Product Evaluation Program
Annual Report
Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012

Arizona Department of TransportaƟon
Research Center

Product Evaluation

PROGRAM
Annual Report
FY 2011 and FY 2012

Arizona Department of Transportation
Research Center
206 South 17th Avenue
Mail Drop 075R
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
telephone: (602) 712‐6430

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.

CONTENTS
Page
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
PRODUCT EVALUATION PROCESS ........................................................................... 5
STATUS OF THE PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM .............................................. 6
FHWA PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ................................................................. 7
PRODUCTS CONSIDERED BY THE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES .............. 7
PROGRAM FOR FUTURE ........................................................................................ 19

APPENDIX A:
ADOT PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM POLICY, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 9, 2012
APPENDIX B:
PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS,
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2011

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Product Evaluation Program Staff ........................................................................ 3
Table 2: MatPEC Members during FY 2011 & 2012 ........................................................... 4
Table 3: TCPEC Members during FY 2011 & 2012 ............................................................. 4
Table 4a: Products Approved by the MatPEC during FY 2011 ......................................... 11
Table 4b: Products Approved by the MatPEC during FY 2012......................................... 12
Table 5a: Products Approved by the TCPEC during FY 2011 ........................................... 15
Table 5b: Products Approved by the TCPEC during FY 2012 ........................................... 16

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO
ADOT
APEL
APL
ASTM
ASU
ATRC
CESI
EIT
FHWA
FY
JPA/IGA
MatPEC
MSDS
MUTCD
NCHRP
NEMA
NTPEP
PCCP
PEC
PRIDE

SPR
TCPEC
TL2
TL3
TL4
T.S.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Arizona Department of Transportation
AASHTO Product Evaluation List
Approved Products List
American Society for Testing and Materials
Arizona State University
Arizona Transportation Research Center, former name of ADOT
Research Center
Chalmers Engineering Services, Inc.
Engineer‐in‐Training
Federal Highway Administration
Fiscal Year
Joint Project Agreement/InterGovernmental Agreement
Materials Product Evaluation Committee
Material Safety Data Sheet
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Product Evaluation Committee
Product Resource Investment Deployment and Evaluation. Effective
February 1, 2011, the PRIDE program’s name was changed to Product
Evaluation Program
State Planning and Research Program
Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee
Test Level 2 as defined in NCHRP Report 350
Test Level 3 as defined in NCHRP Report 350
Test Level 4 as defined in NCHRP Report 350
Traffic Standard Drawing

I. 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. 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 Evaluation Program, formerly known as 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.
The Product Evaluation Program is conducted under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and is funded through the State Planning and Research (SPR) Program,
SPR‐116. The program coordinates the review and acceptance of new products for possible use
by ADOT and maintains the Approved Products List (APL).
The objective of this report is to document the efforts of ADOT's Product Evaluation Program
for the 2011 and 2012 state fiscal years. This report describes product evaluation activities
from July 1, 2010, through June 31, 2011 and July 1, 2011, through June 31, 2012 respectively.
Information about the Product Evaluation program may also be found on ADOT’s Internet site,
http://www.azdot.gov/apl.

II. 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 ADOT Research Center, formerly known as 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.

1

The Product Evaluation Advisory Committee included an engineer from each ADOT District, a
representative from the Materials Section, and one from Research. 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 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 materials related to highway construction. This committee included representatives from
the following units: ADOT Districts, the Maintenance Section, Highway Plans Services, the Utility
Section, the Materials Section, and Research. 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 Research. Research 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
Transportation Division Policy and Implementation Memorandum No. 99‐01, New Products
Evaluation and Approval Process, effective December 1999.
The former PRIDE policy, SUP‐9.01 PRODUCT RESOURCE INVESTMENT DEPLOYMENT AND
EVALUATION (PRIDE) PROGRAM, became effective on July 18, 2002 and was revised and
reissued on January 27, 2006 and April 21, 2008. It provides for two Product Evaluation
Committees (PECs), Materials (MatPEC) and Traffic Control (TCPEC). The PECs were given
responsibility 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 sometimes 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
were authorized to remove previously approved products from the APL that are later found to
be unacceptable.

2

As of February 9, 2012, the policy was updated to reflect several program changes; it is now
known as SUP‐9.01 PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM. The program’s name has been changed
from “PRIDE” to the Product Evaluation Program. Roles and procedures are clarified in the new
policy, and data request protocol from manufacturers is clarified.
A newly created position, Product Evaluation Program Manager, was created in February 2011.
Effective February 1, 2011, all product applications were urged to be submitted to
apl@azdot.gov . Prior to this date, applications were required to be submitted in duplicate by
hard copy. Applications submitted hard copy during the transition period between February 1,
2011 and June 2011 were scanned and then entered into the Access database. The evaluation
process incorporated electronic file transfer in the evaluation process. For most applications a
“pdf” copy of the file is made. All documents and letters related to the evaluation are also
made available in electronic form. ASU hosts a secure web site that stores these documents for
access by the evaluators and the MatPEC.
A copy of the current Product Evaluation Program policy is included in Appendix A.
Members of the Product Evaluation Program are noted in Table 1.
Table 1: Product Evaluation Program Staff
Anne Ellis
Elizabeth Weil
Gwendolyn Torrens
Jason Harris
Stephanie Huang
Jeremy Sala
William Faber

Research Director
Intern (8/2011‐1/2012)
Intern (start 5/2012)
Research Project Manager 3/2011‐ 6/2012
Product Evaluation Program Manager (start 4/2011)
EIT (7/2010 – 12/2010)
EIT (4/2012 – 5/2012)

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 Fiscal Year 2011, on October 6, 2010; November 8, 2010;
February 8, 2011; and May 11, 2011. Members of the MatPEC during FY 2011 & 2012 are listed
in Table 2.

