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

APPENDIX J: LPA SURVEY RESULTS

This appendix presents the LPA survey results, including the question, the number of responses, and a pie chart of bar graph illustrating the results.

What is the estimated size of your construction program?

(out of 33 responses)

Figure 37. Pie Chart. Responses on estimated size of LPA construction programs.

Estimate what percentage of your construction program is performed using Federal-aid funds.

(out of 33 responses)

Figure 38. Pie Chart. Responses on percentage of LPA construction program performed using Federal-aid funds.

What project elements are typically included in your agency’s Federal-aid projects?

Figure 39. Bar Graph. Responses on what project elements are typically included in Federal-aid projects.

Estimate the percentage of project funds that are typically allocated to construction inspection and QA testing.

(out of 31 responses)

Figure 40. Pie Chart. Responses on the percentage of project funds typically allocated to construction inspection and QA testing.

Comments:

(AR) City inspection projects with overview of Engineer and Funding agency. Less than 1%

(CT) Town funded project <10% FHA funded project>30%

(FL) County CEI cost = 15% of Const. Contract Value -Contractor QC cost = 3-5% of Const. Contract Value -County QA cost = 25% of Contractor QC (County verifies 1 in 4)

How do you determine a project’s materials sampling and testing needs?

(out of 32 responses)

Figure 41. Bar Graph. Responses on how a project’s materials sampling and testing needs are determined.

Who performs IA activities on a federally funded project?

(out of 32 responses)

Figure 42. Bar Graph. Responses on who performs IA activities on a federally funded project.

Identify which construction phase QA activities your organization coordinates with the SHA.

(out of 32 responses)

Figure 43. Bar Graph. Responses identifying which construction phase QA activities are coordinated with the State transportation department.

Comments:

(City of Eugene, Oregon): Eugene is certified LPA. ODOT reviews the QA we perform for compliance with our own certified program.

(Sandy City, Utah): By a contracted consultant, all phases are coordinated.

(Wahkiakum County, Washington): Varies by project as we arrange with WSDOT, typically concrete girder fab is inspected by WSDOT.

Characterize the nature of the SHA’s involvement in materials and construction inspections on your Federal-aid projects.

Figure 44. Bar Graph. Responses on the nature of the State transportation department’s role in materials construction on Federal-aid projects.

Comments:

(Hillsborough County, Florida): DOT documents used as a standard for our projects. Plant certifications and FDOT representative is in contact throughout process.

(City of Lake Wales, Florida): We have never conducted a federally funded project.

(Linn County, Oregon): The level of involvement depends on the project type and size and also whether we are allowed to complete the project as a Certified Agency.

(City of Eugene, Oregon): Low involvement - DOT performs a final inspection and signs off on the quality documentation before the city sends final acceptance to the contractor

(Wahkiakum County, Washington): We are a certified acceptance agency, qualified to administer our projects, WSDOT role is low.

What level of MATERIALS TESTING do you typically apply for each of the following project types?

Figure 45. Bar Graph. Responses on the typical level of materials testing applied by project type.

Comments:

(City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas): Inspection level is a bit more complicated than this form allows responses for.

(Town of Darien, Connecticut): DOT inspector at plant, 3 consultant inspectors at site during construction.

(Hillsborough County, Florida): Detailed Field inspections also for ADA compliance projects, major rehabilitation for Limited Access NHS, and recreational facilities upgrades.

(Louisville, Kentucky): Most testing falls somewhere between once at the end and daily.

(Linn County, Oregon): This question is misleading and cannot be answered correctly with the options provided. Each component of the project is tested depending on type and size. This may require more than one test per day as well as using contractor’s data and also no testing. It all depends on the requirement.

(Marion County, Oregon): QA testing is as specified.

(Sandy City, Utah): DOT reserves the right to test, but typically does not.

(Town of Ranchester, Wyoming): We also sample periodically during construction, but not daily.

What level of CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION do you typically apply for each of the following project types?

Figure 46. Bar Graph. Responses on the typical level of construction inspection applied by project type.

Comments:

(City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas): Inspection level is a bit more complicated than this form allows responses for.

(Hillsborough County, Florida): Detailed Field inspections also for ADA compliance projects, major rehabilitation for Limited Access NHS, and recreational facilities upgrades.

(Linn County, Oregon): We always closely oversee construction in the field as well as inspect and review and approve QC for materials testing and acceptance,

(City of Eugene, Oregon): Full time inspection on federally funded projects and has an inspection manual that details the process.

(Sandy City, Utah): A joint walk thru by LPA, DOT, consultant and contractor is conducted for final acceptance. Prior to that we inspect as needed at critical times, phases, components.

What types of tools could help your organization or other local agencies successfully perform materials QA and construction inspections on federally-funded projects?

Figure 47. Bar Graph. Responses on tools used to perform materials QA and construction inspections on federally funded projects.

Comments:

(Hillsborough County, Florida): Follow-up procedure for addressing deficiencies. Our agency’s application of these practices has resulted in significant reduction in frequency or impact of issues.

(Storey County, Nevada): We have always had a dedicated contact through NDOT, and they also have an LPA specific manual.

(Marion County, Oregon): Additional funds to cover the cost of comprehensive QA.

Does your agency employ any practices that have been successfully applied to mitigate challenges with QA on federally funded projects?

(County of Hawaii DPW): Training between inspectors; standardized procedures.

(Lincoln County, Nebraska): Weekly progress meetings with all involved in construction (State, Contractor, Construction Engineer, and LPA).

(Storey County, Nevada): County employed project management staff to oversee QA procedures.

(Linn County, Oregon): We submit for review and approval our written QA plan for each project to the State Agency. We require review and approval of the QA plan by the Agency of Oversight (E.g. State Agency). We have written QA plans for many projects.

(City of Eugene, Oregon): The certified local agency program has been a big help because we use our own practice.

(Marion County, Oregon): Combination of hiring consultants, training staff, and including warranty specs.

(Garfield County, Utah): We buy out federal funds for local.