National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bridge Inspection Practices (2007)

Chapter: Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs

« Previous: Appendix F - Details for Inspection Types and Intervals
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Details for Quality Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Bridge Inspection Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14127.
×
Page 199

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

170 APPENDIX G Details for Quality Programs 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 TABLE G1 QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTS

171 DOT Personnel Qualification Note Alabama Emergency Bridge Inspection Team + selected personnel Team leader QC/QA Alaska Bridge Management Engineer + selected team leaders Team leader QC/QA Bridge Management Leader QA review engineer Team leader QC/QA Arizona Bridge report review office engineer Team leader QC Arkansas District Construction Engineer Team leader QC/QA Quality Assurance Senior Specialist (senior bridge engineer specialist) QC/QA Quality Control Administrator (Caltrans administrator) QC/QA Quality Control Engineer (Transportation Engineer Range D) QC/QA Quality Management Program Manager (supervising senior bridge engineer) QC/QA California Temporary QA inspectors Volunteers from the inspection staff rotate in every 6 months Manager Bridge Safety and Evaluation Program manager QA; sets policy Senior Engineer designated as QA Engineer Team leader QC/QA QA inspection team (selected team leaders) Team leader QA Supervising Engineer for each area (region) Team leader QC/QA Connecticut Quality Control Engineer Team leader QC Bridge Inspection Manager/Engineer Team leader QC/QA Delaware Bridge Maintenance Engineer Team leader QC/QA Eastern Federal Lands Peer Team Leaders Team leader QC Bridge Inspection and Evaluation Engineer Team Leader w/PE QC/QA Bridge Maintenance and Planning Engineer PE QA Bridge Management Systems Engineer PE QA Bridge Management Systems Quality Control Engineer PE QA Florida Engineer of Structures Maintenance PE QA Idaho Program Manager Team leaders Database Manager Team leader QA Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer Team leader w/PE QA Iowa Staff Engineers in Bridge Maintenance and Inspection Unit, Office of Bridges and Structures Team leader QC District Bridge Engineers QC Kentucky Program Manager Team leader QA (continued ) TABLE G2 PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

172 Area Bridge Inspection Engineer (QA engineer) Team leader QC/QA Bridge Inspection Engineer (QA supervisor) Program manager QA Massachusetts District Bridge Inspection Engineer Team leader QC/QA Bridge owner Team leader QC Michigan Program Manager selects consultants QA work done by contract Team leader QA Minnesota State Bridge Maintenance Engineer (state-owned bridges) QC Supervising Bridge Inspection Engineer (state-owned bridges) QC Missouri Structural Services Engineer (non- state bridges) QC District Bridge Inspection Coordinator QC Bridge management, central office, Helena QA Montana QA inspection teams are peers from other districts Team leader QA Nevada Manager I, Registered PE (program manager) Program manager QC/QA Team leaders for district-level peer reviews PE or team leader QC DOT Management Analyst + Consultant Management Analyst Team leader QA New Mexico Design Engineer PE QC New York Civil Engineer II—QC Engineer Team leader w/PE QC/QA State Inspection Superintendent, Inspection Program Manager Program manager QC/QA North Carolina Inspection Area Supervisor Team leader QC/QA North Dakota Bridge Inspection Manager Team leader QC/QA Bridge Inspection Engineer Bridge Management Engineer Program manager w/PE QA Consultants may perform quality assurance review for local agencies PE + 10 years experience QA District Bridge Engineer QC Ohio Reviewer of Safety Inspections Team leader w/PE QC Oklahoma Reviewing Engineer—Peer Team Leader QC Oregon Bridge Operations Engineer Senior Bridge Inspector Bridge Inspection Database Coordinator Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator Team leader QC/QA DOT Personnel Qualification Note Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer Team leader QC/QA Human Resources QA Maine Bridge Management Engineer Team leader QC/QA Inspection team Team leader 1st QC/QA review Maryland Senior Project Team Leader for Inspection Team leader 2nd QC/QA review (continued ) TABLE G2 (Continued) PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

173 Program Manager Program manager QC/QA Utah DOT District Staff Team leader QA review of consultants Civil Engineer IV—PE not required Team leader QC Vermont Team leader QA Regional Inspection Manager Team leader QC Virginia State Bridge Inspection Program Manager Program manager QC/QA Bridge Inspection Supervisors Team leader + annual inspection training QC State Bridge Inspection Program Manager (Engineer II) Program manager QA Consultant services, but future will be DOT QA staff Team leader QA for state bridges Washington DOT Local Agency Bridge Engineer + FHWA Division Engineer. Team leader QA for local bridges Selected district staff, such as Bridge Evaluation Engineer QC West Virginia State Bridge Evaluation Engineer Program manager QC/QA District Program Manager Program manager QA reviews of local government programs Wisconsin State Program Manager Program manager QA reviews of DOT districts Bridge Quality Assurance Division + Assistant Chief Bridge Engineer (head) Team leader w/engineering degree Permanent staff for QA statewide Bridge Inspection QA Manager Team leader w/PE QA District Bridge Inspection Manager (11 statewide) Team leader + several years experience District QC Pennsylvania Internal (district) Review Engineer QC Rhode Island Bridge Operations Engineer Team leader QA Region Bridge Specialist QC South Dakota Bridge Appraisal Engineer QC Manager SI&A PE QA Manager, Headquarters Inspection and Repair Office QC Regional Bridge Engineers QC in region Tennessee Bridge Evaluators QC Inspection Engineering Supervisor QC Texas Bridge Division Team leader QA review of districts DOT Personnel Qualification Note TABLE G2 (Continued) PERSONNEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

