California Department of Transportation
Caltrans > Engineering > Division of Design > Pavement > NON-STANDARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS
 

Pavement Specifications

NON-STANDARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS (nSSPs):

WhenSSPs need to be modified beyond what is allowed in the instructions or a special provision is needed that is not covered in the list of SSPs, concurrence by the Pavement Standards Team (PST) is necessary. See guidelines below for why.

Guidelines for nSSP development & concurrence

Sample Memorandum : This document has been formatted for use by units internal to the California of Transportation. The letterhead should be modified as needed for those external to the Department.

Issue Memorandum : Summary of decision to develop the nSSP process.

 

Guidelines for nSSP development & concurrence:

Introduction

Non-Standard Special Provisions (nSSPs) may be developed to address site-specific issues or new technologies that do not have an approved standard. Section 6.9 of the Ready to List [ RTL ] Guide states, "An NSSP is a special provision used in situations when the standards do not adequately cover the work." The RTL Guide also states that it is the owner of corresponding standard specifications and special provisions role and responsibility to review and concur with nSSPs to assure that legal, contractual, technical, and other important issues to the State are addressed. The Pavement Standards Team, a multifunctional team consisting of representatives from the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation's (Department's) District Materials Engineers and Divisions of Construction, Design, Engineering Services, Maintenance, and Research and Innovation, has been designated the functional program responsible for review and concurrence of pavement-related nSSPs. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a consistent approach & process for developing contractually sound nSSPs and obtaining timely concurrence. These guidelines supplement and enhance those found in the RTL Guide for nSSPs.

Why is PST concurrence needed for PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSPs?

Pavement-related Standard Specifications and SSPs are developed and maintained by the PST. The PST develops pavement-related SSPs by reviewing research and products, identifying and addressing lessons learned from maintenance and construction, consulting with industry and other experts external to the Department, and establishing consistent statewide performance goals. Because of the potential impact from construction claims or poor quality work that can result from incomplete or inappropriately written pavement-related nSSPs, there is a need to ensure that pavement-related nSSPs meet the standards and latest understandings known to the State. Since it is not possible to communicate all this information to individual designers and specification writers, it is necessary to have pavement-related nSSPs reviewed to ensure these issues are addressed. In effect, pavement-related nSSPs are to follow a similar but shorter process to what is required to approve pavement-related SSPs.

Who provides concurrence for PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSPs?

If pavement-related nSSPs are used in a project, concurrence must be obtained from the Deputy Division Chief of Materials Engineering and Testing Services (METS) in the Division of Engineering Services (DES), who has been designated by the Pavement Program Steering Committee (PPSC) as the Project Manager of the PST.

What is a PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP?

There are three types of pavement-related nSSPs that require concurrence from the PST Project Manager, specifically:

1. Edited Pavement-Related SSPs

Generally, these are existing pavement-related SSPs that are altered to fit the needs of a specific project. Examples of edited pavement-related SSPs include but are not limited to changes to:

•  Material requirements.

•  Installation methods.

•  Workmanship requirements.

•  Testing methods and procedures.

•  Payment and measurement clauses.

•  Allowance of new products or proprietary products to be used.

•  Quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) or warranty requirements.

Modifications that do not require concurrence include:

•  Elimination of text not relevant to the project pursuant to the RTL Guide , Section 6.8 "Standard Special Provisions."

•  Changes that are allowed in the instructions for the SSP.

2. New Pavement-Related SSPs

These are newly developed pavement-related SSPs. They could be written to involve a specially developed pay item, use a new product, or better define an element of the project.

3. Pavement-Related Pilot SSPs

Typically, these are previously written pavement-related SSPs that are being tested before being made standard. In some instances, they may be specifically developed for a project. They may involve new products, construction practices, or alternate methods of payment.
If a pavement-related pilot SSP is used, an evaluation report may be required in order to evaluate its effectiveness. For a list of existing pavement-related pilot SSPs, please contact the appropriate Caretaker. A list of Caretakers is available on the specification page of the Pavement website .

How is concurrence for a PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP requested?

To obtain concurrence for a pavement-related nSSP, please complete the following:

1. Prepare a draft version of the proposed pavement-related nSSP that addresses the need, meets the Department's formatting requirements for SPs (see the RTL Guide , Section 6, "Specification Preparation"), and complies with State and federal legal requirements (e.g., proprietary items).

2. Obtain the necessary agreement and concurrence from district functional units for the proposed pavement-related nSSP. For pavement-related nSSPs, the District Materials Engineer (DME) should be consulted and concur with the proposal before it is sent to the PST. Depending upon the changes made, review may need to include the Divisions of Construction, Design, Engineering Services, Environmental Analysis, Maintenance, and/or Traffic Operations.

