HBP Warranties

1
HBP Warranties The Cost Benefit Evaluation
Begins

• By Jay Goldbaum, P.E.
• Colorado Department of Transportation
• Pavement Management and Design Program Manager

2
Presentation Outline

• Background of Legislation
• History of Warranty Projects and Progress to
  Date
• Pavement Evaluation Team (PET) Process
• Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee (CBEC) Process

3
An ActSENATE BILL 97-128(Enacted Into Law on
May 21, 1997)Establishing A Pilot Program To
Allow CDOT To Enter Into Contracts That Require A
Warranty For Qualified Hot Bituminous Pavement
(HBP) Projects.
4

• BACKGROUND
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Membership -
  Private Contractors
• and CDOT personnel knowledgeable about bituminous
  paving and USDOT Strategic Highway Research
  Program.
• Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee (CBEC)
  Membership - 2 representatives
• from CDOT, 2 individuals from the asphalt paving
  industry, and 1 independent
• engineer.
• Pavement Evaluation Team (PET) CDOTs HBP
  warranty specification requires the formation of
  3-member PET, 1 representative from CDOT, 1 from
  industry, and 1 from an independent engineering
  firm. The PET will conduct annual pavement
  distress survey and prepare report of the survey
  results.
• Specification Development Joint CDOT and
  industry Task Force to review
• specification from time to time.

5

• Implementation Plan
• Purpose - to develop a program with a limited
  number of projects and an evaluation plan to
  determine if HBP short-term materials and
  workmanship specifications improve the quality of
  the pavements in a cost-effective manner.
• 6-year Implementation Plan
• Minimum of 2 projects per Region over 6 years.
• Maximum of 4 projects per Region over 6 years.
• A goal of 12 to 15 total projects targeted.
• Annual evaluation reports to be developed.
• Final evaluation completed following the 2003
  seasons.
• Decision on further implementation to be made
  following final evaluation

6
Evaluation Plan

• Performance (comparison with similar projects).
• Adequacy of project selection guidelines.
• Adequacy of warranty specification.
• Costs (initial, life-cycle cost, maintenance
  costs).
• Level of competition (number of bidders, spread
  in bids).

7
History of HBP Warranty Projects
CDOT developed the HBP warranty program and the
TAC selected three qualified projects for the
3-year warranty program

• I-25, South of Fountain - constructed 1998
• C-470, Santa Fe Drive to Wadsworth Blvd.
  constructed 1998
• US-36, EW of Superior Interchange constructed
  1998

8
(No Transcript)
9
Additional HBP Warranty Projects

• I-70, Eagle to Avon constructed in 2000
• I-25, North of Pueblo constructed in 2000
• US-50, East of Kannah Creek constructed in 2001
• SH-63 South of Atwood constructed in 2002
• I-25, North of Pueblo constructed in 2002
• SH 36, East of Byers, construction starts in 2003

10
Pavement Evaluation Team

• Current PET Membership
• Hal Toland - Colorado Department of
  Transportation
• Tom Peterson - Colorado Asphalt Pavement
  Association
• Tom Rolland - ROLLAND Engineering
• PET Objectives
• To measure the pavement performance according to
  the criteria established in the specifications
  and
• To determine what, if any, remedial action is
  required.

11

• I-25 SB, South of Fountain - Center Longitudinal
  Crack

12

• I-25 SB, South of Fountain Repair of
  Longitudinal Crack

13

• I-25 SB, South of Fountain Close-up of Repair

14

• I-25 SB, South of Fountain - Rut Measurement

15

• C-470 EB Lanes, Santa Fe Drive to Wadsworth

16

• C-470 Santa Fe Dr. to Wadsworth- Longitudinal
  Crack along wheel path.

17

• C-470 Santa Fe to Wadsworth

18

• US 36, EW of Superior Interchange

19

• US 36 EW of Superior Interchange

20
Cost Benefit Evaluation Committee

• Tim Aschenbrener
• CDOT Materials Geotechnical Branch Manager
• Gary Self
• CDOT Contracts and Market Analysis Branch Manager
• Kevin Anderson
• Aggregate Industries Operations Manager
• Ken Coulson
• Coulson Excavating Company Vice-President
• Jim Fife
• Western Colorado Testing President

21

CBEC OBJECTIVES

• To gather actual cost data including initial
  costs and maintenance costs of warranted
  (experimental) and comparable non-warranted
  (control) projects.
• To present its conclusions in a report to the
  House and Senate Transportation Committees at the
  end of the warranty period or at an earlier date
  specified by either committee.

22
REPORT OBJECTIVES

• To document the cost-benefit evaluation of the
  HBP warranty specification and projects.
• To report the experience gained from pilot
  warranty projects and recommend future direction
  of the short-term materials and workmanship HBP
  warranties by CDOT.

23
Report Contents Include Experimental and Control
Projects

• Cost Comparisons
• Contract Costs (Construction)
• Maintenance Costs
• Competition Comparisons
• Number of Bidders
• Spread in Bids
• Performance Comparisons
• PET Reports
• Pavement Management Condition Data

24
CONTROL PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA

• Year of Construction
• Overlay Thickness
• Rehabilitation Strategy
• Traffic Loads (Design ESAL)
• Original Pavement Condition
• Comparable Facility Type
• Same Regional Location
• Comparable Aggregate Sources

25
DATA GATHERING

• HBP Specifications
• HBP Mix Design Data
• Roadway Typical Sections
• Notice of Award
• Bid Tabulations, Estimates, and Low Bid Analysis
• Project Location Maps
• Pavement Surface Condition Indices

26
Experimental and Control Project
Information Region 4 Sample Information Region
4 C 0361-157, US 36 - Warranty Project Region 4
C 0761-170, I-76 - Control Project
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
CBEC Summary

Item Cost Differential per project
Initial Bid (based on 9 projects) Negligible
Maintenance (based on 3 projects) Negligible
Pavement Evaluation Team 5,400
Weigh-In-Motion Station 80,000
Total 85,400
31
CBEC Summary

• Contractor bidding competition was similar to
  control projects.
• Performance was similar to control projects.
• Contractor added experimental features on 3
  warranty projects while no experimental features
  were added to the control projects

32
Lessons Learned

• Triggers for the distress should rely on Pavement
  Management Program (PMP) data.
• Re-evaluate distress thresholds with regards to
  subjective distresses such as segregation and
  raveling.
• Re-evaluate the need for Weigh-In-Motion
  stations.
• Evaluation of the performance on these projects
  should continue.
• Shift more responsibility to the Contractor.

33
Future Activities

• Re-evaluate CBEC in 2003
• Coordination with PET
• Comments from CDOTs and the Contractors
  Representatives
• Re-evaluate Specification and Guidelines

34
Summary

• Background of Legislation
• History of Warranty Projects and Progress to
  Date
• Pavement Evaluation Team (PET) Process
• Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee (CBEC) Process