U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000

Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

 
REPORT
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Back to Publication List        
Publication Number:  FHWA-HRT-15-008    Date:  July 2016
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-15-008
Date: July 2016

 

Analysis of Construction Quality Assurance Procedures on Federally Funded Local Public Agency Projects

APPENDIX E. PROCESS REVIEW SUMMARY TABLE

Table 12. Process review summary table.

State Source Written report
or narrative
email		 Date of
report
(year)		 Key observations
related to LPA construction or materials QA		 Recommended actions
suggested
Arkansas FHWA ARRA report 2010
  • LPA officials and consultants hired by LPAs have varying levels of knowledge and guidance needed for material sampling and testing requirements; documentation of pay quantities.
  • Arkansas State Highway Transportation Department (AHTD) does not have an LPA manual (as of 2010).
  • AHTD should develop LPA manual.
  • Best Practice: One AHTD district provides CEI consultants with copy of required QC and QA testing frequencies and requirements. CEI firm then placed all supporting documentation (including material certifications) in a portfolio for each pay estimate submitted to AHTD.
Arizona FHWA Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Self-Admin 2012
  • ADOT’s role in monitoring and overseeing LPA self-administered projects is limited, particularly once the project is in construction. On seven of the eight projects reviewed, no evidence of ADOT construction oversight was found
  • On five of eight construction projects, the LPAs did not have daily logs that reported quality and quantity of materials.
  • ADOT is currently in the process of rewriting the LPA manual, QA program manual, and recertification of LPAs.
  • Suspend LPA self-administration program until report recommendations are implemented.
  • Develop a more robust Self-Administration application and approval process.
  • Provide training and guidance via manuals and improve coordination and communication.
Arizona FHWA Annual Construction Report

(State Delegated Projects)

 2012 This review dealt with construction administration issues, but there were a few findings related to this project, such as the following:
  • Inspector diaries do not contain sufficient quantity backup information.
  • Inconsistent records for work performed or materials permanently installed into Federal-aid projects.
  • Incidents of failure to comply with Buy America provisions.
  • ADOT should educate district engineers and construction staff on Buy America through training and by revision of LPA manual.
  • ADOT should evaluate required frequency of inspector training on inspector diary documentation, including development of a refresher course for certified inspectors.
California FHWA Joint Process Review on QAP 2007 In general, the report noted that “sampling, testing, and IA efforts on local agency projects (on and off the SHS) need improvement.”

