Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-07 Task 201, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
PROJECT NO. 20-07 TASK (201) COPY NO.
USE OF WARRANTIES IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Sidney Scott, Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ted Ferragut, TDC Partners, Ltd. Alexandria, Virginia
Stuart Anderson, Texas Transportation Institute College Station, Texas
Acknowledgements
This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-07. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-07 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The report was prepared by Sidney Scott of Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. The work was guided by a task group which included David Head, Texas DOT; Jennifer Brandenburg, North Carolina DOT; Ervin Dukatz, Jr., Mathy Construction; Shuo Li, Indiana DOT; Scott McClure, New Mexico DOT; Larry Orcutt, California DOT; Timothy Smith, Maryland SHA; Gerald Yakowenko, FHA; Peter Kopac, FHA. The project manager was David Reynaud, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... VII
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
EARLY USE OF WARRANTIES........................................................................................................... 2
SHIFT TO INNOVATIVE CONTRACTING ............................................................................................. 3
WARRANTY LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................... 5
WARRANTY CLASSIFICATIONS......................................................................................................... 6
Material and Workmanship Warranties............................................................................... 7 Performance Warranties ...................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2—WARRANTY USE IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES .................. 9
EUROPEAN MODEL.................................................................................................................. 9
WARRANTY USE IN THE UNITED STATES...................................................................... 12
1994 WARRANTY SYNTHESIS ........................................................................................................ 12
1998 WARRANTY STUDY............................................................................................................... 13
2002 WARRANTY STUDY FOR MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION............................. 14
2006 NCHRP PROJECT 20-07—TASK 201 SURVEY...................................................................... 15
WARRANTIES BY COMPONENT TYPE AND STATE........................................................................... 16
TOTAL NUMBER OF WARRANTY PROJECTS.................................................................................... 18
HOT-MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................... 19
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ................................................................................ 22
PRESERVATION TREATMENTS ........................................................................................................ 24
i
BRIDGE PAINTING AND BRIDGE COMPONENTS .............................................................................. 26
TRAFFIC SIGNALS, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, AND INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS............. 29
PAVEMENT MARKINGS .................................................................................................................. 30
OTHER COMPONENTS..................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 3—WARRANTY OUTCOMES............................................................................ 35
SURVEY RESULTS................................................................................................................... 35
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 35
OVERALL COST AND QUALITY....................................................................................................... 36
PAVEMENT WARRANTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS........................................ 39
QUALITY AND INNOVATION ........................................................................................................... 39
Indiana DOT (2003).......................................................................................................... 39 Wisconsin DOT (2001) ..................................................................................................... 40 Caltrans (2005).................................................................................................................. 42 Illinois DOT (2004) .......................................................................................................... 43 Colorado DOT (2001 and 2007) ....................................................................................... 44 Minnesota DOT (2006)..................................................................................................... 44 Ohio DOT (2003).............................................................................................................. 45
COSTS ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Indiana DOT (2003).......................................................................................................... 47 Wisconsin DOT (2001) ..................................................................................................... 47 Colorado DOT (2001 and 2007) ....................................................................................... 48 Illinois DOT (2004) .......................................................................................................... 50 Caltrans (2005).................................................................................................................. 51 Mississippi DOT (2006) ................................................................................................... 51
ELECTIVE MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................. 51
REQUIRED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................ 53
REPORTED DISPUTES ..................................................................................................................... 53
Michigan DOT.................................................................................................................. 54
ii
Colorado DOT .................................................................................................................. 54 Indiana DOT ..................................................................................................................... 54
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES............................................................................................................... 55
Contractors........................................................................................................................ 55 Sureties.............................................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER 4—IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................... 61
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA....................................................................................... 62
SELECTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................. 65
SETTING DISTRESS THRESHOLD VALUES..................................................................... 69
SETTING THE WARRANTY PERIOD.................................................................................. 75
BONDING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................. 77
RISK ALLOCATION AND CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS.................................. 81
QUALITY CONTROL, INSPECTION, TESTING, AND ACCEPTANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION............. 82
ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING........................................................................................................ 84
Design-Build-Warranty..................................................................................................... 84 Public-Private Partnerships and Concessionaires ............................................................. 86 Multiparameter Bidding.................................................................................................... 88
EXCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 89
MONITORING AND REMEDIAL ACTION........................................................................................... 91
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.............................................................................................. 94
CHAPTER SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 95
CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 97
iii
TABLES
TABLE 1 Comparison of European and U.S. Business Models .................................................. 11
TABLE 2 DOT Warranty Experience Reported by NCHRP Study 10-49.................................. 13
TABLE 3 DOTs With Most Significant Experience (Years and Projects) ................................. 17
TABLE 4 Pavement Performance Comparison (Wisconsin DOT 2001) .................................... 40
TABLE 5 Factors Used in Wisconsin DOT Warranty Cost Comparison ................................... 48
TABLE 6 Additional Costs for Short-Term HMA—Colorado DOT.......................................... 49
TABLE 7 Illinois DOT Cost Data Summary............................................................................... 50
TABLE 8 Contractor-Implemented Changes .............................................................................. 56
TABLE 9 Performance Indicator Examples ................................................................................ 66
TABLE 10 Performance Indicators for HMA Pavement Warranties.......................................... 68
TABLE 11 Threshold Values ...................................................................................................... 73
TABLE 12 Warranty Periods....................................................................................................... 75
FIGURES
Figure 1. Ohio Code 5525.25.......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Warranty periods reported in the 2002 European Asphalt Pavement Warranties Scan. . 9
Figure 3. Number of warranty projects constructed per year. ...................................................... 14
Figure 4. Warranty experience by state as reported by FHWA/MT-02-004-8131....................... 15
Figure 5. Number of DOTs with warranty experience by component. ........................................ 16
Figure 6. HMA pavement warranty experience by state. ............................................................. 20
Figure 7. PCC pavement warranty experience by state. ............................................................... 23
Figure 8. Surface treatment warranty experience by state. .......................................................... 25
Figure 9. Bridge warranty experience by state. ........................................................................... 27
Figure 10. Traffic signal, lighting, sign, and ITS warranty experience by state........................... 29
Figure 11. Pavement markings warranty experience by state....................................................... 31
Figure 12. Other component warranty experience by state. ........................................................ 33
Figure 13. Survey results—overall comparisons for cost and quality. ......................................... 36
Figure 14. Innovations applied on warranty contracts—Ohio DOT (2003)................................. 46
Figure 15. Specification excerpt—lane rental. ............................................................................. 52
Figure 16. Guideline excerpt—project selection. ......................................................................... 63
Figure 17. Warranty bond language.............................................................................................. 78
Figure 18. Exclusion specification language ................................................................................ 90
iv
APPENDICIES
Appendix A – Bibliography
Appendix B – Warranty Survey
Appendix B1 – Survey Form
Appendix B2 – Survey Responses
Appendix C – Sample Warranty Provisions
Appendix C1 – Hot-Mix Asphalt Warranty Specification
Appendix C2 – Portland Cement Concrete Warranty Specification
Appendix C3 – Microsurfacing Warranty Specification
Appendix C4 – Hot-Mix Asphalt Crack Treatment Warranty Specification
Appendix C5 – Chip Seal Warranty Specification
Appendix C6 – Bridge Painting Warranty Specification
Appendix C7 – Design-Build Bridge Component Warranty Specification
Appendix C8 – Signalization and Lighting Warranty Specifications
Appendix C9 – Pavement Marking Warranty Specification
Appendix C10 – Dowel Bar Retrofit Warranty Specification
Appendix C11 – Bridge Structure and Drainage Warranty Specification
Appendix C12 – Culvert Warranty Specification
v
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was performed under NCHRP 20-07 (Task 201) by Trauner Consulting Services, Inc., the prime contractor, in association with TDC Partners, Ltd., and the Texas Transportation Institute. Sidney Scott III, P.E. (Trauner) served as the principal investigator, with co-principal investigator Ted Ferragut, P.E. (TDC), technical advisor Stuart Anderson (TTI), and research assistant Megan Syrnick (Trauner). This work could not have been accomplished without assistance and feedback from out research advisory panel: David W. Head, Texas DOT; Jennifer Brandenburg, North Carolina DOT; Ervin L. Dukatz, Jr., Mathy Construction; Shuo Li, Indiana DOT; Scott M. McClure, New Mexico DOT; Lawrence H. Orcutt, California DOT; Timothy E. Smith, Maryland State Highway Administration; Gerald Yankowenko, Federal Highway Administration; and Peter A. Kopac, Federal Highway Administration. We thank the panel for their valuable insight and direction throughout this project. We also wish to thank the NCHRP technical panel, including Senior Program Officer, David Reynaud, and Deputy Director, Crawford Jencks, for there timely input, excellent comments, and helpful suggestions as this research project proceeded. Finally, we wish to express their appreciation for all those who responded to questionnaires and provided feedback and case study information. We understand that their time was valuable, and we could not have accomplished this work without their input. We also wish to thank our internal advisory team: Kirk Steudle, Michigan DOT; Thomas Lorfeld, Wisconsin DOT; Jay Glodbaum, Colorado DOT; David Andrewski, Indiana DOT; Robert Risser, Michigan Concrete Paving Association; Kevin McMullen, Wisconsin Concrete Paving Association; Peter Capon, Reith Riley; and Bob Horan, Salut.
vi
SUMMARY
Warranties for roadway construction in the United States have been used for more than
100 years. State highway agencies have accelerated the use of innovative contracting methods
and procedures, including roadway warranties, over the past 15 years. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) lifted its long-standing restriction on warranty use for federal-aid
projects in 1995 with two important qualifiers:
• The warranty must apply to a specific product or feature.
• The warranty should exclude ordinary maintenance items or features outside the
contractor’s control.
Since 1995, many state highway agencies have experimented with warranties. In fact,
more than two-thirds of U.S. highway agencies attempted at least one warranty project between
1995 and 2006.
This synthesis addresses the status of warranty use in the United States. It also
communicates conclusions drawn from state evaluations of warranty projects, addresses
implementation issues and gaps in warranty implementation procedures, and suggests strategies
to bridge those gaps. The information in this report is based on a literature review of past
warranty research and the results of a 2006 comprehensive survey on warranty use.
The survey found that warranties have been used for a number of features on U.S.
highway construction projects including:
• Pavements
vii
• Pavement Preservation
• Bridge Painting and Bridge Components
• Signalization, Lighting and Intelligent Transportation Systems
• Pavement Markings
• Roadside Facilities
The survey also noted that suppliers of certain manufactured products including
markings, paint, sealants, landscaping, lighting, signalization, and ITS components may offer
warranties for these components that are passed through to the owner.
Warranties are often classified as materials and workmanship warranties and performance
warranties. Performance warranties can be further characterized as either short-term or long-
term performance warranties.
Based on the survey conducted for this report, the majority of DOTs identified quality
improvements as the main objective in implement warranties; however, the quality and cost
benefit of using warranties has been difficult to quantify compared to similar non-warranted
projects. As a result, the effectiveness of warranties for highway construction projects continues
to be debated. Despite the difficulties evident in developing reliable comparisons, several DOTs
have published evaluation reports communicating significant quality and cost benefits of using
warranties.
viii
Identifying objectives for warranty use and understanding risk allocation issues are key
factors in developing warranty provisions and implementing warranties. Key components of a
warranty provision include:
• Warranty Term
• Performance Indicators
• Threshold Values
• Bonding Requirements
• Exclusions
• Monitoring and Remedial Action
• Dispute Resolution
Project selection is also a factor in implementing warranties; however, very few states
have formalized project selection criteria for implementing warranties. The past 15 years of
warranty use on U.S. highway projects has yielded useful information on the different ways
warranties may be applied on projects. The synthesis draws on feedback from the survey to
identify key components of warranty provisions, understand risk allocation, and suggest
strategies to improve warranty use.
ix
The report is organized into five chapters. The first chapter presents information on the
early use of warranties, changes in the federal regulations and restrictions governing warranty
use on federal-aid projects, and basic warranty classifications. The second chapter describes the
use of warranties in Europe, the development of warranty programs in the United States, and the
breakdown of warranties implemented on U.S. highway projects by component. The third
chapter discusses warranty project outcomes in terms of cost, quality, and other measures of
project success, as reported by U.S. highway agencies. The fourth chapter addresses warranty
implementation issues, including project selection, bonding, performance indicators, thresholds,
contracting considerations, risk allocation, remedial action, and other considerations. Areas of
practice where gaps exist in the use of warranties and suggested strategies for bridging those
gaps are identified throughout the third and fourth chapters as they relate to the outcomes and
implementation issues identified in these chapters. The fifth chapter presents a summary of
findings and conclusions.
x
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Some state transportation agencies employ contracting techniques, strategies, and
systems that are characterized as innovative because they are outside the generally accepted
contracting systems used in the U.S. highway construction industry. Some of these methods are
not new, but are actually old forms that have renewed application in today’s construction
environment. Warranties are an example of a long-standing concept with renewed application in
today’s highway construction industry.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a warranty as “an express or implied promise that
something in furtherance of a contract is guaranteed by one of the contracting parties” (1). In
simpler terms, a warranty is a promise that something sold is as represented or legally implied by
the seller.
The concept of a warranty obligation for repair or replacement of defective items is
supported by legal codes in effect today. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
provides specific remedies to the consumer for repair or replacement of defective products (2).
These remedies are implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. Because the code does not
define limitations for implied warranties related to the fitness or merchantability of a product,
many producers of products define express warranties that limit producer liability by defining the
conditions that justify a warranty repair or specifying exclusions that would void the warranty
obligation.
1
The UCC cannot be applied easily in the U.S. highway construction industry. With
specific exceptions, construction work is broadly defined as a service, not a product, but use of
short-term (1 year or less) warranties for obvious defects in materials and workmanship of
construction are a common practice for several state departments of transportation (DOTs).
Furthermore, DOTs are sometimes protected from defects in manufactured products used in
highway construction by warranties provided by suppliers or manufacturers.
In the highway industry, a construction warranty is typically defined as a guarantee of the
integrity of a product and of the contractor’s responsibility to replace or repair deficiencies (3).
Literature surveys show that various forms of construction warranties for specific work
components have been used in public and private road construction for more than a century.
Early Use of Warranties
One of the earliest providers of warranties on roadway construction in the United States
was Warren Brothers Paving. From 1890 to 1921, Warren Brothers Paving owned a patent on
hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and warranted the material and workmanship of its HMA pavements for
up to 15 years. In 1921, the asphalt market was opened up to competition and the Warren
Brothers Paving warranty program was discontinued (4). Warranties for concrete pavements date
back to 1889, when George W. Bartholomew proposed a 5-year warranty for portland cement
concrete (PCC) pavement to the city of Bellefontaine, Ohio (3).
Throughout the 1930s, the use of warranties, commonly referred to as guarantees at the
time, was prevalent at the city level as the asphalt market developed and municipalities raised
concerns about the long-term quality of asphalt pavements. A survey of 97 cities conducted in
1930 by the Committee on Pavement Guarantees found that 64 of the cities required some form
2
of a guarantee, while 30 did not. The remaining three cities allowed guarantees, but did not make
them a requirement for bidding. During this time, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads did not
support the use of these types of guarantees at the federal level, treating them as maintenance
extensions. These federal restrictions, combined with the fact that state DOTs were developing
comprehensive method specifications, resulted in limited use of warranties at the state level (3).
Limitations on warranty use at the state and federal levels continued for several decades.
During this time, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) replaced the Bureau of Public
Roads. In 1976, FHWA published regulation 23 CFR 635.413, formalizing its restrictions on the
use of warranty clauses on federal-aid construction projects, except for mechanical and electrical
equipment. FHWA based its warranty policy primarily on the belief that warranties would result
in federal participation in maintenance costs. FHWA restrictions resulted in very few warranties
being implemented on federal-aid construction projects before the 1990s. Despite the restrictions
limiting the use of warranties at the state and federal levels, warranty use at the city level
continued from the 1930s to recent years. A 1991 survey of members of the National Asphalt
Pavement Association (NAPA), conducted more than 60 years after the Committee on Pavement
Guarantees survey, showed that HMA pavement warranties were still being implemented in the
public sector on city contracts (3, 4).
Shift to Innovative Contracting
In 1988, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) created a task force to evaluate
innovative contracting practices used by U.S. DOTs and abroad. To evaluate these practices in
the federal-aid environment, the new procedures needed to be designated as experimental. This
led to FHWA’s Special Experimental Project No.14 (SEP-14).
3
Under SEP-14, FHWA allowed DOTs to temporarily suspend warranty restrictions on
select federal-aid projects to evaluate warranties, with the caveat that routine maintenance items
not be shifted to the contractor. Painting, pavement marking, pavement repair, and rubberized
asphalt pavement were some of the early warranty applications under this program (3).
The shift to innovative contracting continued with the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The act directed the General Accounting Office (now the
Government Accountability Office) to conduct a study on ways to improve the quality of federal-
aid highway projects, including the use of warranties. ISTEA also allowed states to
experimentally use warranties on their federally funded, non-National Highway System (NHS)
projects to the same extent permitted on state-funded projects.
FHWA’s International Technology Scanning Program also contributed to the shift to
innovative contracting. In 1991 and 1992, two international scans on asphalt and concrete
pavements reported exceptional performance and quality, due in part to the use of innovative
contracting techniques, including warranties (5, 6). In 1994, another international scan review of
innovative contract administration techniques reported the extensive use of warranties for many
products (7).
In 1995, FHWA lifted its prohibition against the use of construction warranties as a result
of the positive evaluations through SEP-14, ISTEA, and the international scans. The final rule
for applying warranties on NHS projects was published in the April 19, 1996, Federal Register
(8). From 1995 to 2001, DOTs increasingly used construction warranties to improve quality and
end-product performance and promote innovation. By 2006, more than two-thirds of U.S. DOTs
had implemented at least one construction warranty project.
4
The current federal-aid warranty policy generally allows for the use of warranties on
National Highway System federal-aid projects with two important qualifiers (8):
• The warranty must apply to a specific product or feature.
• The warranty should exclude ordinary maintenance items or features outside the
contractor’s control.
Warranty Legislation
FHWA’s policy allows DOTs to follow their own state procedures when using warranties
on non-National Highway System federal-aid projects. Several states have enacted warranty-
related legislation. Michigan enacted Senate Bill 303 in 1997 mandating the use of warranties on
state trunk line construction projects. Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, and Illinois subsequently
enacted legislation to mandate the use of construction warranties. In 1999, the Ohio Legislature
passed House Bill 163, which required the Ohio DOT to use construction warranties on at least
one-fifth of its capital construction projects. This bill has since changed from requiring a
minimum number to targeting a maximum number of warranties on one-fifth of its capital
construction projects. Figure 1 includes example legislative language from the revised Ohio
Code.
5
§ 5525.25. Pavement and other warranties.
(A) For each fiscal year, not more than one-fifth of the department of transportation’s capital construction projects shall be bid requiring a warranty as specified in the bidding documents and in division (B) of this section.
(B) A warranty period under this section shall be
(1) Not more than seven years, for pavement in the case of new construction;
(2) Not more than five years, in the case of bridge painting and pavement resurfacing and
rehabilitation;
(3) Not more than two years, in the case of pavement preventive maintenance, pavement markings,
raised pavement markers, guardrail, and other project items as determined by the director.
Figure 1. Ohio Code 5525.25.
Few states have legislation specifically restricting the use of construction warranties on
conventional low-bid projects, but warranty projects implemented in conjunction with other
innovative contracting methods such as design-build or best-value procurement often require
legislative authority. Restrictions for using alternative procurement vary greatly from state to
state, but an increasing number of DOTs have used design-build contracting for one or more
projects in conjunction with warranties or are considering public-private partnerships that
involve a long-term warranty or maintenance commitment.
Warranty Classifications
Warranty applications for highway construction differ from state to state, but most
warranties fall under one of two general classifications: material and workmanship warranties
and performance warranties. Performance warranties can further be classified into short and long
term. These terms, however, are not codified in federal or state legislative or regulatory
language, allowing significant latitude in defining and applying warranties. For purposes of this
report, these warranty classifications are defined as follows.
6
Material and Workmanship Warranties
Material and workmanship warranties cover early or catastrophic defects in the materials
and/or workmanship of the component being warranted. The length of a material and
workmanship warranty generally covers a small percentage of the overall design life of the
warranted product. Material and workmanship warranties are generally prescriptive and do not
require contractors to work outside the standard specification. The driving principle behind
material and workmanship warranties is that the contractor has control over material and
workmanship in accordance with the specifications, but has no control over design elements and
is not responsible for failures due to design defects.
Performance Warranties
Performance warranties place more responsibility on contractors for the performance of a
specific project component. The contractor is typically given more flexibility over certain aspects
of the component, such as mix design, material or product selection, construction methods,
equipment, traffic control, and in some cases structural design or alternate designs. Performance
warranties may be further classified into the subcategories of short-term performance warranties
and long-term performance warranties, as the length of the warranty is generally related to the
level of control and responsibility given to the contractor. Performance warranties generally
allow some contractor discretion to maintain or repair actual or potential defects. Contractor
responsibility, however, is still limited to defects resulting from aspects within the contractor’s
control. It is this apparent conflict that has led to slow acceptance of performance specifications
in the United States. The driving principle behind a performance warranty is to motivate
7
contractors to focus on quality to improve the intended performance of the product and to
minimize early or premature maintenance.
8
CHAPTER 2—WARRANTY USE IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES
EUROPEAN MODEL
Several European transportation agencies apply warranties on highway transportation
project components as a common practice. European agencies began implementing warranties
for a variety of reasons, including roadway maintenance needs, resource shortages, and the desire
to improve quality and efficiency. Warranty periods on European transportation projects range
from 1 year for material and workmanship warranties to 30 years for performance warranties
under design-build-operate-warrant contracts. The following figure shows the warranty periods
used by the countries that participated in the 2002 European Asphalt Pavement Warranties Scan
(4).
Figure 2. Warranty periods reported in the 2002 European Asphalt Pavement Warranties Scan.
Previous International Technology Scans (FHWA-AASHTO) concluded that the use of
warranties is entrenched in the European business model. The European model uses a much
higher degree of product development by industry, and the warranty clause acts as a risk
mitigation tool or an assurance to the agency that the proprietary product will perform.
9
Furthermore, many European contracts are awarded on a best-value basis, using qualifications
and price. The connection between product development and product guarantee, along with
qualification-based award, contrasts markedly with the customary U.S. practice of owner–
controlled product development, low-bid award, and specification of new products using method
or prescriptive requirements instead of proprietary or performance requirements (5, 6, 7). While
the scans found that quality improvements can be linked to the application of a warranty, in
reality, it is also probable that the sum total of all European business practices produces a higher-
quality product, albeit at a higher initial price.
In addition to a greater degree of industry-driven product development and the use of
best-value procurement, other European practices that contrast with typical U.S. practices
include the use of alternative contracting methods such as design-build, design-build-maintain,
design-build-finance-operate, and pavement performance contracts. These contracting methods
typically include a warranty period that is close or equal to the total design life of the pavement.
For example, the United Kingdom stated that its use of performance warranties had grown
because design-build became a contracting method of choice in the last decade and the addition
of operation and maintenance was a natural extension. Both the United Kingdom and Spain have
turned nearly exclusively to the private sector to perform design-build-operate-maintain contracts
with finance options (4).
