2nd Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) for the revision of the EU Green Public

Procurement criteria for ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Wednesday 28th January 2015, 09:30 – 18:00

Albert Borschette Centre - Room AB 3C

Rue Froissart 36

B-1049 Brussels, BELGIUM

Agenda

1. Opening and welcome. GPP criteria process description 09:30-09:45

2. Project overview and scope proposal 09:45-10:00

3. Criteria proposal on pavement-vehicle interaction 10:00-10:45

4. Criteria proposal on resource efficient construction. LCA performance requirements 10:45-11:30

Coffee break 11.30-11:45

5. Criteria proposal on resource efficient construction. Recycled content, materials transportation, asphalt

11:45-13:00

Lunch 13:00-14:00

6. Criteria proposal on resource efficient construction. Excavated materials and soil management, waste management

14:00-14:30

7. Criteria proposal on noise emissions 14:30-15:30

8. Criteria proposal on water and habitat preservation 15:30-16:30

Coffee break 16:30:16:45

9. Criteria proposal on congestion 16:45-17:00

10. Criteria proposal on maintenance and rehabilitation strategies 17:00-17:30

11. Developing guidance for the procurement of road construction 17:30-17:45

12. Conclusions, next steps and closure of the meeting 17:45-18:00

2

List of participants

No First Name Last Name Organisation Country

1 Per ANTVORSKOV Danish Road Directorate Denmark

2 Aitor ARAGÓN AENOR Spain

3 Ozlem ASLAN EUPAVE Belgium

4 Thomas BECHT HOCHTIEF PPP Solutions GmbH Germany

5 Egbert BEUVING EAPA Belgium

6 Rudi BULL-WASSER Federal Highway Research Institute Germany

7 Luc DE BOCK Belgian Road Research Centre Belgium

8 Christophe DENAYER EuLA - Carmeuse Europe Belgium

9 Jose DIEZ European Union Road Federation Belgium

10 Shane DONATELLO JRC European Commission Spain

11 Karl DOWNEY Cembureau Belgium

12 Paul FORTUIN Rijkswaterstaat Netherlands

13 Miguel GAMA CALDAS JRC, European Commission Spain

14 Elena GARBARINO JRC, European Commission Spain

15 Edith GUEDELLA BUSTAMANTE ACCIONA Infraestructuras Spain

16 Steve HARRIS Nynas UK AB United Kingdom

17 Rob HOFMAN Rijkswaterstaat Netherlands

18 Robert KAUKEWITSCH DG ENV, European Commission Belgium

19 Henrik Fred LARSEN Danish Road Directorate Denmark

20 Åsa LINDGREN Swedish Transport Administration Sweden

21 Joana OTERO MATIAS DG ENV, European Commission Belgium

22 Marco PAVIOTTI DG ENV, European Commission Belgium

23 Laia PEREZ SIMBOR European Copper Institute Belgium

24 Steve PHILIPS CEDR Belgium

25 Kris REDANT Belgian Road Research Centre Belgium

26 Luc RENS FEBELCEM Belgium

27 Rocio RODRIGUEZ QUINTERO JRC, European Commission Spain

28 Pascal ROSSIGNY CEREMA France

29 Mike SOUTHERN Eurobitume Belgium

30 Jean-Pierre TAVERNE ETRMA Belgium

31 Dirk VAN TROYEN Flemish Roads and Traffic Agency Belgium

32 Aimé XHONNEUX Eurobitume Belgium

3

MINUTES

Agenda Point 1. Opening and welcome. GPP criteria process description

After welcoming the participants, the Commission outlined the topics to be discussed during the day. Moreover, the Commission presented the activities of JRC-IPTS in supporting the Commission's product policy and gave an overview of the process development for the revision of the GPP criteria for road construction. Participants briefly introduced themselves in the table round.

Agenda Point 2. Project overview and scope proposal

The Commission presented an overview of the road construction project. Scope and definitions of roads, road construction and road maintenance had been presented. It had been underlined that only the definition of maintenance changed in comparison to what was presented at the 1AHWG on March 2014, based on the stakeholders comments received during the first consultation round (20.02.2014 – 30.04.2014). Moreover, the Commission proposed to keep the exclusions suggested at the beginning of the project.

Stakeholders generally welcomed the updated version of the technical report and the GPP criteria proposal.

One stakeholder was concerned about the proposed definitions of maintenance and was reluctant to see a uniform definition coming from GPP documents, because different countries have different approaches. The definition of maintenance may have legal consequences on the National Road Authorities (NRAs) or local authorities' activities. The maintenance definition shall therefore be further investigated.

Concerns about the use of the term "expert experience" (when mentioning selection criteria on the competencies of the design team and contractors) were expressed. This may prove difficult or impossible to demonstrate when dealing with "innovative" proposals and thus hindering innovations, because design team and contractors might not be able to demonstrate their qualification. It has been proposed that other expertise related to innovative proposals is included in the selection criteria.

The Commission underlined that maintenance is an important aspect of the road management and of the GPP in general, and asked to stakeholders if further input can be provided in order to find a suitable definition, applicable across Europe and acceptable to the technical working group. Several stakeholders offered to provide additional information.

Agenda Point 3. Criteria proposal on pavement-vehicle interaction

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on pavement-vehicle interaction, focusing particularly on:

Rationale on rolling resistance (RR), on the relationship between fuel consumption and performance parameters such as macrotexture (MPD) and unevenness (IRI), on the interdependency of some parameters, on the evolution of MPD over time and on the assessment and verification issue.

