Click for next page ( 18


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 17
17 CHAPTER THREE CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON PAVEMENT MARKING WARRANTIES CHARACTERISTICS OF PAVEMENT materials such as high-performance tape, in several cases MARKING WARRANTIES backed by a manufacturer's warranty. Other factors also affect the duration of the warranty Basis for Reporting Survey Results period. For example, for a given material warranty peri- The descriptions of pavement marking warranty specifica- ods may be shorter for transverse markings than for lon- tions throughout this section are based primarily on question- gitudinal markings (e.g., refer to Arizona, Delaware, and naire responses from the 23 U.S. and Canadian agencies that Oregon in Table 2). Review of the specific technical now use these warranties (refer to Table 1 and Figure 1). The requirements in each warranty in Appendix D shows example warranty specifications from 15 of these 23 agencies other construction or performance distinctions between (web-only Appendix D) were obtained as adjuncts to the proj- longitudinal and other markings; for example, different ect survey. Information from these specifications likewise depths of grooving for inlaid markings and different informs the discussion that follows. For a number of survey minimum acceptable retroreflectivity levels. Further questions, agencies were allowed to include more than one comparisons among these example warranties are given type of warranty in their responses. The reason is that agen- in subsequent sections. Additional information is also cies may manage several pavement marking warranty speci- presented in the cover sheets in Appendix D that precede fications, each with different terms and requirements that each agency's set of specifications. reflect differences among highway classifications, types of The warranty samples in Appendix D represent a blend markings, marking materials, and the duration of warranty of methods-based and performance-based thinking. It is periods; percentage responses to certain questions may there- therefore not unexpected that the survey conducted for fore sum to more than 100%. this synthesis study yielded the responses shown in Figure 6. These results demonstrate a strong identifica- tion by agency respondents with both methods-based Types of Specifications (i.e., Materials and Workmanship) and performance- based concepts. Table 2 points out that three agencies-- As an introduction to the scope, terms, and variability among Idaho Transportation Department, Missouri DOT, and U.S. and Canadian pavement marking warranties, Table 2 West Virginia DOT--use warranties based solely on summarizes the characteristics of the example warranties performance and do not call for any particular pavement from 15 transportation agencies that are included in Appen- marking material. These "pure performance" specifica- dix D. The table compiles information on the duration of tions describe required performance levels through the the warranty period, warranty type or coverage [expressed length of the warranty period and leave it to the contrac- either by the warranted pavement marking material(s) or by a tor to select materials and installation techniques that characterization as a "performance" warranty, with no spe- satisfy these criteria. The pavement marking materials cific material specified], and the types of markings to which that are listed for Idaho in Table 2 are those that have the warranty applies (e.g., longitudinal or transverse mark- already been used by contractors working under these ings, symbols, legends, etc.). performance specifications--they are not proposed or required in the specifications themselves. The Indiana The variability of current practice is evident in terms DOT, which now applies a Materials and Workmanship of the range of warranted materials in Table 2, ways of warranty to pavement markings, reported that they are structuring warranties around different performance considering a performance specification. periods (referring to the examples in Figures 2 through 5), and the types of pavement markings encompassed by Additional comments by agencies reporting survey results the warranties. Warranty durations generally follow the included the following: materials categories, with relatively short periods (1 year or less) corresponding to paint and raised pavement Agencies discern specific responsibilities in their markings, moderate-range durations (e.g., 1 to 4 years) warranties. Several states refer to manufacturer's rec- corresponding to thermoplastic and methyl methacry- ommendations within their own specifications and late among other materials, and 4 to 6 years for durable require a manufacturer's representative to be on site

OCR for page 17
18 100% Percent of Respondents Using Warranties 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Materials and Workmanship Performance Type of Warranty FIGURE 6 Claimed characteristics of warranties. TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF EXAMPLE WARRANTIES IN APPENDIX D State, Province, Warranty Examples of Types of Markings Territory Materials or Performance Covered Period Covered Alaska Methyl methacrylate pavement markings 2 years Longitudinal and transverse (MMA) markings, symbols, markings at roundabouts and gores Arizona 3M 380 Tape 4 years Longitudinal markings 2 years Symbols and legends Retroreflective raised pavement markers 1 year Longitudinal markings* (RRPM) Arkansas Option 1: Inverted profile thermoplastic 4 years Longitudinal markings only Option 2: High-performance marking tape (or, 4 years for center and skip lines on portland cement concrete pavements, high-performance contrast marking tape) British Paint with glass beads Calendar- Longitudinal markings only Columbia based following application Delaware Retroreflective preformed patterned pavement 1-year Longitudinal markings marking performance period + 4-year warranty 1-year Symbols and legends performance period + 2-year warranty Idaho Performance of recessed durable pavement 2 years Longitudinal markings only, markings including curves and tapers, Materials submitted to date under the 2-year edge lines, skip lines, performance specification include polyurea, centerlines, interchange gore epoxy, and Hi-Build Waterborne paint lines, intersection channeling, and bicycle lane lines Performance of recessed durable pavement 4 years Same as above markings Materials submitted to date under the 4-year performance specification include inlaid high- performance tape and MMA (continued on next page)

