SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR PAVEMENT WARRANTIES

"How to establish criteria and how to select projects."

# INTRODUCTION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intends to continue supporting
and encouraging the use of pavement warranties throughout the United
States. This is the second in a series of documents intended to provide
guidance on the use of pavement warranties. It is arranged to address
various highpoints that should be considered in all warranty programs,
independent of the source of funding or system. The first document was
intended to provide agencies the information to gain an understanding of
what warranties are and insight on why they should be used. This second
document will discuss the selection procedures for pavement warranties
and will include specification development, bonding or guarantee issues,
project selection, acceptance, and verification procedures for warranty
projects. In addition, warranty experiences from various states will
also be presented.

# IMPLEMENTING A WARRANTY PROGRAM

While there are several choices in the types of warranties that can be
used for pavements, the most benefit can be gained through the use of
long-term performance warranties. Performance type warranty
specifications have been documented to reduce the life cycle costs of
the facility by improving the performance of the pavements.
\[5,6,10,11\] To continue the trend toward improved pavement performance
it is important to examine and to implement the best practices and
lessons learned by agencies in the United States and abroad. The
successful use of pavement warranties is dependent upon the
understanding of the contracting as well as the support of the parties
involved.

There are a number of issues that need to be considered when
implementing a warranty program. While there are many potential benefits
such as improved performance, there are also adjustments that will need
to be made within the highway construction industry, the agency, and in
the bonding requirements. The agency and contractors risk also has to be
minimized to achieve a good warranty program.

# SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT

# Pavement warranty projects require specifications that will be substantially different than the specifications most agencies use on most other types of projects. This section will identify issues an agency needs to consider in developing specifications for projects pavement warranties.

Independent of the type of warranty specification is the need for buy-in
by both agency and industry representatives. Bringing the
representatives together develops a better understanding of the
specifications and the meaning behind the specifications. Discussions
with the bonding companies upfront may provide critical information to
what the bond actually covers, the responsibilities of all parties, and
the remediation process. Industry and agency concerns need to be
discussed fully.

The agency needs to provide the design year traffic or Equivalent Single
Axle Loads (ESALs) for all warranty projects. The agency needs to
identify the number of Class 5 and above vehicles for a traffic level
threshold. It is recommended that if the number of Class 5 truck ESALs
exceeds 150% of the design levels, the contractor should be released
from the warranty. The contractor needs some maximum volumes to
establish the risk. Holding the contractor to unlimited increases of
traffic is beyond the contractor's control and is not recommended.

Key elements that need to be discussed include the utilization of the
agency's existing quality assurance procedures used in other
non-warranty contracts. Acceptance of materials and construction
activities is dependent on the quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA)
procedures, and acceptance of the warranty activities is dependent on
the field measurement and evaluation procedures to be utilized for the
warranty projects. If an agency does not have QC/QA processes in place
for a particular warranted program, it is not recommended that
warranties be considered for use by the agency. The warranty
specifications should include areas as described below.

-   **Materials and Workmanship Warranties**

Materials and workmanship type warranties require the contractor to
correct defects in the pavement caused by elements within their control
and assume no contractor responsibility for the design. Materials and
workmanship warranties follow an agency's current standard
specifications for the specific treatment. Acceptance of these warranted
projects is in accordance with an agency's normal practices. The only
difference is the contractor carries the additional risk of premature
failures and subsequent repairs beyond the normal bonding contract
requirements of the agency.

-   **Short-Term and Long-Term Performance Warranties**

The development of specifications for short-term and long-term
performance warranties is dependent on the agency's contracting
procedures with the differences being primarily in length of warranty,
bonding/guarantees, roadway design requirements, magnitude of the
project, risk, and acceptance criteria. The core elements for both types
of performance warranties that should be included in the specifications
are:

1.  Description

2.  Warranty Bond/Guarantee Requirements

3.  Conflict Resolution Team

4.  Permit Requirements

5.  Pavement Distress Indicators, Thresholds, and Remedial Action

6.  Elective/Preventive Actions

7.  Agency Maintenance Responsibilities

8.  Method of Measurement

9.  Basis of Payment

10. Quality Control Plans

11. Verification and Evaluation

12. Final Warranty Acceptance

The specification development process is the same for both Hot Mix
Asphalt (HMA) and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements. The
differences are which distresses are warranted and their respective
remediation.

1.  **Description:** The specification needs to establish what work is
    being warranted. Mainline pavement is typically targeted as the
    warranted item, but if auxiliary lanes, shoulders, or other work,
    such as subgrade, base or roadway hardware items, are included it
    needs to be clearly spelled out. In addition, the date or time when
    the construction activities end and the warranty period begins
    should be clearly defined. This is very critical when considering a
    multi-year contract or a multi-phased construction as part of the
    warranty project. Typically, the warranty begins when the
    construction project is completed and opened up to unrestricted
    traffic regardless of the phasing or the length of the construction
    time of the project.

[Short-term warranties]{.underline}: it is recommended that the agency
establish the minimum materials requirements for HMA pavements regarding
binders and aggregates; for PCC pavements the minimum requirements for
aggregates and other pavement items such as dowel bars, etc. when
required by the design.

[Long-term warranties]{.underline}: the contractor is responsible for
all quality control activities and should be responsible for the minimum
materials requirements as applicable.

2.  **Warranty Bond/Guarantee Requirements:** The bonding requirements
    to assure the resolution of any noted deficiencies during the
    warranty period are defined as the warranty bond. Warranty bonds can
    be developed with various elements such as constant level,
    straight-line depreciation, stepped depreciation, or a variable
    depreciation over the length of the warranty. Determining what is
    included in the warranty bond is also critical.

