapids
Pine County
Crow Wing
Crow Wing
City of Grand Rapids
Aitkin County
City of Brainerd
Deck Failure
Becker County – Detroit Lakes
City of East Grand Forks
City of East Grand Forks
Aitkin County – Hill City
City of Moorhead
City of Moorhead
Blue Earth - Mankato
Polk County – Red River
Polk County – Red River
St Louis County – Giants Ridge
Todd County - Staples