WARRANTIES IN STATE CONTRACTS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Transcription

1 WARRANTIES IN STATE CONTRACTS OR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION Project: 00-2P Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

2 OVERVIEW In 1997, Louisiana House of Representatives passed Bill Number 1698, which requires the use of warranties for all construction and maintenance contracts. The House directed the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) to promulgate rules and regulations to effectuate the purpose of warranties. Act 161 by Legislature also directed DOTD to initiate warranties for a 3 year period in all contracts (1998)

3 OVERVIEW A 1997 HWA ruling specified that warranties: 1. Must be approved by HWA Division Administration 2. Must be for specific construction features 3. Must put no undue obligation on the contractor 4. Must not apply to non-nhs federal-aid projects To properly meet state legislative as well as HWA requirements and to allow for suitable management, the warranty program was divided into eight distinct areas of investigation

4 OVERVIEW These areas included: 1. Asphaltic Concrete 2. Asphaltic Surface Treatment or Micro-surfacing 3. Painted Traffic Striping 4. Painting and Protective Coatings 5. Plastic Markings 6. Portland Cement Concrete 7. Raised Markings 8. Structural Concrete Evaluations predicated on project performance with penalties prescribed for exceeding distress limits (limits and penalties to be set by DOTD).

5 OVERVIEW Distress limits to be established in the following areas: Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Surface Treatment or Microsurfacing Painted Traffic Striping Painting and Protective Coatings Plastic Markings Portland Cement Concrete Raised Markings Structural Concrete Cracking (except reflective) Bleeding lushing Loss of Painted Traffic Striping Paint Peeling Loss of Plastic Markings Joint seal Damage Loss of Raised Markings Cracking Rutting Shoving Paint laking Cracking (all forms) Joint Spalling Shoving Raveling Weathering Rusting Joint spalling (all forms) Joint aulting Raveling riction Joint faulting Scalling Bleeding Delamination Spalling Peeling or laking of Barrier Potholes Rutting Blowups Popouts

6 OBSTACLES Issues affecting Warranties Implementation Universal acceptance of the warranties concept not fully established Questions relating to contractor liability without the freedom afforded in a Design Build approach is still widely debated There are potential conflicts with federal regulations LaDOTD s HWA Division indicated that blanket warranties would be unacceptable for federal funding There are uncertainties regarding project bonding Bonding companies had indicated that they might not participate or that the costs would be prohibitive

7 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Two plans of action were considered: 1) Immediate, full implementation of a warranties program to assess the contractor and federal transportation community reaction. 2) Development of a research initiative designed to link warranties to performance specifications (based on allowable distress over the warranty period) Both plans were submitted, and the legislature directed for implementation (without preference). The Department opted for plan 2.

8 CANVASS O OTHER STATES WA ME OR CA NV UT MT WY CO MO WI IN MI OH WV PA VA NC NH MA MD NM AL LA L HI States with Warranty Projects

9 Asphaltic Concrete Product Range of States Warranties 3-8 years AL,CA,CO,L,IN, ME,MI,MO,OH NM,UT,WI,LA 2 years MI Asphaltic Crack Treatment Portland Cement 5 years ME,MI,UT,WI Concrete Bridge 5-10 years WA, ME Components Bridge Painting 2-10 years IN,MA,MD,ME,MI, NH Chip Sealing 1-2 years CA,MI ITS Components/ 2-3 years VA,NC Building Landscaping, 1 year WY Irrigation Microsurfacing 2 years CO,MI,NV,OH Marking 2-6 years L,MT,OR,PA,UT, WV Sign Sheeting 7-12 years WV Roofing 10 years HI

10 METHODOLOGY Background ( Catch 22 difficulties) Designate three projects from the letting list as warranty jobs in each of the eight designated warranty areas (requiring 24 projects) inding suitable projects to fill all 24 slots proved difficult (Reasons: Project availability/delays/modifications and problems linked to obstacles cited) Parallel effort made to canvass existing databases (ARAN/TOPS) in support of policy committee efforts to develop warranty specifications also to help confirm reasonableness of those limits for Louisiana Difficulties emerge because findings did not prove conclusive

11 METHODOLOGY Example: Methods and Development of Warranty Analysis for Asphalt concrete ASPHALT PLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKERS MICROSURACING/CHIP-SEAL PCC PAINTED TRAIC STRIPING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS PAINT/PROTECTIVE COATINGS STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

12 ASPHALT METHODOLOGY Background Policy committee organized and a Special Provision drafted entitled Warranty of Asphaltic Concrete Construction for amendment to Section 501/502 of the 2000 Standard Specification (based on experience and work done by other states) Two asphaltic concrete warranty projects were let using this specification: S.P , Rubblize PCCP and AC overlay, I-10, Accepted: 6/6/2002 Jefferson Davis Parish, miles, Contract Amount: $18.3 million S.P , AC, LA 422, Accepted: 5/6/2002 E-eliciana Parish, miles, Contract Amount $2.7 million

13 METHODOLOGY ASPHALT Background (cont.) Both projects were placed on the Department s Management System (PMS) survey list thus making it possible to conduct an extensive distress survey by Roadware s ARAN device on a yearly cycle. Additionally, automated skid and inertial profiler surveys were conducted along with walk-by evaluations on a six month cycle. A summary of data collected on these surveys includes:

