Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-23-047 JUNE 2023 

Documenting Effective e-Ticketing 

Implementation
FOREWORD

Electronic ticketing (e-Ticketing) is an innovative process that automates the recording and 

transfer of information in realtime for materials as they are moved from the plant to the site. The 

real-time access of ticket information in electronic format via mobile devices provides imminent 

benefits of operational efficiencies and safer contactless delivery. The digitalization of ticket 

information also offers the opportunity of collecting valuable information, which otherwise is 

lost after construction is complete, to facilitate digital collaborative data exchange. The goal of 

this study is to gain a better understanding of e-Ticketing’s potential capabilities and use cases for 

improving project delivery, oversight, and safety outcomes, its limitations, and departments of 

transportation (DOT’s) implementation experience. It documents the state of the knowledge of 

e-Ticketing through interviews and case studies, presents a business case for e-Ticketing, and 

provides guidance on implementation planning. This study will inform highway construction, 

materials, and information technology practitioners responsible for implementing electronic 

construction (e-Construction) technologies within their agencies.

Jean A. Nehme, Ph.D., P.E.

Director, Office of Infrastructure Research

and Development 

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation

(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for

the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-23-047

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Documenting Effective e-Ticketing Implementation

5. Report Date

June 2023

6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s)

Suri Sadasivam (ORCID: 0000-0002-3980-1134), Roy 

Sturgill (ORCID: 0000-0002-0702-8351), Jagannath Mallela

(ORCID: 0000-0001-9464-7937), and Gabriel Dadi

(ORCID: 0000-0002-7903-3598) 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

WSP USA

1015 Half St SE No. 650

Washington, DC 20003

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

693JJ319D000030/693JJ320F000474

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report; October 2020–July 2023

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HRDI-20

15. Supplementary Notes

The Contracting Officer’s Representative was Matthew Corrigan (HRDI-20; ORCID: 0000-0002-1230-8462).

16. Abstract

The practice of printing, collecting, maintaining, and retaining paper tickets is cumbersome, less safe, outdated, 

more expensive, less efficient, and less sustainable than paperless ticketing. The adoption of electronic 

construction (e-Construction) technologies in construction administration and delivery offers ways to overcome 

these inefficiencies. By leveraging the groundwork laid by e-Construction, electronic ticketing (e-Ticketing) has 

attracted wider interest by transportation agencies as an electronic solution for material delivery. e-Ticketing is a 

digital innovation that automates the recording and transfer of information in realtime for materials as they are 

moved from the production plant to the site. Since the first e-Ticketing pilot in 2015, the implementation 

landscape has been rapidly emerging. The 2020 construction season made the move to e-Ticketing even more 

relevant by increasing the need for touchless operations. State transportation agencies (STAs) have a diversity of 

practices regarding material types for which e-Ticketing is implemented, such as vendor and in-house solutions, 

and implementation approaches. In this context, this study documents the state of the practice and the state of the 

knowledge of e-Ticketing. The findings of the nationwide survey, conducted by the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, on the practice of e-Ticketing, benefits and costs, implementation 

factors and challenges, and future plans of STAs are documented. Through the documentation of case studies, 

this study discusses the piloting experiences of nine STAs. In addition, this study presents a business case by 

documenting the strategic value of e-Ticketing with an illustration of benefits quantification. The study also 

presents additional information for implementation planning based on the analysis of the case study interviews, 

assessment of practice landscape, and review of emerging technological opportunities.

17. Key Words

e-Ticketing, material delivery, e-Construction, 

highway construction, quantity verification, 

advanced digital construction management 

systems

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161.

https://www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

168

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.
ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

Use of Paper Tickets for Material Quantities ..................................................................... 1

Emergence of e-Construction ............................................................................................. 1

Introduction to e-Ticketing ................................................................................................. 2

Maturity of e-Ticketing ....................................................................................................... 3

Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 4

Report Organization ............................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE PRACTICE ............................................................................. 7

Practice Landscape ................................................................................................................. 7

AASHTO Nationwide Survey ............................................................................................ 8

Survey of Technology Providers ...................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3. BUSINESS CASE FOR E-TICKETING ......................................................... 29

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 29

Business Case Explained ...................................................................................................... 29

Strategic Case.................................................................................................................... 30

Economic Case.................................................................................................................. 35

Financial Case ................................................................................................................... 40

Implementation Case ........................................................................................................ 41

CHAPTER 4. E-TICKETING STATE OF PRACTICE ........................................................ 43

Candidate Selection .............................................................................................................. 43

Summary of Pennsylvania DOT Practice ........................................................................... 44

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 44

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 46

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 46

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 49

Summary of Iowa DOT Practice ......................................................................................... 49

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 49

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 50

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 50

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 52

Summary of Delaware DOT Practice ................................................................................. 53

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 53

Approach Used.................................................................................................................. 54

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 54

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 54

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 56

Summary of Utah DOT Practice ......................................................................................... 56

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 56

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 59

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 59

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 60
iv

Summary of Nebraska DOT Practice ................................................................................. 60

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 60

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 61

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 61

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 62

Summary of Minnesota DOT Practice ................................................................................ 63

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 63

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 64

Implementation Experience and Data Management ......................................................... 65

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 66

Summary of Alabama DOT Practice .................................................................................. 66

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 66

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 67

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 67

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 68

Summary of Tennessee DOT Practice ................................................................................ 69

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 69

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 69

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 69

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 70

Summary of Washington State DOT Practice ................................................................... 70

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 70

Benefits and Costs............................................................................................................. 71

Implementation Experience .............................................................................................. 71

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER 5. E-TICKETING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................ 73

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 73

Implementation Planning ..................................................................................................... 73

Making a Business Case ................................................................................................... 76

Acquiring Stakeholder Support ......................................................................................... 76

Assessing Field and Technology Readiness ..................................................................... 76

Implementation Barriers ................................................................................................... 77

Implementation Considerations .......................................................................................... 77

Stakeholder Outreach ........................................................................................................ 77

Internet Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 80

Federal Aid Requirements ................................................................................................ 82

Data Management ............................................................................................................. 84

Training ............................................................................................................................. 95

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS .................................................... 97

APPENDIX A. AASHTO NATIONWIDE E-TICKETING SURVEY ................................. 99

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ 151

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 153
v 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Graphic. e-Ticketing developmental stages (Sadasivam and Sturgill 2021). .................. 4

Figure 2. Map. NCHRP Synthesis 545: Map of States using e-Ticketing in 2019 (Dadi et 

al. 2020). ................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Map. AASHTO Survey: Map of agencies using e-Ticketing. ......................................... 9

Figure 4. Map. AASHTO survey: Mode of e-Ticketing used by agencies. .................................. 11

Figure 5. Map. AASHTO Survey: Agencies using e-Ticketing for asphalt. ................................ 13

Figure 6. Map. AASHTO Survey: Agencies using e-Ticketing for concrete and 

aggregates. .............................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 7. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percentage of agencies identifying benefit types. ................ 15

Figure 8. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percentage of agencies identifying cost factors. ................... 17

Figure 9. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percent receptivity of various stakeholder groups. ............... 22

Figure 10. Chart. Framework of business case. ............................................................................ 30

Figure 11. Graph. Types of events resulting in highway worker fatalities at road 

construction sites (NWZSIC 2022). ........................................................................................ 32

Figure 12. Graph. Blind area diagram of Ford 880 dump truck (Hefner and Breen 2004). ......... 33

Figure 13. Graph. Blind area diagram of Roadtec 2500B material transfer vehicle (Hefner 

and Breen 2004). ..................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 14. Diagram. Iowa DOT’s future e-Ticketing handling system (Iowa DOT 2021). ......... 53

Figure 15. Diagram. UDOT e-Ticket workflow (Talbot and Sellars 2020). ................................ 57

Figure 16. Screenshot. Example UDOT e-Ticket view on the inspector’s mobile app. ............... 58

Figure 17. Screenshot. UDOT e-Ticketing operations dashboard. ............................................... 58

Figure 18. Diagram. NDOT e-Ticket workflow. .......................................................................... 61

Figure 19. Screenshot. NDOT e-Ticketing dashboard. ................................................................. 61

Figure 20. Diagram. Conceptual architecture of proposed enhancements to Veta software. ....... 64

Figure 21. Screenshot. QR codes on a sample NCDOT ticket. .................................................... 81

Figure 22. Diagram. Schematic of data transmittal from supplier loadout systems to DOT 

Web portal. .............................................................................................................................. 85
vi 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Deployment of e-Ticketing in highway construction projects within an agency. .......... 10

Table 2. Extent of implementation................................................................................................ 10

Table 3. Mode of e-Ticketing used by agencies. .......................................................................... 11

Table 4. Product type used by agencies. ....................................................................................... 12

Table 5. Material type by agencies. .............................................................................................. 12

Table 6. Tonnage of projects using e-Ticketing for asphalt concrete delivery. ............................ 13

Table 7. Agencies’ future plans on expanding pilots to other material types. .............................. 14

Table 8. Benefit types related to e-Ticketing. ............................................................................... 15

Table 9. Cost items related to e-Ticketing. ................................................................................... 16

Table 10. Cost items identified as deterrents to e-Ticketing. ....................................................... 17

Table 11. e-Ticketing procurement. .............................................................................................. 18

Table 12. Changes in business processes. ..................................................................................... 18

Table 13. Validation of e-Tickets. ................................................................................................ 19

Table 14. Additional collected data attributes on e-Tickets. ........................................................ 20

Table 15. Location information on e-Tickets. .............................................................................. 20

Table 16. Contract language for data management. ..................................................................... 21

Table 17. Stakeholder receptivity. ................................................................................................ 22

Table 18. e-Ticketing implementation challenges. ....................................................................... 22

Table 19. Data attributes and capabilities of e-Ticketing vendor products. ................................. 26

Table 20. Benefit types and calculations. ..................................................................................... 35

Table 21. Illustrative example—construction program inputs of XYDOT. ................................. 37

Table 22. Estimated number of paper tickets. ............................................................................... 38

Table 23. XYDOT piloting plan. .................................................................................................. 38

Table 24. Estimated savings with paperless process and other benefits. ...................................... 39

Table 25. Summary of benefits. .................................................................................................... 39

Table 26. Benefits distribution over years. ................................................................................... 39

Table 27. Summary of bid costs of e-Ticketing on WSDOT and PennDOT projects. ................. 41

Table 28. Selection of STAs for questionnaire interviews. .......................................................... 44

Table 29. Maturity levels of implementation dimensions. ........................................................... 75

Table 30. e-Ticketing use cases and integration opportunities. .................................................... 85

Table 31. Data attributes for DWRs. ............................................................................................ 87

Table 32. Additional opportunities for integration with AWP for daily reporting. ...................... 87

Table 33. Data attributes for supply chain payments. ................................................................... 88

Table 34. Opportunities for integration with AWP for supply chain payments. .......................... 88

Table 35. Comparison of MDMS attributes and commonly collected data attributes. ................. 91

Table 36. FIPS 199 criteria to define impacts for security categorization (NIST 2004). ............. 94

Table 37. Question 1: Do you currently use e-Ticketing? ............................................................ 99

Table 38. Question 2: What mode(s) of e-Ticketing are you currently implementing or 

have already implemented? ................................................................................................... 100

Table 39. Question 3: Which of the following describes your e-Ticketing approach? .............. 102

Table 40. Question 4: Does your e-Ticketing solution(s) record location information? ............ 102

Table 41. Question 5: What level of adoption would categorize your current e-Ticketing 

use? ....................................................................................................................................... 103
vii 

Table 42. Question 6: Approximately what is the total number of projects that have used 

e-Ticketing? .......................................................................................................................... 104

Table 43. Question 7: For what materials are you currently using e-Ticketing? ........................ 105

Table 44. Question 8: If you have selected “Asphalt” in response to the previous 

question, please indicate the typical project size (tonnage of asphalt mixtures used on 

projects) that adopted e-Ticketing. ....................................................................................... 106

Table 45. Question 9: If you have selected “concrete” as a material type, please indicate 

the typical project size (volume of concrete mixtures in cubic yards used on projects) 

that adopted e-Ticketing. ...................................................................................................... 107

Table 46. Question 10: For what materials do you plan to use or hope to use e-Ticketing 

for in the future?.................................................................................................................... 108

Table 47. Question 11: What additional information is appended with the e-Ticketing 

data? ...................................................................................................................................... 110

Table 48. Question 12: What costs were considered during the implementation of eTicketing? ............................................................................................................................. 113

Table 49. Question 13: Which, if any, of these costs did you consider as a deterrent to the 

implementation of e-Ticketing? ............................................................................................ 114

Table 50. Question 14A: Which of the following outcomes were the tangible or 

intangible benefits you considered when choosing to use e-Ticketing? ............................... 115

Table 51. Question 14B: Which of the following outcomes were the tangible or intangible 

benefits you considered when choosing to use e-Ticketing? ................................................ 116

Table 52. Question 15: Has your agency calculated the return on investment 

(alternatively, benefit–cost ratio or other equivalent metrics) on e-Ticketing? .................... 118

Table 53. Question 16: How did you procure the e-Ticketing services? .................................... 120

Table 54. Question 17: What business processes have had to be modified to reach your 

current level of e-Ticketing use?........................................................................................... 122

Table 55. Question 18A: What e-Ticketing implementation challenges have you 

encountered? ......................................................................................................................... 123

Table 56. Question 18B: What e-Ticketing implementation challenges have you 

encountered? ......................................................................................................................... 124

Table 57. Question 19: Do you verify the information provided by the e-Ticketing 

system?.................................................................................................................................. 126

Table 58. Question 20: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets at a plant or quarry? ............................................................................. 127

Table 59. Question 21: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets during transmittal from the plant/quarry to the jobsite? ...................... 129

Table 60. Question 22: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets at the point of delivery? ....................................................................... 130

Table 61. Question 23: What additional measures does your agency undertake to 

independently verify information provided by the e-Ticketing system is accurate and 

the material was incorporated into the project? .................................................................... 131

Table 62. Question 24: Do you have a documented procedure of your agency’s process 

for verification of e-Tickets? ................................................................................................ 132

Table 63. Question 25: Does your agency use procurement language that outlines data 

management practices? ......................................................................................................... 133
viii

Table 64. Question 26: If you answered yes to the previous question, what is included in 

the procurement language in regard to data management practices? ................................... 133

Table 65. Question 27: Has your agency participated in, at a minimum, a pilot effort to 

integrate ticket data with existing CMS? .............................................................................. 136

Table 66. Question 28: If you answered yes to Question 27, to what degree is the ticket 

data integrated into the CMS?............................................................................................... 136

Table 67. Question 29: What are your agency’s plans for standardizing the e-Ticketing 

data? ...................................................................................................................................... 137

Table 68. Question 30: Has your agency implemented (or is planning to implement) 

security standards or policies for e-Ticketing data, mobile devices, and vendor 

software applications? ........................................................................................................... 138

Table 69. Question 31: Do you plan to use e-Ticketing in the future? ....................................... 139

Table 70. Question 32: What is your anticipated time line for piloting? .................................... 140

Table 71. Question 33A: What materials do you plan or hope to use e-Ticketing for in the 

future? ................................................................................................................................... 141

Table 72. Question 33B: What materials do you plan or hope to use e-Ticketing for in the 

future? ................................................................................................................................... 143

Table 73. Question 34: Which, if any, of these factors were considered a deterrent to the 

implementation of e-Ticketing? ............................................................................................ 145

Table 74. Question 35: How have the following stakeholders reacted to your agency’s use 

of e-Ticketing? ...................................................................................................................... 147

Table 75. Question 36: What will help you to consider or accelerate a pilot 

implementation of e-Ticketing? ............................................................................................ 148

Table 76. Question 37: What would make it easier for you to advance, adopt, and use 

e-Ticketing technologies in your agency? ............................................................................ 149
ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC asphalt concrete

ADCMS advanced digital construction management systems

AGC Associated General Contractors

ALDOT Alabama Department of Transportation

APC Associated Pennsylvania Constructors

API application program interface

app application

AWP AASHTOWare® ProjectTM

BIM building information modeling

BLE Bluetooth® Low EnergyTM

BMS bridge management system

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMS construction management systems

CMMS construction materials management systems 

COTS commercial off the shelf

CSP Cybersecurity Program 

CSV comma-separated values

DelDOT Delaware Department of Transportation

DOT department of transportation

DPS dielectric profiling system

DWR daily work report 

eCAMMS Electronic Construction and Materials Management System

ECMS Engineering and Construction Management System 

e-Construction electronic construction

EDC Every Day Counts 

ETG expert task group

e-Ticket electronic ticket

e-Ticketing electronic ticketing

FedRAMP Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 

FDOT Florida DOT

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards

FME feature manipulation engine 

FTE full-time equivalent

GIS geographic information system

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HiCAMS Highway Construction and Materials System 

HMA hot-mix asphalt

IC intelligent compaction

ICT intelligent construction technologies
x 

ID identification

IT information technology

JSON JavaScript Object Notation

LIMS laboratory information management systems 

LoRa® Long Range 

LoRaWAN® Long Range Wide Area Network

MDMS Material Delivery Management System

MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NDOT Nebraska Department of Transportation 

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NWZSIC National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse 

PCC portland cement concrete

PDF Portable Document Format 

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PMS pavement management systems 

PMTP paver-mounted thermal profiler

PSA Project Site Activity

QA quality assurance

QC quality control 

QR quick response 

RFP Request for Proposals

ROI return on investment

STA State transportation agency 

TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation

UAT User Acceptance Testing

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

WMA warm-mix asphalt 

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
1 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Use of Paper Tickets for Material Quantities

The fundamental principles of highway construction management emphasize conformity of 

completed work and materials to project quality requirements and making payments based on the 

accurate determination of their quantities. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 23 

Highways; related Federal laws; and directives, regulations, and policies established by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set the minimal national standards for all Federal-aid 

highway construction projects (CFR 2013a; CFR 2013b; CFR 2013c; Weseman 1993; Van Ness 

1989). Furthermore, State transportation agencies (STAs) and local public agencies have put 

mechanisms in place through their construction programs to verify pay quantities and qualities of 

completed work. 

To ensure accurate determination of quantities of completed, paper tickets or weigh memos are 

being used on highway construction projects to track the quantities of materials hauled to a 

jobsite. Vehicle drivers collect paper tickets generated at a material production plant after a load 

is weighed using a scale. When the vehicle delivers the material at the jobsite, the STA, 

consultant inspectors, or contractor personnel climb on the side of delivery vehicle to collect 

paper tickets. The ticket taker collects and maintains the paper tickets for each truckload and 

records tonnage by lot numbers or location to prepare daily summary reports.

The practice of printing, collecting, maintaining, and retaining and archiving paper tickets is 

cumbersome, less safe, outdated, more expensive, less efficient, and less sustainable than using 

paperless ticketing. The advantages of going paperless in construction are well documented 

(Shah et al. 2017). Assigning inspectors or contractor personnel as ticket takers, amidst a chronic 

shortage of construction workers and high staffing turnover, is less efficient. With the use of 

paper tickets, critical construction data, such as tying quality data to placement location and fleet 

productivity, becomes difficult to capture after construction is complete. Furthermore, collecting 

paper tickets from a driver amidst live traffic, heavy equipment, and other construction activities

in a work zone exposes workers to hazards and increases the likelihood for injury risks and 

fatalities. 

Emergence of e-Construction

The adoption of electronic construction (e-Construction) technologies in construction 

administration and delivery offers ways to overcome these inefficiencies. FHWA defines 

e-Construction as “the collection, review, approval, and distribution of highway construction 

contract documents in a paperless environment” (FHWA 2021). The e-Construction process 

includes the following procedures: 

• Electronic development of specifications, plan sheets, and three-dimensional models. 

• Electronic capture of construction data.
2 

• Electronic submission of construction documentation by stakeholders.

• Increased use of mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and applications (apps). 

• Increased automation of document review and approvals. 

• Use of electronic or digital signatures. 

• Implementation of secure document and workflow management accessible on any device 

in realtime.

• Use of advanced digital construction management systems (ADCMS) that enable and 

leverage the use of digital technologies on construction sites. 

Many STAs have been mainstreaming various e-Construction technologies over the past decade. 

As of April 2019, and per the Every Day Counts (EDC)-4 Final Report, 46 agencies had piloted 

at least one e-Construction technology, while 15 of these agencies institutionalized 

e-Construction (FHWA 2019). The adoption of such technologies has resulted in widespread 

recognition of benefits associated with paperless workflows among all the stakeholders, 

including STAs and private sector entities. The STAs have progressed toward augmenting their 

information technology (IT) infrastructure in both hardware and software capabilities to 

strengthen electronic workflows, storage, connectivity, and devices. These developments 

comprise the groundwork for a wider interest in electronic ticketing (e-Ticketing) among STAs 

as an electronic solution for material delivery. 

Introduction to e-Ticketing

As a market-ready digital innovation, e-Ticketing automates the recording and transferring of 

information in realtime for materials as they are moved from a quarry, production plant, or 

supplier facility to a construction site or storage facility. This paperless process uses technology 

to create, share, track, document, and archive material information, such as quantities, sources, 

and delivery information, in electronic or digital format. The process typically involves the 

transfer of data to a server for immediate access by multiple stakeholders, via mobile devices, for 

material verification and real-time operational decisions. Using electronic means simplifies the 

handling and integration of material certification, quality, and placement data into information 

systems for acceptance, payment, and source documentation. The electronic format of material 

and construction data is beneficial to creating and updating individual or group of data attributes 

in the ADCMS to make the system interoperable with other business information systems. 

Furthermore, including material and construction data in the as-built digital model, which 

contains geometric and other nongeometric attributes or properties of highway infrastructure 

assets, creates a construction information model. In the future, from the building information 

modeling (BIM) perspective, the construction information model will become an essential 

element for creating a unified information model for lifecycle management of highway 

infrastructure assets. The e-Construction initiative, which was delivered under the Round 3 and 

Round 4 innovations of EDC, highlighted the technology and piloting of e-Ticketing in 2015 and 

later (FHWA 2015). Since these early years, the number of STAs adopting this technology has 
3 

increased steadily. Many STAs have been piloting and demonstrating e-Ticketing on multiple 

highway construction projects for various material types. Among STAs, the material types for 

which e-Ticketing is implemented, vendor and in-house solutions, and implementation 

approaches are varied. 

The implementation landscape, discussed in detail in chapter 2, is rapidly emerging. Some STAs 

are looking forward to implementing e-Ticketing with standard data items that replace the 

antiquated practice of paper-based tickets and handwritten notes by department of transportation 

(DOT) inspectors and contractor quality control (QC) personnel. In contrast, some STAs are 

advancing toward quality assurance (QA) automation by integrating e-Ticketing with other 

complementary technologies, such as intelligent compaction (IC). These differences in 

implementation approaches emphasize the necessity to document effective e-Ticketing practices 

across the country.

Maturity of e-Ticketing

The 2020 construction season made the move to e-Ticketing more relevant, due to the worldwide 

COVID-19 pandemic, by increasing the need for contactless operations and expanding the 

amount of project information that could be accessed digitally. Although some agencies 

developed commercially available or in-house e-Ticketing solutions during that construction 

season, many agencies allowed the use of image-based alternatives, such as graphics, photos, and 

scans of traditional paper tickets. Therefore, understanding the evolution and developmental 

stages of e-Ticketing is necessary. Various maturity levels of e-Ticketing technology types, 

which are also presented in figure 1, are discussed as follows:

• Paper tickets—The traditional process entails printing delivery tickets on paper. The 

paper tickets serve as a bill of lading for the hauler and a source document to 

communicate material information and quantity and provide a basis for payment. The 

information from the paper ticket must be manually extracted and entered into the 

agency’s construction management systems (CMS) for further processing and 

applications.

• Image files—The paper tickets are converted into an image form, such as a photo, PDF 

(Portable Document Format), scan, or fax, to enable electronic transmittal. The original 

paper ticket is still needed to serve as the source document and must eventually be 

delivered to the project or retained by the contractor or supplier. Because the image files 

contain unstructured data, the information must still be manually extracted and entered 

into the agency’s business information systems. 

• Electronic tickets (e-Tickets)—The tickets are produced in an electronic format and 

developed in-house or through a commercially available technology-based solutions. The 

e-Tickets are transmitted in realtime from load-out systems directly to field inspectors or 

through a server. The data may be placed in files with comma-separated values (CSV), 

text, or SQL (Structured Query Language) database formats and stored, queried, and used 

for further applications. Agencies that have implemented e-Ticketing solutions have 

achieved this developmental stage. The e-Ticket serves as a source document and must be 

securely stored and archived in electronic form. 
4 

• Digitalized tickets—e-Tickets are digitalized into semistructured data via compatible file 

formats commonly used for data exchange, such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) or 

extensible markup language, CSV and text files, etc., by using a standard data scheme for 

transmittal and exchange. The data fields are automatically extracted, transformed, and 

loaded via an application program interface (API) into an agency’s ADCMS for further 

applications and archived under the ADCMS’ protocol.

• Object-based tickets—The ticket data are structured as defined elements that are grouped 

intelligently, organized hierarchically, and linked with other datasets using a geographic 

information system (GIS) or BIM file formats, such as shapefiles, files in a geodatabase, 

Open Geospatial Consortium’s® (OGC) InfraGMLTM, or industry foundation class 

alignment (OGC 2023.). The object-based ticket enforces data quality rules to validate 

data attribute and relationship requirements. In addition, the object-based ticket allows 

some operations, such as data retrieval or updating, to be automated by using a set of 

procedures. These procedures make the data easier to use in extensive data mining apps. 

By using this approach, processes such as payment can be automated based on the eTicket data transfer.

Source: FHWA.

Figure 1. Graphic. e-Ticketing developmental stages (Sadasivam and Sturgill 2021).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The overall objectives of this study were to investigate and document e-Ticketing technologies; 

assess the current state of practice; and explore state-of-the-art deployment, use, and 

implementation efforts. This study focuses on establishing a state of the knowledge and practice 

related to the following factors:

• Practice landscape. 

• Pilot implementation. 

• Demonstration of benefits and costs. 
5 

• Deployment and implementation paths and challenges.

• Data standardization, use, and security. 

• Verification of quantities. 

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is organized into six chapters:

• Chapter 1 introduces e-Ticketing with a discussion on construction program requirements 

on material quantity and quality requirements, use of paper tickets, and the evolution of 

e-Construction. 

• Chapter 2 presents the practice landscape of e-Ticketing with a discussion of the findings 

of an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

survey among STAs to capture the state of the practice. This chapter also presents the 

information gathered from e-Ticketing vendors on the product capabilities.

• Chapter 3 describes the business case of e-Ticketing. This chapter discusses the strategic 

value of e-Ticketing, associated benefits and costs, and implementation considerations. 

• Chapter 4 documents the findings of case studies conducted to document the e-Ticketing 

practices of nine STAs. 

• Chapter 5 describes the implementation considerations for STAs seeking to implement 

e-Ticketing. The implementation considerations were summarized using the findings of 

practice landscape and case studies, as described in chapters 2 and 4, as well as an 

investigation of emerging technological trends. 

• Chapter 6 describes the conclusions of this study.

7 

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE PRACTICE

PRACTICE LANDSCAPE

In 2015, the Iowa DOT (Iowa DOT) piloted e-Ticketing on a highway construction project. The

first pilot, which entailed using the e-Tickets for the delivery of asphalt mixture loads, provided a 

proof of concept that the hauling and placement of materials and their quantities can be

electronically tracked and captured (Iowa DOT 2015). Following this first successful pilot, Iowa

DOT conducted additional e-Ticketing pilots on asphalt and portland cement concrete (PCC)

projects in 2016 (Iowa DOT 2016). 

In 2019, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (Project 20-05, Topic 

50-07) conducted a synthesis study to identify and document e-Ticketing practices around the 

country. The findings of this study culminated in the NCHRP Synthesis Report 545, Electronic

Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management (Dadi et al. 2020). The report summarizes 

the implementation landscape of e-Ticketing technologies, including those STAs that had 

experience with e-Ticketing and their pilot efforts, success factors, and lessons learned, through a 

nationwide survey of 45 STAs. Figure 2 shows the 10 STAs that were using e-Ticketing at the 

time of the NCHRP survey. 

Since the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the use of e-Ticketing rapidly increased

because of the need for contactless ticketing procedures. Twenty-four STAs were using 

e-Ticketing during the 2020 construction season, while five STAs were preparing for piloting

(National Asphalt Pavement Association 2020). The STAs issued directives—through technical

memos, policies, special provisions, and specifications—that encouraged the use of contactless

ticketing alternatives, such as e-Ticketing technologies, PDFs, spreadsheets, scans, and

photographs. 

Supported by e-Construction technologies, and further accelerated by the needs of the pandemic, 

the practice landscape of e-Ticketing is rapidly changing. Therefore, conducting comprehensive 

data gathering and analysis to capture the state of the practice is important. This chapter presents 

the findings of two data gathering exercises, one conducted among the STAs through AASHTO

to capture their implementation status and the other among the vendors. 
8 

© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. 

Figure 2. Map. NCHRP Synthesis 545: Map of States using e-Ticketing in 2019 

(Dadi et al. 2020).

AASHTO Nationwide Survey

In coordination with the AASHTO Committee on Construction, a nationwide survey was

conducted among transportation agencies with a questionnaire in the spring of 2021 to

understand the state of the practice on e-Ticketing. The purpose of this survey was to gather 

information from the STAs on the status of adoption of e-Ticketing technologies, costs and 

benefits, data management practices, QA, future plans, and perspectives on the challenges

associated with implementation. The following section summarizes the findings of the

state-of-the-practice survey; these findings represent the practices that prevailed at the time of 

the survey. Appendix A presents the details of responses provided by each respondent agency. 

Survey Respondents 

The AASHTO Committee on Construction administered the questionnaire survey among the 

agencies using Momentive’s® SurveyMonkeyTM, an online survey platform, and 75 responses 

were received (Momentive n.d). After removing incomplete and duplicate responses, the 

committee summarized 52 unique responses. Survey respondents included 51 STAs and the 

Ministère des et de Transports la Mobilité, PQ, Canada. 
9 

Status of e-Ticketing Adoption 

Use of e-Ticketing

The survey questions focused on identifying the STAs that use e-Ticketing, the number of 

projects where e-Ticketing has been deployed, the extent of implementation, and the 

procurement of e-Ticketing on highway construction projects. 

Of the 52 responding STAs, 26 indicated their use of e-Ticketing for highway construction, 

while the remaining 26 STAs did not use e-Ticketing at that time. Figure 3 shows these 

responses. 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 3. Map. AASHTO Survey: Map of agencies using e-Ticketing. 

Of the 26 STAs that have used e-Ticketing, approximately one-third have tried e-Ticketing on 

10 projects or fewer; another one-third have used e-Ticketing on 11 to 50 projects; and about 

one-fifth have used e-Ticketing extensively. Table 1 presents the frequency distribution of 

projects where e-Ticketing was deployed. 
10 

Table 1. Deployment of e-Ticketing in highway construction projects within an agency. 

Projects to Date (No.)

Responding Agencies

(No. Out of 26) Agencies (Percent)

5 or fewer 6 23

6–10 3 12

11–25 5 19

26–50 5 19

51–100 4 15

101 or more 1 4

No response 2 8

No. = number.

Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Iowa, and Washington DOTs have used e-Ticketing on more than 50 

projects, while Indiana DOT has used e-Ticketing on more than 100 projects. Two STAs did not 

track the number of projects. Texas DOT indicated that although e-Ticketing was an option for 

contractors to use upon the approval of the DOT engineer, the number of projects was not 

tracked.

On the extent of implementation, nine States have used e-Ticketing on individual projects, and 

eight States have conducted repeated pilots. Six STAs have used special provisions or

specifications to implement e-Ticketing on their projects, whereas Indiana and Mississippi DOTs

used special notes. Maryland DOT indicated that only digital scans and photographs of tickets 

were used as e-Tickets. Table 2 presents a summary on the extent of use by STAs. 

Table 2. Extent of implementation. 

Adoption Choices

Responding Agencies

(No. Out of 26) Agencies (Percent)

Individual pilot projects 9 35

Repeating pilot projects for gathering

information and scaling up use

8 31

Extensive use by special notes 2 8

Extensive use by standard (or supplemental)

specification

6 23

Mode and Product Type of e-Ticketing

e-Tickets are commonly handled through a variety of models, such as a digital photograph or 

scan of a paper ticket, or a standard e-Ticket. On the mode(s) of e-Ticketing, 19 of the 26 States

with e-Ticketing experience indicated the use of stand-alone e-Tickets that are transmitted to a 

cloud, and 3 STAs received them directly. Seventeen of 26 States used PDFs, whereas 14 States

allowed digital photographs or scans of paper tickets. Table 3 and figure 4 present the breakdown 

of responding STAs’ use of various modes of e-Ticketing. 
11 

Table 3. Mode of e-Ticketing used by agencies. 

e-Ticketing Mode

Responding Agencies

(No. Out of 26) Agencies (Percent) 

Digital photograph/scan of a ticket 14 50 

PDF 17 65 

Standalone e-Ticket transmitted to

a cloud and shared with DOT

18 69 

e-Ticket directly received by a 

DOT information system

3 12 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 4. Map. AASHTO survey: Mode of e-Ticketing used by agencies. 