174 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 agency Personnel named in contract Arizona NBIS Annual review of qualifications Arkansas NBIS Personnel records California Certification and registration Personnel database has 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 have experience and training Personnel named in proposal Iowa NBIS Personnel files have experience and training Kentucky NBIS Personnel files have experience, training, and education Same for all individuals engaged in NBIS 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: Structural Service Engineer approves all team leaders Personnel files have qualifications and resumes 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 to field work QA approval of inspectors before field work North Carolina NBIS Personnel files (continued ) TABLE G3 QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION LEADERS

175 Rhode Island NBIS Personnel files contain qualifications Consultant qualifications on file South Dakota Bridge Operations Engineer certifies Qualifications and training tracked by Bridge Operations Engineer Tennessee NBIS QA review of personnel qualifications Texas NBIS Human resources files using PeopleSoft NBIS qualifications tracked 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 Office listing Team Leader qualifications Annual report to Central Office listing Team 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. DOT Certification Agency Consultants North Dakota NBIS MS Access database of active bridge inspectors Ohio Review/approval of regional bridge manager Statement of training at hiring Oklahoma NBIS Record of refresher training at 24-month intervals Record of refresher training at 24-month intervals Oregon Certification renewed every 5 years Updated resume is reviewed at 5 years Pennsylvania List of certification status Personnel who attend PennDOT Basic Bridge Safety Inspection Training, and Refresher List of trained consultants TABLE G3 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION LEADERS

176 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 engineer Bridge management leader Review and revise Arkansas All inspection reports Pontis software validation Load rater’s review Coordinate with inspection team to correct errors California QC staff All inspection reports Quality control engineer Cross check condition ratings, photographs, notes, and maintenance recommendations Confer with leader, if necessary Review and sign All inspection reports for Class III bridges (complex) Transportation Engineer III (Senior Engineer) Cross check condition ratings, photographs, notes, and maintenance recommendations Confer with leader, if necessary Review and sign All load ratings Quality control engineer Confirm inputs to calculations; note age/condition context of load rating Connecticut All load ratings for Class III bridges (complex) Supervising engineer Confirm inputs to calculations; note age/condition context of load rating All inspection reports Inspection team Revise/correct as needed prior to download to central office Delaware All inspection reports Bridge inspection manager Review after download to central office Eastern Federal Lands All inspection reports Peer team leader Signs All inspection reports District bridge inspection supervisor or peer team leader Review is logged Discussion with inspection team, if needed Reviewer signs Florida All inspection reports for state-owned bridges Engineering section PE signs final report All inspection reports Database manager Review, discuss with inspection team if needed Idaho Spot checks of inspection reports Program manager Illinois All inspection reports Bureau of Bridges and Structures, unit supervisor Iowa All inspection reports Independent technical team member Discuss/resolve with inspection team Bridge condition report is signed by PE, after review of inspection report All inspection reports District bridge engineer Primary review in district Discuss/resolve with inspection team Kentucky All inspection reports DOT central office Secondary review at DOT central office All inspection reports Assistant bridge maintenance engineer Review for NBI rating errors Discuss/resolve with inspection team Sign completed review Maine All inspection reports Bridge manager and IT groups Review for data errors Discuss/resolve with inspection team (continued ) TABLE G4 QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS

177 Michigan All inspection reports Reviewer signs and dates Minnesota All load ratings Rater signs with PE number Missouri All inspection reports NBI edit program Team responds to error codes All inspection reports Peer team leader Review; discuss/resolve with inspection team Montana 5% sample of inspection reports District bridge inspection coordinator Check for completeness, consistency with previous report Nevada All inspection reports QC reviewer Discuss/resolve with inspection team leader Element-level (Pontis) data DOT Cross check element-level data and related NJ–NBI fields. New Jersey uses additional NBI-style rating fields that identify defects much as SmartFlags do. 20% of inspection reports DOT Thorough review; inspection by consultant 80% of inspection reports DOT Review focused on certain aspects; inspection by consultant 10% of inspection reports DOT Field verification All inspection reports for complex bridges DOT Thorough review All inspection reports for movable bridges DOT Thorough review 10% of inspection reports by other agencies DOT Thorough review 90% of inspection reports by other agencies DOT Review focused on certain aspects. Inspection by consultant. New Jersey All diver’s reports Consultant Review and attach to bridge inspection report 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 New Mexico As needed Design engineer Reviews items noted by district New York All inspection reports Quality control engineer Review using standard checklist Discuss/resolve with team leader Sign and submit to DOT main office DOT Review Set Review by Action All inspection reports Team leader Return to team member for revision Maryland 50% of inspection reports Office review All inspection reports District bridge inspection engineer Review for completeness, consistency All with NBI condition rating 4 or less Area bridge inspection engineer Review poor condition Massachusetts 10% sample of reports Area bridge inspection engineer Review for completeness, consistency (continued ) TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS

