Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
33 As noted in Chapter 1, follow-up case examples were conducted to gather further details on individual state uses and their perceptions of the technology. The case examples were executed by phone interview between the research team and selected STAs. The STAâs survey respondent was contacted to participate in the case example and was notified to invite individuals with direct experience with e-ticketing to participate in the conversation. The semistructured interviews followed the questions outlined in Appendix C but often drifted toward unique experiences with each state. Seven states were selected for case examples based on their survey responses. Six states were specifically targeted based on their experience with e-ticketing. One state was selected based on their e-Construction experience but lack of specifically using e-ticketing. The six e-ticketing user states interviewed were Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Each one of these states has a unique perspective to provide to the broader audience of this report. Alabama has significant experience with e-ticketing and was an early adopter. Florida has experience with both asphalt and concrete paving. Iowa was the first state to use e-ticketing and was an instrumental partner in the development of the first e-ticketing solution. Kentucky is joining e-ticketing with other e-Construction tools toward automating asphalt inspections. Pennsylvania has project experience with multiple vendors. Finally, Utah has developed their own in-house e-ticketing solution. The other state interviewed was Michigan. Although not experienced with e-ticketing, Michigan is an early adopter of many e-Construction initiatives and has a strong interest in e-ticketing. Thus, their feedback was important to understand some of the barriers and limitations of the technology for continued adoption. Each stateâs interview is summarized and broken into four distinct sections: overview, benefits, challenges, and lessons learned/future work. 4.1 Alabama Overview Upon learning about the pilots in Iowa, Alabama prioritized e-ticketing. ALDOT was facing a similar scenario to many states in having to inspect and administer a growing project demand with fewer people. The safety and potential supplement of workforce were key attractive features of e-ticketing for ALDOT. ALDOT also felt the timing was right for piloting e-ticketing because they have just equipped their field staff with mobile devices (iPads). They have completed several initial pilot projects with all parties having positive feedback regarding the potential of the approach. The initial pilots were for asphalt delivery only and were conducted with the e-ticketing duplicating the typical paper ticket delivery. An e-ticketing special note was added to C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples
34 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management projects by change order such that ALDOT could be sure the contractor and material supplier were well-equipped to handle the new technological approach. The solution selected by the contractor to satisfy the e-ticketing special note was Fleetwatcher by Earthwave. Earthwave took the lead on setup and training needs for all parties and conducted additional training and field support as needed. The success and response to the initial pilots are leading to additional pilots also for asphalt delivery. Benefits The principle impact and benefit noted was the increased safety of inspectors. The inspectors could be in a safe location (protected from traffic and backing trucks) and a more important inspection location (behind the paver overseeing the asphalt mat). The technology also supple- mented and bolstered the efficiency of the workforce by eliminating the need for a âticket-taker.â All stakeholders involved seemed pleased with the pilots and the e-ticketing technology. The contractors enjoyed the mechanism to track deliveries and optimize hauling. ALDOT inspectors were happy not to have to dodge and climb on trucks to retrieve tickets and have real-time and easy access to e-tickets without concern for lost or damaged paper. Additionally, the electronic system provided fewer opportunities for data inaccuracies and calculation errors. The ALDOT administration was also pleased to have access to and collection of data that normally would not be collected on paving projects. Challenges ALDOTâs biggest challenges noted were in getting user buy-in, handling data ownership, and paying for the data collection. Most of the contractors involved in the initial pilots were excited and open to the e-ticketing technology and the opportunities for tracking delivery for increas- ing their efficiency. A few of the contractors had some initial reservations regarding e-ticketing. These hesitations stem from resistance to change and how the data would be used in the future. There was some initial pushback also from the material haulers and internal staff. This pushback was largely from resistance to change, but there were some legitimate concerns in connectivity. The connectivity concerns occur both at the material plants where loadout systems may not be internet-connected and have limited ability for such connection. For inspectors and field staff to access information, mobile or wireless connectivity is necessary. Another ALDOT challenge was in data ownership. The system used on the ALDOT pilot projects collected and stored the e-tickets. Although it is openly available to ALDOT, only the ticket information and part of the location data could be downloaded as a comma-separated values (CSV) file. ALDOT has concerns about the security of a CSV and how that file type or the data itself would satisfy any records or retention policies, not to mention the challenges should policy or standard specifically reference paper tickets. ALDOT currently requires weigh master seals and stamped documentation of aggregate sources, so the complete transition to a solely e-ticket presents these challenges. The last challenge mentioned by ALDOT is in paying for the technology used. Without speci- fying a software product, there are many solutions commercially available. ALDOT wants to work toward an economy of scale in an e-ticketing solution and does not want to have their inspectors trained in multiple software platforms serving the same purpose. Without specifying a sole-source product, there is complexity in achieving a single approach and not paying for a solution repeatedly. At the same time, there is a cost to getting a material plant online and imple- menting a software solution, so it seems appropriate to at least partially share in that expense to the contractor. The funding of an e-ticketing solution is a challenge.