Contracting methods that include operation and maintenance of facilities as an extension
of the construction contract illustrate the evolution of contracting practices in Europe. To
accommodate the warranty period on these contracts, several European agencies establish a
declining bond rate system or a prequalification process instead of bonds to guarantee
performance over the longer warranty term. Payments for these contracts are typically dispersed
10
over the life of the warranty, either on a fixed annual basis or as a percentage of the work
performed over the life of the warranty. However, this model is not immediately transferable to
the U.S. due to differences between the European and U.S. business models. The following table
summarizes key differences in the European and U.S. business models.
TABLE 1 Comparison of European and U.S. Business Models
European Model U.S. Model
• Maintenance responsibilities are outsourced. • Bidders are mainly large, vertically integrated
companies. • Industry is highly involved in product
development and implementation. • Qualifications-based selection is used widely. • Construction is more performance-based.
• Maintenance responsibilities are retained. • Bidders typically include smaller and specialty
companies. • Government holds more control over product
development and implementation. • Awards are typically low-bid. • Construction is prescriptive in nature.
The 2002 scan team recommended the continued implementation of warranties in the
United States. The recommendations included promulgating legislation for best-value and
prequalification procurement methods that incorporate quality and other technical factors in
contract award, and fostering collaboration among federal agencies, DOTs, and industry (4).
KEY FINDINGS FROM EUROPEAN PRACTICES
• Warranted projects generally use alternative procurement methods instead of low-bid selection.
• European countries with a long history of material and workmanship warranties are gradually moving
toward performance warranties.
• European highway agencies work closely with private sector industries to foster the use innovative
contracting methods.
• European highway agencies report that warranties contribute to improved performance of their
highway and trunk road system.
11
WARRANTY USE IN THE UNITED STATES
Warranty use in highway construction has grown, initially at a high rate and tapering off
over the past decade. The progression in the use of warranty contracting over the past 12 years is
drawn from status reports published in 1994, 1998, and 2002. A complete bibliography for the
literature reviewed in connection with this research is in Appendix A.
1994 Warranty Synthesis
NCHRP Synthesis 195, Use of Warranties in Road Construction, published in 1994,
reported on the experience level of U.S. DOTs in implementing highway construction
warranties. Synthesis 195 found that 17 DOTs had experience using warranties in highway
construction. Warranted components highlighted in the synthesis included bridge painting and
concrete pavement patching (Michigan), rubber asphalt overlay (Missouri), pavement markings
(Montana), and bridge deck expansion joint systems (Washington). Synthesis 195 did not
provide information on the total number of warranted projects, but noted that several of the 17
DOTs that indicated experience with warranties were referring to a 1-year guarantee provision
covering defective material and workmanship for major components of the project (3). This
provision required an extension of the performance or maintenance bond. Most subsequent
research efforts excluded these standard 1-year project guarantees and reported only on instances
in which a warranty for a specific component was backed by a warranty bond. Therefore, the
number of DOTs with warranty experience reported by Synthesis 195 may appear overstated
compared with subsequent reports, since warranty experience was defined somewhat differently
in these subsequent reports.
12
1998 Warranty Study
The 1998 NCHRP Project 10-49 and the resulting NCHRP Report 451, Guidelines for
Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best-Value Contracting, addressed the status of warranties
among other contracting methods. According to that study, 23 DOTs were actively pursuing
warranties. The 10-49 study also reported that 11 DOTs were considering implementing a
warranty. Table 2 shows warranty experience by DOT and components, as reported in the 10-49
study (9, 10).
TABLE 2 DOT Warranty Experience Reported by NCHRP Study 10-49 Product DOTs Length of Warranty (years)
HMAC/Rubberized HMAC AL, CA, CO, FL, IN, ME, MI, MO, OH, NV, WI
3–8
Asphaltic Crack Treatment MI 2
Bridge Components WA, ME 5–10
Bridge Painting IN, MA, ME, MI, NH 2–10
Chip Sealing CA, MI 1–2
ITS Building GA, NC 2–3
Landscaping Items/Irrigation Systems WY 1
Microsurfacing CO, MI, NV, OH 2
Pavement Marking FL, MT, OR, PA, UT, WV 2–6
Roof HI 10
The 10-49 study indicated that several DOTs gained warranty experience in 1996 and
1997, following FHWA’s publication of the final rule on warranty contracting. Figure 3
illustrates the spike in the number of warranty projects after publication of the final rule (9).
13
020406080
100120140
No.
of P
roje
cts
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
Figure 3. Number of warranty projects constructed per year.
2002 Warranty Study for Montana Department of Transportation
A November 2002 FHWA-sponsored study conducted for the Montana DOT, Use of
Performance-Based Warranties on Roadway Construction Projects, reported that 23 DOTs were
pursuing or interested in warranties, somewhat consistent with the 10-49 study. Thus, while it
may appear there was no appreciable change in the number of states using warranties between
1998 and 2002, a comparison of the specific DOTs cited in the 1998 and 2002 reports indicates
that several DOTs began warranty programs during that period (Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Minnesota, and Virginia), whereas others stopped actively pursuing warranties (Georgia, North
Carolina, Nevada, Montana, and Hawaii). Figure 4 shows the breakdown of warranty experience
by state as reported in the 2002 report for the Montana DOT (11).
14
Figure 4. Warranty experience by state as reported by FHWA/MT-02-004-8131.
Thus, a comparison of reports published in 1994, 1998, and 2002 shows that the use of
warranty contracting grew during that time. However, based on a comparison of the DOTs that
reported experience, it is clear that many DOTs did not carry warranties beyond a pilot program.
2006 NCHRP Project 20-07—Task 201 Survey
A survey was conducted for this synthesis to gauge the state of practice on warranties in
the United States as of 2006. The survey form is included in Appendix B1. The survey was
distributed to members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittees on Construction and Materials. A total of 37 surveys were
returned. In some case, multiple responses from different divisions in the same DOT were
returned, since many DOTs do not have a centralized source for warranty information.
DOTs that did not respond to the survey were contacted by phone to determine whether
these DOTs had warranty experience. All but three DOTs responded to the phone inquiry, but
15
information on warranty use in these three states was obtained from other sources, namely the
literature review and local industry. Thus, feedback on experience was obtained from virtually
all U.S. DOTs. A list of the respondents and tabulated summaries of the survey responses are in
Appendix B2.
The survey focused on warranties for in-place construction, but several DOTs also
provided information on warranties for manufactured products. Information on manufactured
products relevant to specific components is included where appropriate.
Warranties by Component Type and State
Task 201 research shows that 36 DOTs have implemented at least one warranty project
since 1994. Figure 5 shows the type of components warranted and the number of DOTs that
have implemented each type. Refer to Appendix B2 for a detailed breakdown of the component
warranties implemented by state.
Figure 5. Number of DOTs with
Number of DOTs
warranty experience by component.
16
While a large number of DOTs have implemented at least one warranty project, the
survey data show that the majority of warranty projects are concentrated in a small number of
states. Table 3 highlights DOTs with the most significant experience based on the survey.
TABLE 3 DOTs With Most Significant Experience (Years and Projects) DOT Warranted
Components Years Experience Total Number of
Projects
Michigan Pavement Pavement Preservation Pavement Markings Bridge Painting
10+ 10+ 10+ 10+
1,000+ (Standard Practice) Breakdown by type not available
Florida Pavement Pavement Marking Bridge Painting Traffic Signal/Lighting/ITS Bridge Components
3 2 2 2 2
700+ (Standard Practice) 10 10 10 20
Ohio Pavement Pavement Preservation Pavement Marking Bridge Painting Bridge Components
6 6 3 6 6
156+ 33+ 44+ 44+ 134+
Wisconsin Pavement 15+ 80+
Illinois Pavement 5 27
California Pavement Pavement Preservation
5 4
10+ 12+
Minnesota Pavement Pavement Preservation Pavement Markings Bridge Painting Bridge Components Lighting/ITS
4 2 3 3 3 3
20 1 4 4 4 2
Colorado Pavement Pavement Preservation Roadside Facilities
7 9 5
15 1 15
Mississippi Pavement Bridge Deck Overlays
4 3
11+ 3
Indiana Pavement Pavement Preservation
10+ 3
10 2
Maryland Bridge Painting Not available Standard Practice
Oregon Pavement Markings Bridge Painting Pavement (HMA only)
4 5 4
Standard Practice Standard Practice 3
17
Total Number of Warranty Projects
The survey results support that as of 2006, more than 2500 highway construction projects
have included a warranty on a specific component of the project. Appendix B2 shows the total
number of warranties by component and DOT reported by the survey, and DOTs with the most
significant experience are summarized in Table 3. Exact figures for certain components are
difficult to quantify, especially for components that may not call for comprehensive tracking and
recording of the warranty monitoring data, such as bridge painting, pavement markings, traffic
signalization, and other manufactured items. Also, DOTs that implemented warranties several
years ago did not always retain detailed records of their warranty experience. Therefore, the total
number of warranty projects shown in Appendix B2 for some components may be somewhat
underreported.
The most common and most carefully monitored warranties are those for pavement
components. The survey conducted for this synthesis showed that the total number of pavement
warranty projects completed by 2006 was more than 2,150. As shown in Table 3, the majority of
pavement projects are concentrated in the following states:
• Michigan
• Florida
• Ohio
• Wisconsin
• Illinois
• California
• Minnesota
• Colorado
• Mississippi
• Indiana
18
The Michigan DOT accounts for nearly 50 percent of the total, having constructed more
than 1,000 pavement warranty projects in the last 10 years. The Florida DOT accounts for the
next highest percentage, reporting close to 700 pavement warranty projects. The Ohio DOT and
the Wisconsin DOT account for the next highest percentages with more than 150 and 80
pavement warranty projects, respectively. The remaining 5 percent, which totals a little more
than 100 projects, is spread over 19 DOTs. This breakdown suggests that a few DOTs gained
significant warranty experience during pilot programs that evolved into standard practice, while
many others have not carried their warranty programs beyond pilot implementation projects.
Despite these numbers, several DOTs now using warranties reportedly plan to expand their
warranty programs.
The following sections present an overview of U.S. experience in the past 15 years on
each major warranty component category, based on Part 1 of the survey and the literature review.
Example specifications for each major warranty component category are included in Appendix
C. These specifications were selected to illustrate a range of examples from several different
DOTs.
Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements
HMA pavement is the most commonly warranted component among U.S. DOTs. In the
last decade, more than 700 HMA pavement warranties have been implemented in 24 states.
Figure 6 shows the breakdown of HMA pavement warranty use by type and state. The numbers
shown on the figure indicate the approximate number of warranty projects constructed in each
state.
19
Figure 6. HMA pavement warranty experience by state.
Figure 6 categorizes the warranty experience into the classifications discussed in Chapter
1. Reported durations for material and workmanship warranties ranged from 1 to 5 years, and
these warranties were generally implemented through traditional design-bid-build contracting.
Experience in this category reported through the literature review and survey included Oregon
(3-year warranties), California (1-year), Louisiana (3-year), Illinois (5-year), Michigan (5-year),
Florida (3-year), Pennsylvania (5-year), and New York (1-year).
Short-term performance warranties in Figure 6 ranged from a 2-year design-build
warranty to a 10-year performance warranty. Most DOTs in this category, however,
20
implemented 5- to 7-year warranties that afforded contractors some flexibility in mix design and
materials selection, as was the case in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In addition to the common 5- and 7-year warranties included
under short-term warranties, there were some examples of warranties up to 10 years. Colorado is
evaluating a 10-year HMA performance warranty in which the contractor controlled the
pavement thickness along with mix design. Kentucky also developed provisions for a 10-year
performance warranty linked to alternate bid choices for HMA or PCC. Appendix C1 includes
an example of an HMA performance specification from Mississippi.
Short-term design-build warranties were also categorized under the short-term
performance category. Minnesota reported that it applies a 3- or 5-year warranty on all design-
build projects, while Utah reported one design-build project that included a 2-year warranty on
HMA pavement. Maine and Washington reported similar experience using short-term warranties
on design-build projects. These warranties differ from material and workmanship warranties of
similar durations in that the contractor has greater responsibility for design and other factors
under design-build contracting. They also contrast with long-term design-build-warranty projects
in that they do not typically require the contractors to perform future maintenance. In essence,
these warranties are implemented as an additional quality assurance measure for design-build
contracts. The literature review found that South Carolina also had experience with this type of
warranty, although its experience differs somewhat from other DOTs. Rather than develop
formal specifications, the DOT asked contractors to define and propose the warranty terms,
which were evaluated and scored under a best-value procurement selection (21).
21
The few U.S. highway projects
in the third category, long-term
performance warranty, have been
implemented in Virginia, Missouri,
and New Mexico, but the concept of a long-term warranty or maintenance agreement is being
developed or explored in several states (Texas, Indiana, and Virginia, among others). These
warranty or maintenance agreements are associated with publicly funded design-build-warranty
contracts or public-private partnership agreements. For example, Virginia is moving forward
with public-private development and long-term operation and maintenance agreements under its
Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA) program (Interstate 81, Coalfields Expressway, and
U.S. Route 460). Also, maintenance and operation agreements associated with concessions and
long-term lease agreements (50 years or more) for toll road projects, for example the Pocahontas
Parkway in Virginia, the Trans-Texas Corridor SH-130, and the Indiana Toll Road, include
performance parameters for HMA pavements similar to those found in warranty provisions.
State Project Warranty
Missouri Highway 63 25 Years
New Mexico State Route 44 20 Years
Virginia Route 288 20 Years
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements
More than 317 PCC pavement warranties have been implemented across 15 states since
the 1990s. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of PCC pavement warranty use by type and state. The
numbers shown on the figure indicate the approximate number of warranty projects constructed
in each state.
22
Figure 7. PCC pavement warranty experience by state.
Reported experience for PCC material and workmanship pavement warranties included
Florida (5-year warranties), Louisiana (3-year), Kansas (5-year), Illinois (5-year), Ohio (7-year),
and Michigan (varies). The length of material and workmanship warranties for PCC pavement is
somewhat longer compared to the length for HMA pavement, proportional to the longer design
life of PCC pavements. Louisiana indicated a desire to move to longer periods, but stated that
bonding limitations prevented it from doing so. Appendix C2 includes an example material and
workmanship PCC specification from Illinois.
23
Reported periods for performance warranties ranged from 3 to 10 years, and the
warranties were implemented under traditional design-bid-build, multi-parameter, or design-
build contracting. Similar to their HMA experience, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota reported
experience with short-term design-build-warranty PCC projects ranging from 3 to 5 years. The
literature review also showed that South Dakota implemented one 5-year PCC warranty project
on a design-build continuously reinforced concrete (CRC) pavement (12).
Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana have implemented 5-year performance
warranties, and Mississippi, Colorado, and Kentucky have implemented 10-year performance
warranties on PCC pavements. Mississippi and Colorado each advertised projects requiring a full
10-year warranty, both allowing greater latitude in the pavement design and material selection.
Kentucky developed the warranty into a biddable parameter by advertising the project as a
minimum required 5-year warranty with options to bid up to five additional years, using a multi-
parameter procurement process to award the contract. Kentucky used an A+B-C formula to
develop adjusted bids and evaluate price (A), time (B), and warranty length (C) in the
determination of the successful bidder. All three contractors that submitted bids on the Kentucky
project proposed the maximum 10-year warranty period. As of this report, no PCC pavement
warranty longer than 10 years has been implemented in the United States.
Preservation Treatments
More than 140 pavement preservation warranties have been implemented in at least nine
states. Reported preservation treatments included microsurfacing, crack sealing, chip sealing, and
asphalt surface treatments. Figure 8 shows the breakdown of surface treatment warranties by
type and state.
24
Figure 8. Surface treatment warranty experience by state.
The typical warranty periods for preservation treatments are 1 to 3 years, which can be a
significant percent of the overall design life of the surface treatment. Therefore, the level of
control over certain aspects of the work granted under preservation treatment warranties may be
greater than warranties for new or reconstructed pavements, even though the typical warranty
period for surface treatments is seemingly shorter. Example warranty specifications for
microsurfacing, crack treatment, and chip seals are included in Appendices C3, C4, and C5.
Based on the survey, the majority of the preservation treatments have been implemented in
Michigan and Ohio over the last decade. Both Michigan and Ohio reported durations of 2 years
25
on their pavement preservation warranties. California also reported significant experience with
more than ten 1-year chip seal warranties.
Nevada reported using a 2-year warranty on its annual statewide microsurfacing
contracts. Nevada reported that all defects have been resolved at the project level and no action
has been required by the state on any of the warranted projects. Other reported experience
included Colorado (1-year warranties), Indiana (3-year), Minnesota (1-year), North Carolina (1-
year) and Texas (2-year).
Bridge Painting and Bridge Components
Sixteen DOTs reported experience warranting bridge components on highway
construction projects, nine on bridge painting and nine on other bridge components. Many of the
warranties implemented on bridge components have been part of a design-build contract.
Warranted bridge components have included the following:
• Deck overlays • Waterproofing membranes
• Coatings • Parapets and approaches
• Deck joints • Bearing devices
• Granite pier protection • Special-purpose elevators
• Bridge lighting and electrical
components
• Bridge drainage systems
Figure 9 shows the breakdown of bridge painting and bridge component warranties by
type and state.
26
Figure 9. Bridge warranty experience by state.
The typical period for bridge painting warranties is 2 to 3 years, but some states warrant
longer periods. Maryland’s bridge painting warranty includes a minimum 5-year warranty with a
bid option to increase the warranty period to 10 years. Ohio also reported that it warranted bridge
painting for a 5-year period, but it discontinued its bridge painting warranty program in 2000
after a cost evaluation indicated that these warranties resulted in bid increases of 26 percent (19).
Maryland, however, reported minimal cost increases associated with the use of these warranties.
New Hampshire reported that it seriously considered bridge painting warranties, but
ultimately did not apply them. Also, both Massachusetts and Indiana reportedly warranted bridge
27
painting projects in 1998 (9), but neither state indicated they used bridge painting warranties in
their survey responses for this synthesis. Oregon (1-year standard practice), Minnesota (3-year),
and Wisconsin (2-year). Michigan (2-year) were also identified in the literature review as having
experience, but they also did not indicate bridge painting warranty experience in the survey
responses for this study. Appendix C6 contains an example bridge painting warranty
specification from Wisconsin.
Periods for bridge component warranties vary, depending on the level of design control
given to the contractor. Ohio developed several 2-year material and workmanship provisions for
bridge decks, based on the type of concrete used (e.g., Class C concrete, high-performance
concrete, and quality control/quality assurance [QC/QA] concrete). Florida reported experience
applying 5-year material and workmanship warranties on expansion joints, coatings, bearing
devices, lighting and electrical systems, and drainage systems while retaining design control of
the bridge. Illinois developed material and workmanship warranty specifications for bridge
decks, joints, parapets, and approach pavements. Mississippi reported warranting bridge deck
overlays for 4 years, while giving contractors flexibility in mix design.
Bridge component warranties were also reportedly applied to design-build projects in
Minnesota, Washington, Maine, South Carolina, and New Mexico. Minnesota and Washington
each reported applying 2- to 3-year bridge component warranties on design-build bridge projects.
South Carolina included 10- to 15-year bridge component warranties on two design-build
projects, the Cooper River Bridge replacement and SC-170. Maine implemented two design-
build bridge projects in Houlton and Sagadahoc with 5-year warranties for bearings, wearing
surfaces, and coatings and 10-year warranties for expansion joints and waterproofing membrane
28
(See Appendix C7). The Sagadahoc project also warranted the granite pier protection. Finally,
New Mexico included a 20-year warranty on bridge structures in its Corridor 44 project.
Traffic Signals, Lighting, Signage, and Intelligent Transportation Systems
Eight DOTs reported having warranted traffic signal, lighting, signage, or intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) components, including warranties on design-build projects for
multiple components in Maine, Washington, and Minnesota. Figure 10 shows the breakdown of
traffic signal, lighting, and ITS component warranties by state and type.
Figure 10. Traffic signal, lighting, sign, and ITS warranty experience by state.
29
Manufacturers or suppliers commonly offer warranties for signals, lighting, and signs, as
is the case in Mississippi. Florida is the only DOT to report experience using performance-based
construction warranties for signals and lighting (See Appendix C8). Florida’s warranties differ
from manufacturer warranties in that the contactor, not the manufacturer, guarantees the
performance of the product. Florida began implementing 3-year construction warranties for
highway lighting and signalization on select projects in 2004. Florida’s warranty provisions for
these components require that the contractor designate a responsible party before the installation
of the component. This setup allows contractors to pass responsibility for the warranty on to
subcontractors performing the installation. If the contractor wishes to pass the responsibility for
the warranty on to the subcontractor performing the work, the subcontractor must be approved
under the DOT’s prequalification process and complete a form agreeing to accept responsibility
for the warranty.
ITS warranties have also been applied on highway projects. For example, North Carolina
executed a design-build-operate agreement for its Transponder Project involving the design,
construction, and operation of an electronic system to be used by trucks to bypass weigh stations.
ITS projects executed under design-build-operate contracts usually include warranties that
extend for the length of the operation agreement. Florida and Minnesota also reported experience
using ITS warranties for periods of 2 to 3 years.
Pavement Markings
Pavement markings are often warranted through manufacturer warranties, where the
manufacturer is responsible for repair or replacement of defects instead of the contractor.
Manufacturer warranties may be passed directly to the DOT or they may be assigned to the
30
contractor and then passed through to the DOT upon completion of construction. This warranty
may require that the construction contract remain open for a short observational period in case
defects arise in the installation of the warranted component that are not attributable to the
manufacturer. When the manufacturer holds the warranty, the DOT typically contacts the
manufacturer directly if the warranty is invoked. However, there are also several examples of
contractors warranting pavement markings. Figure 11 shows DOTs with pavement marking
warranty experience.
Figure 11. Pavement markings warranty experience by state.
31
Kansas, Maryland, Utah, Texas, and Mississippi reported using manufacturer pass-
through warranties on pavement markings. Connecticut (1-year warranties), Florida (5-year),
Colorado (2-year), Kentucky (1- and 2-year), Minnesota (3-year), Montana (3-year), Ohio (2-
and 3-year), Oregon (7-year), Pennsylvania (3-year), Tennessee (2-year), and West Virginia (1-
year) have implemented construction warranties for pavement markings, holding the contractor
responsible for the warranty. Appendix C9 contains warranty provisions from Tennessee for two
types of pavement markings.
Kentucky developed a standard warranty specification for pavement markings that is
applied to all paving projects. The warranty provision is renewable for up to 2 years and includes
incentives and disincentives tied to retro-reflectivity. Pavement marking warranties are also a
standard practice in Oregon.
Tennessee, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, and Kansas reported discontinuing pavement
marking warranties after a trial period. Ohio and Tennessee stated that the benefits were not great
enough to justify the monitoring effort. Kansas indicated that difficulty in determining
responsibility for failure between the manufacturer and the contractor lead to discontinuing
pavement marking warranties. Similarly, Colorado implemented two pavement marking
warranty projects and commented that while contractors did pay closer attention to placement as
a result of the warranty, the pavement marking warranty projects resulted in higher costs for
similar performance.
