Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 38-76

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 38...
... 38 Follow-up case examples were conducted to gather further details regarding state DOT PEPs. Seven state DOTs were willing to participate in the case example interviews.
From page 39...
... Case Examples 39   Arizona DOT groups: Materials, Pavement Management, Traffic, Construction, Roadway, and Bridge. FHWA is also represented on the committee, and Arizona DOT employees are the voting members who vote to approve products once the evaluation is complete.
From page 40...
... 40 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes staff, local agencies, and the private industry. All products listed in the APL are categorized based on Arizona DOT's specifications.
From page 41...
... Case Examples 41   months to develop a compatible specification with evaluation criteria that can be used to test the non-aligning products. Developing new specifications and evaluation criteria can be timeconsuming, and non-aligning products tend to take longer to evaluate than products that align with existing specifications.
From page 42...
... 42 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 4.1.5 Benefits and Challenges One of the benefits of using AZPEP mentioned by the Arizona DOT PEP unit was the use of the current electronic online submission and automation system. AZPEP provides a database of all submitted products, providing better tracking than past systems.
From page 43...
... Case Examples 43   when pigments were in short supply. However, pigments are no longer in short supply, and Arizona DOT uses the fully approved products on the APL.
From page 44...
... 44 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Decision Process Map shown in Figure 31. This process map assists manufacturers in determining the appropriate approach to follow for the submission.
From page 45...
... Case Examples 45   for that section. The Specification section also indicates whether testing is required for a specific AML in the authorization criteria, as some AMLs do not entail testing.
From page 46...
... 46 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes applicable expertise needed to evaluate the product (e.g., SME) and submits it to the Technical Committee Chair.
From page 47...
... Case Examples 47   Furthermore, Caltrans PEP staff stated that developing specifications and authorization criteria for a new product is a lengthy process. This process is handled by the business units that own the applicable specifications, outside the Caltrans PEP unit.
From page 48...
... 48 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes For environmental considerations, products are submitted to the California Office of Employee Health and Safety (OEHS) for review of environmental compliance.
From page 49...
... Case Examples 49   4.3.1 PEP Product approvals at Florida DOT can occur in a variety of scenarios. The producers of products, such as concrete, aluminum, aggregates, and other structural materials, are evaluated and, if approved, are placed on the Product Facility Listing (PFL)
From page 50...
... 50 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes an entry is made for application type, specification, product type, product name, and model number, along with capturing manufacturer contact information. The Submittal tab in PATH designates what the manufacturer needs to provide to have their submitted product evaluated.
From page 51...
... Case Examples 51   intent is to provide an easy reference linkage between products and specifications so that contractors can easily determine acceptable products. In addition, as the APL expands to include Buy America/Build America, this will become even more relevant.
From page 52...
... 52 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 4.3.3 Evaluating Products that Do Not Align with APL If there are no existing specifications for a particular product, Florida DOT looks at product performance expectations in the evaluation of these products. The specification notes that manufacturers can design the product in any approach they desire, but they will be evaluated based on performance aspects.
From page 53...
... Case Examples 53   but the size of the program can seem daunting because it is managed by a limited staff of employees within the PES, meaning that other internal staff are needed to assist with evaluations. 4.3.6 Proprietary, Environmental, and Buy America/ Build America Products The evaluation of proprietary products at Florida DOT follows the same process for evaluating any submitted product, whether it is an APL product or a non-aligning product.
From page 54...
... 54 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes The MQAP Manual is managed by the Michigan DOT Construction Field Services Division and works in coordination with the Materials Source Guide (MSG) , Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
From page 55...
... Case Examples 55   4.4.3 Evaluating Products that Do Not Align with QPLs For new product evaluations, the workflow and process are different. In this process, a steering committee provides guidance.
From page 56...
... 56 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes it is usually best to test and evaluate more than one product before looking into a new QPL. The specification could begin as a special provision for project-specific use before moving to a standard specification and a QPL.
From page 57...
... Case Examples 57   downstream impacts occur that may result in unknown or unexpected consequences. Michigan DOT has found cases in which employees did not follow the MQAP process, resulting in nonuniform evaluation or product use.
From page 58...
... 58 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes product category is identified and approved, the category is added to the QPL and acceptable products are listed by item number. A systematic process is followed by the Bureau of Materials and Research's PEU to populate the product category.
From page 59...
... Case Examples 59   The PEU determines whether a product aligns to an existing QPL category. The PEU reviews the documented information in the submittal packet and the qualification criteria document stating the specification requirements.
From page 60...