3

Table 2: MatPEC Members during FY 2011 & 2012
Bill Hurguy
Jim Delton
Marwan Aouad
Chad Auker
Gloria Bernabe
David Burbank
Sardar Chalabe
Brent Conner
Chris Cooper
Sardar Chalabe
Tom Deitering
Janet Doerstling
Richard Galaska
Jessica Hanson
Qui Nguyen
Murari Pradhan
Paul Sullivan

Materials Group – Chairman (2011)
Materials Group – Chairman (2010)
Central Maintenance
Materials Group, Flagstaff
Construction Group (until 8/2011)
Materials Group, Tucson (until 2/2011)
Materials Group, Tucson (start 8/2011)
Materials Group (start 5/2012)
Roadway Group (start 8/2011)
Materials Group, Tucson (start 5/2011)
Federal Highway Administration
Materials Group, Prescott (until 11/2011)
Materials Group (start 2/2012)
Roadway Group (until 5/2011)
Materials Group, Prescott (start 2/2012)
Construction Group (start 11/2011)
Materials Group, Phoenix (start 8/2011)
Materials Group

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 FY 2011, on September 15, 2010; December 8, 2010; March 23, 2011; and June 8,
2011. Members of the TCPEC during FY 2011 & 2012 are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: TCPEC Members during FY 2011 & 2012
Mike Manthey
Al Zubi
Raul Amavisca
Marwan Aouad
Juan Arvisu
Scott Beck
Bill Birdwell
George Chin

Traffic Group – Chairman (until 3/2012)
Traffic Operations Section (12/2010 – 3/2012)
Traffic Group – Acting Chairman (start 6/2012)
Traffic Operations Section
Central Maintenance (until 12/2010)
American Traffic Safety Services Association
Southern Region Traffic (start 3/2012)
Town of Queen Creek
Phoenix Region Traffic (until 12/2010)
4

Jerome Choy
Tom Donithan
Bashir Hassan
Lonnie Hendrix
Ted Howard
Jeff Johnson
Ron Jones
Reza Karimvand
Robert (Bob)
LaJeunesse
Kelly LaRosa
Walter Kent Link
John Litteer
Chuck McClatchey
Joe McGuirk
Richard Moeur
Scott Nodes
Sue Olson
Scott Orrahood
Terry Otterness
Mark Poppe
Annette Riley
Craig Roberts
Andrew (Andy) Roth
Paul Sullivan
Robert Wade
Greg Wisecaver
Mohamed Youssef

Phoenix Region Traffic (3/2011)
Phoenix Maintenance District (start 3/2011)
Phoenix Region Traffic (start 6/2011)
Maintenance Group (until 12/2010)
Risk Management (until 12/2010)
American Traffic Safety Services Association (start
12/2010)
American Traffic Safety Services Association (until
9/2010)
Traffic Operations Center (start 3/2011)
Western Region Traffic (until 12/2011)
Federal Highway Administration
Northern Region Traffic
Western Region Traffic (start 3/2012)
Phoenix Maintenance District
Phoenix Maintenance District
Traffic Design (start 3/2012)
Traffic Group (12/2010 ‐ 12/2011)
Risk Management (start 3/2011)
Traffic Design (until 12/2010)
Roadway Group (until 6/2012)
Traffic Safety (start 3/2011)
Traffic Design (3/2011‐ 6/2012)
Northern Arizona University
Construction ‐ Prescott
Materials Group
Construction Group (start 12/2010)
Southern Region Traffic (3/2011‐12/2011)
Traffic Operations Section
III. PRODUCT EVALUATION PROCESS

Applications for product evaluation are submitted to ADOT. Products are evaluated according
to one of the following processes:
(1) Applications for products covered by current ADOT specifications are evaluated
based on compliance with the applicable specifications.
(2) Applications for products that are not covered by current ADOT specifications are
evaluated using a 14‐point checklist.

5

A copy of the Product Evaluation Program application instructions and forms are included in
Appendix B.
If a product requires a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the ADOT Safety & Health Group is
asked to evaluate the MSDS. If Safety & Health approves the MSDS, the application is assigned
to a lead evaluator. The lead evaluator is an ADOT staff person or contractor who coordinates
the initial evaluation of the product. The lead evaluator decides what information or tests are
necessary to complete the evaluation of the product. Questions or unusual evaluation
requirements are reviewed with the appropriate PEC for guidance.
The Product Evaluation Program manager notifies the applicants whose products are not
approved are notified by the Research Center. If an applicant disagrees with a Committee’s
decision to reject a product, the applicant 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.

IV. STATUS OF THE PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM
The APL is updated and published monthly via the Internet. 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 recertified by the applicant to
remain on the list after the approval period expires. Recertification entails verification from the
applicant that the listed product is still manufactured as approved. If a product has been
substantially modified, the applicant must initiate a new product evaluation application for the
product. Products that are not recertified at the expiration of their five‐year approval period
are removed from the APL. The APL may be downloaded from the Internet at
www.azdot.gov/apl/apl.asp .
The Multimodal Planning Division solicited bids in September 2010 for On‐Call Consultant
Services for Research, Bid Number 11‐00000185. Consultants were selected in January 2011
under Discipline 9, which supports the Product Evaluation Program.
ASU and Chalmers Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) support MatPEC. CESI, CivTech, and
Transcore support TCPEC. Two task assignments were issued to ASU, and one task assignment
for traffic was issued to CESI.

6

V. FHWA PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
The FHWA performance measurement is the average length of time to get new product
applications first assigned into evaluation. The goal is to assign products for evaluation within 6
months or 180 days of receipt of the initial application. The importance of this measurement
is a quantitative rather than qualitative determination of measuring the time between the
receipt of the application and when the products are being evaluated. This prevents product
applications from being in large queues and better customer service for the ADOT technical
groups, on‐call consultants, and product vendors. In return, the Approved Products List is
further improved and updated, and safety in construction is expedited.
The performance measurement was first put in use in FY 2011. In FY 2011, the Product
Evaluation Program had an average of 101 days for new applications assigned into evaluation.
A total of 142 products were involved with the calculations. Four product identification
numbers were generated for purposes other than evaluation. For non‐APL products, the date
assigned may be equivalent to the date of correspondence with the ADOT contact, or the date
of non‐APL response sent to the vendor.
In FY 2012, the Product Evaluation Program had an average of 96 days for new applications
assigned into evaluation. A total of 190 products were involved with the calculations. Two
product identification numbers were generated for purposes other than evaluation. For non‐
APL products, the date assigned may be equivalent to the date of correspondence with the
ADOT contact, or the date of non‐APL response sent to the vendor.
VI. PRODUCTS CONSIDERED BY THE PRODUCT EVALUATION COMMITTEES
The Product Evaluation Program received 142 applications during FY 2011. Each product was
assigned a Product Evaluation Program identification number from one of the following series:
Product ID No. 10061 to 10116 and Product ID No. 11001 to 11100. The first two digits signify
the calendar year the application was submitted, and the last three digits represent the
sequence in which they were received by the program.
The Product Evaluation Program received 190 applications during FY 2012. Each product was
assigned a Product Evaluation Program identification number from one of the following series:
Product ID No. 11101 to 11182 and Product ID No. 12001 to 12111.
Applications remain active until acted upon by a PEC. Therefore, applications submitted prior
to FY 2011 were also considered during the year. Products that are not covered by the Product
Evaluation Program, i.e., non‐APL products, are not evaluated by the PECs. Non‐APL products
are products that do not have an existing subcategory on the APL and for which there is no
reason for the Product Evaluation Committees to pursue a new subcategory. Of the product
applications received in FY 2011, six were declined as non‐APL and vendors were issued letters