A Draft criteria proposal on performance requirements on vehicle fuel consumption due to rolling resistance (comprehensive award criterion) in the detailed design phase and on quality of the completed road - monitoring of the performance parameters (comprehensive contract performance clause) in the construction phase. A general contract performance clause in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases is also proposed.

Questions on the possibility to anticipate the pavement MPD in an Invitation To Tender (ITT), on the expected deviation range, on the verification constraints and on the use of the MIRAVEC tool.

One stakeholder asked for clarification on the relevance of IRI to save fuel consumption of cars and heavy trucks due to speed effect, with reference to the results of MIRAVEC project. It was pointed out that uneven roads lead to increased fuel consumption. The Commission clarified that, according to the MIRAVEC project, the influence is negligible because when unevenness increases, the driver instinctively slows down, decreasing the vehicle speed, and, therefore, the fuel consumption.

Another stakeholder suggested not only testing MPD but also the RR. For example the Dutch highways are quite unique in the sense that they use Porous Asphalt Concrete (PAC) and their properties may not plug in directly to the MIRAVEC tool, which is recommended as award criterion. It was therefore suggested allowing the use of different calculation codes. It was also suggested that the use of another tool considering all parameters could be too extensive and the relationship between MPD and RR can be enough to understand the fuel consumption trend.

One stakeholder underlined that by using RR, contracts are awarded on the basis of a prediction. The measurement of RR is very complex. There is a general correlation with MPD but there are serious potential trade-offs with wet-dry

4

skid resistance. Caution against the use of this criterion was suggested because of the high degree of confidence that has to be placed in the models used. It was proposed that maintaining smooth and performing pavements could be enough as GPP award criterion.

Another stakeholder pointed out that there is a lot of experience in the Nordic Countries on MPD, and it was observed that MPD varies in time because of the use of studded tyres. The use of a tool such as MIRAVEC might however still be premature.

It was pointed out that the requirement for RR could potentially eliminate all Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects because of the uncertainty over long term MPD/RR trends, making it more difficult to obtain finance for PPP projects.

One stakeholder expressed his disappointment because deflection is not included in the assessment; although it has to be considered that if RR is used, this would in some way account for deflection. This stakeholder highlighted the importance of deflection for roads with a high proportion of heavy vehicles and the lack of scientific research regarding the importance of deflection with heavy vehicles. In reply, another stakeholder added that some researches on the RR of trucks have just started, for example in the Lorry Project (a reference has to be kindly provided by stakeholder).

Another stakeholder underlined the lack of clarity on what has been published so far in the scientific literature regarding RR. Measurements are not directly comparable from one set of equipment to another. Deflection is only some 1-2% of total RR, and so it is not so important, especially when you consider that RR itself only accounts for around 10% of the total fuel consumption. The stakeholder underlined therefore that deflection accounts for 1-2% of 10% of fuel consumption.

It was requested that GPP should try to move away from prediction-based criteria. With RR, two very important variables are tyre type and tyre temperature. Possible predictions of RR levels to be maintained over periods of 30 years, or more, would have to be identified. But it has to be considered that vehicle and tyre technology could change considerably in this period. Therefore, the RR measurement method has to be adapted or would it be better to stick with the original method defined in the contract? It could lead to many disputes and court cases.

The Commission concluded that it is a complex area. On the one hand the relevance of this topic appears quite consensual; on the other, the scientific background seems not mature yet. Therefore, it has to be further investigated if the performance requirements on traffic fuel consumption due to rolling resistance can be proposed as an award comprehensive criterion. Further input from stakeholder is welcome.

Agenda Point 4, 5 and 6. Criteria proposal on resource efficient construction

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria proposal on resource efficient construction, considering that embodied impacts of construction materials production and transportation are environmental hot-spots in the construction and maintenance phases. Stakeholders' feedbacks during the first consultation round widely highlighted the need of a holistic performance based approach (evaluation of environmental performance for the whole infrastructure by means of an LCA/LCC). Moreover, stakeholders generally supported the use of recycled materials and by-products, but they disagreed on the proposal of criteria for each material, because of the need of a holistic approach. Therefore, in the new criteria proposal, an LCA performance approach and a recycled content criterion for the total weight of all construction materials were proposed.

LCA performance requirements

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on LCA performance requirements of the main road elements, focusing particularly on:

Rationale on different systems used by existing schemes for road and civil works and on different methodologies for assessing the environmental performance of a road, specifically option 1 Carbon Footprint (CF) (as core criterion) and option 2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (as comprehensive criterion)

Draft criteria proposal on LCA performance of the main road elements (core and comprehensive award criterion) in the detailed design phase and a general contract performance clause in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

A stakeholder agreed on the criteria proposal, but outlined that real challenges are in verification. It was asked if data used in the LCA shall be generic or project-specific. The example of a LCI for bitumen was proposed. In this case, generic averaged data are very different to individual specific data (i.e. specific data referred to specific refineries in specific countries). Requiring the use site specific data could be very time-consuming and difficult to obtain. Therefore, there should be reasonable degree of generic data. Moreover, it would also require a lot of effort for verification and an LCA expert would be needed. The level of detail is one of the major problems in addition to the issue of comparability because of possible different boundaries, inclusion and exclusion, etc.

