A different view, page-2

How do you conclude that a contractors bottom line would be improved?

I assume you don't believe that the projects you speak of wouldn't be won by tender and that an admixture of the like that you speak of wouldn't be made available to all that tender.

So I disagree with you and feel your claims come unsubstantiated.

Let's look at Valley as an example. They created a mix design that replaced some fly ash with EdenCrete. One would assume that their bridge beams would be competitive (lower cost?)than other suppliers to TxDOT and that sales from Valley to TxDOT would increase and EDE would have supplied more than 3 tankers in the past 12 months. EDE has only reported 3 tanker loads. Not 4, 5, 6 and so on.

So what are Valley's competitors supplying to TxDOT that doesn't include EdenCrete and is perhaps commercially acceptable and competitive? Is there another value proposition that doesn't include EdenCrete that we aren't aware of?

With the Valley example in mind, can you find any evidence of the value proposition that you speak of? And why haven't other TxDOT suppliers seemingly discovered that supposed value proposition to date?

It is the asset owners that MUST be made aware of any value proposition and it MUST be the asset owners that drive the industry.

Perhaps there are just other equal or better value propositions?

A few Infrastructure Funds and Toll Road owners on the share register would be nice.

Cheers