... 60 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Maintenance, and Highway Maintenance may provide input on product performance, ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and so forth. The input and feedback are taken into consideration regarding whether to keep a product on the QPL.
From page 61...
... Case Examples 61   of weeks. Once the testing is complete, the evaluation begins.
From page 62...
... 62 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes NTPEP plans to deploy an Industry Document Repository (IDR) module for industry participants to submit and log Buy America/Build America-related documentation (the module will be available to participating state members in spring 2023)
From page 63...
... Case Examples 63   Product Name Company Product Description Contact Sent Received Comments Letter Sent Comments (trial or testing details) FBN Reflector XYZ, Inc.
From page 64...
... 64 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 4.6.2 QPL Ohio DOT has a QPL that identifies products and manufacturers whose materials or products have been approved for use in Ohio DOT projects without further documentation or testing. The QPL has several functions, including the following: • Providing DOT personnel with an easy-to-use paperless process for determining whether a product or material is acceptable for incorporation into construction and maintenance tasks, • Serving as an electronic product documentation method that helps capture material and product data within project records, and • Eliminating the traditional product submission and documentation process requirements for selected manufacturer products.
From page 65...
... Case Examples 65   demonstrate conformance to specifications, samples of products to determine typical markings and other identifying characteristics, samples for testing, and submittal requirements for other offices within the DOT if other offices are involved in the product acceptance process. Step 3 – Adding a product to the QPL: This follows two processes: initial QPL approval and annual recertification.
From page 66...
... 66 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 4.6.3 Evaluating Products that Do Not Align with QPLs For products submitted by manufacturers and suppliers that do not align with a QPL or an existing specification, Ohio DOT first determines whether the product is worth an evaluation, and if so, the NPE determines the evaluation criteria and helps to develop a new specification if the product is approved for use. Products are only added to the QPL when they align with a QPL and the associated existing specifications.
From page 67...
... Case Examples 67   4.6.7 Experiences and Findings There are findings to share from the experiences of Ohio DOT in its evaluation of products for construction and maintenance and use of the QPL to help others with their state DOT PEP. These findings include the following: • Trust but verify all claims made about a product.
From page 68...
... 68 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes NTPEP Product Evaluation Used with QPL Used for Producer List Asphalt binder systems AMA ARAs Composite concrete reinforcements Concrete admixtures and curing compounds Corrugated metal pipe DWS Elastomeric bridge bearing pads ERB Erosion control products GTX & REGEO Guardrail/Guiderail HFTO PMM PCC JS and HMA CS PCMS/Flashing arrow panels Pipe lining systems PBC Protective coatings RPM Rapid set concrete patch materials Reinforcing steel and wire SSM/Roll-up signs TTCD Thermoplastic pipe Table 16. NTPEP product evaluations used by Tennessee DOT.
From page 69...
... Case Examples 69   All applications for product evaluation submittals are completed in an electronic form and then emailed to the Tennessee DOT PEP staff (TDOT.ProductSubmittals@tn.gov)
From page 70...
... 70 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Figure 35. Approval procedures document for ready-mix concrete producers.
From page 71...
... Case Examples 71   • Review the product file (i.e., test data and reports) to see whether the product meets the revised specification(s)
From page 72...
... 72 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 4.7.5 Benefits and Challenges Tennessee DOT stated that the benefits of its PEP include that it helps them evaluate products that meet a specific need, is more cost-effective than existing materials, and provides overall value to the department's operations. Challenges include finding projects to test or pilot the product.
From page 73...
... Case Examples 73   • Develop personal relationships with other agency employees and divisions because their expertise helps to inform decision-making on a product. Participation in organizations helps as well, such as with the NTPEP, AASHTO COMP, and the Tennessee Quality Asphalt Initiative.
From page 74...
... 74 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes For evaluation timelines, most of the case example state DOTs use an initial review period, which is typically about 30 days. Typically, an initial review is conducted to determine whether the submitted product has any interest, fills a need, or aligns with an existing A/QPL; establish the evaluation process to use for the product; request samples and product documentation from manufacturers; and determine any required testing.
From page 75...
... Case Examples 75   internal state DOT staff also know how to use the A/QPL to collect information on products submitted and used by contractors. • The A/QPL guarantees product acceptance for any project and eases the role of the inspectors.
From page 76...
... 76 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Finally, each of the case example state DOTs provided lessons learned on state DOT PEPs, A/QPLs, timelines, staffing, and other pertinent components. The primary lessons learned have been compiled in the following list: • Having SMEs and internal staff engage with the PEP helps make the evaluation process more efficient.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.