Pride annual report 2002 |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center 2002 P R I D E Program Annual Report 2002 Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center ii The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturer names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center 2739 East Washington Street Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 tel: (602) 712-3134 PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 iii PREFACE The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program is conducted under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Highway Planning and Research Program. The PRIDE program is partially funded by Project Number SPR-116 under the State Planning and Research Program, Research Support Programs. The PRIDE program coordinates the review and acceptance of new products for possible use by ADOT and maintains the Approved Products List (APL). On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. Under the 99-01 Policy, three Product Evaluation Committees (PECs) were created – the Maintenance PEC, Materials PEC, and the Traffic Control PEC. The PECs were responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new product evaluation and approval process under the PRIDE program. On July 18, 2002, a new ADOT PRIDE policy (SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM) was adopted. Under this policy the Maintenance PEC was eliminated with maintenance groups being represented on each of the two remaining PECs. Unlike previous policies, this policy was adopted as an ADOT, agency-wide policy. Mr. Frank T. Darmiento of the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) administers the PRIDE program. He is assisted by Ms. Jessica Kirk and Ms. Eileen Pike of ATRC. The objective of this report is to document the efforts of ADOT's PRIDE program for the 2002 calendar year. This report describes product evaluation activities from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. Information about the PRIDE program may also be found on ADOT’s Internet site, http://www.dot.state.az.us. Select More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation). PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1 Background................................................................................................................................................ 1 Product Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................... 4 Status of the Product Evaluation Program ......................................................................................... 5 Products Considered by the Product Evaluation Committees ...................................................... 5 Program for 2003 ...................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES No. Page 1 Materials Product Evaluation Committee Members During 2002........................................2 2 Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee Members During 2002................................4 3 Decisions on Products Reviewed by the Materials Product Evaluation Committee ............5 4 Decisions on Products Reviewed by the Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee ....6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — ADOT Product Evaluation Policy APPENDIX B — PRIDE Application Instructions APPENDIX C — PRIDE Application Form PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 1 INTRODUCTION Construction and maintenance of a highway network utilizes a large number of manufactured products and diverse technologies. Many of these products and technologies perform well, while others do not perform as claimed. Rapid implementation of new technologies and products is essential to the effective management of a highway system. However, equally important is the judicious investment of highway dollars in the construction of field test sections. Thousands of dollars are invested each time an experimental product is used in a construction project. Consequently, the Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) program was established to provide a framework for introducing new products for use in field test sections. The program systematically selects products for evaluation, evaluates their feasibility and performance, and documents and reports the results. In this way, new products are evaluated consistently and impartially. BACKGROUND In May 1985, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) established the Policy for Field Test Requested by Outside Parties to address the increasing demands of technology and the limited resources of ADOT. This policy gave the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) responsibility for managing and documenting proposals for test sections submitted by vendors. A Product Evaluation Advisory Committee was established to evaluate the proposals and to recommend products or technologies to be considered for field evaluation. The Product Evaluation Advisory Committee included an engineer from each ADOT District, a representative from the Materials Section, and one from ATRC. The first committee meeting was held in June 1985. During December 1986, a full-time position was dedicated to the Product Evaluation Program and the evaluation of construction experimental features. In September of 1988, the system was further divided into the Product Evaluation and Experimental Projects Programs, with one engineer responsible for each program. In 1991, the Evaluation Committee was separated into two committees: the General Highway Product Evaluation Advisory Committee and the Traffic Control New Product Evaluation Advisory Committee. The General Highway Product Evaluation Advisory Committee reviewed all highway construction-related materials. This committee included representatives from the following units: ADOT Districts, the Maintenance Section, Highway Plans Services, the Utility Section, the Materials Section, and ATRC. The Traffic Control New Product Evaluation Advisory Committee reviewed traffic control-related products. This committee included a representative from each of the following units: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ADOT Districts, the Urban Highways Section, the Traffic Engineering Section, Highway Plans Services, the Construction Section, the Maintenance Section, the Structures Section, the Materials Section, and ATRC. ATRC administered this program. During November 1991, the State Engineer led a one-day discussion that included four District Engineers and all section heads of the Highways Division to review ADOT’s product evaluation effort. Three task teams were established to create a policy to provide better coordination among units of the Highways Division. On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 2 Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. The current PRIDE policy, SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM, became effective on July 18, 2002. It provides for two Product Evaluation Committees (PECs), Materials (MatPEC) and Traffic Control (TCPEC). The PECs are responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new products evaluation and approval process under the PRIDE program. While each PEC has primary areas of responsibility, product evaluations often overlap these areas, requiring decisions from both committees on a product’s acceptability. The PECs have the authority to approve or disapprove new products. Approved products are placed on the Approved Products List (APL). The committees have the authority to remove previously approved products from the APL that are later found to be unacceptable. A copy of the current PRIDE program policy is included in Appendix A. During 2002, the PRIDE program was administered by Mr. Frank T. Darmiento. MAINTENANCE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The Maintenance PEC, created in 1995, was disbanded in 2002. The current product evaluation policy does not provide for a Maintenance PEC. However, maintenance groups are represented on both the MatPEC and TCPEC. MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The MatPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which non-traffic control products are evaluated. The committee reviews and evaluates non-traffic control products. The MatPEC met four times during 2002, on February 2, May 7, August 27 and November 12. Members of the MatPEC during 2002 are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING 2002 Doug Forstie Assistant State Engineer, Materials Group – Chairman David Burbank Regional Materials Engineer, Tucson District Paul Burch Materials Group Frank Darmiento Arizona Transportation Research Center Lonnie Hendrix Assistant State Maintenance Engineer Larry Ilg Regional Materials Engineer, Flagstaff Aryan Lirange Federal Highway Administration Art May Roadway Support Section Oscar Mousavi Materials Group Mono Nourelhuda Materials Group Perry Powell District Engineer, Phoenix Construction District Allan Samuels Construction Operations Jeff Swan District Engineer, Holbrook District Scott Weinland Regional Materials - Prescott PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 3 Pipe Subcommittee In order to properly review pipe products, MatPEC established a Pipe Subcommittee. The subcommittee is chaired by Ken Cooper of Roadway Design Section. The subcommittee reviews and reports its recommendations to the MatPEC. The MatPEC makes the final decisions on Pipe Subcommittee recommendations. The most significant action by the Pipe Subcommittee in 2002 was the establishment of a procedure to evaluate plastic pipe products. New requirements by the American Association of State, Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) changed the manufacturing and test requirements for plastic pipe. The Pipe Subcommittee met with representatives of three plastic pipe manufacturers on October 1, 2002 and agreed to a strategy for evaluating plastic pipes. The Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Association (CPPA) Division of the Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) developed a third party certification program for plastic pipe manufacturers. The PPI is the major trade association representing all segments of the plastic pipe industry including pipe manufacturers, resin manufacturers, and other interested groups. This third party certification program was established by CPPA in the fall of 2001. Third party certification is a process by which a manufacturer states that a product meets or exceeds the requirements of a standard. The third party program evaluates whether or not the manufacturer’s product meets or exceeds the applicable AASHTO standards through independent testing and inspection. The PPI pipe certification program tests for the material, dimensional, and physical performance properties specified in the AASHTO standard (M294) for pipe diameters from 12 to 60-inches. In addition, certified manufacturers of both pipe and resin are subject to random plant audits by TRI Environmental, Inc., a consultant employed by PPI under this program. During 2002, three manufacturers with active PRIDE applications participated in the PPI third party certification program. These included Hancor Inc., Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) and Quail Piping Products, Inc. (Quail). Quail has subsequently gone out of business and is no longer involved in this evaluation process. During the October 1, 2002 Pipe Subcommittee meeting the Subcommittee directed the manufacturers to submit documentation regarding their compliance with the PPI third party certification program to ADOT by January 31, 2003. TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The TCPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which traffic control products are evaluated. It reviews and evaluates traffic control products. The TCPEC met four times during 2002, on March 21, June 13, September 19, and December 5. Members of the TCPEC during 2002 are listed in Table 2. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 4 TABLE 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING 2002 Mike Manthey Assistant State Engineer – Traffic Group – Chairman Jennifer Brown Federal Highway Administration George Chin Regional Traffic Engineer – Phoenix Region Frank Darmiento Arizona Transportation Research Center Ken Cooper Roadway Support Craig Cornwell Phoenix Maintenance District Ronald Doubek City of Phoenix David Duffy Traffic Group Chuck Gillick Regional Traffic Engineer – Flagstaff District Jim Elliott Pavement Marking, Inc. (ATSSA * representative) Tom Goodman Traffic Operations Lonnie Hendrix Assistant State Maintenance Engineer - Maintenance Group Paul Hurst Construction Operation Roger Hopt Regional Traffic Engineer – Western Region Reza Karimvand Regional Traffic Engineer – Baja Region Jeff Johnson Trafficade Services, Inc. (ATSSA * representative) Bob LaJeunesse Regional Traffic Engr./Maintenance Engr. – Western Region Pam McClain Purchasing Section Oscar Mousavi Materials Group Joe McGuirk Phoenix Maintenance District Terry Otterness Roadway Group Mark Poppe City of Glendale Transportation Department Dr. Craig Roberts Northern Arizona University Marian Thompson Transportation Technology Group George Wendt Risk Management * ATSSA denotes American Traffic Safety Services Association PRODUCT EVALUATION PROCESS Applications for product evaluation are submitted to ADOT. Products are evaluated based on one of the following processes: (1) Products that are covered by an existing ADOT specification or drawing are evaluated based on the appropriate specifications or drawings. (2) Products that have no applicable ADOT specifications or drawings are submitted to one or more of the Product Evaluation Committee for evaluation. A copy of the PRIDE application instructions is included in Appendix B. A copy of the PRIDE application form is found in Appendix C. Each PRIDE application is assigned to an ADOT staff person, consultant or PEC member to coordinate the initial evaluation of the product. In some cases the evaluation includes testing by the ADOT Materials Testing Laboratory. For products evaluated by the Materials Section, including the Materials Testing Laboratory, a Product Evaluation Report is prepared by the Materials Section. This report is incorporated into the evaluation of the subject product application. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 5 For product applications reviewed by the TCPEC the review process consists of canvassing affected sections, other state agencies and research organizations to verify the information provided in the proposals. Field tests are conducted as directed by the TCPEC. Vendors of unsuccessful requests are notified in writing by ATRC. If a vendor disagrees with a Committee’s decision to reject a product, the vendor may appeal the rejection by providing their objections in writing and submitting additional information for consideration by the Committee. The applicable PECs will then reconsider the application. STATUS OF THE PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM The APL is updated and published monthly via the Internet and ADOT’s Intranet. Products placed on the APL are normally approved for a five-year period. However, the PECs may specify alternate approval periods as well as conditional approvals. Products must be re-certified by the vendor to remain on the list after the approval period expires. Re-certification entails verification from the vendor that the listed product is still manufactured as approved. If a product has been substantially modified the vendor must initiate a new PRIDE evaluation for the product. Products that are not re-certified at the expiration of their five-year approval period are removed from the APL. The ADOT web page address is http://www.dot.state.az.us. Information on the PRIDE program may be accessed by selecting More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation). PRODUCTS CONSIDERED BY THE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES The PRIDE program received 155 applications during 2002. The MatPEC approved four products for the APL. All four applications had been submitted prior to 2002. The TCPEC approved 11 products for the APL. Eight applications were submitted prior to 2002, the remaining three were submitted during 2002. Summaries of these decisions are shown in Tables 3-4. TABLE 3 DECISIONS ON PRODUCTS REVIEWED BY THE MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE Pride ID No. Product Name Company Name Action 01031 Boral SPC Boral Material Technologies, Inc. Approved for APL 01043 EPCON Maxima 7 Glass Capsules ITW Ramset/Red Head Approved for APL 01063 Recast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Enviroc, Inc. Approved for APL 01032 ISOGRID Retaining Wall System The Neal Company Approved for APL PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 6 TABLE 4 DECISIONS ON PRODUCTS REVIEWED BY THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE PRIDE ID No. Product Name Company Name Action 01093 ThermaLine Preformed Thermoplastics Linear Dynamics, Inc Approved for APL 01097 Triangular, Mulit-directional Slip Base Xcessories Squared Dev. & Mrg., Inc. Approved for APL 01098 Slip-Mate Western Highway Products, Inc. Approved for APL 01003 Temporary Removable Road Tape, RW-140 (White) Trelleborg Industri, AB Approved for APL 01004 Temporary Removable Road Tape, RY-140 (Yellow) Trelleborg Industri, AB Approved for APL 01048 C88 Raised Pavement Marker Avery Dennison Approved for APL subject to the conditions specified in note (3) under APL category V-23 01116 BarrierGate Energy Absorption Systems, Inc Approved for APL subject to the successful operation of one unit. 01058 Visa-line Temporary Marking Tape (Type III – Non-removable) Swarco, Inc. Approved for APL 02027 B400-A Plastic Safety Drum Work Area Protection Corporation Approved drums B400 & B400R for APL 02046 Thermoplastic Pervo Paint Company Approved for APL 02077 ET-2000 Plus with Hinge Breakaway (HBA) Post Trinity Industries, Inc. Approved for APL PROGRAM FOR 2003 The PRIDE program in 2003 will continue to actively involve the Product Evaluation Committees in the PRIDE process. Equally important is providing timely responses and evaluations to vendors submitting product applications to the PRIDE program. Objectives for 2003 include updating the PRIDE product database, issuing quarterly application status reports, and preparing a set of standard operating procedures for the PRIDE program. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX A ADOT PRODUCT EVALUATION POLICY ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM Effective: July 18, 2002 Supersedes: None Responsible Office: Arizona Transportation Research Center, (602) 712-3134 Review: July 18, 2004 Transmittal: 2002 – July Page 1 of 5 1.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy, which was originally established by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum 92-08 and modified by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum 99- 01, is to redefine, reaffirm, and delineate responsibilities and procedures for the evaluation and approval of new products. 1.02 SCOPE / APPLICABILITY This Policy applies to ADOT entities involved with selecting, evaluating, using or specifying the use of new products for use on, or in association with, ADOT roadways. 1.03 AUTHORITY This policy is promulgated under the authority and approval of the Director of the ADOT Transportation Planning Division. 1.04 BACKGROUND a. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program is conducted under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Highway Planning and Research Program. The PRIDE program is established as item 116 under the State Planning and Research Program, Research Support Programs. The PRIDE program coordinates the review and acceptance of new products for possible use by ADOT and maintains the Approved Products List (APL). b. On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. c. The PRIDE program is now under the authority of the ADOT Transportation Planning Division (TPD) in the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC). 1.05 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation Approved Products List (APL) A list of products which have been evaluated or meet ADOT standard specifications and are approved for ADOT use SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 2 of 5 SUP-9.01 ATRC Arizona Transportation Research Center ATSSA American Traffic Safety Services Association FHWA Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Lead Evaluator The person assigned by one or more PECs to coordinate the initial review of a product application. MatPEC Materials Product Evaluation Committee MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices New Product Any product submitted for approval which has not previously been evaluated or does not meet a current ADOT specification or standard drawing. Any new materials, equipment, or methods to be used on a federal-aid project which may be included and evaluated in experimental construction (in accordance with Vol. 6, Chap 4, Sec 2, Subsec. 