Eighteen of the 26 STAs using e-Ticketing have opted for a vendor product, while 3 STAs have 

developed their own in-house solution. Table 4 presents the breakdown of the product type used 

for e-Ticketing. Of those STAs, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Utah DOTs have developed their 

own in-house solutions. Five STAs indicated the use of a combination of in-house and vendor 

solutions. However, further investigation showed that only Florida DOT (FDOT) has used a 

combination of in-house and vendor solutions. The Florida Turnpike Authority piloted a 

paperless ticketing solution on resurfacing projects where bar codes were created at the 

production plant, scanned at the jobsite with placement information, and later downloaded into a 

DOT database. Later, FDOT’s Office of Construction adopted vendor solutions for e-Ticketing. 
12 

Table 4. Product type used by agencies. 

e-Ticketing Product Type

Responding Agencies

(No. Out of 26) Agencies (Percent)

Vendor developed 18 68

Developed in-house 3 12

Combination of in-house and

vendor developed

5 19

Material Type

Table 5 presents the breakdown of e-Ticketing use by material types. Asphalt is the most

preferred material type for e-Ticketing implementation. Figure 5 shows that all 26 STAs use 

e-Tickets for the delivery of asphalt at construction sites. As table 6 shows, most STAs have used

e-Ticketing on paving projects with tonnage greater than 5,000 tons. Some STAs, such as those 

in Utah and Washington, required e-Ticketing on all size projects regardless of tonnage. 

Table 5. Material type by agencies. 

Material Type

Number of

Responding

Agencies (Out of 26) Agencies (Percent)

Asphalt 26 100

PCC 11 42

Aggregates 9 35

Millings 0 0

Reinforcing steel 0 0

Prefabricated elements 0 0

Deicing salt/chemicals 0 0

Other bulk materials and other items 0 0
13 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 5. Map. AASHTO Survey: Agencies using e-Ticketing for asphalt. 

Table 6. Tonnage of projects using e-Ticketing for asphalt concrete delivery.

Tonnage Range 

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26) Agencies (Percent) 

Less than 100 tons 2 8 

100–500 tons 1 4 

500–1,000 tons 2 8 

1,000–5,000 tons 3 12 

5,000–10,000 tons 7 27 

10,000–25,000 tons 8 31 

More than 25,000 tons 7 27 

Unsure 8 31 

Figure 6 shows that 11 and 9 States have used e-Ticketing for concrete and aggregates, 

respectively. None of the States used e-Ticketing for other material types, such as reinforcing 

steel, prefabrication elements, millings, or deicing salts, at the time of survey. Since then, 

Pennsylvania has expanded e-Ticketing to millings, salt, and liquid bitumen.
14 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 6. Map. AASHTO Survey: Agencies using e-Ticketing for concrete and aggregates. 

In the survey, most STAs were interested in replicating their pilots on additional asphalt projects

and expanding those pilots to aggregates and ready-mix concrete within a 24-mo period. Some

STAs were interested in expanding their pilots to asphalt millings. Most STAs indicated they 

were unsure about expanding the pilots to other materials, such as deicing salts, reinforcing steel, 

or prefabricated materials. The STAs were focused on successfully completing the pilots for 

asphalt, ready-mix concrete, and aggregates. Table 7 presents a breakdown of the responding 

STAs’ material type preferences for potentially expanding their e-Ticketing pilots.

Table 7. Agencies’ future plans on expanding pilots to other material types. 

Material Types

Within 12 Mo 

(No.) 

In 12–24 

Mo (No.) 

In 24–36 

Mo (No.) 

Beyond 36 Mo 

(No.) 

Unsure

(No.) 

Asphalt 12 1 2 0 1 

Aggregates 9 6 1 0 4 

Ready-mix concrete 9 6 2 0 4 

Deicing salt/chemicals 2 0 1 0 9 

Reinforcing steel 1 1 0 0 9 

Millings 0 4 1 0 7 

Prefabricated elements 0 2 0 0 8 

Other bulk materials 0 0 0 0 7 

Other items 2 0 0 0 6 
15 

Benefits and Costs

The AASHTO nationwide survey also focused on capturing benefit types and cost items 

associated with e-Ticketing to facilitate economic effectiveness assessments, such as benefit-cost 

and return on investment (ROI) analyses. Table 8 and figure 7 summarize benefit types 

considered by the responding STAs for implementation. 

Table 8. Benefit types related to e-Ticketing. 

Benefit Types

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent) 

Reduced paper documentation 24 92 

Safety benefits 24 92 

Readily available material quantity information 20 77 

Time savings in review and consolidation of 

material quantities 

19 73 

Real-time material tracking 19 73 

Archived material placement location 13 50 

Production tracking 11 42 

Disadvantaged business enterprise requirements 1 4 

Wage and payroll requirements 1 4 

Motor carrier requirements 2 8 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 7. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percentage of agencies identifying benefit types. 

Most STAs recognized that the benefits of e-Ticketing include monetary savings associated with 

a reduced use of or elimination of paper tickets and safety associated with the elimination of an 

in-person ticket taker at the jobsite. Many STAs also recognized the benefits of material quantity 

information in or near realtime; the ease of automating electronic data in reviewing, 

summarizing, and reconciling material quantities; and real-time monitoring of cycle times that 
16 

construction vehicles take to haul materials from the production plant to the jobsite and return 

back to the production plant. Other than Nebraska, none of the STAs have calculated the ROI on 

e-Ticketing. Most STAs had challenges in quantifying both benefits and costs, and Pennsylvania 

indicated it would use the information to perform future ROI calculations.

Table 9 and figure 8 summarize the cost items the responding STAs considered for 

implementation. STAs considered the cost of equipment upgrades to suppliers and haulers; the 

passing of such costs through bid items; and technology costs, including vendor licensing fees, 

devices, and supporting technologies. A few STAs indicated they had incurred no additional 

costs because e-Ticketing was used as a contract option on projects. The contractors, who 

already possessed the technological capabilities, saw value in opting for e-Ticketing for fleet 

management purposes and voluntarily adopted the technology on such projects. COVID-19 was 

another factor to consider because some STAs did not have adequate lead times for extensive 

deliberations on costs due to pandemic imperatives. However, as table 10 shows, approximately 

one-half of the STAs identified some cost items as significant deterrents to the implementation of 

e-Ticketing. 

Table 9. Cost items related to e-Ticketing. 

Cost Items

Number of 

Responding 

Agencies (Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent)

Manufacturer/producer/production plant

equipment upgrades

16 62

Costs from the contractor 14 54

Vendor licensing fees 10 38

Supporting technology costs 10 38

e-Ticketing technology devices 9 35

IT staff and IT network-level support costs 3 12

Others (please specify) 4 15
17 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 8. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percentage of agencies identifying cost factors. 

Table 10. Cost items identified as deterrents to e-Ticketing. 

Cost Items

Responding Agencies

(No. Out of 26) 

Agencies

(Percent) 

Manufacturer/producer/production plant 

equipment upgrades 

8 31 

Vendor licensing fees 6 23 

e-Ticketing technology devices 5 19 

Costs from the contractor 5 19 

Supporting technology costs 5 19 

IT staff and IT network-level support costs 2 8 

Implementation Approaches 

Procurement

Survey results showed the STAs generally procured e-Ticketing services on construction projects 

in three ways:

• Including e-Ticketing as a bid item in the base contract for contractors. The bid item 

allows the contractors to cover the costs related to proving the e-Ticketing system.

• Including e-Ticketing as incidental to another item of work, such as asphalt, aggregates, 

and concrete in the base contract. 

• Procuring e-Ticketing through a modification to a bid item in the base contract that 

allows the contractor to revise the price of the bid item. 
18 

To implement e-Ticketing on projects, the STAs also made the following changes to their 

business processes:

• Including e-Ticketing as an agenda item in preconstruction meetings. 

• Making changes to project documentation requirements. 

• Making changes to retention requirements of final construction records. 

• Making changes to construction specifications and procurement, such as special 

provisions and contract modifications. 

• Providing training to DOT staff. 

Table 11 and table 12 present a breakdown of STAs’ procurement approaches and changes in 

business processes, respectively.

Table 11. e-Ticketing procurement. 

Procurement Approach

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent) 

Included in contract as a bid item 7 27 

Included in RFP as incidental to another item of work 4 15 

Added as a contract modification 6 23 

RFP = Request for Proposals.

Table 12. Changes in business processes. 

Business Process

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent) 

Construction procurement/letting 3 12

Preconstruction meetings 4 15 

Project closeouts 4 15 

As-built documentation/project documentation 9 35 

Legal/compliance 4 15 

Asset management/maintenance 1 4 

Validation 

Similar to paper tickets, e-Tickets must be validated by the agency using established QA and 

verification procedures. Table 13 presents the breakdown of STAs’ responses on verification 

procedures. Many responding STAs indicated the verification procedures for e-Tickets are 

similar to those of paper tickets, and no changes to existing procedures had been put in place. 

Only Minnesota and Washington DOTs identified documented procedures and process for 

verification of e-Tickets. 
19 

Table 13. Validation of e-Tickets. 

Answer Choices

Responses

(No.) 

Responses

(Percent) 

Yes, we have implemented procedures for verification. 5 19 

Yes, we are still getting cohort paper tickets. 7 27 

No, but we have plans or are working on developing 

verification procedures for e-Ticketing. 

1 4 

No, we do not have plans to verify e-Tickets. 1 4 

Because these STAs are in the piloting phase, many of them are still collecting both paper and 

e-Tickets. Collecting cohort tickets enables the STAs to compare e-Tickets with paper tickets for 

verification. The verification process included checkpoints at the production plant, during 

transmittal, and at the point of delivery. This process also typically includes certification of 

weigh scales and the presence of DOT inspectors at the production plants and quarry; the DOT 

inspectors checked delivery, vehicle identification (ID), time stamp, and location, and they 

conducted visual inspections of loads at the delivery points. Some STAs reported random 

inspections of loads and tracking of yield rates. To verify the on-time arrival of vehicles to 

jobsites against unauthorized stops or delays, the STAs typically used time stamps of vehicle 

departures at the production plant and arrivals at the jobsite. Some STAs required Global 

Positioning System (GPS) or geofencing data.1

Furthermore, as a part of daily summary reports, respondents indicated that both the agency and 

contractors compare their daily data summaries to check if their quantities match.

Data security risks are inherent to electronic data. The e-Tickets are prone to security risks, such 

as data tampering, loss, or breach. Almost all respondents are aware of the need to put data 

security requirements in place for e-Ticketing. Twelve States indicated they have plans for 

implementing security standards/policies. Some STAs, including Pennsylvania and Tennessee, 

have included clauses in their specifications to protect automatic recording and electronic 

transmittal of weigh scale data against potential alterations by contractors and STAs. In addition, 

the vendor solutions have implemented security features in their products against potential 

tampering.

1

A geofence is a virtual geographic boundary around a specific location defined by mobile devices or software 

apps, such as GPS and radiofrequency ID tags, which are programmed to trigger an action when a device enters a set 

location.
20 

Data Management 

Data Attributes

In addition to fundamental data items on paper tickets, such as material quantities, project and 

supplier description, and location, the STAs capture a variety of data attributes. Table 14

summarizes the additional data attributes captured on e-Tickets. The commonly collected data 

items include mix type and design; inspector notes; mix properties, such as temperature, water 

content, etc.; and admixtures and modifiers. As presented in table 15, only four STAs—

Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, and Maine—indicated the collection of GPS breadcrumbing 

data, while most STAs captured the locations of specific points or deliveries appended by field 

staff.2

Table 14. Additional collected data attributes on e-Tickets.

Data Attributes

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent) 

Mix type and design 20 77 

Inspector notes 20 77 

Mix properties (before placement) 10 38 

Admixtures and modifiers used 9 35 

Temperature readings or thermal coverage from paver

mounted infrared system

4 15 

Material sampling locations 4 15 

Dielectric profiling system (DPS) readings 2 8 

Mat properties (after placement) 2 8 

Roller coverage and/or stiffness using IC 1 4 

Table 15. Location information on e-Tickets.

Location Information 

Responding Agencies 

(No. Out of 26)

Agencies

(Percent) 

Yes, at all points along the delivery vehicle route with

GPS connection 

4 15 

Yes, but only at specific locations (quarry, production 

plant, project, paver and geofence tripping points) 

4 15 

No, but delivery/dump location is noted/appended by 

field staff

10 38 

No, the delivery vehicles are not tracked nor is location 

recorded

7 27 

2

Breadcrumbing refers to the tracking history of latitude and longitude coordinates captured at every instance of 

a mobile device’s location. 
21 

Use of e-Ticket Data

Of the 26 STAs using e-Ticketing, 10 STAs were storing ticket data internally in their 

information systems for archiving and documentation, and three STAs were storing ticket data 

for calculating pay quantities. 

Data Standardization 

National efforts are currently underway to standardize data attributes on e-Tickets. Only STAs in 

Minnesota and Missouri identified their partnerships with AASHTO, whereas Vermont and 

Connecticut indicated regional cooperation in the northeast on data standardization. 

Procurement Language for Data Management 

Fourteen of the 26 STAs using e-Ticketing indicated they included contract clauses on the 

handling of e-Ticketing data. Of those 14 STAs, many included requirements on file formats, 

data transfer, and the extent of access to electronic data. Five STAs included language on the 

ownership of ticket data. Table 16 breakdowns the STAs’ data management clauses in the 

contract documents. 

Table 16. Contract language for data management. 

Requirement

Responding Agencies 

(Out of 14)

Agencies

(Percent)

File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV) 11 79

Data transfer policy from vendor/contractor to 

agency

9 64

Extent of stakeholder access to e-Tickets 7 50

Timing of ownership of ticket data 5 36

Process for archiving ticket data 2 14

Degree of security for ticket data 2 14

Extent of liability for the accuracy of e-Tickets 1 7

Stakeholder Receptivity 

Table 17 and figure 9 summarize how various stakeholder groups perceive e-Ticketing as 

measures on a five-point Likert scale from extremely positive to extremely negative. The 

receptivity among the DOT staff, midsize and large contractors, and suppliers is high; however, 

both small suppliers and third-party delivery truck companies do not have the same positive 

reception to e-Ticketing as other stakeholders. The low receptivity of small suppliers and 

trucking companies is reflected in the implementation challenges outlined in table 18. 
22 

Table 17. Stakeholder receptivity. 

Stakeholder Groups

Extremely 

Positive

Responses 

(No.) 

Positive

Responses 

(No.) 

Neutral

Reponses 

(No.) 

Negative 

Responses 

(No.) 

Extremely 

Negative 

Responses 

(No.) 

DOT staff and CEI 7 22 6 0 0 

Small contractors and 

suppliers 

0 4 16 9 0 

Midsize and large 

contractors 

4 21 6 3 0 

Material suppliers 2 13 11 2 0 

Trucking/delivery 

companies 

1 3 17 5 0 

CEI = construction engineering inspection. 

© 2021 WSP. 

Figure 9. Chart. AASHTO survey: Percent receptivity of various stakeholder groups. 

Table 18. e-Ticketing implementation challenges.

Challenges

Agencies Using 

e-Ticketing

(No.) 

Agencies 

Not Using 

e-Ticketing

(No.) 

Total 

(No.) 

Internet connectivity concerns 9 10 19 

Receptivity of small suppliers 5 10 15 

Access, privacy, or security concerns 4 10 14 

Manufacturer/producer/production plant 

equipment upgrades 

4 10 14 
23 

Challenges

Agencies Using 

e-Ticketing

(No.) 

Agencies 

Not Using 

e-Ticketing

(No.) 

Total 

(No.) 

Inadequacy of IT infrastructure/Internet 

connectivity 

4 10 14 

More education or training is needed for the 

field staff

4 9 13 

Limited use of mobile devices for field 

inspection 

4 8 12 

Contractors have not requested 5 6 11 

Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators 5 6 11 

Receptivity of DOT staff 2 8 10 

Receptivity of midsize and large contractors 4 6 10 

More education or training is needed for the 

trucking/delivery operators 

2 8 10 

Lack of standard contract 

language/specifications 

1 8 9 

More education or training is needed for 

office staff

3 5 8 

Legal and/or liability concerns 3 4 7 

High costs associated with software or 

hardware 

1 5 6 

Benefits of using e-Ticketing are unknown 2 2 4 

Executive-level management is not aware of 

the benefits of e-Ticketing

1 2 3 

High IT staff and IT network-level support 

costs

0 3 3 

High vendor licensing fees 1 2 3 

Incompatibility with (or restricted by) legal, 

regulatory, or policy requirements

0 3 3 

ROI is not unproven 1 1 2 

Processes do not exist to ensure security or 

accuracy is adequate for construction

1 1 2 

Unsuccessful efforts have been attempted in 

the past 

1 0 1 

Executive-level management is aware of the 

benefits but not chose to support

0 0 0 
24 

Implementation Challenges

AASHTO’s nationwide survey also captured the challenges and deterrents that STAs face in 

implementing e-Ticketing. Table 18 presents the challenges STAs identified by their 

implementation statuses. STAs piloting e-Ticketing reported facing the following top challenges: 

• Accessing connectivity in areas of low Internet coverage or dead zones. 

• Responding to receptivity of small suppliers, especially related to the use of outdated 

load-out systems and high costs of implementation. 

• Responding to receptivity of third-party haulers. 

• Handling multiple e-Ticketing systems. 

STAs with no e-Ticketing piloting experience reported the following top deterrents: 

• Having limited use of mobile devices for field inspection. 

• Experiencing Internet connectivity challenges. 

• Responding to receptivity of small suppliers and third-party haulers. 

• Meeting the higher costs of production plant and equipment upgrades. 

• Working with inadequate IT infrastructure. 

The responding STAs indicated the following needs to enable or accelerate the deployment of 

e-Ticketing through pilots:

• Acquiring implementation guidance. 

• Gaining access to peer support. 

• Securing additional funding. 

• Obtaining technical assistance for training and specifications development. 

Survey of Technology Providers 

e-Ticketing vendors were contacted to gather information on their products. Of the eight vendors 

who were identified, one was not yet commercialized, and the other seven were already in the 

market. The respondents included Astec Industries, Inc., Command Alkon, HaulHub 

Technologies, Proxet, Surface Tech, Spot-On Performance, Volvo, and XBE LLC. 

Product Type and Use

Two types of vendor e-Ticketing products are available in the market:

• Supplier-centric services that can capture data from the load-out scales automatically at 

the production plant and transmit the data through a cloud or server in realtime. The 

ticket information is relayed to the DOT inspector in the field via a mobile device and 

vendor app. The inspector can then accept or reject the tickets and append information to 

the tickets.
25 

• DOT-centric Web portal services that can receive tickets directly from suppliers or 

through their vendor products and then import and store them into the DOT’s information 

systems. This information is relayed to the DOT inspector in the field. The Web portal 

services can receive tickets from any authenticated material supplier or vendor product, 

which can send e-Tickets from a load-out system in a specified data format.

Regardless of the type, the vendor products are designed to be used for a variety of materials, 

including asphalt mixtures, concrete mixtures, reinforcing steel, deicing salts, prefabricated 

elements, cement, liquid asphalt binders, millings, and emulsions. The vendor e-Ticketing 

products are typically agnostic of the material type and can be used for a variety of materials or 

assembled products. 

The responses indicate the vendor solutions generally offer the following capabilities:

• Electronic transfer of ticket information and data attributes. 

• Material tracking/location. 

• Delivery verification. 

• Inspection/field data entry. 

Most vendor products are capable of automatically capturing and transmitting vehicle departure 

time and location stamps from the production plant and their arrival times on the jobsite. 

Similarly, the vendor products can calculate dashboard metrics and automatic summaries, such 

as real-time tracking of job progress; preparing daily summary reports, payment invoices, 

timecards, and shift reports; and producing a variety of custom reports. The supplier-centric

products can perform fleet productivity analyses, such as producing records of a driver’s duty, 

releasing daily vehicle inspection reports, tracking truck usage and downtimes, and recording 

haul loading and unloading cycles. While most vendor products can track location, one vendor 

product (Spot-On Performance) has made GPS tracking of trucks optional. 

The electronic data reside in a cloud or the vendor server. To ensure security, the vendor 

products rely on user management with access control, monitoring and recording of login and 

logout time stamps and locations, and version controls. To prevent tampering, all amendments 

and additions to the source data are recorded. The vendor products that utilize APIs use bearer 

tokens to authenticate login requests from persons or agencies sending ticket information to the 

Web portals. 

At the time of survey, at least one vendor (Spot-On Performance) is working on camera-based or 

Bluetooth® Low EnergyTM (BLE)-based technologies to automatically verify the arrival of 

trucks at the jobsite and delivery of its product, and at least two vendors (HaulHub Technologies 

and Command Alkon) are piloting projects on license plate detection of trucks at the delivery 

point. 

Data Attributes and Capabilities

Table 19 presents the breakdown of data attributes their products can capture. In addition to these 

data attributes, some vendor products include a safety checklist, daily reports, and acceptance 

and rejection fields. All vendor products allow for field entry of additional data. Most of these 
26 

products are capable of allowing general notes and specific entries, whereas a few products can 

allow appending of pictures, videos, and forms. The e-Tickets can be transmitted as CSV or 

JSON files, although some vendors offer PDFs, email transmittal, and Web apps. 

Table 19. Data attributes and capabilities of e-Ticketing vendor products. 

Requirement

Vendors 

(No. Out of 7) 

Agencies

(Percent) 

Project and contract ID 7 100 

Production plant ID 7 100 

Material description 7 100 

Pay item 6 86 

Contractor ID 7 100 

Scale ID 5 71 

Truck ID 6 86 

Truck driver ID 6 86 

Loading date and time 7 100 

Truck tare weight 5 71 

Source and destination locations 7 100 

Time at source and destination 6 86 

Source and destination geofences 3 43 

Transit time 7 100 

Transit routing geofences 2 29 

Material temperature at source and destination 3 43 

Air temperature at source and destination 3 43 

Load acceptance or rejection 7 100 

Split load weight 3 43 

Wasted material weight 4 57 

Other items, including daily summaries and safety checklists 3 43 

Hardware and Software Requirements

The questionnaire focused on capturing the hardware and software requirements of vendor 

products for both contractors/suppliers and STAs. Contractor/suppliers have the following 

requirements: 

• Load-out system, with software capabilities of sending ticket data to a relational database. 

• Mobile devices for truck drivers. 
27 

Owners have the following requirements: 

• Mobile devices for viewing tickets and appending information in the field via Internet 

access. 

• Web browsers and apps for mobile devices that support offline functionality. 

• Web browsers to ingest ticket information into a relational database or information 

system. 

Cost Structure

The vendors (Volvo, Surface Tech LLC, Spot-On Performance, HaulHub Technologies, Astec 

Industries, Inc., XBE LVC) offer an annual software-as-a-service subscription for their 

customers. Most vendors offer services for a flat fee, while one vendor (Command Alkon) offers 

use-based subscriptions based on the number of tickets or project value. Most vendors offer the 

following add-ons as a part of their pricing structure:

• Software updates. 

• Software upgrades. 

• Onboarding/integration services. 

• Maintenance services/support services. 

• Training. 

• Servers/storage. 

Data Ownership

When asked about the ownership of the electronic data, the vendors indicated data ownership is 

tied to free onboard terms. In other words, data ownership depends on the party that owns or is 

liable for the material. Accordingly, the data are owned by the material supplier and contractor 

before and during transmittal, respectively. After the data are received by the DOT, the 

ownership is transferred permanently. However, the vendors may retain some ownership, 

contingent on the terms and conditions in their license agreements with the DOT, if the vendor 

enriches the electronic data.

29 

CHAPTER 3. BUSINESS CASE FOR E-TICKETING

INTRODUCTION

A business case is useful when a new product, process, service, or change is introduced to 

demonstrate the value the proposed change would bring to the organization. The following 

business case entails a comprehensive review and analysis of evidence to provide a rationale for 

implementing e-Ticketing and exploring its core implementation requirements. 

For an agency exploring e-Ticketing, making a business case will be useful for securing the 

buy-in of internal stakeholders, including senior leadership and staff, and the support of external 

stakeholders. The business case will also be useful for seeking more funding, resources, and 

support systems for e-Ticketing implementation within the agency. In addition, the business case 

exercise examines the qualitative and quantifiable benefits, with supporting evidence, and the 

risks and challenges associated with implementation.

In general, e-Ticketing users find the benefits outweigh the costs. AASHTO’s nationwide survey 

showed the receptivity for e-Ticketing among STA and construction engineering inspection staff,

and large- and medium-size suppliers is highly positive. In many instances, the contractors and 

suppliers expressed interest in deploying e-Ticketing technologies on their projects. However, 

some key stakeholders, small suppliers, and third-party haulers, in particular, did not perceive 

that switching to e-Ticketing would bring them net benefits. Furthermore, some STAs responded 

that their senior leadership was unaware of the benefits of e-Ticketing. This chapter presents 

information for agencies on how to prepare a business case for e-Ticketing. 

BUSINESS CASE EXPLAINED

Figure 10 presents an overview of the steps involved in constructing a business case, and the 

sections that follow describe the four subcases that comprise the e-Ticketing business case

(Metrolinx 2021): 

• Strategic case—Establishes why e-Ticketing should be pursued and what problems would 

be resolved.

• Economic case—Documents the benefits of e-Ticketing. 

• Financial case—Discusses the costs of e-Ticketing for the agency.

• Implementation case—Discusses the procurement approach for e-Ticketing, including 

implementation considerations. 
30 

© 2022 WSP. 

Figure 10. Chart. Framework of business case. 

The following sections describe each of these subcases in detail.

Strategic Case

The strategic case for e-Ticketing begins with the problems associated with traditional paper 

tickets that the electronic process seeks to replace. The problems associated with paper tickets 

and the value proposition that e-Ticketing offers are as follows:

• Safety—Collecting paper tickets from delivery trucks alongside live traffic, moving 

construction equipment, or working on roadsides in mountainous areas with no or short 

shoulders create safety hazards in work zones. Contactless delivery minimizes the risk for 

inspectors and contractor personnel to be struck by a truck accident at the jobsite. The 

improved safety performance may reduce worker compensation insurance costs for 

construction inspectors and contractor personnel.

• Better use of inspector time—Collecting paper tickets typically requires a full-time 

inspector or laborer. e-Ticketing allows reassignment of the ticket taker’s role to other

administrative, inspection, engineering, or production activities of a higher priority than 

ticket taking. Repurposing inspectors’ time would help agencies in managing workforce 

shortages and ensuring better project performance outcomes. Similarly, eliminating less

productive work, such as ticket taking, allows contractors to utilize laborers for 

production work, which contributes to savings in project costs and scheduling. 

• Streamlined reporting—Compiling paper tickets is a resource-intensive process that 

entails reconciling the tickets, handling damaged or illegible tickets, finding or replacing 

lost tickets, and manually reentering quantities into an agency’s CMS. e-Ticketing 

eliminates these problems. The e-Ticket data can be automatically summarized and 

exchanged with the agency’s CMS. 

Problem Statement

Defines the problem and the corresponding goals and objectives to be addressed.

Strategic Case

How does e-Ticketing achieve the 

strategic goals and objectives?

Economic Case

What is e-Ticketing’s overall value to 

stakeholders?

Financial Case

What are the financial implications 

for the agency?

Implementation Case

How can e-Ticketing be procured and 

what risks and requirements must be 

met?
31 

• Digital documentation—Capturing load deliveries with location data in e-Tickets serves 

the following purposes: appending additional quality measures, such as IC, dielectric 

profiling systems (DPS), thermal profiles, on-field measurement of mixture properties 

(slump, air content, temperature, etc.), and material testing data; appending material 

certifications, source, and production plant QC data; tracing laboratory test results to 

placement location; and conducting data mining and using the data for forensic purposes. 

• Fleet management—Delivering material is one of the major cost items for contractors and 

suppliers. The fleet management aspects of e-Ticketing allow suppliers to monitor truck 

idle times, haul cycle times, traffic impacts, arrival times and time spent waiting at 

jobsites, and unauthorized stops and delays in realtime, all of which create operational 

efficiencies.

• Production efficiency and quality—Maintaining a consistent uniform cycle time of 

material delivery between the production plant and paver is essential to achieve better 

quality. Longer or frequent idling of vehicles and pavers causes frequent stopping and 

starting of paving operations, which contributes to material placement problems. 

Real-time monitoring of a fleet can detect vehicles waiting at the jobsite to deliver 

materials, which allows contractors to streamline and optimize plant production and 

placement rates.

• Data mining—Transmitting e-Ticketing data can be conducted in realtime directly to an 

agency via an API, which can be ingested into the DOT information structures, such as 

construction management, asset management, or financial systems. The integration of 

e-Ticketing with other data, such as materials source information, certifications, and test 

data, costs, and schedule, will result in the development of digital as-builts. This 

information creates a “single source of truth” that can be utilized for data mining, 

auditing, and forensic purposes. 

These value propositions can be well supported through the lens of e-Construction technologies, 

BIM for infrastructure, fleet management, and safety. The benefits of e-Construction 

technologies and BIM are well established in the industry, and the benefits of managing material 

delivery fleets better are adequately documented (Dadi et al. 2020; FHWA 2021; Mallela and 

Bhargava 2021). However, the safety benefits of e-Ticketing are inadequately documented in the 

literature, as described in the next section. 

Safety Benefits of e-Ticketing

The safety benefits of e-Ticketing stems from reduced exposure of ticket takers to moving 

traffic, vehicles, and construction equipment. Visual blind areas of vehicles and equipment 

operators when workers are performing tasks in their activity area is a primary cause of 

accidents. 

Citing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as the source, the National Work Zone Safety Information 

Clearinghouse (NWZSIC) reported that 391 workers were fatally injured at road construction 

sites during 2017-2019 (NWZSIC 2022). About 45 percent of the 391 fatalities reported during 

this period, as presented in figure 11, were attributed to workers on foot who were struck by 
32 

moving vehicles. Similarly, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

reports that 123 of 577 workers fatally struck by vehicles at road construction sites are attributed 

to backing of construction vehicles between 2011 and 2020 (NIOSH 2022a). 

NIOSH’s Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation program has published 102 investigation 

reports, prepared by NIOSH and State DOTs, of which 42 reports indicate the involvement of a 

construction vehicles in the fatal accident of construction workers between 1992 and 2020 

(NIOSH 2022b). While these incidents might not be directly attributed to a ticket taker, the mode 

of accidents in which the construction vehicles and equipment were involved, such as a moving 

truck/equipment striking someone, backing up over someone, running over someone, or someone 

falling off a truck/equipment pose a similar likelihood of safety hazards to ticket takers.

These statistics indicate the significance of safety hazards that moving vehicles could cause in 

the activity sections of construction work zones. 

Copyright © 2022 American Road & Transportation Builders Association. 

Figure 11. Graph. Types of events resulting in highway worker fatalities at road 

construction sites (NWZSIC 2022). 

Anecdotally, the death of a construction technician who was struck by a cement truck in 2006 on 

the I–235 project in the Des Moines, IA, area was a significant motivation for Iowa DOT to 

pursue e-Ticketing (Iowa DOT 2007). Furthermore, NIOSH has developed blind area diagrams 

for various construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, material transfer vehicles, and rollers 

(Hefner and Breen 2004). The blind area diagrams were developed to educate transportation 

agencies and contractors on how to develop mitigation strategies and controls, such as operating 

procedures, training, and warning systems, to minimize accidents caused by blind areas. Figure 

11 and figure 12 present the blind area diagrams of a typical dump truck and material transfer 

vehicle, respectively. The gray shaded areas in these diagrams are outside the line of eyesight of 

a truck driver or equipment operator and are indicative of safety hazards that a ticket taker might 

face in the vicinity.
33 

Source: NIOSH. 

Figure 12. Graph. Blind area diagram of Ford 880 dump truck (Hefner and Breen 2004). 
34 

Source: NIOSH. 

Figure 13. Graph. Blind area diagram of Roadtec 2500B material transfer vehicle

(Hefner and Breen 2004).
35 

Economic Case

The economic case involves estimating the quantifiable benefits of e-Ticketing. A typical 

economic case entails an economic appraisal of benefits and costs by using techniques such as a 

benefit–cost analysis. However, owing to the challenges in estimating costs, only benefit 

estimates of e-Ticketing are presented in the following section.

Many benefits of e-Ticketing are derived from avoiding the costs of paper tickets. The 

e-Construction ROI calculator, developed by FHWA, was adapted for this purpose (Shah et al. 

2017). Table 20 lists the benefit types and their calculations. The methods and formulae for most 

benefit types, as presented in this table, were adopted from the e-Construction ROI calculator.

Table 20. Benefit types and calculations. 