Case Examples 35 Lessons Learned/Future Work ALDOT felt their initial pilots were successful and overall were met with positive feed- back from their stakeholders. ALDOT is looking at conducting more pilot projects. They are investigating the steps necessary for moving from a special note approach to a standard specifica- tion though this also brings with it some challenges. ALDOT is investigating the integration of the downloaded e-ticketing data seamlessly into their in-houseâdeveloped construction admin- istration system. This alignment will also present challenges, but the benefit will be in making contractor payments and using the e-ticketing data long term for understanding and improving pavement performance. ALDOT is content with focusing e-ticketing on asphalt operations until they move toward a more standard approach in lieu of pilot projects. Other materials they are considering electronic delivery solutions for are aggregates and concrete. ALDOTâs advice to other STAs considering e-ticketing is to reach out to the states who have attempted it. There is a learning curve, and using others to get started will help climb that curve. Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2018 Collector Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher $9,969, 12,000 tons 2018 Interstate Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher $9,969, 16,094 tons 2018 Collector Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher $2,000,* 18,000 tons 2018 Collector Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher $0.00,** 20,000 tons * - Change order for devices, but no charge for pilot because contractor is already using the system. ** - No charge to ALDOT because contractor is already using the system. Table 4.1. ALDOT pilot project details. 4.2 Florida Overview Senior leadership within the Florida DOT (FDOT) are passionate about e-Construction initiatives. Their agency went through an exercise of reviewing all their specifications to identify requirements that mentioned paper documents and identified ways to transition them to electronic forms. The effort was successful with many paper-to-digital transitions, but focus ultimately turned to material tickets for asphalt pavement and concrete materials. Upon seeing e-ticketing presentations and traveling to Iowa to meet with Iowa DOT and Iowa contractors, FDOT put pilot projects out for bid for both asphalt and concrete. Because of industry pushback, largely from e-ticketing being a change to typical process, the pilot projects were not awarded, and the pilot approach transitioned to being added to projects by supplemental agreement. The initial asphalt paving pilot used Fleetwatcher by Earth- wave, and the concrete pilot used MOBILEticket by Command Alkon. The second asphalt pavement pilot project is using Spot-on Performance (SOP). SOP does not offer GPS truck tracking but provides location information at the plant and paver. Cellular phones are used to indicate position at those reference points. FDOT found that the truck tracking was one of the industry concerns with e-ticketing, and they are moving to solutions of estimated
36 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management delivery times in lieu of total GPS tracking. FDOT has also piloted a system developed by the Florida Turnpike Authority known as Ticketless Asphalt. Benefits Overall FDOT found the pilot projects to date to be successful with positive feedback. Training was provided by vendors through face-to-face or online meetings, though there were instances where additional training could have been helpful for inspection staff because not all of the inspectors (or consultant engineering and inspection staff) received the training. Both the industry and STA stakeholders were overall positive, but concerns were highlighted in minor connection issues (not necessarily signal related), hesitancy to get rid of paper tickets, concerns about the reasons for data collection (especially truck tracking), and a small amount of pushback to the change. It was agreed by all stakeholders that there were benefits in the efficiency provided by the approach. The data collected by the solutions were very beneficial. FDOT is downloading the e-ticketing data as a CSV file formatted such that it could be read by their project management system. The pilot projects have also helped FDOT to focus their e-ticketing initiatives on their priorities. Because truck tracking (especially with concrete structures that have a small proj- ect footprint and project documentation noting locations of concrete placement) is not a priority for FDOT and a contractor area of concern, they are looking at solutions that are less tracking intensive although FDOT does have an interest in performance monitoring using the tracking data. Challenges The major challenge for FDOT was getting contractor buy-in. Early on, FDOTâs contracting community had many concerns such that their bid pilot projects had to be changed to pilots by supplemental agreements. Additionally, the implementation of the concrete pilot projects was a little more difficult in that some of the training for plant operators was by phone, and there were initial issues aligning the e-ticketing solution with the