PAS2161 FAQs
Location
What three locations are to be used for the demonstration trial?
The trials will be based in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Cheshire West & Chester.
As the three areas are within same region, how have variations in condition/ failure modes that have regional/ geographic influence been considered?
TRL has determined three local authority areas which will still collectively offer variability in condition, terrain, road constraints, road type and an appropriate urban/rural mix, as well as continuous routes. i.e. although in the same general region, the three areas selected offer as much variety as possible.
Route details
What are the route lengths over which technologies will be assessed?
The overall route length on which local authority engineers will establish the benchmark and on which the technologies will be tested is circa 100km in each of the three local authority areas. The subset road length will be 25km of the main route in each area and the technologies will need to establish condition category data twice on each of those subsets to establish repeatability. So, that means a total main route length of 300km and a total repeatability length of 150km.
What if a technology is unable to complete all sets of surveys at all 3 sites?
The technology survey process must be the same for all forms of technology. If a technology is unable to complete the full survey (i.e. totals of circa 300km of main route and 150km of subset repeat surveys), the technology will be considered as ‘not demonstrated’ for the 2026 audit.
What is the time gap required between the main route survey and the subset route surveys?
There is an overall 4-week window in which to undertake the main route and subset route surveys at all three local authority areas. There is no specific requirement to undertake the main route survey and two subset repeatability route surveys on different days.
In the 100km trials in the 3 areas, what percentage of classified roads and unclassified will be required to be surveyed?
| | Percentage |
| Class A | 26.5% |
| Class B | 31.2% |
| Class C | 26.3% |
| Class U | 16.0% |
Data provided by TRL
Will the 2026 engineer benchmark data set be collected and processed by using the same methods as in 2025?
TRL intends using the same approach in 2026 as it did for 2025. The local highway authority engineers are expected to be different individuals but, by taking a regional approach, those involved this year may be better placed to survey at least 2 if not 3 areas, bringing a more consistent viewpoint to the benchmark.
What is the percentage of calibration data to be provided by TRL?
In the 2025 demonstration trial, 20% of the main routes in Cumberland, Liverpool and Essex was initially provided as benchmark survey calibration data. This was later considered to be insufficient so 100% of the Essex data was provided to better enable overall calibration. To avoid the need to provide supplementary calibration data in the 2026 trial, 40% of each of the three areas’ main route benchmark survey results will be shared. TRL will examine 100% of the technology condition category data from the technology providers but the 60% of route data not shared may offer TRL greater insight into technology performance.
Will the calibration data cover the subset repeatability routes?
This has not yet been determined but it may prove more insightful for TRL’s assessment if the calibration data does not cover all or even some of the subset routes.
Will we receive guidelines on how to match road features with condition categories?
The condition category chart is presented in PAS2161. Reproduced below.
| Category | Description | Potential maintenance treatment option |
| 1 | No deterioration | Pavement is not considered for maintenance |
| 2 | Minor (and/or aesthetic) deterioration | Light maintenance (e.g. minor patching) |
| 3 | Moderate deterioration | Localized intervention or mid-life preventative maintenance (e.g. surface dressing, patching, crack sealing) |
| 4 | Moderate to severe deterioration | Rehabilitative maintenance, perhaps full carriageway (e.g. resurfacing with thin overlay/surface dressing and multiple patching, edge haunching) |
| 5 | Severe deterioration | Structural maintenance (e.g. full carriageway resurfacing or reconstruction) |
NOTE: The examples of maintenance treatment options provide general, not definitive, descriptions of some of the maintenance treatments that might be considered by a typical Highway Authority engineer to restore a length in that RCM condition category to a condition that does not require maintenance. They are provided for guidance only and are non-exhaustive. Benchmarking of categories, and the ability of RCM devices to report them, is established through comparison with consensus assessments of highway engineers (see Annex C of PAS2161).
In the 2025 demonstration trial, condition categories 4 and 5 were around 2% of the benchmark data. Will that be reviewed?
As far as reasonably practical, TRL has identified main survey routes in the three areas that have a reasonable blend of all condition categories. This is part of the challenge in identifying the right routes – and that is dependent on the richness of condition data provided by potential host authorities. Where forward programmes of planned major interventions are shared and such work will take place from October 2026 onwards, there is a good chance that a greater proportion of condition categories 4 and 5 will be available for both engineer benchmark and technology surveys. Ultimately, local highway authorities have a statutory duty to maintain their networks and that includes taking remedial measures in a timely fashion. Intervention may inevitably take place between route selection and actual survey, but TRL will address any circumstances where remedial work takes place prior to completion of all technology surveys.
