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

Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

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

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


This appendix contains table 14, which summarizes a preliminary review of S&O agreements by State. The page numbers reference where this information can be found in the source documents.

Table 14. Preliminary review of S&O agreements.

State Rating of
Key Points Regarding
LPA Program
Key Points Regarding
Materials QA
Key Points Regarding
Construction Oversight
Arkansas Good More specific to LPAs and spells out specific actions that cannot be delegated to LPAs. Process reviews include both State transportation department and LPAs
(p. 67).

Clearly states State transportation department must monitor QA program for construction on Federal-aid projects not on NHS (p.80).
Repeats in several places that LPA projects must follow State transportation department construction procedures.

Clearly states State transportation department must inspect construction of all Federal-aid projects (p. 30).
Arizona Vague Very little specific to LPAs in general.

FHWA approves any LPA CA agreements (p. 13).
Performance measures (p.24) included but not clear whether they include LPA projects. Low-risk projects are defined in a way that implies that almost all LPA projects would be considered low-risk (p. 19,
note 1) and FHWA grants approval (in advance of project delivery) for inspections (note2) on low-risk projects.
California Limited LAP and Caltrans were set up to provide oversight to LPAs.

Clearly written out responsibilities in several places.
Public Agency Furnished Material guidelines (table, p.35). Attachment 5—Strategic Project Oversight Selection Process (Local Assistance Projects)—specific to local agencies (p.62).

Purpose of the construction program clearly stated, yet not specific to LPAs. (p. 22).
Colorado Good LPAs monitoring abilities written out clearly.

Adequately states CDOT’s responsibilities in the oversight of local agency projects in several places.

LPA requirements and assignments clearly expressed in tabular format (pp. 96–98).
Local agency QAR recommends a material management plan be developed (p. 92).

Delegation of approval and review of material for LPAs (table, pp. 38–39).

Table 13—FHWA Required Action list (Pavements and Materials) (p. 46)—Not specific to LPAs.
Response to the risk of CDOT and local agencies not being able to control qualifications in construction (Risk 2, p. 92).

CDOT project-level oversight for construction mentioned (p.8).

Table 31—Local Agency Administered Projects and activity needed (p. 80).
Florida Good Use of summary tables to indicate delegation of authority (table 6).

LPA incorporated throughout document.

Responsible charge explicitly defined.
QA actions by FHWA spelled out regarding LPA (p. 11).

No mention of LPAs in materials certification section (p. 57).
Inspection requirements for LPAs are spelled out, along with accountability.

FDOT clearly cited for responsibility of construction inspections.

LPA projects constructed in accordance with State laws (non-NHS) and LAP manual (local facilities).
Georgia Limited GDOT’s responsibilities to local agencies stated in several places (p. 9).

Programs that LPAs cannot delegate are clearly stated (p. 8).

LPAs must follow Uniform Act (p. 12).

FHWA is ultimately responsible for local public agency projects.
Not clear whether LPA is included; states GDOT’s and FHWA’s responsibilities for material certification (p. 32).

Materials Assurance Plan (MAP) and subsets created to assure quality of materials; no implication of LPAs.
Construction standards and responsibilities in tabular format—unclear with LPA involvement (p. 31).
Iowa Good Clearly states the regulations of Iowa DOT’s Oversight of LPA Federal-aid projects (pp. 109–120).

LPA developed projects are monitored by the Office of Right of Way (p.20).

Iowa DOT must report the LPA Stewardship to the FHWA (p. 74).
MAP was developed to assure the quality of materials, yet no specification to LPAs (p. 39).

Public Agency Furnished Material requirements discussed in tabular format (p.95).

District Materials staff may oversee LPA projects to assure quality material technicians (p. 120).
Makes clear that construction inspections should be performed jointly by FHWA and the administrating agency’s representative (p. 17).

Federal laws, regulations, and policies dealing with construction spelled out, yet little specification to LPAs.

Clearly spelled out construction requirements and authorities
(p. 85).

LPA construction inspection staff requirements stated in appendix I.
Illinois Limited Very little specific to LPAs in construction phase.

Delegates authority of construction to eligible public agencies and ILDOT responsible for appropriate use of funds.
Mentions Manual for Materials Inspection-Project Procedures Guide for all Federal-aid projects. Makes clear that ILDOT is responsible, including for project/activities by LPAs.

Mentions construction is core problem area needing attention.
New Hampshire Vague Clearly states definition of LPA and abilities of the agency (pp. 12–13).

NHDOT is responsible for federally funded LPA projects (p. 12).
Delegation of authority in material certification (p. 36). Summarized in table format with delegation of authority included (p. 38).
Ohio Good Clearly states which project activities ODOT can/cannot delegate to LPAs (p. 61).

Shows the process of reviews and regulation checks from the FHWA to ODOT to LPAs.
Not clear whether LPA is specifically targeted in goals and requirements.

Monitoring of Quality Assurance (Table, p. 69, and pp. 74-75).
FHWA Ohio Division Office responsibilities in construction mentioned, yet no specific reference to LPAs.

Spells out that FHWA will provide technical assistance and recommendations to assure quality of construction on local level.

Construction inspections will occur on FHWA Oversight Projects (p. 67) (table, p. 34).
Pennsylvania Limited More specific to LPAs and clearly spells out the oversight designation criteria (p. 13 and table 1, p. 10). Little specification with LPAs.

PennDOT has the responsibility to see that LPAs must meet requirements for materials under 23 CFR Part 635—Final Rule General Material Requirements (p. 20)
States in several places that PennDOT has the responsibility for the design and construction of all Federal-aid projects, including projects under LPAs (pp. 4 and 20).
Virginia Vague Nothing specific to LPAs in construction phase. No reference to LPAs in this section. No reference to LPAs specifically.

Limited to one statement that VDOT will assume responsibility of oversight for all phases, including construction inspection.
Washington Limited LPA performance indicators repeated in several places (e.g., p. 28).

Use of summary tables to indicate performance measures (appendix C, pp.73–79).
Little to no specifications for material QA for LPAs. Performance indicators for local-agency owned bridges clearly spelled out (p. 14).

Construction inspection and required actions by FHWA and WSDOT (table, p. 25)—not specific to LPAs.

Limited specification of LPA—Business Activities for construction reviews by FHWA and WSDOT indicated (table, pp. 15–16).
MAP =Materials Assurance Plan
ILDOT = Illinois Department of Transportation




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