batch plant system. As mentioned, the GPS tracking of trucks was a concern from FDOTâs contracting and supplier community. With concrete materials, the supplier and contractor are separate entities, and it was difficult for both parties to understand how to bid an e-ticketing solution. For asphalt, the contractor typically operates the asphalt plants, but hauling may be provided by a third party. This again created difficulty during the bidding process. The solution was to use a supplemental agree- ment once all the parties to the contract were known. After the pilot projects, the contract- ing community acknowledges the benefits of the approach and recognizes these technological changes are coming. Lessons Learned/Future Work FDOT is improving their e-ticketing approach through the lessons learned during their pilot projects. Their future pilots have less emphasis on tracking the material and more emphasis on automating inspection, calculations, acceptance/rejections, and providing notifications to the project team of material delivery and other events. FDOT is also considering needs and revisions to move toward standard specification and guidance on e-ticketing approaches. FDOT also pro- vides insight for other states considering e-ticketing pilot projects. In considering pilots, the first approach should be to discuss the approach with the industry to get buy-in and common goals for the approach. Additionally, training for the piloted systems must be thorough and available to all stakeholders. Some training may be completed prior to the pilots, but it is more important
Case Examples 37 to have training available during the projects. FDOT also noted that states should be specific in what they want from the technology and talk to industry about what challenges they may have to get to a solution. They suggest starting simple and ramp up the program toward end goals. There is a need, as an owner, to be flexible and prepared to make concessions and to accept something less than ideal, recognizing that this is part of changing the process. States will also need to be willing to overcome obstacles. Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2019 Interstate Rural Bridge Replace/New Concrete Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Command Alkon $33,650, 50 CY 2019 Interstate Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher $19,965, 48,808 tons Table 4.2. FDOT pilot project details. 4.3 Iowa Overview Iowa DOT is a leader in regard to e-ticketing initiatives. In 2015, Greg Mulder and Lee Shepard conducted an HMA proof of concept pilot project focused on truck and material tracking only. The goal was to verify material was being placed where it was supposed to be placed while being able to confirm a chain of custody of materials using GPS. This approach used the breadcrumbing concept for tracking material. Iowa DOT pilots were completed through contract modifications outside of the competitive bidding to partner with willing contractors and software vendors. In 2016, the pilots attempted scale and batch plant integration beyond simply tracking trucks. Iowa DOT worked with Fleetwatcher by Earthwave to achieve this integration. In 2018, a concrete supplier approached Iowa DOT to consider a concrete pilot project using a Command Alkon solution for e-ticketing. Iowa DOT has been selective, but their industry has been very supportive and open to trying the new technologies. Benefits Beyond tracking material, Iowa DOT saw e-ticketing as a safety feature for their inspection staff; in fact, because of a death associated with ticket collection, the priority for e-ticketing was safety. Beyond safety, e-ticketing highlighted several areas of potential benefit in moving toward a more paperless material delivery and verification system. Iowa DOT found that working with Fleetwatcher, iSTRADA, and Command Alkon there was adequate training provided (on-site or online) for all stakeholders. Challenges Iowa DOT faced many challenges to e-ticketing, especially as the leader in using this technology. The biggest issue noted was change alone. Iowa DOT noted that once you get the technology in front of the stakeholders, they see and realize the efficiencies and benefits. One challenge they are currently trying to overcome is cost. To move to a mandated and standardized approach, Iowa DOT would like to see costs incurred through licensing fees to Iowa DOT instead of within
38 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management bids because there are concerns related to sole source software vendors if a single provider is desired to build consistency and understanding among inspection staff and the contracting community. Also, Iowa DOT notes that the practice does not work for every contractor nor on every project. The goal for states beginning e-ticketing use should be to start with pilot projects and work toward a standard as an agency, though this is a challenge. Iowa DOT is currently working toward a system for all materials, all projects, and all work types but is facing many challenges such as sole sourcing, connectivity issues, and some industry resistance. One additional challenge mentioned is the data capture, ownership, and transfer to STA systems. The