The Commission specified that the analysed LCA tools refer usually to national and/or commercial databases. The LCA tool, the LCIA method and the LCI requirements and the rules for using verified primary data and supplementary

5

secondary data has to be clearly defined by the procurer in the Invitation to Tender (ITT). In order to help the procurers, a supporting guidance for the carbon footprint and the LCA has been provided as annexes to this criterion, trying to clarify when the option can be used, if additional expertise has to be required to evaluate bids, what technical instructions should be given to bidders with reference to a) method and inventory data; b) comparison on the basis of functional equivalence; c) definition of the road life cycle and boundaries, d) road elements within the scope of the criteria, e) lifecycle category indicators to be used for evaluation purposes. In this way the comparability of the different bids should be ensured. The procedure could appear simplistic, also with reference to the carbon footprint, but it was asked if this could be considered as a starting point in order to develop a robust procedure for GPP.

One stakeholder underlined that if data from EPDs is allowed then this should be able to plug in directly to the work of CEN TC 350 (and EN 15804) where generic data can be used, due to the high uncertainty within the LCA. Moreover, it was suggested to consider the Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) as impact category indicator, not the secondary resources in mass. It was also asked if "responsible sourcing schemes" (as CEEQUAL in UK) or other social-economic criteria have been considered. The Commission replied that several schemes, including the ones mentioned, were considered. Moreover, the Commission explained that in the CF and LCA criteria a direct reference to the EN 15804 was not included, because this standard provides the PCRs for construction products used in buildings, while the CEN 350 WG6 is currently developing standards for civil engineering works. It has to be better understood if for cradle-to-grave EPDs specific Product Category Rules or Annexes to EN 15804 have to be developed to better target sub-module B for civil works. Stakeholders were asked if the use EN 15804 for construction materials in civil works is appropriate. Further information and input are needed on this topic.

Another stakeholder informed that in Denmark they are trying to include noise in LCA but the results are premature. Moreover, it was asked if the toxicity profile of aggregates has to be accounted for somehow, using USETOX with reference to the ILCD recommendation. Another stakeholder pointed out that the use of USETOX as an assessment method is premature, that Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) doesn't seem a helpful indicator and agrees with the proposal of the secondary resources in mass as LCIA category indicators to be at least used in the LCA. The Commission replied that impact category indicators such as ADP and land use are under discussion in the scientific community. For example, EN 15804 states that indicators on toxicity and land use cannot be used due to the lack of scientifically agreed and robust calculation methods within the context of LCA and that the indicators describing the depletion of abiotic resources are subject to further scientific revision. For this reason, it was suggested to consider as indicator the secondary resources in mass (taken from the PRCs on roads proposed by Environdec). Further information is needed on this topic and the Commission asked input from stakeholders.

It was highlighted that in the Netherlands an LCA system is used and allows generic and/or project specific indicators analysis. In this system, a higher weighting to specific indicators is allocated because of the higher relevance to the actual project.

Finally it was questioned whether it is appropriate to have specific LCIs in a project (for example if the electricity mix for every specific country is needed and a level of detail that is difficult to reach). With reference to secondary materials, an example with Blast Furnace Slag (BFS) was reported. 5 different scenarios with different allocation rules in the LCI can lead to differences up to 300% in the highest and the lowest values. Allocation rules for the recycled or reused materials either as input at product stage or as output at the end of life stage are extremely important to consider. The challenge is how to encourage comparability and how to ensure transparency at the same time. For example, in one on-going PIARC project on the CF of roads, several replies to a questionnaire referred to implemented measures to reduce carbon footprints, but only few actually had some measurements to back up this claim. The Commission proposed to create a sub-working group in order to discuss in more detail how to publish a truly useful criterion for the CF. In conclusion, the Commission stated that the LCA performance of the main road elements seem to be supported as criterion, but transparency and comparability needs to be ensured.

Recycled content

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on recycled content, focusing particularly on:

Rationale on use of materials with high recycled content, monitoring and verification issues

Draft criteria proposal on minimum recycled content (core and comprehensive technical specification) and incorporation of recycled content (as core and comprehensive award criteria) in the detailed design phase and a contract performance clause (core and comprehensive) on the incorporation of recycled content in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

Questions on the practicability of verification conducted by auditing of the manufacturer's process control records.

Some stakeholders underlined that, in the criteria proposal, recycled and reused materials are considered equivalent. It was proposed to give higher weighting to reuse following the WFD hierarchy. The Commission agreed but it has to be decided how exactly to reflect this when awarding points for the use of by-products.