Specific findings included the following:
  • Five of five LPAs reviewed were not keeping IA staff and laboratory/equipment separate from regular day-to-day acceptance testing.
  • Four of five LPAs reviewed were not keeping project files updated and available for review at one central location.
  • Five of five LPAs reviewed were not keeping log summary testing frequency information available upon request.
  • Two of five LPAs reviewed were not keeping certifications readily available.
  • Caltrans should continue to conduct training on QA.
  • Develop an online database for tester certification.
Colorado FHWA Local Agency Review of Contract Modification Orders (CMO) & Materials Testing Procedures and Documentation 2009
  • This review dealt with a few items, most of which centered on contract administration, e.g., CMOs were unapproved or inadequately described.
  • Seventy-five percent of LPAs did not follow requirements for materials testing, documentation, QA, or IA.
  • Several projects were found to have nonconforming materials installed, inconsistent documentation levels (ranged from excellent to poor), and missing materials certifications; for example:
  • LPA typically performs additional compaction testing on asphalt but other essential asphalt tests missing and minimum requirements of Field Materials Manual not followed.
  • Better staffing by CDOT required for LPA projects.
  • Increase training available to CDOT districts and LPAs.
  • Improve oversight by CDOT staff through revision of the LPA manual.
  • CDOT should develop the minimum materials sampling, testing, and inspection schedule for IA evaluation on all LPA projects.
  • LPAs that prefer to manage the Federal-aid projects must provide a materials management plan for approval by CDOT’s Regional Local Agency Coordinator. This LPA plan should be a one-time process to develop a flow chart or an outline of roles and responsibilities.
Delaware FHWA Narrative email 2012 Delaware Department of Transportation does not have an LPA program per se. Not applicable.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) DVRPC and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Narrative email 2012 DVRPC (the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in southeast Pennsylvania) administers LPA program on behalf of PennDOT in the southeast Pennsylvania district. PennDOT needs to consolidate manuals for clarity on LPA projects.
Florida FHWA LAP Process Review 2007
  • FDOT is not consistent in documenting any inspections done during the life of a LAP project (both on and off the SHS), and there are missing reports in the project files.
  • The majority of QC activities and knowledge of local agency QC is inconsistent among the four districts. A similar trend exists in terms of the amount of FDOT materials certification testing; one district does not confirm certification testing, two other districts do, and the fourth district does it only for SHS projects.
  • The level of IA reviews of local agencies and their consultants varies per district, from not performed to a moderate level of IA.
  • There were trends identified that indicated inconsistencies among districts in terms of inspection of LAP construction projects.
  • None of the LPAs perform their own verification testing and sampling; however, in some circumstances with smaller projects, a few agency project managers perform a minimum level of quality verification.
  • FDOT should establish a consistent and effective QA process that would be incorporated district-wide. It is critical that FDOT Construction staff be part of this process, because they are for any routine State-administered projects.
  • All QA reviews on any LAP projects done by FDOT staff should be documented and kept in the project file at FDOT, and FDOT should keep copies of LAP construction contract files at the LAP Administrator’s office in the district.
Florida FHWA Materials QA Review of FDOT 2009
  • Nine of 10 local agencies used a version of FDOT specifications (2000, 2004, or 2007), either exclusively or combined with local specifications.
  • Agencies that still used the 2000 specification cited that contractor QC was the primary reason for not making the change. Other local agencies indicated they are not able to make the transition to new specifications as quickly as FDOT releases them, or that they still use Marshall Mix asphalt.
  • The oversight provided by local agencies for LAP projects varies from one agency to the next, depending on their in-house staff levels and experience. Some local agencies have either inadequate or inexperienced staff to manage transportation construction projects.
  • The process of verification testing varied greatly among local agencies that conducted materials testing. The methodologies used depended on the specifications used for the projects, but in some cases, the contract specifications were not fully enforced.
  • A procedure should be developed that would allow the LPA to verify the IA certification status of laboratories, technicians, and materials plants for LAP projects and notify FDOT when an IA check is required so FDOT can conduct it.
  • Levels of oversight could be tiered depending on the scope of work, level of risk, and/or qualifications of the managing LPA for each project.
  • The LAP manual should discuss requirements for agencies that do not use consultants for project management/ inspection services versus those that do.
  • If FDOT desires to certify LPAs, then a more active role should be played to ensure that the consultants are satisfactorily providing the services they are hired to do.
Illinois FHWA Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Quality Assurance (QA) Process Review 2012
  • Reviewed one local project per district.
  • Districts are not all treating investigative sampling and testing in the same way nor reporting test results on time.
  • Past reviews found that the QA inspectors did not have required training for tasks involved.
