AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

(AECOM)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan

Policies and Procedures for the

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Division of Transportation System Development

Bureau of Structures

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7916

August 2010

Effective September 1, 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Bureau of

Structures (BOS) mandates all bridge consultants demonstrate that structure design and
structure plans are designed adequately and accurately, to appropriate requirements,
standards, and policies, and that structure plans are complete, constructible, and are in
accordance with approved details. This demonstration applies to all aspects of transportation
and structure work and specifically applies to hydrology and hydraulic analyses, structure sizing,
preliminary structure plans, final structure design and plans, load ratings, special provisions, and
associated studies and reports submitted to BOS. All consultants working for BOS must certify
they have an adequate Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) policy and appropriate
procedures in place to ensure a quality product. BOS requires all consultant design firms that
provide structure design services for WisDOT have their own customized QA/QC plan and
procedures. The QA/QC plan must demonstrate the following:

• Procedures to verify design activities and plan details are correct and portrayed properly
prior to the final submittal to BOS.

• Verification that the appropriate design calculations and analyses have been performed,
that the calculations are accurate, and that the capacity of the load-carrying members is
adequate with regard to the expected service loads of the structure.

• Verification that the structure plan is complete, accurate, and constructible.

• Verification that independent checks, reviews, and ratings were performed.

AECOM has a corporate Quality Management System (QMS) which addresses the policies and
procedures for quality assurance and quality control that are required by the BOS memorandum
dated June 1, 2010. On February 1, 2010, all Wisconsin offices of AECOM, including the
Bridge Group, implemented the policies and procedures of the QMS. Both internal and external
(third-party) audits of our quality policies and procedures are required as an integral part of the

QA/QC Plan Rev 01‐01 1 August 2010

QMS. All Wisconsin offices received satisfactory reports for both internal and external audits
performed during the summer of 2010. Additional office audits are scheduled on an annual
basis.

The AECOM QMS was developed to be in compliance with the ISO 9001:2008 standard for
Quality Management Systems. The manual, and related procedures, is web based, which
assures that the current version, and only the current version, of each document is available for
use by staff. A snapshot view of our intranet based QMS homepage is attached for your
reference and review. The QMS Project Delivery System (PDS) is broken down into four distinct
phases of project development including

• Proposal Phase

• Initiation & Planning Phase

• Execution Phase

• Closure Phase

Each phase is further broken down into well defined tasks to cover all aspects of the project
development process.

AECOM considers its ISO-certified QMS and Implementing Procedures to be proprietary

information and, as such, direct release outside the company is strongly discouraged for
competitive and document control reasons as general policy. In lieu of direct release, AECOM
would like to make arrangements for BOS representatives to review the documents on-line so
that you may verify that the AECOM QMS is responsive to your requirements.

The QMS PDS describes quality planning activities as well as quality control and quality
assurance requirements. The applicable quality procedures are used by project managers, task
managers, design engineers and CADD staff (called Originators), checkers, and quality
assurance staff.

The AECOM QMS is organized using a hierarchical document structure, with the first tier being
the Quality Manual, which provides an overview of the corporate commitment, quality
philosophy, high level quality objectives, organizational structure, and reporting requirements.
Our Quality Manual meets the BOS requirement that AECOM has QA/QC policies and
procedures in place to ensure quality.

The second tier includes the Implementing Procedures, of which the Engineering and Design
Control Implementing Procedures address the specific requirements of the BOS. Procedures
are the written processes and procedures that each staff member follows to comply with the
QMS. These procedures describe the way that AECOM staff complies with the multiple
requirements of the ISO standard.

QA/QC Plan Rev 01‐01 2 August 2010

The third tier is comprised of Work Instructions and technical guidance required to share best
engineering practices, to comply with local or regional standards, or to address particular
requirements of individual clients that are not consistent with or included in the Implementing
Procedures. Based on a review of the referenced memo, AECOM believes that our current
implementing procedures address all BOS requirements. Details are provided below.

