Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices (2020)

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.

A P P E N D I X B Agency Survey Responses B-1 Canadian Agencies Alberta Transportation Manitoba Infrastructure New Brunswick Transportation and Infrastructure Newfoundland and Labrador DOT and Works Ontario Ministry of Transportation Quebec Ministry of Transport U.S. Agencies Alabama DOT Alaska DOT and Public Facilities Arizona DOT Arkansas DOT California DOT Colorado DOT Connecticut DOT Delaware DOT Florida DOT Hawaii DOT Idaho Transportation Department Illinois DOT Indiana DOT Iowa DOT Kansas DOT Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Louisiana DOT and Development Maine DOT Maryland DOT Michigan DOT Minnesota DOT Mississippi DOT Missouri DOT Montana DOT Nebraska DOT Nevada DOT New Jersey DOT New Mexico DOT New York State DOT North Dakota DOT Ohio DOT Oklahoma DOT Pennsylvania DOT Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority Rhode Island DOT South Carolina DOT South Dakota DOT Tennessee DOT Utah DOT Virginia DOT Washington State DOT West Virginia Division of Highways Wisconsin DOT Wyoming DOT 1. Has your agency used pavement warranties in the past? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes Alberta, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Manitoba, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Brunswick, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington State, West Virginia, and Wisconsin 32 No Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Jersey, 18

B-2 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming No. responding agencies: 50 2. Does your agency currently use pavement warranties? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes Alberta, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Manitoba, Michigan, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia 19 No Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Quebec, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 31 No. responding agencies: 50 3. What objective(s) was your agency hoping to meet by using pavement warranties? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Increase quality California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Manitoba, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Brunswick, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia 25 Shift project risk to contractor Alberta, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Brunswick, New Jersey, New York, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Washington State, West Virginia, and Wisconsin 20 Reduce agency inspection staff Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Virginia, and Wisconsin 11 Reduce project costs Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wisconsin 5 No. responding agencies: 32 Other comments: Used as an acceptance tool for non-compliant pavement that can't be remedied efficiently per terms in the contract (i.e., remove and replace, monetary deduction). Guarantee performance. Required by Legislative Mandate that has since been repealed. Learn from contractor's selected processes to reach the warranty period. 4. If warranties are no longer used or were not considered by your agency, please indicate why (select all that apply). If warranties are (or have been used) please select “Not applicable" to move to the next page. Response Agencies No. of Agencies Need for consistent monitoring Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Newfoundland and Labrador, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Tennessee 12

Agency Survey Responses B-3 Impacts to contractor bonding capacity 9 Response Agencies No. of Agencies Pilot or demo project only California, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Washington State 6 Large number of disputes California, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin 5 Did not achieve expected performance Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Wisconsin 5 Insufficient competition Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maryland, and Newfoundland and Labrador 5 Determined to be too high risk Connecticut, Iowa, and Montana 3 Costly claims Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin 3 No. responding agencies: 24 Other comments: Require 1-year warranty on all seal coat projects. However, there is no warranty requirement for asphalt overlays. In the early days, achieved improved performance; but over time, contractor became contentious, and the performance was not better. Issues with contract bonds and extended contract periods. 5. If warranties are no longer used or were not considered, please select “complete survey.” If warranties are used, please select “continue survey.” Response Agencies No. of Agencies Complete Survey Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Quebec, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 31 Continue Survey Alberta, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Manitoba, Michigan, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Jersey, New York State, North Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia 19 No. responding agencies: 50 Not cost effective Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington State, and Wisconsin 10 Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Newfoundland and Labrador, South Carolina, and Washington State

B-4 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices 6. Are pavement warranties currently mandated? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes Alberta, California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Manitoba, Michigan, and New Brunswick 8 No Idaho, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia DOT, and West Virginia 11 No. responding agencies: 19 7. How long has your agency been using pavement warranties? Response Agencies No. of Agencies < 1 year New Jersey 1 2 – 5 years Idaho and North Dakota 2 6 – 10 years California, Utah, and West Virginia 3 > 10 years Alberta, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Virginia 12 No. responding agencies: 18 8. What project selection criteria is used to determine when a pavement warranty is required (select all that apply)? Response Agencies No. of Agencies All new construction/reconstruction projects Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Brunswick, and Ontario 6 Pavement type Idaho, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia 5 Project complexity New Brunswick, Ontario, Utah, and West Virginia 4 Project site conditions Idaho, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 4 Existing pavement condition Idaho, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 4 All rehabilitation projects Florida, Maine, and Ontario 3 Traffic volume Idaho, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 3 Funding source (e.g., P3) Alberta and Ontario 2 Project length Ontario and West Virginia 2 All preventive maintenance projects California and Maine 2 Project cost None 0 No. responding agencies: 12 Other comments: Warranty doesn’t apply to concrete pavement slab replacement projects. Asphalt pavements, overlays of pavement in good condition, and lower traffic volumes. Asphalt pavement rehabilitation projects that use Superpave E-10 mix or higher, and all preventive maintenance treatments, except concrete preventive maintenance.