  • IDOT memorandum issued to require districts and LPAs to investigative sampling and testing and reporting QA test results within 10 days to the contractor.
  • IDOT district 1 provides QA oversight on all LPA projects; it has a large program and manages good compliance.
Indiana FHWA Assessment Report 2007?
  • INDOT does not have an LPA guidance manual that outlines the administration and QC review requirements of the LPA project development and construction oversight process.
  • INDOT’s district Area Engineers (AE) are responsible for making weekly site inspections and ensuring that material testing is conducted or material samples are delivered to INDOT district staff. However, AE workload is often too high to conduct sufficient inspections.
  • AE inspections are not currently documented.
  • The district office certifies the testing results provided by the LPA consultant inspector, conducts asphalt material testing, and maintains the test records in the district office.
  • The LPA or the LPA’s consultant oversees the contractor and provides QA. Consultant inspectors must be qualified through INDOT’s Qualified Technical Program. However, evidence of the qualification was generally not available in the project files.
  • INDOT requires the LPA to administer and run QC, but INDOT has no overall QC monitoring program and organized record-keeping system in place to ensure that the LPA meets these requirements.
  • INDOT should review and inspect LPA projects with sufficient frequency to verify that projects are constructed in accordance with contract requirements.
  • INDOT should develop an LPA guidance manual, written for a broad audience of INDOT district and office staff, LPAs, MPOs, and consultants. The manual should clearly identify INDOT’s stewardship and QC review oversight responsibilities.
  • INDOT should consider establishing an electronic LPA question-and-answer system for staff to get real-time answers to issues that may arise. It could then serve as a basis for modifying and updating the LPA Guidance Manual.
Kansas FHWA Narrative email 2012
  • Follow-up done in 2008.
  • LPA projects are typically not large enough (material quantities) to justify a proper QC/QA program.
  • Generally no QA test is obtained by LPAs independently from the contractor’s consultant.
  • Materials certification training is too expensive for LPAs to attend.
  • LPA specifications all different from each other (and from that of KDOT).
  • LPAs are not keeping current with KDOT’s prequalified materials list.
KDOT purchases back Federal funds allocated to LPAs at a rate of 90cents on the dollar, with the aim to de-federalize the LPA projects.
Kentucky FHWA LPA process review 2009
  • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has limited staff to perform routine inspections.
  • There is no defined process for determining when projects may be administered by the LPA without KYTC daily involvement.
  • Some LPA sponsors (6 of 16) were not aware of the need to have a KYTC final inspection.
  • Three LPA sponsors were unaware of whom to contact at KYTC for assistance.
  • Many LPAs lacked an adequate QA and testing program.
  • Limited amounts of test results and inspection documentation were found in any project files. Thirteen of 23 projects had sparse or no documentation.
  • Projects lacked certified inspectors.
  • Provide more guidance and training for the LPA.
  • Increase oversight and interaction between FHWA, KYTC, and LPAs.
  • KYTC should establish a documented monitoring process for LPA projects that identifies contacts, types of inspections, frequency of expected contact, and methods to document contact.
  • KYTC should develop an acceptable level of testing, inspection, and documentation, and convey to LPAs.
  • KYTC should develop guidelines for inspection of projects and minimum training or certification for inspection personnel.
  • KYTC should develop a documented process for final project review and closeout.
Maine FHWA Construction Contract Modifications for LAP 2012 LPA certification course manual is too general for construction management. MaineDOT should add emphasis on construction oversight section for construction managers.
Maryland FHWA LPA process review 2008
  • Maryland Department of Transportation districts and LPAs are not aware of the construction manuals.
  • No formal training for construction personnel is available.
  • No materials certification or inspection reports were found on file for the projects reviewed.
  • Update manuals and start training LPAs and State transportation department district personnel.
  • Make guidance document for construction oversight of LPA projects.
  • Need to consolidate manuals.
Minnesota FHWA LPA Process Review: Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) Compliance 2011 Mn/DOT construction inspection form is outdated. LPA liaison to develop suitable form for field reviews.
Missouri FHWA Narrative email 2012 There is nothing to date dealing with LPA and the construction phase. Not applicable
Missouri FHWA Joint FHWA/State transportation department Process Review 2009
  • MoDOT relies on LPA self-certification and single audits performed by the State Auditor’s Office for verification that the program is administered in accordance with Federal law.
  • There is no centralized oversight function for areas such as construction.
  • MoDOT’s LPA manual is a great resource, but some LPAs found it difficult to use.
  • Some LPAs and MoDOT staff are not completely familiar with design and construction contract requirements that are addressed in the LPA manual.
  • LPA officials rely heavily on MoDOT to interpret project requirements and to conduct periodic and final inspections; but MoDOT district staff said workload often prevented them from conducting about half of the required inspections.
  • Documentation was missing from project files.
  • LPAs lacked understanding of Brooks Act requirements for procuring consultants.