When you use machine learning, an imbalanced dataset can compromise the results. So, would an alternative approach be to get a more even distribution of percentage that falls within each of the 5 categories?
That would be an alternative approach but very difficult to achieve. Until the local highway authority engineers conduct their condition assessments of the main routes, there’s no realistic way of determining what percentage of those routes will fall into each of the 5 condition categories. TRL will try to achieve condition variability as much as it can, but that does depend on the richness of asset management and road network data provided by the host authorities, what their reactive and planned maintenance work programmes are, and any condition changes (e.g. arising from heat damage, flooding, extraordinary traffic loading) that may arise in the period between route establishment and survey.
Do we get the footage surveys of the 3 sites, or do the providers need to go out to the sites to collect the data and provide the result?
The creation of the engineers’ benchmark is through the local highway authority engineers being driven round the 100km routes, making a visual assessment of the condition and assigning the condition category to 10m sections. As such, there is no ‘footage survey’ that would be shared. Under ordinary circumstances, the local highway authority will expect a road condition monitoring technology provider to conduct a survey and present condition results – the local highway authority would not expect to have to survey its network and provide a footage survey. So, the demonstration process needs to fully demonstrate how a technology provider would deliver a service to any local highway authority – and that includes the survey itself.
Is it correct that road condition monitoring technology providers are given 10m chainage of the engineers’ benchmarks but, when analysing the data, it is converted into 100m lengths, using max mode for analysing the data for all criteria?
Yes, that’s correct. 100m data is used to mitigate the impact of location inaccuracies in the engineer and road condition monitoring technology data. However, 10m data will also be used to inform decisions on future analysis methods. Full details of how the data is analysed can be found in the 2025 report at PPR2083 PAS2161 2025 RCM Trials Final Report.
Data collection by and provision from technology providers
When are the surveys to take place?
| Location | Start of data collection window | End of data collection window | Benchmark data collection |
| Nottinghamshire | Monday 24th August | Sunday 20th September | 25th to 28th August |
| Lincolnshire | Monday 31st August | Sunday 28th September | 15th to 18th September |
| Cheshire West & Chester | Monday 31st August | Sunday 28th September | 8th to 11th September |
Would it be possible to share the guidance notes and instructions that you are issuing to the engineers?
The Engineers Guidance can be found on the website by accessing the relevant document in the zip file on the PAS 2161 website at Demonstration Trial Routes – PAS 2161
Can you provide recommendations and rules data that would apply on our data collection vehicle to collect data on all three routes, in terms of GDPR compliance and other regulations? Do we need specific signage or other requirements to put on our vehicle, and do we need some specific authorisation from the authorities or police?
TRL cannot provide legal advice. We urge you to take the appropriate steps to ensure that your surveys are both legal and safe. You have permission from the three local authorities involved in these trials to survey their networks, but again you must ensure that your surveys are both legal and safe. If you are unable to survey sections of the given networks, we will take this into consideration during the analysis of your data, providing we are notified.
Do we need to declare the dates we are going to collect the data on in advance, within the data collection window?
There is no need to declare dates. Just be within the time window. You may require TRO exemptions, which you will need to provide dates for.
Do you have any visibility of any planned local authority work on any of the routes during the collection windows?
TRL has used local highway authorities planned work to guide the selection of the routes. It has then reviewed the proposed routes with the LHAs to make sure there are no planned works during the assessment timeframe. However, this does not rule out emergency works that will take place. If during your survey you find that there are emergency works taking place, please let TRL know immediately.
Is there a specific coverage requirement - if any difficulty obtaining data is noticed, what % of gap would be tolerated?
A gap report form is provided on the website – technology providers will need to complete this for any missing/uncollected data.
It is understood that technology providers should report their data gaps along with the reason. Is there a maximum acceptable gap percentage required to pass the trials?
There is no defined maximum figure. It would be at the discretion of the Department for Transport once TRL has collected all the assessment data from providers. Reasons are to be given for missing data in a ‘Gap report’. If, for example, a road is closed due to maintenance or an accident, this would be considered an acceptable reason. If the road has been maintained during the trials, TRL will very likely exclude it from the assessment anyway. If numerous data providers report that the same section was inaccessible, again it will probably be excluded. If there is a reason that large lengths of the network cannot be accessed due to a limitation of the technology, then TRL and the RCM technology provider would need to have a discussion about the assessment procedure and any limitations that might have to be provided on the device(s) for commercial use. An extreme example might be if a survey vehicle is too wide to be able to access ‘C’ class roads. TRL should be contacted if an RCM technology provider thinks there may be a genuine reason for being unable to provide ‘good’ coverage of the demonstration network.