4 of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual). PEC Product Evaluation Committee PRIDE Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation Program TCPEC Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee Traffic Control Products Various types of materials and equipment necessary to carry out the requirements of the ADOT, MUTCD or FHWA Safety Standards, which shall include but not be limited to signing materials, pavement marking materials, energy attenuators, temporary barrier systems, flexible and non-flexible delineators and those items which are used in traffic signal systems, highway lighting systems and overhead sign lighting systems 1.06 PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES a. Two Product Evaluation Committees (PECs) are established under this Policy, the Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee (TCPEC) and the Materials Product Evaluation Committee (MatPEC). The PECs are responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new products evaluation and approval process through the PRIDE Program. The PECs are responsible for coordinating the introduction of new, cost effective products and technologies to ADOT. The PEC chairpersons shall be responsible for resolving issues within their respective PECs and coordinating the resolution of issues that include both PECs. SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 3 of 5 SUP-9.01 b. The TCPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which all traffic control products are evaluated. The TCPEC has the authority to approve or disapprove all traffic control products for addition to the Approved Products List (APL) or to remove traffic control products from the APL that are no longer acceptable to ADOT. c. The TCPEC shall be chaired by the Assistant State Engineer, Traffic Group. The chairperson shall determine the membership of the TCPEC, subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The chairperson may consult with other TCPEC members regarding individuals or organizations to include in the TCPEC. Members shall include at least 10 ADOT employees and may also include up to 7 additional individuals from outside organizations. The following organizations may be invited to nominate members to the TCPEC. · FHWA – 1 member maximum · ATSSA –2 members maximum · Local governments – 2 members maximum · Ad hoc members – 2 members maximum d. The ad hoc members may be added at the discretion of the TCPEC and may include, but are not limited to, university representatives or members of the general public. The PRIDE program administrator shall be a non-voting member of the TCPEC. The total number of TCPEC members shall be determined by the TCPEC chairperson. e. The MatPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which all materials-related products are evaluated. The MatPEC has the authority to approve or disapprove materials products for addition to the APL or to remove materials products from the APL that are no longer acceptable to ADOT. f. The MatPEC shall be chaired by the Assistant State Engineer, Materials Group. The chairperson shall determine the membership of the MatPEC, subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The chairperson may consult with other MatPEC members regarding individuals or organizations to include in the MatPEC. Members shall include at least 5 ADOT employees and may also include a maximum of 4 additional individuals from outside organizations (including FHWA). The PRIDE program administrator shall be a non-voting member of the MatPEC. The total number of MatPEC members shall be determined by the MatPEC chairperson. g. The Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) through the PRIDE program, is assigned the responsibility of serving as the clearinghouse for all new products. The PRIDE program administrator will serve as the Administrative Secretary to the PECs and shall maintain the APL. h. Establishing of Sub-committees: Sub-committees can be established by any PEC to review specialty issues. The sub-committees shall conduct themselves within the charters that are set by their originating PEC, and shall report all their findings and recommendations to the originating PEC for decision. 1.07 APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST (APL) a. The APL is to serve as a guide to what products are acceptable for use for construction and maintenance by ADOT. Products listed on the APL are to be used unless otherwise specified in contract documents. Not all products used by ADOT are listed on the APL. If an APL category does not exist for a product, approval through the PRIDE program is not needed to use the product. However, the PECs may elect to modify the APL by adding, deleting or modifying APL categories within their areas of responsibility. SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 4 of 5 SUP-9.01 b. The PRIDE program administrator will maintain the APL. The APL format shall be developed and revised, as necessary, by the PRIDE program administrator with the concurrence of the PEC chairpersons. 1.08 PRIDE APPLICATIONS a. The format of the PRIDE application shall be developed by the PRIDE program administrator, with concurrence from the PEC chairpersons. Modifications or updates to the application format may be made at the discretion of this group. b. Procedures for submitting a PRIDE application shall be developed by the PRIDE program administrator, with concurrence from the PEC chairpersons. Modifications or updates to these procedures may be made at the discretion of this group and will be documented in meeting summaries. 1.09 TESTING For products being proposed for inclusion on the APL that require testing, the testing can be done by ADOT or by an independent testing laboratory. The TCPEC or MatPEC will determine what tests are to be performed on a given product and assign an individual to direct the tests. Test results shall be documented by written reports. 1.10 EVALUATION PROCESS a. The PRIDE program administrator will evaluate the completeness of all new product applications submitted under the PRIDE program. Those submittals not meeting program requirements will not be forwarded to a PEC for consideration. If an application is submitted for a product that is clearly not addressed by the APL, the PRIDE program administrator will notify the applicant that no action will be taken to either approve or disapprove of the product with respect to the APL. b. If an application is submitted for a product that the PRIDE program administrator believes may be of interest to a PEC the product information will be presented at the appropriate PEC meeting. A PEC may create or modify an APL category to accommodate a product if the PEC believes there is a need for such an action. c. Each complete application will be logged into a database maintained by the PRIDE program administrator and assigned a unique identification (ID) number. After an application is logged in the PRIDE program administrator will coordinate identification of lead evaluators for the product with the PEC chairpersons. If a product appears to have a potential chemical safety or health concern a copy of the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product will be forwarded to the ADOT Safety and Health unit for evaluation. Further consideration of such products will be subject to a written response from the ADOT Safety and Health unit confirming their acceptability to ADOT with respect to safety and health considerations. d. After applicable safety and health approvals (if any) are obtained the PRIDE program administrator will forward a copy of the application to the lead evaluators. The lead evaluators will then be responsible for reviewing the applicant’s submittal determining whether additional information from the vendor is needed and how to implement tests specified by the PECs, if any, or other tests that may be necessary. e. Upon completion of the initial evaluation the product application will be scheduled for discussion at a meeting of the appropriate PEC. The applicable PECs may then vote on the SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 5 of 5 SUP-9.01 acceptability of the product, or request further evaluation. If further evaluation is required, the process will continue until the applicable PECs make a final decision on the application. 1.11 APPLICANT NOTIFICATION If a product is approved for listing on the APL, the PRIDE program administrator will provide a written notification to the applicant regarding this approval. If a product is disapproved the applicant will be notified of this decision and a copy of applicable documentation will be sent to the applicant. The disapproval notice will contain sufficient information to ensure the applicant can understand the reasons the subject product was not approved. (See Section 1.12.) When a product is approved, the notice to the applicant will contain the approval date and the date the product requires re-certification. 1.12 APPEAL PROCESS a. If a product receives an unfavorable decision from a PEC after the committee has reviewed the applicant’s proposal and all relevant information, the applicant will be notified. The applicant may file an appeal with the PRIDE program administrator. The appeal must be received by ADOT within 30 days after the vendor receives notification from the PRIDE program administrator. The appeal shall be in writing and shall include the following information as a minimum: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the appellant. (2) The appellant’s signature. (3) Name of the product and PRIDE program identification number. (4) A detailed statement of the factual grounds for the appeal with supporting documents to specifically address the shortcomings of the PEC analysis. (5) The form of relief suggested. b. All appeal correspondence shall be addressed to the PRIDE program. The PRIDE program administrator will review the appeal submitted by the applicant for completeness. The appeal will be considered incomplete if it addresses only the disagreement with the PEC's decision without pointing out any error in the PEC's analysis or the procedure through which this product was evaluated. Only those completed appeals received by the PRIDE program within the stated 30-calendar-day limit will be presented to the PECs for ruling. Presentation of the completed appeals will be in the next meeting of the respective PEC if they are received by PRIDE program administrator more than 14 calendar days before the scheduled meeting. After considering all the facts that have been presented by the applicant and the responsible PEC the PEC may select one or more of the following resolutions: (1) Require a new test or evaluation by ADOT. (2) Require a new test or evaluation by an independent testing laboratory. (3) Add the subject product to the APL. (4) Deny the appeal. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX B PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 1 04/01/2003 PRODUCT EVALUATION APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) strives to develop and maintain the State highway system in a cost-effective manner. The materials and products used to accomplish this are an important element in achieving this goal. Before accepting new products or materials for use on the State highway system ADOT thoroughly evaluates the item’s performance, reliability, cost, and safety though its Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) program. Product evaluations are often requested by outside parties (Applicants) as a means of demonstrating claimed advantages of a product or procedure. These evaluations require commitments of time and resources by ADOT. To help expedite these evaluations, it is the Applicant's responsibility to comply with the policy stated herein. Deviations from this policy may cause delay or rejection of such requests. A request for evaluation requires submission of a complete Application for Product Evaluation (Application). The format of this submittal is discussed in the following sections. A separate Application shall be submitted for each product. Furthermore, a product with more than one use in the highway industry shall be submitted with a separate Application for each use. All requests must be submitted to ADOT with the appropriate forms and the required information. Two complete copies of each application (including attachments) must be submitted. The submittal address is: PRIDE Program Arizona Department of Transportation 2739 East Washington Street, Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 Tel: (602) 712-3134 The Approved Products List and these forms are available via the Internet at: www.dot.state.az.us Select: More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation)/ Download the Approved Products List A. Evaluation Options Only one of the following options should be selected for each Application. (1) Applications for products covered by current ADOT specifications should be submitted using the guidance described in Section B of these instructions. (2) Applications for products that are not covered by current ADOT specifications should be submitted using the guidance described in Section C of these instructions. Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 2 04/01/2003 B. Acceptance Based on Current Specifications ADOT has standard specifications and standard drawings, which encompass many of the products in the highway industry. If ADOT has applicable specifications the product will be evaluated based on these specifications. If this option is selected the applicant should identify the section of the ADOT specifications and other specifications that apply to the product under the Application heading Product Meets the Following Specifications and Test Procedures. ADOT specifications and standard drawings are available from: ADOT Engineering Records 1655 W. Jackson St., Mail Drop 112F Phoenix AZ 85007 (602) 712-7498 The Application should include necessary support documentation, such as certifications of compliance from independent laboratories. It is the Applicant's responsibility to satisfy all criteria set forth in ADOT current specifications. C. Request for Evaluation Products which have no applicable ADOT specifications require a case-by-case evaluation. The evaluation program will be based on the recommendation of one of ADOT’s Product Evaluation Committees (Materials and Traffic Control). The Application should include necessary support documentation, such as reports, brochures, etc. The supporting material should demonstrate the product's advantages and benefits to ADOT. Each Application submitted under Section C of this Policy shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements: (1) A completed Application signed by an authorized agent of the company. (2) An estimated cost of the product or procedure (delivered to Phoenix). (3) Specifications for the product or procedure. (4) A description of the claimed advantages over existing products or procedures (be specific). (5) Verification of the advantages. (Include laboratory reports, data, calculations, etc.) (6) History of past use, if any. Include reports of evaluations, if any, with names and telephone numbers of contacts, and whether or not such evaluations support the claimed advantages. (7) Availability of product. (State whether the product is in commercial production. If so in what quantities? If not when will it be?) (8) Safety and environmental precautions associated with the product or procedure. Include a completed copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Material Safety Data Sheet. (9) Description of the desired evaluation program. Discuss the project type, project duration, quantities, controls, specifications, special features, etc. (10) A statement that the product or procedure will be provided to ADOT free of charge in support of the proposed evaluation program. (11) A statement that the Applicant will provide technical assistance in formulating the evaluation program at no cost to ADOT. Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 3 04/01/2003 (12) A statement that the Applicant will reimburse ADOT for costs involved in conducting any special tests or other extra costs involved in testing. The terms and conditions of the Applicant’s reimbursement offer should be clearly stated, including, but not limited to statements regarding the maximum funding proposed by the Applicant for the evaluation, the proposed joint adventure agreement, and the terms of reimbursement. (13) A statement that the Applicant agrees to provide on-site technical assistance during any field tests at no cost to ADOT. (14) A statement granting permission to ADOT to reproduce, in full or in part, any information supplied by the Applicant in association with the Application unless specifically excluded and clearly marked as not being authorized for reproduction. This permission also will apply to material with copyrights held by the Applicant. Items 11 through 14 above must be explicitly listed in the Application. If the Applicant cannot comply with a condition required by Items 11 through 14, this must be clearly stated in the Application, along with special terms or conditions the Applicant proposes to place upon such requirements. If a Product Evaluation Committee recommends a product for evaluation, the Committee will propose an ADOT evaluation strategy. This may include preparation of a work plan to accomplish the evaluation. Evaluations will be performed in strict accordance with such work plans. D. Exceptions This policy shall not preclude ADOT from performing, on its own initiative, evaluations or field tests of any product or procedure which may benefit ADOT. This includes products or procedures originating from sources other than vendors, as well as vendor proposals which include exceptions to requirements set forth in this policy. E. Product Endorsement The evaluation or use of a product by ADOT does not constitute an endorsement by ADOT nor does it imply a commitment to purchase, recommend, or specify the product in the future. Furthermore, the vendor is prohibited from using ADOT or its test results in product advertising. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY PRODUCT SAMPLES UNTIL THEY ARE REQUESTED BY ADOT PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX C PRIDE APPLICATION FORM Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 1 04/01/2003 Application for Product Evaluation (submit two copies of this document and all attachments) I, being an authorized (Name of Company Representative) agent of , request that (Company Name) the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) perform a product evaluation of . (Name of Product) I have read and understood the ADOT Product Evaluation Policy. I recommend that the following course of action be taken: (one action per request) Submit the product to ADOT for acceptance under current specifications Submit all the necessary information as described in Section B of the Application instructions. When selecting this option identify the section of the ADOT specifications and other specifications that apply to the product under the Application heading Product Meets the Following Specifications and Test Procedures. Submit the product for evaluation by ADOT (Submit all the necessary information as described in Section C of ADOT's Product Evaluation Policy.) Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 2 04/01/2003 REQUEST FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE UNDER CURRENT ADOT SPECIFICATIONS DATE______________________ MANUFACTURER: ADDRESS: CONTACT: TELEPHONE: FAX: DISTRIBUTOR: ADDRESS: CONTACT: TELEPHONE: FAX: PRODUCT: Trade Name: Description: Primary Use: Secondary Use: Guarantee: Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 3 04/01/2003 PRODUCT MEETS THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES: ADOT: ASTM: AASHTO: OTHER: Product is proposed for the following uses: GENERAL: Attach available literature pertaining to the product, including, but limited to, instructions and limitations for use, composition or laboratory analyses, handling precautions, health hazards, a complete Material Safety Data Sheet, specifications, and cost. The Arizona Department of Transportation reserves the right to refuse to test any material that cannot be safely tested with the laboratory equipment available to ADOT. If unused product portions would be considered hazardous waste (as defined by 40 CFR 261 et seq.) then the Applicant must accept the financial responsibility for proper return or disposal of this material. ________________________________________________ (Signature of Company Representative) Return the completed Application and the appropriate attachments to: PRIDE Program Arizona Department of Transportation 2739 East Washington Street, Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 Tel: (602) 712-3134
Object Description
TITLE | PRIDE (product resource investment deployment & evaluation) annual report. |
CREATOR | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. Product Evaluation Program. |
SUBJECT | Arizona. Dept. of Transportation. Product Evaluation Program--Periodicals; Road maintenance--Arizona--Testing--Periodicals. |
Browse Topic |
Transportation |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona Transportation Research Center. |
Material Collection |
State Documents Annual Reports |
Source Identifier | TRT 28.3:P 65 |
Location | 32733874 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
TITLE | Pride annual report 2002 |
DESCRIPTION | 25 pages (PDF version). File size: 4575089 Bytes. |
Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | [2002] |
Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Annual_Report_2002.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT |
PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
File Size | 4575089 Bytes |
Full Text | Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center 2002 P R I D E Program Annual Report 2002 Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center ii The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturer names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Transportation Research Center 2739 East Washington Street Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 tel: (602) 712-3134 PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 iii PREFACE The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program is conducted under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Highway Planning and Research Program. The PRIDE program is partially funded by Project Number SPR-116 under the State Planning and Research Program, Research Support Programs. The PRIDE program coordinates the review and acceptance of new products for possible use by ADOT and maintains the Approved Products List (APL). On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. Under the 99-01 Policy, three Product Evaluation Committees (PECs) were created – the Maintenance PEC, Materials PEC, and the Traffic Control PEC. The PECs were responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new product evaluation and approval process under the PRIDE program. On July 18, 2002, a new ADOT PRIDE policy (SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM) was adopted. Under this policy the Maintenance PEC was eliminated with maintenance groups being represented on each of the two remaining PECs. Unlike previous policies, this policy was adopted as an ADOT, agency-wide policy. Mr. Frank T. Darmiento of the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) administers the PRIDE program. He is assisted by Ms. Jessica Kirk and Ms. Eileen Pike of ATRC. The objective of this report is to document the efforts of ADOT's PRIDE program for the 2002 calendar year. This report describes product evaluation activities from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. Information about the PRIDE program may also be found on ADOT’s Internet site, http://www.dot.state.az.us. Select More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation). PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1 Background................................................................................................................................................ 1 Product Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................... 4 Status of the Product Evaluation Program ......................................................................................... 5 Products Considered by the Product Evaluation Committees ...................................................... 5 Program for 2003 ...................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES No. Page 1 Materials Product Evaluation Committee Members During 2002........................................2 2 Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee Members During 2002................................4 3 Decisions on Products Reviewed by the Materials Product Evaluation Committee ............5 4 Decisions on Products Reviewed by the Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee ....6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — ADOT Product Evaluation Policy APPENDIX B — PRIDE Application Instructions APPENDIX C — PRIDE Application Form PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 1 INTRODUCTION Construction and maintenance of a highway network utilizes a large number of manufactured products and diverse technologies. Many of these products and technologies perform well, while others do not perform as claimed. Rapid implementation of new technologies and products is essential to the effective management of a highway system. However, equally important is the judicious investment of highway dollars in the construction of field test sections. Thousands of dollars are invested each time an experimental product is used in a construction project. Consequently, the Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) program was established to provide a framework for introducing new products for use in field test sections. The program systematically selects products for evaluation, evaluates their feasibility and performance, and documents and reports the results. In this way, new products are evaluated consistently and impartially. BACKGROUND In May 1985, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) established the Policy for Field Test Requested by Outside Parties to address the increasing demands of technology and the limited resources of ADOT. This policy gave the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) responsibility for managing and documenting proposals for test sections submitted by vendors. A Product Evaluation Advisory Committee was established to evaluate the proposals and to recommend products or technologies to be considered for field evaluation. The Product Evaluation Advisory Committee included an engineer from each ADOT District, a representative from the Materials Section, and one from ATRC. The first committee meeting was held in June 1985. During December 1986, a full-time position was dedicated to the Product Evaluation Program and the evaluation of construction experimental features. In September of 1988, the system was further divided into the Product Evaluation and Experimental Projects Programs, with one engineer responsible for each program. In 1991, the Evaluation Committee was separated into two committees: the General Highway Product Evaluation Advisory Committee and the Traffic Control New Product Evaluation Advisory Committee. The General Highway Product Evaluation Advisory Committee reviewed all highway construction-related materials. This committee included representatives from the following units: ADOT Districts, the Maintenance Section, Highway Plans Services, the Utility Section, the Materials Section, and ATRC. The Traffic Control New Product Evaluation Advisory Committee reviewed traffic control-related products. This committee included a representative from each of the following units: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ADOT Districts, the Urban Highways Section, the Traffic Engineering Section, Highway Plans Services, the Construction Section, the Maintenance Section, the Structures Section, the Materials Section, and ATRC. ATRC administered this program. During November 1991, the State Engineer led a one-day discussion that included four District Engineers and all section heads of the Highways Division to review ADOT’s product evaluation effort. Three task teams were established to create a policy to provide better coordination among units of the Highways Division. On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 2 Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. The current PRIDE policy, SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM, became effective on July 18, 2002. It provides for two Product Evaluation Committees (PECs), Materials (MatPEC) and Traffic Control (TCPEC). The PECs are responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new products evaluation and approval process under the PRIDE program. While each PEC has primary areas of responsibility, product evaluations often overlap these areas, requiring decisions from both committees on a product’s acceptability. The PECs have the authority to approve or disapprove new products. Approved products are placed on the Approved Products List (APL). The committees have the authority to remove previously approved products from the APL that are later found to be unacceptable. A copy of the current PRIDE program policy is included in Appendix A. During 2002, the PRIDE program was administered by Mr. Frank T. Darmiento. MAINTENANCE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The Maintenance PEC, created in 1995, was disbanded in 2002. The current product evaluation policy does not provide for a Maintenance PEC. However, maintenance groups are represented on both the MatPEC and TCPEC. MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The MatPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which non-traffic control products are evaluated. The committee reviews and evaluates non-traffic control products. The MatPEC met four times during 2002, on February 2, May 7, August 27 and November 12. Members of the MatPEC during 2002 are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING 2002 Doug Forstie Assistant State Engineer, Materials Group – Chairman David Burbank Regional Materials Engineer, Tucson District Paul Burch Materials Group Frank Darmiento Arizona Transportation Research Center Lonnie Hendrix Assistant State Maintenance Engineer Larry Ilg Regional Materials Engineer, Flagstaff Aryan Lirange Federal Highway Administration Art May Roadway Support Section Oscar Mousavi Materials Group Mono Nourelhuda Materials Group Perry Powell District Engineer, Phoenix Construction District Allan Samuels Construction Operations Jeff Swan District Engineer, Holbrook District Scott Weinland Regional Materials - Prescott PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 3 Pipe Subcommittee In order to properly review pipe products, MatPEC established a Pipe Subcommittee. The subcommittee is chaired by Ken Cooper of Roadway Design Section. The subcommittee reviews and reports its recommendations to the MatPEC. The MatPEC makes the final decisions on Pipe Subcommittee recommendations. The most significant action by the Pipe Subcommittee in 2002 was the establishment of a procedure to evaluate plastic pipe products. New requirements by the American Association of State, Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) changed the manufacturing and test requirements for plastic pipe. The Pipe Subcommittee met with representatives of three plastic pipe manufacturers on October 1, 2002 and agreed to a strategy for evaluating plastic pipes. The Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Association (CPPA) Division of the Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) developed a third party certification program for plastic pipe manufacturers. The PPI is the major trade association representing all segments of the plastic pipe industry including pipe manufacturers, resin manufacturers, and other interested groups. This third party certification program was