7

to that effect. Of the product applications received in FY 2012, 15 were declined as non‐APL and
vendors were issued letters to that effect.
Of the applications considered by the PECs during FY 2011 the MatPEC approved 37 products
and the TCPEC approved 22 products for the APL. Summaries of these decisions are shown in
Tables 4a and 5a for MatPEC and TCPEC, respectively.
Of the applications considered by the PECs during FY 2012 the MatPEC approved 47 products
and the TCPEC approved 36 products for the APL. Summaries of these decisions are shown in
Tables 4b and 5b for MatPEC and TCPEC, respectively.
MATPEC DECISIONS
November 2011
 Approved specifications change for Subcategory T‐2 (Waterbased Structural Paint) from
“ASTM D660‐93, D661‐93, & Dd772‐86” to “ASTM D660, D661, & Dd772; Standard
Specification 1002.”


Agreed that the responsible sections for Subcategory P‐1 (Truncated Domes) should
include Materials Structural Section and Roadway Group.

February 2012
 Approved the removal of Subcategories S‐2 (Bridge Joint System (Compression Seal
Joint)) and S‐3 (Bridge Joint System (Strip Seal Joint).


Approved removal of Subcategory D‐1 (Anti‐stripping Agent).



Approved the addition of Category Y (Landscape Architectural Materials) and removal of
Categories Q (Soil Sterilization & Weed Control Materials), R (Soil Treatments), and X
(Miscellaneous).

May 2012
 Approved removal of Subcategory A‐5 (Dowel Bonding Adhesive ‐ Cementitious) since
ADOT no longer uses products in this subcategory.
 Approved removal of Categories B (Aggregates) and G (Deicing Chemicals) since no
products existed on the APL and the categories were not needed.
TCPEC DECISIONS

March 2011
 Approved title change of Subcategory V‐59 from “Signal and Lighting – Pull
Box/Extension – Concrete” to “Signal and Lighting – Light Duty (LD) Pull Box/Extension.”

8

“ADOT Specifications: 732” was removed; “ADOT Drawings” was changed from T.S. 1‐1
thru 1‐5 to T.S. 1‐1.


Approved title change of Subcategory V‐60 from “Signal and Lighting – Pull
Box/Extension – Polymer Concrete” to “Signal and Lighting – Heavy Duty (HD) Pull
Box/Extension.” “ADOT Specifications: 732” was removed; “ADOT Drawings” was
changed from T.S. 1‐1 thru 1‐5 to T.S. 1‐1.

June 2011
 Approved the removal of Subcategory V‐76M, “Delineators – Reflective Sheeting
(Prismatic),” from the APL since specifications changed.


Approved the change of title and specifications for Subcategory V‐75P from “Signing –
Reflective Sheeting – Premium Prismatic” to “Signing – Reflective Sheeting – Type XI
Prismatic.” Approved the specifications change from “AASHTO M268‐93” to “ASTM
4956 Type XI.”



Approved adding “RTRC” (Reinforced Thermosetting Resin Conduit) to the titles of
Subcategories V‐32A, V‐32B, and V‐32D.

September 2011
 Approved the removal of Subcategory V‐10A (Channelizing Devices – Markers for
Guardrail – Single Piece Metal Post Clip Mount Flexible Plastic Types) and Subcategory
V‐79B (Signing – 5 Foot Sign Mounting Sign Stand) from the APL since specifications
have changed.


Approved the removal of specific colors under Subcategory V‐75P.



The Research Center updated Subcategory V‐2 (Attenuation Device – Guardrail End
Terminals) and informed TCPEC about the specifications correction from “ADOT 702” to
“ADOT 905,” per Roadway Group’s direction.

December 2011
 Approved the removal of “ADOT Specifications: 736” and the note “Any cable per
International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) 51‐7 Spec.” on Subcategory V‐61
(Signal and Lighting – Roadway Loop Detector Wire); approved the addition of T.S. 7‐1 to
the ADOT Drawings portion of Subcategory V‐61.


The Research Center clarified that action items pertaining to Subcategories V‐35A (Signal
and Lighting – Detector Loop Sealant (hot pour)) and V‐35B (Signal and Lighting –
Detector Loop Sealant (cold pour)) were approved by email vote in October 2011.
Construction would like a note on the APL for each product in these categories whether
the product is a one part elastomeric sealant, two part epoxy filler sealant, hot applied
rubberized sealant, or emulsified crack filler sealant for asphaltic concrete.
9

March 2012
 Approved the removal of Subcategory V‐62 (Signal and Lighting – Sign Lighting Fixtures)
to align with the Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures (PGP) recently revised by the Traffic
Group to eliminate sign lighting.


On Subcategory V‐32J (Signal and Lighting – Sign Lighting Fixtures), TCPEC approved of
adding “T.S. 1” under ADOT Drawings.



Approved changing product listings in Subcategories V‐34, V‐34A, V‐34B, V‐34C, V‐34D,
V‐34E, and V‐34F from “All NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) TS1‐
1989 compatible products unless specified otherwise on project plans or special
provisions” to “All NEMA compatible products unless specified otherwise on project
plans or special provisions.” This revision complements language shown in the respective
ADOT Standard Specifications 2008.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM

The Product Evaluation Program Manager, Stephanie Huang, attended the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) National Transportation
Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) 2012 Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. NTPEP’s website
has a data mine for product evaluations that are available for public access. NTPEP’s technical
committees include Pavement Marking Materials, PCMS & Flashing Arrow Panels, Sign Sheeting
Materials, Raised Pavement Markers, and Temporary Traffic Control Devices. The ADOT
Materials Structural Section does sign sheeting testing on behalf of NTPEP. The AASHTO
Product Evaluation List (APEL) is for proprietary products with no specifications, and the list is
only open to one representative for each DOT.

