TECHBRIEF

Research, Development, and 

Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

www.fhwa.dot.gov/research

Construction Quality 

Assurance for Federally 

Funded Local Public 

Agency Projects

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-15-009

FHWA Contact: Richard Duval, HRDI-20, (202) 493-3365, 

richard.duval@dot.gov

Introduction

All Federal-aid projects on the National Highway System 

(NHS)—including those administered by Local Public 

Agencies (LPA)—are subject to the quality assurance procedures in 23 CFR 637, Subpart B—Quality Assurance 

Procedures for Construction, applied by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) to any projects using Federal-aid 

funds. For projects outside of the NHS, the established procedures approved by the State Highway Agencies (SHA) can 

be used for material acceptance as long as they satisfy the 

intent of the Federal requirements. In accordance with 23 

CFR 637, a comprehensive construction quality assurance 

program should consist of the following core elements: 

quality control, acceptance, independent assurance (IA), 

dispute resolution, personnel qualification, laboratory 

accreditation/qualification, workmanship, inspection, 

sampling, and testing.(1)

National reviews of locally administered projects conducted 

by FHWA in 2006 and the Office of Inspector General from 

November 2009 through April 2011 revealed shortcomings not only in the efforts of LPAs to properly administer 

Federal-aid projects but also in the role and effectiveness 

of oversight activities performed by the FHWA Division 

Offices and the SHA to ensure LPA compliance with Federal 

requirements.(2,3) One primary area of concern was with 

the oversight of construction quality. The report stated the 

following: 

The team found that design and construction quality 

was highly variable, and the quality and availability 

of records made it difficult to verify compliance. It 

was also determined that material testing was often 

either not done or was undocumented leaving project 

quality and durability questionable. (p. 9)(2)
2

These reviews indicate that the construction 

quality assurance (QA) practices on many 

locally administered Federal-aid projects are 

in need of improvement. However, before 

improvements can be made, a more detailed 

understanding of the problem was needed 

from both the SHA and LPA perspectives.

Purpose

The purpose of this TechBrief is to summarize 

a comprehensive investigation of current construction QA practices from both SHA and LPA 

perspectives undertaken in 2012 and to present recommendations from this analysis.

The review included a content analysis of 

current SHA and LPA QA procedures, a 

national SHA/LPA survey of construction QA 

practices, and indepth interviews of a selected 

cross-section of State and local agency representatives. The recommendations resulting 

from this review focused on the current state 

of practice, issues or challenges, and best 

practices to improve construction QA.

Some of the specific areas identified in prior 

reviews and the project surveys and interviews include the development of LPA-specific 

guidelines and manuals, quality management 

by the SHAs, use of consultants, certification 

programs, and training. Related topics such as 

communication, specifications and standards, 

and risk-based tiered systems for LPA projects 

were also raised and analyzed as part of this 

review

Findings

Although the findings generally indicated that 

the elements required under 23 CFR 637 have 

been incorporated into LPA construction QA 

programs, the LPA-specific QA specifications, 

procedures, and guidelines still vary considerably, as do the FHWA-SHA stewardship 

agreements.

Furthermore, the LPA QA programs vary to 

an even greater extent regarding how construction QA is implemented, the level of 

QA expertise within the LPA, adequacy of 

documentation, and the level of oversight provided by the SHAs. This variability was in part 

due to differences in the size and sophistication of the LPAs.

From the SHA perspective, the findings generally indicated that while there were still 

significant issues related to compliance with 

QA procedures and documentation, frequency 

of sampling and testing, and communication, 

there were few instances of poor quality or 

rework on LPA projects actually reported. The 

worst case outcomes involved withholding 

of Federal funds, most often related to noncompliance with QA procedures or lack of 

documentation. From the LPA perspective, the 

most important issues were the cost of construction QA for federally funded projects, 

and particularly the cost of compliance with 

Federal-aid construction QA requirements. 

The larger LPAs were generally in favor of 

assuming more responsibility and control of 

construction QA through certification or other 

means. Smaller LPAs with fewer resources 

were in favor of greater SHA oversight and 

consultant involvement in construction QA.