established by CPPA in the fall of 2001. Third party certification is a process by which a manufacturer states that a product meets or exceeds the requirements of a standard. The third party program evaluates whether or not the manufacturer’s product meets or exceeds the applicable AASHTO standards through independent testing and inspection. The PPI pipe certification program tests for the material, dimensional, and physical performance properties specified in the AASHTO standard (M294) for pipe diameters from 12 to 60-inches. In addition, certified manufacturers of both pipe and resin are subject to random plant audits by TRI Environmental, Inc., a consultant employed by PPI under this program. During 2002, three manufacturers with active PRIDE applications participated in the PPI third party certification program. These included Hancor Inc., Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) and Quail Piping Products, Inc. (Quail). Quail has subsequently gone out of business and is no longer involved in this evaluation process. During the October 1, 2002 Pipe Subcommittee meeting the Subcommittee directed the manufacturers to submit documentation regarding their compliance with the PPI third party certification program to ADOT by January 31, 2003. TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE The TCPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which traffic control products are evaluated. It reviews and evaluates traffic control products. The TCPEC met four times during 2002, on March 21, June 13, September 19, and December 5. Members of the TCPEC during 2002 are listed in Table 2. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 4 TABLE 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING 2002 Mike Manthey Assistant State Engineer – Traffic Group – Chairman Jennifer Brown Federal Highway Administration George Chin Regional Traffic Engineer – Phoenix Region Frank Darmiento Arizona Transportation Research Center Ken Cooper Roadway Support Craig Cornwell Phoenix Maintenance District Ronald Doubek City of Phoenix David Duffy Traffic Group Chuck Gillick Regional Traffic Engineer – Flagstaff District Jim Elliott Pavement Marking, Inc. (ATSSA * representative) Tom Goodman Traffic Operations Lonnie Hendrix Assistant State Maintenance Engineer - Maintenance Group Paul Hurst Construction Operation Roger Hopt Regional Traffic Engineer – Western Region Reza Karimvand Regional Traffic Engineer – Baja Region Jeff Johnson Trafficade Services, Inc. (ATSSA * representative) Bob LaJeunesse Regional Traffic Engr./Maintenance Engr. – Western Region Pam McClain Purchasing Section Oscar Mousavi Materials Group Joe McGuirk Phoenix Maintenance District Terry Otterness Roadway Group Mark Poppe City of Glendale Transportation Department Dr. Craig Roberts Northern Arizona University Marian Thompson Transportation Technology Group George Wendt Risk Management * ATSSA denotes American Traffic Safety Services Association PRODUCT EVALUATION PROCESS Applications for product evaluation are submitted to ADOT. Products are evaluated based on one of the following processes: (1) Products that are covered by an existing ADOT specification or drawing are evaluated based on the appropriate specifications or drawings. (2) Products that have no applicable ADOT specifications or drawings are submitted to one or more of the Product Evaluation Committee for evaluation. A copy of the PRIDE application instructions is included in Appendix B. A copy of the PRIDE application form is found in Appendix C. Each PRIDE application is assigned to an ADOT staff person, consultant or PEC member to coordinate the initial evaluation of the product. In some cases the evaluation includes testing by the ADOT Materials Testing Laboratory. For products evaluated by the Materials Section, including the Materials Testing Laboratory, a Product Evaluation Report is prepared by the Materials Section. This report is incorporated into the evaluation of the subject product application. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 5 For product applications reviewed by the TCPEC the review process consists of canvassing affected sections, other state agencies and research organizations to verify the information provided in the proposals. Field tests are conducted as directed by the TCPEC. Vendors of unsuccessful requests are notified in writing by ATRC. If a vendor disagrees with a Committee’s decision to reject a product, the vendor may appeal the rejection by providing their objections in writing and submitting additional information for consideration by the Committee. The applicable PECs will then reconsider the application. STATUS OF THE PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM The APL is updated and published monthly via the Internet and ADOT’s Intranet. Products placed on the APL are normally approved for a five-year period. However, the PECs may specify alternate approval periods as well as conditional approvals. Products must be re-certified by the vendor to remain on the list after the approval period expires. Re-certification entails verification from the vendor that the listed product is still manufactured as approved. If a product has been substantially modified the vendor must initiate a new PRIDE evaluation for the product. Products that are not re-certified at the expiration of their five-year approval period are removed from the APL. The ADOT web page address is http://www.dot.state.az.us. Information on the PRIDE program may be accessed by selecting More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation). PRODUCTS CONSIDERED BY THE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES The PRIDE program received 155 applications during 2002. The MatPEC approved four products for the APL. All four applications had been submitted prior to 2002. The TCPEC approved 11 products for the APL. Eight applications were submitted prior to 2002, the remaining three were submitted during 2002. Summaries of these decisions are shown in Tables 3-4. TABLE 3 DECISIONS ON PRODUCTS REVIEWED BY THE MATERIALS PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE Pride ID No. Product Name Company Name Action 01031 Boral SPC Boral Material Technologies, Inc. Approved for APL 01043 EPCON Maxima 7 Glass Capsules ITW Ramset/Red Head Approved for APL 01063 Recast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Enviroc, Inc. Approved for APL 01032 ISOGRID Retaining Wall System The Neal Company Approved for APL PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 6 TABLE 4 DECISIONS ON PRODUCTS REVIEWED BY THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEE PRIDE ID No. Product Name Company Name Action 01093 ThermaLine Preformed Thermoplastics Linear Dynamics, Inc Approved for APL 01097 Triangular, Mulit-directional Slip Base Xcessories Squared Dev. & Mrg., Inc. Approved for APL 01098 Slip-Mate Western Highway Products, Inc. Approved for APL 01003 Temporary Removable Road Tape, RW-140 (White) Trelleborg Industri, AB Approved for APL 01004 Temporary Removable Road Tape, RY-140 (Yellow) Trelleborg Industri, AB Approved for APL 01048 C88 Raised Pavement Marker Avery Dennison Approved for APL subject to the conditions specified in note (3) under APL category V-23 01116 BarrierGate Energy Absorption Systems, Inc Approved for APL subject to the successful operation of one unit. 01058 Visa-line Temporary Marking Tape (Type III – Non-removable) Swarco, Inc. Approved for APL 02027 B400-A Plastic Safety Drum Work Area Protection Corporation Approved drums B400 & B400R for APL 02046 Thermoplastic Pervo Paint Company Approved for APL 02077 ET-2000 Plus with Hinge Breakaway (HBA) Post Trinity Industries, Inc. Approved for APL PROGRAM FOR 2003 The PRIDE program in 2003 will continue to actively involve the Product Evaluation Committees in the PRIDE process. Equally important is providing timely responses and evaluations to vendors submitting product applications to the PRIDE program. Objectives for 2003 include updating the PRIDE product database, issuing quarterly application status reports, and preparing a set of standard operating procedures for the PRIDE program. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX A ADOT PRODUCT EVALUATION POLICY ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SUP-9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM Effective: July 18, 2002 Supersedes: None Responsible Office: Arizona Transportation Research Center, (602) 712-3134 Review: July 18, 2004 Transmittal: 2002 – July Page 1 of 5 1.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy, which was originally established by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum 92-08 and modified by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum 99- 01, is to redefine, reaffirm, and delineate responsibilities and procedures for the evaluation and approval of new products. 1.02 SCOPE / APPLICABILITY This Policy applies to ADOT entities involved with selecting, evaluating, using or specifying the use of new products for use on, or in association with, ADOT roadways. 1.03 AUTHORITY This policy is promulgated under the authority and approval of the Director of the ADOT Transportation Planning Division. 1.04 BACKGROUND a. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program is conducted under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Highway Planning and Research Program. The PRIDE program is established as item 116 under the State Planning and Research Program, Research Support Programs. The PRIDE program coordinates the review and acceptance of new products for possible use by ADOT and maintains the Approved Products List (APL). b. On July 1, 1992, three committees were formed under the Highways Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 92-08. This policy was replaced by ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99-01, New Products Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999. c. The PRIDE program is now under the authority of the ADOT Transportation Planning Division (TPD) in the Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC). 1.05 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation Approved Products List (APL) A list of products which have been evaluated or meet ADOT standard specifications and are approved for ADOT use SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 2 of 5 SUP-9.01 ATRC Arizona Transportation Research Center ATSSA American Traffic Safety Services Association FHWA Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Lead Evaluator The person assigned by one or more PECs to coordinate the initial review of a product application. MatPEC Materials Product Evaluation Committee MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices New Product Any product submitted for approval which has not previously been evaluated or does not meet a current ADOT specification or standard drawing. Any new materials, equipment, or methods to be used on a federal-aid project which may be included and evaluated in experimental construction (in accordance with Vol. 6, Chap 4, Sec 2, Subsec. 