Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 170
170 APPENDIX G Details for Quality Programs TABLE G1 QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTS DOT Documents Alabama Bridge Inspection Manual Alaska Arizona Arkansas QA review form California Structure Maintenance and Investigations Quality Management Plan Structure Maintenance and Investigations Area Bridge Maintenance Engineer Policy and Procedures Manual Connecticut Bridge Inspection Manual Delaware Formal QA/QC report format (in preparation) Florida Bridges and Other Structures Inspection and Report, 850-010-030-f District QC plan Idaho QA/QC manual (in development) Iowa No written procedure Kentucky Kentucky QA/QC memorandum Maine Maryland No manual or policy statement Massachusetts Massachusetts Highway Department directives Michigan QA/QC manual for bridge inspection Minnesota Standard form: Quality Assurance Review of Bridge Owners Missouri DOT's Bridge Inspection Rating Manual (non-state bridges) (in preparation) (state bridges) Montana Bridge Inspection Manual Nevada DOT Bridge Design and Procedures Guide (being revised) New Mexico In preparation New York Bridge Inspection Manual; QA procedure in stand-alone document North Carolina DOT Bridge Inspection Unit; Bridge Inspection QC and QA procedures North Dakota Ohio Manual of Bridge Inspection Oklahoma District QC plan Oregon DOT Bridge Inspection Manual Pennsylvania Bridge Safety Inspection Manual--Pub. 238 Rhode Island South Dakota In preparation Tennessee Bridge Inspection Program Procedures Manual Texas DOT's QC/QA program Utah DOT QC/QA procedures Vermont In-house bridge inspection manual Virginia Instructional and Informational Memorandum S&B 27.5 Washington Washington State Bridge Inspection Manual West Virginia DOT bridge maintenance directives Wisconsin Standard forms. Level 1 Review Record--Structure Inspection Quality Assurance Program Level 2 Review Record--Structure Inspection Quality Assurance Program
OCR for page 171
171 TABLE G2 PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DOT Personnel Qualification Note Alabama Emergency Bridge Inspection Team leader QC/QA Team + selected personnel Alaska Bridge Management Engineer + Team leader QC/QA selected team leaders Arizona Bridge Management Leader Team leader QC/QA QA review engineer Bridge report review office Team leader QC engineer Arkansas District Construction Engineer Team leader QC/QA California Quality Assurance Senior QC/QA Specialist (senior bridge engineer specialist) Quality Control Administrator QC/QA (Caltrans administrator) Quality Control Engineer QC/QA (Transportation Engineer Range D) Quality Management Program QC/QA Manager (supervising senior bridge engineer) Temporary QA inspectors Volunteers from the inspection staff rotate in every 6 months Connecticut Manager Bridge Safety and Program manager QA; sets policy Evaluation Senior Engineer designated as QA Team leader QC/QA Engineer QA inspection team (selected team Team leader QA leaders) Supervising Engineer for each area Team leader QC/QA (region) Quality Control Engineer Team leader QC Delaware Bridge Inspection Manager/Engineer Team leader QC/QA Bridge Maintenance Engineer Team leader QC/QA Eastern Peer Team Leaders Team leader QC Federal Lands Florida Bridge Inspection and Evaluation Team Leader w/PE QC/QA Engineer Bridge Maintenance and Planning PE QA Engineer Bridge Management Systems PE QA Engineer Bridge Management Systems Quality PE QA Control Engineer Engineer of Structures Maintenance PE QA Idaho Program Manager Team leader QA Team leaders Database Manager Iowa Assistant Bridge Maintenance Team leader w/PE QA Engineer Staff Engineers in Bridge Team leader QC Maintenance and Inspection Unit, Office of Bridges and Structures Kentucky District Bridge Engineers QC Program Manager Team leader QA (continued )
OCR for page 172
172 TABLE G2 (Continued) PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DOT Personnel Qualification Note Maine Assistant Bridge Maintenance Team leader QC/QA Engineer Human Resources QA Bridge Management Engineer Team leader QC/QA Maryland Inspection team Team leader 1st QC/QA review Senior Project Team Leader for Team leader 2nd QC/QA review Inspection Massachusetts Area Bridge Inspection Engineer (QA Team leader QC/QA engineer) Bridge Inspection Engineer (QA Program manager QA supervisor) District Bridge Inspection Engineer Team leader QC/QA Michigan Bridge owner Team leader QC Program Manager selects consultants Team leader QA QA work done by contract Minnesota Missouri State Bridge Maintenance Engineer QC (state-owned bridges) Supervising Bridge Inspection QC Engineer (state-owned bridges) Structural Services Engineer (non- QC state bridges) Montana District Bridge Inspection QC Coordinator Bridge management, central office, QA Helena QA inspection teams are peers from Team leader QA other districts Nevada Manager I, Registered PE (program Program manager QC/QA manager) New Mexico Team leaders for district-level peer PE or team leader QC reviews DOT Management Analyst + Team leader QA Consultant Management Analyst Design Engineer PE QC New York Civil Engineer II--QC Engineer Team leader w/PE QC/QA North Carolina State Inspection Superintendent, Program manager QC/QA Inspection Program Manager Inspection Area Supervisor Team leader QC/QA North Dakota Bridge Inspection Manager Team leader QC/QA Ohio Bridge Inspection Engineer Program manager w/PE QA Bridge Management Engineer Consultants may perform quality PE + 10 years experience QA assurance review for local agencies District Bridge Engineer QC Reviewer of Safety Inspections Team leader w/PE QC Oklahoma Reviewing Engineer--Peer Team QC Leader Oregon Bridge Operations Engineer Team leader QC/QA Senior Bridge Inspector Bridge Inspection Database Coordinator Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator (continued )
OCR for page 173
173 TABLE G2 (Continued) PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DOT Personnel Qualification Note Pennsylvania Bridge Quality Assurance Division + Team leader Permanent staff for Assistant Chief Bridge Engineer w/engineering degree QA statewide (head) Bridge Inspection QA Manager Team leader w/PE QA District Bridge Inspection Manager Team leader + several District QC (11 statewide) years experience Internal (district) Review Engineer QC Rhode Island South Dakota Bridge Operations Engineer Team leader QA Region Bridge Specialist QC Bridge Appraisal Engineer QC Tennessee Manager SI&A PE QA Manager, Headquarters Inspection QC and Repair Office Regional Bridge Engineers QC in region Bridge Evaluators QC Texas Inspection Engineering Supervisor QC Bridge Division Team leader QA review of districts Utah Program Manager Program manager QC/QA DOT District Staff Team leader QA review of consultants Vermont Civil Engineer IV--PE not required Team leader QC Team leader QA Virginia Regional Inspection Manager Team leader QC State Bridge Inspection Program Program manager QC/QA Manager Washington Bridge Inspection Supervisors Team leader + annual QC inspection training State Bridge Inspection Program Program manager QA Manager (Engineer II) Consultant services, but future will be Team leader QA for state bridges DOT QA staff DOT Local Agency Bridge Engineer Team leader QA for local bridges + FHWA Division Engineer. West Virginia Selected district staff, such as Bridge QC Evaluation Engineer State Bridge Evaluation Engineer Program manager QC/QA Wisconsin District Program Manager Program manager QA reviews of local government programs State Program Manager Program manager QA reviews of DOT districts
OCR for page 174
174 TABLE G3 QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION LEADERS DOT Certification Agency Consultants Alabama CBI or PE number Staffing list in division Local government inspections by consultants Qualifications verified in QA review Alaska NBIS Qualifications known within Personnel named in agency contract Arizona NBIS Annual review of qualifications Arkansas NBIS Personnel records California Certification and Personnel database has registration experience and training Connecticut NBIS Delaware NBIS Personnel files Florida CBI number CBI files Staff qualifications verified before notice to proceed Idaho NBIS Human resources records Personnel named in have experience and proposal training Iowa NBIS Personnel files have experience and training Kentucky NBIS Personnel files have Same for all individuals experience, training, and engaged in NBIS education Maine NBIS Human resources records have training and experience Maryland NBIS Personnel files have training and experience Massachusetts NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications Michigan Bridge owner responsible for their team leaders Minnesota NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications Missouri Non-state bridges: Personnel files have Structural Service qualifications and resumes Engineer approves all team leaders Montana NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications Nevada Small group Small group, staff qualifications are common knowledge New Mexico NBIS Qualifications checked during QA review (every 3 years) New York NBIS Approval of resumes prior QA approval of inspectors to field work before field work North NBIS Personnel files Carolina (continued )
