2020 IAP ANNUAL REPORT - wisconsindot.gov

2020 IAP ANNUAL REPORT

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2020 Independent Assurance Report

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Materials Evaluated ............................................................................................................................. 3

3. IA Evaluation Methods......................................................................................................................... 5

4. Certification Program........................................................................................................................... 8

5. Active Certified Technicians & Coverage Rates.................................................................................12

6. Deviations ...........................................................................................................................................16

7. Consultant IA ......................................................................................................................................28

8. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................31

Appendix A - Tracking ................................................................................................................................33

Appendix B – 2020 Improvement Plan ......................................................................................................57

P a g e 1 | 60


1. Introduction The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT), Division of Transportation System Development (DTSD) is dedicated to providing a quality and efficient transportation system to the residents of Wisconsin. The DTSD maintains and oversees the development, maintenance, and operations of 11,745 miles of interstate freeway, state-marked highways, and US-marked highways.

WisDOT utilizes a Quality Management Program (QMP) to assure that the materials and workmanship that are incorporated into construction projects are in conformity with the requirements of the approved plans and specifications. As part of a state’s quality assurance program the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires the implementation of an Independent Assurance Program (IAP); as per §637.207(a) from the 23 CFR 637:

“Each STD’s quality assurance program shall provide for an acceptance program and an independent assurance program…”

A goal of the IAP is to provide evaluations of active samplers and testers performing work on all WisDOT construction projects. These Independent Assurance (IA) evaluations are to be handled without conflict or bias. 23 CFR 637 defines the Independent Assurance as follows:

“Activities that are an unbiased and independent evaluation of all the sampling and testing procedures used in the acceptance program.”

The purpose of IAP evaluations is to verify proper sampling and testing procedures are followed and that the testing equipment is calibrated and in good condition. All while remaining unbiased and independent.

Herein contains the WisDOT IAP Annual Report for 2020 summarizing all IAP activities as required by §637.207(2)(iv) from the 23 CFR 637:

“If the STD uses the system approach to the IA program, the STD shall provide an annual report to the FHWA summarizing the results of the IA program.”

X Barry Paye, P.E. Materials Management Chief

X James Parry, P.E. Quality Assurance Supervisor

James M. Parry

X Scott Lawry, P.E. Bureau of Technical Services Director

P a g e 2 | 60

DOTSJL

New Stamp


2. Materials Evaluated Currently WisDOT performs IA evaluations on aggregates, Portland cement concrete (PCC), asphaltic pavement density, hot mix asphalt mixtures (HMA), and soils nuclear density. After completion of an IA evaluation it is recorded and entered into a software package titled Materials Tracking System (MTS). Each IA evaluation has an assigned test prefix in MTS. Below are the applicable MTS test prefix, sample methods, and test methods related to each IA evaluation.

Aggregates Gradation – As Modified in Construction Materials Manual (CMM) Chapter 8.60 (MTS Test Prefix 801)

A. Sampling – AASHTO T2 B. Reducing Samples of Aggregate – AASHTO T248 C. Moisture Content of Aggregate – AASHTO T255 D. Materials Finer Than No. 200 Sieve – AASHTO T11 E. Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates – AATHTO T27

Portland Cement Concrete Mixtures – As Modified in CMM 8.70 (MTS Test Prefix 802)

A. Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete – AASHTO R60 B. Temperature of Freshly Mixed Hydraulic-Cement Concrete – ASTM C1064 C. Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete – AASHTO T119 D. Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by Pressure Method – AASHTO T152 E. Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens – AASHTO T23

Asphalt Pavement Density Testing – As Modified in CMM 8.15 (MTS Test Prefix 803)

A. Density of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods – ASTM D2950

Asphaltic Concrete Mixtures (MTS Test Prefix 804)

A. Sampling Asphaltic Mixtures – CMM 8.36 B. Reducing Samples of Asphaltic Mixtures – CMM 8.36 C. Theoretical Maximum Specified Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Asphaltic Mixtures –

AASHTO T209 (As Modified in CMM 8.36) D. Preparing and Determining the Density of Asphalt Mixture Specimens by means of

Superpave Gyratory Compactor – AASHTO T312 (As Modified in CMM 8.36) E. Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of Compacted HMA Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens

– AASHTO T166 (As Modified in CMM 8.36) F. Field extraction Sieve Analysis

a. By ignition oven according to AASHTO T308 as modified in CMM 8-36.6.3.6. b. By chemical extraction according to AASHTO T-164 method A or B. c. Automated extraction according to ASTM D8159 as modified in CMM 8-36.6.3.1. d. Gradation of resulting aggregate sample determined according to AASHTO T30.

G. Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates – AATHTO T27 (As Modified in CMM 8.60 & 8.65)

P a g e 3 | 60


Soils Nuclear Density (MTS Test Prefix 805)

A. In-Place Density and Moisture Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods – AASHTO T310 (As Modified in CMM 8.15)

Portland Cement Concrete Strength Testing (MTS Test Prefix 806)

A. Mixing Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist Rooms, and Water Storage Tanks Used in Testing of Hydraulic Cements and Concretes – AASHTO M201

B. Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens – AASHTO T231 C. Use of Unbonded Caps – ASTM C1231 D. Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens – AASHTO T22 (As Modified in

CMM 8.70)

The test report prefixes stated above are a constant work in progress. As test procedures in ASTM, AASHTO, and our own CMM evolve, as should these MTS test reports.

All IA personnel are asked to enter their evaluations in a timely as feasible manner. This will assist IA personnel throughout the state in tracking samplers and testers that may be performing work in their region and keep track of those testers that may require a follow-up due to noted deviations in previous IA evaluations.

P a g e 4 | 60


3. IA Evaluation Methods IA evaluations are performed on active samplers and testers on the materials stated above in section 2 “Materials Evaluated”. Evaluations that are performed may include one or more of the methods prescribed below.

A. Split Sample Testing – Direct split taken from project samples, then compared to IA results. IA test samples are not to be used in the project acceptance process. Compared results must then be within certain prescribed tolerance limits set by WisDOT (see Tables 1 through 6). Preferred method when performing Independent Assurance evaluation, allows the evaluation of the equipment and personnel concurrently.

B. Proficiency Sample Testing – Samples distributed to one or more labs from one homogeneous sample, samples then compared to IA results. Compared results must then be within certain prescribed tolerance limits set by WisDOT (see Tables 1 through 6). Also, a preferred method when performing Independent Assurance evaluation, allows the evaluation of the equipment and personnel concurrently.

C. Witnessing Sampling & Testing – Evaluation by observation of sampling and testing procedures should be performed on acceptance samples whenever practical. Observational only reviews are permitted, however when paired with split or proficiency samples an IA evaluation has its utmost reliability. An observational only review does not give us the full picture, it only gives us a review of the sampler and/or tester’s procedures not a complete evaluation of the equipment and personnel.

D. Equipment Calibration Checks – Performing split or proficiency samples is the best and most efficient way to check equipment calibrations when performing IA evaluations. Other methods of checking equipment calibrations include reviewing calibration documentation and frequent standardization and/or calibration.

E. Review contract-required data and available contractor process control information – The purpose of performing these tasks are to verify results are being recorded completely, consistently, and correctly. Verify all project and test information that WisDOT requires is present.

F. Requesting that testing personnel perform additional sampling and testing – This method is typically performed for two reasons. One, if a follow-up is necessary; two, when acquiring a split from a non-acceptance sample.