OCR for page 17
19 TABLE 2 (continued) State, Province, Warranty Examples of Types of Markings Territory Materials or Performance Covered Period Covered Illinois Thermoplastic, paint, preformed plastic, epoxy, 180 days Longitudinal and transverse preformed thermoplastic, and compatible glass through a markings, words, and symbols beads winter Indiana Durable pavement marking materials: 180 days Longitudinal, transverse, and Thermoplastic, preformed plastic, and epoxy through a intersection markings winter Maryland Inlaid pavement striping tape 180-day Longitudinal markings only observation period + 5-yr warranty period Missouri Retroreflective pavement marking tape 4 years Longitudinal markings only Performance of durable permanent pavement 4 years Mainline and ramp markings, markings mainline turn lanes, and crossovers and signalized intersections on the mainline (i.e., all long-line markings within and approaching an intersection, but excluding any markings on the side street approaches, and excluding intersection markings such as stop bars, turn arrows, and hash marks) Nevada General warranty requirement covering 2 years General--for pavement specified materials markings specified in a project Northwest Paint with reflecting beads 1 year Longitudinal single and double Territories lines, solid and broken directional dividing lines, edge lines, lane lines, continuity lines, arrows, gore areas, stop lines, crosswalk areas, railroad crossings, and lines and legends at ferry approaches Oregon Durable marking materials: Long lines Surface-mounted thermoplastic 3 years Other materials and methods including various 4 years types and applications of thermoplastic, MMA, and pavement marking tape (refer to Appendix D for greater detail) High-performance marking materials: 1 year Long lines Modified urethane, sprayed (25 mils) or protected inlaid Durable marking materials: 18 months Legends, stop bars, and Liquid, hot-laid thermoplastic; preformed, crosswalk bars fused thermoplastic film; cold-applied plastic film (tape); and MMA Texas Longitudinal prefabricated pavement markings 6 years Longitudinal markings only Multipolymer pavement markings 3 years Longitudinal markings only Raised pavement markers 1 year Longitudinal markings* West Performance of medium-life pavement 1 year Longitudinal markings only Virginia marking system *Specifications do not explicitly mention a particular type of pavement marking, but longitudinal markings are a reasonable presumption and likely the dominant if not the only use. Note: Table is intended as a summary comparison only. Refer to specifications in Appendix D for actual wording and details of warranty requirements.

OCR for page 17
20 during pavement marking application. The Delaware Interstate and other major highway classifications. The prom- DOT noted that the materials supplier will usually cover inence of the "Up to 6 Years" selection is the result of war- the cost of replacing defective materials. The DOT ranties on durable markings such as high-performance tape. would be responsible if the deficiency was the result of Such warranties may be backed by the materials manufac- inadequate design or materials specifications. The Mary- turer, who may serve as a general contractor as well. These land SHA reports that the contractor takes responsibility warranties typically extend for 4, 5, or 6 years. No pavement for materials and workmanship for the first six months marking warranty specifications that were reported in this (the Observation Period as defined in Figure 4), after study exceeded a six-year performance period. which the materials manufacturer warrants performance for 5 additional years. In addition to materials properties, These synthesis survey findings are consistent with results manufacturer's recommendations are cited with respect of the earlier study by Bayraktar et al. (2004, 2006). The to installation method; for example, advisability of a Bayraktar et al. study found that average warranty periods for grooved installation and recommended depth of groove. different categories of construction work ranged from 2 to Delivery mechanisms vary. For example, Indiana uses 7 years (as determined from its own survey results) and 1 to state forces to apply paint, but contracts for durable mark- 8 years (as identified in its literature review). The duration of ings under its warranty provisions. A contractor may pavement marking warranties specifically ranged from 0.5 apply pavement markings on its own or employ subcon- to 5 years (based on its interviews) and 2 to 6 years (from its tractors to do this work. Some states impose participation literature review). requirements on a general contractor. A materials manu- facturer is allowed to serve as a general contractor so long The durations of pavement marking warranties are in flux as it meets a state's participation requirements. Materials as agencies transition from experimental to operational war- manufacturers may themselves impose requirements on a ranty specifications: contractor installing their products in terms of training, certification, and onsite presence by the manufacturer's Idaho has experimented with performance warranties representative during installation. that leave material selection to the contractor and has Initial quality control is important in reducing risk recently instituted 2-year and 4-year pavement marking under a performance-based warranty. Crediting a very warranties. capable inspection staff at work during application of Alaska has been using 2-year warranties and is now pavement markings, the Delaware DOT