Why do we have 2 people on the front page that no longer work for MoDOT? Melissa left MoDOT for the City of Olathe and should not be featured on the front page. I can't remember the other guys name, but he has been retired for a couple of years. Can we get a picture with some current employees?
Keith L. Smith: Good question. Actually, as time passes, there will probably be several people pictured in the EPG that will have been part of our history. We are interested in portraying aspects of MoDOT (especially people at their work) in interesting, higher quality photos. Thus, the work portrayed is usually of much more importance than the people involved. It will probably not be necessary or desirable to erase photos from past employees. Thank you for your input!
- 1 Main Purpose of "Logging In" to EPG
- 2 Change Order Approval Rules
- 3 Blue Book for Rental Rates
- 4 External Civil Rights Resource Manual Link - Section 135.6
- 5 Force Account Forms
- 6 test
- 7 Change Orders
- 8 C-220 Request to Subcontract Work
- 9 C-220 Request to Subcontract Work - not able to save it
- 10 2008 CPR Questionaire Form Link not working
- 11 137.9.7 Subcontract Approval Request - SiteManager
- 12 Labor Compliance "Deducations"
- 13 SiteManager Activation Process
- 14 Storm Water Permit Sign
- 15 Buy America
- 16 2010 CPR
- 17 2010 EPG - will one be available
- 18 Change Order Example for District Level Approval
- 19 Subletting
- 20 Producer Supplier form
Main Purpose of "Logging In" to EPG
I can use the EPG without logging in to the application. I just logged in for the first time and I see that I can participate in a Discussion Thread. Is this where we would point out spelling errors in the EPG, if we should find them? What is the "vision" for this Discussion Thread?
Dan Tschirgi: The discussion capabilities of the EPG are available for users to give comments and suggestions on the content of the guidance. We are also appreciative for anyone pointing out errors and omissions. Members of the Engineering Policy Group watch the articles for specific comments made. The discussions can also take place between any users of the EPG.
Change Order Approval Rules
I do have a suggestion. We could use clarification of the Construction Manual/EPG for the change order approval rules in EPG 137.2. Here is the excerpt from the EPG Section 137.2 for a Major Change Order: "5. Any change in a major item greater than 25%. 6. Any change of a contract amount greater than 25%."
It would be clearer if it said percentage of what number. For example, is #5 saying "any change in a major item greater than 25% of the line item or is it 25% of the original contract's Total Dollar Amount for the entire project. It would be helpful to many, I think because this reads as being a little vague in my view.
Keith L. Smith: This very item had recently been discussed, but your input helped get the article updated a little more quickly. Thank you for your input. The EPG 137.2 portion of the article now states: 5. Any change in a major line item greater than 25% from the original contract amount for that line item (in dollars). 6. Any change of the contract amount greater than 25% of the original contract bid amount (also in dollars).
Blue Book for Rental Rates
I was wondering why the Blue Book isn't linked to the EPG. There is discussion about the rental rates in EPG 137.3.2 Form C-FA2. Is it possible to link it? We have a shortcut on our desktops for it, but it could be helpful as part of EPG, perhaps.
Keith L. Smith: Thank you for an interesting suggestion - one that has not been presented to us until now. Please forward the link you use and we will discuss if and where to place it in the EPG. This sounds potentially useful!
Sam Masters: Currently there is no web address for the The Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment (referred to as the "Blue Book") so we cannot link it to the EPG at this time. However, we understand there may be a web address for this information in a few months. We will stay on top of this effort and will make the link once it is available.
We are also working with Construction and Materials to add additional clarifying information to the EPG concerning specification 109.5.4 Equipment and how it is to be applied to MoDOT operations.
External Civil Rights Resource Manual Link - Section 135.6
I think I posted this subject in the wrong place. I noticed an older version of the Resource Manual was linked in the External Civil Right Section 135.6 instead of the January 2007 version that is linked above. There has been significant changes to it. I hope the link above works.
Sam Masters: I have made the suggested revision. The 2007 version of the Resource Manual is now available in 135.6.
Force Account Forms
C-FA3 is linked to the EPG as a blank form, but I haven't found a link to a blank C-FA1 form or C-FA2 form in section 137 or the Forms section. There are examples of them, but not a blank form unless I have overlooked it. Can they be linked in the EPG like C-FA3 is?
Sam Masters: I can provide a link to "blank" versions of C-FA1 and C-FA2, after I receive a Word file copy of each one. These "versions" were not provided with the material we used to add the orginal article to the EPG.
Sam Masters: After contacting the Construction and Materials Division, I received the "Force Account Worksheet". This worksheet has replaced Forms C-FA1, C-FA2 and C-FA3. Article 137 has been revised to reflect this change.
When you search for Change Orders in the search box the section of the construction guidance on change orders does not appear as a result.
Keith L. Smith: You appear to have a point. I had trouble finding the info on change orders in both the old Construction Manual (using "search") and in the EPG (using Google). The EPG change order is in article 137.2 Change Order. Unfortunately, the Google provides many leads to change order information, but most of the leads placed near the top of the list are links to change order forms. We will try to get some technical assistance to see if this can be improved upon. Thanks for your input.