Benefit Type Calculations

Reduced use of paper, printing, mailing, 

faxing, scanning 

Number of tickets per year × total cost per 

page

Time savings associated with collecting paper 

tickets

Estimated time savings per inspector per day 

× number of weeks of construction season × 

number of workdays per week × average 

hourly pay × number of inspectors

Time savings associated with creating daily 

summary report

Estimated data entry time savings per 

inspector per day × number of weeks of 

construction season × number of work days 

per week × average hourly pay × number of 

inspectors

Time savings associated with traveling offsite 

to office to submit documentation

Estimated travel time savings to submit 

documentation per inspector per day × 

number of weeks of construction season × 

number of work days per week × average 

hourly pay × number of inspectors

Time savings associated with handling errors 

(data entry errors, lost documentation, 

illegible tickets and reconciliation)

Estimated data entry time savings per 

inspector per day × number of weeks of 

construction season × number of work days 

per week × average hourly pay × number of 

inspectors

Integration efficiencies with managing 

contract administration, contract records, 

daily summary reports, contractor payments, 

materials management, and laboratory 

inventory management using the project 

CMS, and sending the project for final 

payment to financial and accounting systems

Percentage of estimated annual savings 

through efficiencies × annual construction 

program 
36 

Benefit Type Calculations

Savings in worker compensation insurance 

costs because of reduced risk of work zone 

injuries and fatalities

Percentage of estimated savings in insurance 

costs × worker compensation insurance costs 

(1$ per every $100 of wages) for paving work 

× average daily work hours × number of 

weeks of construction season × number of 

work days per week × average hourly pay × 

number of inspectors

The key inputs required to complete the benefits calculation are:

• Annual construction program (U.S. dollar (USD)). 

• Number of tickets per year. 

• Total cost (paper, toner, processing, storage) per page (USD). 

• Typical work hour per day (hours). 

• Number of workdays per week. 

• Number of weeks of construction season. 

• Average hourly pay rate (USD). 

• Number of inspectors collecting tickets. 

• Worker compensation costs for paving work (1$ per $100 of wages). 

• Time savings associated with traveling to the office to submit documentation per daily 

summary report (hours). 

• Time savings associated with entering data on mobile device versus recording on paper 

and then entering on a computer (hours). 

• Time savings associated with handling data entry errors, missing or illegible tickets, and 

reconciling quantities (hours). 

• Integration efficiencies, as percent of annual construction program, associated with 

managing contract administration, contract records, daily summary reports, contractor 

payments, materials management, and laboratory inventory management using the 

project CMS, and sending the project for final payment to financial and accounting 

systems (percent). 
37 

Illustration of Benefits Estimation

The following example demonstrates the benefits of e-Ticketing for a hypothetical agency called 

XYDOT. The inputs and assumptions presented in the example are used for illustration purposes 

only. The actual inputs may vary depending on the agency’s field resourcing plan, compensation 

costs, and benefits observed in the field. The readers are advised to use their discretion in 

selecting appropriate inputs for benefits estimation.

XYDOT has been piloting e-Ticketing for asphalt and concrete paving projects. This DOT has 

already implemented electronic plans and specifications, documentations, and signatures for its 

construction projects. XYDOT has gathered data on cost avoidance associated with using 

paperless processes, and it plans to scale up the pilots and expand e-Ticketing to full 

implementation in 7 yr. The following example illustrates the computation of benefits estimated 

for XYDOT.

Construction Program Overview. XYDOT, a hypothetical agency, delivers a construction 

program for $1.5 billion annually, and its construction program employs 200 full-time equivalent 

(FTE) employees for construction inspection. XYDOT pays an average total compensation of 

$55 per hour for wages and benefits and worker compensation insurance of $1.50 for every $100 

of paid wages. The construction season lasts for 32 w a year. The inspectors work for 8 h per 

workday per week and 5 d per week.

XYDOT uses the following tonnage of materials each year for paving projects: 

• Asphalt concrete (AC) = 20,000,000 tons. 

• Ready-mix concrete = 1,800,000 yd3

. 

• Aggregates = 3,000,000 tons. 

• Reclaimed asphalt = 2,000,000 tons. 

Table 21 presents the summary of XYDOT’s construction program. Table 22 presents an 

estimated number of paper tickets that XYDOT handles for material delivery. The number of 

paper tickets was calculated by using the average tonnage or volume of each truck load by 

material type. In this example, the number of paper tickets is estimated to be 1.5 million each 

year.

Table 21. Illustrative example—construction program inputs of XYDOT. 

Input Description Inputs

Annual construction program (USD) 1,500,000,000 

Inspectors collecting tickets (No.) 200 

Average hourly pay rate (USD) 55.00 

Worker compensation costs ($ per $100 of wages) 1.50 

Typical work hours per day (No.) 8 

Workdays per week (No.) 5 

Weeks of construction season (No.) 52 
38 

Table 22. Estimated number of paper tickets. 

Material Type

Annual Volume 

or Tonnage Units

Tonnage or 

Volume of 

Typical Truck 

Load (tons or yd3)

Tickets

(No.)

AC 20,000,000 tons 20 1,000,000

Ready-mix concrete 1,800,000 yd3 9 200,000

Aggregates 3,000,000 tons 15 200,000

Millings 2,000,000 tons 20 100,000

Estimated number of tickets — — — 1,500,000

—Not applicable

XYDOT piloted e-Ticketing on 5 percent of its projects this year, and it plans to scale up the 

project over the next 6 yr, as illustrated in table 23. 

Table 23. XYDOT piloting plan. 

e-Ticketing Projects

(Year) Projects (Percent)

1 5

2 10

3 20

4 25

5 50

6 90

7 100

Estimated Percent Savings. Based on the experience derived from the earlier implementation of 

e-Construction technologies, XYDOT has developed estimates of cost and time savings 

associated with a paperless process and other e-Ticketing benefits. Table 24 summarizes 

XYDOT’s estimates of percent savings.
39 

Table 24. Estimated savings with paperless process and other benefits. 

Estimated Savings Inputs

Totaling cost (paper, toner, processing, storage) per page (USD) 0.25 

Traveling to the office to submit documentation per daily summary report 

(hours) 

0.5 

Entering data on mobile device versus recording on paper, and then, entering 

data on a computer (hours) 

1 

Handling data entry errors and missing illegible tickets and reconciling 

quantities (hours)

0.5 

Reducing worker compensation insurance costs of construction inspectors 

(percent)

25 

Integrating efficiencies with managing contract administration, contract 

records, daily summary reports, contractor payments, materials management, 

and laboratory inventory management by using the project CMS, and sending 

the project for final payment to financial and accounting systems (percent). 

0.05 

Benefit Estimates. Using the guidelines presented in table 20, table 25 summarizes the benefits 

estimated for full implementation of e-Ticketing in this example case for XYDOT. The total 

amount of benefits is estimated to be $18,777,800. In proportion with the scaling up, table 26

presents the distribution of benefits over the implementation period.

Table 25. Summary of benefits. 

Anticipated Benefit Stream

Anticipated 

Benefits 

(USD) 

Reduced use of paper, printing, mailing, faxing, scanning 375,000 

Time to collect paper tickets 14,080,000 

Time to create daily summary report 1,760,000 

Time to travel offsite to office to submit documentation 880,000 

Time to handle errors (data entry errors, lost documentation, illegible tickets 

and reconciliation) 

880,000 

Integration efficiencies 750,000 

Savings in worker compensation insurance costs because of reduced risk of 

work zone injuries and fatalities 

52,800 

Total benefits 18,777,800 

Table 26. Benefits distribution over years. 

Implementation Year Projects (Percent) Benefits (USD) 

1 5 938,890 

2 10 1,877,780 

3 20 3,755,560 

4 25 4,694,450 

5 50 9,388,900 

6 90 16,900,020 

7 100 18,777,800 
40 

Financial Case

The financial case discusses how much e-Ticketing would cost an agency. An agency should 

consider the following major cost items: 

• IT staff costs for software development and implementation. 

• IT staff costs for maintenance and enhancements. 

• Hardware and software costs for field mobile devices, if required. 

• Licensing fees for procurement, implementation, and maintenance of 

commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products. 

• Procurement costs. 

• Training costs. 

• Cost avoidance of transitioning from paper to e-Tickets. 

The agencies should also consider suppliers’ costs, which would reflect on their bid prices: 

• Suppliers’ equipment upgrades, hardware purchases, and software licensing costs. 

• Suppliers’ load-out upgrade costs, if applicable. 

The STAs, which have completed many pilot projects to date, have procured e-Ticketing by 

using a separate bid item to cover e-Ticketing costs or making the costs incidental to the material 

bid item. Both Pennsylvania and Washington use a separate bid item for e-Ticketing. Table 27

presents a frequency distribution of bid costs of e-Ticketing, as quoted by contractors, on their 

DOT projects, Washington State DOT (WSDOT) and Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT), 

respectively. While the bid costs exhibit a wide range of costs, the median value of e-Ticketing 

costs are approximately $5,000 for both agencies. The interviews with the agencies indicated that 

the contractor bids for e-Ticketing are typically high on their initial deployments, while the costs 

decrease gradually but significantly over time. The cost analysis was not performed on projects 

in which the deployment cost was incidental to the material type because of the challenges with 

capturing e-Ticketing costs.
41 

Table 27. Summary of bid costs of e-Ticketing on WSDOT and PennDOT projects. 

Bid Item Cost Range (USD) WSDOT (No.) PennDOT (No.) 

<1,000 0 0 

1,000–2,000 1 1 

2,001–3,000 1 8 

3,001–4,000 1 0 

4,001–5,000 12 3 

5,001–6,000 0 0 

6,001–7,000 0 1 

7,001–8,000 1 1 

8,001–9,000 0 1 

9,001–10,000 1 1 

10,001–11,000 0 3 

11,001–12,000 0 0 

12,001–20,000 0 1 

20,001–30,000 0 0 

30,001–40,000 0 1 

Total count (No.) 17 21 

Minimum (USD) 1,500 2,000 

Maximum (USD) 10,000 34,200 

Median (USD) 5,000 4,909 

Implementation Case

This subcase entails a high-level assessment of requirements and challenges to the 

implementation of e-Ticketing. The high-level assessment explores the technological and 

commercial viability of one or more options, lays out the procurement approach and 

specification needs, and recognizes the challenges associated with implementation.

Several technology options are available for agencies exploring e-Ticketing. Agencies should 

consider the following viable options: 

• Capture and transmit electronic data by contractor/supplier at the load-out system to the 

DOT. Most suppliers either work with a vendor-based product or develop their own 

custom solution to integrate a load-out system for electronic capture, backup, and 

transmittal.

• Receive electronic data from the STA, including inspectors. The STAs use three different 

approaches: a vendor-based software app on a computer or mobile devices to access 

electronic data in near realtime via an Internet connection; an in-house Web portal using 

APIs to receive data from authenticated users and make the process vendor agnostic, 

which are then related to the inspectors in the field using a software application; or a 

vendor-developed solution to build a Web portal using APIs. 
42 

• Store electronic data in information systems for potential use, such as spreadsheets, 

document management systems, databases, and CMS. 

During the piloting stage, the agencies can explore one of the following three procurement model 

approaches: 

• Include e-Ticketing as a new bid item in the base contract. 

• Make e-Ticketing incidental to a bid item in the base contract. 

• Select candidate projects that are deemed favorable for e-Ticketing by using a base 

contract and executing a contract modification if the selected contractor and supplier is 

ready to do e-Ticketing on the existing project. 

However, as agencies advance in the future to full implementation, the e-Ticketing is anticipated 

to be incidental to the material.

This subcase should also consider other considerations and challenges associated with 

implementation. Key challenges are summarized as follows:

• Addressing issues related to technological maturity, such as hardware requirements and 

data management.

• Working with multiple vendors. 

• Having reliable Internet connectivity. 

• Maintaining costs to small suppliers. 

• Providing training and education. 

Some of the key challenges mentioned in the previous bullets are discussed in detail in chapter 5. 
43 

CHAPTER 4. E-TICKETING STATE OF PRACTICE

The research team reached out to nine State DOTs to conduct interviews on experience with 

e-Ticketing data, benefits and costs, stakeholder coordination, data management, and verification 

procedures. This chapter describes the rationale behind selecting State DOTs for interviews and 

data requests and a summary of findings. 

CANDIDATE SELECTION

The AASHTO national survey indicated that 26 STAs use e-Ticketing. Three STAs—Utah, 

Pennsylvania, and Nebraska—indicated the use of technologies developed in-house, whereas the 

remaining STAs use vendor technology solutions. To further understand the practices of these 

STAs, candidate selection was based on a matrix with seven factors.

1. AASHTO geographic region—STAs were selected to ensure geographic representation 

and regional affiliation across the country. 

2. Rural versus urban lane miles—Internet coverage limitation, particularly in rural areas, 

is one of the most cited implementation barriers. The number of urban and rural lane 

miles as reported in the FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 was used to categorize agencies 

into three groups (FHWA 2020): 

• Mostly rural—more than 80 percent of the lane miles in rural areas (19 States). 

• Moderately rural and urban—The national average of lane miles is 71.8 percent rural 

and 28.2 percent urban. Two categories were considered: moderately rural—STAs 

with rural lane miles between 60 and 80 percent and mostly urban—STAs with rural 

lane miles less than 60 percent. Of the 12 mostly urban agencies, only Connecticut, 

Florida, and Georgia have implemented e-Ticketing. However, based on the 

considerations of e-Ticketing technologies, the inclusion of the “mostly urban” 

category does not bring significance other than representation. Therefore, these two 

categories were combined. 

3. Material types—STAs were selected to capture representation of all three material types 

(asphalt, ready-mix concrete, and aggregates). 

4. Technology solutions—STAs were selected to include both in-house and 

vendor-developed solutions. 

5. Implementation status—STAs were selected to include agencies that implemented 

e-Ticketing before and after the 2020 pandemic. 

6. Integration with material/CMS—STAs were selected to represent various CMS. 

7. Integration of other technologies—STAs were selected to include agencies that have 

integrated information from other technologies, such as thermal paver.
44 

Based on the selection criteria information, as summarized in table 28, the following State DOTs 

were selected for questionnaire interviews and data collection (AASHTO n.d.a): 

• Pennsylvania and Delaware in AASHTO Region 1. 

• Alabama and Tennessee in AASHTO Region 2. 

• Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota in AASHTO Region 3. 

• Utah and Washington in AASHTO Region 4. 

Table 28. Selection of STAs for questionnaire interviews. 

Criteria MN IA UT PA WA DE NE TN AL

AASHTO geographic Region 1 — — — X — X — — — 

AASHTO geographic Region 2 — — — — — — — X X 

AASHTO geographic Region 3 X X — — — — — — — 

AASHTO geographic Region 4 — — X — X X — — — 

Mostly rural—80 percent lane miles 

and higher 

X X — — — — X — — 

Moderately rural and urban

<80 percent lane miles

— — X X X X — X X 

Asphalt pavement — X — X X X X X X 

Ready-mix concrete — X — — X X — — — 

Aggregates — X — X — — — — 

In-house developed — — X X — — X — — 

Vendor developed X X — X X X — X X 

Piloted before 2020 X X X X — — — — — 

Piloted in 2020 or later — — — — X — X X — 

Pilot planning currently underway — — — — — X — — — 

Benefit–cost quantification — — — — — — X — — 

—Not applicable.

SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

PennDOT runs a large, $7.3-billion construction program. PennDOT is organized as 11 districts, 

and, on average, it administers approximately 1,100 to 1,200 construction projects annually. 

PennDOT employs more than 500 DOT construction inspectors to support its construction 

program and supplements with about 1,800 consultant inspectors. For nearly a decade, PennDOT 

has been working on e-Construction efforts with the goals to provide productivity for field staff, 

gain efficiencies through paperless processes and technology use, and digitalize information for 

best use.

PennDOT was one of the early adopters of e-Ticketing, and piloted its first e-Ticketing projects 

in 2017 on four hot-mix asphalt (HMA)/warm-mix asphalt (WMA) and milling projects in 

District 11, Allegheny County. These four projects used two vendor products: Earthwave’s® 
45 

FleetWatcherTM and LibraTM systems. In 2018 and 2019, PennDOT continued to pilot with 

10 additional projects. As of 2021, PennDOT has used e-Ticketing on more than 50 projects.

The pilot projects predominantly included asphalt mixtures and millings; however, the agency 

has expanded e-Ticketing to include aggregates and concrete. PennDOT is currently expanding 

e-Ticketing pilots to its remaining districts with three projects per district for the three 

predominant material types. The goal of the agency is to fully roll out e-Ticketing by 2024 on its 

projects. In the future, the agency plans to include liquid asphalt and deicing salt and chemicals. 

PennDOT’s primary motivation for implementing e-Ticketing is focused on e-Construction and 

safety. PennDOT’s e-Ticketing initiative evolved naturally as a part of its larger ongoing 

e-Construction initiative. 

The construction program inherently entails volumes of paper and paper-based business 

processes. A typical construction project may generate about 100 to 5,000 pages of paper for 

plans, shop drawings, requests for information, emails, and associated documents. These 

volumes of paper must be processed, stored, and retained for a specific period. The transition to 

e-Tickets provides the following opportunities: 

• Overcoming the challenges associated with handling paper tickets, such as printing and 

paper costs, recovering lost tickets, and ticket sorting. 

• Creating daily summaries and streamlining payment processes to contractors.

• Providing material and tonnage verifications. 

For PennDOT, reducing work zone hazards was a key goal for e-Ticketing to ensure the safety of 

construction inspectors working in live traffic, on night jobs, and on worksites with narrow 

shoulders. The agency intends to leverage e-Tickets to automate payroll processes for future 

projects and for delivery cycle and production rate monitoring. 

e-Ticketing Tools

In the initial phases of piloting, PennDOT has allowed vendor solutions, such as CONNEX by 

Command Alkon, DOTslip, FleetWatcher, and Libra Sentinel, as well as contractor-developed 

solutions, such those developed by Lindy Paving. 

PennDOT has developed an e-Ticketing solution called User Acceptance Testing (UAT), which 

works for any potential vendor solution or suppliers that would entail a Web-based, 

industry-standard API. The API is a set of software instructions that enable communication 

between two software programs. Using the APIs, an agency can receive electronic data from any 

vendor or supplier, in predefined file formats with authentication credentials, and post the same 

data in the agency’s software systems. The e-Ticket will use the JSON format and must adhere to 

the data fields and format requirements set by PennDOT. PennDOT will provide the software 

vendors and suppliers with specific authentication credentials and an app key. They can then use 

them to call the API services and send the ticket data. The e-Tickets are posted on AzureTM, a 

cloud computing service operated by Microsoft® (Microsoft 2023a). 
46 

The development of the UAT portal is complete. The APIs are currently working, and at least 

five vendors, to date, have been sending tickets using their credentials. The API puts the ticket 

data into the agency’s database, which, in turn, relays the information to the mobile app that 

PennDOT’s inspectors use in the field to view e-Tickets. The inspectors have the functionality 

within the mobile application to accept, reject, or void the ticket and add comments. 

The UAT application provides an agency view of the tickets. The vendors can query the agency 

systems on the status of the tickets by using this app. A unique ticket ID is created when a ticket 

is submitted. The submitter can use this ticket ID to obtain the status or see what information has 

been amended or added on the e-Ticket.

Benefits and Costs

Although PennDOT recognizes specific trends with the benefits and costs associated with 

e-Ticketing, it has yet to capture, review, and document them.

PennDOT allows contractors to bid e-Ticketing as a lump sum using its bid item 9000-0100 

Electronic Delivery Management System. Using a lump sum bid item enables the agency to 

absorb the contractor costs of e-Ticketing, while tracking the cost trends over time. The agency 

plans to phase out the use of a separate bid item over time. In the future, the agency anticipates 

making the contractors’ e-Ticketing costs incidental to the work items, most likely after full 

implementation when most or all suppliers would be up and running with e-Ticketing solutions 

and communicating with PennDOT’s software apps.

Based on the past bids to date, the bid prices for e-Ticketing appear to be varying widely 

between $1 and $34,200, with an average around $5,000. This variability could be attributed to 

three reasons: 

• Inconsistency among contractors in how they spread the costs among the projects. 

• High bidding prices for contractors to cover the upgrade and implementation costs of 

e-Ticketing, although multiple projects will ultimately reduce bid costs. Over time, the 

agency surmises that the bid price will reduce and stabilize to reflect only the 

maintenance costs on subsequent projects. 

• Removal of GPS requirement, which could have resulted in lower bid prices. 

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Outreach 

PennDOT has been partnering with the industry since initiating the pilots. The receptivity for 

e-Ticketing among Pennsylvania’s midsize and large contractors, material suppliers, and DOT 

staff is positive; however, small suppliers have been less receptive. Although the small suppliers 

are incentivized to use the lump sum bid item to cover their upgrade costs, they still have 

practical challenges, such as obtaining Internet coverage for their production plants. PennDOT is 

working to have a better understanding of their concerns. 
47 

Special Provisions and Specifications

PennDOT developed a special provision to facilitate the piloting of e-Ticketing for HMA/WMA 

and asphalt millings: 9000-0100 Electronic Delivery Management System. These special 

provisions included the following requirements:

• Incorporating GPS/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) tracking on all dump 

trucks, belly dumps, side-load dumps, pavers, materials transfer vehicles, or any other 

vehicles. 

• Establishing full integration with the production plant load-out system. 

• Tracking materials during the construction processes from the production plant load-out 

point to the final delivery and placement location.

Since the initial pilots, PennDOT has removed the GPS/GNSS tracking requirement from the 

special provision because of the pushback from the industry. Working with the industry, 

PennDOT developed two specifications: e-Ticketing construction and maintenance specifications 

(PennDOT 2020a, PennDOT 2020b). The agency received comments from the industry and is in 

the process of revising them, along with developing special provisions for batch mixture slips, 

concrete, and aggregate. 

Preconstruction Meetings

e-Ticketing is an agenda item on current PennDOT preconstruction meetings. e-Ticketing was 

added as an agenda item for all construction projects piloted in 2021. The preconstruction 

meeting allows the project stakeholders to acknowledge and discuss the plan for e-Ticketing. The 

preconstruction meeting discussions address issues, including contingency plans to manage loss 

of Internet connectivity in the field and power outages at production plants.

QA

To verify the quantities on e-Tickets, PennDOT still collects both electronic and paper tickets, 

allowing it to compare and ensure accuracy of information. The agency will eventually stop 

collecting the cohort tickets. The agency plans to create an agency view of the tickets that allows 

it to design and implement agency-specific forms. The agency still follows the inspection process 

associated with paper tickets. The construction inspectors perform inspections at the plant 

facilities to ensure the weigh scales are reading accurately and the tickets are produced correctly. 

The production plants are required to keep a material logbook. The inspectors can review the 

record of the materials in the logbook to verify the production quantities of the plant. 

GPS Requirement and Internet Coverage

Pennsylvania discontinued the requirement that the contractor must provide GPS/GNSS data 

because of industry pushback. Citing privacy concerns, the private sector was hesitant to share

the route, location, and vehicle speed information of haul vehicles and drivers with the agency. 

The private sector was concerned that sharing the GPS information would allow agencies to 

monitor their movements during operations. In PennDOT’s view, leaving the GPS/GNSS 
48 

requirement in place would have hampered implementation. Furthermore, handling GPS/GNSS 

equipment on every truck would be challenging. The agency anticipates that some form of 

verification of vehicle routing will be back eventually.

Handling Internet coverage issues is a matter that was often raised during the preconstruction 

meetings. The UAT app has the ability to work in an offline mode, so when the inspection team 

receives a signal, the app will sync back to update the ticket data.

PennDOT requires its contractors to provide Internet connectivity at the jobsite. The 

specification states that for project locations with limited Internet service, the contractor should 

provide an alternative that is acceptable to the agency. Some production plants are exploring the 

use of alternative ways, such as low Earth orbit satellite Internet or cell signal boosters. 

However, the cost of these alternatives is a deterrent. As part of the current pilots, the STA will 

need to update the specification to addresses this issue further in the future. PennDOT wants to 

ensure that the specification is not precluding anyone from bidding on a project because of 

Internet connection issues. 

Stakeholder Outreach and Training

PennDOT has formed a steering committee with the industry to facilitate the implementation of 

e-Ticketing comprising representatives from the Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association, 

the Pennsylvania Aggregates and Concrete Association, Pennsylvania chapters of American 

Concrete Pavement Association, Associated Pennsylvania Constructors (APC), American 

Council of Engineering Companies, the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association, FHWA, 

contractors, and consultants. The committee has four subteams: specifications, construction QA, 

IT, and law enforcement. PennDOT is also exploring the potential expansion of e-Ticketing to 

maintenance projects. This partnership has helped PennDOT establish robust communication 

with the industry on e-Ticketing initiatives. Through its monthly meetings, PennDOT 

communicates with the industry on the progress of pilot projects; discusses implementation 

challenges, stakeholder needs, and national trends; and solicits feedback.

On training, PennDOT is currently training its internal teams for the pilot projects on a 

project-by-project basis. PennDOT is developing a training video and a PDF user guide, which 

will be available on demand in the future.

Data Management 

PennDOT has been working on implementing and centralizing various information systems to 

streamline the flow of information, enhance business processes, and gain efficiencies. 

PennDOT’s e-Construction efforts include the following information systems:

• Engineering and Construction Management System (ECMS), which handles bids, 

awards, payments to contractors and consultants, supplier certifications, and project site 

activities reports. Project Site Activity (PSA) reports, a component of ECMS that allows 

construction inspectors to document daily field activities and summary reports, such as 

actual location and quantities. 
49 

• Electronic Construction and Materials Management System (eCAMMS), a material 

management system with Web access that stores job mix formulas, sampling of materials, 

test results and deviations, material certifications, and new products evaluation 

(PennDOT 2021). 

• PennDOT Project Collaboration Center, a Microsoft® SharePoint®-based document 

management solution that allows contractors to submit documents electronically

(Microsoft 2023b). 

These systems are designed to interact with each other. In the future, the data from e-Tickets will 

flow into ECMS and other the information systems. The ticket data will report contract- and 

material-related information to ECMS and eCAMMS, respectively; however, PennDOT has yet 

to build the app that pushes electronic data into eCAMMS systems. PennDOT envisions that the 

e-Ticket data will be populated automatically into the systems in the future and used for various 

purposes. For example, autosummarizing ticket quantities in PSAs will help automate payments 

to contractors, and correlating placement location from tickets with sampling and testing data 

will help with forensic investigations. On data security, PennDOT has no additional requirements 

for e-Ticketing. The standard policies and procedures used for the enterprise software apps are 

being used. 

Future Plans

PennDOT’s future plans include the following activities: 

• Expand the deployment of pilots to newer material types, and maintenance projects.

• Integrate e-Ticketing data with ECMS and eCAMMS. 

• Leverage best practices and lessons learned to continually improve the practices for full 

deployment by 2024. 

SUMMARY OF IOWA DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

Iowa DOT is the pioneer in e-Ticketing, and the agency conducted the first proof-of-concept 

pilot with asphalt mixtures in 2015. After initiating the 2015 pilot project, Iowa DOT launched 

additional asphalt projects. The first pilot with PCC was completed in 2017, and a pilot with 

aggregates was completed in 2020. In 2021, Iowa DOT completed more than 100 pilot projects. 

In 2019, Iowa DOT used about 10,000 e-Tickets to deliver more than 100,000 yd3

 of concrete on 

a single construction project on I–74 that replaced an aging bridge over the Mississippi River.

Iowa DOT’s e-Ticketing efforts are still in the pilot phase. The agency plans to expand the 

number of pilots to 100 projects in 2022, 400 projects in 2023, and 800 projects the year after. 

Between 2015 and 2021, Iowa DOT accepted any ticketing solution from the vendors. The costs 

of e-Ticketing were paid through contract modifications outside the competitive bidding to 

partner with interested contractors and vendors. Over time, the agency realized the difficulties 
50 

associated with handling many vendor products, such as issues related to setting up the projects 

and training the inspectors on different vendor products. 

Approaches Used

Iowa DOT has developed a Web portal. The agency hired InfoTech® and Command Alkon to 

build the portal. The tickets can be submitted electronically at https://iowa.ticketing.gov (Iowa 

DOT 2021). A customer or vendor can log into the system with an authentication key and send 

data via HTTPS POST, which is a method for sending data that is supported by the World Wide 

Web and JSON formats. The agency is paying a license fee for all the e-Ticketing apps. The 

suppliers can choose their preferred solution. Fleet management is at their discretion, although 

the suppliers will be required to submit the ticket data in a prescribed format. The ticket can 

include pictures, Microsoft® Excel® files, videos, and PDF files (Microsoft 2023c). The agency 

will have a prequalified list of vendors on the portal to enable testing. 

Benefits and Costs

The primary motivation for e-Ticketing was the safety of construction inspectors after the fatal 

incident involving a construction technician who was struck by a cement concrete truck in 2006. 

Beyond safety, Iowa DOT saw many benefits associated with digitalizing tickets, including 

reducing paper use; avoiding issues with paper tickets, such as lost and illegible tickets, manual 

entry of data, consolidation, and reconciliation of daily totals; and having a readily available 

quantity of information. Iowa’s STA did not have to make a business case because the industry 

was interested in using e-Ticketing on paving projects. The agency recognizes the value of 

e-Ticketing, but it has not yet quantified the cost, time, and safety benefits associated with 

implementing the process. 

Implementation Experience

GPS Requirement

In the earlier phase of piloting, Iowa DOT required GPS/GNSS tracking and breadcrumbing of 

material delivery in its developmental specifications. The GPS/GNSS locations and associated 

time stamps from Internet-connected devices in delivery vehicles and the paver was captured 

every 60 s and 30 s, respectively. However, owing to the challenges in capturing the GPS/GNSS 

location, Iowa DOT eliminated the GPS/GNSS requirement in its developmental specifications. 

Although the agency believed the GPS/GNSS requirement was an obstacle to the widespread 

adoption of e-Ticketing, the GPS/GNSS requirement is likely to be reinstated in future 

requirements and specifications.

Verification

Iowa is awaiting to see what other States are doing to authenticate the electronic procedure. The 

verification process would not differ greatly because the electronic version would not be any 

different, in terms of information contained therein, than paper tickets. However, the agency 

noticed a few inconsistencies between the two versions, possibly due to faulty setup procedures 

and challenges in amending errors on the electronic versions.
51 

Visual Proof of Delivery

Iowa DOT has been piloting the concept of electronic visual proof of delivery by using 

camera-based automatic detection of license plates as an alternative to using GPS/GNSS 

locations. Under this concept, the cameras would be automatically triggered to capture the 

information on the license plates of the trucks at the production plant and at the construction 

sites. The photos of the trucks loading at the plant and delivering at the jobsite would then be 

added to the ticket and matched with the corresponding geocoordinates and time stamps. These 

images would provide visual proof that a truck with this ticket has left the production plant and 

show when the truck has delivered the materials onsite. 

The IOWA DOT completed a pilot in 2021, and the agency continues to conduct more pilots. 

The proof of concept is 78 percent successful because the detection software was unable to 

match the trucks with the photo images in a few instances. Some real-world issues, such as dirty 

and missing license plates, different camera angles and zooms, nighttime paving, and camera 

quality, contributed to mismatches. The agency is still learning from them and refining the 

concept through multiple pilots. 

Stakeholder Engagement

Iowa DOT has been partnering with the Iowa Associated General Contractors (AGC) and the 

Iowa Concrete Pavement Association. The agency has shared its developmental specifications 

with the industry. The aggregate industry is interested in e-Ticketing; however, a better 

understanding is necessary for the industry before Iowa DOT can move forward with further 

pilots. Iowa DOT has also reached out to its small suppliers to understand their concerns. 

Internet Connectivity

Iowa DOT has been exploring alternatives to overcome the challenge of weak cellular signal 

strength in project locations. The agency has worked with the districts to screen for areas with 

weak or no cellular signal strengths on upcoming construction projects. The locations with poor 

Internet connectivity are then shared with cellular service providers for potential service needs 

improvements. 

Iowa DOT has also been piloting the use of cellular signal boosters in construction projects. The 

signal boosters are typically used to amplify a weak cellular signal or extend an existing cellular 

signals to areas with weak signal strengths. Iowa DOT purchased cellular signal boosters in 

November 2022 using the funds granted under a FHWA State Transportation Innovation Council 

Incentive Program award (Iowa DOT n.d.). The agency has since deployed the signal boosters in 

the construction projects.

Training

Iowa DOT has been conducting training across the State for contractors, suppliers, and State 

inspectors to instruct them on the system use. The agency has developed an updated 

developmental specification and is also working on a construction memorandum for e-Ticketing. 
52 

The agency has recently hired an e-Construction coordinator to provide a dedicated resource for 

e-Ticketing related activities, including training. The agency provides both virtual and in-person 

training to inspectors and offers technical support through email and telephone. The agency has 

created on-demand how-to-do videos and quick reference guides to support training. 

Data Management 

Iowa DOT has been using an Excel-based solution to extract data from e-Tickets. The Excel 

spreadsheet, created in-house, includes user-entered, autocalculated and autofilled data fields 

with sorting and filtering capabilities.