Can clarification be given for a lane-by-lane scanning technology solution for the following: • in section 8.5 under "Collection and reporting of RCM data for national reporting" of the PAS2161 document, it states that "RCM technologies that report condition category values of each lane separately, should report the nearside lane only - for dual-carriageways or one-way roads" • in the engineering guidance document instead, the inspectors are reporting the benchmark of all lanes combined. • in the technical briefing it says: "Provide combined values for each section for both two-way roads and multi-lane carriageways" So, is a lane-by-lane scanning technology required to scan all lanes or just lane 1 for dual carriageways - and how can this be compared to the benchmark if only a single lane is scanned? Also, for 2 lane single carriageways, would the requirement be to scan 4 lanes (2 in the forwards directions and 2 in reverse)?
To provide a level playing field for all participants, the demonstration trials require that everyone provides a ‘Combined’ score for each section. This is why the engineers will also be providing a ‘combined’ score, with the method they will be using to do so defined in the Engineers’ Guidance document. Each section therefore needs to be scored with a value that represents the condition of all available lanes. For a two-way single carriageway section with four lanes, that is all four lanes. Dual carriageways which are represented as two separate sections only require the one section/carriageway in the route to be scored, but again, all lanes.
With the shp files, could you also please provide the coordinate reference system you are using?
The coordinate reference system used for sharing the routes will be OSGB36.
For the repeated route in Lincolnshire that is split into two, is this submitted as a combined repeated report or individual ones for each of the repeat split.
This is a decision for RCM technology providers. The only requirement is to make sure the repeats are separate to the main files.
Do RCM technology providers need to keep the segments as they are provided? It would also be strange for RCM technology providers to create a segmentation themselves, as that would make it difficult to compare offerings from other suppliers.
Section 7.2 of PAS2161 describes the fitting of data to the defined network. Sections can be of any length (within reason). They are defined by the highway authority according to various rules which mean a section label will change where a particular physical attribute changes, such as at a junction or if the section function changes, for example. RCM technology providers are expected to deliver data to match the sections as defined. Sub-sections of nominally 10m begin at the beginning of a section at 0m. They have a start distance and end distance, within the section. An example is shown in the PAS in AppA.
During the rating of road sections in 10m to 100 m intervals, we observed that some 10m sections with no visible defects were still assigned a rating of 2 or 3 because a few defects were present elsewhere within the corresponding 100m section. Could you please explain the logic used for assigning these ratings? Specifically, I'd like to understand whether the rating is: • calculated independently for each 10 m section, • inherited from the overall 100 m section, • based on a weighted distress index, • or assigned using another aggregation method. Understanding the exact methodology will help us ensure consistency in the current rating process.
The method used is described in PPR2083 – but TRL will assess data in 100m lengths.
Can you confirm at what subsection length the comparison of RCM and benchmark data will use. If this is at 100m, can you please provide the mechanism to generate from 10m?
The RCM technology providers will provide 10m data. TRL will create 100m lengths for assessment, using the same process for everyone.
In PPR2083, section 3.1 describes the approach to analysis adopted, would it be possible to share a worked example of process set out in 3.1.1 for the calculation of the engineers’ benchmark data?
An example of PAS2161 data aggregation. The example data contains 5 random 1-5 categories over a 237m section for five engineers (A-E):
Chainage | A | B | C | D | E |
0-10m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
10-20m | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
20-30m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
30-40m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
40-50m | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
50-60m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
60-70m | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
70-80m | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
80-90m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
90-100m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
100-110m | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
110-120m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
120-130m | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
130-140m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
140-150m | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
150-160m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
160-170m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
170-180m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
180-190m | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
190-200m | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
200-210m | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
210-220m | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
220-237m | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
The method of max mode (i.e. calculate the mode, if there is a tie in the counts, choose the category of the highest condition score) is applied to the condition scores for every 10m -sub-section. For example, the counts of the category scores for 0-10m:
Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Count | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Category 1 has the highest count, so condition score 1 is the assigned to the sub-section.
The counts of the category scores for 10-20m are:
Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Count | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Categories 2 and 3 have the highest counts, since 3 is the largest condition score (i.e. 3 > 2) condition score 3 is assigned to the sub-section.