West Virginia awards annual contracts in each of its 10 districts for the placement of
pavement markings, and these contracts include a 1-year material and workmanship warranty for
markings. The DOT reported that it has had no disputes on these contracts and that it is receiving
32
excellent retro-reflectivity measurements on the warranted markings. West Virginia also awards
biannual contracts for the placement of acrylic-waterborne pavement marking on its interstates
and four-lane expressways. There has been one dispute related to the biannual contract, but
overall the DOT considers the program a success and expects to expand the use of these types of
contracts to other traffic control items.
Other Components
Several other components have been warranted on highway construction projects, as
shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Other component warranty experience by state.
33
Nevada, North Dakota, and Wisconsin have implemented warranties on dowel bar
retrofits. North Dakota warrants the retrofits for a 1-year period (See Appendix C10), while
Nevada and Wisconsin warrant the retrofits for 3 years. Maryland implemented one PCC
pavement project that warranted concrete joint sealant for 3 years. Drainage and structures in
New Mexico’s Corridor 44 project were warranted for 20 years (See Appendix C11). Maine and
Minnesota have included warranties of 5 and 3 years, respectively, on components of design-
build projects, including pavement settlement and culverts (See Appendix C12). Roadside
facilities such as weigh-in-motion stations and tourism facilities in Colorado and Arkansas have
also included warranties.
34
CHAPTER 3—WARRANTY OUTCOMES
This chapter summarizes survey feedback on warranty objectives and outcomes. It also
summarizes pavement warranty performance assessments in the areas of quality, innovation,
cost, disputes, and remedial action found through the survey and literature review. In addition, it
provides industry viewpoints on the outcomes of warranty use.
SURVEY RESULTS
Part 2 of the survey conducted for this synthesis asked general questions relating to
warranty outcomes including DOT objectives for using warranties, success in achieving warranty
objectives, and overall perceptions of cost and quality of warranted projects compared with non-
warranted projects. Survey responses for these topic areas are discussed in the following
sections and detailed tabular summaries of the survey responses to these topics are included in
Appendix B2.
Objectives
When asked to identify and rank
warranty objectives, survey respondents for
this synthesis provided at least two
objectives for using them. Based on the
responses, improved product performance
and enhanced project quality were the most
important drivers. Other key objectives
included promoting innovation, shifting
Top Objectives for Warranty Use
1. Improve product performance and enhance quality.
2. Shift performance and quality assurance
responsibility to contractor.
3. Promote innovation and new technology.
4. Reduce DOT administrative and inspection costs.
5. Improve public relations or minimize impacts on
the public.
6. Lower life-cycle and maintenance costs.
7. Protect against early or catastrophic failures.
35
responsibility, minimizing public impacts, reducing DOT administration and maintenance cost,
and protecting against early or catastrophic failures.
Survey respondents were also asked to rate their success in achieving stated objectives
for warranty use. The majority of respondents to this question reported that the DOT was 90
percent or more successful in achieving its stated objectives for warranty use. However, the
respondents had varying levels of experience with warranties. Therefore, the success rates
reported in Appendix B2 should be considered in relation to the total number of projects
implemented.
Overall Cost and Quality
Survey respondents were asked to rate warranted projects on overall cost and quality
compared with non-warranted projects. A breakdown of responses is shown in Figure 13.
0 5 10 15
Significantly more
Slightly more
About the Same
Slightly less
Significantly less
Not determined
No. Of Responses
Overall QualityOverall Cost
Figure 13. Survey results—overall comparisons for cost and quality.
36
The majority of respondents answered that the costs and quality of warranted projects
were about the same. Colorado reported that quality was slightly less on warranted projects than
on non-warranted projects. When asked to explain its response, Colorado replied that a recent
evaluation showed an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio, so the quality on warranted projects was
reported to be less than the quality on non-warranted projects.
The survey results show an apparent discrepancy in objectives, success rates in achieving
stated objectives, and warranty project ratings on overall cost and quality. The survey responses
indicated that improved quality was the most important objective when applying warranties. The
results also indicated that respondents were, at a minimum, 70 percent successful in achieving
the overall objective. However, most respondents also rated the overall quality of warranty
projects as about the same as non-warranty projects, contradicting the assertion that the DOTs
were successful in the overall objective of improving quality. The cause of this apparent
contradiction relates to the way in which quality, performance, and success are measured, linked,
and interpreted. Inconsistencies may result from a lack of the following:
• Direct links between specific project outcomes and the application of a warranty
• Complete and accurate cost comparisons
• Consistency between subjective or anecdotal observation and quantitative data on
warranty projects
• Links between quality indicators and long term performance
37
• Comprehensive tracking systems to compare remedial work and maintenance on
warranted and non- warranted projects
All of these obstacles can be classified in terms of the difficulty in measuring and
communicating warranty benefits, and several of these are discussed in more detail in the
following sections on costs, performance indicators, thresholds, and remedial work.
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Measuring and Communicating Warranty Benefits
The reported benefits from a warranty include better quality (better-performing products), reduced inspection, cost
savings, and innovation. While each may be measurable in some way, cause and effect are difficult to determine.
Additionally, quality characteristics measured during construction may not always directly correlate with long-term
pavement performance Also, multiple factors often affect project outcomes, so it may be difficult to measure success
that is attributable solely to the warranty.
STRATEGY TO IMPROVE GAPS
Develop a post-construction and post-warranty assessment for each product or component or a representative sample
of project types and components. Develop a systematic review for all products built with warranties and compare
them with non-warranty products.
Structure pilot projects to compare performance under the same project conditions to more directly assess the impact
of a warranty when comparing performance outcomes. For example, Mississippi DOT conducted a pilot HMA project
on an 11-mile section of roadway. It divided the project into two sections, warranted and non-warranted, with
identical conditions and scope.
In addition to harder measures based on ride quality or roughness index, anecdotal evidence can be used to rate or
score quality-related parameters or satisfaction. DOTs should capture qualitative data from users or project
participants by rating performance or quality-based parameters during and after construction, and supplement the data
with feedback or comments to support ratings.
Document and broadcast the results to other DOTs and the industry through joint forums, information-sharing
conferences, web-based resources, and highway training programs. Current warranty practice reports are available,
but not widely disseminated to the industry.
38
Despite the difficulties evident in performing accurate, reliable comparisons of warranted
and non-warranted projects, several DOTs have published evaluations to communicate perceived
and proven benefits of warranties. The following section summarizes these evaluations.
PAVEMENT WARRANTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
A number of DOTs have performed benchmarking studies comparing pavement
warranties with similar conventional projects on quality and cost, made other general
observations on the effectiveness of pavement warranties, or concluded that it is too soon to
assess warranty performance. About 10 DOTs have issued progress or evaluation reports
addressing pavement warranties in the past 7 years. Seven of these DOTs quantified warranty
performance in their own highway programs. Findings from these reports are summarized below
primarily in terms of quality, innovations, and cost, but disputes, elective maintenance, and
industry perspectives on warranty use are also addressed.
Quality and Innovation
Indiana DOT (2003)
Indiana DOT evaluated fourteen 5-year HMA performance warranty projects by
monitoring and comparing performance characteristics of the warranty projects against the state
average of the same characteristics on all non-warranted projects on the interstate network. The
evaluation concluded that the performance of the HMA warranty projects exceeded that of the
non-warranted projects. Specifically, the evaluation concluded that warranted HMA had a lower
and more consistent IRI than non-warranty HMA and that warranted HMA sections had less
rutting than non-warranty sections. The report also concluded that rut depths were less variable
39
on the warranty projects. The report estimated that the warranty increased the design life of the
pavement by 9 years (13).
Wisconsin DOT (2001)
Wisconsin DOT’s 5-year progress report on asphalt pavement warranties presented
findings for quality and innovation based on comparisons of eighteen 5-year performance
warranty asphalt pavement projects with state-averaged non-warranted asphalt projects. Overall,
the evaluation indicated improvements as a result of the warranty. As shown in Table 4, the
average distress performance of the warranted pavements over five years was improved
compared with the historic distress performance. The ride values were also significantly better
than historic performance of non-warranted pavements. Wisconsin DOT concluded that this can
be an important consideration, since it relates directly to customer expectations and possibly
extended pavement life.
TABLE 4 Pavement Performance Comparison (Wisconsin DOT 2001) Performance Pavement Age
Indicators New 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years
State Average IRI—Non Warranty 1.11 1.17 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.45
Average IRI—Warranty 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.94
State Average PDI—Non Warranty 0 5 11 16 21 26
Average PDI—Warranty 0 1 2 6 12 9
Wisconsin’s 5-year progress report also identified the following benefits of industry
innovations (14):
40
• More awareness on the part of the contractor for quality of workmanship and
quantity of personnel, machinery, and material. For example, the contractor has
taken more initiative in determining where additional material is most beneficial
with string lines, profilograph, and visual inspections before placement of the
binder and surface courses.
• Predicting durability of the mix design before producing the pavement (i.e.,
testing using the Georgia Loaded Wheel Tester, the Homberg Tester, and
Superpave Level III testing helps the contractor make adjustments without
needing DOT approval, saving time and money).
• Using mix designs that require better materials than meet present Wisconsin DOT
specifications.
• Closer tolerance in monitoring of the quality control process. The contractor is
totally responsible for the product, including quality control.
• Contractor quality assurance of all control systems. The contractor is totally
responsible for the product and its quality.
• Subcontractors and suppliers are required to meet strict specifications.
Responsibility is distributed to all that have an interest in the product, not just the
paving contractor.
41
• Risk sharing with subcontractors and suppliers. The contractor now has to look at
the best subcontractor, not necessarily the low bid.
• Rubblizing concrete pavement instead of the planned base patching with asphalt
or concrete. Warranties allow for contractor innovation, such as experimentation
with a rounded sand interlayer to retard reflective cracking and use of different
combinations of polymers, additives, and performance-graded asphalt to see
which performs best.
• When possible, scheduling the work progress so that traffic can use lower lifts of
pavements before the final lift is put down. This tests pavement and grade
performance immediately before the project is finished.
Caltrans (2005)
Caltrans evaluated 10 warranted and 15 non-warranted projects under its pilot warranty
program. According to the progress report published in August 2005, the highway surface
treatments on the pilot warranty projects performed well overall. The evaluation reported that
contractors appeared to apply extra effort during construction and paid attention to details,
including binder temperature, binder spread rate, rock spread rate, and rock temperature. Caltrans
also reported that one contractor took extra effort with materials by trucking in rock from a
distance to ensure the project would perform for the warranty period. The report also stated that
the warranty period provided added time for field maintenance personnel to observe performance
of the pavement application.
42
Caltrans’ evaluation also reported that the warranties resulted in more innovative mix
designs on some projects. For example, in 1993, a 5-year warranty was included on a Caltrans
project in District 2 on Route 5. The material used was rubberized asphalt concrete, type G(R
AC-G). The contractor implemented an innovative mix design procedure based on the latest
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) design method. Researchers at the University of
California, Berkeley refined the test method to measure fatigue and shear performance in asphalt
concrete (AC) pavement. The road surface performed well during the warranty period and
beyond. Caltrans noted this example as a clear demonstration that warranties bring innovation to
state projects (18).
Illinois DOT (2004)
Illinois DOT evaluated about twenty-seven 5-year HMA and PCC warranty projects 4
years after the inception of the program in 2000. Fourteen of these projects were still under
construction at the time of the evaluation, and the report concluded that it was not yet possible to
assess the effectiveness of the warranty specifications since none of the projects had reached the
end of the 5-year warranty period. The evaluation report also included results of a survey of the
resident engineers for the warranty projects. Only one of 13 respondents believed that the DOT
was achieving a higher-quality product because of the warranty, and it appeared for the most part
that the contractors made no extraordinary efforts specifically because of the warranty. The
remaining 12 respondents reported that on most projects, construction was done in accordance
with standard practices, and while the minimum required quality control testing and inspection
activities were performed, no additional testing was done. Based on these observations, the
conclusion was that no greater effort was made to ensure a quality project as a result of the
warranty compared to a standard project (20).
43
Colorado DOT (2001 and 2007)
Colorado DOT has published several reports on pavement warranties since it started its
program in 1998. An initial report published in 2001 was inconclusive on the benefits of short-
term material and workmanship warranties. This report evaluated six HMA pavement warranties
contracted by that time. On three, the full warranty period had elapsed. The evaluation indicated
that performance on the three completed warranty projects was very similar to the performance
on the traditional control projects, but that more evaluation was needed. The reasoning was that
warranties eventually might motivate contractors to do better work, especially if corrective
action was required on past projects (17).
In 2007 Colorado DOT published a second report on the cost benefit of short-term HMA
pavement warranties. This report evaluated eight 3-year warranty projects and two 5-year
warranty projects. The report concluded that the 3- and 5-year short-term warranty projects had
less rutting and were slightly smoother than the control projects, but when evaluated on cost-
benefit ratio, the warranties had no tangible benefits. The cost-benefit ratio analysis is described
further in the next section on costs (15).
Colorado DOT also published an initial report on long-term performance warranties, but
indicated that not enough time had elapsed to evaluate the comparative performance data
between its 10-year performance warranty projects and the traditional control projects (16).
Minnesota DOT (2006)
Minnesota DOT’s evaluation of 2- and 5-year bituminous pavement warranties from
2000 to 2005 concluded that 2-year warranties had no added value and it was too soon to
44
evaluate the 5-year warranties. The report included the following observations on warranty
performance (23):
• There does not appear to be any significant changes in the way bituminous
pavements are constructed with a 2-year warranty.
• Warranties require additional effort by the districts to monitor the performance of
items during the warranty period.
• There does not appear to be significant added value with 2-year bituminous
warranties.
• Additional time is required to assess the effectiveness of long-term (5-year)
warranties on many of the design-build projects.
Ohio DOT (2003)
A research report conducted in 2003 for the Ohio DOT surveyed representatives of Ohio
DOT, other state DOTs with warranty experience, contractors, and sureties. The following graph
excerpted from the report summarizes the way contractors have applied innovations on warranty
projects based on the responses from the DOTs and contractors. The report indicated that the
majority of contractors responded that innovations were applied through quality-conscious
construction (19).
45
Figure 14. Innovations applied on warranty contracts—Ohio DOT (2003)
Costs
The following section summarizes cost evaluations performed by various DOTs to
compare warranted with non-warranted projects. As with any analysis, it is important to
understand the methodology behind the analysis, as well as the assumptions made. DOTs make
certain assumptions when developing cost analyses. Otherwise, cost comparisons or cost-benefit
ratios can be difficult to understand. Assumptions that engineers may make for purposes of a
cost analysis can include:
• How the contractor developed the bid (i.e. how factors such as workload,
material availability, etc. contributed to the overall price).
• Life-cycle cost factors such as interest rates, term, user costs, and maintenance
strategy.
46
• Differences in how costs are tracked (i.e. cost per ton of HMA or cubic yard of
concrete versus cost per lane mile).
Details on the assumptions made for each of the DOT cost analyses summarized in this
section are included in the corresponding referenced reports.
Indiana DOT (2003)
Indiana DOT’s cost analysis for warranted pavements showed that initial capital costs for
HMA warranty projects were about 10 percent higher than for non-warranty projects. The cost
comparison analysis used performance data from the 2002 pavement condition database as a
baseline and projected IRI performance curves over the next 25 years for both the warranty and
control projects. The cost to maintain each project over 25 years at the 2002 threshold level was
then calculated and tracked. The projected 25-year cost to maintain network smoothness at a
constant 2002 value was calculated at $1.08 billion using a warranty strategy, compared with
$1.47 billion not using a warranty, a 27 percent cost savings. The report concluded that using
warranted HMA as a pavement construction strategy provided a smoother pavement while
reducing the demand on the program budget (13).
Wisconsin DOT (2001)
The Wisconsin DOT’s report presented cost data, but cautioned against using the data to
support or negate the cost-effectiveness of warranties, stating that such an assessment was
difficult until sufficient performance data exists to indicate long-term trends. Rather, the report
stated that until such trends are developed, the performance of warranty projects can be plotted
against typical pavements to obtain a glimpse of comparative performance. The factors
47
considered in the cost comparisons of the warranted and non-warranted projects are summarized
in Table 5.
TABLE 5 Factors Used in Wisconsin DOT Warranty Cost Comparison Standard Contracts Warranty Contracts
1. Mixture bid price 2. Asphalt bid price 3. Tack coat bid price 4. Quality management bid price 5. State delivery costs 6. State maintenance costs for 5 years 7. Conflict resolution (found negligible)
1. Asphalt pavement warranted bid price 2. Training and use of conflict resolution team
costs (found negligible) 3. State delivery costs (reduced from standard
contracts) 4. Extra distress surveys and reports for
warranties (found negligible) 5. Extra tests for disputes, traffic counts, etc.
(found negligible)
The results of the cost comparison were broken into two categories based on the year the
projects were let. Projects let in 2000 were broken out because of the addition of ancillary
pavements to the warranty provision and the large increase in asphalt price that occurred that
year. The evaluation showed that warranty projects averaged $24.34 per ton, compared with
$27.72 per ton for standard projects from 1995 to 1999, and warranty projects averaged $29.34
per ton, compared with $31.25 per ton for standard projects let in 2000. In both cases, the
warranted projects appeared to cost less overall than non-warranted projects. This initial cost
comparison concluded that even at an initial cost of up to 7 percent more, warranty pavements
were still more cost-effective than standard pavements (14).
Colorado DOT (2001 and 2007)
The finding from the 2001 cost-benefit report showed the additional cost of a short-term
HMA warranty was about $85,400, broken down as shown in Table 6.
48
TABLE 6 Additional Costs for Short-Term HMA—Colorado DOT Item Description
Cost Differential per Project
Initial Bid (based on 6 projects) Negligible
Maintenance (based on 3 projects) Negligible
Pavement Evaluation Team $ 5,400
Weigh-In-Motion Station $80,000
Total $85,400
Based on an average price of $3 million per warranty project, Colorado DOT noted an
increase of about 3 percent, the majority of which was directly attributed to the cost of the
weigh-in-motion station. Colorado DOT also noted that competition at the time of bidding for
the six experimental warranty projects was very similar to the competition on the traditional
control projects, contributing to the nominal cost differential. Colorado DOT acknowledged
limitations in its cost analyses, such as the relatively small number of projects evaluated and the
number of assumptions made for purposes of the analyses (17).
Colorado DOT’s 2007 report on the cost benefit of short-term HMA pavement warranties
included a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of the 10 short-term warranty projects constructed
by that time. The analysis compared the performance of each short-term HMA warranty project
with the control project. The following cost criteria were tracked:
• Initial construction, maintenance, and user costs on both projects
• Savings benefits of reduced DOT forces on warranty projects
• Saving benefits from extended service life on warranty projects
49
The ratio of the net cost of the warranted project to the net cost of the control project was
established and ratios greater than one were determined to be not cost-beneficial. Only two of the
eight projects produced ratios of less than one. The conclusion of the cost analysis was that while
most warranted projects had slightly less rutting and were slightly smoother, they did not result
in an overall cost savings for the department (15).
Colorado DOT reported that it plans to perform a similar cost-benefit analysis of its 10-
year pavement warranties to determine if those projects result in an overall savings (16).
Illinois DOT (2004)
Illinois DOT is one of the few DOTs that structure the pavement warranty as a separate
line item in bid documents. More often the cost of the warranty is factored into the pavement line
item. However, Illinois DOT acknowledged that it was possible that prospective contractors
increased the cost of other pay items to offset the risk of possible costs for remedial work, rather
than include this risk factor in the warranty line item. Table 7 summarizes cost data reported by
Illinois DOT on 27 warranty projects let as of 2004.
TABLE 7 Illinois DOT Cost Data Summary
Warranted Project Component
Warranty Pay Item Ranges
Warranty Pay Item Average
Percentage of Total Project Cost Ranges
Concrete Pavements $70-$121,100 $22,413 0.00%-0.43%
Bituminous Pavements $20,600-$108,252 $51,988 0.06%-0.80%
Bituminous Overlays $25,000-$63,050 $43,098 1.14%-2.38%
This analysis was an initial cost comparison. It did not determine future costs to the DOT
for administering warranty contracts, which could prove significant, nor did it assess
50
comparative maintenance expenses. The report concluded that additional evaluation was needed
to determine the true cost of the warranty and that a decision on whether to continue the use of
warranties should be deferred until more data on the existing projects was evaluated (20).
Caltrans (2005)
Caltrans presented cost data in 2005 on its pilot warranty program for pavement
preservation warranties. Caltrans reported that while the 10 warranty projects and 15 non-
warranty projects did not provide valid statistical information, the cost data was provided for
informational purposes. Based on the comparative data, the cost of the warranty projects ranged
from 16 percent lower to 3 percent higher when measured against comparable projects (18).
Mississippi DOT (2006)
Mississippi DOT reviewed bid prices on its pavement warranty projects in response to
the survey and reported that while the initial warranty bids had increases of up to 30 percent, bid
increases leveled off in the range of 10 to 12 percent as contractors became more comfortable
with warranties. Mississippi DOT did not evaluate life-cycle cost savings.
Elective Maintenance
The survey and literature review reported cases where contractors were more inclined to
take steps to improve the quality of warranted work to reduce the possibility of remedial action
being required in the future. For example, Michigan DOT reported one example on a design-
build warranty project in which the contractor chose to place an additional 1 inch (2.54
millimeters) of asphalt after performing a falling weight deflectometer test on the constructed
pavement to ensure the quality of the pavement for the full duration of the warranty.
51
In some cases, contractors will perform elective maintenance such as crack sealing to
reduce the possibility of having to perform more costly remedial actions, such as a mill and
replacement. For example, Mississippi DOT reported one instance on an HMA pavement project
in which a contractor elected to routinely seal cracks even though no thresholds had been
exceeded to ensure performance under the warranty.
Some warranty provisions are structured to promote elective or preventive maintenance.
A clause in Colorado’s long-term warranty provisions promotes elective maintenance by waiving
lane rental fees for a specified number of days (see Figure 15). This provides an incentive to the
contractor to routinely maintain the pavement using crack sealing rather than wait until a
threshold is exceeded and a more complex remedial fix is required. Colorado DOT reported that
a few contractors have performed elective maintenance procedures on their 10-year PCC
warranty projects.
Specification Excerpt: Lane Rental During Warranty Period - Colorado DOT Revisions to Section 403 The contractor shall be allowed a total of five days per calendar year for any type of work without a lane rental fee. If the contractor uses less than five days in a calendar year, the remaining days may be accumulated up to a maximum of 15 days. If the allowable accumulated days in any given calendar year are exceeded, the contractor shall be charged a lane rental fee as described below.
The contractor shall be assessed a day for the closure of any lane. This day will be assessed for each calendar day or portion thereof, whether work is performed or not, that the traffic is limited to less than the number of lanes in the final configuration as shown in the construction plans. The contractor shall maintain traffic at all times as detailed in the Traffic Control Plan. Work, except emergency work, shall be performed during the times of day and days of week specified for the original contract work.
