QC Review Elements – District Bridge Section

In the following discussions, it is assumed that Consulting Firms (Prime Consultants and Sub-Consultants) under contract with TxDOT are performing routine inspection services for the District Bridge Sections.
QC Bridge Inspection Electronic Documentation Review
The inspection contract deliverables are submitted to the District by the Prime Consultant in batches according to bridge inspection due date, submittal deadlines, and District instructions. As these are submitted, a minimum of 10% of the bridges from every batch will be reviewed to verify that:
  • the required documentation is included in the submittal,
  • the inspection TL meets NBIS requirements,
  • the documentation is complete and accurate,
  • load rating analysis is correct,
  • scour documentation is complete and reflective of current conditions,
  • the data recorded is consistent with TxDOT and NBIS requirements, and
  • the documentation is uploaded into the Bridge Inspection Management System completely and consistent with TxDOT requirements.
The review of the load rating will include a Level I and Level II review
  • A Level I review process includes ensuring that the correct load limits and proper load limit signs are in place for instances where previously recommended load postings are retained. Recommended changes to load postings will be verified at a later time not to exceed either 30 days for On-System or Off-System. Load rating items will be checked and updated in the Bridge Inspection Management System as necessary to reflect recommended and existing field conditions. For proposed load posting changes, photos depicting the final signs will be as uploaded into the Bridge Inspection Management System as soon as possible after installation.
  • A Level II review process involves all of the Level I process plus checking:
    • documentation for completeness,
    • signatures and seals,
    • that assumptions made with respect to the condition of the bridge are reflective of current field conditions,
    • that the assumptions are accounted for in the values used in the load rating calculations, and
    • that the calculated results are those which are reported in the Bridge Inspection Management System.
The review of recorded data is limited to verification of the bridge major component ratings (Deck, Superstructure, Substructure, or Culvert ratings) using comments and photographs included with the current inspection report and comparison of ratings from previous inspection results (with consideration of expected bridge deterioration).
It is important to follow through with the required scheme of reviewing 10% of bridges for
every batch
 of submitted bridges as they are returned to the District. Bridge inspection documentation review procedures will be an ongoing task for the duration of the inspection cycle work authorization(s). The importance of this lies in assuring that the work submitted by different TLs used throughout the duration of the inspection cycle work authorization(
Typically, when a submittal is made to the District this is accompanied by a list that identifies all the bridges being submitted by permanent structure numbers (PSNs) and bridge types. The following best practice criteria shall be used to select bridges for the 10% electronic documentation review:
  • Variety of superstructure types; avoid selecting the same type of bridge for the entire review sample (keep eye out for superstructures that have known problems, for example cracking in the ends of pre-stressed girders, punch-through failures in pan girders, etc.),
  • Mixture of span bridges and culverts, (dependent upon submittal content),
  • New structures,
  • Structures recently rehabilitated or widened,
  • Variety of TLs (strive to review work from as many TLs as possible, prime and sub)
  • Structures with load postings,
  • Structures located in different counties,
  • Bridges with critical findings (to verify that appropriate supporting documentation/photographs are included), and
  • Bridges that cross different features (for example: stream, railroad, roadway - these will require different types of documentation).
Appendix C in this manual addresses the logs and forms to be completed with each QC bridge inspection review.
QC Bridge Re-Inspection
A QC bridge Re-Inspection consists of a qualified TL from each District performing independent inspections of bridges inspected by consultants under contract with TxDOT. These bridge Re-Inspections are conducted for the following purposes:
  • assess the consistency and accuracy of component ratings and comments noted on the inspection report,
  • validate critical findings and load posting needs,
  • confirm a thorough account of findings,
  • confirm measurements,
  • confirm inspection photo adequacy,
  • confirm adequacy of recommended maintenance follow-up actions, and
  • confirm accurate account of the bridge geometry (number of spans, configuration, etc.).
A minimum of 5% of the total number of bridges inspected under the current work authorization(s) will be re-inspected under this QC bridge Re-Inspection procedure. These Re-Inspections must be performed by a qualified District Bridge Section TL.
When practical, schedule the Re-Inspections so that they are done within 90 days after the consultant’s performance of the routine inspection so that field conditions would not have changed significantly between the two inspections.
