October 22, 2024 • 40 mins
Unlock the secrets of effective laboratory monitoring with insights from Greg Uherek, Manager of Business Development and Technical Services. Greg sheds light on the specifier feature of the AASHTO re:source website, a game-changer for agencies that require AASHTO Accreditation like DOTs and California's Division of the State Architect. Journey through the evolution of laboratory monitoring from outdated methods to the cutting-edge specifier tools that enhance transparency and accountability. Greg takes us through the transformation, revealing how features like mapping and real-time alerts have made lab monitoring more intuitive and effective. Learn how these specifiers streamline oversight, ensuring labs comply with stringent testing standards. Discover why this tool is indispensable for public and private entities aiming for efficiency and compliance.
Related information:
Have questions, comments, or want to be a guest on an upcoming episode? Email podcast@aashtoresource.org.
Related information on this and other episodes can be found at aashtoresource.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kim Swanson (00:03):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we have Ukhere here today
and Greg is the Program Managerfor Business Development here at
AASHTO Resource, correct?
Did I get your title right,Greg?
Greg Uherek (00:33):
That was close enough, Kim.
What is it?
Kim Swanson (00:35):
Sorry, what is it?
I don't know.
Greg Uherek (00:37):
Just Manager of Business Development and
Technical Services.
Okay, so you had most of it.
The main part was correct.
Kim Swanson (00:44):
I mean, I've worked with you for years and I still
I.
I'm sorry I didn't know yourtitle, but anyway, ryan, why is
Greg here today?
Brian Johnson (00:51):
Well, I think the only the only real title for
Greg is just Greg but I don'tthink that really works with,
like HR structures.
Greg does a bunch of differentstuff that is like it's hard to
define in a regular title, andone of those things that we're
going to talk about is thespecifier feature on our website
, which Greg also manages, butagain, not enough.
(01:14):
It's not enough for one title,but it's one of the many things
that Greg is involved with, sothat just to give people context
of what what in the world isthat title mean?
It means that we couldn't comeup with a really cohesive way to
describe all of the things thatGreg does.
Greg Uherek (01:32):
Anyway.
Brian Johnson (01:33):
Wow, so today was that good.
Greg Uherek (01:35):
Yeah, that's good.
That makes me sound quiteimportant.
Actually we're very busy.
One of the two, yeah, I don'tknow if either are true, but
anyway.
Brian Johnson (01:46):
Well, we'll go with it.
We'll go with it now.
Kim Swanson (01:48):
Thank you, Brian.
Brian Johnson (01:49):
Our listeners will hold you in high regard, no
doubt.
Yes, we're going to talk aboutthe specifier feature on our
website today with Greg, andGreg is managing that activity.
But we're going to take youfrom the beginning, because
people might not know thisterminology very well.
So let's start with the basicshere.
(02:10):
What is a specifier?
Greg Uherek (02:14):
So, brian, a specifier is any agency that is
requiring AASHTO accreditation.
So some of the commonspecifiers, as an example, would
be a DOT that requiresaccreditation, or federal
highway, or any of a multitudeof city or state agencies that
(02:38):
require this to be done.
Laboratories to be accreditedwhen they're working on their
projects.
Kim Swanson (02:44):
Is this limited to just requiring AASHTO
accreditation, or are specifiersrequiring any of the AASHTO
resource services, like theproficiency sample or program or
the laboratory assessmentprogram, or is it specific just
to accreditation?
Greg Uherek (03:02):
It is possible.
Some labs and some agencies,some specifiers, require
enrollment in the proficiencysample program so those
laboratories can still bemonitored.
But typically, you know, by andlarge specifiers require
accreditationitation andtypically for specific methods
(03:26):
or scopes and those are thescopes that they're working on
normally on their projects.
Brian Johnson (03:32):
Okay, so you mentioned some agencies and the
kind of conventional terminologythat people use, some kind of
government agencies.
But the term agency can beexpanded and often is when we're
looking at different standards.
So what kind of other entitiesregister for the specifier tool?
Greg Uherek (03:55):
There are several different types.
Another example was DSA, whichis Division of the State
Architect in California, andthat particular agency oversees
construction of schools andother public buildings in
California.
They have a lot of projects.
They're pretty busy outfits sothey at any given time have
(04:20):
somewhere around 600 or 700projects that are active.
Given time have somewherearound 600 or 700 projects that
are active and on those projectsthey're doing a lot of testing
on soil, concrete, they're doingfield testing and as such they
require AASHTO accreditation forall the labs that are working
on those projects.
So that's an example of youknow, they're quasi-government
(04:42):
but they're not a stategovernment.
They're quasi-government butthey're not a state government.
They're associated with thestate.
But even just sticking withinCalifornia, there's a lot of
city and county level agenciesthat require accreditation.
Most of the time they areaffiliated with a state
government or federal government, but not always.
Brian Johnson (05:06):
Yeah, and they don't need to be either.
Right, I mean, for somebody tosign up to be a registered
specifier with us, do they haveto prove anything?
Greg Uherek (05:15):
No, no, they don't.
I should just take a half astep back here.
It's a free service, so there'sno cost associated with
becoming a specifier.
Anyone can be a specifier.
They can visit our website orreach out directly to me,
provide us with some very basicinformation, contact information
, and we would open up aspecifier account for them.
(05:39):
Once they have that account,they can begin monitoring, on a
couple of different levels,laboratories that they're
interested in monitoring, and Ithink we're going to talk about
this a little bit later.
But there are two significanttypes of monitoring for a lab.
One is referred to as publicand one is private.
(06:00):
Public is just monitoring thepublic details of accreditation
that anyone can find on ourwebsite, and then private would
be a level of access where thespecifier can see things like
assessment reports andproficiency sample ratings that
the lab has received, andthere's a little more involved
(06:21):
to get to that level of access.
But I think we'll talk moreabout that.
I don't want to get too farahead.
Brian Johnson (06:27):
Well, that's okay .
I mean, we went right from whoto what it is, so let's get more
into that.
So this is a you mentioned thatit's a way for these specifiers
to monitor accreditedlaboratories.
So how do they do that?
Accredited laboratories so howdo they do that?
Greg Uherek (06:46):
Okay.
So once a specifier account isset up, you would visit the
website, log in with yourcredentials and go to your
homepage the specifier homepageand then there's a search list
where that person can thensearch all of the labs that are
in our accreditation program andonce they find the lab they'd
(07:07):
like to monitor, they simplyselect it from the list, click a
button and they just add themto their list and they begin
monitoring that lab immediately.
Now that would be the publicmonitoring.
So one of the other tools thatis part of the specifier account
(07:27):
is the ability to receivereal-time alerts.
So whenever there's a change inthe accreditation status for
the lab let's say they getsuspended or revoked or they add
some new tests or a new scope,that information is submitted
and sent to the personmonitoring that in an email
(07:49):
digest and I think it's a dailydigest.
You could arrange to have.
It shows up in your email andit gives you pertinent
information about thatparticular lab.
Brian Johnson (08:02):
Yeah, Now why would somebody care about that?
Why would somebody want thatlevel of detail?
Greg Uherek (08:09):
Sure.
So you know a lot of cases thespecifying agencies require
certain tests of the lab andthat they be accredited for
those tests.
So let's say I have, I'm aproject owner, I'm a DOT, for
example, and I have a projectwhere they're running CBR
testing and as part of my code Irequire the CBR test, that they
(08:34):
be accredited and recognizedfor that, and that helps to
ensure, obviously, the qualityand performance of that test and
performance of that test.
And so let's say thatlaboratory is suspended or
perhaps revoked for testing.