  • Assemble an LPA training team, develop training classes for MoDOT and LPAs, and deliver training annually.
  • LPAs should be required to attend the training as a condition of receiving Federal funds.
  • Consider using the LTAP to augment the annual training classes.
  • Assemble a MoDOT/LPA QA team to perform annual project/process reviews in each district.
Mississippi FHWA Joint FHWA/State transportation department Process Review 2006
  • On four of six projects reviewed, no QA testing was performed.
  • Three of six projects had missing QC reports or testing results.
  • The State transportation department’s Project Development Manual (PDM) for LPAs should stress the importance of materials certification and testing.
  • The PDM should link to the Material Division’s Inspection, Testing, and Certification Manual.
  • The State transportation department should become more actively involved in the oversight of LPA projects.
  • Provide more training on Material Certification/Testing procedures and better examples in the PDM.
Montana FHWA Community Transportation Enhancement Program Project Compliance Review 2008 LPAs rely on consultants but the consultants’ knowledge on material requirements and documentation testing varies. The State transportation department should create written guidance for district construction liaisons.
Nevada FHWA LPA Contract Admin Review 2011
  • NDOT should improve frequency and depth of onsite inspections of LPA projects.
  • NDOT should designate a lead LPA NDOT representative in each district and increase oversight of LPA projects during the construction phase.
  • Review of Clark County’s QA program planned for 2013.
  • NDOT should develop LPA oversight requirements and indepth training on what LPAs’ supervision role and monitoring documentation are.
  • LPAs should attend LPA manual training.
New Hampshire FHWA Review on LPA and Construction Administration 2010
  • Contract administrators wirelessly connect to Construction Management System.
  • Consultant inspectors are not keeping adequate project records.
  • Review survey showed that QA/QC testing is being administered inconsistently.
  • Construction Bureau should establish a review team to annually perform process reviews.
  • Consultant inspectors required to use only approved preformatted field books, and Resident Engineer must sign the log book daily.
  • NHDOT should review and approve the QA/QC testing procedures envisioned for each project commensurate with the level of complexity of the project.
  • All new LPA projects are required to submit a materials testing and QA program plan as part of contract documents.
New Hampshire FHWA Joint FHWA/State transportation department Review of NHDOT’s Oversight of LPA 2008 There is a lack of guidance/training on construction program management and quality inspection techniques.
  • NHDOT should develop a comprehensive LPA manual that centralizes all of the information needed to administer Federal-aid programs, including construction oversight
  • Consider implementing a certification/ qualification based program for LPAs
  • Construction section of the manual should be expanded to address specific issues such as inspection procedures and requirements, documentation requirements, and materials and testing requirements.
  • Manual should address project closeout procedures more thoroughly, including final inspection and final closeout paperwork.
New York FHWA ARRA construction oversight report 2011
  • Added QC/QA requirements and inspection staffing and recordkeeping should be implemented through the Construction Management Plan.
  • Added inspection Manual for Uniform Record Keeping requirement.
  • New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) regional personnel are not aware of guidance for construction oversight and materials QA of LPA projects (although they were released agency-wide as memoranda).
  • FHWA-NY Division working with NYSDOT on refining Federal Aid Locally Administered Project Manual; mandatory requirement to use the NYSDOT Standard Specification on all LPA projects (avoiding the host of confusion in interpreting and approving multiple Project Sponsor Specifications); mandating local project sponsors to create a Construction Management Plan to be approved at time of PS&E approval that clearly outlines construction QA roles and responsibilities for this project; extensive FHWA Division Office training on construction oversight of LAPs conducted across the State that included Local Project Sponsors over the past 3 years—NYSDOT Regional Local Project Liaisons, and many members from the consultant engineering community who provide both project management and construction inspection.
  • Revised policies in NYSDOT Procedures for Locally Administered Federal-Aid Projects Manual (2012) chapters 4, 9, and 15.
  • Construction oversight training around the State to NYSDOT, LPAs, and consultants.
North Dakota FHWA Narrative email 2012 Nothing that relates to LPA at the Division nor at the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). Not applicable
North Dakota FHWA Review of NDDOT Construction and Contract Administration on LAPs 2007
  • NDDOT district personnel generally develop a list of materials certifications and a list of materials sampling and testing frequencies.
  • Majority of projects had up-to-date construction documentation maintained in the project file.
  • No “noteworthy examples of substandard construction quality items that could be specifically attributed to only LPA construction projects were witnessed.”
None
Ohio FHWA Final Report: Construction Oversight of Local Programs Quality Improvement Review 2007
  • General ODOT and LPA Processes:
  • Each district within ODOT has a local program coordinator and one or more construction monitors.
  • For each project, ODOT requires the district to complete a 13-point “Local Public Agency Local-Let Participation Requirement Review Form” to prequalify LPAs. Staffing, past performance, number of projects LPA currently oversees, fiscal responsibility, consultant use, and established project delivery and construction practices and processes in place are reviewed and evaluated to determine qualification.