The procedures required by the BOS as shown on Page 1 of this plan are covered in Section 4
– Technical Procedures of AECOM’s QMS as follows:

4-1 QMS Flexibility

4-2 Initiating Technical Work
4-2/1 Technical Task Protocol
4-3 Preparation and Review of Calculations
4-4 Preparation and Review of Drawings
4-5 Preparation and Review of Specifications
4-6 Preparation and Review of Studies and Reports
4-7 Review and Release of Deliverables
4-8 Software Validation

Procedure 4-1, QMS Flexibility, provides specific information needed to meet the AECOM
quality goals in the design development process. This procedure defines the roles and
requirements of AECOM and the specific task responsibilities for the project staff to meet the
QMS policies. Any deviation from the technical requirements of the QMS must be submitted to
the AECOM Director of Quality for written approval.

Procedures 4-2 and 4-2/1, Initiating Technical Work and Technical Task Protocol (TTP)
respectively, describe requirements for planning all technical work activities, including the
assignment of qualified individuals to the tasks, identifying the required design input documents
(including design criteria, references, standards, codes, and design data), describing acceptable
methods of solution, and specifying appropriate software. The Technical Director, Department
Manager or Task Managers are responsible for the development and implementation of the
TTPs. Standard TTPs may be used and are especially applicable for clients such as the BOS
where design methodologies are consistent from project to project, such as for the design of
pier bents, superstructure elements, and other repetitive design procedures. Standard formats
(provided as part of the procedure) are used for all TTPs. These procedures are the foundation
of the QMS process and provide the initial step to a quality product.

Procedures 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5, Preparation and Review of Calculations, Preparation and Review
of Drawings, and Preparation and Review of Specifications respectively, address the majority of
the BOS requirements. As the names imply, the procedures address both the preparation of the
design products and their review or checking. Specifically, the procedures address the first
bullet point of the BOS requirements by requiring independent reviews of calculations, prior to
the calculations being used to develop drawings, and the independent reviews of the plans and
specifications before submission to the client. The procedures describe Discipline Reviews

QA/QC Plan Rev 01‐01 3 August 2010

addressing and verifying the completeness, constructability, and accuracy of the structure
design and plans with regard to the intended function.

The above procedures address the second bullet point of the BOS requirements by including a
specific check-off on the Drawing Review Checklist for the Reviewer to verify that the drawings
are consistent with the design calculations. By examining the Calculation Review Checklist,
those responsible for the preparation and review of plans will know that the calculations have
been reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and appropriateness, and if there are any
exceptions noted.

The third bullet point is addressed by Procedure 4-4, Preparation and Review of Drawings, and
documented on the Drawing Review Checklist. This checklist verifies that plans were prepared
to meet the requirements of BOS, including incorporation of all details and standard procedures.

Procedure 4-6, Preparation and Review of Studies and Reports, establishes the requirements
for the preparation, review, approval, and control of technical studies and reports. This
procedure is used to provide the appropriate review for the Structure Survey Report, Hydrology
Report, Hydraulic Report and Structure Sizing, and other related documents.

All procedures include a checklist form for documenting the identities of the Originator,
Reviewer, Technical Discipline Leader, Project Manager, and other discipline reviewers
participating in reviews as a method of certifying their role in the design process. Ultimately the
Technical Discipline Lead must verify that the proper review has been conducted by the
appropriate personnel and in accordance with the QMS.

In addition, more in-depth Technical Peer Reviews would be implemented on higher technical
risk assignments. The need for additional in-depth reviews would be identified in the initial
scope development and contract negotiation and with approval from the client and BOS.

Procedure 4-7, Review and Release of Deliverables, provides for independent oversight of the
quality review process by a Project Quality Representative (PQR) who independently verifies
that the required quality procedures, including reviews and resolution of comments, have
occurred. Both the PQR or Technical Director and the Project Manager sign and date the
Deliverable Release Record confirming that the quality procedures have been implemented
prior to submission of deliverables to the client. These procedures address the fourth bullet
listed in the BOS Memorandum, and in addition with the requirements of the following
paragraph address the successful implementation of the AECOM quality control and quality
assurance.

The checklists associated with the procedures described above are attached for reference,
including:

4-3_2 Calculation Review Checklist

4-4_1 Drawing Review Checklist
4-5_1 Specification Review Checklist
4-6_1 Study Report Checklist

QA/QC Plan Rev 01‐01 4 August 2010

4-7_1 Deliverable Release Record

To meet your specific requirements, a WisDOT QA/QC Verification Summary Sheet will be
prepared for submittal with the final structure design, plans, and specifications, demonstrating
the appropriate AECOM QMS and WisDOT BOS QA/QC Plan procedures were followed. This
summary sheet includes the signoff or initializing by each individual that performed the tasks
documented in the QMS and WisDOT BOS QA/QC Plan process. The WisDOT QA/QC
Verification Summary Sheet is attached for reference.

This Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan is respectfully submitted by

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM)

James R. Lucht PE (electronic signature 8/27/10)

James R. Lucht, PE
Technical Director
Midwest Transportation – North District

QA/QC Plan Rev 01‐01 5 August 2010

 AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM)

Exhibits to the

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan

Policies and Procedures for the

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Division of Transportation System Development

Bureau of Structures

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7916

August 2010

QA/QC Exhibits Rev 01‐01 August 2010

 SNAPSHOT VIEW OF

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (AECOM)

INTERNET BASED

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (QMS)

HOMEPAGE

QA/QC Exhibits Rev 01‐01 August 2010

QMS Page 1 of 2

AECOM USIG maintains and implements an efficient and effective Quality Management System (QMS) bolstered by the unwavering commitment of management.
The policies and procedures provided within the QMS provide a consistent platform for operations and a framework to manage change, adversity and continual
improvement.

This site is the home and controlled location for the USIG QMS Project Delivery System (PDS) and other system tools for your day to day activities.

AECOM USIG Quality Policy Key Quality Documents and Links

AECOM USIG is committed to:
z QMS Tiered Documentation Structure
z performing quality work z QMS Tier I - Quality Manual
z providing high-value services to our clients z QMS Tier II - Implementing Procedures and Attachments
z developing our staff, and z Legacy AECOM USIG ISO 9001 Certificate
z always getting better

QMS Project Delivery System (PDS)

GETTING STARTED

1. Select your current stage of work from the PDS Flow Chart below
2. Clicking on the phase headings provides general information about work in that phase
3. If you know which activity you want information on (e.g. Prepare Project Approach under Execution Phase), click directly on that link to go to the appropriate
information and procedures

NOTE

This Project Delivery System (PDS) provides the basic requirements of the AECOM USIG Quality Management System and is structured to ensure we
consistently manage and achieve the desired level of quality for all AECOM USIG services and deliverables. Project Managers (PMs) are expected to apply their
knowledge and experience to implement and build upon this system in order for their specific project to best meet the need of the client and our quality goals. See
AECOM USIG's Quality Policy and Objectives and Quality Manual for additional information.

Proposal Phase Initiation & Planning Phase Execution Phase Closure Phase

Opportunity (RFQ, RFP, etc.) Initiate Project Work Plan, Do Prepare Project Approach Confirm Contractual
Preliminary Risk Review Obligations Completed

Opportunity Risk Review Project Approach Review

Determine QC Level Required Financial
According to Risk Level
Prepare Bid/Proposal Project Implementation and
Monitoring Subconsultants
Appoint Project Team
Subconsultant Assessment
Checking/Discipline Reviews Human Resources
Project Team Kickoff Meeting
Bid/Proposal Review
Verification/Quality Assurance Client
Finalize Subconsultant
Submit Proposal Agreements
Deliverable Approved for Issue Lesson Learned/Post Mortem
and Issued to Client
Final Agreement/Contract Project Kickoff Meeting with
Review Client Administration

Debrief of Bid/Proposal Phase Detailed Risk Review

Execute and Distribute Project

Work Plan

QMS Feedback And Tools

http://ushou1iis006/pds/index.asp 8/26/2010
QMS Page 2 of 2
z USIG Audit Program Schedule
z USIG QMS Training Modules
z QMS objectives, results, and metrics
z Staff Comments and Suggestions
z Central Technical Library (Water)
z USIG QMS Management Review Presentation (01/26/10)
z Quality Assurance Client Surveys
z Quality Management on NYC DEP BEDC Projects
z QMS Overview for Proposal/Marketing Purposes

AECOM USIG Quality Contacts

Corporate Contact Business Phone Email

Enrico T. Bruschi, PE, CQM

Director of Quality, North America 412.316.3507 enrico.bruschi@aecom.com
Vice President

Region Contact Business Phone Email

Tom Spearin, Regional Quality Manager 781.224.6237 thomas.spearin@aecom.com

Northeast
Dennis Miller, Regional Quality Support 212.973.3063 dennis.miller@aecom.com