P a g e 5 | 60


TABLE 1 +/- TOLERANCE LIMIT % BY WEIGHT PASSING (WASHED SIEVE ANALYSIS)

Sieve Size Dense Graded Base

Fine Concrete Masonry

Coarse Concrete & Open

Grade

Asphaltic Mixtures

1.5 - Inch (37.5 mm) 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 1 - Inch (25.0 mm) 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 3/4 - Inch (19.0 mm) 5.0 - 6.0 6.0 1/2 - Inch (12.5 mm) 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 3/8 - Inch (9.5 mm) 7.0 - 7.0 6.0 No. 4 (4.75 mm) 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 No. 8 (2.36 mm) 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 No. 10 (2.00 mm) 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 No. 16 (1.18 mm) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 No. 30 (0.600 mm) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 No. 40 (0.425 mm) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 No. 50 (0.300 mm) 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 No. 100 (0.150 mm) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 No. 200 (0.075 mm) 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0

TABLE 2 AGGREGATE MOISTURE CONTENT TABLE 3 FRACTURED PARTICLES

Concrete

Aggregate Size +/ Tolerance Limit Aggregate Size +/ Tolerance Limit

- -

- -

-

- - -

Coarse Agg - No. 40.50% 10.00% Aggregates Retained

TABLE 4 ASPHALTIC MIXTURES TABLE 5 NUCLEAR DENSITY

Mixture Property +/ Tolerance Limit

Gmb (Gyratory Bulk Specific Gravity)

0.030

Gmm (Maximum Specific Gravity)

0.020


Single Test - Same Footprint

1.5 lbs/ft3

3 /5 Test Average - Same Footprints

1.5 lbs/ft3

TABLE 6 CONCRETE MIXTURES


Air Content 0.50% Slump 1/2 - Inch

Temperature 2° Fahrenheit

P a g e 6 | 60


When performing split and/or proficiency samples that require laboratory work (aggregate and asphaltic mixtures testing), the independent assurance portion is run in WisDOT’s central office and region labs. The WisDOT central office laboratory is accredited by AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) as required in §637.209(2) from 23 CFR 637:

“After June 30, 1997, each STD shall have its central laboratory accredited by the AASHTO Accreditation Program or a comparable laboratory accreditation program approved by the FHWA.”

The IA evaluation methods described above are dependent on the situation presented at time of evaluation. However, WisDOT recommends split or proficiency sample tests paired with witnessing sampling and testing. Using split or proficiency samples with witnessing the sampling and testing provides the highest reliability of IA evaluations, and therefore the highest reliability of the testing technician evaluated.

P a g e 7 | 60


4. Certification Program The QMP implemented by WisDOT requires all personnel performing sampling and testing must be a certified technician, as per requirements in §637.209(5)(b) from 23 CFR 637.

“…all sampling and testing data to be used in the acceptance decision or the IA program shall be executed by qualified sampling and testing personnel.”

The personnel certification program required by WisDOT is the Highway Technician Certification Program (HTCP), it is administered by University of Wisconsin Platteville, and directed by Jodi Pluemer. HTCP certifies that you have demonstrated abilities to engage in quality control or quality assurance activities in highway work contracted by WisDOT. HTCP uses the following to certify individuals: (from Supplement NS 23 CFR, Part 637B (3)(d))

A. Formal training of personnel including all sampling and testing procedures with instructions on the importance of proper procedures and the significance of test results.

B. Hands-on training to demonstrate proficiency of all sampling and testing to be performed.

C. A written examination and demonstrated proficiency of the various sampling and testing methods.

D. Requalification at 3-year intervals.

The HTCP administers 13 different certifications that are needed to perform various tasks with WisDOT. These certifications are good for three years and expire July 31st of the third year of certification. Options for renewal include the following:

A. Retaking the full class. B. If available taking the next level class. C. Taking the renewal exam on the last day of a class. D. Taking the renewal exam on a comprehensive examination day.

Certifications offered by the HTCP and what each cover are as follows: (All courses listed below include comprehensive course work on WisDOT’s QMP, WisDOT standard specifications, basics and fundamentals of the materials involved in the certification, and statistical quality control and quality control charts.)

A. Transportation Material Sampling Technician (TMS) – Random sampling, procure samples from aggregate stockpiles, conveyor belts, aggregate roadbeds, and hot mix asphalt truck box sampling.

B. Aggregate Technician I (AGGTEC-I) – Random sampling, aggregate sampling, moisture content, fine and coarse sieve analysis, plasticity check, moisture/density relations ship, and fractur/elongation determination. This course is next level for TMS.

C. Aggregate Testing for Transportation Systems (ATTS) – Aggregate source quality testing: LA Wear, sodium sulfate soundness, freeze/thaw soundness, fracture, liquid limit, plasticity, coarse aggregate specific gravity & absorption, and lightweight pieces. This course is next level for AGGTEC-I

P a g e 8 | 60


D. Hot Mix Asphalt, Technician I, Production Tester (HMA-IPT) – Random sampling, sampling, quartering, compaction, bulk specific gravity, rice maximum specific gravity, and WisDOT 1560 asphalt extraction. This course is next level for AGGTEC-I.

E. Hot Mix Asphalt, Trouble Shooting, Process Control (HMA-TPC) – Aggregate blending, Superpave hot mix asphalt design methodology, types of asphalt plants, and process control/troubleshooting techniques. This course is next level for HMA-IPT.

F. Hot Mix Asphalt, Mix Design, Report Submittals (HMA-MD) – Provides a working knowledge of the mix design process using Superpave. This course is next level for HMA-IPT.

G. Concrete Strength Tester (CST) – Capping cylindrical specimens, compressive strength of cylindrical specimens and rate of loading, flexural strength testing, use of unbounded caps in determination of compressive strength of hardened concrete cylinders, and obtaining and testing drilled cores and sawed beams of concrete.

H. Portland Cement Concrete Technician I (PCCTEC-I) – Random sampling, sampling and testing of freshly mixed concrete, air pressure meter calibration, casting and curing concrete cylinders, and Super Air Meter testing.

I. Portland Cement Concrete Technician II (PCCTEC-II) – Aggregate correction factor, coarse and fine specific gravity and absorption, dry rodded unit weight, cementitious materials, admixtures, combined aggregate gradation, proportioning of concrete mixture, hot/cold weather concreting, statistical analysis, record keeping, curing concrete, and depth probing. This course is next level for PCCTEC-I.

J. Grading Technician I (GRADINGTEC-I) – Random sampling, moisture-density relationship, and Atterberg Limits.

K. Nuclear Density Technician (NUCDENSITYTEC-I) – Operation of nuclear density gauge on asphaltic concrete, crushed aggregate base course, and non-cohesive and cohesive soils. As well as random sampling, radiation safety, calibration and correlation of nuclear density gauges, and troubleshooting techniques.

L. Profiler Technician I (PROFILER) – Fundamental use of the profiler, field work layout and computer set-up, hands-on operation and maintenance of profiler.

M. Materials Coordinator Training (MCT) – Provides details about the Departments materials approval and acceptance process, as well as, the designated roles and responsibilities of Concrete Project Materials Coordinators (CPMCs) and WisDOT Project Materials Coordinators (WPMCs).

All main and lab instructors for the HTCP full three-year courses are WisDOT personnel and industry experts.

