National Academies Press: OpenBook

State DOT Product Evaluation Processes (2024)

Chapter: Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix A - Survey Questionnaire
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Itemized Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. State DOT Product Evaluation Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27809.
×
Page 124

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

92 A P P E N D I X B Itemized Survey Responses

Itemized Survey Responses 93   No. 1 Alabama 2 Arkansas 3 Arizona 4 Caltrans 5 Colorado 6 Connecticut 7 Delaware 8 Florida 9 Georgia 10 Idaho 11 Illinois 12 Indiana 13 Iowa 14 Kansas 15 Kentucky 16 Louisiana 17 Maryland 18 Massachusetts 19 Michigan 20 Minnesota 21 Mississippi 22 Missouri 23 Montana 24 North Carolina 25 North Dakota 26 Nebraska 27 New Hampshire 28 New York State 29 Ohio 30 Oklahoma 31 Oregon 32 Pennsylvania 33 Rhode Island 34 South Carolina 35 South Dakota 36 Tennessee 37 Utah 38 Vermont 39 Virginia 40 Washington State 41 Wisconsin 42 Wyoming Question 1: Please select your state department of transportation (DOT) from the drop-down list.

94 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Materials Construction Product Evaluation Research Engineering Design Maintenance/ Operations Asset Management Contracts/ Procurement Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Program Management Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 2: What group/division do you primarily work in? (Please check all that apply)

Itemized Survey Responses 95   State DOT Formal agency product Informal agency product Using A/QPLs Use of AASHTO’s NTPEP Rely on other agencies None of these Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Independent labs Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah APL covering Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 3: What type(s) of product evaluation processes does your agency have in place? (Please check all that apply)

96 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware No info provided Florida Utilizing the APL process for compliance with the new Build America/Buy America requirements Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Approval of products that provide value to agency operations O-4: More efficient evaluation process O-2: Reduced time needed to evaluate and approve products O-5: Approval of environmentally friendly products O-3: Better consistency in evaluating products Question 4: What benefits has your agency experienced from implementing a product evaluation program? (Please check all that apply)

Itemized Survey Responses 97   State DOT Yes No, agency staff are assigned PEP responsibilities, but also have other responsibilities to the agency Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 5: Does your agency have dedicated full-time staff that operates and manages the product evaluation program and associated A/QPLs?

98 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 6: How many staff does your agency have dedicated to the product evaluation program? (This question is shown if “Yes” is selected in Question 5)

Itemized Survey Responses 99   State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Testing Engineer Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Structural Materials Engineer, Chief Chemist, Bridge Engineer, Storm Water Action Team Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Materials Acceptance Unit Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Product evaluation engineer O-5: Product evaluation board/committee O-2: Product evaluation administrator/coordinator O-6: Office of product evaluation O-3: Product evaluation manager/director O-7: Office of materials and testing O-4: Materials engineer O-8: Office of procurement O-9: Subject-matter experts Question 7: Which unit or individual within your agency oversees product evaluation? (Please select all that apply)

100 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes No If Yes, the average annual funding Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans 1,000 hrs Colorado General fund as needed Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho $25,000 Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland $80,000 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire $20,000 New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota $25,000 for NTPEP. No other funding strictly for product evaluations. Tennessee $25,000 Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Questions 8 & 9: Does your agency allocate dedicated annual funding for your product evaluation program?

Itemized Survey Responses 101   Question 10: What type(s) of products does your agency evaluate? (Please select all that apply) State DOT Responses Alabama Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Steel,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Arkansas Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Sealants,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Waterproofing Arizona Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Caltrans Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Colorado CDOT uses the Certified Test Reports from accredited independent Laboratories, The Traffic Control Pavement marking is tested by CDOT. Connecticut Erosion control,Maintenance,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Waterproofing Delaware Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Soils/geotechnical Florida Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing, Lighting. Georgia Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Roadway safety,Sealants,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control) Idaho Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Environmental,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Illinois Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Indiana Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Iowa Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Piping,ROW structures,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Waterproofing Kansas Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Kentucky Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Steel,Waterproofing Louisiana Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Piping,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel Maryland Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Pedestrian safety,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Massachusetts Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Piping,Sealants,Steel Michigan Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Paint/coatings,Sealants,Signage,Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Minnesota Adhesives,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Mississippi Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Missouri Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Roadway safety,Sealants,Traffic (Workzone safety),Waterproofing Montana Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Soils/geotechnical

