August 2004

FEDERAL

HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION

Construction 

Program Management 

and Inspection Guide

Construction 

Program Management 

and Inspection Guide

FEDERAL

HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION

August 2004
August 2004

FEDERAL

HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION

Construction 

Program Management 

and Inspection Guide
Notice

This publication is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in

the interest of information exchange. The publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or

regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or

manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the

publication.
Foreword v

List of Acronyms vii

1. Introduction 1–1

2. Background 2–1

Historical Developments in Construction Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . .2–1

A New Era of Engineering Awareness and Stewardship . . . . . . . . . .2–2

Flexibility and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2–2

3. Construction Program Management 3–1

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–1

Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–1

Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–2

Objectives of Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–3

Purposes of Construction Inspection Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–4

Inspections: Types and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3–5

4. Inspection and Review Activities 4–1

Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–1

Conducting the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–1

Collecting and Evaluating Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–2

Writing the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–3

Processing and Distributing the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–5

Followup Action, Controls, and Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–6

Information Sharing and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4–7

5. Summary 5–1

Contents

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

iii

Contents
Appendix A A-1

Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

Appendix B B-1

Quality Assurance Resources

Memorandum: Quality Assurance Guide Specification and

Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B–2

Contractor Quality Control Plans: Contractor Guidelines and Examples . . . . . .B–4

A Model Quality Control Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B–17

Appendix C C-1

Sample Guidelines for Process Review/Product Evaluation Programs

California Division Program Review/Product Evaluation Program . . . . . . . . . .C–2

Illinois Division Guidelines for Conducting Process Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C–8

Appendix D D-1

Guide for Making Inspections-In-Depth on Federal-Aid

Highway Construction Projects 

Appendix E E-1

Technical References and Resources

Appendix F F-1

Examples of Reporting Practices

Appendix G G-1

Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

Contents

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

iv
Foreword

Over the last 15 years, the role and experience base of the Federal Highway Administration’s

(FHWA’s) engineering staff have changed considerably. Today, our field engineers are typically

involved in a diverse array of issues that were not common in the Federal-aid program of decades past.

A decline in staffing resources and experience, coupled with increased demand on our current field

engineering staff, requires a more focused and systematic approach to fulfill our construction

stewardship responsibilities.

Past Federal highway legislation provided many State transportation agencies and FHWA divisions

with a great deal of flexibility in delivering the program, including certification mechanisms for many

types of construction projects. This increased State flexibility but reduced FHWA project oversight.

Reorganization of FHWA, the elimination of the region offices, and a thrust towards other sensitive

issues within the Federal-aid program have also contributed to a less visible construction stewardship

presence by our field and Washington Headquarters offices. In spite of the many changes that have

occurred, FHWA’s role in ensuring the integrity of the Federal-aid construction program remains a

critical responsibility in our continuing accountability to Congress and the public.

Between 1997 and 2000, total expenditures by all levels of government increased by over 25

percent for highway infrastructure. In 2000, highway expenditures totaled more than $127 billion,

with over 70 percent going to reconstruction and preservation of existing roads and construction of

new facilities. To continue meeting our construction stewardship responsibilities and to ensure safe,

efficient, high-quality, Federal-aid construction, division office engineering staff must continually strive

to find effective ways of conducting business. While this effort presents a tremendous challenge, we

can meet it.

In December of 2001, FHWA leadership created the Construction Quality Improvement Team

(CQIT) to address this challenge. This publication, Construction Program Management and Inspection

Guide, is a significant product of the CQIT. It was developed to provide our field engineering staff a

technical resource to consult in delivering an effective level of oversight and stewardship of the

Federal-aid construction program. This document is not about business as usual, but rather about

focusing on program practices and techniques that add value and help to ensure effective oversight and

acceptable accountability. It provides specifics for implementing a wide variety of strategies that, with

our State partners’ involvement, will deliver quality construction products to our ultimate customers,

that is, the traveling public.

I strongly urge each of you to become familiar with this document, visit the referenced Web sites,

and review the other references identified as you undertake your renewed stewardship responsibilities.

I believe this document is an excellent tool for adding value, enhancing technical expertise, ensuring

the highest level of construction quality, and maintaining accountability.

King W. Gee

Associate Administrator

Office of Infrastructure

Contents

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

v

List of Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act

BPR Bureau of Public Roads

CA Certification Acceptance

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FP Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway

Projects

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

HMA Hot-mix asphalt

IID Inspection-in-depth

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act, USC 4321-4335

NHI National Highway Institute

NHS National Highway System

NHS-1995 National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PR/PE Process review/Product evaluation

PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

Contents

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

vii
QA Quality assurance

SAFETEA Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003

SHA State highway agency

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

STA State transportation agency

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178

USC United States Code

USDOL United States Department of Labor

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

Contents

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

viii
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) field

responsibilities and extent of involvement in project details

have changed considerably over the years. Construction

inspection procedures and techniques have undergone a

number of changes to keep pace with changing times. Recent

efforts to maintain a competent level of engineering

awareness within the agency have prompted another change

in direction. The wide variety of programs and reductions in

staffing without a commensurate reduction in FHWA

responsibility have further served to complicate the issue. 

The role of FHWA field staff as stewards of federal

requirements is to ensure compliance by supporting

continuous quality improvement, promoting innovation and

new technology, and providing value-added technical

support. These responsibilities are best accomplished by

developing professional relationships with our State

counterparts in State transportation agency (STA)

headquarters and in the field. The FHWA engineer should

strive to be a value-added element in the administration of

the Federal-aid program. 

Traditionally the front-line FHWA engineer was known

as the “area engineer.” With reorganization, construction

oversight responsibility is now carried out by field staff with

a variety of titles, including “transportation engineer,” “field

engineer,” “construction engineer,” and similar designations.

For the purposes of this Guide, these terms are used

interchangeably.

FHWA’s ultimate responsibility for stewardship and

oversight of the Federal-aid highway program is affirmed in

several sections of the United States Code. 23 USC 114

states: “The construction of any highways or portions of

highways located on the Federal-aid system shall be

undertaken by the respective State transportation

departments or under their direct supervision....such

construction shall be subject to the inspection and approval

of the Secretary.” Subsection (c) of 23 USC 106, Project

Approval and Oversight, provides for the States to assume

some responsibilities of the Secretary for certain projects.

However, subsection (d), Responsibilities of the Secretary,

further states that “...nothing in this section, section 133

[Surface Transportation Program], or section 149

[Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

Program] shall affect or discharge any responsibilities or

obligations of the Secretary under (1) section 113 [Prevailing

rate of wage] or 114 [Construction], or (2) any Federal

law....” 

This Guide highlights FHWA roles and resources to

assist the State in delivering a quality construction program.

The Guide is intended to complement experience gained on

actual construction sites. States have established processes

and procedures to administer contracts and monitor

successful program delivery. These procedures include

monthly contract status reports, material testing, change

order and claim evaluations, and other contract

administration reporting that provides program-level

information on contract delivery. These project

documentation and source records should be readily

available at the project site on all Federal-aid projects.

FHWA engineers should make full use of all documentation

to monitor the program and identify the potential areas of

risk. 

This Guide has been developed to assist FHWA field

engineers in maintaining and improving technical

competence and in selecting a balanced program of

construction management techniques. The intent is to carry

out this program using an appropriate level of risk

management. It is FHWA’s responsibility to ensure that the

public is getting the best value for its expenditure of public

resources in all of its programs.

The Guide serves to highlight technical features and

techniques for making construction inspections that have

proven to be effective. The Guide has several purposes:

▼ Providing familiarization for newer employees

▼ Serving as a refresher for veteran employees

▼ Assisting field offices in developing a balanced

construction program by considering the relative merits

of using a variety of construction program management

and inspection techniques

▼ Highlighting technical elements to be integrated in

construction inspections to provide a reasonable level of

quality assurance in the construction program area

The following section provides a brief review of the history

of the FHWA’s project construction inspection practices and

the current management of FHWA’s construction

monitoring program. This review serves as a background for

discussing the construction program management and

inspection responsibilities of FHWA field engineers.

Introduction

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

1–1

1. Introduction

Background

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

2–1

Historical Developments in

Construction Inspection

Early History

During the early years, the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR)

was the main technical source for State highway agencies and

county road departments. BPR field engineers were frequently looked upon to help solve complicated design or

construction problems. All active construction projects,

other than those under the Secondary Road Plan, which was

initiated in 1954, were typically inspected once a month. The

National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS1995) eliminated the Secondary Road Plan.

The Early Interstate Period

When Congress funded the Interstate Highway Program in

the 1950s, only a few State highway agencies were staffed

with enough engineers to design and construct a national

highway network of such magnitude. The BPR, therefore,

made monthly field reviews of all projects and conducted

rigorous inspections-in-depth (IIDs). Most BPR engineers

had strong field construction backgrounds, and their advice

was actively sought on contract matters and field changes. 

The Blatnik Era

In the early 1960s, with increased dollars being spent on

construction of the Interstate Highway System, came

charges of waste, fraud, and corruption. Many of the news

media, including the Huntley-Brinkley Journal, Reader’s

Digest, and Parade Magazine, called the Federal and State

governments to task for failing to control activities and

expenditures.

A number of investigations were conducted by the

Blatnik Committee of Congress (chaired by Rep. John

Blatnik of Minnesota, former Chairman of the House

Committee on Public Works), the General Accounting

Office, and the BPR’s Project Examination Division—

forerunner of the Office of Audits and Investigations and

later the Office of Inspector General. IIDs were used as a

method to investigate corruption and fraud in response to

the charge to the highway community to assure that its own

house was in order.

Evolution of Highway Agencies

In 1967, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

was formed, and the BPR became the Federal Highway

Administration. By the 1970s, the FHWA had developed

considerable confidence in the technical competence and

abilities in construction management of State highway

agencies. A number of other topics, particularly social, economic, and environmental considerations, were vying for

FHWA’s attention. 

FHWA faced the dilemma of not being able to maintain

the previous level of project-level reviews. The answer to this

problem was to turn a greater degree of direct project

responsibility over to the States in the form of Certification

Acceptance, an alternative authorization procedure for

administering non-Interstate Federal-aid projects, and to

rely on a process review approach for the assurances that the

Federal Government needed. The theory was that if the

process was good, the product would be, too. This new

independence may have been good for the States, but many

FHWA field engineers coming aboard in the last two decades

have not had the same field experience and technical

exposure that FHWA engineers once had.

The enactment of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) dramatically

changed the Federal-aid Highway Program and the Federal

role. The Federal-State partnership was changed by offering

the States more independence in carrying out a significant

portion of the program by enabling FHWA to delegate to

them, upon their request, the majority of Title 23 project

decisions. These delegations are defined through

stewardship agreements between the respective FHWA

division offices and the (STAs). Non-Title 23 activities,

however, such as the National Environmental Policy Act

2. Background
(NEPA), civil rights, and right-of-way could not be further

delegated. NHS-1995 and ISTEA provided additional

flexibility, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century of 1998 (TEA-21), eliminated Certification

Acceptance as an FHWA program.

A New Era of Engineering

Awareness and Stewardship

In recent years, events have occurred that support FHWA’s

renewed construction involvement. This involvement is not

the traditional project-level activity, but is focused more on

overall, program-level management. 

Increases in transportation funding have dramatically

increased the numbers of projects under construction at any

time. This growth in highway construction will probably

continue in the future since more roads are operating near

capacity and an increasing percentage of roads are in need of

repair. Many of our older highways have outlived their

original design life and are in need of rehabilitation or

reconstruction. Heavy traffic complicates preservation and

reconstruction projects. STAs are experiencing increased

workloads, personnel cuts, and attrition of seasoned

construction personnel.

In order to ensure that the public is realizing a quality

product, FHWA has increased construction program

involvement and technical assistance (Appendix A, Policy

Memoranda Regarding Stewardship). This emphasis on

increased construction involvement for FHWA has resulted

in renewed attention to engineering while recognizing that a

return to the old way of doing business is not possible. The

FHWA needs to maximize its use of resources by selecting

the most appropriate review programs and methodologies to

fit each situation.

Operating with limited resources requires that FHWA

focus its efforts and resources in high-risk areas. FHWA field

engineers need to develop and carry out construction

programs in concert with their STAs. In addition to its

oversight responsibility, FHWA’s involvement should

complement and supplement the STA’s construction

program administration. The depth and consistency of this

involvement should be as deemed necessary by each

division’s risk management analysis.

Flexibility and Accountability

Division Office Flexibility

The posture of FHWA’s headquarters management is to

delegate the maximum amount of authority and

responsibility to the division office level. This gives the

division administrator a great deal of flexibility in designing

the division construction management program to meet local

conditions and needs while still assuring proper stewardship.

This delegation carries full accountability for the quality of

the program and the final product. Definition of the

division’s oversight roles and responsibilities should be

included in the local FHWA-STA stewardship agreement. 

Guidance 

Prior to 1991, FHWA’s policy guidance encouraged projectlevel monitoring and inspection. In the 1990s, FHWA

experienced a transition from project- to program-level

oversight. The stewardship policy issued on June 22, 2001,

titled “Policy on the Stewardship and Oversight of the

Federal Highway Programs” (Appendix A) encouraged

program-level oversight with project-specific verification.

The memorandum “Stewardship and Oversight of the

FHWA Construction Program,” dated January 8, 2003

(Appendix A), continues to strive for assurance by

reemphasizing FHWA’s role in construction program

management. 

This Guide is a tool to assist the divisions in developing

their construction management program and project-level

involvement to assure a quality product. Each division is

encouraged to periodically review and supplement the Guide

as needed with additional guidance or instruction to address

areas of concern or to meet the needs in its State. 

Accountability

FHWA must be able to assure Congress and the American

public that Federal-aid highway construction funds are

expended in accordance with law, regulation, and policy and

that the public is getting a quality product. Accountability

resides with the division administrator in each State.

Assurance can only be made when division offices have, as

part of their stewardship programs, adequate construction

involvement to be familiar with their STA’s construction

program and its delivery effectiveness. The role of FHWA

headquarters is to provide policy guidance and technical

assistance to the division offices. The FHWA Resource

Center (www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter) and other field

offices are also available to provide training and other

technology support as requested.

Background

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

2–2
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–1

General

By inference from 23 USC 114, FHWA has oversight

responsibility for Federal-aid construction work: “The

construction of any highways or portions of highways located

on the Federal-aid system shall be undertaken by the

respective State transportation departments or under their

direct supervision....such construction shall be subject to the

inspection and approval of the Secretary.” The purpose of

FHWA’s construction monitoring program is to facilitate the

division administrator’s evaluation of the State’s use of

Federal-aid funds and to provide support for the

disbursement of Federal funds based on State policies,

practices, and staffing. For the purpose of construction

program management, the term construction pertains

primarily to all post-award activities. However, knowledge of

pre-award activities such as plans, specifications, and

estimates (PS&E) development, mitigation measures, and

the project award process is necessary. (Refer to 23 USC 101

(a)(3) for a definition of “Construction.”)

Considerations

In evaluating the division’s construction management

program, consideration should be given to current agency

emphasis areas and the findings of past years’ programs. This

evaluation should be incorporated in the division’s risk

assessment procedures. As appropriate, the risk assessment

should provide for evaluating various phases of the STA

program on a cyclic basis. For more information, see the

“Risk Assessment Guide” on the FHWA Intranet:

http://intra.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/risktoc.htm.

Program areas where no major problems exist may not

require detailed review. As a part of the division’s risk

assessment, the basis for not making reviews should be

documented in the division office files. Program areas having

major problems and those where insufficient information is

available for drawing conclusions are candidates to be

included in the review cycle.

A fundamental component of construction program

management is an understanding of contract administration

and construction quality. Contract administration is broadly

defined as taking a PS&E and producing a desired end

product. Construction quality management involves

traditional quality assurance measures employed to control

and verify construction, material, and product quality. It also

encompasses broader topics of continuous quality

improvement such as optimization of decision-making

processes, innovative contracting practices for enhancing

quality, performance feedback mechanisms, and specification

improvements and design refinements.

Quality construction is critical to a successful STA

construction program. Completed construction projects

represent tangible products by which the public measures the

success of the STA in delivering its program objectives. The

public ultimately defines the success of construction projects

based on the level of delivered quality, which may include a

variety of issues such as safety characteristics, operational

efficiency during and after construction, materials quality

and long-term durability, and financial value. The proper use

and knowledge of effective construction quality management

applications, at the program and the project level, can

provide FHWA with confidence that completed, federally

funded construction work meets the above objectives for

success. 

Most STAs are now using some form of statistical quality

assurance specifications for their highway construction work.

Statistically based specifications are an effective means of

ensuring a quality product, and they are a fundamental

component of construction quality management. Many

STAs are also using other quality improvement methods,

such as obtaining and using highway user feedback,

developing performance measures and goals, and using

various processes during construction to ensure quality

workmanship. All of these quality improvement techniques

fall within the broader context of construction quality

management.

Quality assurance (QA) is the systematic processes

necessary to ensure sure the quality of a product is what it

should be. Quality assurance is an all-encompassing term

that includes quality control, acceptance, independent

assurance, dispute resolution, and the use of qualified

laboratories and qualified personnel. 

All STAs are required by the Code of Federal

Regulations (23 CFR 637) to have a quality assurance

program for Federal-aid highway construction projects on

the National Highway System. Each division’s construction

program management activities should include elements for

encouraging and assisting the STA in implementing or

refining their QA program, and for assessing project level

implementation of the program requirements. See Appendix B, Quality Assurance Resources, for additional guidance

on quality assurance program elements.

3. Construction Program Management
Program Elements

FHWA’s division-level construction management program

should include both process and project-level involvement. A

program should be developed to define the type and

frequencies of inspections that can best be combined within

the limits of available resources and the needs of the

construction program.

The program should be designed to define the required

level of periodic involvement and to encourage and maintain

a professional working relationship with STA personnel who

are responsible to assure continued and improved quality of

highway construction. Construction program management

includes both pre-award and post-award activities. The program should be flexible but should provide direction for

FHWA field engineers. 

The division administrator is responsible for developing

a construction management program for evaluating the

Federal-aid construction programs of the STAs and local

governments. This Guide should be used as a tool in

developing the program’s elements: determining the level of

inspection coverage, performing the inspections and reviews,

preparing and distributing reports, monitoring findings,

preparing special reports, and documenting the division’s

program.

Determine Frequency and 

Type of Inspections

Each division is responsible for determining the degree and

intensity of inspection coverage necessary to administer the

division’s construction management program. In

determining what constitutes “sufficient reviews or

inspections,” the division administrator needs to consider a

variety of factors including the qualifications and capabilities

of STA management, project staff, and contractors; the STA’s

operating procedures and internal review programs

including local program oversight; previously identified

problem areas; and unique project conditions.

Perform Inspections and Reviews

The division office is responsible for performing the

inspections and reviews outlined in its construction

management program. The division is encouraged to solicit

the participation of headquarters and the Resource Center in

reviews of new or unusual features or practices and for other

assistance as appropriate. Reviews that are made jointly with

headquarters, the FHWA Resource Center, or State

personnel who have similar responsibilities should also be

included in the division office’s program.

Prepare and Distribute Reports

The division office is responsible for preparing and

distributing copies of construction inspection and other

reports. It is desirable that the report’s content and

distribution consider the views of potential readers as well as

the potential use of the report. Preparation and distribution

of reports will be discussed in greater detail later in this

Guide; however, the importance of quality inspection

documentation must be acknowledged. Documentation is

essential to meet several program objectives:

▼ Define progress and quality of work 

▼ Establish FHWA presence in the Federal-aid

construction program

▼ Identify project or program problem areas

▼ Document resolution of identified concerns

▼ Share innovations and new technology

Monitor Findings

Division offices should document findings and resolutions

from construction reviews and inspections. These findings

should be used as input into subsequent risk assessments. 

Prepare Special Reports 

The program should encourage FHWA field engineers to

prepare or assist their State partners in preparing reports on

special or innovative construction materials, methods, and

procedures. The FHWA field engineer should ensure

appropriate circulation of reports as a technology-sharing

activity.

Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–2
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–3

Documentation 

Division offices should document the effectiveness of their

construction management programs. Documentation should

include observations, findings and resolutions, and any

special reports. This evaluation should also discuss quality

management initiatives and summarize the capability and

performance of the STA in carrying out its Federal-aid

construction program. Additional detail is provided in the

sidebar to the right.

Objectives of Inspection

Inspections, either at the project or program level, are the

primary method used by FHWA for fulfilling its

construction program oversight responsibilities. Oversight

represents the compliance or verification component of

FHWA’s stewardship activities.

Project oversight requirements may be different

depending upon the stewardship agreements, but the general

objectives of construction inspections are the same. Although

STAs may be delegated the authority to administer the

program within the scope of 23 USC and related Federal

laws, FHWA retains the responsibility to assure that projects

are being administered in full compliance. Specific objectives

are as follows:

1. Obtain assurance that the project has been completed in

reasonably close conformity with plans and specifications

including authorized changes and extra work. Provide a

basis for acceptance of the project and reimbursement of

project costs with Federal-aid funds.

2. Acquire information on problems and construction

changes. Provide an opportunity for timely remedial

action where applicable. Provide documentation of

solutions to problems or commitments. Encourage other

STA units’ involvement and awareness of problems to

avoid future reoccurrence.

3. Assess the State’s abilities and effectiveness in managing

and controlling Federal-aid construction projects with

respect to items such as these:

▼ Qualifications—training, certification, written

guidance

▼ Staffing, equipment, and facilities

▼ Performance

▼ Project documentation, including inspection diaries,

test reports, etc.

4. Promote the development and implementation of quality

management programs.

Construction

Management Report

Possible Items Suitable for Inclusion 

Number and value of contracts awarded by type.

Number and value of active projects by type and area.

Field engineer workload—project complexity.

Number of inspections and reviews made by type and

area.

Process/Statewide Reviews by phase.

Selected Emphasis Reviews by phase.

Summary of reviews—objectives, findings (including

frequency and significance), conclusions,

recommendations, and disposition or actions taken.

Overall review of accomplishments as they relate to the

division’s “risk analysis.”

Program modifications with supporting explanations.

– Impact of the construction inspection program: Does it

make a difference?

– Productivity of reviews: What is effective?

Areas of concern: construction improvements needed or

achieved.

– Adequacy of specifications and plans.

– Adequacy of construction supervision: manpower

management, construction workload.

– Comments on State’s construction manual.

– Comments on construction practices attributed to

contract documents or bidding practices.

– Number of documented concerns with resolution.

– Program developments, such as materials sampling and

testing by contractor, experimental projects and

recycling, new methods and equipment, new

specifications.

– Project cost or time creep trends.

– Environmental mitigation measures accomplished

during construction.

Areas needing added emphasis—future construction

inspection program needs.

Suggested program changes—program management,

directives, etc.

Use of quality-level analysis.

Frequency and documentation of project contacts.

Activities that are not project-specific, such as State, district,

or laboratory contacts and relationships.

Construction-related promotional activities.

Training received by State employees and its effectiveness

and usefulness (not restricted to FHWA training).

FHWA and State organizational changes—functions and

individuals.

Final assessment of the acceptability of the State’s

construction program.

Recommendations for reviews to be considered in the next

fiscal year’s risk analysis.
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–4

5. Offer technical and procedural advice. Recommend

improved construction techniques and engineering

supervision.

6. Report on special or innovative construction materials,

methods, procedures, new equipment, and other

technological innovations.

7. Professional development of FHWA and State review

personnel.

8. Other items, such as these:

▼ Establish contact and communications with project

staff.

▼ Become familiar with project.

▼ Attend partnering workshops and project progress

meetings.

▼ Monitor and evaluate progress of work.

▼ Provide support and encouragement for project

personnel.

▼ Focus division resources on critical construction

features and practices.

▼ Follow up on previous inspection findings.

▼ Lessons learned.

Purposes of Construction

Inspection Reports

Document Project History 

and Compliance

Construction inspection reports fulfill four basic requirements:

▼ Provide permanent file evidence that inspections are

being made as required by Federal regulations.

▼ Provide a basis for acceptance of completed work.

▼ Document field conditions, contractor performance,

and the State’s project management.

▼ Document FHWA’s role, observations, findings,

resolution of identified problems, claims, and any other

topics of interest.

FHWA project files are generally maintained through formal

final acceptance before being stripped and sent to the Federal

Record Center; however, FHWA reports are generally

maintained in STA records for several years longer. Field

inspection reports should be considered historical project

records. 

To establish timeframes for record maintenance, consult

the Office of Management and Budget policy contained in

Circular No. A-130, Revised (Transmittal Memorandum

No. 4) and available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/

a130/print/a130trans4.html#1. The FHWA Files

Management and Manual Records Disposition schedules are

available on the FHWA Web site at www.fhwa.dot.gov/

legsregs/directives/orders/m13241.htm. 

The inspecting engineer should be aware that FHWA

inspection reports are subject to Freedom of Information Act

requirements, as described in Circular No. A-130. Potential

readers can be from the general public, and inspection

reports can be used in litigation. These possibilities

underscore the importance of reporting only facts,

observations, and professional recommendations, and not

unnecessary personal opinion. More information is available

at www.fhwa.dot.gov/foia/index.htm. 

Convey Information to the Reader

The report writer should take into consideration a variety of

potential readers. To be comprehensive and coherent, the

report should cover these areas:

▼ Activities taking place on the project during the

inspection.

▼ Observations and actions taken regarding quality and

progress of work.

▼ Comments on the adequacy of the project

administration by the contracting agency’s

representatives (staffing, supervision, documentation,

measurement and payment of contract items, material

issues, etc.).

▼ Adequacy of addressing traffic control, safety, and

environmental issues.

▼ The STA’s handling of change or extra work including

proper justification for the work and adequacy of

supporting documentation.

▼ Information on special or unusual technical topics.

▼ Follow ups from previous reports.

All reports should be clear, concise with facts, and free of

unnecessary personal opinions, and should include positive

and constructive observations. Above all, reports should be

accurate and specific since the content may be used in

evaluating or refuting contract claims.

The original report should be filed in the division’s

project file, a copy sent to the STA, and a copy circulated to

the program technical specialist and appropriate

management in the division office. Reports should be made

available to headquarters and the FHWA Resource Center as

appropriate. 
Inspections: Types and Scope

This Guide suggests the use of specific types of construction

inspections. The type of inspection will vary depending on

the time at which it is conducted, the objective of the

inspection, and the FHWA-STA stewardship agreement

criteria. Various types of inspections may be combined

depending on the circumstances. The following descriptions

of construction inspection classifications have been

developed to provide guidance for FHWA offices on

construction monitoring activities. 

The FHWA Construction and Maintenance Web page

(www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/reviews.htm) provides generic construction review guidelines to provide the FHWA

division offices and STAs with examples of process and

indepth reviews that have been undertaken by various field

offices. These generic “samples” should be modified as

appropriate to meet specific State program needs. 

Process Review/Product Evaluation 

Process review/product evaluations (PR/PEs) are comprehensive reviews that have three primary objectives:

▼ Assure that State processes, procedures, and controls are

in substantial conformance with Federal requirements. 

▼ Assure that projects are constructed in substantial

conformance with State processes, procedures, and

controls.

▼ Identify opportunities and implementation plans to

advance existing processes, procedures, controls, and

technology to the state of the practice or state of the art.

PR/PEs are oriented toward reviewing the STA’s method of

doing business with enough product verification to assure

that the process is working satisfactorily. Process reviews are

generally undertaken on a statewide or areawide basis and

should include a review of the process at key decision points.

As appropriate, State Oversight projects should be included

in the sample of projects inspected as part of the PR/PE;

refer to supplemental information in Appendix C, Sample

Guidelines for Process Review/Product Evaluation

Programs.

Inspections-in-Depth

Inspections-in-depth (IIDs) may be made on individual

projects or may be part of a statewide review effort. IIDs are

product oriented but involve the tracking of processes

necessary to correct deficiencies or to identify and promote

processes that produce high quality products on either a

project or statewide basis. They are a detailed type of

inspection involving the review of specifications, procedural

manuals, and specific contract requirements.

IIDs, as well as PR/PEs, of a subject area will require a

considerable degree of review effort (Appendix D, Guide for

Making Inspections-in-Depth on Federal-Aid Highway

Construction Projects). Considerable preliminary work is

required to develop the appropriate review criteria. IIDs are

useful to follow up on recommendations or implementation

of changes defined by process reviews. A blending of both

IID and PR/PE has proven to be most effective when

balanced with other routine project reviews.

The team review concept with the STA’s central office is

recommended for both PR/PEs and IIDs in coordination to

make the reviews more efficient and effective.

Project Inspection

Project inspection is an on-site review to evaluate project

activities, the quality and progress of the work, and, if

appropriate, to follow up on findings from previous

inspections.These reviews are generally more limited in

scope than a PR/PE, IID, or phased inspection.

Final Inspection 

A final inspection is a review to determine the extent to

which the project has been completed in reasonably close

conformance with the plans, specifications, and authorized

changes. The division administrator should develop and

include, as a part of the construction management program,

a process to determine the final inspection requirements for

construction projects. This determination should consider

the type, size, and complexity of the project, the degree to

Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–5
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

3–6

which the project has been previously inspected by FHWA

personnel, the adequacy of the STA’s internal controls, and

the extent of independent inspections and evaluations that

have been provided by the State. The final inspections are

conducted in accordance with the FHWA/STA stewardship

agreement.

A final inspection may be accomplished by any of the

following methods:

▼ An on-site review conducted at or near the completion

of work. 

▼ A review of project records that are provided by the

State at the completion of work if prior on-site

inspections have been conducted. 

▼ If previous PR/PE or IID reviews of the STA’s internal

control programs for inspection of completed projects

have indicated the STA has satisfactory procedures, the

final inspection may be based on the finding that the

STA is properly exercising its internal controls, and no

additional review will be required.

▼ When similar types of work are included in an areawide

project or projects using the same contractor, an

inspection of a sample of contract work locations may

fulfill the requirement for a final inspection. 

Specialty Reviews 

Sometimes division offices develop other types of review

activities patterned after the basic inspection types in an

effort to better meet their needs and the management style

of the STA. Special emphasis reviews have been used

successfully to focus attention on high priority/high visibility

topics; as fact-finding tools for preliminary investigations; for

evaluating project staffing levels; for making state-of-the-art

evaluations; for determining the extent of suspected problem

areas; or for concentrated problem solving efforts. 

Emphasis area reviews will typically be less detailed than

major phase reviews but will be more detailed than a project

inspection. This type of review envisions that a concentrated

effort will be expended over a number of projects to direct

added emphasis to a particular item or phase for a short

period of time.

Phase reviews will typically target a major phase of work

where all parts, such as paving, will be reviewed. Minor

phases or portions of major phases, such as crushing or plant

operations, may occasionally be reviewed. Reviews will

typically be comprehensive but may be in less detail than an

IID.

Contact reviews are useful for monitoring the status of

changing situations, change orders, and construction

operations. They are also useful in maintaining effective

rapport and working relationships with State counterparts

and local officials, and they can facilitate the scheduling of

more detailed inspections. They typically should not replace

the more indepth reviews. However, they can be effective

when properly controlled. While inspections should be on

site, contacts by telephone or when passing through a project

help to keep FHWA aware of project status and conditions.

Factors to Consider

In planning inspection activities, a number of factors need to

be considered. Of prime importance is the objective of the

inspection. Is it for fact-finding, program emphasis, problem

identification, problem solving, verification, or another

purpose? Identification of the objective may assist in

determining the inspection technique to be used. Sometimes

a broad-based review is desired, and at other times it may be

appropriate to review only selected elements in some depth

on a few typical or individually chosen projects.

Timing of the inspection in relation to construction

activities can dictate or limit the type of inspection to be

made. The time available for the inspection will help to

determine if one of the more intensive types of inspections

can be used. Sometimes it will be necessary to evaluate the

potential benefits of making a greater number versus more

indepth inspections.

Inspection selection decision should be based on

program insight and knowledge of the STA’s staffing and

performance. This is an area of risk management where

feedback from the field engineer is necessary to optimize not

only review efforts but also construction program direction.

It should be recognized that these post-award activities 

are a logical progression of pre-award actions (planning,

environment, design, etc.) in which various standards,

commitments, and conditions have been agreed to 

for compliance with a variety of Federal/State/Local

requirements.
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–1

The inspection and review process involves several steps:

advance preparation, data gathering, conducting the physical

review itself, evaluating and communicating the findings,

writing and presenting the report, and distributing and

archiving the report and related documentation.

Preparation

The work required in preparing for a review will depend on

the type of review that is to be performed. However, the

inspecting engineer should have a review objective and a

review plan for every inspection.

Review Objective

The first step in making any review should be to determine

what is to be accomplished and why. Initially this will help to

determine the type of review to be made. The review

objective should be continually checked during the planning

and guideline preparation phase, during the review, and prior

to concluding it, to assure that the reviewer is still on track

and that the objective is being accomplished. Articulating

and checking the objective may be as simple as the inspecting

engineer asking the questions, “What do I intend to

accomplish by being here?” and “Am I accomplishing this in

an effective and efficient manner?” A more complex review

may require a more formal approach.

Review Plan and Guidelines

In addition to a defined objective, a review plan and review

guidelines should be prepared. In the case of an IID or

PR/PE, the plan and guidelines should be in written form

and may be in some detail. The plan may vary from a very

detailed one all the way to a simple mental image in the case

of some routine project inspections. For routine project

inspections, it is important for the reviewer to know ahead of

time the activities underway on the project. This information

will help the FHWA engineer prepare for the review.

The plan must be flexible to accommodate unanticipated

conditions that are frequently encountered in the field, but

the reviewer needs a starting point and direction, some

checkpoints along the way, and some basis for making an

ongoing evaluation to determine where adjustments should

be made.

An FHWA short course on process reviews is available to

provide further guidance as well as generic samples of

reviews undertaken in various states. Refer to the material

contained in the short course and other references on the

FHWA Construction Management Web page (Appendix E,

Technical References and Resources). 

Preliminary Data Gathering

Prior to an on-site review, the inspecting engineer should

contact the project engineer and get acquainted with

activities underway and major issues on the project. To

improve efficiency and effectiveness, reviewers may prepare

themselves by reviewing the following items:

▼ Correspondence, change orders, and material testing

quality levels

▼ Previous reviews and progress reports

▼ Pre-award issues

▼ Plans and specifications, with emphasis on activities

underway

▼ Bid tabulations

▼ Construction inspection program and emphasis areas

▼ State policy and procedures manuals

▼ Organization, staffing, and authority

▼ Applicable Federal and State regulations

Prior to undertaking an IID or PR/PE on a particular

construction phase or process, it is recommended that

appropriate National Highway Institute (NHI) or industry

training materials be reviewed as a technical reference. If

possible, a refresher course should be considered. 

Conducting the Review

Many items can be reviewed during a construction

inspection, and the list of possible concerns about each item

reviewed is also extensive. The amount of detail to be

covered depends on the scope of the inspection and the time

available. All data gathering and analysis should relate to the

objectives of the inspection. The list in the sidebar, page 4–2,

shows some of the main items to be considered in conducting

the reviews (refer also to Appendix C and Appendix D).

4. Inspection and Review Activities
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–2

It is not necessary that all items shown on the list be

covered on every inspection. Checklists are useful tools to

assist the reviewer, however, inspecting engineers are

cautioned against using solely a “checklist” approach to

conducting any review. The engineer should have sufficient

knowledge of the review subject to be able to obtain review

information through observation, general discussion, and file

review in lieu of using a checklist on site. Checklists tend to

be confining, and their use can result in critical areas being

overlooked if care is not taken.

Collecting and 

Evaluating Data

Field engineers should select methods for keeping notes that

suit themselves, their workload, and the record-keeping

procedures of their division office. Observations should be

recorded while on the project or immediately following the

inspection. Laptop computers or personal digital assistants

can be of assistance in record keeping and project tracking.

1. Inspection Coverage

a. Progress and quality of work

b. Materials and quality control

(1) Project sampling and testing program 

(2) Project special provisions

(3) Computation and use of quality levels analysis

(4) Product acceptance

(5) Innovative materials

c. Workmanship 

d. Construction operations and features

(1) Adequacy of provisions for safety and traffic

handling (traffic management plan, traffic control

plan, public information and outreach, etc.) 