I'd want to know, as aspecifier, I'd want to know that
that lab, for whatever reasonyou know, maybe they had issues
(08:56):
with their equipment or maybethey didn't have personnel that
were trained to perform thattest.
I'd want to know about that assoon as possible trained to
perform that test.
I'd want to know about that assoon as possible.
As a lab, you know, the lastthing you're probably going to
do is contact someone who'srequiring you to be accredited
and let them know that you havean issue.
You might do this if you were,of course, you know not being.
(09:20):
If the lab is trustworthy, theywant to be upfront about it
they might alert the specifier,but more times than not.
The specifier is probably thelast one to know.
So, having this tool, they'realerted to it in real time and
then they can decide how tohandle that, and it might not be
(09:41):
a major issue.
It might be that there's someminor paperwork that needs to be
corrected or some minordeficiencies, or it could be a
major problem.
You know that the devicethey're using to test the CBR is
not functioning or is notcalibrated, so the specifier
(10:02):
then has the ability to pick itup from there and determine
whatever corrective action needsto take place.
In the meantime, they could,you know, tell that contractor
that they cannot work on thesite until it's resolved, and
those types of issues come upmore frequently than you think.
Brian Johnson (10:22):
That point that you just made about what to do
after it is determined thatthere's a suspension, that comes
up a lot and a lot of thesespecifiers.
They assume that once somebodyis accredited, that's it.
And then they start using thisfeature on our website and find,
oh wow, this laboratory on ourproject actually did get
suspended for something they'resupposed to be doing.
(10:43):
And sometimes they'll call usand say what does AASHTO require
of us?
What would you tell them inthat case, greg?
Greg Uherek (10:53):
But look, we have to be careful what we tell them
to do.
We can provide them withcertain information.
Now, if they have that privateaccess, they could look at the
assessment, the latest on-siteassessment report.
They could view proficiencysample ratings if those were the
cause for the suspension orrevocation and then they can
(11:18):
determine.
You know how important thoseissues are.
There are some issues.
For example, if a bill has notbeen paid at a certain point in
time, we will suspend theiraccreditation.
So if it's only that it's not atechnical issue, then it's
pretty straightforward.
But ultimately the specifyingagency needs to determine how to
(11:42):
handle that.
We're not going to guide themor tell them specifically what
we think or consult with them interms of whether or not they
should let this laboratorycontinue to work on the project.
Brian Johnson (11:55):
Yeah, we don't require anything of the
specifiers.
You know we're not their boss.
We give them the information,they figure it out.
But yeah, we do get thatquestion.
Sometimes the laboratory issuspended.
What does that mean?
Can they still work on theproject?
And we say, well, it's up toyou.
Do you want them to continueworking on the project or do you
want to kick them off?
Or what do you want correctiveaction before we get it?
(12:17):
I mean, there are a number ofthings that they could do right
so we developed this pro this,this feature for the specifying
agencies.
Kim Swanson (12:25):
But I do know that we have a lot of people register
or a lot of entities registeras specifiers that aren't
actually project owners andaren't really specifying
anything accreditation.
So can you tell us a little bitabout what those type of things
registered specifiers, who theyare and what benefits do they
(12:48):
get out of the features?
Greg Uherek (12:50):
Of all of our specifiers and we have about
close to 200 specifier accountswith separate agencies and about
half of those are notspecifying bodies that require
accreditation.
They are monitoring their ownfacilities or branch facilities.
(13:12):
A lot of our labs have multiplebranches in different states
and so you have a corporatequality manager or a central
person that is making sure thoselabs are having their
assessments.
They can view the assessmentreports for each lab, they can
view the proficiency sampleratings for each of those labs
(13:34):
and they also can receive alertswhen their reports are issued,
if there's a poor rating, forexample, or if one of those labs
is suspended for some reason.
So it makes managing amulti-branch laboratory so much
easier.
As a matter of fact, if youhave multiple branches and
you're trying to do thisdifferently, I'm not sure how
(13:58):
you'd be doing it.
If you're relying on the labsto send you electronic copies of
reports and keep you informed.
It's probably not going tohappen, at least not real
efficiently.
And keep you informed, it'sprobably not going to happen, at
least not real efficiently.
So you know it's a real timesaver in this case for labs that
(14:19):
have multiple branches,especially like a Terracon or a
PSI, that they may have 50, 60,70 branches that are in the
accreditation program Very toughto manage without this tool.
Kim Swanson (14:29):
What did people do before this tool?
How were people monitoring thismany laboratories before we
came up with this?
Greg Uherek (14:39):
Well, I think it was probably pretty archaic and
the simple answer is I don'tthink they really were, because
it was almost impossible to doright.
You know, before this tool wasdeveloped and made available on
our website, we did have anaccreditation directory and a
(14:59):
listing that was online and thatcame around 2003, when our
website was initially rolled out, if you will.
Before that, laboratories wereissued an accreditation
certificate that listed all thetest methods they were
(15:19):
accredited for and you know, aspecifier would have to either
get a copy of that, I suppose,or you know some proof that they
were accredited.
Of course, that wasn't kept upto date.
When there were changes or ifthe lab was again suspended,
nobody really knew except forthe lab.
Sometimes the lab didn't evenknow, or the right people in the
(15:48):
lab did not know.
But yeah, so it's changed a lotand of course, the internet has
changed so many things foreverybody just in general, but
this has proven to be reallybeneficial for the specifying
bodies both internal andexternal.
Brian Johnson (16:03):
I agree, greg.
I think it's been a realeye-opener for many people
because a lot know globally theaccreditation programs.
I don't think they suspend alot, so that when somebody
starts looking at our programand they see a 10 to 15 percent
suspension rate among theaccredited labs, I think that
(16:25):
that's a surprise to them.
To answer Kim's questionpreemptively, I think it is
something that catches them offguard and then all of a sudden
they start thinking about whatto do with that and how often do
they need to monitor?
And I think it's seen becauseof those revelations, that
(16:49):
specifier feature has grown inits popularity among agencies
and among the private laboratoryquality people that are
monitoring their labs.
So currently, greg and youdon't have to have the exact
number on this, I know it hasgrown, but do you have a
(17:11):
ballpark number of how many?
Greg Uherek (17:11):
registered specifiers we have at the moment
.
I think it's about 180, 185total and, as I said previously,
it's about a 50-50 splitbetween external governmental
agents not governmental agenciesbut specifying bodies.
So they're requiring theaccreditation About half of that
and half is just agencies thatare doing their own internal
(17:35):
monitoring.
So it's split 50-50.
Brian Johnson (17:39):
And this has grown, you know, both in the
numbers of specifiers, the typeof specifiers, and the feature
has kind of evolved over timetoo.
So can you tell us some of thethings that have been added to
the specifier feature over thelast few years to make it even
more worthwhile for people?
Greg Uherek (17:59):
Yeah, brian, yeah, we've kind of continually been
trying to add more types offeatures that will help the
specifiers and the users of thistool better manage those labs.
One of them is we now have likea mapping feature.
So if you have a lot of labsthat are part of your program
(18:21):
like, for example, the Corps ofEngineers, which has six or 700
labs across the US that areworking on projects you can map
that out.
It just gives you a way toquickly get to a lab.
You click on the lab and it'sconnected to the database and to
the accreditation listing forthat lab.
So that's one of the mappingfeatures that's been helpful.
(18:44):
We've also built in, I think,the real-time alerts.
Were part of the originalrollout but we've sort of made
them a little more, added somefeatures to that feature, if you
will.
So there's a couple differentways you can pick your own
alerts.