The table below shows the results of applying the method on the full table:
Chainage | Category |
0-10m | 1 |
10-20m | 3 |
20-30m | 2 |
30-40m | 2 |
40-50m | 3 |
50-60m | 2 |
60-70m | 3 |
70-80m | 5 |
80-90m | 2 |
90-100m | 2 |
100-110m | 2 |
110-120m | 1 |
120-130m | 2 |
130-140m | 1 |
140-150m | 2 |
150-160m | 2 |
160-170m | 1 |
170-180m | 1 |
180-190m | 3 |
190-200m | 1 |
200-210m | 2 |
210-220m | 4 |
220-237m | 2 |
The data is then aggregated to 100m by summing the weights for each category and choosing the category with the largest weight (if there is a tie, choose the category with the highest condition score). The weight is given by the length of the section i.e. [end section length – start section length]. This approach is equivalent to C.3 in PAS 2161. For the chainage 0-100m, the weights table is:
Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Weight | 10 | 50 | 30 | 0 | 10 |
The condition score 2 is has the highest weight, so Category 2 will be assigned to the 100m sub-section.
For the chainage 100-237m, the weights table is:
Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Weight | 50 | 67 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
The condition score 2 is has the highest weight, so Category 2 will be assigned to the 137m sub-section.
Do RCM technology providers need to survey bus lanes?
If a section or lane has a TRO preventing access to it, arrange for an exemption from the TRO from the relevant local authority, as would happen under normal survey circumstances. In the case of the demonstration trials, TRL are acting as the local authority and will pass on any requests to the actual local authority. There are such sections in the trial routes, which you should consider when you plan your data collection.
What is the advice for collection on sections with multiple lanes?
TRL is not providing advice on how to perform data collection or processing. The DfT has requested a ‘combined’ value for all sections (as per 4.5a1 and 4.5b1). It is up to RCM technology providers how this is provided.
RCM technology providers are required to submit data "in the forward direction, where possible", but does this refer to the direction of driving, or the direction of the line string in the provided routes? Sometimes these are not the same.
‘Forward’ refers to the direction of the section (line string). The section starts at 0m and proceeds ‘Forward’ towards the end length of the section. For CR1 lanes, assuming you are driving your surveys on open roads, you will collect data in the ‘Reverse’ direction. i.e. the direction of travel is not the same as the direction that the section is defined in. Note, that for data collected on two-way roads, where delivered as a ‘combined’ category, it will require at least one of the lanes to be flipped.
If data collected by ‘Engineers Inspections’ meets the requirement to be classified as ‘demonstrated’ what is actually being considered? Is it the individual engineers, or the data processor function that takes the engineers’ data and reports consistent with the PAS 2161 file format?
Can there be access to the raw data for the calibration areas - this would be useful in understanding the confidence of these readings.
The dataset being provided is the only data that will be made available. It will be generated by combining the scores of multiple engineers and removing outliers to ensure good confidence in the result(s). The same process will be applied to the benchmark data that RCM technology providers will be assessed against.
When are the providers meant to submit the complete data with categories labelled? How long after the data collection period would this be?
The dates for the calibration work is as set out in the table below.
| Location | Date |
| TRL provides benchmark data for calibration | 2nd October 2026 |
| RCM technology providers submit calibrated data for assessment | 6th November 2026 |
Is there a process to feedback issues with the benchmark data?
Please share any issues through the RCMtrial@trl.co.uk email address.
Does the quality assurance form need to be submitted before data capture beings?
The QA form submission deadline is the same as the data submission (i.e., 6th November). If there are issues that need to be resolved, but insufficient time is available to do so, it will not be possible to issue a certificate of demonstrated status.
Last year, RCM technology providers were able to submit data on two occasions - is this still the same for the next submission or would there be just the one submission?
The reason for two data submissions in 2025 was because the original provision of 20% calibration data on the three networks of Cumberland, Essex and Liverpool proved to be insufficient to allow full calibration. To overcome that, 100% of the Essex data was provided which then enabled a second submission to be made. For the 2026 demonstration trial, calibration data for 40% of all three networks will be provided which should suffice for a single data submission.
The 2025 demonstration trial gave a report format of what data outputs were required. Is there any change in these requirements?
No changes are planned to the data output report format for 2026 to that in 2025.
How do you wish technology providers to record features like speed humps, speed tables and the like? Do you want these included or ignored?
Such features should be recorded as you feel is appropriate for your data collection methodology, so that the results represent condition as per PAS2161.
With respect to the repeat routes, how would you like technology providers to differentiate between the individual runs as the network section code will be the same for each of the three runs and TRL would want to know which run was which.