[Short-term warranties]{.underline}: agency bonding requirements for
initial construction activities are typically the same as for
non-warranty projects. For full depth HMA, the warranty bond typically
includes only the replacing of the surface materials. If the warranty
includes the subgrade, the warranty bond may include all the pavement
materials. The warranty bond for PCC projects generally includes the
placement of HMA or PCC overlays.

[Long-term warranties]{.underline}: bonding is more difficult but
generally includes all the paving materials. A bonding/guarantee program
in conjunction with pre-qualification, best value bidding is recommended
in lieu of straight bonding. The bonding/guarantee issue is very
critical to the agency's and industry warranty program. Discussions with
bonding representatives during the development of the warranty
specifications are recommended. Warranty bonding is further discussed in
the next section of this guidance document.

3.  **Conflict Resolution Team:** Warranty specifications define what
    the agency is requiring and the method of payment for such
    activities. Disputes on warranty projects are generally fewer than
    on non-warranty projects due to collaborative attitudes between the
    parties, but questions and/or conflicts still occur that need an
    alternate means of resolution. \[9\] Projects with warranty
    specifications generally are not handled as typical agency projects
    due to the increased responsibilities of the contractor in the
    project, and therefore the specification needs to include provisions
    to address disputes. A conflict resolution team should be assembled
    to address these disputes and consists of two representatives
    selected by the agency, two representatives selected by the
    contractor, and a fifth independent representative jointly agreed to
    by both parties. All members of the resolution team need to be
    knowledgeable with general materials, construction requirements and
    programs, as well as the terms and conditions of the warranty
    specifications. The conflict resolution team members need to be
    identified in writing at the pre-construction meeting.

The scope of the conflict resolution team responsibilities needs to be
included in the warranty specifications and should address all issues
concerning the warranted pavement relative to: material selection,
contractors construction activities and quality control plan, warranted
pavement distress rate, measurement and calculation of pavement
distresses, and evaluation and remediation of pavement distresses.
Provisions should also be provided to address impasses within the team.
Team decisions are based on consensus or majority votes with the
recommendations submitted to the head of the agency for the final
decision, when required by state laws regarding dispute resolution.
Independent of the duties of the team, the specifications need to be
clear that the team's function is to review the warranted items during
the warranty period as well as the construction activities.

Caution is needed when establishing conflict resolution teams, in
particular to the legality of the team. Agency laws and regulations need
to be evaluated and complied with during the development of the
specifications. Some agencies require all final decisions to be made by
the head of the public agency, or its public designee, when public
monies are involved.

4.  **Permit Requirements:** During the warranty period remedial work
    may be performed at no cost to the agency and should be based on the
    results of pavement distress surveys. The contractor and the agency
    should make a joint decision on the remedial work to be performed,
    and the specifications and materials to be used. The warranty
    specifications need to include procedures for remedial actions that
    address the contractor's responsibilities and the agency's needs.
    Depending on agency requirements, general roadway permits may be
    necessary to allow the contractor to work on the roadway after the
    initial construction activities are completed. For example, if the
    contractor proposes to conduct remedial work in advance of the
    pavement distress surveys, work permits may need to be obtained from
    the agency. The agency requirements for roadway permits should
    include any specific additional details regarding lane closures,
    testing protocols, and traffic control requirements. In addition,
    prior to proceeding with any remedial actions or monitoring
    activities, the contractor may also need to obtain other permits
    from the relevant agencies.

The following are examples of these additional requirements:

-   Lane Closure Periods. Lane closures are the same as lane rentals. A
    minimum of two mainline lanes in each direction shall be open to
    unrestricted traffic during any closure period when warranty work is
    performed. Costs for closure periods may be applied using the
    following closure period rates:

Peak Hour: \$2,000.00/lane/hour

Non -- Peak Hour: \$ 400.00/lane/hour

Weekday and weekend peak hours are from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and non-peak
hours are from 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

-   Testing Protocols. During the warranty period the contractor may
    monitor the warranted pavement using nondestructive procedures. All
    proposed remedial action(s) should be coordinated with the agency.

-   Traffic Control. Traffic control in accordance with agency
    requirements is required to ensure the safety of the traveling
    public. Agency advance signing and lane closure procedures shall be
    utilized and coordinated with the agency prior to initiating the
    activities.

The contractor, without prior consent of the agency, may not perform
coring, milling, grinding, or other destructive procedures to evaluate
the pavement. If the contractor elects to conduct any independent
testing, both destructive and non-destructive, the equipment should be
calibrated and correlated with the agency's equipment. The contractor
would not be responsible for damages to the pavement as a result of
coring, milling or other destructive procedures conducted by the agency.
[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

The contractor should have the first option to perform remedial work.
If, in the opinion of the agency, the problem requires immediate
attention for the safety of the traveling public and the contractor
cannot perform the remedial work within twenty-four (24) hours, then the
agency has the option to have the remedial work performed by other
forces. The contractor is responsible to pay for all the direct costs
incurred. Remedial work performed by other forces does not alter the
requirements, responsibilities, or obligations of the warranty.

5.  **Pavement Distress Indicators, Thresholds, and Remedial Action:**
    When developing a warranty specification, the agency needs to
    consider several factors to establish pavement distresses,
    thresholds, and remedial actions. The agency first needs to consider
    the length of the warranty period, the type of project being
    considered (i.e., new construction, rehabilitation, resurface, or
    preventive maintenance), the highway system being considered (i.e.,
    Interstate, two or four lane high volume facility, etc.), and the
    condition of the pavement management data for all the above
    considerations. Utilizing warranties does not change the agency's
    responsibility to the public to maintain a high level of pavement
    condition that is safe to use and to minimize any future delays or
    congestion due to the premature pavement deterioration. Warranty
    criteria should be based on the properties routinely collected by
    the agency as part of their Pavement Management System (PMS) and
    should be measured objectively using current technology to the
    maximum extent possible. Additionally, the frequency of the PMS
    evaluations needs to be factored into the process, as this will be
    utilized in the warranty pavement evaluations. The use of subjective
    distress evaluations should be minimized. It is recommended that
    warranties can be used for mainline, auxiliary lanes, and shoulders.
    Ramps, turn lanes, and other miscellaneous pavement elements are
    considered incidental to the mainline pavement and are generally not
    included in the warranted pavement.

