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
