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 17, which summarizes the interviews with 11 State transportation departments that participated in the survey.

Table 17. Interview summaries.

General Program Information Challenges/Issues with QA Best Practices
  • The LPAs (Local Association of Governments) control the majority of the funding for local projects (75 percent through local taxes) and the remainder (25 percent) comes from State and Federal funds. This gives more control and influence by LPAs over local projects, whether using Federal funds or not.
  • The use of specifications by LPAs in California varies. Generally in northern districts, Caltrans standard specifications are followed. In southern California, LPAs use the Green Book specifications. When an LPA uses Federal funds, it must follow the standard FAR requirements. Caltrans specifications reflect Federal requirements based on FHWA audits. LPAs are not required to use Caltrans specifications, but for the most part, LPAs use Caltrans specifications in the north and/or the Green Book in the south, and both are in full compliance with FHWA requirements.
  • Caltrans specifications and requirements are used the same way whether for large or small asphalt projects.
  • In 2002, Caltrans initiated specifications for LAPs but never carried this forward. Caltrans developed a QAP for local projects in 2008–2009.
  • Local agencies vary considerably in terms of internal resources. For example, the City of Los Angeles has its own testing laboratory and construction staff. The City of Fresno has 12 to 14 staff for capital construction. Smaller agencies may outsource all construction QA and inspection work to consultants.
  • LPAs are required to develop their own QAP for a project (or program) to get Federal funding.
  • Both LPAs and Caltrans have had resource issues. District oversight was inconsistent because of resources (five Caltrans IA staff for local programs). There are 50 to 60 accredited laboratories. LPAs on average are very understaffed and experience turnover. Most LPAs use consultants to perform inspection and materials QA. Local projects cover not only roads but also water and sewer project.
  • Caltrans specifications are cumbersome in the sense that they use a one size fits all approach to QA for all projects. In particular, the frequency tables for testing are very complicated and hard to follow.
  • LPAs are required to put together a QAP to get Federal funding for projects and for the ARRA-funded projects; many agencies did not put together adequate QAPs or adequately adhere to the plan. Some of the common issues related to this program were the following:
    • Inadequate frequency of testing in accordance with Caltrans specifications.
    • Lack of testing documentation.
    • Expense of testing (15 percent for CE of which part was for QA.
  • Caltrans has withheld funding or required retesting in one or two projects related to lack of material testing or lack of documentation deficiencies that required retesting.
  • Generally, local programs office said that they were not aware of materials and construction quality issues. The issues are primarily related to compliance with construction QA testing and documentation requirements.
  • Other current issues relate to lack of materials certificates of compliance (e.g., project-specific welding signatures), and Buy America certification, which would lead to pulling Federal funds from project items.
  • The ARRA program caused some of the QA issues/risks because of the need to get to construction quickly.
  • Regarding certification of LPAs, Caltrans is not planning to implement at this time because of concerns about high turnover among LPAs, which presents a challenge for maintaining certification.
  • Training and outreach are conducted for LPAs on how to develop and implement a QAP, and materials-related training.
  • QAPs should be tailored to fit the project profile. Caltrans recently worked with a small LPA (Morrow Bay), which hired a materials/testing consultant to develop a QAP for asphalt concrete for one project. The QAP included frequency tables for materials testing for asphalt concrete that were much simpler and easier to follow than the standard Caltrans frequency tables and reflected a lower frequency of testing. This QAP met Federal-aid requirements. Caltrans is now considering a modified QAP with simplified frequency tables for the following major materials categories:
    • Earthwork (aggregates).
    • Asphalt.
    • Structural concrete.
  • Another justification for using less testing would be when better materials are sourced and provided for a project by the LPA.
  • Caltrans is also considering the use of a construction grading system for contract administration.
  • FDOT has a formal LAP with a coordinator, and oversight of construction by district and Central Office materials staff. Two to 3 district staff may be responsible for overseeing approximately 30 to 45 active construction projects at any time.
  • FDOT maintains the Local Agency Program Information Tool (LAPIT) (essentially the manual of practice) and Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) (FDOT’s electronic materials management system).
  • The number of locally led projects varies by district. Eighty percent are off of the SHS. LPAs consist of MPOs (cities) and 17 counties.
  • LPAs use the FDOT LAP specifications for off-SHS projects, also called the “Big 4” specifications (for asphalt, concrete, earthwork, and landscaping). Big 4 specifications are less stringent for acceptance and closeout. Agencies may use their own specifications for other components.