> Analyzing the PMS project data based on age and highway system will
> establish a baseline for determining the thresholds. Typically, PMS
> data systems are based on 1.0 mile (1.6 km) segments, which is not
> appropriate for warranty projects. It is recommended that a further
> reduction of the segments to 0.1 mile (0.16 km) or less will provide
> the degree of pavement variations to objectively evaluate the
> condition of the pavement over the warranty period.

For HMA warranty projects, it is recommended that the pavement condition
indicators be friction, International Roughness Index (IRI),
longitudinal cracking, rutting, and transverse cracking. For PCC
warranty projects, it is recommended that the pavement condition
indicators be friction, IRI, joint sealant condition, longitudinal
cracking, scaling, and transverse cracking. These pavement condition
indicators are recommended based on the assumption that the operations
are under the control of the contractor.

Depending upon the completeness of the agency's PMS data, additional
indicators may be included. It is recommended that only those objective
indicators that directly affect the safety of the facility and the
performance of the pavement be utilized. For example, segregation and
block cracking of HMA pavements does affect the performance of the
pavement but it is a subjective evaluation and is already included in
the rideability, or IRI, of the facility as well as in longitudinal
cracking indicators.

Establishing the threshold criteria for the pavement distresses is
dependent on the availability of the data and should be realistic and
attainable based on historical PMS data. Setting extreme limits may
cause the contracting industry to unbalance the bids to account for
unreasonable quality limits for the project. For example, the local
rates of rutting in HMA pavements over time are typically known by the
agency and there should be a good understanding of the rutting issues.
To determine the warranty distress indicators, the agency can use the
average rutting experienced on different types of pavements based on age
and highway system. Then by calculating the standard deviation of the
segments the agency can establish the initial thresholds. The warranty
distress indicators for rutting should be two standard deviations from
the mean of the segments. The same process can be repeated for
smoothness and friction. After the initial thresholds are established,
further evaluation of the PMS database should be made to identify
outliers and determine their effects on the results.

Distresses such as transverse or longitudinal cracking on HMA and joint
sealing on PCC pavements probably will not have sufficient data to
evaluate the pavement performance. In that instance, best engineering
judgment has to be utilized to determine what is not acceptable.

Remedial actions for addressing pavement distress should be acceptable
to the agency. The agency will be assuming liability for the roadway at
some point following the initial construction activities and warranty
period, and agency assurance of continued pavement performance is
needed.

Using objective methods to establish the pavement warranty distress
indicators provides a better understanding of the intent of the warranty
specifications to contracting, bonding and industry representatives.

6.  **Elective/Preventive Actions:** Elective/preventive actions should
    be the contractor's option and should have agency concurrence.
    Maintenance operations (by the contractor) to keep the pavement
    within the limits of the distress indicators are the responsibility
    and the judgment of the contractor. Typical preventive maintenance
    operations for HMA pavements could be crack sealing, patching, or
    surface replacement or treatments; for PCC pavements, it could
    include crack sealing, patching, or joint material replacement. For
    elective/preventive actions closure periods for assessments are not
    normally charged to the contractor.

7.  **Agency Maintenance Responsibilities:** The warranty specifications
    need to clearly state the roles and the responsibilities of both the
    contractor and the agency regarding maintenance responsibilities.
    The contractor is responsible for the performance of the pavement
    for the warranty period but generally not the entire project. The
    agency should assume normal routine maintenance responsibilities
    during the warranty period such as snow plowing and applying
    de-icing chemicals, repairs to safety appurtenances, pavement
    markings, mowing, and sign maintenance. The warranty specifications
    need to clearly state that during the warranty period, the agency
    will not perform routine pavement maintenance activities. Contractor
    and agency responsibilities will vary by the type of warranty.
    Long-term or pavement performance contracts especially need clarity
    regarding the pavement maintenance responsibilities and the safety
    related roadway items such as pavement marking, roadside signs and
    guardrails, etc.

8.  **Method of Measurement:** The agency needs to consider various
    methods to address the measurement and payment for the warranted
    pavement. Short or long-term risk for pavement performance is the
    contractor's responsibility but it is generally included in the
    construction costs. Agencies need to consider if the cost for the
    pavement warranty itself will be included in the cost of the bid
    item (either by the unit measurement or lump sum value) or as a
    separate lump sum pay item. Warranty expenses generally include the
    costs for additional bonding for the specified warranty period,
    additional testing of materials, anticipated preventive maintenance
    activities, and possible remediation activities. To facilitate the
    documentation of the costs of warranties, it is recommended that
    agencies utilize their standard measurement procedures for the
    pavement items for the warranted HMA or PCC pavements and use a
    separate lump sum pay item for the pavement warranty cost.

9.  **Basis of Payment:** The basis of payment for construction
    activities is dependent upon the method of measurement for the
    warranted pavement. It is recommended that the following be made
    clear and be included in the cost of the warranted pavement:
    furnishing, preparing, hauling, mixing and placing all materials. In
    the case of HMA warranted pavement, construction of the mixtures
    should be included as well as the liquid binder. For PCC warranted
    pavement, finishing and curing of the concrete and providing and
    placing of the pavement joints, if required by the agency, should be
    included.