HTCP also offers temporary one-year certifications, these are called the Assistant Certified Technician (ACT) program. This program was developed in cooperation with the WisDOT and the highway construction industries. The current ACT courses along with the corresponding three-year certification are as follows:

A. Aggregate – AGGTEC-I B. Hot Mix Asphalt – HMA-IPT C. Portland Cement Concrete – PCCTEC-I

P a g e 9 | 60


D. Concrete Strength Tester - CST E. Nucdensity – NUCDENSITYTEC-I F. Grading – GRADINGTEC-I

Not all certifications listed above are covered by the IAP. Currently the only certifications needed to be covered are TMS, AGGTEC-I, HMA-IPT, CST, PCCTEC-I, and NUCDENSITY along with their corresponding ACT certifications. Table 7 shows the certifications that are covered by the IAP, along with the number of personnel certified for each.

TABLE 7 - NUMBER OF HTCP CERTIFIED TECHNICIANS 2020

TEST TYPE CERTIFICATION NO. OF CERTIFIED TESTERS

NO. OF ACT TESTERS

TOTAL

GRADATION SAMPLE/TEST AGGTEC-I 1064 62 1126 AGGREGATE SAMPLING TMS 1729 11 1740 PCC - TEMP/AIR/SLUMP PCCTEC-I 1610 37 1647 PCC STRENGTH TESTING CST 367 17 384 ASPHALT MIX TESTING HMA-IPT 463 37 500 SOILS/HMA DENSITY NUCDENSITYTEC-I 736 46 782

The novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has presented us several challenges in 2020 and 2021, the HTCP is no exception. In fact, it could be stated that the HTCP has seen more challenges than many. Due to restrictions brought on by COVID-19, HTCP is unable to hold face-to-face classes during the 2020 season from April on. To compensate for the cancelations, HTCP relied on the ACT Program for those seeking certifications for the first time, and for those in need of recertification a one-year extension was granted.

Similar challenges arose in 2021, only two classes were held in November of 2020 at half capacity, begore face-to-face classes were again cancelled. Full cancellation of HTCP classes was deemed a non-starter, WISDOT and HTCP did not want to rely on the ACT program for a second year. The decision was made to go virtual for all level one HTCP courses for the 2021 season for those seeking certification for the first time. The virtual certification courses are structured as follows:

A. Online lecture utilizing ZOOM, PowerPoint, and video demonstrations. B. Online lab proficiency review utilizing ZOOM. C. Online exam utilizing Canvas and proctored via ZOOM.

During the 2021 season HTCP is also stressing personal responsibility in controlling their own certifications. They will be expected to be present for the entire duration of each session, this will be monitored by a TA. Web cameras are to be turned on through the entire session with their microphones muted unless called on for question and/or answer.

For those seeking recertification for level one courses (except for GradingTec-I) can do so by registering and taking an online exam utilizing Canvas and proctored via ZOOM. Those with an expiring GradingTec-I certification in 2021 will be granted a one-year extension due exam not being online.

Level two certifications (ATTS, HMA-TPC, HMA-MD) will be granted one-year extensions as these exams are also not online. HTCP will be hosting a few in-person classes later in the 2021 season (April/May) for

P a g e 10 | 60


those new to the program for ATTS, HMA-MD, and PCCTEC-II. These classes will be adhering to CDC guideline/PPE requirements, and may be subject to cancellation due to COVID-19 cases at the time classes are held.

P a g e 11 | 60


5. Active Certified Technicians & Coverage Rates Not all certified technicians are required to have an IA evaluation performed, only those that perform testing on WisDOT construction projects, these are called active testers. Table 8 shows the number of active certified testers for the 2019 construction season.

TABLE 8 - NUMBER OF ACTIVE TECHNICIANS 2020

TEST TYPE CERTIFICATION TEST PREFIX

NO. OF ACTIVE TESTERS

AGG GRADATION SAMPLING AGGTEC-1/TMS 801 406 AGG GRADATION TESTING AGGTEC-1 801 86 PCC - TEMP/AIR/SLUMP PCCTEC-1 802 470

ASPHALT DENSITY TESTING NUCDENSITYTEC-I 803 205 ASPHALT MIX TESTING HMA-IPT 804 112 SOILS DENSITY TESTING NUCDENSITYTEC-I 805 48 PCC STRENGTH TESTING CST 806 108

The IAP for WisDOT utilizes a system-based approach when evaluating active samplers and testers, as allowed by §637.207(2) from 23 CFR 637. The IA evaluation coverage rate established by FHWA as a goal for WisDOT is 90%. Meaning, WisDOT is required to evaluate 90% of all active samplers and testers performing work on WisDOT construction projects at a frequency of once per year. The evaluations shall be performed on testing equipment, active certified personnel, and prompt comparison and documentation of test results.

Table 9 below is a breakdown of the IA evaluations performed in 2020 on active certified samplers and testers working on WisDOT construction projects.

TABLE 9 - NUMBER OF IA REVIEWS PERFORMED

TEST TYPE TEST

PREFIX NO. OF ACTIVE

TESTERS NO. OF TESTERS

REVIEWED TOTAL NUMBER OF

REVIEWS1

AGG GRADATION SAMPLING 801 406 146 177 AGG GRADATION TESTING 801 86 53 81 PCC - TEMP/AIR/SLUMP 802 470 268 304

ASPHALT DENSITY TESTING 803 205 160 205 ASPHALT MIX TESTING 804 112 78 97 SOILS DENSITY TESTING 805 48 31 28 PCC STRENGTH TESTING 806 108 96 101

TOTALS 1435 832 993 1 Includes number of testers reviewed, follow-ups due to deviations, and evaluations performed on a sampler/testers more than once.

The coverage rates for 2019 revealed that the WisDOT’s IAP fell considerably short of the 90% goal agreed to by FHWA and WisDOT (See Chart 1 below). As this realization came to light it

P a g e 12 | 60


was determined that some considerable changes needed to be made in order to improve the IAP coverage rates. There were three areas where significant improvement needed to be made.

A. Communication – Prior to 2020 it became evident that communication within the IAP was lax. Communication has improved within the IAP, but it is believed that there is more to be done regionally between project staff and the region IA Specialists. The following was implemented by the IAP Statewide Coordinator in the hope of improving communication:

a. Implemented a virtual bi-monthly meeting with all region IA Specialist to communicate information, relay issues, discuss new ideas, and make improvement to the IAP during the year rather than waiting for the year end IAP meeting.

b. A concerted effort by the Statewide Coordinator to improve communication individually with the region IA Specialists to help support the program in the regions. This effort also included an increase in training of the IAP specialists by the Statewide Coordinator and conveying the importance of the IAP, things that did not seem to be present previously.

c. As often as possible encourage cross-regional communication it the hopes of the region IA Specialists to support and back-up one another.

B. Tracking – The WisDOT IAP prior to 2020 did not have any kind of tracking tool at their disposal beyond the use of MTS. In 2020 a new tracking tool was developed using Excel and the cloud-based system Box. More improvements may be made to the system; however, this has been a big step in helping us track active samplers and testers performing work on WisDOT projects. (See appendix A for copy of tracking spreadsheets.)

C. Staffing – During and prior to 2020 staffing was an issue that may have contributed to the substandard coverage rates for the WisDOT IAP. There were some vacancies and obvious short comings within IAP that contributed this shortcoming. As 2020 progressed some of these issues became resolved:

a. Northwest Region (Eau Claire) – Vacancy from 2019 was filled in 2020. b. Southeast Region – Two vacancies for part of 2019 were filled in 2020. c. Northeast Region – Vacancy from the end of 2019 was filled in 2020. d. Northcentral Region (Wisconsin Rapids) – Vacancy occurred in beginning of

second quarter of 2020, position remained vacant for most of the year. Position was fill end of 2020.

e. WisDOT also on-boarded two consultant IA Specialists to help fill some of the short-comings and vacancies present in our program and to help increase our coverage rates.