  • LPAs must use the full blown FDOT specifications for on-SHS or critical projects (e.g., bridges, culverts, or high dollar value).
  • Federal-aid off-SHS noncritical project types are typically sidewalk ADA, roadway widening, intersection safety improvements, signals and lighting, trails, and streetscapes projects.
  • FDOT uses certifications for LAPs and for inspector training (different levels based on whether on or off SHS). Materials training includes materials certification, LIMS, etc.
  • For on-SHS projects, FDOT performs laboratory IA testing on a programmatic basis. IA of field testing is more project-specific.
  • Some districts conduct quarterly coordination meetings with all LAPs to discuss all current and future projects. Others do random sampling of project documents for newer LAPs or if it is a complex project.
  • District materials looks for failing or nonstandard materials, lack of documentation (certification letters) or comparisons (for on-SHS projects) at closeout.
  • Some LPAs consider the materials records online documentation (LIMS) to be excessive and cumbersome and feel that the process often delays final project closeout.
  • At the preconstruction meetings for on-SHS or critical elements, FDOT has identified cases of LPAs not following the FDOT specifications (full-blown or big 4).
  • The continual updates of the FDOT specifications occur at such a frequency that it is challenging for the LPAs to keep track of the changes. Agencies are alerted to changes in the FDOT specifications via once-a-week email alerts that local agencies need to sign up for. The frequency of changes to specifications is high, and these are not clearly and quickly communicated to the LPAs. An example was an asphalt and concrete trail that was bid with the FDOT 2010 specifications. However, by the time the project went to construction, there were sections of the specification that had been changed related to subbase. The local agency was not aware of this change, and the omission of subbase resulted in a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
  • Staff turnover at LPAs has been a challenge, which diminishes the effectiveness of annual training programs.
  • The LPAs would like to preserve as much funding for construction, often at the expense of testing and inspection. Funding includes verification testing but the LPAs often request to not to do the testing, or they reduce the testing frequency below what is required in the FDOT specifications.
  • Although most of the identified QA issues relate to insufficient sampling frequency, FDOT has noted some occurrences of defective material. If defective material is encountered, the LAP has to contract with a third-party laboratory and provide a resolution testing and engineering analysis report.
  • District 5 developed a QA Review Form that facilitates the QA reviews done once per month at a minimum on both on- and off-SHS projects.
  • District 1 creates the specification packages for the LAPs, which eliminates specification deviations for both on- and off-SHS projects.
  • District 1 conducts predesign walk-throughs (construction feasibility reviews, walkthrough of the project to be constructed) done with the LAP to identify issues early on before design. If it is an on-SHS or critical project, materials office is involved.
  • The FDOT LAP Community of Practice consists of districts, LPAs, and MPO representatives to discuss issues and recommend policy (e.g., move from Marshall to super pave mix design).
  • MaineDOT maintains an LPA manual.
  • QA requirements are based on and refer to MaineDOT standard specifications and manuals.
  • Central Office and district staff are responsible for overseeing LPA projects—oversight typically consists of two to three site visits, including preconstruction and final inspection/closeout.
  • LPAs include municipalities (towns and cities). There is no county road system in Maine (similar to New Hampshire).
  • Most LPA projects are small scale (less than $500,000) single season projects, including sidewalks, trails, ADA, etc.
  • Larger cities have a few pavement preservation or rotary projects (e.g., Bangor Airport Rotary). No bridges are included in the LPA program.
  • Occasionally LPA projects involve local or other standard specifications (e.g., Casco Bay terminal district used American Institute of Architects standards). One or two cities have their own specifications.
  • MaineDOT has a two-tier certification process, which is explained in its LPA manual.
  • Larger cities have engineering staff but most LPAs often use consultants (often former MaineDOT employees) for CEI.
  • For HMA paving projects, the LPA will sample and MaineDOT will test all hot mix. For paving, MaineDOT requires that LPA and contractor personnel attend a pre-paving meeting.
  • One city recently took a part-time approach to inspection and testing. There were materials issues and MaineDOT stepped in and performed the testing. Some of material had to be removed and replaced.
  • For years, no IA was performed for LPA projects. This has improved—MaineDOT has two staff engaged on statewide IA.
  • Consultant laboratories are generally not as good as MaineDOT laboratories.