4 of the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual). PEC Product Evaluation Committee PRIDE Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation Program TCPEC Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee Traffic Control Products Various types of materials and equipment necessary to carry out the requirements of the ADOT, MUTCD or FHWA Safety Standards, which shall include but not be limited to signing materials, pavement marking materials, energy attenuators, temporary barrier systems, flexible and non-flexible delineators and those items which are used in traffic signal systems, highway lighting systems and overhead sign lighting systems 1.06 PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES a. Two Product Evaluation Committees (PECs) are established under this Policy, the Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee (TCPEC) and the Materials Product Evaluation Committee (MatPEC). The PECs are responsible for establishing the operational policy for the new products evaluation and approval process through the PRIDE Program. The PECs are responsible for coordinating the introduction of new, cost effective products and technologies to ADOT. The PEC chairpersons shall be responsible for resolving issues within their respective PECs and coordinating the resolution of issues that include both PECs. SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 3 of 5 SUP-9.01 b. The TCPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which all traffic control products are evaluated. The TCPEC has the authority to approve or disapprove all traffic control products for addition to the Approved Products List (APL) or to remove traffic control products from the APL that are no longer acceptable to ADOT. c. The TCPEC shall be chaired by the Assistant State Engineer, Traffic Group. The chairperson shall determine the membership of the TCPEC, subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The chairperson may consult with other TCPEC members regarding individuals or organizations to include in the TCPEC. Members shall include at least 10 ADOT employees and may also include up to 7 additional individuals from outside organizations. The following organizations may be invited to nominate members to the TCPEC. · FHWA – 1 member maximum · ATSSA –2 members maximum · Local governments – 2 members maximum · Ad hoc members – 2 members maximum d. The ad hoc members may be added at the discretion of the TCPEC and may include, but are not limited to, university representatives or members of the general public. The PRIDE program administrator shall be a non-voting member of the TCPEC. The total number of TCPEC members shall be determined by the TCPEC chairperson. e. The MatPEC is responsible for establishing the operating policy under which all materials-related products are evaluated. The MatPEC has the authority to approve or disapprove materials products for addition to the APL or to remove materials products from the APL that are no longer acceptable to ADOT. f. The MatPEC shall be chaired by the Assistant State Engineer, Materials Group. The chairperson shall determine the membership of the MatPEC, subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The chairperson may consult with other MatPEC members regarding individuals or organizations to include in the MatPEC. Members shall include at least 5 ADOT employees and may also include a maximum of 4 additional individuals from outside organizations (including FHWA). The PRIDE program administrator shall be a non-voting member of the MatPEC. The total number of MatPEC members shall be determined by the MatPEC chairperson. g. The Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC) through the PRIDE program, is assigned the responsibility of serving as the clearinghouse for all new products. The PRIDE program administrator will serve as the Administrative Secretary to the PECs and shall maintain the APL. h. Establishing of Sub-committees: Sub-committees can be established by any PEC to review specialty issues. The sub-committees shall conduct themselves within the charters that are set by their originating PEC, and shall report all their findings and recommendations to the originating PEC for decision. 1.07 APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST (APL) a. The APL is to serve as a guide to what products are acceptable for use for construction and maintenance by ADOT. Products listed on the APL are to be used unless otherwise specified in contract documents. Not all products used by ADOT are listed on the APL. If an APL category does not exist for a product, approval through the PRIDE program is not needed to use the product. However, the PECs may elect to modify the APL by adding, deleting or modifying APL categories within their areas of responsibility. SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 4 of 5 SUP-9.01 b. The PRIDE program administrator will maintain the APL. The APL format shall be developed and revised, as necessary, by the PRIDE program administrator with the concurrence of the PEC chairpersons. 1.08 PRIDE APPLICATIONS a. The format of the PRIDE application shall be developed by the PRIDE program administrator, with concurrence from the PEC chairpersons. Modifications or updates to the application format may be made at the discretion of this group. b. Procedures for submitting a PRIDE application shall be developed by the PRIDE program administrator, with concurrence from the PEC chairpersons. Modifications or updates to these procedures may be made at the discretion of this group and will be documented in meeting summaries. 1.09 TESTING For products being proposed for inclusion on the APL that require testing, the testing can be done by ADOT or by an independent testing laboratory. The TCPEC or MatPEC will determine what tests are to be performed on a given product and assign an individual to direct the tests. Test results shall be documented by written reports. 1.10 EVALUATION PROCESS a. The PRIDE program administrator will evaluate the completeness of all new product applications submitted under the PRIDE program. Those submittals not meeting program requirements will not be forwarded to a PEC for consideration. If an application is submitted for a product that is clearly not addressed by the APL, the PRIDE program administrator will notify the applicant that no action will be taken to either approve or disapprove of the product with respect to the APL. b. If an application is submitted for a product that the PRIDE program administrator believes may be of interest to a PEC the product information will be presented at the appropriate PEC meeting. A PEC may create or modify an APL category to accommodate a product if the PEC believes there is a need for such an action. c. Each complete application will be logged into a database maintained by the PRIDE program administrator and assigned a unique identification (ID) number. After an application is logged in the PRIDE program administrator will coordinate identification of lead evaluators for the product with the PEC chairpersons. If a product appears to have a potential chemical safety or health concern a copy of the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product will be forwarded to the ADOT Safety and Health unit for evaluation. Further consideration of such products will be subject to a written response from the ADOT Safety and Health unit confirming their acceptability to ADOT with respect to safety and health considerations. d. After applicable safety and health approvals (if any) are obtained the PRIDE program administrator will forward a copy of the application to the lead evaluators. The lead evaluators will then be responsible for reviewing the applicant’s submittal determining whether additional information from the vendor is needed and how to implement tests specified by the PECs, if any, or other tests that may be necessary. e. Upon completion of the initial evaluation the product application will be scheduled for discussion at a meeting of the appropriate PEC. The applicable PECs may then vote on the SUP-9.01 Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) Program Effective: July 18, 2002 Transmittal: 2002-July Supersedes: None Page 5 of 5 SUP-9.01 acceptability of the product, or request further evaluation. If further evaluation is required, the process will continue until the applicable PECs make a final decision on the application. 1.11 APPLICANT NOTIFICATION If a product is approved for listing on the APL, the PRIDE program administrator will provide a written notification to the applicant regarding this approval. If a product is disapproved the applicant will be notified of this decision and a copy of applicable documentation will be sent to the applicant. The disapproval notice will contain sufficient information to ensure the applicant can understand the reasons the subject product was not approved. (See Section 1.12.) When a product is approved, the notice to the applicant will contain the approval date and the date the product requires re-certification. 