OCR for page 175
175 TABLE G3 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION LEADERS DOT Certification Agency Consultants North Dakota NBIS MS Access database of active bridge inspectors Ohio Review/approval of Statement of training at regional bridge manager hiring Oklahoma NBIS Record of refresher training Record of refresher training at 24-month intervals at 24-month intervals Oregon Certification renewed every Updated resume is reviewed 5 years at 5 years Pennsylvania List of certification status Personnel who attend List of trained consultants PennDOT Basic Bridge Safety Inspection Training, and Refresher Rhode Island NBIS Personnel files contain Consultant qualifications on qualifications file South Dakota Bridge Operations Engineer Qualifications and training certifies tracked by Bridge Operations Engineer Tennessee NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications Texas NBIS Human resources files using NBIS qualifications tracked PeopleSoft by Contract Office, with consultant management database Utah NBIS Personnel files have training and experience Vermont Virginia Tracking by Central Office Annual report to Central Annual report to Central Office listing Team Office listing Team Leader qualifications Leader qualifications Washington IDs for team leaders Personnel files list training and experience West Virginia NBIS Annual update of inspector personnel records Wisconsin NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications CBI = Certified Bridge Inspection; NBIS = National Bridge Inspection Standards.
OCR for page 176
176 TABLE G4 QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS DOT Review Set Review by Action Alabama Inspection reports Reviewer signs and dates Alaska All inspection reports Team leader peer Review for content Return with comments to team leader Arizona All inspection reports Bridge report review Review and revise engineer Bridge management leader Arkansas All inspection reports Pontis software Coordinate with inspection team to validation correct errors Load rater's review California QC staff Connecticut All inspection reports Quality control Cross check condition ratings, engineer photographs, notes, and maintenance recommendations Confer with leader, if necessary Review and sign All inspection reports Transportation Cross check condition ratings, for Class III bridges Engineer III photographs, notes, and maintenance (complex) (Senior Engineer) recommendations Confer with leader, if necessary Review and sign All load ratings Quality control Confirm inputs to calculations; note engineer age/condition context of load rating All load ratings for Supervising engineer Confirm inputs to calculations; note Class III bridges age/condition context of load rating (complex) Delaware All inspection reports Inspection team Revise/correct as needed prior to download to central office All inspection reports Bridge inspection Review after download to central manager office Eastern Federal All inspection reports Peer team leader Signs Lands Florida All inspection reports District bridge Review is logged inspection Discussion with inspection team, if supervisor or peer needed team leader Reviewer signs All inspection reports Engineering section PE signs final report for state-owned bridges Idaho All inspection reports Database manager Review, discuss with inspection team if needed Spot checks of Program manager inspection reports Illinois All inspection reports Bureau of Bridges and Structures, unit supervisor Iowa All inspection reports Independent Discuss/resolve with inspection team technical team Bridge condition report is signed by member PE, after review of inspection report Kentucky All inspection reports District bridge Primary review in district engineer Discuss/resolve with inspection team All inspection reports DOT central office Secondary review at DOT central office Maine All inspection reports Assistant bridge Review for NBI rating errors maintenance Discuss/resolve with inspection team engineer Sign completed review All inspection reports Bridge manager and Review for data errors IT groups Discuss/resolve with inspection team (continued )
OCR for page 177
