Survey Feedback. The respondents surveyed provided both written and verbal feedback through questionnaires and telephone interviews. The engineers and landscape architects who were selected for this survey were familiar with the Department’s seed testing program and have implemented some form of corrective action. The intent of the survey was to capture a “snapshot” of the state-of-practice in Construction for corrective actions related to seed quality deficiencies. The limited resources of this seed testing 11 Construction Manual 3-508 Control of Work – Removal of Rejected or Unauthorized Work (2008); 3-608 Control of Materials - Testing (2007) 12 Caltrans, Division of Construction, Storm Water Management Enforcement Guidance Manual; pp. 2-10 to 2-14 (December 2003) program did not allow for a comprehensive and in-depth survey. The survey respondents whose verbal comments are summarized below discuss common problems that are not necessarily pervasive or recurring statewide. Verbal feedback from several respondents is summarized below: A District 1 respondent stated that he had not experienced many problems with seed. The only issue he had experienced involved a contractor who arrived a day earlier than scheduled and opened and mixed the seed prior to the RE arrival. The RE rejected the mixed seed and the work was rescheduled. A District 3 respondent recounted a number of issues with noncompliant seed being delivered to sites. He negotiated reduced payments to cover the cost of applying additional specified seed as an alternative to re-doing the entire job. His experience suggests that payment adjustment as a means to mitigate compliance is generally accepted by the contractors. Occasionally, he allows substitutions if the wrong seed is acquired; however, the RE expressed concern that some contractors will take advantage of the knowledge that RE will allow some substitutions. When this has occurred, the RE has excused the contractor from the job entirely. He noted a common problem of contractors arriving to the job site when the RE is not present and applying the seed without supervision. In such cases, the RE has required the contractor to remove the work and apply new materials under proper supervision. Another issue experienced was that required information (i.e. vendor laboratory test results) are not provided at the time seed is delivered. As a result, he has called the seed vendor to request the information. A District 3 respondent works in the Tahoe Basin generall...