e-ticketing and load cycle information can easily be reported out and stored in DocExpress and the Electronic Records Management System at Iowa DOT, but they are also working on a GIS approach to store the material tracking information for the long term as well. This system would further incorporate ground penetrating radar, smoothness, friction, cores, and construction data collected for the project. Lessons Learned/Future Work Iowa DOT found that one potential approach for piloting projects is to find a larger contractor who is supportive of the technology and willing to work with the agency. Smaller and mid-sized contractors may be at a technology disadvantage. There are also options to start small such as working with Command Alkon, which has an option to leverage the paper process through a web-based manual data entry option. Iowa DOT also notes that GPS tracking is not essential for the STA, so if that is a nonstarter, there are approaches to e-ticketing without tracking. Iowa DOT has moved to an approach of only tracking material where haul routes are identified. Material locations are captured on-site by inspectors in the general area of the material delivery. One new approach being piloted by Iowa DOT is part of a partnership with a project admin- istration system and an e-ticketing provider to develop a system where e-ticket information would seamlessly integrate into construction administration systems. This would standardize the e-ticketing approach in Iowa, and the system would be hosted and supported by Iowa DOT. The pilot of this approach is for concrete pavement on a large corridor in Iowa. The integration would be for summary reporting and test results. In the long term this would expand for applica- tion to asphalt and aggregate (materials from quarry). Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2015 Interstate/Other Arterials Rural Road Rehab Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher 60,000 tons 2016 Interstate/Other Arterials Rural Major/ Expansion Asphalt Change Order/Supplemental Agreement Fleetwatcher 120,000 tons 2018 Interstate/Other Arterials Rural Bridge Replace/New Concrete Change Order/Supplemental Agreement iSTRADA $385/CY 933 CY 2018â 2019 Interstate/Other Arterials Urban Bridge Replace/New Concrete Change Order/Supplemental Agreement iSTRADA 820 CY 2018â 2019 Interstate/Other Arterials Urban Major/ Expansion Concrete Concept Command Alkon $450/CY 36,000 CY Table 4.3. Iowa DOT pilot project details.
Case Examples 39 4.4 Kentucky Overview The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is also considered an early adopter of e-ticketing. The Division of Construction first heard a presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board on e-ticketing use in Iowa and thought it would be an attrac- tive application in Kentucky, especially with inspection staffing resources in decline. They set up a State Planning and Research project to investigate the use of several e-Construction technolo- gies including e-ticketing through the Kentucky Transportation Center at the University of Kentucky. They conducted their first pilot projects testing the technology in the summer of 2018 on two asphalt resurfacing projects. The goal of the pilot projects was to evaluate the poten- tial of e-ticketing, a paver-mounted thermal profiler, and intelligent compaction combined on a single project to collect critical inspection data remotely and automatically. These technologies would thereby supplement the inspection force and allow them to be more flexible and focus on inspection items of greater concern. KYTC used a special note and bid item to include the e-ticketing solution within these projects. To date, the initial pilots and a new round of pilot projects have involved the use of Fleetwatcher by Earthwave as the e-ticketing software solution. The feedback from the stakeholders for those projects has been largely positive. This feedback was gathered both in a debrief of the users and stakeholders of the initial pilot projects as well as an asphalt contractor summit on the topic. The Division of Construction at KYTC organized the summit with the Plant- mix Asphalt Institute of Kentucky to gather asphalt material suppliers and contractors from across the state. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the reception of e-ticketing and the benefits and challenges of implementing e-ticketing on a larger scale. The outcome of the meeting was a decision to conduct a broader range of pilot projects such that a larger segment of contractors could experi- ence its use. Additional benefits and challenges mentioned are discussed in the following sections. Benefits Declining numbers of the inspection personnel at KYTC have made staffing a challenge, so the e-Construction technologies (e-ticketing, paver-mounted thermal profiler, and intelligent compaction) present an opportunity to become more efficient using the resources available. By having the e-tickets gathered, temperatures tracked by the thermal profiler, and compaction efforts tracked by the intelligent compactors, quality control measures are immediately captured and stored, allowing inspectors to focus on inspecting field activities. Specific to e-ticketing, there is a