6

Many stakeholders disagreed on the minimum recycled content requirement. In particular with aggregates, it was commented that the criterion does not expressly account for the transportation distances. Another stakeholder pointed out that that a requirement for minimum 10% recycled content could be very low for new construction, but very high for surface layer maintenance. It was suggested to distinguish between these two scenarios in the criteria. Another stakeholder specified that recycled content is not used in porous asphalt (PA) or Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) due to the strict aggregate grading requirements compared to other types of asphalt and the impact on durability if grading requirements are not met. Another stakeholder suggested that the recycled content has to be evaluated as % by volume and not by mass, particularly with cement concrete, because aggregates have different properties and densities. In reply, another stakeholder highlighted that the requirement by mass allows considering if the material is compacted or wet. Another stakeholder added that, because construction materials weight used in the work could increase, performance requirements have to be identified. On the contrary, a stakeholder representing the copper industry, producing iron silicate slag aggregates, supported any requirements in GPP criteria to require recycled content, in particular minimum requirements which would become an important driver for the reuse of secondary aggregates and industrial by-products. In response, it was urged that care should be taken with any mandatory requirement for reuse/recycling. An example of US legislation was cited relating to mandatory requirements for the reuse of scrap-tyres under the ICE-T initiative. This led to some strange situations where tyres were shipped long distances. Even with GPP award criteria only, such unusual scenarios could be encouraged. The Commission explained that the minimum recycled content proposed of 10% comes from UK practice guidelines issued by WRAP. It was proposed to further discuss if this could be only proposed as an award criteria.

A possible approach would be to have a minimum technical specification set by the different MSs. In Sweden, for example, there is a lot of experience with the local use of BFS, collaboration between road authorities and industry, for their use in road construction. The Commission replied that there are different requirements for recycled and secondary materials for road construction in different countries and that the aim of this criterion was to encourage a more general approach. One stakeholder suggested that a possible approach would be to reward the analysis of the project-specific situation which assesses the potential opportunities to incorporate reused/recycled content. If the analysis shows that it is not feasible to use the recycled/reused material compared to local virgin materials, then this could be justified. Another stakeholder suggested avoiding complicated criteria, because the most important thing is to have useful final properties in the road according to the national requirements. A stakeholder highlighted that in Germany, if you have a surface course of PA, it is prohibited to use Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP), because of its unknown influence on noise performance and also due to tight controls on the grading requirement for aggregates. Off-site recycling is not allowed.

Another stakeholder was also uncomfortable with any minimum requirement for 10% recycled content in surface courses. With cement concrete, up to 100% of the course aggregate with recycled aggregates can be replaced, but when sand, cement and water are added; even this case would lead to a total recycled content of around 50% in a final Bill of Quantities (BoQ). Specific requirements for specific materials were suggested, but the Commission replied that this contrasts with the holistic approach required by stakeholders in feedback from the previous meeting. Concern about mandatory minimum recycled content was expressed if this would in any way conflict with the need to provide durable engineering structures. For innovative and more durable construction materials, a mandatory minimum recycled content would be not advisable. Moreover, another stakeholder highlighted that NRA Directors will not agree on any single figure for recycled content. A minimum recycled content is not needed, better to award points that shall be proportional to the total recycled content. However, care should be taken that tenderers do not take advantage of this rule by increasing the mass of the structure in order to increase the mass of recycled materials. A stronger link between road transportation and materials was required, even though the transportation distances are already included in the LCA performance requirements.

The Commission asked stakeholders to share their considerable experience in road construction in order to shed light on how the recycled content of materials can be verified in practice. One stakeholder stated that it is not possible to check the final product, so on-site and factory inspections are required. Interestingly, experience stated that sometimes the challenge with surface courses is to verify that recycled materials have not been used (for example, RAP in PA or SMA). In Belgium, all recycled content is checked by an independent authority. The CE marking is linked to production control and paper documents supporting this. It is a factory production control process. Some tests have to be done before putting the construction materials on the market and their characteristics have to be declared, as for declaring the ingredients of a receipt. Furthermore, the Commission asked if the CE requirements go into sufficient detail to actually determine the recycled content and if is it possible to obtain this information as a procurer. One stakeholder replied that this information is known and available at some point in the process. Another stakeholder explained that cement concrete is not CE marked but the recycled content could be controlled at the plant and it is known through the batch mix design. The verification is done in the concrete plant and it is possible to determine the recycled content.

The Commission concluded that it seems challenging to justify setting a mandatory minimum recycled content according to the feedback collected. Furthermore, a closer link between recycled content and material transportation appears desirable. It has to be analysed how to link the award criteria together. Finally, additional input on the verification of the recycled content would be appreciated.

7

Materials transportation

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on materials transportation to be used in case that criteria on CF or LCA are not proposed, focusing particularly on:

Rationale on the evaluation of CO2e emission / tonne of material transported,

Draft criteria proposal on performance requirements for CO2e emission from materials transportation (core and comprehensive award criterion) in the detailed design phase and a general contract performance clause in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

One stakeholder underlined that any criteria for transportation may create unevenness between tenderers, because some companies may have exclusive rights to local quarries, asphalt plants or cement plants while other tenderers won't. It was asked how this criterion works, if the procurers would set the requirements. However, most tenderers would have a reasonable idea of this information because it is an important part of their cost assessment. The Commission explained the rationale on a baseline mass haul plan and why it is important to comply with the plan proposed. Another stakeholder suggested taking into consideration the mode of transport, because this is important for a public procurement. It was suggested to propose more tangible criteria in this area.