(2) Accelerated techniques

(3) Innovative processes and procedures

e. Project records

(1) Field checks by project personnel and others

(2) Quantity and quality of materials delivered, used,

and rejected

(3) Construction work performed

(4) Methods and frequencies of checks on scales and

other measuring devices

(5) Adequacy of field notes, diaries, and records

supporting pay quantities

(6) Subcontracting 

(7) Labor compliance, Equal Employment

Opportunity, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

(DBE), and on-the-job training

f. Changes and extra work including time extensions

g. Compliance with environmental and American With

Disabilities Act commitments and permit stipulations

(erosion/pollution control—EPA-NPDES, 106 CulturalSHPO, 404 permit-COE, Section 7-FWS, etc.) 

h. Staffing, inspector qualifications, facilities, and project

control

i. Claims and potential claims

j. Compliance with contract requirements with respect

to physical measurements (number of lanes, width of

roadway/shoulders, clearance on structures, etc.)

2. Review of Work Items

a. Right-of-way clearance, demolition

b. Utilities

c. Clearing and grubbing

d. Earthwork and grading

e. Environmental 

(1) Erosion and sediment control

(2) Dust abatement

(3) Construction noise

(4) Other environmental commitments

f. Drainage and minor structures

g. Major structures

h. Subbase and base

i. Work zone

(1) Traffic management and traffic control planning

(2) Installation, and maintenance of traffic control

devices

(3) Work safety

j. Paving

(1) Flexible

(2) Rigid

k. Roadsides

l. Appurtenances

(1) Signs

(2) Signals

(3) Lighting

(4) Fencing

(5) Guardrail and other hardware

m. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Performance

(1) Verify that DBE on the job matches DBE as

proposed in bid

(2) Performing in accordance with contract

commitments

(3) Directing its own activities

(4) Performing a commercially useful function

n. Miscellaneous

o. Cleanup

p. Intelligent transportation system features

Items to Consider for Review
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–3

Both photographs and sketches are recommended, as

they can be of considerable value in depicting details,

providing documentation, and reducing the report writing

effort. Digital cameras are recommended.

Inspection reports should have substance rather than just

verbose wording. It is important not to lose track of what is

observation, hearsay, fact, or opinion when it comes time to

write the report. Reports should be as specific as possible,

and ambiguity should be avoided. Hearsay should never be

documented unless upon further review facts are found to

support the hearsay. By following the six steps outlined in the

sidebar, engineers can produce reviews that effectively meet

their objectives. The sidebar on the next page highlights

important precautions for inspection reports.

Inspectors may also refer to Appendix F, Examples of

Reporting Practices, which critiques the appropriateness and

significance of different reporting practices. The examples

shown are extracts from actual reports and commentary. It

will be helpful to review the extracts and comments, which

can be applied to other reporting items as well.

Writing the Report

Forms

Inspections

Two FHWA forms are suggested for use in filing inspection

reports for all Federal-aid projects:

▼ Form FHWA 1446 A (or similar) “Construction

Inspection Report” (Appendix G, Project Implementation and Reporting Forms), may be used to report all

construction inspections, including final inspections. 

▼ Form FHWA 1446 B (or similar) “Final Acceptance

Report” (Appendix G), may be used to report final

acceptance, or the division office may include an

alternative method of documenting final acceptance in

its construction management program. (Note: The final

acceptance report is not required, although some

division offices use it to assist in project closeout and to

support payment of final voucher.) 

Other Reviews

The forms to be used for process reviews and emphasis area

reviews where summary reports are to be prepared have not

been prescribed. It is suggested that Form FHWA 1446 A be

used for the individual project reports on which the summary

will be based. A narrative report form is typically used for the

summary with graphics or tabular displays as appropriate to

demonstrate the importance or occurrence of findings.

Steps in Evalution

1. Record Facts

Facts are irrefutable: what is seen, what is recorded, what

test results demonstrate, what actions are taken.

2. Make Observations

Observations may be factual or they may only represent the

project as the inspecting engineer sees it. If an observation

can be disputed, it should be supported. FHWA engineers

may request that additional inspections, measurements, or

tests be performed to verify opinions or satisfy concerns (see

23 CFR Subsections 1.5 and 1.36). This privilege should not

be abused, but likewise it should not be overlooked.

3. Seek Opinions

When faced with decisions on controversial or highly

technical topics, the STA project engineer and the FHWA

engineer should take steps to assure that the appropriate

technical and authoritative sources are consulted.

Documentation of sources used provides assurance that the

most appropriate decisions are being made and that the

work is being adequately supervised.

4. Offer Advice Where Appropriate

The FHWA engineer is expected to have some degree of

technical expertise and competence as well as access to

subject area specialists. FHWA engineers should provide

assistance or reassurance as appropriate but always with the

understanding that they are not directing the operation.

Advice or opinions offered should always be recorded in the

inspection report. If the advice concerns the limit of Federal

participation, this must be clearly understood.

5. Draw Conclusions

Based on all the available information, the inspecting

engineer should draw conclusions on the acceptability of

operations, actions taken, the finished product, and the

quality of supervision. These conclusions serve as a basis for

acceptance of the project and should serve to support the

division’s construction program risk assessment.

6. Make Decisions and Inform Affected Parties

If acceptance decisions must be made as a result of

conclusions drawn, the inspection report should record

these conclusions and all affected parties should be

informed in a timely manner. Notification can be done in

the inspection report or in other formal correspondence, as

appropriate.
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–4

Report Identification

Form FHWA 1446 A contains several identification boxes at

the top of the page. These identify the inspection as initial,

intermediate, or final and as a project inspection or an IID.

Other identifiers in the heading can be helpful and are

recommended. Also indicate if the review is project specific

or part of a statewide effort. 

Content

Inspection reports are a source document for FHWA’s

project oversight and involvement. They document project

observations, findings, and recommendations; provide

program and project information to FHWA management

and other program managers; and transmit this information

to various levels of STA management. The content of

inspection reports should be factual and in line with the

division office policy on report content. This will help to

promote a degree of uniformity throughout the State. In

determining the report content it is important to consider

how the report may be used and by whom.

Outline

Using an outline for inspection reports can help ensure that

all appropriate information is recorded and organized. The

outline format is flexible, and the degree of standardization

should be at the option of each division. All items may not be

addressed in each report, but there are merits in following a

routine sequence as outlined in the following sections.

Body of Report 

Purpose

A purpose of inspection statement can be useful in helping to

keep the inspection on track and in informing the reader of

what to expect in the report. If the original purpose of the

inspection cannot be carried out, this should be explained.

Scope

It is not always apparent what the inspection engineer has

done from reading some construction inspection reports. A

scope-of-inspection statement can be useful in documenting

the inspection activity although action-oriented statements

in the report can accomplish the same purpose.

Work Completed

The reporting of work completed to date, placed near the

beginning of the report, gives the reader a mental picture of

the work site and improves understanding of the discussion

that follows. If either the progress or quality of work is

reported to be unsatisfactory, further comment is required to

support the finding, discuss what is to be done to correct the

situation, and clarify the status of Federal-aid participation in

the cost of the work during the interim period pending

correction of the unsatisfactory condition. 

Work in Progress

The discussion of work in progress helps document whether

or not the contractor is diligently pursuing the work, and the

adequacy of the State’s staffing. The amount of detail

reported will vary with the time spent on the project and with

the purpose and intensity of the inspection. As an example,

documented knowledge of work progress serves as a basis for

participation in time extensions or the assessment of

liquidated damages.

Findings and Comments

As a result of the inspection, it should be possible to draw

conclusions about the project work. Some conclusions can be

expressed in terms of contract requirements, progress of

work, the State’s operating procedures, overall quality of

construction, item/project overruns and changes, cost

containment, and compliance with Federal regulations.

Related observations to be discussed are public involvement,

stakeholder feedback, weather, and third-party actions that

may affect the work.

Opinions of the inspecting engineer should be based on

experience and professional judgment. These observations

are perfectly valid and frequently valuable. Where such items

Precautions

Some words of caution are in order to facilitate reportwriting efforts:.

1. Document the findings. The inspecting engineer

should make the reports factual, and be value

added.

2. Report specific observations. Generalities tend to

lead to confusion and speculations and gloss over

findings.

3. Avoid unsupported hearsay. Reports should be

written in a manner that clearly shows FHWA’s

involvement and knowledge of the operations.

4. Provide for followup. Findings and recommendations should be reported, tracked, and

followed.

Examples of reporting practices are provided in

Appendix F.
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–5

are discussed with the State, it should be understood and

stated as such in the report that they are only suggestions or

information, particularly where differences of opinion may

exist. It can be disconcerting when a report raises more

questions than it answers.

Recommendations

As a result of the inspection, it may be desirable to make

recommendations regarding further actions. Unlike the

suggestions or information recorded in the Findings and

Comments section, recommendations are items to which the

State is expected to respond in a timely manner.

Followup Actions

The STA’s resolution of previous recommendations should

be discussed. Future followup actions should also be set forth

in this section.

Supporting Documentation

Self-Sufficiency

Construction inspection reports should be able to stand on

their own merit. This is not intended to imply that all

information needs to be included in the body of the report; it

is appropriate to reference other reports, documents,

specifications, and sources.

Work Papers

All the information gathered during the inspection may not

be suitable or necessary for inclusion in the report. Such

information may be kept in the work papers and filed with

the file copy of the report. 

Photographs and Drawings

Sketches, drawings, photographs, and other illustrative

material form an important part of the report,

documentation, and work papers.

Processing and 

Distributing the Report

Form

Construction inspection reports, as official FHWA

documents, should be professionally completed. They

should be neatly prepared, legible, and grammatically

correct. Standard reporting forms are available on FHWAwide software (see Appendix G). Timeliness of reporting is

important. It is recommended that preparation and

distribution be accomplished within 2 weeks of the time the

field review is completed to increase the value and

effectiveness of the report. Inspection reports should be

numbered in sequence for each project.

Review

It is recommended that there be at least one level of review

by the division management prior to release. Field engineers

should report on their observations, findings, recommendations, and conclusions as they see conditions and needs in

the field. Recommendations and conclusions should be

supportable and based on fact, technical soundness, and

compliance with Federal policy. 

The inspecting engineer should accept constructive

criticism aimed at improving a report’s conciseness and

clarity but should not be expected to rewrite reports for

minor reasons or to satisfy the supervisor’s personal

preference. Rather than revise reports, it may be preferable

for the supervisor to add supplemental comments. These

additions should be signed and dated.

Distribution

The division office should have a routine procedure for

routing construction inspection reports. Some individuals

will be designated to read all reports while others, such as

bridge engineers, environmental specialists, and right-of-way

officers, should be designated to receive only those reports

containing topics within their specialties.

Inspecting engineers and their supervisors should be

responsible for assuring that appropriate individuals have

access to individual reports. A designated individual should

be responsible for summarizing observations, findings, and

followup actions. Significant data should be included in the

division office control system.

The State and FHWA should agree on the distribution

of reports within the STA. Distribution may be routine, or it

may vary with the type and content of the reports. It is

recommended that all construction inspection reports be

transmitted to the State for appropriate distribution.
Followup Action, Controls, 

and Information Sharing

Followup

Frequently it will be necessary for the inspecting engineer to

follow up on previous review findings and recommendations.

The need for followup action may be created by a variety of

conditions, such as the following:

▼ Obsolete or substandard procedures

▼ Plan deficiencies

▼ Changed conditions

▼ Contractor requests or disputes

▼ Construction deficiencies

▼ Supervision, inspection, and testing deficiencies

▼ Materials problems and low quality levels

▼ Excessive cost variance

▼ Construction time creep

▼ Inadequate or incomplete information

▼ Need for special or additional studies

▼ Construction and performance of experimental or other

special features.

▼ Completion and implementation of environmental

commitments

Implementation Responsibility

Depending on the findings and recommendations, the

responsibility for implementation may rest at various levels

within the STA or FHWA. Project-related findings should

be discussed with the responsible project individual prior to

leaving the site. The inspecting engineer is responsible for

following through and for updating the division office

control system. In cases where action is taken at the project

level, resolution may occur at the time of the inspection or

later. Repetitive findings generally require upper

management program level correction. Both types of actions

should be reported to document FHWA’s involvement and to

provide a basis for detecting repetitive problems and

deficiencies.

Method of Presentation 

A variety of methods exist for presenting findings to those

responsible for taking further actions. The method used

depends on the significance of the findings and the level

within the STA to which the concern must be directed.

Minor items may be presented verbally or by furnishing a

copy of the inspection report. Significant items not fully

resolved at the project level require followup in a future

construction inspection report. 

Findings from statewide reviews are usually presented 

to STA management at a closeout conference. Significant

items requiring action require formal transmittal to STA

management. 

Division Office Control System

Each division office should have a control system for

documenting, reporting, tracking, and resolving significant

construction findings. Either engineering or administrative

personnel may manage this control system. If the system is

not managed by engineering personnel, there should be

engineering participation to determine what findings are

significant. Construction inspection reports should be routed

to the individual responsible for the control system so

findings may be logged, trends identified, and both evaluated

for their significance. In addition to tracking construction

observation and findings, this system should track positive

trends, cost savings, new innovations, and technology

enhancements.

See the sidebar on page 3–3 for a summary of items

suitable for inclusion in the periodic evaluation of the STA’s

construction management program. A construction

management report is a summary of strengths and

weaknesses observed. This report can serve as an excellent

Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–6
Construction Program Management

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

4–7

management tool and as the basis for future risk assessment

and development of the division’s stewardship report. This

practice is not mandatory but discretionary, based upon each

division’s needs. It is also recommended that this type of

evaluation report be coauthored by the division and the STA’s

central office.

Information Sharing and

Technology Transfer 

The division office’s construction monitoring program

should include procedures for reporting on special, experimental, or innovative construction materials, methods, or

equipment. These procedures should be directed toward

encouraging technology transfer (T2) and information

sharing. 

Experimental features are considered a material, process,

method, equipment item, or other feature that (1) has not

been sufficiently tested under actual service conditions to

merit acceptance without reservation in normal highway

construction, or (2) has been accepted but needs to be

compared with alternative acceptable features for

determining their relative merits and cost-effectiveness.

FHWA procedures for incorporating experimental features

can be found in www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contr

acts/expermnt.htm. 

General reporting procedures should include these

actions:

▼ Identifying appropriate features

▼ Working cooperatively with the STA

▼ Encouraging adequate monitoring and data gathering

▼ Ensuring report preparation

▼ Ensuring report distribution

▼ Followup as needed

Information on many valuable features, methods, and

procedures is frequently not reported because people at the

project level may not be aware of what is significant; because

the information is not officially tagged with an experimental

or similar title; or because the information is relatively new

to the contracting agency. FHWA field engineers, as

independent observers, need to make a conscientious effort

to overcome these roadblocks to information sharing.

A natural reluctance to write reports is also a problem.

Emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that reports need not

be long, detailed, or prepared in a formal style to be of value.

FHWA field engineers are encouraged to report on such

features in normal or special construction inspection reports.

Where appropriate or needed, FHWA should identify

alternative resources to assist in data gathering and report

writing. This may include other STA, FHWA, or industry

resources, use of T2 funds, or other mechanisms. Engineers

should coordinate with the division T2 engineer, division

specialist, or other appropriate offices for information,

technical assistance, and report distribution.

Summary

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

5–1

▼ Construction program management includes

stewardship, oversight, leadership and technical support,

and promotion of continuous quality improvement and

new technologies.

▼ Construction program oversight has evolved from a

project-specific to program-level emphasis. In the

process, a variety of inspection techniques have been

developed and should be considered for use under

appropriate circumstances. While overall program

guidance is provided in regulations and by FHWA’s

headquarters, division administrators have been given

flexibility to manage their programs. Along with this

delegation of authority comes responsibility and

accountability. Much of this has been passed along to

the individual division construction program manager

(district engineer or equivalent staff position).

▼ Public agency oversight requires accountability that

should be documented. The division should maintain a

record of significant findings, recommendations, and

their resolution. This is typically a portion of the

division office’s stewardship procedures.

▼ In addition to inspecting construction projects for

acceptance purposes, inspections are required to obtain

up-to-date information on problems and changes; to

evaluate the work and the State’s project management;

to provide technical assistance and promote programs;

to gather information for special reports; and to

maintain rapport with STA project personnel.

▼ The reporting of construction inspection activities is

necessary to document FHWA’s efforts to carry out its

assigned responsibilities to convey information about

projects to appropriate parties within FHWA and the

STA in accordance with Federal law and regulations.

▼ Inspection activities included in the division office’s

construction management program should be planned

and scheduled using an appropriate combination of

inspection techniques, in keeping with directives and

guidelines that have been established, and in

consideration of individual State characteristics and

conditions.

▼ All inspections should have a review objective and a

review plan, the form and comprehensiveness of which

will vary with the type and detail of the review. Review

guidelines and preliminary review activities will also

contribute to a successful inspection. 

▼ The list of possible items to be covered on an

inspection is extensive. Possible items for inspection

coverage and a list of work items for the reviewer’s

consideration are listed in the text and in the sidebar on

page 4–2.

▼ Supportable facts, observations, opinions, hearsay,

conclusions, and recommendations are all of value in

construction inspection reports, but the inspecting

engineer should be specific in identifying each.

Unsupported hearsay should be avoided.

▼ The use of specific inspection report forms has been

suggested for ease of report identification (see Appendix

G). Following a reasonable consistent format for report

writing helps to make the report orderly and easy to

follow.

▼ An effort should be made to make reports reasonably

self-sufficient without making them overly bulky. The

inclusion of photographs and sketches can frequently be

of value. Suggestions for writing quality reports are

included in the text and in Appendix F.

▼ Division offices should route reports to appropriate

parties internally and externally to ensure that they are

informed of significant construction program activities.

▼ Engineers making findings and recommendations on

construction projects have the responsibility to prepare

a timely report. 

▼ Technology transfer and quality assurance program

activities are important integral elements of the total

construction inspection program. 

The key to a successful construction management program is

the acceptance of responsibility and accountability by the

field engineer and support from FHWA management.

5. Summary 

AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–1

APPENDIX A

Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

“Policy on Stewardship and Oversight of the 

Federal Highway Programs,” 

June 22, 2001

“Stewardship and Federal Highway Programs,” 

January 8, 2003

“Stewardship and Oversight of the 

FHWA Construction Programs,” January 8, 2003
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–2
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–3
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–4
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (10/2003)

A–5
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–6
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–7
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–8
AppendixA: Policy Memoranda Regarding Stewardship

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

A–9

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–1

APPENDIX B

Quality Assurance Resources

“Information: Quality Assurance Guide Specification and B–2

Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance,” 

Memorandum, 

August 2,1996

Contractor Quality Control Plans: B–4

Contractor Guidelines and Example 

Federal Lands Highway Office

Engineering and Operations Division (HFL-20)

February 1998

A Model Quality Control Plan B–17

New England Transportation Technician Certification Program

October 2003

See also “Quality Assurance” in Appendix E, 

Technical References and Resources

SAMPLE
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–2 SAMPLE

Continued on next page
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–3
Contractor Quality Control Plans:

Contractor Guidelines and Example 

Federal Lands Highway Office

Engineering and Operations Division (HFL-20)

February 1998

These guidelines are intended to assist Federal Lands Highway (FLH) contractors in the preparation of acceptable Quality

Control Plans. They are based on the requirements contained in Section 153 of the Standard Specifications for Construction of

Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP). The guidelines are not contractual requirements and do not supplement

or supersede any contractual requirements.

Introduction

A contractor quality control plan (CQCP) is the

documentation of the contractor’s process for delivering the

level of construction quality required by the contract. This

document is intended to provide guidance to Federal Lands

contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers as to what is

expected from CQCPs and what the criteria for accepting

and using the requirements for these plans will be. 

The CQCP is a framework for the contractor’s process

for delivering quality construction. The plans and

specifications define the expected results or outcome. The

CQCP outlines how those results will be achieved. While it

is not possible to determine from the CQCP whether the

level of construction quality will be acceptable, it is possible

to verify that the contractor, as an organization, has

addressed the basic elements of its quality process. These

guidelines address not only what should be in the CQCP in

order for it to be acceptable to the Government, but also

what elements the Government’s QA process needs to have

in order to assure quality without usurping the contractor’s

responsibilities.

It is not possible to determine from the content of the CQCP

whether quality construction will result. The plan is not

approved, but accepted based only on whether the plan clearly

addresses all the issues it is required by the contract to address.

FAR and FP Requirements

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.246-12,

Inspection of Construction, is the foundation and basis for 

all contract requirements dealing with quality control 

and quality assurance. In summary, the clause has these

provisions:

▼ Requires the contractor to maintain an adequate

inspection system and perform inspections that will

ensure contract compliance. 

▼ Requires the contractor to maintain inspection records

and make them available to the Government.

▼ Allows [but does not require or obligate] the

Government to do its own tests and inspections and

requires the contractor to assist.

▼ Says that Government tests and inspections are for its

benefit and do not take the place of the contractor’s

quality control obligations.

▼ Says that anytime the contractor tells the Government

that work is ready for inspection and it is not (i.e., it is

in not in compliance), the Government may charge the

contractor for the costs of its inspections and tests.

▼ Says that the contractor is obligated to comply with the

contract whether or not a Government inspector is

present.

▼ Says that the Government may order previously

completed work torn apart for inspection, and that if it

is not in compliance, the contractor will pay for the

inspection and the correction of the work. If it is in

compliance the Government will pay for the inspection

and disruption to the work.

Note that nothing in the FAR clause requires that the

contractor’s inspection system be described in writing or that

it be submitted to the Government for approval in advance

of the work. These requirements are contained in FP-96,

Section 153. In addition, Section 153 contains a basic outline

of what should be included in the CQCP. The outline should

be repeated for each major category of construction. 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–4 SAMPLE
Outline of Contractor Quality Control

Plan Requirements

FP-96, Subsection 153.02

(a) Process control testing. List the material to be tested,

tests to be conducted, the location of sampling, and the

frequency of testing. 

(b) Inspection/control procedures. Address each of the

following subjects in each phase of construction:

(1) Preparatory phase. 

(a) Review all contract requirements.

(b) Ensure compliance of component material to the

contract requirements.

(c) Coordinate all submittals including certifications.

(d) Ensure capability of equipment and personnel to

comply with the contract requirements.

(e) Ensure preliminary testing is accomplished.

(f) Coordinate surveying and staking of the work.

(2) Startup phase.

(a) Review the contract requirements with

personnel who will perform the work.

(b) Inspect startup of work.

(c) Establish standards of workmanship.

(d) Provide training as necessary.

(e) Establish detailed testing schedule based on the

production schedule.

(3) Production phase.

(a) Conduct intermittent or continuous inspection

during construction to identify and correct

deficiencies.

(b) Inspect completed phases before scheduled

Government acceptance.

(c) Provide feedback and system changes to prevent

repeated deficiencies.

(c) Description of records. List the records to be

maintained.

(d) Personnel qualifications.

(1) Document the name, authority, relevant experience,

and qualifications of person with overall

responsibility for the inspection system.

(2) Document the names, authority, and relevant

experience of all personnel directly responsible for

inspection and testing.

(e) Subcontractors. Include the work of all subcontractors.

If a subcontractor is to perform work under this Section,

detail how that subcontractor will interface with the

contractor’s and/or other subcontractor’s organizations.

Plan Development 

Unless the contractor already has a documented company

QC plan, it may be helpful to discuss what is required and

how detailed it will be. Generally, discussion of the basic

who, what, where, when, and how should comprise three to

six pages, with an additional two to four pages of detailed

information for each major category of work. This is not

including supplemental materials such as subcontractor/

supplier plans, certifications, test data, and personnel

résumés. Also, if the QC plan contains a lot of repetitions of

contract specifications, meaningless platitudes from quality

textbooks, and other fluff, its necessary length will be longer.

Quality—and the processes that deliver quality—is a

somewhat open ended concept. No matter how much detail is

in the plan, it can always be argued that more could be, or

should be, included.

Organizational Structure

One of the first issues a contractor, or any organization must

face when designing its QC/QA procedures, is how these

systems will relate to and impact its organizational structure. 

Separate Quality Staff. Testing is a very specialized

function. A contractor may elect to hire a separate staff or

subcontractor to perform testing and to generate the

documentation required by the FAR Clause and the FP. But

the testing and documentation are only part of the inspection

system required by the contract. If the entire inspection

system is performed by personnel separate from production

personnel, that would mirror the traditional relationship

between contractor and agency organizations. If a contractor

has a separate quality staff, it is important to define the

relationship between those personnel and the production

organization. What will be the disposition of failing

tests/inspections? Who will have authority to order

production ceased? Under what circumstances? What will be

the conditions of restarting production? 

Combined Staff. Quality management experts generally

discourage separating quality control personnel from

production personnel. It pits one part of the organization

against another. This built-in adversity is seen as both

inefficient and requiring additional staff. Ideally, quality

control should be achieved by developing an organizational

culture which encourages quality—a culture which is

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–5
embraced by everyone in the organization. However, for an

organization transitioning from a traditional to a quality

management system, superimposing a QC/QA staff on its

existing organization may make sense while that

organizational culture is being developed.

Process Control Testing

Testing provides a reflection of quality and the process. But

only changes to the process can improve quality. Extensive

testing needed to identify defects so that they can be

corrected is an indication of a poor process. Ideally,

frequencies of QC testing are dependent on characteristics of

the overall process. In a transition environment, however,

when contractors are not used to designing comprehensive

QC systems, it may be necessary for the agency to provide

guide frequencies to minimize the risk of serious deficiencies

undetected until late in the process.

It is easy to become preoccupied with testing when

describing the plan. Testing is easily defined and leaves a

clear documentation trail. But the organizational resources

that actually will control the quality of the construction are

by far the most important part of the plan, even though

describing these resources and procedures [the process] in

writing is often difficult.

The contract may contain a listing of mandatory

contractor testing including sampling points, frequencies,

and time limits for delivering results. This testing is intended

primarily for the agency’s use in documenting quality

assurance and accepting the work. Some contracts require

additional testing identified as process control testing, which

is intended to provide real-time information during the

construction and production of materials to allow the

contractor to adjust or control the process and ensure that

quality assurance testing at the end of the process will

indicate compliance. Whether or not the contract specifies

process control testing, it is up to the contractor to address

whether or not it is needed in the CQCP.

The standard acceptance plan in Section 106.05 of the

contract is used for most pavement structure and structural

concrete items. While much of the work is not accepted

statistically, the criteria on which the statistically based plan

is structured are consistent with the intended acceptance

criteria of all work. In general these are the criteria:

▼ The plan is based on an acceptable quality level (AQL)

of 5 percent defects. That is, if production is uniform

and no more than 1 out of every 20 quality assurance

tests fails, the process can be assumed to be in control

and additional process control testing (and other

actions) are not indicated. 

▼ If defects rise to 10 percent (1 out of 10 QA tests fail),

that suggests additional process control testing and

other actions may be indicated.

▼ If defects rise to 15 percent or higher (more than 1 out

of 6 QA tests fail), that is approximately equivalent

(depending on sample size) to a pay factor of less than

0.90. This indicates serious process control problems,

and the Government may require that process to be

suspended while the contractor modifies the process

control procedure (including testing) to address the

problem.

In addition to those tests specifically required by the

contract, the contractor is required to tabulate in the CQCP

all process control testing which will be necessary to assure

that the work and material comply with the terms of the

contract when they are ultimately subjected to quality

assurance testing. Note that, although process control testing

is listed first in Subsection 153.02, it may make more sense to

not complete or finalize this section until after the

inspection/control procedures are defined.

Inspection/Control Procedures

This is the narrative portion of the CQCP, and it is the

hardest part of the plan to develop and describe. Most

organizations are used to intuitive processes, or processes

that have evolved over time to reflect the personalities and

desires of supervisory personnel. Describing and

documenting these processes concisely in writing is often

difficult. There is almost no physical limit to the length and

detail included in this section. Every requirement, every

sentence in the contract, could precipitate a paragraph or

more of detailed process control procedures to describe how

that requirement will be fulfilled. From a practical point

though, this is excessive. For most typical FLH construction

projects, the narrative covering inspection/control

procedures should adequately address the quality process

basics in two to four pages for each phase of construction (see

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–6 SAMPLE
below). This does not include testing schedules,

certifications, personnel résumés, and other attachments. In

addition, if the narrative includes excessive redundancies,

paraphrasing of the contract, and other extraneous materials,

these will add to the required length. The fact that many of

the detailed requirements of the contract are not specifically

addressed in the CQCP does not mean they can be ignored.

The contract itself is the foundation for the outcomes

expected from the CQCP. 

The failure of the contractor to inspect and control any aspect

of the construction process, whether or not it is specifically

addressed by the CQCP, is a basis for adverse action under the

contract, which may include required enhancement to the

CQCP itself.

Categories of Construction

A typical contract may be divided into three to five categories

depending on the nature of the work and the organizations

performing the work. These categories are referred to as

phases in Subsection 153.02, but to avoid confusion with

sequential phases described below, they are referred to as

categories here. For example, stakeout, erosion control,

clearing, excavation, embankment, drainage, and slope

protection might be grouped together as a single category of

Grading and Drainage. 

Sometimes how categories are defined is influenced by

which subcontractors or crews do the work, since each may

have its own organizational relationships. It should be left up

to the contractor to group items of work in logical categories

to facilitate the development of the CQCP. Typical

categories are as follows:

▼ Grading and Drainage

▼ Masonry

▼ Pavement Structure

▼ Permanent Traffic Control

▼ Safety Appurtenances

▼ Seeding and Landscaping

▼ Structures

▼ Temporary Traffic Control

Preliminary, Startup, and 

Production Phases

The FP requires each of the three sequential phases to be

addressed separately. So for five categories of construction, a

five by three matrix is generated which constitutes the

inspection/control part of the CQCP. 

The preliminary phase includes evaluation of equipment,

materials, and other resources prior to work being started. It

also involves comparing contract requirements with training

and other needs.

Startup includes the additional management, training,

and inspection resources usually needed when a new operation is started.

Production addresses the routine QC resources necessary after the process is established.

Who, What, Where, When, and How?

For each category and phase of the operation, the QC plan

should answer these questions as they relate to the category

and phase:

Who will be responsible for QC during the

operation? The Quality Control Technician may be

assigned responsibility for testing and documentation and

perhaps even training and monitoring of startup. As the

operation moves toward production, however, foremen or

other supervisory personnel will probably be assigned

increasing responsibility. If the management official is too

high in the organization—say the overall project

superintendent — then it is less likely he/she will have the

time to perform detailed QC functions. In that case,

subordinate personnel should be specifically identified.

What will that person do to ensure contract

compliance? What authority will the person have over

operations? What portion of the time the operation is in

progress will the identified person actually be present to

perform QC responsibilities? Testers and inspectors cannot

control quality if their responsibilities are limited to testing,

measuring, and documentation. “What” should address not

only personnel but materials and equipment used in the

construction. These items often have stated or implied

contract requirements, and the QC system must verify that

those requirements are met.

Where will these activities be performed? Will

optional process control testing be performed on-site or at a

commercial laboratory? Will manufactured materials be

inspected at the plant, at the contractor’s facility, or at the site

of work? Will the equipment be inspected at the yard, or will

inspections be performed at the site? 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–7
When will these activities be performed? The earlier

QC activities are performed, the more latitude the contractor

has in dealing with problems. However, when activities are

performed too early, there is a risk of unforeseen changes or

glitches prior to actual construction. When will test results

be available? This is a key component of the QC plan that

determines largely how responsive it can be to deficiencies. 

How will inspections be performed? Using a standard

checklist? Using the specifications themselves (quality

assurance criteria), etc.? The more generalized and vague the

inspection procedures are, the more likely they will not be

consistently effective. However, not having a checklist is not

a cause for disapproving a QC plan unless a checklist is

specifically required.

The CQCP should minimize any parroting or

paraphrasing of requirements in the contract, and should

avoid simply promising to comply with the contract. These

kinds of statements and assurances are of essentially no added

value. The CQCP must go beyond the contract

requirements and address the contractor’s organizational

process for consistently delivering those requirements.

Subcontractors and Suppliers

When subcontractors and suppliers (other than suppliers of

commercial items) provide part of the work, then the QCP

needs to be clear whether their QC responsibilities will be

independent or a part of the prime contractor’s

responsibilities. If they are independent, then the

subcontractors or suppliers QCP must be developed and

submitted for approval, through the prime. Otherwise, the

prime must address how it will monitor and verify

subcontractor/supplier quality as a part of its plan. In either

case the prime is contractually responsible for all the work,

but being contractually responsible is not the same as having

an active role in the quality delivery process.

Manufactured Materials 

An important part of the CQCP is the process for verifying

that manufactured materials comply with the requirements

of the contract.

Commercial Items. These are materials manufactured

and sold to the general public, as opposed to materials made

to the unique specifications of the agency. For most

commercial items, the contractor’s responsibilities are

limited to verification that the materials are as required or

permitted in the contract, and that the delivered materials are

in fact those approved materials. Some materials which are

arguably commercial are considered of critical importance

and have specific QC/QA requirements in the contract. 

Noncommercial Items. These are materials manufactured offsite, but specifically to agency specifications for this

project. QC plan coverage for noncommercial items should

be a separate document from the manufacturer, or the

manufacture of those items should be included in the QC

plan of the contractor or a subcontractor. Like critical

commercial items, critical noncommercial items may have

specific QC/QA requirements in the contract.

Records and Documentation. 

While good documentation is often a reflection of good

quality control, documentation is not the same thing as

quality control. Documentation should be the minimum

necessary to concisely document the adequate function of the

process. 

Personnel Qualifications

While some contracts may have specific required

qualifications for contractor quality control and testing

personnel, the initial judgment as to whether a given person

is or is not qualified is generally left to the contractor.

However, during contract administration, the agency may be

more assertive in monitoring the qualifications of these

personnel. When the contract has specific experience

requirements, the contractor should describe how the

person’s previous training and experience addresses these

requirements.

Partial Plans 

It is possible that subcontractors, suppliers, and overall

responsibilities for some latter phases of the construction will

have not been arranged at the time the prime is ready to

begin on the initial phases. It is permissible for the contractor

to submit, and the agency to accept, a partial plan. However,

the work not covered by the plan may not begin until the

plan is supplemented to cover that work. 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–8 SAMPLE
Contractor Evaluation

The performance of all contractors is required to be

evaluated in accordance with FAR 36.201. Although most

contractors are evaluated as satisfactory or better, it is

important to understand the agency’s process for dealing

with serious or chronic unsatisfactory performance.

Evaluations are made of five individual elements, plus an

overall evaluation:

▼ Quality of Work

▼ Timely Performance

▼ Effectiveness of Management

▼ Compliance With Labor Standards

▼ Compliance With Safety Standards

The first of these five elements, Quality of Work, essentially

overlaps the contractor’s inspection system requirements

under FAR Clause 52.246-12, Inspection of Construction.

That is, a contractor that fails to maintain an effective quality

control (inspection system) will generally warrant an

unsatisfactory rating in the Quality of Work category.

Deficient contractors must be clearly notified of the

deficiencies and provided an opportunity to correct them. 

Evaluations may be shared with other contracting

agencies and private entities. FLH Divisions may participate

in the Corps of Engineers’ Construction Contractor

Appraisal Support System (CCASS), which makes

evaluations available to other participating Federal agencies.

Evaluations may be used in part for determinations of

responsibility prior to award of sealed bid contracts or in

evaluating past performance as a part of source selection for

a negotiated contract. 

If the prime contractor’s performance would be evaluated

as satisfactory but for the performance of a major

subcontractor, it is permissible to execute a separate

evaluation of the subcontractor, following the same rules as if

it were a prime.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–9
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–10

ABC Construction Company

P. O. Box 357

Red River, CA 94781

August 18, 1997

Federal Highway Administration 

P. O. Box 78

Sutterville, CA 94832

Gentlemen:

Re: CA FH 93-1(3), Gold Rush Highway

Quality Control Plan

The following items comprise our Quality Control Plan (QCP) required by Subsection 153.02 of the Contract. 