P a g e 13 | 60


With the above improvements implemented in 2020, WisDOT set out to achieve the first milestone set by FHWA. In 2020 the WisDOT IAP was to make significant improvements relative to the 2019 coverage rates. Chart 1 below shows the coverage rates of each IA test type from 2020 versus coverage rates from 2019, compared to the FHWA/WisDOT goal of 90%. Percentages are based on the number of testers evaluated compared to the number of active testers (See Table 9).

CHART 1 IAP COVERAGE RATES

36%

62% 57%

78%

70% 65%

89%90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

24%

36%

45% 47% 49% 52%

14%

801 - 801 - 802 - PCC 803 - ASPHALT 804 - ASPHALT 805 - SOILS 806 - CONCRETE AGGREGATE AGGREGATE MIXTURES NUCLEAR MIX TESTING NUCLEAR STRENGTH SAMPLING GRADATION DENSITY DENSITY TESTING

TESTING

2020 Coverage Rates IAP Goal 2019 Coverage Rate

Chart 1 above is evidence of the significant improvements made by the WisDOT IAP over the course of 2020 as compared to 2019. However, we are not done yet.

WisDOT recognizes that the IAP still has significant improvements that must be made within the next couple years to move the program where it needs to be. (See appendix B for original improvement plan from 2020.) Going forward WisDOT will strive to do its best to show progress in meeting the 90% coverage rate in each of the IA test categories. Originally there were three milestones that had been laid out as benchmarks for IAP improvement, as stated above the benchmark one has been achieved. The milestones were as follows:

1. Completed 2020 – Make significant improvement to coverage rate relative to the 2019 rates.

2. 2021 – Achieve minimum coverage rate of 80% in each IA test category. 3. 2022 – Achieve minimum coverage rate of 90% in each IA test category.

P a g e 14 | 60


The WisDOT IAP will do all that must be done to complete the milestones needed to improve the program. WisDOT recognizes the important role the IAP serves in ensuring the quality of construction materials used on federal, state, and local highways and roadways, along with the long term safety and savings associated with material quality.

P a g e 15 | 60


6. Deviations Not all IA evaluations go perfectly, many times even a satisfactory evaluation will have exceptions that are noted, discussed, and reported. Most of the time these exceptions are minor, however, there are moments when they are either not minor or are many in number. Those are then considered deviations and are considered unsatisfactory, which then would require a follow-up. Another moment when there is a deviation to an IA evaluation is when a split or provisional sample (as discussed in Topic 3) is out of the tolerances shown in Tables 1 through 6. These deviations are also considered unsatisfactory and a follow-up would then necessary. Below Table 10 breaks down the number of deviations noted for each IA evaluation test type.

TABLE 10 - DEVIATIONS

TEST TYPE TEST PREFIX

NO. OF ACTIVE TESTERS

TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS

DEVIATIONS

AGG GRADATION SAMPLING 801 406 177 0 AGG GRADATION TESTING 801 86 81 11 PCC - TEMP/AIR/SLUMP 802 470 304 10

ASPHALT DENSITY TESTING 803 205 205 11 ASPHALT MIX TESTING 804 112 97 10 SOILS DENSITY TESTING 805 48 28 2 PCC STRENGTH TESTING 806 108 101 8

TOTALS 1435 993 52

The following are deviations noted in 2019 and how they were addressed.

Aggregate Gradation Sampling

No deviations indicated for Aggregate Gradation Sampling.

Aggregate Gradation Testing

11 deviations indicated for Aggregate Gradation Testing. Herein is the breakdown.

1) Test number 1-801-0010-2020, 1-1/4” Base Aggregate Dense. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on following sieves:

i) ¾” sieve, 7.1%. (Tolerance, 6.0%) ii) #4 sieve, 7.8% (Tolerance, 5.0%) iii) #40 sieve, 6.9% (Tolerance, 4.0%) iv) #200 sieve, 8.6% (Tolerance, 2.0%)

b) Disposition: Retained portions exchanged and retested. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-801-0011-2020. Still out of tolerance on #200 sieve, 2.6%;

however, in tolerance on the following sieves (see next deviation for more information): ¾” sieve, 1.7%. i)

P a g e 16 | 60


ii) #4 sieve, 1.3%. iii) #40 sieve, 2.0%.

2) Test number 1-801-0011-2020, 1-1/4” Base Aggregate Dense. Originally a follow-up to test number 1-801-0010-2020. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on #200 sieve, 2.6% (Tolerance 2.0%). b) Disposition: New sample acquired and tested. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-801-0019-2020, all sieves in tolerance.


i) ½” sieve, 6.8% (Tolerance 6.0%). ii) 3/8” sieve, 8.0% (Tolerance 7.0%). iii) #4 sieve, 6.9% (Tolerance 5.0%). iv) #10 sieve, 5.9 % (Tolerance 5.0%). v) #200 sieve, 2.5% (Tolerance 2.0%).

b) Disposition: Retain portions exchanged and retested. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-801-0016-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

4) Test number 1-801-0035-2020, 1-1/4” Base Aggregate Dense. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on #200 sieve, 3.4% (Tolerance 2.0%). b) Disposition: Retain portions exchanged and retested. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-801-0036-2020, all sieves in tolerance.


i) #100 sieve, 4.2% (2.0% Tolerance). ii) #200 sieve, 2.5% (2.0% Tolerance).

b) Disposition: New sample acquired and tested. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-801-0039-2020, out of tolerance again on #100 sieve (3.8%)

and #200 sieve (2.4%).



b) Disposition: It was determined that because the P4 material they had been testing was not washed enough the #100 sieve was more than 30% clogged, therefore material was not able to pass the #200 sieve. After addressing these concerns, the tester was given the P4 split retained portion from the IA, all results within tolerance.

P a g e 17 | 60


7) Test number 2-801-0002-2020 PCC Fine Aggregate. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on following sieves:

i) #30 Sieve, 6.3% (Tolerance 3.0%). ii) #50 Sieve, 9.8% (Tolerance 3.0%). iii) #100 Sieve, 3.1% (Tolerance 2.0%).

b) Disposition: New sample acquired and tested. c) Follow-up: 2-801-0013-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

8) Test number 2-801-0003-2020 PCC Coarse Aggregate Size No. 1. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on 3/8” sieve, 14.7% (Tolerance 7.0%) b) Disposition: New sample acquired and retested. c) Follow-up: 2-801-0012-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

9) Test number 2-801-0008-2020 PCC Coarse Aggregate Size No. 1. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on ½” sieve, 6.2% (Tolerance 6.0%). b) Disposition: New sample acquired and tested. c) Follow-up: 2-801-0040-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

10) Test number 2-801-0039-2020 1-1/4” Base Aggregate Dense. a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on following sieves:


b) Disposition: New sample acquired and tested. c) Follow-up: 2-801-0041-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

11) Test number 7-801-0002-2020, 1-1/4” Base Aggregate Dense. a) Deviation: Was determined that the tolerance on the #200 sieve was too high, 1.9%. b) Disposition: High tolerance on #200 sieve was thought to be due to issue with washing

of the P4 material. IA gave tester proficiency sample to test. c) Follow-up: 7-801-0006-2020, all sieves in tolerance.

Portland Cement Concrete Mixtures Testing

10 deviations indicated for Portland Cement Concrete Mixtures Testing. Herein is the breakdown.