177 TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS DOT Review Set Review by Action Maryland All inspection reports Team leader Return to team member for revision 50% of inspection Office review reports Massachusetts All inspection reports District bridge Review for completeness, consistency inspection engineer All with NBI condition Area bridge Review poor condition rating 4 or less inspection engineer 10% sample of reports Area bridge Review for completeness, consistency inspection engineer Michigan Minnesota All inspection reports Reviewer signs and dates All load ratings Rater signs with PE number Missouri All inspection reports NBI edit program Team responds to error codes Montana All inspection reports Peer team leader Review; discuss/resolve with inspection team 5% sample of District bridge Check for completeness, consistency inspection reports inspection with previous report coordinator Nevada All inspection reports QC reviewer Discuss/resolve with inspection team leader New Jersey Element-level (Pontis) DOT Cross check element-level data and data related NJNBI fields. New Jersey uses additional NBI-style rating fields that identify defects much as SmartFlags do. 20% of inspection DOT Thorough review; inspection by reports consultant 80% of inspection DOT Review focused on certain aspects; reports inspection by consultant 10% of inspection DOT Field verification reports All inspection reports DOT Thorough review for complex bridges All inspection reports DOT Thorough review for movable bridges 10% of inspection DOT Thorough review reports by other agencies 90% of inspection DOT Review focused on certain aspects. reports by other Inspection by consultant. agencies All diver's reports Consultant Review and attach to bridge inspection report New Mexico All inspection reports Peer team leader Discuss/resolve with inspection team Signs Report entered to Pontis All inspection reports General office Report entered to CHDB NBI items checked, especially if changed As needed Design engineer Reviews items noted by district New York All inspection reports Quality control Review using standard checklist engineer Discuss/resolve with team leader Sign and submit to DOT main office (continued )
OCR for page 178
178 TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS DOT Review Set Review by Action North Carolina All inspection reports Analysis section Statewide comparisons of reports 5% of inspection Bridge inspection Office review reports superintendent 10% of inspection Area supervisor Field review reports North Dakota Spot review Ohio All inspection reports Team leader Team QC review before submission All inspection reports PE in district All load ratings District structure Review and approve rating engineer Oklahoma All inspection reports Reviewing engineer Oregon All inspection reports Senior bridge Review, notify inspector of record, inspection submit revised report engineer Local agency bridge inspection coordinator All inspection reports Bridge inspection Runs NBI edit/update program database Resolve errors coordinator Pennsylvania All inspection reports, Bridge owner Owner affirms to DOT that QC review non-state bridges is performed All load ratings, Bridge owner Owner affirms to DOT that QC review non-state bridges is performed 10% sample of routine Bridge Inspection inspection reports Supervisor 10% sample of Bridge inspection inspection reports for supervisor posted bridges 25% sample of Bridge inspection inspection reports for supervisor fracture-critical members Sample of routine Bridge engineer inspection reports last quarter Posted bridges Bridge engineer Review posting and maintenance recommendations Fracture-critical Bridge engineer Review fracture-critical list and plans members for repair or replacement All load postings, DOT district District reviews all posting by local non-state bridges agencies All new load postings Assistant district Verify posting engineer for design All large changes in Assistant district Verify report condition engineer for design Rhode Island All inspection reports Consultant PE stamp on report by consultant All inspection reports DOT engineers Internal checks for consistency of data DOT supervisors South Dakota All inspection reports Region bridge Review reports at region before specialist submission to bridge appraisal engineer All inspection reports Bridge appraisal Discuss/resolve with inspector engineer Perform appraisal ratings Send to file Tennessee All load ratings and Supervisor of bridge postings evaluators Sample of load ratings SI&A manager and postings SI&A assistant manager (continued )
OCR for page 179
TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS DOT Review Set Review by Action All inspection reports Bridge evaluators Compare condition ratings, photographs, notes, and maintenance recommendations Underwater inspection Report stamped by PE reports Inspection reports for Bridge evaluators minor structures Texas All inspection reports Central bridge Software check during database update; division consultant corrects errors as needed All inspection reports District personnel Review of reports from inspection consultants 10% sample of District personnel Review of reports with field inspection reports verification All inspection reports Consultant Consultant PE stamps report Utah All inspection reports Agency staff Software check on valid data entries Sample of inspections Agency and FHWA Periodic validation of inspection staff reports Vermont Sample of inspection Civil Engineer IV Field verification of inspection reports Virginia Bridge inventory sheet Inspection team Notify District Bridge Safety Engineer of errors All inspection reports Other team member Reviews for errors All inspection reports District structure Reviews, initials, dates engineer District bridge engineer All inspection reports District structure for local-owned Engineer bridges District bridge engineer All inspection reports Structure and Bridge for state-maintained Division, Central bridges Washington All inspection reports Washington State Software check for valid data Bridge Inventory Errors returned to team leader System (WSBIS) All inspection reports Program manager Review before submission WSDOT for local-owned for local agency Bridge Inventory Engineer. bridges All inspection reports DOT Bridge Final review before download to for local-owned Inventory Engineer WSBIS bridges All inspection reports Database engineer Proofread for data errors 10% sample of Region inspection Reviews inspection reports supervisor Discuss/resolve errors with team leader Approve and submit to database engineer Inspection reports with Region inspection Review for NBI condition ratings deck, superstructure supervisor or substructure rating less than 6 Inspection reports with Region inspection Review for repair or condition repairs or conditions supervisor to be monitoring Inspection reports for Region inspection new bridges supervisor Inspection reports for Region inspection fracture-critical supervisor bridges Inspection reports for Region inspection local-agency bridges supervisor Underwater inspection Diver Report is prepared by team leader and report reviewed by diver West Virginia Yes District staff Team leader receives comments by e-mail Wisconsin All inspection reports District manager Local manager CBI = Certified Bridge Inspection; NBIS = National Bridge Inspection Standard; CHDB = Consolidated Highway Database System; SI&A = Structural Inventory and Appraisal.
OCR for page 180
180 TABLE G5 INSPECTION TRACKING: QUALITY CONTROL REPORTS--REPAIRS DOT Inspections and Reports Data/Database Repairs and Follow-Up Alabama Timely completion checked at Team submits standard QA review form for maintenance needs Progress reported on standard form Connecticut Reports within 90 days of Team notes repairs during inspection; reviewed within 45 routine inspection days of submission Florida Routing log used to schedule Team notes repairs during inspection, submit report, and routine inspection complete review of report Emergency and critical All reports must be complete repairs examined within 45 days promptly after completion Montana Timely completion tracked in QC New Jersey 90 days to submit report. SI&A data must have QA/QC review North Inspection schedules and monthly Carolina progress reports track work Ohio Report within 90 days for state bridges; within 180 days for local-agency bridges Oklahoma QC report is a collection of reviewed inspection reports, showing the errors/changes; QC report is stamped by the reviewing engineer Pennsylvania The 11 PennDOT districts each keep a log of QC activities Texas Monthly status report to track Monthly status report to overdue inspections track database errors District tracks consultant progress Utah Monthly progress meetings Washington Inspections mapped in GIS and WSBIS keeps reports and Electronic repair list tracked to ensure completion status as in-work, manager is published to within inspection year completed, in-review, Internet twice a year for Database status: "In-work" for approved, or committed tracking and reporting. reports in preparation; most Bridge Preservation reports completed in one week. Supervisor reviews Large bridges take longer. completed repairs SI&A = Structural Inventory and Appraisal; GIS = geographic information systems; WSBIS = Washington State Bridge Inventory System.