noted a history of considering specifications with a 5-year duration. very few failures. Kansas has been using 180-day warranties, but is tran- sitioning to a 1-year warranty and is considering a 5-year The parties held responsible for ensuring warranty compli- warranty period. ance and correcting deficiencies differ among agencies as shown in Table 3. An agency's practices may be influenced by Cost Impacts of Warranties events in its history with warranties. For example, an experi- ence where one party (either a materials vendor or a contractor) As part of the synthesis survey, agencies were also asked about has defaulted on a previous warranty requirement may influ- their perceptions of the effect of warranties on initial and life- ence the agency to change its policy and hold the other party cycle cost. The general finding is that warranty effects on responsible in future warranties. Also note that responsibilities pavement marking costs are still uncertain, with most agencies of individual parties may be limited to particular performance responding in ambiguous and sometimes contradictory ways. periods. In the example shown for Texas, the warranty specifi- Some ventured a perception or supposition, but with little sup- cation is written to hold the materials manufacturer responsible porting data; for example, a higher initial cost but "reduced," for posting a warranty bond; however, the contractor may "optimal," or "increased" life-cycle cost. Other agencies assume those responsibilities by posting a bond that satisfies all admitted that no formal analysis of this question had been per- the requirements of the specification. formed or that the answer was unknown. Yet others did not respond to the question or indicated "not applicable." The one Duration of Warranty instance where actual experience informed the response involved a case where longer-term performance of tape was Responding agencies reported warranty durations as shown in warranted by the manufacturer: the Maryland SHA reported Figure 7. The "Less Than One Year" category encompasses that the warranty had "no effect so far" on initial cost. warranty specifications for either nondurable markings, such as paint, or markings in harsh climates (conforming to Figure 3). By comparison, an earlier study of general highway con- Every attempt has been made to exclude unintended survey struction warranties also found varying opinions regarding responses that may have referred to observation or perfor- warranty effects on initial and life-cycle costs (Bayraktar mance periods (refer to Figures 4 and 5) rather than a true et al. 2004, 2006). Regarding initial costs, agencies and con- warranty period. Warranties of longer duration cover more tractors differed somewhat in their assessments of cost durable materials, and in selected cases also reflect use on increases owing to warranties. Of 10 responding agencies, four

OCR for page 17
21 TABLE 3 PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS State, Province, Materials Territory Contractor Manufacturer Remarks Alaska Arizona Manufacturer warranty is for tape only. Contractor warrants other applicable pavement marking materials. Arkansas British Columbia Delaware Idaho Illinois Indiana Maryland 180-day observation period and 5-year warranty Observation Warranty period period apply to inlaid pavement striping tape only. period only only Missouri Contracts provided by Missouri DOT are written with materials manufacturer acting as the general contractor (applies to both of the specifications in Appendix D). Nevada Northwest Territories Oregon Oregon specifications require warranties only for durable or high performance materials. These are all manufacturers warranties. Texas Specifications call for a manufacturer's warranty bond, but allow substitution of a contractor-provided warranty bond that meets all requirements. West Virginia Notes: Source: Appendix D. Table is intended as a summary comparison only. Refer to specifications in Appendix D for actual wording and details of warranty requirements. = Primary or predominant responsibility. = Partial, contingent, or secondary responsibility. estimated a cost increase of less than 5%; four agencies, a 5% Pavement Marking Performance Criteria to 10% increase; one agency, 10% to 20%; and one agency, 20% to 50%. By contrast, 65% of contractors estimated an Agencies reported a number of criteria of acceptability for increase in bid price of 5% to 15%; 20%, less than 5% bid- pavement marking performance under warranty. A summary price increase; and 15%, 15% to 20% bid price increase. No of usage of each type of technical criterion is given in Figure 8. contractors estimated a bid price increase greater than 20%. These data refer to warranty specifications, not to initial accep- Regarding life-cycle costs, 23% of responding agencies tance following construction. believed that there was no effect of warranties on life-cycle costs. Another 23% reported little savings, and 8% substantial Warranty period performance is judged by most respond- savings. Forty-six percent perceived a small increase in life- ing agencies on the basis of durability and retroreflectivity, cycle costs. Again, these outside survey data applied to road and almost half specify a requirement for maintaining proper construction warranties generally, not necessarily to pavement color; for example, through comparisons with color chips. marking projects. Less than 10% of responding agencies reported more specific

OCR for page 17
22 100% Percent of Respondents Using Warranties 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less Than One Year Up to 2 Years Up to 6 Years Up to 10 Years More Than 10 One Year Years Duration of Warranty FIGURE 7 Pavement marking warranty duration. Durability, Presence, Adhesion White and Yellow Retroreflectivity Color Color Reflectance Color Contrast and Stability Discoloration or Pigment Loss Other (Listing of Chromaticity Limits) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Using Warranties FIGURE 8 Warranty criteria for technical acceptability of pavement markings.