1. All work will be performed in accordance with the contract requirements. ABC will maintain an inspection

system which assures compliance with the contract requirements. Any indication of system deficiencies

whether discovered as a result of the Government’s or ABC’s checks and tests will result in modifications

to the system to correct these deficiencies. 

2. This QCP does not endeavor to repeat or summarize contract requirements. It describes the process which

ABC will use to assure compliance with those requirements. The QCP documents broad categories of

contract work in accordance with Subsection 153.02. Necessary details dealing with minor items that may

be overlooked in this plan will be addressed informally between the Quality Control Technician (QCT) and

the Project Engineer (PE), as the work progresses; and will be documented in writing if so requested by the

PE. It is understood that the level of QC accountability and control exercised by ABC on these items will

be consistent with the details of this plan.

3. The Project Superintendent, Mr. Ralph Altway, will have overall responsibility for quality control on the

project. Mr. Altway has had similar responsibilities on other Federal (Corps of Engineers) and State

(Caltrans) projects. He is a NICET Level IV Technician and Certified by Caltrans as a QC Technician.

4. Mr. Leon Williams will be the QCT for the project. He will report directly to Mr. Altway. Mr. Williams is

also a NICET Level IV Technician and Certified by Caltrans and Nevada DOT as a QC Technician. He

has been employed in this role by ABC for nearly three years. He will be responsible for overseeing dayto-day construction operations from a QC standpoint. He will assure that all required tests and

documentation are completed, and that the results are furnished to the Government in the time frame

required. Mr. Williams is empowered to suspend any operations which he deems to be in noncompliance

with the contract, and/or order corrective measures to assure compliance. Mr. Williams will complete the

Inspector’s Daily Record required by Subsection 153.04.

5. As the number of operations or their dispersion on the project starts to overextend Mr. Williams, QC

responsibilities will specifically be assigned to ABC’s supervisory personnel specifically responsible for given

operations; or an assistant to him will be provided. In either case, standards of application of the QCP will

be the same. The names, experience, and qualifications of any personnel assuming QCP responsibilities will

be provided to the Government in advance.

SAMPLE

Continued on next page

Example Quality Control Plan
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–11

6. ABC has an experienced and highly professional staff that is used to the responsibility entailed by the QC

requirements. We therefore do not anticipate any personnel or training problems in complying with them.

If any such problems occur, ABC will take whatever actions are necessary to correct them including

retraining, providing more supervision, or removal of poorly functioning personnel.

7. Grading

Preparatory Phase

QCT will go over erosion control requirements with PE and order silt fence and other authorized

materials at least two weeks before work starts.

QCT will go over clearing limits and slope limits with PE and Grading Foreman.

Startup Phase 

ABC will Install silt fences and temporary culverts as necessary along pioneer road.

QCT will obtain materials samples for T-99 proctor tests as soon as cuts are started. Provide PE with splits

of samples. Provide completed proctor worksheets within 48 hours.

Grading Foreman’s name will be provided to Government as soon as known.

QCT will go over lift thickness and other contract requirements with Grading Foreman.

Production Phase 

After startup, Grading Foreman will be responsible for continuous monitoring of QC. 

QCT will periodically monitor work and density with a nuclear gauge. These tests will be at about one

(passing) test per 1000 m3 of compactable (nonrock) material. Final test on each lift will include a onepoint proctor and rock correction. QCT will advise Grading Foreman of test results.

Failing tests will be followed by appropriate corrective (reworking/recompaction) efforts and retesting. If

the rate of initial failing tests exceeds one out of five, the QCT and Grading Foreman will meet and

formally document the corrective actions to the embankment construction process which will be taken to

resolve the problem.

Grading Foreman will order drying operations or more water when compaction tests or appearance of fills

material indicate that moisture is a problem.

Density tests will be documented in tabular form showing date, time, location, offset, depth below grade,

and test result. Results will be provided to PE by the next working day.

Each day QCT will plot test results on control charts in the ABC project lab.

8. Drainage

Preparatory Phase 

QCT will obtain survey crews’ stakeout notes and review culvert design prior to submittal to PE for

approval. QCT will obtain approved designs and order culvert and end section materials.

Precast inlets and similar items will be obtained from Williams Precast Co. of Susanville. Copies of their

materials data, mix designs, and QC plan will be obtained and furnished to PE 30 days prior to start of

work.

Cast-in-place concrete will be furnished under Section 601 and obtained from Sutterville Quality

Concrete (SQC). QCT will obtain documentation from SQC. QCT will go over their procedures with

them before production. 

Continued from previous page

SAMPLE

Continued on next page
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–12

QCT will identify a source of backfill material to be used if natural material is too rocky or otherwise

unsuitable. QCT will test the material (proctor) and provide results to PE.

QCT will inspect culvert materials upon arrival and obtain valid materials certifications and submit to PE.

QCT will go over stakeout notes and contract requirements with pipe crew foreman prior to start of work.

Pipe foreman will be identified to PE prior to start of work.

Startup Phase 

QCT will work nearly continuously with the pipe crew on the first day to verify layout procedures, bedding

preparation, and assembly.

QCT will go over proctor data and operation of nuclear gauge with pipe foreman. They will agree on what

passing density readings are for the borrow backfill and other possible backfill materials.

QCT will go over backfill, lift thickness, and density monitoring procedures.

For cast-in-place concrete, QCT will be at plant to verify QC procedures at the start of production. QCT

will perform required QC at the site.

Production Phase 

Pipe foreman will be responsible for QC during construction.

QCT will visit each installation on a random basis to take density tests required by the contract. For each

of these tests, a one-point proctor will be run. Record of density tests will be furnished to the PE by the

following working day.

For cast-in-place concrete QCT will obtain all required documentation and furnish to PE. QCT will be at

placement site enough to perform required QC tests. QCT will go over QC procedures with foreman, who

will be responsible for QC when the QCT is absent.

9. Subgrade 

Preparatory Phase

QCT will coordinate with grading foreman and survey crew as to how subgrade will be staked, controlled,

and finished.

QCT will go over with grading foreman, any problems with subgrade materials quality—rocky material,

clay, or other unsuitable. Such materials will be used in other than subgrade locations.

Startup Phase 

QCT will coordinate with grading foreman and PE the acceptable standards and tolerances for subgrade

finishing.

Production Phase

Grading foreman will be responsible for day to day QC.

Grading foreman will advise PE when each segment of subgrade is ready for acceptance.

QCT will take subgrade density tests at required frequency using nuclear gauge. One-point proctors will

be run about once every two to three tests or whenever materials change.

Test results will be plotted on control charts by QCT and also furnished to the PE by the next working day.

SAMPLE

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–13

10. Base Course

Preparatory Phase

Base course will be obtained from Whippel Mountain Aggregates, Inc. (WMA) 

QCT will obtain suppliers quality tests and samples of material for the PE at least 30 days prior to base

work beginning.

QCT will perform proctor tests on base course. QCT will also perform initial gradation tests on stockpile

just prior to startup.

QCT will review supplier’s QC procedures including stockpiling, moisture control, process control

testing, and weighing.

QCT will develop dumping spread sheets for base course foreman.

Startup Phase 

QCT will go over delivery and dumping procedures with base course foreman.

QCT will go over spreading and compaction procedures with base course foreman.

Base course will be pugmill mixed and delivered at optimum moisture and in nonsegregated condition so

that processing on the grade will be minimal.

Production Phase

WMA will be responsible for plant QC. WMA will perform at least one gradation test per day as long as

at least 80% of tests pass. Frequency will be increased if there are more failing tests. 

Grading foreman will be responsible for receiving, dumping, tabulating tonnages, and delivering receiving

reports to PE at the end of each day.

Grading foreman will perform occasional (at least one per day) depth checks to verify spread rates.

QCT will obtain gradation samples at the required frequency. Samples will be split, with the splits

delivered to the PE.

11. Asphalt Items

Preparatory Phase 

All asphalt items will be furnished by Allied Paving (AP) of Sutterville. Materials will be hauled to the site

by ABC’s hauling sub, and paving or installation of materials will be by ABC.

AP has a lab certified by Caltrans at the plant. Lab supervisor is William Brown, Certified Asphalt

Technician in California.

QCT will obtain required mix design submittals and samples from AP and deliver to PE at least 30 days

before work is scheduled to start. AP’s QC/Mix Design technician is Allen Rockford, who has 15 years in

this position and is a certified asphalt technician in California and Nevada. Mr. Rockford will be the

contact for any technical discussions during the mix approval process.

With the mix designs, AP will furnish a separate QC plan dealing with their plant operations, personnel,

etc.

Startup Phase

QCT will review all specification requirements with paving foreman prior to start of work.

QCT will be in charge of production start up procedures. Documentation and tests will be at his directions

and submitted to the PE. Full production will start when approved by PE.

SAMPLE

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–14

Production Phase

Paving foreman will be responsible for QC on a daily basis. QCT will conduct periodic inspections.

QCT or designee will obtain mix sample and cores. Splits will be provided to PE for acceptance.

Contractor samples will be delivered to AP’s plant lab for testing. Results will be provided through the

QCT by the following day. We will attempt to set up a system to provide results by FAX.

AP will obtain AC samples at the plant and deliver (through QCT) to PE for testing.

Test results will be plotted on control charts in ABC’s on-site lab. QCT will run QL Pay at the end of each

day, or the beginning of the next. Quality problems evident either from inspections or test results will be

dealt with under the direction of the QCT. Work will be suspended if problems cannot be resolved

expeditiously.

12. Structural Concrete

Preparatory Phase 

Wahoo Readymix in Martin, CA, will provide PC concrete under Section 552 for the box culverts. Wahoo’s

plant is certified by Caltrans as is their Quality Supervisor, Mr. Larry Ryland. Mr. Ryland will provide

documentation (through ABC’s QCT) of proposed mix design (previously approved by Caltrans) and all

materials 30 days or more prior to first delivery. Wahoo will also be responsible for all plant QC and

inspection of trucks.

QCT will be responsible for on-site QC operations other than the concrete mix itself, e.g. resteel, forming,

concrete placement, finishing, etc. Resteel will be inspected upon delivery for proper certification,

dimensions, storage, etc. QCT will be responsible for stakeout and foundation preparation prior to

forming.

Startup Phase

QCT will coordinate with Wahoo to schedule delivery operations. Wahoo will send one or more certified

concrete technicians to each concreting operations. Technicians will be responsible for any final mix

adjustments, delivery ticket validation, screening (air, slump, temperature), and acceptance testing, as

required by FHWA inspector. Cylinders will be cured on-site at ABC’s lab, and taken to Wahoo’s lab for

breaking. QCT will advise FHWA of scheduled breaks and provide opportunity for witnessing.

QCT will inspect forming and resteel operations from their inception and work with crews to assure

acceptable tolerances and other compliance. QCT will inspect placement operations including vibrating

and finishing. QCT will inspect curing operations and work with ABC crews to resolve any problems. All

required documentation will be completed by QCT and delivered to FHWA by the day following each

placement operation.

Production Phase 

Wahoo will continue to provide on-site QC for each concrete delivery.

Once resteel and forming crews are lined out, QCT will make spot checks of their operations, plus a final

inspections two hours or so prior to each placement. QCT will inspect curing. QCT will inspect all surfaces

upon stripping and go over any necessary repairs and finishing operations.

SAMPLE

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–15

13. Miscellaneous Items

This covers items, mostly involving installation of manufactured items, such as guardrail, delineators,

fencing, etc.

Preparatory Phase

QCT will verify all certification requirements, inspect material upon delivery and submit certifications and

other documentation to PE.

QCT will work with survey crew and PE to verify exact stakeout requirements and resolve any potential

stakeout problems.

Startup Phase 

QCT will go over the specification requirement and stakeout data with the foreman in charge of

installation.

QCT will normally be present when any operation begins to resolve problems and verify specification

compliance.

Production Phase

Foreman will normally be responsible for QC during production. QCT will make spot checks

approximately once a day or more frequently if there are problems.

QCT will perform tests required by the contract and furnish results to PE. QCT will advise PE when

segments of the work are ready for acceptance.

Please advise me if there are any additions or supplements you would like us to make to this QCP. If there

are changes to any items (personnel, suppliers, etc.), we will attempt to provide the PE notice in advance of

their impact on the work.

We need concurrence to proceed with at least the clearing and grading portion of the work by June 1 in

order to stay on our schedule.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Altway

Superintendent

Continued from previous page

SAMPLE

Continued on next page
SAMPLE

Poor

All guardrail materials will be checked

for contract compliance before use. All

employees are empowered to inspect

and reject materials not complying with

the contract.

Fair

All guardrail materials will be checked

by the Quality Control Technician

(QCT) for contract compliance before

use. Materials not in compliance will be

isolated and rejected. Survey crew will

layout guardrail in accordance with the

plans before construction.

Good

Upon delivery of guardrail, posts, and

hardware, QCT will check for proper

identification, certification, and damage

during shipment. Before scheduled

construction, components will be

reinventoried, checked, and compared

to layout requirements. QCT will

review layout procedures with the

Project Engineer (PE). Will coordinate

with survey crew on stakeout. Will

check each stakeout for possible

transition problems. Will notify the PE

of opportunity to check.

B–16 Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

Examples: 

Good, Fair, and Poor Quality Control Plan Elements

Guardrail, Preliminary

Poor

QCT will inspect guardrail crew’s

operations during startup. Any

deficiencies will be brought to the

attention of the Foreman.

Fair 

QCT will continuously work with

stakeout crew and installation crew

when operations begin, to assure a

common understanding of contract

requirements and standards/tolerances

etc. 

Good

Prior to scheduled beginning of

installation, QCT will verify that

stakeout has been accomplished in

accordance with requirements. QCT

will go over a checklist of required

quality characteristics with the Foreman.

The Foreman will be responsible for

routine quality monitoring after startup. 

Guardrail, Startup

Poor

The QCT will periodically check on

operations during construction to

assure contract compliance.

Fair 

The QCT will inspect installation

operations every day to verify

specification compliance and document

completion of each installation.

Good 

The QCT will inspect installation

operations at least twice a day, verifying

compliance with stakeout, as well as rail

height, post plumbness, etc. The QCT

(or the Foreman if QCT is not

available) will document completed

work and cleanup and advise the PE of

such completed work for acceptance.

Additional inspection/training will be

provided if installation crew personnel

changes or deficiencies are noted. 

Guardrail, Production
Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–17

A Model Quality Control Plan 

Overview

The model quality control (QC) plan that follows is intended to serve as a generic tool to assist

contractors in preparing complete and useful QC plans. Developed by the New England

Transportation Technician Certification Program (NETTCP), the model plan follows a

recommended standard format that includes 10 separate sections plus appendices. Each section

addresses a major QC Plan item, as follows: 

▼ Terms and Definitions (optional)

▼ 1.0 Applicable Specifications

▼ 2.0 Quality Control Organization

▼ 3.0 Quality Control Laboratories

▼ 4.0 Materials Control

▼ 5.0 Quality Control Sampling and Testing

▼ 6.0 Production Facility Management

▼ 7.0 Field Management

▼ 8.0 Acceptance of Work (optional)

▼ 9.0 Other Relevant Contractor QC Plans

▼ Appendices

The Model QC Plan is an example of a completed Earthwork QC Plan for a fictitious major

transportation construction project. QC Plans for other materials (e.g., HMA, PCC, etc.) can be

developed following the same standard format (section and subsection headings) provided in the

Model Plan. It is recommended that transportation agencies adopt the format (section and

subsection headings) provided in the NETTCP Model QC Plan as a standard for contractors to

follow.

The level of detailed information in any QC Plan will obviously change depending upon the size

and complexity of the individual construction project. The Plan is designed as a template and guide.

As a minimum, all text that is shaded grey throughout the Model QC Plan will require replacement

or deletion to address the specific quality control information related to a given project. 

Note

Every QC plan should include examples of forms and reports that the contractor will use to

document and report the results of QC monitoring to the transportation agency. These sample

documents can appear as appendices to the QC plan. The samples included will differ from plan to
plan depending on the type of project. For example, in the fictitious model presented here for

Earthworks, several sample documents are named as appendices to the plan: 

▼ Project Drawings List 

▼ Material Source Characterization Sampling and Testing Forms 

▼ Standard Test Report Forms 

▼ Weekly Schedule of Production Operations 

▼ Standard Inspection Report Forms for Production Quality Control

▼ Weekly Schedule of Materials Placement Operations 

▼ Control Charts Used for Materials Placement 

▼ Standard Inspection Report Forms for Field Quality Control

Each QC plan should include samples of forms and reports that are appropriate to the project type. 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–18 SAMPLE
State Route 99 Construction Project

Anytown, USA

Transportation Agency Contract #54321

ABC Contractors, Inc.

NETTCP

Model QC Plan

Construction Quality Control Plan

Section 1 - Earthwork

October 28, 2003 Draft

Submitted By:

ABC Contractors, Inc. Date

Approved By:

Transportation Agency Date

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–19
Section 1 - Earthwork

This Quality Control Plan (QC Plan) identifies the specific resources and procedures which will

be utilized by ABC Contractors to control the quality of all Earthwork materials and ensure that

all associated Work is completed in accordance with Project Specifications.

Terms and Definitions

The following terms and definitions are applicable to this QC Plan:

▼ Contractor Information Testing (CIT) – Testing that is performed at the discretion of the

QC Inspector (non-random) for information to guide Production or Field Placement of

material.

▼ Control Strip – An area of Earthwork placed at the beginning of each new Earthwork

operation which is used to establish the rolling pattern and compactive effort required to

achieve the In-Place Target Density at Optimum Moisture Content.

▼ Control Strip Section – One of 3 approximately equal parts of a Control Strip which are

sequentially placed and tested for In-Place Density and Moisture Content.

▼ Crushed Stone – Processed Earthwork material used for “Embankment Under

Bridge Foundations” which meets the materials specification requirements

contained in Subsection M2.01.0.

▼ Earth Excavate – Earthwork material, obtained from On-Site excavation (cut)

activity, which is used for “Roadway Embankment Material”, and which meets

the materials specification requirements contained in Section M1.01.0 (Ordinary

Borrow) and contains up to 50% boulders or rock fragments with a maximum

size of 600 millimeters largest dimension.

▼ Field Quality Control (FQC) – All sampling, testing, and inspection activity performed to

control the quality of Field Placement operations.

▼ Gravel Borrow – Earthwork material, obtained either from On-Site excavation

(cut) activity or from Off-Site Borrow Producers, which is used for “Roadway

Embankment Material”, “Embankment Under Bridge Foundations”, or “Backfill

Material for Structures and Pipes”, and which meets the materials specification

requirements contained in Subsection M1.03.0.

▼ Ordinary Borrow – Earthwork material, obtained either from On-Site excavation

(cut) activity or from Off-Site Borrow Producers, which is used for “Roadway

Embankment Material”, and which meets the materials specification requirements

contained in Subsection M1.01.0.

▼ Producer – A Subcontractor who supplies either “project produced” materials or

“commercially manufactured” materials for incorporation into the Work.

▼ Production Quality Control (PQC) – All sampling, testing, and inspection activity

performed by ABC Contractors or their Producers to control the quality of material

produced at the Production facility.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–20 SAMPLE
▼ Rock Excavate – Earthwork material, obtained from On-Site excavation (cut)

activity, which is used for “Backfill Material for Muck Excavation” or “Roadway

Embankment Material”, and which is comprised of boulders or rock fragments

with a maximum size of 1 meter largest dimension.

▼ Source Characterization (SC) – Sampling and testing performed to determine the specific

“Earthwork Material Type” which an individual material source location (On-Site or OffSite) contains.

▼ Source Quadrant – An area of defined boundaries at an individual Earthwork

material source location (On-Site or Off-Site) which has been evaluated by Source

Characterization sampling and testing.

▼ Special Borrow – Earthwork material, obtained either from On-Site excavation

(cut) activity or from Off-Site Borrow Producers, which is used for “Backfill

Material for Muck Excavation” or “Roadway Embankment Material”, and which

meets the materials specification requirements contained in Subsection M1.02.0.

1.0 Applicable Specifications

The relevant specifications for all Earthwork activities are as indicated below.

1.1 – Standard Specifications

This QC Plan applies to all Work covered by the following sections of Transportation Agency

Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges, 1995 Metric Edition:

▼ Division II - Section 150: Embankment

▼ Division II - Section 170: Grading

▼ Division III - Section M1: Soils and Borrow Materials, limited to:

▼ Subsection M1.01.0 Ordinary Borrow

▼ Subsection M1.02.0 Special Borrow

▼ Subsection M1.03.0 Gravel Borrow (Type a)

▼ Subsection M1.04.0 Sand Borrow (Type b)

▼ Subsection M1.08.0 Impervious Soil Borrow

▼ Division III - Section M2: Aggregates and Related Materials, limited to:

▼ Subsection M2.01.0 Crushed Stone

▼ Subsection M2.01.1 Grading Requirements (37.5 mm)

1.2 – Supplemental Specifications

Transportation Agency Supplemental Specifications, December 23, 1998 Metric Edition,

applicable to Work addressed by this QC Plan include:

▼ Division II - Section 150: Embankment

▼ Division II - Section 170: Grading

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–21
1.3 – Project Special Provisions

Special Provisions applicable to Work addressed by this QC Plan include:

▼ Division II - Section 150: Embankment (June 26, 2001)

▼ Subsection 150.20 General

▼ Subsection 150.66 Gravel Borrow for Bridge Foundations

▼ Subsection 150.69 Crushed Stone for Stabilized Construction Entrances

▼ Subsection 150.70 Gravel Borrow for Sidewalk

▼ Subsection 150.72 Sedimentation Control

1.4 – Project Drawings

A current listing of drawings applicable to all Work addressed by this QC Plan will be maintained

by ABC Contractors. The “Project Drawings List” will be updated and submitted monthly to

Transportation Agency in electronic format. An example copy of the “Project Drawings List:

Section 1 – Earthwork” is contained in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17).

1.5 – Standard Drawings

All Standard Drawings related to Earthwork contained in the Transportation Agency

Construction and Traffic Standard Details (1996) are applicable to Work addressed by this

QC Plan.

2.0 Quality Control Organization

The personnel and their corresponding responsibilities for all Earthwork Quality Control

activities are as indicated below.

2.1 – QC Plan Manager

The QC Plan Manager is Mr. “Plan Manager”, P.E. He is employed by ABC Contractors,

Inc. (ABC Contractors). Mr. “Plan Manager” is located at the ABC Contractors State Route

99 Project Office in Anytown, USA and can be contacted as follows:

Office Phone: (508) 123-4567

Cell Phone: (508) 123-4568

Pager: (508) 123-4500

The QC Plan Manager has responsibility and authority for the following items:

▼ Development and submission of this QC Plan for Transportation Agency approval

▼ Overall coordination of personnel performing QC inspection, sampling, and testing at all OffSite Production facilities, QC Laboratories, and On-Site Field operations

▼ Approval of Material Sources prior to the start of any related work addressed by this QC Plan

▼ Ensure that Producers have required certifications and qualified personnel and laboratories

▼ Complete adherence to all QC requirements and activities contained in this QC Plan

▼ Initiating Work suspension and determining appropriate corrective action when testing or

inspection identifies nonconforming materials or construction as outlined under Section 6.5

and Section 7.6 below

▼ Review and evaluation of all QC documentation for content and completeness

▼ Maintaining the “QC Record System – Earthwork” in accordance with Section 5.5 below

▼ Preparing and submitting a “Weekly QC Summary Report” to Transportation

Agency within 7 Calendar Days following the end of the reporting period

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–22 SAMPLE
2.2 – Qualified Off-Site Production Facility QC Personnel

Personnel assigned to perform Off-Site Production Facility QC sampling, testing, and inspection

of Earthwork materials will be as indicated in the table below. A current listing of qualified

Off-Site Production Facility QC personnel will be included in the “Weekly QC

Summary Report.”

Project

Segment QC Position Personnel - Company Qualifications

1, 2, 3

Various – Producers NETTCP Soils and Agg.

Soils Inspector (See Weekly Inspector

QC Summary Report) (See Weekly Report)

Off-Site Production QC activities by ABC Contractors will be scheduled as necessary and will

generally involve the collection of samples for Source Characterization testing from

potential Earthwork material Producers.

Where Earthwork materials Producers possess their own qualified QC personnel and

laboratories, the results of the Producer’s QC inspection and testing may be used by ABC

Contractors. In such instances, the Producer will perform Source Characterization sampling

and testing in accordance with the required test methods and frequencies outlined in Section 4.0

below.

Off-Site Production Facility QC personnel have responsibility and authority for the following

items:

▼ Obtaining random Source Characterization samples of Earthwork materials at each

Production Facility

▼ Inspecting Earthwork Production operations at each Production Facility

▼ Preparing and signing standard QC Inspection report forms for each Production location

▼ Identifying Production Facility practices or materials which do not conform with the

requirements of the relevant specifications and this QC Plan, and discussing appropriate

corrective action with the Production Facility Superintendent and the QC Manager

▼ Suspending the transport of Earthwork materials to On-Site placement locations when

materials are not in conformance with the relevant specification requirements or when

corrective actions have been determined necessary and are not implemented

2.3 – Qualified QC Laboratory Personnel

Personnel assigned to perform QC Laboratory sampling and testing of Earthwork materials are

identified in the table below. A current listing of qualified QC Laboratory personnel will

be included in the “Weekly QC Summary Report.”

Project

Segment QC Position Personnel – Company Qualifications

1, 2, 3

Laboratory Supervisor Bob Supervisor – XYZ NETTCP Soils and Agg.

(ABC Contractors Technician # SAT 100

Anytown, USA)

1, 2, 3 Laboratory Technician Cathy Technician – XYZ NETTCP Soils and Agg. 

Technician # SAT 190

1, 2, 3 Laboratory Technician Mike Technician – XYZ NETTCP Soils and Agg. 

Inspector # SAI 450

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–23
QC Laboratory personnel have responsibility and authority for the following items:

▼ Sampling of Earthwork materials

▼ Laboratory testing of Earthwork materials

▼ Preparing and signing standard Test Report Forms (TRFs) for each test completed

▼ Properly storing all Earthwork material samples

▼ Identifying Earthwork materials test results which do not conform with the requirements of

the relevant specifications and this QC Plan, and discussing with the QC Manager

2.4 – Qualified On-Site Field QC Personnel

Personnel assigned to perform On-Site Field QC sampling, testing, and inspection of Earthwork

materials are identified in the table below. A current listing of qualified On-Site Field QC

personnel will be included in the “Weekly QC Summary Report.”

Project

Segment QC Position Personnel - Company Qualifications

1 Lead QC Inspector Kevin Boulder – XYZ NETTCP Soils and Agg.Inspector

# SAI 491

2 Lead QC Inspector George Troxler – XYZ Not Currently

NETTCP Certified

3 Lead QC Inspector Mike Gravel – XYZ Not Currently 

NETTCP Certified

1, 2, 3 Soils Inspector Various – XYZ NETTCP Soils and Agg. Inspector

(See Weekly (See Weekly 

QC Summary Report) QC Summary Report)

On-Site Field QC personnel have responsibility and authority for the following items:

▼ Obtaining random Field samples of Earthwork materials for laboratory testing

▼ Performing In-Place sampling and testing of Earthwork

▼ Preparing and signing standard Test Report Forms (TRFs) for each test completed

▼ Inspecting On-Site Earthwork production and placement operations

▼ Preparing and signing standard QC Inspection report forms for each placement location

▼ Identifying On-Site Field placement practices or materials which do not conform with the

requirements of the relevant specifications and this QC Plan, and discussing appropriate

corrective action with the Segment Field Superintendent and the QC Manager

▼ Suspending the placement of Earthwork materials when materials are not in conformance

with the relevant specification requirements or when corrective actions have been determined

necessary and are not implemented

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–24 SAMPLE
3.0 Quality Control Laboratories

The Quality Control Laboratories to be used for all Earthwork materials and their

corresponding testing responsibilities are as indicated below.

3.1 – Qualified Primary QC Laboratory

The primary QC Laboratory responsible for performing sampling and testing of Earthwork

materials is identified in the table below.

Project

Segment Laboratory Location Qualifications

1, 2, 3

ABC Contractors NETTCP Laboratory Qualification 

State Route 99 Anytown, USA Program – Category 2-T: Soils, 

Project Laboratory Aggregates (MM/DD/YY)

The ABC Contractors State Route 99 Project Laboratory is responsible for performing testing

of all On-Site Earthwork materials as well as testing of any Off-Site Borrow material. The

following tests will be performed on Earthwork materials by this laboratory:

▼ Soil Classification AASHTO M145

▼ Gradation AASHTO T11 and T27

▼ Liquid Limit AASHTO T89

▼ Plastic Limit/Plasticity Index AASHTO T90

▼ Optimum Moisture Content AASHTO T99 and AASHTO T180

▼ Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T99 and AASHTO T180

▼ Coarse Particles Correction AASHTO T224

▼ Grain-Size Analysis AASHTO T311

3.2 – Qualified Subcontractor or Consultant Laboratories

Other qualified Subcontractor or Consultant laboratories that will perform QC sampling and

testing of Earthwork materials are identified in the table below.

Project

Segment Laboratory Location Qualifications

1, 2, 3 XYZ Company Soil City, USA AASHTO Accreditation 

Laboratory Program: Soils (08/15/00)

The XYZ Company Laboratory in Soil City, USA, will serve as a backup to assist the Primary

QC Laboratory in performing testing of all On-Site Earthwork materials as well as testing of

any Off-Site Borrow for Embankment. The following tests will be performed on Earthwork

materials by this laboratory:

▼ Soil Classification AASHTO M145

▼ Gradation AASHTO T11 and T27

▼ Liquid Limit AASHTO T89

▼ Plastic Limit/Plasticity Index AASHTO T90

▼ Maximum Wear (LA Abrasion) AASHTO T96

▼ Optimum Moisture Content AASHTO T99 and AASHTO T180

▼ Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T99 and AASHTO T180

▼ Coarse Particles Correction AASHTO T224

▼ Grain-Size Analysis AASHTO T311

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–25
4.0 Materials Control

The types, sources, properties, and procedures for storing of materials to be used for each

Earthwork category are as indicated below.

4.1 – Material Types and Source(s) of Supply

Earthwork material will be classified according to the following Earthwork Item categories:

▼ Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

▼ Roadway Embankment Material

▼ Embankment Material under Bridge Foundations

▼ Backfill Material for Structures

▼ Backfill Material for Pipes

4.1.1 – Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

The types and potential sources of material currently identified for use as Backfill Material

for Muck Excavation are listed in the table below.

Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

Material Type Material Source

Rock Excavate ▼ On-Site, Segment 1, Rte 99 Median

▼ On-Site, Segment 3, Rte 99 Median

Special Borrow ▼ On-Site, Segment 1

▼ On-Site, Segment 2

▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

ABC Contractors will submit updated information on the types and sources of Backfill Material

for Muck Excavation as part of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials

Production Operations” as outlined under Section 6.1 below.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–26 SAMPLE
4.1.2 – Roadway Embankment Material

The types and sources of material currently identified for use as Roadway Embankment are

listed in the table below. At this time, sufficient quantities of Earth Excavate, Rock

Excavate, Ordinary Borrow, and Gravel Borrow appear to be available On-Site for

Roadway Embankment construction. If Off-Site sources of these materials are determined

necessary by ABC Contractors, the table will be updated to reflect these sources.

Roadway Embankment Material

Material Type Material Source

Rock Excavate ▼ On-Site, Segment 1, Rte 99 Median

▼ On-Site, Segment 3, Rte 99 Median

Earth Excavate ▼ On-Site, Segment 1, Rte 99 Median

▼ On-Site, Segment 3, Rte 99 Median

Ordinary Borrow ▼ On-Site, Segment 1

▼ On-Site, Segment 2

▼ On-Site, Segment 3

▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

Gravel Borrow ▼ On-Site, Segment 1

▼ On-Site, Segment 3

▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

Special Borrow ▼ On-Site, Segment 1

▼ On-Site, Segment 2

▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

ABC Contractors will submit updated information on the types and sources of Roadway

Embankment Material as part of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials

Production Operations” as outlined under Section 6.1 below.

4.1.3 – Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations

The types and potential sources of material currently identified for use as Embankment

Material under Bridge Foundations are listed in the table below.

Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations

Material Type Material Source

Gravel Borrow ▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

Crushed Stone ▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

ABC Contractors will submit updated information on the types and sources of Embankment

Material under Bridge Foundations as part of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork

Materials Production Operations” as outlined under Section 6.1 below.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–27
4.1.4 – Backfill Material for Structures

The types and potential sources of material currently identified for use as Backfill Material

for Structures are listed in the table below.

Backfill Material for Structures

Material Type Material Source

Gravel Borrow ▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

ABC Contractors will submit updated information on the types and sources of Backfill Material

for Structures as part of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials Production

Operations” as outlined under Section 6.1 below.

4.1.5 – Backfill Material for Pipes

The types and potential sources of material currently identified for use as Backfill Material

for Pipes are listed in the table below.

Backfill Material for Pipes

Material Type Material Source

Ordinary Borrow ▼ On-Site, Segment 1

▼ On-Site, Segment 2

▼ On-Site, Segment 3

▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

Gravel Borrow ▼ Borrow Producer (TBD)

ABC Contractors will submit updated information on the types and sources of Backfill Material

for Pipes as part of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials Production

Operations” as outlined under Section 6.1 below.

4.2 – Material Properties

Earthwork material Source Characterization and Mix Designs will be performed as described

below.

4.2.1 – Material Source Characterization Sampling and Testing

Earthwork materials will be fully characterized by ABC Contractors prior to their use in the

intended location. Grids will be established and maintained at each Earthwork source

location identifying “Quadrants.” Each Quadrant will be numbered for Source

Characterization identification (e.g. SC-1, SC-2, SC-99, etc.). ABC Contractors will

submit the results of Source Characterization testing for each Source Quadrant of

Earthwork material to Transportation Agency a minimum of two (2) calendar days prior

to placement of any material from the Source Quadrant. The following table identifies the

specific Source Characterization testing that will be performed on all Earthwork materials.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–28 SAMPLE
Material Source Characterization Sampling and Testing

Material Type Characteristic Tested Test Method Test Frequency

Rock Excavate Maximum Size (< 1m) Visual/Tape Minimum 4/Day/Quadrant

Earth Excavate

Soil Classification AASHTO M145 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(M1.01.0 Modified)

Liquid Limit AASHTO T89 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(Contains Boulders 

Plastic Limit/ PI AASHTO T90 Minimum 4/Quadrant

< 600 mm)

Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(Method D)

Optimum Moisture AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Content (Method D)

Coarse Particles AASHTO T224 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Correction

Grain-Size Analysis AASHTO T311 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Ordinary Borrow

Soil Classification AASHTO M145 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(M1.01.0)

Liquid Limit AASHTO T89 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Plastic Limit/ PI AASHTO T90 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T99 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(Method C)

Optimum Moisture AASHTO T99 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Content (Method C)

Coarse Particles AASHTO T224 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Correction

Grain-Size Analysis AASHTO T311 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Gravel Borrow

Soil Classification AASHTO M145 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(M1.03.0)

Gradation AASHTO T11, T27 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(Method D)

Optimum Moisture AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Content (Method D)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–29

Continued on next page
(Continued from page B-29)

Material Source Characterization Sampling and Testing

Material Type Characteristic Tested Test Method Test Frequency

Special Borrow

Soil Classification AASHTO M145 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(M1.02.0)

Gradation AASHTO T11, T27 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Plastic Limit/ PI AASHTO T90 Minimum 4/Quadrant

Maximum Dry Density AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant

(Method D)

Optimum Moisture AASHTO T180 Minimum 4/Quadrant 

Content (Method D)

Maximum Percentage AASHTO T96 Minimum 4/Quadrant

of Wear (LA Abrasion)

Crushed Stone

Soil Classification AASHTO M145 Minimum 1/10,000 m3

(M2.01.0)

Gradation AASHTO T11, T27 Minimum 1/10,000 m3

Maximum Percentage AASHTO T96 Minimum 1/10,000 m3

of Wear (LA Abrasion)

Flat and Elongated ASTM D4791 Minimum 1/10,000 m3

Particles

All Earthwork Source Characterization samples will be obtained randomly in accordance with

ASTM D3665. The random sample locations within each Source Quadrant will be determined

by Station, Offset, and Elevation within the Quadrant. All random sample locations will be

documented on NETTCP Standard Test Report Form D3665 or D3665RNG. A copy of these

Random Sampling Forms is located in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17).