Agency Survey Responses B-5 Warranties are not included with bid package; however, warranties are used occasionally as part of a Settlement Agreement to accept a non-compliant pavement, in addition to or in lieu of certain contract requirements conditions. Currently developing pavement warranty specifications and have not yet developed criteria. 1-year bond for chip seals. Asphalt pavement warranties are used when a contractor is placing material outside seasonal limitations. District staff may request pavement warranties on new and reconstruction projects. Warranties are required on some preventive maintenance specifications. Only used on design-build projects. Warranty projects are selected on a case-by-case basis with the need to reconstruct, typically composite pavements, in areas where traffic control can handle this alternate method. 9. How many pavement warranty projects has your agency conducted to date? Response Agencies No. of Agencies ≤ 5 Alberta, Idaho, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 4 6 – 10 Nebraska, North Dakota, and West Virginia 3 11 – 20 Utah 1 21 – 30 None 0 31 – 40 Virginia 1 41 – 50 None 0 > 50 California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Brunswick, New York, Ohio, and Ontario 9 No. responding agencies: 18 10. How did your agency determine performance criteria (e.g., distress and condition types, threshold values, remedial actions) requirements (select all that apply)? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Pavement Management Data Alberta, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Brunswick, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Utah 10 Engineering Judgment Alberta, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, and Pennsylvania 10 Mutually Agreed with Industry Florida, Michigan, New Brunswick, New York, Ohio, and Virginia 6 Other Agency Requirements Alberta, California, Florida, Idaho, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 6 No. responding agencies: 16 Other comments: Documented manual survey process, including IRI. In the process of switching to automated pavement condition data.

B-6 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Mix Design Alberta, California, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New Brunswick, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia 12 Pavement Thickness Design Alberta, Florida, Idaho, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 6 Pavement Type (Treatment) Selection Alberta, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 4 No. responding agencies: 13 Other comments: Warranties are required for seal coat preservation treatments. Contractor is responsible for slurry seal and microsurfacing mix designs. For rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, contractor is responsible for the mix design within a specified range. Agency establishes the minimum thickness and the contractor/engineer can increase the thickness if they are not comfortable with our design. On bid-build projects, agency selects pavement type and pavement thickness requirements. On design-build projects, the contractor’s team, which includes engineers, might have more say in the pavement design details. On all projects, mix designs are submitted to and approved by the State Materials Office. Need for drainage improvements, all pavement maintenance for the life of the warranty. 12. Are construction acceptance requirements on pavement warranty projects different than non-warranty projects? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes Alberta, Idaho, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia 6 No California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah 12 No. responding agencies: 18 11. For pavement warranty projects, the contractor is responsible for (select all that apply): Response Agencies No. of Agencies

Agency Survey Responses B-7 Agency time savings Alberta, Idaho, North Dakota, Ontario, and Pennsylvania 5 Agency cost savings Idaho, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia 4 Improved use of materials California and New York 2 No. responding agencies: 14 Other comments: Performance improvement and failure reduction have yet to be determined. Warranty Settlement Agreement allowed the DOT to transfer risk of accepting flawed pavement and helps to avoid removing acceptable pavement. Hoping pavement warranties will result in ALL benefits listed above. Understand contractor’s processes. 14. What major challenges does your agency have with pavement warranties (select all that apply)? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Condition assessment Alberta, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and Ontario 8 Industry resistance California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Ontario, and Utah 8 Defining threshold values Alberta, California, Idaho, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Ontario 7 Legal California, Louisiana, New Jersey, Utah, and West Virginia 5 Organizational Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah 4 Specification development Alberta, New Jersey, and Ontario 3 Project selection California, Idaho, and North Dakota 3 No. responding agencies: 16 13. What benefits have resulted from pavement warranty implementation (select all that apply)? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Transfer risk to contractor Alberta, California, Florida, Michigan, New Brunswick, New York, Ontario, and Utah 8 Reduced pavement failures California, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New Brunswick, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 7 Improved contractor workmanship Alberta, California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 6 Improved pavement performance California, Florida, New Brunswick, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia 6

B-8 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices 16. The synthesis will include case examples illustrating agency pavement warranty practices. During the development of the case example, additional follow-up questions may be required. Agencies will be provided the opportunity to review the case example write-up for accuracy. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia 9 No Alberta, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Ohio, and Utah 9 No. responding agencies: 18 Other comments: Warranty enforcement. There was some concern (resistance) early in the development of the warranty specifications; however, in practice, when a warranty is enforced, the pavement issue was caused by something within the contractor’s control. Also have Dispute Resolution Boards so disputes can be resolved. Resistance to modifications of the existing specifications. Determining whether the observed distress is due to contractor’s materials or workmanship. 15. Has your agency ever invoked a pavement warranty? Response Agencies No. of Agencies Yes Alberta, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Brunswick, Ohio, Ontario, and Virginia 9 No California, Idaho, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia 9 No. responding agencies: 18