Also, there's a tool that letsyou download all the labs you're
(19:13):
monitoring and into an Excelspreadsheet so you can export it
Sort of looks like a databaseand get key information from
each of those labs and maybeimport it into something on your
end as the lab, if that helps.
So, yeah, there's been a lot ofgood features.
It's very easy to use in termsof monitoring.
In terms of adding a lab orremoving a lab, you know, once a
(19:35):
project's done, you probablydon't have a need to monitor
that lab any further, so youcould just remove them from your
list.
It's pretty straightforward,straightforward.
Kim Swanson (19:45):
So you talked earlier about that.
There's private access andpublic access, and you said the
public access is just basicallywhat's publicly available on our
website.
So if you were going to go tothat accreditation directory and
manually look through all ofthose laboratories, you can get
that information emailed to youas a registered, without the
(20:08):
laboratory knowing that you'remonitoring them or checking in
on them.
Let's talk about the privateaccess a little bit more, greg,
and what are some of thebenefits of it and what actually
needs to happen to get thatprivate access.
Greg Uherek (20:23):
Right.
So the private access?
You know that's a deeper levelof access and what it allows is
access to information that isconsidered private right.
So the two main pieces ofinformation or documentation are
on-site lab assessment reportsand also proficiency sample
(20:44):
testing data.
So that information is notavailable publicly right, it's
protected by the lab.
They don't distribute it freely.
However, as a specifying agency, those are important pieces of
documents that you are going towant to be aware of and need to
see.
So, to get private access, wedo not provide that level of
(21:09):
access.
However, by using the tool, youvisit the website, you log in
Using the tool, you select thelab you'd like private access
for and then you click a button,basically, and that sends an
email to the primary contact forthat lab that we have on file,
(21:29):
and then it alerts them thatyou're seeking private access.
They in turn then have toapprove that in the system and
then, once they approve that,you would then have the access.
But it requires their approval.
If they don't give it to you,then you won't be able to have
it obviously.
If they don't give it to you,then you won't be able to have
(21:50):
it obviously.
So it takes us out of the loop,in the sense that AASHTO is not
providing this documentation.
We're just providing the portalthrough which you could request
it.
Kim Swanson (22:00):
So I can imagine if you are unaware, if a
laboratory is unaware of thisfeature and things like that and
they get that request ofprivate access, they might be a
little nervous of like who am Igiving access to and what?
But what are some of thebenefits of like why would a
laboratory just say, yes, I wantto grant this access.
Like why would a laboratory sayyes to that?
Greg Uherek (22:21):
In some cases they don't have a choice.
For example, the Corps ofEngineers requires it's in their
validation requirements thatthe laboratories that want to be
considered for validation orcontinue to be validated they
must provide that level ofaccess via the AASHTO resource
(22:41):
website.
Another one is the Division ofthe State Architect in
California, dsa.
They also require privateaccess.
Most of the specifiers requirethat they don't always put it in
writing that it's privateaccess through the AASHTO
website, but they're going towant copies of your assessment
(23:02):
reports, going to want to seecopies of your proficiency
sample testing.
So this actually makes it easier.
This is not an angle that'slooked at by the lab, the person
that's being monitored, but itmakes it easier because you
don't have to take the time andsend them a copy of the
assessment report or send themthe ratings, the copy of the
(23:26):
ratings you've received fromevery proficiency sample.
And if you have multiple labsthat are on multiple projects
with multiple specifiers, that'sa lot of time spent sending
copies of the reports andremembering to do it and to the
right person and making surethey get it and the attachment's
not too big and you know allthose complications that come up
(23:47):
in just daily business life.
If you're enrolled, the agencyrequires private access.
You approve it.
It just kind of operates, youknow, behind the scenes.
So it's a time saver for bothparties.
Kim Swanson (24:02):
So I can imagine someone saying or listening to
this, a laboratory listening tothis, like oh, I still have to
do that for X, y and Z.
Then send them this episode andtell them to register as a
specifier to save you time later, because while you said we have
, you know, almost 200registered specifiers, we
actually have way morebusinesses and entities
(24:27):
requiring accreditation that arenot registered to use this
feature.
So if you're listening to thisand thinking, oh man, I have to
do that for like five differentother things, for projects, I'm
on, let them know that thisoption is available and
encourage them to register as aspecifier.
Greg Uherek (24:43):
Absolutely, absolutely.
And I kind of touched on thebenefit of, you know, for a
specifying agency to do this,but there's also a benefit for
those labs that are trying tomonitor send them copies of the
reports.
I mean, you should want to seethe report, right.
(25:04):
If you're the overall corporatequality manager, you want to
know what's going on in that lab.
You want to see copies of thereports.
So do you just rely on those 50labs to send you, whenever they
have assessments, to sendreports and all the proficiency
sample ratings, et cetera thesame information we just
(25:27):
discussed for a specifyingagency?
And the answer is no.
If you use this tool, however,and you have private access for
all those branches, all theinformation is going to be at
your fingertips.
You're going to receive alertswhenever there's a problem at
any one of those branches, andagain, it's just a huge time
saver, and the fact that it'sfree is just amazing.
Brian Johnson (25:51):
It really is amazing that because it allows
them to see what's going on in away that they couldn't
otherwise.
Right, I mean, we only have onelogin per laboratory, so that
is.
That is kind of another thingthat led to the corporate people
accessing it this way.
You know, accessing informationthrough the specifier tool Plus
(26:11):
, it tells them what they needto know.
You know, like if they had thelab level access, that would
give them way too muchinformation if they were
monitoring a lot, you know it'dbe every time they have a
nonconformity.
You know which.
You know some of these reports.
This is another thing I don'tthink people realize.
You know which.
You know some of these reportsthis is another thing I don't
think people realize is thatsome of these reports are
horrendous.
You know they have 60 to 120nonconformities in them and you
(26:35):
would think, okay, you look atyour average accreditation body
and they might have fivenonconformities.
You think, okay, I don't needit, you know, that's fine, I can
handle looking at that.
And then you get a monsterreport from actual resource or
CCRL and then that specifier allof a sudden is much more
interested in this feature ortool than they were before,
(27:00):
because then they can just getthe summary of what's going on.
So what else, as far as thisfeature is concerned, doesn't
give you everything right.
I mean, I just mentioned someof the things.
They can't see all theindividual nonconformities
except in the report.
They can't see the correctiveactions.
They can't see.
Well, there was something thatwe used to have as part of this
(27:24):
feature that we no longer have.
I want to talk about that forthose of you who are kind of
curious about why that went away.
We used to have automaticalerts every time a proficiency
sample report would come outthat would run a comparison of
the laboratory's accreditationto the test results that were on
(27:45):
the most recent report.
Greg, why did we stop includingthat in the private alerts?
Greg Uherek (27:52):
Why did we stop?
I think we had an issue withproperly identifying the poor
ratings, and so there were a fewissues where an alert was sent
but it really wasn't accurate,didn't reflect that there was a
poor rating, so it was kind ofan issue on the back end of the
(28:14):
system just flagging all thoseappropriately.
So we pulled back on that, atleast for the time being, and
we're going to work on fixingthat.
But it's a programming issue,so it might be a little while
before we're able to addressthat appropriately.
Brian Johnson (28:32):
What we really need to do is split up the
directory the accreditationdirectory so that we can isolate
those tests and what theconditions are for testing, so
that we can get those alertsworking properly again.
We also have the same test onmultiple samples, and that
creates some issues too.
So there's some good reasonswhy we stopped doing it.
(28:54):
It was throwing some flags thatwere not accurate, even though
I'd say we were mostly you know,probably 80% accurate, and it
was really useful for a lot ofpeople.
There were some times where itfailed and that created some
heartburn for those laboratoriesand some unnecessary concerns
for the specifying agency.