All Earthwork Source samples will be obtained following AASHTO T2 and split in accordance

with AASHTO T248.

All Source Characterization sampling and testing results will be documented on the following

Standard Test Report Forms (TRFs):

Source Characterization Standard Test Report Forms

Form No. Form Title

M145-T89-T90 Classification of Soils (Includes Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit)

NETTCP T27 Sieve Analysis Test Report

NETTCP T96 Resistance to Degradation of Aggregate by Abrasion Test Report

T99 Moisture-Density Relations of Soils (Standard)

T180 Moisture Density Relations of Soils (Modified)

T311 Grain-Size Analysis of Granular Soil Materials

Rock Size Evaluation of Maximum Rock Size in Earthwork Materials

A copy of the standard TRFs used for Source Characterization sampling and testing is located in Appendix __ (see Note, page

B–17).

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–30 SAMPLE
4.2.2 – Mix Designs

Earthwork Materials “Mix Designs” are generally not required. Source Characterization

testing will determine whether specific Earthwork Materials sources meet the specification

requirements for a particular material type required (i.e. Ordinary Borrow, Gravel Borrow,

Special Borrow, etc.).

4.3 – Processing of Existing Materials

Where On-Site excavate proposed to be used for Earthwork is found to not meet

specification requirements, the following procedures will be used to process or blend the

material to meet the requirements of a specific Earthwork Material Type:

▼ A blended material “Mix Design” will be developed by the Project Laboratory.

▼ A stockpile of the excavate, not to exceed one day’s production, will be blended with

other material per the “Mix Design.”

▼ At the completion of blending of the stockpile, samples will be obtained and Source

Characterization testing will be performed to confirm that the blended material meets the

specification requirements.

4.4 – Material Storage and Stockpiling

All Earthwork materials will be properly stored and maintained to prevent contamination or

commingling of different materials. Storage and stockpiling procedures will be as follows:

▼ The limits of each storage or stockpile location will be clearly marked by grade stakes

legibly marked indicating the corresponding Source Characterization sample number (i.e.

SC-1, SC-2, etc.) contained in the Project “Soils Source Characterization Log.”

▼ All active/working stockpiles of Earthwork materials will be characterized in accordance

with Section 4.2.1 above a minimum of once per week.

5.0 Quality Control Sampling and Testing

The requirements and procedures to be used for QC sampling and testing of Earthwork are as

indicated below.

5.1 – Lot and Sublot Sizes

Each Lot of Earthwork material will represent material from the same source, be produced or

obtained under the same controlled process, and will possess normally distributed specification

properties. Each Lot will be divided into Sublots of equal size in order to assess the Quality

Characteristics of the Lot. The Lot size and corresponding Sublot size for each Earthwork Item

are identified in the following table.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–31
Earthwork Lot and Sublot Sizes

Earthwork Item Material Type(s) Lot Size Sublot Size

Backfill Material ▼ Rock Excavate Total Quantity (m3

)

for Muck Excavation ▼ Special Borrow of Backfill material (See Table 5.4.1)

(Section 150.65) type, per material

Source, per Project

Roadway ▼ Rock Excavate Total Quantity (m3

)

Embankment ▼ Earth Excavate of Embankment

Material ▼ Ordinary Borrow Material Type, per (See Table 5.4.2)

(Section 150.62 ▼ Gravel Borrow Material Source, per

and Section 150.63) ▼ Special Borrow per Project Segment

Embankment Total Quantity (m3

)

Material Under ▼ Gravel Borrow of Embankment

Bridge Foundations ▼ Crushed Stone material type, per (See Table 5.4.3)

(Section 150.66 and material Source, per 

Section 150.67) Project Segment

Backfill Material Total Quantity (m3

) 

for Structures ▼ Gravel Borrow of Backfill material (See Table 5.4.4)

(Section 150.64 type, per material 

Source, per Project 

Segment

Backfill Material Total Quantity (m3

)

for Pipes ▼ Gravel Borrow of Backfill material Segment

(Section 150.64) ▼ Ordinary Borrow type, per material 

Source, per Project 

Segment

5.2 – Random Sampling Plan

ABC Contractors will establish a Random Sampling Plan for QC sampling and testing for each

Lot of Earthwork material prior to placement of the Lot. All Earthwork samples will be

obtained randomly in accordance with ASTM D3665. The random sample location for each

Sublot will be determined by Station, Offset, and Depth within the Sublot.

All random sample locations will be documented on NETTCP Standard Test Report Form

D3665 or D3665RNG. A copy of the Random Sampling Forms is located in Appendix __ (see

Note, page B–17). ABC Contractors will provide Transportation Agency a copy of the

Random Sampling locations (i.e. completed NETTCP Form D3665) for each Earthwork

placement operation, during the start of the placement operation each day.

5.3 – Sample Identification System

All Earthwork material samples will be clearly identified as follows:

▼ Project Segment (i.e. 1, 2, 3)

▼ Material Type (i.e. Rock Excavate, Earth Excavate, Ordinary Borrow, etc.)

▼ Sample Type (QC, CIT) and Random/Non-Random

▼ Lot Number and Sublot Number

▼ Sample Location (i.e. Rte 99 Median, Borrow Subcontractor, etc.)

▼ Station, Offset, and Depth

▼ Sample Date

▼ Technician or Inspector

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–32 SAMPLE
5.4 – QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

The specific requirements (Quality Characteristics, frequency, location, methods) for QC

sampling and testing of each Earthwork item are outlined in the tables below.

5.4.1 – Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

Sublot Size/

Quality Test Point of Sampling

Characteristic Test Method(s) Lot Size Frequency Sampling Method

Gradation AASHTO T11 Total Quantity of 1 Sample/ 

AASHTO T27 Backfill Material 5,000 m3 for

Type / Source / 1st 50,000 m3 From In-Place Random

Project Segment 10,000 m3 Lift of Backfill T2, T248

thereafter

Maximum Dry AASHTO T99 Total Quantity of 1 Sample/

Density and (Method C) Backfill Material 5,000 m3 for 

Optimum AASHTO T180 Type / Source / 1st 50,000 m3 From In-Place Random

Moisture Content (Method D) Project Segment and 1 Sample/ Lift of Backfill T2, T248

10,000 m3

thereafter

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Rock Size Visual/Tape Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random

(< 1 m) Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

Project Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Lift Thickness Rod/Grade Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random 

(< 300 mm) Stake Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

Project Segment

In-Place Total Quantity of 1 Sample/1,000

Density and AASHTO T310 Backfill Material m3

, but From Random

Moisture Content (Method B) Type / Source / not less than Compacted T310 

(Per Targets) Project Segment 1/Placement Backfill

Location/Day

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–33
5.4.2 – Roadway Embankment Material

QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

Sublot Size/

Quality Test Point of Sampling

Characteristic Test Method(s) Lot Size Frequency Sampling Method

Gradation AASHTO T11 Total Quantity 1 Sample/ 

AASHTO T27 of Embankment 5,000 m3 for From In-Place 

Material Type / 1st 5,000 m3 and Lift of Random

Source / Project 1 Sample/ Embankment T2, T248

Segment 10,000 m3

thereafter

Maximum Dry AASHTO T99 Total Quantity of 1 Sample/ 

Density and (Method C) Embankment 5,000 m3 for From In-Place 

Optimum AASHTO T180 Material Type / 1st 50,000 m3 and Lift of Random

Moisture (Method D) Source / Project 1 Sample/ Embankment T2, T248

Content Segment 10,000 m3

thereafter

Total Quantity of 

Maximum Embankment Minimum From In-Place Random 

Rock Size Visual/Tape Material Type / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

(< 1 m) Source / Project 

Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Lift Thickness Rod/Grade Stake Embankment Minimum From In-Place Random Visual

(< 600 mm for Material Type / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Maximum

Earth Excavate) Source / Project Embankment

Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Lift Thickness Embankment Minimum From In-Place Random 

(< 300 mm for Rod/Grade Material Type / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Visual

Ordinary Borrow Stake Source / Project Embankment

and Gravel Segment

Borrow)

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Lift Thickness Rod/Grade Embankment Minimum From In-Place Random 

(< 200 mm for Stake Material Type / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Visual

Special Borrow) Source / Project Embankment

Segment

In-Place Total Quantity of 1 Sample/1,000 

Density and AASHTO T310 Embankment m3

, but From Random

Moisture Content (Method B) Material Type / not less than Compacted T310

(Per Targets) Source / Project 1/Placement Embankment

Segment Location/Day

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–34 SAMPLE
5.4.3 – Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations

QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

Lot Size Sublot Size/

Quality Test Test Point of Sampling 

Characteristic Method Frequency Sampling Method

Total Quantity of 

AASHTO T11 Embankment 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random

Gradation AASHTO T27 Material Type / Placement Lift of T2, T248

Source / Project Location Embankment

Segment

Maximum Dry AASHTO T99 Total Quantity of 

Density and (Method C) Embankment 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random

Optimum AASHTO T180 Material Type / Placement Lift of T2, T248

Moisture (Method D) Source / Project Location Embankment

Content Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Stone Size Visual/Tape Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random

(< 75 mm) Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

Project Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Lift Thickness Rod/Grade Embankment Minimum From In-Place Random 

(< 300 mm) Stake Material Type / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Visual

Source / Project Embankment

Segment

Total Quantity of Gravel Borrow: 

In-Place Embankment 1 Sample/

Density and AASHTO T310 Material Type / Each Lift/

Moisture Content (Method B) Source / Project Placement From Random

(Per Targets) Segment Location/Day Compacted T310

Embankment

Crushed Stone:

N/A

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–35
5.4.4 – Backfill Material for Structures

QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

Sublot Size/

Quality Test Point of Sampling

Characteristic Test Method(s) Lot Size Frequency Sampling Method

Total Quantity of 

AASHTO T11 Backfill Material 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random

Gradation AASHTO T27 Type / Source / 1,000 m3 Lift of Backfill T2, T248

Project Segment

Maximum Dry AASHTO T99 Total Quantity of 

Density and (Method C) Backfill Material 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random 

Optimum AASHTO T180 Type / Source / 1,000 m3 Lift of Backfill T2, T248

Moisture Content (Method D) Project Segment

Maximum Total Quantity of 

Stone Size Visual/Tape Backfill Material Minimum Minimum Random

(< 75 mm) Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

Project Segment

Total Quantity of 

Maximum Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random 

Lift Thickness Rod/Grade Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

(< 150 mm) Stake Project Segment

In-Place Total Quantity of 

Density and AASHTO T310 Backfill Material 1 Sample/100 From Random

Moisture Content (Method B) Type / Source / m3

, but not less Compacted T310

(Per Targets) Project Segment than 1/Lift/Day Backfill

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–36 SAMPLE
5.4.5 – Backfill Material for Pipes*

QC Sampling and Testing Requirements

Sublot Size/

Quality Test Point of Sampling

Characteristic Test Method(s) Lot Size Frequency Sampling Method

Total Quantity of

AASHTO T11 Backfill Material 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random 

Gradation AASHTO T27 Type / Source / 1,000 m3 Lift of Backfill T2, T248

Project Segment

Maximum Dry AASHTO T99 Total Quantity of 

Density and (Method C) Backfill Material 1 Sample/ From In-Place Random

Optimum AASHTO T180 Type / Source / 1,000 m3 Lift of Backfill T2, T248

Moisture Content (Method D) Project Segment

Total Quantity of 

Maximum Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random

Stone Size Visual/Tape Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

(< 75 mm) Project Segment

Total Quantity of 

Maximum Rod/Grade Backfill Material Minimum From In-Place Random

Lift Thickness Stake Type / Source / 4/Lift/Day Lift of Backfill Visual

(< 150 mm) Project Segment

Gravel Borrow:

1 Sample/100 m 

of Trench, but 

not less than 

1/Lift/Day

In-Place Total Quantity of From 

Density and AASHTO T310 Backfill Material Ordinary Borrow: Compacted Random

Moisture Content (Method B) Type / Source / 1 Sample/100 m Backfill T310

(Per Targets) Project Segment of trench, but 

not less than 

1/Placement 

Location/Day

(*) Backfill Material for Pipes will include Gravel Borrow and Ordinary Borrow to be

placed as follows:

Gravel Borrow – Gravel Borrow shall be used for bedding and backfilling of pipe

to a point 600 mm above the top of pipe.

Ordinary Borrow – Ordinary Borrow shall be used to backfill the remaining

depth of trench from the top of the Gravel Borrow to the top of the finished

subgrade.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–37
5.5 – QC Test Result Reporting

All QC sampling and testing of In-Place Earthwork materials will be documented on the

following Standard Test Report Forms (TRFs):

Form No. Form Title

NETTCP T27 Sieve Analysis Test Report

T99 Moisture-Density Relations of Soils (Standard)

T180 Moisture Density Relations of Soils (Modified)

T310 Soils In-Place Density and Moisture Content Test Report

Rock Size and Lift Maximum Rock Size and Lift Thickness Test Report

A copy of the Standard TRFs used for QC sampling and testing of Earthwork materials is

located in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17).

ABC Contractors will retain a complete record of all completed Earthwork testing and

inspection in accessible files which will be labeled as the “QC Record System – Earthwork.”

The QC Record System will contain the following QC documents:

▼ The approved Earthwork QC Plan

▼ Original copies of all completed Earthwork QC Standard Test Report Forms (including

Random Sampling Forms)

▼ Earthwork Control Charts

▼ Summaries of all Earthwork test results

▼ Records of Earthwork Daily Production quantity information

ABC Contractors will also submit copies of all completed QC sampling and testing Report

Forms to Transportation Agency with each “Weekly QC Summary Report.”

5.6 – QC Sample Storage and Retention Procedures

All physical QC samples of Earthwork material will be split prior to testing in accordance with

relevant AASHTO and NETTCP procedures.

The split sample portion of Earthwork material not used for testing will be retained in the

original sample bag with proper identification. The split sample will be stored in the Sample

Storage Room at the Laboratory which performed the test for a minimum of 60 Days following

testing.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–38 SAMPLE
6.0 Production Facility Management

The activities and procedures to be followed for QC during production of Earthwork materials

are as indicated below.

6.1 – Schedule of Production Operations

ABC Contractors will provide Transportation Agency with a “Weekly Schedule of

Earthwork Materials Production Operations” on each Friday prior to the week of production. A copy of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials Production Operations” is

located in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17). The weekly schedule of Production

Operations will identify the following:

▼ Material Type

▼ Material Source

▼ Production Location

▼ Estimated Production Quantity

ABC Contractors will track the actual production quantities on a daily basis and maintain a

“Record of Earthwork Production” for each week. Copies of the “Record of Earthwork

Production” will be made available to Transportation Agency in the “Weekly QC Summary

Report.”

6.2 – Production Facilities and Equipment

ABC Contractors and their Subcontractors and Suppliers will utilize conventional facilities and

equipment for the production of all Earthwork materials. The major types of facilities and equipment to be utilized for On-Site and Off-Site production are summarized below.

Material Source

Production Facility Production Equipment

On-Site, Segment ▼ Crawler Drills (Multiple, Various Make)

1, 2, and 3 ▼ Explosives and Blasting Mats

▼ Backhoes (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ Tractor/Dozers (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ Front End Loaders (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Bedrock Industries, ▼ Tractor/Dozers (Multiple, Various Make)

Bedrock, MA ▼ Rock Crusher

▼ Conveyor Belt

▼ Front End Loaders (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Borrow Producer(s) ▼ Tractor/Dozers (Multiple, Various Make)

(TBD) ▼ Front End Loaders (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–39
6.3 – Production Quality Control Activities

Production Quality Control (PQC) personnel will perform the following inspection, sampling,

and testing activities at the frequencies indicated:

6.3.1 – Pre-Production QC Activities

▼ Conduct a Pre-Production Quality Control Audit at each Earthwork Source facility or

location in accordance with CQMP Part XIII prior to the start of Earthwork production.

▼ Maintain a reference grid system (Stations, Offsets) and boundaries for each Earthwork

Source facility or location.

▼ Determine and document random sampling locations of Earthwork materials at

Production Facility in accordance with Section 4.2.1 above.

▼ Obtain and properly label all Source Characterization (SC) samples of Earthwork materials at

the frequencies indicated in Section 4.2.1 above.

▼ Transport Earthwork Source Characterization samples to the appropriate laboratory for

testing.

▼ Ensure that Source Characterization sampling and testing is completed for each Source

Quadrant prior to production/removal of material from the Source Quadrant.

▼ Inspect stockpiles to ensure that different Earthwork material types are not commingled or

contaminated.

6.3.2 – Production QC Activities

▼ Visually monitor Earthwork materials production to ensure no change in material type within

the Source Quadrant.

▼ Determine and document random sampling locations for each Sublot of Earthwork material

produced.

▼ Obtain and properly label all PQC Field samples of Earthwork materials.

▼ Transport Earthwork PQC Field samples to the appropriate laboratory for testing.

▼ Perform PQC sampling and testing of Earthwork in accordance with the required test

methods and frequencies outlined in Section 5.0 above.

▼ Prepare and sign standard Test Report Forms (TRFs) for each test completed.

▼ Maintain Production Facility Control Charts per Section 6.4 below.

▼ Monitor loading and transportation of Earthwork materials to ensure that the correct

materials are being transported to the correct Project location.

▼ Ensure that all Borrow Pits are neatly trimmed and finished to the minimum

grades and dimensions required under Section 150.21 of the Standard

Specifications.

▼ Document Off-Site and On-Site Earthwork Production QC inspection activities and findings

on standard QC Inspection Report Forms (IRFs) for each production location in accordance

with Section 6.6 below.

▼ Identify Production Facility practices or materials which do not conform with the

requirements of the relevant specifications and this QC Plan, and discuss appropriate

corrective action with the Production Facility Superintendent and the QC Manager.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–40 SAMPLE
6.4 – Production Facility Control Charts

Control Charts may be used by ABC Contractors and their Earthwork material Producers to

control production operations as described below.

6.4.1 – Off-Site Production Control Charts

Off-Site Earthwork material Producers will use Control Charts as needed to provide

adequate control of their production operations. Prior to production, ABC Contractors will

request each Earthwork material Producer to identify and submit examples of any Control

Charts to be used. ABC Contractors will monitor and discuss the Control Charts with the

Producer during Earthwork production.

6.4.2 – On-Site Production Control Charts

At this time, the application of Control Charts does not appear necessary for the

production of On-Site Earthwork materials (i.e. Earth Excavate). However, in the

event that Rock Crushing operations are established to produce Earthwork

materials from On-Site Rock Excavate, Control Charts will be maintained to

monitor control of the operation.

6.5 – Procedures for Corrective Action of Non-Conforming Materials

The following procedures will be followed for corrective action of non-specification materials

encountered at the Source/Production facility:

▼ If contaminated materials are encountered, the limit of contaminated material will be

identified. The contaminated material will be clearly marked off by signs labeled “No Use On

Rte 99.”

▼ If a change in material type is encountered within a Source Lot, additional sampling and

testing will be performed to characterize the material. The disposition of such material will be

as follows:

▼ If the material meets specification requirements for another Project Material Type, then

the material will be approved for use at an appropriate location for that Material Type.

▼ If the material can be blended with other material and subsequently meet

specification requirements for a Project Material Type, then the material will

be approved for use at an appropriate location for that Material Type.

▼ If the material does not meet specification requirements for a Project Material Type, the

material will not be permitted for use on the Project. ABC Contractors will prepare a

Non-Conformance Report (NCR) for such material in accordance with Part X of the

CQMP. If the source of such material is On-Site (e.g. Rte 99 Median), ABC

Contractors will dispose of the material Off-Site at an approved disposal site. If the

source of such material is Off-Site (e.g. Borrow), the material will be clearly marked off by

signs labeled “No Use On Rte 99.”

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–41
6.6 – Production QC Inspection Reporting

All PQC inspection activities will be documented on the following standard QC Inspection Report

Forms (IRFs):

Form No. Form Title

PQC-PPA Production QC - Pre-Production Audit Report

PQC-IDR Production QC – Inspectors Daily Report

A copy of the Standard IRFs used for Production QC inspection of Earthwork materials is

located in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17).

7.0 Field Management

The activities and procedures to be followed for QC during placement of Earthwork materials

are as indicated below.

7.1 – Schedule of Field Placement Operations

ABC Contractors will provide Transportation Agency with a “Weekly Schedule of

Earthwork Materials Placement Operations” on each Friday prior to the week of

placement. A copy of the “Weekly Schedule of Earthwork Materials Placement

Operations” is located in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17). The weekly schedule of

Placement Operations will identify the following:

▼ Project Segment

▼ Placement Location

▼ Maximum Placement Depth

▼ Intended Placement Locations (Roadway, Station Limits)

▼ Material Type(s)

▼ Estimated Placement Quantities

▼ Material Source(s)

ABC Contractors will track the actual placement quantities on a daily basis and maintain a “Record

of Earthwork Placement” for each week. Copies of the “Record of Earthwork Placement” will be

made available to Transportation Agency.

7.2 – Field Placement Facilities and Equipment

ABC Contractors will utilize conventional facilities and equipment for the placement of all

Earthwork materials. The major types of facilities and equipment to be utilized for Earthwork

placement are summarized below for each type of Earthwork Item.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–42 SAMPLE
Earthwork Item Placement Equipment

Backfill Material for ▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Muck Excavation and ▼ Tractor/Dozers (Multiple, Various Make)

Roadway Embankment ▼ Vibratory Rollers - 50 Ton (Multiple, Various Make)

Material ▼ Sheepsfoot Rollers (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ Water Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Embankment Material ▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Under Bridge ▼ Tractor/Dozers (Multiple, Various Make)

Foundations ▼ Vibratory Rollers - 50 Ton (Multiple, Various Make)

Backfill Material for ▼ End Dump Trucks (Multiple, Various Make)

Structures and Pipes ▼ Backhoes (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ Front End Loaders (Multiple, Various Make)

▼ Vibratory Sled Compactors (Various Make)

7.3 – Establishment of Compaction Rolling Pattern (Control Strips)

Control Strips will be constructed at the start of each Earthwork placement operation. A new

Control Strip will be constructed whenever one of the following occurs:

▼ A new Earthwork Lot

▼ A change in weather

▼ A change in environment

▼ A PWL < 85% for 3 or more consecutive QC Test Results

The Control Strips will be used to establish an effective rolling pattern and the corresponding

compactive effort required to achieve the in-place Target Density (Maximum Dry Density)

at Optimum Moisture Content. The procedure to be followed for developing a Control Strip

is outlined as follows:

7.3.1 - Earthwork Compacted by Rollers

Step A. – The Control Strip will be established on the first lift to be constructed within an

area not to exceed 30m long by 15m wide. The Strip will be divided longitudinally into 3

approximately equal Control Strip Sections.

Step B. – Material will be loose placed in the first Control Strip Section. The Field

Superintendent, Roller Operator(s) and QC Field Inspector will visually assess the

moisture content of Earthwork placed and determine whether additional moisture is

needed to achieve Optimum Moisture Content.

Step C. – The Field Superintendent, Roller Operator(s) and QC Field Inspector will discuss

and agree upon the proposed number and sequence of passes and compactive mode(s)

(static, vibratory) to be used for the particular Earthwork being placed.

Step D. – The Roller Operator(s) will compact Control Strip Section #1 following the

agreed upon number and sequence of passes and compactive mode(s).

Step E. – After compacting Control Strip Section #1, the Roller Operator will suspend

operation. The QC Inspector will perform Contractor Information Testing (CIT) within

Control Strip Section #1and obtain a minimum of three separate (Random or Non-Random)

In-Place Density and Moisture Content readings.

Step F. – The Field Superintendent, Roller Operator(s) and QC Field Inspector will review

the In-Place Density and Moisture Content readings for Control Strip Section #1 and

determine any necessary adjustment to the number and sequence of passes and compactive

mode(s).

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–43
Step G. - The Roller Operator will move on to Control Strip Section #2 and compact the

material following the agreed upon number and sequence of passes and compactive

mode(s). 

Step H. – After compacting Control Strip Section #2, the Roller Operator will suspend

operation and permit the QC Inspector to obtain a minimum of three separate random InPlace Density and Moisture Content readings in Control Strip Section #2.

Step I. – The CIT results for Control Strip Section #2 will be evaluated by the QC Inspector

using Quality Level Analysis (QLA). The QLA must indicate a Percent Within Limits (PWL)

of 85% or more for the In-Place Density and Moisture Content as indicated in Section 8.1

below.

Step J. – If the PWL for Control Strip Section #2 is 85% or greater, then the number and

sequence of passes and compactive mode(s) used in Control Strip Section #2 will be

established as the approved “Compaction Pattern” for the remainder of the placement

operation on that day.

Step K. – If the PWL for Control Strip Section #2 is less than 85%, then Steps F through I

above will be repeated on segment #3.

7.3.2 - Earthwork Compacted by Hand Operated Compacters

Step A. – The Control Strip will be established on the first lift to be constructed within an

area not to exceed 24m long by 1m wide. The Strip will be divided longitudinally into 3

approximately equal Control Strip Sections.

Step B. – Material will be loose placed in the first Control Strip Section. The Field

Superintendent, Compactor Operator and QC Field Inspector will visually assess the

moisture content of Earthwork placed and determine whether additional moisture is

needed to achieve Optimum Moisture Content.

Step C. – The Field Superintendent, Compactor Operator(s) and QC Field Inspector will

discuss and agree upon the proposed number and sequence of passes and compactive

mode to be used for the particular Earthwork being placed.

Step D. – The Compactor Operator will compact Control Strip Section #1 following the

agreed upon number and sequence of passes and compactive mode.

Step E. – After compacting Control Strip Section #1, the Compactor Operator will

suspend operation. The QC Inspector will perform Contractor Information Testing (CIT)

within Control Strip Section #1and obtain a minimum of three separate (Random or NonRandom) In-Place Density and Moisture Content readings.

Step F. – The Field Superintendent, Compactor Operator and QC Field Inspector will

review the In-Place Density and Moisture Content readings for Control Strip Section #1

and determine any necessary adjustment to the number and sequence of passes and

compactive mode.

Step G. - The Compactor Operator will move on to Control Strip Section #2 and

compact the material following the agreed upon number and sequence of passes and

compactive mode(s). 

Step H. – After compacting Control Strip Section #2, the Compactor Operator will

suspend operation and permit the QC Inspector to obtain a minimum of three separate

random In-Place Density and Moisture Content readings in Control Strip Section #2.

Step I. – The CIT results for Control Strip Section #2 will be evaluated by the QC Inspector

using Quality Level Analysis (QLA). The QLA must indicate a Percent Within Limits (PWL)

of 85% or more for the In-Place Density and Moisture Content as indicated in Section 8.1

below.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–44 SAMPLE
Step J. – If the PWL for Control Strip Section #2 is 85% or greater, then the number and

sequence of passes and compactive mode(s) used in Control Strip Section #2 will be

established as the approved “Compaction Pattern” for the remainder of the placement

operation on that day.

Step K. – If the PWL for Control Strip Section #2 is less than 85%, then Steps F through I

above will be repeated on segment #3.

7.4 – Field Quality Control Activities

Field Quality Control (FQC) personnel will perform inspection, sampling, and testing of

Earthwork as described below.

7.4.1 – Pre-Placement QC Activities

▼ Check Earthwork line and grade for conformance to the design documents.

▼ Ensure that all erosion control measures are in place per approved plans and

specifications.

▼ Ensure that the existing ground has been cleared, grubbed and stripped as

specified in Section 101 and 120 of the Standard Specifications, prior to the

placing of any Earthwork materials.

▼ Verify that all vegetation and other organic material is removed within and immediately

adjacent to Earthwork placement location.

▼ Determine that excavations have been conducted to suitable founding

material and grade.

▼ Where Earthwork material is to be placed against existing earth slopes

steeper than 1 Vertical:3 Horizontal, ensure that the slope is broken up into

steps of random width in order to provide a suitable bond between the

existing ground and the new material.

7.4.2 – Placement QC Activities

▼ Ensure that Control Strips are constructed at the start of each Earthwork placement

operation and as required thereafter per Section 7.3 above.

▼ Ensure that stumps, rubbish, sod, or other unsuitable materials are not incorporated in

the Earthwork.

▼ Ensure that frozen Earthwork materials are not placed and that Earthwork is not placed

on material frozen to a depth of over 75 millimeters.

▼ Ensure that correct Earthwork material type, per Section 4.1 above, is being

delivered/received at the intended placement location.

▼ Ensure that Earthwork is placed in successive layers of uniformly distributed material and

compacted over the full width of the cross-section.

▼ Monitor lift placement to ensure that maximum lift thicknesses specified in Section 5.4

above are not exceeded.

▼ Ensure that each lift of compacted Earthwork materials is visibly crowned to

allow drainage of surface water and rainwater off the surface.

▼ Monitor maximum Rock Size and maximum Stone Size in Earthwork materials

for conformance with the requirements of Section 5.4 above.

▼ Ensure that where Rock Excavate is placed, all voids and interstices are filled

with an appropriate clean, granular Earthwork material type identified in

Section 4.1 above.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–45
▼ Ensure that the placed Earthwork moisture content is near the optimum

moisture content established through Source Characterization testing (Section

4.2 above) and through the Control Strip (Section 7.3 above).

▼ Ensure that moisture is added when Earthwork material is too dry and that

Earthwork which is too wet is dried by disking, harrowing, blading, rotary

mixing, or other approved means so that proper compaction can be

achieved.

▼ Monitor compaction patterns against the approved Control Strip “Compaction

Pattern” and perform Contractor Information Testing (CIT) to ensure that the in-place

density is near the target (100%) in-place density.

▼ Ensure that no rock in excess of 150 millimeters in its largest dimension is

incorporated in the top 600-millimeter layer of Earthwork immediately below

the finished Subgrade elevation.

▼ Perform check measurements during placement of Roadway Embankment

Material final Subgrade Course (Special Borrow) in accordance with

Section170.61 of the Standard Specifications to ensure proper depth and

elevations of finished Subgrade within +/-15 millimeters.

▼ Ensure that Roadway Embankment Material 3 meters or more in height from

the elevation of the Subgrade to the original ground elevation is constructed

to the elevation of the proposed Subgrade and then allowed to settle for 60

days (or other period as specified by the Design Engineer) before the

pavement structure is constructed thereon.

▼ Ensure that Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations is placed in

embankment prior to driving piles.

▼ Determine and document random sampling locations for each Sublot of Earthwork

material placed.

▼ Obtain and properly label all Field samples of Earthwork materials.

▼ Transport Earthwork Field samples to the appropriate laboratory for testing.

▼ Perform In-Place QC sampling and testing of Earthwork in accordance with the

required test methods and frequencies outlined in Section 5.0 above.

▼ Prepare and sign standard Test Report Forms (TRFs) for each test completed.

▼ Maintain Control Charts per Section 7.5 below.

▼ Document On-Site Earthwork QC inspection activities and findings on standard QC

Inspection Report Forms (IRFs) for each On-Site placement location per Section 7.7

below.

▼ Identify On-Site Field placement practices or materials which do not conform with the

requirements of the relevant specifications and this QC Plan, and discuss appropriate

corrective action with the Segment Field Superintendent and the QC Manager.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–46 SAMPLE
7.5 – Placement Control Charts

Control Charts may be used by ABC Contractors to control placement operations for each of

the five Earthwork Item categories as described below.

7.5.1 – Control Charts for Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

Since the placement of Backfill Material for Muck Excavation will generally

involve smaller Earthwork quantities at sporadic locations, the application of

Control Charts as a tool to provide field control for this Earthwork Item will yield

limited QC information. Accordingly, Control Charts will not be used for

placement of Backfill Material for Muck Excavation.

7.5.2 – Control Charts for Roadway Embankment Material

The placement of Roadway Embankment Material will involve large quantities of

Earthwork within each Project Segment. Accordingly, Control Charts will be used as a

tool to assist in the field control for placement of this Earthwork Item. Control Charts will

be maintained for each Lot of Roadway Embankment Material by the QC Field

Inspection staff. Control Charts will monitor the In-Place Density and Moisture Content

of each Lot. The Mean QC Test results will be plotted according to daily subgrouping.

7.5.3 – Control Charts for Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations

The placement of Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations will involve large

quantities of Earthwork within each Project Segment. Accordingly, Control Charts will be

used as a tool to assist in the field control for placement of this Earthwork Item. Control

Charts will be maintained for each Lot of Embankment Material Under Bridge

Foundations by the QC Field Inspection staff. Control Charts will monitor the In-Place

Density and Moisture Content of each Lot. The Mean QC Test results will be plotted

according to daily subgrouping.

7.5.4 – Control Charts for Backfill Material for Structures

Since the placement of Backfill Material for Structures will generally involve

smaller Earthwork quantities at various locations, the application of Control

Charts as a tool to provide field control for this Earthwork Item will yield limited

QC information. Accordingly, Control Charts will not be used for placement of

Backfill Material for Structures.

7.5.5 – Control Charts for Backfill Material for Pipes

Since the placement of Backfill Material for and Pipes will generally involve

smaller Earthwork quantities at various locations, the application of Control

Charts as a tool to provide field control for this Earthwork Item will yield limited

QC information. Accordingly, Control Charts will not be used for placement of

Backfill Material for Pipes.

An example of the types of Control Charts which will be used for Earthwork placement is

contained in Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17). 

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–47
7.6 – Procedures for Corrective Action of Non-Conforming Materials

The following procedures will be followed for corrective action of non-specification materials

encountered during placement of Earthwork Items:

▼ If the Earthwork material delivered/received at the placement location is not the correct

Material Type (i.e. Earth Excavate, Ordinary Borrow, Special Borrow, etc.), it will be

removed (if placed) and returned to the material source.

▼ If the Earthwork material delivered/received at the placement location is determined to be

the correct Material Type, but does not meet specification requirements (e.g. gradation), the

limits of such material will be determined and it will be removed from the Project. Further

receipt and placement of Earthwork material from the source will be suspended until Quality

Control personnel have determined and corrected the cause of non-specification material.

▼ If new Earthwork material delivered/received at the placement location is commingled with

existing On-Site non-specification material (e.g. Organic material, Other), the limits of the

commingled area will be determined and the commingled material will be removed and

disposed of at an approved Off-Site location.

▼ If rock contained in Earthwork material is determined to exceed the specified size

limits (e.g. Earth Excavate: <600 mm), appropriate equipment will be used to

break the rock to conform to the maximum size requirements, or the rock will be

removed and disposed of at an approved Off-Site location.

▼ If the percentage of rock contained in Earthwork material is determined to

exceed the specified limit (e.g. Earth Excavate: < 50%), the material will either be

spread and blended with other material to conform with requirements or it will

be removed.

▼ If the lift thickness of Earthwork material is determined to exceed the specified limits, the

lift will be cut using appropriate equipment and regraded to conform to the

maximum lift thickness requirements.

▼ If an individual QC test result for in-place density or in-place moisture content is outside

the Engineering Limits contained in Section 8.6 below, placement of Earthwork material in

the corresponding Sublot will be stopped. The following steps will be taken:

▼ A Re-Test within 300 mm of the original random test location may be performed only if the

cause of the results is believed to be due to sampling/testing error.

▼ If a Re-Test is not warranted, or if a Re-Test is performed and the test results of the Re-Test

are also outside the Engineering Limits, then three (3) additional random QC tests may be

performed within the Sublot. The results of the 3 additional random QC tests will be

evaluated as follows:

▼ If all three tests are above the Lower Engineering Limit (95%), then the Sublot will

be accepted and all of the test results (the original failing result + the 3 passing results)

will be included for Quality Level Analysis.