178 DOT Review Set Review by Action 10% sample of inspection reports for posted bridges Bridge inspection supervisor 25% sample of inspection reports for fracture-critical members Bridge inspection supervisor Sample of routine inspection reports last quarter Bridge engineer Posted bridges Bridge engineer Review posting and maintenance recommendations Fracture-critical members Bridge engineer Review fracture-critical list and plans for repair or replacement All load postings, non-state bridges DOT district District reviews all posting by local agencies All new load postings Assistant district engineer for design Verify posting All large changes in condition Assistant district engineer for design Verify report All inspection reports Consultant PE stamp on report by consultant Rhode Island All inspection reports DOT engineers DOT supervisors Internal checks for consistency of data All inspection reports Region bridge specialist Review reports at region before submission to bridge appraisal engineer South Dakota All inspection reports Bridge appraisal engineer Discuss/resolve with inspector Perform appraisal ratings Send to file All load ratings and postings Supervisor of bridge evaluators Sample of load ratings and postings SI&A manager SI&A assistant manager Tennessee All inspection reports, non-state bridges Bridge owner Owner affirms to DOT that QC review is performed All load ratings, non-state bridges Bridge owner Owner affirms to DOT that QC review is performed Pennsylvania 10% sample of routine inspection reports Bridge Inspection Supervisor All inspection reports Analysis section Statewide comparisons of reports 5% of inspection reports Bridge inspection superintendent Office review North Carolina 10% of inspection reports Area supervisor Field review North Dakota Spot review All inspection reports Team leader Team QC review before submission All inspection reports PE in district Ohio All load ratings District structure rating engineer Review and approve Oklahoma All inspection reports Reviewing engineer All inspection reports Senior bridge inspection engineer Local agency bridge inspection coordinator Review, notify inspector of record, submit revised report Oregon All inspection reports Bridge inspection database coordinator Runs NBI edit/update program Resolve errors (continued ) TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS

All inspection reports for local-owned bridges Program manager for local agency Review before submission WSDOT Bridge Inventory Engineer. All inspection reports for local-owned bridges DOT Bridge Inventory Engineer Final review before download to WSBIS All inspection reports Database engineer Proofread for data errors 10% sample of inspection reports Region inspection supervisor Reviews Discuss/resolve errors with team leader Approve and submit to database engineer Inspection reports with deck, superstructure or substructure rating less than 6 Region inspection supervisor Review for NBI condition ratings Inspection reports with repairs or conditions to be monitoring Region inspection supervisor Review for repair or condition Inspection reports for new bridges Region inspection supervisor Inspection reports for fracture-critical bridges Region inspection supervisor Inspection reports for local-agency bridges Region inspection supervisor Underwater inspection report Diver Report is prepared by team leader and 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. 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 engineer District bridge engineer Reviews, initials, dates All inspection reports for local-owned bridges District structure Engineer District bridge engineer Virginia All inspection reports for state-maintained bridges Structure and Bridge Division, Central Washington All inspection reports Washington State Bridge Inventory System (WSBIS) Software check for valid data Errors returned to team leader DOT Review Set Review by Action All inspection reports Agency staff Software check on valid data entries Utah Sample of inspections Agency and FHWA staff Periodic validation of inspection reports Vermont Sample of inspection reports Civil Engineer IV Field verification of inspection All inspection reports Central bridge division Software check during database update; consultant corrects errors as needed All inspection reports District personnel Review of reports from inspection consultants 10% sample of inspection reports District personnel Review of reports with field verification Texas All inspection reports Consultant Consultant PE stamps report All inspection reports Bridge evaluators Compare condition ratings, photographs, notes, and main tenance reco mme ndations Underwater inspection reports Report stamped by PE Inspection reports for mi nor structures Bridge evaluators TABLE G4 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL OF INSPECTION REPORTS