safety benefit from minimizing exposure of individuals to moving equipment, the traveling public through work zones, and climbing onto equipment to retrieve tickets. KYTC inspection staff and engineers found the e-ticketing solution to be beneficial because they were able to check quantities and assemble pay estimates from the reporting of the e-ticketing soft- ware. Additionally, lost paper tickets were easily recoverable by printing the e-ticket. In the field, there was benefit in knowing where the next or last asphalt loaded truck was in proximity to the jobsite. This was also of benefit to the contractor to avoid paver stops and to simply slow pro- duction when there were truck delays. Further, the contracting community was very interested in the ability to track their third-party hauling contractors and more efficiently staff the projects with trucks to avoid bottlenecks and back-ups. The KYTC administration found benefit in the e-ticketing information as well in knowing where a particular mix design was placed for future analysis and forensics in enhancement of the performance monitoring of their pavements. Challenges Along with the many benefits, there were many challenges encountered within the pilot projects conducted by KYTC and some further challenges noted in meeting with the external stake- holders. First, during the pilot projects, one challenge was having asphalt plants internet accessible
40 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management and running recent software platforms. For the pilot projects, a plant had to be upgraded from a legacy system. Though the contractor noted this was a needed upgrade regardless of the pilot project, it was still a noted challenge and expense to overcome. This highlighted that there could be plants in rural areas that are seldom used and may not warrant such an upgrade. Further, both KYTC and contractor staff required training for the use of e-ticketing. In some cases, staff were added or removed from the pilot projects requiring additional training and access. Without training and access, benefiting from the technology becomes difficult. The access to the system also pinpointed the challenge of data ownership. The contractor procured Fleetwatcher by Earthwave as the solution used for e-ticketing. There was no contractual relationship between Fleetwatcher and KYTC, and this therefore required the contractor to approve data access. Post construction, the data remained within the Fleetwatcher system, which does not meet records retention requirements of KYTC. Specific to the pilot projects, there were some jobsite challenges as well. One of the pilot projects utilized a material transfer vehicle (MTV), while the other did not. There were instances where the truck GPS units and the geozone features of the e-ticketing system did not work correctly; the truck GPS unit never entered the paver geozone because the truck dumped into the MTV. A potential solution was to increase the zone size at the paver or to create an additional geozone on the MTV. Another project level challenge was ensuring that the trucks hauling material to the projects were equipped with GPS units and were within the setup of the e-ticketing system. Because many of the trucks hauling material to the pilot projects sites were part of third-party agreements, the trucks being used could vary day-to-day or sometimes even within the same day. This created some complex- ity and challenges when trucks were not equipped with GPS devices or not correctly set up within the tracking software. These challenges led to concerns when meeting at the contractor summit, as the third-party trucking companies often work for multiple contractors. This could mean that the truck could have multiple GPS devices onboard. With the back-up batteries of the devices, as well as opportunities for confusion between devices, there were concerns about contractor âAâ being able to track the haul routes of contractor âBâ and other related concerns. These challenges would need clarification and resolution through working with the e-ticketing solution provider. Further confounding the issue is the possibility of having multiple e-ticketing solution providers. This challenge occurs because of procurement rules and the need to avoid sole source procurement. As with any change or new approach taken, there are many obstacles to overcome to reach a standard of practice. Lessons Learned/Future Work KYTC has moved forward with 14 additional pilot projects using e-ticketing in an attempt to allow multiple contractors and KYTC districts to have experience with e-ticketing. The addi- tional goal of the extension of the pilot projects is to work through some of the previously dis- cussed challenges. The long-term approach for e-ticketing is not determined for KYTC but based on the feedback garnered, and so far there is a desire to continue its use. Further, an expansion of e-ticketing use has been discussed for additional materials, but the current and short-term focus is with asphalt pavements. Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $2,500, 7,600 tons 2018 Local Rural Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $5,000, 2,735 tons Table 4.4. KYTC pilot project details.