Greg Uherek (29:16):
Those ratings are still available.
So labs can still access thereports.
They just don't receive alertswhen there are poorer ratings.
So we've got to work that partof it out.
But you can visit.
If you have private access.
The specifier can come to thewebsite.
They could see the wholehistory of ratings and actually
(29:38):
you could see the.
I believe they could see thecontrol chart over a 10-year
period, which is interestingbecause a lot of times you see a
bias associated with thosecontrol charts.
So we've actually had caseswhere the specifying body, be it
a DOT or whoever it is, ishaving some comparative test
(29:59):
result issues with thecontractor.
So they're both running samplesbut they're just not quite
matching up.
And in some of those cases, eventhough you don't receive a poor
rating, you're always testing.
Your results are always on thehigh side or the low side and if
you're trying to compare thatto someone else's data, that may
(30:21):
be a cause of the problem.
It might be because of the typeof equipment you're using for
the test or the type ofcompression machine or whatever
the case is.
But it can really give you someinsight that normally you just
wouldn't have any idea about.
So having access to thoseratings and the ratings history
can also be another benefit togetting drilling down to some of
(30:46):
the important data that youlook at on a project.
Brian Johnson (30:52):
I want to talk about some of the implicit
benefits too.
Some of these specifyingagencies, I feel like they don't
really have an understanding ofhow the program works at times.
They know that the laboratoryneeds to be accredited.
Like I said, sometimes theydon't know what to do with
suspensions, sometimes theydon't understand what the
accreditation means in general.
But if they sign up for thespecifier feature, all of a
(31:16):
sudden they have interactionswith somebody like Greg who can
kind of walk them through it.
And just knowing just Greg,knowing who you are and that
you're interested in this, canopen up that conversation and
possibly other learning channels.
So, greg, if I'm a newspecifier and I want to know
(31:38):
more, what kind of expectationsshould I have for amount of
service I can get from you,given that, even though I'm not
paying anything for it, as wementioned before, get from you,
given that?
Greg Uherek (31:48):
even though I'm not paying anything for it, as we
mentioned before.
Look, I'm available here.
If anyone has questions aboutthe features.
We could set up a phone call, aTeams meeting.
I've walked a lot of peoplethrough the website and showed
them how to utilize certainfeatures.
I'm more than happy to do it.
You know, supporting the use ofthe specifier tool is supporting
(32:14):
accreditation and some of thekey things that we do as an
organization, and it reallygives the link to ensure the
quality.
Yes, we do things to ensurequality by visiting labs, doing
the assessments quality.
Yes, we do things to ensurequality by visiting labs, doing
the assessments, looking at allthe things we do with the
accreditation program.
But having this specifierfeature and someone like me or
(32:35):
anyone else on staff that can becontacted from one of the labs
and have questions answeredabout what some of this means
just adds value to the programand, I think, raises the bar
just a little further.
You know so because you havespecifiers that are smart and
they're monitoring things andthey're aware of of what's
(32:57):
happening out in the field andwhere the rubber meets the road
or concrete meets the something.
You know what I mean.
Yeah, I, you know what I mean.
Brian Johnson (33:09):
Yeah, I know, I know what you mean, and it is a
challenge to identify thosespecifiers at times, and I feel
like with agencies we don'talways get the right people
either.
You know, sometimes the oneswho are actually monitoring may
be in a contract department andthey might not even be the
technical people that we oftendeal with.
So I think it's a challenge toidentify those folks.
(33:31):
But we have had opportunitieswhere we were able to meet with
a group of people who werehandling those kind of
activities and give them youknow we held a webinar a couple
of times to go over all thesefeatures answer any questions
that we can, and we're happy todo that for anybody.
(33:52):
So Greg and I often will teamup for those, and I think it's a
great way for people to ask allkinds of questions that they
have about accreditation, notjust the specifier features, but
just what does it mean when yousee this?
Or what is this test method?
And we noticed that not toomany people have this one.
(34:14):
Why is that?
Or why don't you accredit forstate methods?
Or why don't you accredit forthese other things that we're
interested in?
And then we can talk about allof those issues, but can't do it
unless we know who they are.
So it really gives us a goodchance to make those connections
.
So I think that's been one ofthe biggest benefits of this
(34:36):
endeavor.
Greg Uherek (34:38):
Absolutely, brian.
I agree 100%.
You know I spend some of mytime just reaching out to new
specifying agencies evencontacting labs that have
multiple branches in our programand just letting them know
about this.
We have a link, obviously onour website for specifiers and
(34:59):
it describes the specifier toolsand what a specifier is and a
lot of the things we've justtalked about.
But most people never click onthat link.
We have 2,000 labs in ourprogram, over 2,000 labs, and
you know they're usually focusedon the lab assessment or
performing the proficiencysample material.
(35:21):
But we do have the link thereand you can also click on that
or reach out directly to me orBrian, but especially for the
specifier information and to setup an account, please let us
know.
We'd be happy to again give youa demo and set up an account
for you.
Kim Swanson (35:42):
So, Greg, what are some of the other benefits to
requiring or using the specifiertools?
Greg Uherek (35:47):
some of the other benefits to requiring or using
the specifier tools Because, asyou know, our society has become
quite litigious, right whenwe're working on and specifiers
are working on multi-milliondollar projects it could be a
bridge, a large building, it'snot always just horizontal
construction.
There's a lot of responsibilityfrom the project owner to ensure
(36:15):
the quality and safety of thepeople and quality of the
testing and longevity of theproduct, of the project.
Rather so if you are the ownerof a project and the labs that
are working on it becomesuspended or revoked, they lose
(36:35):
their accreditation.
Again, they're not going toreach out to you in most cases
and they'll probably try and fixit as quickly as they can Right
, but in some cases it's itcould be a major problem.
And again, if they're doingcompression testing, for example
, on your project, and they'resuspended for that test method
(36:56):
but you don't know about it andthey continue doing that work
and perhaps putting in concretethat it doesn't have the
compressive strength that itshould, and then there's a
failure and a subsequentinvestigation that could not
reflect well on the projectowner.
It's your responsibility toknow these things and it can be
(37:19):
difficult to stay in the loop onall of it, especially if you
have a lot of projects.
But this is one way, using thespecifier features, that you
will know in real time what'shappening, at least as far as
suspension and accreditation.
So don't know if I mentionedthat before, but it can be a
huge benefit.
Brian Johnson (37:38):
All right, greg.
Well, thanks for your timetoday.
I think we've covered a lot ofthe benefits and features of the
.
The specifier uh feature in thewebsite and, uh, like you said,
people can reach out to youanytime they want.
It's available on our websiteto register if you have any
questions, just we will includegreg's contact information on
(38:00):
our website, along with otheruseful information that kim
often pulls from the website andputs links to useful
information that Kim often pullsfrom the website and puts links
to under the podcast episodeinformation Kim.
Any last thoughts or questionsfrom you?
Kim Swanson (38:17):
I just wanted to say something and I forgot.
So I don't think so.
I think we covered everythinghere today.
Oh, we do.
We are planning to do anotherspecifier kind of how-to webinar
, possibly later this year orearly next year, so be on the
(38:39):
lookout for that if you'reinterested in it.
We will put a link on ourwebsite at ashtaresourceorg
slash events and you can sign upfor the mailing list there if
you want to be notified ofupcoming events, like a
potential specifiers webinar.
So be on the lookout for that.
We don't have a date oranything else specific yet, but
(39:00):
that is in the works and shouldbe coming relatively soon.
Brian Johnson (39:05):
All right.
Well, I think we covered thistopic well enough.