Iowa DOT uses InfoTech® Doc Express® and the AASHTOWare® ProjectTM (AWP) for 

document management and CMS, although the process has not yet been integrated (InfoTech 

2023; AASHTO n.d.b.). Meanwhile, Iowa DOT has been working with InfoTech to create an 

agency view for e-Tickets and production plant reports in the AWP, which will be added to the 

inspectors’ daily work report (DWR). In addition, Iowa DOT is working toward streamlining the 

e-Ticketing handling system into the document management system Doc Express, but it has not 

yet been implemented. 

Future Plans

Iowa DOT’s future plans include the following activities: 

• Developing the e-Ticketing handling system, as illustrated in figure 14. 

• Creating an agency view with Doc Express. 

• Integrating document management and CMS with AWP. 

• Exploring the expansion of e-Ticketing to steel products and inbound materials. 

• Completing the pilots on camera-based visual proof of delivery for verification. 

• Adopting business process changes to enable the implementation of e-Ticketing. 
53 

© 2021 Iowa DOT. Modified by WSP.

Figure 14. Diagram. Iowa DOT’s future e-Ticketing handling system (Iowa DOT 2021).

SUMMARY OF DELAWARE DOT PRACTICE

Introduction 

Between 2016 and 2017, the Delaware DOT (DelDOT) began planning for an e-Ticketing pilot 

on an asphalt paving project. The STA discussed piloting a COTS product on a paving project 

with a vendor. Although the planning phase for the pilot was 90 percent complete, DelDOT had 

to drop the project due to a lack of funds. After a 4-yr wait, a few developments culminated in 

renewing the implementation planning for a pilot in 2021: 

• Internal conversations on electronic documentation in the context of e-Construction. 

• A need to implement contactless technologies in light of the COVID pandemic and 

inspector safety in 2020. 

• A change in the receptivity of the industry in favor of paperless technologies. 

• An awareness created by the Minnesota DOT (MnDOT)-led AASHTO Material Delivery 

Management System (MDMS) specification efforts (Embacher 2021). 
54 

DelDOT is currently exploring the use of e-Ticketing beyond asphalt to include concrete, 

aggregates, and other materials. DelDOT rolled out e-Ticketing for all new HMA projects in 

spring 2022 and plans a statewide rollout for concrete in 2023. DelDOT is open to the possibility 

of using e-Ticketing for any material types that are delivered by the truck to the site, such as 

precast elements, guardrails, etc.

In Delaware, six suppliers deliver asphalt mixtures to paving projects. Five of the six asphalt 

mixture suppliers’ systems were connected with the portal within 90 d after the first discussion. 

DelDOT began receiving tickets between February and June of 2021. To date, DelDOT has been 

receiving e-Tickets on 32 projects for asphalt, concrete, soils, and aggregates. 

Approach Used

Leveraging the information compiled by MnDOT on MDMS, DelDOT decided to implement a 

Web portal approach for e-Ticketing. DelDOT’s vision for the Web portal was to have full 

control of the agency’s own view, control of the information the agency has access to, and full 

control of the supplier-produced data. 

DelDOT decided to install a Web portal with the support of a vendor, and contracted with 

HaulHub to build the Web portal (Delaware DOT n.d.). After the initial buy-in from the 

Delaware Pavement Association, DelDOT offered three incentives to suppliers:

• Suppliers may select and use a vendor of preference, but they must report electronic data 

in a required format to DelDOT.

• DelDOT’s vendor will provide some IT assistance to support the integration with the 

supplier’s load-out system. 

• DelDOT’s vendor will provide technical assistance to suppliers for the integration with 

the load-out system at the production plant.

• DelDOT will pay for the technical assistance if a supplier does not prefer to use a vendor 

of preference on its own. 

Benefits and Costs

DelDOT recognized the standard benefits of e-Ticketing but has not quantified them. DelDOT 

attributed difficulties in sharing the cost of building the Web portal to contractual issues. 

DelDOT pays an annual subscription fee to the vendor for using the portal. 

Implementation Experience

GPS/GNSS Requirements and Internet Connectivity

GPS/GNSS is not a priority for DelDOT because of its smaller geographical footprint. In 

addition, DelDOT prefers not to receive GPS/GNSS data because the location of a delivery truck 

is not the responsibility of the agency. However, for verification purposes, DelDOT is looking 

into capturing the locations of inspections and materials deliveries on the jobsite.
55 

Internet connectivity is a significant issue of interest to DelDOT. The STA is in contact with 

mobile and satellite service providers to discover alternatives for use in areas that have 

inadequate connectivity.

Stakeholder Outreach 

DelDOT has been working with the Delaware Asphalt Pavement Association. The agency is also 

working to coordinate with the State chapters of concrete and aggregate industries. The agency 

has been keeping the industry informed on the pilots, successes, and challenges associated with 

e-Ticketing. DelDOT’s goal is to ensure that e-Ticketing works for the suppliers. 

Specifications

DelDOT has been using a special provision for e-Ticketing on every project. To phase out paper 

tickets, the agency is currently not accepting any paper tickets for an asphalt paving project 

unless an emergency occurs. The STA has included a section on e-Ticketing in the 2022 version 

of its e-Construction manual (DelDOT 2022). 

Data Management 

DelDOT’s Web portal can be accessed at https://tickets.deldot.gov (DelDOT n.d.). Each 

authorized supplier will receive an authentication key to send tickets in the JSON format. The 

Web portal is connected with a cloud through BoomiTM, which connects the cloud with onpremises apps and data (Dell 2023). If the supplier has an API established by the supplier’s 

vendor, the supplier can send data to the portal directly. In absence of an API at the supplier’s 

end, the supplier can use Boomi, as customized by the vendor, to send the ticket to the portal. 

The data can be downloaded in a PDF and CSV format from the database. DelDOT exercises the 

full ownership of the data. Once received, the e-Ticketing data will be subject to the same 

retention policies as paper tickets.

DelDOT has been making progress on the integration of the e-Ticketing data collected through 

the portal with the Oracle® Primavera UnifierTM system. UniferTM serves as the Web-based 

project lifecycle management app for the agency (Oracle 2023). DelDOT uses Unifier for digital 

construction administration processes, including electronic submittal and storing of documents, 

electronic recording of Inspector’s Daily Reports (IDR), bidding, and contractor payments. 

Unifier serves as the central hub for storing, utilizing, and archiving e-Ticket data.

The field inspectors review e-Tickets received through the Web portal. The inspector-reviewed 

tickets have a “delivered” mark on them. The inspector-reviewed tickets are gathered to create 

packages by material types, inspector names, and dates. The data packages have general 

information, such as bid item or nonbid item and dates. The inspector daily summaries are used 

to create progress payments on each project. The inspectors review the data packages and 

approve them for progress payments. The Unifier runs Web services every 4 h while the data 

packages are imported from the e-Ticketing cloud into the Unifier system.

DelDOT has created a business process to automate the payment to contractors based on quantity 

calculations. All e-Tickets, which are marked as delivered to the portal, are gathered by the 

project and imported into the Unifier. The inspectors then create ticket packages for specific 
56 

dates by material type and bid pay item. The ticket packages are populated into the Unifier

environment, which are then reviewed for split loads, summarized automatically, and marked for 

payment upon the approval of IDR. Beyond the automation of payments, DelDOT plans to keep 

all material testing data in the Unifier system. In the future, DelDOT also wants to use the 

e-Ticketing integration with Unifier for calculating production rates and assigning resources to 

projects.

Future Plans

DelDOT’s planned enhancements to the e-Ticketing mobile application include enabling an audit 

review of ticket data, allowing the DOT plant inspectors to view and add notes to the tickets, and 

adding the field inspector’s GPS location and station to the ticket. DelDOT also plans to 

automate project initiation and assign users with access credentials for use in the e-Ticketing 

applications. Future integrations will address situations such as the acceptance of tickets with 

spilt loads and waste and overweight trucks.

SUMMARY OF UTAH DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

Approaches Considered

Initially, the Utah DOT (UDOT) considered an e-Ticketing pilot for concrete, but the agency 

experienced difficulty with procuring a software solution and incurred resistance from the 

contracting and supplier industry. Given that a majority of UDOT’s pavements are asphalt, the 

agency determined that an asphalt pilot was the best approach. Still facing software procurement 

challenges, UDOT, with input from its GIS business unit, determined that an internally 

developed solution was feasible, although the solution lacked the ability to track the haul

vehicles. The Utah contracting industry voiced concerns about tracking trucks, while UDOT was 

concerned that it would need to purchase the required GPS/GNSS units and be exposed to 

potential liability from knowing if a truck was operating illegally. The in-house approach was 

preferred for this reason and because the commercial solution would cost more, require 

inspectors to be familiar with multiple apps, and require data storage development. With a single, 

in-house system, inspectors only need training on the use of one e-Ticketing approach. 

Solution Implementation

UDOT received an FHWA State Transportation Innovation Council grant to implement its 

in-house approach. The STA launched an initial pilot in spring 2019, and subsequent pilots 

continue to refine UDOT’s approach and scale up the extent of its app. Between the initial pilot 

and early 2021, the State used e-Ticketing for several dozen projects. Presently, UDOT has 

implemented e-Ticketing for three of its four major asphalt suppliers, as well as one PCC 

supplier, despite initial pushback from the concrete industry. UDOT received more than 19,000 

e-Tickets in 2020, accounting for more than 663,000 tons of asphalt products, and the STA plans 

to apply e-Ticketing further to aggregates and prefabricated elements.

UDOT’s in-house solution (figure 15) consists of a Web portal that receives the e-Tickets from 

the suppliers in JSON format. The electronic data are extracted, transformed, loaded, stored in an 
57 

Esri Enterprise Geodatabase with the aid of a feature manipulation engine (FME) (Esri n.d.a.; 

Safe Software® 2023). The FME is a data integration tool that transforms datasets from multiple 

sources to a destination to ensure interoperability. UDOT uses the FME to filter, process, and 

merge data attributes from e-Ticketing into the enterprise geodatabase. The electronic data are 

then served to inspectors using the Esri Survey123 mobile app (figure 16). Inspectors can view 

the ticket information (e.g., mix type and design, mix properties, and material sampling 

locations) conduct the inspection, and add information and notes (e.g., temperature) using the 

Survey123 app on their mobile devices (Esri n.d.b). Inspectors accept the loads based on the 

truck DOT ID number. Load acceptance logs a latitude and longitude near the delivery site. Data 

are shared and downloaded using an operations dashboard (figure 17). Inspection results are 

returned to the material supplier, and the e-Ticket data are associated with a line item for 

payment. 

© 2020 UDOT. Recreated by WSP. 

Figure 15. Diagram. UDOT e-Ticket workflow (Talbot and Sellars 2020). 
58 

© 2021 UDOT. 

* = required fields; SMA = stone matrix asphalt. 

Figure 16. Screenshot. Example UDOT e-Ticket view on the inspector’s mobile app. 

© UDOT 2021. 

Figure 17. Screenshot. UDOT e-Ticketing operations dashboard. 
59 

Benefits and Costs

UDOT recognized the following benefits to the agency, which are yet to be quantified: reduced 

paper documentation, time savings in review and consolidation of material quantities, readily 

available material quantity information, archived material placement location, safety benefits, 

and real-time material tracking.

The benefits to the contractors include near real-time quantities, itemized delivery information, 

verification and reconciliation of delivery tickets, data analytics for better understanding of cycle 

times, and fleet management.

UDOT expressed difficulties in quantifying the costs of its in-house solution because of the 

indirect costs involved with in-house staffing and enterprise-wide licensing of FME and GIS 

software used in the development.

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Receptivity and Outreach

UDOT’s e-Ticketing pilot projects have garnered positive reception from midsize and large 

contractors, as well as from inspectors and other agency staff. Suppliers have also viewed 

e-Ticketing favorably, although greater support from them would help advance e-Ticketing 

technologies further. Small contractors and third-party trucking companies have been more 

neutral toward the e-Ticketing process.

Other concerns include loss of Internet coverage and use of the mobile app, as well as the ability 

to sort and navigate the vast number of tickets expected from full-scale implementation.

QA

UDOT does not currently, and is not planning to, verify the accuracy of the e-Ticket information 

generated at the production plant. Upon delivery, the truck numbers and time of departure are 

used to verify that the correct load is received.

An office technician performs further verification of the e-Ticket information when data are 

queried from the operations dashboard and exported to CSV. Production totals are summed, and 

results compared with inspector notes to identify anomalies. The technician creates a PDF copy 

of the data for exporting and posting in Aurgio® MasterworksTM, their CMS, for submission for 

payment (Aurigo n.d.). 

Data Management 

No procurement language was used to outline the data management practices. Some effort has 

been made to integrate ticket data with CMS. UDOT has been preparing a data standardization 

plan, but the agency does not have plans to implement security standards or policies for 

e-Ticketing data or mobile devices.
60 

Future Plans

UDOT plans to continue expanding its use of e-Tickets. Ongoing and planned improvements 

include integration of the e-Ticket data in GIS with UDOT’s CMS (Masterworks), using 

webhooks to generate a POST API request populating parts of the PCC testing form, and 

researching integration with smaller suppliers using third-party e-Ticketing providers. UDOT 

would also like to establish standard operating procedures and document best practices. 

UDOT notes several issues to overcome as e-Ticketing implementation expands: 

• Applying the process when the prime contractor is not also the material supplier.

• Bypassing Utah ports of entry, which still require a paper ticket.

• Addressing server capacity if all UDOT projects use e-Ticketing. 

• Establishing data governance. 

SUMMARY OF NEBRASKA DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

Approaches Considered

Nebraska DOT (NDOT) has piloted e-Ticketing for a small number of projects since 2021. The 

STA reviewed COTS solutions and in-house customized solutions and worked with the Nebraska 

AGC through an e-Ticketing task force to select a customized solution, weighing the pros and 

cons of each option. Although a COTS solution is generally easier and quicker to implement and 

requires little maintenance, it is more expensive, requires more training, and presents a 

sole-source problem for procurement. NDOT’s customized solution correlates with its existing 

processes and apps, is more flexible, and requires staff to learn only one system. However, this 

solution needs collaboration from IT, must go through beta testing, and has higher maintenance 

requirements.

Solution Implementation

NDOT modeled its customized solution after UDOT’s (figure 15) and developed it in-house 

using their Business Technology Support Division (figure 18). The process begins when a 

production plant’s load-out software generates an e-Ticket in JSON file format that is then sent 

to a project-specific Web portal with restricted access. The JSON file is fed into an FME 

software package that extracts, transforms, and loads into the ArcGIS Survey123 mobile app 

used by inspectors (Esri n.d.b). Inspectors can add notes to the e-Ticket, including delivery 

location, which is not recorded automatically, as well as mix type and design and overrun or 

underrun tonnage checks. An e-Ticketing dashboard (figure 19) allows others to track daily 

progress in material delivery.

Data are stored in the FME and accessible only to NDOT (Safe 2023). NDOT is developing a 

daily asphalt summary report that can be provided and/or accessed by the supplier/contractor.
61 

© 2022 NDOT. Modified by WSP.

Figure 18. Diagram. NDOT e-Ticket workflow. 

© 2022 NDOT. Modified by WSP.

Figure 19. Screenshot. NDOT e-Ticketing dashboard. 

Benefits and Costs

NDOT recognized the standard benefits of e-Ticketing, and, in terms of inspection time, it 

realized the savings of a 1.0 to 1.5 FTE employee cost for a construction inspector. Similar to 

UDOT, however, NDOT also faced challenges in quantifying the development and maintenance 

costs of its in-house solution because of the use of in-house personnel for development and 

licensing costs of software apps procured for enterprise-wide use.

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Receptivity and Outreach

NDOT recognized that e-Ticketing promotes safety and efficiency, and during the pandemic, the 

STA facilitated social distancing and contactless activities.
62 

NDOT determined the solution was reliable enough to allow the paper tickets (which have 

remained the document of record) to accumulate daily at the production plant, and then have the 

tickets collected and summarized at the end of each day’s production. 

Internet connectivity challenges remain. Only 40 percent of rural Nebraska has reliable and 

cost-effective Internet options. Most rural areas have poor cellular connectivity and inadequate 

broadband coverage. Satellite Internet is a viable option but could be more expensive. 

Identifying haul vehicles is also a challenge, which may be mitigated by requiring use of vehicle 

ID plaques.

Midsize and large contractors have been neutral toward the e-Ticketing solution, while small 

contractors have not been in favor of the process because of the higher plant upgrade costs. 

Leveraging its longstanding relationship with AGC, NDOT has been meeting with a task force 

bimonthly to facilitate implementation of e-Ticketing. The task force includes representatives 

from both the AC and PCC industries. In the bimonthly meetings, NDOT provides updates on 

pilots; shares lessons learned; discusses challenges, such as Internet connectivity and resistance 

from third-party haulers; and solicits feedback.

QA

NDOT’s e-Tickets include project identification, plant identification, truck identification, load 

type, weight, and time. The accuracy of e-Ticket data is verified by geofencing around the paver 

for placement location.

The inspector mobile app includes a “tonnage check” feature that tracks the quantities of each 

load delivered at the jobsite to detect possible over or under running of material. 

The availability of real-time data has allowed inspectors to efficiently track the truck carrying the 

“random-sample-ton” required for testing by the QA program. 

Data Management 

NDOT is working on a data standardization plan and intends to implement security standards or 

policies.

Future Plans

Data sharing with suppliers and contractors is expected to occur via the daily asphalt summary 

reports. NDOT is also investigating other ways e-Ticket data can be used (e.g., data collection 

automation, hauling statistics) as identified by the e-Ticketing Task Force. 

NDOT is also exploring the deployment of Long Range (LoRa®) Wide Area Network 

(LoRaWAN®) technologies, which are used by Nebraska’s agriculture industry, to overcome 

Internet connectivity issues. Led by a private sector initiative, Nebraska built its public statewide 

network of LoRaWAN to facilitate data transfer for in-field crop monitoring on farms in rural 

areas. LoRa devices are low cost, low power sensors that can handle small packets of data over 

long distances. These devices are connected to a gateway, which in turn, routes the 

communication nearby wireless networks located within a range of approximately 10 mi. 
63 

SUMMARY OF MINNESOTA DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

MnDOT uses an estimated 3 million tons of asphalt mixtures annually and typically handles 

200,000 paper tickets each year. MnDOT started piloting e-Ticketing with two projects in 2018 

and has completed more than 83 projects as of October 2022. Presently, MnDOT has been 

conducting pilots only with asphalt. The agency plans to move forward with ready-mix concrete 

and aggregates in the future. MnDOT plans to fully implement e-Ticketing in 2025. 

Approaches Implemented

MnDOT’s e-Ticketing practice is called MDMS. In the early stages of the pilot, the agency 

pursued the digitalization of the data typically printed on the paper tickets. However, the agency 

realized the need for additional data to support the reconciling of daily quantities. Besides the 

data attributes recorded by the supplier, new data attributes were deemed necessary to support 

automatic reconciling of quantities. Additional information requirements included those data 

recorded in the field by the DOT inspector, such as split, waste, or rejected load quantities as 

well as fleet data, such as time stamps, geocoordinates of point of delivery, and geofence names. 

Furthermore, the contractors were interested in capturing prevailing wage data digitally for 

tracking their trucking expenses. In light of additional information needs, and upon consultation 

with the industry, MnDOT created its MDMS, which captures various types of data to support 

reconciliation of quantities, determination of truck cycle times and flow rates, compliance 

checks, and audits (Embacher 2021). 

In an effort to fully automate construction inspection, MnDOT has fully deployed IC and 

paver-mounted thermal profiling along with e-Ticketing. Furthermore, MNDOT requires 

GPS/GNSS units at the source, on haul vehicles, and on the paver. With e-Ticketing, MnDOT 

captures e-Tickets to track tonnage of materials deliveries and automate daily reports for 

measurement and payment. The GPS/GNSS units on trucks are being used to capture the time 

stamps at the source, entry and exit of trucks at the source, and arrival time at the jobsite. The 

GPS/GNSS units on pavers track when the paver is stationary (forward motion stops and starts). 

The time stamps will help track the arrival times of deliveries, waiting times of trucks at the 

production plant or the jobsite, and stopping times of pavers waiting for loads, which can impact 

pavement quality. 

e-Tickets include temperature measurements collected at the source, truck bed, and jobsite. 

MnDOT uses a paver-mounted thermal profiler (PMTP) to monitor temperature behind the paver 

and hopper. This technology uses infrared sensors to produce a thermal profile of the asphalt mat 

after placement. The IC is an improved compaction process that uses rollers equipped with 

intelligent construction technologies (ICT), including GPS/GNSS, accelerometers, PMTP, and 

DPS. The IC enables the real-time monitoring of location, temperature, and stiffness of the 

underlying asphalt, aggregate base, and subgrade layers of pavements during the compaction 

process. The stiffness index captured from the IC is an indicator of the densification of the 

pavement layer. Together, the vertical integration of e-Ticketing with the IC allows for capturing 

quantities of materials placed along with the placement location mat temperature and compaction 

stiffness.
64 

MnDOT is making enhancements to Veta, a geospatially enabled intelligent construction data 

management system, as a secured Web platform to host, analyze, and visualize e-Ticketing and 

ICT data (MnDOT n.d.). Veta is currently serving to store, map, monitor, and analyze IC, PMPT, 

DPS, and spot QA test data in near realtime. Figure 20 shows the conceptual architecture of the 

proposed enhancements to Veta. With the proposed enhancements, the Web-based Veta will 

serve to receive e-Tickets in standardized file formats and save them in a cloud server, map the 

locations of trucks serving the paving job for real-time monitoring, estimate arrival and wait 

times, and calculate material flow rates from plant to jobsite. Furthermore, in conjunction with 

the e-Ticketing data, the material dump locations will be overlaid on the ICT measurements and 

other QA data. The agency is currently planning to integrate Veta into AWP. The integration will 

allow the STA to export e-Ticketing and ICT data from the Veta cloud server to the AWP using 

APIs and standard file formats. MnDOT plans to complete the integration in 2023. 

© 2021 MnDOT. Modified by WSP.

QA = quality assurance; REST = representational state transfer.

Figure 20. Diagram. Conceptual architecture of proposed enhancements to Veta software. 

Benefits and Costs

The primary motivations for MnDOT to pursue e-Ticketing were to increase safety for inspectors 

in the activity areas, improve the logistics performance of delivery vehicles, gain efficiencies 

from avoiding manual handling of paper tickets, improve the ease of reconciling quantities, and 

eventually digitalize construction documents. 

MnDOT incentivizes the contractor with a single lump-sum payment of $5,000 for collecting, 

storing, and exporting MDMS data into Veta (MnDOT n.d.). 
65 

Implementation Experience and Data Management 

MnDOT does not require any specific vendor; however, the agency has had experience with four 

different vendor-developed options and one supplier-built solution. 

MnDOT has established a partnership with the industry on MDMS implementation. The agency 

conducts regular technology meetings to discuss the status of pilots, contract modifications on 

projects, and future plans. About one-fifth of contractors have purchased the MDMS systems and 

are exposed to the technologies. Presently, MNDOT has been selecting projects that have good 

Internet access. The State’s industry representatives have expressed interest in exploring satellite 

Internet for potential pilots in 2023. 

MnDOT has developed a special provision “Quality Management—E-Ticketing (Material 

Delivery Management System)” for use with MnDOT 2360 plant-mixed asphalt pavement, 2363 

permeable asphalt stabilized base, and 2365 stone matrix asphalt. The use of special provisions is 

not mandatory until the full deployment (MnDOT 2022). 

To aid with the MDMS implementation, MnDOT has developed detailed workflows of the 

MDMS process from the preconstruction setup to the back-office functions. This detailed 

workflow is a culmination of lessons learned from pilots and extensive outreach with contractors 

and vendors. The workflows provide detailed descriptions of steps involved in the following 

phases of the MDMS delivery process (Embacher 2021): 

• Preconstruction process. The work activities include tasks to be undertaken by the 

agency and contractors during the STA’s preconstruction phase its training for MnDOT 

personnel. The agency tasks typically include setting up Veta for the project, ensuring 

that pay items will be imported correctly, and creating geofences. The contractor tasks 

include setting up the load-out software at the production plant to facilitate data 

transmittal; installing and ensuring Internet connectivity; establishing truck IDs; entering 

plant information in the MDMS; and setting up geofences at the source, transmittal, and 

project locations and establishing their naming conventions. 

• Process at source. The work activities at the source or production plant include entering

hauler data, capturing data on truck entries and exits into the geofence of the plant 

location, loading trucks, and issuing tickets, and importing data into the contractor 

MDMS by using the Veta user interface.

• Material delivery process. The work activities during the delivery process include 

capturing data on trucks entering and exiting the project geofence and materials deliveries 

and conducting independent field verifications. Independent field verification must be

performed for the first 10 loads and material and for each 1,000-ton lots thereafter. The 

MnDOT inspectors should review the source data on the MDMS ticket and verify that all 

required data attributes are complete and accurate. The inspector will compare the 

estimated quantity of material delivered by truck to the quantity entered into the MDMS. 
66 

• Data transmittal. The MDMS data are transmitted to Veta through an API in JSON 

format or exported into Veta in other formats. The inspectors can also download data in 

dbase ASCII, CSV, Excel spreadsheet files, or text from the proprietary software and 

exported into the Veta platform. Some inspectors are still using their own spreadsheets to 

handle the tickets.

• Back-office activities. At the end of the workday, MnDOT personnel will undertake 

activities, including comparing independent field verification data with those data 

contained within the final MDMS data export; reconciling quantities using source-, fleet-, 

agency-, and contractor-related data attributes; and conducting labor compliance and civil 

rights audit reviews.

Future Plans

MnDOT is targeting for full MDMS deployment by 2025 or 2026. The agency plans to conduct 

pilots with ready-mix concrete in 2023 and with paving concrete and aggregates in the future. 

The agency also plans to develop draft specifications for ready-mix concrete and aggregates in 

future.

MnDOT plans to create spreadsheets to assist with digital reconciliation of quantities using 

MDMS data in 2024 and automate this process in AWP in 2027 or later. The agency is also 

exploring the development of a Web version of Veta to integrate all MDMS-related data in a 

standardized format. In addition, the STA is also planning to integrate MDMS data and analysis 

to its AWP and other information systems.

MnDOT has also been leading the development of the AASHTO provisional standards for 

AASHTO. More information on data standardization and MnDOT’s efforts are presented in 

chapter 5. 

SUMMARY OF ALABAMA DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

The Alabama DOT (ALDOT) has implemented e-Ticketing pilot projects because of a growing 

demand for materials inspection with fewer staff members, along with a desire to improve the 

safety of its construction inspection operations. ALDOT has also equipped field staff with 

mobile devices (iPads). In 2018, the STA duplicated the typical paper ticket with an electronic 

version in an initial set of pilots for asphalt delivery. ALDOT has also piloted e-Ticketing for 

PCC. Through contract modifications, the agency added an e-Ticketing special note to projects 

so that ALDOT could be sure the contractor and material supplier were well-equipped to handle 

the new approach using e-Ticketing. 

In its initial pilot, ALDOT implemented a COTS solution (FleetWatcher by Earthwave) selected 

by the contractor. Earthwave provided the software setup and training for all parties and 

conducted additional training and field support, as needed. Other projects have used Command 

Alkon and HaulHub as the vendor Web portals and DOTSlip as the mobile app. 
67 

As of spring 2022, ALDOT is developing a Web portal and API, with the support of HaulHub, to 

receive tickets electronically from any supplier or supplier’s vendor solutions. The suppliers 

have the flexibility to select an e-Ticketing product of their choice to meet their needs. ALDOT 

is only interested in receiving the ticket information through its own portal. 

The required data should include the following elements: 

• Name of the contractor and material producer.

• Project number and county. 

• Truck number. 

• Contract item number and item name.

• Date and time of loading. 

• Gross, tare, and net weights.

• Weighmaster’s signature (can be electronic).

• Any additional information as required of the contractor or material producer for 

participation as a qualified source as given in the department’s “materials, sources and 

devices with special acceptance requirements” manual unless furnished on a separate 

applicable bituminous material certificate of compliance.

e-Ticket data are stored locally on a personal computer, and e-Tickets are not geolocated in GIS. 

Benefits and Costs

ALDOT identified the following benefits, although it has not yet quantified them: 

• Reduced paper documentation. 

• Time savings in review and consolidation of material quantities.

• Readily available material quantity information.

• Safety benefits.

• Real-time material tracking. 

• Production tracking.

No cost data were available because ALDOT makes e-Ticketing incidental to the bid items. 

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Receptivity and Outreach

For the ALDOT case study, inspectors were pleased with the improved safety of their work 

environment from e-Ticketing because they can conduct their work while being protected from 

traffic and backing vehicles (traveling in reverse gear) to unload mixtures at the pavers. By being 
68 

situated behind the paver and overseeing the asphalt mat, they can better inspect the supplied and 

placed material. Worksite efficiency also increased by eliminating the need for manual ticket

taking in areas where inspectors frequently had to navigate around vehicles and equipment and 

climb up to the drivers. ALDOT management appreciates having access to data not normally 

collected on paving projects from paper tickets. 

Although a few contractors had some initial reservations because of preferences for existing 

methods and data use, overall, the pilots were well received, and contractors have welcomed the 

ability to track deliveries and optimize hauling. There was also some initial pushback from 

material haulers and internal staff member, in part from concerns over connectivity at production 

plants where load-out systems may not be easily connected to the Internet. 

Specifications

ALDOT would like to net economies of scale by applying a single e-Ticketing solution and does 

not want to train inspectors in multiple software platforms serving the same purpose. However, 

without specifying a sole-source product, achieving a single approach and not repeatedly paying 

for a solution is challenging. Simultaneously, costs are associated with to getting a production 

plant online and implementing a software solution, so it seems appropriate for the contractor to 

share in the expense. Nonetheless, ALDOT is investigating the steps necessary for moving from 

a special note approach to a standard specification.

QA

ALDOT collected both e-Tickets and paper tickets during their pilot projects. A comparison of 

e-Tickets with cohort paper tickets indicated that e-Ticketing has resulted in fewer data 

inaccuracies and calculation errors.

Data Management 

e-Ticket information and some location data are downloadable as a CSV file. ALDOT has 

concerns about the security of CSV files, however, and whether that file type or the data 

altogether would satisfy records or source documentation and retention policies. Potentially not 

complying with a policy or standard that specifically references paper tickets is also a challenge. 

ALDOT currently requires weighmaster seals and stamped documentation of aggregate sources, 

so the full transition to an e-Ticket-only system would have to include a solution for this 

requirement. The agency has no plans for implementing security standards/policies for eTicketing data. 

Future Plans

ALDOT is investigating how to integrate e-Ticket data into its construction administration 

system seamlessly to improve the contractor payment process and to use the data to understand 

and improve pavement performance. Although the focus will remain on asphalt until a more 

standardized approach can be applied, ALDOT is considering applying the e-Ticketing approach 

to aggregates and concrete.
69 

SUMMARY OF TENNESSEE DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

Tennessee DOT (TDOT) has been using e-Ticketing on its interstate pavement resurfacing 

projects (approximately 20 projects in 2021) by using a combination of in-house and 

vendor-developed solutions. The solutions provide either a digital photograph or a scan of the 

ticket, or they generate a standalone e-Ticket transmitted to a cloud and shared with TDOT. 

e-Ticket data are stored in TDOT’s CMS, AASHTOWare® Site ManagerTM (AASHTO n.d.). 

TDOT maintains a list of Qualified e‐Ticketing Software Products (Tennessee State Government 

2022). Providers on the list are asked to provide a demonstration of their e-Ticketing platform. 

TDOT ensures that it meets all specifications outlined in Special Provision 109ETAS Electronic 

Ticket Delivery System for Asphalt (Tennessee State Government 2021). This requirement has 

been included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) as an incidental item. The cost is built into the 

unit price of asphalt tonnage. Cohort paper tickets are not required by the specification. 

Inspectors can handle technology solutions from multiple vendors through technology 

solution-specific training provided at a preconstruction meeting. Inspectors are given individual 

log-in criteria at that time. An inspector must be familiar with multiple systems if contractors 

choose to use different platforms within the inspector’s area.

The e-Ticket process records location information at specific points and includes the following 

information: 

• Mix type and design. 

• Mix properties (before placement). 

• Admixtures and modifiers used. 

• Inspector notes. 

e-Tickets are used to verify materials delivered to the project, and TDOT pays the contractor 

based on the documented weights submitted. 

Benefits and Costs

TDOT does not collect data on the e-Ticketing costs to the contractor nor the costs that are

passed to TDOT. The STA has not quantified any time-saving options for the work of inspectors. 

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Receptivity and Outreach

TDOT had to overcome some stakeholder pushback, Internet connectivity issues, and data 

privacy concerns. Nonetheless, midsize and large contractors and TDOT staff members have 

viewed e-Ticketing extremely positively. Material suppliers are also in favor, despite concerns 

from those who rely on third-party haulers who might not be receptive to using 

GPS/GNSS-based technologies. 
70 

Specifications

TDOT maintains an e-Ticketing committee. The committee developed the SP109ETAS 

specification for asphalt and is developing e-Ticketing specifications for other materials 

(concrete, aggregates, etc.) (Tennessee State Government 2022). The committee members also 

review the products for inclusion on TDOT’s qualified e-Ticketing software products list

(Tennessee State Government 2022). 