OCR for page 189
189 TABLE G10 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS Review Current Review Review Bridge Review Unit Bridge Inspection Bridge Load DOT Unit Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Report File Rating New York 25% of bridges Random--Bridges with condition Yes rating 5 or lower. Bridges with critical findings (flags) North Inspection team 10% of 3 bridges per team per 2-year Yes Yes Carolina inspections cycle No overlap with other field visits, field reinspections, etc. Bridges selected for inspection team Statewide 2 or 3 bridges Independent inspection North Dakota 5% to 10% of Random, selected in various Yes Yes bridges districts Ohio District or other 2 to 5 bridges per Report and bridge file Deficient bridges inspection 24 months taken to field for Unique problems or features program verification; this is called QC Review performed with inspector of record Oklahoma Inspection team 5 bridges per 24 Field verification by Bridges for team leader leader months reviewing engineer; team leader is present for verification Inspecting agency 5 bridges per 24 months Oregon Region 5% of regional Worst bridges. Owner concern inventory Statewide Goal: 300 (5%); Poor condition; needing rehab Yes Yes actual: ~175 New to inventory; load capacity bridges issue; shoring in place Pennsylvania Statewide 345 bridges per Type, length, sufficiency rating Yes Yes Yes cycle Inspected last 6 months Rhode Island 5 per year Bridge type Yes Yes Yes Condition and age South Dakota Currently being Currently being developed developed Tennessee Each region, Sampling, Reinspection of bridges annually annually Texas Districts 10% of bridges 100% database review By districts; at random as check Yes Yes Yes on consultant By division; poor condition, scour problems, posted, priority rehabilitation Utah 1% of Recently inspected Yes Yes Yes inspections Poor condition ratings Vermont 1% bridges per Random based on inspection area Yes year Virginia District 150 bridges Two bridges per team Yes Yes Yes (1.5%) Last six months inspection Critical recommendations, fracture critical, fatigue prone, bridge type, ADT, load ratings Washington Regional/local 3 per team Random Yes Yes Yes leader; ~100 Condition--posting, scour bridges critical, material type, critical issues Selected for team leader (continued )
OCR for page 190
190 TABLE G10 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS Review Current Review Review Bridge Review Unit Bridge Inspection Bridge Load DOT Unit Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Report File Rating Statewide Sampling Verification of current UBIT access report West Virginia 45% of bridges Random selection Yes Yes Wisconsin District--Level 1 3 bridges Bridges on replacement list QA review Unusual features or problems Local Government 2 bridges Bridges on replacement list --Level 2 QA Unusual features or problems review ADT = average daily traffic; UBIT = under bridge inspection trucks.
OCR for page 191
191 TABLE G11 QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVALS Team/Team Leader Region/District DOT Interval Interval Note Alabama 24 months Division review includes cities and counties Alaska Arizona 24 months Arkansas 4 bridges per 12 months California 24 months 24 months QA review of administrative area, not individuals Connecticut 6 months Delaware Florida 3 months Field visit to observe team at work Idaho 12 months Iowa 36 months Kentucky 12 months 12 months Maine 12 months Maryland 12 months Massachusetts 6 months Michigan 12 months Minnesota 12 months Certification by local agency inspection program Missouri Montana 12 months Central office review of submitted documents 12 months Field review of districts 12 months 5% bridges independent inspection Nevada 4 months 12 months New Mexico 36 months 36 months New York 12 months 12 months North Monthly N/A Carolina North Dakota Ohio 48 months, state 48 months, county 48 months, city, town, village Oklahoma 24 months 24 months Oregon 12 months 12 months Pennsylvania 12 months Annual meeting 12 months Annual review of each district 24 months, local agencies Rhode Island N/A South Dakota Currently being developed Tennessee 12 months, all regions (continued )
OCR for page 192
192 TABLE G11 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVALS Team/Team Leader Region/District DOT Interval Interval Note Texas At the end of each 48 months work assignment Utah Vermont Varies, no specific interval Virginia Washington 12 months 36 months for local agencies West Virginia 24 to 36 months Wisconsin 24 months, state program 48 months, local programs N/A = not applicable.
OCR for page 193
193 TABLE G12 ASPECTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DOT Object Tolerance Alaska NBI rating, change Change of 2 or more in one cycle must be justified Arizona NBI rating ±1 Arkansas NBI rating ±1 Load rating 10% California Engineering calculations Independent check of calculations Delaware NBI ratings 5 and up ±1 NBI rating 4 or lower 0 Element-level condition No values set Idaho NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition No set values Inventory load rating 5% Iowa NBI condition rating ±1 Kentucky NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 Maine NBI condition rating ±1 Load rating 10% Maryland NBI condition rating ±1 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nevada NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition Significant deviation in quantities New Mexico NBI condition rating ±1 New York NYS condition rating ±1 NYS element rating ±1 North Carolina NBI condition rating ±1 Set of NBI ratings ±1 Load rating Unwarranted rating or posting North Dakota NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 Load rating 10% Ohio NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 Oklahoma Oregon NBI condition rating ±1 NBI coding for sufficiency rating Exact Element list Must be exact Load rating Reviewed by PE; might be prepared by EIT Load rating--Complex bridge or load Prepared by PE; reviewed by PE Restriction Pennsylvania NBI condition rating ±1 Load rating ±15% Posted bridge load rating ±2 tons Rhode Island NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition Depends on element South Dakota Currently being developed Texas NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 Load rating Incorrect values or configuration Utah NBI condition rating ±1 Vermont NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±5% Load rating All load ratings are "as new" Virginia NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition 10% Load rating 10% Washington Element-level condition 15% Load rating Ratings updated as needed West Virginia NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition N/A Load rating Nothing definitive Wisconsin NYS = New York State; EIT = engineer in training; N/A = not applicable.