Greg, thank you so much foryour time and effort putting
this together and, kim, asalways, great to have you on
along with your new assistant.
You want to introduce us toyour new assistant.
Kim Swanson (39:21):
For those watching on YouTube, you can kind of see
the corner of my dog's head,franklin, so he was joining us
throughout the podcast today.
So if you want to go see a tinylittle part of Franklin's head,
you can watch this episode onYouTube.
Thanks for listening to AASHTOResource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
(39:44):
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out Ashto
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we have Ukhere here today
and Greg is the Program Managerfor Business Development here at
AASHTO Resource, correct?
Did I get your title right,Greg?
Greg Uherek (00:33):
That was close enough, Kim.
What is it?
Kim Swanson (00:35):
Sorry, what is it?
I don't know.
Greg Uherek (00:37):
Just Manager of Business Development and
Technical Services.
Okay, so you had most of it.
The main part was correct.
Kim Swanson (00:44):
I mean, I've worked with you for years and I still
I.
I'm sorry I didn't know yourtitle, but anyway, ryan, why is
Greg here today?
Brian Johnson (00:51):
Well, I think the only the only real title for
Greg is just Greg but I don'tthink that really works with,
like HR structures.
Greg does a bunch of differentstuff that is like it's hard to
define in a regular title, andone of those things that we're
going to talk about is thespecifier feature on our website
, which Greg also manages, butagain, not enough.
(01:14):
It's not enough for one title,but it's one of the many things
that Greg is involved with, sothat just to give people context
of what what in the world isthat title mean?
It means that we couldn't comeup with a really cohesive way to
describe all of the things thatGreg does.
Greg Uherek (01:32):
Anyway.
Brian Johnson (01:33):
Wow, so today was that good.
Greg Uherek (01:35):
Yeah, that's good.
That makes me sound quiteimportant.
Actually we're very busy.
One of the two, yeah, I don'tknow if either are true, but
anyway.
Brian Johnson (01:46):
Well, we'll go with it.
We'll go with it now.
Kim Swanson (01:48):
Thank you, Brian.
Brian Johnson (01:49):
Our listeners will hold you in high regard, no
doubt.
Yes, we're going to talk aboutthe specifier feature on our
website today with Greg, andGreg is managing that activity.
But we're going to take youfrom the beginning, because
people might not know thisterminology very well.
So let's start with the basicshere.
(02:10):
What is a specifier?
Greg Uherek (02:14):
So, brian, a specifier is any agency that is
requiring AASHTO accreditation.
So some of the commonspecifiers, as an example, would
be a DOT that requiresaccreditation, or federal
highway, or any of a multitudeof city or state agencies that
(02:38):
require this to be done.
Laboratories to be accreditedwhen they're working on their
projects.
Kim Swanson (02:44):
Is this limited to just requiring AASHTO
accreditation, or are specifiersrequiring any of the AASHTO
resource services, like theproficiency sample or program or
the laboratory assessmentprogram, or is it specific just
to accreditation?
Greg Uherek (03:02):
It is possible.
Some labs and some agencies,some specifiers, require
enrollment in the proficiencysample program so those
laboratories can still bemonitored.
But typically, you know, by andlarge specifiers require
accreditationitation andtypically for specific methods
(03:26):
or scopes and those are thescopes that they're working on
normally on their projects.
Brian Johnson (03:32):
Okay, so you mentioned some agencies and the
kind of conventional terminologythat people use, some kind of
government agencies.
But the term agency can beexpanded and often is when we're
looking at different standards.
So what kind of other entitiesregister for the specifier tool?
Greg Uherek (03:55):
There are several different types.
Another example was DSA, whichis Division of the State
Architect in California, andthat particular agency oversees
construction of schools andother public buildings in
California.
They have a lot of projects.
They're pretty busy outfits sothey at any given time have
(04:20):
somewhere around 600 or 700projects that are active.
Given time have somewherearound 600 or 700 projects that
are active and on those projectsthey're doing a lot of testing
on soil, concrete, they're doingfield testing and as such they
require AASHTO accreditation forall the labs that are working
on those projects.
So that's an example of youknow, they're quasi-government
(04:42):
but they're not a stategovernment.
They're quasi-government butthey're not a state government.
They're associated with thestate.
But even just sticking withinCalifornia, there's a lot of
city and county level agenciesthat require accreditation.
Most of the time they areaffiliated with a state
government or federal government, but not always.
Brian Johnson (05:06):
Yeah, and they don't need to be either.
Right, I mean, for somebody tosign up to be a registered
specifier with us, do they haveto prove anything?
Greg Uherek (05:15):
No, no, they don't.
I should just take a half astep back here.
It's a free service, so there'sno cost associated with
becoming a specifier.
Anyone can be a specifier.
They can visit our website orreach out directly to me,
provide us with some very basicinformation, contact information
, and we would open up aspecifier account for them.
(05:39):
Once they have that account,they can begin monitoring, on a
couple of different levels,laboratories that they're
interested in monitoring, and Ithink we're going to talk about
this a little bit later.
But there are two significanttypes of monitoring for a lab.
One is referred to as publicand one is private.
(06:00):
Public is just monitoring thepublic details of accreditation
that anyone can find on ourwebsite, and then private would
be a level of access where thespecifier can see things like
assessment reports andproficiency sample ratings that
the lab has received, andthere's a little more involved
(06:21):
to get to that level of access.
But I think we'll talk moreabout that.
I don't want to get too farahead.
Brian Johnson (06:27):
Well, that's okay .
I mean, we went right from whoto what it is, so let's get more
into that.
So this is a you mentioned thatit's a way for these specifiers
to monitor accreditedlaboratories.
So how do they do that?
Accredited laboratories so howdo they do that?
Greg Uherek (06:46):
Okay.
So once a specifier account isset up, you would visit the
website, log in with yourcredentials and go to your
homepage the specifier homepageand then there's a search list
where that person can thensearch all of the labs that are
in our accreditation program andonce they find the lab they'd
(07:07):
like to monitor, they simplyselect it from the list, click a
button and they just add themto their list and they begin
monitoring that lab immediately.
Now that would be the publicmonitoring.
So one of the other tools thatis part of the specifier account
(07:27):
is the ability to receivereal-time alerts.
So whenever there's a change inthe accreditation status for
the lab let's say they getsuspended or revoked or they add
some new tests or a new scope,that information is submitted
and sent to the personmonitoring that in an email
(07:49):
digest and I think it's a dailydigest.
You could arrange to have.
It shows up in your email andit gives you pertinent
information about thatparticular lab.
Brian Johnson (08:02):
Yeah, Now why would somebody care about that?
Why would somebody want thatlevel of detail?
Greg Uherek (08:09):
Sure.
So you know a lot of cases thespecifying agencies require
certain tests of the lab andthat they be accredited for
those tests.
So let's say I have, I'm aproject owner, I'm a DOT, for
example, and I have a projectwhere they're running CBR
testing and as part of my code Irequire the CBR test, that they
(08:34):
be accredited and recognizedfor that, and that helps to
ensure, obviously, the qualityand performance of that test and
performance of that test.
And so let's say thatlaboratory is suspended or
perhaps revoked for testing.
I'd want to know, as aspecifier, I'd want to know that
that lab, for whatever reasonyou know, maybe they had issues
(08:56):
with their equipment or maybethey didn't have personnel that
were trained to perform thattest.
I'd want to know about that assoon as possible trained to
perform that test.
I'd want to know about that assoon as possible.
As a lab, you know, the lastthing you're probably going to
do is contact someone who'srequiring you to be accredited
and let them know that you havean issue.
You might do this if you were,of course, you know not being.