102 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes North Carolina Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing North Dakota Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Sealants,Technologies,Waterproofing Nebraska Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Soils/geotechnical,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing New Hampshire Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Waterproofing New York State Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Ohio Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Oklahoma Paint/coatings,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing,geogrids, geotextiles Oregon Adhesives,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Pennsylvania Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Rhode Island Adhesives,Concrete materials,Erosion control,Sealants,Traffic (Workzone safety),Waterproofing South Carolina Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing South Dakota Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Soils/geotechnical,Waterproofing Tennessee Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,ROW structures,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Utah Adhesives,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Piping,Sealants,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Vermont Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Waterproofing Virginia Adhesives,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Paint/coatings,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing, see our New Products Evaluation List that was uploaded. Washington State Drainage,Erosion control,Piping,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Pavement Markings and Flexible Guide Posts Wisconsin Adhesives,Asphalt materials,Bridge structures,Concrete materials,Drainage,Environmental,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Maintenance,Paint/coatings,Pedestrian safety,Piping,Roadway safety,Sealants,Signage,Soils/geotechnical,Steel,Technologies,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control),Waterproofing Wyoming Asphalt materials,Concrete materials,Drainage,Erosion control,Intell igent transportation systems (ITS),Pedestrian safety,Sealants,Traffic (Workzone safety),Traffic (Traffic control)

Itemized Survey Responses 103   State DOT By material type By agency division New and innovative Fits with an existing approved/qualified product Others Alabama Arkansas Arizona By specification Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida By FDOT specification Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina By function North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma By specification Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah By feasible specification # and sections Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 11: How are submitted products categorized for evaluation? (Please select all that apply)

104 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Question 12: How are products evaluated at your agency? (Please select all that apply) State DOT Responses Alabama Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations Arkansas Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Arizona Review technical worksheets and submittal information Caltrans Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Colorado Field testing/evaluation,Pilot testing Connecticut Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations Delaware Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third- parties Florida Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Georgia Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Idaho Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Illinois Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Indiana Field testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Iowa Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Kansas Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies Kentucky Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Louisiana Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Maryland Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies Massachusetts Laboratory testing/evaluation Michigan Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Minnesota Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Mississippi Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Missouri Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies Montana Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties

Itemized Survey Responses 105   North Carolina Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies North Dakota Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies Nebraska Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies New Hampshire Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations New York State Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Ohio Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Oklahoma Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Oregon Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations Pennsylvania Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Rhode Island Review technical worksheets and submittal information South Carolina Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Proof of concept testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information South Dakota Proof of concept testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Tennessee Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Utah Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information Vermont Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Virginia Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Pilot testing,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Demonstrations,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Washington State Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Wisconsin Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information,Rely on evaluations from third-parties Wyoming Field testing/evaluation,Laboratory testing/evaluation,Review technical worksheets and submittal information

106 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Product representatives Internal agency staff Other government agency staff Third-party vendors Product manufacturers Prime contractors Sub- contractors Third-party consultants Others Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Manufacturer-designated representative Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Experts North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State No restrictions Wisconsin Wyoming Question 13: Who is allowed to submit an application for a product to be evaluated at your agency? (Please select all that apply)

Itemized Survey Responses 107   State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 Others Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Undefined North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Member of FHWA South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Product evaluation program (PEP) staff O-4: Third-party subject-matter experts O-2: Any internal agency employee O-5: Materials engineers O-3: Designated subject-matter experts within the agency O-6: Inspection staff Question 14: Who is authorized to evaluate products at your agency? (Please select all that apply)

108 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes, any product Yes, but only products not submitted by the third party Depends on the product No Not sure Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 15: Are third-parties able to evaluate products at your agency?

Itemized Survey Responses 109   State DOT Selected and paid by the agency Selected and paid by the entity submitting the product Not sure Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Through NTPEP only Wyoming Question 16: If third parties are able to evaluate products at your agency, how is the product evaluator selected and paid?