Repeat routes are for the purpose of assessing repeatability. They represent a different data collection exercise and should be delivered as separate files.
Do you require any additional data that we may supply to local authorities for assessment, or is it just the condition 1-5 category rating?
TRL only needs the data necessary to assess the performance of each road condition monitoring technology type for use on the classified road network. It is up to the RCM technology provider to determine if there is any additional information that it considers its existing or potential clients would benefit from, including the ability to produce survey information for the unclassified road network. It is the aspiration of the Department for Transport and TRL that there is some (as yet unspecified) improvement in performance from RCM technology providers for the 2028 and 2030 trials, rather than an expansion in capability.
Given that PAS 2161 inherently involves a degree of subjectivity and is based on achieving a percentage accuracy threshold, differing interpretations of assessments may arise. For example, customers may hold alternative views on asset condition grading or defect classification. How does TRL recommend distinguishing between: • legitimate quality issues in delivery, and • acceptable variation arising from the standard’s inherent accuracy tolerances?
It is not TRL’s role to act as advisors to RCM technology providers as that falls outside of the scope of its contract with the Department for Transport. TRL is following the requirements of PAS 2161 and can only certify that a road condition technology is either ‘demonstrated’ or ‘not demonstrated’.
Section lengths in the Shapefile and RouteList (both in the ZIP) do not match. Is ID: 3055A60427 (left-turn lane only) needed, and why is it defined as a separate section? Part of the road centreline appears to be reversed. ID:3055A60425
The generic answer to this is that, since the network definitions used for the trials have been sourced from real local highway authorities, then you should do what you would normally do during commercial surveys. Network definitions provided by local highway authorities can sometimes be inaccurate or out-of-date. In addition, there is often no relationship between the recorded section length and the digitised length of the section. These are two sources of the same information, but they do not necessarily have to match. The recorded section length may have come from a measuring wheel, or an existing automated survey, whilst the digitised section length is subject to the skill and precision of the individual drawing the line on a map. In such cases, an RCM technology provider would either make decisions based on prior experience or consult with the local highway authority for clarification. Since for the purpose of the demonstration trials, TRL is acting as the local highway authority, TRL’s answers to your questions would be:
- Please use and fit data to the section lengths given in the spreadsheet definition of the network.
- This is the network definition. Please attempt to survey as much of the defined network as possible. Report any missed length(s) in the Gap report.
- This is an inconsistency in the digitisation. Please use and fit data to the spreadsheet definition of the network.
Demonstrated/not demonstrated
What three locations are to be used for the demonstration trial?
There is no intention to change the pass marks that applied for the 2025 demonstration trial in the 2026 demonstration trial. It is the aspiration of the Department for Transport and TRL that there is some (as yet unspecified) improvement in performance from RCM technology providers for the 2028 and 2030 trials.
Are there different assessment criteria for different technologies?
All technologies will be assessed on the same assessment criteria. However, due to the nature of the technologies, some Type-V (Telematics) might collect data for assessment of repeatability using a different approach. If you intend to provide Type-V, please contact RCMtrial@trl.co.uk as soon as possible to initiate a discussion.
Can we get clarity in terms of how technology within category E will be assessed? If the technology provides an engineer with the ability to log the condition of the network, the condition is down to the engineer’s perception, not the technology ability to select the right category.
There will always be some degree of variability of interpretation of condition amongst engineers. Even when the local highway authority engineers are deployed to determine a demonstration trial benchmark, there are different interpretations of condition. The Department for Transport requires that the ‘technologies’ being offered for demonstration are capable of delivering RCM data. Therefore, the engineer who makes the assessment of the rating is considered part of that technology. They are a human element in the data processing chain. Any engineers for Type E technology should therefore have sufficient understanding and experience of road condition monitoring to make a reasoned assessment of condition into categories 1 to 5. The RCM provider of category E will need to identify the procedures that it will have in place to ensure, as much as possible, that its different engineers provide consistent ratings.
Can you confirm the pass % required on data demonstrated?
The pass thresholds for the 2025 demonstration trial are as shown in Table 8 of PPR2083. It is currently anticipated that they will remain the same for the 2026 demonstration trial.
If the data collection is carried out by a third party to the data processor, how will the accreditation process recognise the separation - e.g. an 'M' technology relies on external data collectors
Any scenario whereby multiple organisations are working in partnership requires full working alignment between those organisations. PAS 2161 allows for the data processor to be a different organisation to the data provider but the technology being assessed requires collaboration. If that collaboration is not sufficiently evidenced through the quality assurance form process, the technology will be ‘not demonstrated’.