The lane rental fee will be based on the applicable rates for any and all closures whether work is performed or not. This fee is not a penalty, but is a rental fee based upon delays to the road user. The lane rental fee for this project, after pavement acceptance, shall be $**** per occurrence if a lane is closed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and $**** per occurrence if a lane is closed between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Figure 15. Specification excerpt—lane rental.
52
Required Preventive Maintenance
For long-term warranties and similar maintenance and operating agreements for
concessions or leases, the maintenance requirements typically require the contractor to perform
(or developer to coordinate in the case of public-private partnerships) preventive maintenance to
avoid exceeding any performance standard or threshold during the life of the warranty or
maintenance agreement. Several provisions specify a required time frame or year within the
warranty period that this maintenance must take place. Under these long-term warranty or
maintenance agreements, the provisions typically require that the contractor be responsible for
maintaining all of the features or components of the roadway or structure, making it much less
likely that disputes will arise because of deficiencies of features or components of the facility
outside the control of the contractor.
Reported Disputes
Based on survey feedback and evaluations, the vast majority of warranty projects
constructed in the United States have not resulted in disputes related to remedial work. DOTs
have reported that, for the most part, when remedial action is required, the remedial procedure
and responsibility for repairs are handled at the project level and the conflict resolution team
(CRT) is not called in. When disputes arise, however, the dispute processes set up for warranted
projects have appeared to function well enough to avoid litigation. Three documented examples
of disputes and recommended resolutions are noted below.
53
Michigan DOT
The dispute involved the responsibility for repair of longitudinal cracking that occurred
on a warranted HMA pavement project. A CRT recommended that the contractor and the
Michigan DOT split the cost of the repair because it was unclear if the failure was the result of a
defect in the material and workmanship or factors outside the contractor’s control.
Colorado DOT
A dispute over responsibility for raveling on a warranted HMA project in Colorado was
brought to a pavement evaluation team. The team recommended that the contractor not be held
responsible because raveling also occurred on a nearby non-warranty project built by another
contractor.
Indiana DOT
A warranty project in Indiana experienced a failure of the concrete joint seals. The
specification did not specify a remedial action, so the CRT was called in to determine an
appropriate repair method. The CRT recommended that the contractor replace the existing seal
with one of the four silicone seals on the Indiana DOT-approved material list and that the
contractor install it in strict accordance with the specifications and manufacturer’s instructions
and under the supervision of an independent inspection team. The CRT recommended that that
the contractor and the DOT split the cost of the independent inspection. The team was not tasked
with evaluating responsibility for the cost of the repair itself.
54
Industry Perspectives
Industry perspectives, concerns, and recommendations have been addressed and
incorporated in some warranty programs by developing selection criteria for warranty projects,
limiting the warranty term and obligations, using design-build project delivery, and reducing
bonding risk using short-term renewable bonds or other forms of guarantees, as discussed in
Chapter 4 of this synthesis. Perspectives from the contracting and surety industries are
summarized in the following sections.
Contractors
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) and the
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and its affiliates represent the majority of
highway construction contractors. These organizations have published policy or position papers
on topics affecting highway construction projects and are generally opposed to the use of
warranties and guarantees for highway work. For example, ARTBA’s 2007 policy states that
because highway contractors do not have control over “the myriad elements that affect the
durability of the highway project,” it would be unreasonable to require a contractor to warrant or
guarantee a highway project. Some industry representatives, however, acknowledge that
warranties are a reality in today’s highway construction marketplace and can be successful if
used appropriately. For example, contractors with warranty experience in Wisconsin, Ohio, and
elsewhere reported that the use of warranties more frequently resulted in higher-quality
pavements because of greater attention to the details of construction process. Table 8 summarizes
one contractor response when asked to specifically explain the changes implemented as a result
55
of the warranty. This response came from a paving contractor who has performed several short-
term performance warranty projects in Ohio.
TABLE 8 Contractor-Implemented Changes
Changes In Paving Fundamentals for Warranty Construction
Improvement Area Improvement Details
Asphalt Plants • Quality control improvements, including communication with the aggregate supplier producing aggregates for the project and constant review of gradations and absorption specific gravity
• Constant rap analysis assuring gradations and rap asphalt concrete (AC) content are consistent with initial mix design
• Improved communication and sharing of test results with plant personnel
Asphalt Production
• More frequent calibrations of all facets of the plant • Calibrations of cold feed bins, virgin and rap scales, and liquid asphalt meters • Proper loading of 302 big rock mixes and 880 warranty intermediate mixes
Paving • Produced manual for laydown crews outlining expectations and practice of paving fundamentals on warranty projects
• Use electronic averaging systems more effectively and ensure proper training of personnel behind the screed on these averaging systems
• Use material transfer machines MS4 to provide continuous paving on intermediate and surface courses, minimizing thermal and mat segregation
• Full-width paving eliminated longitudinal joints along with polymerized AC band on all full-depth lifts of asphalt
• Survey cuts and fills on each lift of asphalt through intermediate on mainline, as well as into and out of bridge approaches
• String line 200 feet (60.9 meters) into and out of bridge approaches • Improve transverse joint construction—straight edging 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5
meters) of previous day’s mat and sawing/sealing of transverse joint before production
• Measure compaction on all lifts of asphalt • Measure smoothness for profile corrections before placement of surface mix • Mill phase joint on intermediate before placement of surface, i.e. the intermediate
joint that is constructed during inside and outside phases • Profile milling generates improved smoothness numbers in the center lane • Increase use of flowboys
Comments courtesy of Kokosing Construction Company, Inc., 2007
This contractor described warranted pavement in terms of “racetrack” quality. To achieve
this quality, however, the contractor invested in equipment and testing facilities that smaller
56
highway contractors might not be willing to make without the potential for winning a significant
number of warranty projects. The consensus of contractors with warranty experience is that not
all projects are suitable for a warranty and not all contractors are financially able to pursue them.
Furthermore, a contractor can only warrant products that they directly produce or products in
which the risks can be managed through control of the design and construction process.
Sureties
Research conducted for the Ohio DOT included a survey of surety representatives. Surety
perspectives extracted from that survey, particularly on bonding concerns, for warranties lasting
3 to 7 years are summarized as follows (19):
• Smaller firms are more likely to be eliminated from obtaining a bond for a
warranty project.
• Small contractors typically do not have the financial strength for long-term
obligations.
• It is difficult for sureties to guarantee that a contractor will be in business for 5
years or longer.
• Surety bonds should be structured with shorter durations through the use of
renewable bonds for 2 years or less.
• The contractor should not be paid for the warranty before the obligation is
fulfilled and warranty costs should be treated as a separate line item. Thus,
57
payment can be structured using progress payments on the warranty line item as
the warranty term progresses.
Based on the review of warranty specifications collected during the literature review, it
appeared that warranty periods greater than 2 years were structured with a renewable bond
requirement. Renewable bond options allow sureties the opportunity to assess the contractor’s
performance and financial strength, make a judgment about the contractor’s operations for the
bonding period, and determine whether to renew the bond over course of the warranty.
Sureties also recommended using structured progress payments over the course of the
warranty. Review of warranty provisions presently implemented by U.S. DOTs indicated that
this practice is not common. While a structured payment schedule appears logical when
implementing long term warranties (20 years or more) where necessary major maintenance can
be anticipated during the course of the warranty, the overwhelming majority of warranties
implemented in the U.S. are not long enough to include this work. In other words, since there is
not typically significant additional work anticipated during the warranty period on the large
majority of U.S. highway warranties, structured progress payments are not as applicable.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
In summary, warranty outcomes vary because DOTs are evaluating different objectives
and parameters or are still constructing and monitoring warranty projects, particularly for
pavements, and do not have sufficient data. The perception is that DOTs are generally successful
in meeting their objectives for using a warranty, whether it entails shifting responsibility,
reducing DOT inspection effort, improving quality, or lowering maintenance cost.
58
DOTs with the most warranty experience or those using longer-term, performance-
oriented warranties tended to report greater improvements in measured quality parameters (ride,
rutting, etc.) or enhanced innovation (materials, mix designs, test methods, etc.). With few
exceptions, DOT and industry personnel with actual project experience agree that warranties
promote greater attention to the details (materials, process control, workmanship) and use of
state-of-the-art equipment or innovative methods, which result in higher-quality end products.
The reporting DOTs had no consistent basis for measuring the cost benefits of using
warranties. Cost comparisons with non-warranty projects were difficult to quantify because of
differences among warranty projects and non-warranty control projects, unknown factors in
contractor bid prices, and lack of accurate life-cycle cost data or assumptions.
In bid price comparisons, some DOTs saw increases in the initial bid costs, while others
saw reductions or mixed results compared with non-warranty projects. In cases in which
warranty bid prices were higher, these increases appeared to result either from an industry
learning curve effect, which was mitigated with more experience, or from raising the bar for the
longer-term performance warranties. The initial costs to invest in warranty contracting reported
by warranty contractors could explain in part the initial increases in bid prices and the learning
curve effects reported by some DOTs.
For the DOTs attempting to comprehensively address all the cost components related to a
project, including bid prices, DOT administration during and after construction, and maintenance
or life-cycle costs, some reported a significant overall cost benefit related to improved network
quality and reduced DOT construction inspection. Others reported no discernable cost benefit,
particularly for short-term warranties, or increased DOT costs to administer warranted projects
59
during the warranty period. If there is a common thread, the reports and feedback indicate that it
is premature to assess the cost benefits of long-term warranties and more time is needed to assess
costs. Also, the cost-benefit outcome was affected by many variables, including DOT and
industry experience, the type of warranty implemented (short-term material and workmanship
versus long-term performance), and the administration of the warranty, either through the DOT
pavement management system or as an independent process.
60
CHAPTER 4—IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of construction warranties has varied based on DOT objectives,
warranty type, contracting approach, industry feedback, and other factors. DOTs have shared
information and experience on the use of warranties, which to some extent has promoted
consistency in how the provisions are structured. Most would agree that key technical and
management elements must be considered in the provisions as part of implementation regardless
of objectives for use or type of warranty. These elements include the following:
• Criteria for selecting projects
• Selecting performance indicators and setting distress thresholds
• Warranty durations
• Bonding
• Procurement and contracting considerations
• Risk allocation and contracting considerations
This chapter discusses these key elements and considerations related to their use. It also
addresses potential implementation gaps and suggests strategies to advance the effectiveness of
highway construction warranties. Survey responses on the selection of projects, performance
indicators, thresholds, durations and bonding requirements are included in Appendix B2.
61
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA
Most, if not all, of the existing project selection criteria DOTs have developed for
warranties apply to pavement applications because of the level of investment and risk.
Practitioners have expressed that project selection is key to risk sharing and successful
implementation, but few DOTs have a formal, systematic project screening and selection process
for applying warranties. A number of warranty projects or programs were initiated by legislation
(Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, and Ohio), which authorized a pilot project or required a number or
percentage of warranted projects per year without defining selection criteria. For example,
Illinois legislation called for at least 10 pavement warranty projects designed for a 30-year life
cycle or greater, which required the development of an extended-life pavement design and
material specification. This specification limited the number of candidate projects.
Some DOTs have moved to using warranties for greater numbers of projects or as a
standard practice for certain project types or elements. Florida and Michigan apply warranties to
pavements as a standard. Oregon applies warranties as a standard for pavement markings and
bridge painting. West Virginia uses warranties for its pavement marking maintenance contracts.
Warranties are also often implemented as a standard practice for many design-build contracts.
This standardized approach would appear to preclude the need for selection criteria. However,
Michigan has developed a flowchart to screen candidate projects to determine when not to use a
warranty for its pavement projects. The decision takes into account the existing pavement
conditions (base, subbase, and subgrade) and whether they can be addressed in the scope of work
to determine whether a warranty is appropriate. Similarly, Caltrans uses a pass-fail selection
process that defines distress thresholds and defective areas, which if exceeded will exclude using
a warranty unless the underlying conditions can be addressed.
62
Among those using project selection guidelines for limited numbers of projects are DOTs
in Wisconsin, California, Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, and Minnesota. Each has developed
screening or selection criteria and in some cases written guidelines for applying warranties.
Wisconsin DOT initially selected only “safe” projects, those with good subgrade conditions, and
included industry in the decision-making. Wisconsin DOT has internally recommended in its 5-
year progress report that it should consider using HMA warranties as a standard practice and fix
projects with poor subgrades, which is similar to the approach used in Michigan (14). Figure 16
is an example of the selection criteria Caltrans developed in applying warranties to pavement
preservation projects (18).
Form 1-Selection Criteria GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF A WARRANTY PROJECT
(Circle either YES or NO)
• The proposed project is one of the following preventive maintenance strategies (30 mm or less):
o Chip seals (hot and cold applied)
o Microsurfacing
o Slurry seals YES / NO
• Total combined cracking is less than 10 percent. YES / NO
• Transverse cracks and longitudinal cracking
outside the wheelpath are less than 6 mm. YES / NO
• Rutting is less than 9 mm in depth. YES / NO
• Has bleeding occurred on less than 10 percent of overall project? YES / NO
• Are exclusion areas identified and are they less than 15 percent? YES / NO
• Discussed project with maintenance reviewer. YES / NO
If all Yes’s were circled above, then this project is a good candidate for the Warranty Pilot. If one or more No’s
were selected, then have a discussion with your maintenance reviewer. Work with project management to move
the CCA date out the length of the warranty period. This will resource the RE appropriately. Verify that the
exclusion areas are identified on the plan sheets. Source: Caltrans Pilot Warranty Evaluation Program, August 2005
Figure 16. Guideline excerpt—project selection.
63
Common criteria considered in project selection include project size, existing conditions
within the project limits, particularly base conditions, projected traffic volume, type of
construction (new versus rehabilitation), and industry input. Several DOTs reported through the
survey that pilot warranties were applied to projects that were relatively straightforward with few
complications and predictable site and traffic conditions, similar to Wisconsin DOT’s strategy on
its pilot projects. While this strategy may benefit pilot projects, in which contractors and DOT
face a learning curve, it does not appear to result in substantial benefits in cost savings or quality.
In contrast, Indiana DOT reported that pavement warranties are commonly applied to high-
profile projects with heavy traffic in which it is necessary to get in, get out, and stay out without
qualifying whether these projects were suitable candidates based on existing site conditions,
traffic, or other factors (13). The Caltrans project selection guideline represents a more
systematic approach to analyzing existing conditions as a basis for selecting pilot warranty
projects for maintenance treatments. Lack of a systematic project selection process may be
viewed as a gap to implementation by some DOTs.
64
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Lack of a Systematic Project Selection Process
The factors that guide the decision to use a warranty vary significantly. Also, a structured, systematic methodology
for selecting projects for warranty use is lacking. DOTs using warranties have selected projects on an ad hoc basis
or with relatively simple guidance for project selection, or have implemented warranties as a standard practice with
limited guidance on when not to use.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Research is under way for NCHRP Project 10-68 on pavement warranties to define the key factors or parameters
that influence the selection of a warranty and to develop a structured and systematic method of project selection that
takes into account business and technical considerations and warranty type. This research is developing guidance for
using pavement warranties that include a utility-based rating system. This system may have application on other
warranted components, but further investigation is needed to adapt this approach to warranties for other significant
components of highway projects, such as bridges and other significant project components.
SELECTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Warranty performance indicators are distresses, properties, or characteristics of the
warranted component that can be measured and are linked to the performance of the warranted
component. Performance indicators for a pavement may include distress characteristics such as
cracking, rutting, and ride quality.
Based on the survey responses, a variety of sources were used to identify and select
performance indicators. The majority of DOTs indicated that historical information and past
experience were used to identify typical criteria that are easily, accurately, and routinely
measured to assess performance of the product or component over time. Ohio further reinforced
the importance of historical data in a 2003 report, stating that a key criterion for evaluating
warranty provisions is tracking how warranty projects are performing compared with historical
data for non-warranted projects (19).
65
Several DOTs, Mississippi for example, use standardized reference manuals, such as the
SHRP Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, to
identify and define performance indicators and distresses. DOTs in Colorado and Ohio stated
that the indicator selection process was a joint effort including representatives of the DOT and
industry. A representative of the Materials Division for Maine DOT stated that performance
indicators used by other DOTs were researched and considered during the DOT’s indicator
selection process. Often, DOTs use a combination of resources. For example, Illinois DOT
described reviewing sample specifications from other DOTs, national reference manuals,
historical performance data, and statistical analyses and using a joint DOT-industry work group
to develop its performance-based warranty specifications (20).
Table 9 shows representative samples of performance indicators used to gauge
performance by various DOTs on warranty contracts.
TABLE 9 Performance Indicator Examples DOT Component Performance Indicators
CA Microsurfacing • Rutting • Raveling • Flushing
• Streaking • Defective areas
FL Bridge Deck Expansion Joints
• Water leakage • Separation of the seal from
substrate • Sagging of the elastomeric seal • Spalling or delamination of deck
concrete • Defects in the expansion joint
elements
• Cracking, chalking, scaling, peeling, or splitting of the seal material
• Warping or extrusion of steel plate • Separation of the steel plate from
deck
IN Asphalt Pavement • Rut depth • Transverse cracking • Longitudinal cracking
• International Roughness Index (IRI) • Friction number
ME Bridge Bearings • Protective coating cracks, checks, or peels
• Rusting • Freezing
66
DOT Component Performance Indicators
MI Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement
• Transverse cracking • Longitudinal cracking • Map cracking • Spalling
• Scaling • Corner cracking • Joint sealant failure
MN Culverts • Differential settlement • Lateral settlement
OR Bridge Painting • Visible rust • Blistering, cracking, or alligator
cracking
• Loss of adhesion • Fading or chalking • Cohesive failure
TN Wet Reflective Pavement Mark
• Intensity reflectivity • 48 months retained reflectivity
• Yellowness index • Impact resistance
An important issue to consider when selecting performance indicators is whether it is
easy to measure and record performance data for indicators. For example, DOTs implementing
pavement marking warranties measure retro-reflectivity, color index, or impact resistance to
gauge performance during the monitoring period. Some DOTs, such as Ohio and Tennessee,
found monitoring retro-reflectivity very difficult and decided that the burden of the monitoring
process outweighed the benefit of the warranty.
A second issue is whether the monitoring process for selected indicators is consistent
with established state practices for asset management. For example, distress characteristics
routinely monitored through a pavement management program are relatively easy to administer
under the existing program. If a performance indicator is not something that is routinely
measured, the DOT must decide whether the benefit of the warranty will outweigh the burden of
a separate monitoring process.
A third issue is whether causes of premature failures are easily identifiable through
inspection or forensic study. For example, Table 10 shows that all sample specifications
collected through the survey included rutting as a distress characteristic. Rutting is an easily
67
identifiable and measurable pavement distress that is typically one of the first distresses to
appear. Typically, it is easier to identify the cause of rutting than other distress characteristics,
making it a good characteristic to monitor under a warranty.
Indiana DOT selected rutting, IRI, longitudinal cracking, and friction to best represent its
pavement conditions, aligning the warranty criteria with properties routinely collected under its
pavement management system (PMS). Indiana did not include properties such as segregation,
block cracking, flushing, and potholes because it decided that these measurements are more
subjective and are indirectly captured in the selected measures (13). Some practitioners have
taken this idea a step further in considering how the parameters work within the warranty type
applied, concluding that factors such as rutting and cracking are more appropriate for short-term
material and workmanship warranties and parameters such as IRI are better applied to longer-
term performance warranties.
TABLE 10 Performance Indicators for HMA Pavement Warranties
DOT Rut
ting
Rav
elin
g/Se
greg
atio
n
Cra
ckin
g
Lon
gitu
dina
l Cra
ckin
g
Tra
nsve
rse
Cra
ckin
g
Blo
ck o
r E
dge
Cra
ckin
g
Del
amin
atio
n
Dep
ress
ion/
Shov
ing
Ble
edin
g/Fl
ushi
ng
Poth
oles
Alli
gato
r C
rack
ing
Fatig
ue/R
efle
ctio
n C
rack
ing
Deb
ondi
ng
Dis
inte
grat
ed A
rea
Smoo
thne
ss
Rid
e Q
ualit
y or
IRI
Patc
hing
Fric
tion
Num
ber
CA X X X X X X
CO X X X X X X X X
FL X X X X X X
IN X X X X X
IL X X X X X X X X X X
LA X X X X X X X X X
ME X X X X X X X X
MI X X X X X X
68
DOT Rut
ting
Rav
elin
g/Se
greg
atio
n
Cra
ckin
g
Lon
gitu
dina
l Cra
ckin
g
Tra
nsve
rse
Cra
ckin
g
Blo
ck o
r E
dge
Cra
ckin
g
Del
amin
atio
n
Dep
ress
ion/
Shov
ing
Ble
edin
g/Fl
ushi
ng
Poth
oles
Alli
gato
r C
rack
ing
Fatig
ue/R
efle
ctio
n C
rack
ing
Deb
ondi
ng
Dis
inte
grat
ed A
rea
Smoo
thne
ss
Rid
e Q
ualit
y or
IRI
Patc
hing
Fric
tion
Num
ber
MN X X X X X X X X X
MS X X X X X X X X X X
NM X X X X X X X X X X
OH X X X X X
TN X X X X X X X
WI X X X X X X X X X
SETTING DISTRESS THRESHOLD VALUES
Warranty provisions specify distress threshold values for performance indicators.
Threshold values are essentially measurable tolerances for the performance indicators. Warranty
provisions may define maximum allowable tolerances for thresholds, which if exceeded trigger
remedial action. They may also define zero-tolerance thresholds, meaning that the existence of
any sign of distress requires remedial action. Thresholds are typically tracked by visual
inspection, laser profiling, or individual measurements.
Survey respondents were asked to comment on the process for determining threshold
values. DOTs develop benchmarks for thresholds using various resources, including statistical
analysis of historical data, such as the state’s pavement management system, analysis of
completed model projects perceived to be performing well, collaboration with industry
representatives, information from other DOTs, and the state’s expectations for quality. Florida
DOT responded that thresholds for signalization, roadway lighting, ITS, and striping were a
69
function of service life of the product. In other words, if an item fails to perform to a specified
threshold or performance level during the expected service life of the product, then the warrantor
is obligated to replace or repair the item under the warranty.
Factors that affect the development of thresholds include the warranty classification
(material and workmanship versus performance), the availability of reliable historical data, and
the level of industry cooperation. For example, DOTs aiming to establish consistent quality of
the pavement network by strict adherence to the specification may establish thresholds that are
consistent with historic, statewide statistical averages, while DOTs aiming to improve quality on
a particular high-profile project may establish thresholds higher than historic averages. Most
practitioners reported that threshold establishment began with a review of historical information.
Solid, reliable historical performance data are key to establishing thresholds consistent
with the quality expectations of the DOT, as well as industry standards. DOTs that struggled to
establish thresholds reported that gaps or inconsistencies existed in the historical performance
data. For example, when examining the feasibility of developing a pavement warranty
specification in Texas, researchers reviewed historical pavement management data to determine
whether or not accurate thresholds could be developed. When examining rutting, researchers
found that the method used to evaluate rutting in Texas DOT’s pavement management system
was to measure rutting as a percentage of the section’s total wheelpath area. However, the SHRP
Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program defines
rutting severity as rut depth in inches. Furthermore, a survey of warranty provisions used in other
states showed that rutting threshold values were always expressed as rut depth. Because the
Texas DOT pavement management system did not record rut depth, researchers were not able to
establish a threshold consistent with industry-established terms and measurements of distress
70
(21). Such inconsistencies in pavement data have hindered the implementation of pavement
warranties in Texas and can act as a gap to implementation in other states.