C-220 Request to Subcontract Work
In the EPG, there is a C-220 form that pops up when I searched C-220. It allows saving, but it does not have the calculation feature that the form on the MoDOT Internet Business-Contractor Resources page has. A contractor has complained that the form on the internet does not allow saving, so if any changes are needed, they have to start over. I explained that the EPG has a form, but they said they like the calculation feature of the one on the internet. Can the form in the EPG have a calculation feature for each line?
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for pointing this out. Apparently, the very latest file for C-220 was not available at EPG 105.3 or EPG 137 (although it was in our new EPG 101 Standard Forms article). I have updated the links in the 105.3 and 137 articles to match the link in 101 Standard Forms. When the contractor uses the files in any of these articles, he or she should have access to whatever is available on MoDOT's Contractor Resources site since the forms should now be identical. (Note to self and divisions: this is what happens when updated forms are added to the EPG without properly researching all the places within the EPG that the old forms have been already placed.)
C-220 Request to Subcontract Work - not able to save it
Thank you for making the forms match compared to the internet forms, but the main issue for contractor use form is not being able to save the C-220 form for their records. Their only option is to print it. This makes it a problem if they need to make a correction to a C-220 they've submitted. There seems to be no way for the contractor to "detach" the form, so they can edit it when needed. Their only option is to print, not save. This may not be an EPG issue since it is like that on Internet.
http://www.modot.org/business/materials/Request%20to%20Subcontract%20Work%20(C-220).pdf I think this is the link to the C-220 form that will calculate; however, it cannot be saved. Saving it is very helpful to contractors in case they need to make a correction to it.
We are still having problems with contractors not using the forms that we provide on the Internet through the EPG and the Business with MoDOT Forms page. The EPG link won't calculate the totals for each line and the link on the Business with MoDOT Forms page won't allow saving. Either is inefficient for contractors compared to what they can set up for themselves in order to be able to make corrections to their submittal, if needed, in an efficient way. Is there any resolution so the contractor can have an "official" form that both calculates and saves. We are not accepting their own worksheet page (Page 2)and that forces them to use what we are providing but it is time consuming for them. Is there a work around that I can share with the contractors?
2008 CPR Questionaire Form Link not working
This link in the EPG is not working for the Contractor Performance Questionaire. Also, is this where the 2009 form will be? When I click on the questionaire in the Forms box, it goes to the internet but says page broken. I can go to the internet though without using the EPG and it opens from the internet page (Bus. with MoDOT).
Sam Masters: The link to the Contractor Performance Evaluation in 102.2 Contractor Performance Rating System has been restored. Additionally, the word "questionnaire" in the article has been replaced with the word "evaluation". We will request that the Construction and Materials Division provide a 2009 version of this form.
Do we have a Contractor Performance Evaluation for 2009 that is available to contractors or is the only one available the "Empty" one that we can get by logging into the evaluation program? We want to provide a link to it or a print out at our Preconstruction Meetings. Thank you.
137.9.7 Subcontract Approval Request - SiteManager
I am just wondering if 137.9.7 should have a mention of the C-220 information being entered in SiteManager since we enter all of them. SiteManager figures the percent subcontracted and contains all of the C-220 info.
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for your comment. Construction & Materials has contributed guidance in EPG 137.9.7 about C-220 info being entered into SiteManager.
Labor Compliance "Deducations"
Just wanted to point out spelling problem in EPG 135.5 and thank you for the good detail about payroll checking. It is helpful.
"...Deductions All deductions should be clearly identified. Only approved deducations should be used in wage rate calculations. The most common standard approved dedutions from the Code of Federal Regulations are shown in the following list. ..."
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for noticing and telling us about our deducations, etc. The article has been corrected.
SiteManager Activation Process
I am just surprised that I am not finding a section about the SiteManager Activation Process. I was actually looking to see if Project Offices were required to review all SiteManager Contract data immediately after activation (like we used to do) and BEFORE any data is added. The real world situation is as soon as I get word that I have access, I need to enter C-220 Subcontract data. This project has an Early Notice to Proceed, so things are hurried a bit more.
Keith L. Smith: Construction and Materials has been constrained by an agreement with SiteManager to not allow specific SiteManager information into the EPG. Construction and Materials permits SiteManager info to be available to MoDOT personnel at \\ghdata011\ghq_smcommon\CM Manual\vol_3\MMV3CONT.pdfManual\main\CONTENT.pdf. Yes, it would appear to be more convenient to have this info in the EPG and perhaps someday it will be.
Storm Water Permit Sign
There is a Storm Water Permit Sign that contractors are required to post at the jobsite. Maybe inspectors have another way to get to it with the permit number, but I was wondering why the EPG doesn't have it available with the permit number. John Howland was able to provide it as an attachment in an email. I don't know if the permit no. changes or not. Just in case it is helpful, I wanted to mention this observation. Someone asked me about how to get one and the only way I found it was by asking John Howland for it and he was very helpful.
