Case Study: Owner-Imposed Material Specification Change Halts Supply Chain in Texas (2021)

Project Overview
• Name: SH-99 Grand Parkway Segment F-2
• Location: Harris County, Texas
• Year: 2021
• Project Size: $870 million
• Scope: Construction of 12.1 miles of tollway including overpasses, drainage, and interchanges
• Lead Agencies/Contractors: Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) /

Category of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
• Contract Owner
• Materials Engineering / Procurement

Summary of the Issue, Problem, or Challenge
TxDOT mandated a change in concrete mix design mid-construction due to new environmental durability guidelines. However, regional suppliers were not certified for the revised mix, leading to concrete delivery stoppages.

Root Cause Analysis

• Owner did not validate market readiness for new specification.
• No transitional grace period was included in the directive.
• Change was issued without input from project procurement and logistics teams.

Impacts Due to the Issue, Problem, or Challenge

• 7-week halt in structural pours on bridges and barrier walls.
• Significant rework of submitted mix designs and testing protocols.
• Contractor filed a $5.2 million claim for standby, mix requalification, and lost productivity.

Corrective Actions Taken

1. TxDOT initiated an industry-wide supplier readiness survey before new spec rollouts.
2. Future spec changes now include a phase-in schedule with grandfather clauses.
3. All design changes undergo constructability and supply chain feasibility review.

Lessons Learned

• Specification changes must consider local supplier capacity.
• Owner-driven design adjustments should include transition planning.
• Midstream material revisions should be exceptional, not routine.

Audit & Prevention: Project Control Questions to Ask on Future Projects to Help Control the Situation

• Has market availability been assessed for new material requirements?
• Do updated specs include a transition schedule and local vetting?
• Were contractor and supplier impacts reviewed before issuing revisions?