10

Table 4a: Products Approved by the MatPEC during FY 2011
Product
ID No.
05029
07127

08052
08068

Product Name
Sealtight Mel
Drain
Sika CNI
Taper Lock
Threaded Rebar
Coupler
PE 1000+
Fibermesh 650

09001
09002
09003
09016
09017
09019
09027
09033
09041
09042
09043
09049
09074

09089

09090
09102
09103
09110
10005
10010
10011
10012

Specchem Multi
Purpose Grout
Specpoxy 1000
Daraset HES
MIRA 62
Shep 1107
Premium Grout
Rapid Set Mortar
Mix
Sikaplast 500
J‐Drain SWD
J‐Drain 400/420
J‐Drain 200/220
Precast Concrete
Cattle Guard
NCA Non‐Chloride
Accelerator
Precast Concrete
Catch Basin C‐
15.80
Precast Concrete
Catch Basin C‐
15.90
Shep Silicone Non‐
sag
Shep Silicone
Select
Roadseal # 10312
Quikrete Precision
Non‐Shrink Grout
Quikrete TARGET
1118 Grout
Quikrete TARGET
Flowcrete
Planitop 18

Company Name
W.R. Meadows of
Arizona, Inc.
Sika Corporations

Subcategory
I‐1, I‐3

Comment

K‐3
S‐1

Dayton Superior
Powers Fasteners
Propex Concrete Systems
Corp.

A‐6
K‐9
J‐1

Specchem, LLC
Specchem, LLC
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
CMC Construction
Services
CTS Cement
Manufacturing Corp.
Sika Corp.
JDR Enterprises
JDR Enterprises
JDR Enterprises

A‐1, A‐3, A‐
4, A‐6
K‐3
K‐1
J‐1
J‐3, J‐4
K‐1, K‐6
I‐2
I‐3
I‐3
F‐6

US Concrete
K‐3
Fritz‐Pak Corporation
F‐2
US Concrete
F‐1
US Concrete
H‐4
Crafco, Inc.
H‐5
Crafco, Inc.
Roadseal Co., Ltd.

H‐3
J‐1

The Quikrete Company
J‐1
The Quikrete Company
J‐1
The Quikrete Company
Mapei Corp.

J‐3
11

Note: Product must be submitted for
review for each project.

Product
ID No.
10013
10021
10030

Product Name
Planitop XS
ADVA CAST 555
Ulti‐Pave3
Tuf‐Strand SF

10033
Eucon DS
10034
ARES Wall
10035
10058

10082

10092
10103
10104

Airalon 3000
MD MetaPanel
DW Embedment
Tile (Cast‐In‐Place)
Reinforced Earth
Company Concrete
Panel Wall System
Atlas Pro‐Crete 1
Atlas V/O‐1
Mortar

Company Name
Mapei Corp.
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc.
The Euclid Chemical
Company
The Euclid Chemical
Company
Tensar International
Corporation
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.

Subcategory
J‐3
K‐6
J‐2
K‐9

Comment

K‐2, K‐4
C‐1
K‐8
P‐1

Note: May not be appropriate for
elevations less than 4000 feet.

MetaDome, LLC
C‐1
Reinforced Earth
Company (RECO)
Atlas Tech Products

J‐2, J‐3
J‐3

Atlas Tech Products

Table 4b: Products Approved by the MatPEC during FY 2012
Product
ID No.
93‐69
08019
08027

Product Name
Geotex 381
Resicoat RB‐600
Tenax MS220B
TraffikDrain

08035
HighwayDrain
08036

Company Name
Propex Operating
Company
Akzo‐Nobel
Tenax Corporation
ACO Polymer Products
Inc.
ACO Polymer Products
Inc.

Subcategory
N‐1
O‐1
I‐4
F‐17
F‐17

Versaspeed
08062

J‐2, J‐3
Euclid Chemical Company

Pozzolith 200
08067

08070

K‐1, K‐2, K‐4
BASF Construction
Chemicals

Southwest Division
(SWD) Bridge and
Highway B97
Series

M‐2
The Sherwin‐Williams
Company

12

Comment
Recertification

Changed from conditional to full approval
Note: For special applications only when
shown on project plans.
Note: For special applications only when
shown on project plans.
Note: Known dust carcinogen, use N95
dust mask, gloves, safety glasses
Note: Irritant liquid, prevent skin contact!
Handle with chemical resistant gloves and
safety glasses with splash guards

Product
ID No.

Product Name
EDOT

08077
Novomesh 950
09010
Novomesh 850
09011
Fibermesh 150
09012
Fibermesh 300
09013
09014
09015
09020

CAST in TACT 3
US SPEC
Transpatch
MasterFiber Mac
100
Hi‐Cap Capping
Compound LA‐
0150

09068
09071
09087
10002
10014
10016
10017
10018

10020
10041

Company Name

Subcategory
A‐6

Simpson Strong‐Tie
Propex Concrete Systems
Corp.
Propex Concrete Systems
Corp.
Propex Concrete Systems
Corp.
Propex Concrete Systems
Corp.
Masons Supply Company
US MIX Products
Company

GE110
GC130
GT180
GT135
GT160
Weholite

TYPAR
Eagle Corr PE

10049

11001

K‐9
P‐1
J‐2, J‐3

U‐1

F‐8
I‐8
N‐1
I‐1, I‐7
I‐5
I‐6
F‐8

KWH Pipe
Fiberweb, Inc.

I‐5, I‐6
F‐9, F‐10, F‐
12, F‐13, F‐
14, F‐16
C‐1

Keystone Retaining Wall
Systems

Plastiment ES
Five Star Structural
Concrete
Zap Screwlock
Epoxy Series
Ulti Grout

Note: Known dust carcinogen, use N95
dust mask, gloves, safety glasses
Note: OK to use with gloves, safety
glasses, N95 mask if dusty
Note: OK to use with gloves, safety
glasses, N95 mask if dusty. Dust is also
flammable, do not use in confined spaces,
avoid flames.