OCR for page 17
23 color-related criteria such as measures dealing with color the work, assessing damages if work deficiencies exceed a reflectance, color contrast and stability, and chromaticity. certain threshold (e.g., Kansas specifies damages if more than 2% of the project must be replaced), and reimbursing These survey findings are consistent with the example the department if repair or replacement must be done by specifications in Appendix D (web only). Most of the agency forces or another contractor. Minnesota noted that Appendix D examples include provisions governing dura- problems are discussed with the contractor to identify a bility and retroreflectivity, often calling for a combination of course of action depending on the observed condition of the visual inspection with supporting quantitative measurement line markings. if needed. Color retention, or avoidance of discoloration, is evaluated in several ways in the Appendix D specifications, including visual comparison to color chips and color toler- Responsibility for Inspections ance charts, daytime reflectivity, and chromaticity limits The responsibility for inspecting pavement markings to deter- (four agencies). mine whether they are meeting warranty performance criteria is summarized in Figure 10. Most reporting agencies inspect Corrective Actions pavement markings using their own forces. A smaller per- centage of agencies engage the contractor or a third party. Actions to correct deficient performance under warranty spec- A few agencies responded with more than one method, ifications are identified from survey responses in Figure 9. All explaining that different parties might be involved at different reporting agencies require repair or replacement of defec- points during the life of the pavement markings. tive markings. Some agencies also assess monetary charges of the various types shown. "Other" potential actions indi- There is little unanimity among agencies in the frequency cated in Figure 9 include relinquishing the bond covering of performance inspections for warranties. The frequencies of Remove, Repair, or Replace Defective Material Pay Lane Rental Charge During Work Performance Pay Penalty Charge for Delay in Beginning Work Pay Penalty Charge for Delay in Completing Work Refund A Prorated Amount of Installation Price as Bid Refund Total Price of Installation as Bid Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Using Warranties FIGURE 9 Corrective actions.

OCR for page 17
24 Inspections by Agency Personnel Only Inspections by Agency with Contractor Participation Inspection by Contractor Inspection by Third Party Other Inspection Approach 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Using Warranties FIGURE 10 Responsibility for inspection of pavement markings under warranty. scheduled inspections ranged from monthly to quarterly and tractors are nominally responsible for replacing markings annually. A sampling of other agencies' comments follows: with winter-related damage. With reference to Table 4, sev- eral of the specifications in Appendix D are silent on the issue. There is no set schedule--nothing is done unless a fail- Of those that discuss winter maintenance explicitly, Arizona ure is very noticeable. A variant of this type of response excludes high-altitude regions that are subject to snowfall was: As needed, based on concerns or complaints by from its warranties, and Texas gives the TxDOT project engi- agency personnel or the public. neer the authority to determine winter maintenance as an Visual inspections [are conducted] at any time during "outside cause" that is excluded from its warranty replace- the warranty period. Variation 1: The Highway Mainte- ment requirements. Other agencies listed in Table 4 either nance Supervisor inspects road conditions daily and include winter damage as part of "normal wear and tear" that reports on all aspects of the highway. Variation 2: Only is subject to replacement under their warranty (Delaware, one inspection is done, at the end of the warranty period. Missouri performance spec, and West Virginia), or employ a Variation 3: There are now not enough inspections and calendar-based warranty that includes a winter season in its the agency is working to improve this. period of performance (British Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, All districts have retroreflectometers and can test mark- and Northwest Territories). Additional points of note: ings at any time. A variation: Inspections are performed by state forces following application and at any time Table 4 is compiled from the as-written provisions of within the 4-year warranty period (typically it might occur the warranty specifications. Interviews with three agen- at 36 to 42 months). cies that do not exclude winter maintenance damage from their warranty requirements revealed that they Effects of Climate and Winter Maintenance may exercise discretion in how winter-related damage is treated. For example, in the case of an unusually severe Seventy percent of the responding agencies that use pavement winter, an agency may not hold the contractor responsi- marking warranties reported that winter maintenance does ble for replacing damaged markings. Another agency, not affect their warranty (with a number of other respondents which has a 180-day warranty period through the win- leaving the answer blank). A tabulation of how the example ter season, indicated that it may consider, on a case-by- warranties in Appendix D treat winter maintenance is given in base basis, a contractor's request to apply temporary Table 4. Very few agencies explicitly exclude winter mainte- markings in the Fall, following up with the specified nance from the provisions of the warranty, meaning that con- markings in the Spring.