OCR for page 194
194 TABLE G13 QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS DOT Benchmark QA Report Consultant Benchmark FHWA Bridge sampling and Results of sampling and review Included Framework validation Alabama Recommended actions Yes, by division to central, to Included in field review, to correct division, and to FHWA especially for cities and deficiencies counties Formal aspects of QA review Alaska Arizona None established No No Arkansas No policy No No California Findings of QA We plan on a newsletter 3 to 4 inspections times per year that would describe findings, program news, and training articles. Connecticut QA reports for programs and for teams Delaware Previous QA/QC Within our own section we keep No results records Florida Compliance with QC Field observation of teams plans once per quarter Independent verification of inspections for 5% of bridges of initial phase of contract Idaho No No No Iowa No No No Kentucky FHWA review No No Maine Quality and reliability No No of data; adequacy of data for planning and programming network Maryland None No No Massachusetts Formal aspects of QA Yes review Michigan Minnesota Formal aspects of QA Yes review Missouri District QA review of local government inspection program Nevada None Audit reports at 4-month interval None separate New Mexico None No No New York None No Not formally, but yes as part of their performance review North No benchmarks No periodic report No tracking Carolina North Dakota N/A No N/A Ohio Formal aspects of QA Yes review (continued )
OCR for page 195
195 TABLE G13 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS DOT Benchmark QA Report Consultant Benchmark Oklahoma Control bridge inspections at annual training Oregon ODOT Bridge No Yes Inspection QA Review Summary Sheet Pennsylvania 95% accuracy of Annual statistical analyses of the Not for individual component condition 11 individual districts and the inspection firms and appraisal ratings statewide results are produced, New measures and which includes findings, benchmarks for conclusions, and accuracy of load recommendations for ratings and inventory improvements to inspection- data are being related procedures and training. considered Rhode Island Benchmark is to No No provide reliable, accurate, and consistent bridge ratings and information. Problems are continually identified and resolved. South Dakota Currently being Currently being developed developed Tennessee Formal aspects of QA Report on differences found in review field verification of sample of bridge inspections Texas No No No Utah Sufficiency rating Performance measures are No Past due inspections presented online Deficient deck area Vermont N/A N/A Consultants not used routinely Virginia No No No Washington Results of all QA reviews will be Consultants are judged on included in an annual report to the ability to provide the FHWA. This report will local agency bridge summarize review findings with owner with correct, respect to NBIS requirements quality bridge program such as personnel qualifications, services. The agency and bridge file completeness will be responsible to (scour evaluations, load ratings, contract with consultants and inspection). that are qualified to do the work. West Virginia Under discussion None at present No Wisconsin Formal aspects of QA Program review form. Standard review format/items for review and report N/A = not applicable.