▼ If any one of the 3 additional random QC tests is below the Lower Engineering Limit

(95%), then the Sublot will not be accepted. Field QC personnel will troubleshoot to

determine if the failing results are due to:

▼ Improper compaction procedure

▼ Inadequate moisture content

▼ Other

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–48 SAMPLE
▼ Once the cause of the failing test results is determined, appropriate corrective action

will be taken (e.g. Add moisture, Regrade and compact. The failing Earthwork

material will be reworked and three additional random QC tests will be performed

for the Sublot. The results of the 3 additional random QC tests will be evaluated in

accordance with the steps above until all 3 additional test results are within the

Engineering Limits and the overall Percent Within Limits (PWL) for the Sublot

equals or exceeds 85%.

▼ Earthwork material that cannot be reworked to achieve the specified in-place density

and in-place moisture content will be disposed of Off-Site.

7.7 – Field QC Inspection Reporting

All FQC inspection activities will be documented on the following standard QC Inspection Report

Forms (IRFs):

Form No. Form Title

FQC-MRIR Field QC – Material Receiving Inspection Report

FQC-IDR Field QC – Inspectors Daily Quality Surveillance Report*

FQC-EBIR Field QC – Embankment and Backfill Inspection Report

* For Off-Site Earthwork Producer material only

A copy of the Standard IRFs used for Field QC inspection of Earthwork materials is located in

Appendix __ (see Note, page B–17).

8.0 Acceptance of Work

Transportation Agency is responsible for acceptance of all work completed. Acceptance will be

based on the results of sampling and testing along with visual inspection. The procedures for

acceptance of all Earthwork Items will be as indicated below.

8.1 – Use of Quality Control Information for Acceptance

ABC Contractors’ QC sampling, testing, and inspection results will be included in the acceptance

determination provided that:

1) All QC procedures and activities are completed in accordance with the requirements set forth

in this QC Plan.

2) Correlation Testing is conducted prior to production and placement of material.

3) All QC test results used in the acceptance determination are from random samples.

4) All QC information (sampling, testing, inspection) is Validated by Transportation Agency.

5) All QC test results for each Quality Characteristic are within the Engineering Limits identified

in Section 8.6 below and the Percent Within Limits (PWL) identified in Section 8.7 below.

8.2 – Transportation Agency Acceptance Activities

Transportation Agency will perform Acceptance sampling, testing, and inspection at a

minimum frequency of 20% of the QC activities outlined in this QC Plan. All Acceptance

sampling and testing will be randomly performed independent of ABC Contractors’ QC

sampling and testing (i.e. No Split Samples). Transportation Agency will establish random

locations for Acceptance sampling and testing in accordance with ASTM D3665. All random

sample locations will be documented on NETTCP Standard Test Report Form D3665 or

D3665RNG.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–49
All physical Acceptance samples of material will be split prior to testing in accordance with

relevant AASHTO and NETTCP procedures. The split sample portion of material not used for

testing will be retained in the original sample bag with proper identification. The split sample will

be stored in the Sample Storage Room at the Laboratory which performed the test for a minimum

of 60 Days following testing.

8.3 – Correlation Testing Prior to Production

Transportation Agency Acceptance personnel and ABC Contractors QC Personnel will

perform Correlation Testing on split samples prior to the start of construction. The purpose of the

Correlation samples is to correlate the laboratory and field Acceptance testing results with the

laboratory and field QC testing results to determine any between laboratory/field testing

equipment variability before production begins. The results of Correlation testing will be

documented on the relevant Standard Test Report Forms contained in Appendix __ (see Note,

page B–17).

8.4 – Validation of QC Test Results

Validation is defined as the process of comparing two independently obtained sets of test results

(i.e. Transportation Agency’s Acceptance test results to ABC Contractors’ QC test results)

during the progress of the work to determine whether they came from the same Population of

material. The Validation will be performed through a statistical comparison of Transportation

Agency’s Acceptance test results and ABC Contractors’ QC test results. The statistical

comparison of test results will be made using the test result standard deviations (F-test) and the

test result means (t-test) at a significance level of 0.01 and in accordance with the procedures

contained in Appendix F of the AASHTO Implementation Manual For Quality Assurance (February

1996).

If the Validation results indicate that ABC Contractors’ QC test results and Transportation

Agency’s Acceptance test results came from the same Population, then the QC test results will be

included with the Acceptance test results in the final acceptance determination as outlined in

Sections 8.6 and 8.7 below. If the Validation results indicate that ABC Contractors’ QC test

results and Transportation Agency’s Acceptance test results are not from the same Population,

then only Transportation Agency’s Acceptance test results will be used in the final acceptance

determination.

8.5 – Quality Limits

Two types of Quality Limits will be applied to Validated QC and Acceptance testing results for the

acceptance determination. These are “Engineering Limits” and “Specification Limits”, which

are defined as follows:

Engineering Limits – Absolute limits, established on the basis of Engineering study or

judgment, which each individual test result for a given Lot must fall within. Work represented

by individual test results which are above or below the Engineering Limits will not be

accepted.

Specification Limits – Limiting values, established on the basis of statistical concepts and

analysis, which are used to assess the Percent Within Limits (PWL) for a given Lot. The

Mean of all individual test results for a given Lot must fall within the Specification Limits and

the PWL must meet or exceed the specified PWL in order for the Lot to be accepted.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–50 SAMPLE
8.6 – Application of Engineering Limits in the Acceptance

Determination

All work shall be performed to the lines, grades, cross-sections, dimensions, and material

requirements set forth in the plans, specifications and this QC Plan. Each Lot of Earthwork

material shall be uniform in character and reasonably close to the prescribed Target values and

within the Engineering Limits for each of the Quality Characteristics outlined in the tables

below. If a QC or Acceptance test result for an individual Sublot falls outside of the Engineering

Limits, the material contained in the Sublot represented by the failing test result will be reworked

or disposed of in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 7.6 above.

8.6.1 – Backfill Material for Muck Excavation

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Rock Excavate Maximum Rock Size - - 1 meter

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) A-3 or Portion of A-2 and A-1 per M1.02.0

150 mm Sieve - Per SC 100

50 mm Sieve 90 Per SC 100

(AASHTO T311) 4.75 μm Sieve 20 PerSC 65

75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 12

Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) - - 6%

Special Borrow Maximum Percentage of Wear - - 50%

(M1.02.0) (LA Abrasion) (AASHTO T96) 

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC – 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–51
8.6.2 – Roadway Embankment Material

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Engineering Target Engineering 

Limit Limit

Rock Excavate Maximum Rock Size - - 1 meter

A-1, A-2-4, or A-3

Soil Classification (AASHTO M1145) +

Up to 50% Boulders/Rock < 600 mm

Grain Size + 6.3 mm Sieve Per Per SC Per

Analysis AASHTO AASHTO

(AASHTO T311) - 6.3 mm Sieve M145 Per SC M145

Per

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89) - - AASHTO

M145

Earth Excavate Per 

(M1.01.0 Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) - - AASHTO

Modified) M145

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Rock/Boulder Size - - 600 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 600 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–52 SAMPLE

Continued on next page
8.6.2 – Roadway Embankment Material (Continued from page B-52)

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Engineering Target Engineering 

Limit Limit

Rock Excavate Maximum Rock Size - - 1 meter

A-1, A-2-4, or A-3

Soil Classification (AASHTO M1145) +

Up to 50% Boulders/Rock < 600 mm

Grain Size + 6.3 mm Sieve Per Per SC Per

Analysis AASHTO AASHTO

(AASHTO T311) - 6.3 mm Sieve M145 Per SC M145

Grain Size Per Per

Analysis 6.3 mm Sieve AASHTO Per SC AASHTO

(AASHTO T311) -6.3 mm Sieve M145 Per SC M145

Per 

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89) - - AASHTO

M145

Ordinary Per

Barrow Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) - - AASHTO

(M1.010) M145

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC – 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T99, Method C)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T99, Method C)

Maximum Rock/Boulder Size - - 300 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–53

Continued on next page
8.6.2 – Roadway Embankment Material (Continued from page B-53)

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) A-3 or Portion of A-2 and A-1 per M1.02.0

150 mm Sieve - Per SC 100

Gradation 50 mm Sieve 90 Per SC 100

(AASHTO T11) 4.75 μm Sieve 20 Per SC 65

(AASHTO T27) 75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 12

Special Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) - - 6%

Borrow Maximum Percentage of Wear - - 50%

(LA Abrasion) (AASHTO T96)

(M1.02.0)

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 200 mm

In-Place Moisture Content 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

Wmo - 2%

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–54 SAMPLE

Continued on next page
8.6.2 – Roadway Embankment Material (Continued from page B-54)

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Engineering Target Engineering 

Limit Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) Hard, durable stone and sand per M1.03.0

Gradation

12.5 mm Sieve 50 Per SC 85

(ASHTO T11) 4.75 mm Sieve 40 Per SC 75

(ASHTO T27) 300 μm Sieve 8 Per SC 28

75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 10

Gravel Borrow Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) N.P. N.P. N.P.

(M1.03.0) Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wdm) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–55
8.6.3 – Embankment Material Under Bridge Foundations

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) Hard, durable stone and sand per M1.03.0

12.5 mm Sieve 50 Per SC 85

Gradation

4.75 mm Sieve 40 Per SC 75

(AASHTO T11) 300 μm Sieve 8 Per SC 28

(AASHTO T27)

75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 10

Gravel Borrow Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) N.P. N.P. N.P.

(M1.03.0) Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Stone Size - - 75 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Rock Classification Durable, crushed natural rock per M2.01.0

Flat and Elongated Particles (4:1) - - 15%

(ASTM D4791)

Crushed Stone Per Nominal 

(M2.01.0) Maximum

Gradation Stone Size: Per M2.01.0 Per M2.01.0

(AASHTO T11) 63 mm Sieve Table 1 Per SC Table 1

(AASHTO T27) Through

1.18 mm Sieve

Maximum Percentage of Wear - - 45%

(LA Abrasion) (AASHTO T96)

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–56 SAMPLE
8.6.4 – Backfill Material for Structures

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) Hard, durable stone and sand per M1.03.0

12.5 mm Sieve 50 Per SC 85

Gradation 4.75 mm Sieve 40 Per SC 75

(AASHTO T11)

300 μm Sieve 8 Per SC 28 (AASHTO T27)

75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 10

Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) N.P. N.P. N.P.

Gravel Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

Barrow (AASHTO T180, Method D)

(M1.03.0)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Stone Size - - 75 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 150 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wdm - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–57
8.6.5 – Backfill Material for Pipes

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) A-1, A-2-4, or A-3

Grain Size + 6.3 mm Sieve Per Per SC Per

Analysis AASHTO AASHTO

(AASHTO T311) - 6.3 mm Sieve M145 Per SC M145

Ordinary Per 

Borrow Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89) - - AASHTO

(M1.01.0) M145

Per 

Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) - - AASHTO

M145

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3

Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(AASHTO T99, Method C)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T99, Method C)

Maximum Rock/Boulder Size - - 300 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 300 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–58 SAMPLE

Continued on next page
8.6.5 – Backfill Material for Pipes (Continued from page B-58)

Targets and Engineering Limits

Lower Upper 

Engineering Engineering 

Material Type(s) Quality Characteristic Limit Target Limit

Soil Classification (AASHTO M145) Hard, durable stone and sand per M1.03.0

12.5 mm Sieve 50 Per SC 85

Gradation 4.75 mm Sieve 40 Per SC 75

(AASHTO T11)

300 μm Sieve 8 Per SC 28 (AASHTO T27)

75 μm Sieve 0 Per SC 10

Gravel Plasticity Index (AASHTO T90) N.P. N.P. N.P.

Borrow

Maximum Dry Density (Wdm) SC - 5 kg/m3 Per SC SC + 5 kg/m3

(M1.03.0) (AASHTO T180, Method D)

Optimum Moisture Content (Wmo) SC - 2% Per SC SC + 2%

(AASHTO T180, Method D)

Maximum Stone Size - - 75 mm

Maximum Lift Thickness - - 150 mm

In-Place Density 95% Wdm 100% Wdm -

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

In-Place Moisture Content Wmo - 2% (Wmo) Wmo + 2%

(AASHTO T310, Method B)

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE B–59
8.7 - Application of Quality Level Analysis in the Acceptance

Determination

In addition to evaluation for conformance with the Engineering Limits identified above, the QC

and Acceptance test results for each Lot of Earthwork material will be continuously evaluated

using Quality Level Analysis (QLA) for the following Quality Characteristics:

▼ In-Place Density

▼ In-Place Moisture Content

The QLA for each Lot must indicate a Percent Within Limits (PWL) of 85% or higher, based

upon the Targets and Specification Limits indicated in the Table below, in order for the Work to

be accepted by Transportation Agency.

Quality Level Analysis - Targets and Specification Limits

Specification Limits

Quality Characteristic Target LSL USL

In-place Density 100% of Wdm 95% of Wdm None

In-place Moisture Optimum (Wmo) Wmo – 1% Wmo + 1%

9.0 – Other Relevant contractor QC Plans

All Subcontractor and Producer QC activities for Earthwork are addressed within this QC Plan. There are no separate

Subcontractor or Producer QC Plans included as Appendices at this time.

In the event that separate Subcontractor or Producer QC Plans are submitted for Earthwork activity, this ABC

Contractors Quality Control Plan for Section 1 – Earthwork will be amended to include such Plans and resubmitted for

Transportation Agency approval.

Appendix B: Quality Assurance Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

B–60 SAMPLE
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines C–1

APPENDIX C

Sample Guidelines for Process

Review/Product Evaluation Programs

California Division C–2

Program Review/Product Evaluation Program

Illinois Division C–8

Guidelines for Conducting Process Reviews

See also review information in

Appendix E, Technical Resources
I.Table of Contents 

Section II: References

Section III: Purpose

Section IV: Background

Section V: Overview of Program Review and Product

Evaluation

Section VI: Developmental Procedures for the Annual

Review Schedule

Section VII: Milestones

Section VIII: Program Approval and Review Procedures 

II. References 

23 CFR 640.115 Evaluations

FAPG G6021.2 Monitoring of Federal-aid Highway

Design Projects

PM D6021 Design Monitoring Program

PM D6420 Construction Monitoring Program

PM D6520 Certification Acceptance Procedures

PM D1601 Program Review/Product Evaluation Program

Guide 

III. Purpose

This issuance supersedes the December 9, 1982, Procedure

Memorandum “Process Review - Engineering Management

Assessment Plan.” 

The purpose of this Division Office Procedure

Memorandum is to describe the Program Review/Product

Evaluation Program (PR/PE). The program provides a basis

to fulfill requirements for the administration of the Federalaid program as prescribed in regulations and directives. The

program also evaluates the quality of the work performed

and maintains lines of communication with responsible State

and Local Agency representatives for the transfer of

technology. Additionally, the program facilitates a continual

evaluation of the Division’s operations to ensure quality

engineering and environmental processes and products. 

IV. Background

In 1977, the California Certification Acceptance (CA) Plan

was approved for Local Agency projects and amended in the

same year to include all State-administered projects not on

the Interstate system. This was the beginning of the

California Division Office’s process review program for

conducting oversight responsibilities on CA projects. The

process review program continued until 1991 when the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

was implemented. Major changes to Title 23 USC in

program direction and permissive delegations to the States

were introduced. A major provision of the new Act allowed

the States to accept increased levels of authority that

exempted various types of Federal-aid highway projects from

FHWA project review and oversight. In response to the

authority granted by this provision, FHWA entered into

agreement with Caltrans, approved May 12, 1992, that

provided Caltrans with the maximum delegation of authority

allowed by law. This authority, granted through Stewardship

agreements, delegated oversight authority to Caltrans for

“Exempt” projects. In order to better address these program

changes and new directions, it is FHWA’s policy to

increasingly rely on the State organizations for detailed,

project-related actions. In keeping with this policy, the

Program Review/Product Evaluation will be the California

Division Office’s primary mode of operation in carrying out

its program oversight responsibilities. This does not preclude

the use of other program monitoring techniques, including

project-specific activities when appropriate. 

Factors to be considered in advancing this policy include: 

▼ Level of Federal Interest 

▼ Technical Complexity 

▼ Local Circumstances 

▼ Risk Management 

▼ Statutory Requirements 

This Program Review/Product Evaluation Program will

cover all activities for exempt projects on the National

Highway System (NHS), projects administered under

Certification Acceptance, and non-Title 23 activities for

non-NHS projects. 

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–2 SAMPLE

California Division Office

Procedure Memorandum

SUBJECT: Program Review/Product Evaluation Program

D6101 February 10, 1993
V. Overview of the Program

Review/Product Evaluation Program

The Program Review/Product Evaluation (PR/PE) program

is an annual monitoring program that provides the Division

Office with a control technique that documents and assures

FHWA that State and local agencies are complying with

Certification Acceptance procedures and Stewardship

agreements. The PR/PE is performed through management

reviews and special emphasis reviews. These reviews will

evaluate the adequacy of the processes, procedures, and

products developed by Caltrans in project development and

construction activities. Based on these reviews, assurances

can be established that a process is being implemented as

intended and is producing the desired product. The purpose

is to provide oversight and improvements of policies,

procedures, techniques or methods on a statewide or areawide basis. The PR/PE reviews can be broad in scope,

covering a major activity or program such as conceptual

studies, preliminary plan development, or PS&E

preparation, or they can be more specific in scope, covering

products or elements such as geometrics, pavement

design/construction, safety, structures, etc. Occasionally a

broad review could generate a specific review that could be

addressed in an upcoming program or during the present

year if it is deemed necessary. 

The annual schedule for the PR/PE program will be

developed through recurring and cyclical review activities.

The recurring reviews are regulatory, statutory, or

administrative requirements. As required by FAPG 640.115,

the cyclical reviews are considered on a four-year basis and

will be developed using special emphasis areas covering the

State’s administration of CA and exempt NHS projects.

Detailed procedures for the development of the annual

program schedule are discussed below. 

The Program Review/Policy Coordination Section

(PR/PC) will develop the annual engineering review

schedule. The Planning, Research, and Environment

(PR&E), Administration, and Right of Way (R/W) Offices

will be responsible for developing respective annual review

schedules in accordance with this D-memo with assistance

from the Program Review/Coordination Section. 

VI. Development Procedures for Annual

Program Schedule

Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the Program

Review/Product Evaluation Engineer(s) will develop the

annual program schedule. The subject areas for review are

identified from external sources (outside PR/PC) and from

the list of special emphasis areas (see page C–5). 

The external sources and special emphasis areas are

explained below: 

1. Washington/Region Offices. This source defines national

and regional emphasis areas. 

2. Division Office Management. Reviews initiated by the

Division Office generally are identified as statewide policy

concerns. 

3. Caltrans Management. Caltrans Headquarters Offices (i.e.,

Office of Highway Construction, Office of Project

Planning and Development, Office of Local Streets and

Roads, etc.) provide input and historical reference for high

risk, problem, or procedural areas that are a concern. 

4. Design, Construction and Maintenance Monitoring Programs.

These programs will produce historical data derived from

design reviews, construction inspection reports, phase

inspections, maintenance monitoring reviews, and related

activities. 

5. Special Emphasis Areas. This is a prepared list of potential

major review elements for the PR/PE program (see page C5). This list covers a multitude of phases in the

development, design, and construction of Federal-aid

projects, but is not considered all-inclusive. 

The process the Division Office will use to identify

reviews that will be beneficial to FHWA and Caltrans is

called the “criteria assessment model.” The criteria

assessment model is a process that will help evaluate and

objectively rate each potential topic to determine the need

for a PR/PE review. The criteria assessment was developed

to consider five distinct areas in advancing the Division

Office’s program. They are as follows: 

▼ Level of Federal Interest 

▼ Technical Complexity

▼ Local Circumstances

▼ Risk Management

▼ Statutory Requirements 

(The Criteria Assessment Review Form is shown on page

C-7.)

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–3
The Program Review/Policy Coordination Section will

convene a select group of FHWA and Caltrans officials,

considering available time/resources, to complete the

selection of reviews. The composition of this group is to be

considered flexible. The number of individuals comprising

this group should be large enough, yet variable, to provide

for objectivity in the relative numerical rankings which are

assigned during the criteria assessment. Each potential

review topic shall be addressed in an objective and impartial

manner when utilizing the model. The criteria assessments

should not be viewed as absolute for selection or nonselection of a particular review. However, there should be

documentation to support selection or non-selection when

the criteria assessment ranking is overridden by management

or executive decision-making. 

VII. Milestones

1. August 20: All external sources listed above should be

solicited for any additional subject areas. The subject areas

provided by the external sources will be combined with the

Special Emphasis Area list to develop a working list of

potential areas to be reviewed. 

2. September 1: The working list is evaluated by the Program

Review/Policy Coordination Section for those areas which

should receive first consideration for PR/PE review. This

evaluation should include historical data and input from the

external sources. Those areas considered to be a problem

area or concern are transferred to a “short list.” Likewise,

those areas where there is potential for improvement should

also be included on the short list. 

3. September 15: The “short list” is advanced through the

criteria assessment model for an objective rating and priority

ranking. The criteria assessment model also provides

documentation of the relative ranking for those reviews that

were not selected. Once the criteria assessment modeling is

completed, the final list is provided to the Division Office

and Caltrans management for any additional input on the

proposed schedule. 

4. October 1: The Annual Program Schedule including the

review schedules developed by PR&E, Administration, and

R/W shall be approved. 

The reviews completed may not be considered for the special

emphasis list for the ensuing three years. At the end of the

four-year cycle, the group of subjects dropped from

consideration are then returned to the special emphasis area

list. This method is repeated yearly by adding the subjects

reviewed four years prior. 

VIII. Program Approval and Review

Procedures

The annual program schedules proposed by the R/W,

Administration, and PR&E offices shall be submitted to the

Program Review/Policy Coordination Section for

compilation by September 15 of each year. Each office will

be responsible for documenting the selection process. 

Prior to the submittal and approval of the annual

program schedule, a proposed schedule of review topics and

assignments will be circulated to all staff members to assess

the impact on other engineering and administrative

operations within the Division Office. The Program

Review/Policy Coordination Section will then submit the

final annual program schedule and proposed review

assignments to the Assistant Division Administrator for

review and approval. 

Establishment and conduct of reviews will be in

accordance with the procedures outlined in Process Review

Guide Memorandum D1601. 

If at any time a review is considered to be unnecessary or

excessive, cancellation or down scoping can be requested

through the Chief, Program Review/Coordination Section.

Documentation supporting the recommendation will be

initiated by the Review Coordinator with final approval by

the Assistant Division Administrator. While the review

activities are proceeding, the PR/PE engineer(s) will

coordinate and track all reviews performed by review teams. 

Roger Borg

Division Administrator 

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–4 SAMPLE

Graphical Timeline 

Working List Developed Short List Developed Criteria Assessment Completed Schedule Approved

Aug 20 Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1
Special Emphasis Areas

Design 

▼ Selection of 3R Strategy, Adequacy of 

Structural Section

▼ Accommodation of Safety Features, Roadside Safety

▼ Accommodation of the Handicapped

▼ Design Standards, Design Exceptions, Commitments 

to FHWA

▼ Drainage, Hydraulic Analysis, Floodplain 

Risk Assessment

▼ Foundations Analysis for Bridge Design

▼ Seismic Analysis

▼ Traffic Through Construction 

▼ Traffic Management Planning

▼ Traffic Signals and Traffic Signal Systems

▼ Railroads and Utilities Agreements and Plans

▼ Bridge Widening and Rehabilitation

▼ Bridge Design

▼ Consultant Services

▼ Highway Landscaping

▼ Pavement, Pavement Selection

▼ Culverts and Retaining Walls

▼ Signs and Markings

▼ Safety Roadside Rest Areas

▼ Standard Plans

▼ HOV Lanes, Ramp Meters

▼ Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Approval of Local

Agency Projects

▼ Oversight of Local Agency Delegations (Certification

Acceptance) 

▼ Federal-Aid Requirements 

▼ 50% Minimum Federal Funds

▼ State Preference in the Selection of Materials

▼ Materials Produced by Convict Labor

▼ Local Hiring Preferences

▼ Publicly Owned Equipment

▼ Patented or Proprietary Products

▼ Warranty Clauses

▼ State-Owned or State-Furnished Materials

▼ Salvage Credit

▼ Public Interest Findings 

Environment 

▼ Public Involvement, Public Hearings 

▼ Accomplishment of Mitigation Measures

▼ Noise Walls, Selection, Design, and Construction

▼ Processing of Local Agency Documents 

Construction (also see Contract Administration)

▼ Grading and Drainage

▼ Subbase and Base

▼ Asphalt Concrete Pavements

▼ Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

▼ Signs, Signals, and Traffic Control Devices

▼ Guardrail and Median Barriers

▼ Traffic Safety in Work Zones (see 23 CFR 630.1010 (e))

▼ Bank and Slope Protection

▼ Bridges and Major Structures

▼ Culverts and Retaining Walls

▼ Materials Sampling and Testing

▼ Inspection/Project Administration by Consultants

▼ Oversight of Local Agency Projects

▼ Experimental Features/Projects

▼ OSHA Safety

▼ Bridge Deck Construction 

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–5
Contract Administration (See Non-regulatory

Supp. FAPG 23 CFR 635A, para. 8a) 

▼ Determination of Contract Time

▼ Plan Development and Preparation of Specifications

and Contract Provisions

▼ Estimating, Accuracy of the Engineer’s Estimate

▼ Licensing and Bonding 

▼ Advertising and Bid Opening

▼ Alternate Bids

▼ Bid Analysis and Award of Contract

▼ Project Staffing and Supervision

▼ Subcontracting (See 23 CFR 635.116 (b))

▼ Change Orders and Time Extensions

▼ Force Account Procedures, Equipment Rental Rates

▼ Progress Payments

▼ Liquidated Damages

▼ Claims

▼ Bidrigging, Suspension, and Debarment

▼ Oversight of Local Agency Projects

▼ Contract Provisions

▼ Nondiscrimination, Nonsegregated Facilities

▼ Payment of Predetermined Minimum Wage

▼ Statements and Payrolls

▼ Record of Materials, Supplies and Labor

▼ Subletting or Assigning the Contract

▼ Safety and Accident Prevention

▼ False Statements

▼ Implementation of the Clean Air Act and Federal

Water Pollution Control Act

▼ Buy America

▼ Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goals

▼ On-the-Job Training

▼ Cargo Preference

▼ Noncollusion Certification

▼ Changed Conditions

▼ Indian Preference

▼ Suspension and Debarment Certification

▼ Restrictions Against Foreign Contractors

▼ Termination 

Administration of Federal-aid Projects 

▼ Administration of Public Law Funds

▼ Administrative Costs

▼ Agreements and Program Delegation

▼ Document Coding

▼ External Audits

▼ Federal-aid Billing

▼ Final Vouchering

▼ Program Approval, Fiscal, and MMA

▼ Approved Administrative Rates 

Right-of-Way 

▼ Appraisals

▼ Business Relocation

▼ Local Agency Right-of-Way Program Activities

▼ Property Management

▼ Residential Relocation

▼ Right-of-Way Billing

▼ Acquisitions

▼ Legal Settlements and Court Awards

▼ Outdoor Advertising

▼ Utilities 

EEO, Civil Rights, DBE and Labor

Compliance (also see Construction)

▼ Title VI and EEO Requirements and Complaints

▼ Supportive Services

▼ DBE Certification 

Planning and Research 

▼ Ridesharing

▼ Certification of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

▼ Public Involvement 

Traffic and Safety 

▼ Section 402 Program Activities

▼ MUTCD Compliance 

Consultant Services 

▼ In Design

▼ In Construction

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–6 SAMPLE
Criteria Assessment Review Form

SUBJECT AREA: FISCAL YEAR: 

The following decision factors shall be used in the process of evaluating the need for process review/product evaluations. Respond

to each of the questions with a rating of 1 for low, 3 for medium, and 5 for high; the criteria assessment will summarize the ratings

for each factor and subsequently determine the overall rating of all factors. 

Level of Federal Interest

How does it relate to the current emphasis areas(s)?

What is the level of investment?

What is the level of national concern?

Technical Complexity

What is the level of new or innovative technology?

What is the level of experience for those involved in the process/product?

What is the advocacy role in new or innovative technology?

Local Circumstances

What is the degree of obvious trends or concerns?

To what extent are there known weaknesses?

How does it relate to the length of time since the last review?

Risk Management

What is the risk element?

What is the shareholders’ stake?

What is the opportunity to achieve substantive results?

Statutory Requirements

What are the risks of noncompliance?

What are the strengths of statutory requirements?

What is the degree of conflict if there is noncompliance?

Total the ratings for the 15 items and divide the total by 15.

Use the result as the overall rating.

Overall Rating

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–7
Illinois Division Office

Guidelines for Conducting Process Reviews

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–8 SAMPLE

The following is general guidance on how a typical process

review should be conducted. This guidance is based on a

compilation of “best practices” and recommendations from

management at both FHWA and IDOT. Flexibility of these

guidelines is necessary because many action items vary

depending on the topic of the process review. 

The guidance has been organized into the following

categories:

1. Selection of Process Review Topics

2. Selection of Team Members/Identification of Review

Team Leaders

3. Development of Purpose and Scope

4. Guideline Development

5. District Reviews

6. Statewide Close-out Report

7. Conducting the Statewide Close-out Meeting

8. Evaluation of Process Review Quality

9. Follow-up to Process Review Observations

10. Attachments

▼ Sample Statewide Close-out Report

▼ Sample Process Review Letterhead for Transmitting

Process Review

▼ Process Review Flowchart

▼ Summary of Duties: Process Review Program

Coordinator

Selection of Process Review Topics

The current format of inviting IDOT and FHWA

management together for an annual joint meeting in early

September is the preferred method of selecting topics for

process reviews. This September meeting is desirable in

order for the review topics to be finalized by October 1 and

announced and advertised at the annual IDOT Program

Development Engineer’s Meeting (September/October) and

the Project Implementation Engineer’s Meeting

(January/February). The format of the annual process

review topic selection meeting should remain the same as in

the past. All IDOT Deputy Directors should attend as well

as a representative from each IDOT Central Office Bureau.

FHWA should be represented by the Division

Administrator, Assistant Division Administrator, Team

Leaders, and program specialists (i.e., bridge engineer,

environmental specialist, etc.). Others interested in attending

should be invited to listen to the discussion in a gallery

format. 

The FHWA and IDOT process review program

coordinators will be responsible for collecting, organizing,

and distributing a proposed list of topics. IDOT and/or

FHWA personnel should submit topics to either of the

process review program coordinators. These submittals

should consist of a briefing (one or two paragraphs)

explaining why the topic should be chosen, an example of any

specific incidences for correction, and what outputs are

anticipated from the process review (specification change,

new policy, new product, etc.). The target deadline for

submission of topics should be August 15 of each year. The

process review program coordinators should distribute the

list of potential topics (with briefings) to all IDOT Bureau

Chiefs, Deputy Directors, and FHWA management at least

two weeks prior to the annual topic selection meeting. This

will allow for better preparation and evaluation of topics and

will eliminate some of the “on-the-spot” decision making. 

Before the annual topic selection meeting, all FHWA

engineers/specialists will meet to discuss the proposed topics

and provide feedback to management on recommended

review activities. It is recommended that appropriate IDOT

staff meet prior to the annual meeting for the same purpose.

FHWA transportation engineers and specialists should

be gathering information for process review topics

throughout the year from the Districts. The Districts should

be solicited for topics on an informal basis, when the

transportation engineers are in the Districts. At every

FHWA Engineers/Specialists meeting (generally held every

two months), there should be time set aside for discussion of

future process review topics. A current list of possible topics

(with briefings) should be kept on the common directory of

FHWA’s LAN system for review and comment. 

IDOT should perform similar activities for soliciting

topics from the Districts. In the past, memos were sent to all

District Bureaus of Project Implementation asking for

process review proposals. Other District Bureaus have

indicated that they would also like to have an opportunity for
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–9

input. It is recommended, therefore, that the Central Office

continue to ask for topics from the Districts, but the

invitation should be extended to all District Bureaus,

including Program Development and Operations.

Selection of topics should be based on real or perceived

opportunities for improvement, and consideration should be

given to a fairly uniform distribution of review topics among

the various IDOT Bureaus or program areas. Final topic

selection should be based on consensus of both IDOT and

FHWA management. The number of reviews chosen should

take into consideration the workload on IDOT Districts,

Central Office, and FHWA staff. The Districts have

indicated they can handle one or two reviews per Bureau per

year. There was general agreement that the number of

engineering process reviews conducted per year should be

five or six.

Selection of Team Members/Identification

of Review Team Leaders

Teams should be selected shortly after the annual process

review topic selection meeting in order to get the reviews

organized and guidelines developed in a timely manner.

Traditionally, teams have not been selected until December

with the first team meeting not held until the first part of the

following year. This leads to a loss of several months during

the winter when most of the Districts have indicated they

would have more time to devote to a process review.

Process reviews have been conducted in the past with

District personnel on the review teams. Generally, this has

been the exception rather than the rule. District

representation has proven to be very beneficial in past

reviews. Not only does it benefit the statewide review team,

but it benefits the District through observation of other

Districts’ practices. All Districts should be given the

opportunity to participate on the review teams. Solicitation

of District team members should be done by IDOT Central

Office management with input and recommendations from

the individual IDOT and FHWA team leaders. Although the

Districts would like the opportunity to participate, several

Districts have indicated that unless there is a strong interest

in the topic, they may not want to commit their staff to be on

the reviews due to limited staff resources. This should be a

consideration when discussing team composition.

Generally, two or three FHWA staff with two or three

IDOT Central Office staff should make up a core process

review team. District personnel should be considered for

inclusion as discussed above. Efforts should be made to

ensure that all affected IDOT Bureaus are represented on

the team, and additional team members could be included for

specific tasks throughout the review if necessary. Each team

should have an assigned FHWA and IDOT team leader to

lead the review. FHWA management should be responsible

for assigning the FHWA process review team leaders and

team members, with individual interest taken into account.

The IDOT Deputy Directors should be responsible for

selecting the IDOT team leaders and team members in

consultation with the appropriate Bureau Chiefs. 

The FHWA and IDOT process review team leaders

should have substantial knowledge in the review area. No

individual should be a team leader on more than one review

per year. It is the responsibility of the review team leaders to

organize the review and keep the review on track and within

scope. FHWA management should choose an FHWA

advisor if the assigned FHWA review team leader needs

additional guidance and expertise in coordinating a particular

process review. 

The IDOT team leader should be selected as a central

point of contact for IDOT and should provide guidance on

the direction that the Central Office wants to take with the

review. Communication between the IDOT team leader and

IDOT management is essential to ensure that all affected

Bureaus are informed of the progress and preliminary

observations of the review.

A District contact person should be selected by the

District Engineer for each of the Districts to be reviewed.

This individual will serve as the focal point for all

communication concerning the process review at the District

level and be responsible for arranging a meeting time and

place for the District review and coordinating with all

District personnel involved in the review. The District

contact person would also be responsible for gathering

information on projects to be reviewed.

Purpose and Scope

The development of a purpose and scope is very important

in defining a process review. As discussed above (in

“Selection of Process Review Topics”) a briefing should

accompany a topic suggested for review which provides a

description of the objective, an example of any specific

incidences for correction, and the intension of the suggested

review. This briefing will serve as the framework for the

development of the purpose and scope.

In addition to the topic briefing, additional discussions

held at the annual process review topic selection meeting

should provide a substantial basis for the process review team

to establish a purpose and scope. Based on the observations

of the initial District review (pilot review), the team should

reassess the purpose and scope to determine if they are on the
right track to accomplish the goals of the review. If the team

believes it is necessary to deviate from the intended purpose

and scope identified through the topic briefing and the

annual topic selection meeting, the team should meet with

management before proceeding. 

A review team should develop a finalized “Purpose”

which clearly states the objective of the review. If the review

includes a specific issue for improvement, the purpose should

include background information and desired changes. As a

note, it was often repeated through the interview process that

the review teams should stay better focused on the review’s

original purpose throughout the entire review.