OCR for page 17
25 TABLE 4 TREATMENT OF WINTER MAINTENANCE IN EXAMPLE WARRANTIES Is Winter-related Damage Excluded from Warranty Provisions? State, Province, Warranty Period = Calendar Interval That Includes Territory Yes No Winter Season Alaska -- -- -- Arizona Arkansas -- -- -- British Columbia Delaware Idaho -- -- -- Illinois Indiana Maryland -- -- -- Missouri (Tape) -- -- -- (Perf. Spec.) Nevada -- -- -- Northwest Territory Oregon -- -- -- Texas West Virginia Notes: Data from Appendix D. "--" = winter conditions are not explicitly addressed in warranty specifications. = partial exclusion in mountainous, heavy-snow regions at altitudes greater than 5,000 ft. Winter damage is not excluded from warranty requirements in other regions. "Perf. Spec." = performance specification. In their standard product warranties, materials manufac- control. These subjective factors made it too difficult to turers may exclude damage resulting from winter main- administer the warranty objectively. A second round of tenance equipment. warranty testing was therefore discontinued, and the The contractors and materials manufacturers who were North Dakota DOT no longer uses pavement marking interviewed--most of whom were used to dealing with warranties. winter weather--did not focus solely on winter mainte- nance damage in their discussions. Their comments Mechanisms to Assure Quality encompassed weather effects more broadly; for example, regarding conditions at high altitudes, coastal humidity, Survey respondents identified a number of mechanisms they weather-imposed restrictions on the working season, employ to help assure quality in pavement marking work and temperature effects on asphalt, in addition to winter- performance, in addition to the warranty itself. The follow- related damage. ing examples were obtained from agency questionnaire In one instance, problems with winter maintenance dam- responses and the example specifications that agencies pro- age affected the continuation of a state's pavement mark- vided (Appendix D). ing warranty program. The North Dakota DOT used a warranty specification for epoxy paint pavement mark- Procedural and administrative mechanisms that agencies ings from 2002 to 2005. This performance specification build into their pavement marking process to promote required the contractor to achieve specified minimum quality include the following: retroreflectivity levels initially (following construction) A pre-placement (pre-operational, pre-construction) and after one winter. The DOT experienced a number of meeting among agency, contractor, and materials manu- warranty administration issues related primarily to facturer's representative before the start of work. reduced retroreflectivity after one winter. Factors such Contractor submittal of a Work Plan before the start of as mechanical damage (snow plow damage, deicing work, with periodic updates of progress during con- materials, sand abrasion, etc.) affected retroreflectivity struction and of markings performance through the levels and were considered outside the contractor's warranty period.

OCR for page 17
26 Contractor submittal of a Spill Recovery Plan. ation period, the contractor is regarded as in default Manufacturer's certification of installation/application and required to submit for Missouri DOT approval a (sub)contractors and materials to be used, onsite obser- remedial plan to correct these failures. The specifica- vation by the manufacturer's representative of mark- tion of the West Virginia DOT provides an example ings installation/application, and approval of equip- of liquidated damages applied to pavement marking ment to be used in installation/application. projects. Reliance on standards and test protocols of industry- The matter of how to structure a payment schedule for recognized authorities [e.g., ASTM, AASHTO, multi-year warranties will likely grow in importance as NTPEP, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices more states undertake warranty work and as the length of (MUTCD), federal or state versions], and standard- warranty periods increases. Such a payment schedule ide- ized state/provincial materials testing procedures. ally would encourage satisfactory long-term pavement Contractor provision of test grinding strips if inlaid marking performance while providing fair and timely markings are to be used, and test stripes for pavement payment to contractors. Among the example specifica- markings. tions in Appendix D, most agencies today specify pay- Daily or weekly reporting of work accomplished and ment following initial acceptance or at successful com- data from specified measurements. pletion of a performance period or observation period. Periodic inspection according to stated procedures Three agencies--the Idaho Transportation Department, and criteria by agency personnel, contractor, or inde- Missouri DOT in its performance specification, and pendent third party. Texas DOT--include a multi-year schedule of payments Several agencies use lists of prior-approved materials; in connection with their pavement marking warranties. for example, Alaska, British Columbia, Florida, Mary- The Kansas DOT also uses a warranty payment schedule, land, Minnesota, Northwest Territories, Oregon, Texas, which was described in its survey response, and Alaska is and West Virginia. These lists are referred to by differ- considering step payments through the duration of a ent names across agencies; for example, Qualified planned 5-year warranty. In the examples that follow, all Products List, Recognized Products List, Approved percentages are based on total contract price: Paint Materials, Material Producers List, and Approved Idaho's 2-year warranty: Initial payment, 60%; end Product Listing. of year 1, 5%; end of year 2, 35%. (Lane rental Among the 15 agencies with example specifications charges are also employed; refer to Appendix D.) in Appendix D, Illinois and Indiana employ a list of Idaho's 4-year warranty: Initial payment, 60%; pay- Approved Contractors for pavement marking projects. ments at end of years 1, 