Summary of Pavement Warranty Activities in MRC Area

(A)  Contractor, DOT, Private Unk - Unknown

Illinois Notes:

IL¹ - Varies

IL² - Subject to Opinion

IL³ - Bill Sunley , ILDOT

Indiana Notes

IN¹ - Indiana's projects, to date, have been mainly on high volume Interstate routes over cracked and seated or rubblized PCC pavements. One full depth high volume HMA Interstate project is being completed in 2001. Beginning in 2001, candidate projects on multilane NHS routes are now eligible for selection.

IN² - Currently tracking a number of warranty projects vs regular projects. Initial results to date are minor, but the PCR rating for the warranted pavements is higher than regular projects.

IN³ - Two projects had to have the surface course removed and replaced in accordance with the warranty provisions due to lower than acceptable (warranted) friction numbers.

IN⁴ - A joint DOT/FHWA/APAI (Industry) Team guides the updating of the specifications and the selection of projects. Final selection is made by the DOT.

IN⁵ - Bond amount is determined by the estimated cost to completely remove and replace the warranted surface course.

IN⁶ - DOT establishes the minimum aggregate requirements, minimum grade of binder, and minimum mixture requirements (rutting, cracking, friction, and smoothness). The DOT has eliminated all field inspection requirements on the warranted pavement other than the IA verification.

IN⁷ - Indiana is currently developing a PCC warranty specification for FY2002 construction.

IN⁸

IN⁹ - We have found that the contractors have raised the quality bar on the warranted projects to the extent that they now have not only the responsibility to complete a project but they are also responsible for the condition of the pavement during the warranty period. Contractors have the opportunity to initiate new techniques, equipment, and/or processes on their own.

Kansas Notes:

KS¹ - Alternate Bid (Concrete vs. Asphalt)

KS² - Converted to standard concrete pavement QC/QA project after letting

KS³ - Warranty cap of 50% of the cost of mobilization and roadway bid items

KS⁴ - Other warranty criteria (bumps, potholes, delamination)

KS⁵ - Eliminated materials sampling and testing requirements, materials specifications and equipment requirements

KS⁶ - Michael Herzog (785) 296-3576 Field Construction Engineer

Michigan Notes:

MI¹ - Approximate Numbers

MI² - All Pavement Maintenance treatment are potential candidates
All Hot-mix overlays with ESAl above 10M are potential candidates
All reconstruction projects are potential candidates

MI³ - Hundreds

MI⁴ - 3 years for Preventive Maintenance, 5 years for 4 R

MI⁵ - Unspecified

MI⁶ - Inspection

MI⁷ - Steve Bower (517) 322-5198
MIDOT Pavement Engineer

Minnesota Notes:

MN¹ - Micro Surfacing Projects

MN² - Once at the end of the performance period

MN³

Roger Olson
MnDOT
Engineering Services
1400 Gervais Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
(651) 779 5517

Missouri Notes:

MO¹ - Two (2) SAMI projects were tried to prevent reflective cracking

MO² - Both projects failed and contractor failed to make repairs after second failure.

Ohio Notes:

OH¹

OH²- 6G - Other Warranty Criteria
Asphalt Concrete - Disintegrated Areas--Mix delamination, potholes & raveling
Microsurfacing - Bleeding/Flushing, Surface loss and raveling
Chip Seal - Surface patterns-lines/streaks over pavement surface, patches of aggregate loss, & bleeding/flushing
PCCP - joint sealant deformation, loss or movement from intended location & faulting

OH³- DRT - District Review Team

OH⁴- ODOT has developed guidelines for project selection and written a report to the State Legislature summarizing the State fiscal year 2000 program.

OH⁵ Points of Contact:

Guidelines for Project Selection - Aric Morse, Pavement Design Coordinator 614-995-5994 & Andrew Williams, Pavement Management Coordinator 614-752-4059
Warranty Coordinator - Dan Groh 614-387-1162
Asphalt Construction - Keith Keeran 614-644-6622
Asphalt Materials - Dave Powers 614-275-1387
Concrete Construction - Keith Keeran 614-644-6622
Concrete Materials - Bryan Struble 614-275-1385
Preventive Maintenance Treatments - Aric Morse or Dave Powers

Summary of Projects let to contract as of 4/15/03:

• Pavements
  • Asphalt Concrete - 84
  • PCCP - 8
  • Preventive Maintenance - 15
    • Chip Seal - 7
    • Crack Seal - 5
    • Saw & Seal - 3
• Bridge Decks
  • New Decks - 111
  • Overlays - 5
• Bridge Painting - 41
• Pavement Markings - 38

Several Warranty-type projects have been discontinued.

The 2003 Program includes warranty provisions for Asphalt Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, New Bridge Decks, Chip Seals, Hot-in-Place Recycling and Microsurfacing per the (.pdf, 26 kb)Ohio Department of Transportation Warranty Application Guidelines

Costs reported do not include owner-agency administrative costs and claims

South Dakota Notes:

SD¹ - Under design-build concept $34 million CRC pavement

SD² - Redesign terminal and joints during construction

SD³ - Or Less Anticipated

SD⁴ - $4,000,000 for Entire Project

SD⁵ - Joint Materials

Wisconsin Notes:

WI¹ - Bond amount based on cost for 1.5" overlay, which is considered worse case scenario.

WI² - Initially, warranty projects have been monitored annually. WI is moving to monitoring them every other year, which is consistent with their PMS condition survey schedule. The exception to this schedule would be that all projects would be monitored in year 5.

WI³ - General Information

Contact Points

Advantages Identified

• The warranty process allows WisDOT to define the final product in terms of condition and performance.
• Enhanced pavement quality
• More cost effective pavement
• Lower WisDOT project delivery costs by reduced testing, supervision and staff involvement in the construction process.
• To progress from method specifications and from the QC/QA concept to end result, performance-based specifications
• Contractor has more freedom to be innovative and creative while maintaining state performance standards
• Shifts product responsibility from WisDOT to contractor.