Steve Biuso, Regional Quality Manager 732.564.3903 steve.biuso@aecom.com

Mid-Atlantic
Jim Klug, Regional Quality Support 312.373.6608 jim.klug@aecom.com

Jim Klug, Regional Quality Manager 312.373.6608 jim.klug@aecom.com

Midwest
Dean Schmidtke, Regional Quality Support 312.373.6907 dean.schmidtke@aecom.com

Bijoy Ghosh, Regional Quality Manager 404.965.9686 bijoy.ghosh@aecom.com

Southeast
Buddy Hudson, Regional Quality Support 954.745.7258 buddy.hudson@aecom.com

Shelby Eckols, Regional Quality Manager 512.457.7715 shelby.eckols@aecom.com

SW/Mountain
Buddy Hudson, Regional Quality Support 954.745.7258 buddy.hudson@aecom.com

Camelia Davis, Regional Quality Manager 213.330.7212 camelia.davis@aecom.com

West
Glen Hille, Regional Quality Support 805.644.9704 glen.hille@aecom.com

http://ushou1iis006/pds/index.asp 8/26/2010
 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (AECOM)

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (QMS)

REVIEW CHECKLISTS

• CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST

• DRAWING REVIEW CHECKLIST

• SPECIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST

• STUDY/REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

QA/QC Exhibits Rev 01‐01 August 2010

 CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST

PROJECT JOB NO.

CALCULATION NO.

REVISION NO.
CLIENT DEPARTMENT/DISCIPLINE
TTP NO. (if used)

SUBJECT/ TITLE
TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE LEAD ORIGINATOR

REVIEWER INDEPENDENT CALC. ENG.(if used)

TECH PEER REVIEWER (if used)

Department/Discipline Review
YES NO N/A
1. Is the calculation in accordance with a standard approach to preparing the design?
2. Have assumptions requiring follow-up confirmation been addressed and closed?
3. Is the mathematics correct?
4. Are results and conclusions consistent and reasonable considering the inputs and approach?
5. Have the originator and the reviewer signed and dated the calculation?
6. Have all previous internal review comments been addressed and closed out?
7. Have all previous client review comments been addressed and closed out?

Explain “No” responses:

Department/Discipline Reviewer
Signature / Date
 Independent Calculations (in lieu of Discipline Review)
A separate independent set of calculations has been prepared
validating the original calculations.
Independent Calculation Reviewer
Signature / Date

Technical Peer Review (if required)

All comments, issues, and concerns of this special Technical

Peer Review have been addressed and closed out in accordance
with the requirements of Procedure 4-3.

Technical Peer Reviewer

Signature / Date

The Originator, the Discipline Reviewer (or Independent

Calculation Reviewer), and the Technical Peer Reviewer (if
required) are the appropriate departmental staff for development
of this calculation.
Technical Discipline Lead
Signature / Date

4-3_2
 DRAWING REVIEW CHECKLIST

PROJECT JOB NO.

REVIEW LEVEL FINAL SUBMISSION PRE-FINAL SUBMISSION OTHER: % SUBMISSION

CLIENT DEPARTMENT/DISCIPLINE DRAWING NUMBERS

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL /
TECH DISCIPLINE LEAD
ORIGINATOR

TECHNICAL PEER REVIEWER

DISCIPLINE REVIEWER
(IF REQUIRED)

Discipline Review
YES NO N/A
1. Is the set of drawings consistent with the design intent and the calculation output?
2. Do the drawings meet the percent (%) completion for this submission level?
3. Is there a consistent presentation within the discipline?
4. Have drawings been initialed/signed?
5. Are the materials properly coordinated with the specifications at this submission level?
6. Are the items constructible as shown?
7. Have the appropriate CAD Standards been followed?
8. Have duplications and redundancy of information, data and dimensions been eliminated?
9. Are drawing titles and numbers consistent and agree with cover sheet index of drawings?
10. Have sheet cross references been verified?
11. Have all previous internal review comments been addressed and closed out?
12. Have all previous client review comments been addressed and closed out?