T‐2
Frazee Industries, Inc.
Contech Construction
Products Inc.
Skaps Industries
Skaps Industries
Skaps Industries
Skaps Industries
Skaps Industries

Everair Plus

10116

K‐9

K‐9

JM Eagle

10093

10113

K‐9

BASF Chemical Company

KeySystem I

10101
10110

K‐9

Forney, LLC
124 Mirro Glide
Semi Gloss
A2 Liner

Comment
Note: Irritant liquid/corrosive liquid,
prevent skin contact! Handle with chemical
resistant gloves and safety glasses with
splash guards.

K‐8
BASF Corporation
Sika Corporation

Previous conditional approval now full
approval. Note: Approved for up to 60 inch
pipe diameter only.
Denied for I‐7 and I‐8

Note: See ADOT Specific Requirements at
http://www.azdot.gov/apl/ADOT‐
MSE_Walls/Keystone.pdf
Note: Skin and eye irritant. OK to use with
gloves, safety glasses.

K‐2, K‐4
J‐3

Five Star Products, Inc.
S‐1
Barsplice Products, Inc.
J‐2
Buzzi Unicem USA Inc.
13

Note: Known dust carcinogen, use N95
dust mask, gloves, safety glasses

Product
ID No.

Product Name
Ulti‐Pave3

11011

Company Name

Subcategory
J‐2

Buzzi Unicem USA Inc.
ADVA 195

11022
11023

Helix
Daraccel

11025

K‐6
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
Polytorx, LLC

W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
WRDA PAVE 17

11026
11045

CG‐86 Grout
Dural Fast Set
Epoxy Gel

K‐1
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.
W.R. Meadows of Arizona

Daracem 55
11070

11091
11094

11159
12014
12015

J‐1
A‐6

The Euclid Chemical
Company

11051

11085

K‐9
K‐10

K‐1, K‐6
W R Grace & Co.‐ Conn.

US SPEC
Transpatch
Concrete
KBP 204P Seal
Sikatard 440
219 Acrikote 100%
Acrylic Ext Flat
Paint
Trench Former
MHD 8
Trench Former
MHD 12

Comment
Note: Known dust carcinogen, use N95
dust mask, gloves, safety glasses
Note: Irritant liquid, prevent skin contact!
Handle with chemical resistant gloves and
safety glasses with splash guards
Note: Irritant liquid, prevent skin contact!
Handle with chemical resistant gloves and
safety glasses with splash guards
Note: Irritant liquid, prevent skin contact!
Handle with chemical resistant gloves and
safety glasses with splash guards
Note: Irritant liquid/corrosive liquid,
prevent skin contact! Handle with chemical
resistant gloves and safety glasses with
splash guards
Note: Irritant liquid, prevent skin contact!
Handle with chemical resistant gloves and
safety glasses with splash guards

J‐2, J‐3
US Mix Co.
M‐3
Kwik Bond Polymers
Sika Corporation

Note: Use outdoors, use gloves, safety
glasses, and prevent skin contact.

K‐2
T‐2

Frazee Paint
F‐17
ABT, Inc.
F‐17
ABT, Inc.

14

Note: For special applications only when
shown on project plans.
Note: For special applications only when
shown on project plans.

Table 5a: Products Approved by the TCPEC during FY 2011
Product
ID No.

08021

Product Name
SNAP'n SAFE
Breakaway Sign
Post Coupler
FG 300

09108
10026
10032

10039

10042

10043

10061
10062

921‐AR Raised
Pavement Marker
RENO LOOPS
Dent Universal
Base
System (DUB 7.5)
Quazite Series
PG1324Z578PT1
5/HD
PG1730Z703PT1
7/HD
CDR Series
A30132412APT1
5/LD
A30173012APT1
7/LD
12” LED YELLOW
CIRCULAR SIGNAL
MODULE‐
PN100#TRVY12SG‐
D1T
TRA‐12YDG‐IN2
Yellow Arrow
132412PC Tier 22

10066
10067

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐69

Designovations, Inc.
Pexco LLC/Davidson
Traffic Control Products

132418PC - Tier
22
173012PC ‐ Tier 22

V‐58
V‐69A

Dent Breakaway
Industries

10074

Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch box or
8‐inch extension as needed.

V‐59

Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch box or
8‐inch extension as needed.

Hubbell Enclosures, Inc.

Hubbell Enclosures, Inc.
V‐66A

Excellence Opto, Inc.
V‐66A
Excellence Opto, Inc.
V‐60
V‐60
Martin Enterprises
V‐60

173018PC ‐ Tier 22

10072
10073

V‐60

Martin Enterprises

132412PC ‐ Tier 8
132418PC ‐ Tier 8
173012PC ‐ Tier 8
173018PC ‐ Tier 8

Note: Driveable mount.

V‐23
Apex Universal
RENO A&E

Martin Enterprises

10068
10069
10071

V‐6B

Comment

V‐60
Martin Enterprises
Martin Enterprises

V‐59
V‐59

Martin Enterprises
Martin Enterprises

V‐59
V‐59

Martin Enterprises

15

Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch depth
or 8‐inch extension as needed.
Note: 18‐inch box. Alternate depth to
132412PC Tier 22.
Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch depth
or 8‐inch extension as needed.
Note: 18‐inch box. Alternate depth to
173012PC ‐ Tier 22.
Note: 12‐inch box.
Note: 18‐inch box. Alternate depth to
132412PC ‐ Tier 8.
Note: 12‐inch box.
Note: 18‐inch box. Alternate depth to
132412PC ‐Tier 8.

Product
ID No.

10076

10077

10078

10105

10105

11008

11021

Product Name
Carson H1324‐12
5/ HD
H1324‐P1
H1730‐12 7/HD
H1730‐P1
Fibrelyte
FL30TBOX12,
FL30T,
FL36TBOX12,
FL36T
A6001946AX12
5/LD
A6001640AX12
7/LD
FCA132412T‐9000
5/LD
FCA173012T‐
90007/HD
PCA132412‐
900025/HD
PCA173012‐
900087/HD
Duralight JXM‐
400VIEIL
Countdown LED
Ped
OmniCube T‐
11500
series

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐60

Comment
Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch box or
9‐inch extension as needed.

Oldcastle
V‐59

Oldcastle
V‐59, V‐60
Armorcast Products
Company
V‐59

Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch box or
8‐inch extension as needed.

V‐60

Note: 12‐inch box. May use 18‐inch box or
8‐inch extension as needed.