QA

Verification of quantities within the e-Ticketing system has not changed from the process 

applied to paper tickets. TDOT requires routine proof-of-scale calibration, and all weights must 

be certified by a Tennessee-certified public weigher. All quantities must also be verified by 

actual spread rates and planned quantities. Mix designs are confirmed by comparing the expected 

mix design associated with the project in Site Manager with a sample. Project offices receive 

notifications from Site Manager when a mix design has been approved and is associated with a 

contract.

Data Management 

Data management procurement language that outlines the extent of stakeholder (i.e., TDOT 

inspections staff, contractors, suppliers) access to the e-Tickets is included in the RFP. TDOT’s 

specification requires tamper proofing of the e-Ticketing system to prevent unauthorized altering 

of loadout scale data (Tennessee State Government 2021). System users are required to have a 

unique login and password. 

Future Plans

TDOT would like to expand e-Ticketing requirements to non-interstate projects. The agency has 

been considering applying e-Ticketing to aggregates, millings, and concrete. 

SUMMARY OF WASHINGTON STATE DOT PRACTICE

Introduction

WSDOT uses the contractors’ solutions for e-Ticketing. Contractors are permitted to use 

whatever vendor they determine can provide the required information per Section 1-09.2 (1) of 

WSDOT’s 2022 standard specifications (WSDOT 2022). Prior to mid-2020, contractors used eTicketing on a voluntary basis. Contracts let since January 2021 require e-Ticketing. WSDOT 

requires e-Ticketing for asphalt (all projects regardless of tonnage), concrete (for project less

than 500 yd3

), and aggregates. e-Ticketing is procured by including it as a contract bid item or 

incorporating it into other bid items as incidental. 

WSDOT does not actually receive digitalized data; instead, the agency receives a PDF report 

with the required ticket information or it accepts a PDF scan of the actual paper ticket. However, 

WSDOT is currently planning to procure a COTS product to receive e-Tickets through an 

API-enabled Web portal. 
71 

The specifications require the contractor to develop a plan detailing their e-Ticketing system. 

The plan must be submitted to WSDOT for review and approval. The plan identifies alternative 

methods for manually capturing and electronically delivering data if Internet service is 

unavailable. WSDOT continues to have a project engineer designated as the “receiver” on the 

construction site to log deliveries on a weight ticket log that can be used to reconcile daily 

summary reports.

The specifications also require the contractor to provide onsite technical assistance and training 

during setup to all parties requiring access to the e-Ticket information. 

Benefits and Costs

WSDOT has identified the following benefits from e-Ticketing: reduced paper documentation, 

time savings in review and consolidation of material quantities, readily available material 

quantity information, and safety benefits. However, a return on investment (ROI) has not been 

calculated.

Implementation Experience

Stakeholder Receptivity and Outreach

WSDOT staff members and inspectors view e-Ticketing favorably. While midsize and large 

contractors have been positive about using e-Ticketing, small contractors have reacted 

negatively. Similarly, large suppliers have embraced e-Ticketing, while small suppliers have 

been resistant. WSDOT participates in industry partner teams (e.g., American Concrete 

Pavement Association, AGC of Washington, Washington Asphalt Pavement Association) 

meetings during which e-Ticketing is discussed. This participation effort has contributed to 

industry buy-in. 

There were some initial concerns from smaller suppliers about additional costs associated with 

implementation. When WSDOT began applying e-Ticketing by special provision, the provision 

included a lump sum pay item for e-Ticketing. When the specifications were incorporated into 

the 2022 standard specifications, no pay item was included, requiring costs to be absorbed into 

the item being ticketed as an incidental cost. 

Specifications

WSDOT’s 2023 standard specifications address e-Ticketing in section 1-09.2(1) 

(WSDOT 2023). The e-Ticket requires the following information as a minimum:

• Data of haul.

• Contract number. 

• Contract unit bid item. 

• Unit of measure. 

• Identification number of hauling vehicle. 
72 

• Weight delivered:

o Net weight in the case of batch and hopper scales.

o Gross weight, tare (a.m. and p.m. minimum) and net weight in the case of platform 

scales (tare may be omitted if a tare beam is used).

o Approximate load out weight in the case of belt conveyor scales. 

The location of material delivery will be appended by field staff. The specification also includes 

additional requirements for the contractors:

• Internet connectivity at the material source.

• Developing a contingency plan when Internet connectivity is lost at the construction 

jobsites.

• On-site technical assistance and training during the initial setup. 

• Verification checks of loading scales.

• Description of how partial loads will be tracked. 

QA

Procedures for e-Ticketing verification include scale certification and scale verification checks. 

Loads received are reconciled daily with loads delivered. The inspector documents and verifies 

materials deliveries by vehicle number, time, and location. 

Data Management 

Currently, WSDOT stores e-Ticketing data predominantly in local project files. The agency has 

not yet established an interface to the Materials Tracking Program, Electronic Content 

Management Portal, or SharePoint (Microsoft 2023b). This lack of integration can be attributed 

to receiving only PDFs with the required information rather than actual electronic data from the 

e-Tickets. Nonetheless, WSDOT is planning to procure an e-Ticketing portal system to receive 

e-Tickets from suppliers’ plant loadout systems.

Since April 2020, WSDOT began the implementation of Oracle Primavera Unifier to enable the 

enterprise-wide management of contract administration, construction documentation and related 

workflows (Oracle 2023). WSDOT has developed multi-year work plans to complete the fullscale migration from the legacy system to the Unifier environment. 

Future Plans

WSDOT is currently planning to procure a COTS product for an API-enabled Web portal in 

2023 and 2024, while the suppliers would be allowed to use an e-Ticketing solution of their 

choice. The Web portal will allow WSDOT to receive e-Ticket data in digitalized format, which 

in turn, will be integrated into the Unifier workflows to automate payment processing. WSDOT 

plans to implement the portal solution to asphalt mixtures, concrete, and aggregates. WSDOT 

hopes to apply e-Ticketing to other bulk items such as water, steel, and emulsion. 
73 

CHAPTER 5. E-TICKETING IMPLEMENTATION

INTRODUCTION

The number of STAs implementing e-Ticketing has been steadily rising since the first pilot in 

2015. Both the adoption of e-Construction technologies and the need for contactless delivery 

have arguably contributed to the increased interest in e-Ticketing among the STAs. Transitioning 

toward paperless delivery in highway construction has enabled the STAs to recognize the 

benefits that their e-Construction initiatives have delivered and harness the advancements in their 

IT infrastructure.

Many STAs, with no past e-Ticketing experience, are increasingly exploring or planning for 

piloting such systems, whereas those STAs with previous piloting experience are restrategizing 

their e-Ticketing programs. Multiple pilot projects have allowed these STAs to verify the proof 

of concept, recognize benefits, discover best practices, and identify risks and challenges related 

to the deployment of these tickets.

The initial sets of pilot projects have largely relied on the vendor products that were primarily 

designed for contractor fleet management. However, in part because of the proliferation and 

dependence on vendor products, the lessons learned from the pilots have encouraged some STAs 

to rethink their e-Ticketing strategies toward a more vendor-neutral approach. In this context, 

this chapter presents a discussion on various implementation aspects of e-Ticketing. This 

discussion is based on the analysis of the case study interviews, an assessment of practice 

landscape, and a review of emerging technological opportunities. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

Implementation planning is useful for STAs to outline the high-level requirements, make 

actionable decisions, and progress toward the adoption of e-Ticketing. As with any new program 

or adoption, the planning process should focus on the key four critical success factors: strategy, 

people, technology, and processes. The implementation plan, which entails the following 

requirements, should address these critical success factors for e-Ticketing: 

• Formulate a Strategy. The STAs should begin by strategically thinking about the 

alignment between the outcomes of e-Ticketing and the overall business objectives of the 

agency. The STAs should establish a targeted end state for e-Ticketing. In other words, 

gaining a good understanding of what the agency wants to do with e-Ticketing data and 

how e-Ticketing will align with the organization’s digital strategy would help establish 

the target end state. This thinking process begins by recognizing the business problems 

that e-Ticketing offers to solve in both near term and long term. Chapter 3 presents a 

detailed discussion on the strategic value of e-Ticketing. 

• Decide What to Do. To achieve the targeted end state, an STA can adopt an incremental 

approach to gradually advance from piloting through full deployment or “leapfrog” 

through concurrent or bypassing developmental stages of the implementation path. 
74 

The STAs with previous e-Ticketing experience have adopted an incremental approach to 

advance through the stages. These STAs have generally started with a few pilots per year with 

one material type, typically asphalt or ready-mix concrete, few geographical locations or 

districts, and a vendor product. Leveraging their pilot experience, these agencies have gradually 

scaled up to expand the number of pilot demonstrations, material types, and geographic 

coverage. For instance, Iowa DOT, which conducted its first e-Ticketing pilot in 2015 for asphalt 

and in 2018 for concrete, plans to deploy e-Ticketing on 400 projects in 2023. PennDOT, which 

conducted its first pilot in 2017, plans to fully deploy e-Ticketing on all its projects by 2024. 

Alternatively, an STA can also start concurrent pilots, such as pilots with more than one material 

type and multiple districts, to expedite the time to full deployment.

An agency seeking to begin its pilot should start by defining the scope of the pilot by asking the 

following questions: 

• For what material types should e-Ticketing be used? 

• What is the current process with paper tickets? How would e-Ticketing impact this 

process? What process steps would require a business process review or change?

• How should the pilots be procured? 

• What technology should be considered? What technological features are required? 

• Do the pilot locations have adequate internet coverage?

• What are the common implementation needs, risks and challenges?

• What are the stakeholder needs? How should their expectations be managed? 

Although the pilot projects allow for case-based assessments for fine-tuning their approach, the 

STAs should also think about aligning their capabilities with their vision and plan for advancing 

toward the envisioned end state. On the pathway to mainstreaming e-Ticketing, the STAs could 

evaluate their piloting plans with respect to various dimensions:

• Horizontal integration, which entails expanding the scope of e-Ticketing to other material 

types and geographic regions or districts, location types (e.g., areas with good versus 

poor Internet coverage). 

• Technological maturity, which includes the type of e-Ticketing technology, data 

integration, policies and procedures for data management, application of e-Ticketing data

beyond simply capturing quantities or weights, and Internet coverage.

• Process maturity, which includes the development of specifications and validation 

procedures, for e-Ticketing. 
75 

• Process chain integration, which includes other upstream and downstream processes 

along the supply chain from material source certification to acceptance of material 

placement. e-Ticketing focuses on a single function of the supply chain, which is to 

digitalize the data associated with material hauling and delivery. Similar opportunities are 

available to digitalize upstream processes leading up to the storage of materials and 

vehicle loading at the plant. The information exchanged between the supply chain 

stakeholders can be aggregated through digitalization. Examples of such information 

from upstream processes for digitalization include bills of lading; source certifications of 

materials, such as liquid asphalt, steel, and cement, at a raw material source or an 

intermediate supply chain point; statements and proof of compliance; sampling; and 

testing data and inspection reports. Regarding paving materials placement, the following 

information can also be digitalized:

o Inspection, sampling, and testing. 

o Supplementary technologies such as IC, smoothness, and densities. 

o Geotagging of QA sampling and testing results.

Table 29 presents a maturity matrix of implementation dimensions that STAs could use in 

evaluating their pilot plans.

Table 29. Maturity levels of implementation dimensions. 

Dimension Starting Developing Advancing

Material types One material type Three material types

(asphalt mixtures, 

aggregates, and 

concrete)

Most material types

Number of projects Preselected projects Multiple pilots in all 

districts and location 

types 

All districts and 

location types 

e-Ticketing

technology 

e-Tickets Digitalized tickets Object-based tickets

Data integration e-Ticketing data are

stored electronically

e-Ticketing data are

integrated with DOT 

information systems

e-Ticketing data are

transmitted between

the DOT and supplier 

information systems

Use cases Only daily summaries 

are calculated

Automation for 

limited use cases

Automation for many 

use cases

Data management Standard policies and 

procedures are 

followed

Ad hoc policies and 

procedures are 

established for 

e-Ticketing

Policies and 

procedures are 

established for 

e-Ticketing

Internet coverage Dependence on 

offline capabilities or 

paper tickets 

Piloting of alternative 

technologies 

Mainstreaming of 

alternative 

technologies 
76 

Dimension Starting Developing Advancing

Specifications Use of special 

provisions or 

developmental 

specifications

Draft specifications 

under review and 

revisions 

Adoption in standard 

specification books 

Verification Follows the processes 

developed for paper 

tickets. Cohort tickets 

may be collected

Process is modified 

for e-Ticketing with 

or without technology

Process is validated 

for e-Ticketing 

Process chain

integration

Focus is only on 

material quantities

e-Ticketing is 

integrated with other 

tasks in the process 

chain

Full integration of all 

tasks in the process 

chain

Making a Business Case

Chapter 3 presents a business case for e-Ticketing. Both the strategic value and benefits of 

e-Ticketing are discussed in detail.

Acquiring Stakeholder Support

Both the AASHTO nationwide survey and follow-up interviews indicate a high level of 

receptivity among contractors and suppliers, with the exception of small suppliers. Timely and 

proactive stakeholder engagement is imperative to obtain buy-in and support. To obtain internal 

buy-in, the STAs conducted periodic meetings with construction staff from districts or regions to 

communicate the agency’s goals. With external stakeholders, the STAs have conducted regular 

outreach to the industry before and during the pilots. 

Many STAs have joint committees with the members in industry groups, including AGC and 

American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), with whom the STAs meet 

periodically to discuss the critical issues and future plans relating to the highway construction 

industry. The STAs have successfully used this forum to communicate the agency’s plan and 

connect with the industry, educate them, discuss timelines, and address key challenges. Some 

agencies have established a task force to support e-Ticketing implementation.

Assessing Field and Technology Readiness

The STA should have a plan to conduct a readiness assessment for the deployment of 

e-Ticketing in pilot projects. The field and technology readiness assessment should focus on the 

following needs: 

• Use of mobile devices, such as tablets and smart phones, by construction inspectors. 

Contingency plans are needed to address issues relating to short battery life, sun glare, 

offline data entry, and data synchronization issues. 
77 

• Adequate Internet coverage in the project work areas. Contingency plans are needed to 

address issues relating to poor connectivity and intermittent coverage such as Wi-Fi

hotspots, cellular boosters, and satellite providers.

• Verification procedures to assure accurate determination of quantities on e-Tickets for 

source documentation and payment. 

• Training for construction inspectors and contractor field personnel, including QC 

technicians.

The STAs also should plan for how to receive the electronic data, store them, and integrate the 

data with information systems for future use.

Implementation Barriers

The STAs should be cognizant of the challenges relating to the following implementation steps: 

• Selecting an e-Ticketing approach and acquiring solutions. 

• Coordinating stakeholders, including small suppliers. 

• Establishing a piloting plan, including project selection, procurement approach, and 

standards and specifications. 

• Ensuring field and technology readiness, including hardware and software requirements, 

and internet connectivity. 

• Managing data, including selecting data attributes and receiving, storing, and using data. 

Using the commonly recognized challenges, summarized in table 18, as a starting point, the 

STAs can assess gaps in their capabilities, screen for potential barriers and risks, and identify 

mitigation measures and contingency plans. The STAs can also consider devising a knowledge 

capture plan to document best practices and lessons learned from their pilots and transfer them to 

their future efforts to build maturity. 

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Stakeholder Outreach

Three types of nongovernmental stakeholders were contacted to solicit their perspectives on 

e-Ticketing implementation landscape, benefits, and challenges. 

National e-Ticketing Task Force 

The National e-Ticketing Task Force is an industry group composed of STA representatives, 

producers, suppliers, and contractors (National e-Ticketing Task Force 2022). The goals of the 

task force are to promote the deployment of e-Ticketing technologies, champion change, and 
78 

facilitate standards. The salient points of the interview the research team conducted with this task 

force are as follows:

• The transition from paper tickets to e-Tickets is about efficiency, transparency, reduction 

in errors, and better utilization of the workforce. 

• The ROI in e-Ticketing depends on the extent of the paperless process. Many tangible 

benefits are associated with e-Ticketing; however, the benefits will continue to evolve 

over time as digitalization generates newer and greater benefits with expanding use cases. 

• The key success factors for implementation include:

o Spread general awareness. 

o Share the success stories. 

o Start slowly with pilots, progressively expand, and sustain the success.

o Partner with the industry. 

o Learn from the failures and recalibrate the implementation approach. 

• The construction industry supports the replacement of paper tickets with e-Tickets. In 

addition, the industry believes that the key stakeholders will benefit from getting 

e-Ticketing information back from the STAs.

• Given the diversity of STA practices, the standards for e-Ticketing are necessary. The 

AASHTO Provisional MDMS standards (Embacher 2021), which are currently adopted 

by MnDOT, offer a pathway for standardizing data requirements at the national level.

e-Ticketing Vendors

The research team interviewed three vendors to understand the evolving technological landscape 

of e-Ticketing. The interviews confirmed the findings presented in chapter 2, and the vendors 

shared the information on the STAs with which they worked. The conversations with the vendors 

are summarized as follows:

• The business model of e-Ticketing vendors is evolving and diverging into two 

approaches: 

o STA-focused—Some vendors focus on providing technological solutions to assist 

STAs with achieving their e-Ticketing requirements, including receipt, storage, and 

archiving of e-Tickets.

o Contractor/supplier-focused—Some vendors focus on serving contractors and 

suppliers to assist with their functions, such as backend integration, trucking company 

and fleet management, and payroll and accounting automation. 

o Many vendors, according to the vendor interviewee(s), are obligated to select 

between these two business models.
79 

• The diversity of STA special provisions and vendor products has created inconsistencies. 

For example, when neighboring STAs have different requirements, the suppliers doing 

business in multiple States face challenges in understanding and meeting their diverse 

requirements satisfactorily.

• The industry needs consistency, and, therefore, will greatly benefit from the data 

standards that AASHTO’s provisional MDMS standards have developed (AASHTO 

Forthcoming). 

Suppliers

The research team conducted interviews with four suppliers to capture their experience, 

perspectives on benefits and challenges, and expectations. Three of the four suppliers run small 

production plants, while the fourth supplier runs noncomputerized mobile plants. 

Supplier 1. The production plant operator supplies asphalt and aggregates to commercial and 

government projects in Kentucky. The firm handles about 50,000 tickets per year. The STA 

projects account for one-half of the supplier’s business. The supplier has had an e-Ticketing 

project since 2020. To date, the supplier has observed small wins with e-Ticketing but 

recognized that the benefits will accrue once the firm stops printing paper tickets. The biggest 

challenges for this supplier are the lack of clarity on the data requirements, complexity with the 

setup, and difficulty with transferring tickets to the STA on time. The supplier recognized the 

challenges during the transition phase.

Supplier 2. The supplier operates a drum plant and a batch plant in central Tennessee. The batch 

plant is run occasionally on an as-need basis. The supplier produces an estimated 

100,000–200,000 tons of asphalt mixture per year. The STA’s paving projects account for 

90 percent of the supplier’s business. The supplier is in the process of integrating the load-out 

systems for e-Ticketing. The supplier selected a vendor that focused only on the e-Ticketing 

aspects, not fleet management. The cost is estimated to be $10,000–$15,000 annually. The 

supplier recognized the costs of doing e-Ticketing are generally high but noted that costs for 

other vendor solutions were higher. 

The supplier was apprehensive about how the State DOT will use electronic data and whether the 

DOT would be committed to doing e-Ticketing in the long run. In other words, the supplier 

expressed concerns that the investments made in the e-Ticketing solution should not be futile. 

Connectivity could be an issue when TDOT goes with full implementation of e-Ticketing. TDOT 

requires automatic capturing of the time stamp at the delivery location. However, the rural areas 

in Tennessee have poor Internet connectivity. With e-Ticketing, the supplier can invoice and bill 

TDOT quicker. However, in the supplier’s opinion, the benefits of e-Ticketing for a small 

company operating 20–30 trucks will be minimal compared with large companies. The supplier 

recognized that safety is a significant benefit with nighttime paving and high-volume roadways 

but noted the safety benefits might not be significant for rural projects.

Supplier 3. The supplier operates five asphalt mixture plants of varying ages in Alabama. They 

did not have an issue with their newest plant. However, the supplier’s other three plants went 

through an update of loadout systems. Upgrading the supplier’s oldest plant would cost 
80 

$25,000–$30,000. The supplier is yet to decide on when to upgrade it. The supplier also operates 

quarries. The STA’s projects account for 50 to 60 percent of the supplier’s total business. The 

supplier currently supplies asphalt for nine jobs, including three active ALDOT projects.

The supplier was one of the first companies to do e-Ticketing for ALDOT in the initial phase of 

piloting. To date, the supplier has completed 25–30 e-Ticketing projects. The supplier is working 

with ALDOT to integrate their systems with ALDOT’s e-Ticketing portal. Issues with Internet 

connectivity and areas with no cellular signal or dead zones made it challenging to access data in 

realtime, but the suppliers managed it with the offline mode. Initial concerns about how the data 

would be used were resolved through communications with the STA.

Overall, e-Ticketing has been advantageous for the supplier, with the benefits outweighing the 

costs. The ease of access to information was helpful for field personnel and plant operators. The 

supplier had to upgrade the outdated plant loadout systems, but such upgrades were necessary 

regardless of e-Ticketing. The investments made in tracking devices have been useful to the 

construction company. However, the supplier noted that the concerns of small suppliers should 

be considered in light of the expenses for plant upgrades, the share of STA projects, and 

licensing costs.

Supplier 4. The production plant operator supplies concrete in Iowa. The supplier operates 

39 mobile concrete plants in rural locations, of which 4 are not computerized. Some of their 

plants are not operated throughout the year, but occasionally on an as-need basis. The STA 

projects represent less than 5 percent of their total business. The supplier does not yet use 

e-Tickets, but a single project is currently underway. 

The high cost of production plant upgrades is a deterrent to small suppliers. The investments 

required for (noncomputerized) plant upgrades are estimated to range between $300,000 and 

$400,000. The cost burden for plant upgrades is not justifiable, particularly, if the share of STA 

projects is a tiny fraction of the total business portfolio. Furthermore, the expenses associated 

with satellite-based Internet connection solutions, as an alternative to lack of Internet 

connectivity, adds significantly to the cost burden. The supplier feels that a Federal assistance 

program to assist small suppliers would be helpful to cover the investment costs for upgrades and 

Internet solutions.

Internet Connectivity

Inadequate or lack of Internet connectivity is a significant implementation issue for e-Ticketing. 

In the AASHTO survey, both groups of STAs, with and without e-Ticketing experience, 

identified this issue as the foremost technical challenge. Although the amount of data to be 

received is small, the construction inspectors cannot receive e-Tickets in realtime in areas with 

intermittent, poor, or no Internet connectivity.

To date, most STAs have managed this issue by selecting projects in areas where Internet 

connectivity is adequate. Some STAs required offline capabilities for e-Ticketing solutions in 

areas with intermittent Internet connectivity. This option is more suitable for projects where the 

coverage is adequate for most of the work areas. In areas with connectivity limitations, 
81 

inspectors can opt for the offline mode, use paper tickets for verification, and sync the tickets 

when Internet connectivity is available.

The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) has adopted an alternative, using quick response (QR) 

codes, to manage Internet connectivity issues. First, NCDOT developed an in-house Web portal 

that accepts e-Tickets from suppliers through an API. The e-Ticket data are stored in the STA’s 

in-house CMS called Highway Construction and Materials System (HiCAMS). The electronic 

data are then relayed from HiCAMS to DOT inspectors in the field with the aid of mobile 

devices and software apps. The field notes recorded by the DOT inspectors are sent back to 

HiCAMS (NCDOT n.d.). This process flow works seamlessly in areas where Internet 

connectivity is adequate. In addition, NCDOT developed QR codes to enable information 

exchange in areas with poor Internet connectivity. The QR codes, which are embedded with 

ticket data in an electronic format, are printed on suppliers’ paper tickets. The QR codes are then 

scanned by STA inspectors using the mobile app in the field. Figure 21 presents a sample paper 

ticket with a printed QR code used on an NCDOT paving project. The STA has also developed a 

software app that captures the data stored in the QR code and transmits them to the SharePoint 

site for document management. 

© 2021 NCDOT. Modified by WSP.

LDS = loads delivered to site; Rap = reclaimed asphalt pavement; Tn = tons; Mg = megagram; JMF = job mix 

formula. 

Figure 21. Screenshot. QR codes on a sample NCDOT ticket. 
82 

Several existing and emerging technology alternatives, which have the potential to overcome 

Internet connectivity limitations, are available on the market: 

• Geosynchronous equatorial orbit satellite Internet is available in rural areas. However, the 

latency rate is relatively high, around 600 ms, and the connectivity could be spotty in 

densely wooded areas.

• Low Earth orbit satellite Internet is an emerging alternative. Because of its proximity to 

Earth, Internet signals are faster and have latency rates as low as 40 ms. Montana DOT 

demonstrated the feasibility of using low Earth orbit satellite Internet in project locations 

with poor or no cellular coverage with limited pilots. 

• Signal boosters could be a workable alternative in areas with weak cellular

fourth-generation technology (4G), 5G, and long-term evolution signals. Signal boosters, 

which use an external antenna and amplifier unit installed on a vehicle or office, receive 

weak signals from a base station and amplify them to improve connectivity. Signal 

boosters cannot work in areas with no signals.

• The combination of BLE and LoRaWAN devices is emerging as a choice for Internet of 

Things. LoRaWAN is suitable for low bandwidth, LoRa communications with low power 

requirements. In comparison, cellular and wireless networks require high power 

requirements despite their high bandwidth and long-range communication capabilities. 

BLE technology, which is commonly used in personal area networks, such as wearable 

devices, is suitable for short-range transmittals of data to mobile phones at approximately 

1 MB/s. With their low power requirements, the combination of BLE and LoRa make 

them ideal for e-Ticketing apps (Tinella 2021). 

• Wi-Fi towers entail a series of towers that extends Internet service received from a wired 

connection over a LoRa wirelessly. One of the towers receives Internet service through a 

wired connection, which then relays Internet data over radio airwaves to an adjacent 

Wi-Fi tower. In this sequence, a Wi-Fi tower receiving Internet data transmits the same

data to the next receiver Wi-Fi tower wirelessly until the destination location is reached. 

Wi-Fi towers are capable of transmitting data up to 60 mi. However, the paired Wi-Fi 

towers must have an unobstructed view to enable wireless transfer.

Federal Aid Requirements

The STAs have been using the same verification process for both paper tickets and e-Tickets. 

Most agencies have been collecting both types of tickets to establish reasonable confidence in the 

accuracy of e-Tickets.
83 

The verification procedures for e-Tickets should conform to the following Federal regulations 

and directives, as a minimum:

• “Determination and Documentation of Pay Quantities” (CFR 2013a). This regulation 

requires STAs to have procedures in place to ensure that the quantities of completed work 

are determined accurately and on a uniform basis. In accordance with this clause, the 

source documents, including receipts or tickets of delivered materials, used in the 

determination of quantities for measurement and payment would serve as records. 

• FHWA Technical Memos “Computerization of Construction Record” and “Electronic 

Security” (Van Ness 1989; Weseman 1993). The collection and retention of construction 

records electronically must be acceptable and trustworthy from an engineering, audit, and 

legal standpoint. These records must allow for verification of pay quantities. These 

records should enable the reconstruction of the chain of events that occur on a project. 

• “Retention Requirements for Records” (CFR 2013b). The initial source documents 

should be retained for a specific period in accordance with Federal and State 

requirements.

The STAs use the following procedures to verify e-Tickets:

• Confirm that the e-Tickets contain the actual quantities of materials delivered, used, and 

rejected by the inspectors. 

• Ensure data reliability at the production plant by using approaches such as plant 

inspection, certified weigh masters, load scale calibrations, and cameras.

• Establish that the comparison of time stamps at origin and destination for the fleet have 

been included during transmittal to ensure reasonableness of cycle times and detect 

unauthorized delays. Some agencies require GPS data and geofences for this purpose. 

• Verify the delivery of a truck load at the delivery point as printed on an e-Ticket and 

track yield rates. Iowa DOT has been recently piloting the use of paver-installed cameras 

for automatic detection of truck license tags. Some vendors are developing BLE-based 

technologies to enable automatic verification of truck loads at the jobsite; however, these 

solutions are under development or deemed experimental. 

In addition, the e-Tickets require the implementation of adequate data security measures during 

generation, transmittal, and receipt to ensure trustworthiness from engineering, audit, and legal 

standpoints. The e-Tickets must ensure security (protection against breach), integrity (protection 

against tampering), accessibility (audit trails and protection against unauthorized access), 

reliability (completeness, accuracy, and protection against equipment malfunction) and storage 

(data retrieval and protection against data losses).
84 

Data Management 

According to the Data Management Book of Knowledge, data management is “the business 

function that develops and executes plans, policies, practices, and projects that acquire, control, 

protect, deliver, and enhance the value of data and information” (Dama International 2017). Four 

functions of e-Ticketing are discussed in this section: ingestion and storage, integration, 

standards, and security. 

Data Ingestion and Storage 

In the earlier phases of e-Ticketing, the STAs received e-Tickets through the contractors’ vendor 

solutions. In light of the challenges associated with multiple vendor products, the STAs have 

increasingly opted for receiving electronic data directly using a Web portal. The Web portal 

receive data, via a REST API, either from the contractor’s vendor cloud or directly from the 

supplier loadout systems. The API enables secure transmittal of e-Ticketing data between the 

two systems. JSON and CSV are the commonly used file formats for data transmittal. Figure 22

shows the schematic of data transmittal between the supplier loadout systems and the Web 

portal. In the current practice, the data flow has been one way from the supplier loadout systems 

and the Web portal. However, the APIs also enable two-way communication between the 

suppliers and the DOT. 

When the electronic data are received directly from a Web portal using an API, the STAs use 

different approaches to ingest the data. Some agencies directly download e-Ticketing data and 

daily summaries from the vendor cloud in their preferred file formats. The STAs use a temporary 

solution, such as an Excel spreadsheet or CSV files, to extract data from the vendor cloud or 

mobile app. For instance, Iowa DOT uses a spreadsheet to extract data fields, such as quantities, 

latitude and longitude, slumps, etc., from the e-Tickets for further processing and use. 

The STAs export data into a document management system, such as InfoTech Doc Express or 

SharePoint, or place the data in the cloud. For instance, DelDOT receives electronic data through 

the Boomi translation API, which is hosted by a vendor, exports the data to the Oracle Unifier 

system. The STAs, such as Massachusetts, may also store the data in an enterprise geodatabase. 

UDOT uses an FME to streamline the ingestion of nonspatial (e.g., quantities) and spatial data 

into the agency’s enterprise geodatabase.
85 

© 2022 WSP. 

Figure 22. Diagram. Schematic of data transmittal from supplier loadout systems to DOT 

Web portal. 

Data Use Cases and Integration 

Most STAs, as indicated by the AASHTO survey and interviews, are yet to integrate e-Ticketing 

data into their CMS. However, these agencies have future plans to integrate data in their 

information systems and use them for various applications. To date, only DelDOT has integrated 

e-Tickets into the Unifier system for automating payment processing. As described in chapter 4, 

DelDOT creates ticket packages using e-Tickets in the Unifier system to streamline the process 

of paying contractors for approved quantities of materials.

In the absence of real-world examples, table 30 presents a list of use cases for possible future 

integration with the DOT information systems. These use cases, which are based on the business 

functions of an agency, will create value for various internal organizational units by satisfying 

their information requirements at project, asset, or organizational levels. Currently, this 

information resides in paper forms across multiple documents, digitized forms as PDFs and scans 

in document management systems, or digitalized formats in data siloes. The integration of 

e-Ticketing data with other information systems, such as CMS, construction materials 

management systems (CMMS), laboratory information management systems (LIMS), pavement 

management systems (PMS), and bridge management systems (BMS), is necessary to unlock 

them for wider use. Furthermore, by mapping business functions with information requirements, 

the use cases provide a basis for specifying data attributes that need to be collected through eTickets and processed, stored, analyzed, and exchanged with internal DOT information systems. 

Table 30. e-Ticketing use cases and integration opportunities. 