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Inconsistencies in Historical PMS Data
DOTs typically use historical performance data, for example from a pavement management system, to set threshold
levels. To set thresholds based on historic performance, DOTs must have historical data that are measured
consistently and completely over a number of years. In some cases, technological advances in the method of data
collection or changes in the type of data collected, such as individual cracking and rutting visual measurements
versus laser profiling (IRI), can create inconsistencies in the historical data, making it difficult for DOTs to identify
and set appropriate threshold values based on historic data.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
DOTs should carefully evaluate the accuracy and reliability of historical data when determining what parameters to
use and thresholds to set when implementing warranties. If these data are not consistent or reliable, the DOT should
evaluate performance indicators and thresholds used by other DOTs with similar conditions, evaluate performance
attributes for a project perceived to perform well as a benchmark, and collaborate with industry to determine what is
reasonable and achievable. In the long range, the use of mechanistic approaches may be applied to certain products,
such as pavements.
DOTs that collaborated with industry throughout the developmental processes established
reasonable thresholds for both the DOT and the industry. Some DOTs worked with industry
representatives to familiarize the industry with different levels of performance. For example, the
Indiana DOT invited a group of industry representatives to participate in a demonstration of
International Roughness Index (IRI) values. The demonstration involved riding these
representatives on roads of varying IRI values to give them a better understanding of what the
IRI is and how it relates to the warranty requirements. Other DOTs, including Wisconsin and
Mississippi, started out with relatively easy-to-obtain threshold values to gain support and build
experience within the industry. Wisconsin DOT is now considering modifications to either the
threshold values or the warranty length as parties become more knowledgeable and comfortable
71
with the application of warranties. Mississippi DOT reported that it initially chose a 5-year
threshold for HMA and a 10-year threshold for PCC, but after letting two HMA projects, it
decided to increase the HMA term to 7 years, with the same thresholds, on subsequent projects.
Threshold values are structured several different ways. Some provisions specify a single,
minimum threshold value, while others specify ranges of thresholds with different remedial
procedures that correspond to the severity of the distress. Other thresholds are expressed in terms
of percentages of the overall segment or a predetermined length or surface area of the warranted
component.
Mississippi DOT developed a software program (DEDUCT) that translates different
distress thresholds for pavement performance measures into a common point system for
pavement distress. The software program asks the user to select a severity level for the distress
based on the severity levels defined in the Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term
Pavement Performance Program. The program also asks for the extent of the distress in
percentage, length, surface area, or number to relate it to the historical performance curve for that
distress. The program then applies a point value for the distress based the comparison of the
extent to the historical curve. Table 11 illustrates how thresholds for the same HMA pavement
distress are defined differently by various DOTs.
72
TABLE 11 Threshold Values Indicators Measurement Basis and Thresholds
Mississippi Deduct Points
Wisconsin Segment = 0.1 mi
Minnesota Segment = 500 ft
Rutting > 5.0 points > 7.0 points
≥ 0.25 in < 0.50 in ≥ 0.50 in
≥ 0.375 in (25 ft of the segment length)
Transverse Cracking > 3.0 points > 5.0 points
> 25 cracks that average 0.5 in wide per segment (granular base)
3 crack per segment with minimum length of 6 ft (med. severity)
Longitudinal Cracking > 4.0 points > 6.0 points
> 1,000 linear feet of cracks that average 0.5 in wide
None allowed
Maine DOT responded that the threshold values should account for both the number of
defects and the dimensions of the defects. The comment was in reference to a situation on an
HMA warranty project in Houlton. The warranty provision called for remedial action if two or
more transverse cracks were found in a single pavement segment. A segment was defined as a
100-meter (328-foot) portion of the pavement surface. During monitoring, the DOT found that
many segments of the project had one transverse crack, one of which was more than 50 mm (1.9
in) wide, but these segments did not require remedial work because there was only one crack in
the segment.
Another potential issue with thresholds is determining whether to specify a distinct
minimum threshold or a graduated scale or performance curve during the warranty period. In
other words, if the warranty period is 5 years, the DOT must determine whether the threshold
should be set at the anticipated 5-year value or based on a performance curve with differing
values for years 1 through 5. A report prepared for the Montana DOT concluded that
performance thresholds should be the minimum thresholds as opposed to graduated thresholds
73
over the warranty period, citing the disadvantage that the performance curve can be modified
once remedial action is performed (11).
The manner in which performance data is tracked and evaluated should be considered
when setting threshold values. Selecting thresholds similar to distresses tracked under the
standard pavement management system is useful for developing comparative performance data;
however, consideration should be given to the length of the segment over which data points are
measured when setting thresholds. Distresses on warranty projects are typically measured over
shorter segment lengths than the segment lengths measured during typical pavement condition
surveys. The effect of differences in segment length should be evaluated when considering
thresholds or comparing data points.
When tracking data for several projects, averages are often used for comparison.
However, the relative number of projects included in each average (warranty versus non-
warranty) must be considered. Also, improvements in consistency are not necessarily reflected
in averages. For example, if a DOT established a minimum acceptable warranty threshold equal
to the historical average distress measurement for the entire pavement network, then it would
ensure that no warranty pavement exhibits distress below the historical average. A comparison
of average distress values for all warranty versus all non-warranty projects may show similar or
slightly increased averages. However, if one considers the variability of distress values on the
warranty versus the non-warranty projects, the variability of distress values on the warranty
projects is likely to be considerably less than that of the non-warranty projects. Therefore, the
consistency, and thus quality, of the warranty projects is improved, even if a comparison of the
averages shows performance to be similar or only slightly better. These factors should be
considered when setting thresholds or comparing data.
74
SETTING THE WARRANTY PERIOD
Warranty periods vary by state, but are typically much shorter than the service life of the
component. Based on survey responses, warranty durations for projects that do not include
planned, future maintenance typically cover 10 to 30 percent of the overall design life of the
component being warranted. Table 12 shows the range of durations that have been implemented
on different warranted components in the United States.
TABLE 12 Warranty Periods Durations (yrs.) Component No.
States Range Typical
HMA Pavement 23 1–25 3–5 PCC Pavement 15 3–20 5 Pavement Preservation 9 1–3 2 Bridge Painting 10 1–10 2–3 Bridge Components 9 2–20 5 Traffic/Lighting/Signage 6 2–5 3 ITS 5 2–3 3 Pavement Marking 17 1–7 2–3 Other 10 1–20 3
Long-term performance warranties or lease agreements (greater than 10 years) that
include future planned maintenance or major rehabilitation for pavements can cover from 60 to
100 percent or more of the overall design life. These are the exception rather than the rule in the
United States, but the numbers of these projects are growing as DOTs turn to the private sector
for long-term maintenance and operation of transportation assets.
Survey respondents stated warranty periods for shorter-term warranties were developed
based on factors such as percentage of design life, historical performance data, experiences of
75
other states, cost of bonding, and input from industry and sureties. In Illinois, legislation
mandated specific warranty periods (5 and 10 years) for pavement.
DOTs typically apply a combination of economic analysis and practical knowledge
gained through past experience to determine the warranty length. Caltrans reported that, based on
its experience, if a pavement preservation project did not show distress within the first year after
construction, it had a higher potential for maintaining performance during the expected life of the
surface treatment. Therefore, the benefit of a warranty period longer than 1 year did not justify
the added cost. Minnesota DOT responded that economics played a factor in determining the
length of its design-build warranties. Design-build warranties were cut from 5 to 3 years because
of a significant increase in bonding cost for the longer warranty period.
A common concern raised about warranties is that durations of 10 to 30 percent of the
design life are often not enough to ensure improved quality and adequate performance over the
design life of the component, if that is the DOT’s primary objective. For example, 5-year
warranties on pavements and 10-year warranties on bridges provide some measure of quality
assurance, but not enough to guarantee performance over the design life of these warranted
components. The findings indicate that warranties are often limited by bonding and other
economic considerations, reducing their perceived benefit.
An additional concern raised by practitioners in Minnesota and Mississippi was setting
the effective start date for the warranty. Projects that involve multiple phases or lane shifts have
the potential for disputes if the start date of the warranty is not clearly defined in the contract.
The contract should define whether the warranty will start upon project acceptance or upon the
opening of each of the warranted sections to traffic. Minnesota DOT listed difficulty defining
warranty start dates when the projects had multistage construction under disadvantages to
76
pavement warranties. Mississippi DOT commented that pavement warranties should start once
the pavement has been accepted rather than waiting for the final maintenance release, which is
often delayed by unrelated issues such as grass growth.
BONDING REQUIREMENTS
In the United States, the cost of the warranty is typically factored into the unit price of the
component being warranted; thus, the contractor collects payment for the warranted item upon
completion of the construction. U.S. DOTs typically require a bond to cover contractor warranty
obligations during the warranty period. A warranty bond is secured through a surety, which
guarantees contractor performance throughout the warranty term. Should the contractor fail to
perform, the surety is responsible for the cost of remedial work to the limits of the bond. DOTs
vary significantly on the value of the bond, depending on the component being warranted. Bond
values are typically determined by one of the following methods:
• Total dollar value of the warranted item (construction value)
• Percentage of the total dollar value of the warranted item
• Lower value between a percentage of the contract value and a set dollar amount
(i.e., 5 percent or $1 million)
• Estimated cost to perform a full repair or preservation technique, as noted in the
Indiana example in Figure 17
77
Specification Excerpt: Warranty Bond The warranty bond is $2,000,000.00 for the warranted HMA/SMA pavement. The bond is intended to insure completion of required warranty work, including payments for all labor, equipment, materials, and closure periods used to remediate any warranted pavement distresses. Source: Indiana DOT HMA Warranty Specification
Figure 17. Warranty bond language.
Because carrying a warranty bond reduces the contractor’s overall bonding capacity,
many contractors have expressed concern that warranty projects will reduce their capacity to take
on future work and sureties have set limits on bond durations based on their assessment of
warranty risk. These bonding concerns have in some cases precluded contractors from bidding or
contributed to lower numbers of bidders on warranty projects.
Sureties are often reluctant to take on the risk of a longer-term bond, particularly for
smaller or first-time contractors. Kansas reported that contractors could not find a bonding
company that would warrant a project element beyond 5 years and discontinued PCC pavement
warranties after deciding 5 years was not a significant enough percentage of the design life to
make the warranty worthwhile. To avoid such obstacles, the warranty bond is often obtained for
a shorter period (1 to 2 years) and then renewed for the life of the warranty. Many DOTs with
warranty experience have invited representatives of industry and sureties to discuss options
during the specification development process that would balance the risk for all parties involved,
but bonding remains a gap to implementation for many DOTs examining warranties.
78
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Bonding Issues
The longer the warranty term, the less likely sureties will offer warranty bonds at reasonable rates, which results in
fewer contractors bidding on warranty projects. Owners need a better understanding of the impact of single-term
warranty bonds on the contracting industry, what level of coverage is appropriate for longer-term warranties, and
what alternatives to warranty bonds will promote greater industry participation and secure performance.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Recent experience indicates that owners are exploring alternative approaches to secure performance under a
warranty obligation. These include using short-duration bonds with renewable options, retainage or deferred
payment strategies, guarantees tied to qualification for future work, or other forms of security tied to performance.
Ultimately, the trend toward other forms of security may obviate the need for warranty bonds altogether. Concession
and lease agreements involving long-term maintenance eliminate the need for warranty bonds, but use letters of
credit or other forms of security in the event of default or nonperformance. Owners need to continue to explore and
pilot alternatives to bonds to gain a better understanding of their effect on competition and project cost and whether
they provide adequate protection.
Because of the issues related to the use of bonds to ensure performance during the
warranty, several states have explored alternatives to single-term warranty bonds, including the
following:
• Extended-performance bond
• Letter of credit, certificate of deposit, U.S. currency, or other form of security
approved by the department
• Warranty performance tied to the prequalification process for future work
(guarantee)
• Pay-for-performance or retainage
79
Some of these alternatives have roots in European practice. For example, not all
European agencies use warranty bonds. Instead of requiring a bond, the British Highways
Agency uses prequalification to ensure that its contractors will correct defects in their work.
Denmark uses a graduated bond for its 5-year warranties, reducing the bond to 2 percent of
construction costs in the final 4 years to balance risk and reduce cost.
Florida has moved from a warranty bond to prequalification for future work. If the
contractor fails to perform the required remedial work, the contractor is precluded from bidding
on future state work for 6 months or until the remedial work is completed, whichever is longer.
Florida has coined this alternative a “guarantee.”
While Florida has stated that its guarantee process is an effective alternative to bonding,
certain factors in Florida may not transfer well to other states. For example, the risk of being
precluded from bidding on future work motivates contractors in Florida because most do not
typically perform work outside of Florida. This concept would not be ideal in areas where it is
feasible for contractors to bid on work in multiple states. For example, Michigan DOT is
considering implementing a similar guarantee process, but is concerned about its effectiveness in
areas where work is readily available should a contractor be precluded from bidding on future
work in Michigan. Legislative changes would also be necessary for Michigan to implement a
guarantee in place of a warranty bond.
Minnesota has also expressed interest in the guarantee model. Minnesota has previously
used a pay-for-performance specification. The pay-for-performance concept is similar to
retainage, in which the contractor is paid a portion of the costs at the time the item is placed and
80
then is paid on a graduated scale over time if the item performs to expectation. Minnesota
implemented this alternative for pavement marking warranties on its I-494 design-build project.
North Dakota did not require a warranty bond for its 1-year warranty on dowel bar
retrofits, but did hold a 1 percent retainage for the duration of the warranty. For warranties of 1
year or less, DOTs have also extended the performance bond to cover the warranty period,
making a separate warranty bond unnecessary. This is the case in California and North Carolina,
which require standard 1-year warranties on most projects.
RISK ALLOCATION AND CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS
Material and construction requirements vary, depending on whether DOTs are
implementing a material and workmanship warranty or a performance warranty. When
transitioning from material and workmanship to performance, progressively more responsibility
is shifted to the contractor, and contractors are typically given more freedom to control aspects of
design or construction.
Most material and workmanship warranties require the contractor to conform to the
standard method specifications. The contractor may have some choice over mix design and
material selection, but the contractor is typically restricted to choosing materials from a state-
approved list. Under performance warranties, the contractor is typically given greater control
over material selection and mix design. The contractor may or may not be restricted to a list of
state-approved materials. Some performance warranty provisions also give contractors control
over the methods used to construct the work. Based on the survey responses for the synthesis and
an examination of specifications, it was difficult to classify some of the pavement specifications
as material and method versus performance because of subtle differences in responsibility for
81
mix design. Contractors are typically given greater design responsibility under a design-build-
warrant type of contract. Lack of clear definitions of rights and responsibilities between material
and workmanship warranties and performance warranties can be a gap to implementation of
warranties.
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Lack of a Clear Definition for Different Warranty Types
Lack of clear definition and understanding of material and workmanship warranties versus performance warranties
can be a gap in warranty implementation.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Develop definitions and guidance for applying both types of warranties, which serve different purposes and goals. A
material and workmanship warranty that is based on standard or minimum requirements and provides assurance that
the item is constructed according to the minimum requirements simply protects against early or catastrophic failure
of the item directly caused by the contractor. A performance warranty, on the other hand, is attached to a product
and allows the contractor latitude in selecting materials, mix design, production, and placement. Process control
testing promotes higher quality and ensures to some degree that an item will perform as well as or better than
expected during its service life. In some cases DOTs have interchanged these definitions when characterizing
warranties. DOTs must ensure that the warranty type and definition are consistent with DOT purposes and goals.
Furthermore, if the warranty is used in conjunction with alternative contracting methods, such as multiparameter
bidding with incentives or design-build, sample specifications are needed for combining these elements with a
warranty provision to achieve defined goals.
Quality Control, Inspection, Testing, and Acceptance During Construction
Implementation of warranties often involves changes in traditional roles and
responsibilities for quality control, inspection, and testing during construction. Warranty
provisions differ on responsibility for these duties. For example, Indiana DOT implemented a
hands-off approach, shifting responsibility for inspection, quality control, and testing to the
contractor. Louisiana DOT, on the other hand, maintained traditional roles and responsibilities
82
for these duties on its warranty projects. Typically, the contractor takes on greater responsibility
for these tasks, with the DOT maintaining a quality assurance or verification role. DOTs in
Indiana, Mississippi, Michigan, and Wisconsin reported resource savings benefits on warranty
projects. Florida reported that the benefit of its resource saving was comparable to the benefit
achieved through the use of a contractor QC specification.
Based on the comments provided in the survey and in evaluations performed at the state
level on warranty contracting, DOTs differ on the role the DOT should maintain in inspection
and testing on warranty projects. On quality control and testing, Colorado DOT responded that
better quality control and more oversight by state forces are needed. Washington DOT
commented that state material testing should not stop simply because of a warranty unless the
warranty covers the design life of that material, because in the triad of cost, time, and quality,
quality is often the component that falls short when there is a constraint. Indiana DOT responded
that the owner should not oversee contractor operations to avoid disputes over responsibility
because the state witnessed the operation. Indiana DOT also responded that if inspection is
performed, it should consist of a spot-checking process, not a full-time inspector. These different
perspectives among warranty programs are driven in part by the comfort level DOTs have with
shifting the responsibility for quality management to the contractor. The warranty provisions
should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each party for inspection and testing in the
warranty provisions. Failure to do so is a gap in the implementation of warranties.
83
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Determining the Right Risk Allocation
Understanding how potential risks should be allocated in provisions can be a gap in warranty implementation. These
risks may relate to warranty type, coverage and limits, responsibility for design, inspection and testing
responsibilities, or contracting type.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Given that warranty provisions address contractual obligations of each party, the provisions should be clear and
allocate the risk equitably to avoid unnecessary cost or disputes. For the most part, warranty provisions have
appeared to work well, given the relatively low incidence of reported disputes compared with the number of
warranties. In some cases, however, owners have commented that warranties may not achieve the intended goals of
cost or quality improvements because of low thresholds, short durations, and quality control and inspection practices
in which the owner retains the performance risk. For example, DOTs with significant warranty experience have
commented that durations for their HMA performance warranties were insufficient to adequately cover
performance, and either the durations should be extended or the threshold limits should be tightened to better
balance the risk and realize a benefit for the warranty investment. Shifting to an alternative delivery method using
design-build-warranty or including a warranty as a biddable parameter would allow the DOT to extend coverage and
give the contractor greater flexibility and control in return for taking on more performance risk.
Alternative Contracting
Design-Build-Warranty
Recent international scanning studies have reported that European agencies routinely use
warranties in conjunction with design-build contracting and rely more on the private sector to
maintain and operate highways. The European agencies also have increased the use of
maintenance contracts and pavement performance contracts. These trends toward greater private
sector responsibility are evident in the U.S. highway industry, but are not as common. Based on a
2005 FHWA-sponsored design-build effectiveness study, about 30 DOTs have used design-build
contracting on public works projects (22). Among these, a smaller percentage of DOTs have
implemented design-build-warranty contracts or entered into agreements with the private sector
84
for long-term maintenance or operation of highways and bridges under a public-private
partnership agreement or performance-based maintenance contract.
Because performance warranties shift progressively more responsibility for quality and
performance to the private sector, contractors have expressed concerns that they cannot take on
this performance risk without greater control of the design. Contractor responses from Ohio
DOT’s 2003 warranty study expressed these concerns, and they were confirmed in Michigan
Local Technical Assistance Program workshops in 2005 and in more recent forums with
contractor participation (19). When asked which factors will hinder contractors from bidding on
warranty projects, the Ohio contractors cited the absence of design-build contracting, followed
by the duration of the warranty and availability of bonds (19). In this vein, Maryland and
Alabama solicited bids for warranted HMA pavement on design-bid-build contracts, but they
failed to receive any bids and have no future plans to use warranties on similar contracts.
While the majority of DOTs use warranties with traditional design-bid-build contracts,
some DOTs have combined design-build contracts with performance warranties to ensure quality
in a design-build environment of reduced owner inspection and accelerated construction.
Minnesota and Maine have combined short-term performance warranties with design-build
projects to achieve these goals (23). Missouri and Virginia have also combined design-build
contracts with long-term performance warranties.
Given that design-build contracting shifts greater control to the contractor for design and
project performance, in the event of a failure the contractor is less likely to be excused from the
warranty obligations because of design- or performance-related issues. Disputes documented in
the synthesis survey typically occurred on design-bid-build projects. Minnesota DOT did report
85
that one of its 5-year design-build-warranty pavement projects was experiencing excessive
transverse cracking and rutting, requiring corrective action by the contractor to rout and seal
cracks. The contractor did not contest responsibility for the corrective action, but has contested
the start of the warranty period, which affected the cost of the repairs (23). Virginia DOT also
reported one case in which a contractor negotiated out of the warranty for a design-build job
during construction.
Public-Private Partnerships and Concessionaires
In parallel with a long-standing and growing use in Europe, public-private partnerships
(PPP) or concessionaires have been applied to a handful of high-profile projects in the United
States, but their use has recently gained new momentum as transportation owners struggle to find
resources to fund and deliver critical transportation projects. Some of the earliest examples of
privately funded PPP projects in the United States were the Route 91 express lanes in California
and the Dulles Greenway toll road in Virginia, both completed in 1995. More recent examples
include the Virginia DOT Public-Private Transportation Act program, the Florida DOT Port of
Miami Tunnel project, the Indiana Toll Road, and the Trans-Texas Corridor (24).
Texas DOT established operational and maintenance performance standards for the
Trans-Texas Corridor that the concessionaire must meet for the operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the facility. The pavement performance standards define the minimum standards
(thresholds) the concessionaire will be required to meet during the O&M period for the facility.
Corrective action will be made if these thresholds are exceeded. The performance standards
include the following (24):
86
• Pavement condition score. Measurements and inspections necessary to derive a
pavement condition score in accordance with Texas DOT procedures.
• Ruts—mainlanes, shoulders, and ramps. Depth measured using an automated
device in compliance with Texas DOT standards. Straightedge used to measure
rut depth for localized areas.
• Ride quality. Measurement of IRI according to Texas DOT standard Tex-1001-
S, operation of inertial profilers, and evaluation of pavement profiles.
• Failures. Instances of failures exceeding the failure criteria set forth in the Texas
DOT Pavement Management Information System Rater’s Manual, including
potholes, base failures, punchouts, and jointed concrete pavement failures.
• Edge drop-offs. Physical measurement of edge drop-off level compared with
adjacent surface.
• Skid resistance. ASTM E 274 Standard Test Method for Skid Resistance Testing
of Paved Surfaces at 50 miles per hour (80.4 kilometers per hour) using a full-
scale smooth tire meeting the requirements of ASTM E 524.
These PPP performance standards and thresholds are very similar to performance
characteristics and distress thresholds specified for warranty contracts, but they extend the
performance period in some cases well beyond the service life of the pavement or component,
87
which would entail major rehabilitation during the O&M period. They also do not include the
typical exclusions that may void the agreement. To achieve these standards, PPP specifications
are performance-based rather than prescriptive. In other words, Texas DOT in theory will not
specify pavement design and type and will limit its review and approval functions under these
types of contracts.