1) Test Number: 0-802-0004-2020 (QV) a) Deviation: Air content out of allowable tolerance, 0.6% (0.5% Tolerance). b) Disposition: Thought out of tolerance air content due to tester not tapping gauge when

making final reading. Follow-up to be performed. d) Follow-up: Test number 0-802-0009-2020. Tolerance and exception corrected.

P a g e 18 | 60


2) Test Number: 0-802-0018-2020 (QV) a) Deviation: Air content out of allowable tolerance, 0.6% (0.5% Tolerance).

i) Out of tolerance due to QV air meter being out of calibration. QV air meter was out on IA calibration canister (cal can value 4.8%, air meter reading 5.5%).

b) Disposition: Air meter recommended to be recalibrated immediately. c) Follow-up: Test number 0-802-0021-2020. Air meter recalibrated next day, follow-up

performed three days later, everything in tolerance.

3) Test Number: 2-802-0007-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Air meter calibration 17 days past due. b) Disposition: Did not go through IA evaluation due to follow-up being required.

Instructed to have air meter calibrated immediately. Tester had a back-up air meter on site, follow-up to be performed immediately.

c) Follow-up: Test number 2-802-0008-2020. Air meter calibrated prior to next use.

4) Test Number: 2-802-0015-2020 (QV) a) Deviation: Air meter calibration 8 months past due. Calibration canister tested on air

meter in tolerance (cal can value 4.9%, air meter reading 4.9%). Allowed to perform test due to air meter being in tolerance to calibration canister.

b) Disposition: Instructed to have air meter calibrated immediately. c) Follow-up: Test number 2-802-0029-2020.

5) Test Number: 2-802-0017-2020 (QV) a) Deviation: Air meter out of tolerance. b) Disposition: Follow-up to be performed at a later date. c) Follow-up: Test number 2-802-0028-2020, air content in tolerance.

6) Test Number: 2-802-0025-2020 (QV) a) Deviation:

i) Tolerance: Air content out of tolerance, 1.2% (Tolerance 0.5%) ii) Equipment: Air meter calibration past due, 11 days.

b) Disposition: Instructed to have air meter calibrated. Follow-up to be performed when air meter is calibrated.

c) Follow-up: Follow-up was not performed.

7) Test Number: 2-802-0033-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Calibration documentation was not with the air meter and air meter was out

of tolerance on the IA calibration canister (cal can value 4.9%, air meter reading 5.6%) b) Disposition: Instructed to have air meter calibrated and to always include calibration

paperwork with are meter. Follow-up to be performed at later date. c) Follow-up: 2-802-0050-2020, all results within tolerance.

P a g e 19 | 60


8) Test Number: 3-802-0008-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Procedural exception that affected slump results (angle of rodding and

rodding too shallow). Resulted in failing slump results (4.25”). b) Disposition: Instructed of error and retested, slump in spec after retest. c) Follow-up: Follow-up unable to be performed due to tester not being with company any

longer.

9) Test Number: 3-802-0024-2020 (QV) a) Deviation: Thermometer out of tolerance, 4° (Tolerance 2°). b) Disposition: Calibrate or acquire new thermometer. c) Follow-up: 3-802-0028-2020, acquired new thermometer, in tolerance.

10) Test Number: 6-802-0002-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Air meter out of tolerance, 0.6% (Tolerance 0.5%) b) Disposition: Ran calibration canister on both QC and IA air meters, both within

tolerance. c) Follow-up: Follow-up was not performed.

Asphalt Pavement Density

11 deviation indicated for Asphalt Pavement Density testing. Herein is the breakdown.

1) Test Number: 1-803-0043-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Nuclear Gauge out of tolerance, 2.0 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: Instructed tester rerun standard and test same locations. Tester results

same as previous. Back-up gauge to be delivered to project and follow-up to be performed next day.

c) Follow-up: 1-803-0044-2020, in tolerance.

2) Test Number: 1-803-0045-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 2.4 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: Instructed tester to rerun standard and test same locations. It was

discovered that the gauge was not holding a standard. Back-up gauge was used for the follow-up.


3) Test Number: 1-803-0047-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 1.6 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: Instructed tester rerun standard, then performed follow-up same day. c) Follow-up: 1-803-0048-2020, in tolerance.

P a g e 20 | 60


4) Test Number: 1-803-0049-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 1.8 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: It was mentioned that the gauge had been getting higher results on the

project reference block, but not year out of spec. A back-up gauge was delivered to project to be used. Follow-up performed on back-up gauge same day.


5) Test Number: 2-803-0019-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 1.9 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: Issue to be investigated. Follow-up performed on another day. c) Follow-up: 2-803-0031-2020, in tolerance.

6) Test Number: 2-803-0027-2020 a) Deviation: Procedural issue noted. Test locations were marked on the mat prior to the

cold roller starting. Operators cannot know where random test location are. b) Informed tester of mistake and why. Follow-up performed to ensure this doesn’t occur

again. c) Follow-up: 2-803-0029-2020, all procedures follow-up with no exceptions.

7) Test Number: 2-803-0033-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 1.7 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: Follow-up to be performed on the next day. c) Follow-up: 2-803-0034-2020, in tolerance.

8) Test Number: 3-803-0009-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 1.6 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: All tests performed on a hill which seemed to cause higher results when

tested uphill direction, opposite of the paving direction. Follow-up performed same day on level surface.

c) Follow-up: 3-803-0010-2020, in tolerance. However, gauge still seemed to run high. Suggested to tester to run gauge on region block to see if any adjustments are needed.

9) Test Number: 5-803-0006-2020 a) Deviation: Nuclear gauge out of tolerance, 2.2 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). b) Disposition: IA was notified that the QC and QV gauges on project were drifting further

apart. Upon investigation found QC gauge (30837) readings increase in relation to QV results from initial comparison. Follow-up to be performed on gauge.

c) Follow-up: 5-803-0007-2020, still out of tolerance 2.5 PCF. Due to project paving was nearly complete it was determined that results form gauge 30837 would be disregarded and the QV results would then be used as a basis for acceptance.

P a g e 21 | 60


10) Test Number: 6-803-0011-2020 a) Deviation: Tester was under supervision of a more experienced technician. When tester

is testing on their own, there may be a potential for procedural issues until they get further training/experience.

b) Disposition: their experience was adequate for what was required of her on the day they were evaluated.

c) Follow-up: No follow-up performed.

11) Test Number: 7-803-0007-2020 a) Deviation: Out of tolerance. b) Disposition: Follow-up to be performed another day. c) Follow-up: 7-803-0009-2020, in tolerance.

Asphalt Mix Testing

10 deviations indicated for Asphalt Mix Testing. Herein is the breakdown.

1) Test Number: 1-804-0001-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Gradation out of tolerance.

i) #50 sieve, 3.8% (Tolerance, 3.5%.). ii) #100 sieve, 3.9% (Tolerance, 3.0%).

b) Disposition: Acquire another IA split from tester. c) Follow-up: Test number 1-804-0004-2020. In tolerance

i) #50 sieve, 2.4%. ii) #100 sieve, 2.7%.


i) #4 sieve, 5.2% (Tolerance 5.0%). ii) #8 sieve, 5.0% (Tolerance 4.0%). iii) #16 sieve, 4.2% (Tolerance 4.0%).

b) Disposition: IA from Northeast Region performed another IA on tester in question. c) Follow-up: Test number 3-804-0015-2020. In tolerance on #4, #8, and #16 sieves,

however, follow-up was out of tolerance on the Gmm.


i) #4 sieve, 10.7% (Tolerance 5.0%) ii) #8 sieve, 5.7% (Tolerance 4.0%) iii) #30 sieve, 5.5% (Tolerance 3.5%) iv) #50 sieve, 6.4% (Tolerance 3.5%)

P a g e 22 | 60


b) Disposition: Gradation was performed by soluble extraction and ignition oven. Both failed gradation tolerances.

c) Follow-up: Follow-up unable to be performed, testers no longer employed with contractor.

