Pavement Marking Warranty Specifications (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

210 APPENDIX E European Warranty Experience U.S. REVIEWS OF EUROPEAN WARRANTY PRACTICE European experience in road construction warranties has a long history. This experience has been addressed in several studies and international scans by U.S. agencies. While many of these fact-finding missions are not necessarily focused on pavement marking warranties specifically, they do establish differences in legal and institutional approaches between Euro- pean and U.S. practice that likely influence the success of war- ranty use. The following sources have been consulted for this synthesis study: • NCHRP Synthesis 195, Use of Warranties in Road Con- struction (Hancher 1994), which reviewed U.S. and European practices on road construction warranties. • A Federal Highway Administration scan, in coopera- tion with AASHTO, of asphalt pavement warranty practice and technology in Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (D’Angelo et al. Nov. 2003). • A FHWA scan, in cooperation with AASHTO and NCHRP, of construction management practices in Canada and Europe (Common Ground . . . Summer 2005; DeWitt et al. May 2005). • A description of laboratory turntables in Germany and Spain for accelerated testing of pavement markings (“Superior Materials . . . ” Summer 2004). • A white paper submitted to this synthesis study by a representative of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, ATSSA (“Pavement Marking Material . . .” n.d.), which gives U.S. industry perspectives on pave- ment marking product evaluation and the proposed use of European-style pavement marking turntables for acceler- ated product evaluation. NCHRP Synthesis 195 The review of road construction warranties presented in NCHRP Synthesis 195 includes a section on European war- ranty practices as of the early 1990s, with a focus on pave- ments. This review consolidated the findings of several inter- national scans, fact-finding visits to Europe by FHWA staff, and knowledge of the Synthesis 195 author. Findings were presented for Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Synthesis 195 author noted that road construction warranties were already widely accepted in Europe, and contractors there were afforded a greater role in design and construction method input than their U.S. counterparts. While it might be concluded that transfer of contracting and construction management meth- ods would result in corresponding advances in the United States, the Synthesis 195 author cautioned that institutional differences between the European and U.S. road construction environments might inhibit the effectiveness of such a trans- fer. These differences included a less litigious relationship between agencies and contractors in Europe, differences in the structure of the respective construction industries, and greater European use of bid alternatives, contractor test- ing, and end-result (or performance-based) specifications rather than method-based (or prescriptive) specifications. Common Ground Report The Common Ground report provides a succinct statement of key characteristics of the European and Canadian road construction environment. Central to this environment are changing public and private sector roles that are adapting to alternative methods of project delivery. Critical components of these new methods include the evolving relationships among public agencies, contractors, and private engineering firms, which are transforming risk allocation pro- cesses, quality control/quality assurance, and general contract administration procedures. Emerging delivery methods include the use of non-traditional procedures such as design-build con- tracts, public-private arrangements, maintenance and warranty requirements, and use of third-party consultants to perform con- tract management. . . . The scan team discovered a more spirited effort of long-term partnership and collaboration between public and private sectors and witnessed heightened customer awareness among industry members. Canadian and European agencies have developed construction management systems that promote the alignment of team goals through the use of integrated risk analysis techniques that sup- port the strategic application of alternative delivery methods. These concepts thread through the project life cycle, from pro- curement systems that set the framework for success to contract payment systems that reinforce trust. Source: Common Ground . . . Summer 2005. The recommendations of the Common Ground report were characterized as motivating change within U.S. transportation agencies “to promote teamwork and more collegial relation- ships” between public and private sector groups. “This change should occur in collaboration with industry and should benefit both large and small engineering firms, contractors, and sup- pliers” (Common Ground . . . Summer 2005, p. 3). Warranties are addressed specifically in one of this report’s recommenda- tions. Moreover, the broad changes in U.S. construction man- agement proposed in the other recommendations envision practices and contracting environments that could accommo-

211 date new types of warranty provisions and new approaches to their administration. The recommendations include the following: • To align team goals to customer goals: Procurement practices, contract provisions, and construction man- agement methods should align goals of the customer, agency, and contractor. The industry should form teams early in the process to integrate these goals and main- tain this alignment through project development and construction. • To develop risk assessment and allocation techniques: Improved risk assessment processes should extend from project scope development through construction man- agement. These processes should identify risks and assign them to the party best able to manage them. • To strategically apply alternative delivery mecha- nisms: Consider alternative delivery mechanisms that can best align goals and allocate risk. Work toward early industry involvement and more effective life-cycle design solutions. • To enhance qualification rating processes: Processes for quality-based rating and contractor selection are key to successful projects. All international parties who participated in this scan cited accurate and timely rat- ing processes as critical to successful construction management. • To use qualifications in procurement: The recom- mendation is to increase the use of best value procure- ment, which considers price, contractor qualifications, proposed project schedule, and proposed technical approach, and encourages long-term partnership and work efficiency. • To pilot early contractor involvement: A proposed qualification-based process of contractor rating and selection should be pilot-tested using a target-price con- tract. The pilot should be formulated and conducted with industry support. Early involvement of the con- tractor represents a fundamental change in how high- way construction is conducted in the