2, and 3, 5% respectively; Kansas also prequalifies contractors. end of year 4, 25%. (Lane rental charges are also A materials manufacturer may fulfill multiple roles on employed; refer to Appendix D.) a pavement marking project: (1) to provide a product Missouri's 4-year performance specification was orig- that meets or exceeds specifications; (2) to back prod- inally advertised with the following payment sched- uct performance with a warranty that conforms to client ule: Initial payment, 12%; payments in each of years 1 requirements; (3) to provide technical services to clients through 4 of the warranty period, maximum of 22% and their contractors; for example, recommendation of annually subject to adjustment for noncomplying the proper method of application/installation, technical 1.0-mile highway segments. A revised payment advice on correction of problems, and contractor train- schedule was submitted and accepted as part of the ing and certification; (4) through product sheets, manu- successful contractor's value engineering proposal, as facturer recommendations, and other technical data, to follows: Initial payment, 60%; payments in each of support and supplement client specifications; and (5) to years 1 through 4 of the warranty period, maximum serve as a general contractor where allowed and appro- 10% annually. priate on pavement marking projects. In several states Texas' 1-year warranty for RPMs: Initial payment, the manufacturer's responsibilities are formalized 80% following written acceptance; at end of perfor- explicitly within the warranty specifications. Additional mance period including satisfactory replacement of manufacturer responsibilities that are stated in specifi- deficient markers, 20%. cations include approving equipment used in marking Kansas' 180-day warranty: Initial payment, 90% application/installation and approving related materials following initial acceptance; 10% at successful com- to be used by the contractor; for example, adhesives for pletion of the warranty period. pavement markers. Kansas was scheduled in 2009 to increase the dura- Payments and monetary penalties to contractors can tion of its warranty period to 1 year, and is now reinforce the objective of quality work. The Missouri working on a 5-year warranty. It is considering step DOT performance specification illustrates payment payments through the 5-year duration, with specific adjustments based on the performance of individual yearly percentages yet to be decided. 1.0-mile segments covered by the contract. If more than Alaska is now using 2-year warranties, but is consid- 10% of pavement markings are failed in any one evalu- ering a 5-year warranty period with step payments.

OCR for page 17
27 Further discussion of multi-year payment schedules is agencies focused explicitly on technical requirements; given in the Contractor Perspectives section in the discussion for example, the mil thickness and pounds of glass beads of Financial Risk and Risk Mitigation. per gallon of paint (Delaware), and issues of retroreflec- tivity, durability, and color (Virginia). Bonding is specified by agencies in the following ways: Missouri and Alberta noted that the main items discussed Warranty bonds are required in the amount of 100% at their meetings were agency expectations for pavement of the contract price for the duration of the warranty markings and their reasonableness. (Delaware, Idaho, Missouri performance specifica- The Associated General Contractors and manufacturers tion, Nevada, West Virginia). have been involved in the development of all Oregon (Illinois): At its option, the pavement marking contrac- DOT construction specifications (primarily to review tor may request a third-party performance bond from and provide comments), including the warranty specifi- the installation (sub)contractor at the completion of cations for pavement markings. Texas also noted that its pavement marking work, but before final inspection proposed specifications are routed through their local and acceptance following the warranty performance Associated General Contractors office before they can period. This bond, which names the DOT as obligee for be approved and used. the full amount of the pavement marking price, avoids delay in paying the pavement marking contractor. The benefits of these industry interactions focus on keep- (Texas): A warranty bond is required of the materials ing industry informed of agency intentions and expectations, manufacturer for the duration of the warranty period. and obtaining industry reactions to pending change in agency At its option, the contractor may provide a warranty policy and project requirements. Examples of publicprivate bond that meets all requirements, in which case the interactions within a different institutional setting are given contractor becomes the warrantor. later in the section on European warranty practice. The role of industry in those examples--in which transportation agencies Working with Industry and private sector contractors collaborate within a framework favoring performance, quality, and innovation--extend more When asked whether discussions were held with industry rep- widely and systematically into activities such as: resentatives (contractors and materials manufacturers) before instituting warranties, agencies that have used such warranties Participation in specification development; replied as shown in Figure 11. Examples of items discussed at New product identification, development, certification, these meetings are as follows: and use; Negotiation of warranty periods for new, potentially Arkansas noted that every item in the specification was riskier products; and thoroughly discussed over a long period of time. Some Training and certification of installation contractors. No Response 12% NO - Did Not Work with Industry Prior to Implementing Warranty Initiative 19% YES - Worked with Industry Prior to Implementing Warranty Initiative 69% FIGURE 11 Agency experience in meeting with industry on warranties. Results based on responses from a reduced sample of 16 agencies.