4) Test Number: 2-804-0006-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Out of tolerance results.

i) #4 sieve, 5.6% (Tolerance 5.0). ii) Gmm, 0.024 (Tolerance 0.020). iii) Gmb, 0.044 (Tolerance 0.030).

b) Disposition: Follow-up to be performed on another sample. c) Follow-up: Test number 2-804-0013-2020. Follow-up still out of tolerance on #4 sieve

and on the Gmb.


i) #4 sieve, 5.6% (Tolerance 5.0%). ii) Gmb, 0.044 (Tolerance 0.030).

b) Disposition: This was a follow-up of test number 2-804-0006-2020. Another Follow-up to be performed on another sample.

c) Follow-up: A follow-up was unable to be performed.

6) Test Number: 2-804-0014-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Out of tolerance results and sample procedure exception.

i) #100 sieve, 4.6% (Tolerance 3.0 %) ii) #200 sieve, 4.8% (Tolerance 2.0%) iii) Procedure: Sampling was not obtained in at three separate increments midway

between apex of load and sides of the truck. b) Disposition: Tester informed of sampling error and a follow-up to be performed on

another sample. c) Follow-up: Test number2-804-0021-2020. Sampling error corrected and in tolerance.

i) #100 sieve, 1.0%. ii) #200 sieve, 1.0%.

7) Test Number: 3-804-00015-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on Gmm, 0.025 (Tolerance 0.020). b) Disposition: This was a follow-up for test number 1-804-0027-2020 that was tested in

the Southwest Region Madison. Another follow-up to be performed on tester. c) Follow-up: Test number 3-804-0016-2020. In tolerance on Gmm, however, out of

tolerance on #4 and #8 sieves.

P a g e 23 | 60



i) #4 sieve, 6.2% (Tolerance 5.0%). ii) #8 sieve, 4.2% (Tolerance 4.0%).

b) Disposition: IA retained sent back to Northeast Region for retest from Southeast Region where original IA portion was sent to be tested.

c) Follow-up: Test number 3-804-0017-2020, everything within tolerance. i) #4 sieve, 0.7%. ii) #8 sieve, 1.4%. iii) Gmb, 0.001. iv) Gmm, 0.016.

9) Test Number: 7-804-0003-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Out of tolerance on #8 sieve, 4.2% (Tolerance 4.0%). b) Disposition: Delivered a proficiency gradation to tester for follow-up. c) Follow-up: Test number 7-804-0004-2020, #8 sieve in tolerance, 0.5%.

10) Test Number: 8-804-0004-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: No testing results record for this evaluation. All exceptions were procedural

issues with the laboratory, Mathy Portable Lab 44 168. i) Water bath temperature out of spec, 73° (required 77° +/-2°). ii) Water bath not filled to trickle when weighing, bracket was above the water. Added

four gallons of water to bath. iii) No updated laboratory manual present in lab. iv) Rice pycnometer did not have updated calibration numbers. v) Rice pycnometer lid was in unacceptable condition. vi) How retained samples were stored, considered unacceptable.

b) Disposition: Due to many laboratory quality issues noted, informed WisDOT Quality Operations Engineer to have Mathy Portable Lab 44 168 inspected for laboratory quality to make sure all issues are resolved.

c) Follow-up: No follow-up was able to be performed, however, all exceptions were corrected to laboratory shortly after and prior to laboratory being inspected. Tester in question will be a priority

P a g e 24 | 60


Soils Density Testing

2 deviations indicated for Soils Density Testing. Herein is the breakdown.

1) Test Number: 1-805-0010-2020, MSE Wall Density (QC). a) Deviation:

i) Procedure: Standard must be performed on material greater that 100 PCF. ii) Certification: Was discovered during the evaluation that the tester did not have the

proper certification to perform nuclear density testing. At no time did the tester inform the IA that they were not certified. Prior to discovery of non-certified tester, during the evaluation of the first and second footprints no issues with test procedures were found. Tester then stopped testing and made a phone call. Approximately one-half hour later another tester showed up to complete the IA evaluation. At that time the IA learned that the original tester was not certified.

b) Disposition: On day of work some tests were performed by non-certified tester. A certified tester was then brought out to complete the QC testing for project.

c) Follow-up: No follow-up performed due to tester not being certified. The discovery of the non-certified testers performing work on a WisDOT project resulted in the QC firm’s Madison Lab being de-certified for 6 months.

2) Test Number: 2-805-0003-2020, QMP Subgrade (QC). a) Deviation:

i) Density out of tolerance, 2.4 PCF (Tolerance 1.5 PCF). ii) Procedures:

(1) Tester informed roller operator of test locations prior to compaction being completed.

(2) At test location footprint, soil prep area had voids greater that 1/16th of an inch not filled in.

b) Disposition: Informed tester of procedural exceptions and a follow-up to be performed another day.

c) Follow-up: Test number 2-805-0006-2020 in tolerance, 1.5 PCF. All previous exceptions noted were corrected.

PCC Strength Testing

8 deviations indicated for Asphalt Mix Testing. Herein is the breakdown

1) Test Number: 0-806-0009-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Following exceptions noted:

i) Notched square not available to check cylinders for perpendicularity while under compression.

ii) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available. b) Disposition:

P a g e 25 | 60


i) Follow-up to be on another day. ii) Will request copies of the certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads from

manufacturer. c) Follow Up: 0-806-0038-2020, all exceptions noted were resolved.


i) No printer available, all break results retained on computer/server. ii) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available.

b) Disposition: i) Laboratory to have printer in place prior any WisDOT testing. ii) Laboratory obtained certification of compliance from the manufacturer, were

forwarded to IA on 7/16/2020. c) Follow-up: No follow-up necessary, all exceptions were addressed and corrected.

3) Test Number: 0-806-0014-2020 (QC) a) Deviation: Following exceptions noted echoes the exceptions discovered from another

IA performed in same laboratory on the same day (see test number 0-806-0013-2020). i) No printer available, all break results retained on computer/server. ii) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available.

b) Disposition: i) Laboratory to have printer in place prior any WisDOT testing. ii) Laboratory obtained certification of compliance from the manufacturer, were

forwarded to IA on 7/16/2020. c) Follow-up: No follow-up necessary, all exceptions were addressed and correct.


i) The average of two diameter measurements were taken at top of cylinder not middle.

ii) End was not checked for planeness. iii) Need to input average of exact measurement into cylinder breaker computer to the

nearest hundredth. Do not round. b) Disposition: Follow-up to be performed on another day. c) Follow-up: Test number 0-806-0069-2020, all exceptions corrected.


i) Laboratory manual not available at time of evaluation. ii) Laboratory name not on graph. iii) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available.