  • LPAs could improve documentation for LPA projects (sometimes QA documentation is lacking).
  • Cost to meet ADA is an issue with LPAs. One LPA was found to be noncompliant and eliminated the ADA portion as a solution.
  • Training LPA staff on QA requirements.
  • Attendance at preconstruction/pre-paving meetings (communication is important).
  • Regular communication between LPA staff and MaineDOT IA staff.
  • MaineDOT performing HMA laboratory testing for LPAs.
  • Headquarters staff assigned to LPA oversight.
  • MoDOT has a $120 million Local Program, including a $15 million Enhancement Program, and a $20 million Bridge Program (selected from deficient bridges) and $65 million for large cities, ITS, streetscapes, and anything else. Highest percentage of projects is less than $500,000.
  • The local program includes MPOs, cities, and counties. The counties own most of the non-Federal-aid system.
  • MoDOT oversight of QA process includes at preconstruction and after first invoice, periodic field visits after Notice To Proceed, major bridge pours, and the final inspection.
  • MoDOT has 3 dedicated staff for LPA in the Central Office, along with 25 district project managers who have access to district staff.
  • IA and inspectors are trained and certified and qualified to do the work being performed.
  • Audit—Independent tests are performed to spot-check if there is a problem.
  • The larger cities use their own staff for QA that are LPA certified.
  • On the State side, MoDOT is moving to use of a Quality Management Program (QMP), and contractor QC testing—QC testing is perceived as a savings.
  • MoDOT can reduce staff by 20 percent when using QMP and that is perceived as a savings on the project.
  • Two years ago, MoDOT implemented 4-h basic training.
  • Missing inspection diaries (no records).
  • There needs to be a clarification of expectations in the LPA manual.
  • There are closeout challenges.
  • Use of consultants on smaller projects—consultants must be qualified.
  • Having consultant for QA oversight.
  • The LPA manual was rewritten 2 years ago in a user friendly format with how-to tutorials for diaries, materials testing, etc.
  • Checklists.
  • Having a certification program available for LPAs along with training as well.
  • FHWA essentials addressing QA.
  • Compliance Assurance Program (CAP)—reviews of CAP show vast improvement in terms of QA.
  • Buyback program—advantage to LPAs trading state money for Federal money to avoid/minimize Federal requirements.
  • LPAs own project and are responsible for Federal aid.
New Hampshire
  • Each LPA project is assigned an NHDOT project manager. Each project manager could be responsible for 20 to 100 projects.
  • Typical LPA projects are in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. One exception is the intersection improvement project, City of Claremont’s Draper’s Corner ($3 million project).
  • Typical LPA projects include TE, CMAQ, Safe Routes to Scholl, National Historic Covered Bridge program, Off-System Bridges program, STP, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program, earmarks, and Highway Safety Improvement Program.
  • Some bigger urban areas (e.g., Concord, Manchester, Nashua, etc.) have projects every year, whereas more rural towns will have projects less frequently (e.g., every 5 years, and these go through the regional planning offices).
  • LPAs are required to use the NHDOT specifications book.
  • Sampling frequency is part of the highway construction manual. IA requirements are reduced because there are generally lesser quantities of materials on a typical LPA project. Acceptance testing is similar to NHDOT projects.
  • LPAs must use NHDOT mix designs
  • Two or three NHDOT staff will handle IA for the LPA projects. (NHDOT takes a systems-based approach to IA.)
  • LPAs engage consultants to prepare the contract, plans, and specifications. Consultants are directed to stay as close as possible to them.
  • LPAs feel that the cost of construction engineering, including the CEI and testing consultants, is increasing in steps and is becoming a significant portion of the project cost.
  • On small projects (e.g., sidewalk), LPAs often feel that the required full-time presence of a CEI tester is excessive and are concerned that the cost of consultants are taking away from the construction budget.
  • LPAs noted that while the current training is helpful, it would be beneficial to have training targeted to specific topics.
  • One LPA noted that the record-keeping process can be overwhelming with consultants that have no prior experience with Federal-aid projects.
  • Although NHDOT felt that LPA projects generally had few QA problems, one pedestrian bridge project was highlighted as an example of a project that did not meet requirements. The LPA could not produce weld certifications for the prefabricated structure, and had to instead, at significant additional cost, retain an expert to later verify the adequacy of the welds.
  • LPA manual provides guidance on the development of QA plans. The manual also addresses, and shows by example, what is needed for closeout, materials records, etc.
