The report states that patching could suffice as a short-term solution but that removal of the rutting-susceptible material and replacement with rut- resistant material would improve long-term performance.

The report also called into question the airport's QA and QC processes, noting that the airport's QA process found the contractor's work to be acceptable in 2009. David Peshkin, vice president at APT, said during the investigation that APT did not find sufficient documentation about mix approvals. "In the end, we ran into some brick walls," he said.

APT recommended the airport's QA specification could be strengthened by requiring check-testing between the contractor and owner laboratories prior to the start of construction.

The report also advised the airport to approve mix designs that meet all acceptance criteria. "If an owner accepts a mix design that has one unacceptable property, even if that property is only slightly unacceptable, the contractor could argue that any subsequent performance defects are due to the approval of an unacceptable mix design," according to the report.

"That's [APT's] opinion," Lupica said. "We believe our process is adequate."