Multiparameter Bidding
Several DOTs have combined warranties with cost-plus-time or A+B bidding and
incentive-disincentive provisions to motivate contractors to balance time and quality goals. For
example, Indiana uses pavement warranties in conjunction with A+B bidding and has reported
improvements in quality and time with this approach. While the state has not substantiated it,
Indiana believes that contractors receiving an incentive for accelerated project completion are
motivated to apply greater resources and attention to quality than contractors not receiving an
incentive. Kentucky piloted an A+B-C formula, asking contractors to bid, in addition to cost and
time, a C duration for the warranty worth a $500,000 credit for each year offered. The results
were advantageous to the state because it received five additional warranty years in conjunction
with a shorter schedule.
Performance-Based Maintenance
Another alternative to outsourcing post-construction performance is the use of
performance-based maintenance contracts in Virginia and the District of Columbia in which a
private entity enters into a long-term agreement with the DOT. The DOT typically pays the
contractor a set amount each year to maintain a specified performance level. These contracts
88
primarily cover routine maintenance, but often include limited preventive maintenance duties
such as the repair of potholes and joints.
Exclusions
A review of the warranty provisions collected for this synthesis shows that most DOTs
define specific exclusions limiting contractor liability under the warranty. For example,
warranties on traffic signal and lighting posts typically include exclusions for conditions outside
the contractor’s control, such as damage from lightning or vehicular accidents. Common
exclusions include damage to warranted products resulting from the following:
• State-controlled operations, such as routine maintenance or destructive testing
• Vandalism
• Vehicular accidents and hazardous material spills
• Military action
• Acts of God and natural disasters
Some warranty provisions define design-related exclusions. For example, a material and
workmanship warranty for HMA pavement may exclude defects caused by existing base
conditions or drainage design errors. Pavement warranties also typically specify a maximum
estimated single axle load (ESAL) value that, if exceeded by a certain percentage, voids the
warranty (see Figure 18).
89
Specification Excerpt—Exclusions
Remedial work will not apply if any one of the following factors is found to be beyond the scope of the contract:
a. Determination that the pavement thickness design is deficient. The department will make available a
copy of the original pavement thickness design package and design traffic report to the responsible
party upon request.
b. Determination that the accumulated ESALs (number of 18 kip equivalent single axle loads in the
design lane) have increased by 25 percent or more over the accumulated ESALs used by the
department for design purposes for the warranty period. In calculating ESALs, the average annual
daily traffic (AADT) will be obtained from the department’s traffic count data and the T24
(percentage of heavy trucks during a 24-hour period) will be obtained from the department’s traffic
classification survey data.
c. Determination that the deficiency was due to the failure of the existing underlying layers that were not
part of the contract work.
d. Determination that the deficiency was the responsibility of a third party or its actions, unless the third
party was performing work included in the contract.
Source: Florida DOT Section 338, Value-Added Asphalt Pavement
Figure 18. Exclusion specification language
Some pavement warranties also define one-time, heavy-load ESAL values. DOTs that
have used ESAL exclusions for pavement warranties, including Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and
New Mexico, do not uniformly specify weigh-in-motion devices to monitor ESALs because of
the significant up-front cost and instead rely on average daily traffic counts to estimate ESALs.
One contractor commented that from a risk perspective, it preferred working on a longer-term
warranty project in Kentucky (10 years) that specified a weigh-in-motion device for the project
rather than a shorter-term warranty project in Ohio (5 years) that did not specify weigh-in-motion
to monitor pavement loading.
Understanding of the liabilities associated with third party claims during the warranty
period is another factor of risk allocation. Limitations in this type of liability should also be
90
addresses in the exclusion section of the warranty provision. Failure to do so may result in a gap
in warranty implementation.
GAPS IN PRACTICE – Third Party Claims
Insufficient knowledge of who is liable for accidents that occur during the warranty period that may be related to
distresses can be a gap in warranty implementation.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Warranty provisions do not consistently or uniformly address events or conditions in which the owner or contractor
may be liable for third-party claims. For example, if liability or exclusions are addressed, they may not consider tort
claims related to pavement conditions, emergency or corrective work, or catastrophic events. Guidelines for
implementing warranties should consider liability and exclusions for possible safety-related issues, as well as force
majeure events resulting in third-party claims while the warranty is in effect.
Monitoring and Remedial Action
Warranty clauses always provide for condition surveys of warranted items, either at
periodic intervals or at the end of the warranty for short-term items such as paint. For pavements,
this survey may be conducted in concert with the DOT’s annual pavement condition survey or
through an independent warranty program. This survey may also be conducted jointly with the
contractor or unilaterally.
If the survey shows that the thresholds established in the warranty provision are exceeded
at any time during the warranty period and the cause does not fall under a defined exclusion, then
the contractor is notified and called back to perform remedial action. The synthesis found that
remedial action is not typically tracked unless the contractor disputes responsibility for the fix.
As a result, most evaluations do not include a comparison of failure rates on warranty projects
versus non-warranted projects. Such a comparison might prove useful to identify and
91
communicate the benefits of warranties; however, there appears to be a trade-off between the
effectiveness of such an analysis and the administrative burden to produce it.
Based on a review of the sample specifications gathered for this report, DOTs have
developed different approaches for establishing the required remedial action. Several require or
suggest remedial procedures for various thresholds in the specification. Some specify degrees of
severity for the threshold distresses and require or suggest different remedial procedures based
on the severity of the distress. For example, Minnesota DOT’s warranty for bituminous
pavement suggests that contractors rout and seal transverse cracking of medium severity and mill
and resurface transverse cracking of high severity. Severity of the cracking is determined by the
number of cracks in a pavement segment. Other warranty provisions do not specify the remedial
action to be performed. Indiana’s warranty specification for HMA pavement requires that the
contractor submit a remedial action plan for department approval if a threshold is exceeded.
92
GAPS IN PRACTICE - Required Level of Repair with Respect to the Performance Curve
Some warranty specifications are not clear on how repairs should be done if required on warranted products. Should
the repair be done to bring the product up to the performance curve or back to new condition?
Some warranties have insufficient definitions of who is responsible for what work during the warranty period. It is
not clear whether elective work is allowed (or promoted) during the warranty period.
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS GAPS
Provide clarity on the exact latitude a contractor has in making repairs. If a product has a 10-year life expectancy
(pavement and deck joints or seals, riding surface smoothness or friction quality, etc.) and the distress appears in
year 4 or 5, is the contractor responsible for a 6-year fix or a 10-year fix? The answer to this question is based on the
DOT having clear performance expectations as part of the contract. Provide clarity on the repair materials and
techniques that may be used.
Warranty provisions should define both department and contractor responsibility for warranted work and, in some
cases, what constitutes preventive versus routine maintenance. Current language may be ambiguous or subject to
interpretation when, for example, defining the severity of distress or determining whether the preventive work or
corrective action meets the contract requirements. Warranty guidelines must identify where warranty definitions and
language may be subject to more than one interpretation and provide guidance on how to avoid or minimize the
potential for misinterpretation.
If the contractor does not agree with the survey results or believes that the cause of the
distress was beyond its control, it can dispute the results and refer the matter to a dispute
resolution team or board to render a final or an independent decision.
93
Dispute Resolution Procedures
Most warranty provisions establish
measures for settling disagreements for
potential disputes over remedial action.
Responsibility for settling disputes is
typically delegated to a conflict resolution
team (CRT) or a dispute review board
(DRB).
CRTs are typically set up on a
project-by-project basis. They consist of
an equal number of representatives from
the contractor and the DOT who may or
may not be directly involved in the project, plus one outside representative mutually agreed on
by the contractor and the DOT. Costs associated with the outside representative are shared by the
contractor and the DOT. CRTs have also been called dispute resolution teams and pavement
evaluation teams.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION TEAM
The scope of the team includes all issues concerning the
warranted pavement relative to material selection, quality
control plan, distress severity, and remediation.
The team will consist of two contractor representatives, two
department (District and Central Office) representatives, and
a fifth person mutually agreed upon by both the department
and the contractor. Any costs for the fifth person will be
equally shared between the department and the contractor.
The team members shall be identified in writing at the
preconstruction meeting and will be knowledgeable in the
terms and conditions of this warranty and the methods used
in the measurement and calculation of pavement distress.
Should any impasse develop, the team will render a final
recommendation to the chief engineer by a majority vote.
Each member has an equal vote.
Source: Indiana DOT HMA Warranty Specification
DRBs are formal committees set up to resolve disagreements before they can delay or
disrupt construction projects. DRBs typically consist of one to three members, and can be set up
for specific projects or on a district or statewide basis. DRBs can be responsible for settling all
project-related disputes or only disputes related to warranties. Florida has established a three-
member, statewide DRB dedicated to settling pavement warranty disputes that cannot be
94
resolved at the project level. Florida’s DRB panel is drawn from the state, industry, and
academia.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Effective warranty implementation starts with identifying objectives for using warranties,
which drives in part how the key technical and management elements of the warranty provision
will be handled. Warranty implementation varies significantly, depending on whether DOTs are
using short-term material and workmanship or longer-term performance warranties, or in the
context of traditional-versus-alternative contracting. This chapter discussed how DOTs with
experience have addressed these key implementation elements based on their internal goals and
lessons learned. In the area of performance parameters, for example, some practitioners have
concluded that end-result parameters for pavements, such as cracking or spalling, are more
appropriately applied to a short-term material and workmanship warranty, whereas a ride quality
parameter that includes multiple distresses, such as IRI, correlates to a long-term performance
warranty and is aligned with the existing pavement management system, which is easier to
administer under a longer-term warranty.
This chapter addressed a number of gaps or shortcomings and potential strategies to
address these gaps. Some of these strategies include developing systematic project selection
criteria and guidance for applying material and workmanship versus performance warranties,
setting reasonable performance thresholds based on historical data or quality goals, exploring
alternatives to warranty bonds, appropriately allocating risk related to warranty types,
contracting method, and exclusions, and establishing responsibility for pass-through products.
95
For successful implementation, various guidelines and sample specifications have been
developed for implementing warranties, particularly for asphalt pavements. NCHRP Research
Report 451 included sample asphalt pavement warranty specifications adopted by AASHTO as a
guide specification (10). Building on these efforts, further work is needed to reflect the current
state of practice for warranty implementation, including clear definitions, project selection
criteria, performance criteria, risk allocation, administrative procedures, dispute resolution, and
sample or guide specifications for material and workmanship and performance warranties.
96
CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSIONS
Warranties for roadway construction have been used in the United States for more than
100 years. Since the passage of a 1995 federal rulemaking on warranties, however, warranty use
on DOT construction projects has increased. More recently this increase has appeared to taper
off. Some DOTs have adopted warranties as standard practice, while others have used them
sparingly or on an experimental basis. The types of warranties used on highway construction
include pavement and pavement preservation, bridge paint and components, pavement markings,
lighting, traffic, and ITS components.
The use of pavement warranties for hot-mix asphalt and portland cement concrete has
grown significantly in the past 10 years. The majority of these are relatively short-term material
and workmanship warranties used in conjunction with the traditional low-bid method of
contracting. However, a few DOTs have used or experimented with long-term performance
warranties in conjunction with design-build or alternative contracting methods or maintenance
agreements in line with practices common in Europe and other parts of the world.
Survey results indicated that the primary drivers for warranty use are to improve product
performance and enhance project quality. Other important objectives are to increase contractor
responsibility for the work, promote innovation or new technologies, improve public relations,
minimize impacts on the public, and evaluate the use of warranties. The respondents generally
reported a high success rate in achieved stated objectives.
The synthesis further summarized DOT experience with developing warranty provisions
and outlined implementation issues or lessons learned that affected the implementation of
warranties. These elements included selecting appropriate performance indicators aligned with
97
warranty type, determining minimum thresholds or ranges based on DOT objectives and
experience, and determining how remedial or corrective actions are defined and handled. As a
preferred practice, joint industry-DOT work groups have developed performance thresholds
using historical experience or model projects. With more experience, some DOTs plan to refine
thresholds to better reflect actual performance. It was noted that a very small percentage of
warranty projects required remedial action or dispute resolution. In some cases, contractors have
proactively performed elective maintenance to avoid callbacks and remedial work, and there is
evidence that contractors are more willing to improve the initial quality of work to avoid
potential remedial action in the future.
Some DOTs consider project selection vital to successful warranty implementation.
Warranties for selected components have been applied by a few DOTs as a standard practice on
all projects. Where selection is considered, few DOTs have developed a formal process and
written guidelines. Common selection characteristics include project size, existing conditions
within project limits, traffic volume, type of construction, and industry input. In some cases,
legislation has mandated a defined percentage or number of warranty projects based on service
life and other criteria.
The implementation of warranties often changes risk allocation and traditional roles and
responsibilities, particularly those related to inspection, quality control, and testing. DOTs have
different views on shifting this responsibility to the private sector. The DOTs that have shifted
greater responsibility for inspection and quality management to the contractor have reported
significant savings in resources. This reallocation appears more likely to occur when warranties
are used in conjunction with design-build or other alternative contracting systems that shift
greater control to the contractor for design and construction.
98
The use of warranty bonds to secure performance during the warranty period has been a
standard industry practice in the United States, but in some states this practice has resulted in
reduced competition or lack of bids. Sureties have also capped the duration of warranties,
limiting their effectiveness and leading some DOTs to explore alternatives. Those alternatives
include extensions to the performance bond, warranties tied to prequalification, graduated
payment, and other strategies designed to reduce the cost and burden on the contracting
community.
DOTs with significant warranty experience (completed projects) have attempted to make
quality and cost comparisons with non-warranted projects to quantify the value of implementing
construction warranties. In terms of quality, the majority of DOTs reported better overall quality,
attention to detail, and innovation. In terms of cost, the results were not as clear. It has been very
difficult to separate the effect of a warranty from other factors that may influence costs, such as
project type, contractor, bid environment, and material cost. In some cases, DOTs reported that
bids were slightly reduced, while others reported that bids were comparable or higher. DOTs that
factored in life-cycle cost reductions, savings on future maintenance costs, or savings on internal
inspection during construction concluded that in general warranty projects were more cost-
effective. Others concluded that more time is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of
warranty projects.
Though highway industry organizations in the United States are officially opposed to the
use of warranties for highway construction, some in the industry recognize that warranties can be
an effective tool to enhance quality if used for appropriate projects. Warranty contractors have
reported improved quality and innovation, but not without a significant investment in warranty
testing and monitoring.
99
The synthesis also addressed gaps or issues in the development and implementation of
warranties for highway construction and strategies that will garner greater support from the
industry and improve the implementation and effectiveness of warranties. The strategies
recommended include the following:
• Development of definitions and guidance for understanding and applying
material and workmanship warranties and performance warranties
• Development of guidelines for project selection and warranty application
• Use of consistent, reliable historical data to set performance thresholds and
balance risk
• Further development of and experimentation with alternatives to bonding to
promote competition
• Clarity on contractual obligations on roles and responsibilities among
contractors, owners, and third parties
• Clarity on exclusions and remedial actions, such as the level of repair expected
for remedial actions and the materials and techniques that may be used
• Assurance of a direct line responsibility for performance under a pass-through
warranty
100
• Identification of non-warranty control projects of similar size, scope, and location
that can be benchmarked to obtain cost data for evaluating comparable warranty
projects
In the larger context of performance specifications, warranties represent a transition
between prescriptive or material and method specifications and performance specifications in the
sense that warranty provisions do not include all the factors that contribute to performance. For
example, warranty provisions for pavements typically exclude subbase, drainage, and
embankment features or other factors related to pavement design or construction methods that
may affect performance. The scope of warranty work and performance measures may not capture
all of the factors contributing to performance. Research is needed to better understand the
relationship between design and performance before warranties can be used to more accurately
predict life-cycle performance.
Warranties have a long history of use for maintaining and enhancing quality on highway
construction projects in the United States and elsewhere. By improving where and how
warranties are implemented, owners, contractors, and highway users can realize tangible and
long-lasting benefits from their use.
101
REFERENCES
1. Garner, Bryan. Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1990.
2. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Universal Commercial Code.
Published and distributed with the permission of the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform
Commercial Code in 2005.
3. Hancher, Don. NCHRP Synthesis of the Highway Practice 195: Use of Warranties in Road
Construction. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
4. Bower, Stephen, John D’Angelo, Gerald Huber, David Jones, Reaburn King, Keith Molenaar,
Timothy Ramirez, Jon Rice, Jeffrey Russel, Richard Smutzer, James Steele, Monte Symons,
Gary Whited, and James Wood. Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice in
Europe. FHWA-PL-04-002. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., November
2003.
5. US TECH. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1993.
6. Larson, Thomas. European Asphalt Study Tour. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., June 1991.
102
7. Cox, David O., James J. Ernzen, Frank Gee, Gregory Henk, Jeffrey Kolb, Alex Levy, Tanya
C. Matthews, Keith R. Molenaar, Len Sanderson, Nancy Smith, Gary C. Whited, John W. Wight,
Ronald C. Williams, and Gerald Yakowenko. Summary Report of the Contract Administration
Techniques for Quality Enhancement Study Tour. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., 1994.
8. Office of the Federal Registrar. 23 CFR 635.413, Final Rule on Warranty Contracting. The
Federal Registrar, Volume 61: 191-192, April 1996.
9. Anderson, Stuart, and Jeffery Russell. NCHRP Project 10-49, Improved Contracting Methods
for Highway Construction Projects: Final Report, Phase 1. National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 1998.
10. Anderson, Stuart, and Jeffery Russell. NCHRP Report 451: Guidelines for Warranty,
Multiparameter, and Best-Value Contracting. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,
2001.
11. Johnson, Dave, Jerry Stephens, and Michael Whelan. Use of Performance-Based Warranties
on Roadway Construction Projects. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Mont.,
November 2002.
12. Federal Highway Administration. Summary of Pavement Warranty Activities in MRC Area.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/warrmrc.cfm. Accessed July 27, 2007.
103
13. Flora, William P., Victor L. Gallivan, and Gerald R. Huber. Benefits of Warranties to
Indiana. Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis, Ind., October 2003.
14. Brokaw, Tom, Bill Duckert, Steven Krebs, Scot Schwandt, Wes Shemwell, John Volker, and
Gerry Waelti. Asphaltic Pavement Warranties: Five-Year Progress Report. Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Madison, Wis., June 2001.
15. Goldbaum, Jay, and Tim Aschenbrener. Current Cost Benefit Evaluation of Short-Term
Warranties for Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements. CDOT-2007-10. Colorado Department of
Transportation, Denver, Colo., June 2007.
16. Goldbaum, Jay, and Tim Aschenbrener. Use of Long-Term Warranties for the Colorado
Department of Transportation Pilot Projects. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver,
Colo., October 2006.
17. Aschenbrener, Tim, and Roberto DeDios. Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee—Materials
and Workmanship Warranties for Hot Bituminous Pavement. CDOT-DTD-2001-18. Colorado
Department of Transportation, Denver, Colo., December 2001.
18. Cotey, Jim, and Ron Jones. Pilot Warranty Program Evaluation: Progress Report No. 2 and
Pilot Warranty Program Evaluation: Final Report. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, Calif., August 2005 and June 2006.
104
19. Bayraktar, Mehmet, Qingbin Cui, Makarand Hastak, and Issam Minkarah. The Evaluation of
Warranty Provisions on ODOT Construction Projects. Ohio Department of Transportation,
Columbus, Ohio, November 2003.
20. Wienrank, Charles. Demonstrating the Use of Performance-Based Warranties on Highway
Construction Projects in Illinois. Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, Ill., June
2004.
21. Anderson, Stuart, Byron Blaschke, Cuneyt Erbatur, and David Trejo. Development of
Warranty-Based Specifications for Construction. FHWA/TX-06/0-4498-3. Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 2006.
22. AECOM Consultants, SAIC, and University of Colorado. Design-Build Effectiveness Study:
Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., January 2006.
23. Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting. Innovative Contracting in Minnesota,
2000 to 2005. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minn., 2005.
24. Seiders, Jeffery. Pavement Performance Standards and Specifications for Concessions.
Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, Oct. 31, 2006.
105
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix A – Bibliography
Page intentionally left blank
I. National-Level Research, Evaluations, and Reports
AECOM Consultants, SAIC, and University of Colorado. Design-Build Effectiveness
Study: Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
January 2006.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Subcommittee on
Construction, DeWitt, Gendreau, Yakowenko. Primer On Contracting for the
Twenty-First Century: Fourth Edition. 2001.
Cox, David O., James J. Ernzen, Frank Gee, Gregory Henk, Jeffrey Kolb, Alex Levy,
Tanya C. Matthews, Keith R. Molenaar, Len Sanderson, Nancy Smith, Gary C.
Whited, John W. Wight, Ronald C. Williams, and Gerald Yakowenko.
Summary Report of the Contract Administration Techniques for Quality
Enhancement Study Tour. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
1994.
Federal Highway Administration. Performance Specifications Strategic Roadmap, A
Vision for the Future. Spring 2004.
Federal Highway Administration. Guide Warranty Specification for Microsurfacing. June
1994.
Gransberg, Douglas and David M.B. James. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 342:
Chip Seal Best Practices. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C, 2005.
Hancher, Don. NCHRP Synthesis of the Highway Practice 195: Use of Warranties in
Road Construction. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Larson, Thomas. European Asphalt Study Tour. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., June 1991.
A-1
Michigan Department of Transportation, Steudle. Federal Highway Administration,
Michigan Division, Steele. TDC Partners, Ltd., Ferragut. Invitational Pavement
Warranty Symposium: Final Report. May 2003
Michigan Department of Transportation, Lynwood, Phil. 1998 Symposium on Innovative
Contracting, Shared Responsibility State Highway Perspective.1998.
Office of the Federal Registrar. 23 CFR 635.413, Final Rule on Warranty Contracting.
The Federal Registrar, Volume 61: 191-192, April 1996.
Texas Transportation Institute, Anderson, Blaschke. University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Russell. Technical Provisions for Innovative Contracting. 2000.
Texas Transportation Institute, Anderson. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Russell.
NCHRP Report 451:Guidelines for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value
Contracting. National Academy Press. 2001.
United States Department of Transportation, D’Angelo, Whited, Molenaar, Bower,
Russel, Huber, Smutzer, Jones, Steele, King, Symons, Ramirez, Wood, Rice.
Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice in Europe. November
2003.
US TECH. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1993.
A-2
II. State-Level Research, Evaluations, and Reports
California Department of Transportation, Cotey, Jim, and Ron Jones. Pilot Warranty
Program Evaluation: Progress Report No. 2. August 2005
California Department of Transportation, Cotey, Jim, and Ron Jones. Pilot Warranty
Program Evaluation: Final Report. June 2006.
Colorado Department of Transportation, Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee. Materials
and Workmanship Warranties for Hot Bituminous Pavement. December 2001.
Colorado Department of Transportation Research Board. Crack Reduction Strategies on a
Pavement Warranty Project (Interstate 25 at Fountain, Colorado). March 2003.
Colorado Department of Transportation.Goldbaum, Jay, and Tim Aschenbrener. Use of
Long-Term Warranties for the Colorado Department of Transportation Pilot
Projects. October 2006.