180 DOT Inspections and Reports Data/Database Repairs and Follow-Up Alabam a Tim ely com pletion checked at QA review Team subm its standard form for ma intenance needs Progress reported on standard form Connecticut Reports within 90 days of inspection; reviewed within 45 days of subm ission Team notes repairs during routine inspection Florida Routing log used to schedule inspection, submit report, and com plete review of report All reports must be complete within 45 days Team notes repairs during routine inspection Em ergency and critical repairs exam ined prom ptly after completion Montana Tim ely completion tracked in QC New Jersey 90 days to subm it report. SI&A data mu st have QA/QC review North Carolina Inspection schedules and m onthly progress reports track work Ohio Report within 90 days for state bridges; within 180 days for local-agency bridges Oklahom a QC report is a collection of reviewed inspection reports, showing the errors/changes; QC report is stam ped by the reviewing engineer Pennsylvania The 11 PennDOT districts each keep a log of QC activities Texas Monthly status report to track overdue inspections District tracks consultant progress Monthly status report to track database errors Utah Monthly progress m eetings Washington Inspections ma pped in GIS and tracked to ensure com pletion within inspection year Database status: “In-work” for reports in preparation; mo st reports co mp leted in one week. Large bridges take longer. WSBIS keeps reports and status as in-work, co mp leted, in-review, approved, or co mmitted Electronic repair list ma nager is published to Internet twice a year for tracking and reporting. Bridge Preservation Supervisor reviews completed repairs SI&A = Structural Inventory and Appraisal; GIS = geographic information systems; WSBIS = Washington State Bridge Inventory System. TABLE G5 INSPECTION TRACKING: QUALITY CONTROL REPORTS—REPAIRS

181 DOT Field Review of Teams Review by Interval Action Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Field QC by team leader Team leader self check Every inspection Leader’s self check of team, equipment, methods Connecticut Every team—Site visit QC Engineer Twice a year Standard QC checklist Discuss results with team Copies to leader and to supervising engineer Delaware Every team—Site visit District Bridge Inspection Supervisor Periodically Observe team at work Log the visit Discuss with team Every team— Verify inspection District Bridge Inspection Supervisor 3 months Verify report in separate visit to site Log the event Discuss with team Consultant teams—Site visit Agency bridge inspection office 3 months each team Field observation of team at work Florida Consultant teams—Verify inspection Agency bridge inspection office 5% of inspections Field verify inspection report Idaho Iowa Kentucky Field review for QC items Leader and District Bridge Engineer Case by case Resolve items from QC review of reports Maine Maryland Every team—Site visit District Bridge Inspection Engineering Periodic Observe team at work Massachusetts Every team— Field evaluation Area Bridge Inspection Engineer District Bridge Inspection Engineer Twice a year Field review for timeliness, safety, access, preparation Discuss findings with team Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nevada New Jersey Bridge sample— Verify inspections DOT 10% of state bridges New Mexico New York Every team—Site visit QC Engineer 6 months Observe team at work (continued ) TABLE G6 QUALITY CONTROL FIELD REVIEW OF INSPECTIONS AND INSPECTION TEAMS

182 Oklahoma Every team leader—Verify inspection Reviewing engineer 5 bridges/2 years Field verification of current inspection report Oregon One team (rotating)— Verify inspection Bridge Inspection Supervisor 4 bridges/month Verify Log event Comments to team Four bridge sample—Verify inspection Bridge Engineer 4 bridges/ 3 months Verify Log event Comments to Bridge Inspection Supervisor Team sample— Site visit District Engineer or Assistant District Engineer for Design Twice a year Observe team at work, discuss, log QC effort Unannounced visit Pennsylvania Bridge sample— Verify inspection District Engineer or Assistant District Engineer for Design 2 bridges, twice a year Log event, feedback to Bridge Engineer and Bridge Inspection Supervisor Rhode Island Bridge sample— Verify inspection DOT staff South Dakota Texas Bridge sample— Verify inspection District personnel 10% of inspections Part of report QC Utah Vermont Bridge sample— Verify inspection Compare with current inspection report Virginia Every team leader—Verify inspection District Structure and Bridge Engineer 3 months Log of QC field visits For bridges maintained by the state Washington West Virginia Bridge sample— Verify inspection Maintenance Division District Staff Random field visits Wisconsin DOT Field Review of Teams Review by Interval Action Every team— Verify inspections Bridge Inspection Superintendent 3 bridges per team per 2 years Feedback to team Bridge sample— Verify inspection Area supervisor 2 weeks Bridge sample— Verify inspection Bridge Inspection Superintendent 10% of inspections North Carolina Every team— Verify inspection Bridge Inspection Superintendent 24 months North Dakota Team sample— Site visit Ohio TABLE G6 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL FIELD REVIEW OF INSPECTIONS AND INSPECTION TEAMS