(09:20):
If the lab is trustworthy, theywant to be upfront about it
they might alert the specifier,but more times than not.
The specifier is probably thelast one to know.
So, having this tool, they'realerted to it in real time and
then they can decide how tohandle that, and it might not be
(09:41):
a major issue.
It might be that there's someminor paperwork that needs to be
corrected or some minordeficiencies, or it could be a
major problem.
You know that the devicethey're using to test the CBR is
not functioning or is notcalibrated, so the specifier
(10:02):
then has the ability to pick itup from there and determine
whatever corrective action needsto take place.
In the meantime, they could,you know, tell that contractor
that they cannot work on thesite until it's resolved, and
those types of issues come upmore frequently than you think.
Brian Johnson (10:22):
That point that you just made about what to do
after it is determined thatthere's a suspension, that comes
up a lot and a lot of thesespecifiers.
They assume that once somebodyis accredited, that's it.
And then they start using thisfeature on our website and find,
oh wow, this laboratory on ourproject actually did get
suspended for something they'resupposed to be doing.
(10:43):
And sometimes they'll call usand say what does AASHTO require
of us?
What would you tell them inthat case, greg?
Greg Uherek (10:53):
But look, we have to be careful what we tell them
to do.
We can provide them withcertain information.
Now, if they have that privateaccess, they could look at the
assessment, the latest on-siteassessment report.
They could view proficiencysample ratings if those were the
cause for the suspension orrevocation and then they can
(11:18):
determine.
You know how important thoseissues are.
There are some issues.
For example, if a bill has notbeen paid at a certain point in
time, we will suspend theiraccreditation.
So if it's only that it's not atechnical issue, then it's
pretty straightforward.
But ultimately the specifyingagency needs to determine how to
(11:42):
handle that.
We're not going to guide themor tell them specifically what
we think or consult with them interms of whether or not they
should let this laboratorycontinue to work on the project.
Brian Johnson (11:55):
Yeah, we don't require anything of the
specifiers.
You know we're not their boss.
We give them the information,they figure it out.
But yeah, we do get thatquestion.
Sometimes the laboratory issuspended.
What does that mean?
Can they still work on theproject?
And we say, well, it's up toyou.
Do you want them to continueworking on the project or do you
want to kick them off?
Or what do you want correctiveaction before we get it?
(12:17):
I mean, there are a number ofthings that they could do right
so we developed this pro this,this feature for the specifying
agencies.
Kim Swanson (12:25):
But I do know that we have a lot of people register
or a lot of entities registeras specifiers that aren't
actually project owners andaren't really specifying
anything accreditation.
So can you tell us a little bitabout what those type of things
registered specifiers, who theyare and what benefits do they
(12:48):
get out of the features?
Greg Uherek (12:50):
Of all of our specifiers and we have about
close to 200 specifier accountswith separate agencies and about
half of those are notspecifying bodies that require
accreditation.
They are monitoring their ownfacilities or branch facilities.
(13:12):
A lot of our labs have multiplebranches in different states
and so you have a corporatequality manager or a central
person that is making sure thoselabs are having their
assessments.
They can view the assessmentreports for each lab, they can
view the proficiency sampleratings for each of those labs
(13:34):
and they also can receive alertswhen their reports are issued,
if there's a poor rating, forexample, or if one of those labs
is suspended for some reason.
So it makes managing amulti-branch laboratory so much
easier.
As a matter of fact, if youhave multiple branches and
you're trying to do thisdifferently, I'm not sure how
(13:58):
you'd be doing it.
If you're relying on the labsto send you electronic copies of
reports and keep you informed.
It's probably not going tohappen, at least not real
efficiently.
And keep you informed, it'sprobably not going to happen, at
least not real efficiently.
So you know it's a real timesaver in this case for labs that
(14:19):
have multiple branches,especially like a Terracon or a
PSI, that they may have 50, 60,70 branches that are in the
accreditation program Very toughto manage without this tool.
Kim Swanson (14:29):
What did people do before this tool?
How were people monitoring thismany laboratories before we
came up with this?
Greg Uherek (14:39):
Well, I think it was probably pretty archaic and
the simple answer is I don'tthink they really were, because
it was almost impossible to doright.
You know, before this tool wasdeveloped and made available on
our website, we did have anaccreditation directory and a
(14:59):
listing that was online and thatcame around 2003, when our
website was initially rolled out, if you will.
Before that, laboratories wereissued an accreditation
certificate that listed all thetest methods they were
(15:19):
accredited for and you know, aspecifier would have to either
get a copy of that, I suppose,or you know some proof that they
were accredited.
Of course, that wasn't kept upto date.
When there were changes or ifthe lab was again suspended,
nobody really knew except forthe lab.
Sometimes the lab didn't evenknow, or the right people in the
(15:48):
lab did not know.
But yeah, so it's changed a lotand of course, the internet has
changed so many things foreverybody just in general, but
this has proven to be reallybeneficial for the specifying
bodies both internal andexternal.
Brian Johnson (16:03):
I agree, greg.
I think it's been a realeye-opener for many people
because a lot know globally theaccreditation programs.
I don't think they suspend alot, so that when somebody
starts looking at our programand they see a 10 to 15 percent
suspension rate among theaccredited labs, I think that
(16:25):
that's a surprise to them.
To answer Kim's questionpreemptively, I think it is
something that catches them offguard and then all of a sudden
they start thinking about whatto do with that and how often do
they need to monitor?
And I think it's seen becauseof those revelations, that
(16:49):
specifier feature has grown inits popularity among agencies
and among the private laboratoryquality people that are
monitoring their labs.
So currently, greg and youdon't have to have the exact
number on this, I know it hasgrown, but do you have a
(17:11):
ballpark number of how many?
Greg Uherek (17:11):
registered specifiers we have at the moment
.
I think it's about 180, 185total and, as I said previously,
it's about a 50-50 splitbetween external governmental
agents not governmental agenciesbut specifying bodies.
So they're requiring theaccreditation About half of that
and half is just agencies thatare doing their own internal
(17:35):
monitoring.
So it's split 50-50.
Brian Johnson (17:39):
And this has grown, you know, both in the
numbers of specifiers, the typeof specifiers, and the feature
has kind of evolved over timetoo.
So can you tell us some of thethings that have been added to
the specifier feature over thelast few years to make it even
more worthwhile for people?
Greg Uherek (17:59):
Yeah, brian, yeah, we've kind of continually been
trying to add more types offeatures that will help the
specifiers and the users of thistool better manage those labs.
One of them is we now have likea mapping feature.
So if you have a lot of labsthat are part of your program
(18:21):
like, for example, the Corps ofEngineers, which has six or 700
labs across the US that areworking on projects you can map
that out.
It just gives you a way toquickly get to a lab.
You click on the lab and it'sconnected to the database and to
the accreditation listing forthat lab.
So that's one of the mappingfeatures that's been helpful.
(18:44):
We've also built in, I think,the real-time alerts.
Were part of the originalrollout but we've sort of made
them a little more, added somefeatures to that feature, if you
will.
So there's a couple differentways you can pick your own
alerts.
Also, there's a tool that letsyou download all the labs you're
(19:13):
monitoring and into an Excelspreadsheet so you can export it
Sort of looks like a databaseand get key information from
each of those labs and maybeimport it into something on your
end as the lab, if that helps.
So, yeah, there's been a lot ofgood features.
It's very easy to use in termsof monitoring.
In terms of adding a lab orremoving a lab, you know, once a
(19:35):
project's done, you probablydon't have a need to monitor
that lab any further, so youcould just remove them from your
list.
It's pretty straightforward,straightforward.
Kim Swanson (19:45):
So you talked earlier about that.