The Scope of Review should generally include the

number of Districts involved, the number of projects to be

reviewed, the specific action items (key steps in the process)

to be reviewed in each District, and the review schedule, all

as applicable. The “Scope” should also identify which

District and/or Central Office Bureaus will be directly

involved in the review. The need to re-analyze the scope after

the pilot review can be determined by the review team on a

case-by-case basis.

The number of Districts reviewed should be three or

four; however, this also depends on the topic of the review.

The process review teams should consider informally

collecting key information from as many other Districts as

possible. This can be done through telephone conversations,

brief office visits, or by requesting that the Districts complete

certain parts of the review guidelines. Districts should be

chosen based on the availability of projects or action items

related to the review topic. Districts that have limited or no

projects available for review or Districts that have only

limited involvement in the particular review topic should not

be selected, if possible. The IDOT and FHWA process

review program coordinators should monitor District

selections of the various process review teams. Efforts should

be made to ensure that no particular District is overburdened

with too many process reviews while other Districts do not

get reviewed at all. When scoping a review, consideration

should also be given to selecting the Chicago Department of

Transportation as a potential review candidate.

The number of projects selected for review in a particular

District certainly depends on the topic. However, as a rule of

thumb, a minimum of three projects should be selected for

review. It is important to note that the more projects

reviewed in a District, the more statistically valid the

observations and recommendations will be.

Many process reviews will also require an IDOT Central

Office review in order to assess the procedures and

responsibilities of the Central Office staff. Since IDOT

Central Office has the primary responsibility of policy

development and project oversight, it is very important that

the appropriate Bureaus be reviewed as a part of the overall

process. It is suggested, but not necessary, that the Central

Office review be conducted prior to any of the District

reviews. Generally, an individual Central Office report would

not need to be developed; however, the significant

observations and recommendations should be included in the

statewide close-out report for discussion and resolution.

Guideline Development

The first step in developing guidelines is to perform a search

of any existing process review files that may be used or

modified. There is no sense in “re-inventing the wheel” if it

is not needed. The second step is to check with other State

DOTs and FHWA Divisions to see if they have done similar

reviews for which guidelines may be available for reference.

When preparing guidelines, every attempt should be

made to avoid simple yes/no questions. Questions should be

phrased to produce comprehensive feedback and be clear

enough for everyone involved in the review to easily

understand. The Districts often research answers ahead of

time so it is important to be very clear as to what is really

wanted from them. Guidelines should generally include the

following: Purpose of Review, Scope of Review,

Identification of the Review Team, and finally the Review

Questions. Upon completion of the draft review guidelines,

they should be placed in the common directory of the

FHWA LAN system. The FHWA process review team

leader should e-mail all appropriate personnel in the

Division Office to alert them that the guidelines are available

for review and comment. A two-week time frame for

comments is adequate. The IDOT process review team

leader should be responsible for ensuring that the guidelines

are reviewed by proper IDOT personnel.

Upon finalizing the guidelines, the IDOT and FHWA

team leaders will co-sign a cover letter to the FHWA

Division Administrator and the IDOT Director of Highways

with attention to the appropriate Deputy Director(s). The

newly developed standard process review letterhead will be

used for this transmittal as well as all other process review

correspondence (see page C–17 for sample). A copy of this

letter should be sent to all affected Bureau Chiefs in the

Central Office. The time frame for formal distribution of

guidelines should be at least 30 days prior to the first planned

District review. The review guidelines should be transmitted

to the Districts selected for review as an attachment to a

formal cover letter to the District Engineer co-signed by the

two team leaders.

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–10 SAMPLE
The guidelines should also be sent to all of the other

Districts not selected for review. This should be done

through a formal cover letter to the District Engineer with

instruction that it is for informational purposes only. If the

review team determines that it is desirable to obtain certain

information from Districts not selected for specific review,

the cover letter should include a request that the appropriate

sections of the guidelines be completed and returned to the

team.

After sending guidelines to the Districts selected for

review, the process review team should follow up

approximately two weeks prior to the District review to

remind the District of the upcoming review and to ensure

there are no questions concerning the guidelines.

A copy of the final version of the guidelines should be

placed in FHWA’s electronic process review file. This file

should be maintained by the FHWA process review program

coordinator.

District Reviews

District reviews are intended to establish a statewide trend

for the particular topic under review. A District review

should consist of Entrance Meeting, Interviews and Project

Reviews (either ongoing projects or archived project files),

Close-out Meeting and District Report.

From past experience, too many people conducting a

District review can cause a loss in efficiency; therefore, the

number of team members participating in a District review

should be kept to three or four. It is important that there is

an appropriate mix of both IDOT and FHWA team

members on the reviews. All process review team members

should attend the first (pilot) District review in order for the

entire team to be familiar with what is expected in

conducting subsequent reviews. The FHWA and IDOT

team leaders should attend all the District reviews for

continuity purposes.

Entrance Meeting

Entrance meetings are highly recommended in order to alert

District management of the team’s presence in the District

and to explain the purpose and scope of the review. During

this entrance meeting, a tentative time should be established

for conducting the close-out meeting. Most Districts have

indicated they want an entrance meeting with the District

Engineer present along with all the affected Bureau Chiefs

(or delegated substitutes). If the District Engineer is not

available for an entrance meeting, it is important to at least

inform him/her of the review team’s presence in the District.

District Interviews and Project Reviews

The District interviews should be consistent throughout the

course of the review to make sure the same information is

obtained from each District. The process review guidelines

should provide a good format for the interviews, and the

Districts should review the guidelines in advance to be

prepared to provide the desired information.

The purpose and scope of the review will define the

number of projects to be reviewed in a District. Enough

projects should be reviewed in order to get a good sample of

the total projects fitting the topic of review. Usually three or

more projects will establish a good trend of how the process

under investigation is handled in the District. Because

Districts spend a lot of time gathering project files for the

review, careful project selection is important so as to not

cause unnecessary project file search for the Districts.

Upon completion of interviews and project reviews, a

preliminary report of observations should be drafted for use

at the District close-out meeting.

District Close-out Meeting

If at all possible, the District Engineer should be at the

District close-out meeting. The close-out meeting should be

held before the team leaves the District and should be at a

time when the District Engineer and the affected Bureaus

can be represented. This meeting should cover all the

observations the team made during the review. However,

minor observations can be discussed and resolved informally

and do not necessarily need to be included in the District

report. During the close-out meeting, the team should

discuss which observations are isolated incidences (i.e.,

occurred on only one project), which observations were

found to occur only in that District, and which observations

are of statewide concern and will be included in the statewide

report. Generally, the observations of statewide concern are

issues found in several Districts or issues that involve a

Central Office function.

District Report

The purpose of the District report is to summarize the

results of the District review and to document the team’s

observations and recommendations and the comments from

the District. All Districts have indicated they want a written

report in order to document the District review.

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–11
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE

The review team should develop a draft District report

within one week of the District review while the observations

and discussions of the review are fresh in the minds of the

review team as well as the District. The final District report

should be completed and sent to the District as soon as

possible but within 30 days of the review.

The format of the District report should be standardized

as much as possible, similar to the statewide close-out report.

Using a newly developed standard reporting form (see page

C–16 for sample), the report should include the following in

this recommended order:

1. Title of Review

2. Purpose of Review

3. Scope of Review (including projects reviewed)

4. Team Members

5. District Staff involved

6. Executive Summary (optional but recommended)

7. Observations, including “best practices” in order of

significance - each observation should have a

recommendation (The use of “Observation” is preferred

over “ Finding”)

8. Conclusion (optional)

9. Attachments (supporting documents, project

information, etc.)

The FHWA and/or IDOT review team leader should ensure

that all team members and the District have a chance to

review the draft report before the final copy is released. The

final version of the District report should be sent by formal

cover letter to the District Engineer with a copy sent to all

team members and others (if applicable) who participated in

the review. The letter should be co-signed by the FHWA and

IDOT team leaders, using the newly developed process

review letterhead.

Statewide Close-out Report

The purpose of a statewide close-out report is to summarize

the results of the process review, document statewide

observations found in the Districts and to document the

resolutions discussed at the statewide close-out meeting.

Observations in the report can be either positive or negative.

The review team should provide recommendations in the

report that will resolve or improve the documented

observations. The report also serves as an avenue to share

“best practices” in Illinois as well as from other states, if

applicable.

The newly developed standard reporting form should be

used for the statewide close-out report (similar to the District

reports). The review team should complete an initial draft of

the statewide close-out report within 30 days of the last

District review. As a note, this will require finalization of the

last District report concurrently with the preparation of the

initial draft statewide report. This is necessary in order to

complete the entire review by the November 30 target date.

Close-out reports can often get to be fairly lengthy

documents. Therefore, there is a need and a clearly expressed

desire to provide an executive summary of the process review.

The executive summary should be concise and should

provide information including purpose, scope, major

observations, and recommendations.

Observations in a close-out report should be arranged in

order of priority and significance. If the team considers an

observation to be significant, it should be reported and

addressed. There is no maximum number of observations in

a report.

The format of the statewide close-out report should be

standardized as much as possible. Using the new standard

reporting form, the report should include the following in

this recommended order: 

1. Title of Review

2. Purpose of Review

3. Scope of Review

4. Identification of Team Members

5. Executive Summary

6. Observations, including “Best Practices,” in order of

significance—each observation should have a

recommendation

7. Conclusion (optional)

8. Attachments (supporting documentation, example

specifications, graphs, photos, etc.)

Upon completion of the initial draft statewide close-out

report, the FHWA review team leader should ensure that the

appropriate FHWA staff are provided an opportunity to

review the report and provide comments. This should

include all affected specialists, engineering team leaders, and

the Assistant Division Administrator. The recommended

procedure (internal to FHWA) is to place the initial draft

report in the common directory of the FHWA LAN system

and e-mail all engineers and affected specialists to inform

them of the availability of the draft report for comment. A

set time frame for review of the initial draft report of two

C–12
weeks should be adequate. The IDOT team leader is

expected to coordinate all necessary reviews at the IDOT

Central Office.

The final draft version of the statewide close-out report

should be sent by formal cover letter to the Director of

Highways, with attention to the Deputy Director(s) and to

the FHWA Division Administrator. The cover letter should

be co-signed by the FHWA and IDOT review team leaders

using the newly developed process review letterhead for the

official transmittal. A copy of the cover letter and attached

statewide close-out report should be sent to all affected

Central Office Bureau Chiefs and to the process review team

members.

Recommendations to improve the content of process

review statewide close-out reports include the following:

▼ Use statistics whenever possible to justify observations

(i.e., “In 7 out of 9 Districts, this procedure was

followed...etc.”).

▼ Recommendations should have substance and have

specific actions or products ready for recommended

implementation. Do not just hand over the issue to

IDOT.

▼ Whenever possible, obtain information from other

states on their processes, procedures, etc. These can be

shared as “best practices” (sample specifications,

procedures, forms, etc.).

▼ Use the term “Observation” rather than “Finding.”

▼ Material to back up the observations should be included

as attachments to the statewide report. Examples

include charts, graphs, sample specifications, 

checklists, etc.

▼ The District reports do not need to be included as

attachments to the statewide report.

Conducting the Statewide 

Close-out Meeting

Timely scheduling of statewide close-out meetings is critical

for the proper dissemination of process review results. For

example, it is important to close out all design-related

process reviews by the end of August so that the results can

be shared and discussed at the annual Program Development

Engineers meeting in mid-September. Likewise, for

construction-related process reviews, the close-out meeting

should be held by the end of November. This will allow for

the discussion of process review results at the annual

Construction Engineer’s meeting and the annual Materials

Engineer’s meetings scheduled in January and early

February.

The IDOT review team leader should contact the

appropriate Deputy Director(s) and the affected Bureau

Chiefs to identify possible statewide close-out meeting dates.

The FHWA team leader should likewise coordinate with the

Division Administrator and the Assistant Division

Administrator to determine possible meeting dates. One or

two days before the statewide close-out meeting, the review

team leaders should follow up with appropriate management

as a reminder in order to assure attendance.

For those process review recommendations perceived to

be highly controversial or considered a tough sell, it is

recommended that a preliminary close-out meeting be held.

This meeting should be held with IDOT Bureau Chiefs,

Section Chiefs, and/or other appropriate IDOT staff, as well

as FHWA Team Leaders/Specialists to agree on tentative

resolutions. The need for a preliminary close-out meeting

should be left to the discretion of the FHWA and IDOT

review team leaders.

Close-out meetings should be as brief as possible and

should not exceed two hours. Multimedia communication

such as slides, photographs, videos, and computer generated

presentations should be used whenever possible to increase

the effectiveness of focusing attention on the observations

and recommendations. Presentations which consist of a

stand-alone reading of the observations and

recommendations directly from the statewide close-out

report are discouraged. In order to stress that these process

reviews are joint efforts, presentation of observations should

be done by the entire team, including both IDOT and

FHWA team members.

At the end of the statewide close-out meeting, the

FHWA and IDOT review team leaders should summarize

the proposed resolutions made during the meeting. This is

necessary to ensure that everyone in attendance has a

complete understanding of what was agreed upon. It is also

important that the review team leaders ensure that someone

is assigned to take meeting minutes for the documentation of

agreements. In the past, some close-out meetings were

conducted and concluded without proper documentation,

and later discussions resulted in confusion and uncertainty of

the agreements reached at the meeting.

Within two weeks of the statewide close-out meeting, the

IDOT review team leader should ensure that a formal

written response is provided to the process review team. The

review team should then finalize the statewide report by

inserting the resolutions after the appropriate

recommendations. Resolutions may include immediate

actions, action plans, proposed implementation dates, or

other action items. The completed version of the final

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–13
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE

statewide report should be sent by formal cover letter (under

dual signature) to the IDOT Director of Highways with

attention to the Deputy Director(s). Copies should be sent

to all affected Central Office Bureau Chiefs, all IDOT

District Engineers, and to the FHWA Division

Administrator. A copy of the final report should also be sent

to the FHWA Resource Center for their information. An

electronic copy of the final report should be placed in the

FHWA LAN common directory with an e-mail notification

of availability to all Division Office engineers and specialists.

Evaluation of Process Review Quality

The overall quality of the process review program is critical

in order to gain wide acceptance, favorable recognition, and

continued support from IDOT and FHWA upper

management. Previous attempts have been made to quantify

the “value added” from the process review program, but

these efforts have had limited success. Currently, there is no

standard format for assessing the quality of process reviews.

The quality assessment of the process review program

should be enhanced with the establishment of FHWA and

IDOT process review program coordinators. The program

coordinators will facilitate in the continual attention on the

progress of the process reviews and the follow-up activities

from previous reviews. Through constant and direct

involvement, the process review program coordinators

should be able to easily identify the strengths and weaknesses

of the entire program and also individual process reviews.

The program coordinators should give guidance to the

process review team leaders throughout the year. The

program coordinators should conduct an annual program

quality assessment as follows:

Approximately one month prior to the annual process

review topic selection meeting, the program coordinators

should meet with all the FHWA and IDOT team leaders of

the ongoing process reviews. The discussions should focus

on strengths, weaknesses, and successes of the ongoing

process reviews. Many of the ongoing process reviews may

not be entirely complete at this time, but the team leaders

should have a good handle on the progress and direction of

their review. Feedback and discussions between all process

review team leaders will provide the benefit of learning from

the successes and mistakes for future process reviews. The

program coordinators should present to IDOT and FHWA

management (at the annual process review topic selection

meeting) any significant observations that would result in a

major change to the current process review program.

This same meeting should be used to summarize the

preliminary issues of the current reviews. The process review

program coordinators should use the information gathered

to determine if any of the ongoing reviews should be

continued on or expanded into the next year’s review

program. If so, this need should be brought up at the annual

topic selection meeting in September.

IDOT and FHWA management should also discuss

process review quality at one or more of their regularly

scheduled monthly “breakfast meetings.” This item should at

a minimum be discussed during the November “breakfast

meeting” when purpose and scope statements have been

developed for the following year’s process reviews and when

most of the current process reviews are nearing completion.

The process review program coordinators should brief

management on the status of current process reviews and

provide purpose and scope statements for the following year’s

reviews prior to the meeting. It is essential for IDOT and

FHWA management to discuss the purpose and scope of the

new process reviews at this time to ensure that the process

review teams are proceeding in the right direction. 

Followup to Process 

Review Observations

A high-quality process review requires follow-up on

observations to ensure that all resolutions to

recommendations are implemented. Many times in the past,

the resolutions reached at the statewide close-out meeting

were not aggressively pursued and, ultimately, many actions

were not implemented because of the lack of follow-up.

A key to ensuring adequate follow-up to review

recommendations is the implementation of a comprehensive

tracking system. Previously, the Illinois Division used the

Management Information Control System (MICS) which

was useful to track the status of recommendations, but

because of limited capability, restricted access, and not being

user friendly, the use of the system has been essentially

discontinued. A primary component of a new system should

be the tracking of follow-up activities. If and when such a

system is implemented, the process review program

coordinator and the appropriate FHWA specialists and

engineers should use this system to assist in following up on

resolutions to ensure implementation.

In order to ensure adequate follow-up, it is necessary to

establish clear action items with specified deadlines at the

time of the statewide close-out meeting. Upon agreement of

resolutions from the close-out meeting, the review team

leaders should ensure that all follow-up items are

documented and entered into the process review tracking

system. The follow-up activities after this point should be

assigned to the appropriate Division Office specialist. In

C–14
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–15

cases where there is no specific specialist (i.e., plan quality,

etc.) for the process review topic, the follow-up responsibility

should be assigned by the FHWA process review program

coordinator in consultation with FHWA management. The

assigned individual should, at a minimum, perform follow-up

activities at three months, six months, and one year after the

statewide close-out meeting. Follow-up after one year

should be left to the individual responsible for follow-up of

that review. The tracking system should keep a process

review status open until all the agreed activities have been

addressed and/or accomplished.

Because of continual staff turnover, the FHWA process

review program coordinator should monitor the followup/tracking system and establish contingency plans if a team

leader or assigned specialist in charge of specific follow-up

activities leaves the office or is reassigned to a different

position. This contingency plan could require another team

member from that particular review to be responsible for

additional follow-up. 

A common problem frequently identified was that many

people are not informed of the proposed changes resulting

from the process reviews. This is particularly true for District

Office personnel. They are familiar with the review

conducted in their District, but are often excluded in the

distribution of all the final statewide reports.

Communication of process review resolutions is extremely

critical. The resolutions of process reviews should be

discussed at appropriate IDOT annual meetings. This would

include the annual Construction Engineer’s Meeting, the

Materials Engineer’s Meeting, and the Program

Development Engineer’s Meeting. Process review

resolutions should also be discussed at District

Engineer/Bureau Chiefs Meetings, District Resident

Engineers Meetings, Illinois Road Builders Association

Meetings, and other management meetings. For those

reviews which have major issues and warrant special

emphasis, members from the process review team should

offer their services in visiting the Districts to discuss the

review. For those observations which result in significant

changes to specifications, policies, or procedures, the

changes should be incorporated into IDOT’s specific task

training program, if applicable. Another good practice for

ensuring that process review resolutions are disseminated is

to provide copies of all construction-related process review

reports to all Resident Engineers.

When changes are made at the Central Office level (i.e.,

specification changes, new policies, etc.) as a result of a

process review, the FHWA Transportation Engineer should

follow up at the District level to ensure they are

incorporating the recommended changes. If the Districts are

reluctant to make changes, reasons should be brought to the

attention of the FHWA specialist and the appropriate

Central Office staff for discussion. 

It is also important to note that follow-up to positive

observations is critical. This follow-up is necessary in order

to ensure that “best practices” are shared and considered by

others for adoption. Follow-up procedures for best practices

would be similar to those provided in the discussion above.

A final step in the follow-up process is the development

of an annual summary report of all the process reviews. This

summary report should be produced by the FHWA and

IDOT process review program coordinators and should be

limited to two pages or less in length. It should concisely

state the purpose and scope of the reviews along with the

significant observations, recommendations, and the status of

implementation of resolutions. Appropriate IDOT and

FHWA staff should be involved in the review of this

document. This annual report should be sent to the IDOT

Director of Highways and to the FHWA Division

Administrator. The report should be targeted for completion

by January 15 of each year. 
US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Illinois Division

IDOT/FHWA Joint Process Review Program

STATEWIDE SUMMARY REPORT

NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS (NBIS)

AND BRIDGE MAINTENANCE REVIEW (1997)

DATE OF REPORT: July 21, 1998

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

The purpose of this review was to assess the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT’s) compliance with the requirements

and procedures of 23 CFR 650, Subpart C - NBIS.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

This review focused on the NBIS programs in IDOT Districts 8 and 9. The District Bridge Maintenance Engineers and staff

were interviewed to evaluate whether the District’s procedures, policies, inspector’s qualifications, and documentation were

adequate to satisfy the NBIS requirements.... 

REVIEW PERSONNEL:

Dan Brydl FHWA Division Bridge Engineer

Tim Souther IDOT Bureau of Bridges and Structures

Nick Sovell IDOT Bureau of Bridges and Structures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This review consisted of ......

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Observation:

All of the Districts reviewed had ...

Discussion:

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 23 Highways - PART 650, Subpart C, contains language that ...

Recommendation:

IDOT should revise ....

Resolution:

2. Observation:

In two out of three Districts reviewed .....

Discussion:

Recommendation:

Resolution:

3. CONCLUSION:

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–16 SAMPLE
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–17

US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Illinois Division

Mr. James C. Slifer, P.E. Mr. Ronald C. Marshall, P.E.

Director of Highways Division Administrator

Illinois Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

2300 South Dirksen Parkway 3250 Executive Park Drive

Springfield, Illinois 62764 Springfield, Illinois 62703

Attention: Mr. Jay W. Miller, Deputy Director of Highways

Mr. Daniel M. Mathis, Assistant Division Administrator

Dear Messrs. Slifer and Marshall:

Subject: Process Review QIT - Final Report

Enclosed for your information and action is the final report from the Process Review Quality Improvement Team. This report

was written to establish clear and uniform guidelines for conducting process reviews in the State of Illinois. We would like to

schedule a meeting with you and your staff to discuss this review. Meeting time and location can be established at a later date.

Sincerely yours, Sincerely yours,

Daniel R. Brydl, FHWA Michael J. Ripka, IDOT

Process Review Team Leader Process Review Team Leader

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Ralph Anderson, Chief, Bureau of Bridges and Structures

Mr. Eric Harm, Chief, Bureau of Materials and Physical Research

Mr. Gary Gould, Chief, Bureau of Design and Environment
Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

C–18 SAMPLE
Summary of Duties

Process Review Program Coordinator

Appendix C: Process Review/Product Evaluation Guidelines

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

SAMPLE C–19

▼ Responsible for the overall management of the

IDOT/FWHA joint process review program

▼ Sends notice to IDOT and FHWA to begin identifying

review topics for upcoming year

▼ Assembles all proposed process review briefing papers

and distribute to IDOT/FHWA management

▼ Schedules and leads the annual topic selection meeting

▼ Prepares/Distributes minutes from topic selection

meeting

▼ Drafts letter to IDOT and FHWA outlining the

upcoming process review program

▼ Coordinates selection of team members

▼ Recommends individual process review coordinators

▼ Suggests advisors for reviews as necessary

▼ Oversees development of “Purpose and Scope”

statements

▼ Briefs management on purpose and scope development

and preliminary observations and recommendations for

“breakfast meeting” discussions

▼ Reviews and comments on process review guidelines

▼ Coordinates selection of districts to be reviewed to

ensure adequate distribution of reviews among the

teams

▼ Continually monitors timeliness of the steps in the

process review program

▼ Attends reviews occasionally

▼ Reviews and comments on all process review reports

▼ Coordinates review activities for programs which cross

organizational lines

▼ Attends statewide close-out meetings

▼ Conducts meeting with all this year’s process review

coordinators to discuss successes and problems of the

review program. Significant observations should be

presented to management at the annual topic selection

meeting

▼ Maintains process review tracking system

▼ Coordinates and ensures follow-up to process review

recommendations

▼ Prepares end-of-year report to IDOT Director of

Highways and FHWA Division Administrator

summarizing the major results of all process reviews

▼ FHWA process review program coordinator should

work closely with IDOT process review program

coordinator in all these efforts to ensure the intent of

“joint process reviews”

▼ Prepares process review summary presentations for use

in IDOT annual meetings, annual District meetings,

County Engineer’s meetings, and other meetings as

appropriate

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–1

APPENDIX D

Guide for Making Inspections-in-Depth

on Federal-Aid Highway Construction Projects
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–2

Purpose of Inspections-in-Depth

The need for and purpose of making inspections on Federalaid highway construction projects can be found in 23 United

States Code (USC). Representing the Secretary of

Transportation, we are charged with certain responsibilities.

23 USC 114 states: 

The construction of any highways or portions of

highways located on the Federal-aid system shall be

undertaken by the respective State transportation

departments or under their direct supervision....such

construction shall be subject to the inspection and

approval of the Secretary. 

This responsibility is further clarified in memoranda dated

June 22, 2001, Policy on the Stewardship and Oversight of

the Federal Highway Programs, and January 8, 2003,

Stewardship and Oversight of the FHWA Construction

Programs (see Appendix A). 

It is recognized that because of staffing and time

limitations, it will not be possible to make thorough

inspections of all active projects with FHWA oversight.

From time to time, however, the division field engineer

should designate a number of representative projects upon

which comprehensive, thorough, complete, and detailed

inspections and analyses of a selected phase or phases of the

construction and engineering are to be made. The primary

purpose of an inspection-in-depth (IID) and analysis of the

findings is to evaluate the accuracy, adequacy, and

effectiveness of procedures, methods, controls, and

operations used by the contractor and the State to assure

high quality construction, accurate determination of

quantities, and correct payment in accordance with the

contract provisions. Should the findings on these inspections

disclose the need for additional controls, supervision, or

improvements, a statewide process review/product

evaluation (PR/PE) should be conducted. 

Intent of Guide

IIDs, like PR/PEs, are a tool to support the State

transportation agency’s (STA’s) construction management

program. This guide is intended to provide assistance to field

engineers in the performance of IIDs. It is neither practicable

nor desirable to specify precisely each step to be taken on an

IID because of the many variations encountered on different

projects and the specific reasons for making a particular

inspection. It is expected that divisions may supplement this

guide by adding material applicable to the conditions in their

particular jurisdictions.

Scope of Inspection-in-Depth

IIDs may be specific or broad in nature. Steps presented

herein are intended to facilitate the inspection of the more

common types of work and to obtain a reasonable degree of

uniformity. This guide is not a substitute for the exercise of

good judgment, especially in determining the scope and

depth of the inspection.

Refer to the generic inspection guidelines linked to the

FHWA headquarters Construction and Maintenance Web

page (www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/reviews.htm).

Basis of Evaluation

Base the engineering evaluation of construction work on the

approved plans, specifications, special provisions, contract

provisions and applicable agency standards, instruction

manuals, and operating procedures. Ensure that program or

project concerns are brought to the attention of the

appropriate officials with a recommendation for effecting

desirable improvements on present and future work.

Responsibility of Inspecting Engineer 

The field engineer is directly responsible for all work in his

or her assigned area. Make the IID as defined in the division’s

operating procedures. If specialized knowledge of the

construction project work is necessary, ensure that the IID is

a team effort with the appropriate technical specialists as

team members. 

Reach agreement with State personnel on corrective

action that will be taken to address findings, and establish a

time frame for implementing the action. Elevate the

discussion to the STA’s resident engineer, district office, or

central office if required. Notify the FHWA division office if

a condition or deficiency requires immediate attention and

resolution cannot be obtained on-site. In situations where

immediate attention is not required, the following

approaches are available to assure the appropriate action is

taken:

a. Transmit the inspection report by letter requesting

appropriate corrective action (this should always be the

first step when resolution cannot be resolved at the

project level).

b. Make the affected item of work nonparticipating.

c. Suspend Federal participation in progress payments 

(49 CFR 18.43).

d. Make the project nonparticipating.

General
The goal is for FHWA field engineers and STA field

personnel to reach agreement on appropriate action to

address findings of concern; in rare situations, more

aggressive action is required. Consult with the FHWA

division office management when these situations occur. 

Selection of Project or Phase 

of Operations

Select the particular projects and phases of operations for an

IID in consultation with your supervisor and construction

management program. Base the selection on defined

objectives. Schedule the inspection of any individual phase

when that particular phase is actively under way on the

project. Evaluate new construction techniques whenever

possible and prepare a summary report for posting on the

FHWA headquarters Construction Web page (www.fhwa.

dot.gov/construction/reviews.htm). 

Frequency of Inspections-in-Depth

The number and frequency of IIDs will vary according to the

need for such reviews and according to the availability of

personnel to make them. Inspections-in-depth are preferred

to more general contact reviews. Contact reviews typically do

not provide adequate knowledge of the substantive

operations underway. Contact reviews do provide an

opportunity to review project time and cost status, as well as

to maintain rapport with the project team. Within each

division, there will be certain areas of the State that will

warrant more emphasis than others; similarly, there will be

certain phases of operations that will require more

concentration of effort.

Time Required for Inspection

The time required for each inspection will depend upon the

extent of inquiry and investigation considered warranted by

the circumstances encountered and the number of

construction operations involved. Ensure that sufficient time

is available to thoroughly investigate the phases of the

operations that are the objective of the inspection. Adequate

review of paving operations on a major project, for example,

may require about three days at the project site. 

Contract Documents

Prior to visiting the site of the project selected for inspection,

study the plans and specifications governing the work to

assure familiarity with all phases of the project. Place special

emphasis on the features that are anticipated to be the focal

points of concern during the inspection. In States where the

contractor is required to develop a project-specific quality

control plan, ensure that the plan is an integral part of any

IID that involves material or product acceptance.

State Construction 

and Materials Manuals

Prior to visiting the site of the project selected for inspection,

review the STA’s construction and materials manuals for

applicability to the work. These documents set forth the

basic operating instruction to STA field personnel and

generally define inspection and acceptance procedures.

Quality Assurance Requirements

23 CFR 637 sets forth the policies, procedures, and

guidelines to assure the quality of materials and construction

on Federal-aid highway NHS projects. Become familiar with

the requirements within this regulation and ensure that they

are being properly administered on the project. Focus

specific attention on these processes:

▼ Random quality control sampling and testing

performed by qualified personnel employed by the

contractor or vendor. 

▼ Random verification sampling and testing by qualified

testing personnel employed by the STA or its

designated agent, excluding the contractor or vendor

(split samples not acceptable). 

▼ Optional use of contractor’s quality control for the

acceptance decision when properly verified by the

owner. 

▼ Use of qualified laboratories for all testing of materials

as a basis of acceptance. 

▼ Independent assurance sampling and testing by

qualified personnel employed by the STA or its

designated agent, excluding the contractor or vendor. 

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–3
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–4

Evaluation of Project Personnel

Evaluate the STA and contractor personnel assigned to the

project for adequacy as to number, knowledge, skills, and

abilities. Consider findings made on previous inspections on

the same project or other projects that may be reoccurring. 

Obtain information by general and technical discussion of the work and by reviewing diaries and project records.

Strive for open communication and to develop an

atmosphere of trust. Avoid focusing on minor issues of very

low risk. 

Observe the attentiveness and effectiveness demonstrated by the project personnel at the site. The on-site

review quite often provides a better basis for evaluation than

the specifics of an individual’s education or on-the-job

experience as documented in personnel records. Include

comments on the attentiveness and effectiveness of the

project personnel in the report. Adequate and assertive

responses to questions are good indications of proper

experience. Comment on education and experience data only

when it appears that certain individuals are not adequately

performing their duties and their performance is believed to

result from lack of training and experience.

Adequacy of Delegated Authority 

Evaluate the extent of the authority that has been delegated

to project engineering personnel; verify that delegation of

authority is adequate to permit conducting the work

effectively. Ascertain whether inspectors and other

engineering personnel below the level of the project engineer

have been given sufficient instruction to have adequate

understanding of their authority and responsibilities. Verify

that project personnel understand and have an appropriate

number of contract documents and other guidance material. 

Preconstruction Conference

Determine if a preconstruction conference was held and, if

so, who participated, whether an agenda was used, and if

minutes were developed. Read the minutes to familiarize

yourself with the project. Confirm that issues raised during

the preconstruction conference have been properly resolved.
Report Summary, 

Recommendations, and Followup

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–5

Prepare a report of each IID and distribute in accordance

with division office procedures. Refer to example forms for

inspections as shown in Appendix G and on the FHWA

headquarters Construction Web page: www.fhwa.dot.gov/

construction/reviews.htm.

Within the report, identify the project, location,

contractor, and project engineer; provide a general

description of the work and a more detailed description of

the particular phases of work involved in the inspection. Use

inspection questionnaires based on the specific contract

requirements and STA procedures.

Discuss deficiencies, irregularities, and concerns, along

with exemplary work, in adequate detail to provide an

understanding of the issue. Emphasize recurring concerns by

using photographs, charts, and tabulations.

Avoid overemphasizing deviations from desirable

procedures that are trivial in character or that do not have

significant effect on the value or serviceability of the

completed project nor on the effectiveness of the control

over the work. 

Include a concise summary statement of the important

findings and recommendations for corrective actions if any

are required. Whenever improvements are necessary or

desirable, ensure that there is appropriate followup to verify

that corrective action is taken and that the desired results are

accomplished. In some instances, conditions and practices

found on one project will indicate the need for checking

whether similar conditions and practices exist throughout the

State or jurisdictional subdivision thereof or on other

projects where the same engineers and contractors are

involved. Establish reasonable time frames for the resolution

of issues.

Document followup in subsequent reports. When the

conditions and actions are limited to one project, report

further developments in either special followup reports or in

subsequent regular intermediate or final inspection reports.

When the conditions are found to exist generally or on a

number of projects and the corrective actions have

corresponding application, report specific followup actions

in special reports. Cross-reference the original IID report

and provide the same distribution as the original IID report.

Consider withholding further Federal funds from the

project or projects as appropriate when the necessary

improvements are not accomplished.

Ensure that the original of the report and all significant

work papers are made a part of the division’s project files. 
Project Supervision and Control

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–6

Preconstruction Conferences

Most STAs require that a preconstruction conference be held

prior to work commencing. All parties involved in the

contract—and representatives from other contracts that

could affect the project—should attend. Minutes from the

conference should have been prepared and should document,

as a minimum:

▼ Railroad or utility adjustments

▼ Public relations and the interests of abutting property

owners

▼ Contractor’s work plan and schedule of operations 

▼ Contractor’s backup plan for major stages of

construction

▼ Specific contract requirements

▼ Safety measures, traffic management, and traffic control

considerations

▼ Environmental commitments 

▼ Erosion and sedimentation control 

▼ Dust abatement

▼ Noise mitigation

▼ Rights-of-way available for use by the contractor

▼ Time limits and performance of operations including

materials delivery considerations

▼ Construction time and cost control

▼ Emergency response to incidents

Attend these meetings on full involvement projects, if

possible, or review the minutes during inspection trips.

Project Diary, Inspectors’ Daily Reports,

and Orders to Contractor

Examine the project diary, inspectors’ daily reports, progress

charts, and other data compiled in the field office to facilitate

job control. Diaries and inspectors’ daily reports are very

important documents and must be complete yet concise,

accurate, and factual to be effective. Ensure that diary entries

are signed and dated and have been reviewed by the engineer

in charge. Verify that discussions with the contractor are

confirmed in writing and are made a part of the official

project file. Review and confirm that there is a complete

audit trail for work performed, measured, and paid. 

Subcontracting

Ensure the STA’s subcontracting procedures on NHS

projects meet the requirements set forth in 23 CFR 635.116.

State procedures should be followed for non-NHS projects.

Review and comment on the extent of subcontracted work.

Verify that each subcontract has been approved by the State

or that an FHWA-approved contractor certification process

is being followed. Review copies of the subcontracts to see

that they comply with the contract and contain Form FHWA

1273. Assess the prime contractor’s general administration of

subcontract work. Ensure that Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise (DBE) subcontractors are performing a commercially useful function. 