183 DOT Consultant Review QC QA Alabama Consultants are included in QA review of DOT division. A Alaska QC by DOT team leader A Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Consultant’s project engineer C Delaware Consultant’s project manager C Florida DOT project manager makes periodic review of consultant records and procedures. Consultant must have written QC plan. C A Idaho Agency team leader reviews consultant’s reports. A Iowa QC by consultant C Kentucky DOT’s manager for consultant contract A Maine Consultant + DOT Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer C, A Maryland QC by consultant C Massachusetts Michigan Bridge owner A Minnesota Supervising Bridge Inspection Engineer for state bridges A Missouri Structural Services Engineer for non-state bridges A Nevada Consultant’s PE project manager C New Jersey Consultant staff reviews their reports. DOT contract manager reviews consultant submissions. C A New Mexico All reports signed and reviewed Database entry and review by DOT NBI changes reviewed by DOT C, A New York Consultant PE designated as QC engineer C North Carolina Consultants perform their own QC C North Dakota Consultant must have QC plan in place C Ohio Consultant reviews inspection reports C Oregon Local agency makes first review. DOT’s Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator reviews at entry to state database system. A Pennsylvania Consultant follows contract QC plan. District Bridge Inspection Manager approves consultant QC plan. C A Rhode Island Consultant’s PE makes QC review. DOT verifies QC plan and execution. C A South Dakota Texas DOT reviews 10% of office work and 7% of field work. Consultant’s performance information is documented using an evaluation process by the TxDOT. A Utah DOT reviews qualifications of consultant staff. A Vermont Virginia QC by consultant staff QA by DOT Engineer I C, A A Washington QC by hiring agency (may be local bridge owner) QA by DOT Regional Inspection Supervisor A A Washington Underwater and equipment inspections: inspections visited during site work A West Virginia DOT performs desk reviews and selected field reviews of inspection work. A A Wisconsin Notes: A = agency or DOT; C = consultant. TABLE G7 QUALITY CONTROL FOR INSPECTIONS BY CONSULTANTS

184 DOT QC Program Validation Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Random review of four bridges per year per district California Program manager validates with input from office chiefs and staff Connecticut Manager of Bridge Safety and Evaluation determines changes/improvements to QC Delaware Idaho FHWA approval Iowa Processing of biennial inspection data is randomly assigned to the technical team members and staff engineers. Kentucky Annual in-house training Maine General consistency review of data Maryland Monthly inspection status/summary report Massachusetts Oversight by Area Bridge Inspection Engineer Michigan QA review validates QC practices Minnesota Missouri Montana Annual district-level internal review of QC plan with report to state Bridge Management Engineer Nevada 10% QA sample to validate QC New Mexico New York QA is check on QC North Carolina Annual review and discussion with FHWA North Dakota Central office reinspects 5%–10% of structures; comparison with inspector results Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island QC procedures are reviewed as needed South Dakota In development Tennessee Texas Bridge division does office and field reviews of districts; includes review of district QC procedures Utah Periodic refresher training for inspectors Vermont Informal; no written procedures exist at this time Virginia QA is validation of QC Washington Local agency QC procedures reviewed in QA by state West Virginia Independent review of inspections Wisconsin TABLE G8 VALIDATION OF QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS

185 DOT Target Office Review Field Review Reviewer QA Report Alabama District Yes Central— Emergency bridge inspection team Report using standard form To DOT Division, Central Office, and FHWA Alaska QC methods Arizona District Yes Verify inspection reports QA team Recommendations for additional training Arkansas District Yes Verify four inspection reports QA report using standard form California Yes Yes QA team (supervisors) Quarterly report Discussion with inspection teams Connecticut Yes Yes Independent inspection QA Manager QA inspection team QA report to Manager of Bridge Safety and Evaluation Section Delaware Team Yes Verify three inspections per team leader Bridge Inspection Manager QA report of field verification Idaho QA process in development Iowa Team Yes Review two inspection reports Yes Observe team at two sites Area Bridge Maintenance Engineer Report of review Kentucky District Yes Program Manager Internal report of review Discussion with district staff Maine Yes Training records Staff performance reviews Maryland Yes Audit of inspection QA record of audit District Yes Bridge Inspection Engineer Area Bridge Inspection Engineer District Bridge Inspection Engineer Massachusetts Team Yes Inspection report Yes Site visit to team Area Bridge Inspection Engineer District Bridge Inspection Engineer Standard form for QA field review of team Standard form for QA review of inspection Discuss with team Michigan QC methods (continued ) TABLE G9 BASIC ELEMENTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW

186 Nevada Team Yes Review inspection reports Yes Independent audit inspections QA record of audit New Jersey Inspection consultant Yes Review of inspection reports Report to Consultant Evaluation Rating System New Mexico Inspection report Yes Review of significant condition Design Engineer Engineer’s input on significant condition or finding District Yes Civil Engineer II, Main Office Acceptance of inspection reports Inspection report Yes Inspection Liaison Engineer Standard checklist for review of report New York Team Yes Structures Division Standard form for field review of team North Carolina Inspection report Yes Independent inspection Bridge Inspection Supervisor + FHWA In-depth inspection, followed by discussion at close-out meeting North Dakota Team Yes Peer team Discussion among teams District Yes Statewide QA Review QA report to Program Manager Inspection report Yes State Program Manager District Program Manager Review of selected reports for routine inspections, special inspections, deficient bridges, load- posted bridges Ohio Team Yes Statewide QA Review Discussion with inspector of record District Yes Verify inspections Report of field review State Yes Control bridges Annual training for team leaders Oklahoma Team Yes Verify inspections Reviewing engineer Report of field review District Yes Yes Peer teams from other districts Report of review Oregon DOT Target Office Review Field Review Reviewer QA Report Minnesota District Yes Missouri QC methods District Yes Inspection reports Yes Independent inspection Bridge Management Section QA report to state Bridge Engineer Discuss with district at staff meeting Montana QA procedures Yes Internal self-audit Bridge Management Section QA report to state Bridge Engineer Internal discussion in section (continued ) TABLE G9 (Continued) BASIC ELEMENTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW

187 Team Yes Verify inspections Peer team Discussion among team and peer team Summary sheet of the review Pennsylvania District Yes Yes Independent inspection Bridge Quality Assurance Division (central) District summary report Discussion at close-out meeting Annual statewide summary Rhode Island QC methods South Dakota In development Tennessee District Yes Yes Verify inspection report Manager SI&A Report itemizing deficiencies Texas Team Yes Inspection report QA record of review Utah Inspection report Yes Audit of report Yes Independent inspection PE or peer inspection team Scorecard for QA review DOT Target Office Review Field Review Reviewer QA Report District Yes Report including QA checklist Virginia Team Yes Verify inspection report Record of review Recommendations for improvement in next cycle District Yes Inspection report Yes Verify inspection report Regional Bridge Inspection Engineer Report on discrepancies Team leader Yes Site visit during work Employee Development and Performance Plan Washington Underwater inspection Yes Site visit during work West Virginia QC methods Wisconsin District Yes Yes DOT central office Standard reporting forms Vermont Inspection report Yes Independent inspection Civil Engineer IV Notes of review to inspector of record SI&A = Structural Inventory and Appraisal. TABLE G9 (Continued) BASIC ELEMENTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW

188 DOT Bridge Review Unit Unit Bridge Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Review Current Inspection Report Review Bridge File Review Load Rating Alabama Division Alaska 100% report review by peer leader Arizona Region 10% of bridges Bridges in region Yes Arkansas 40 bridges Random selection Yes Yes California 2% of bridges Random, but represent fracture- critical, timber, and posted bridges Yes Yes Yes Connecticut State/entire program Representative sample Independent inspection Representative sample of bridges Delaware 24 full QA/QC reviews Site visit by Bridge Inspection Manager and Bridge Management Engineer Random selection Florida Inspection team Yes Site visit by Bridge Inspection Supervisor Random selection of team’s bridges Idaho Random number Random selection Yes Yes Iowa Inspection team 2 bridges; field visit with team 2 bridges; independent QA inspection Bridges for inspection team Kentucky District 5 bridges per district Independent inspection Random, but representative sample Selection not tied to teams Yes Yes Yes Maine 100 to 150 bridges Review by Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, Bridge Management Engineer, and the Bridge Design Engineer Bridges in poor condition Yes Yes Yes Maryland 50% of bridges Random selection Yes Massachusetts Inspection team Yes Formal comparison of condition ratings from inspection and from review Michigan District or local agency 5% of bridges for each unit or program Yes Yes Yes Minnesota District or local government 2 or 3 bridges Verification of condition and inventory data Missouri Montana 5% of bridges Independent inspection Nevada 10% of bridges Random selection in district Include all bridge types Represent all inspectors Yes Yes New Mexico 40 bridges Random Bridges with questionable sufficiency rating Yes Yes (continued ) TABLE G10 QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS

189 Region 5% of regional inventory Worst bridges. Owner concernOregon Statewide Goal: 300 (5%); actual: ~175 bridges Poor condition; needing rehab New to inventory; load capacity issue; shoring in place Yes Yes Pennsylvania Statewide 345 bridges per cycle Type, length, sufficiency rating Inspected last 6 months Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island 5 per year Bridge type Condition and age Yes Yes Yes South Dakota Currently being developed Currently being developed DOT Bridge Review Unit Unit Bridge Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Review Current Inspection Report Review Bridge File Review Load Rating Tennessee Each region, annually Sampling, annually Reinspection of bridges Texas Districts 10% of bridges 100% database review By districts; at random as check on consultant By division; poor condition, scour problems, posted, priority rehabilitation Yes Yes Yes Utah 1% of inspections Recently inspected Poor condition ratings Yes Yes Yes Vermont 1% bridges per year Random based on inspection area Yes Virginia District 150 bridges (1.5%) Two bridges per team Last six months inspection Critical recommendations, fracture critical, fatigue prone, bridge type, ADT, load ratings Yes Yes Yes Regional/local 3 per team leader; ~100 bridges Random Condition—posting, scour critical, material type, critical issues Selected for team leader Yes Yes Yes Washington Inspection team leader 5 bridges per 24 months Field verification by reviewing engineer; team leader is present for verification Bridges for team leader Oklahoma Inspecting agency 5 bridges per 24 months New York 25% of bridges Random—Bridges with condition rating 5 or lower. Bridges with critical findings (flags) Yes Inspection team 10% of inspections 3 bridges per team per 2-year cycle No overlap with other field visits, field reinspections, etc. Bridges selected for inspection team Yes Yes North Carolina Statewide 2 or 3 bridges Independent inspection North Dakota 5% to 10% of bridges Random, selected in various districts Yes Yes Ohio District or other inspection program 2 to 5 bridges per 24 months Report and bridge file taken to field for verification; this is called QC Review performed with inspector of record Deficient bridges Unique problems or features (continued ) TABLE G10 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS

190 DOT Bridge Review Unit Unit Bridge Reviews Review Activity Basis for Bridge Selection Review Current Inspection Report Review Bridge File Review Load Rating Statewide Sampling Verification of current report UBIT access West Virginia 45% of bridges Random selection Yes Yes District—Level 1 QA review 3 bridges Bridges on replacement list Unusual features or problems Wisconsin Local Government —Level 2 QA review 2 bridges Bridges on replacement list Unusual features or problems ADT = average daily traffic; UBIT = under bridge inspection trucks. TABLE G10 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF BRIDGE INSPECTIONS

191 DOT Team/Team Leader Interval Region/District 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 12 months Central office review of submitted documents 12 months Field review of districts Montana 12 months 5% bridges independent inspection Nevada 4 months 12 months New Mexico 36 months 36 months New York 12 months 12 months North Carolina Monthly N/A North Dakota 48 months, state 48 months, county Ohio 48 months, city, town, village Oklahoma 24 months 24 months Oregon 12 months 12 months 12 months Annual meeting 12 months Annual review of each district Pennsylvania 24 months, local agencies Rhode Island N/A South Dakota Currently being developed Tennessee 12 months, all regions (continued ) TABLE G11 QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVALS

192 DOT Team/Team Leader Interval Region/District Interval Note Texas At the end of each work assignment 48 months Utah Vermont Varies, no specific interval Virginia Washington 12 months 36 months for local agencies West Virginia 24 to 36 months 24 months, state program Wisconsin 48 months, local programs N/A = not applicable. TABLE G11 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVALS

193 DOT Object Tolerance Alaska NBI rating, change Change of 2 or more in one cycle must be justified Arizona NBI rating ±1 NBI rating ±1 Arkansas Load rating 10% California Engineering calculations Independent check of calculations NBI ratings 5 and up ±1 NBI rating 4 or lower 0 Delaware Element-level condition No values set NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition No set values Idaho Inventory load rating 5% Iowa NBI condition rating ±1 NBI condition rating ±1 Kentucky Element-level condition ±1 NBI condition rating ±1 Maine Load rating 10% Maryland NBI condition rating ±1 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri NBI condition rating ±1 Nevada Element-level condition Significant deviation in quantities New Mexico NBI condition rating ±1 NYS condition rating ±1 New York NYS element rating ±1 NBI condition rating ±1 Set of NBI ratings ±1 North Carolina Load rating Unwarranted rating or posting NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 North Dakota Load rating 10% NBI condition rating ±1 Ohio Element-level condition ±1 Oklahoma 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 Oregon Load rating—Complex bridge or load Restriction Prepared by PE; reviewed by PE NBI condition rating ±1 Load rating ±15% Pennsylvania Posted bridge load rating ±2 tons NBI condition rating ±1 Rhode Island Element-level condition Depends on element South Dakota Currently being developed NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±1 Texas Load rating Incorrect values or configuration Utah NBI condition rating ±1 NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition ±5% Vermont Load rating All load ratings are “as new” NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition 10% Virginia Load rating 10% Element-level condition 15% Washington Load rating Ratings updated as needed NBI condition rating ±1 Element-level condition N/A West Virginia Load rating Nothing definitive Wisconsin NYS = New York State; EIT = engineer in training; N/A = not applicable. TABLE G12 ASPECTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW

194 DOT Benchmark QA Report Consultant Benchmark FHWA Framework Bridge sampling and validation Results of sampling and review Included Alabama Recommended actions to correct deficiencies Formal aspects of QA review Yes, by division to central, to division, and to FHWA Included in field review, especially for cities and counties Alaska Arizona None established No No Arkansas No policy No No California Findings of QA inspections We plan on a newsletter 3 to 4 times per year that would describe findings, program news, and training articles. Connecticut QA reports for programs and for teams Delaware Previous QA/QC results Within our own section we keep records No Florida Compliance with QC plans Field observation of teams 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 of data; adequacy of data for planning and programming network No No Maryland None No No Massachusetts Formal aspects of QA review Yes Michigan Minnesota Formal aspects of QA review Yes 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 Carolina No benchmarks No periodic report No tracking North Dakota N/A No N/A Ohio Formal aspects of QA review Yes (continued ) TABLE G13 QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS

195 Rhode Island Benchmark is to provide reliable, accurate, and consistent bridge ratings and information. Problems are continually identified and resolved. No No South Dakota Currently being developed Currently being developed Tennessee Formal aspects of QA review Report on differences found in field verification of sample of bridge inspections Texas No No No Utah Sufficiency rating Past due inspections Deficient deck area Performance measures are presented online No Vermont N/A N/A Consultants not used routinely Virginia No No No Washington Results of all QA reviews will be included in an annual report to FHWA. This report will summarize review findings with respect to NBIS requirements such as personnel qualifications, and bridge file completeness (scour evaluations, load ratings, and inspection). Consultants are judged on the ability to provide the local agency bridge owner with correct, quality bridge program services. The agency will be responsible to contract with consultants that are qualified to do the work. West Virginia Under discussion None at present No Wisconsin Formal aspects of QA review Program review form. Standard format/items for review and report N/A = not applicable. DOT Benchmark QA Report Consultant Benchmark Oklahoma Control bridge inspections at annual training Oregon ODOT Bridge Inspection QA Review Summary Sheet No Yes Pennsylvania 95% accuracy of component condition and appraisal ratings New measures and benchmarks for accuracy of load ratings and inventory data are being considered Annual statistical analyses of the 11 individual districts and the statewide results are produced, which includes findings, conclusions, and recommendations for improvements to inspection- related procedures and training. Not for individual inspection firms TABLE G13 (Continued) QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS

196 DOT Team Leaders Load Raters Inspection Consultants Alaska Arizona Arkansas Critical findings missed or not in inspection report Critical findings missed or not 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 schedule; tardiness, consistently coding/rating incorrectly, incomplete reports Not meeting schedule; incomplete reports Idaho Failure of on-time reports, frequent inconsistent reports, frequent out- tolerance condition ratings Failure of on-time reports, frequent inconsistent reports, frequent out-tolerance 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, accuracy, safety Poor engineering judgment Maryland Lack of consistency and use of existing criteria Erroneous analysis Lack of consistency and use of 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, poor documentation, and missed critical findings Inaccurate load ratings Consistently missed ratings, poor documentation, and missed critical findings North Carolina Not performing accurate work in a timely manner; failure to follow instructions and guidelines Not performing accurate work in a timely manner; failure to follow instructions and guidelines Failure to follow guidelines and instructions and failure to be cooperate with and respond to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance (continued ) TABLE G14 BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAM STAFF

197 Rhode Island N/A N/A Depends on nature of problem South Dakota Currently being developed Currently being developed Currently being 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 by standards, not meeting timeline Not completing assignments by standards, not meeting timeline Not completing assignments by standards, not meeting timeline Washington Not meeting responsibilities of position West Virginia Not defined Wisconsin N/A = not applicable. 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 capacity is not accurate More than four errors is poor Pennsylvania Not reviewed on individual basis Not reviewed on individual basis Not reviewed on individual basis TABLE G14 (Continued) BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAM STAFF

198 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 performance Yes Maryland Never encountered this issue Michigan Missouri Nevada Agency: no occurrence Consultant: dismiss inspector Consultant instructed to remove employee Usually do not requalify Agency: No Consultant: Yes New Mexico NHI course 130055 every 5 years No occurrence No New York Training, additional quality review, remedial discussion Consultants respond to DOT instructions No North Carolina Further coaching and training by supervisors Consultants must demonstrate leadership changes and personnel changes Yes, review results are taken into consideration for promotions and consultant selection. North Dakota Training or removal from team Training and appeal to Bridge Engineer Yes Ohio No policy Oregon Training, additional quality review Inspector could lose certification Agency: No Consultant: Yes, some influence on selection Pennsylvania Training; additional review; addressed by supervisor. QA does not formally evaluate individuals. Retesting is allowed No occurrence Rhode Island Depends on problem Depends on problem Potentially South Dakota Currently being developed Texas Consultant: Training and actions recommended by project manager; discussion Consultant: Must demonstrate actions to correct deficiencies Agency: personnel review issue Consultant: QA affects firm rank in selection process Utah Case by case Case by case Yes, but situation has not occurred (continued ) TABLE G15 INSPECTOR REMEDIES, DISQUALIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT

199 DOT Inspector QA Remedies Personnel Requalify Promotion/Award Vermont Discussion to find out why the difference, perception, timing of the inspection (accelerating deterioration), etc. Has never been done Virginia Counseling, training Training and reevaluation of personnel Yes Washington Coaching, training, demonstrations, additional quality review Training as new inspector 10% weight West Virginia Coaching, specific instruction on correction No policy No TABLE G15 (Continued) INSPECTOR REMEDIES, DISQUALIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Bridge Inspection Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 375: Bridge Inspection Practices examines bridge inspection practices in the United States and selected foreign countries. The report explores inspection personnel (staff titles and functions, qualifications, training and certification, inspection teams, and the assignment of teams to bridges), inspection types (focus, methods, and frequency), and inspection quality control and quality assurance. The report also reviews the uses agencies make of information gathered from bridge inspections, what triggers repairs, and plans for future development of inspection programs.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!