P a g e 26 | 60


b) Disposition: All exceptions noted were fixed and documentation was forwarded later. Follow-up to be performed on another day.

c) Follow-up: Test number 0-806-0045-2020, all exceptions corrected.


i) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available. ii) Retainer rings have gouges/indentations greater than allowable by spec. iii) Type of failure not recorded.

b) Disposition: All exceptions noted were laboratory deficiencies not tester. Another IA evaluation was performed on a different tester at same lab on same day; resulted in same exceptions noted (see test number 0-806-0024-2020). Follow-up performed on a different tester, on another day, to verify the laboratory corrected all noted exceptions.

c) Follow-up: 0-806-0089-2020, all exceptions corrected.


i) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available. ii) Retainer rings have gouges/indentations greater than allowable by spec. iii) Type of failure not recorded.

b) Disposition: All exceptions noted were laboratory deficiencies not tester. Another IA evaluation was performed on a different tester at same lab on same day; resulted in same exceptions noted (see test number 0-806-0023-2020). Follow-up performed on a different tester, on another day, to verify the laboratory corrected all noted exceptions.



i) No certification of compliance for the elastomeric pads were available. ii) Retainer rings out of spec for planeness and gouges. iii) Laboratory name not on report and graph printout.

b) Disposition: All exceptions noted were laboratory deficiencies not tester. Follow-up performed on another tester on same equipment.


Reoccurring Deviations

There were no reoccurring deviations noted that needed any systematic solutions. WisDOT will pay attention to unsatisfactory IA evaluations throughout the year. If any reoccurring deviations are discovered during the year WisDOT will devise solutions in real time.

P a g e 27 | 60


7. Consultant IA As the deficient coverage rates from 2019 came to light it was evident that improvements to the program needed to be made, hence the development of the IAP Improvement Plan at the start of 2020 (see appendix B). One of the areas that needed improvements was our staffing levels. 2019 and 2020 was a time of higher than usual turnover of IA specialists within the Regions, that turnover had a significant hand in further complicating our deficient coverage rates. Since then those positions have been filled, (see section 5), however, it was also determined that for WisDOT IAP to get back on track and achieve the coverage rates that were expected more needed to done. In 2020 WisDOT on-boarded two consultant IA Specialists to help cover some of the short-comings and vacancies present in our program and to help increase our coverage rates, same will be done for 2021. The following is the consultant WisDOT contracted in 2020 and will again in 2021:

Quest Civil Engineers, LLC 320 West Grand Ave Suite 302 Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495

Presently the use of consultants to assist our IAP to achieve the improvements needed has been a success, as can be seen in section 5.

However, the use of consultants can be quickly undermined without transparency and the removal of any conflicts of interest. To that end, it was agreed that the consultant IA Specialists employed by Quest were to not perform any IA evaluations whatsoever on projects where Quest acts as either prime or subcontractor on a construction project staff. Table 11 below shows the construction projects where Quest was either prime or subcontractor.

Table 11 - Quest Projects 2020

Construction Staff Project ID Prime or Sub

1053-07-65 Prime 6320-00-73 Prime 6424-03-70 Prime 6424-03-80 Prime 6686-00-70 Prime 6934-06-70 Prime 6934-03-71 Prime 6999-03-72 Prime 7220-00-60 Prime 7220-00-61 Prime 9140-13-71 Prime 9517-04-71 Prime

P a g e 28 | 60

- - - - - -


Table 12 below shows the projects where the consultant IA Specialists with Quest performed evaluations.

Table 12 - Quest Projects IA Evaluations 2020 801 IA

Evaluation Project ID

802 IA Evaluation Project ID

803 IA Evaluation Project Id




0617-03-00 1009-47-60 1100-41-70 1520-05-70 1440-15-72 0617-01-00 0617-03-00 1050-00-77 1520-05-70 1580-30-73 4010-20-71 0617-02-00 1166-00-79 1430-01-79 6220-00-72 6300-00-73 4090-05-71 0617-03-00 1430-01-79 1440-15-72 6414-00-81 6640-00-72 6430-12-71 0617-04-00 1430-01-87 1510-02-72 6999-10-60 6999-10-61 0617-05-00 1510-02-72 1520-00-64 7130-08-73 0617-06-00 1620-00-63 1520-00-76 0617-07-00 4210-07-71 1620-03-75 1003-10-80 6430-12-71 2030-13-70 1067-02-74 6666-04-70 3210-00-75 1090-16-70 7842-00-70 4075-33-71 1228-22-72 9000-04-70 4210-07-71 1310-10-72 9435-00-70 4657-25-03 1320-23-71 9443-01-70 6300-00-73 1450-02-70

6414-00-81 1510-02-72 6430-12-71 1560-00-72 6666-04-70 1630-01-62 6843-00-72 2030-13-70 9000-04-70 2595-03-73 9286-05-71 2759-03-70 9435-00-70 2782-03-76 9443-01-70 5170-05-61

5660-00-72 6843-00-72 6934-06-70 7146-00-71 8347-00-70 8793-00-70 9000-04-70

A conflict of interest has been noted for project 6934-06-70, see the highlighted in tables 11 and 12. After discovering the perceived conflict of interest further investigation was needed to determine the situation involving the conflict, if it affected the IA evaluation, and determine what will be needed in the future to prevent this conflict from occurring again.

On project 6934-06-70 Quest was contracted as the prime consultant representing WisDOT on the project staff. Project was located on CTH U in the Village of Biron, WI in North Central

P a g e 29 | 60


Region-Wisconsin Rapids. Project scope included concrete pavement and ancillary concrete, which would have included the casting of concrete strength specimens for both the Quality Control (QC) testers and Quality Verification (QV) testers, which is where the conflict arose.

On 07/08/2020 the consultant IA in question performed a compressive strength testing evaluation on a QV tester with the WisDOT North Central Region-Wisconsin Rapids laboratory. The evaluation was performed on QV cylinders that were cast 28 days prior on project 6934-06-70. The consultant IA did not perform any evaluations on the project site, nor on any QC personnel or QV personnel employed by Quest. The evaluation in question was more so a review of the WisDOT North Central-Wisconsin Rapids laboratory, as well as their personnel, and procedures. After a discussion with the consultant IA Specialist, they stated it was an IA evaluation that needed to be performed on the North Central Region-Wisconsin Rapids lab, with no consideration for the project the concrete cylinders were cast. After completion of investigation and discussion with the consultant IA Specialist, it is not believed the perceived conflict had any effect on the IA evaluation.

Even though it is believed that the conflict did not affect the IA evaluation in question, conflicts should not be occurring in the future, perceived or otherwise. The Statewide IA Coordinator along with the unit supervisor will arrange a meeting with Quest Civil Engineers, LLC to discuss the importance of eliminating exposure to any conflicts of interest, no matter the situation.

P a g e 30 | 60


8. Conclusion The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) strives to provide an Independent Assurance Program (IAP) that is unbiased and independent in its evaluations of samplers and testers. The IA evaluations are performed using one or more of the following

A. Split Sample Testing B. Proficiency Sample Testing C. Witnessing Sampling and Testing D. Equipment Calibration Checks E. Review contract-required data and available contractor process control information. F. Requesting that testing personnel perform additional sampling and testing.

The WisDOT recommended method of performing IA evaluations is a combination of split or proficiency sample testing paired with witnessing sampling and testing, this gives us the greatest confidence in the certified sampler and tester being reviewed.

All testers performing work on WisDOT construction projects must be certified to do so. The University of Wisconsin Platteville administers WisDOT’s certification program, called the Highway Technician Certification Program (HTCP). HTCP offers 13 certification courses, six of which are sampling and testing-based certifications. As of 2020 HTCP has issued 6179 individual sampling and testing-based certifications.

