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.
3Problem Statement State departments of transportation (DOTs) have used warranties for both flexible pavements [primarily hot mix asphalt (HMA)] and rigid portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements for many years. Under a pavement-warranty specification, the performance of the pavement is measured over time as opposed to measuring the quality of pavement materials and workmanship during and immediately after construction. Pavement warranties require the construction contractor to guarantee the post-construction performance of the pavement at varying levels. Shifting post-construction performance risk from the DOT to the contractor is perceived as reducing premature pavement failures, reducing costs, and increasing pavement quality. While some DOTs have reported that the use of pavement warranties has resulted in dramatic improvements in quality, reduction in premature failures, and cost advantages, the overall reported results have been mixed, in part based on the type of warranty implemented. Objectives and Research Approach The objective of this research was to investigate the use of pavement warranties by DOTs, develop a decision tool for applying warranties, and develop guidelines to assist DOTs in determining when to use warranties and how best to apply them. The study took into consideration various categories of pavement projects and types of warranties. Distinctions within the major categories of asphalt and concrete pavement projects were made due to the differences in risk allocation. Therefore, asphalt and concrete pavement projects were generally classified as preservation, rehabilitation, or new construction projects. Preservation includes surface treatments such as thin overlays, microsurfacing, chip sealing, and crack sealing. Rehabilitation includes overlays and partial depth replacement projects. New construction includes new align- ments and full-depth replacement projects. Phase I The research approach for Phase I of the study included a Task 1 literature review of information relevant to the application of pavement warranties, including DOT pavement warranty evaluation reports and warranty specifications. The research team held a joint industry/DOT workshop to discuss the state of practice of warranties in the United States and overseas and conducted targeted interviews using a sample of 14 DOTs with varying levels of experience, ranging from none to using warranties as a standard practice. Information gathered through the literature review, joint DOT/industry workshop, and DOT interviews is summarized in Chapter 2. A bibliography of warranty literature and warranty-related reports is included in this report. Common definitions and terms associated with warranties are listed in the Glossary. A list of the DOTs and interview participants is included in Appendix C2, as is the form used to guide the interview process. The research team included eight general topic areas on the interview form. This information was used to iden- tify key issues for the application of pavement warranties before, during, and after construction and key factors to be considered in determining when and how to apply pavement warranties. Using the information gathered from the literature, DOT interviews, and the workshop, Task 2 involved the develop- ment of a systematic decision tool to guide DOTs in deciding when to apply warranties to a project. The last step in the approach, Task 3, was applying or vetting the electronic decision tool developed in Task 2 on highway pavement projects for no fewer than five highway agencies. Based on the results of the vetting, the decision tool was refined to reflect the input received from DOTs applying it to their actual projects. Finally, the Task 4 interim report presented the results of the literature review, joint industry/DOT workshop, war- ranty decision tool, and vetting process. The report also provided a draft outline of the proposed guidelines as part of the Phase II effort. C H A P T E R 1 Background
Phase II Based on feedback from the research panel, the Phase II Task 5 scope was to finalize the Phase I selection tool, including a comparison of key factors to consider in the selection of a pavement warranty type and the development of a decision process and written guidelines and forms for the pavement warranty selection tool. This final pavement warranty decision tool is included in Appendix A2. The objective of Phase II Task 6 was to develop practical guidelines for project-level application of pavement warranties in order to assist DOTs in determining when and how to use warranties for both HMA and PCC pavements. Because many DOTs have developed warranty provisions and general guidance for project selection and implementation or have performed evaluations of their warranty programs, the focus of this research was to build on this body of knowledge and provide the most practical guidance based on the lessons learned from these programs. The warranty guidelines were designed to include key implementation topics, including project selection, the selection of performance criteria and thresholds, contracting strategy and risk allocation, monitoring and evaluation, remedial work, exclusions, bonding consid- erations, dispute resolution, and acceptance. The pavement warranty guidelines (as Appendix A1) and warranty decision tool are provided on the CD-ROM accompanying this report, as are the other appendices. Finally, Task 7 addressed the development of draft technical warranty provisions for HMA and PCC pavements suitable for inclusion in the AASHTO Primer on Contracting for the Twenty-First Century that DOTs can use to develop their own project-specific warranty provisions. The model specification for HMA refines and updates the existing technical provision for HMA pavements. A new supplemental provision was developed for PCC pavements. These model provisions incorporate language and lessons learned from the imple- mentation of existing warranty provisions. They also include commentary and suggested values and options depending upon the type of warranty or type of contracting method implemented. 4
