Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Materials Procurement Cement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative asks why MDOT accepted Type 1‑2 cement over Michigan manufacturers' Type 1L; MDOT will follow up
Summary
Representative Borton asked why MDOT approved Type 1‑2 cement on a project when Michigan manufacturers produced Type 1L material; MDOT said it will take the question back and respond with details.
Representative Borton questioned MDOT about cement specification choices and local manufacturing.
Borton said manufacturers in northern Michigan had converted to Type 1L cement and that the administration expressed a preference for that material. He asked why MDOT appeared to approve a Type 1‑2 cement preference for some projects and whether that allowed out‑of‑state product to be used in place of Michigan‑made Type 1L cement.
Demetrius Parker replied the department would "definitely take that back, sir, and get your response." No procurement justification or contract citation was given during the hearing.
Why it matters: Specification choices affect local suppliers and jobs as well as project performance and lifecycle costs. The committee asked MDOT to report back with a procurement explanation and any supporting contract or specification references.
Ending: MDOT agreed to provide a written response on cement specifications and the department’s rationale.