OCR for page 196
196 TABLE G14 BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAM STAFF DOT Team Leaders Load Raters Inspection Consultants Alaska Arizona Arkansas Critical findings missed or Critical findings missed or not not in inspection report in inspection report California No written definition Poor performance in QA reviews will be discussed with inspector's supervisor and office chief. Delaware Not meeting inspection Not meeting schedule; schedule; tardiness, incomplete reports consistently coding/rating incorrectly, incomplete reports Idaho Failure of on-time reports, Failure of on-time reports, frequent inconsistent frequent inconsistent reports, reports, frequent out- frequent out-tolerance tolerance condition ratings condition ratings Iowa Kentucky Lack of proper follow-up or recognition of critical needs Failure to correct findings from QC or QA reviews Recurring miscoded inventory or inspection items Recurring miscoded critical elemental items such as structural elements or SmartFlags Failure to attend continuing education classes as required Maine Lack of thoroughness, Poor engineering accuracy, safety judgment Maryland Lack of consistency and use Erroneous analysis Lack of consistency and use of of existing criteria existing criteria Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nevada Not an occurrence, yet Not an occurrence, yet Failure to conform to NDOT standards New Mexico New York Consistently missed ratings, Inaccurate load ratings Consistently missed ratings, poor documentation, and poor documentation, and missed critical findings missed critical findings North Not performing accurate Not performing accurate Failure to follow guidelines and Carolina work in a timely manner; work in a timely instructions and failure to be failure to follow manner; failure to cooperate with and respond to instructions and guidelines follow instructions and NCDOT Bridge Maintenance guidelines (continued )
OCR for page 197
197 TABLE G14 (Continued) BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAM STAFF DOT Team Leaders Load Raters Inspection Consultants North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Repeated errors, refuse to train, no response to QC/QA input, no follow-up on critical finding or posting Oregon More than four errors is poor Errors such that load More than four errors is poor capacity is not accurate Pennsylvania Not reviewed on individual Not reviewed on Not reviewed on individual basis individual basis basis Rhode Island N/A N/A Depends on nature of problem South Currently being developed Currently being Currently being developed Dakota developed Tennessee Texas Evaluation on accuracy, schedule management, level of oversight, responsiveness Districts complete evaluation form at end of work assignment, focusing on consultant firm and firm's project manager. Utah Case by case Case by case Vermont Has never been a problem or issue Virginia Not completing assignments Not completing Not completing assignments by by standards, not meeting assignments by standards, not meeting timeline standards, not meeting timeline timeline Washington Not meeting responsibilities of position West Not defined Virginia Wisconsin N/A = not applicable.
OCR for page 198
198 TABLE G15 INSPECTOR REMEDIES, DISQUALIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT DOT Inspector QA Remedies Personnel Requalify Promotion/Award Alabama Inspector not reviewed Alaska Arizona Training, coaching No policy Yes Arkansas Never had that problem No policy California Training No policy Delaware Refresher training, other training No policy No occurrence Idaho Have not had this occurrence No occurrence Iowa On-the-job training No specific procedures Significant problems could affect promotion or award Kentucky Additional training Retraining No Maine Training, recommendations on Yes performance Maryland Never encountered this issue Michigan Missouri Nevada Agency: no occurrence Consultant instructed to Agency: No Consultant: dismiss inspector remove employee Consultant: Yes Usually do not requalify New Mexico NHI course 130055 every 5 No occurrence No years New York Training, additional quality Consultants respond to No review, remedial discussion DOT instructions North Further coaching and training by Consultants must Yes, review results are Carolina supervisors demonstrate leadership taken into consideration changes and personnel for promotions and changes consultant selection. North Dakota Training or removal from team Training and appeal to Yes Bridge Engineer Ohio No policy Oregon Training, additional quality Agency: No review Consultant: Yes, some Inspector could lose certification influence on selection Pennsylvania Training; additional review; Retesting is allowed No occurrence addressed by supervisor. QA does not formally evaluate individuals. Rhode Island Depends on problem Depends on problem Potentially South Dakota Currently being developed Texas Consultant: Training and actions Consultant: Must Agency: personnel recommended by project demonstrate actions to review issue manager; discussion correct deficiencies Consultant: QA affects firm rank in selection process Utah Case by case Case by case Yes, but situation has not occurred (continued )
OCR for page 199
199 TABLE G15 (Continued) INSPECTOR REMEDIES, DISQUALIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT DOT Inspector QA Remedies Personnel Requalify Promotion/Award Vermont Discussion to find out why the Has never been done difference, perception, timing of the inspection (accelerating deterioration), etc. Virginia Counseling, training Training and reevaluation Yes of personnel Washington Coaching, training, Training as new inspector 10% weight demonstrations, additional quality review West Virginia Coaching, specific instruction on No policy No correction