There's private access andpublic access, and you said the
public access is just basicallywhat's publicly available on our
website.
So if you were going to go tothat accreditation directory and
manually look through all ofthose laboratories, you can get
that information emailed to youas a registered, without the
(20:08):
laboratory knowing that you'remonitoring them or checking in
on them.
Let's talk about the privateaccess a little bit more, greg,
and what are some of thebenefits of it and what actually
needs to happen to get thatprivate access.
Greg Uherek (20:23):
Right.
So the private access?
You know that's a deeper levelof access and what it allows is
access to information that isconsidered private right.
So the two main pieces ofinformation or documentation are
on-site lab assessment reportsand also proficiency sample
(20:44):
testing data.
So that information is notavailable publicly right, it's
protected by the lab.
They don't distribute it freely.
However, as a specifying agency, those are important pieces of
documents that you are going towant to be aware of and need to
see.
So, to get private access, wedo not provide that level of
(21:09):
access.
However, by using the tool, youvisit the website, you log in
Using the tool, you select thelab you'd like private access
for and then you click a button,basically, and that sends an
email to the primary contact forthat lab that we have on file,
(21:29):
and then it alerts them thatyou're seeking private access.
They in turn then have toapprove that in the system and
then, once they approve that,you would then have the access.
But it requires their approval.
If they don't give it to you,then you won't be able to have
it obviously.
If they don't give it to you,then you won't be able to have
(21:50):
it obviously.
So it takes us out of the loop,in the sense that AASHTO is not
providing this documentation.
We're just providing the portalthrough which you could request
it.
Kim Swanson (22:00):
So I can imagine if you are unaware, if a
laboratory is unaware of thisfeature and things like that and
they get that request ofprivate access, they might be a
little nervous of like who am Igiving access to and what?
But what are some of thebenefits of like why would a
laboratory just say, yes, I wantto grant this access.
Like why would a laboratory sayyes to that?
Greg Uherek (22:21):
In some cases they don't have a choice.
For example, the Corps ofEngineers requires it's in their
validation requirements thatthe laboratories that want to be
considered for validation orcontinue to be validated they
must provide that level ofaccess via the AASHTO resource
(22:41):
website.
Another one is the Division ofthe State Architect in
California, dsa.
They also require privateaccess.
Most of the specifiers requirethat they don't always put it in
writing that it's privateaccess through the AASHTO
website, but they're going towant copies of your assessment
(23:02):
reports, going to want to seecopies of your proficiency
sample testing.
So this actually makes it easier.
This is not an angle that'slooked at by the lab, the person
that's being monitored, but itmakes it easier because you
don't have to take the time andsend them a copy of the
assessment report or send themthe ratings, the copy of the
(23:26):
ratings you've received fromevery proficiency sample.
And if you have multiple labsthat are on multiple projects
with multiple specifiers, that'sa lot of time spent sending
copies of the reports andremembering to do it and to the
right person and making surethey get it and the attachment's
not too big and you know allthose complications that come up
(23:47):
in just daily business life.
If you're enrolled, the agencyrequires private access.
You approve it.
It just kind of operates, youknow, behind the scenes.
So it's a time saver for bothparties.
Kim Swanson (24:02):
So I can imagine someone saying or listening to
this, a laboratory listening tothis, like oh, I still have to
do that for X, y and Z.
Then send them this episode andtell them to register as a
specifier to save you time later, because while you said we have
, you know, almost 200registered specifiers, we
actually have way morebusinesses and entities
(24:27):
requiring accreditation that arenot registered to use this
feature.
So if you're listening to thisand thinking, oh man, I have to
do that for like five differentother things, for projects, I'm
on, let them know that thisoption is available and
encourage them to register as aspecifier.
Greg Uherek (24:43):
Absolutely, absolutely.
And I kind of touched on thebenefit of, you know, for a
specifying agency to do this,but there's also a benefit for
those labs that are trying tomonitor send them copies of the
reports.
I mean, you should want to seethe report, right.
(25:04):
If you're the overall corporatequality manager, you want to
know what's going on in that lab.
You want to see copies of thereports.
So do you just rely on those 50labs to send you, whenever they
have assessments, to sendreports and all the proficiency
sample ratings, et cetera thesame information we just
(25:27):
discussed for a specifyingagency?
And the answer is no.
If you use this tool, however,and you have private access for
all those branches, all theinformation is going to be at
your fingertips.
You're going to receive alertswhenever there's a problem at
any one of those branches, andagain, it's just a huge time
saver, and the fact that it'sfree is just amazing.
Brian Johnson (25:51):
It really is amazing that because it allows
them to see what's going on in away that they couldn't
otherwise.
Right, I mean, we only have onelogin per laboratory, so that
is.
That is kind of another thingthat led to the corporate people
accessing it this way.
You know, accessing informationthrough the specifier tool Plus
(26:11):
, it tells them what they needto know.
You know, like if they had thelab level access, that would
give them way too muchinformation if they were
monitoring a lot, you know it'dbe every time they have a
nonconformity.
You know which.
You know some of these reports.
This is another thing I don'tthink people realize.
You know which.
You know some of these reportsthis is another thing I don't
think people realize is thatsome of these reports are
horrendous.
You know they have 60 to 120nonconformities in them and you
(26:35):
would think, okay, you look atyour average accreditation body
and they might have fivenonconformities.
You think, okay, I don't needit, you know, that's fine, I can
handle looking at that.
And then you get a monsterreport from actual resource or
CCRL and then that specifier allof a sudden is much more
interested in this feature ortool than they were before,
(27:00):
because then they can just getthe summary of what's going on.
So what else, as far as thisfeature is concerned, doesn't
give you everything right.
I mean, I just mentioned someof the things.
They can't see all theindividual nonconformities
except in the report.
They can't see the correctiveactions.
They can't see.
Well, there was something thatwe used to have as part of this
(27:24):
feature that we no longer have.
I want to talk about that forthose of you who are kind of
curious about why that went away.
We used to have automaticalerts every time a proficiency
sample report would come outthat would run a comparison of
the laboratory's accreditationto the test results that were on
(27:45):
the most recent report.
Greg, why did we stop includingthat in the private alerts?
Greg Uherek (27:52):
Why did we stop?
I think we had an issue withproperly identifying the poor
ratings, and so there were a fewissues where an alert was sent
but it really wasn't accurate,didn't reflect that there was a
poor rating, so it was kind ofan issue on the back end of the
(28:14):
system just flagging all thoseappropriately.
So we pulled back on that, atleast for the time being, and
we're going to work on fixingthat.
But it's a programming issue,so it might be a little while
before we're able to addressthat appropriately.
Brian Johnson (28:32):
What we really need to do is split up the
directory the accreditationdirectory so that we can isolate
those tests and what theconditions are for testing, so
that we can get those alertsworking properly again.
We also have the same test onmultiple samples, and that
creates some issues too.
So there's some good reasonswhy we stopped doing it.
(28:54):
It was throwing some flags thatwere not accurate, even though
I'd say we were mostly you know,probably 80% accurate, and it
was really useful for a lot ofpeople.
There were some times where itfailed and that created some
heartburn for those laboratoriesand some unnecessary concerns
for the specifying agency.
Greg Uherek (29:16):
Those ratings are still available.
So labs can still access thereports.
They just don't receive alertswhen there are poorer ratings.
So we've got to work that partof it out.
But you can visit.
If you have private access.
The specifier can come to thewebsite.
They could see the wholehistory of ratings and actually
(29:38):
you could see the.
I believe they could see thecontrol chart over a 10-year
period, which is interestingbecause a lot of times you see a
bias associated with thosecontrol charts.