110 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT 1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months 12 months or more Varies Not sure Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans * Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky ** Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah *** Vermont **** Virginia ***** Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming (**) Depends on the product and the supporting documentation. (****) Varies, 1 week to 1 month typical. (*****) We decide within 2 months of application if it will be put on the list and allowed for trials or not. Question 17: Once an application for a product is received, how much time does your agency spend, on average, to evaluate a product? (***) Have worksheet designed to verify info automatically. Usually, the review process can be done within 7 days. The maximum is 30 days. (*) Initial assessment through the PEP is 90 days. Further evaluation duration is unknown as PEP is not involved after the initial assessment.

Itemized Survey Responses 111   State DOT Yes No If Yes, Explain: Alabama https://www.dot.state.al.us/publications/Materials/PROCS.html Arkansas Each Qualified Products List includes a method of approval that has to be followed. Arizona Policies and guidelines are located on pages 20-27 of the Research Manual. Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida 6-1.3.1.1 Approved Product List https://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/ProductEvaluation/Default. shtm. Georgia https://www.dot.ga.gov/GDOT/Pages/Materials.aspx Idaho Illinois https://idot.illinois.gov/doing-business/material-approvals/index Indiana Iowa Products are evaluated based on the purpose of the product. Producer's literatures are reviewed. If the product seems satisfactory, then test methods are utilized to evaluate the product based on producer's claims. Kansas For existing products that fall under an existing standard specification or special provision, the prequalification policy is defined in each specification or special provision and varies in how they are handled. Kentucky Currently there is not a written policy or guideline for product evaluations. Louisiana See link below to our approval process http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/ Materials_Lab/Pages/Menu_QPL.aspx Maryland http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/MPEL/Content/TempFiles/Policyand Procedures.pdf Massachusetts Michigan https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project Minnesota http://www.dot.state.mn.us/policy/operations/oe005.html Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina The representative must submit our online product application providing product information and documentation. Samples or NTPEP testing may also be required depending on the product. North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/materials/research/ products.htm New York State https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical- services/materials-bureau Questions 18 & 19: Does your agency have specific product evaluation policies in place?

112 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Ohio Uploaded on previous page Oklahoma Oregon https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Construction/Pages/Qualified- Products.aspx Pennsylvania https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/ResearchandTesting Rhode Island South Carolina The Department will evaluate only those new products which have the potential to fulfill a real need, economically provide a satisfactory level of service, and are not covered by existing specifications. South Dakota Tennessee The policies are described in the link uploaded for a previous question. The guidelines are different for each product category. On the web page provided are links to each product category. Those links describe the guidelines for each specific product category. Utah Vermont Material specific review forms to ensure product meet specifications. Virginia Person fills out new product application and submits to Chair of New Products Committee, who distributes it to subject-matter expert areas on committee. Application must show who at VDOT is interested in using it; if no VDOT interest, product rejected. If committee members of interest feel it is potentially beneficial, it goes on list with name of VDOT evaluator to be contacted when/if it is used. If no use after 2 years, it is removed from list. Anything with chemicals in it goes to Env for review of toxicity, etc. Washington State Wisconsin Evaluation is based on individual products. Wyoming

Itemized Survey Responses 113   State DOT Yes No Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 20: If a product submitted does not have an established evaluation process, does your agency have a way to evaluate innovative products?

114 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes No Not sure Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota ü Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 21: Does your agency have an approved or qualified product/material list (A/QPL)?

Itemized Survey Responses 115   State DOT 1 – 3 years 4 – 6 years 7 – 9 years > 10 years Until removed from list Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 22: Once a product is approved/qualified and added to the product list, how long is the product approved for at your agency?

116 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes No, same evaluation process is used Not sure If Yes, Explain: Alabama https://www.dot.state.al.us/publications/Materials/PROCS.html Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware APL Materials are only re-evaluated if there are issues with field performance. Florida See information in previous documents Georgia Idaho Five-year product recertification program. Manufacturer required to certify that product continues to be manufactured to the same specifications as originally evaluated, or re-evaluated if there have been changes to design or composition. Illinois Indiana Once a product is approved and added to a QPL, there are processes to remain on the QPL (e.g., Passing NTPEP Audits, Yearly Verification Sampling, etc.) Iowa For products that are not accepted by NTPEP, we spell out the frequency of reevaluation. Products are tested like a new product. For NTPEP products, testing from NTPEP is reviewed. Kansas Kentucky The re-evaluation process depends on the type of product. Most products on the Approved Materials List (AML) rely on NTPEP current reviews. Louisiana The product manufacturer is sent a letter notifying him that the product is being re-evaluated and he is asked to submit an application and all other additional information listed in the "Qualification" Procedures. Maryland The Vendor must submit SDS, certified test results, and a statement that the product has not been modified and is the same as when it was approved. The vendor must also pay a recertification fee associated with the product category. Samples are submitted upon request. We do not perform the lab or field test that we performed during the initial approval. Massachusetts Michigan This varies by product. Some require full resubmittal, some require an abbreviated resubmittal, and some are not required. Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina For products that we request a field trial as part of the evaluation, a report is submitted and a post-installation inspection is performed if viewable/beneficial. North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Questions 23 & 24: Does your agency use a follow-up process to re-evaluate approved products?