Data Exchange Types Use Cases

e-Tickets to CMS Creating daily work reports

e-Tickets to CMS Automating payment processing

e-Tickets to CMS Automating price adjustments of liquid asphalt and other 

materials
86 

Data Exchange Types Use Cases

e-Tickets to CMS Reconciling actual quantities with contract quantities 

e-Tickets to CMS Auditing payments made to subcontractors and disadvantaged 

business enterprises

e-Tickets to CMMS/LIMS/

PMS/BMS

Conducting forensic analysis of asset failure 

e-Tickets to PMS/BMS Developing better asset condition forecasting models

e-Tickets to CMMS/LIMS Conducting performance evaluation of mix designs and material 

sources

e-Tickets to CMS Calculating paving flow rates to manage paving operations 

e-Tickets to CMS Auditing prevailing wages 

e-Tickets to CMMS/LIMS Calculating the statewide usage of recycled materials

e-Tickets to CMS Linking placement and quantities data to optimize production 

and construction schedules 

e-Tickets to CMS Supplementing QA programs 

e-Tickets to CMS/CMMS/

LIMS/PMS/BMS

Evaluating contractor performance based on asset performance

e-Tickets to CMS Reporting construction progress

e-Tickets to CMS Creating an electronic proof of work 

Three opportunities are further illustrated in this section using AWP construction management as 

an example. The AWP includes a suite of software products that tracks, reports, and analyzes

information throughout the contract and construction phases of a project. Site Manager and 

Construction & MaterialsTM are the client/server-based and Web-based apps of the AWP

software, respectively.

Opportunity 1—DWRs and Quantities 

This opportunity includes four use cases:

• Creating daily work reports

• Reconciling actual quantities with contract quantities. 

• Automating payment processing

• Automating price adjustments of liquid asphalt and other materials

The e-Ticketing data can be fed into the AWP to enable automated reporting of DWR summaries 

in the construction module of the software. The e-Ticketing can push location and quantities 

information to the “DwrWorkItem” table of the DWR. The completed, in-placed, and approved 

quantities can be further used to automate the generation and processing of invoices. These 

quantities can also be used to automatically calculate price adjustments to liquid asphalt, fuel, 

and other materials.
87 

The integration would allow the ingestion of data inputs from the supplier using e-Tickets. The 

integration could also allow for automatic validation of inputs on the e-Tickets because such 

inputs can be directly imported from the AWP. Table 31 presents the list of data attributes that 

can be ingested into the AWP from the suppliers and those attributes that can be validated by 

suppliers for data consistency purposes. 

Table 31. Data attributes for DWRs.

Data Attributes From Plant/Supplier to 

AWP

Data Attributes That Must be Consistent 

With AWP

• Production plant number/plant 

name/GPSLat and GPSLong

• Hauler name

• Truck/vehicle ID

• Gross/net/tare weights 

• AC mix temperatures

• Concrete slump and water

• Job number/project number 

• Project name 

• Source/material/mix design ID 

• Plant/supplier/hauler ID

• Unit price

• Ticket acceptance/rejection

• Quantities—daily running 

• Quantities—posted to date

• Price adjustments

• Current payment made to date

GPSLat = GPS latitude; GPSLong = GPS longitude.

In addition to the “DwrWorkItem,” other opportunities for integrating the electronic data with 

other tables in the AWP to facilitate updating, reporting, and validating stored data are listed in 

table 32. 

Table 32. Additional opportunities for integration with AWP for daily reporting. 

AWP Module AWP Table Description

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR,

CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT Contract 

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR,

CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACTOR Contractor

PRECONSTRUCTION REFPRICEINDEX Reference price index 

PRECONSTRUCTION REFPRICEINDEXADJUSTMENT Reference price index 

adjustments 

PRECONSTRUCTION REFPRICEINDEXHISTORY Reference price index 

history

CONSTRUCTION MIXDESIGN Mix design

CONSTRUCTION MIXDESIGNSMFMI • Mix design 

source 

• Material 

facility

• Material ID

CONSTRUCTION MIXDESIGNTYPE Mix design type 

CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTESTIMATEITEM Payment estimate item
88 

AWP Module AWP Table Description

CONSTRUCTION DWRACCEPTANCERECORD DWR acceptance 

record

CONSTRUCTION DWRITEMPOSTING DWR item posting 

CONSTRUCTION DWRITEMPOSTINGQUANTITY DWR item posting 

installed quantity

Opportunity 2—Validating Subcontract/DBE Payments 

This opportunity focuses on auditing the payments made by the prime contractor to 

subcontractors and disadvantaged business enterprises. The information furnished in the eTickets can be used to automate or support the validation of payments to be made by the prime 

contractor to subcontractors, suppliers, truck drivers and others in the supply chain. This 

information can also be used to support the auditing of payments made by the prime contractor to 

disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs). Table 33 and table 34 present lists of data attributes 

from e-Tickets that can be ingested for validating payments to supply chain entities and the 

corresponding tables of the AWP. 

Table 33. Data attributes for supply chain payments. 

Data Attributes From Production 

Plant/Supplier to AWP

Data Attributes That Must be Consistent With 

AWP

• Subcontractor/production 

plant/supplier name 

• Hauler name

• Number of loads to date

• Job number/project number 

• Project name

• Subcontractor/plant/supplier/hauler/vendor 

ID

• DBE certified

• DBE committed amount 

• Committed amount DBE credit

• DBE good faith ID

Table 34. Opportunities for integration with AWP for supply chain payments. 

AWP Module AWP Table Description

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBECOMMITMENT DBE commitment

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBECOMMITMENTSUMMARY DBE commitment 

summary

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBECOMMITMENTWORKITEM DBE commitment 

work item

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBECOMMITMENTWORKTYPE DBE commitment 

work type 

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBEGOODFAITHEFFORT DBE good faith effort

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

PRECONSTRUCTION

DBEGOODFAITHEFFORTWT DBE good faith effort 

work type 
89 

AWP Module AWP Table Description

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

CONSTRUCTION

SUBCONTRACT Subcontract 

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

CONSTRUCTION

SUBCONTRACTITEM Subcontract item

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

CONSTRUCTION

TRUCKING Trucking 

CIVILRIGHTSANDLABOR, 

CONSTRUCTION

TRUCKINGTRUCKTYPE Truck type 

Opportunity 3—Integration with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design and AASHTOWare Bridge 

Design to Create Digital As-Builts

AASHTOWare® Pavement ME DesignTM and Bridge DesignTM are the standard software apps 

used by many STAs for pavement and bridge designs, respectively (AASHTO n.d.c; AASHTO 

n.d.d). Both design apps use a plethora of material inputs for use in the design and analysis 

calculations. The e-Ticketing data can be used to conduct performance analyses of the newly 

constructed pavement or bridge structures using as-constructed material properties with the aid 

of the design programs. The as-constructed material properties that are relevant to the 

performance analyses of assets include actual proportions of ingredients used in the materials in

place, such as asphalt binder content, cementitious materials, and amount of water in concrete; 

field and laboratory measurements of quality characteristics, such as temperature, strength, and 

density; and the as-built thickness measured or estimated using yield rates. Such performance 

analyses, which will be a part of digital as-builts, will help capture the effects of construction 

quality and techniques in asset condition forecasting. Note that the construction data are seldom 

incorporated into the forecasting models that predict the future condition of assets.

This opportunity is contingent on the e-Ticketing processes’ ability to include or append other 

data captured in the process chain, including mix design properties, sampling and test results 

produced for source certifications, production plant and field QA, and construction or digital 

as-builts information and data. 

The following pertinent data fields are included in the AASHTOWare Pavement and Bridge 

Design software:

• Unit weight, effective binder content, air voids, layer thickness, asphalt binder for 

characterization of asphalt layer properties. 

• Unit weight, layer thickness, PCC coefficient of thermal expansion, cement type, 

cementitious material content, water-to-cement ratio, aggregate type, PCC strength, and 

modulus for characterization of PCC layer properties. 

• Percent steel (or steel quantities) and bar diameter for characterizing PCC layer in 

continuously reinforced concrete pavement design. 
90 

• Unit weights, gradations, Atterberg limits, dry densities, moisture content, layer 

thickness, standard penetration testing, strength and modulus testing, and stabilizer 

contents for characterization of base and subgrade layers.

• Strength, grade, and other properties demonstrating adherence to material requirements 

for bridge design, such as timber, steel, admixtures, and elastomeric materials.

Data Standards 

As presented in table 14, the AASHTO national survey captured information on the commonly 

collected data types on e-Tickets.

Although some commonalities among the data attributes collected by the STAs exist, no national 

guidelines are currently in place to standardize the data attributes on e-Tickets. National efforts 

are currently underway on data standardization. AASHTO has instituted an expert task group 

(ETG) to develop the MDMS. Led by MnDOT—with support from the AASHTO Committee on 

Materials and Pavements; Committee on Construction; and Data Management and Analytics 

Committee’s Joint Subcommittee on Data Standardization—the MDMS ETG includes a vast 

network of 270 members from FHWA, STAs, vendors, material suppliers, universities, 

consulting firms, contractors, and associations (Embacher 2021). 

The MDMS has provisional standards for the delivery of asphalt: AASHTO PPXX Standard 

Specification for Material Delivery Management System (AASHTO Forthcoming). The MDMS 

specification for asphalt mixtures, concrete, and aggregates has been approved through the 

balloting process and is expected to be published in 2023. 

The MDMS presents a library of data attributes for asphalt mixtures, concrete, and aggregates, 

grouped under five phases or data categories of the material delivery process from production 

plant load out to delivery at the jobsite and verification:

• Source—Data generated by the load-out software at the production plant. 

• Loading and delivery event—Data related to date, time stamps, and delivery locations. 

• Testing and contract administration—Data recorded by the DOT and contractor on mix 

design ingredients, sampling and test results, acceptance/rejection of tickets, split loads,

and wasted material quantities.

• Independent field verification—Data recorded by the DOT on field verification. 

• Hauler—Data related to the delivery vehicle and the driver.

The complete list of data attributes is published in Standard Specification for Material Delivery 

Management System (AASHTO Forthcoming). 

Further investigation was performed to compare the common data attributes currently captured 

on e-Tickets with MDMS data requirements. Sample e-Tickets gathered from Iowa, Utah, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington were used to identify the commonly captured data attributes. 
91 

Table 35 presents a comparison between MDMS data requirements and data attributes currently 

captured on e-Tickets. The table indicates that most MDMS data attributes of interest are 

currently captured, except for temperature at source and destination. However, independent field 

verification data are being captured indirectly because field verification provides a basis for 

acceptance or rejection of tickets in accordance with the STA’s procedures.

Table 35. Comparison of MDMS attributes and commonly collected data attributes. 

MDMS Data Attributes Currently 

Captured on e-Tickets

MDMS Data Attributes Yet to Be/Less 

Frequently Collected on e-Tickets

• Project and contract information

• Production plant and supplier 

information

• Contractor information

• Date and time

• Weigh master

• Hauler, delivery truck, and truck 

driver 

• Source location and time

• Destination location and time

• Gross/tare/net weights

• Total daily loads 

• Total daily tonnage 

• Material/mix type

• Material properties

• Ticket status

• DOT inspector approval 

• Scale ID

• Silo ID

• Truck overweight 

• Truck driver classification

• Transit routing geofences—entry and exit 

• Contractor split load

• Wasted material weight

• Contractor field notes

• Independent field verification 

• Material temperature at source and 

destination

• Air temperature at source and destination

Data Security

The e-Ticketing process uses Cloud-based storage solutions, apps, and devices to create, share, 

track, document, and archive quantities, sources, and delivery information in electronic or digital 

format among multiple stakeholders. Although electronic storage and transfer of ticketing data 

simplifies how materials are handled in the construction process, potential security issues need to 

be considered when sensitive data are handled in a digital environment. 

Security Risks With e-Ticketing

Potential security risks can occur at each data input and transfer point in the e-Ticketing process. 

These risks stem from unauthorized access—by personnel within the STA who are unauthorized 

to view certain items or by those individuals who breach devices or apps and are unaffiliated 

with the STA and its contractors—to data stored locally or in the cloud, the apps that create and 

process e-Tickets, and the devices that access those apps: 
92 

• Devices. One potential risk is unapproved persons gaining access to devices that contain 

apps and files with information that is sensitive. Therefore, limiting access to sensitive 

information to approved DOT devices and implementing proper protection to those 

devices is crucial. Devices used throughout the e-Ticketing process may include, but are 

not limited to, the following mechanisms: 

o Devices used by suppliers or producers to generate tickets via the ticketing system. 

o Devices used to track GPS/GNSS locations of vehicles and materials. 

o Devices used by DOT personnel and contractors to access ticket data. 

o Mobile devices used for ticket acceptance and electronic proof of delivery and to 

capture jobsite testing and inspection data. 

o Devices used to access CMS to which e-Ticket data may be shared or uploaded. 

• Apps. Without proper password protection, unauthorized users who gain access to STA 

applications can view or tamper with sensitive e-Ticketing data. Protecting applications 

against both unauthorized access and unauthorized editing control of e-Ticketing data is 

important. 

• Cloud Service Providers. Cloud service providers supply the necessary encryption, as 

required by industry or Federal standards, to protect sensitive e-Ticketing data stored in 

the cloud. However, without proper controls in place, such as password protection or ID 

authentication, the data may still be vulnerable to unauthorized access. Within an 

organization, if the levels of access are not protected, users who are only meant to view 

certain cloud-based information may be able to view sensitive information beyond their 

classification or tamper with information that was submitted by an authorized user during 

the e-Ticketing process. The following situations are the two main threats to cloud-based 

e-Ticketing data: 

o Accounts having access to data that they are not required to access (i.e., a user is 

given an account but should not have permissions to view certain items). 

o Cloud-based apps lacking protection due to access to the devices on which they are 

stored (i.e., cloud-based files are left open/logged-in on an unlocked device, and a 

user without authorization to view the files gains access to device).

• Breadcrumb GPS/GNSS Tracking. Breadcrumb tracking of vehicles used throughout a 

construction project helps keep track of where vehicular assets are located. This tracking 

can improve the efficiency of deliveries of necessary construction materials and help 

identify whether anything is offtrack in the delivery process. Breadcrumb tracking is 

optional and is usually performed with hard-wired tracking devices, cigarette lighter 

adapters, or in-vehicle mobile apps on smartphones. Potential risks in breadcrumb 

tracking include the following situations:
93 

o Unapproved personnel viewing the vehicle, the vehicle contents, and sensitive driver 

information. 

o The tracker storing unnecessarily sensitive driver identifiers, such as their Social 

Security numbers or payroll information. Asking what data are being collected, who 

is allowed to view which parts of the data, whether the data are encrypted or 

anonymized as needed, and whether the transmittal of data from the GPS/GNSS 

tracking device to the database is secure is important. 

Security Standards in e-Ticketing

This section presents a discussion on current standards set by the Federal Government and other 

directly relevant stakeholders in the data and digital services industry to ensure e-Ticketing data

protection. STAs may have their own policies and procedures. However, a review of the Federal 

standards can help STAs establish their own standards or compare their standards with the 

Federal standards: 

• FHWA Cybersecurity Program (CSP): Many of the general data security standards 

outlined in the FHWA CSP Handbook can also apply to e-Ticketing contractors because

they are often working in collaboration with FHWA or directly using apps created by 

DOT vendors to transmit sensitive information (FHWA 2017). The FHWA CSP 

Handbook outlines procedures to protect this information, which can include GPS/GNSS 

tracking information and even employee Social Security numbers and pay rates. In 

combination with general best practices in data protection, such as those outlined by 

cloud service providers, the FHWA CSP guidelines create a framework for ensuring a 

secure transition from paper to e-Ticketing in construction services. 

• Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). Developed by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in accordance with the Federal Information 

Security Management Act, the FIPS standards provide guidelines for adoption and use by 

Federal departments and agencies (Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 2002). Of the 11 FIPS standards available 

on the NIST website, the following three standards are considered most relevant for 

e-Ticketing (NIST 2022): 

o FIPS 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules—FIPS 140-2 sets the 

minimum or default standard for data encryption in products that are used by Federal 

agencies to process nonclassified information (NIST 2002). To be FIPS compliant, 

the security algorithms implemented in hardware or software must align with the 

security features described in FIPS standards.
94 

o FIPS 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and 

Information Systems—FIPS 199 establishes security categories for information (data) 

and information systems from the standpoint of security objectives: confidentiality, 

availability, and integrity (NIST 2004). The security categories are based on assessing 

potential impacts that any security-related adverse event, such as a loss of 

confidentiality, integrity, or availability of such information or information system, 

would have on individuals, assets, and operations of an organization. Table 36 

summarizes the potential impact definitions for each security objective. The STAs 

could use these criteria to evaluate the security category for e-Ticketing data and 

information systems.

o FIPS 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information 

Systems—FIPS 200 provides minimum requirements for protecting a federally owned

information system in the event of a security breach (NIST 2006). 

Table 36. FIPS 199 criteria to define impacts for security categorization (NIST 2004). 

Security Objective Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact

Confidentiality: 

Preserving authorized 

restrictions on 

information access 

and disclosure, 

including means for 

protecting personal 

privacy and 

proprietary 

information (44 U.S. 

Code § 3542). 

Unauthorized 

disclosure of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

limited adverse effect 

on organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Unauthorized 

disclosure of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

serious adverse effect 

on organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Unauthorized 

disclosure of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

severe or catastrophic 

adverse effect on 

organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Integrity: Guarding 

against improper 

information 

modification or 

destruction, including 

ensuring information 

nonrepudiation and 

authenticity. 

Unauthorized 

modification or 

destruction of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

limited adverse effect 

on organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Unauthorized 

modification or 

destruction of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

serious adverse effect 

on organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Unauthorized 

modification or

destruction of 

information could be 

expected to have a 

severe or catastrophic 

adverse effect on 

organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 
95 

Security Objective Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact

Availability: 

Ensuring timely and 

reliable access to and 

use of information 

(44 U.S. Code § 

3542). 

Disruption of access 

to or use of 

information or an 

information system 

could be expected to 

have a limited 

adverse effect on 

organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Disruption of access 

to or use of 

information or an 

information system 

could be expected to 

have a serious 

adverse effect on 

organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Disruption of access 

to or use of 

information or an 

information system 

could be expected to 

have a severe or 

catastrophic adverse 

effect on 

organizational 

operations, 

organizational assets, 

or individuals. 

Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP®). The U.S. Government 

created FedRAMP under the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative to ensure adequate protection 

and security of Federal data in cloud systems (General Services Administration n.d.). FedRAMP 

provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous 

monitoring for cloud products and services. FedRAMP applies the guidelines and procedures 

outlined in the NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal 

Information Systems and Organizations, as the basis to standardize security and privacy 

requirements for cloud systems (Ross 2013). To offer cloud-based solutions to Federal agencies, 

the CSPs must go through an assessment to demonstrate compliance with FedRAMP standards 

and requirements. Upon compliance, the CSPs can extend cloud services to multiple agencies 

within the Federal Government. Using this standardized approach, the individual governmental 

agencies do not need to perform a security assessment of every compliant CSP separately, and 

thus, this method facilitates a faster, cost-effective adoption of cloud-based services. Many State 

and local governmental agencies have based their RAMPs on the NIST SP 800-53 standards, 

and, therefore, these agencies may adopt the same standards into their cloud systems.

Training

The e-Ticketing practice landscape is evolving. Many vendor products are available on the 

market, while the STAs are customizing their Web portals to meet their needs. In this context, 

training is necessary to ensure that both DOT and contractor personnel are instructed adequately 

on the set-up tasks before progressing to the construction activities, on-field operations, and 

back-office functions. Contingent on the agency and contractor needs, the training can focus on 

the following activities, as a minimum:

• Hands-on training on the use of vendor products. 

• Hands-on training on the use of mobile devices and software apps. 

• Viewing data, making data entries, and making decisions in realtime about material 

types, including appending videos and pictures, composing inspector notes, making 

acceptance and rejection decisions, and recording split loads, wasted loads, etc.
96 

• Verifying procedures by material types. 

• Creating geofences and GPS data, if applicable. 

• Performing back-office functions. 

• Handling Internet connectivity outages. 

• Addressing common problems and troubleshooting. 

Many agencies offer training to the DOT personnel. These STAs have created a plethora of 

training products. For example, Iowa, Indiana, and Pennsylvania have created videos, instruction 

books, and PDF-use guides that can be available on demand. In addition, many vendors offer 

training on their products. Training should also be optimally timed, that is, training should not be 

conducted too early or too close to the construction start date. Many STAs also use pilots as a 

hands-on training opportunity for their inspectors.
97 

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS

The practice of e-Ticketing has gained and continues to gain momentum among many STAs. 

More than two-thirds of the STAs have used e-Ticketing on their paving projects, and other 

STAs are exploring or planning e-Ticketing pilots. Several STAs are advancing toward full-scale 

implementation in the next 3–5 yr. To date, most STAs have focused on asphalt mixtures, 

aggregates, and concrete. In the coming years, the STAs are anticipated to expand e-Ticketing to 

other material types—such as liquid asphalt, asphalt millings, and deicer liquids and salts—that 

are delivered by a dump vehicle and paid for based on quantities. 

Since the first pilot in Iowa in 2015, e-Ticketing practices have evolved considerably. The 

implementation landscape has become diverse, with STAs considering e-Ticketing for a variety

material types, vendor products and in-house solutions, and implementation approaches. The 

STAs have also gained an understanding about the factors that slow down pilot programs and 

can identify their data needs better now. Breadcrumbing truck locations is no longer required 

because of the stakeholder pushback, while the STAs have found alternatives to meet their 

verification needs. Although digitized forms, such as photographs and digital scans, of paper 

tickets were widely used in early 2020s, the STAs have gained a better understanding of the 

source document requirements and have transitioned to digitalized forms. 

In light of the challenge with handling multiple contractor-provided e-Ticketing solutions, the 

STAs are increasingly opting for a Web-based portal approach that accepts electronic data from 

authorized suppliers, regardless of which vendors they use. One key different approach is 

apparent between the “material delivery” and “fleet management” aspects of the practice, with 

the STAs focusing more on the former and the contractors and suppliers on the latter. In this 

context, these differences in implementation approaches emphasize the necessity to document 

effective e-Ticketing practices across the country.

Both the AASHTO national survey and the follow-up interviews indicate emerging trends that 

are common to most agencies. Presently, the STAs with no previous e-Ticketing experience are 

focused on starting their pilots, while those STAs that are further down the path to 

implementation are focused on conducting repeated demonstrations and fine-tuning their 

approaches for full-scale deployment. To date, the STAs have completed the pilots with willing 

partners through a contract modification or a separate bid item to ensure fairness among bidders 

and have generally selected project locations with good Internet connectivity. This progressive 

and selective approach has allowed the STAs to demonstrate the value of e-Ticketing and build a 

high level of confidence among stakeholders. 

Moving forward, the STAs indicate that stakeholder receptivity, particularly for small suppliers, 

and Internet connectivity are critical success factors for full-scale implementation. The 

STA–industry partnership has been mutually beneficial, and many agencies have established a 

formal task force or committee on e-Ticketing to communicate goals and future plans, share 

experiences, and discuss challenges. Although the industry is generally receptive, the States 

agree that e-Ticketing should not be made mandatory on all the projects in the short term to 

ensure the contractors and suppliers have adequate time to complete their system integrations. 

Small suppliers have been less receptive to e-Ticketing because of concerns with the high cost of 
98 

system upgrades, licensing costs, lack of Internet connectivity, and lower volumes of STA work.

The lead adopters—including PennDOT, Iowa DOT, and DelDOT—have been proactively 

working to get the small suppliers with limited IT resources connected to their Web portal. 

However, connecting suppliers with no Internet connection and those with a small share of the 

DOT business is still a challenge.

The STAs are also exploring cost-effective alternatives to use in areas with poor or no Internet 

connectivity, such as low Earth orbit satellite, cell signal boosters, and low-power and 

short-range technologies. The limited pilots by the STAs have demonstrated the feasibility of 

low Earth orbit satellite Internet and cell signal boosters.

The STAs have made little progress on electronic data management. To date, the STAs have 

focused on the receipt and ingestion of electronic data for storage in a database or document 

management system. None of the STAs have completed the integration of ticket data into their 

CMS. However, the lead adopters—such as PennDOT, Iowa DOT, DelDOT, and MNDOT—

plan to integrate their data in the next 2–5 yr. Currently, the States are using the electronic data 

for automating daily totals and preparing daily summary reports, and their planned data 

integrations will enable additional use cases soon. Relative to data security, most STAs have 

adopted their agency’s enterprise-wide standards, policies, and procedures for e-Ticketing. 

The specifications of the STAs are evolving for e-Ticketing. Their special provisions typically 

focus on general requirements for an acceptable e-Ticketing system, data transmission 

procedures, data requirements, Internet connectivity requirements, and payment. After GPS 

requirements were discontinued, many STAs began relying on time stamps and geocoordinates 

of source and delivery locations for verification. Alternative technologies, including Iowa DOT’s

electronic visual proof of delivery and BLE devices, are also on the horizon. 

At the current development phase of e-Ticketing, the STAs have understandably opted for data 

attributes that are of most interest and use to them. The lack of commonality, consistency, and 

arguably, inadequacy in the data requirements among the STAs creates challenges for vendors. 

The MDMS presents a library of data attributes and data specifications that STAs could consider 

adopting to meet their information needs. However, when the STAs eventually transition to 

adopting the AASHTO MDMS standards, the existing challenges with verification and 

inconsistencies are likely to be resolved successfully (AASHTO Forthcoming). In summary, as 

demonstrated in this report, the practice of e-Ticketing is rapidly and continually evolving and 

holds great promise for continuing and achieving future successful implementation. 
99 

APPENDIX A. AASHTO NATIONWIDE E-TICKETING SURVEY

The AASHTO Committee on Construction conducted a survey in the spring of 2021 to 

understand the e-Ticketing state of the practice. The survey gathered information from the STAs 

on the status of adopting e-Ticketing technologies, costs and benefits, data management 

practices, QA, future plans, and perspectives on the challenges associated with implementation.

This appendix presents the details of the responses provided by the individual respondent 

agencies in table 37 to table 76. 

Table 37. Question 1: Do you currently use e-Ticketing?

State/Territory Response

Alabama Yes

Alaska No

Arizona No

Arkansas Yes

California No

Colorado No

Connecticut Yes

Delaware* No

Florida Yes

Georgia Yes

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois Yes

Indiana Yes

Iowa Yes

Kansas Yes

Kentucky Yes

Louisiana No

Maine Yes

Maryland** No

Massachusetts* No

Michigan No

Minnesota Yes

Mississippi Yes

Missouri Yes

Montana No

Nebraska Yes

Nevada No

New Hampshire No

New Jersey No
100 

State/Territory Response

New Mexico No

New York No

North Carolina* No

North Dakota No

Ohio Yes

Oklahoma* No

Oregon Yes

Pennsylvania Yes

Puerto Rico No

Quebec, Canada No

Rhode Island No

South Carolina No

South Dakota No

Tennessee Yes

Texas Yes

Utah Yes

Vermont Yes

Virginia Yes

Washington** Yes

West Virginia Yes

Wisconsin Yes

Wyoming No

*

Delaware, North Carolina, and Oklahoma DOTs responded that e-Ticketing was not in use at the time of survey, 

which was conducted in the Spring of 2021; however, these States began using e-Ticketing after the survey was 

complete.

**Maryland DOT indicated only digital photographs and scans of a paper ticket were used. At the time of the survey, 

the agency did not actively pursue e-Ticketing pilot projects, although the DOT accepted some form of e-Tickets 

when contractors provided them voluntarily.

Table 38. Question 2: What mode(s) of e-Ticketing are you currently implementing or have 

already implemented?

State/Territory

Digital 

Photograph

/Scan of a 

Ticket PDF

Standalone 

e-Ticket 

Transmitted 

to a Cloud and 

Shared With 

DOT

e-Ticket 

Directly 

Received by a 

DOT 

Information 

System

Others 

(Please Specify)

Alabama — — Yes — — 

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes — — 

Connecticut — Yes — — Custom Web platform 

developed by Tilcon 

Connecticut Inc.
101 

State/Territory

Digital 

Photograph

/Scan of a 

Ticket PDF

Standalone 

e-Ticket 

Transmitted 

to a Cloud and 

Shared With 

DOT

e-Ticket 

Directly 

Received by a 

DOT 

Information 

System

Others 

(Please Specify)

Florida Yes Yes Yes — We have many options, 

including e-Ticketing 

systems developed by 

vendors and one 

system developed by 

our turnpike office. 

Georgia — Yes Yes — — 

Illinois Yes Yes Yes — — 

Indiana Yes Yes Yes — — 

Iowa — — Yes — — 

Kansas — Yes Yes — — 

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes — — 

Maine Yes — Yes — — 

Minnesota — — Yes — — 

Mississippi — Yes — — — 

Missouri — Yes Yes — — 

Nebraska — — — Yes We are almost ready to 

select the first pilot 

project. 

Ohio Yes Yes Yes — — 

Oregon Yes Yes Yes — — 

Pennsylvania Yes Yes — Yes — 

Tennessee Yes — Yes — — 

Texas — — Yes — — 

Utah — — — Yes — 

Vermont Yes Yes Yes — — 

Virginia — — — — We currently allow the 

vendor to use any 

COTS system that 

incorporates 

geofencing into the 

product. 

Washington Yes — Yes — — 

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes — — 

Wisconsin Yes Yes — — — 

—Not applicable.
102 

Table 39. Question 3: Which of the following describes your e-Ticketing approach?

State/Territory Vendor Developed

Developed 

In-House

Combination of In-House 

and Vendor Developed

Alabama Yes — —

Arkansas Yes — —

Connecticut Yes — —

Florida — — Yes

Georgia Yes — —

Illinois Yes — —

Indiana — — Yes

Iowa Yes — —

Kansas Yes — —

Kentucky Yes — —

Maine Yes — —

Minnesota Yes — —

Mississippi Yes — —

Missouri Yes — —

Nebraska — Yes —

Ohio Yes — —

Oregon Yes — —

Pennsylvania — Yes —

Tennessee — — Yes

Texas Yes — —

Utah — Yes —

Vermont Yes — —

Virginia Yes — —

Washington Yes — —

West Virginia Yes — —

Wisconsin — — Yes

—Not applicable.

Table 40. Question 4: Does your e-Ticketing solution(s) record location information?

State/Territory

Yes, at All Points 

Along the 

Delivery Vehicle 

Route With GPS 

Connection

Yes, But Only 

at Specific 

Points 

(Quarry, Plant, 

Project, Paver)

No, But 

Delivery/Dump 

Location is 

Noted/Appended by 

Field Staff

No, the Delivery 

Vehicles are Not 

Tracked and 

Location is Not 

Recorded

Alabama Yes — — —

Arkansas — — — Yes

Connecticut — — Yes —

Florida — — — Yes

Georgia — Yes — —

Illinois — — — Yes

Indiana — — — Yes

Iowa — — Yes —

Kansas — — Yes —
103 

State/Territory

Yes, at All Points 

Along the 

Delivery Vehicle 

Route With GPS 

Connection

Yes, But Only 

at Specific 

Points 

(Quarry, Plant, 

Project, Paver)

No, But 

Delivery/Dump 

Location is 

Noted/Appended by 

Field Staff

No, the Delivery 

Vehicles are Not 

Tracked and 

Location is Not 

Recorded

Kentucky — — — Yes

Maine — — Yes — 

Minnesota Yes — — — 

Mississippi — Yes — — 

Missouri Yes — — — 

Nebraska — — Yes — 

Ohio — Yes — — 

Oregon — — Yes — 

Pennsylvania — — Yes — 

Tennessee — Yes — — 

Texas — — — Yes

Utah — — Yes — 

Vermont — — Yes — 

Virginia — — — — 

Washington — — Yes — 

West Virginia — — Yes — 

Wisconsin — — — Yes

—Not applicable.

Table 41. Question 5: What level of adoption would categorize your current e-Ticketing 

use?

State/Territory

Individual 

Pilot 

Projects

Repeating 

Pilot Projects 

for Gathering 

Information 

and Scaling 

Up Use

Extensive 

Use by 

Special 

Notes

Extensive Use by 

Standard (or 

Supplemental) 

Specification

Voluntary 

Statewide Data 

Collection and 

Reporting 

(“Information 

Purposes” 

Only)

Alabama — Yes — — — 

Arkansas — — — Yes — 

Connecticut Yes — — — — 

Florida — — — Yes — 

Georgia — — — Yes — 

Illinois Yes — — — — 

Indiana — — Yes — — 

Iowa — Yes — — — 

Kansas Yes — — — — 

Kentucky — Yes — — — 

Maine Yes — — — — 

Minnesota — Yes — — — 

Mississippi — — Yes — — 

Missouri Yes — — — — 

Nebraska Yes — — — — 

Ohio — Yes — — — 
104 

State/Territory

Individual 

Pilot 

Projects

Repeating 

Pilot Projects 

for Gathering 

Information 

and Scaling 

Up Use

Extensive 

Use by 

Special 

Notes

Extensive Use by 

Standard (or 

Supplemental) 

Specification

Voluntary 

Statewide Data 

Collection and 

Reporting 

(“Information 

Purposes” 

Only)

Oregon Yes — — — — 

Pennsylvania Yes — — — — 

Tennessee — — — Yes — 

Texas — — — Yes — 

Utah — Yes — — — 

Vermont — Yes — — — 

Virginia — — — — — 

Washington — — — Yes — 

West Virginia — Yes — — — 

Wisconsin Yes — — — — 

—Not applicable.