A number of strategies were cited regarding 

best practices for construction QA on LPA 

projects to address the issues reported by 

the respondents. These strategies included 

the use of LPA-specific specifications and 

guidance documents, QA training, improved 

communication, consultant oversight, and 

certification of LPAs. These practices were 

evaluated in greater depth, and recommendations are presented in the following sections.

The challenge for FHWA will be to improve 

SHA oversight of QA procedures and to 

develop practical QA procedures for LPAs while 

taking into account how to make the process more efficient for the various types, 

sizes, and scopes of LPA projects that receive 

Federal funds. In parallel with this work, 

the FHWA Every Day Counts II Initiative has 

developed a three-pronged strategy (certification programs, consultant services, and 

stakeholder partnering) to assist LPAs with the 

complexities of Federal-aid requirements and
3

processes while focusing in part on streamlining the delivery of LPA projects.(4)

Recommendations

Development of LPA-Specific Guidelines and 

Manuals

The majority of SHAs have developed LPA 

guidance manuals, yet these manuals revealed 

extreme differences in the breadth and depth 

of information provided to assist the LPAs. 

Several manuals focused primarily on preconstruction issues such as project selection, utility and railroad coordination, and right-of-way 

acquisition, with very little guidance provided 

for construction administration and QA.

State transportation departments should 

develop and maintain LPA-specific Guidance 

Manuals or LPA Project Delivery Manuals, 

which cover all of the project types and 

include sections that specifically address QA 

in construction. Improved compliance with 

Federal-aid QA requirements will result from 

the implementation of LPA-specific Guidance 

Manuals with more robust construction QA 

guidance.

LPA-Tailored Specifications and Standards

Some State transportation departments have 

developed LPA-specific specifications. The 

development of LPA-specific materials and 

construction specifications that are more suitable to fit a particular LPA project purpose is 

a worthwhile investment with the potential to 

reduce the number of instances of nonparticipation of Federal funds.

Several SHAs require the use of the standard 

specifications used on State projects. While 

this practice simplifies the QA oversight of 

LPA projects for the SHA, it may not result 

in the most cost-effective approach to meeting those QA requirements and may place 

more of a cost burden on the LPAs than necessary to achieve construction quality for 

less critical projects. It is recommended that 

SHAs currently using this approach should 

consider piloting a project with LPA-tailored 

specifications that provide more flexibility in 

QA requirements and then assess the benefits 

to both the SHA and the LPA.

Risk-Based Tiered QA System for LPA Projects

Quality management by the SHA can be 

tailored to the LPA type, size, or project risk/

complexity. For larger “certified” LPAs, SHA 

oversight may be limited to risk-based annual 

reviews or audits. For smaller or noncertified LPAs, the SHA or its consultant staff 

may perform IA services, periodic site visits 

and inspections, or provide full-time consultant inspection services and close-out QA 

reviews and audits.

In the effort to make LPA project delivery 

more effective and efficient, the expectations 

of quality should be more closely aligned 

with the LPA project purposes. The materials sampling and testing activities for QA 

could be potentially revised to be more of 

a risk-based (or tiered) system that considers the LPA project’s purpose and scope. The 

options for establishing a risk-based system 

could be based on a project cost threshold, 

or the criticality of the project or the element 

to be constructed. For more critical projects 

or elements, more frequent site inspections 

and/or testing would be required. It is clear 

that the move to a risk-based system should 

be calibrated to each particular State. For 

less critical projects, random site visits or 

QA audits would be applied in conjunction 

with the delegation of approval authority and 

responsibilities within an SHA, particularly 

for less critical projects in which the risks to 

QA are lower.

This recommended delegation of certain 

responsibilities to the SHA regional level would 

serve to streamline internal SHA approvals 

and reviews on LPA projects, as well as allow 

better tracking of LPA staff levels and capabilities. The implementation and maintenance 

of an integrated electronic tracking system 

for LPA projects would be instrumental to 

successfully delegating responsibilities.
4

Use of Consultants

The use of consultants for QA management 

of LPA projects can present both challenges 

and benefits to agencies. Many SHAs require 

that LPAs hire consultants on all federally 

funded projects regardless of the project’s purpose, which has the potential to significantly 

increase project costs.