Itemized Survey Responses 117   South Carolina  Certifications updated; product resubmitted for testing/approval South Dakota  Tennessee  Certain products—geotextiles and geosynthetics—must be requalified through the NTPEP. Products that have been reformulated must also be requalified. However, for the most part, products remain on our QPL until removed. Utah  Vermont  Annual recertification for manufacturers to certify their product remains unchanged. Virginia  Washington State  Wisconsin  Wyoming 

118 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes No Not sure Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 25: Does your agency use AASHTO’s National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP)?

Itemized Survey Responses 119   State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 Others Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware The only current material we ask the contractor to verify with NTPEP is thermoplastic pipe. Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana All our engineers are required to be committee members and volunteer for leadership roles. Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota We have not directly used UP3 but are open to use when needed. Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota State use of DataMine is very limited. Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Product evaluations of common products used by DOTs O-2: Facility auditing of quality management systems and on-site inspections of plants O-3: State DOT usage of the NTPEP product data on DataMine O-4: UP3 DataMine repository O-5: YouTube channel O-6: Attend NTPEP Annual Meeting Question 26: What components of NTPEP does your agency use? (Please select all that apply)

120 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 Others Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware We do not currently use NTPEP. Florida Georgia Idaho NTPEP evaluation is unbiased, a reliable source. Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Product acceptance/verification testing North Carolina Added trust in test data North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota State use of DataMine is very limited. Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Prevents duplication of evaluation effort O-2: Streamlines new product evaluation processes O-3: Increases efficiency in product evaluation O-4: Produces lower evaluation costs through shared information O-5: Reduces the time needed to evaluate and approve a product for use O-6: Uses other transportation agencies’ product approvals Question 27: What are the benefits to your agency in using the NTPEP? (Please select all that apply)

Itemized Survey Responses 121   State DOT Yes No Not sure Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 28: Does your agency use the AASHTO Product Evaluation List (APEL)?

122 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT AASHTO product evaluations DOT product evaluations State-patented products State proprietary products Links to state resources Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 29: What components of the APEL does your agency use? (if “Yes” is selected in Question 28).

Itemized Survey Responses 123   State DOT O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 Other Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Do not use the UP3 for evaluation purposes. Massachusetts Michigan Provides information on materials we otherwise might not evaluate. Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming O-1: Prevents duplication of effort O-2: Streamlines new product evaluation processes O-3: Increases efficiency in product evaluation O-4: Produces lower evaluation costs through shared information O-5: Reduces the time needed to evaluate and approve a product for use Question 30: What are the benefits to your agency in using the APEL? (if “Yes” is selected in Question 28)

124 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Yes No Alabama Arkansas Arizona Caltrans Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New York State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington State Wisconsin Wyoming Question 31: Are you willing to discuss your agency’s product evaluation program with the research team in a structured interview?

Next: Appendix C - Interview Questions »
State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Get This Book
×
 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes
Buy Paperback | $91.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The construction, maintenance, and operation of transportation infrastructure requires immense amounts of products and materials. New products, materials, engineered systems, and innovative technologies are presented to state departments of transportation (DOTs) by suppliers and manufacturers, as well as sometimes by contractors and internal DOT staff.

NCHRP Synthesis 616: State DOT Product Evaluation Processes, from TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program, documents current state DOT practices, funding, policies, management techniques, tools, and workflows of product evaluation processes.

Supplemental to the report is a dataset of various administrative documents from different state DOTs.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!