  • LPAs are required to have a full-time inspector.
  • ODOT’s Central Office has a staff of four people to oversee the entire LPA program.
  • At the district level, someone is assigned to help the LPA manage the process during the planning stage. During the construction phase, construction monitors oversee documentation and ensure everything is proceeding correctly.
  • Construction monitors attempt to visit the site at least once a month (for a simple project) to oversee construction. For more complex projects, the monitors visit more regularly.
  • According to ODOT’s LPA manual, the LPA needs to adhere to the same ODOT QA requirements as used on a State-administered job.
  • Bigger cities and counties (e.g., Columbus) maintain their own specifications; however, the district reviews all LPA specifications.
  • ODOT will let and provide construction administration/materials testing for projects sponsored by LPAs that have insufficient staffing or experience according to the ODOT’s assessment.
  • ODOT was hard-pressed to identify problems with the current LPA program with respect to construction QA. One problematic project was mentioned, but ODOT noted that the issues were identified early in the project, and the District recognized that LPA required additional guidance and oversight.
  • ODOT did acknowledge that complying with IA requirements can be challenging for the smaller LPAs. (ODOT’s IA program does not cover LPA projects.)
  • Each district conducts an annual LPA training at which district personnel discuss requirements, documentation, etc. All LPAs in the district are invited to attend. ODOT is working toward making attendance at such training sessions a mandatory requirement for all LPAs.
  • At end of a project, ODOT evaluates LPAs on certain areas. Information is recorded in a historical log (not scored, more adjectival) of that LPA’s performance on past projects. If the LPA has a poor record, ODOT will grant the LPA access to Federal money but will administer the project using ODOT staff. ODOT will slowly let the LPA get back into the program by administering small, simple projects.
  • ODOT conducts annual partnering reviews with LPAs at which the following topics are discussed: the ease/difficulty of administering Federal-aid projects (from contract administration to construction), issues encountered, and lessons learned.
  • Six of these partnering reviews are done annually. ODOT selects which agency to review using a risk-based approach that considers how much work the LPA has done and how much is in the pipeline. Even though only six agencies are reviewed in a given year, the issues and lessons learned inform ODOT’s policy and approach to all LPA projects moving forward.
  • The LPAs keep very rigorous records.
  • The LPAs are required to follow the Oregon DOT construction management manual.
  • Oregon DOT region experts verify all of the information.
  • Oregon DOT lets the certified LPAs administer a bulk of the total projects.
  • Region assurance experts perform reviews of 100 percent of jobs and 100 percent of bids.
  • A construction liaison unit visits a project at least two or three times during the duration.
  • The construction liaisons make it out to every project.
  • Mostly bridge and other pedestrian type projects are completed using Federal funds while most LPAs perform paving on their own without Federal funds.
  • The inspectors are required to be certified.
  • Some of the larger LPAs have their own qualified inspectors and material testers while the others retain consultants.
  • No formal FHWA audits are being performed.
  • The same construction reports are being done, and none of them are done specifically.
  • There are certain consultants and agencies that are not as good as others.
  • There is a good line of communication between all parties.
  • There is a training program available for a nominal price as well as certification classes.
  • The annual recertification process requires completion of written, oral, and hands-on elements.
  • The main types of Federal-aid projects that the LPAs of PennDOT administer are bridges, streetscapes, rails to trails, and road reconstruction.
  • Archaic payment processes are used where estimates must go through a maze of approvals, and contractors end up having to wait a minimum of 8 to 12 weeks or as long as 6 months.
  • Using PennDOT Pub. 408 and other local specifications can be challenging at times when it comes to “odd” items such as benches, trash receptacles, street light poles, traffic signal head colors, bollards, etc.
  • Receiving the manufacturer’s specifications and then moving through the review and approval process can lead to schedule delays.
  • QA really has not been a problem they have encountered.
  • The PennDOT Central Office should require invoice approvals though the Engineering and Construction Management System process to ensure prompt payments to contractors and suppliers.
  • When field questions arise regarding QA during projects, they are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and they seek technical support from others in the District or Central Office as necessary.


  • VDOT LAP program has 200 projects advertised at close to $600 million.
  • Project Coordinators (from VDOT districts) manage/oversee 40 to 80 LPA projects, drawing on technical expertise from ROW, design, construction, and environmental as necessary to assist with developing scope, schedule, and estimates.