When will the results be announced?
The intention is to formally announce which technologies are ‘demonstrated’ on 18th December 2026. If there is any scope to do so, the announcement will be brought forward, but it very much depends on how the trial progresses.
If one company gets accredited with a certain technology, can then any other company, using the same technology, use that accreditation?
No. The accreditation is for a specific technology for which the named company/companies have also been assessed in terms of quality assurance. Another company could use that specific technology, but it will not be considered as accredited as that company will not have undergone (and been approved under) the quality assurance assessment process. It would also be necessary to confirm that the implementation of the technology is consistent between the two companies.
Note: If a local highway authority does not use an accredited arrangement, it risks losing part of its (in some cases, substantial) annual capital funding allocation from the Department for Transport. The local highway authority would be justified in seeking financial damages from any organisation that claimed to be providing an accredited road condition monitoring technology but was unable to later prove that to be the case.
Finance
In the description, we find the RCM provider as technology provider or data collector or data processor
The RCM technology provider submitting the request for approval of any technology may be a data collector being supported by a separate data processor, a data processor being supported by a separate data collector or a single organisation that acts as both data collector and data processor. Any of those three arrangements would be regarded individually or collectively in partnership as an ‘RCM technology provider’ with each separate organisation named on the accreditation certificate.
Is it £7.5k per technology per year or £7.5k per technology through to 2028?
The £7,500 cost is per technology for the 2026 demonstration exercise. The cost for future demonstration exercises is likely to be similar but will be confirmed before each demonstration exercise.
Does the price stay at £7.5k even if you submit data collection with a third-party provider? Or would it become £15k for two “submitters”?
The £7,500 cost is per technology. If a data collector and data processor are from different organisations, the cost remains £7,500 – but those two organisations would need to mutually agree how to apportion the cost and who would act as the lead organisation for the purposes of ensuring the issue of a purchase order and subsequent payment of the invoice that TRL will generate.
Is it possible for TRL to reconsider the cost/fee to be supplier based rather than technology/submission based? This is a good opportunity to experiment with technology.
As part of the procurement process, the Department for Transport requested all potential bidders to submit a fixed price for assessing each technology. As part of its tender submission, TRL set a price of £7,500 per technology so any interested party must similarly follow suit and submit a payment of £7,500 for its technology to be assessed against PAS 2161 by TRL.
When a company pays £7,500 to participate in the trials to get the ‘technology’ approved, who gets the accreditation? The company that participated or the technology used?
The accreditation certificate will state the name of the company – or companies if the data collector and data processor are distinctly different entities – and the technology that has been demonstrated.
General queries
What is the best way to ask questions about the process/participation?
Any queries (technical or financial) not addressed in this Q&A document should be directed to the dedicated TRL email address of RCMtrial@trl.co.uk
Is there a defined process for resolving disputes between a customer and an approved provider where there is disagreement in assessment outcomes under PAS 2161?
No, there is currently no defined dispute resolution process established for the relationship between the customer (local highway authority) and the provider. That would be a contractual issue between parties.
In particular, what governance, escalation, or adjudication mechanisms are in place (or recommended) to ensure fair and consistent resolution of such disagreements?
TRL has not been tasked to provide such a service between providers and local highway authorities. However, as part of the goal to improve future performance, TRL would like to be informed of any such disputes so that any clarifications required can be discussed with the DfT and incorporated into future guidance.
Is the ongoing quality assurance process part of the formal acceptance criteria?
RCM technology providers interpreted some of the questions posed on the quality assurance form in the 2025 demonstration trial differently. So, for the 2026 trial, there have been technology-type specific questionnaires. This will reduce the instance of questions that are not appropriate for the technology, and, in addition, it would allow for additional guidance and examples which would be relevant for the technology type. Each RCM provider will need to demonstrate (via the QA forms) that they have acceptable QA arrangements in place which they will carry out over the life of the demonstration certificate. TRL will review the responses to the QA forms and provide feedback. However, TRL has not been tasked with reviewing/auditing QA undertaken between demonstrations.
Is PAS 2161 flexible enough to allow additional technologies as they are developed over the next few years, as is possible?
The PAS 2161 2026 demonstration trial will assess all RCM technologies that can potentially be used by local highway authorities until the end of March 2029. Any technologies that emerge after the conclusion of the 2026 demonstration trial will have the potential to be assessed in the 2028 and 2030 trials.