Table 42. Question 6: Approximately what is the total number of projects that have used 

e-Ticketing?

State/Territory ≤5 6–10 11–25 26–50 51–100 ≥101

Alabama — — Yes — — — 

Arkansas — — — Yes — — 

Connecticut Yes — — — — — 

Florida — — — Yes — — 

Georgia — Yes — — — — 

Illinois — Yes — — — — 

Indiana — — — — — Yes

Iowa — — — — Yes — 

Kansas Yes — — — — — 

Kentucky — — — — Yes — 

Maine — Yes — — — — 

Minnesota — — — Yes — — 

Mississippi — — Yes — — — 

Missouri — Yes — — — — 

Nebraska Yes — — — — — 

Ohio — — — Yes — — 

Oregon Yes — — — — — 

Pennsylvania — — — — Yes — 

Tennessee — — Yes — — — 

Texas — — — — — — 

Utah — — — Yes — — 

Vermont Yes — — — — — 

Virginia Yes — — — — — 
105 

State/Territory ≤5 6–10 11–25 26–50 51–100 ≥101

Washington — — — — Yes — 

West Virginia — — Yes — — — 

Wisconsin — — — — — — 

—Not applicable.

Table 43. Question 7: For what materials are you currently using e-Ticketing?

State/Territory Asphalt Aggregates Concrete

Alabama Paid by weight — — 

Arkansas Paid by weight — — 

Connecticut Paid by weight Paid by weight — 

Florida Paid by weight — — 

Georgia Paid by weight — — 

Illinois Paid by weight Paid by weight and volume Paid by volume

Indiana Paid by weight Paid by weight and volume Paid by volume

Iowa Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by volume

Kansas Paid by weight — — 

Kentucky Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by weight

Maine Paid by weight — — 

Minnesota Paid by weight — — 

Mississippi Paid by weight — Paid by volume

Missouri Paid by weight — — 

Nebraska Paid by weight — — 

Ohio Paid by volume Paid by volume Paid by volume

Oregon Paid by weight — — 

Pennsylvania Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by volume

Tennessee Paid by weight — — 

Texas Paid by weight — — 

Utah Paid by weight — Paid by weight

Vermont Paid by weight — — 

Virginia Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by volume

Washington Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by volume

West Virginia Paid by weight — — 

Wisconsin Paid by weight Paid by weight Paid by volume

—Not applicable.

Note: None of the States indicated e-Ticketing was used for millings, reinforcing steel, prefabricated elements, 

deicing salt/chemicals, or other bulk materials.
106 

Table 44. Question 8: If you have selected “Asphalt” in response to the previous question, please indicate the typical project 

size (tonnage of asphalt mixtures used on projects) that adopted e-Ticketing. 

State/Territory <100 tons

100–500 

tons

500–1,000 

tons

1,000–5,000 

tons

5,000–10,000 

tons

10,0000–25,000 

tons >25,000 tons Unsure

Alabama — — — — Yes — — —

Arkansas — — — Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Connecticut — — — — — Yes — —

Florida — — — — — — — Yes

Georgia — — — — Yes — — —

Illinois — — — — — — — Yes

Indiana — — — — — — — Yes

Iowa — — — — — Yes — —

Kansas — — — — — Yes — —

Kentucky — — — — — — — Yes

Maine — — — Yes Yes Yes — —

Minnesota — — — — Yes Yes Yes —

Mississippi — — — — — Yes — —

Missouri — — — — — — Yes —

Nebraska Yes — — — — — — —

Ohio — — — — Yes — — —

Oregon — — — — — Yes Yes —

Pennsylvania — — — — — — — Yes

Tennessee — — — — — — — —

Texas — — — — — — — Yes

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Vermont — — — — — — Yes —

Virginia — — — — — — — —
107 

State/Territory <100 tons

100–500 

tons 

500–1,000 

tons 

1,000–5,000 

tons 

5,000–10,000 

tons 

10,0000–25,000 

tons >25,000 tons Unsure

Washington — — — — — — — Yes

West Virginia — — Yes Yes Yes — — — 

Wisconsin — — — — — — — Yes

—Not applicable.

Table 45. Question 9: If you have selected “concrete” as a material type, please indicate the typical project size (volume of 

concrete mixtures in cubic yards used on projects) that adopted e-Ticketing.

State/Territory <500 yd3 500–5,000 yd3 5,000–25,000 yd3 25,000–50,000 yd3 50,000–100,000 yd3 >100,000 yd3 Unsure

Alabama — — — — — — — 

Arkansas — — — — — — — 

Connecticut — — — — — — — 

Florida — — — — — — — 

Georgia — — — — — — — 

Illinois — — — — — — Yes

Indiana — — — — — — Yes

Iowa — — — Yes — — — 

Kansas — — — — — — — 

Kentucky — — — — — — Yes

Maine — — — — — — — 

Minnesota — — — — — — — 

Mississippi — — — — — — — 

Missouri — — — — — — — 

Nebraska — — — — — — — 

Ohio — Yes — — — — — 

Oregon — — — — — — Yes

Pennsylvania — — — — — — Yes
108 

State/Territory <500 yd3 500–5,000 yd3 5,000–25,000 yd3 25,000–50,000 yd3 50,000–100,000 yd3 >100,000 yd3 Unsure

Tennessee — — — — — — — 

Texas — — — — — — — 

Utah — — — — — — Yes

Vermont — — — — — — — 

Virginia — — — — — — — 

Washington Yes — — — — — — 

West Virginia — — — — — — — 

Wisconsin — — — — — — Yes

—Not applicable.

Table 46. Question 10: For what materials do you plan to use or hope to use e-Ticketing for in the future?

State/Territory Asphalt Millings Aggregates Concrete

Reinforcing 

Steel

Prefabricated 

Elements

Deicing 

Salt/Chemicals

Alabama — — Within 12 mo Within 12 mo — — — 

Arkansas — — Unsure at this 

point

— — — — 

Connecticut Within 12 mo 12–24 mo Within 12 mo 12–24 mo — — — 

Florida — — — Unsure at this 

point

— — — 

Georgia — — Within 12 mo 12–24 mo — — — 

Illinois Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Within 12 mo Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Indiana 12–24 mo — 12–24 mo 12–24 mo — — — 

Iowa Within 12 mo 12–24 mo Within 12 mo Within 12 mo 12–24 mo 12–24 mo Within 12 mo

Kansas Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

— — — 

Kentucky Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Within 12 mo Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Maine 24–36 mo — — Unsure at this 

point

— — — 

Minnesota — 24–36 mo 12–24 mo 12–24 mo — — — 

Mississippi Within 12 mo — Within 12 mo Within 12 mo — — — 
109 

State/Territory Asphalt Millings Aggregates Concrete

Reinforcing 

Steel

Prefabricated 

Elements

Deicing 

Salt/Chemicals

Missouri Unsure at this 

point

— — — — — — 

Nebraska Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

24–36 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Ohio Within 12 mo — Within 12 mo Within 12 mo — — 24–36 mo

Oregon Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

24–36 mo 24–36 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Pennsylvania — — — — — — Within 12 mo

Tennessee — 12–24 mo Within 12 mo 12–24 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Texas — Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Utah Within 12 mo — 12–24 mo Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

12–24 mo Unsure at this 

point

Vermont — 12–24 mo 12–24 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Virginia — — — — — — — 

Washington — — — — Within 12 mo — — 

West Virginia — — 12–24 mo 12–24 mo — — — 

Wisconsin Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

12–24 mo Within 12 mo Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

—Not applicable.
110 

Table 47. Question 11: What additional information is appended with the e-Ticketing data?

State/Territory Data Attributes Notes

Alabama Mix type and design — 

Arkansas Inspector notes Currently, we only require the specific ticket 

information that our specifications required 

pre-e-Ticketing. We do have the ability in all 

our approved e-Ticketing software apps for 

the inspectors to add any type of note that is 

applicable when the mix is delivered to the 

field, e.g., temperature, sampling 

information, etc. 

Connecticut • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Inspector notes

— 

Florida • Mix type and design

• Mix properties (before 

placement)

• Inspector notes

Regarding mix properties, only temperature 

of the mixture in the truck is recorded on the 

ticket.

Georgia • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

Temperature readings or thermal coverage 

from paver-mounted infrared system.

Illinois • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Material sampling locations

• Inspector notes

• DPS readings

Load(s) rejected and reason(s) for rejection.

Indiana • Mix type and design

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Inspector notes

— 

Iowa • Mix type and design

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Mat properties (after 

placement) 

• Material sampling locations

• Inspector notes

— 

Kansas Inspector notes Time stamp at time of acceptance or 

rejection, road waste quantities.
111 

State/Territory Data Attributes Notes

Kentucky • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

— 

Maine • Mix type and design

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Inspector notes 

— 

Minnesota • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Mat properties (after 

placement) 

• Material sampling locations

• Inspector notes

• Roller coverage and/or 

stiffness using Intelligent 

Compaction

• Temperature readings or 

thermal coverage from 

paver-mounted infrared system

• DPS readings

Currently: Mix type and design, material 

sampling locations and inspector notes are 

currently appended to the e-Tickets. In the 

future, when we add concrete, we would 

include admixtures/modifiers and mix 

properties. We are currently working on 

obtaining funding to make Veta the 

standardized platform for the MDMS. After 

the needed MDMS enhancements are made, 

we plan to tie IC, PMTP, DPS, and material 

properties (after placement) data to the 

e-Ticket. 

Mississippi None of the attribute choices — 

Missouri • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

All vehicle information.

Nebraska • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

Overrun/underrun tonnage checks for 

thickness compliance.

Ohio • Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Inspector notes

— 

Oregon • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

Just standard specification asphalt concrete 

pavement ticket information at this point, 

with “ticket taker” notes for placement 

location and, sometimes, temperature and 

any rejected mix information.

Pennsylvania Inspector notes Temperature readings or thermal coverage 

from paver-mounted infrared system.

Tennessee • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Mix properties (before 

placement)

• Inspector notes

— 

Texas None of the attribute choices — 
112 

State/Territory Data Attributes Notes

Utah • Mix type and design

• Mix properties (before 

placement)

• Material sampling locations

• Inspector notes

— 

Vermont • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

— 

Virginia Mix type and design — 

Washington • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

• Mix properties (before 

placement) 

• Inspector notes 

— 

West Virginia • Mix type and design

• Inspector notes

Temperature readings or thermal coverage 

from paver mounted infrared system.

Wisconsin • Mix type and design

• Admixtures and modifiers 

used

— 

—Not applicable.

. 
113 

Table 48. Question 12: What costs were considered during the implementation of e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

IT Staff and IT 

Network-Level 

Support Costs

Vendor 

Licensing 

Fees

e-Ticketing 

Technology 

Devices 

(GPS Units, 

etc.)

Manufacturer/Producer/Plant 

Equipment Upgrades

Costs From the 

Contractor

Supporting 

Technology 

Costs 

(Tablets, 

Field Devices, 

etc.)

Alabama — — — Yes Yes — 

Arkansas — — — Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Florida — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Georgia — — Yes — Yes — 

Illinois — — — — — — 

Indiana — Yes — Yes — — 

Iowa — — — — — — 

Kansas — Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Kentucky — — — — — — 

Maine — — Yes Yes Yes — 

Minnesota — — — — — — 

Mississippi — — Yes — — Yes

Missouri — — — Yes Yes — 

Nebraska — — — Yes — Yes

Ohio Yes Yes — Yes Yes Yes

Oregon — Yes Yes Yes Yes — 

Pennsylvania Yes Yes — Yes Yes — 

Tennessee — Yes Yes Yes — — 

Texas — — — Yes — — 

Utah — — — — — Yes

Vermont — — — — Yes — 
114 

State/Territory

IT Staff and IT 

Network-Level 

Support Costs

Vendor 

Licensing 

Fees

e-Ticketing 

Technology 

Devices 

(GPS Units, 

etc.)

Manufacturer/Producer/Plant 

Equipment Upgrades

Costs From the 

Contractor

Supporting 

Technology 

Costs 

(Tablets, 

Field Devices, 

etc.)

Virginia Yes — Yes Yes Yes — 

Washington — — — — Yes — 

West Virginia — Yes — Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin — — — — — — 

—Not applicable.

Table 49. Question 13: Which, if any, of these costs did you consider as a deterrent to the implementation of e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

Vendor 

Licensing 

Fees

e-Ticketing 

Technology 

Devices

Manufacturer/Producer/Plant 

Equipment Upgrades

Costs From the 

Contractor

Supporting 

Technology 

Costs

IT Staff and IT 

Network-Level 

Support Costs

Alabama — — Yes Yes — — 

Arkansas — — — — Yes — 

Connecticut — — — — Yes — 

Florida — — — — — — 

Georgia — — — — — — 

Illinois — — — — — — 

Indiana — — Yes — — — 

Iowa — — — — — — 

Kansas — — — — — — 

Kentucky — — — — — — 

Maine — — Yes Yes — — 

Minnesota — — — — — — 

Mississippi Yes — — — — — 

Missouri — Yes — Yes — — 

Nebraska — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
115 

State/Territory

Vendor 

Licensing 

Fees

e-Ticketing 

Technology 

Devices

Manufacturer/Producer/Plant 

Equipment Upgrades

Costs From the 

Contractor

Supporting 

Technology 

Costs

IT Staff and IT 

Network-Level 

Support Costs

Ohio Yes — Yes Yes — Yes

Oregon — Yes Yes — — — 

Pennsylvania — — — — — — 

Tennessee Yes Yes — — — — 

Texas — — — — — — 

Utah Yes — — — — — 

Vermont — — — — — — 

Virginia — — — — — — 

Washington — — Yes — — — 

West Virginia Yes — Yes — Yes — 

Wisconsin — — — — — — 

—Not applicable.

Table 50. Question 14A: Which of the following outcomes were the tangible or intangible benefits you considered when 

choosing to use e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

Reduced Paper 

Documentation

Time Savings in 

Review and 

Consolidation of 

Material Quantities

Readily Available 

Material Quantity 

Information

Archived 

Material 

Placement 

Location Safety 

Alabama Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Arkansas Yes — Yes — Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Illinois Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Iowa — — — — — 

Kansas Yes — — — Yes

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Maine Yes Yes — Yes Yes
116 

State/Territory

Reduced Paper 

Documentation

Time Savings in 

Review and 

Consolidation of 

Material Quantities

Readily Available 

Material Quantity 

Information

Archived 

Material 

Placement 

Location Safety 

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mississippi Yes — — — Yes

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ohio Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vermont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Virginia Yes — — — — 

Washington Yes Yes Yes — Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes — Yes

Wisconsin — — — — Yes

—Not applicable.

Table 51. Question 14B: Which of the following outcomes were the tangible or intangible benefits you considered when 

choosing to use e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

Real-Time 

Material 

Tracking

Production 

Tracking

Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise 

Requirements

Wage and Payroll 

Requirements

Motor Carrier 

Requirements

Alabama Yes Yes — — — 

Arkansas Yes — — — — 

Connecticut Yes Yes — — — 

Florida Yes Yes — — — 

Georgia — — — — — 

Illinois Yes — — — — 

Indiana — — — — — 

Iowa — — — — — 

Kansas — — — — — 
117 

State/Territory

Real-Time 

Material 

Tracking

Production 

Tracking

Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise 

Requirements

Wage and Payroll 

Requirements

Motor Carrier 

Requirements

Kentucky Yes Yes — — — 

Maine Yes — — — — 

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mississippi Yes — — — — 

Missouri Yes — — — — 

Nebraska Yes Yes — — — 

Ohio Yes — — — — 

Oregon Yes Yes — — — 

Pennsylvania Yes Yes — — Yes

Tennessee Yes — — — — 

Texas Yes Yes — — — 

Utah Yes — — — — 

Vermont Yes Yes — — — 

Virginia Yes — — — — 

Washington — — — — — 

West Virginia — — — — — 

Wisconsin — — — — — 

—Not applicable.
118 

Table 52. Question 15: Has your agency calculated the return on investment (alternatively, 

benefit–cost ratio or other equivalent metrics) on e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

Yes, We 

Have 

Calculated 

the 

Numbers

Not Yet, But 

We Have the 

Information 

to Calculate

No, We Have 

Challenges in 

Quantifying 

Benefits 

and/or Costs

Please Provide Additional 

Information, If Needed

Alabama — — Yes — 

Arkansas — — Yes — 

Connecticut — Yes — — 

Florida — — Yes — 

Georgia — — Yes — 

Illinois — — Yes — 

Indiana — — — No, we have not, because we 

believe that industry is moving 

this direction and the department 

must adjust and that the benefits 

noted in table 14 and table 15 are 

sufficient justification.

Iowa — — — — 

Kansas — — Yes — 

Kentucky — — Yes — 

Maine — — Yes — 

Minnesota — — Yes This will take some time to 

calculate and won’t be evaluated 

until 5–10 yr from now. The 

technology is still rapidly 

changing by vendors, contractors 

do not know how to bid on this 

specification, costs will go down 

in the future with the increase of 

projects and number of systems 

owned/used by the contractor, 

future enhancements to Veta and 

AWP will affect prices, etc.

Mississippi — — Yes — 

Missouri — — Yes — 

Nebraska Yes — — — 

Ohio — — Yes — 
119 

State/Territory

Yes, We 

Have 

Calculated 

the 

Numbers

Not Yet, But 

We Have the 

Information 

to Calculate

No, We Have 

Challenges in 

Quantifying 

Benefits 

and/or Costs

Please Provide Additional 

Information, If Needed

Oregon — — Yes Safety trumps the ROI, as well as 

the push to go paperless with 

InfoTech Doc Express, so 

calculating an ROI or benefit–cost 

analysis has not been considered 

necessary to move toward 

implementation, rather than it 

being a challenge. Contractors are 

largely on board and a larger 

paving corporation has offered the 

use of e-Ticketing as a relatively 

inexpensive add-on to their fleet 

management system free of 

charge to the agency. Datacapable devices are fairly 

common on project managers’ 

crews, so no significant capital 

outlay has been necessary for 

agency implementation.

Pennsylvania — Yes — The department is expanding its 

pilot to a statewide pilot this 

construction season, as well as, 

expanding the applicable 

materials.

Tennessee — — Yes — 

Texas — — Yes Required special provision, 

optional to contractor with an 

engineer’s approval.

Utah — — Yes — 

Vermont — — Yes — 

Virginia — — Yes — 

Washington — — Yes — 

West Virginia — — Yes — 

Wisconsin — — Yes — 

—Not applicable.
120 

Table 53. Question 16: How did you procure the e-Ticketing services?

State/Territory

Included 

in 

Contract 

as a Bid 

Item

Included in 

RFP as 

Incidental 

to Another 

Item of 

Work

Added as a 

Contract 

Modification

Purchased 

Directly 

by DOT Others (Please Specify)

Alabama — — — — Contractor provides 

without reimbursement 

currently.

Arkansas — — Yes — We allow the contractors 

the choice to use 

e-Ticketing currently.

Connecticut — — — — Proposed by contractor 

and approved on a trial 

basis.

Florida — — Yes — On our two pilot 

projects, we added it by 

supplemental agreement. 

In April 2020, in 

response to COVID, we 

implemented contactless 

ticketing on all projects 

of which asphalt 

e-Ticketing is one 

contactless ticketing 

options. This process 

was implemented by a 

district construction 

engineers (DCE) memo, 

and the asphalt eTicketing specifications 

were attached.

Georgia Yes Yes — — —

Illinois — — — — On an individual “pilot” 

project basis thus far, 

requested by the 

contractor with approval 

by the district.

Indiana — — — — Currently with 

construction memo 

allowing the use, in the 

future with 

specifications changes.

Iowa — — — — —

Kansas — Yes — — —

Kentucky Yes — — — —

Maine — — Yes — Voluntary usage during 

COVID.

Minnesota Yes — Yes — —
121 

State/Territory

Included 

in 

Contract 

as a Bid 

Item

Included in 

RFP as 

Incidental 

to Another 

Item of 

Work

Added as a 

Contract 

Modification

Purchased 

Directly 

by DOT Others (Please Specify)

Mississippi — — Yes — — 

Missouri Yes — Yes — — 

Nebraska — — — — Select candidate pilot 

projects and will add via 

negotiation with 

contractor via change 

order. 

Ohio — — — — Still determining.

Oregon — — — — Allowed as an alternate 

under existing 

specifications. Draft 

specifications to add as a 

formal contract change 

order currently under 

review for 2021 season.

Pennsylvania Yes — — — The department 

developed our 

e-Ticketing application, 

and there is an item in 

the system for our 

construction contractors.

Tennessee — Yes — — — 

Texas — — — — — 

Utah — — — — Volunteer basis.

Vermont Yes — Yes — — 

Virginia — — — — Contractor is to opt in 

with no additional cost 

to the department.

Washington Yes Yes — — — 

West Virginia — — — — Collaborate with some 

contractors.

Wisconsin — — — — No system has been 

procured yet.

—Not applicable.
122 

Table 54. Question 17: What business processes have had to be modified to reach your current level of e-Ticketing use? 

State/Territory

Construction 

Procurement/Letting

Preconstruction 

Meetings

Project 

Closeouts

As-Built 

Documentation/Project 

Documentation Legal/Compliance

Asset 

Management/

Maintenance

Alabama — — — Yes — Yes

Arkansas — — — — — —

Connecticut — — — Yes — —

Florida — — — — — —

Georgia — Yes — Yes Yes —

Illinois — — — Yes — —

Indiana — — Yes Yes — —

Iowa — — — — — —

Kansas Yes — — — — —

Kentucky — — Yes Yes Yes —

Maine — Yes — — — —

Minnesota — — — — — —

Mississippi — — Yes — — —

Missouri Yes — — Yes — —

Nebraska — — — — — —

Ohio — — — — — —

Oregon — — — — — —

Pennsylvania — Yes — — — —

Tennessee — Yes — — — —

Texas — — — — — —

Utah — Yes Yes — Yes —

Vermont — — — Yes — —

Virginia — — — — — —

Washington Yes — — — Yes —

West Virginia — — — Yes — —

Wisconsin — — — — — —

—Not applicable.
123 

Table 55. Question 18A: What e-Ticketing implementation challenges have you 

encountered?

State/Territory

Stakeholder 

Pushback

Internet 

Connectivity 

Concerns

Integrating 

With Current 

Project 

Administration 

Systems

Integrating 

With 

Plant/Supplier 

IT systems

Electronic 

Data 

Transfer 

From 

Third 

Party to 

DOT

Alabama — Yes — — —

Arkansas — — Yes — Yes

Connecticut — Yes — — Yes

Florida Yes Yes — — —

Georgia — Yes — — —

Illinois — Yes — — Yes

Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Iowa — — — — —

Kansas — Yes — — —

Kentucky — — — — —

Maine Yes Yes — — —

Minnesota — Yes — Yes —

Mississippi — Yes — — —

Missouri Yes Yes — — —

Nebraska Yes Yes — Yes —

Ohio — Yes — Yes Yes

Oregon — Yes — — —

Pennsylvania — Yes — Yes —

Tennessee Yes Yes — — —

Texas — — — — —

Utah Yes Yes — Yes —

Vermont Yes Yes — — —

Virginia Yes — — — —

Washington Yes Yes — — —

West Virginia — Yes — — —

Wisconsin — — Yes Yes —

—Not applicable.
124 

Table 56. Question 18B: What e-Ticketing implementation challenges have you encountered?

State/Territory

Lack of Material 

Bill of Lading

Third-Party Haulers 

With Multiple 

Contractors or Multiple 

e-Ticketing Systems

Data Privacy 

Concerns Others (Please Specify)

Alabama — — — —

Arkansas — Yes — —

Connecticut — — — —

Florida — — — —

Georgia — — — —

Illinois — — — —

Indiana — Yes — —

Iowa — — — —

Kansas — — — —

Kentucky — — — —

Maine — — — —

Minnesota — — — Issues with e-Ticketing systems, older plant 

loadout software platforms, yearly updates to 

load-out software platforms preventing 

pushing of data, dump locations not always 

accurately captured, zones with no data 

cellular coverage, no standardized MDMS 

platform for agencies to use, nonstandardized 

data exports, inability to automatically merge 

agency/contractor data, etc.

Mississippi — — — —

Missouri — Yes — Areas with no cellular service.

Nebraska — — — —

Ohio — Yes Yes —

Oregon — — — —

Pennsylvania — — — —

Tennessee — Yes Yes —

Texas — — — —

Utah — — Yes —
125 

State/Territory

Lack of Material 

Bill of Lading

Third-Party Haulers 

With Multiple 

Contractors or Multiple 

e-Ticketing Systems

Data Privacy 

Concerns Others (Please Specify)

Vermont — — — Not necessarily pushback, but contractors 

reluctant to integrate to e-Ticket software.

Virginia — — — — 

Washington — Yes — — 

West Virginia — — — Lack of mobile devices.

Wisconsin — — — — 

—Not applicable.
126 

Table 57. Question 19: Do you verify the information provided by the e-Ticketing system?

State/Territory Responses Others (Please Specify)

Alabama Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Arkansas — We verify material information in realtime by the 

inspection staff on the project. We then verify the 

daily data that are required to be uploaded by the 

next day after the placement of the material to 

complete payment documentation. Currently, we 

haven’t seen any discrepancies that would cause 

alarm.

Connecticut — Paper tickets are available on request for spot 

checking or if an e-Ticket is unavailable.

Florida — Not sure exactly what you mean by verify the 

e-Ticketing system. We have project personnel fill 

out roadway reports that determine spread rate, they 

also verify the asphalt mix is correctly noted on the 

e-Ticketing (correct mix for the project).

Georgia Yes, we have implemented 

procedures for verification 

for e-Ticketing.

—

Illinois — Since we are still in the pilot project phase, we are 

verifying against paper tickets on some first-time 

pilot contracts, plus traditional progress/final yield 

checks and weekly independent weight checks on all 

contracts.

Indiana Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Iowa — —

Kansas Yes, we have implemented 

procedures for verification 

for e-Ticketing.

—

Kentucky Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Maine Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Minnesota Yes, we have implemented 

procedures for verification 

for e-Ticketing.

—

Mississippi Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Missouri Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

—

Nebraska — Not at this point.

Ohio — Still determining.
127 

State/Territory Responses Others (Please Specify)

Oregon — We use our standard specification check weights on 

secondary certified scales to verify mass on the ticket 

at a specified minimum but random frequency. 

Nothing new with the addition of e-Ticketing. We 

also check quantity totals manually for each shift.

Pennsylvania — The e-Ticketing system will be new this season, so it 

will be tested during this pilot season.

Tennessee No, we do not plan to 

verify e-Tickets.

— 

Texas — Must meet all requirements of contract specifications 

at specified intervals or as requested.

Utah Yes, we have implemented 

procedures for verification 

for e-Ticketing.

— 

Vermont No, but we have plans for, 

or are working on 

developing, verification 

procedures for e-Ticketing.

— 

Virginia — Suppliers are inspected by department 

representatives as part of an independent assurance 

and independent verification process. Materials are 

visually verified when received.

Washington Yes, we have implemented 

procedures for verification 

for e-Ticketing.

— 

West Virginia Yes, we are still getting 

cohort paper tickets.

— 

Wisconsin — — 

—Not applicable.

Table 58. Question 20: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets at a plant or quarry?

State/Territory Responses

Alabama Certification of load scales at plant.

Arkansas We have plant inspectors, and we require scale certifications for each 

asphalt concrete hot mix plant. 

Connecticut Currently, no additional verification procedures specific to e-Ticketing are 

in place. 

Florida Not quite sure what needs to be verified. How is an e-Ticket any different 

than a paper ticket in that regard? We check spread rate to ensure we’re 

getting the tonnage/thickness, and the tickets are checked to ensure the 

correct mix is being used. 

Georgia Certified weigher, inspectors at the plant.
128 

State/Territory Responses

Illinois Primarily follow existing processes, i.e., we require certified scales for 

weight measurement (when the pay unit of measure is weight), adhere to 

our current random weight check process, and verify necessary data at the 

point of delivery by DOT field inspectors.

Indiana Certify scales at plants, comparison of plan quantities and yields. 

Iowa — 

Kansas Verify the calculated quantities with the delivered quantities.

Kentucky Not sure. 

Maine Same as for paper tickets: periodic scale checks, random plant 

inspections. 

Minnesota We currently still use paper tickets; however, we also have an 

independent verification process in place to ensure that this procedure 

works before removing paper tickets. Our example is included in the 

MDMS AASHTO provisional practice.

Mississippi — 

Missouri Random QA checks. 

Nebraska All scales are required to be certified by weights and measures. Tickets 

will contain project ID, plant ID, truck ID, and load specifics regarding 

type, weight, and time. 

Ohio — 

Oregon Certified scales are always required on our projects, e-Ticketing or not, 

and the same for check weights per standard specification. The 

e-Ticketing doesn’t really change how we verify e-Tickets versus paper 

tickets. 

Pennsylvania Presence of inspectors at the plant/quarry; they will be verifying the plants 

scales and equipment to make sure the material is being produced, 

shipped, and documented properly. 

Tennessee — 

Texas e-Ticketing only for asphalt (hot mix) delivered to project. 

Utah We do not currently verify the accuracy of information printed on eTickets at the plant and do not plan to. 

Vermont Plant scales are verified annually during plant inspection. e-Ticket setup 

and calibration protocol is being discussed and will be included in 

specifications eventually. Currently, a contractor provides setup and 

calibration methods.

Virginia The department inspects vendor facilities on a reoccurring basis to 

validate equipment and whether personnel are compliant with department 

requirements.

Washington Scale certification and scale verification checks. We also reconcile loads 

received with loads delivered. 

West Virginia Presence of inspectors at the plant.

Wisconsin Still in development. 

—Not applicable.
129 

Table 59. Question 21: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets during transmittal from the plant/quarry to the jobsite?

State/Territory Responses

Alabama No plan.

Arkansas The e-Ticketing systems we have used have a feature whereby the 

inspector can sign off on each ticket once the load is received for 

placement on the project. We do have some versions of software that use 

GPS location, but we don’t require it at this time. 

Connecticut Currently, no additional verification procedures specific to e-Ticketing 

are in place.

Florida See table 57 for response.

Georgia Tracking data and time stamps, field verification.

Illinois Certification of load scales at plants, comparison of tonnage against plan 

quantities and yield, and weekly independent weight checks (as was 

required for paper tickets) will continue.

Indiana Jobsite inspector review of information in the field.

Iowa —

Kansas Truck number, load count, daily total tons produced, and time stamp.

Kentucky Not sure.

Maine —

Minnesota See table 57 for response.

Mississippi —

Missouri We allow flexibility in how the contractor achieves verification. It could 

be with GPS or with other systems, such as vehicle recognition 

technology at the asphalt paver. We need proof that the truck listed on 

the ticket actually dumped the load in the paver.

Nebraska Geofencing, verification by DOT inspector.

Ohio —

Oregon We are not requiring GPS at this time.

Pennsylvania See table 57 for response.

Tennessee —

Texas We do not track this information. This information is not required.

Utah We do not currently verify the accuracy of information printed on 

e-Tickets from the plant to the jobsite and do not plan to.

Vermont Current specifications include delivery vehicle departure time from the 

load source and arrival time at the paver. Arrival time at the paver is 

currently done by an inspector authorizing the load with acceptance of 

the load, initials, and time stamp. 

Virginia No plans to verify route tracking. Arrival time may be spot checked by 

department field staff at the project site.
130 

State/Territory Responses

Washington Scale certification and scale verification checks.

West Virginia Still being worked on.

Wisconsin Still in development.

—Not applicable.

Table 60. Question 22: How do you verify (or plan to verify) the accuracy of information 

printed on e-Tickets at the point of delivery?

State/Territory Responses

Alabama DOT inspector checks accuracy.

Arkansas Currently, we have the inspector on the project verifying whether the 

loads are received.

Connecticut Currently, no additional verification procedures specific to e-Ticketing 

are in place.

Florida See table 57 for response.

Georgia Inspectors onsite to verify truck number and vendor, verify mix with 

ticket description, and track within the e-Ticketing app.

Illinois Follow processes outlined in response in table 57 and table 58

Indiana Jobsite inspector review of information in the field.

Iowa —

Kansas Time stamp.

Kentucky Not sure.

Maine —

Minnesota See table 57 for response.

Mississippi —

Missouri Random QA checks.

Nebraska Verification by the inspector.

Ohio —

Oregon The truck number will be checked against the e-Ticket for quantity, with 

ticket taker/inspector notes on delivery location. Yield checks are also 

required versus tonnage delivered. Most jobs with over 15,000 tons also 

require blind random density testing, requiring the agency to closely 

monitor tonnage to identify the QC density shot locations.

Pennsylvania See table 57 for response.

Tennessee —

Texas Certification of load scales at the plant, comparison of tonnage against 

plan quantities and yield, summary spreadsheet with total for payment, 

time stamp by Texas DOT when loads are accepted.

Utah The truck number and time of departure are used to verify whether the 

correct load has been received at the point of delivery.

Vermont Current process with e-Ticket vendors is DOT inspector verifying the 

loads onsite. Verification is by truck license plate number matching to 

load ticket. We would accept an automated means of point of delivery 

verification.
131 

State/Territory Responses

Virginia Visuals inspection by department field staff.