Therefore, an SHA should establish criteria 

outlining which types of LPA projects require 

the use of consultants (e.g., a tiered level of 

effort) to allow smaller LPAs to use more of the 

Federal funds on construction of project components as opposed to project management.

The hiring of management consultants to help 

ensure that Federal-aid QA requirements are 

met for the QA activities related to the LPA 

program is an effective practice for an SHA 

that does not have adequate staff to cover the 

number of active LPA projects at any given 

time. However, the SHA is required to maintain involvement and oversight in the LPA 

program and use program reviews or audits 

at a specified frequency to ensure consistent 

oversight and no evidence of conflict of interest between the different levels of consultants involved in the overall LPA program, per 

23 CFR 172.9(a), 23 CFR 635.105, and FHWA 

Memo: Responsible Charge.(5,6,7)

Certification Programs

A significant number of SHAs have adopted 

LPA certification or qualification programs, 

as recommended through the FHWA Every 

Day Counts (EDC 2) 2012 initiative. These programs use criteria for LPAs to ensure that the 

LPA is qualified to manage project activities 

that use Federal-aid funds. The benefits of a 

certification program may include the areas 

of compliance, risk mitigation, resource and 

cost reduction, and local ownership (allowing certified LPAs to manage and own their 

projects).(4) However, more clarity is needed 

to define what the criteria for LPA certification 

should be, particularly for QA.

Smaller LPA Programs

Smaller LPAs generally prefer more involvement and guidance from the SHA when the 

SHA has adequate SHA staff to manage the 

construction phase of federally funded projects on behalf of the LPAs. If the SHA does not 

have adequate staff, then it is recommended 

that consultants be used for oversight in a 

management role or for inspection and testing. Typically, in these States IA will also be 

managed by the SHA rather than the LPAs. If 

the SHA will be performing the IA on an LPA 

project, then it can be challenging to keep track 

of ongoing testing to schedule the requisite IA 

activities; thus, LPAs should cooperate fully 

with the SHA’s IA personnel. For large projects, 

the use of a system-based approach to IA (in 

which IA frequency is based on covering all 

active testers and equipment over a period 

of time, independent of the number of tests 

completed on a particular project) can also be 

an effective strategy.

Larger LPA Programs

Larger LPAs may prefer more autonomy and 

retention of administrative control of QA and 

other costs in the construction of federally 

funded LPA projects. The implementation of an 

LPA certification program would allow larger 

agencies to take more responsibility for QA. 

Any certification programs in which the LPA will 

have full responsibility for QA should also have 

a recertification program that includes mandatory periodic training that all LPA engineering 

and/or public works staff should attend. The 

SHA is still required by Federal regulations to 

conduct their routine random audits on the 

large agencies that are certified through the use 

of a system-based IA program.

The larger agencies seeking certification 

should conduct a demonstration project prior 

to being permitted more independence with 

QA of construction and materials to provide 

the SHA with the opportunity to assess an 

LPA’s capabilities in performing quality oversight and the appropriate quality assurance 

documentation. It is advisable that projects 

with critical elements be selected as the 
5

demonstration projects to be used for the decision in certifying or recertifying an LPA.

Training

The training of LPAs and their consultants 

has a high level of effectiveness for reducing 

the frequency of issues with QA, in particular 

when the instructional content covers certification, inspection, testing, documentation, 

and other QA-related activities for both LPA 

and SHA staff.

General training on LPA contract administration should be supplemented with more 

specific targeted training related to use of 

electronic systems and forms, as well as QA 

inspection and testing for specific project 

types or elements. Because of the high incidences of staff turnover and low budgetary 

resources at LPAs, Web-based training should 

be developed as an alternative or supplementary measure to classroom training.

Training should be parceled out in shorter segments (less than 1 h in length) not only to keep 

each module concise but also to be indepth 

and focused on current challenges. The SHAs 

should work with their FHWA Division counterparts to dedicate long-term funding for the 

development and maintenance of these training courses.

Future training topics should include system-based and project-based IA programs; 

estimation techniques for the cost of construction engineering, including the Construction 

Engineering and Inspection and testing 

consultants; importance and impact of materials-sampling frequency; daily construction 

records for LPA projects; construction dispute 

resolution for LPA projects; and management 

of materials testing subcontracts.