United States. • To apply alternative designs and bids in procure- ment: The recommendation is to increase the use of alternate bids in the traditional low-bid environment. A bid evaluation process that is perceived as fair and transparent is critical to success, and can achieve better value-for-money. • To conduct preproposal meetings: When considering alternate designs, confidential preproposal meetings allow prospective contractors to validate the accept- ability of innovative designs. This approach, now used on design-build projects, could be extended to other methods of project delivery. • To apply more contractor quality management: Contractor quality management systems can comple- ment agency QA processes. Contractor quality plans can be part of procurement competition and written into the project contract. Quality-management-process cer- tifications can be used when appropriate. • To use appropriate alternative payment methods: An agency can assess the feasibility of structuring con- tractor payments differently when they can serve par- ticular types of projects and customer goals; for exam- ple, milestone payments and lump-sum payments. • To consider alternative application of life-cycle responsibility: When it is appropriate to give the con- tractor responsibility for maintaining project quality through a period of its life-cycle, long-term warranties can deliver better products, promote innovation, and eliminate redundancy in QA processes between the agency and the contractor. Note that several themes that run through these recommenda- tions—e.g., early contractor involvement in the project devel- opment process, integration of the contractor’s role within a partnering approach to meet a customer’s goals, a recognized contractor role in promoting quality during the project life- cycle, and a willingness to consider alternative processes and methods—can also work for innovative approaches to war- ranties. For example, an agency could use a prequalification process in lieu of requiring warranty bonds. Scan: European Asphalt Pavement Warranties An international scan team organized through the FHWA and AASHTO in November 2002 visited five European nations—Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—to review short- and long-term warranties for asphalt paving projects (D’Angelo et al. Nov. 2003). Topics of interest included risk assessment for agencies and contractors, administration of warranty contracts, and performance indica- tors and practices related to pavements specifically. Findings and recommendations applied to material and workmanship warranties, performance warranties, best-value procurement, and alternative contracting methods. Since the scope of the current synthesis study is on pavement markings, the review of this international scan focuses more on the concepts and implementations of European warranties and how they com- pare with U.S. practice, rather than its specific pavement- related findings. In this context, the experiences of these five European nations with respect to asphalt pavement warranties are as follows (D’Angelo et al. Nov. 2003): • Materials and workmanship warranties of various dura- tions have been used for 30 to 40 years. These countries are continuing to move toward pavement performance warranties and other methods to engage the contractor into assuring the quality of pavement performance through its full life cycle. • Among these quality-oriented practices are the devel- opment of partnership relationships among agencies and industry participants, the use of best-value procure- ment techniques, and the application of alternative con- tract methods including warranties, performance-based contracts, and design-build-finance-operate (DBFO)

concessions. The motivations for these contracting inno- vations include: – Opportunity for contractor innovation; – Need for private sector financing assistance; and – Desire to improve quality and efficiency. • All of the countries visited use materials and workman- ship warranties on their traditional road construction projects. Warranty periods vary from 1 year (Spain) to 4 years (Germany). Denmark and Sweden use perfor- mance warranties in their traditional contracts, while the UK employs performance warranties in design-build con- tracts, which have become its preferred method of pave- ment construction contracting. All three of these coun- tries use a 5-year performance warranty, which balances an assurance of satisfactory pavement performance without undue burden on the contractor to maintain the warranty through the full service life of the pavement. • All five countries visited use best-value rather than low- bid procurement. Criteria for contractor selection include safety, innovation, and environmental impact. Denmark adds the bidding of additional years of warranty protec- tion as a best-value criterion. In some cases contractor prequalification is also used as part of the best-value process. All countries reinforced the importance of a best-value approach to the warranty approach, since it promotes trust and confidence among the parties. • Much longer warranty periods (e.g., up to 35 years) are being explored in alternative types of contracts such as DBFO and Pavement Performance Contracts (PPCs, which have warranty periods of 11–20 years among the host countries). These longer warranty periods reflect the fact that contractors have responsibility for pave- ment design, construction, and maintenance according to performance criteria established by the owner agency. These alternative arrangements are developed in col- laboration with industry. The scan report recommended actions at the federal, state, and local governmental levels in the United States to pro- mote greater use of warranties, including short-term (e.g., up to 5 years) materials and workmanship warranties leading to long-term performance warranties in the future. Legislation enabling wider use of best-value procurement processes and contractor prequalification should be sought where needed. The report also recommended that the federal government take the lead in establishing a warranty resource center for use by the federal, state, and local governments. State and local governments should take practical steps toward devel- oping and implementing materials and workmanship war- ranties and, when it is appropriate to engage contractors in design, short-term performance warranties. Best-value and contractor-prequalification processes should also be imple- mented. The report recommended roles for industry in educa- tion, participation in roundtable discussions and pilot projects, and strengthening of knowledge and capabilities regarding construction and maintenance methods and products to sup- port warranty use. 212 Scan: European Programs in Superior Materials and Advanced Testing An international scan team on Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications toured four European countries—the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands—in July 2003 to learn about European prac- tices in the subject