[]{.mark}

## The warranty bond, warranty work, mixture designs, quality control plan and all testing, recordkeeping, sampling and traffic control for remedial or elective/preventive actions are included in the pavement warranty cost.

[]{.mark}

## Typically warranty projects should not include price adjustments for various pavement elements such as the initial smoothness of the pavement or degrees of compliance with the targeted material elements. Price adjustments for material cost during construction (i.e., liquid binders, fuel, cement, etc.) are an agency decision. Some agencies do include incentive payment procedures for significant compliance with the warranty elements. Including incentives as part of the construction project is basically paying for the incentives once for the construction work and another for the same work but as part of the warranty and as such, it is not recommended.

[]{.mark}

## The initial warranty specifications need to include the details in the contract if incentive payments will be made during the warranty period. For long-term performance warranties, incentives for construction activities or the warranty are not recommended. 

10. **Quality Control Plans:** The contractor's quality control plan
    (QCP) is a critical element to the success of a pavement warranty
    program. The contractor's QCP should be provided to the agency,
    maintained in a timely manner, and followed to assure the agency
    that all materials furnished and placed are in accordance with the
    warranty. The QCP should not be approved by the agency, as this
    assumes ownership and responsibility of the contents. The agency may
    disagree with elements in the QCP and has the option to refer their
    comments to the conflict resolution team for disposition. The QCP
    should note as a minimum the following:

-   The procedures to be used for design, sampling and testing of all
    materials, and methods and frequency of calibration of all testing
    equipment.

-   Contract specific details for placement activities and anticipated
    testing frequencies.

-   Names and qualifications of the contractor's personnel who will be
    conducting sampling and testing of materials.

-   Mixture design methodologies to be used on HMA or PCC projects.

-   List of all materials proposed to be used in HMA or PCC projects,
    including specific properties of each. The contractor should also
    supply sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all materials
    meet standard quality requirements for the application. The
    contractor should be responsible for certifying to the agency that
    all products used during HMA or PCC production meet the quality
    requirements as established by the contractor in the QCP.

-   Mixing plant requirements, including the calibration of all meters,
    scales and other measuring or recording devices.

-   Proposed sampling procedures and size of samples necessary for
    testing and controlling HMA or PCC mixtures. The test methods and
    minimum frequencies of the quality control tests should be stated.

-   Quality control charting needs to include the limits for quality
    control activities to meet the agency established thresholds.

-   Compliance with the agency's independent assurance program
    procedures.

-   Procedures for documenting all material certifications, production
    test reports, quality control charts, test equipment certifications
    and calibrations, and any other material and/or design or production
    related records. Should be maintained for a period that includes the
    terms of the warranty.

-   Records, either electronic or paper, should be maintained in a
    readily accessible location for access by the agency at any time.
    Upon completion of the placement and the opening of the warranted
    HMA or PCC pavements to traffic, the contractor is responsible for
    providing copies of all QC records to the agency.

11. **Verification and Evaluation:** The agency is responsible for
    routine evaluations of the warranted pavement during the warranty
    period. The agency needs to clearly indicate how the pavement
    condition will be verified for each of the warranted pavement
    indicators and who will be conducting the evaluation during the
    warranty period. The agency will evaluate the findings from the
    field verification and will report the conditions to the contractor
    during (annually, biannually, etc.), and at the end of, the warranty
    period. During the warranty period, the contractor has the right,
    with the agency concurrence, to independently review the condition
    of the warranted pavements for their use and information.

To minimize discussions regarding the accuracy of the evaluations, the
agency needs to make the evaluation process as objective as possible.
The agency's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and PMS
programs are objective and repeatable and are recommended to address the
warranted pavement distresses. Pavement indicators such as friction that
are not part of the HPMS program can still be objectively evaluated by
utilizing the agency's existing pavement friction evaluation program.

> During the course of the evaluations the agency should also note any
> general pavement distresses. Most of the pavement indicators are not
> reviewed continuously throughout the warranted project and are
> typically only in the driving lane. If any values exceed the
> thresholds more detailed testing and inspection may be conducted to
> determine the extent and limits of the deficiency. Any area outside
> the tested lanes, or sample sections observed, that shows deficiencies
> may also be tested and used to determine the pavement warranty
> acceptability and to verify the uniformity of the quality of the
> project.

Roughness measurements may be used to monitor the performance of the
pavement in lieu of distress surveys. Pavement distresses such as
various types of cracking, corrugations, or distortions are not measured
or rated directly, but they may affect the ride measurement and may need
correction to provide satisfactory warranty values. The ride measurement
does not indicate why the ride may be unsatisfactory. Detailed
inspection and testing to examine individual distress mechanisms will be
required to determine the remediation to provide the quality necessary
for the expected service life of the pavement.

12. **Final Warranty Acceptance**: The agency needs to specify what will
    constitute final warranty acceptance. As a minimum, this section in
    the specifications needs to consist of a field evaluation that
    addresses each of the warranted pavement indicators and written
    documentation that transfers pavement maintenance responsibilities
    back to the agency.

# BONDING REQUIREMENTS OR GUARANTEE ISSUES

# 

The purpose of bonding or guarantee is to provide the agency the
assurance that any noted deficiencies will be resolved during the
warranty period. Most agencies currently require a construction bond
that covers the actual construction period, which typically includes one
additional year beyond construction for general workmanship issues.

# 

Warranty bonds have been developed using various methods to reduce the
outstanding bonding requirements for contractors that includes a
constant level, straight-line deprecation stepped depreciation, or a
variable depreciation over the length of the warranty. For pavement
warranties, the Florida DOT (FDOT) is in the process of moving away from
bonding altogether and replacing it with a contractors pre-qualification
program that is heavily weighted towards performance. The FDOT intends
to limit the bidders on warranted pavement performance projects to only
those that have a high performance rating.