New Basis

New Basis
V‐56

Trastar, Inc.
V‐75P
Avery Dennison

Table 5b: Products Approved by the TCPEC during FY 2012
Product
ID No.
04081
08024
08026

09065
10085

11002

Product Name
Chip Seal
Pavement Markers
King Block
Model 980
HMX Large Area
Luminaire
(HMX40SM8NW2)
ATM 400 HP White
Duralight 12" Red
Traffic Signal Ball,
Clear, JXC300‐HFR‐
C

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐16

Glowlite Inc
Trinity Highway Products,
Inc.
Ennis Paint Inc.

Cooper Lighting
Advance Traffic Markings

TRASTAR, INC
16

V‐4D

Comment

Removed earlier product, No. 01112

V‐23
V‐50

V‐20A
V‐66A

Denied V‐20B

Product
ID No.

11003

11004

11005

11006

11007

11009

11010

11050
11055
11067
11071
11072

11073

11090

Product Name
Duralight 12"
Yellow Traffic
Signal Ball, Clear,
JXC300‐HFY‐C
Duralight 12"
GreenTraffic Signal
Ball, Clear, JXC300‐
HFG‐C
Duralight 12" Red
LED Traffic Signal
Arrow, Clear,
JXJ300‐07R03
Duralight 12"
Yellow LED Traffic
Signal Arrow,
Clear, JXJ300‐
07Y03
Duralight 12"
Green LED Traffic
Signal Arrow,
Clear, JXJ300‐
07G03
Lead‐Free Yellow
Alkyd
Thermoplastic
(885260)
White Alkyd
Thermoplastic
(885250)
Line‐PRO
Waterbase Rapid
Dry Traffic Paints (
White, Yellow,
Black)
All applicable
products
Ulti‐Mate Sign
Support System
Falcon IMSA 51‐7
CCI IMSA 51‐7
Dialight 430‐6479‐
001X Countdown
LED Ped Signal
GT1 and GTx
product family of
12" and 8" LED
Traffic Signal
Modules

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐66A

Comment

TRASTAR, INC
V‐66A

TRASTAR, INC
V‐66A

TRASTAR, INC
V‐66A

TRASTAR, INC
V‐66A

TRASTAR, INC
V‐26
Ennis Traffic Safety
Solutions
V‐26
Ennis Traffic Safety
Solutions
V‐27

Approved in white and yellow.

International Coatings Co.
Inc.
V‐43
Arcan Traffic Systems
Ultimate Highway
Products
Falcon Fine Wire
Coleman Cable

V‐72
V‐61
V‐61
V‐56

Dialight Corporation
V‐66A

GE Lighting Solutions

17

Note: Type II & IV are approved for use.
Note: 10 & 12 gauge are approved. The
14 gauge is not approved.

Product
ID No.

11098

11099
11100

11110
11127

11128

11129

11130

11131

11132

11133

11134

11139

12002

12004

Product Name
GT1 product
family of 12"
Arrow Traffic
Signal Modules
GE PS7‐CFF1‐26A
Countdown LED
Ped Signal
LED Programmable
Visibility Modules

QuadGuard Elite
Universal TAU II
1140 White
Waterborne
Traffic Paint
1146 Yellow LF
Waterborne
Traffic Paint
1110 White High
Build Waterborne
Traffic Paint
1116 Yellow Lead
Free High Build
Waterborne
Traffic Paint
1190 White Low
Temperature
Waterborne
Traffic Paint
1196 Yellow Lead
Free Low
Temperature
Waterborne
Traffic Paint
IDEAL‐Buchanan
SLK Breakaway
Fuse Kit
Model TRP‐
C45D3154C30
Countdown LED
Pedestrian Module
TB2‐17 (Type 2
Base) and TB3‐17
(Type 3 Base)
[Cem‐Tec]
Preformed Loop
Detector (Model
No. CG16MM)

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐66A

Comment

GE Lighting Solutions
V‐56
GE Lighting Solutions
V‐66B
GE Lighting Solutions
V‐1

Energy Absorption
Systems, Inc.
Barrier Systems, Inc.
Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco
Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco
Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco

V‐1
V‐27

Removed Product ID No. 98069 and 98060.
Note: Narrow (24", 30", 36") and Wide
Systems
Replaced Product ID No. 02005

V‐27

V‐27

V‐27
Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco
V‐27
Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco
V‐27

Colorado Paint Company
– Division of Swarco
V‐32J
IDEAL Industries, Inc
V‐56

Excellence Opto, Inc.
V‐31Y

Cem‐Tec Corporation
V‐58
Patriot Detection, LLC

18

Note: Use for traffic counts but not for
signal detection.

Product
ID No.

12034

Product Name
STS NEMA TS1
Controller Cabinet
(Model numbers
554426 & 774426)

Company Name

Subcategory
V‐34

Comment

Scanlon Traffic Systems

VII. PROGRAM FOR FUTURE
The Product Evaluation Program will continue to actively involve the Product Evaluation
Committees in the product evaluation process. Equally important is providing timely responses
and evaluations to vendors submitting product applications to the Product Evaluation Program.
The evaluation process was revised to incorporate electronic file transfer in the application
process. For most applications a “pdf” copy of the file is made. All documents and letters
related to the evaluation are also made available in electronic form. ASU, under the Product
Evaluation Program contract, hosts a secure web site that stores these documents for access by
the evaluators and the MatPEC. In addition, ADOT has an APL ftp site with user‐specific folders
for Consultants, the PECs, and the subcommittees.
The Product Evaluation Program Team is working with the ADOT information technology staff
to create an automated application on the internet. On February 9, 2012, the Product
Evaluation Program policy was revised. The revised policy is in Appendix A. The Product
Evaluation Program will continue to maintain the APL entries as well as change or remove
unnecessary categories and subcategories. Application recertifications will be tracked in an
Excel spreadsheet, or if appropriate, an Access database until application automation is
completed.

19

APPENDIX A: ADOT PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM POLICY, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 9, 2012

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
SUP-9.01 PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM
Effective: February 9, 2012
Supersedes: SUP-9.01 (04/21/2008)
Responsible Office: Research Center, (602) 712-6430
1.01

Review: February 9, 2014
Transmittal: 2012 - February
Page 1 of 5

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 9901, is to 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 Multimodal
Planning Division.