Colorado Department of Transportation. Goldbaum, Jay, and Tim Aschenbrener. Current
Cost Benefit Evaluation of Short-Term Warranties for Hot-Mix Asphalt
Pavements. CDOT-2007-10, June 2007.
Illinois Department of Transportation, Wienrank, Charles. Demonstrating the Use of
Performance-Based Warranties on Highway Construction Projects in Illinois.
June 2004.
Indiana Department of Transportation, Flora, William, Victor L.Gallivan, Gerald R.
Huber. Benefits of Warranties to Indiana. October 2003.
Iowa Department of Transportation, Grove, Jim. Warranties for Concrete Pavements:
You’d Better Read the Fine Print. TRB Presentation Session 142, 9 January
2005.
A-3
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Scully, Tim C. Jr., R. Clark Graves, David L. Allen. I-
275 Boone/Kenton Counties Annual Warranties Survey, Year Four (2004).
August 2005.
Maryland State Highway Administration, Pavement and Geotechnical Division, Applied
Research Associates. Joint Warranty Inspection Survey for the US-50 Salisbury
Bypass. 14 October 2005.
Michigan Department of Transportation, Galehouse, Larry. Evaluation of Warranty
Work: Final Report for an Experimental Project by the Michigan Department of
Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. 24
May 1996.
Michigan Department of Transportation, Friend, Tibbits. Contract Administration and
Oversight Guidelines for Projects Containing Warranty Work. 2002
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Local Road Research Board, Professional
Engineering Services, Ltd., Johnson, P.E. Use of Warranties In Highway
Construction. September 2004.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Construction and Innovative
Contracting. Innovative Contracting in Minnesota, 2000 to 2005. 2005.
Missouri Department of Transportation, Webb, Mark. Final Report, Route I-29, Platte
County, Project No. F.A.-29-I (91), Experimental Project No. MO91-03. 28
November 1994.
Montana Department of Transportation, Johnson, Dave, Jerry Stephens, and Michael
Whelan. Use of Performance-Based Warranties on Roadway Construction
Projects. November 2002.
A-4
Ohio Department of Transportation. Implementation of Warranted Items in State of Ohio
Highway Construction Projects. 1999
Ohio Department of Transportation, Bayraktar, Mehmet, Qingbin Cui, Makarand Hastak,
and Issam Minkarah. The Evaluation of Warranty Provisions on ODOT
Construction Projects, November 2003.
Ohio Department of Transportation, Division on Construction Management. 2006 Status
of the Warranty Program, February 2007.
Texas Department of Transportation, Anderson, Stuart, Byron Blaschke, Cuneyt Erbatur,
and David Trejo. Development of Warranty-Based Specifications for
Construction. FHWA/TX-06/0-4498-3. January 2006.
Texas Department of Transportation, Seiders, Jeffery. Pavement performance standards
and Specifications for Concessions. 31 October 2006.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Innovative Contracting Work Plan (Special
Experimental Project No. 14) Warranty for Hot Mix Asphalt Construction. 13
October 1994.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Shober. Woltmann. Duckert. Schwandt.
Volker. FHWA Fudaly. Waelti. Asphaltic Pavement Warranties: Three Year
Progress Report. 13 October 1998.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Krebs. Duckert. Schwandt. Voker. Brokaw.
FHWA, Shemwell. Waelti. Asphaltic Pavement Warranties: Five Year Progress
Report. June 2001.
A-5
III. Warranty Provisions
Agency Warranty Description
Arkansas Tourist Center
California Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
California Microsurfacing
California Standard 1-year guarantee
Colorado Short Term Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Colorado Short Term Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Colorado Long Term Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Colorado Long Term Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Florida Asphalt Pavement
Florida Bridge Component
Florida Highway Lighting
Florida Landscaping
Florida Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Florida Performance Turf
Florida Signalization
Florida Traffic Markings
Illinois Bituminous Overlay
Illinois Bituminous Pavement
Illinois Concrete Pavement
Indiana Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Indiana Traffic Markings
Indiana Microsurfacing
A-6
Agency Warranty Description
Kentucky Traffic Markings
Louisiana Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Louisiana Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Maine Bituminous Pavement (Houlton Project)
Maine Pavement and Bridge Components (I-295 Connector Project)
Michigan Bituminous Pavement
Michigan Bridge Painting
Michigan Chip Seals
Michigan Cold Milling and One Course Hot Mix Overlays
Michigan Compound Seal
Michigan Concrete Pavement with Incentive
Michigan Contractor QC with Pavement Warranty
Michigan Double Chip Seals
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt Crack Treatment
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt Ultra-thin Overlays
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt with Incentive
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt on Crushed and Shaped Bases
Michigan Hot Mix Asphalt on Rubblized Concrete
Michigan Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement
Michigan Microsurfacing
Michigan Multiple Course Hot Mix Overlays
Michigan One Course Hot Mix Overlays
A-7
Agency Warranty Description
Michigan Pavement Acceptance for Hot Mixtures Warranty
Michigan Pavement Performance (Flexible and Rigid)
Michigan Pavement Performance (Michigan Route 6)
Michigan Paver-Placed Super Seal
Minnesota Bituminous Overlay
Minnesota Bituminous Pavement
Minnesota Culverts
Minnesota Design-Build Components
Minnesota Pay for Performance Markings
Mississippi Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Mississippi Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
New Mexico Pavement Components (Corridor 44 Project)
New Mexico Structure Components (Corridor 44 Project)
North Carolina Twelve Month Guarantee
North Carolina Asphalt Surface Treatment
North Dakota Dowel Bars
Ohio Hot In-Place Recycling
Ohio QC/QA Concrete Pavement
Ohio QC/QA Concrete Pavement for Bridge Decks
Ohio Class S Concrete for New Bridge Decks
Ohio High Performance Concrete for New Bridge Decks
Ohio Asphalt Concrete Surface Course
Ohio Asphalt Concrete
A-8
Agency Warranty Description
Ohio Microsurfacing
Ohio Chip Seal
Ohio Concrete Pavement
Oregon Steel Coatings
Pennsylvania Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Tennessee Asphalt Pavement
Tennessee Profiled Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
Tennessee Wet Reflective Pavement Markings
Texas Microsurfacing
Washington Tacoma Narrows Bridge Components
West Virginia Traffic Markings
Wisconsin Concrete Pavement
Wisconsin Dowel Bars Retrofit
Wisconsin Mainline and Ancillary Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Wisconsin Painting
A-9
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix B – Warranty Survey
B1 - Survey Form
B2 – Survey Responses
Page intentionally left blank
B1-Survey Form
B1-01
B1-02
B1-03
B1-04
B1-05
B1-06
B1-07
B1-08
B1-09
B1-10
B1-11
B1-12
B2-Survey Responses
Page intentionally left blank
PART 1
1. Respondents
State Name Title/Department
Paper Phone
Terry McDuffie Construction Bureau Chief X
Mark Strictland Specifications Engineer X
Alaska Literature Review Literature Review
Joe Roman Specifications Engineer X
Greg Inman Materials Quality Assurance Specialist X
Jerry Trotter Construction Engineer X
Jerry Westerman Materials Engineer X
Jim Cotey Construction Division X
Brian Toepher Maintenance Division X
Colorado Jay Goldbaum Pavement Design Program Manager X
Conneticut Keith Lane Materials Engineer X
Delaware Jenifer Pinkerton Pavement Management X
Florida David Sadler Construction Engineer X
David L. Graham Construction Engineer X
Georgene Geary Materials and Research Engineer X
David Hoge Contract Administration X
Greg Mayo Construction Division X
Hawaii Casey Abe Highways Division X
Idaho Doug Chase Construction Engineer X
Illinois Charles Wienrack Pavement Engineer X
David Andrewski Pavement Engineer X
DL Smith Specification Engineer X
Iowa John Smythe Construction Engineer X
Roy Rissky Bureau Chief of Construction and Maintenance X
Lon Ingram Chief of Materials and Research X
Clark Graves Transportation Center at University of Kentucky X
Greg Kreutzjans Transportation Center at University of Kentucky X
Louisianna Doc Zhang Pavement and Geotech Research Administrator X
Maine (Houlton) Trevin Cobb Resident Engineer X
Maine (Sagadahoc) Philip E. Pinkham Construction Engineer X
Maine Bruce Yeaton Materials Testing Engineer X
Milton Simms Asphalt Technology Division Section Chief X
Peter Stephanos Director of Materials Technology X
Massachussetts Anonymous Office of Construction X
Michigan Pat Schafer Pavement Management Engineer X
Jay J Hietpas Office of Construction & Innovative Contracting X
Curt Turgeon Pavement Engineer X
Mississippi Randy Battey State Research Engineer X
Missouri Anonymous Construction Engineer X
Minnesota
Kansas
California
Kentucky
Maryland
Survey Info
Georgia
Indiana
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
B2-01
PART 1
1. Respondents
State Name Title/Department
Paper Phone
Survey Info
Montana Mark Wissinger Construction X
Steve Bartos Assistant Construction Engineer X
Moe Jamshidi Materials and Research Engineer X
Mark Elicegui Chief Bridge Engineer X
Kent Mayer Maintenance X
Dean Weitzel Construction X
Pete Stamnas X
Alan Perkins Chief of Materials X
Ed Myzie X
Eileen Sheehy Materials Engineer X
New Mexico Jeff Lowry X
New York Literature Review Literature Review
North Carolina Victor Barbour Project Services Engineer X
North Dakota Phillip Murdoff, PE Assistant Construction Engineer X
Ohio Robert Jessberger Construction Specialist X
Oklahoma George Raymond Construction Engineer X
Oregon Jeff Gower Construction and Materials Engineer X
Ron Cominsky PA Asphalt Pavement Association X
John Becker American Concrete Paving Association, PA Chapter X
Rhode Island Anonymous Construction Engineer X
South Carolina Mark Lester Construction X
South Dakota David Huft Research Program Manager X
Tennessee Jerry Hatcher Assistant Director of Construction X
Johnnie Miller Traffic Materials Branch Manager X
Bunny Neible Division Administrative Manager X
Utah Tim Biel Materials Engineer X
Vermont David Hoyne Construction Engineer X
Virginia Shalilendra Patel Division Adminstrator, Procurement X
Jugesh Kapur State Bridge Engineer X
Thomas Baker Materials Engineer X
West Virginia Darrell Allen Construction Engineer X
Wisconsin Tom Lorfeld Pavement Engineer X
Mark Eisenhart Construction Engineer X
Rick Harvey Materials Engineer XWyoming
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Texas
Washington
B2-02
PART 1
2. What type of warranties have you used on highway construction projects?
STATE
ALABAMA
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
DELAWARE
NEVADA
IDAHO
NEW YORK
TENNESSEE
KANSAS
OKLAHOMA
VIRGINIA
ALASKA
MASSACHUSETTS
MISSOURI
FLORIDA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ILLINOIS
NORTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
KENTUCKY
OREGON
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
ARIZONA
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
MONTANA
GEORGIA
NEW JERSEY
SOUTH CAROLINA
INDIANA
NORTH DAKOTA
UTAH
LOUISIANA
PENNSYLVANIA
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
MINNESOTA
CONNECTICUT
NEBRASKA
HAWAII
NEW MEXICO
SOUTH DAKOTA
IOWA
OHIO
VERMONT
MAINE
RHODE ISLAND
WYOMING
No
ne
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Road facility-fluid app. waterproof
Road-side facilities
Pfrm. bond carries 1-yr guarantee
Decks, joints, parapets, approach
Discontinued the markings
Subbase, exp. jts., wtrprf, membrane, bearings, granite pier protection
con. jnt sealant, manufact. marks
On D-B projects
Bridge deck overlay
Dowel bar retrofits
Drainage structure
Asphalt surface treatments only
Dowel bar retrofits
Discontinued c. treat. & markings
Markings are manufac. warranty
On D-B projects
1 HMA pavement with design-build
Tacoma Narrows Bridge DB project
Dowel bar retrofits
‡
Developed specification but did not implement‡
‡
x x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x x
x
x
xx x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
xx
x xx
x
x
x x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x xx
x
x
xx
xx
x x
x
x
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
B2-03
PART 1
3. List the typical warranty periods in years for each type of warranty.
STATE
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
MONTANA
NEVADA
NEW YORK
TENNESSEE
KANSAS
VIRGINIA
MISSOURI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
KENTUCKY
OREGON
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
SOUTH CAROLINA
INDIANA
UTAH
LOUISIANA
PENNSYLVANIA
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
MINNESOTA
CONNECTICUT
NEW MEXICO
OHIO
MAINE
HM
A
Pa
vem
en
t
PC
C
Pa
vem
en
t
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
surf
aci
ng
Pa
vem
en
t M
ark
ing
s
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
ch
nic
al
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Fluid applied waterproofing
Roadside facilities
Markings have been discontinued
Geotech comps. under pvmnt warr’ty (sttlmnt & crack) Bridge items-5&10 yr
For HMA and PCC Pavements, 5 yrs for R&R, 3 yrs on D-B-B
3 yrs (but up to 5 yrs) on D-B & typically 2 yrs on D-B-B
Dowel bar retrofits
Drainage structures
Surface treatments
3,5,10 & 15 years D-B
Design-Build Projects only
3
1
3 5 5 3 3 5 1
5 5 5
5 5 3
5
10 10 1,2
3 3
5 5 5 5-10 5-10
5 5-10 3
5 5 2 2 2 2
2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5-7 10 4
25
3
3
20 20 20 20
1
2
3-7 7 2 2 2 2,3 5 7
3 7 1
5 3
5 2
2
2
20
3-5 3-5 2 2 2 2 2
1
5 2 3
1 1 1
3,5,10 5,10 1 2 1
B2-04
WASHINGTONTacoma-Narrows Bridge Project, multiple warranties on single proj.4 4 3 3 3 3 3
TENNESSEE 4 NA
OHIO 136 20 5 12 16 44 44 134
PENNSYLVANIA 2+
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH CAROLINA
Under Design-Build
Design-Build1
1
NORTH CAROLINA Asphalt surface treatment
NEVADA Dowel bar retrofits1
NEW YORK 1
MISSISSIPPI 13 1 3
MICHIGANThru 2004: 685 CPM, 222 R&R. Breakdown by type estimated.700+ 200+
MAINE 3 1 1 2 1
KENTUCKYOne HMA project is in construction2 1
INDIANA 8 2 2
FLORIDAAll projects let since Jan ‘04 (Estimated #)600+ 15+ <10 <10 <10 <20
CALIFORNIA 10+ 10+ 2+
COLORADO Roadside facilities11 4 1 2 5
ILLINOIS 11 16 1
KANSAS Pavement markings discontinued1
LOUISIANA PCC to be let2 1
MARYLAND2 unsuccessful attempts to let an HMA warranty. Pavemarks are piloted
3 all 1
MINNESOTA4 projects-D-B, bridge components include steel, bearings, exp. jnts, struct. conc.
13 7 1 4 4 2 2 5 4 4
MISSOURI 1
NEW MEXICOOne project (Corridor 44) that included multiple warranties1 1 1
NORTH DAKOTA 3
OREGON Standard on all projects2-3 * *
VIRGINIA
UTAH
TEXAS
Design-Build
1+
1
WISCONSIN 70+ 12+
PART 1
4. List the total number of projects constructed for each type of warranty.
STATE
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
ch
nic
al
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
B2-05
PART 1
5. List the number of warranty projects in which the total warranty period has elapsed for each type of warranty.
STATE
MINNESOTA
COLORADO
NEVADA
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
INDIANA
KANSAS
MAINE
VIRGINIA
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
MISSOURI
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Roadside facilities
473 CPM,Approximately 40-50 R&R
Dowel bar retrofits
10+
8,0,0
>100
1
7
0
2
1
8
0
0
0
<10
28
0
0
1
1,0
<10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
5
10+
7
2+
1
0
6
2
<5
0
7
NA
0
9
<5
1
0
0
<3
0
0
0
0
<10
0
1
0
0
4
0
5
<30
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
B2-06
PART 1
6. How many years experience does your agency have implementing each type of warranty?
STATE
COLORADO
MINNESOTA
NORTH CAROLINA
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
INDIANA
KANSAS
MAINE
TENNESSEE
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Roadside facilities
Does not include D-B projects that often include warranty.
About 10 years.
Design-Build projects started in 2002.
Only 1 long-term project
Surface treatments only
5
7
3
5
10
3
3
5
4
4
4
6
3
5
7
3
5
5
7
6
4
4
6
5
2
6
4
6
1
9
3
6
3
2
3
3
5
7
3
6
2
5
3
4
1
3
4
3
3
4
2
4
5
3
6
4
20+
5
2
5
4
3
3
2
4
B2-07
PART 1
7. What is the estimated percent bid increase (or decrease) for each type of warranty?
STATE
COLORADO
MINNESOTA
NORTH CAROLINA
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
MAINE
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
The data we have is inconclusive at this time
Slight increase attributed to the inclusion of a weigh in motion station
No increases were noted in bids received after these warranty were included in contracts.
1-2% for HMA overlays
About $3/cyd increase for concrete
Uncertain
Do not really know, difficult to quantify
TBD on pavement markings
Pavement - No evidence of bid cost increases;Bridge painting - Initial increases in bids
This number is very difficult to quantify due to number of variables in projects
HMA is based on most recent. Others are unknown.
Unknown
Unknown, No significant increases, but we suspect somewhat increased costs
Very small difference in prices, very project specific.See Research report:FHWA/OH-2003/019
Unknown, figures provided are rough estimates
0
<1
<4%
0.12
0
50%
0
<1
0
0
50%
0 0
0
0
200
0
0
0
10% 10% 10%
<4%
10%
<1
0
10%
0
0
B2-08
PART 1
8. Which warranties required legislative authority prior to implementation?
STATE
CALIFORNIA
MINNESOTA
LOUISIANA
MAINE
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
None
None
None
Demonstration project on use of pavement warranties was required by legislation.
Authority required for design-build, best-value procurement
Projects used SEP-14 process
Move to warranty was fueled by legislators
Some projects required notice
None required legislative authority, but we do have legislation requiring warranties “where possible”
None
None
All
x
x
x
x
x
x
B2-09
PART 1
9. Which warranties were met with oppostion from contractors due to bonding or other requirements?
STATE
COLORADO
MINNESOTA
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
INDIANA
KANSAS
MAINE
TENNESSEE
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
No opposition known
Mild opposition from some due to the bond amount and period.
Pre-ad & pre-bid meetings used to alleviate opposition & maintain competition
Involved industry in the development of specs so most opposition was dealt with during
Industry was involved with development of specs
None
Bonding issues: Difficulty assigning liability for failures of pavement markings
Bid as an alternate design (HMA/PCC) and with 5-10 year options
Incorporated industry comments to spec; restricted to 3 years for bonding
No huge opposition, but no huge desire to move forward and expand
Asphalt contractors felt they could not get bonded, they opposed warranties
They has been some form of opposition at varying levels.
No real strong resistance-Worked closely with industry during development.
There was some resistance.
None
None
Contractors were reluctant on all
Not so much opposition, but concern
x
x
x
x
x
B2-10
PART 1
10. Has remedial action been necessary during the warranty period for any of the following warranties?
STATE
COLORADO
MINNESOTA
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
INDIANA
KANSAS
MAINE
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA
ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
MICHIGAN
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
1 dispute on concrete raveling where contractor was not held responsible
Two asphalt projects have had failing asphalt covered by warranty. A few landscaping projects have had plants fail requiring replacement.
A few mid-panel transverse cracks and transverse joint spalls requiring repair.
No, but contractor has performed elective maintenance
See risk of disputes as a huge issue, and think the contractor will get off the hook
Some crack sealing performed
Minor repairs required for joint sealant warranty
Corrective action on one 5-year project. At year 3 experienced rutting.
Pavement Marking warranty work was waived
Not yet
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
B2-11
PART 1
11. Have you revised or considered revising the threshold values or the duration of the warranty periods for any of thefollowing warranties?
STATE
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MICHIGAN
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
WASHINGTON
MINNESOTA
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Differing lengths
Considering increasing the terms of the asphalt and landscaping warranty.
May consider after more projects warranty periods have elapsed.
Revised how roughness was measured from 1st project
Would not get industry support above 3 years at this time
Assessing 15 year warranties. Personal opinion is that 5 years is not sufficient time for HMA warranty on a full construction type project.
Tried 15,10,5,3 yr with varying degrees of control - all rejected by industry
Warranty periods have changed over the years.
Went from 5 to 3 years with increased performance criteria on pavements
Our design-build warranties were initially 1 to 5 years and varied by project. Our design-build warranties are now 3 years on all project aspects. No changes to the design-bid-build terms have been considered. MnDOT did consider a 20-year bituminous warranty on a project, but the it was not cost effective and was therefore not used. No longer use warranties in low-bid situations
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
B2-12
PART 1
12. Would you consider including incentives for warranted items that perform exceptionally well?
STATE
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
HM
A
Pa
ve
me
nt
PC
C
Pa
ve
me
nt
Cra
ck
Tre
atm
en
t
Ch
ip S
ea
ls
Mic
ro-
su
rfa
cin
g
Pa
ve
me
nt
Ma
rkin
gs
Brid
ge
P
ain
ting
Tra
ffic
Sig
na
l L
igh
ting
ITS
C
om
po
ne
nts
Ge
ote
chn
ica
l C
om
po
ne
nts
Brid
ge
C
om
po
ne
nts
Oth
er
Co
mp
on
en
ts
Comments
Might consider early warranty close-out on exceptionally performing jobs or quality I/D’s
N N N
N
FLORIDAYes, looking at developing a construction quality index for all projects.
ILLINOIS Not at this time.
INDIANA N N N
KANSAS N
LOUISIANA N N
MAINEInformation is insufficient to allow consideration for this yetY N N
MARYLANDUsed incentive for pavement that beat the threshold beyond the warranty period
MICHIGAN
Used on a limited basis for R&R projects. There has been some discussion about including incentives for CPM projects in the future.
Y Y
MISSISSIPPIStill provide smoothness incentive on “Maintained Pavement” Projects
Y Y N
NORTH DAKOTA N
OHIOIncentives are handled under separate specification requirements depending on material/smoothness etc.
N N N N N N N N
WASHINGTONNot on the short term. Possibly in a long term situation.
WISCONSINConsidering early close-out of warranty on exceptionally performing contracts
MINNESOTA
We have not discussed this option. We do have an incentive program for bituminous and concrete items during construction, but they are not tied to the warranty. There are incentives for density, ride, absorption, gradation to name a few. Possibly willing to consider only those types of things that can be controlled by the contractor. Ride at age 5 years is not in a pavers control for an overlay (most of our work is overlays)
B2-13
PART 2
1. Please list your top 3 to 5 objectives for implementing warranties, in order of priority, with 1 being the highest priority.
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
Enhanced road surface performance through improved materials and workmanship, Contractor shares responsibility for road surface performance during warranty period, Reduce State personnel time for testing and inspection, Encourage contractor innovation, Reduce cycles of rehabilitation and reduce maintenance exposure.