Engineering Surveys

Evaluate the adequacy of the project base control and

subsequent construction survey procedures. When the

staking of part or all of the work is by the contractor or a

consultant, it is recommended that there be adequate

verification checks by the STA to assure that the work is

correct. If there are survey errors that have led to contract

change orders, determine if FHWA participation is

appropriate. 

Examine a sample of survey notes covering slope staking

for grading operations or layout for bridges and culvert

construction to determine the degree of clarity and

orderliness of procedures. Verify that checks have been made

to avoid errors in layout. 

Examine a sample of survey notes used for measurement

of pay quantities, such as cross-sections, to determine

accuracy and correctness of procedures used. 

Ensure that project control staking is adequately

protected during construction operations.

Quality Assurance

Evaluate the project’s quality control and acceptance

procedures, personnel, and facilities. If required by the

contract, the contractor must develop a quality control plan

to define sampling, testing, and inspection procedures to be

followed. Refer to Appendix B and Appendix E for samples

of quality control plan requirements and actual projectspecific plans. The contract will also define required acceptance testing, whether by the STA or by the contractor with

STA verification. Ensure that adequate quality control and

acceptance is being exercised and that materials incorporated

in the work are in substantial conformity with the contract. 
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–7

Project Laboratory 

Verify that contractor-furnished laboratories meet contract

requirements. Ensure that scales and measuring devices have

current certifications for accuracy. Typical equipment

requirements for various construction operations are as

follows:

(1) Grading: sieves, scales, liquid limit devices, compaction

test equipment, field density equipment, hot plates or

field stove, oven, sampling equipment, sample

containers, and drying pans.

(2) Subbase and base course: sieves, sample splitters, scales,

hot plates, devices for determination of moisture content

and liquid limit, drying pans, and apparatus for making

laboratory compaction tests and for determining in-place

densities.

(3) Hot mix asphalt (HMA): thermometers, sieves, sample

splitters, scales, hot plates or field stove, burn-off oven,

equipment for taking samples from the pavement, and

apparatus for determining pavement density and stability

of the HMA mixture.

(4) Portland cement concrete: slump cone or other specified

equipment for determining consistency of the mix, air

meter, concrete cylinder or beam molds, sieves, sample

splitters, scales, pans, stove or hot plate, and containers

for determining unit weights.

Determine what method is used by the STA to “qualify”

the laboratories used for NHS project testing as required by

23 CFR 637. If the IID permits review of the STA’s central

laboratory, verify that it has been accredited by the

Accreditation Program of the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or a

comparable laboratory accreditation program approved by

FHWA (23 CFR 637). District laboratories may be

accredited by the AASHTO Accreditation Program or a

comparable laboratory accreditation program approved by

FHWA or reviewed by the STA’s central laboratory.

Materials Inspection Personnel 

Identify the inspectors assigned to the particular phases of

the work and discuss their responsibilities with them. Focus

on these responsibilities:

▼ Inspection duties

▼ Field diary entries 

▼ Tests required and frequency

▼ Test results and statistical summaries

▼ Action on marginal or failing tests

▼ Records forwarded to the project engineer

▼ Inspectors’ particular sampling and testing qualifications

Appraise the technical ability and effectiveness of the

inspector and evaluate the adequacy of the control methods

applied on the project. Observe the inspector’s sampling and

testing techniques to ensure that the specified procedures are

being followed. 

Test Reports 

Check the project files to verify these testing conditions: 

▼ All materials are covered by adequate quality control

and acceptance tests, and the frequency of sampling and

testing is in accordance with the contract’s schedule of

test requirements. 

▼ The statistical method used to verify the contractor’s

test population has been validated by independent

random STA tests. 

▼ Third-party independent assurance test results (split

samples) compare favorably with project quality control

and acceptance tests. 

Report minimum and maximum test results and statistical

summaries with appropriate remarks regarding the suitability

of the material. Evaluate project office procedures for filing

test reports, checks made to ensure that all necessary reports

have been received, methods to readily identify

unsatisfactory or borderline materials, and general housekeeping methods in the handling of the reports. 

Ensure that any deviations from the specifications

indicated by the test results are explained and that all

corrective actions taken are documented. Comment on the

disposition of all nonconforming materials received on the

project. Verify the process for getting deviations listed in the

project’s final material certification on NHS projects

(23 CFR 637.201). 
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–8

Verify that certifications, inspections, and test reports on

manufactured materials document conformity with the

specification and that the test reports on file cover the

materials actually delivered to the project. Determine

whether certifications for iron and steel products conform to

Buy America requirements.

Witness the sampling and testing of quality control and

acceptance tests to the extent practical. Take independent

measurements of width and depth of bases, surfaces, and

other components of the construction, including structures,

to validate that the project is being constructed in substantial

compliance with the plans and specifications.

Measurement of Quantities

Ensure that the methods used in the measurement of

quantities meet contract requirements (23 CFR 635.123).

Determine the frequency of contractor progress

payments. Verify that the appropriate quantities of

completed work are reported for progress payments.

Comment on whether or not a new overall estimate is made

for each progress estimate or if computed monthly work

quantities are merely added on the estimate of work done

during each succeeding period; the latter could result in

cumulative errors of consequence. Check the quantity

calculations for two or three major items and one or more

minor items. Note significant digits. The validity of final

estimates cannot be greater than the accuracy exercised in

making the field measurements used in the computations.

Careless field measurements are difficult to detect, but an

examination of the field books will provide some indication

as to the extent to which good survey and measurement

practices are being followed. Identify in the report what bid

items or stockpiled materials were reviewed, if properly

identified, dates and personnel making the measurements,

proper explanations and initials on corrections, and overall

legibility.

At the final estimate stage, review final quantities in

considerable detail on a few items. Note assumptions made,

significant figures, accuracy observed, and amount of

checking done. Indicate the extent of checks and reviews

made beyond the project level, such as in the district and

central offices. Where appropriate, evaluate the additional

checks to assure the sufficiency of the validation.

The following is a summary of recommended inspection

techniques:

▼ Verify that the items reviewed were measured in the

units called for in the contract provisions and that the

methods of measurement prescribed in the contract and

in authorized instructions were followed.

▼ Examine project records to insure that all materials

measured for payment were delivered and incorporated

into the project or stockpiled for future incorporation.

▼ When payment is based on weight or mass, verify the

accuracy of the measurements; consider the calibration

of scales, checking of truck tare weights, and weighing

of haul loads.

▼ Where payment is based on loads delivered to the

project, either on a weight or volume basis, verify the

procedures followed for assuring validity in receipt of

haul tickets. Discuss the procedures in effect with the

project personnel. Focus on practical concepts (falsified

haul tickets can be determined by analyzing project

records and determining that the number of trips

reported was impossible considering time and length of

haul involved). 

▼ Where area methods of measurement are specified,

make dimensional checks to the extent necessary to

verify the actual work performed. Ensure that

measurements were made at the proper time and prior

to the subsequent placement of other courses of

materials.

▼ Where final quantities are determined by volume

computations, verify the method of measurement and

documentation of calculations.

Construction Changes and Extra Work 

On full oversight projects, be aware of circumstances that

required the changes in the plans and specifications.

Comment on the need for the construction change and

whether the revisions and additions are necessitated by

conditions that could not be reasonably anticipated before

the project was advertised for bids. Discuss weaknesses in the

preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates, and other

deficiencies of this nature to assist in funding determinations

and in strengthening the State’s design procedures and the

FHWA’s review procedures. Document the steps taken by

the Construction Unit to inform Design of plans errors and

omissions resulting in change orders. 
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–9

Verify that proposed changes are consistent with sound

design and construction practices and are compatible with

the objectives sought in the original design and

environmental clearances. Ensure that decisions are in the

public interest, are not swayed by the expediency of

construction convenience, and are not counter to the

intended design concepts. 

Support cost-effective changes that improve aesthetics,

reduce overall construction costs, and improve the safety of

the highway. Verify if project personnel take steps to

incorporate these advantages into the project (e.g., an

unexpected surplus of excavation becomes available that

could be placed within an interchange loop or used to flatten

embankment slopes, thus eliminating guardrail and

increasing the safety features of the highway).

Become familiar with the Division/STA Stewardship

Plan, the definition of major and minor changes, and the

approval process on full oversight projects; refer to 23 CFR

635.102 and 23 CFR 635.120. Evaluate the reasonableness of

unit prices, labor, overheads (field and unabsorbed home

office), and rental rates established for items of work to be

performed. Since the cost to process a change order is a

direct project expense, consider the following “rules of

thumb” when evaluating changes: obtain a better product at

no increase in cost or time; obtain an equivalent product at a

savings in cost or time; use a change when the product as

designed can not be constructed at no fault of the contractor

(differing site conditions, “acts of God,” etc.). 

Ensure that project personnel have evaluated and

documented the effect of the contract change to the

approved project schedule. Include the appropriate time

extension on the change order; refer to 23 CFR 635.121. 

Contract Time Charges,Time Extension,

Liquidated Damages, and Cost Control

Verify that project personnel are assessing the correct time

charges. Compare work completed, as noted in project

diaries, to contract time charges. Evaluate the contractor’s

critical path method schedule to support time charges.

Ensure that contractors are provided formal warning when

work is behind schedule and that corrective actions are

requested.

Ensure that the correct liquidated damages are assessed

on projects that exceed the allowable contract time; refer to

23 CFR 635.127.

Review contract expenditures and changes to ensure that

the work is constructed in accord within the approved scope,

cost, and termini.
Grading and Associated Items

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–10

Maintenance of Traffic

Verify that maintenance of traffic and preservation of

abutting property owners’ interests are in accordance with

contract provisions. Observe that the proper barricades,

signing, striping, and flagging are in place to ensure the

maximum safety to the public and the workers. Examine the

project diaries and other project records to verify that

revisions to the approved traffic control plans are

documented. Drive through the project and verify that a

stranger to the area can satisfactorily pass through or reach a

destination within the project termini. Ensure that

maintenance of traffic is reviewed daily by project personnel,

followups on findings are made, and field corrections

documented. 

Utilities

Observe the coordination of the work between the

contractor and railroad or utility companies, the supervision

and inspection by the project personnel, and the efficiency

and economy with which the work is being performed.

Where the work is reimbursable, verify project record

documentation:

▼ Labor used, including classifications, number of

personnel, and hours worked. 

▼ Equipment used (including type, capacity, and amount

of usage).

▼ Materials utilized (whether they are used or new).

▼ Materials retired and their disposition (e.g., salvaged,

returned to stock, or junked). Evaluate the procedures

and practices used to determine if retired materials

should be left in place, salvaged, returned to stock,

reused, or junked, and the appropriate credits.

▼ Special features such as unusual soil conditions, rock,

presence of excessive moisture, dewatering required,

adequacy of backfilling operations, weather, and unusual

conditions that affect the prosecution and cost of the

work. 

▼ Contract units constructed if time and material

reimbursement is not used. 

Removal of Structures and Obstructions 

Verify that any structures and other improvements removed

were disposed of in compliance with contract provisions.

Ensure that any hazardous materials, such as lead-painted

girders, were sent to the appropriate disposal site and that the

required documentation is in the contract files. Where

salvage value is required, verify that the appropriate Federal

share is credited to the contract. 

Clearing and Grubbing 

Prior to work beginning, verify that these conditions are met:

▼ Clearing limits are clearly marked.

▼ Trees, shrubs, and other items that are to remain are

marked and protected.

▼ Project survey control is marked and protected.

▼ Erosion control features are in place. 

▼ Project personnel are familiar with environmental

commitments. 

▼ A plan is in place for stockpiling merchantable timber

unless it is the property of the contractor.

▼ Burning plans have been approved by the appropriate

jurisdiction.

Observe the adequacy of operations for removal of stumps,

organic materials, and other objectionable materials to the

specified depth throughout the required limits of

construction. Verify procedures for stockpiling topsoil

including stockpile erosion control.
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–11

Grading and Drainage 

Review the soil survey report or soil profile sheets to become

familiar with conditions:

▼ Identification or classification of the soil or rock types

expected to be encountered throughout the project

(Note: this information is useful should a differing site

claim be submitted by the contractor.) Verify if the

bidding contractors had access to the soils report.

▼ Location of areas requiring special treatment and the

type of treatment specified.

▼ Location of borrow materials for embankment and

subgrade improvement if specified.

▼ Requirements for soil selection in placing poorer soils

in lower portions of fill sections and better soils in top

lifts.

Verify that the quality control and acceptance procedures are

being followed to ensure that specification requirements are

met. 

Ensure that information on the following conditions is

included in the project records:

▼ Depth of lifts compacted.

▼ General conditions under which embankments are

placed.

▼ Moisture and density tests required.

▼ Density curves utilized and method for matching the

curve to the soil type(s) being compacted. 

▼ Test results obtained.

▼ Subexcavation required, the quality of replacement

material, and the methods used for measuring and

paying. Note whether subexcavation was anticipated

and properly provided for in the contract or if payment

is by contract change order.

▼ Examine and comment on the uniformity of

embankment and cut sections, compliance with contract

requirements, and proper slope for drainage. (Assuming

the catch points remain as designed, fill slopes

constructed with a steeper slope than designed can

significantly increase embankment quantities and can

result in excessive erosion and safety concerns.)

▼ Erosion control procedures.

▼ Control exercised to secure the required finished grade

and cross-section including slope rounding.

▼ Measurement of roadway cross-sections as to

conformity with plans.

▼ Final measurements of borrow areas.

▼ Borrow area appearance and drainage.

▼ Roadway and borrow excavation quantity calculations

including overhaul.

▼ Actual versus anticipated (design) shrink or swell and

the method used to calculate actual values.

▼ Watering quantities unless subsidiary to the bid item. 

▼ Culvert material certifications, backfill densities, and

alignment.

Pay particular attention to those areas that are difficult to

properly control, such as the outside edges of embankments,

shallow fills, small work areas, and transitions from cuts to

fill. 

Review and comment on underdrain installations. Note

if underdrain quantities were as anticipated or if major

overruns have occurred. Overruns could indicate that

additional predesign geotechnical investigation would have

been appropriate. Comment on the liaison between the

project personnel and the central laboratory in resolving

major soil and foundation problems arising during

construction.

Review and comment on the waterway, ditches, and

drainage structures. Note whether there are abrupt changes

in ditch alignment, horizontal or vertical, that could result in

future erosion. Verify compliance with the approved Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan on file in the project office.

Verify that appropriate permanent erosion control measures

are incorporated at the discharge of culverts and other

waterways. Check for sediments leaving the right-of-way.

Match test reports covering the acceptance of corrugated

metal culvert pipe and concrete pipe against the actual pipe

delivery reports. Verify that the alignment, bedding, and

joint construction were examined prior to the backfilling

operations and a determination made that the pipe has not

been damaged in handling and placing operations. Observe

backfilling operations and witness density tests to ensure

proper inspection control is being exercised. Evaluate

installation procedures and inspection control.

Ensure grade and drain operations are properly

supervised and inspected and that the STA has a qualified

grade inspector at the point of grading operations during all

grading operations.
Structures

Included in this category along with bridges are poured-inplace culverts of any span length.

▼ Verify that the quality assurance procedures maintain

effective inspection at all points of work. Ensure that

operations performed away from the actual site of work,

such as the production of concrete at a central plant or

manufacturer facility, are covered. 

▼ Include the division structural engineer in reviews.

The structures inspection category covers driven piling,

drilled shafts, shallow foundations, structural steel, general

structural concrete, prestressed concrete members, and

temporary structures.

Driven Piling 

For more information, see “Design and Construction of

Driven Pile Foundations, Volume II,” FHWA-HI-97-014.

Evaluate pile driving documentation:

▼ Equipment and procedures to be followed.

▼ Inspector responsibility (observational or directional).

▼ Primary contact if problems are encountered.

▼ Routing of copies of driving records and daily

inspection reports.

▼ Required data in the pile driving report.

▼ Material certificates.

Inspect piles and equipment prior to driving:

▼ Spot check that piles meet specifications for type, size,

length, strength, and quantity.

▼ Confirm driving shoes and splices (if specified) and

connection requirements.

▼ Confirm that piles are not damaged.

▼ Confirm proper handling and storage.

▼ Pile driving hammer is the specified type and size.

▼ Hammer cushion is of approved material type, size, and

thickness.

▼ Helmet properly fits the pile.

▼ Pile cushion is correct type material and thickness

(concrete piles only).

▼ Predrilling, jetting, or spudding equipment (if specified)

meets specifications.

▼ Lead system meets specifications.

Evaluate inspection of test or indicator pile driving (if

required by contract):

▼ Correct test pile location.

▼ Test pile driving criteria followed.

▼ Proper ram weight.

▼ Hammer in good working order.

▼ Proper alignment of hammer with pile.

▼ Helmet remains properly seated on the pile.

▼ Hammer hoist line is always slack during driving.

▼ Requirements for dynamic testing met.

▼ Ground heave noted and recorded.

▼ Cut-off elevation checked and recorded.

▼ Visual damage of pile recorded.

▼ Static testing criteria met.

▼ Coordination with designer if additional test piles are

required.

▼ Coordination with designer when production pile

driving is allowed.

Evaluate inspection during production pile driving:

▼ Pile driving sequence is proper.

▼ Pile plumbness is within tolerance.

▼ Driving shoes and splices meet contract requirements.

▼ Pile driving logs are properly maintained (see below).

▼ Dynamic testing indicates capacity and no damage

during driving.

▼ Periodic checks are made on the hammer and pile

cushions.

▼ Ground heave is noted and recorded.

▼ Visual damage of pile is recorded.

▼ Hammer is warmed up prior to retap.

▼ Pipe piles are visually inspected prior to concrete filling. 

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–12
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–13

Ensure that pile driving records contain these items:

▼ Project identification number.

▼ Project name and location.

▼ Structure identification number.

▼ Date and time of driving (start, stop, interruptions).

▼ Name of contractor.

▼ Hammer information.

▼ Hammer and pile cushions.

▼ Pile location, type, size, and length.

▼ Pile number or designation matching pile layout plans.

▼ Pile ground surface, cut-off, final tip elevation, and

embedded length.

▼ Driving resistance data throughout driving.

▼ Cut-off length, length in ground, and order length.

▼ Comments on unusual observations, including reasons

for all interruptions.

▼ Signature and title of the inspector.

Drilled Shafts 

For more information see “Drilled Shaft Foundation

Inspection” (National Geotechnical Inspector Qualification

Program), NHI Course No. 132070A.

Evaluate preconstruction preparation items as applicable:

▼ Review contract requirements.

▼ Preconstruction meeting held and minutes documented.

▼ Drilled shaft installation plan submitted and approved.

▼ Concrete mix design approved.

▼ Trial mix designed and concrete slump loss test run.

▼ Procedure for taking required soil or rock core samples

shaft bottom.

▼ Procedures for protection of existing structures.

▼ Site preparation completed in accordance with the

plans.

▼ Procedures for coffer dam inspection.

▼ On-site equipment and tools meet the approved drilled

shaft installation plan.

▼ Correct size(s) casing.

▼ Correct slurry mixing equipment. 

▼ Desanding equipment. 

▼ Proper tremies.

▼ Proper drilled shaft inspection forms are utilized.

Review the findings from the trial shaft installation:

▼ Not a production shaft unless allowed by contract.

▼ Met contract requirements.

▼ Problems encountered resulted in positive revisions to

installation techniques or equipment. 

Verify production drilled shaft excavation and cleaning

procedures as applicable:

▼ Shafts are constructed in the correct location and within

horizontal tolerances.

▼ A benchmark is available and is used to record shaft

elevations.

▼ Required soil or rock core samples of shaft bottoms are

obtained.

▼ Slurry levels, tests, and test reports are conducted

according to specifications.

▼ Soil/rock excavation inspections forms have been

completed.

▼ Permanent/temporary casings meet specifications. 

▼ Belling meets specifications. 

▼ Excavation logs for each shaft are maintained.

▼ Completed shafts are within vertical alignment

tolerances and to the proper depths.

▼ Shaft excavation time meets the specified time limit.

▼ Shaft over-reaming is performed in accordance with

specifications. 

▼ Shaft bottoms meet cleanliness requirements.

▼ Shaft inspection forms are completed.

Inspect reinforcing cages to ensure:

▼ Correct size, configuration, and tying of reinforcing

steel.

▼ Use of proper spacers.

▼ Correct length of splices. 

▼ A positive method to secure cages from settling or

floating during concrete placement.

▼ Proper elevation of the top of the cage.
During concreting operations, ensure these conditions:

▼ Slurry is tested prior to concrete placement (if

applicable).

▼ Temporary casings are removed in accordance with

specifications.

▼ The discharge end of the tremie is maintained at least

1.5 m (5 ft) into concrete mass.

▼ The concrete head in tremie is maintained at least

1.5 m (5 ft) above top of slurry.

▼ The height of concrete free-fall (dry shaft only) is

limited as specified.

▼ Placement of concrete occurs within the specified time

limit.

▼ Concrete placement and volume forms are completed

for each shaft.

▼ Contaminated concrete overflows shafts until good

concrete appears.

▼ Concrete acceptance tests are performed as required.

Verify the following postinstallation steps:

▼ In open water, shafts are protected 7 days or until

concrete reaches specified strength.

▼ Permanent casing is cut off at proper elevation.

▼ Nondestructive evaluations are completed (if required).

▼ Shafts meet all applicable construction tolerances.

▼ Drilled shaft logs have been completed.

▼ All pay items have been documented.

Shallow Foundations

For more information, see “Shallow Foundations,” FHWANHI-01-023. 

Evaluate foundation preparation:

▼ All unsuitable materials are removed to the approved

subgrade.

▼ A shoring system is used for excavations greater than

1.5 m (5 ft) deep, or appropriate slopes are constructed.

▼ If blasting is required, the blasting program is designed

to limit overblasting.

▼ Bearing soils exposed overnight or to rain are protected

from degradation.

▼ Compacted subgrade fill meets material and compaction

specifications.

Evaluate groundwater control:

▼ The contractor has a site drainage plan to prevent

surface water intrusion.

▼ Bearing soils softened by intrusion of water are

removed prior to footing placement.

▼ The contractor has a groundwater control plan when

groundwater table is near bottom of excavation.

▼ Sump pumps are an option for controlling ground

water intrusion in cohesive soils.

▼ The contractor’s groundwater control plan includes

method(s) to control perched water tables in

cohesionless soils without causing piping (well points

are an option to control ground water intrusion in

cohesionless soils).

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–14
Verify:

▼ Foundation-bearing stratum in the field is the same as

that considered in design.

▼ All unsuitable material is removed from below the

footing.

▼ Required fill material is placed in accordance with

specifications.

▼ Reinforcing steel and concrete are placed in accordance

with contract plans and specifications.

▼ Limits of pay for structural excavation.

Structural Steel 

Review these items:

▼ Procedures for fabrication shop inspection. Verify

compliance on current project.

▼ Erection sequence and equipment requirements for

lifting. Verify compliance with the approved erection

plan.

▼ Field connecting and splicing. Focus on field splicing,

specifically the inspection procedures employed for field

welds and high-strength bolting; welder certifications;

required and field-applied torque; method for

calibrating torque wrenches. 

▼ Bearing seats at correct elevation and alignment.

▼ Expansion devices properly set.

▼ Field cleaning, priming, and painting.

General Structural Concrete

Review:

▼ Minutes from the prepour meeting (attend if possible).

▼ Forms for support, tightness, form release agent, defects

in the lumber, and removal of debris.

▼ Approvals of the formwork and falsework and means of

checking deflections during concrete placement

operations.

▼ Approved mix design and source of materials; verify

proper sequence for adding admixtures.

▼ Condition, tying, and support of the reinforcing steel

and other imbedded items such as conduits, void spaces,

bolts for railings, etc.; ensure damage to coatings is

repaired.

▼ Inspection and record procedures used for documenting

that reinforcing steel and other imbedded items are

placed in accordance with the plans and that the

number, sizes, and splice lengths of bars are verified and

correctly summarized for pay purposes.

▼ Record heat numbers of reinforcement delivered and

installed; verify correlation to test reports or

certifications.

▼ Methods used in placing and finishing the concrete.

▼ Air content and strength testing.

▼ Time between batching and placement of each load of

concrete.

▼ Procedures for assuring that the riding surface, curbs,

and walks, etc., conform to the proper grades and crosssection. 

▼ Final finishing and curing procedures. 

▼ Fabrication, erection, alignment, and quality of

workmanship in the railings. 

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–15
Examine those physical features of completed work that are

visible:

▼ Apparent workmanship and degree of care given by the

quality control and acceptance process.

▼ Visual lines and grades.

▼ Straightness of overhangs, curb chamfers, railings.

▼ Uniformity of the surface texture.

▼ Surface drainage and outfalls.

▼ Uniformity of position of roller-bearing devices.

▼ Conformance of expansion plates to the grades of the

deck and required gap.

▼ Final cleanup; the removal of temporary supports,

detour facilities, and debris. 

Review field office documentation:

▼ Test reports.

▼ Pay quantities. Verify that calculations meet standard

specification requirements.

▼ Delivery records (invoices, delivery tickets, reports, etc.)

on incorporated materials. 

▼ Verify that test and inspection reports covering

materials incorporated in the minor structures

document compliance with the contract. 

Prestressed Concrete Members

Review during construction:

▼ Procedures for prestress plant inspection; verify

compliance on current project.

▼ Erection sequence and equipment requirements for

lifting; verify compliance with the approved erection

plan.

▼ Bearing seats at correct elevation and alignment.

▼ Inspect beams for correct camber, length, alignment,

and damage.

Temporary Structures

Ensure:

▼ Shop drawings or plans are signed by a registered

professional engineer.

▼ Structure meets plan requirements for minimum

roadway width, vertical clearance, and minimum

opening size.

Subbase and Base 

▼ Verify if this should include subgrade.

▼ Verify that the quality control and acceptance

procedures maintain effective inspection at all points of

work. 

Subgrade

▼ Verify procedures used to document subgrade

preparation for grade, cross-section, surface uniformity,

moisture content, density, and correction of soft spots

prior to placing subsequent pavement structure.

▼ Verify subbase and base as-constructed and material

properties.

On projects where the final thickness of the pavement

structure is established from test results obtained from the

constructed subgrade, verify the frequency and adequacy of

the on-site sampling and testing; check that the

recommended thickness is in conformity with the State’s

design criteria for thickness of flexible pavements.

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–16
Aggregate Material Sources

▼ Examine material sources (pits or quarries) for

uniformity of materials, presence of pockets or lenses of

deleterious material, pit operations, supervision, and

other production procedures.

▼ Check on any materials source testing and approvals.

▼ Comment on the uniformity of product.

▼ Document whether the source has been designated by

the STA or selected by the contractor and approved by

the STA.

▼ Verify that appropriate environmental clearances were

obtained.

▼ Inspect processing equipment for compliance with

specifications. If more than one material is proportioned

and mixed into a combined subbase or base material in

order to comply with the specifications, either in a

central plant or by road mixing operations, determine

the types, quality, and proportions of the materials used

and the tests performed to ensure that the specified

proportions are followed and that the end product

complies with the specified requirements.

On-site Production

▼ Review quality control and acceptance moisture,

density, aggregate quality, and gradation tests.

▼ Verify subbase and base width and compacted thickness.

▼ Ensure that soft or failing subgrade areas were replaced

prior to placement of subbase or base.

▼ Verify method used for documenting pay quantities.

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–17
Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–18

Verify that the quality control/quality acceptance procedures

maintain effective inspection at all points of work. 

Conventional Seals

Evaluate:

▼ Contractor’s equipment and procedures.

▼ Condition (properly cleaned, patched, and graded) of

the surface to receive the prime or surface treatment

asphalt.

▼ Control of heating and means for the verification of the

quantity and temperatures of the asphalt. 

▼ Quality and quantity of aggregate. 

▼ Weather conditions at the time of application. 

▼ Technique for application of cover stone and the

attention given to the obtainment of uniformity and

completeness of coverage.

▼ Rolling and subsequent maintenance of the cover stone

during the curing or setting period.

▼ Requirements for opening to traffic.

Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements

Prior to observing work, examine the prepave meeting

minutes. Use these notes to become familiar with work

processes to be observed. Discuss procedures established to

maintain continuous and effective inspection at all points of

work and proper liaison between quarry, plant, and paving

operations. Verify that plant production has been designed to

meet delivery, laydown, and compaction rates (i.e.,

continuous production with minimal stops and starts).

Evaluate:

▼ Equipment, to determine whether its type, size, and

operation comply with the contract requirements, if

applicable.

▼ Backup equipment in case of breakdowns. 

▼ Procedures for checking and maintaining payment

records for asphalt and the asphalt mix, and for

documenting that all items paid for are actually

incorporated into the pavement; pay particular attention

to criteria established to define acceptance.

▼ Diaries, plant and road reports, and other day-to-day

records of the operations. 

▼ Use of control charts to control operations.

▼ Operation of cold-feed proportioning, the dryer,

screening, and batching equipment.

▼ Mixing time.

▼ Substrata condition ahead of the placement of the hotmix asphalt (i.e., tack or prime coat, cleaning, patching,

absence of raveling, etc.).

▼ Adequacy and effectiveness of the contractor’s

operations and the STA’s inspection of the laying

operations.

▼ Continuity in the delivery, laydown, and compaction

(minimal stops and starts).

▼ Temperature of the mix versus required range (plant

and laydown).

▼ Thickness and calculated spread rate. 

▼ Slope pavement (eliminate edge dropoffs for errant

vehicles).

▼ Density results.

▼ Finished section smoothness, cross-section, and

transitions.

▼ Grade match into manholes, curb and gutter, and water

valves.

▼ Work zone safety and control.

▼ Uniformity of gradation, asphalt content, and other mix

properties. 

▼ Applicable contract warranties.

Observe field inspector and laboratory personnel as they

perform their normal duties. Comment on inspections of the

batching operations, weighing of trucks (both empty and

full), collection of samples at all points and where they are

taken, performance of the various tests, adequacy of the

facilities and equipment, etc. Comment on how soon test

results are available and necessary adjustments or corrections

are made based on this information. 

Paving
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

Verify that the QA procedures maintain effective inspection

at all points of work. 

Prior to observing the work:

▼ Examine the prepave meeting minutes.

▼ Become familiar with work processes to be observed.

▼ Discuss procedures established to maintain continuous

and effective inspection at all points of work and proper

liaison between quarry, plant, and paving operations. 

▼ Verify that the mix design and material sources have

been approved.

Forms 

Examine completed forms in advance of concrete placing

operations:

▼ Take sufficient measurements to ensure compliance

with applicable specifications; identify the location of

measurements by station.

▼ Quality of foundations material under forms.

▼ Line and grade.

▼ Method of securing forms to substrata.

Joints 

Verify:

▼ Alignment of the dowel bars meets contract

requirements (generally bars should be parallel to the

centerline of the slab—not necessarily at right angles

with joint, i.e., skewed joints—and parallel to surface

pavement). Document the frequency and results of

checks made after paving operations have been

completed; this is particularly important when dowel

bar inserters are used in the paving train.

▼ Dowel baskets are securely fastened to the substrata.

▼ Dowel bars are lubricated, free of deformities, and

properly capped.

▼ Preformed expansion joints are properly secured;

comment if they are tilted or displaced by strike-off or

finishing equipment.

Paving Operations 

Allow sufficient time to become reasonably familiar with all

the operations involved; this should include the beginning

and ending of the day’s operations.

Verify:

▼ Type of equipment used and if in compliance with

contract requirements.

▼ Mixing and delivery time is in compliance with contract

requirements.

▼ Adequacy of batch design and batch control.

▼ Tests for slump, or consistency, and air content.

▼ Methods of making, transporting, and curing concrete

test specimens; when possible, witness flexural or

compressive tests.

▼ Frequency and adequacy of control tests.

▼ Theoretical yield against actual yield to ensure

conformity with the specified mix proportions.

▼ Method of placing concrete.

▼ Finishing operations including micro and macro

texture.

▼ Curing operations.

▼ Joint forming, sawing, depth of cut, uncontrolled

cracking before or during sawing operations, cleaning,

and sealing operations. 

▼ Surface smoothness.

▼ Pavement thickness as determined from core

measurements.

▼ Applicable contract warranties.

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–19
Environmental Commitments

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–20

Verify:

▼ Environmentally sensitive areas fenced off as

appropriate.

▼ Certified biologist and archeologist available as needed.

▼ Mitigation features (temporary and permanent)

constructed as defined within environmental (NEPA)

clearance documents such as noise, erosion, dust, and

sediment control, etc.

Review:

▼ Procedures for shop inspection; verify compliance on

current project requirements.

▼ Shop drawings or plans; ensure they are signed by a

registered professional engineer if applicable.

▼ Material certifications. 

▼ Sign placement relative to field conditions and safety

requirements.

Signs

▼ Tightening procedures for bolts. 

▼ Structural members for cracking or defects in coatings.

▼ Proper retroreflectiveness.

▼ Proper coverage of signs when not in use. 

▼ Proper breakaway features.
Guardrail and End Treatments

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–21

Strong Post W-Beam Guardrail

Verify:

Height 

▼ Roadside installations: 706 mm (27-28 in) to top of 

w-beam rail.

▼ Median installations: 550 mm (22 in) to center of rail

with no rubrail, or 610 mm (24 in) to center of rail and

300 mm (12 in) to center of rubrail.

Blockout

▼ Wood blockouts with wood posts toenailed to prevent

rotation of blockout.

▼ Wood blockouts with steel posts routed and fit around

edge of steel post.

▼ Steel blockouts only if speeds are 72 km (45 mph) 

or less.

▼ Recycled or composite blockouts connected in a

manner that prevents rotation.

Rail

▼ Splices lapped to prevent snagging for the direction of

traffic nearest the rail.

Location

▼ Slope in front of w-beam guardrail no steeper than

1:10.

▼ Preferred minimum offset from shoulder is 0.6 m (2 ft).

▼ No rigid objects within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the back of the

line of posts unless measures have been taken to further

stiffen the system.

Terminals

▼ Strut on ground or partially buried.

▼ Wood post holes near ground (see manufacturer’s

drawing for height and number of drilled posts as well

as need for soil tubes).

▼ Steel posts hinged for breakaway design.

▼ Slope approaching and around terminal no steeper than

1:10.

Concrete Barrier

Verify:

Height 

▼ Basic: 810 mm (32 in) minimum to top of w-beam

barrier.

▼ Heavy truck traffic: 1070 mm (42 in) to top of barrier.

General 

▼ Ensure that all concrete barriers are terminated in a

backslope with an approved crash cushion or with an

approved transition to guardrail design.

NOTE: Substantiate the above dimensions with the

approved plans and details or manufacturers

recommendations prior to the review. For further

information on these issues or other types of roadside

hardware, see the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 

(see Appendix E).
Landscaping and Planting

Ensure the contract-specified landscaping and planting items

meet design concepts of aesthetics and erosion control. 

Fertilizing, seeding, and mulching 

▼ Evaluate both quality and rate of application of the

materials used.

▼ Record information from tags on seed bags and

compare to contract requirements.

▼ Examine project test reports on the materials used and

the rates of application.

▼ Verify that the time or season of planting is appropriate.

▼ Where sufficient time has elapsed since planting,

examine and document apparent growth as a percentage

of the surrounding undisturbed area (70 percent growth

is generally required by the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit).

Shrubs, trees, and other plantings

▼ Check to assure that the quantity, size, and quality meet

specifications.

▼ Visit the source nursery or other source of supply if

possible.

▼ Document methods and procedures used in planting,

watering, and caring for trees and shrubs.

▼ Discuss applicable warranty provisions and procedures

for administering.

Other Items

There are many items that may be included in projects that

are not specifically mentioned in this Guide. Some are

incidental to other bid items, and some are bid separately.

Become familiar with the specific contract requirements and

inspect in a similar manner. 

There are other items of work that consist principally of

the assembly and erection of components of manufactured

products that are delivered to the project site. Examples of

these items are signs, signals, lighting, and pump station

equipment. Confirm the method of acceptance of these types

of work. Generally, a manufacturer’s certification that verifies

the material characteristics of the product is required for

acceptance. Ensure that these certifications are on file in the

project records. 