Asphalt

Tar-containing asphalt

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on tar-containing asphalt, focusing particularly on

Rationale for requiring the analysis of the tar content in reclaimed asphalt if coal tar has been used in the past and on best available techniques that can be used to treat or reuse reclaimed asphalt,

Draft criteria proposal on tar-containing asphalt (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the maintenance (and operation) phase

One stakeholder underlined that, in Belgium, in the past tar-containing asphalt was reused in base layers because it was uneconomical to burn it. They attempted to keep track of where the tar-based asphalt was used but this proved difficult. So now the approach is to collect it in one place and destroy it. It was questioned what the overall benefit of this criterion was. In Germany they are thinking like the Netherlands to go for thermal destruction of all tar-containing asphalt. It was not considered practical that the contractor is required to test for tar-containing asphalt in the road. The local authority, as the owner of the road, should tell the contractor whether there is tar-containing asphalt or not and what to do with it. When milling existing asphalt layers, it is advisable to remove the tar-containing asphalt layer individually and keep it separate from the other layers. It has to be considered that different rules apply in each country. With criteria related to coal tar content, it is important to verify what the contractor does with the coal tar asphalt once it is removed. For example, if the procurer is paying for it to be destroyed, it is necessary to have assurance that this has been done. Otherwise there is a big financial incentive to get rid of this coal-tar asphalt by selling to other countries where they are willing to pay for the material.

Another stakeholder pointed out that in Sweden before recycling RAP, tar content has to be declared in a report to be approved by the Environmental Agency. Another stakeholder underlined that tar-containing asphalt is a cost issue; originally thermal destruction of coal tar had been considered as too expensive by everyone. Currently it is less expensive (it may cost €100 /tonne). However, every country has a different approach. Another stakeholder underlined that tar-containing asphalt is listed in the European Waste Catalogue as hazardous waste. Therefore there are legal requirements in place regarding its use, ownership and shipment; it is unclear what exactly would this criterion be trying to achieve.

The Commission clarified that the aim of the GPP criterion is to encourage best-practice; consequently in GPP, something that it is more ambitious than the legal requirements could be proposed.

Low temperature asphalt

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on low temperature asphalt, focusing particularly on:

Rationale behind the reduction of mixing and laying temperature that decrease VOC, PAH, CO, SO2 and NOx emissions, and therefore allows significant improvement of the health and safety conditions of workers,

Draft criteria proposal on low temperature asphalt (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the detailed design phase and on monitoring of the low temperature asphalt (core and comprehensive contract performance clause) in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

One stakeholder highlighted that this criterion considers all asphalt mixes as similar. If Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) is used in Nordic Countries, more bitumen could be added to increase viscosity and it essentially becomes Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA). The correct laying temperature will depend on the type of bitumen used. GPP criteria should not be overly prescriptive; this aspect could already be indirectly covered in the CF/LCA requirements. The Commission clarified that this criterion considers the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) point of view, not strictly only a CF/LCA perspective. Therefore, some stakeholders proposed then to remove the criterion, because legal occupational

8

requirements are required in every country. Moreover, a stakeholder underlined that introducing an exception for Asphalt Rubber (AR) would be going in the wrong direction, especially because AR is not as strictly regulated as normal asphalt. In reply to that, another stakeholder pointed out that there is no evidence of OHS problems with AR. It is very difficult just to measure the emissions from asphalt plants let alone decide which emissions are due to the rubber and which to the bitumen. The approach should be technology neutral, allowing all the asphalt technologies to be used.

Finally, the Commission summarised that with tar containing asphalt the main issue appears to be the ownership issue. Moreover, with reference to low temperature asphalt, the Commission proposed to better analyse the relationship between this criterion and the criterion on CF/LCA, allowing the consistency between all set of criteria.

Excavated materials and soil management

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on excavated materials and soil management, focusing particularly on:

Rationale behind the excavated materials and soil management plan

Draft criteria proposed for an excavated materials and soil management plan (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the detailed design phase and on commissioning of the excavated materials and soil management plan (core and comprehensive contract performance clause) in the construction phase.

Questions to stakeholders on soil management plans that are mandatory in construction project

One stakeholder pointed out that excavated material and soil management plans are common practice for construction companies, especially for topsoil because it is a very expensive material. It was asked what would be the added value of this GPP criterion because it would be easy to comply with. The Commission explained that the aim of the criterion is to have best management practices on excavated materials and topsoil. Another stakeholder agreed on the proposed criterion: it may be a common practice in some front-runner EU countries, but in other ones, especially in Eastern Europe, this criterion would be very valuable because companies do not even know about some of these management approaches.

Waste management

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on the waste management, focusing particularly on:

Rationale on the minimum recycling target of construction and demolition waste (C&DW), on the demolition waste management plan by means of a pre-demolition audit, on the inclusion of backfilling with limitations in greenfield land outside of the roadway and in permeable area within the roadway

Draft criteria proposal on demolition waste audit and management plan (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the maintenance (and operation) and end of life phases.

Questions on further limitations regarding backfilling conditions

One stakeholder underlined that often it is not possible to recycle 70-90% of materials, particularly in the presence of hazardous materials. The example of aggregates containing asbestos was reported. Another stakeholder replied that the proposed criterion refers to non-hazardous waste.

Agenda Point 7. Criteria proposal on noise emissions

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria proposal on noise emissions, focusing on:

Rationale behind the importance of reducing noise emissions by means of low noise pavements and/or noise barriers and on different approaches to low-noise pavements in GPP in different countries (DK and NL).

Draft criteria proposals on noise emissions from construction and maintenance activities (core and comprehensive technical specification) with associating contract clauses for monitoring requirements.

Draft criteria proposals for low noise pavements, with minimum requirements set out in core and comprehensive technical specifications and award criteria for better performing pavements. Contract clauses for providing technical information to support design performance claims and in-situ testing of newly constructed road surfaces and after a certain period of time to determine durability of performance.