  • All LPAs use independent test laboratories to run sampling and testing programs.
  • LPA’s materials management process is required to be submitted to ODOT for review and acceptance.
  • Unless otherwise accepted, LPA is required to use ODOT’s certified materials suppliers and established job mix formulas.
  • Districts are required to monitor LPA compliance with the project’s materials management processes: once a month for projects valued at more than $2million, four times per season for projects ranging from $500,000 to $2 million, and twice per season for projects less than or equal to $500,000.
  • District staff monitors compliance with the accepted materials management process by reviewing project documentation at least once per month.
  • Amount and level of district staff involvement with LPA is driven by the size, complexity, and experience of the LPA’s staff and consultants.
  • District office visits to LPA projects average once every 2 to 4 weeks.
  • Process Review Findings:
  • Forms were prepared for each project, but to varying degrees of completeness, particularly in the area of technical expertise needed for performing the various tasks related to project delivery. This was especially true for complex, nontypical construction projects or for LPAs that did not have an engineer on staff.
  • Lack of follow-up by ODOT to ensure the LPA’s pre-qualified staff does indeed deliver the project or whether that project responsibility is delegated to other staff
  • There is a lack of documentation related to ODOT’s acceptance of the LPA’s materials management processes.
  • ODOT does not provide training to the LPAs on a routine basis.
  • Some projects had problems with the LPA staff qualifications.
  • None of the districts formally accepted the LPAs’ materials management process.
  • Asphalt concrete specifications and their associated QA/QC provisions created the greatest challenges for LPAs.
  • Project records could not confirm whether the LPAs effectively used materials test results. Records did not demonstrate if out-of-specification materials were rejected or accepted at reduced price.
  • District usually attends project progress meetings.
  • Most of the LPAs maintained daily diaries and filled out quantity sheets.
  • Some examples of missing project documentation were found.
  • ODOT needs to have documented acceptance of LPAs’ processes for materials management.
  • ODOT must ensure that LPA prequalified staff is delivering projects.
  • ODOT should document how it reviews and accepts key personnel.
  • All specifications subject to price adjustments must be monitored and enforced by ODOT.
  • Consider developing a manual for construction monitors. (One ODOT district has already done this.)
  • Provide training to ensure LPAs understand the need to provide and maintain organized documentation to support Federal reimbursement.
  • Consider developing a list of minimum information for LPAs to include in daily diary reports.
Oregon Oregon DOT and FHWA Conference call 12/5/12
  • No formal FHWA audits of the Oregon program have been performed.
  • LPAs are required to follow Oregon’s construction manual, which contains rigorous recordkeeping requirements.
  • Bulk of local projects are let by Oregon DOT.
  • Subset of projects is administered by certified LPAs.
  • Oregon DOT region assurance experts review 100percent of the jobs.
  • Oregon DOT construction liaisons visit LPA projects at least two or three times during the course of the project. More effort is put toward projects run by LPAs or consultants that are not as sophisticated or that have experienced problems in the past.
  • Projects mostly relate to bridge, pedestrians, and trails. LPAs do paving projects on their own without Federal funds.
  • Training for LPAs is available at a nominal price.
  • Inspectors are required to be certified (written, oral, and hands-on testing. Annual recertification). Certification classes are available.
  • Some of the larger LPAs do have qualified inspectors and materials testers. Others retain consultants.
None
Pennsylvania FHWA Report—IO of Local Acceptance of HMA 2006 One PennDOT district did not include acceptable verification or dispute resolution procedure on local projects.
  • Develop standard specification for local acceptance of HMA (PennDOT).
  • Need to consolidate relevant material from multiple (11) manuals that deal in some way with construction of LPA projects.
South Carolina FHWA FHWA process review 2008
  • Inadequate documentation.
  • Inadequate oversight.
  • Self-certification by the LPA that it is qualified to administer a project is not sufficient to ensure that the LPA’s organizational structure and in-place processes are adequate to carry out a Federal-aid project.
  • The South Carolina Department of Transportation should develop a more objective certification system, with minimum standards for organizational structure and professional capabilities, and that requires periodic recertification.
  • Consider establishing a unit with specific responsibility to manage the LPA program.
South Dakota FHWA South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT)/FHWA Local Government Assistance QIR 2007
  • SDDOT oversight of County Bridge, County Road and Urban System Programs is satisfactory.
  • Transportation Enhancement Program:
  • Virtually no SDDOT oversight.
  • No SDDOT inspection, including final inspection.
  • No materials testing and acceptance reporting requirements
  • Administration of materials testing and acceptance is delegated to the LPA with no oversight by SDDOT.
  • SDDOT should develop a construction inspection oversight process for all projects.
  • SDDOT should provide a final inspection on all projects.
  • SDDOT should develop a material testing and acceptance oversight process for all projects.