14 ASPHALT METHODOLOGY Automated PMS-ARAN survey (yearly cycle): aulting: (collected on PCC only) Maximum faulting (+, -) in inches aulting average in inches Number of (+,-) faulted joints and cracks IRI: Left wheelpath IRI and standard deviation Right wheelpath IRI and standard deviation Average IRI and standard deviation Rutting: Punchouts: (collected on PCC only) Rutting left (average, SD) in inches Number of punchouts Rutting right (average, SD) in inches Total rutting (average, SD) in inches Patching: 5 Point Laser Rutting left (average, SD) in inches Patching (low, medium, high) in square eet 5 Point Laser Rutting right (average, SD) in inches Number of patches (low, medium, high) 5 Point Laser Total rutting (average, SD) in inches Potholes: Cracking: Number of potholes Alligator cracking (low, medium, high) in Square eet Area of potholes in Square eet Longitudinal cracking (low, medium, high) in Linear eet Transverse cracking (low, medium, high) in Linear eet Block cracking Low Severity (Low Density, Med Density, High Density, Sum) in Linear eet Block cracking Med Severity (Low Density, Med Density, High Density, Sum) in Linear eet Block cracking High Severity (Low Density, Medium Density, High Density, Sum) in Linear eet Longitudinal cracking low not counted as alligator (fatigue) + Transverse cracking low + Block cracking low Longitudinal cracking med not counted as alligator (fatigue) + Transverse cracking med + Block cracking med Longitudinal cracking high not counted as alligator (fatigue) + Transverse cracking high + Block cracking high (high-resolution video log used to bridge shortfalls: Shoving, Raveling, Bleeding)

15 METHODOLOGY ASPHALT To help verify the PMS-ARAN survey, LTRC conducted its own Skid, Inertial Profiler, and Walking surveys (6 month cycle): 1) Although the warranty specification does not contain a friction or IRI requirement, it was considered worthwhile to monitor each for research purposes 2) The inertial profiler survey provided a means of validating ARAN s rut and IRI figures 3) The walking survey was used to check the remaining ARAN figures: Potholes, Shoving, Raveling, Bleeding

16 METHODOLOGY ASPHALT In addition to the two asphalt warranty jobs, archival resources (ARAN and TOPS) were also consulted to be used in a support capacity for the policy committee: 1) 33 existing ACP projects (non-warranty) were isolated that had been ARAN tested at ages ranging from 2.33 to 5.31 years. 2) Collectively, these 33 projects represent miles of asphaltic highway data

17 METHODOLOGY ASPHALT At this stage, all of the project decks were statistically analyzed and a final summary report was compiled. In general, the 95 th percentile figures for a number of distress cases Projected proved to be excessive, often far exceeding the policy committee s three year limits. But, it is of Statistical note that these results were GENERAL or NOTES: consistent with the performance each 10 of the mile two segment, asphalt warranty the ARAN projects Results system that for calculates were seen a through bank to completion. of A project distress deck figures is then (faulting, compiled rutting, for each cracking, Year entry 3 Distress results reported by ARAN are very comprehensive etc ) on the using survey highresolution Each deck much is image time more list. (generally analysis stamped complete techniques as than well. walking The and time surveys infrared stamp can laser is produce) a record analysis. of On the LA 422 project the in East pavement s age at the time the ARAN was run. Each 10 th eliciana Parish, prior to the three 50 year mile segment HOW has its THE own LA bank 1057 ARAN th, 75 bond of data. th, This is because of ARAN s advanced image recognition period reaching 80 (56 items/card) and distress maturity, some significant longitudinal cracking appeared which exceeded th, 85 th, analysis systems. As a result, ARAN typically warranty limits. The 90 th, and reports distresses at Department ultimately levels decided which the problem are much was higher caused than by forces considered to be beyond LA 1057 traditional 95 contractor control (shrinkage cracking, slope problems ANALYSIS beyond shoulders, th walk-by surveys tend to report (hairline fractures, continuous rutting Percentiles figures, and excessive etc ) logging traffic were all possible contributors). WORKS Since Still, distress LA 1057 logs is 10.2 need miles to be long, checked the EB at lane the video produces level a because deck of Overall, though, the warranty 120 cards. jobs (102 performed x 56 = on 5,712 a level items) equal to that seen on the non-warranty image recognition algorithms can be in error. (This review process etc is projects. (LA 422 performed worse than hoped and the I-10 project in Jefferson Davis parish also The A Survival necessary ARAN was Analysis to bridge used to (central shortfalls collect data to in the the data: on warranties condition the WB lane initiative) of pavement performed exceptionally well) as well. is markers The added made possible and striping data causes by plotting for example) the project any deck of distress to double data in found size. across the (5,712 decks (rutting x 2 = 11,424 for example) items) against the age stamps on the decks.

18 PROJECT PROGRESS Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Surface Treatment or Microsurfacing Painted Traffic Striping Painting and Protective Coatings Plastic Markings Portland Cement Concrete Raised Markings Structural Concrete Cracking (except reflective) Bleeding lushing Loss of painted traffic striping Paint peeling Loss of plastic pavement markings Joint seal damage Loss of raised pavement markings Cracking Rutting (>1/4 in.) Shoving Paint laking Cracking (all forms) Joint spalling Shoving Raveling Weathering Rusting Joint spalling (all forms) Joint faulting Raveling riction Joint faulting Scalling Bleeding Delamination Spalling Peeling or flaking of barrier Potholes Rutting Blowups Popouts :Areas where Specifications and Analysis have been, or will soon be, completed. :Work remains