The following best practice criteria shall be used to select bridges for the 5% re-inspection review:
  • Structures in the routine inspection work authorization,
  • Structures with critical findings and load postings,
  • Structures with condition ratings of a 5 or below for items 58, 59, 60 and 62 [SNBI Items B.C.01, B.C.02, B.C.03, B.C.04],
  • Structures with condition ratings of 3 or lower for 58, 59, 60 or 62 [SNBI Items B.C.01, B.C.02, B.C.03, B.C.04], structures with Item 113 [SNBI Items B.C.11] of a 2 or lower, or structures with SNBI Item B.AP.03 of “C” or “D”,
  • Structures with problematic superstructure types, such as pre-stressed girders with end cracking or pan girders with punch-through failures,
  • Structures with increased inspection frequency,
  • New structures,
  • Structures recently rehabilitated or widened,
  • Variety of TLs (strive to review work from as many TLs as possible, prime and sub) Mixture of span bridges and culverts (dependent upon submittal content),
  • Structures with different county and roadway classifications, IH, US, FM/RM, etc.
  • Structures that did not receive any QC review in the last two cycles,
  • Mixture of bridges and culverts (grade separation/stream crossing) and bridge superstructure types (steel/timber/concrete),
  • Structures with Follow-Up Actions reported during previous inspection cycles that have not been addressed.
Appendix C in this manual addresses the logs and forms to be completed with each bridge Re-Inspection field review.
QC Inspection Team Field Review
Another field QC review by the District Bridge Section consists of performing bridge Inspection Team Field Reviews that evaluate the performance of a Consulting Firm’s staff (Prime and Sub-Consultants) as the inspections are being performed. A minimum of 2% of the total number of bridges inspected during a routine inspection cycle will have an Inspection Team Field Review performed. The purpose of the Inspection Team Field Review is to evaluate the inspecting team staffing and inspection procedures, NOT the accuracy of the inspection ratings. An Inspection Team Field Review will typically involve, but not be limited to, review that a qualified team leader is present and that the correct prime or sub-consultant firms are on site, reviewing for compliance with safety guidelines, use of adequate equipment for the type of structure and field conditions, and implementation of established inspection procedures as per NBIS and TxDOT requirements.
As with the Re-Inspection Field Review, the Inspection Team Field Review should also consist of a selection of bridges that may contribute to constructive feedback that will add quality to the inspection process. The Inspection Team Field Review should also be performed throughout the duration of the routine inspection cycle so that it includes an assortment of different bridges and different TLs.
The following best practice criteria shall be used to select bridges for the 2% inspection team field review:
  • Variety of TLs (strive to review work from as many TLs as possible, prime and sub),
  • Mixture of on and off system structures,
  • Mixture of bridges, culverts, and bridge superstructure types
  • Mixture of structures with different county and roadway classifications
  • Structures that cross different features, such as railroad, stream crossing, grade separation.
Although scheduling of the bridge Inspection Team Field Review may be dependent on the consultant’s schedule, the Reviewer can anticipate an approximate range of dates of when these inspections may take place based on inspection due dates, allowing for scheduling of unannounced visits by District and Division personnel.
Open, effective communication with the consulting bridge inspector is important for successful Inspection Team Field Reviews. A good practice as part of this communication is to set up a protocol in which the consulting inspector submits a weekly schedule identifying proposed bridge inspection locations and inspection dates. Ask the Consultant to submit this schedule at least a week in advance of beginning the inspections and to narrow down the location of these bridge inspections to roadway control-section identifications, if possible. A bridge inspector may have this information available ahead of time and although this schedule may change slightly due to unforeseen circumstances, the schedule will typically not change significantly. Some situations will require advance notice to the consultant inspector but as much of the review as possible should be unannounced.
Personnel conducting these reviews should not sacrifice the quality of the results that a bridge Inspection Team Field Review may yield in order to meet the 2% Team Field Review requirement. Proper planning should be exercised. This may include requesting bi-weekly inspection schedules from the PM for the purpose of unannounced field reviews.
NOTE
: For example, if the consultant has plans to inspect six culverts and one span bridge, and the span bridge will allow for a quality Inspection Team Field Review, consider reviewing one culvert inspection and the inspection of the span bridge. Other District field activities can be performed (e.g. scour or follow-up inspections) throughout the day to fill gaps in the schedule. Per the selection criteria given above, one should not follow the consultant through six culvert bridge Inspection Team Field Reviews that will probably yield very similar results.
When coordinating with the consultants, a balance must be struck between having a minimal impact on the consultants’ scheduling and obtaining quality field reviews of varying inspectors and structure types. It is important to remember that every effort should be made to impact the consultants’ inspection efforts as little as possible.
Appendix C in this manual addresses the logs and forms to be completed with each bridge Inspection Team Field Review.