Draft criteria proposals for noise barrier, design and in-situ minimum performance as core and comprehensive technical specifications and contract performance clauses for how this should be measured.

Questions on monitoring of noise emissions as being carried out by qualified and independent 3rd parties and on possible criteria on noise barrier material embodied energy as minimum technical specification or award criterion, or a combination.

9

One stakeholder stated that the proposed criteria were too ambitious. NRAs or local Authorities want low noise pavements but the criteria requirements are difficult to comply with in case of concrete pavements. Moreover, PA or thin surface layers are low noise but are also less durable and so a compromise with durability has to be reached.

Another stakeholder underlined that there are already many responsibilities on noise that NRAs have to consider and asked what the added value of this criterion is? CEDR already thinks that pavements are the most cost-effective approach to noise reduction (after speed limit reductions or taking vehicles off the road). However, compensation measures are in place in some countries for road construction projects that result in an increased noise level for residents, the cost of such compensation in certain cases could be predicted to be so significant as to already make low noise pavements the cost effective option and so GPP criteria would not be necessary. Another problem is the reference materials, by leaving the choice to the procurer, we could end up with relatively noisy pavements that claim to be green; it is therefore a complex issue. With reference to noise measurement standardization by CPX, some stakeholders stated that different meteorological conditions are very influential and have to be taken into consideration. There is a real possibility that the true noise performance of roads is missed by only testing under one set of similar meteorological conditions. A proper way to assess noise is needed. Another stakeholder was concerned about the application of this criterion in the Netherlands, but also in other countries, considering 3.0 dB reductions as too ambitious. In the Netherlands a specific action plan is in place for noise related to the Environmental Noise Directive (END) and a certification is required.

It was underlined that, with reference to Dutch tenders, CPX measurements have to be done continuously. Depending on the system decided by the public authority, different kind of measurements, such as contractor measures, external verification and PP audit have to be allowed.

With reference to the noise ambition level set, the Commission explained that the rationale on setting 3.0 dB is that this is the actual point in which human ear could detect a lowering of noise levels. Moreover, the Commission asked if stakeholders agree on the DAC as reference road surface for noise measurements. It was also asked if there is a suitable cement concrete reference surface.

Other stakeholders replied that levels such as 3.0 dB (core) and 4.5 dB (comprehensive) are too ambitious. It was added that even 2.0 dB is too high a requirement. Another stakeholder underlined that this criterion doesn’t fit with the legal requirements of the current regulation. For example, in Germany contractors have to comply with different requirements and the reference surface DAC 0/16 is not used anywhere. Therefore the proposed criterion is not applicable.

The Commission replied that wording of the criteria only suggests DAC 0/16 as the most suitable reference road surface but does not oblige procurers to require this specific reference material and that they do not believe there are standardization problems with the CPX method. From reading the literature for low-noise pavements, 3.0 dB reduction seems easily achievable in new road surfaces. Clearly, the noise reduction has to be ensured along the lifespan of the road surface, and not be only limited to the new road surface. With reference to overall cost-benefit analysis and the relationship between noise and durability, the scale of the benefit from noise reduction will vary depending on both the specific nature of the road project and surrounding area as well as the priority that the procurer attributes to noise levels. The cost-benefit analysis of noise reduction really depends on where the procurer decides to draw the boundaries of the study: for instance in the centre of the city this is effective, while in the countryside it may be unnecessary. Moreover, since noise pollution has a set of direct and indirect impacts on factors such as real estate value, annoyance, hospital admission rates and even premature death rates, the effectiveness strongly depends on the size of the population exposed.

The Commission also replied that if low-noise pavements are considered as the most cost-effective approach to reducing noise levels, and that interventions to reduce road traffic noise are foreseen in urban areas due to the END requirements, then GPP could be a useful "added-value" tool while implementing the reduction measures foreseen in action plans. With regards to meteorological conditions, measurements are to be conducted in the absence of precipitations and close to the source; moreover the standards prescribe how to deal with meteorology.

One stakeholder stated that one END action plan in the Netherlands targeted a 3-4 dB reduction. Another stakeholder disagreed about any possible approach to use reference roads because that is not a proper measurement and instead everything should be measured as a standard and real numerical value, because NRAs and local authorities need guidance in order to take decisions. This stakeholder underlined that the comparison has to be done in terms of absolute values and for noise there are already standardised ways to define absolute values that have been transposed in many national regulations/specifications, so it would be normal to use a standardised method rather than refer to an arbitrary reference materials that is an historical anachronism.. A standard way to define absolute noise values is needed in order to compare them and to transpose them into regional and local conditions. While GPP should incentivise environmental improvements, mandatory minimum requirements may not be the best approach. Another stakeholder expressed the desire to see a standardised test method to measure noise, and to not be really in favour of introducing a reference surface for the road.

The Commission concluded that this criterion has to be further investigated and asked for additional input from stakeholders during the written consultation period.

10

Regarding noise barriers, one stakeholder didn't understand the rationale behind this criterion, because in most cases noise barriers are included in the contract to reduce the noise. The decision to define and install any noise barriers is taken by the relevant road and planning authorities and so should not be dealt with in GPP. Another stakeholder underlined that it could be interesting to choose materials by means of the CF or LCA criterion, because it is possible to make greener barriers depending on the materials used. On the contrary, another stakeholder specified that any materials to be used for noise-barriers should be specified by procurers. Another stakeholder mentioned that the public authority decides the level of noise decrease and the contractors have to demonstrate compliance, providing an acoustic report, but they cannot choose the materials for barriers. If barriers do not meet the criteria, penalties are included within the contract.

