2. HBP Warranties – The Cost Benefit Evaluation Begins By: Jay Goldbaum, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Pavement Management and Design Program Manager

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

4. An Act SENATE 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.

5. 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): CDOT’s 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.

6. 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

7. 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).

8. History of HBP Warranty Projects I-25, South of Fountain - constructed 1998 C-470, Santa Fe Drive to Wadsworth Blvd. constructed 1998 US-36, E&W of Superior Interchange constructed 1998 CDOT developed the HBP warranty program and the TAC selected three qualified projects for the 3-year warranty program

10. 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

11. 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.

12. I-25 SB, South of Fountain - Center Longitudinal Crack

13. I-25 SB, South of Fountain – Repair of Longitudinal Crack

14. I-25 SB, South of Fountain – Close-up of Repair

15. I-25 SB, South of Fountain - Rut Measurement

16. C-470 EB Lanes, Santa Fe Drive to Wadsworth

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

18. C-470 Santa Fe to Wadsworth

19. US 36, E&W of Superior Interchange

20. US 36 E&W of Superior Interchange

21. 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

22. 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. CBEC OBJECTIVES

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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.

34. Future Activities: Re-evaluate CBEC in 2003 Coordination with PET Comments from CDOT’s and the Contractor’s Representatives Re-evaluate Specification and Guidelines

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