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for asking about this. Civil Rights has revisited the lists and has added the Stormwater Permit sign to the EPG 135.4 listing. The sign/poster listings have been updated in both EPG 135.4 and EPG 101.
Buy America Requirement is in Sec 106.9, but when I search the term "Buy America" in the EPG, no results are found. Should there be a Buy America article in the EPG?
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for the question. Construction and Materials (CM) and I judge the specs to be sufficient to deliver the info. Since the specs carry more legal weight than the EPG, no additional EPG guidance will be provided - as is the case in many other similar situations in our standards. Nonetheless, CM is mindful to point out that you should interpret from the existing specification: The project office is to enforce the specifications. In this instance the Buy America policy requires the steel products to be made in the U.S. The contractor has provided a certification indicating compliance. Put it on file and forget it, unless... something makes you think the contractor is providing incorrect information. If the steel on the job site was packaged or tagged indicating arrival from outside the U.S., you should look into the situation a bit more. But you can only go so far.
The link to the Contractor Performance Report in the EPG is for 2009. Do we have 2010 available in the EPG?
2010 EPG - will one be available
The EPG still has 2009 Contractor Performance Questionaire. We hand these out at Precons to the Prime Contractor. We have a meeting next week. Are we going to have 2010 Contractor Performance Questionaire. I think I was told that there will not be any significant change and we will relay this to the contractor, but I thought I'd see if there are plans for a 2010 Questionaire, so we can tell them that a new one is on the way. Thank you.
Keith L. Smith: Thanks for pointing this out. After divisional input, EPG 102.2 was updated with the new Contractor Performance Report for 2010.
Change Order Example for District Level Approval
The portion of EPG 109.12 that explains a District Level Change Order has an example change order. The example doesn't seem to fit the criteria below as worded in the EPG. None of the new contingency items are over $50,000. No item was changed over $50,000 on the example. It is a $9 million project. Is the example a correct one?
Non-major change orders (Change Order level 2) requiring approval by the district office with FHWA approval if required are:
1. Final change orders for contract leveling course projects. 2. Any change in a contract item or contingency item from $50,000 to $100,000. 3. Any new contingency item from $50,000 to $100,000. 4. Any final change order not meeting "major change order" criteria. 5. When none of the "major change order" criteria apply. Examples of both a District Change Order Report and District and FHWA Change Order Report are available.
Keith L. Smith: Thank you for your observation. Construction and Materials' response:
- Tricia is technically correct in that the details of the example change order do not, in every way, match the criteria in that section of that EPG article. It is a question of degree of compliance of the details included. The example change order does show the general layout of the change order with regard to header details, items, amounts, signature lines, etc. Inversely, the contractor, contractor ID, contract number, formatting and specific location of signatures lines, and some other minute details of the example do not match the current change order report, or are just plain fake. Whereas the user has no control over these details and can only run the report provided by HQ, I think the intent of the example is simply an instantaneous recognition of a particular change order type (such as district (which has three signature lines) versus district + FHWA (which has four signature lines.)).
- We will try to keep this issue in mind. After we convert the change order reports to Cognos 8, if time permits, perhaps we can "generalize" some new example change order reports that are more completely accurate without actually being some contractor's official change order and get them submitted to EPG. Meanwhile, we are delighted to have folks review what we have placed in the EPG and challenge us to make it the best we can.
"For a DBE, the Subcontract amount indicated on the C-220 must be greater than or equal to the DBE Subcontract amount submitted by the Contractor with the Contractor’s bid submission prior to Award and the subcontractor must be the same listed. For a DBE, the Subcontract amount indicated on the C-220 cannot be more than the Contractor’s bid for the line item."
This paragraph in EPG 108 about Subletting seems to contradict itself. Am I misunderstanding it? Can the amount on the C-220 be more than what is in the Contractor's bid summission for any Individual DBE?
Keith L. Smith: Thank you for your observation. Construction and Materials' response:
- EPG 108 is addressing two different things here -- the contractor's DBE commitment and the actual Request to Subcontract Form C-220.
- For a DBE, the Subcontract amount indicated on the C-220 must be greater than or equal to the DBE Subcontract amount submitted by the Contractor with the Contractor’s bid submission prior to Award and the subcontractor must be the same listed. A contractor may submit DBE commitments with the bid or within 3 days of the letting. the above sentence is saying the prime cannot put a smaller dollar amount on the Request to Subcontract Form C-220 that what was submitted as the commitment (either with the bid or within the 3 day period).
- For a DBE, the Subcontract amount indicated on the C-220 cannot be more than the Contractor’s bid for the line item. This sentence states the dollar amount entered on the C-220 for a line item cannot be greater that the contractor's bid amount for the line item.
Producer Supplier form
A contractor asked me if we can get the Producer Supplier List form changed so that the text wraps. I don't know how she typed on it, though. I couldn't.