1.04

BACKGROUND
A. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Product Evaluation Program is conducted
under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Highway
Planning and Research Program. The Product Evaluation Program is established as item 116
under the State Planning and Research Program, Research Support Programs. The Product
Evaluation 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 Product Evaluation Program is now under the authority of the ADOT Multimodal Planning
Division (MPD) and administered by the Research Center.

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

ATSSA

American Traffic Safety Services Association

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation

SUP-9.01 Product Evaluation Program
Effective: February 9, 2012
Supersedes: SUP-9.01 (4/21/2008)

1.06

Transmittal: 2012 - February
Page 2 of 5

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 that is not on the
Approved Products List (APL) at the time of its submittal
or has not been previously evaluated.

PEC

Product Evaluation Committee

PRIDE

Product Resource Investment Deployment and
Evaluation. Effective February 1, 2011, the PRIDE
program’s name was changed to Product Evaluation
Program.

TCPEC

Traffic Control Product Evaluation Committee

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 coordinating the evaluation of new
products within the parameters of their operational policies. 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.
B. 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.
1.
2
3.
4

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 total number of
TCPEC members shall be determined by the TCPEC chairperson.
E. 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.

SUP-9.01

SUP-9.01 Product Evaluation Program
Effective: February 9, 2012
Supersedes: SUP-9.01 (4/21/2008)

Transmittal: 2012 - February
Page 3 of 5

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 total number of MatPEC members shall be determined by the MatPEC
chairperson.
G. The Product Evaluation Program manager will serve as the administrator to the PECs and shall
maintain the APL.
H. Establishing of Subcommittees: Subcommittees can be established by any PEC to review
specialty issues. The subcommittees 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 on the
State Highway System. However, not all products used by ADOT are listed on the APL.
Moreover, the APL does not address most products that are to be used only on a temporary
basis such as flagging systems, temporary barrier, and other items associated with work zones
or temporary activities. The PECs may elect to modify the APL by adding, deleting or modifying
categories within their areas of responsibility.
B. The Product Evaluation Program manager will maintain the APL. The APL format shall be
developed and revised, as necessary, by the Product Evaluation Program manager with the
concurrence of the PEC chairpersons.

1.08

PRODUCT EVALUATION APPLICATIONS
A. The format of the product evaluation application shall be developed by the Product Evaluation
Program manager, 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 product evaluation application shall be developed by the Product
Evaluation Program manager, 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 may be
performed by ADOT or by an independent testing laboratory. The PEC 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. Product manufacturer and/or distributor is responsible for all costs
associated with providing product samples, support, and testing.

1.10

EVALUATION PROCESS
A. Once the application is received, it is issued a product identification number and stored in the
database. The application will be reviewed by the Product Evaluation Program manager for
determination of whether the product is suitable for the APL and take one of three actions:

SUP-9.01

SUP-9.01 Product Evaluation Program
Effective: February 9, 2012
Supersedes: SUP-9.01 (4/21/2008)

Transmittal: 2012 - February
Page 4 of 5

1. If product is not addressed by the APL, a non-APL notice is sent to the applicant and no
further action taken.
2. If product is suitable for the APL, the Product Evaluation Program manager will search the
database to ensure product has not been evaluated previously.
a. If product previously evaluated, then applicant needs to explain what has changed with
their product, otherwise they will be sent a notice stating product has previously been
evaluated and no further action taken.
b. If product has not been previously evaluated, the product will be presented at the
appropriate PEC meeting and assigned to a lead evaluator(s), if necessary.
B. The lead evaluator(s) will review product application, verify product meets applicable drawings
and/or specifications, and coordinate with the Product Evaluation Program manager if
additional information is needed. If a product appears to have a potential chemical safety or
health concern, a copy of the product’s material safety data sheet (MSDS) will be forwarded to
the ADOT Safety and Health Office for evaluation and determination by ADOT with respect to
safety and health considerations.
C. If additional product information is requested by the department, the applicant has thirty (30)
days to respond to request. Failure to respond to request will suspend product from further
evaluation. Product Evaluation Program manager will notify applicant that product evaluation
has been suspended and no further action taken.
D. Upon completion of the initial evaluation, the product application will be scheduled for
discussion at a meeting of the appropriate PEC. The PEC may then vote on the acceptability of
the product, or request further evaluation. If further evaluation is required, the process will
continue until the PEC makes a final decision on the application.
E. The Product Evaluation Program manager will notify the applicant via email of the PEC’s
decision and will the enter decision into the database.
1.11

APPLICANT NOTIFICATION
The Product Evaluation Program manager will provide a written notification to the applicant
regarding the PEC’s decision. When a product is approved, the notice to the applicant will contain
the approval date and the date the product requires recertification (usually five years from approval
date). If a product is disapproved, the applicant will receive a disapproval notice with sufficient
information to ensure the applicant understands the reason(s) the subject product was not
approved.

1.12

APPEAL PROCESS
A. Appeals to a committee decision must be submitted to the Product Evaluation Program
manager within thirty (30) days from the notification date. Appeals will be reviewed by the PEC,
who will vote on approving or denying the appeal. The appeal will be presented to the
committee in their next meeting if it has been received more than fourteen (14) days before the
scheduled meeting. At minimum, the appeal shall include:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The name, address and telephone number of the appellant.
The appellant’s signature.
Name of the product and product evaluation program identification number.
Detailed statement of facts for the appeal with supporting documents to specifically
address the reason for the appeal.
SUP-9.01

SUP-9.01 Product Evaluation Program
Effective: February 9, 2012
Supersedes: SUP-9.01 (4/21/2008)

Transmittal: 2012 - February
Page 5 of 5

5. The form of relief suggested.
B. All appeal correspondence shall be addressed to the Product Evaluation Program manager.
The program manager 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 program manager
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
the program manager 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.
2.
3.
4.
1.13

Require a new test or evaluation by ADOT.
Require a new test or evaluation by an independent testing laboratory.
Add the subject product to the APL.
Deny the appeal.

PRODUCT RECERTIFICATION PROCESS
When a product reaches its recertification date, a notice is sent to the manufacturer. The
manufacturer must send a response via email stating that the product is still offered for sale under
the same trade name and manufactured by the same specifications it was approved under. Upon
receipt of the manufacturer’s response, the product certification will be renewed for five years on
the APL. Changes to company name or contact information are recorded in the APL database and
in the APL.
The manufacturer must respond within sixty (60) days of receiving email in order for their product to
remain on the APL. If there is no response within sixty (60) days, or the email is returned, the
Product Evaluation Program manager will determine if a product should be deleted from the APL
based on the recertification action. The final action is recorded in the APL database.