WisDOT performs IA evaluations on only the active samplers and testers performing work on WisDOT construction projects. In 2020 there were 6179 certified samplers and testers only 1435 of those were active. Table 13 below show that in 2020 the WisDOT IAP fell below the established rate of 90%, however WisDOT did make significant improvements across the board in relation to the 2019 coverage rates. This meets the milestone set prior to the start of 2020.

TABLE 13 - 2019 & 2020 COVERAGE RATES

EVALUATION TYPE IAP GOAL

2019 RATE

2020 RATE CHANGE

AGG GRADATION SAMPLING 90% 24% 36% +12% AGG GRADATION TESTING 90% 36% 62% +26%

PCC - TEMP/AIR/SLUMP 90% 45% 57% +12% ASPHALT DENSITY TESTING 90% 47% 78% +31%

ASPHALT MIX TESTING 90% 49% 70% +21% SOILS DENSITY TESTING 90% 52% 65% +13% PCC STRENGTH TESTING 90% 14% 89% +75%

P a g e 31 | 60


WisDOT recognizes that these numbers are untenable for the state’s IAP. Significant improvements to the program have been made (which were outlined in section 5) that allowed us to make significant improvements to our 2020 coverage rates, however, there is more yet to be done. Going forward WisDOT will always strive an ultimate goal of 100% IA coverage, with an acceptable goal of 90%. For WisDOT to get closer to our ultimate goal we must first meet the next milestone set for 2021, which is to achieve a coverage rate of 80%.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation understands the critical nature of materials quality used to construct the national and state highway systems. WisDOT also understands how critical the Independent Assurance Program is to materials quality and is dedicated to improving the program to levels that will meet or exceed expectations.

P a g e 32 | 60


Appendix A - Tracking

P a g e 33 | 60


P a g e 34 | 60


P a g e 35 | 60


P a g e 36 | 60


P a g e 37 | 60


P a g e 38 | 60


P a g e 39 | 60


P a g e 40 | 60


P a g e 41 | 60


P a g e 42 | 60


P a g e 43 | 60


P a g e 44 | 60


P a g e 45 | 60


P a g e 46 | 60


P a g e 47 | 60


P a g e 48 | 60


P a g e 49 | 60


P a g e 50 | 60


P a g e 51 | 60


P a g e 52 | 60


P a g e 53 | 60


P a g e 54 | 60


P a g e 55 | 60


P a g e 56 | 60


Appendix B – 2020 Improvement Plan Here within is the original improvement plan from 2020 set out by the WisDOT IAP. It was left in its original form to track our progress and as a reminder of the work ahead.

Improvement of the IAP starts with improving communication, tracking, and staffing. The biggest strides taken in this program that could show the biggest improvements are communication and the tracking of active samplers and testers performing work on WisDOT projects. The following details the steps that will need to be taken to not only improve coverage rates but also improve the IAP in general.

1) Communication a) Improved communication between region PDS construction staff and the region

materials staff. If IA specialists are unaware of construction tasks taking place, will be unable to perform required IA evaluations. This could be biggest hurdle, much of this is difficult to control and out of the IA specialist’s hands. i) One way this can improve: Regional materials staff to receive the Weekly

Construction Updates to stay informed of the weekly construction activities on each project.

ii) Include the IAP as a standing topic on all preconstruction agendas. Provide the IA specialists’ contact information to the project staff and the contractor, which in turn will help in setting up a line of communication between all parties. Stress the importance of the IAP so that the project staff and contractors realize the importance of how good communication with the IA specialist can assist with improving material quality.

iii) Include the IA specialists in all pre-pour and pre-pave meetings. This will hopefully ensure that the IA specialists are aware of concrete pour and asphalt paving operations and will include them in the lines of communication.

iv) Need an effort to instill the importance of the IAP to all PDS staff (DOT & Consultant). Ideas: (1) Include as standing topic in Technical Services supervisors meeting. (2) Include as agenda topic in project weekly construction meetings. This will not

only remind project staff, but also contractors of the importance of communication. (a) Forward the weekly construction meeting agenda and notes to regional

materials staff. b) Improve communication by IA specialists in all phases.

P a g e 57 | 60


i) Between Regions: Initial step taken to address this. Instituted a bi-monthly Skype meeting between all IA specialists. Meetings to take place the second Wednesday every other month, first meeting on June 10th.

ii) With Central Office Staff: Crucial need for improved communication by the Statewide IAP Coordinator to the region IA staff. This has not existed for some time, immediate improvement already.

iii) With Contractors: IA staff must be encouraged to keep in contact with contractors and/or testing firms performing QC work on WisDOT construction projects.

2) Tracking a) Currently there is no program or spreadsheet developed that can be used to track active

samplers and testers on WisDOT construction projects. b) Current plan is to form a small group or committee to plan a tracking strategy. Two

possibilities are currently on the table. i) Trello: Project management online tool that can be accessed from the field on a

mobile device as well as a computer application. ii) Excel & Box: Develop a spreadsheet that will be saved in Box, accessible from the

field on mobile devices. c) Any tracking strategy will require two things to be effective

i) The above-mentioned communication. ii) Leg work and effort by IA staff in keeping tracking tool updated. iii) Identify shortfalls then devise plans to catch-up. iv) Review tracking weekly or bi-weekly and/or possible bi-weekly check-ins with IA

staff.

3) Staffing – There were some staffing challenges in 2019 that contributed to WisDOT IAP falling below the 90% coverage rate threshold. a) Region staffing:

i) All of 2019 NW – Eau Claire had vacant IA position. (Position filled in 2020.) ii) Part of 2019 SE Region had two vacant IA positions. Both positions filled week of

4/19/2020. iii) Discuss need for additional IAP specialists either hired by region/s or central office to

improve IA evaluation coverage. Some regions seem more shorthanded than others. b) Consultant: BTS to hire two consultant IAP specialists as an effort to increase IA

evaluation coverage. Consultants brought in under a one-year contract with possibility of renewal for an additional year.

P a g e 58 | 60


i) BTS IA Specialist #1 – Anthony Rosling (Quest LLC). 20 years of materials and testing experience also worked as a consultant in the NC Region lab when they had a vacancy.

ii) BTS IA Specialist #2 – Theresa Janicki (Quest LLC). 12 years of materials testing and construction experience.

4) Separation of IA and QV duties. a) Need IA specialists to further distance themselves from QV testing duties.

i) Currently compiling information on this topic. Hope to have summary completed soon. When completed will forward to FHWA contact.

ii) Increase in IA or lab staffing will help with not only achieving our 90% evaluation coverage rate, but also improve separation of duties.

b) All IA test samples must be performed on equipment not used for QV testing on the same projects. i) Currently compiling information on this topic as well. Hope to have summary

completed soon. When completed will forward to FHWA contact. 5) Training

a) Current Statewide IAP Coordinator would like more focus on training IA Specialists than what the position has performed in the past.

b) Utilize some of the more experienced IA-s to assist with this. c) No one more well suited to train IA specialists than the more experienced IA specialists

and the Statewide IAP Coordinator.

6) Materials Evaluation Types to be Added a) Moisture/Density Relationship Testing (AASHTO T-99 & T-180) b) Super Air Meter Testing (AASHTO TP-118) c) Flexural Strength Beams

i) Casting (AASHTO T-23) ii) Strength Testing (AASHTO T-97)

P a g e 59 | 60


Prepared by: Adam G Johnson Independent Assurance Program Coordinator

Quality Assurance Unit Bureau of Technical Services

Division of Transportation Systems Development Wisconsin Department of Transportation

P a g e 60 | 60

Documents

2020 IAP ANNUAL REPORT - wisconsindot.gov