OCR for page 17
28 Warranty Interactions with Other Requirements asphalt pavement performance bond, also for 5 years. Problems may include contractor bonding capacity and Possible interactions between pavement marking warranties conflicts between respective warranty requirements for and other state and federal commitments were cited by some pavements versus pavement markings. agencies as factors discouraging warranty use. These interac- Discussion: These issues were not discussed by other tions could occur with other existing warranties or bonds agencies or contractors and may require further research (e.g., for pavement construction), or with administrative to target the specific conflicts and recommended ways to requirements and closeout procedures of federal-aid projects. resolve them. The earlier study by Bayraktar et al. (2004) Although these issues need to be resolved with knowledge of reported that in its survey of contractors (who had expe- the details of each case, it appeared that other agencies had rience in highway construction warranties generally, not been able to circumvent these issues by taking appropriate focused on pavement markings), three-quarters of these administrative steps. Examples drawn from the survey find- contractors claimed that they were not constrained by ings of this synthesis study are listed here; additional research their bonding capacity in bidding and performing war- could organize a more comprehensive identification of ques- ranted work; 25% reported that they were. tions, answers, and example solutions. Issue: use of sole-source procurements in connection Agency Satisfaction with Pavement with warranties on federal-aid projects. Marking Warranties Example solution: Arizona DOT was able to justify use of a single proprietary product on specific highway The 23 responding agencies that currently use pavement segments by submitting a finding in the public interest marking warranties were asked to rate their overall degree of for FHWA approval. satisfaction on the following scale: Very Satisfied, Generally Issue: Maintaining a multi-year warranty in force on an Satisfied, Mixed Results, Problematic, and Very Dissatisfied. otherwise completed federal-aid construction project. Results of this self-rating are shown in Figure 12. Almost three- Example solution: The Idaho Transportation Depart- quarters of the responding agencies now using warranty ment has reached an agreement with the FHWA on han- specifications expressed satisfaction with them. Three agen- dling multi-year warranties on federal-aid projects. The cies reported Mixed Results, whereas one characterized them solution has been to organize the contractor's warranty as Problematic. None said that they were Very Dissatisfied with effort as an active work program, with annual contrac- the experience. tor payments as the federal-aid project remains open. Issue: Potential interactions between a new 5-year One agency that is Generally Satisfied noted that there pavement marking warranty with bond and an existing had been communication issues regarding agency expec- Very Dissatisfied No Response Very Satisfied 0% 9% 13% Problematic 4% Mixed Results 13% Generally Satisfied 61% FIGURE 12 Degree of satisfaction with pavement marking warranties.

OCR for page 17
29 tations under its warranty, but that these had been worked impediments, risks, and drawbacks; and to identify useful out and pavement marking performance is better today information--are summarized in Figures 13 through 15 respec- than it was 4 years ago. Another Generally Satisfied tively in terms of number of responses received. agency also observed that sometimes "they had to argue with the contractor" to get them to comply. A third agency that recorded Mixed Results with warranties also Perceived Motivations and Benefits cited problems in getting timely responses by the con- The perceived motivations for, and benefits of, pavement tractor to perform needed repair work. marking warranties are shown in Figure 13. The main drivers Only one of the responding agencies characterized its for these warranties are expectations of improved performance experience with pavement marking warranties as Prob- and quality, and avoidance of premature failure, with attendant lematic. Further inquiry revealed that this response was benefits in reduced lane occupancy for repairs or re-application. not a characterization of agency experience per se. Rather, it was rooted in the philosophical belief of the An additional important benefit is anticipated cost savings in responding individual that before agencies engage in both maintenance and life-cycle costs (including road-user such warranties they would first establish a pavement cost savings resulting from reduced lane occupancy through marking management system. Such a system could track the warranty period). Most of the other benefits options marking performance as well as the effectiveness of the each received 1 to 5 responses. No agency cited a legislative warranties in a systematic and consistent way, based on mandate as a reason for using warranties. The "Other" ben- periodic field inspections and measurements. (An appli- efits that were suggested were consistent with the themes cation used by the Iowa DOT was cited as an example of of improved performance and reduced cost. Specific bene- such a management system; this responding state was not fits identified in these responses included: (1) the generation Iowa.) Once such a management system is established of performance measurement data associated with enforcing and applied effectively by an agency, warranty specifica- the warranty, which can also be used for product performance tions become more meaningful. The Problematic rating comparisons; and (2) the encouragement given to contractors was intended to communicate this perspective. to install quality products correctly, thus enhancing perfor- mance and reducing the need for road occupancy to do annual Although