1.14

INACTIVE STATUS
A product will go into inactive status if product has expired on the APL. Expired products will be
presented to the PEC for consideration in removing from APL. A product may remain in inactive
status for up to sixty (60) days beyond expiration date.

SUP-9.01

APPENDIX B: PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS,
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

PRODUCT EVALUATION APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Product Evaluation Application Instructions
Introduction

The Product Evaluation Program is designed to assist the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) select products for use by the Department. Products selected
through the program are listed on the ADOT Approved Products List (APL).
The categories of products covered by the program are shown on the APL. A request

for evaluation requires submission of an 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 category.
Note: Effective February 1, 2011, all applications must be submitted
electronically to: apl@azdot.gov.
NO applications will be accepted by mail after February 1, 2011.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Please submit application(s) to: apl@azdot.gov (include product name in subject

line). Also include contact name, telephone number and mailing address in the body
of the message.
You will receive an email response within two weeks.

Have questions? Please contact:
ADOT Product Evaluation Program Manager
Tel: 602.712.6430
Email: apl@azdot.gov

Reference Documents
Application for Product Evaluation
Approved Products List
ADOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction - 2000
ADOT Stored Specifications (updates to 2000 Standard Specifications)

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 1 of these instructions.
(2) Applications for products that are not covered by current ADOT specifications
should be submitted using the guidance described in Section 2 of these instructions.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Page 1

2/1/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

1. Acceptance Based on Current Specifications
The Applicant must identify the APL category or categories that would list this
product. A copy of the APL may be viewed or downloaded here:
http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/apl/apl.asp

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 the Internet at:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/ConstGrp/Contractors/StandardSpecifications.asp
or from ADOT Engineering Records. The complete reference copy of the
specifications, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction - 2000, is
available in hard copy from:
Arizona Department of Transportation
Engineering Records Section
1655 W. Jackson - Room 175 - Mail Drop 112F
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3217
Telephone 602.712.8216 or 712.7498
FAX: 602.712.3235

Updates to the reference document, or Stored Specifications, are available from the
Internet at:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/cns/CNS_Stored_specs.asp

The Application should include necessary support documentation, such as

certifications of compliance from independent laboratories and Material Safety Data
Sheets. It is the Applicant's responsibility to satisfy all criteria set forth in ADOT
current specifications.

2. Request for Evaluation

The Applicant must identify the category or categories that would list this product in
the Approved Product List.
Products which have no applicable ADOT specifications or standards require a case-

by-case evaluation. The evaluation program will be based on the recommendation of
one of ADOT's Product Evaluation Committees (Materials or 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 2 of this
Policy shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements:
1. A completed Application signed by an authorized agent of the company.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Page 2

2/1/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

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.
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.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Page 3

2/1/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

Material Safety Data Sheets

A

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) must be included in applications for products
with chemical constituents. The MSDS must list all hazardous and non-hazardous
materials. A statement that a portion of the product is made up of non-hazardous
materials is not sufficient information for ADOT to evaluate the product.

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.

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
UNLESS REQUESTED BY ADOT

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Page 4

2/1/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

APPLICATION FOR PRODUCT EVALUATION
Note: Effective February 1, 2011, applications must be submitted electronically to: apl@azdot.gov
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 Instructions. The subject product (hereinafter
PRODUCT) is submitted for evaluation under the Product Evaluation Program as noted below.
(Select either a Section 1 or Section 2 evaluation by checking the applicable statement.)

PRODUCT is submitted to ADOT for evaluation under current specifications.
Submit all the necessary information as described in SECTION 1 of the Application
instructions. When selecting this option you must 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.

PRODUCT is not covered by ADOT specifications. PRODUCT is submitted to ADOT for
evaluation under Production Evaluation Program criteria.
Submit all the necessary information as described in SECTION 2 of the Application
instructions.

________________________________________________
(Signature of Company Representative)

(DATE)

Identify the ADOT Approved Products List (APL) category or categories that would list this PRODUCT. A
copy of the APL may be viewed or downloaded from the PRIDE web site at:
http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/apl/index.asp
APL Categories applicable to the PRODUCT (list specific sub-categories):

APPLICATION

Page 1

1/24/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

Has the PRODUCT previously been submitted to the Product Evaluation Program for evaluation?
Yes ___

No ___

If yes, please provide the previous application identification number(s).

Is the PRODUCT part of a family of products that has been previously evaluated under the
Product Evaluation Program?
Yes ___

No ___

If yes, please identify and describe this family of products.

Is the PRODUCT a replacement for a product the Applicant manufactures that is presently on the
APL?
Yes ___

No ___

If yes, please identify the product being replaced and the applicable APL category.

APPLICATION

Page 2

1/24/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program

MANUFACTURER:
ADDRESS:

WEBSITE:
CONTACT:
TELEPHONE:
E-MAIL:

DISTRIBUTOR:
ADDRESS:

WEBSITE:
CONTACT:
TELEPHONE:
E-MAIL:

PRODUCT:
Trade Name:
Description:

Primary Use:

Secondary Use:

Guarantee:

APPLICATION

Page 3

1/24/2011

Arizona Department of Transportation
Product Evaluation Program
PRODUCT MEETS THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES:
(The applicable ADOT Specification must be identified for Section 1 Applications.)

ADOT:
ASTM:
AASHTO:
OTHER:

PRODUCT is proposed for the following specific uses:

GENERAL:
Attach available literature pertaining to the product, including, but not limited to, instructions and
limitations for use, composition or laboratory analyses, handling precautions, health hazards, a complete
Material Safety Data Sheet, specifications, installation and maintenance manuals or pamphlets, 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.
Submit completed Application and the appropriate attachments to:
apl@azdot.gov (include product name in subject line)
You will receive an email response within two business days.
Got questions, please contact:
ADOT Product Evaluation Program Manager
Tel: 602.712.6430
Email: apl@azdot.gov

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY PRODUCT SAMPLES
UNLESS REQUESTED BY ADOT
NO applications will be accepted by mail after February 1, 2011. All
applications must be submitted electronically to:
apl@azdot.gov.
Thank you for your cooperation.

APPLICATION

Page 4

1/24/2011