Materials and workmanship warranties typically utilize the constant
level bonding method for the warranty period. The bonding is typically
just an extension of the initial construction bond.

Performance warranties are dependent on which type of warranty is being
developed since short-term and long-term warranties have significantly
different requirements.

[Short-term warranties]{.underline}: typically utilize the constant
level or straight-line depreciation methods. With the warranty periods
less than 10 years, the agency's options are generally limited.

[Long-term warranties]{.underline}: agencies have more options to
address the contractor's responsibilities and liabilities. Discussions
with the local bonding representatives early in the development of the
warranty programs are critical to establish knowledge of the programs.
Experience has shown that in agencies with multiple warranty projects,
the bonding costs have been reduced over time. Initial resistance by
bonding representatives can be addressed with clarity in the warranty
specifications, knowledge of the contractors completing the warranty
work, and knowledge of the agency's warranty program.

# There are several bonding requirements related to the implementation of warranties that include the length of the warranty period, the mitigation plan for observed distresses, and the timeframe for repairs, in addition to the contractor's experience and qualifications to perform the work. Various agencies have utilized alternate methods to determine the value of the pavement warranty bond and accompanying payment procedures. Regardless of how the agency determines the program, the bonding requirements need to be clearly detailed in the specifications. The following is a sampling of methods for determining the bonding level for warranted projects.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **State**    **Product**          **Payment Methods / Bond**
  ------------ -------------------- ----------------------------------------
  Alabama      Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond for specified % of contract amount;
                                    also retainage of 10% of contract paid
                                    over 8 years

  California   Rubberized Hot Mix   Bond for 10% of contract amount; also
               Asphalt              retainage of 10% of contract paid over 5
                                    years

  Colorado     Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond to cover cost of 2.0 inch (50 mm)
                                    overlay, restriping, traffic control,
                                    rounded up to nearest \$25,000

  Florida      Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond to cover cost of 1.0 inch (25 mm)
                                    overlay

  Indiana      Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond to cover 1.0 inch (25 mm) removal
                                    and overlay

               Portland Cement      Bond is based on 30 % of the warranted
                                    pavement item

               Microsurfacing       Bond for 100% of contract amount for
                                    microsurfacing work

  Michigan     Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond for 10% of contract amount

               Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond for 100% of contract amount
               Overlay              

               Chip Seal /          Bond for 100% of contract amount
               Microsurfacing /     
               Crack Treatment      

  Missouri     Rubberized Hot Mix   Bond for 100% of contract amount
               Asphalt              

  Ohio         Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond for cost of removal and overlay at
                                    five years considering inflation.
                                    Includes traffic control, markings, etc.

               Microsurfacing       Bond for 75% of contract amount

  Wisconsin    Hot Mix Asphalt      Bond to cover cost of replacement
                                    overlay, re-grade shoulders, rounded to
                                    next \$100,000
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

# PROJECT SELECTION:

# As the lessons learned from our European counterparts indicate, not all projects lend themselves to the use of pavement performance warranties. There are other contracting mechanisms that may be more appropriate to consider, however, this section describes how to select the type of warranty to meet project conditions. Warranties are just one innovative contracting alternative to select from to meet project and agency requirements.

Project selection for warranties is just as critical as the development
of the specifications and depending on the type of warranty, only
certain types of projects will be good candidates for warranties. Key
points in the selection process include:

-   Material and workmanship warranties are generally limited only to
    preventive maintenance surface treatments, making project selection
    generally easier. Exceptions to this are microsurfacing. Care has to
    be taken not to select a facility that has excessive surface
    deteriorations that are beyond the ability of the microsurfacing to
    address in one application, or in the case of minor rutting, two
    applications. Material and workmanship warranties (3 years) have
    also been applied successfully to HMA resurfacing/rehabilitation
    projects.

-   Short-term warranties are very adaptable to rehabilitation or
    resurface type projects, and they are also very applicable to new
    construction. For rehabilitation type projects, the contractor is
    only responsible for new overlay and cannot be responsible for the
    roadways subbase. New construction takes into account the entire
    roadway pavement and shoulders and typically includes the subgrade.

-   Long-term warranties are typically limited to major new construction
    projects that are significant in nature and will include the
    pavement, shoulder, and subgrades, and may also include other
    roadway items as a complete package.

In selecting projects, the PMS data needs to be evaluated to consider
any particular project. For example, if PMS data shows a particular
project has a high degree of surface defects, it is normally not a good
project for a preventive maintenance single overlay, since more work is
needed to rehabilitate the facility. The same holds true with
warranties, since the contractor cannot be held responsible for elements
of the pavement that were not under their control. This does not mean
that only very good projects can be selected for warranties, but it
should rule out very poor projects if minor resurfacing is proposed.
Coordinating the selection of projects with the PMS program is
recommended, in consideration of the type of project (rehabilitation,
reconstruction, etc.).

# ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURES FOR WARRANTY PROJECTS:

# 

Acceptance procedures for warranty projects have to incorporate not only
the construction activities, but also the verification process. An
agency warranty verification process differs depending upon the type of
warranties.

For materials and workmanship type warranties, acceptance of the
construction activities is in accordance with agency standard
specifications. The agency is also responsible for reviewing the
completed project following the completion of the warranty period to
document the condition of the pavement. It is recommended that the
agency then prepare documentation that formally releases the contractor
from further responsibilities under the contract.