Utah FHWA LPA Change Order Review 2011
  • This review focused on change orders.
  • UDOT Region 3 best practice noted with use of the C103 form: To address changes orders that require price justifications, a C103 form was created to provide more accurate estimate of materials, labor, and equipment, which gave a more developed cost analysis and itemized statement.
  • Develop guidance and training for UDTO and LPA regarding change orders.
  • UDOT should develop a standardized change order documentation approach.
Utah FHWA Joint FHWA/State transportation department process review 2008
  • State employs a full-time employed State engineer to be in responsible charge of local government projects.
  • In response to a 2006 Quality Improvement Team (QIT) review, UDOT piloted a local government certification program with one city. The program did not yield the expected results and was discontinued.
  • UDOT developed a Local Government Guide in response to the 2006 QIT review.
  • UDOT has developed a mandatory training and certification program to assist UDOT and consultants.
  • Local government oversight manual should be developed to describe roles and responsibilities of the different agencies
  • Standard CA Agreement should be reviewed and revised to clearly show who is responsible for administering what work and when.
Virginia FHWA LAP Process Review 2003
  • Construction work is initialized prior to authorization.
  • VDOT existing checklist barely mentions QA in the construction phase.
  • Create LAP construction checklist.
  • VDOT should increase monitoring of LAP construction phase.
Virginia FHWA Materials QA Stewardship Review of VDOT 2006
  • QA testing is done on 20 percent of lots (i.e., ratio of 1:5).
  • Requires all testing done by certified technicians.
  • Verification reports for HMA and cold mix asphalt are not being included in the final project files.
  • Add VDOT specification for QC field tests for soils and concrete.
  • VDOT should develop a procedure to ensure technicians periodically calibrate fresh concrete air meters.
  • VDOT should review its current asphalt mix specification that allows retesting when failing test results are obtained because it results in a system that is biased toward the contractor.
Virginia FHWA Joint Process Review of LPA Federal-aid program 2008 Oversight of construction and materials acceptance testing is inconsistent across districts (sometimes within VDOT ROW only). VDOT should create guidelines for inspection staffing, materials acceptance, and assurance testing. The materials acceptance portion should include testing frequency, documentation, and staffing levels.
Virginia FHWA ARRA report 2010
  • LPAs are required to do QA testing of contractors’ test results done on one to five basis (20 percent).
  • Review noted lack of independent QA testing.
  • VDOT has local construction manager located in each district involved in assisting LPAs during project construction.
  • Verification testing and sampling to be included in VDOT’s compliance assessment checklist.
  • VDOT provided guidance to LPAs through additional emphasis on materials QA in chapter 13 of LAP manual.
Washington FHWA WSDOT Quality Assurance Stewardship Review 2011
  • Procedures to generate random numbers more frequently should be updated or developed. This could be as simple as selecting a new starting random number daily, to using the random number generating capabilities of MATS or Excel for every sublot.
  • The training, qualification, and requalification process for qualified testers, including adding a written test requirement for requalification, should be standardized.
  • WSDOT does not have a program to qualify or recertify Region Independent Assurance Inspectors who ensure uniformity of material testing by WSDOT personnel.
  • FHWA/WSDOT to do QA review of LPAs in 2013.
  • WSDOT recommended to do rewrite of chapter 52 of Local Agency Guidelines manual where direction to LPAs for QA procedures is addressed.
Washington WSDOT Conference Call with Local Program Office 1/8/2013
  • Local agency guidance manual incorporates WSDOT’s construction manual by reference.
  • Reviewing specification and manual requirements to identity exemptions for simpler LPA projects. Some requirements are too intensive for LPAs.
  • To become a CA, an LPA undergoes an interview process and then performs a pilot project to see how it performs. Once every 3 years, WSDOT reviews the LPA’s documentation for a recent Federal-aid project.
  • For non-CAs, WSDOT enters into an agreement that defines the roles and responsibilities of all parties.
  • For non-CAs, WSDOT may require the LPA to retain a consultant project manager (or the LPA may enter into an agreement with a CA to manage the project for them).
  • Level of WSDOT oversight varies with project complexity.
  • WSDOT is willing to help arrange for interviews with LPAs as part of Phase II. Kent County and the City of Seattle were suggested as possible examples of CAs to interview further.
None
Wisconsin FHWA Local Program Construction Administration, Financial Accountability Assessment 2008
  • All local program construction projects are handled by WisDOT rather than the LPA. WisDOT lets the project, provides construction oversight, and makes payments. Upon project completion, the LPA is billed its pro-rata share of the project costs incurred by WisDOT.
  • Very few Completion Certificates, Letters of Acceptance, Materials Certificates, results of materials acceptance tests, or materials verification tests were found in the project files reviewed.
  • Little documentation was found for site visits by the Master Consultant or Local Program Managers during construction or for final inspection of completed work.
Suggestions had to do with financial accountability.

 

 

 

 

Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse | U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | 6300 Georgetown Pike | McLean, VA | 22101