Explain “No” responses:

Discipline Reviewer
Signature / Date

Interdiscipline Review (Reviewers shall check that a complete set of drawings was reviewed)
Initial Date OK Comments on Comments Resolved
Drawing or Attached

Mgr. Civil Dept.

Mgr. Structural Dept
Mgr. Electrical Dept
Mgr. Mechanical Dept
Mgr. Environmental Dept
Mgr. Geotech Dept
Mgr. Architecture Dept
Mgr.
Mgr.
Mgr.
Mgr.

Technical Peer Review (if required in PWP or as determined subsequently to be necessary)

All comments, issues, and concerns of this special Technical Peer

Review have been addressed and closed out in accordance with
the requirements of Implementing Procedure 4-4.

Technical Peer Reviewer

Signature / Date

A proper review has been conducted by the appropriate personnel

in accordance with this procedure and all review comments have
been addressed and closed out.
Technical Discipline Lead
Signature / Date

4-4_1
 SPECIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST

PROJECT JOB NO.

REVIEW LEVEL FINAL SUBMISSION PRE-FINAL SUBMISSION OTHER: % SUBMISSION

CLIENT DEPARTMENT/DISCIPLINE SPECIFICATION SECTIONS

TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE LEAD ORIGINATOR

DISCIPLINE REVIEWER SPECIFICATION COORDINATOR

Discipline Review
General: YES NO N/A
1. Has the correct specification format been used?
2. Is the specification section coordinated with applicable General and Special Provisions?
3. Have duplications or variances between drawings and specifications been eliminated?
4. Is nomenclature and item numbering used in specifications exactly as used on drawings and other contract documents?
5. Are requirements for shop drawings specified, both as to content and timely submission?
6. Have cited products and equipment been checked for updates and availability?
7. Have all previous internal review comments been addressed and closed out?
8. Have all of the Client’s review comments to previous drafts been closed out?

Answer the following additional questions for Non-standard Specifications*:

9. Are material/equipment identification requirements properly identified?
10. Are appropriate codes, standards, processes, etc. referenced and dated?
11. Are measurement units and basis of payment properly specified?
12. Are shipping, cleaning, storage and handling requirements properly specified?
13. Are provisions made for the qualification and approval of special construction processes?
14. Are the acceptance criteria tests (tolerances, etc.) specified and are they adequate, realistic, and in line with industry
practice?
15. Is test and inspection documentation properly specified?
16. Have Client’s sole source requirements been followed?
17. Are manufacturer’s installation requirements referenced?

*Non-Standard Specifications are defined as those specifications which have not been created and
maintained as a company or client standard.

Explain any “No” responses:

Discipline Reviewer
Signature / Date

Technical Discipline Lead

Signature / Date

Specification Coordinator Review (To be completed on Lead Discipline Checklist only)

YES NO N/A
Is the specification format, type, nomenclature, item numbering, and level of detail consistent for all specification sections?
Have required Discipline Reviews been completed and documented for all specification sections?
Have all specification sections been reviewed for interdiscipline conflicts?
Have methods and measurements of payment been checked for consistency and conflicts?

Explain any “No” responses:

Specifications Coordinator
Signature / Date

4-5_1
 STUDY/REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

PROJECT JOB NO.

REVIEW LEVEL FINAL SUBMISSION PRE-FINAL SUBMISSION OTHER: % SUBMISSION

CLIENT DEPARTMENT/DISCIPLINE STUDY/REPORT TITLE/CHAPTER

TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE LEAD ORIGINATOR

DISCIPLINE REVIEWER PROJECT MANAGER

Discipline Quality Control Review

Project Manager - Identify Department / Discipline to Review
Civil Structural Electrical Dept.
Architectural Geotechnical Mechanical
Environmental Planning Other Dept./Disc.
Traffic Drainage
YES NO N/A
1. Does the discipline portion of the study / report meet or support the stated objectives of the project?
2. Are assumptions, criteria, or bases for evaluation of alternatives clearly described?
3. Is supporting material identified and appropriate?
4. Have backup calculations been checked in accordance with Procedure 4-3?
5. Have backup drawings and graphics been checked in accordance with Procedure 4-4?
6. Are results logical and reasonable and are they stated accurately?