  • Districts are not all the same in terms of LPA make-up and organization.
  • VDOT has a formal process (application form) that LPAs must complete for every Federal-aid project they seek to administer. VDOT uses it to evaluate whether the locality has suitable capabilities to administer that particular Federal-aid project. (VDOT also has a more rigorous certification whereby cities qualified under the Urban Construction Initiative Program may seek even greater autonomy in administering their capital programs. To date, only one locality—Virginia Beach—has received the certification.
  • No consultants are used by VDOT for LPA oversight (some discussion about changing this practice). LPAs use consultants for CEI.
  • For construction phase, area VDOT construction engineers conduct inspection and review invoices for Federal-aid compliance.
  • Every project is different. Some projects need more upfront work. Level of inspection varies. Use risk-based approach to determine level. For example a simple sidewalk inspection occurs only at beginning and end.
  • More complex projects require more record keeping, CEI consultant inspectors with the right certifications for inspectors/testing. Requires training.
  • By Virginia code, VDOT is responsible for construction and maintenance programs if using State-aid monies. Verification subject to audit based on perceived risk.
  • VDOT’s risk-based approach to project oversight theoretically provides a rational way to optimize resources. However, one of the localities interviewed found that VDOT inspectors are often unclear on which level of oversight applies to various projects and tend to apply the more rigorous standards to all projects.
  • VDOT’s standards and manuals are primarily geared to prime new roadways. The projects undertaken by urban localities, however, often have very different needs and complications. VDOT monitors can be unfamiliar with the nuances of undertaking urban work.
  • Specifications and manuals are not geared to the type of small projects often performed by LAPs. (For example, pedestrian bridges are to be designed and constructed to highway infrastructure standards.)
  • Communication with VDOT could be improved, especially if VDOT will be charging time to the LAP for overseeing the project.
  • LAP manual should be updated with the current forms.
  • There have been issues with CEI consultants having deficient testing equipment (broken air meters and nuclear density gauges) and poor test inspectors.
  • The localities interviewed were unsure whether IA was conducted on their projects. (VDOT expects LPAs to perform their own IA unless they request the State to step in and perform this function at a cost to the project.)
  • Contractors are often unaware of the explicit QC responsibilities assigned to them in the contract.
  • It can be challenging to marry VDOT and LPA procedures, particularly for sophisticated urban localities that must satisfy numerous stakeholders.
  • Project-by-project qualification of LPAs to determine whether the locality has suitable capabilities to administer a particular Federal-aid project provides both VDOT and LPA insight into the locality’s true capabilities at any given point in time given current staffing resources.
  • VDOT has a compliance assessment program that annually selects a number of representative LAPs that are evaluated to ensure compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations, including those related to materials QA. Results from these project assessments are used to target needed training and guidance for the LAP program.
  • The LPAs must hire VDOT prequalified contractors for Federal-aid projects.
  • LPAs must include with all reimbursement requests a statement certifying that they have complied with various requirements, including that “all materials used on the project meet applicable FHWA and VDOT requirements, as applicable to Federal-aid and VDOT maintained projects.” One VDOT area engineer felt that the inclusion of this statement helped highlight to the locality the importance of materials quality.
  • WSDOT works with cities, counties, ports, and tribes among others.
  • There is a certified acceptance agency that has about 100 programs under the CA program. However, in total, they deal with about 300 agencies or tribes through this program.
  • For non- CAs, WSDOT enters into an agreement that addresses all of the roles and responsibilities.
  • WSDOT has a headquarters QA unit, but most of the project-by-project work is handled by the respective WSDOT regional office.
  • There are six regions that provide the oversight and technical assistance to the projects.
  • With the CA program, WSDOT conducts interviews with the LPAs.
  • The LPA has to do a pilot project to gauge how well they perform.
  • Every 3 years, WSDOT will do a review of LPA documents for a recent Federal-aid project.
  • Some consultant laboratories are used for testing outside of the State ones.
  • The Local Agency Guidance Manual used incorporates and references the Construction Manual.
  • The level of oversight varies by project depending on the complexity of that project.
  • About 75 percent of the LPAs use consultants.
  • The projects are usually less than $500,000.
  • If issues are encountered on a project, the LPA has to submit a corrective action report.
  • For non-CA LPAs, it might be required that they hire a consultant project manager or a CA LPA may manage the project for a non-CA.