1.12 APPEAL PROCESS a. If a product receives an unfavorable decision from a PEC after the committee has reviewed the applicant’s proposal and all relevant information, the applicant will be notified. The applicant may file an appeal with the PRIDE program administrator. The appeal must be received by ADOT within 30 days after the vendor receives notification from the PRIDE program administrator. The appeal shall be in writing and shall include the following information as a minimum: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the appellant. (2) The appellant’s signature. (3) Name of the product and PRIDE program identification number. (4) A detailed statement of the factual grounds for the appeal with supporting documents to specifically address the shortcomings of the PEC analysis. (5) The form of relief suggested. b. All appeal correspondence shall be addressed to the PRIDE program. The PRIDE program administrator will review the appeal submitted by the applicant for completeness. The appeal will be considered incomplete if it addresses only the disagreement with the PEC's decision without pointing out any error in the PEC's analysis or the procedure through which this product was evaluated. Only those completed appeals received by the PRIDE program within the stated 30-calendar-day limit will be presented to the PECs for ruling. Presentation of the completed appeals will be in the next meeting of the respective PEC if they are received by PRIDE program administrator more than 14 calendar days before the scheduled meeting. After considering all the facts that have been presented by the applicant and the responsible PEC the PEC may select one or more of the following resolutions: (1) Require a new test or evaluation by ADOT. (2) Require a new test or evaluation by an independent testing laboratory. (3) Add the subject product to the APL. (4) Deny the appeal. PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX B PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 1 04/01/2003 PRODUCT EVALUATION APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) strives to develop and maintain the State highway system in a cost-effective manner. The materials and products used to accomplish this are an important element in achieving this goal. Before accepting new products or materials for use on the State highway system ADOT thoroughly evaluates the item’s performance, reliability, cost, and safety though its Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation (PRIDE) program. Product evaluations are often requested by outside parties (Applicants) as a means of demonstrating claimed advantages of a product or procedure. These evaluations require commitments of time and resources by ADOT. To help expedite these evaluations, it is the Applicant's responsibility to comply with the policy stated herein. Deviations from this policy may cause delay or rejection of such requests. A request for evaluation requires submission of a complete Application for Product Evaluation (Application). The format of this submittal is discussed in the following sections. A separate Application shall be submitted for each product. Furthermore, a product with more than one use in the highway industry shall be submitted with a separate Application for each use. All requests must be submitted to ADOT with the appropriate forms and the required information. Two complete copies of each application (including attachments) must be submitted. The submittal address is: PRIDE Program Arizona Department of Transportation 2739 East Washington Street, Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 Tel: (602) 712-3134 The Approved Products List and these forms are available via the Internet at: www.dot.state.az.us Select: More About ADOT/Miscellaneous (Product Evaluation)/ Download the Approved Products List A. Evaluation Options Only one of the following options should be selected for each Application. (1) Applications for products covered by current ADOT specifications should be submitted using the guidance described in Section B of these instructions. (2) Applications for products that are not covered by current ADOT specifications should be submitted using the guidance described in Section C of these instructions. Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 2 04/01/2003 B. Acceptance Based on Current Specifications ADOT has standard specifications and standard drawings, which encompass many of the products in the highway industry. If ADOT has applicable specifications the product will be evaluated based on these specifications. If this option is selected the applicant should identify the section of the ADOT specifications and other specifications that apply to the product under the Application heading Product Meets the Following Specifications and Test Procedures. ADOT specifications and standard drawings are available from: ADOT Engineering Records 1655 W. Jackson St., Mail Drop 112F Phoenix AZ 85007 (602) 712-7498 The Application should include necessary support documentation, such as certifications of compliance from independent laboratories. It is the Applicant's responsibility to satisfy all criteria set forth in ADOT current specifications. C. Request for Evaluation Products which have no applicable ADOT specifications require a case-by-case evaluation. The evaluation program will be based on the recommendation of one of ADOT’s Product Evaluation Committees (Materials and Traffic Control). The Application should include necessary support documentation, such as reports, brochures, etc. The supporting material should demonstrate the product's advantages and benefits to ADOT. Each Application submitted under Section C of this Policy shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements: (1) A completed Application signed by an authorized agent of the company. (2) An estimated cost of the product or procedure (delivered to Phoenix). (3) Specifications for the product or procedure. (4) A description of the claimed advantages over existing products or procedures (be specific). (5) Verification of the advantages. (Include laboratory reports, data, calculations, etc.) (6) History of past use, if any. Include reports of evaluations, if any, with names and telephone numbers of contacts, and whether or not such evaluations support the claimed advantages. (7) Availability of product. (State whether the product is in commercial production. If so in what quantities? If not when will it be?) (8) Safety and environmental precautions associated with the product or procedure. Include a completed copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Material Safety Data Sheet. (9) Description of the desired evaluation program. Discuss the project type, project duration, quantities, controls, specifications, special features, etc. (10) A statement that the product or procedure will be provided to ADOT free of charge in support of the proposed evaluation program. (11) A statement that the Applicant will provide technical assistance in formulating the evaluation program at no cost to ADOT. Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Page 3 04/01/2003 (12) A statement that the Applicant will reimburse ADOT for costs involved in conducting any special tests or other extra costs involved in testing. The terms and conditions of the Applicant’s reimbursement offer should be clearly stated, including, but not limited to statements regarding the maximum funding proposed by the Applicant for the evaluation, the proposed joint adventure agreement, and the terms of reimbursement. (13) A statement that the Applicant agrees to provide on-site technical assistance during any field tests at no cost to ADOT. (14) A statement granting permission to ADOT to reproduce, in full or in part, any information supplied by the Applicant in association with the Application unless specifically excluded and clearly marked as not being authorized for reproduction. This permission also will apply to material with copyrights held by the Applicant. Items 11 through 14 above must be explicitly listed in the Application. If the Applicant cannot comply with a condition required by Items 11 through 14, this must be clearly stated in the Application, along with special terms or conditions the Applicant proposes to place upon such requirements. If a Product Evaluation Committee recommends a product for evaluation, the Committee will propose an ADOT evaluation strategy. This may include preparation of a work plan to accomplish the evaluation. Evaluations will be performed in strict accordance with such work plans. D. Exceptions This policy shall not preclude ADOT from performing, on its own initiative, evaluations or field tests of any product or procedure which may benefit ADOT. This includes products or procedures originating from sources other than vendors, as well as vendor proposals which include exceptions to requirements set forth in this policy. E. Product Endorsement The evaluation or use of a product by ADOT does not constitute an endorsement by ADOT nor does it imply a commitment to purchase, recommend, or specify the product in the future. Furthermore, the vendor is prohibited from using ADOT or its test results in product advertising. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY PRODUCT SAMPLES UNTIL THEY ARE REQUESTED BY ADOT PRIDE Annual Report — 2002 APPENDIX C PRIDE APPLICATION FORM Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 1 04/01/2003 Application for Product Evaluation (submit two copies of this document and all attachments) I, being an authorized (Name of Company Representative) agent of , request that (Company Name) the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) perform a product evaluation of . (Name of Product) I have read and understood the ADOT Product Evaluation Policy. I recommend that the following course of action be taken: (one action per request) Submit the product to ADOT for acceptance under current specifications Submit all the necessary information as described in Section B of the Application instructions. When selecting this option identify the section of the ADOT specifications and other specifications that apply to the product under the Application heading Product Meets the Following Specifications and Test Procedures. Submit the product for evaluation by ADOT (Submit all the necessary information as described in Section C of ADOT's Product Evaluation Policy.) Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 2 04/01/2003 REQUEST FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE UNDER CURRENT ADOT SPECIFICATIONS DATE______________________ MANUFACTURER: ADDRESS: CONTACT: TELEPHONE: FAX: DISTRIBUTOR: ADDRESS: CONTACT: TELEPHONE: FAX: PRODUCT: Trade Name: Description: Primary Use: Secondary Use: Guarantee: Arizona Department of Transportation PRIDE APPLICATION Page 3 04/01/2003 PRODUCT MEETS THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES: ADOT: ASTM: AASHTO: OTHER: Product is proposed for the following uses: GENERAL: Attach available literature pertaining to the product, including, but limited to, instructions and limitations for use, composition or laboratory analyses, handling precautions, health hazards, a complete Material Safety Data Sheet, specifications, and cost. The Arizona Department of Transportation reserves the right to refuse to test any material that cannot be safely tested with the laboratory equipment available to ADOT. If unused product portions would be considered hazardous waste (as defined by 40 CFR 261 et seq.) then the Applicant must accept the financial responsibility for proper return or disposal of this material. ________________________________________________ (Signature of Company Representative) Return the completed Application and the appropriate attachments to: PRIDE Program Arizona Department of Transportation 2739 East Washington Street, Mail Drop 075R Phoenix, Arizona 85034-1422 Tel: (602) 712-3134 |