3. Prepare and sign a request for concurrence of a pavement-related nSSP memorandum (see below). The district can determine who is to sign the memorandum, but should designate at least a Senior Transportation Engineer or equivalent.

sample memorandum

On the memorandum, list the pavement-related nSSP(s) being requested and give a justification that describes how the problem situation is resolved for each. Below is a sample justification.

This is a new pavement-related nSSP for the use of white glue (Elmer's) as a bonding agent between asphalt and concrete associated with placing dikes on concrete shoulders. This specification is being proposed because white glue is cheap and safe if digested. This specification includes material and strength requirements. Presently, there is no Standard Specification for this product. A detail accompanies this specification.

This item has been used on several projects, including: 13-0T0501, Pue 80; 15-268101, Elp 49; and 14-4874Q1, Ara 708 projects.

4. Submit the above information to the PST Project Manager along with:

•  Project title sheet.

•  Project typical sections.

•  Any backup information that can justify the changes.

5. Upon receiving written concurrence for the pavement-related nSSP, include the written concurrence in the submittal to the DES Office Engineer (DES-OE). If the pavement-related nSSP is rejected, the Requester will need to make the necessary changes to the plans, specifications, and estimates that are affected by the rejection.

Note that if the pavement-related nSSP includes a proprietary item (i.e., a method, material, or product that is only available from a single source), additional approvals will be required. For further information and instructions, please consult the Highway Design Manual , Section 602.1(6), and the PS&E Guide , Section 4-4.01.

Documents should be submitted electronically. If some items cannot be sent by e-mail, please inform the PST Project Manager in the e-mail transmittal and place the documents in intradepartmental mail immediately.

What happens to the request for concurrence for A PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP when it is submitted?

When the PST Project Manager receives the request, it will be forwarded to the Caretaker of the corresponding pavement-related Standard Specifications and SSPs. The Caretaker then will:

•  Coordinate reviews with other members of the PST.

•  Obtain any additional information from the Requester needed to make a determination.

•  Provide a timeline of review completion to the Requester and the PST Project Manager.

•  Work directly with the Requester to address comments from and resolve issues raised by the PST.

•  Provide a recommendation for or against concurrence to the PST Project Manager.

After the Caretaker has provided a recommendation to the PST Project Manager, the Project Manager will ensure all parties affected have had an opportunity to provide input on the recommendation and have had comments addressed. The PST Project Manager then will provide a written response concurring with or rejecting the proposed pavement-related nSSP.

Why are so many people involved in reviewing a PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP?

Typically, the Caretaker is responsible for technical quality of the pavement-related Standard Specifications and SSPs. However, certain aspects of a pavement-related nSSP may require concurrence from others (e.g., changes to payment and measurement clauses and/or construction methods and QC/QA clauses need concurrence from the Division of Construction; changes that impact design standards or require design exceptions need concurrence from the Division of Design; changes to warranty clauses require concurrence from the Division of Maintenance). Because this can be cumbersome for those requesting pavement-related nSSPs, these concurrences are coordinated within the PST by the Caretaker. The Caretaker is responsible for getting the necessary input and concurrences for a pavement-related nSSP and the PST Project Manager ensures that the Caretaker sought and obtained the needed input and concurrences.

When should the request for A PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP be made?

A request for a pavement-related nSSP should be submitted as soon as the need is known and the submittal should allow adequate time to review and provide concurrence or rejection before a project is submitted to the DES-OE. Because of the time needed to review a pavement-related nSSP request, there is no guarantee that concurrence will be given prior to the project Ready to List (RTL) date if the request is submitted after the project is in the DES-OE. Additionally, if a request is made at the last minute and is rejected, additional changes to the PS&E package may be required that can delay the RTL date.

How long does it take to process a request for A PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP?

The length of time depends on the extent and complexity of text changes but typically should take from two to six weeks. Within one week of receipt of the request, the Caretaker will inform the Requester of how much time will be needed for the review. The Caretaker also will make any requests for additional information at this time. Please note : If additional information is requested, the PST may suspend review of the pavement-related nSSP until the information is received.

How can the process be expedited with concurrence achieved on the first submittal?

The following hints can help the Requester expedite a pavement-related nSSP request:

•  In developing the draft pavement-related nSSP proposal, the Requester should consult experts in the various technical and procedural aspects, including the DME, district construction and office engineer, and others who may have relevant experience or may be affected by the pavement-related nSSP.

•  The PST is available to assist and provide informal guidance to the district on preparing the pavement-related nSSP, but this guidance should not be construed as concurrence. To obtain input from the PST, the Requester should contact the appropriate Caretaker.

What happens if I do not get concurrence for my PAVEMENT-RELATED nSSP?

Failure to obtain concurrence for pavement-related nSSPs could result in rejection of the PS&E submittal by the DES-OE and can be considered an error and omission in contract documents.

This page last updated June 18, 2004