Communications

Communication practices such as periodic 

stakeholder partnering or community of practice meetings with all of the project players, as 

recommended by the FHWA EDC 2 program, 

can improve the understanding of Federalaid project requirements. Effective projectlevel practices include the requirement of 

specific QA plans for LPA projects and SHA 

attendance at predesign walkthroughs and 

preconstruction meetings to define required 

roles and responsibilities earlier as well as 

identify issues early on before design.

The success of LPA projects in the construction 

phase can be attributed to frequent communication between the LPA staff and the SHA 

construction and IA staff; however, the communication should be strategic, be clear, and 

extend beyond training.

FHWA can work with the SHAs to establish 

mitigation plans on a periodic basis to track 

how well the policies and practices related to 

the mitigation of materials and construction 

QA issues are working. This partnership also 

provides an opportunity to identify any new 

issues that have evolved and require the generation of new guidance, training, or tools for 

the SHAs and LPAs.

Summary

The Federal funds available to subrecipients 

through the LPA program offer the opportunity 

for further improving the vast network of secondary roads and minor arterials that are often 

in need of major repairs. While smaller LPAs 

generally lack the resources to consistently 

and correctly complete the QA documentation required on federally funded projects, the 

larger LPAs have the training, staff qualifications, and capabilities to take on more of the 

QA role. It is recommended that a tiered system 

should be considered by SHAs in the certification of LPAs; the projects awarded to smaller 

LPAs would be managed either by consultants 

(hired by either the SHA or the LPA) or by the 

SHA. With the suggested tiered approach, the 

LPA will still be required to have a Responsible 

Charge (RC) staff because a consultant cannot 

be the RC staff for the LPA. There were reported 

benefits and challenges to both types of 

management strategies, and the individual 

SHA would decide how to address these 

challenges in its particular State.

Further Information

The following resources provide further information on this topic:

• Federal Highway Administration, (2012), 

Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public 

Agencies: Project Construction and 
6

MARCH 2015 FHWA-HRT-15-009

HRDI-20/03-15(500)E

Researchers – For information related to materials and construction quality assurance research, 

contact Richard Duval (Research Civil Engineer of Infrastructure Analysis and Construction) at 

richard.duval@dot.gov. Additional information related to the Materials Quality Assurance Program can 

be obtained by contacting the FHWA Quality Assurance Team: Michael Rafalowski (Office of Pavement 

Technology) at michael.rafalowski@dot.gov and Dennis Dvorak (Pavement and Materials Technical 

Service Team) at dennis.dvorak@dot.gov.

Distribution—The report covered in this TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard 

distribution. Direct distribution is being made to the Resource Centers and Divisions.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by email to 

report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Quality assurance, local public agencies, Federal-aid projects, construction, verification.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability 

for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this TechBrief only because 

they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, 

and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and 

processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Contract Administration, http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/.

• Office of Pavement Technology, 

(2012), Independent Assurance 

Programs, TechBrief, Publication No. 

FHWA-HIF-12-001, Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA.

• Office of Pavement Technology, (2013), 

Quality Assurance Stewardship Review 

Summary Report for Fiscal Years 2009 

Through 2012, Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA.

References

1. Quality Assurance Procedures for 

Construction, Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 23, Part 637, Subpart B, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, 

DC.

2. Federal Highway Administration, (2006), 

The Administration of Federal-aid Projects 

by Local Public Agencies, National 

Review Program Final Report, Program 

Improvement Team, Washington, DC.

3. Federal Highway Administration, (2009), 

Local Public Agency Federal-aid Project 

Oversight & Program Stewardship–FY 

2008 Status Report, Office of Program 

Administration, Washington, DC.

4. Federal Highway Administration, (2012), 

Every Day Counts 2012 Initiatives, last 

accessed April 4, 2014, https://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/

local.cfm.

5. Compensation, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Title 23, Part 172.9, Subpart 

a, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC.

6. Construction and Maintenance, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 635, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, 

DC.

7. Office of Program Administration, (2011), 

Information: Responsible Charge, memorandum, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.