Case Examples 41 4.5 Pennsylvania Overview PennDOT was one of the early adopters of e-ticketing technologies. Their staff saw a presenta- tion from Iowa that ultimately led to a pilot in Pittsburgh two years ago. In total, PennDOT has piloted about 10 projects with an average lump sum bid item of $10,000 per project. e-Ticketing was added as a pay item for asphalt and millings, and PennDOT has since expanded use to other districts this paving season. Benefits Safety was the largest driver for PennDOT toward testing e-ticketing technologies. Their inspectors are often in tight areas on paving and milling projects at night in the Pittsburgh area, so an option to collect data remotely and automatically provided significant hazard reductions for their staff. With millings, PennDOT was interested in tracking material from site to stock- piles to verify owned material was delivered appropriately. The acquired data provides benefits at three phases; first, placement data is needed by the inspectors immediately upon arrival; second, end of shift or next day summaries are needed for payment tracking; and finally, all tickets are needed at the end of the project for archived documentation. The tickets are not georeferenced, although inspectors have the option of adding station numbers. Challenges Initial pilots were conducted in Pittsburgh with suppliers that had updated loadout systems but had a concern from plants about a third party accessing their scale and loadout systems. Many of these suppliers had loadout software from a competitor of the e-ticketing provider and thus had resistance in setup. Some internal pushback to trying new technology occurred, so finding those who are willing and excited for the pilots was important. There were occasional technical issues like cell service, not tracking mobile geozones on equipment, and the inability to register where temperatures were taken. Lessons Learned/Future Work PennDOT strongly valued the visual verification of each truck and thus used magnetic signs on the sides of the trucks for identification. There was consideration for using the license plates or U.S. DOT number, but PennDOT thought the magnetic signs would be easily transferable and easily identifiable from longer distances. Web-based training was provided by the vendor, but the significant value came when the software/apps were actually used. It can be difficult to mimic field activities through a web-based training. The vendor also provided critical on-site assistance when issues arose. PennDOT often does not purchase commercial off-the-shelf products and prefers to develop their own. They recently received approval to develop their own e-ticketing application for iPads, but they will likely not be ready until next year. The vision is to have a web portal that suppliers will push information to and that the field staff can access through the internet as well. Their initial focus will be tracking aggregates, with the hopes of moving toward asphalt later. Some of the pushback from the asphalt industry from tracking location may be avoided by stating that the contractor must track GPS data but only must share with the agency upon request (i.e., figure out where a late truck is).
42 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2017 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Millings Bid Item Libra Zonar $2,725 Asphalt $22,725 Millings 2017 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Millings Bid Item Fleetwatcher $4,745 Asphalt $4,745 Millings 2017 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $7,500 2017 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item In-house $1,000 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Libra Zonar $4,909 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item In-house Digital Forces $10,800 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $2,655 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item In-house $2,000 2018 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $7,500 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item In-house Digital Forces $16,500 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $2,800 2019 Interstate Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $2,601 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt Bid Item Fleetwatcher $8,750 Table 4.5. PennDOT pilot project details. 4.6 Utah Overview UDOT first witnessed e-ticketing in a presentation by the Iowa DOT. UDOT began with interest in piloting a concrete e-ticketing project but found difficulty in navigating software solution procurement in addition to getting resistance from their contracting and supplier industry. Because a majority of their pavements are HMA, UDOT determined that perhaps an HMA pilot project was a better approach. Still having software procurement concerns, they discussed the approach with their in-house GIS staff, who determined they could develop an internal solution to transfer the ticketing information with the only drawback of not being able to track the haul trucks. The Utah contracting industry had concerns regarding truck tracking anyway, and UDOT was concerned they would have to purchase the GPS units to provide such tracking. The internal approach seemed to alleviate many of their challenges to the pilot project as well as challenges UDOT heard other STAs were facing (such as liability concerns over know- ing a truck was operating illegally). UDOT received an FHWA State Transportation Innova- tion Councils grant to try their in-house approach, and the UDOT GIS business unit was able to develop a pilot-ready solution in a few weeks of development using Survey123 by ArcGIS. UDOTâs initial pilot occurred in Spring 2019 and had a positive reception.
