PennDOT – District 10-0



PENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0

ISO 9001 Internal Audit Report

(02/06)

PENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0

ISO 9001 Internal Audit Report

PENNDOT – Engineering District 10-0

ISO 9001 Internal Audit Report

-----------------------

FO4 Field Operations – E & S

Audit Process

Field

Department

Auditor(s)

Audit Objectives:

Date & Time of Audit

1. Terry Miller

2. Allen Gemmel

Review a field project to ensure the process and procedures specified in FO4 are being adhered to.

April 8, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

Location: SR 22 Clyde

Name of Auditee(s)

Auditee(s) job Function

Item(s) or areas audited

1. Mark Kmetz

1. Assistant Project Engineer – in charge of E&S controls for the SR 22 Clyde construction project.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control procedures on a construction project.

Overall Statement of Effectiveness of the Quality Management System

Areas to consider for improvement:

1. Revise Process flow block “Submit Modifications for Approval” to “Ensure modifications submitted for approval by contractor or approved in the field by County Conservation District”.

2. Revise first sentence of bullet on page 2 which reads “Become familiar with all project E & S control requirements as contained in the:” to “Become familiar with and ensure all project E & S requirements are in place and functioning as specified:”

Unit Manager Comments Including Follow-Up Action: (if any)

➢

Specific observed nonconformities (Findings): If Applicable, Follow-up Scheduled:

1. The IIC and Assistant IIC did not have the opportunity to review the E & S control plans and special provisions during the Constructability review process.

Auditee Comments:

o

Distribution of Audit Report:

• Manager of area audited

• A.D.E. Construction

• ISO Management Representative

Plan approved by: (Management Representative)

Tim McClellan

Statement of overall effectiveness of the system:

• The project staff has been proactive and has discovered and coordinated necessary changes in the contract E & S requirements before being notified by the County Conservation District Officer of deficiencies or violations.

Observations and auditor comments:

1. The project staff is keenly aware of the project’s E & S requirements and has ensured the necessary modifications needed due to plan discrepancies have been made.

Audit Criteria

)

1.

Internal requirements (questions)

1. Did the IIC have the opportunity to review the project’s E & S controls during the constructability review phase of the project?

2. Who is assigned to inspect the E & S controls and how often are they being inspected?

3. Are records being maintained to verify the minimum required E & S reviews are being conducted? Where is the inspection of E & S controls being documented?

4. Are the contract requirements for E & S properly implemented in the field?

External requirements (questions)

1. Are all reference documents readily available at the project? Is Pub. 464 Maintenance and Field Reference for E&S Controls being used as a reference document?

2. Where are the signed and dated copies of the permits being kept on the project?

3. Who is responsible for submitting modifications to the E & S control plan for approval?

4. Are changes to the contract E & S Plan approved by the County Conservation District and/or DEP prior to implementation?

Areas of strength regarding ability to meet requirements- including observed BEST Practices

1. Reviewing required E & S changes in the field with the County Conservation Officer and obtaining approval for the changes on the spot.

2. Use of Pub. 464 – Maintenance Field Reference for Erosion and Sedimentation Control as an additional reference guide for best practices in E & S controls.

External requirements (questions)

1.

Internal requirements (questions)

1.

External requirements (answers)

1. Yes, in addition, Pub. 464- Maintenance and Field Reference for E & S Controls is being used as an additional reference for best practices.

2. Permits and required records of E & S Reviews are being maintained in the projects locked fire proof cabinet.

3. Because of the numerous E & S changes required to properly build the project, the changes are being reviewed and approved in the field by the local County Conservation Officer. However, the process map needs revised to clarify responsibility for obtaining approval for changes.

4. Yes

Internal requirements (answers)

1. No, the IIC and Assistant IIC did not have the opportunity to review any of the E & S details as part of the constructability reviews. In addition, they only were provided only about a third of the roadway drawings to review during the constructability review process.

2. On a weekly basis and after each major rain storm event, both the consultant project supervisor and the office person review the E & S controls. In the event both of them are unavailable for some reason, the Assistant IIC conducts the reviews.

3. Yes, the E & S reviews are documented on a standard electronic form which is printed out hard copy and stored in the locked fireproof file cabinet.

4. Yes, the minimum requirements of the contract are being met plus many additional enhancements have been made in conjunction with the County Conservation District to properly build the project.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download