Project Cleanup

Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the contractor’s

operations in successfully completing all items of work. Field

review the entire project and note:

▼ Surplus materials including stumps and brush have been

disposed of in accordance with the contract.

▼ The project presents a pleasing appearance.

▼ Encroachments exist upon the right-of-way; pay

particular attention to signs that overhang the right-ofway in urban areas.

▼ Borrow pits and ditches drainage are as required.

▼ Borrow areas, both on the right-of-way and on private

property, have been regraded and seeded, and pit

releases have been obtained from the owners.

▼ Haul roads have been restored and abandoned roadbeds

obliterated.

Miscellaneous

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–22
Labor Compliance 

Become familiar with the U.S. Department of Labor

(USDOL) labor compliance provisions contained in Form

FHWA 1273. Evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor

and the contracting agency in administering these

requirements:

▼ Weekly payrolls are submitted from the prime

contractor and all subcontractors.

▼ Statements of compliance are signed and attached to

payrolls. 

▼ Seven-day pay periods are established and constant.

▼ Wages and fringe benefits are at rates not less than

those predetermined by the Secretary of Labor as

contained in the contract provisions. 

▼ Work performed by any specific class of employees,

including helpers and apprentices, conforms to the

classifications set forth in the contract provisions.

▼ Employee classifications are correct for the work

performed.

▼ Payroll forms reflect number of hours worked per day

and per week.

▼ Gross and net wages are shown.

▼ When hours worked exceeds 40 in any work week, 1.5

base rate is paid.

▼ All weeks to date are accounted for. 

▼ There is no evidence of any disproportionate

employment of laborers, helpers, or apprentices that

would indicate avoidance of the appropriate journeyman

wage rate provisions.

▼ Trainee/apprentice documentation on file.

▼ Spot check interviews with employees of the contractor

and subcontractors; comment on how these interviews

are documented in project records. Make several spot

interviews with employees and document findings.

▼ The contract wage rates are posted and available to the

contractor’s and subcontractor’s employees.

▼ Unresolved violations are properly dealt with in

accordance with STA, FHWA, and USDOL

procedures.

▼ FHWA representatives are kept aware of labor

discrepancies. 

▼ The STA is preparing and submitting the Semi-Annual

Labor Compliance Enforcement Report, Form FHWA

1494.

Bulletin Board

Verify that the prime contractor maintains a bulletin board in

a prominent location where employees congregate. Refer to

the appendix of FHWA’s Contract Administration Core

Curriculum Manual for a listing of job site posters and

Federal forms to be displayed (www.FHWA.dot.gov/

programadmin/contracts/poster.htm).

Construction Safety

Become familiar with the USDOL Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) provisions contained in 29

CFR 1926 (see the OSHA Web site: www.osha.gov).

▼ Evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor and the

contracting agency in administering safety and health

requirements.

▼ Document STA guidance provided to field engineers

and inspectors on their role and responsibility. 

▼ Inspect the project to identify potential safety and

health hazards; photograph concerns for discussion with

the STA and the contractor. 

▼ Document how many contractor personnel workdays

have been lost to project injury.

▼ Obtain a copy of OSHA Document 2202 for a quick

reference.

Appendix D: Inspections-in-Depth

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

D–23

Appendix E: Technical References and Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

E–1

APPENDIX E

Technical References and Resources
Bridge Inspection 

Bridge Construction Inspection for Area Engineers. Federal

Highway Administration, Region 10, 1985.

Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges (training course).

Federal Highway Administration, National Highway

Institute Course No. 130055A. Course Scheduling:

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=22.

Course Manual: www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/crsmaterial.

asp?courseno= 130055.

Construction Reviews

Conducting Reviews That Get Results. Federal Highway

Administration, National Highway Institute Course

No. 310111. Available: www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/

coursedesc.asp?coursenum= 1146.

Generic Construction Related Review Guidelines. Federal

Highway Administration, Office of Asset Management.

Available (online): www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/

reviews.htm.

Contract Administration

Contract Administration Core Curriculum Manual,

Participant’s Manual and Reference Guide. Federal

Highway Administration, 2001. Available (online):

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/

coretoc.htm.

Critical Path Method 

Critical Path Method (CPM) Guidance for FHWA Area

Engineers. Federal Highway Administration, March

1985.

Use of Critical Path Method (CPM) for Estimating,

Scheduling, and Timely Completion (training course).

Federal Highway Administration, National Highway

Institute Course No. 134049A. Available (online):

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursen

um=1001.

Experimental Construction Features

FHWA Program Administration Web site:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/

expermnt.htm.

Freedom of Information Act

FHWA Freedom of Information Act Web site:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/foia/index.htm.

Geotechnical

Checklist and Guideline for Review of Geotechnical Reports

and Preliminary Plans and Specifications. Federal

Highway Administration, October 1985, Publication

No. FHWA ED-88-053.

Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations,

Volumes I and II. Federal Highway Administration,

November 1998, Publication Nos. FHWA HI-97-013

and FHWA HI-97-014 (NTIS Nos. PB97-134407 and

PB97-141311). Available (online): www.fhwa.dot.gov/

bridge/geopub.htm#pilefoundations. Available (print):

www.ntis.gov.

Drilled Shaft Foundation Inspection (training course).

Federal Highway Administration, National Highway

Institute Course No. 132070A. Available (online):

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=

1062.

Driven Pile Foundation Inspection (training course). Federal

Highway Administration, National Highway Institute

Course No. 132069A. Available (online):

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=

1070.

Performance of Pile Driving Systems: Inspection Manual.

Federal Highway Administration, Pub. No. FHWA

RD-86-160, December 1986. Available (online):

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/geopuba.htm#pile

foundations.

Appendix E: Technical References and Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

E–2

Technical References and Resources

The following list contains sources used in preparing this guide and related information. The list is not intended to be a

comprehensive resource on construction program management and inspection. Web and e-mail addresses are current as of

April 1, 2004. See page E-4 for a list of the training courses included in this section that are related to construction program

management and inspections. For more information, contact your local division office and visit the FHWA home page:

www.fhwa.dot.gov.
Shallow Foundations (training course). Federal Highway

Administration, National Highway Institute Course

No. 132037A. Available (online):

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=75.

Reference Manual (FHWA-NHI-01-023).

Tiebacks. Federal Highway Administration, Pub. No.

FHWA RD-82-047 (Report) and FHWA RD-82-046

(Executive Summary), July 1982. Available (print): email reportcenter@fhwa.dot.gov or at www.ntis.gov,

report code PB83-178368; Executive Summary code

PB83-178350. Available (online): www.fhwa.dot.gov/

bridge/geopuba.htm#permanentgroundanchors.

Inspections (general)

Construction Inspection Techniques for Base Course

Construction. Federal Highway Administration, May

1986. Available by e-mail: construction@fhwa.dot.gov.

Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th ed. S.

Kosmatka, B. Kerkhoff, W. Panarese, 2002. Skokie, IL:

Portland Cement Association (www.portcement.org).

Federal-Aid Policy Guide. FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.

gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/ cfr0470a.htm.

FHWA Construction Web site:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/reviews.htm.

Major Types of Transportation Construction Specifications: A

Guideline to Understanding Their Evolution and

Application. AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on

Construction, Quality Construction Task Force,

August 2003. Available (online):

www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction.

Public Works Inspector’s Manual. S. B. Birch, Jr., E. B.

Wetherill. BNI Publications, February 2001.

www.buildersbook.com, code 1557013942.

Pavements

Construction Inspection Techniques for Flexible Pavements.

Federal Highway Administration, May 1986. Available

by e-mail: construction@fhwa.dot.gov.

Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook 2000. Transportation

Research Board. Print and CD formats available from

AASHTO Publications (aashto@aashto.org), FHWA

Report Center (reports.center@fhwa.dot.gov), or

National Asphalt Pavement Association

(napa@hotmix.org).

Principles of Construction of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements, 2nd

ed. Asphalt Institute. Available: www.buildersbook.

com, code MS22.

Quality Assurance

Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance. American

Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, February 1996. www.transportation.org/

publications/bookstore.nsf, code IMQA-1.

Optimal Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications.

Federal Highway Administration, April 2003,

Publication No. FHWA-RD-02-095. Available (print):

www.ntis.gov. Available (online): www.tfhrc.gov/

pavement/pccp/pubs/02095/index.htm.

Quality Assurance Guide Specification. American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

February 1996. www.transportation.org/publications/

bookstore.nsf, code QA-1.

Quality Assurance Software for the Personal Computer.

FHWA Demonstration Project 89, Publication No.

FHWA-SA-96-026, May 1996. Available (print):

construction@fhwa.dot.gov. Available (software):

www.ntis.gov, NTIS number PB96-502729.

Appendix E: Technical References and Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

E–3
Records

Office of Management and Budget Web site:

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/print/a130tra

ns4.html#1.

FHWA Web site:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/

m13241.htm.

Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Guide. FHWA Intranet: intra.fhwa.dot.

gov/programadmin/risktoc.htm

Appendix E: Technical References and Resources

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

E–4

National Highway Institute 

Training Courses

National Highway Institute (NHI) training courses

are readily available at little or no cost in hard copy

or CD format. The NHI course catalog is available

at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursec.asp. Following are

courses related to topics in this Guide.

Conducting Reviews That Get Results. 

Course No. 310111.

Drilled Shaft Foundation Inspection. 

Course No. 132070A.

Driven Pile Foundations Inspection. 

Course No. 132069A.

Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges. 

Course No. 130055A.

Shallow Foundations. Course No. 132037A.

Use of Critical Path Method (CPM) for 

Estimating, Scheduling, and Timely Completion.

Course No. 134049A.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–1

APPENDIX F

Examples of Reporting Practices
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–2

Examples of Reporting Practices

The following items were extracted from actual construction inspection reports. Included with them are comments regarding the

appropriateness and significance of each of these items. The included items represent a variety of topics that could be covered in

construction inspection reports. Although they relate to specific items, the treatment of these items could be applicable to other

items as well.

Inspection Coverage

Report Item

The primary purpose of this stage inspection was to determine

the adequacy of the State’s construction inspection processes

for bituminous pavement.

Scope of inspection: review traffic control and placement of

asphalt concrete pavement.

The purpose of this inspection was to get information for the

bridge deck quality construction. At the same time, a joint

inspection of concrete bridge deck placement was conducted

with the State’s contract administration staff.

With the best intentions, a major phase (IID) of concrete

paving operations was scheduled to be performed on this

project on July 20, 2002. Just prior to reaching the plant site, a

power outage at the plant and a major rain downpour on the

grade resulted in the operations being shut down for the day.

However, we were provided with a detailed briefing of the

plant’s operation. (This item was followed with over a full page

of text on the review and six pages of photographs.)

This is an experimental project that consists of installing a

“Tensar” polymer grid fabric wall. The project was inspected

to observe the forming system and the overall appearance of

the wall.

Comments

This statement covers the type of inspection, phase of work,

and how the review will be focused. It gives the reader an idea

of what to expect.

This is a brief way of covering the purpose statement. The

type of review phase (e.g., initial, inspection-in-depth (IID),

etc.) should be identified.

In addition to providing the type of information in the above

statements, this example demonstrates conservation of

resources by performing a dual-purpose review. It also clarifies

the State’s role in the review.

This is a good explanation of why an intended inspection

could not be carried out. It explains what was done in lieu of

the originally planned review. The field engineer could have

also considered a review of materials test reports, stockpiling

operations, materials payment records, or other required

project documentation as an alternative. Another aspect that

could have been reviewed would have been on the contractor’s

quality test control results and charts.

This report contains an up-front identification of a special

feature of the project as well as the purpose of the inspection.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–3

Progress and Quality of Work

Report Item

Time Elapsed: 121 percent

Progress of Work: Unsatisfactory

At the time of this inspection, the asphalt concrete leveling

work was substantially completed and the contractor was just

beginning the paving of the base lift, starting at the westerly

end of the project.

The contractor hopes to start paving operations the first week

in August.

Currently the contractor is behind schedule but he has

developed an accelerated schedule that shows he may complete

the work on time.

It was clear that the contractor on this project has done

everything he could to maintain his construction schedule.

However, the nature of the somewhat abnormal rains this

summer combined with the volcanic silt in this area has slowed

his progress. It is important to note that the contractor did

work every time that soil conditions allowed.

The contract time was extended 42 days to completion time of

252 days. The contractor used 253 days and is being charged

one day of liquidated damages.

For a project of this magnitude, it appeared that very little

construction activity was occurring at the time of the

inspection. Construction weather and soil conditions were

ideal. (Note: time = 15 percent, work = 3 percent)

Although the percentage of work completed (16 percent) lags

the percentage of time elapsed (50 percent), it is anticipated

that the contractor will complete this project on time. Once

the paving operations commence, the percentage of work

completed will accelerate.

Comments

It is undesirable to get report heading data such as this without

an explanation and a projection of future progress or actions to

be taken. Expansion of statistical data is encouraged.

This example of project status presents a meaningful picture of

the ongoing major work on the project at the time of

inspection.

Future scheduling is appropriate for reporting. Is this ahead of

or behind schedule?

Information on revised scheduling is also of interest.

This comment is not as speculative as the last one. It is

apparent that some support for the conclusion probably exists

in addition to the general statements here. The level of

support here is fully acceptable. It is helpful if the information

source can be identified (e.g., project engineer, diaries, etc.).

This is a factual report of contract time charges, but it really

adds very little value to the report without further explanation.

Also, it does not discuss justification for the 42-day extension

or whether it was agreed to by FHWA.

The inspecting engineer should add sufficient information to

clarify the reasons why no construction has taken place,

his/her reaction to these reasons, and a remark resolving the

issue of lack of progress.

A logical explanation has been included for the slow progress

to avoid creating alarm on the part of the reader.

Continued on next page
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–4

Progress and Quality of Work (continued from previous page)

The completed work was found satisfactory except that several

runs of guardrail needed better line and grade and three

turnouts did not have terminal end sections installed on the

guardrail. The State’s traffic section was requested to review

this situation.

A brief windshield review was made of the completed work

and it appeared satisfactory.

The project has been built in general conformance with the

plans and specifications and is considered satisfactory for

acceptance.

The use of exception statements permits a general statement

of acceptability to be made without glossing over minor items

that are not fully satisfactory.

The FHWA engineer properly described a brief inspection.

These type of cursory reviews are discouraged in lieu of more

detailed inspections. 

There may be some differences in opinion as to what is

substantial conformance or reasonably close conformance.

However, “general conformance” seems much more nebulous

and leaves considerable doubt as to the quality of the work. An

effort should be made to stick to commonly accepted terms.

When this is not possible, a more detailed explanation is in

order.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–5

Materials and Quality Control

Report Item

The specified quality has been obtained on all materials

incorporated into the project to date.

The compaction testing was accomplished with a nuclear

gauge, and all testing for the day’s laydown was found to have

passed the required 92 percent density. The density ranged

from 92.2 percent to 94.0 percent.

The stockpiling of materials was situated such that

contamination or segregation was minimized.

M. Gardner indicated that the burner was not functioning

properly for about 3 hours in the afternoon and that mix was

being delivered to the street at approximately 115–118 oC

(240–245 oF). The plant was run at approximately 146 oC

(295o F) thereafter.

A quality level (QL) analysis was performed on the aphalt

concrete pavement Class B material, particularly the #10 and

#200 sieves and asphalt content. The QLs were 82, 100, and

100 respectively. The QL for the #10 sieve was less than the

desirable 90. The material tests showed a wide variability and

one test to be out of specifications, but within tolerance limits.

The traffic has been moved to the new lane, and the old

pavement has been milled and stockpiled for future recycling

into the asphalt-treated base. The recycled asphalt appears

uniformly graded and has no noticeable contamination.

Approximately 457 m (1,500 ft) of the base lift were rejected,

removed by the contractor, and replaced at his expense. I

inspected the material before it was removed from the road

and concur with the State’s action. The asphalt did not coat

the aggregates well. It is felt that possibly the wrong asphalt

had been delivered to the project.

Aggregate moisture samples had not been taken for

approximately 5 days; moisture content was being estimated

for water/cement ratio calculation.

Comments

This statement is all-inclusive and does not reflect any

particular effort by the field engineer to verify it. It would be

appropriate to include the source and basis for this statement.

The reporting of specific data is helpful in supporting quality

evaluations. This comment should include the type of nuclear

gauge and test method followed.

Comments such as this reinforce the validity of test results.

Comments received verbally without confirmation should be

identified as such.

It is meaningful to note that QL analysis is being made.

Specific findings are stated together with a further explanation

of the reason for the low quality level. It further indicates

specification compliance.

Observations of visual acceptability add to the value of the

inspection report.

Here the field engineer recorded a problem and corrective

action. In addition, the engineer chose to document FHWA

support of the State’s action and speculate on the cause of the

problem.

Adverse findings should be supported with specifics. Action

that FHWA will be taking as a result of improper testing

procedures should be noted and documented.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–6

Workmanship

Report Item

The pavement looks and rides good. The emulsion asphalt

seal, using a slow setting emulsion, is being placed at between

approximately 0.45–0.57 l per 0.84 m2 (0.12–0.15 gal per yd2

)

The uphill lanes were shot slightly lighter. The emulsion

appears to penetrate into the pavement well and should not

affect the skid qualities of the pavement. It appears this

pavement could absorb more emulsion if that were necessary.

Representatives from the city were present at the final

inspection and indicated their pleasure with the way the

project turned out.

Curbing exists along some of the northerly part of the project.

The typical section calls for the pavement to be tapered at

these locations to match the existing curbing. Very little

tapering was done, and consequently abrupt edges exist along

the curb-pavement match joint. The abrupt edges should be

corrected.

It was found that many of the compartmentalized neoprene

joint installations were at the surface of the pavement slab

rather than embedded 3.175 mm (1/8 in) according to the

plan. This is not acceptable because of the tire wear on the

joint and possible removal of the compartmentalized joint by

the traffic.

Comments

Opinions by the field engineer are particularly appropriate in

discussing workmanship. Details of materials design can be of

value in making future post-construction evaluations of the

quality of work.

When possible, it is desirable to include the opinions of others

as well.

This comment explains why the work is unsatisfactory. The

fact that the work is being redone is also of value in the report.

Where possible, it is also desirable to include reasons other

than specifications for making unsatisfactory findings.

Providing this information to the inspector and contractor

may also be helpful in getting future compliance.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–7

Construction Operations and Features

Report Item

The project engineer stated that there were no problems with

the contractor’s construction methods.

The latex-modified deck overlay was placed on the

northbound lanes of Fords Bridge on July 20, 2002, with

excellent results. The project manager indicated that the work

went very smoothly.

Present plans are to place concrete on Thursday and Friday of

this week. The pours are scheduled to begin during the early

hours of the morning (3 a.m. to 4 a.m.) and be completed

before the hotter weather of the day.

The contractor demonstrated a device called a scabbler that is

a lightweight mechanical hammer that turns when it hits the

concrete surface. The impact of the hammer can be regulated

from light to heavy within the operating range of the

equipment. This device leaves a very nice surface on which to

place the overlay and does not appear to damage the deck.

The contractor’s rolling equipment consisted of one pneumatic

breakdown roller immediately behind the paver followed by a

vibratory steel wheel roller. The inspectors were continually

maintaining temperature checks on the material, and found it

to fluctuate between 121 and 135 oC (250 and 275 oF), which

is well above the minimum 82 oC (180 oF) for compaction.

Generally there were three passes of the pneumatic and two

passes of the steel-wheel roller, which brought the densities

into the 92.2 percent to 94.4 percent compaction area, which

is within specifications.

There was some evidence of erosion control used. Items noted

were seeded slopes, straw bales, settlement areas, and silt

screens.

Comments

We value the observations of the project engineer to help us

report the things we have not seen, but when a statement such

as this is included without expansion it raises doubt as to

whether or not the area engineer ever got out of the project

office. The area engineer needs to address specific operations.

It is possible that the area engineer visited the project after the

construction activity was completed. In those cases he should

look at project documents such as diaries for corroboration of

the project engineer’s statements.

This comment combines personal evaluation with the project

engineer’s report of what could not be observed personally. See

above.

Comments on future operations may be useful in scheduling

additional reviews or in gaining assurance of the probable

acceptability of the operations.

Reports on unusual features are of particular interest. The

description of activities as well as the results of using the

unusual feature is of additional value.

The reporting of State as well as contractor activities provides

assurance of adequate State supervision. Specification citations

are of particular value to readers who encounter projects in

more than one State.

An observant inspection engineer may be able to report on

compliance with contract provisions even when the operation

is not in progress during the inspection and will not be evident

in the completed work.
Project Records

Report Items

Compaction of this project has not been a problem in the past,

and therefore the compaction tests were not reviewed during

this inspection.

Project records indicate that all materials incorporated into the

work are in reasonably close conformance with the

specification requirements.

Material test reports were not reviewed. However, the project

supervisor indicated that specification materials were being

incorporated into the work and good densities were being

obtained.

A review of the project records indicates compaction testing

frequencies well above the specification requirements. Less

than 10 percent of the tests indicated failing results. All failing

areas were reworked and retested until specified levels were

attained.

Compaction and gradation tests were examined and found to

be adequate in frequency and within specifications.

Project diaries were reviewed and found to be current.

The asphalt plant, rollers, and paver inspection forms were

reviewed and found in order.

Bid Item No. 8, Class E Hot Mix, was reviewed for

documentation of pay quantities. The estimate paid for 8,196

tonnes (9,035 tons) of material. The quantity summary had a

similar figure posted that was documented by weigh tickets.

The weigh tickets were properly signed and receipted.

Negotiated unit prices were used for all three items. Based on

the conversation with the project engineer, the basis for the

unit prices was the average bid prices for other projects.

However, the project files should be documented as to how

the price was selected.

There have been 10 change orders (COs) processed to date on

this project. CO numbers 2, 3, and 7 were reviewed in detail.

The project files contain adequate justification for making

changes on this project.

Comments

Risk management frequently means that not all items can be

checked. Support for these judgment calls is desirable.

However, the privilege of not looking should not be abused.

It is highly improbable that an area engineer examined all

project records. The basis for making broad-brush statements

should be reported.

Here, verbal reporting is accurately reported. This is

acceptable provided that occasional checks are made.

In this example, the acceptability of test results is quantified

along with a notation of corrective action.

This report identified the records reviewed and type of checks

made. However, it does not indicate what tests were spotchecked or if all tests were reviewed.

This comment shows that a specific check of diaries was made.

This comment indicates the specific inspection forms that

were reviewed.

The field engineer has identified the specific item and the type

of quantity check made.

Information received verbally should be properly identified.

The request for documentation is also properly recorded.

Accuracy in recording what was reviewed avoids creating

mistaken impressions that all records were reviewed.

Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–8
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–9

Subcontracting

Report Item

Names of six subcontractors have been submitted for approval

to date with an additional three pending. Of these, four are

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). The DBE

contract goal was $40,000. The subcontractor approvals

submitted far exceed these contract goals.

Comments

It is important to keep track of subcontracting and compliance

with DBE subcontracting goals.

Labor Compliance and Disadvantaged Business

Enterprises Performance

Report Items

A check on labor compliance (payroll data) showed compliance

with contract provisions.

It was found that in some cases the “Project Site Labor and

EEO Standards Interview Forms” were not completely filled

out or contained information that did not correlate with the

payrolls. In some cases the dates, the contractor’s name, or the

interviewer’s name was not included on the form. In other

cases the employee’s job title or pay rate did not match that

listed on the payrolls. It is recommended that training or

guidance on conducting the job site interviews be issued to the

field personnel responsible for the interviews. 

It was reported that DBE participation on this project has

been satisfactory.

Contract DBE goal was 8 percent of the total contract

amount. This goal has been met as follows: (A list followed of

firm name, bid item, amount, and percentage of total

contract.)

This inspection included reviewing various DBE project

records. During this review it was found that some of the

DBE’s employees were on the prime contractor’s payroll. A

meeting has been set up at State headquarters to discuss this

matter with civil rights personnel. 

Comments

While most labor compliance responsibilities have been turned

over to the State, occasional checks are appropriate.

It is important to keep track of labor interviews as they are a

critical portion of labor compliance verification.

We need to know if there is appropriate DBE participation on

projects. Where direct observation is not possible, we need to

rely on feedback from project personnel.

Specifics on how goals are being met should be reported.

Desirably, the inspecting engineer should report DBEs

actually on the job, performing a commercially useful function,

and supervising the work being done.

The inspecting engineer should not only report on goals and

attainment but also from time to time review office records

regarding DBE operations. In this case, when determining

whether a DBE is an independent business, records

documenting personnel actions, ownership of equipment, etc.,

should be scrutinized. A finding such as this one is significant

and may affect a firm’s eligibility. A followup meeting with

appropriate STA staff is a “good call.”
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–10

Safety and Handling of Traffic

Report Item

It was reported that the approved traffic control plans (TCPs)

had been working in a satisfactory manner on this project.

Some deficiencies in construction signing (mainly drums and

barricades) were noted.

The construction traffic control was observed carefully

throughout the length of the project and found to be

exceptionally good.

There have been several reviews on the traffic control by the

State’s traffic section during the life of the project. From these

reports, the traffic control used appeared to have improved

since our previous inspection.

The detour was well marked for two-directional traffic.

Striping was very visible, and the numerous reflector buttons

indicate that visibility at night is probably very good also.

Barrels and candle delineators were up, as appropriate,

through the entire length of the project and appeared to be in

very good condition.

All flag persons were properly equipped with hard hats and

orange vests, and appeared to understand proper flagging

procedures.

During a field review, it was noted that a piece of heavy

equipment was parked in the median area. This hazard was

brought to the attention of the inspectors, and steps were

taken immediately to have the contractor move the equipment

The detour appears to be operating in a satisfactory manner.

The project engineer indicated he had made a night inspection

of the detour to insure that nighttime operation was

satisfactory. Several minor adjustments were made as a result

of this nighttime inspection.

Comments

Reports from project personnel are of value, but it was

surprising that this comment was not reinforced by personal

observation.

The citation of deficiencies should be as specific as possible.

Was the problem in reflectivity, placement, or some other

aspect?

This comment reflects a detailed review of the situations.

Commenting on the State’s management as well as observed

conditions is of value.

The inspecting engineer has provided information to support

the conclusion that the use, location, and maintenance of

traffic control devices are all being adequately handled.

In this instance, it is apparent that all aspects of the flagging

operation had been evaluated; however, if the flag person’s

operations were observed, the area engineer should report that

the flag person demonstrated an understanding and use of

proper techniques.

The comment made here reflects an awareness of unsafe

conditions and shows a product of the inspection effort.

Good coverage of the item being reviewed is provided by

combining firsthand observation with reports of those items

that could not be reviewed during the inspection.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–11

Changes, Extra Work, and Time Extensions

Report Items

The final contract cost is expected to exceed the contract bid

amount by 26 percent.

The final project cost will be approximately $700,000—an

overrun of about 10 percent. Major items making up the

overrun are: (list followed)

The final project cost overran the original authorization by

approximately 22 percent. The majority of this overrun was

due to encountering a very wet subgrade that required a

considerable amount of subexcavation and importing of

embankment materials. Overruns also occurred in temporary

striping, stripe removal, cement-treated base and asphalt

paving.

Several change order documents were discussed and found

satisfactory.

There have been three COs to date on this project. CO No. 1

was reviewed in detail. The file contained adequate

justification for making changes on the project as directed by

CO No. 1.

The slide area mentioned in a previous report has moved

enough to cause displacement of the new pavement surface. If

movement continues, stabilization work may be required. Any

corrective work could best be handled separately from this

contract.

The material had to be removed from the deck surface. This

requirement had not been specifically noted in the plans or

special provisions. The contractor may request extra

compensation for this work.

The contractor has submitted a request for a time extension,

which is currently being reviewed.

Comments

Since early notice of the overrun will probably not be used for

fiscal control, this comment is of little value without more

explanation.

Specific comments such as this are more of value than the

general comment noted above. If possible at this time, the

FHWA position regarding the overruns should be reported.

This comment goes a step further and identifies the reason for

the major overrun as well as the items involved. This level of

detail is desirable.

This discussion may have been of value at the time, but the

failure to be specific makes the comment meaningless to

anyone other than the principals involved.

This specific comment is much more appropriate than the one

above. 

An anticipated future problem has been identified. This note,

which serves to alert readers of the possible need for action,

also contains FHWA’s suggestion for contracting the work.

The possible need for change orders or claims on work, which

has already been accomplished, should also be noted.

This comment concerning a time extension is of little value

without additional information. Since the discussion is

appropriate, it should have been expanded.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–12

Environmental Commitments

Report Items

Material source cleanup will be coordinated with the Fish and

Game Commission, as a small stream passes through the

source area.

There was one location at Sta 13+90 on the north side of the

new roadway near Kincaid Lake with an excessive amount of

silt accumulation. It is recommended that a floating boom be

installed on the south side of the roadway to keep any silt from

entering the lake. There was also quite a bit of silt in the pond

area on the north side of the roadway at Sta 51+55. A large

amount of silt was exiting the side slope and entering the

pond. It is recommended that a large rock dam/sediment basin

be constructed along with a rock ditch at the toe of the slope

to prevent this situation from reoccurring. 

During this final inspection, wetland plantings were visually

observed to be healthy and well maintained. The types of

plants and spacing matched the requirements committed to in

the project’s environmental assessment. 

Comments

Environmental sensitivity and mitigation efforts have been

properly noted without being limited to items included in the

applicable environmental document.

The inspecting engineer should make sure that bodies of water

receiving direct runoff be adequately protected. Structural

controls are often used as a second or third line of defense to

capture sediment as it leaves the site. A continuing effort is

needed to address environmental concerns. Construction

inspection reports should acknowledge these efforts.

It is important that the inspecting engineer know about all

prior environmental commitments and document that all

measures were carried out.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–13

Staffing and Project Control

Report Items

I found the project adequately staffed with experienced

personnel to adequately inspect the testing and construction

procedures on the project.

The project is presently being staffed with adequately trained

and experienced personnel (10 employees).

The engineer crew was considered adequate but minimal. If

the contractor elects to double-shift, it will not be possible to

cover all operations with the existing staff.

The city’s project manager advised that the city electrician had

inspected the electrical wiring at all signals.

During the inspection, I noted several major work items being

accomplished on this bridge rehabilitation project without the

required STA project inspector on the project. Resteel

appeared high, and the stripped forms showed pockets of

honeycomb. A review of the project diary showed that all

available inspectors were assigned elsewhere. The State felt the

test results and periodic spot inspection for this work were

reasonable. I have asked that each major work item receive at

least the “minimum” level of inspection required by

specifications and the State construction manual. I have also

arranged a meeting with the district engineer before I

recommend further action.

Overall, the contract administration and sampling and testing

were found satisfactory. The minor discrepancies found during

the inspection were immediately taken care of to the

satisfaction of FHWA. The project staff needs to be

commended for a job well done.

The project engineer and crew are complimented for keeping

the engineering costs to a minimum, especially when

considering the isolated location of the project.

This was a difficult project to construct in that it had constant

heavy traffic and was in a rather tight work area. The

completed work looked very good. This is a reflection of the

good job done by both the contractor and the State’s project

manager.

Comments

Project staffing and qualifications are appropriate items for

evaluation and reporting.

This comment provides additional information by quantifying

the staff size.

Evaluations should also anticipate future needs.

Notes regarding outside inspections are desirable.

This series of comments on staffing findings is not unusual. It

could probably occur on most projects today. The area

engineer noted a problem, observed the process, and discussed

observations with STA project and district construction

personnel. FHWA’s position was set for that project, and when

the resolution or future corrective action was beyond the

project level, the field engineer stated the next course of

action.

Appropriate compliments to the project staff are appreciated.

Performance under unusual circumstances is worthy of

recognition.

Contractors should also be complimented for quality

performance.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–14

Claims and Potential Claims

Report Items

The contractor has submitted seven claims totaling

$379,221.41. Following is a brief discussion of each including

the current status: (amounts, facts, alleged claims, and initial

State analysis of each has been omitted here for brevity).

Longitudinal bracing was required for the detour by the

railroad and State. There has been a minor dispute over this

item.

While excavating on June 9, the contractor broke a water line.

A repair joint was installed by the contractor. Since there was

less than 38 cm (1ft) of cover over the pipe, the contractor will

be filing a claim. The water line was there before the existing

roadway was built.

The contractor has filed a notice of intent to file a claim for

additional excavation quantity at Pier 5. Contract plans

provide for pay limits for riprap excavation at a 1:1 slope.

Based on observations at this inspection, it appears that the

contractor is accomplishing an excavation slope of 2.5:1 or 3:1.

The project manager is taking appropriate action to resist such

a claim.

Comments

The recording of claims and potential claims permits FHWA

to begin evaluation of their merits at an early date. Specifics

are of value here.

In this case, a dispute has been identified, but the value of the

comment is limited since neither the nature of the dispute nor

parties involved, i.e., contractor, railroad, State, etc. were

included.

In this instance, the facts upon which the claim is based have

been appropriately noted.

Contractor actions affecting claims should be recorded as was

done here. The State’s position on the claim is also of value.
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

F–15

Evaluation of Design and 

Potential Maintenance Problems

Report Item

The project engineer noted that the major problems with the

plans were related to the fact that the utility locations, which

were based on information obtained from the utilities, were

not verified in the field.

The project manager advised that a small concrete retaining

wall was added adjacent to the railroad tracks. It was required

by the railroad agreement but was somehow overlooked in the

plans.

A free right turning movement is not presently operating as

was expected. During our observation, approximately 50

percent of the time, the lead vehicle stopped and waited for a

short time before realizing that they were in a free movement

lane. It appears that the location of the signal heads for the

through movement is causing the confusion. These signal

heads will be relocated over the appropriate lanes and

additional signing and radius work will be provided on the

right turn.

One shaded area just westerly from the Beaver Creek crossing

did not take the cover aggregates very well. This area may

require minor work next year.

Comments

The circumstances responsible for the preparation of

inaccurate plans have been appropriately recorded here. In this

instance, additional reconnaissance should have been made.

Design oversights occur for a variety of reasons. Identification

of the source of oversight may help to prevent future

occurrences.

Where facilities do not function as designed, changes may be

required. The feedback of this information to design may be

of use in improving future designs.

The identification of potential maintenance items serves to

point out areas that should be monitored for performance.

This identification may also be of benefit in achieving future

design and construction improvement.

Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–1

APPENDIX G

Project Implementation 

and Reporting Forms
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–2

Contents

Related Project Information - Field Inspection Reports/Checklists/Forms

Forms may be modified as appropriate for Division use.

Bid Price Data (Form FHWA-45) G–3

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm 

Bid Price Data – Metric (Form FHWA-45M) G–5

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm

Bid Review Checklist* G–7

Construction Inspection Report (Form 1446A) G–8

Construction Inspection Report—Example (Form 1446A)* G-9

Design Project Checklist* G–13

Engineers Estimate Checklist for Full Oversight Projects* G–14

Final Acceptance Checklist* G–15

Final Acceptance Report (Form 1446B) G–16

National ITS Architecture and Standards Checklist* G–17

Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Checklist* G–18

Record of Authorization to Proceed With Major Contract Revision (Form FHWA-1365) G–24

Record of Prior Approval for Contract Addendum* G–25

Record of Prior Approval for Major Contract Change Order* G–26

Statement of Materials and Labor Used by Contractors (Form FHWA-47) G–27

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm

Statement of Materials and Labor Used by Contractors – Metric (Form FHWA-47M) G–30

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm

* Forms shown are division office forms that have been modified to suit a division‘s needs.
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–3

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–4
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–5

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–6
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–7
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–8
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–9
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–10
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–11
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–12
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–13
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–14
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–15
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–16
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–17
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–18
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–19
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–20
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–21
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–22
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–23
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–24
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–25
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–26
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–27

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–28
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–29
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–30

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/index.htm
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–31
Appendix G: Project Implementation and Reporting Forms

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)

G–32
Office of Asset Management

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 7th Street, SW, HIAM-1

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-0392

Fax: 202-366-9981

FHWA-IF-04-013