topics. A particular focus concerned ways to accelerate identification, evaluation, approval, and accep- tance of new products, and to incorporate the products within project specifications. The investigation also included pro- cesses that yielded superior materials—i.e., materials that could improve facility performance significantly, cost-effectively, with improved safety or reduced construction time. The Euro- pean environment for innovative materials development and testing was found to comprise several processes (“Superior Materials . . .” Summer 2004), of which the following are most relevant to this synthesis study: • European Union standardization of highway specifica- tions, common testing and evaluation protocols that were integrated into binding specifications across the EU, and a structuring of specifications toward function and per- formance rather than method. This approach allowed greater innovation by private industry while protecting the confidentiality of the production methods. • The UK’s Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme (HAPAS). Under HAPAS, the Highways Agency (HA) and industry jointly develop functional specifications to replace method specifications. Once the HA approves these new specifications, the private sector is able to develop products that meet these func- tional requirements. Prior to use, the HA subjects the products to independent third-party review, evaluation, and certification through a program managed by the British Board of Agrément (BBA). After certification, a product may be used on HA-funded projects. HAPAS also enforces a requirement that manufacturers of new products train and certify installation contractors and provide evidence of such to the HA before construction. • The countries visited engage in performance contract- ing and use of warranties as routine practice. The dura- tion of warranties is negotiable between agency and contractor; new products that are perceived as riskier might be subject to a longer warranty period. A combi- nation of price and quality forms the basis of bid award, where quality includes a credit for innovation. • The Netherlands is conducting a pilot program to encour- age long-range, visionary solutions to highway prob- lems. For example, concepts were developed to provide a prefabricated road surface that could be applied or removed quickly, and that would generate less vehicle- pavement noise than existing paved surfaces. • Germany has built a laboratory turntable on which to conduct accelerated performance tests of selected pave- ment markings: tape, temporary paint, and permanent paint. Marking samples are mounted on plates on the turntable. When rotated, the turntable causes the sam-

213 ples to pass under tire assemblies that simulate passage of traffic. The test protocol describes the number of cycles (rotations) and laboratory environmental condi- tions (environmental controls were being added by Ger- many). Spain has a similar facility, although it was not visited during this scan tour. The scan team believed that this turntable concept should be considered for application in the United States by AASHTO’s NTPEP. ATSSA WHITE PAPER The ATSSA white paper responded to the recommendation of the scan team regarding consideration of a U.S. pavement marking test facility, incorporating results of a follow-up visit to the laboratory turntable facility in Spain. The background section of the paper summarized a joint ATSSA–SASHTO (Southeast Region of the American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials) effort begun in the 1980s. This effort involved a public-private partnership to test and evaluate new road safety devices on a test deck in the South- eastern U.S. The items tested included raised pavement mark- ers and adhesives, snowplowable markers, durable and non- durable pavement markings, as well as other items not related to pavement markings. The paper noted that the single most challenging obstacle to overcome in this program was the rel- ative lack of acceptance of program results by the state DOTs. Few states were willing to accept the NTPEP results as the sole determinant for including the product on their Qualified Prod- uct Lists. Pavement markings were among those products that received relatively weaker acceptance of test results. Given this history, the paper considered the implications of NTPEP’s pursuing the idea of an accelerated testing turntable for pavement markings. The paper made the following obser- vations (“Pavement Marking Material . . .” n.d.): • While the Spanish and German turntables have been used for many years, they are not without controversy regarding validation of laboratory data versus actual conditions and performance in the field. • It is not clear how the turntable would accommodate the climatic and topographic variability throughout the United States. Moreover, it was felt that the goals of the laboratory facility and proposed use of the test results had not been articulated. • The ATSSA members felt that while the facility itself was impressive, the value of its data would be primar- ily for research and development rather than for evalu- ation of potential performance of pavement markings or for product approval. • The paper identified four areas of technical concern in which it was felt that a laboratory turntable would not yield valid results: – Lack of exposure to ultraviolet light; – Laboratory preparation of pavement marking sam- ples that does not mimic actual installation or appli- cation methods in the field; – Standardized, constant laboratory environmental conditions that reflect neither the full degree of vari- ability in conditions throughout the United States nor the short-term cycles of fluctuation that stress high- ways in the field; and – Differences between the substrate material on the turntable plates that is used to simulate the pavement surface versus the actual pavement substrate proper- ties in the field, including variability in materials (e.g., asphalt vs. concrete) and variations in these material properties among states. • The institutional framework and construction industry and culture in the United States is much different from those in Europe. It is not clear that the technological transfer of the laboratory turntable from Europe to the United States will ensure that the effective use of test results from the facility can likewise be successfully transferred to the U.S. legal and business environment. • The paper closes with several questions to which the industries represented by ATSSA are seeking answers: – What is the goal of the turntable and what is proposed to be accomplished? – Why is the turntable the answer? – Why not study and develop models of programs that are successfully working in the United States? – Is the turntable a replacement for NTPEP? Is it in addition to NTPEP? – Will there be broader acceptance of this facility and the data it generates? – Is this the first step in the development of a mecha- nism to establish a National Performance Standard for Pavement Markings?