Construction Program Management and Inspection Guide

F–8
Appendix F: Examples of Reporting Practices
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION GUIDE (5/01/04)
Project Records
Report Items
Compaction of this project has not been a problem in the past,
and therefore the compaction tests were not reviewed during
this inspection.
Project records indicate that all materials incorporated into the
work are in reasonably close conformance with the
specification requirements.
Material test reports were not reviewed. However, the project
supervisor indicated that specification materials were being
incorporated into the work and good densities were being
obtained.
A review of the project records indicates compaction testing
frequencies well above the specification requirements. Less
than 10 percent of the tests indicated failing results. All failing
areas were reworked and retested until specified levels were
attained.
Compaction and gradation tests were examined and found to
be adequate in frequency and within specifications.
Project diaries were reviewed and found to be current.
The asphalt plant, rollers, and paver inspection forms were
reviewed and found in order.
Bid Item No. 8, Class E Hot Mix, was reviewed for
documentation of pay quantities. The estimate paid for 8,196
tonnes (9,035 tons) of material. The quantity summary had a
similar figure posted that was documented by weigh tickets.
The weigh tickets were properly signed and receipted.
Negotiated unit prices were used for all three items. Based on
the conversation with the project engineer, the basis for the
unit prices was the average bid prices for other projects.
However, the project files should be documented as to how
the price was selected.
There have been 10 change orders (COs) processed to date on
this project. CO numbers 2, 3, and 7 were reviewed in detail.
The project files contain adequate justification for making
changes on this project.
Comments
Risk management frequently means that not all items can be
checked. Support for these judgment calls is desirable.
However, the privilege of not looking should not be abused.
It is highly improbable that an area engineer examined all
project records. The basis for making broad-brush statements
should be reported.
Here, verbal reporting is accurately reported. This is
acceptable provided that occasional checks are made.
In this example, the acceptability of test results is quantified
along with a notation of corrective action.
This report identified the records reviewed and type of checks
made. However, it does not indicate what tests were spotchecked
or if all tests were reviewed.
This comment shows that a specific check of diaries was made.
This comment indicates the specific inspection forms that
were reviewed.
The field engineer has identified the specific item and the type
of quantity check made.
Information received verbally should be properly identified.
The request for documentation is also properly recorded.
Accuracy in recording what was reviewed avoids creating
mistaken impressions that all records were reviewed.