Case Examples 43 Benefits UDOT found they were able to accomplish the goals of their e-ticketing pilot project through an in-house developed system. This allows for changes and modifications as needed by UDOT: they are in control of the data and are able to work with the system to feed data directly into their construction administration system. Inspectors on site have mobile devices (iPads) to accept the loads based on the truck DOT number; this logs a latitude and longitude near the deliv- ery of that load, and inspectors can further enter information such as temperature. Having a free, in-house system also ensures inspectors only need training on the use of one e-ticketing approach. Challenges Initial pilot efforts were thwarted for UDOT by some of the many challenges mentioned in case examples with other STAs. UDOT chose to circumvent these challenges through the development of an in-house solution focused on their most fundamental desires of the e-ticketing technology. With the elimination of tracking trucks and avoidance of sole-source concerns, the in-house solu- tion allowed for implementation completely managed by UDOT. Although they still had to find material suppliers willing to work through challenges and provide them significant access to their loadout systems, these challenges seemed much less daunting than those faced by off-the-shelf e-ticketing solutions. The main drawback to UDOTâs approach is the inability to track material haulers, but contractors still have the option to conduct that tracking for themselves. Lessons Learned/Future Work Though UDOT is still early in its pilot stages, it had positive feedback to their in-house system. There are still some possible concerns with loss of cellular coverage and use of the mobile applica- tion as well as the ability to sort and navigate the vast amount of tickets input into the system once it moved to full-scale implementation. These are challenges to face and resolve as UDOT steps toward expanded practice, but their approach has certainly presented an opportunity to overcome hesita- tions in the use of vendor-supplied solutions and reservations concerning the tracking of trucks. Pilot Project Details Year Road Function Classification Road Location Work Type Material Procurement Vendor Cost (Unit or Total), Quantity 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt DOT purchased UDOT Developed No cost reported, 8,291 tons 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt DOT purchased UDOT Developed No cost reported, 4,887 tons 2019 Collector Urban Road Resurfacing Asphalt DOT purchased UDOT Developed No cost reported, 6,400 tons Table 4.6. UDOT pilot project details. 4.7 Michigan Overview Michigan is a national leader in e-Construction technologies and processes, and has histori- cally been an early adopter of new technology. Michigan DOT (MDOT) has been a heavy user of e-Construction for 10 years, and the only paper still collected on projects is bulk material tickets.
44 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management Thus, they have not progressed into e-ticketing use but have strong interest and knowledge. They have spoken to many vendors including Command Alkon, Earthwave, and Livegistics. Given this, an interview was conducted with Michigan to identify critical barriers and knowledge gaps for e-ticketing from a nonuser perspective. Barriers A primary barrier is that vendors have not been a good match with their QA process com- pared with the paper tickets. MDOT also questioned whether FHWA would accept e-tickets as a source document showing appropriate chain of custody. This concern is alleviated through both support of e-ticketing by FHWA and a recent rule issued by the FMCSA allowing electronic bills of lading (Department of Transportation: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2018). Another vendor-related concern is sole source and proprietary work, thus not having a permissive specification applicable for all materials and suppliers is another problem. An ideal specification would allow advanced suppliers to utilize e-ticketing but allow those who cannot to maintain competitiveness. There is an internal goal for fall 2019 to have a specification devel- oped in time for the 2020 paving season. Cellular coverage in the Upper Peninsula and northern Michigan is not sufficient, and they share a similar concern with other states, in that they are unsure of the value of the GPS tracking component for the STA. Their opinion is that it seems a supplemental, not primary, contributor to their goals. Beyond their concerns, MDOT has a significant rollout of AASHTOWare Project construc- tion and materials ongoing that has limited the availability of their e-Construction personnel to investigate e-ticketing further.
