Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

State-of-Practice of Warranty Contracting in the United States

2004, Journal of Infrastructure Systems

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:2(60

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a comprehensive survey on warranty practices in the United States and a summary of the impact of warranty implementation on highway projects, based on questionnaire responses and interviews of State Department of Transportation ͑DOT͒ representatives, contractors, and surety companies. According to the results of the survey, the initial bid price increases due to warranty provisions are estimated to be somewhere between 0 and 15%, while the changes in maintenance and project life-cycle costs are expected to be minimal. Warranty provisions increased the quality of the projects and reduced the need for site inspection and record keeping for state DOTs. The study also revealed the unwillingness of surety companies to underwrite small contractors when the project calls for long term warranty durations.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Warranty provisions increase initial bid prices by 0-15% and slightly improve project quality.
  2. The study evaluates warranty contracting practices among 32 State DOTs in the U.S.
  3. Surety companies are hesitant to underwrite small contractors for long-term warranties.
  4. Contract disputes may increase as warranty programs mature, complicating responsibility issues.
  5. Long-term performance data is insufficient to assess lifecycle cost impacts of warranties.

References (10)

  1. Aschenbrener, T., and DeDios, R. ͑2001͒. ''Material and workmanship warranties for hot bituminous pavement.'' Rep. No. CDOTS-DTD- 2001-18, Colorado Dept. of Transportation, Denver.
  2. Byrd, L. G., and Grant, A. A. ͑1993͒. ''Prerequisites for a successful design/build/warranty highway construction contract.'' ͗http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/byrd.htm͘ ͑May 2, 2003͒. Federal Highway Administration ͑FHWA͒. ͑2000͒. ''Warranty clauses in federal-aid highway contracts.'' Briefing ͗http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ programadmin/contracts/warranty.htm͘ ͑May 2, 2003͒.
  3. Hancher, D. E. ͑1994͒. ''Use of warranties in road construction.'' NCHRP Synthesis 195, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
  4. Krebs, S. W., Duckert, B., Schwandt, S., Volker, J., Brokaw, T., Shem- well, W., and Waelti, G. ͑2001͒. ''Asphaltic pavement warranties.'' JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 67
  5. Five-Year Progress Rep., Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Madi- son, Wis.
  6. Ohio Department of Transportation ͑ODOT͒. ͑2000͒. ''Implementation of warranted items on construction projects.'' Columbus, Ohio.
  7. Russell, J. S. ͑2000͒. Surety bonds for construction contracts, ASCE, Reston, Va.
  8. Russell, J. S., Hanna, A. S., Anderson, S. D., Wisely, P. W., and Smith, R. J. ͑1999͒. ''The warranty alternative.'' Civ. Eng. (N.Y.), 69͑5͒, 60-63.
  9. Scheel, D. ͑1996͒. ''Test & evaluation project #014 ͑warranty͒.'' Califor- nia Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif.
  10. Webb, M. ͑1994͒. ''Experimental project No. M091-03.'' Final Rep., Missouri Highway and Transportation Dept., Jefferson City, Mo.