Innovation, shift risk to contractor, move away from prescriptive specs, develop new means and methods for longer-lasting pavements
Improve quality of product, increase contractor accountability, minimize future impacts to traffic
Satisfy legislative mandate, transfer risk to contractor, guard against unexpected failures
Performance, Innovation, Speed of Construction, Manpower savings, Contractor freedom
(1) Improve quality of product, hold contractors accountable for project, protect taxpayer investment
(2) Quality, innovation. Improved performance
Quality Assurance, Durability, Risk Management
Risk Management, Quality
Research data, design-build coupling, encourage competition
(1) Improved quality, longer life-cycle, contractor accountability, encourage innovation, lower contract administration costs
(2) understand the concept, improve quality, move responsibility to contractors
Reduce staffing needs, allow for innovation from the contractor, provide a better performing pavement
Increase quality, encourage new technologies, industry as a stakeholder, public accountability
Quality product, Unfamiliarity with how the work was to be done. So rather than specify the process, have contractor warranty the work.
Longer lasting pavements, Better workmanship, Possible reduction in construction administrative costs
Quality, quality, quality, prevention of early catastrophic failures
Comply with state legislation, lower pavement life cycle costs through longer pavement life, and reduce pavement maintenance costs, high quality bridge painting, protection from catastrophic failures, Trial and evaluation of innovative construction techniques, and placement of proper risk associated with pavement design and construction on MDOT and the contractor
B2-14
PART 2
2. Based on achieving the objectives for warranties, what would you consider the success rate for the warranty projectsyou have completed so far?
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
70-79%
90-99%
100%
90-99%
100%
90-99%
90-99%
No answer
80-89%
80-89%
90-99%
80-89%
B2-15
PART 2
3. Have you performed formal evaluations of the warranty projects you have implemented?If so, are the results of your evaluations available through your website or other means?
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
Yes - Final Warranty Evaluation Report to be completed in 2006.
Yes, contact State Materials Office for reports
No
Yes, not available
No
Yes
No
Research staff annually monitored the warranty project. Contact Dale Peabody -Research Engineer-----Phone 207-624-3305
Joint warranty for PCC pavement
No
Yes - www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/warranties.html
Yes
No
No
Expected within a year
B2-16
PART 2
4. What advantages have you experienced implementing warranty projects?Please identify the warranty type and associated advantages.
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
LOUISIANA
Chip seals- We think that contractors are sending their best crews to work on the chip seal warranty contracts.HMA pavement- We have not had many issues on the HMA projects with warranties.
HMA- No maintenance by State forces has been done on any of these projects. Less testing oversight by State forces;PCC - Marginal materials were replaced by the contractor without any cost issues. Less testing oversight by State forces;Pavement Markings- The contractors have paid more attention to the placement;Roadside facilities- The contractors have replaced the items at no cost to the Department.
All- More attention paid to workmanship by contractors during installation
All- Protection against unexpected failures
HMA - speed of construction, contractor responsibility,PCCP - tooled joint sealant,Microsurface - testing manpower savings
(1) Concrete Pavement-none really, and affordable bond wasn't long enough to make it worth while.
(2) Concrete-fast-track construction (in DB)
None
HMA-None
More attention to joint construction, tad on pavement markings, improved construction quality on bridge painting
(1) Pavements - shifts more risks of contractors, Grading - additional efforts by contractors to insure good compaction, Other items - contractor accountability, Pavement markings - pay-for-performance specifications puts the risk on both the contractor and supplier and eliminates the "blame-game" between the two. Www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/pay-for-performance.
(2) None
Pavement Performance-reduce material acceptance requirements.Pavement materials & workmanship- increased awareness of correlation between materials and workmanship and performance. Bridge painting- Higher quality work, better performance.
Pavement - Increased attention to proper construction techniques by contractor, utilization of new products and techniques not normally called for in a conventional contract, less agency personnel required during construction, Low bidder selection is somewhat quality based since only contractors that are confident in their ability to give the state a quality product submit bids.
Dowel Bar Retrofit - Moved away from method specifications towards an end-result specification. At this point it appears we have received a better end product.
Asphalt Pave - better workmanship, longer lasting pavements Concrete Pavement - Better Workmanship, longer lasting pavementsBridge Painting - Better workmanshipBridge Deck Concrete - Better workmanship, longer lasting decks, cracks sealed
All-Prevention of early catastrophic failure
B2-17
PART 2
5. What disadvantages have you experienced implementing warranty projects?Please identify the warranty type and associated disadvantages.
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
LOUISIANA
Chip seal- Performance criteria and warranty contract language have lead to differences of opinion between contractor and agency as to responsibility for remedial work.
HMA - Marginal quality control by the contractors. Reluctance by Industry to continue warranties. The anticipated increase in performance has yet to be determined;PCC - The evaluation process is time consuming;Pavement Markings - Higher cost for the same performance.
All- lengthy debates with industry over the performance criteria used for these specifications. FDOT involves industry with the development of its specifications and, while we don't always agree, we do seek input from industry on specifications.
All- Possibility of increased project cost in addition to actual warranty bid item cost.
HMA and PCCP - legal concerns of out of state contractors
(1) Concrete Pavement- contractors couldn't find a bonding co. who would do it for anymore that 5 years when we really wanted at least 10 years.
(2) Concrete-None.Pavement Markings- Assigning fault
All-Paying for the bonding and cost of disputes while adding burden of warranty inspections to the departments
HMA-None
HMA-Resistance from industry,Joints-time consuming measurements,Bridge painting-long term bonding
(1)Pavements - Difficulty defining warranty start dates when the projects had multi-stage construction. On a 6-lane roadway, does the warranty start after all 6-lanes are complete, or does it start when you start putting traffic on 2 completed lanes while you finish up the other 4 lanes?ITS, Signals, bridges, turf, and other miscellaneous items - difficult to establish clear threshold criteria. How do you determine if the item needs repair under the warranty?Pavements - Requires additional staff to monitor and enforce. Require extra communication with maintenance and other district offices. Who is responsible for monitoring it?
(2) one more thing to monitor
All pavements -costs to administer warranty inspections and bonding costs.Pavement performance- paving industry opposes due to fact that they do not have control over the base and overall pavement structure design
Pavement - Higher cost than non warranty projects, contractors claim difficulty in obtaining bonding
Dowel Bar Retrofit - The warranty increases the timeline for finalizing the project; How performance is measured needs to be well defined.
Traffic Marking - Excessive DOT Review required, no better performanceAsphalt pavement - preexisting conditions cause warranty to be waivedBridge Deck Concrete - all decks crack
All-Prevention of early catastrophic failure
B2-18
PART 2
6. Have you used or considered using an alternative to a warranty bond to ensure performance under the warranty?If yes, please explain.
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
We have not used a warranty bond. We have used the contract performance bond. Internally we have considered using a warranty bond but have not implemented. Change in legislation may be required to use a warranty bond.
On our 10-year warranties we allow the contractors to use a letter of credit, certificate of deposit, US currency, or other security acceptable to the Department.
Yes. FDOT does not require warranty bonds for most of the warranted items of work on its projects. FDOT ties performance of the completed work to the contractor's ability to continue to do further work with FDOT. This is done by tying the performance to the contractor's prequalification certificate. A few of the smaller items do require a warranty bond be provided.
No
No
No
(1) We are considering using a guarantee instead of a warranty bond. The guarantee works more like a "hand-shake" and that the contractor would do the corrective action or would not be able to bid on state work. This is only being considered and is not being implemented. We have also used a "pay-for-performance" specification for pavement marking performance on our I-494 design-build project. The contractor is paid a portion of the costs at the time the item is placed, and then is paid on a graduated scale over time if the item performs up to expectation. There is no bond, but payment is withheld until the end of the evaluation period.
(2) Considered but taken no action. Bonds are expensive, bonding companies do not like to gamble; this is a new arena for bonding companies.
Considering use of guarantee, where contractor assures us that if warranty work is required, he will perform it. Failure to honor the guarantee will jeopardize ability to bid future work. Legislative action is required to institute the use of guarantees.
No
We did not use a warranty bond. 1% retainage was withheld during the warranty period.
Yes
B2-19
PART 2
7. If a warranty bond is used, how is the penal value of the bond determined?
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
For the few warranty bonds used on some of the smaller items (i.e., signalization, landscaping) the warranty bond is determined to be the total dollar value of the work.
Calculated as a percentage of mainline pavement cost
HMA- Cost of replacement of the surface course; PCCP - 20-40% of the cost of the warranted item; Microsurface- 100% of cost of warranted item.
Generally: for R&R projects - 5% of total contract amount or $1 million, whichever is less. For CPM projects - 100% of warranted work. For bridge painting projects - 25% of original contract amount of specified items.
Generally about 20% of the warranted pavement items. Some warranties are based on full replacement of the warranty work.
Typically the estimated cost to overlay the entire project with a lift of HMA is used for the value
Depends on specifications… see http://www.dot.state.oh.us/construction/OCA/Warranty/default.htm
B2-20
PART 2
8. Do you have any “lessons learned” as a result of a particular warranty project?If so, please briefly describe the project and lesson learned.
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
COLORADO
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
TENNESSE
VIRGINIA
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
No
We need better up-front quality control along with more oversight by State forces. We should use the Pavement Management information to monitor the projects. We do not need weigh-in-motion stations on our short term projects.
It is still fairly early in the process of warranted work with FDOT. There have been few projects that have run full term of the warranty. One specific example that comes to mind is a recent project that completed its 5 year asphalt pavement warranty that had a few areas that failed performance criterion. The contractor was notified of the failure areas and without any argument, he removed and replaced the failed areas at his expense.
Not yet, still too early.
Do not interfere with contractor operations - he will say you knew and approved of their process if an inspector is on site at all times; inspection should consist of spot checking process by monitoring QCP.
1. The contractors couldn't get a bonding company to do a warranty for than 5 year which for concrete pavement isn't really a problem if quality of construction is any good at all.2. Our limited experience with pavement warranty has been good. No industry support for design/build/warranty concept so little change we will see much work in the near future.
Five year pavement warranties may not be enough, and 10 year warranties on bridge components such as Bearings and Expansion Devices may not be enough.
No answer
See our Innovative Contracting Report on our website for more information. The report is very comprehensive. Www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/innovativecontract.html.
For the joint sealant, they did not clearly define the cause of a joint related distress and whether that would fall under the warranty
The warranty time needs to start once the pavement has been accepted rather than waiting on the final maintenance release to be granted which could be delayed due to non-pavement issues such as grass growth.
None
It is best to warrant long lasting products, Pavement markings require excessive DOT review
Found monitoring of the retroreflectivity parameter for pavement markings to be a chore, and not worth the effort
Let one D-B project with a 5 year warranty attached but contractor negotiated out of the warranty during construction
Don't stop testing materials simply because you have a warranty, unless the warranty covers the full-life cycle of that material. Of the triad of schedule, budget, and quality, quality always loses when there is a constraint. Warranties help when such a constraint occur, providing a backstop to quality.
1. Committing time and resources for warranty administration is important. 2. Warranties do not replace initial acceptance. 3. On a Design Build Warranty, the contractor placed an additional 1" of HMA after they performed Falling Weight Deflectometer testing on the pavement constructed. This was to insure themselves that they had provided adequate pavement structure. 4. Be firm in the warranty and have timely notifications for repair work.
B2-21
PART 2
9. How do you determine which projects are suitable for using warranty specifications?How does this process differ for different types of warranties?
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
Districts are asked to use warranties on pavement preservation projects. HQ maintenance reviewers assist the district in reviewing and determining if a project is a good candidate for a warranty.
We have project selection guidelines and use Industry representatives when selecting appropriate projects
FDOT requires warranties on all of its asphalt projects, all concrete pavement projects all of its landscaping projects, and all bridge projects. Additionally, select projects with signalization, roadway lighting, ITS, and striping have warranties on those items of work.
Due to the timeframe requirements of the legislation, projects had to be selected from the existing 5-year Proposed Highway Improvement Program. The first few projects were kept simple in scope, and did not include projects that involved new or unique designs, or projects that incorporated any controversial materials or design methods. The legislation also required that at least 10 of the projects be designed for a 30-year life cycle or greater. This required the development of extended life pavement design and material specifications.
High profile projects with heavy traffic for HMA & PCCP in order to get in and out fast and all microsurface projects since a representative sample of microsurface cannot be obtained to do QA testing.
Not enough experience to answer
As of now the Department has had a warranty period on one paving contract delivered by bid-build contract method. Two others, one was a bridge project and the other was an urban highway reconstruction with 3 bridges, that both were contracted out as design-build. Design - build projects at this point in time for the Department are automatic candidates for using warranty specifications. The paving contract mentioned above was a test project.
This was a design-build project
It has been a preference to use HMA warranties on the 3-4 Design Build projects that we have advertised
New construction, reconstruction, major rehabilitation, CPM and bridge painting projects usually have a warranty specification. Exceptions are based on engineering judgment related to project specific circumstances.
(1) All design-build projects have 3-year warranties that cover all project aspects, this is standard. We have no set criteria for our bid-build projects, it is up to the district personnel to determine if a project is a good candidate for a warranty. We are working on guidelines on when to use a warranty.
(2) Only design build projects are currently using warranties
The departmental Pavement Recommendations Committee determines based on underlying pavement conditions whether the project is a warranty candidate.
Since going to a warranty specification for dowel bar retrofit projects, we typically use it on all of these types of projects.
www.dot.state.oh.us/construction/OCA/Warranty/default.htm
All design-build projects will have some portioned warrantied, due to the process turning over design and construction to the DB firm
B2-22
PART 2
10. How are performance indicators selected?How does this process differ for different types of warranties?
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
KANSAS
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
MAINE(Houlton)
We are piloting pavement preservation projects only. We have standard performance indicators for all warranty projects
Our performance indicators were selected by a committee of CDOT and Industry representatives. We used the FHWA distress manual as a guide for selecting the distresses. The process was the same of all types of warranties.
Performance indicators were determined by reviewing historical data that FDOT has accumulated and determining what areas were critical to the performance of the product. We determined the following critical areas for:1. asphalt pavement: rutting, cracking, raveling, delamination, pot holes, slippage areas, segregated areas and ride;2. concrete pavement: Spalling, cracking, ride and shattered slab;3. Bridge Components: Bridge deck expansion joints, coatings, Bearing devices, lighting/electrical system and drainage system
Performance indicators were selected based upon the typical performance measures used by the Department for each pavement type and for bridges. Warranted distresses include various types of cracking, ride (IRI), and rutting (on HMA pavements only). For pavement distresses, the SHRP Distress Identification Manual was used for standard distress definitions.
Performance indicators are selected based on distresses that might occur in a product and that are easily and routinely measured. This statement is true for all warranties.
No answer
See specification
We tried to use objective indicators
Use info from other States and typical performance measures for the HMA warranty.
Pavement indicators for materials & workmanship warranties are related to visible, measurable distress that can be attributable to the contractor's materials and workmanship. Bridge painting indicators are based on any defects.
Performance indicators are selected from our pavement management database for our pavements and from past experience performance criteria on our other warranties such as grading and culvert settlement. On many items such as signal, ITS, and landscaping, we don't have any set criteria. It is open to interpretation out in the field.
Pavement distress performance indicators is based on the SHRP Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (Publication FHWA-RD-03-031)
Results of research from the NDDOT. Parameters are set based on past experience and testing.
Listed in warranty specification, which varies. Developed with ODOT management and industry input
Determined based on what we can accurately measure for criteria that relate to performance
B2-23
PART 2
11. How are threshold values for each performance indicator determined?
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Houlton)
Some are visual and some are measured. See specifications and warranty report.
We selected a number of projects that were performing well and used the pavement management data to set the threshold values on most elements. All the threshold values were determined by the Committee.
Threshold values for asphalt pavement were determined by reviewing historical data that FDOT has accumulated over the past 8-10 years and used to set limits of what is considered acceptable performance in a three year period. Pavements that exceed these thresholds within 3 years are considered to be poor performing pavements and subject to remedial work. Similar process was used for concrete pavement and bridge component warranties. The warranties for signalization, roadway lighting, ITS, and striping were more a function of service life of the product. Landscaping warranty bond was established to take the plants through one growing cycle.
Statistical analyses of the Department's historical pavement performance data were performed. Thresholds were set so that most projects would not require warranty work. The warranty is a materials and workmanship warranty only. Projects constructed properly using good materials should not require warranty work in the 5-year period.
From historical data of warranty period to design life.
See specification
Use info from other States and pavement management data
Pavement thresholds were set based on average historical performance data. Bridge painting thresholds do not allow any rust.
(1)See previous response.
(2) Pavement management data and reasonable expectations
Thresholds were determined based on deduct points within our Pavement Management System for determining Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) on our pavements. Projects were queried and personnel were interviewed to determine what acceptable pavement performance was.
By testing and past experience.
Threshold values are listed in the warranty specification, which varies. The specifications were developed with ODOT management and industry input.
We relate the thresholds to what we have measured on past projects and what we can expect for high quality new construction.
B2-24
PART 2
12. How is the length of the warranty period determined?How does this process differ for different types of warranties?
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Houlton)
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
We determine that if a pavement preservation project did not show distress within the first year after construction that it had a higher potential for maintaining performance during the expected life of the surface treatment
The length is determined by the design life.
For Asphalt & Concrete pavements the length of the warranty was developed based on performance data from previous projects and discussions with industry (contractor's). We developed a warranty that we feel is of sufficient length to give us a good indicator that material will perform for the intended service life and that is acceptable to industry.
Legislation required that warranties be of at least a 5-year duration. Longer warranty periods were considered, but it was determined that bonds would be difficult to obtain for more than 5 years.
Practical limits - 5 years for HMA & PCCP and 3 years for microsurface.
Warranty specifications are based on Wisconsin DOT's warranty specification in the late 90's.
The information that we had at the time was that Warranty Bonds were not available for periods greater than 5 years, therefore we specified on 2 items to be warranted for 10 years.
Research staff used other States experiences with this method of bidding to establish the 5 year period.
Industry partnering has resulted in the warranty periods currently used.
(1) We worked closely with the industry and bonding companies when starting out with warranties. We also looked at what other states were using. Economics was considered, longer warranty periods usually resulted in higher bid costs. Our design-build project warranties were cut from 5 year to 3-years after discussions with the bonding agencies on the significant increase in costs.
(2) standard 3 years on design build, heavily influenced by bonding companies risks beyond 3 years.
We initially chose 5 years for HMA and 10 years for PCC and our thresholds were determined accordingly. After letting 2 HMA projects we decided to increase the HMA term to 7 years on subsequent projects.
Balance between adequate performance and wanting to final out the project.
The Ohio Revised Code & 5525.25. It has been changed at the request of the DOT twice
Long enough to expose early catastrophic failures
B2-25
PART 2
13. Rate your warranted projects in terms of overall costs (including bid, agency, life-cycle, etc.) as compared to yournon-warranted projects.
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MINNESOTA
OHIO
TEXAS
UTAH
MAINEmaterials
MARYLAND
MAINE(Houlton)
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
Slightly more.
Slightly more.
Slightly more.
Significantly more.
About the same.
Slightly more.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
Undetermined
(1) About the same.
(2) About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
B2-26
PART 2
14. Rate your warranted projects in terms of quality as compared to your non-warranted projects.
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
KANSAS
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINEmaterials
MAINE(Houlton)
MAINE(Sagadahoc)
About the same.
Slightly worse.
Slightly better.
About the same.
About the same.
Slightly better.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
About the same.
Undetermined
(1) About the same.
(2) About the same.
Slightly better.
Slightly better.
About the same.
B2-27
PART 2
15. Are there any unique features of your warranty program or of a particular warranty project that you wouldlike to share?
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
NORTH DAKOTA
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
KANSAS
MINNESOTA
OHIO
MAINE(Houlton)
Not at this time.
We have a limited liability on all our warranties. On our 10-year warranties, we allow the contractors to bank up to 15 days of preventive maintenance time in order to let them do work without assessing a lane rental fee. These preventive maintenance costs reduce the liability.
Probably the most unique features of most of FDOT's warranty work is the tie to a contractors ability to continue working for the Department. If a contractor's work fails and the contractor does not perform remedial work required by the contractor, the contractor's Certification to perform work for FDOT will be suspended, revoked, or denied for a minimum of 6 months or until the remedial work is performed.
No
None
No
Many segments on the HMA warranty project had one transverse crack. Remedial action was necessary for two or more transverse cracks per segment. One segment in particular had one transverse crack that was >50 mm wide but didn't require remedial work because there was only one crack in the segment. The warranty should be revised to address this issue.
Note: Responses for items 2, 13, and 14 in Part II cannot be provided since they have not yet been determined.
No
#13 is either about the same or slightly less when factoring life-cycle cost into the equation based on our early data. On #14 we have seen some projects with significantly better quality and some about the same, so I chose the middle value of slightly better.
No
Ohio DOT is using more warranty provisions on larger projects.
B2-28
Appendix C – Sample Warranty Provisions
C1 - HMA Pavement
C2 – PCC Pavement
C3 – Microsurfacing
C4 – HMA Crack Treatment
C5 – Chip Seal
C6 – Bridge Painting
C7 – Design-Build Bridge Components
C8 – Signal and Lighting
C9 – Pavement Markings
C10 – Dowel Bar Retrofit
C11 – Bridge and Drainage
C12 – Culvert
Page intentionally left blank
C1 - Mississippi HMA Pavement Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C1-01
C1-02
C1-03
C1-04
C1-05
C1-06
C1-07
C1-08
C1-09
C1-10
C1-11
Page intentionally left blank
C2 - Illinois PCC Pavement Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C2-01
C2-02
C2-03
C2-04
C2-05
C2-06
C3 - Indiana Microsurfacing Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C3-01
C3-02
C3-03
C3-04
C3-05
C3-06
C3-07
C3-08
C3-09
Page intentionally left blank
C4 - Michigan HMA Crack Treatment Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C4-01
C4-02
C4-03
C4-04
C4-05
C4-06
C4-07
C4-08
C4-09
C4-10
C4-11
C4-12
C4-13
Page intentionally left blank
C5 - Ohio Chip Seal Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C5-01
C5-02
C5-03
C5-04
C5-05
C5-06
C5-07
C5-08
C6 - Wisconsin Bridge Painting
Page intentionally left blank
C6-01
C6-02
C6-03
Page intentionally left blank
C7 - Maine Design-Build Bridge Components
Page intentionally left blank
C7-01
C7-02
C7-03
C7-04
C7-05
C7-06
C7-07
Page intentionally left blank
C8 - Florida Signal and Lighting Warranties
Page intentionally left blank
C8-01
C8-02
C8-03
C8-04
C8-05
C8-06
C8-07
C8-08
C8-09
C8-10
C8-11
Page intentionally left blank
C9 - Tennessee Pavement Markings Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C9-01
C9-02
C9-03
C9-04
C10 - North Dakota Dowel Bar Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C10-01
C10-02
C10-03
C10-04
C11 - New Mexico Bridge and Drainage Structures Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C11-01
C11-02
C11-03
C11-04
C11-05
C11-06
C11-07
C11-08
C11-09
C11-10
C11-11
C11-12
C11-13
C11-14
C11-15
C11-16
C11-17
C11-18
C11-19
C11-20
C11-21
C11-22
C11-23
C11-24
C12 - Minnesota Culvert Warranty
Page intentionally left blank
C12-01
C12-02
C12-03
C12-04
C12-05
