1. Asphalt Paving Technical Committee (APT) Proposed revisions to the Asphalt Concrete Sections of the MAG Specifications

2. After several years of review and use of the current MAG Specifications for Asphalt Concrete Production and Placement, the local construction and engineering community believes that there are areas in which revisions or replacement are necessary and/or beneficial. After several years of review and use of the current MAG Specifications for Asphalt Concrete Production and Placement, the local construction and engineering community believes that there are areas in which revisions or replacement are necessary and/or beneficial. INTRODUCTION

3. We recognize that much time and effort has been put into the development of the current specification. We recognize that much time and effort has been put into the development of the current specification. With this in mind, APT has also invested a significant amount of time and research in the proposed changes we are submitting. With this in mind, APT has also invested a significant amount of time and research in the proposed changes we are submitting.

4. THE PROCESS An independent expert was retained to review the acceptance portions of the current specifications to evaluate the technical aspects and the financial risk of conducting business for the contractor, supplier and owner. An independent expert was retained to review the acceptance portions of the current specifications to evaluate the technical aspects and the financial risk of conducting business for the contractor, supplier and owner.

5. A subcommittee of members from contracting firms, materials suppliers, engineering firms, and municipal agencies was formed to evaluate the information generated by the consultant. A subcommittee of members from contracting firms, materials suppliers, engineering firms, and municipal agencies was formed to evaluate the information generated by the consultant. THE PROCESS

6. Each member reviewed the applicable sections of the MAG Specifications and identified sections which needed to be addressed. Each member reviewed the applicable sections of the MAG Specifications and identified sections which needed to be addressed. THE PROCESS

7. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  These specifications are being utilized by various municipalities and agencies which differ significantly in their details and implementation.

8. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  The revisions in the MAG Specifications related to asphalt mix designs for low traffic roadways deviate from local practice and experience.

9. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  The provisions for Quality Control testing include some unreasonable requirements for location of testing, test data evaluation, and remedial or corrective measures.

10. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  The acceptance criteria for production and placement of asphalt concrete mixtures are spread between Sections 321 and 710 and are difficult to follow/interpret.

11. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  Many off-site or similar projects consist of small quantities of materials which would be better evaluated under a different specification.

12. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  There are numerous problems with projects constructed under permit.  Projects dedicated to the City, County, or other final governing agency, discovered that the testing performed at the direction of the Developer is lacking in quantity, type, or quality.  There is no clear-cut requirements for inspection and testing of asphalt concrete produced under this situation, resulting in assured acceptability to the eventual governing agency.

13. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED  Industry (owners, architects and engineers) reference or utilize the MAG Specifications for acceptance of materials placed on private or commercial projects.  Many of the provisions of Sections 321 and 710 are unsuitable or inappropriate for this type of construction. However, there are no suitable or widespread alternatives available in the local market.

14. NEXT STEPS Based on the review performed by the subcommittee over the past two years the committee has worked to rewrite and revise Sections 321 and 710 as well as develop a new section 320. Based on the review performed by the subcommittee over the past two years the committee has worked to rewrite and revise Sections 321 and 710 as well as develop a new section 320. The following are the proposed revisions to the current specifications The following are the proposed revisions to the current specifications

15. PROPOSED REVISIONS  Separation of the materials requirements section of the specification from the construction and administration portions. This allows the same materials specification to be utilized for multiple construction specifications. It also gathers like information together and simplifies evaluation of asphalt mix designs and materials properties.

16. PROPOSED REVISIONS  The utilization of ADOT test methods where applicable.  ADOT, and industry, routinely evaluates and updates test methods as technology and industry practice change resulting in a living” specification which is more relevant.  A living specification requires fewer changes in the written specification documents.

17. PROPOSED REVISIONS  A separate section has been proposed to address the particular issues and requirements of permit, private, and small projects.  Clear-cut requirements for inspection and testing of asphalt concrete produced under this situation. (which should result in its acceptability to the eventual governing agency.)  Intended for use by architects, engineers, and owners for acceptance of materials placed on private or commercial projects.

18. PROPOSED REVISIONS  The provisions for Quality Control testing have been revised to better reflect industry standards and practice, as well as to ensure adequate testing frequency and accuracy.

19. PROPOSED REVISIONS  The requirements for certification and qualifications of laboratories and personnel engaged in testing or evaluating asphalt concrete are expanded and clarified.

20. PROPOSED REVISIONS  A statistical basis for evaluation and acceptance of asphalt concrete production has been provided for use on suitable projects.  In addition, provisions have been added and/or clarified for referee testing and engineering analysis of deficient or questionable material.

21. ADVANTAGES TO REVISIONS Provides a qualified procedure for administration of deficiencies. Provides a qualified procedure for administration of deficiencies. Specifications promote consistency of administration. Specifications promote consistency of administration. Local engineers can utilize the specific portions that directly apply to their project. Local engineers can utilize the specific portions that directly apply to their project.

22. ADVANTAGES TO REVISIONS Allows the contractor to work more efficiently with cost effective benefits. Allows the contractor to work more efficiently with cost effective benefits. The proposed materials specification becomes a living document due to the references to local and national test methods and standards The proposed materials specification becomes a living document due to the references to local and national test methods and standards

23. CONCLUSIONS The committee would like to present all of our proposed revisions. The committee would like to present all of our proposed revisions. For ease of review and understanding, we will present them as individual cases. For ease of review and understanding, we will present them as individual cases. Over the course of the next several meetings we would appreciate the opportunity to submit each specification section (case) along with revision comments for your review. Over the course of the next several meetings we would appreciate the opportunity to submit each specification section (case) along with revision comments for your review.

24. The following is a list of the technical committee that was assembled to review and edit the current specifications. The following is a list of the technical committee that was assembled to review and edit the current specifications. Donald E Green, P.E. Operations Manager Rinker Materials Syd Anderson, P.E. Engineering Supervisor City of Phoenix Joe Phillips, P.E. Materials Engineering AMEC Earth & Environmental Tom Kennedy, P.E. Quality Control Manager FNF Construction James Carusone Vice President MACTEC Engineering Brian Gallimore President Western States Profiling Donald Cornelison, P.E. Vice President Speedie and Associates Jeff Benedict Sales & Technical Manager Sunland Asphalt Phil Feliz Principal Western Technologies