For short-term warranties, acceptance of the roadway and other elements
of the project are important to ensure that the basic scope of the work
was completed in accordance with the plans. Material acceptance of the
pavement items is through the verification process. The agency is
responsible for reviewing the project during and following the
completion of the warranty period to document the condition of the
pavement. It is recommended that the agency then prepare documentation
that formally releases the contractor from further responsibilities
under the contract. Verification of the warranty's pavement condition
should be tied to the same PMS program to objectively rate the condition
of the pavement. Depending on the length of the warranty, the pavement
may be reviewed annually or biannually up to the end of the warranty
period when a final condition survey is completed. The pavement ratings
need to document each of the warranted distresses throughout the life of
the warranty. If any distress exceeds the limits as stated in the
specifications, the contractor is responsible for providing a remedy to
bring the pavement back into acceptable levels.

Long-term warranties are similar to short-term warranties in that the
initial construction activities have to be reviewed and the pavement
condition is verified over the life of the warranty period. The pavement
condition verification reviews by the agency are less frequent than in
the field evaluation. It is recommended that an initial, or baseline,
evaluation be completed following construction and intermediate
evaluations be completed during the warranty period. A final evaluation
is completed following the completion of the warranty period.

#  For warranted HMA pavements distress indicators can use PMS data to determine threshold values for the following recommended performance indicators:

+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| **Pavement        | **Evaluation      | **Threshold   | **Notes**   |
| Performance       | Section**         | Values**      |             |
| Indicators**      |                   |               |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| Friction Number   | Three Consecutive | \< 25         |             |
|                   | Sites             |               |             |
|                   |                   | \< 35 Average |             |
|                   | Entire Contract   | of all tests  |             |
|                   | per lane          |               |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| International     | 100 m             | 1.3 m/km      |             |
| Roughness Index   |                   |               |             |
| (IRI)             | (325 ft)          | (80 in./mi.)  |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| Longitudinal      | 100 m             | 0.0 m         |             |
| Cracking          |                   |               |             |
|                   | (325 ft)          | (0.0 ft)      |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| Rut Depth         | 100 m             | 6.0 mm        |             |
|                   |                   |               |             |
|                   | (325 ft)          | (0.25 in.)    |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+
| Transverse        | 100 m             | 0.0 m         |             |
| Cracking          |                   |               |             |
|                   | (325 ft)          | (0.0 ft)      |             |
+-------------------+-------------------+---------------+-------------+

#  For warranted PCC pavements distress indicators can use PMS data to determine threshold values for the following recommended performance indicators:

# 

+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| **Pavement        | **Evaluation     | **Threshold   | **Notes**    |
| Performance       | Section**        | Values**      |              |
| Indicators**      |                  |               |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Friction Number   | Three            | \< 25         |              |
|                   | Consecutive      |               |              |
|                   | Sites            | \< 35 Average |              |
|                   |                  | of all tests  |              |
|                   | Entire Contract  |               |              |
|                   | per lane         |               |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| International     | 100 m            | 1.3 m/km      |              |
| Roughness Index   |                  |               |              |
| (IRI)             | (325 ft)         | (80 in./mi.)  |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Joint Sealant     | 150 m            | 1.3 m         | Each         |
| Condition         |                  |               | Occurrence   |
|                   | (500 ft)         | (4.0 ft)      |              |
|                   |                  |               | Cumulative   |
|                   | Beginning at     | 4.0 m         | total        |
|                   | each Reference   |               |              |
|                   | Marker           | (12 ft)       |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Longitudinal      | 100 m            | 0.0 m         |              |
| Cracking          |                  |               |              |
|                   | (325 ft)         | (0.0 ft)      |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Scaling           | 150 m            | 2 m^2^        | Each         |
|                   |                  |               | Occurrence   |
|                   | (500 ft)         | (20 ft^2^)    |              |
|                   |                  |               | Cumulative   |
|                   | Beginning at     | 20 m^2^       | total        |
|                   | each Reference   |               |              |
|                   | Marker           | (80 ft^2^)    |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Transverse        | 100 m            | 0.0 m         |              |
| Cracking          |                  |               |              |
|                   | (325 ft)         | (0.0 ft)      |              |
+-------------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+

The World Bank provides examples of the service level criteria for
pavements, shoulders, and right-of-way as follows \[14\]:

+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Item**    | **Service        | **Meas              | **Time        |
|             | quality**        | urement/Detection** | allowed for   |
|             |                  |                     | repairs or    |
|             |                  |                     | Tolerance     |
|             |                  |                     | permitted**   |
+=============+==================+=====================+===============+
| **Pavement  | Pavement width   | Manual measurement  | No tolerance  |
| width**     | must be at least | using a metallic    | allowed.      |
|             | as wide as       | measuring tape.     |               |
|             | specified in the |                     |               |
|             | contract.        |                     |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| *           | No potholes      | Visual inspection.  | Potholes must |
| *Potholes** | allowed.         |                     | be repaired   |
|             |                  |                     | within three  |
|             |                  |                     | (3) days      |
|             |                  |                     | after         |
|             |                  |                     | detection.    |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| *           | Patches (i)      | -   Visual          | Non-complying |
| *Patching** | shall be square  |     inspection (for | patches must  |
|             | or rectangular,  |     detection of    | be repaired   |
|             | (ii) shall be    |     shape and       | within three  |
|             | level with       |     material used)  | (3) days      |
|             | surrounding      |                     | after         |
|             | pavement, (iii)  | ```{=html}          | detection.    |
|             | shall be made    | <!-- -->            |               |
|             | using materials  | ```                 |               |
|             | similar to those | -   Ruler (to check |               |
|             | used for the     |     if patch is     |               |
|             | surrounding      |     level with      |               |
|             | pavement, and    |     surrounding     |               |
|             | (iv) shall not   |     pavement)       |               |
|             | have cracks      |                     |               |
|             | wider than three | -   Small           |               |
|             | (3) mm.          |     transparent     |               |
|             |                  |     ruler (for      |               |
|             |                  |     cracks)         |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Cracking  | There shall not  | Crack widths        | Cracks more   |
| in          | be cracks more   | measured with small | than 3 mm     |
| pavement**  | than 3 mm wide.  | transparent ruler.  | wide must be  |
|             |                  |                     | sealed within |
| (a crack is | For any 50m      | For **isolated      | seven (7)     |
| a linear    | section of the   | cracks**, the       | days after    |
| opening in  | pavement, the    | "cracked area"      | detection.    |
| pavement    | cracked area     | includes 0,5 m on   |               |
| with a      | cannot be more   | each side of the    |               |
| width of    | than ten (10)    | crack, multiplied   |               |
| more than 3 | percent of the   | by the length of    |               |
| mm.)        | pavement         | the crack plus 0,5  |               |
|             | surface.         | m at each end.      |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             |                  | For **multiple      |               |
|             |                  | cracks** and cracks |               |
|             |                  | crossing each       |               |
|             |                  | other, the "cracked |               |
|             |                  | area" is equivalent |               |
|             |                  | to a square area,   |               |
|             |                  | parallel to the     |               |
|             |                  | lanes, which fully  |               |
|             |                  | encloses the        |               |
|             |                  | cracks, and where   |               |
|             |                  | the closest crack   |               |
|             |                  | is at least 0.25 m  |               |
|             |                  | away from the sides |               |
|             |                  | of the square.      |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **          | The road surface | Visual inspection   | Dirt, debris  |
| Cleanliness | must always be   |                     | and obstacles |
| of the      | clean and free   |                     | must be       |
| pavement    | of soil, debris, |                     | removed:      |
| surface and | trash and other  |                     |               |
| s           | objects.         |                     | -   within 1  |
| houlders.** |                  |                     |     (one)     |
|             |                  |                     |     hour if   |
|             |                  |                     |     they pose |
|             |                  |                     |     a danger  |
|             |                  |                     |     to        |
|             |                  |                     |     traffic   |
|             |                  |                     |     safety    |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     | -   within 36 |
|             |                  |                     |     hours if  |
|             |                  |                     |     they do   |
|             |                  |                     |     not pose  |
|             |                  |                     |     any       |
|             |                  |                     |     danger to |
|             |                  |                     |     traffic   |
|             |                  |                     |     safety.   |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Pavement  | Average value    | Measured with       | No tolerance  |
| roughness** | for section must | calibrated          | allowed.      |
|             | be below the     | equipment (Bump     |               |
|             | threshold value  | Integrator).        |               |
|             | given below (in  |                     |               |
|             | IRI average)     |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | Section 1:       |                     |               |
|             | ....... IRI      |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | Section 2:       |                     |               |
|             | ........IRI      |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | Section 3:       |                     |               |
|             | ....... IRI      |                     |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **D         | Average of       | Measured with       | No tolerance  |
| eflection** | section must be  | Benkelman beam      | allowed.      |
|             | below the        | every 50 meters.    |               |
|             | threshold values | Threshold value is  |               |
|             | indicated for    | average for         |               |
|             | each road        | sections of         |               |
|             | section.         | .........meters.    |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Rutting** | There shall not  | Measured with 2     | Rutting above |
|             | be ruts deeper   | rulers (horizontal  | threshold     |
|             | than 15 mm.      | ruler of three 3 m  | value must be |
|             |                  | length placed       | eliminated    |
|             | Rutting of more  | perpendicularly     | within        |
|             | than ten (10) mm | across lane; rut    | fifteen (15)  |
|             | shall not be     | depth measured as   | days.         |
|             | present in more  | space between       |               |
|             | than 5 percent   | horizontal ruler    |               |
|             | of any of the    | and lowest point of |               |
|             | road sections    | rut, using a small  |               |
|             | defined in the   | ruler with scale in |               |
|             | contract.        | mm)                 |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| *           | Raveled areas    | Visual inspection.  | Raveled areas |
| *Raveling** | must not exist.  |                     | must be       |
|             |                  |                     | sealed within |
|             |                  |                     | thirty (30)   |
|             |                  |                     | days after    |
|             |                  |                     | their         |
|             |                  |                     | detection.    |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Loose     | There shall not  | Visual inspection   | Repairs must  |
| Pavement    | be loose         |                     | be completed  |
| edges       | pavement edges,  |                     | within seven  |
| (loose)**   | or pieces of     |                     | (7) days      |
|             | pavement         |                     | after the     |
|             | breaking off at  |                     | detection of  |
|             | the edges.       |                     | the defect.   |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Height of | Difference in    | Measured with       | Repairs must  |
| shoulders   | height at edge   | ruler, with scale   | be completed  |
| vs. height  | of pavement      | in mm.              | within seven  |
| of          | shall not be     |                     | (7) days      |
| pavement**  | more than 15 mm. |                     | after the     |
|             |                  |                     | detection of  |
|             |                  |                     | the defect.   |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Paved     | Must always be   | Visual inspection   | Repairs must  |
| shoulders** |                  |                     | be completed  |
|             | -   sealed to    |                     | within seven  |
|             |     avoid water  |                     | (7) days      |
|             |     penetration  |                     | after the     |
|             |                  |                     | detection of  |
|             | -   without      |                     | the defect.   |
|             |     deformations |                     |               |
|             |     and erosions |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | -   free of      |                     |               |
|             |     potholes and |                     |               |
|             |     erosions     |                     |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| **Rig       | Height of        | Visual inspection.  | Vegetation    |
| ht-of-way** | vegetation       | Measurement with    | exceeding the |
| (outside    | (except trees)   | ruler.              | threshold     |
| pavement    | must be:         |                     | height must   |
| and         |                  |                     | be cut back   |
| shoulders). | -   less than 20 |                     | within seven  |
|             |     cm on slopes |                     | (7) days      |
|             |     towards the  |                     | after         |
|             |     road         |                     | detection.    |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | -   less than    |                     |               |
|             |     1.0 m        |                     |               |
|             |     otherwise    |                     |               |
|             |                  |                     |               |
|             | -   must not     |                     |               |
|             |     disturb      |                     |               |
|             |     drainage     |                     |               |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+
|             | Trash, debris,   | Visual inspection.  | Trash, debris |
|             | etc.             |                     | and other     |
|             |                  |                     | objects must  |
|             |                  |                     | be removed    |
|             |                  |                     | within seven  |
|             |                  |                     | (7) days      |
|             |                  |                     | after         |
|             |                  |                     | detection.    |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------+---------------+

