HBP Warranties – The Cost Benefit Evaluation Begins

By: Jay Goldbaum, P.E.Colorado Department of Transportation

Pavement Management and Design Program Manager

Presentation Outline

• Background of Legislation

• History of Warranty Projects and Progress to Date

• Pavement Evaluation Team (PET) Process

• Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee (CBEC) Process

An ActSENATE 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.

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 representativesfrom CDOT, 2 individuals from the asphalt paving industry, and 1 independentengineer.

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.

Implementation PlanPurpose - 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

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).

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

HBP Warranty Project Selection Guidelines

3-year Warranty

5-year Warranty

10 year structural design 20 year structural design Adequately address existing distress

Adequately address existing distress.

Projects 20,000 tons HBP Projects 20,000 tons HBP Primarily paving projects Primarily paving projects Traffic Verifiable (WIM or other)

Traffic Verifiable (WIM or other)

Pre-ad constructability review Pre-ad constructability review

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

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.

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

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

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

I-25 SB, South of Fountain - Rut Measurement

C-470 EB Lanes, Santa Fe Drive to Wadsworth

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

C-470 Santa Fe to Wadsworth

US 36, E&W of Superior Interchange

US 36 E&W of Superior Interchange

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

• 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

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.

Report Contents Include Experimental and Control Projects

Cost Comparisons:• Contract Costs (Construction)• Maintenance Costs

Competition Comparisons:• Number of Bidders• Spread in BidsPerformance Comparisons:• PET Reports• Pavement Management Condition Data

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

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

Experimental and Control Project Information:

Region 4 Sample Information

Region 4: C 0361-157, US 36 - Warranty ProjectRegion 4: C 0761-170, I-76 - Control Project

Experimental Project Control Project Overlay Thickness 2 inches 2 inches Rehabilitation Strategy 1-inch milling 3/4-inch leveling course Award Date February 26, 1998 January 20, 1998 Begin Construction Date June 21, 1998 April 29, 1998 Project Acceptance Date February 26, 1999 September 4, 1998 Facility Type 4-lane Interstate 4-lane Interstate 10-year Design ESALs 2,586,940 2,800,000 Existing Pavement Structure 8” PCCP & 7” ABC 8” PCCP & 4” EATB Tonnage 25,393 77,157 Project Low Bid $1,657,140.00 $4,573,970.60 Engineer’s Estimate $1,619,248.20 $4,618,484.00 Low Bid, $/ton $36.56 $35.38 Engineer’s Estimate, $/ton $36.74 $33.34 Type of Binder PG 70-34 AC-20R Warranty Line Item, L.S. NA NA No. of Bidders 3 3

Comparison of HBP Costs - Warranty Estimate, Warranty Low Bids, and Control Project Low Bids

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1998 1998 1998 2000 2000 2000

I-25, Fountain S SH 36, Superior E&W C-470, Santa Fe W I-25, Pueblo N I-70, Eagle E SH 50, Kannah Cr E

Project

Cos

t per

ton

Estimate Warranty Project Other Bids Control Projects

Cost Comparison of Warranty Projects Only

Item 403 (HBP Warranty) Cost Comparison ($/ton) Projects Reg. Avg. Eng. Est. Low Bid Avg. Bid Bid Range

I-25 34.04 40.82 35.38 38.54 35.38 to 39.92 US-36 34.00 36.74 36.56 43.94 36.56 to 52.62 C-470 34.04 38.10 37.19 40.55 37.19 to 43.91

Project Cost Comparison Projects Low Bid Estimate Bid Range (% of Estimate)

I-25 $2.76 M $ 3.13 M 88 to 95 % US-36 $1.66 M $ 1.62 M 102 to 139 % C-470 $1.58 M $ 1.62 M 98 to 115 %

Cost Comparison of Control vs. Warranty Projects

Item 403 (HBP) Cost Comparison Low Bid ($/ton) Bid Range ($/ton)

Projects

Reg. Avg. Experiment Control Experiment Control I-25 34.04 35.38 32.00 35.38 to 39.92 32.00 to 48.00 US-36 34.00 36.56 35.38 36.56 to 52.62 35.38 to 40.82 C-470 34.04 37.19 42.64 37.19 to 43.91 42.64 to 48.08

Project Cost Comparison Low Bid (% of Estimate) Bid Range (% of Estimate)

Projects

Experiment Control Experiment Control I-25 88 % 93 % 88 to 95 % 93 to 130 % US-36 102 % 99 % 102 to 139 % 99 to 124 % C-470 98 % 102 % 98 to 115 % 102 to 117 %

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

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

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.

Future Activities:

• Re-evaluate CBEC in 2003 • Coordination with PET• Comments from CDOT’s and the Contractor’s

Representatives• Re-evaluate Specification and Guidelines

Summary

• Background of Legislation

• History of Warranty Projects and Progress to Date

• Pavement Evaluation Team (PET) Process

• Cost-Benefit Evaluation Committee (CBEC) Process