So we've actually had caseswhere the specifying body, be it
a DOT or whoever it is, ishaving some comparative test
(29:59):
result issues with thecontractor.
So they're both running samplesbut they're just not quite
matching up.
And in some of those cases, eventhough you don't receive a poor
rating, you're always testing.
Your results are always on thehigh side or the low side and if
you're trying to compare thatto someone else's data, that may
(30:21):
be a cause of the problem.
It might be because of the typeof equipment you're using for
the test or the type ofcompression machine or whatever
the case is.
But it can really give you someinsight that normally you just
wouldn't have any idea about.
So having access to thoseratings and the ratings history
can also be another benefit togetting drilling down to some of
(30:46):
the important data that youlook at on a project.
Brian Johnson (30:52):
I want to talk about some of the implicit
benefits too.
Some of these specifyingagencies, I feel like they don't
really have an understanding ofhow the program works at times.
They know that the laboratoryneeds to be accredited.
Like I said, sometimes theydon't know what to do with
suspensions, sometimes theydon't understand what the
accreditation means in general.
But if they sign up for thespecifier feature, all of a
(31:16):
sudden they have interactionswith somebody like Greg who can
kind of walk them through it.
And just knowing just Greg,knowing who you are and that
you're interested in this, canopen up that conversation and
possibly other learning channels.
So, greg, if I'm a newspecifier and I want to know
(31:38):
more, what kind of expectationsshould I have for amount of
service I can get from you,given that, even though I'm not
paying anything for it, as wementioned before, get from you,
given that?
Greg Uherek (31:48):
even though I'm not paying anything for it, as we
mentioned before.
Look, I'm available here.
If anyone has questions aboutthe features.
We could set up a phone call, aTeams meeting.
I've walked a lot of peoplethrough the website and showed
them how to utilize certainfeatures.
I'm more than happy to do it.
You know, supporting the use ofthe specifier tool is supporting
(32:14):
accreditation and some of thekey things that we do as an
organization, and it reallygives the link to ensure the
quality.
Yes, we do things to ensurequality by visiting labs, doing
the assessments quality.
Yes, we do things to ensurequality by visiting labs, doing
the assessments, looking at allthe things we do with the
accreditation program.
But having this specifierfeature and someone like me or
(32:35):
anyone else on staff that can becontacted from one of the labs
and have questions answeredabout what some of this means
just adds value to the programand, I think, raises the bar
just a little further.
You know so because you havespecifiers that are smart and
they're monitoring things andthey're aware of of what's
(32:57):
happening out in the field andwhere the rubber meets the road
or concrete meets the something.
You know what I mean.
Yeah, I, you know what I mean.
Brian Johnson (33:09):
Yeah, I know, I know what you mean, and it is a
challenge to identify thosespecifiers at times, and I feel
like with agencies we don'talways get the right people
either.
You know, sometimes the oneswho are actually monitoring may
be in a contract department andthey might not even be the
technical people that we oftendeal with.
So I think it's a challenge toidentify those folks.
(33:31):
But we have had opportunitieswhere we were able to meet with
a group of people who werehandling those kind of
activities and give them youknow we held a webinar a couple
of times to go over all thesefeatures answer any questions
that we can, and we're happy todo that for anybody.
(33:52):
So Greg and I often will teamup for those, and I think it's a
great way for people to ask allkinds of questions that they
have about accreditation, notjust the specifier features, but
just what does it mean when yousee this?
Or what is this test method?
And we noticed that not toomany people have this one.
(34:14):
Why is that?
Or why don't you accredit forstate methods?
Or why don't you accredit forthese other things that we're
interested in?
And then we can talk about allof those issues, but can't do it
unless we know who they are.
So it really gives us a goodchance to make those connections
.
So I think that's been one ofthe biggest benefits of this
(34:36):
endeavor.
Greg Uherek (34:38):
Absolutely, brian.
I agree 100%.
You know I spend some of mytime just reaching out to new
specifying agencies evencontacting labs that have
multiple branches in our programand just letting them know
about this.
We have a link, obviously onour website for specifiers and
(34:59):
it describes the specifier toolsand what a specifier is and a
lot of the things we've justtalked about.
But most people never click onthat link.
We have 2,000 labs in ourprogram, over 2,000 labs, and
you know they're usually focusedon the lab assessment or
performing the proficiencysample material.
(35:21):
But we do have the link thereand you can also click on that
or reach out directly to me orBrian, but especially for the
specifier information and to setup an account, please let us
know.
We'd be happy to again give youa demo and set up an account
for you.
Kim Swanson (35:42):
So, Greg, what are some of the other benefits to
requiring or using the specifiertools?
Greg Uherek (35:47):
some of the other benefits to requiring or using
the specifier tools Because, asyou know, our society has become
quite litigious, right whenwe're working on and specifiers
are working on multi-milliondollar projects it could be a
bridge, a large building, it'snot always just horizontal
construction.
There's a lot of responsibilityfrom the project owner to ensure
(36:15):
the quality and safety of thepeople and quality of the
testing and longevity of theproduct, of the project.
Rather so if you are the ownerof a project and the labs that
are working on it becomesuspended or revoked, they lose
(36:35):
their accreditation.
Again, they're not going toreach out to you in most cases
and they'll probably try and fixit as quickly as they can Right
, but in some cases it's itcould be a major problem.
And again, if they're doingcompression testing, for example
, on your project, and they'resuspended for that test method
(36:56):
but you don't know about it andthey continue doing that work
and perhaps putting in concretethat it doesn't have the
compressive strength that itshould, and then there's a
failure and a subsequentinvestigation that could not
reflect well on the projectowner.
It's your responsibility toknow these things and it can be
(37:19):
difficult to stay in the loop onall of it, especially if you
have a lot of projects.
But this is one way, using thespecifier features, that you
will know in real time what'shappening, at least as far as
suspension and accreditation.
So don't know if I mentionedthat before, but it can be a
huge benefit.
Brian Johnson (37:38):
All right, greg.
Well, thanks for your timetoday.
I think we've covered a lot ofthe benefits and features of the
.
The specifier uh feature in thewebsite and, uh, like you said,
people can reach out to youanytime they want.
It's available on our websiteto register if you have any
questions, just we will includegreg's contact information on
(38:00):
our website, along with otheruseful information that kim
often pulls from the website andputs links to useful
information that Kim often pullsfrom the website and puts links
to under the podcast episodeinformation Kim.
Any last thoughts or questionsfrom you?
Kim Swanson (38:17):
I just wanted to say something and I forgot.
So I don't think so.
I think we covered everythinghere today.
Oh, we do.
We are planning to do anotherspecifier kind of how-to webinar
, possibly later this year orearly next year, so be on the
(38:39):
lookout for that if you'reinterested in it.
We will put a link on ourwebsite at ashtaresourceorg
slash events and you can sign upfor the mailing list there if
you want to be notified ofupcoming events, like a
potential specifiers webinar.
So be on the lookout for that.
We don't have a date oranything else specific yet, but
(39:00):
that is in the works and shouldbe coming relatively soon.
Brian Johnson (39:05):
All right.
Well, I think we covered thistopic well enough.
Greg, thank you so much foryour time and effort putting
this together and, kim, asalways, great to have you on
along with your new assistant.
You want to introduce us toyour new assistant.
Kim Swanson (39:21):
For those watching on YouTube, you can kind of see
the corner of my dog's head,franklin, so he was joining us
throughout the podcast today.
So if you want to go see a tinylittle part of Franklin's head,
you can watch this episode onYouTube.
Thanks for listening to AASHTOResource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
(39:44):
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out Ashto
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com