JRC was asked if the 3.0 dB and 4.5 dB noise reductions could be evaluated by combining low-noise road surfaces and noise barriers. JRC replied that they could of course be combined in theory, but at the moment the criteria is worded to consider low noise pavements and noise barriers separately, in particular due to the inclusion of reference roads in low-noise pavement criteria.

One stakeholder replied that noise levels are set by the END in the Action Plans. This means that sometimes a solution with low noise pavements is needed, other times a noise barrier is needed or even both because the noise levels are too high.

The Commission reminded stakeholders that END sets minimum applicable noise levels such as Lden=55 dB and GPP criteria can go beyond these requirements.

The Commission asked if it is possible to define a clear benchmark for noise exposure level to comply with. If legislation is in force, an award criterion could apply for going beyond legal requirements.

One stakeholder replied that there is no need of a minimum requirement, because limits are set in the national legislation. It is necessary to look for innovation beyond the legal requirements. If improvements have to be boosted, better performance has to be incentivised. A good criterion is the noise monitoring by means of a standardised method. They also stated that the noise barrier criterion doesn't encourage innovation and it was not clear what the added value of this criterion was. GPP has to look in how we can innovate and provide something new. For example more points could be awarded to anti-noise barriers with less material. Another stakeholder pointed that strict guidelines are needed for "green" solutions and not to leave too much room to constructors.

Agenda Point 8. Criteria proposal on water and habitat preservation

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria proposal on water and habitat preservation, focusing on:

Rationale behind criteria on combined sewers, transport of sediments & pollutants, road drainage infrastructure, SuDS, flood risk and link to wildlife corridor

Presenting draft criteria and associated contract clauses for water pollution control components in drainage systems, and award criteria for "soft engineered" water pollution control components in drainage systems.

Presenting draft criteria and associated contract clauses relating to the provision of storm-water retention capacity in drainage systems, draft criteria proposal on Performance requirements for storm-water retention capacity in drainage systems.

Presenting draft criteria and associated contract clauses relating to the provision of wildlife passages across the road and other measures to reduce the likelihood of wildlife fatalities on the road.

One stakeholder underlined that the optimum drainage system solutions depend on many parameters, such as space, soil typology and the best solution has to be tailored to this conditions. The Commission agreed and specified that soft engineered are also based on aesthetic conditions and habitat creation potential but are very flexible and that best practice approaches lend themselves well to adapting to site-specific factors. Another stakeholder highlighted that some aspects are already addressed under the nature conservation legislation, for example under the habitat directive. Guidance developed in the Netherlands, specifically for climate change adaptation may be useful for this criteria proposal. Moreover, this stakeholder underlined that maintenance cost responsibilities should be clearly defined when considering soft engineered structures.

Agenda Point 9. Criteria proposal on congestion

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on congestion, focusing particularly on:

Rationale behind effective traffic management (lane closure, traffic diversion) and phasing of the roadwork into off-peak hours (night shifts), planning for the use of hard shoulders and specific design requirements.

Draft criteria proposal on traffic congestion mitigation plan (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the detailed design phase and on commissioning of the traffic congestion mitigation plan (core and

11

comprehensive contract performance clause) and a general contract performance clause in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

One stakeholder asked if this criterion was targeting congestion during normal use or only during maintenance and construction works. The Commission replied that it refers mainly to maintenance although it could be applied in normal use during rush-hour traffic or bank-holiday weekends. Moreover, tidal flow lanes have to show benefits during the use phase. The stakeholder suggested that a clear distinction between these scenarios is made in the criterion. Moreover, the provision of different modes of transport should also be considered as well, such as providing complimentary buses/trains if serious congestion or complete road closure is expected.

Agenda Point 10. Criteria proposal on maintenance and rehabilitation strategies

Durability

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on durability, focusing particularly on:

Rationale for considering material deterioration rates, higher capital costs of most durable materials being offset by lower maintenance costs, ageing effects and optimized maintenance strategy, examples of expected maintenance frequencies on rigid, semi-rigid and flexible pavements included in the procurement guidance

Draft criteria proposal on performance requirements for durability of pavement surface and rehabilitation (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the detailed design phase and a general contract performance clause in the construction and maintenance (and operation) phases.

Questions about feasibility of durability requirement as technical specification, also for rigid and semi-rigid pavements.

One stakeholder underlined that this criterion is essential, but 5 years as the minimum level for surface course maintenance is a very low threshold and is not adequate, according, for example, to the German experience. Another stakeholder suggested that requirements of 15 years (core) and 20 years (comprehensive) should be set for surface course maintenance. The Commission underlined the lack of data on durability and thus the difficulty of setting appropriate limits. Another stakeholder stated that 5 years are realistic for low-noise PA, but that all other asphalt surface courses can last considerably longer. However, implications for contracts must be considered. It was asked why referring to long lasting pavements.

