Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 92-124

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 92...
... 92 A P P E N D I X B Itemized Survey Responses
From page 93...
... 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 page 94...
... 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)
From page 95...
... 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?
From page 96...
... 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)
From page 97...
... 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?
From page 98...
... 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)
From page 99...
... 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)
From page 100...
... 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.
From page 101...
... Itemized Survey Responses 101   Question 10: What type(s) of products does your agency evaluate?
From page 102...
... 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)
From page 103...
... 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)
From page 104...
... 104 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Question 12: How are products evaluated at your agency? (Please select all that apply)
From page 105...
... 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
From page 106...
... 106 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes State DOT Product representatives Internal agency staff Other government agency staff Third-party vendors Product manufacturers Prime contractors Subcontractors 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)
From page 107...
... 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?
From page 108...
... 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?
From page 109...
... 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?
From page 110...
... 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 *
From page 111...
... 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.
From page 112...
... 112 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Ohio Uploaded on previous page Oklahoma Oregon https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Construction/Pages/QualifiedProducts.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.
From page 113...
... 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?
From page 114...
... 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)
From page 115...
... 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?
From page 116...
... 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.
From page 117...
... 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.
From page 118...
... 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)
From page 119...
... 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.
From page 120...
... 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.
From page 121...
... 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)
From page 122...
... 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)
From page 123...
... 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.
From page 124...
... 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?

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.