# 

# WARRANTY EVALUATIONS:

# 

Agencies need to evaluate the data collected from the warranty projects
to determine the effectiveness of the warranty programs. The data can
also be utilized in the evaluation and establishment of subsequent
warranty project thresholds.

# WARRANTY EXPERIENCES:

Reports of warranty experiences throughout the country have produced
mixed results on the use of pavement warranties and the type of the
warranty. The Colorado DOT reported that the material and workmanship
warranty program was not successful due to the lack of contractual
controls in the specifications. \[6\] The Michigan DOT, which utilizes
material and workmanship warranties for a significant portion of their
warranty program, also reports very little change in the quality of the
initial construction by the contractors. \[5\] If developed correctly,
individual preventive maintenance programs utilizing material and
workmanship warranties such as chip seals, etc. can benefit from the
warranties due to the emphasis on the operations.

The Wisconsin and the Indiana DOT's have reported successes with
short-term warranties in terms of pavement performance and cost
effectiveness. \[9\] Wisconsin utilizes warranties on all types of
roadways, including entire pavement replacements. They found that when
the contractor is responsible for the subgrade as well as the pavement
structure, more attention was focused on all the pavement layers. \[5\]
The Indiana DOT reported the use of warranties on high volume Interstate
utilizing single lay (surface course) preventive maintenance type
projects, rehabilitation of existing roadways, and new full depth
pavements. Data from Indiana shows that the HMA warranty program extends
the life of the pavement an additional nine years when considering
rutting and smoothness elements. \[11\]

Long-term warranties in the United States are limited and benefits are
still being evaluated. European experiences in long-term pavement
warranties have shown positive results.

# REFERENCES

Referenced materials in this guidance information include the following
documents:

1.  American Association of State Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
    *1990 European Asphalt Study Tour (EAST),* Washington, D.C., June
    1991.

2.  Davies J., Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
    Technologists, *FHWA Special Project 14,* Association of Asphalt
    Paving Technologists, Baltimore, MD, March 1996.

3.  Hancher, D. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 195, *Use of
    Warranties in Road Construction*, National Cooperative Highway
    Research Program (NCHRP), National Academic Press, Washington, D.C.,
    2000.

4.  Anderson, S.D. and Russell, J.S. NCHRP Report No. 451, *Guidelines
    for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value Contracting*, National
    Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), National Academic
    Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.
    <http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_451-a.pdf>

5.  Krebs, S.W., et al., Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
    *Asphaltic Pavement Warranties Five-Year Progress Report*, Madison,
    Wisconsin, June 2001.

[www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/finalreports/tau-finalreports/warranties.pdf](http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/finalreports/tau-finalreports/warranties.pdf)

6.  Aschenbrener, T.B. and DeDios, R.E., Colorado Department of
    Transportation, *Materials and Workmanship Warranties for Hot
    Bituminous Pavement*, Report CDOT-DTD-2001-18, Denver, Colorado,
    December 2001.

[www.dot.state.co.us/Publications/PDFFiles/PavementWarranties.pdf](http://www.dot.state.co.us/Publications/PDFFiles/PavementWarranties.pdf)

7.  Transportation Research Circular Number E-C074, Glo*ssary of Highway
    Quality* *Assurance Terms*, April 2005.

<http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/circulars/ec037.pdf>

8.  Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 635, Subpart D, Section
    413, *Guaranty and Warranty Clauses*, April 2002.

> <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/23cfr635.413.htm>

9.  Pavement Warranty Symposium, *Policy, Development and
    Implementation*, Final Report, Michigan Local Technical Assistance
    Program, Grand Rapids, Michigan, May 2003.

> [www.michiganltap.org/pubs/](http://www.michiganltap.org/pubs/)

10. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). *Asphalt Pavement Warranties
    Technology and Practice in Europe,* International Technology
    Exchange Program, FHWA-PL-04-002HPIP/11-03(3M) EW, November 2003.

11. Gallivan, V.L., Huber, G.R., and Flora, W.F. *Benefits of Warranties
    to Indiana,* Transportation Research Board Meeting, Transportation
    Research Record, No. 1891, Washington, D.C., January 2004, pgs.
    221-228.

12. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). *Performance Specifications
    -- Strategic Road Map*, Washington, D. C., 2004.

<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/pssr04tc.cfm>

13. Singh, P., Labi, S., McCullough, B. and Sinha, K., *An Evaluation of
    the Cost-Effectiveness of Warranty Contracts in Indiana*, Final
    Report, Purdue University Research Project FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004-34,
    February 2005.

14. World Bank, "Sample Bidding Document: Procurement of
    Performance-Based Management and Maintenance of Roads (Output-based
    Service Contract), Washington, D.C., February 2002.