Washington We have a dedicated inspector onsite to document/verify delivery of 

material (track truck number, time, location).

West Virginia Presence of inspectors at the project, and e-ticket will have to be 

accepted/approved by an inspector. 

Wisconsin Still in development. 

—Not applicable.

Table 61. Question 23: What additional measures does your agency undertake to 

independently verify information provided by the e-Ticketing system is accurate and the 

material was incorporated into the project?

State/Territory Responses

Alabama — 

Arkansas — 

Connecticut Currently, no additional verification procedures specific to e-Ticketing are 

in place. 

Florida See table 57 for response. 

Georgia — 

Illinois Inspectors in the field will continue taking yield checks, conducting 

independent weight checks, and verifying the “one truck = one ticket” 

concept once on the jobsite.

Indiana This process is still under development as we look to scale 

implementation.

Iowa — 

Kansas — 

Kentucky To date, we are still ultimately getting the paper tickets to compare to the 

e-Tickets.

Maine — 

Minnesota In addition to the response provided in table 57, we use asset trackers and 

geofences to assist with ensuring that the material was indeed delivered.

Mississippi — 

Missouri Random QA checks. 

Nebraska Geofence around the paver for location of placement. 

Ohio — 

Oregon Same process as we use for our standard projects. Refer to responses 

provided in table 57 to table 60. 

Pennsylvania See table 57 for response. 

Tennessee — 

Texas A requirement that data cannot be altered, and we must meet all “paper 

documentation” requirements of contract specifications.

Utah The office technician verifies the ticket information using a CSV and 

inspector notes before submitting the tickets for payment.
132 

State/Territory Responses

Vermont Due to our standard operating procedures with e-Ticketing, our 

specifications do not dismiss the requirement of individual truck tickets 

for verification. The agency and contractor discuss daily data summaries 

to verify quantities and ensure the information matches. 

Virginia Procedures are in place independent of the e-Ticketing program. 

Washington WSDOT verification of delivery, scale certification, scale verification, 

daily reconciliation.

West Virginia Still being worked on. 

Wisconsin Still in development. 

—Not applicable.

Table 62. Question 24: Do you have a documented procedure of your agency’s process for 

verification of e-Tickets?

State/Territory Yes/No

Alabama No

Arkansas No

Connecticut No

Florida No

Georgia No

Illinois No

Indiana No, still in development 

Iowa — 

Kansas No

Kentucky No

Maine No

Minnesota Yes

Mississippi No

Missouri No

Nebraska No

Ohio No

Oregon No

Pennsylvania No

Tennessee — 

Texas No

Utah No

Vermont No

Virginia No

Washington Yes

West Virginia No

Wisconsin No

—Not applicable.
133 

Table 63. Question 25: Does your agency use procurement language that outlines data 

management practices?

State/Territory Yes/No

Alabama No

Arkansas Yes

Connecticut Yes

Florida Yes

Georgia Yes

Illinois No

Indiana Yes

Iowa — 

Kansas Yes

Kentucky No

Maine No

Minnesota Yes

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes

Nebraska No

Ohio — 

Oregon Yes

Pennsylvania Yes

Tennessee Yes

Texas Yes

Utah No

Vermont Yes

Virginia Yes

Washington No

West Virginia No

Wisconsin No

—Not applicable.

Table 64. Question 26: If you answered yes to the previous question, what is included in the 

procurement language in regard to data management practices? 

State/Territory Response Comments

Alabama — — 

Arkansas • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

We have certain requirements 

for the data contained in our 

special provision.

Connecticut Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

— 
134 

State/Territory Response Comments

Florida • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to 

the e-Tickets

— 

Georgia • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to

the e-Tickets

• Timing of ownership of ticket data

—

Illinois — — 

Indiana • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to 

the e-Tickets

• Process for archiving ticket data

• Degree of security for ticket data

• Timing of ownership of ticket data

These requirements will be 

defined as we look toward 

full-scale implementation of 

e-Ticketing, but we are aware 

of the need to include them in 

the procurement language.

Iowa — — 

Kansas • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Process for archiving ticket data

— 

Kentucky — — 

Maine — — 

Minnesota • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to 

the e-Tickets

• Timing of ownership of ticket data

—

Mississippi — —

Missouri • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Timing of ownership of ticket data

—

Nebraska — — 

Ohio — — 
135 

State/Territory Response Comments

Oregon File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV) Some of this terminology is in 

the draft contract change order 

language, but in our standards, 

the contractor is required to 

provide the data in a format 

compatible for upload to Doc 

Express.

Pennsylvania File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV) — 

Tennessee Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection staff, 

contractor, supplier, etc.) access to the 

e-Tickets

— 

Texas • File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV)

• Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of liability for the accuracy of 

the e-Tickets

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to 

the e-Tickets

• Degree of security for ticket data

• Timing of ownership of ticket data

—

Utah — — 

Vermont • Data transfer policy from vendor and/or 

contractor to agency

• Extent of stakeholder (DOT inspection 

staff, contractor, supplier, etc.) access to 

the e-Tickets

— 

Virginia File formats for e-Tickets (PDF/CSV) — 

Washington — — 

West Virginia — — 

Wisconsin — — 

—Not applicable.
136 

Table 65. Question 27: Has your agency participated in, at a minimum, a pilot effort to 

integrate ticket data with existing CMS? 

State/Territory Yes/No

Alabama Yes

Arkansas No

Connecticut Yes

Florida Yes

Georgia Yes

Illinois Yes

Indiana —

Iowa —

Kansas Yes

Kentucky No

Maine No

Minnesota Yes

Mississippi Yes

Missouri No

Nebraska No

Ohio —

Oregon Yes

Pennsylvania —

Tennessee —

Texas —

Utah Yes

Vermont —

Virginia Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia —

Wisconsin —

—Not applicable.

Table 66. Question 28: If you answered yes to Question 27, to what degree is the ticket data 

integrated into the CMS? 

State/Territory Response

Alabama Stored to calculate pay quantities.

Arkansas —

Connecticut Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Florida Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Georgia Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Illinois Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Indiana —
137 

State/Territory Response

Iowa — 

Kansas Stored to calculate pay quantities.

Kentucky — 

Maine — 

Minnesota Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Mississippi Stored internally for archiving/documentation.

Missouri — 

Nebraska — 

Ohio — 

Oregon Stored internally for archiving/documentation. 

Pennsylvania — 

Tennessee — 

Texas — 

Utah — 

Vermont — 

Virginia Stored to calculate pay quantities.

Washington — 

West Virginia — 

Wisconsin — 

—Not applicable.

Table 67. Question 29: What are your agency’s plans for standardizing the e-Ticketing 

data? 

State/Territory Response

Alabama Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Arkansas Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Connecticut Working with a regional group of other DOTs on a data 

standardization plan. 

Florida Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Georgia Have no plans to standardize. 

Illinois Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Indiana — 

Iowa — 

Kansas Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Kentucky Have no plans to standardize. 

Maine Working with a national group on a data standardization plan. 

Minnesota Working with a national group on a data standardization plan. 
138 

State/Territory Response

Mississippi Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Missouri Working with a national group on a data standardization plan. 

Nebraska Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Ohio — 

Oregon Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Pennsylvania Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Tennessee Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Texas Have no plans to standardize. 

Utah Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Vermont Working with a regional group of other DOTs on a data 

standardization plan. 

Virginia Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

Washington Working internally on a data standardization plan. 

West Virginia Have no plans to standardize currently, but hoping to learn from other 

DOTs.

Wisconsin — 

—Not applicable.

Table 68. Question 30: Has your agency implemented (or is planning to implement) 

security standards or policies for e-Ticketing data, mobile devices, and vendor software 

applications?

State/Territory Response

Alabama No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies.

Arkansas No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Connecticut No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Florida Our security policies are the same for computing devices, and we 

abide by them. 

Georgia No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Illinois No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Indiana — 

Iowa — 

Kansas No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies.

Kentucky No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Maine No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Minnesota No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies.

Mississippi No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Missouri No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Nebraska No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies.

Ohio — 

Oregon No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 
139 

State/Territory Response

Pennsylvania No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Tennessee Yes, we have implemented security standards/policies. 

Texas No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Utah No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Vermont No, we don’t have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Virginia No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies.

Washington No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

West Virginia No, but we have plans to implement security standards/policies. 

Wisconsin — 

—Not applicable.

Table 69. Question 31: Do you plan to use e-Ticketing in the future?

State/Territory Response Comments

Alabama Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Arkansas Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Connecticut Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. Currently piloting two 

Connecticut DOT Projects.

Florida — We are using asphalt e-Ticketing 

on a good portion of projects (due 

to COVID) and plan to continue 

working with our asphalt 

contractors in moving toward 

making asphalt e-Ticketing a 

standard practice.

Georgia — — 

Illinois — — 

Indiana Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Iowa — — 

Kansas Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. We have only let one contract 

with e-Ticketing and work on the 

project has not started.

Kentucky Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Maine Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Minnesota — — 

Mississippi Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Missouri Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Nebraska Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. Currently developing an in-house 

protocol that is similar to UDOT.

Ohio — — 

Oregon — — 

Pennsylvania Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. 
140 

State/Territory Response Comments

Tennessee — — 

Texas — — 

Utah — — 

Vermont — — 

Virginia — e-Ticketing is currently available. 

Washington Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

West Virginia Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

Wisconsin Yes, currently piloting or preparing for a pilot. — 

—Not applicable.

Table 70. Question 32: What is your anticipated time line for piloting?

State/Territory Response

Alabama Within 12 mo 

Arkansas — 

Connecticut Within 12 mo (currently piloting two active 

construction projects)

Florida — 

Georgia — 

Illinois — 

Indiana — 

Iowa — 

Kansas Within 12 mo 

Kentucky Within 12 mo 

Maine Within 12 mo 

Minnesota — 

Mississippi Not sure 

Missouri Within 24 mo 

Nebraska Within 12 mo 

Ohio — 

Oregon — 

Pennsylvania Within 12 mo 

Tennessee — 

Texas — 

Utah — 

Vermont — 

Virginia — 

Washington — 

West Virginia Within 12 mo 

Wisconsin Within 12 mo 

—Not applicable.
141 

Table 71. Question 33A: What materials do you plan or hope to use e-Ticketing for in the 

future?

State/Territory Asphalt Millings Aggregates Concrete 

Alabama Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

Arkansas — — — —

Connecticut Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— Under 

consideration for 

piloting

—

Florida — — — Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Georgia — — — —

Illinois — — — —

Indiana — — — —

Iowa — — — —

Kansas Under 

consideration for 

piloting

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

Kentucky Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Maine Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— — —

Minnesota — — — —

Mississippi — Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— —

Missouri Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— — —

Nebraska Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this 

point

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

Ohio — — — —

Oregon — — — —

Pennsylvania Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Tennessee — — — —

Texas — — — —

Utah — — — —

Vermont — — — —

Virginia — — — —
142 

State/Territory Asphalt Millings Aggregates Concrete 

Washington — — — — 

West Virginia Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

Wisconsin Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Unsure at this 

point

For later 

consideration 

(beyond the 

planned timeline)

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

—Not applicable.
143 

Table 72. Question 33B: What materials do you plan or hope to use e-Ticketing for in the future?

State/Territory

Reinforcing 

Steel

Prefabricated 

Elements

Deicing 

Salt/Chemicals

Other Bulk 

Materials

Other 

Items

Please Specify 

Other Bulk 

Materials or 

Items

Alabama — — — — — —

Arkansas — — — — — —

Connecticut — — — — — —

Florida — — — — — One concrete 

e-Ticketing pilot 

was completed.

Georgia — — — — — —

Illinois — — — — — —

Indiana — — — — — —

Iowa — — — — — —

Kansas — — — — — —

Kentucky Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

Under consideration 

for piloting

— — —

Maine — — — — — —

Minnesota — — — — — —

Mississippi — — — — — —

Missouri — — — — — —

Nebraska Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this point Unsure at this point Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at 

this point

—

Ohio — — — — — —

Oregon — — — — — —

Pennsylvania — — Under consideration 

for piloting

Under 

consideration for 

piloting

— Liquid 

bituminous for 

maintenance 

projects

Tennessee — — — — — —

Texas — — — — — —

Utah — — — — — —

Vermont — — — — — —
144 

State/Territory

Reinforcing 

Steel

Prefabricated 

Elements

Deicing 

Salt/Chemicals

Other Bulk 

Materials

Other 

Items

Please Specify 

Other Bulk 

Materials or 

Items

Virginia — — — — — — 

Washington — — — — — — 

West Virginia — — — — — — 

Wisconsin Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at this point Unsure at this point Unsure at this 

point

Unsure at 

this point

— 

—Not applicable.
145 

Table 73. Question 34: Which, if any, of these factors were considered a deterrent to the 

implementation of e-Ticketing?

State/Territory Response

Alabama • Receptivity of small contractors

• Internet connectivity concerns

• Manufacturer/producer/plant equipment upgrades

Arkansas — 

Connecticut • Contractors have not requested

• Receptivity of small contractors

• Receptivity of midsize and large contractors

• Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators

• More education or training is needed for office staff

• More education or training is needed for the field staff

• More education or training is needed for the trucking/delivery operators

• Access, privacy, or security concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

• Limited use of mobile devices for field inspection

• Manufacturer/producer/plant equipment upgrades

• Lack of standard contract language/specifications

Florida — 

Georgia — 

Illinois — 

Indiana — 

Iowa — 

Kansas • Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators

• Processes do not exist to ensure security or accuracy is adequate for 

construction

• Internet connectivity concerns

• Limited use of mobile devices for field inspection

Kentucky • Benefits of using e-Ticketing are unknown

• Return on investment is not unproven

• Contractors have not requested

• Receptivity of DOT staff

• Receptivity of small contractors

• Receptivity of midsize and large contractors

• Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators

• More education or training is needed for office staff

• More education or training is needed for the field staff

• More education or training is needed for the trucking/delivery operators

• Legal and/or liability concerns

• Access, privacy, or security concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

• Limited use of mobile devices for field inspection

• High costs associated with software or hardware

• Manufacturer/producer/plant equipment upgrades

• Inadequacy of IT infrastructure/cellular service
146 

State/Territory Response

Maine • Receptivity of small contractors

• Receptivity of midsize and large contractors

• Legal and/or liability concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

• High vendor licensing fees

• Manufacturer/producer/plant equipment upgrades

• Inadequacy of IT infrastructure/cellular service

Minnesota — 

Mississippi Contractors have not requested

Missouri • Contractors have not requested

• Receptivity of small contractors

• Receptivity of midsize and large contractors

• Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators

• Access, privacy, or security concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

Nebraska Internet connectivity concerns

Ohio — 

Oregon — 

Pennsylvania — 

Tennessee — 

Texas — 

Utah — 

Vermont — 

Virginia — 

Washington — 

West Virginia • Access, privacy, or security concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

• Limited use of mobile devices for field inspection

• Inadequacy of IT infrastructure/cellular service

Wisconsin • Receptivity of small contractors

• Receptivity of midsize and large contractors

• Receptivity of trucking/delivery operators

• More education or training is needed for office staff

• More education or training is needed for the field staff

• Legal and/or liability concerns

• Internet connectivity concerns

• High vendor licensing fees

• Inadequacy of IT infrastructure/cellular service

—Not applicable.
147 

Table 74. Question 35: How have the following stakeholders reacted to your agency’s use of e-Ticketing?

State/Territory

Small 

Contractors

Midsize and Large 

Contractors

DOT Staff and 

Construction 

Engineering 

Inspection

Material 

Suppliers

Trucking/Delivery 

Companies

Law/Vehicle 

Enforcement

Alabama Neutral Positively Positively Positively Positively Neutral

Arkansas — — — — — — 

Connecticut* — Positively Positively — — — 

Florida Neutral Neutral Positively — — — 

Georgia Neutral Positively Extremely positively — Neutral Neutral

Illinois** — Positively Positively — — — 

Indiana Neutral Positively Neutral Positively Neutral Neutral

Iowa — — — — — — 

Kansas — Positively Positively — — — 

Kentucky Negatively Neutral Neutral Neutral Negatively Neutral

Maine† — — — — — — 

Minnesota Negatively Positively Extremely positively Positively — — 

Mississippi Neutral Positively Positively Positively Neutral Neutral

Missouri Negatively Neutral Positively Neutral Negatively — 

Nebraska Negatively Neutral Positively Neutral Neutral — 

Ohio — — — — — — 

Oregon Neutral Positively Positively Positively Neutral Neutral

Pennsylvania Neutral Positively Positively Positively Positively Neutral

Tennessee Neutral Extremely positively Extremely positively Positively Neutral — 

Texas — — — — — — 

Utah Neutral Positively Positively Positively Neutral Neutral

Vermont Positively Positively Positively Positively Neutral Neutral

Virginia — — Positively — — Neutral

Washington Negatively Extremely positively Positively Neutral Neutral Neutral

West Virginia Neutral Positively Positively Neutral Neutral Neutral

Wisconsin — — — — — — 

—Not applicable. *Comments from Connecticut: We only have data on two stakeholders as current use is limited. **Comments from Illinois: Unknown for small contractors, material suppliers, truck and delivery companies, and law/vehicle enforcement (since still in piloting phase), so we left 

these fields blank.

†Comments from Maine: Difficult to answer. Not all small contractors think alike—some are very receptive, others not so much; same for other categories.
148 

Table 75. Question 36: What will help you to consider or accelerate a pilot implementation 

of e-Ticketing?

State/Territory Response Comments

Alabama • Leadership buy-in

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Arkansas — — 

Connecticut • Access to peer support

• Leadership buy-in

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Florida — — 

Georgia — — 

Illinois • Access to peer support

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Indiana • Access to peer support

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Iowa — — 

Kansas • Access to peer support

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Kentucky Implementation guidance — 

Maine • Access to peer support

• Leadership buy-in

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Minnesota — Assistance with funding for 

enhancement of Veta as the 

standardized MDMS tool. Currently 

trying to get some money from the 

National Road Research Alliance 

pooled fund; however, the money will 

not be enough to get this project done 

as fast as we would like. Assistance 

with spreading the word about the Veta 

Web for use in this application and for 

seeking support and further funding.

Mississippi — — 

Missouri • Access to peer support

• Technical assistance

— 

Nebraska Implementation guidance We are currently looking for a project 

to try our new protocol—hopefully in 

June or July.

Ohio — — 
149 

State/Territory Response Comments

Oregon • Access to peer support

• Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Pennsylvania — Industry and department feedback from 

the first pilot season.

Tennessee — — 

Texas — TxDOT/contractor joint interest for 

other materials.

Utah • Leadership buy-in

• Implementation guidance

— 

Vermont Implementation guidance — 

Virginia — — 

Washington — Industry evolving and incorporating 

platforms to support e-Ticketing.

West Virginia • Implementation guidance

• Technical assistance

— 

Wisconsin Technical assistance — 

—Not applicable.

Table 76. Question 37: What would make it easier for you to advance, adopt, and use 

e-Ticketing technologies in your agency? 

State/Territory Responses

Alabama — 

Arkansas — 

Connecticut A centralized platform for all suppliers, contractors, and trucking companies to 

use.

Florida — 

Georgia — 

Illinois Industry’s desire to implement this technology. If industry desires to use the 

technology, it will become the standard of practice without DOT forcing it, i.e., 

when technology improves efficiency (and is economically appropriate) people 

want to embrace it. The Illinois DOT is not ready to disallow satisfactory materials 

because a vendor cannot provide an e-Ticket.

Indiana To get to full scale for HMA, concrete, and aggregates, smaller suppliers will need 

upgrades, cellular and wireless coverage in rural areas, and a DOT e-Ticketing 

system built to manage tickets from all contractor/vendor systems. Then, 

construction professional engineers and inspectors and the industry will need 

education and training.

Iowa — 

Kansas — 

Kentucky — 

Maine — 

Minnesota Development of Veta MDMS; enhancements made to AWP to import MDMS data 

from Veta MDMS; and increased willingness from vendors to move toward 

standardized exports as outlined in the draft AASHTO provision. Smaller vendors 

do not appear to be as receptive to standardization.
150 

State/Territory Responses

Mississippi — 

Missouri A reliable system that is not limited in rural areas with no cell service.

Nebraska We are currently investigating the possible use of LoRaWAN technology to gain 

connectivity in rural areas with spotty/no cellular coverage.

Ohio — 

Oregon Mostly coordination with our contractors: Big challenges to systemwide 

implementation include significant areas of the State that do not have viable access 

to data coverage (we likely will not require satellite data coverage).

Pennsylvania We are in the process of piloting e-Ticketing and anticipate a full rollout by 2024.

Tennessee — 

Texas Documented situational cost savings and efficiencies; buy-in. 

Utah More support from material suppliers.

Vermont Contractors’ buy-in and reliable forms of e-Ticketing in remote locations.

Virginia — 

Washington Industry buy-in.

West Virginia Experience and knowledge from other agencies that successfully adopted 

e-Ticketing, development of a standardized business process with e-Ticketing, and 

additional mobile devices with better cellphone coverage.

Wisconsin — 

—Not applicable.
151 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report presents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily

represent the views or policies of the State DOTs, vendors, or construction contractors whose 

policies and practices have been referenced, or who shared their insights via interviews. 

This project is possible due to FHWA for funding, AASHTO for survey administration, and the 

State DOTs for leading efforts to implement e-Ticketing. The contribution of the following 

individuals and entities is also acknowledged:

• Casey Soneira AASHTO

• Alec Harris ALDOT

• Billy Sweeney DelDOT

• Craig Blowers DelDOT

• Cedric Wilkinson Iowa DOT

• Rebecca Embacher MnDOT

• Andy Dearmont NDOT

• Bryan Edwards NCDOT

• Janet Treadway Ohio DOT

• Kelly Barber PennDOT

• John Myler PennDOT

• Ken Talbot UDOT

• Adrian Sellars UDOT

• Heather Purdy Hall TDOT

• Kevin Waligorski WSDOT

• Greg Nadeau National e-Ticketing Task Force 

• e-Ticketing vendors 

• Suppliers 

153 

REFERENCES

AASHTO. Forthcoming. Standard Specification for Material Delivery Management Systems. 

Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

AASHTO. n.d.a. “Agency Administration Managing Committee” (web page). 

https://agencyadmin.transportation.org/aashto-regions/, last accessed January 29, 2023.

AASHTO. n.d.b. “AASHTOWare Project” (web page). https://www.aashtowareproject.org/, last 

accessed January 29, 2023. 

AASHTO. n.d.c. “AASHTOWare Pavement M-E Design” (web page). 

https://www.aashtoware.org/products/pavement/pavement-overview, last accessed 

January 29, 2023. 

AASHTO. n.d.d. “AASHTOWare Bridge” (web page). 

https://www.aashtoware.org/products/bridge/bridge-overview, last accessed January 29, 

2023. 

Aurigo. n.d. “Masterworks Cloud Platform” (web page). https://www.aurigo.com/masterworkscloud-platform/, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

CFR. 2013a. “Determination and Documentation of Pay Quantities.” 23 CFR § 635.123. 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2013-title23-vol1/xml/CFR-2013-title23-

vol1-sec635-123.xml, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

CFR. 2013b. “Retention Requirements for Records.” 2 CFR § 200.334. 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-D/subjectgroup-ECFR4acc10e7e3b676f/section-200.334, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

Dadi, B. J., R. E. Sturgill, D. Ames, D. Patel, C. Van Dyke, and G. Mulder. 2020. Electronic 

Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25839, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

Dama International. 2017. DAMA-DMBOK: Data Management Body of Knowledge. 2nd ed. 

Basking Ridge, NJ: Technics Publications, LLC. 

DelDOT. 2022. “Part F—eConstruction. Section F3.00—Unifier Documentation” (web page). 

https://constructionmanual.deldot.gov/index.php/Part_F_-_eConstruction, last accessed 

May 25, 2022. 

DelDOT. n.d. “My DOT Portal” (web page). https://tickets.deldot.gov/, last accessed January 29, 

2023. 

Boomi. 2023. Boomi (web page). https://boomi.com/, last accessed January 29, 2023. 
154 

Embacher, R. 2021. Use of Material Delivery Management System (MDMS) for Asphalt Paving 

Applications. Report No. MN 2021-10. Maplewood, MN: Minnesota Department of 

Transportation. https://mndot.gov/research/reports/2021/202110.pdf, last accessed May 

25, 2022. 

Esri. n.d.a. “ArcGIS Online” (web page). https://www.arcgis.com, last accessed January 29, 

2023. 

Esri. n.d.b. “ArcGIS Survey 123” (web page). https://www.esri.com/enus/arcgis/products/arcgis-survey123/overview, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

FHWA. 2015. e-Construction Peer-to-Peer Exchange Summary Report, Iowa and North Dakota 

Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/peer_exchange/ia_nd.pdf, last 

accessed May 25, 2022. 

FHWA. 2017. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Cybersecurity Program (CSP) 

Handbook. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/csp_handbook.pdf, last accessed 

May 25, 2022. 

FHWA. 2019. Every Day Counts: An Innovation Partnership With States. EDC-4 Final Report. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/reports/edc4_finalreport.pdf, last 

accessed May 25, 2022. 

FHWA. 2020. “Highway Statistics 2019” (web page). 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019, last accessed January 29, 

2023. 

FHWA. 2021. “e-Construction” (web page). 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

General Services Administration. n.d. “Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 

(FedRAMP)” (website). https://www.fedramp.gov/, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Hefner, R. and P. J. Breen. 2004. Construction Vehicle and Equipment Blind Area Diagrams. 

Report No. 200-2002-00563. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/bad/pdfs/catreport2.pdf, last 

accessed January 29, 2023. 

Iowa DOT. 2007. “Employee Killed on I-235 Project.” Inside, January 2007, p. 3. 

https://iowadot.gov/inside/inside_january_2007.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 
155 

Iowa DOT. 2015. “eTicketing Show Promise of Speeding Process and Improving Accuracy at 

Asphalt Job Sites.” Transportation Matters for Iowa, December 17, 2015. 

https://www.transportationmatters.iowadot.gov/2015/12/eticketing-show-promise-ofspeeding-process-and-improving-accuracy-at-asphalt-job-sites.html, last accessed 

January 29, 2023.

Iowa DOT. 2016. “Improving Accountability in the Construction Process with eTicketing for 

Concrete loads.” Transportation Matters for Iowa. , November 21, 2016. 

https://www.transportationmatters.iowadot.gov/2016/11/for-iowa-department-oftransportation-inspectors-tablet-computers-are-quickly-becoming-the-most-essential-toolon-a-construc.html, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Iowa DOT. 2021. Developmental Specifications For e-Ticketing. Ames, IA: Iowa Department of 

Transportation. https://iowadot.gov/specifications/dev_specs/2015/DS-15091.pdf, last 

accessed May 25, 2022. 

Iowa DOT. n.d. “State Transportation Innovation Council” (web page). 

https://iowadot.gov/research/Programs-and-Partnerships/STATE-TRANSPORTATIONINNOVATION-COUNCIL, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Mallela, J., and A. Bhargava. 2021. Advancing BIM for Infrastructure: National Strategic 

Roadmap. Report No. FHWA-HRT-21-064. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/index.cf

m, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Metrolinx. 2021. Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance. Toronto, ON, Canada: Metrolinx. 

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663237565/Documents/Metrolinx/Metrolin

x-Business-Case-Guidance-Volume-2.pdf, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Microsoft. 2023a. “Microsoft Azure: Cloud Computing Services” (web page). 

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

Microsoft. 2023b. “Microsoft 365 SharePoint” (web page). https://www.microsoft.com/enus/microsoft-365/sharepoint/collaboration, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

Microsoft. 2023c. “Microsoft 365 Excel” (web page). https://www.microsoft.com/enus/microsoft-365/excel, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

MnDOT. n.d. “Materials and Road Research: Veta” (web page). 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/amt/veta.html, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

MnDOT. 2022. MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction and Supplemental 

Specifications. 2020 Edition. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Transportation. 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/pre-letting/spec, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 
156 

National Asphalt Pavement Association. 2020. e-Ticketing Synopsis. Greenbelt, MD: National 

Asphalt Pavement Association. 

https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/State_E_Ticketing.pdf, last 

accessed October 24, 2021. 

National e-Ticketing Task Force. 2022. “National e-Ticketing Task Force” (website). https://eticketingtaskforce.org/, last accessed January 29, 2023.

NCDOT. n.d. “Connect NCDOT: Construction Project Support” (web page). 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/construction/Pages/default.aspx, last accessed January 

29, 2023. 

NIOSH. 2022a. “Highway Work Zone Safety” (web page). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

NIOSH. 2022b. “Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program” (web page). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/default.html, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

NIST. 2002. Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules. FIPS PUB 140-2. Gaithersburg, 

MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.140-2.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

NIST. 2004. Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information 

Systems. FIPS PUB 199. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/fips/nist.fips.199.pdf, last accessed May 

25, 2022. 

NIST. 2006. Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems. 

FIPS PUB 200. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.200.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

NIST. 2022. “Computer Security Resource Center” (web page). 

https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

NWZSIC. 2022. “Worker Fatalities and Injuries at Road Construction Sites” (web page). 

https://workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/worker-fatalities-and-injuries-at-roadconstruction-sites/, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

OFR NARA. 2002. Public Law 107–347 E-Government Act of 2002. U.S. Government Printing 

Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-107publ347, last accessed December 

1, 2022. 

OGC. 2023. “OGC LandInfra/InfraGMP” (web page). https://www.ogc.org/standards/infragml, 

last accessed January 29, 2023. 
157 

Oracle. 2023. “Capital Program Management: Project Controls and Facilities Management: 

Primavera Unifier” (web page). https://www.oracle.com/industries/constructionengineering/unifier-project-controls-asset-management/, last accessed by January 29, 

2023. 

PennDOT. 2020a. e-Ticketing Construction Specification. Harrisburg, PA: Associated 

Pennsylvania Constructors. https://www.paconstructors.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Eticketing_Construction_Specification.pdf, last accessed May 

25, 2022. 

PennDOT. 2020b. e-Ticketing Maintenance Specification. Harrisburg, PA: Associated 

Pennsylvania Constructors. https://www.paconstructors.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Eticketing_Maintenance_spec.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

PennDOT. 2021. eCAMMS (web page). https://www.ecamms.pa.gov/Public/Home.aspx, last 

accessed January 29, 2023. 

Ross, R. 2013. Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and 

Organizations. SP 800-53 Rev. 4. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

Sadasivam, S., and R. Sturgill. 2021. e-Ticketing Handout. TechNote No. FHWA-HRT-22-044. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/22044/22044.p

df, last accessed January 29, 2023. 

Safe Software. 2023. “Empower Your Business With FME” (web page). 

https://www.safe.com/fme/, last accessed by January 29, 2023. 

Shah, K., A. Mitchell, D. Lee, and J. Mallela. 2017. Addressing Challenges and Return on 

Investment (ROI) for Paperless Project Delivery (e-Construction). Report No. 

FHWA-HIF-17-028. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/hif17028.pdf, last accessed May 

25, 2022. 

Momentive. n.d. “SurveyMonkey” (web page). https://www.surveymonkey.com, last accessed 

January 29, 2023.

Talbot, K., and A. Sellars. 2020. “Utah’s Use of Existing Software for e-Ticketing.” Presented at 

the AASHTO Committee on Construction Virtual Annual Meeting, August 10–13, 2020. 

https://construction.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/08/Utahs-use-ofexisting-software-for-e-Ticketing.pdf, last accessed March 15, 2023. 

Tennessee State Government. 2021. Special Provision Regarding Electronic Ticket Delivery 

System for Asphalt. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Government. 

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/construction/special-provisions/Const109ETAS.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 
158 

Tennessee State Government. 2022. Qualified E‐Ticketing Software Products. Nashville, TN: 

Tennessee State Government. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/hq-materialstests/field-operations/E-ticketing_Options.pdf, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

Tinella, C. 2021. “LoRa® Combined With BLE Creates Complementary Hybrid IoT 

Connectivity.” Inside Out: Semtech’s Corporate Blog, September 8, 2021. 

https://blog.semtech.com/lora-combined-with-ble-creates-complementary-hybrid-iotconnectivity, last accessed May 25, 2022. 

Van Ness, N. J. 1989. Norman J. Van Ness to Regional Federal Highway Administrators, 

Federal Lands Highway Program Administrator, memorandum, “Computerization of 

Construction Record,” September 21, 1989. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/890921.cfm, last 

accessed May 25, 2022. 

Weseman, W. A. 1993. William A. Weseman to Volmer K. Jensen, memorandum, “Electronic 

Security Issues,” July 7, 1993. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/930707.pdf, last accessed May 25, 

2022. 

WSDOT. 2022. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 

M 41-10. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation. 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M41-10/SS2022.pdf, last accessed 

January 29, 2023.

WSDOT. 2023. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 

M 41-10. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation. 

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m41-10/ss.pdf, last accessed 

January 29, 2023.

HRDI-20/06-23(WEB)E Recycled

Recyclable

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration,

Documenting Effective e-Ticketing Implementation 

(Washington, DC: 2023) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521991