Moreover, a stakeholder suggested that technology neutral requirements are needed. The age-old debate has been cement versus asphalt but now there are possible new road surface materials, such as the epoxy resins that are being investigated in an OECD project on long lasting pavements which could potentially provide surface courses that last up to 30 years. Again it was emphasised the importance of the definition of maintenance. Finally, it was suggested to evaluate the possibility of setting award criteria in this area.

Maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) plan

The Commission presented the GPP draft criteria on maintenance and rehabilitation plan, focusing particularly on:

Rationale behind the maintenance of the road network as a relevant part of the road management, focusing on maintenance actions, defining methods, frequency, amount and cost of the maintenance and rehabilitation, and on the link between the maintenance plan, the performance parameters and the congestion mitigation plan

Draft criteria proposal on maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) plan (core and comprehensive technical specification) in the detailed design phase, commissioning of the maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) plan (core and comprehensive technical specification) and a general contract performance clause in the use and maintenance (and operation) phases.

It was asked who is responsible for the M&R plan. In the case of separate Design and Built and DB contracts, maintenance is decided by the public authority, therefore it was asked how this responsibility is transferred between the designer and the operator. In real life, M&R plans will vary due to future developments in traffic loads, which cannot always be foreseen; for example this aspect is looked at in PPP and it was asked what its added value in GPP criteria? The Commission replied that the aim of the criterion is bringing together different GPP criteria, such as criteria on RR, noise and durability, and including a legal restriction to pass the responsibility of maintenance from the design phase to the maintenance phase.

One stakeholder explained that an M&R plan is useful, but such a document for one particular road section may not be relevant to an organisation that manages the whole road network. Moreover, the NRA or local authorities have the obligation to maintain entire networks. The monitoring plan is not set by the contractors but decided by the authority. M&R and monitoring plans could be useful only if it covers completely new networks or materials. The NRA or local authorities have a reference monitoring plan and a better plan could be required from contractors. Another

12

stakeholder suggested that this criterion may be appropriate for the next GPP criteria revision. CEDR are looking at new projects where instead of having to estimate when maintenance is needed, sensors can be placed in the road that essentially tell you when you need to maintain them. This could possibly be addressed in GPP somehow but the wording would need to be agreed upon. The GPP criteria should look at the potential inclusion of new technologies/materials.

Agenda Point 11. Developing guidance for the procurement of road construction

The Commission presented:

Guidance for the procurement of road construction with an indicative sequence of procurement activities, and LCC to support the development of GPP criteria for road construction. Information on alternate bids was requested.

Draft selection criteria proposal relating to the competencies of the project manager and the design team (core and comprehensive) and of the construction/maintenance/rehabilitation contractors (core and comprehensive) in the selection phase.

One stakeholder stated that it is very useful to ask that the project manager has experience in LCA but that it would also be relevant to ask for experience with secondary aggregates; and that if this competency is something novel to their company, then at least they have to demonstrate to have attended relevant courses. Another stakeholder replied that the latter requirements on aggregates is unnecessary, because it is not a GPP goal solving problems of industries that produce wastes.

Regarding alternative bids, one stakeholder agreed on allowing for someone to do this. For example, if someone comes up with a better idea, if it really is better, they should have the chance to win the contract. Another stakeholder underlined that in the Netherlands procurers are asking tenderers to provide a "performance ladder". Another stakeholder informed that in Germany "totally new" alternative bids are not allowed, it can only be accepted what has been announced in advance. A distinction between separate "Design" and "Build", DB and DBO has to be done. In Germany, 95% of Design contracts are separate from Build contracts. This D and B separation also applies to highways in Germany. There are only 2-3 DB projects per year, but they are big ones (e.g. 500 million euros each).

With LCC, one stakeholder underlined the need of putting more emphasis on cost-benefit analysis. For example, in France they are always asked to choose the criteria that allow the lowest investment; therefore a better environmental solution at the same cost has to be identified. Another stakeholder underlined that the question is "cheapest for who and when". An example was reported on an excellent project in Denmark with a low RR road, good skid resistance and excellent durability, but with higher cost than the average proposals. It was underlined that with CF, focusing only on materials, it could give misleading results if durability is not accounted for. It has to be analysed how it is possible to account for this. One stakeholder suggested that if a simple CF is converted into a CF/year, maybe this would solve the problem of misleading results. However, as a general remark, it was stated that the lowest bid wins the tender, because at present the first goal is to reduce costs; GPP could change the system and allow the consideration of durability and the whole life cycle costs of the road. Another stakeholder replied that in the Netherlands a LCCA is required and the sustainability is reflected in a shadow price. With reference to the RR, in the Netherlands a quick scan of the cost-benefit analysis is done in the feasibility and the solution with reduced costs is selected. The noise mitigation plan includes also the environmental benefits by means of the evaluation of the externalities.

Agenda Point 12. Conclusions, next steps and closure of the meeting

The Commission concluded by presenting the GPP criteria application in different scenarios and the criteria selection web. The Commission outlined the next steps for the project:

1. Minutes and presentations of the meeting will be sent in the coming weeks

2. Stakeholders can provide comments on working document until 22 February 2015

3. Comments need to be transmitted in BATIS. Using the BATIS system (HTML + folder)

4. Comments will be used to prepare the final draft GPP criteria. If needed a further written consultation will be carried out

In particular, it was remarked the importance of respecting the deadline for comments in order to keep the project on track.

The Commission thanked the participants of the meeting for the fruitful discussion and for their future engagement in the process.