Explain any “No” responses:

Discipline Reviewer
Signature / Date

Technical Discipline Lead

Signature / Date
Project Manager Review (To be completed on Lead Discipline Checklist only)
YES NO N/A
1. Is the study or report format consistent with the Client’s requirements?
2. Are all conclusions and recommendations fully supported and explained in the text?
3. Has the report been completed in accordance with the scope of work?
4. Is the Index or Table of Contents complete and accurate?
5. Is tense consistent and has the text been spell/grammar checked?
6. Has the report been properly titled and dated?
7. Have all contractually specified alternatives been addressed?
8. Have all previous internal review comments been addressed and closed out?
9. Have all previous Client review comments been addressed and closed out?

Explain any “No” responses:

Project Manager
Signature / Date
Technical Peer Review (if required in PWP or as determined subsequently to be necessary)
If required
Technical Peer Reviewer (sign on Lead Discipline Checklist only)
Signature / Date

4-6_1
 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (AECOM)

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (QMS)

DELIVERABLE RELEASE RECORD

QA/QC Exhibits Rev 01‐01 August 2010

 DELIVERABLE RELEASE RECORD

1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project: Job No.:
Client: Date:
Project Project Project Quality
Principal: Manager: Representative:
2. DELIVERABLE INFORMATION
Deliverable Description:
Submit to: Submittal Date:
3. REVIEW LEVEL
Final Submission Pre-Final Submission Other: % Submission
4. CONFIRMATION OF PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITY (DISCIPLINE REVIEWS)
Drawings
Were the Drawings completed in accordance with the current version of Procedure 4-4? Yes No NA
Are approvals by all applicable originating Technical Discipline Leads documented on the
Yes No NA
Drawing Review Checklists?
Specifications
Were the Specifications completed in accordance with the current version of Procedure 4-5? Yes No NA
Have the appropriate Discipline Reviews been completed for each discipline and
Yes No NA
documented on the Specification Review Checklists?
Has the Specifications Coordinator reviewed the submittal and documented approval on the
Yes No NA
Specifications Review Checklist?
Study/Report
Was the study or report completed in accordance with the current version of Procedure 4-6? Yes No NA
Have the appropriate Discipline Reviews been completed for each discipline and
Yes No NA
documented on the Study/Report Review Checklist?
Has the Project Manager reviewed the document and is his or her approval documented on
Yes No NA
the Lead Discipline Study/Report Review Checklist?
Calculations
Calculations are completed consistent with 4-3? Yes No NA
Are approvals by the originating Department Manager(s) documented on the Calculation
Yes No NA
Review Checklist?

If “no” to any of the above, describe specific deficiency and necessary action to be taken:

The above listed deliverables and components issued under Section 4 have been checked, reviewed
and amended as required and are authorized for submittal. Yes No NA

Project Quality Representative, TAT Chair, or Technical Director Date

5. RELEASE AUTHORIZATION
The deliverable package has been reviewed for overall completeness, compatibility, and conformance with scope and other contract
requirements, all applicable reviews have been completed, and the deliverable package is ready for submission to the client.

Project Manager Date

6. ROUTING
Project Quality Representative Project Manager Project File (original)

4-7_1
 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (AECOM)

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) PLAN

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

BUREAU OF STRUCTURES

WISDOT QA/QC VERIFICATION SUMMARY SHEET

QA/QC Exhibits Rev 01‐01 August 2010

 WisDOT QA/QC VERIFICATION SUMMARY SHEET
WisDOT Project Information AECOM Project Information
Project ID Project Number
Project Title Client Name
Project Title Project Name
Project Title Project Manager
County Submittal Date
Structure Number

CALCULATION REVIEW (All calculations, analyses, load rating, etc.)

Task Staff Verification
Hydrology

Hydraulics

Design

Design Check

Quantities

Load Rating

Technical Review

DRAWING REVIEW (Structure plans, details, standards, constructability, etc.)

Prelim. Plan Prep.
Prelim. Plan Check
Final Plan Prep.
Final Plan Check
Technical Review

SPECIFICATION REVIEW (Special Provisions, etc.)

Preparation
Review
Technical Review

STUDY and REPORT REVIEW (Structure Sizing, Hydrology, Hydraulic, SSR, etc.)

Preparation

Review

Technical Review

DELIVERABLE RELEASE (Meets AECOM QMS & WisDOT QA/QC Plan)

Project Quality Representative
Project Manager
Technical Director