  • There is a different monetary value threshold for change order approval with full versus non-full Federal oversight projects.
  • The FHWA may review the testing records for a full oversight project.
  • The WSDOT QA/QC is way too over the top for the typical LPA project.


  • Wisconsin has 1,900 LPAs statewide. The make-up of LPA projects includes towns and villages, county roads, local city projects, local bridge program, and City of Milwaukee ($3 to $5 million per year).
  • WisDOT requires LPA projects to follow State specifications for QA—specifications do not vary.
  • WisDOT implemented an MC program statewide in 2006 (first piloted in 1996) to assist WisDOT with administration and oversight of LPA construction.
  • The MC program provides oversight for design, construction, and QA.
  • WisDOT requires contractor to do QC, and MC performs quality verification.
  • Consultants are also used for CEI and are directly hired by WisDOT (not LPAs).
  • There is a QMP program in place, and consultants must be certified to participate in QMP program.
  • IA is done strictly by the WisDOT.
  • WisDOT has a guide for the nontraditional projects.
  • WisDOT has certification requirements and programs for LPAs.
  • WisDOT thinks MC program has improved compliance with Federal requirements but there is room for improvement in consistency.
  • An LPA urban county commented that it typically enters into a three-party contract with WisDOT and MCs to administer projects. Project types include bridges, Highway Safety Improvement Program projects, and Surface Transportation Program projects.
  • Smaller projects have less QA/QC in place.
  • The LPAs in Wisconsin hire their own design consultants, with guidance from WisDOT.
  • The WisDOT/MC administers construction, hires the construction consultants, hires contractors, and handles all billing and changes.
  • The county staff does site visits, change order signoff, and anything that affects the 20 percent that is local funds.
  • District 1 and 2 used MC program in 1992—(small rural projects).
  • There is no required number of tests per General Special Provisions in place at this time.
  • The less experienced consultant staff needs to be certified.
  • Following the proper procedure for QMP has proven to be a challenge.
  • Consistency of MC management practices needs improvement.
  • Communication up the chain to WisDOT has proven to be a challenge because of the time frame for decision-making for QA.
  • Downsizing within WisDOT has resulted in losing dedicated staff and an increase in staff turnover.
  • The CEI consultants feel that the MCs are too nitpicky and heavy-handed—not much flexibility at all.
  • The required FHWA audit tests or test according to QMP are not always getting done.
  • The LPAs are very frustrated with the project reporting requirements.
  • The MC’s customer is WisDOT, not LPA although the LPA is paying part of the cost.
  • Dealing with the permitting agencies is horrible.
  • ACEC (Engineers) said that there are conflict of interest issues with consultants overseeing consultants.
  • Some LPAs also viewed MC program as a conflict of interest.
  • Recommendations for stakeholder group:
    • Communication within the MCs needs much improvement.
    • There needs to be a review of MCs and LPAs to make them as efficient as possible.
    • The use of WisDOT Facilities Development  manuals needs to be more applicable to local projects.
    • There needs to be improvements in the communication as well as the training for the projects being performed.
  • WisDOT believes MC program has worked well and plans to continue to use MCs. One LPA commented that the program has worked very well with the same MC since 1992. WisDOT also plans to hire new WisDOT staff and transition them into LPA the program in the same role that MCs perform.
  • WisDOT improvement plans include the following:
    • Create an LPA certification program to allow LPAs greater control and autonomy.
    • Institute a new document and plan review process.
    • Institute training on MC scope versus LPA responsibilities.
    • LPA standards committee to create standards for local programs to make standards more applicable to LPAs.
    • Improve MC collaboration and develop an LPA consultant contracting and administration guide.
    • Institute MC teleconferences to discuss best practices for design and construction oversight.
    • Use face-to-face meetings with WisDOT and MC staff in regions to discuss issues and best practice.
    • Every 2 months, hold stakeholder meetings with WisDOT, FHWA, LPAs, consultants, and contractors.
    • Promote EDC goals: 1) stakeholder meetings, 2) use of consultants, and 3) LPA certification.
    • WisDOT to hire new staff and provide training for LPA oversight.
    • Create LPA education programs so that the LPAs will be more prepared with each project.
    • WisDOT will support an LPA certification program to empower the LPAs.
FAR = Federal Acquisition Regulation
TE = Transportation Enhancement
CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
STP = Surface Transportation Program




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