Figure 12 illustrates a degree of satisfaction only restriping. among those 23 reporting agencies that are now using war- ranties, all surveyed agencies were asked to judge what they By comparison, the Bayraktar et al. study found that a believed were the advantages or disadvantages of pavement majority of agencies saw the benefits of warranties in several marking warranties according to the following procedure: areas; for example, improved quality, reduced need for site inspection, and less record keeping, although these perceptions Those agencies that have had a positive experience were not unanimous. A relatively small percentage of respon- were asked to identify their primary motivations for dents offered counter-perceptions for certain benefits; that is, using pavement marking warranties and the benefits of 8% believed inspection requirements had increased, and 15% their use. perceived greater record keeping (Bayraktar et al. 2004, 2006). Those agencies that have not used pavement marking warranties, have had a negative experience when they tried them, or are predisposed not to consider them in the Perceived Impediments, Risks, and Drawbacks future were asked to identify what they see as impedi- ments, risks, or drawbacks in their use. The perceived downsides of using pavement marking war- Those agencies that characterized their experience with ranties are indicated in Figure 14. The most frequent responses pavement marking warranties as having "Mixed Results" focused on the administrative burden, potentially higher bid were asked to identify both the perceived motivations/ prices, and possible increases in disputes or litigation with benefits and the perceived impediments/risks/drawbacks contractors as the main reasons for not using pavement mark- of warranty use. ing warranties. Three agencies also cited departmental policy Those agencies that have not used pavement marking or guidelines as discouraging warranty use (more on this warranties but are potentially interested in their appli- point follows later in this section). The "Other" problems that cation were asked to identify what types of information were cited included: (1) administrative difficulties associated would be most helpful in their future consideration. It with using U.S. federal-aid funding if sole sourcing pavement turns out that this question was also answered by three marking work, (2) keeping contracts open on federal-aid proj- agencies that have already had positive experience with ects while the warranty remains in force, and (3) the percep- warranties (particularly those backed by materials man- tion that an agency's management philosophy and culture dis- ufacturers) plus two agencies that had a negative stance courage greater use of warranties. Some of these items will be toward them. discussed further here. The overall responses to these three "perception" ques- Calls to the three agencies that had checked the question- tions--to identify motivations and benefits; to identify naire response, "Warranties are prohibited or discouraged by

OCR for page 17
30 Legislative - Statutory Requirement Perceived Risk-Sharing or Risk-Transfer Benefit Perceived Maintenance Cost-Saving Benefit Perceived Life-Cycle Cost-Saving Benefit Perceived Performance-Improvement Benefit Potential for Greater Contractor Innovation Protection Against Premature Failures Agency's Policies Encourage Warranty Use Agency Staff Reductions Encourage Use of Warranty Contracting Reduced Need for Field Inspections Logical Component of Total or Comprehensive Contracting Reduced Administrative Burden for Agency Positive Experience of Other Agencies Other Perceived Benefit or Motivation 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Respondents FIGURE 13 Perceived motivations and benefits of warranty use. agency administrative policy or bidding and procurement that a warranty might help identify replacement needs guidelines," provided a further elaboration of what was and ensure completion of needed work. meant by this answer. The agencies' comments all reflected Another agency reported that it was moving toward more a tendency rooted in organizational experience, cul- performance-based specifications and had considered ture, and practice rather than an explicit policy. The net warranties, even trying them in one case. However, effect was to seek other methods of assuring quality in agency field personnel had had significant experience in project delivery, bypassing the issue of pavement marking applying pavement markings themselves. They would warranties. therefore want to consider warranties carefully and understand them better before moving ahead--they did One agency reported that its prior experience with war- not want to go too far too fast. They also had questions ranties on other highway items had encountered prob- about who should be the warrantor--the contractor or lems in monitoring, tracking, and resolving performance the materials vendor. issues with the contractor or the materials vendor. This A third agency reported that, as a matter of practice, their situation was aggravated by a shortage of construction construction personnel preferred to close out construc- office personnel. A preferred approach evolved: to tion contracts expeditiously and not have any remaining develop the best construction specifications possible and work obligations. then enforce them. Because its geographical location did not require winter maintenance, the agency could use durable markings. The agency also noted that a warranty Desired Additional Information might reduce competition if it allowed proprietary mate- rials and processes. The agency did allow for possible use The additional information on pavement marking warranties of warranties in the case of RPMs. There have been some that is desired by survey respondents is identified in Figure 15. issues with marker performance; agency staff believed Several agencies identified "All Listed Categories" of infor-