SUMMARY

State DOT Certification Programs for Materials Sampling and Testing Personnel

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the nation’s roadway infrastructure. Durable transportation construction requires quality materials and workmanship. Quality workmanship is verified through inspection; materials must be tested to verify their quality. Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 637 Subpart B (23 CFR 637B) requires that qualified sampling and testing personnel perform all acceptance and independent assurance sampling and testing used in a DOT’s quality assurance (QA) program. To that end, all DOTs have developed programs to ensure that personnel performing sampling and testing are qualified. In practice, these programs are termed qualification or certification programs.

The objective of this synthesis is to document practices used by DOTs for implementing qualification or certification programs for personnel who perform materials sampling and testing according to 23 CFR 637B.

Information for this synthesis was gathered through a survey sent to the 52 voting members of the AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements. Responses were received from all 52 DOTs contacted, although not every survey question was answered by all 52 DOTs. In addition, all DOTs’ websites were visited to gather certification program documents and to collect data on the types and details of the DOT certifications. A literature review was conducted that included identifying external certification programs. Ten DOTs were interviewed to gather additional information related to their program management and their use of technology in the certification program. Representatives from two formal DOT cooperative certification programs were also interviewed.

Flexibility in the 23 CFR 637B regulation and related guidelines allowed DOT certification programs to develop independently. No standard DOT certification program management model was found. The individual programs reviewed vary in the entities involved in the program, the number of certifications issued per year, the certifications offered, and the prerequisites required for the certifications. DOTs that work or contract with outside organizations, colleges, universities, or consultants employ them in various ways. DOTs differ in how they involve industry in their certification programs, the ways they manage their training programs, and their exam details.

Consistency was found in some areas. Most DOTs use a 5-year timeframe for all their certifications (35 of 52 DOTs, or 67 percent). Almost all DOTs that certify contractor or consultant technicians use the same certification processes for DOT personnel and for technicians outside of the DOT (47 of 51 DOTs, or 92 percent); one DOT did not respond, and that DOT does not certify outside technicians). DOTs also reported that they were meeting the demands of testing the personnel who require certification (47 out of 51 DOTs, or 92 percent). Recognition of external certification programs such as the American Concrete

Institute (ACI) Concrete Field Technician Grade 1 (ACI-CFT Grade 1) certification was nearly universal. Out of 52 DOTs, 49 (94 percent) recognized ACI, three times as many DOTs as 20 years ago.

For internal DOT certification programs, of the 45 DOTs that indicated they were directly involved in developing certification exams, 36 (80 percent) noted that the exam questions were prepared using in-house subject matter experts. Colleges/universities or consultants were noted as being involved in developing exams by eight (18 percent) and nine (20 percent) of the DOTs, respectively. The predominate method for delivering written exams was pen and paper (34 of 45 DOTs, or 76 percent), but other common methods included online testing platforms (15 of 45 DOTs, or 33 percent) or proctored testing centers (18 of 45 DOTs, or 40 percent).

Technology use in training and exams was one of the focus areas of the additional interviews conducted as part of the case examples. Four DOTs were interviewed with a focus on technology and six DOTs were interviewed with a focus on program management. The four DOTs interviewed related to technology all offer both online training and in-person training; they prefer in-person training for initial certifications. In the program management case examples, four of the six DOTs interviewed indicated that they directly involved colleges or universities in their programs. Industry involvement was even more varied. Two DOTs indicated that they involved industry in an overall advisory capacity; two DOTs involved industry only in technical areas; and two DOTs did not identify direct industry involvement in their program management. Overall, 45 of the 52 DOTs surveyed (87 percent) identified either academia, consultants, industry, or association involvement in their DOT’s certification or training programs.

Beyond interviews, all 52 DOT websites were visited for information related to each DOT’s certification program. Variety was found among the DOTs related to the prerequisites required for certification programs (from programs designed specifically for technicians with no experience to programs with 12 months verified experience requirements to take an exam), basic examination methods (open-book and closed-book exams), and reciprocity. Reciprocity was found in different forms, from naming specific certifications that were considered equivalent to indicating that reciprocity would be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the survey, 29 of 52 DOTs (56 percent) identified that they include DOT-specific questions in their certification exams, which can complicate reciprocity.

As part of the website review, a snapshot of the current DOT certifications and the referenced standard sampling and test methods was developed. Over 500 individual certifications were identified, and a compilation of the most common standard sampling and test methods associated with the certifications was developed from the data. While over 100 standards were found in use, only 49 of these were consistent (found in more than five different certifications). It was also recognized that AASHTO Technical Training Solutions (a technical service program of AASHTO that focuses on online training) currently has online training available for 20 of the 49 standard sampling and test methods identified in use in DOT certification programs (41 percent). Other sources of assistance to DOTs for certification programs include cooperative efforts.

Some DOTs used cooperative programs for their certification programs, and some used cooperative programs to supplement their certification programs. Almost 60 percent of the DOTs surveyed have some relationship to one of the four DOT-focused cooperative efforts found. Seventeen DOTs are members of one of the formal cooperatives: the Northeast Transportation Training and Certification Program and the Western Alliance for Quality Transportation Construction. These two formal cooperatives differ fundamentally in

function and features. The Mid-Atlantic Region Technician Certification Program was referenced in four of the surveyed DOT programs. Thirteen DOTs were identified with the Multi-Regional Training and Certification (M-TRAC) group. M-TRAC is not a certification body but rather is an informal group that meets yearly to share information on certification programs; at least one of the members is also a member of one of the other cooperatives. Information on the operation and potential benefits of these cooperatives could be organized to disseminate to DOTs in order to assist in their decision-making.

One of the cooperatives, M-TRAC, has developed a state certifications book that lists information on certifications and associated standards (practices and test methods) used by the M-TRAC DOTs. This book is used to assist in reciprocity decisions among these DOTs. A more complete listing of information in a standard format (such as a database) about certification and associated standards used by DOTs could assist in reciprocity options.

According to 23 CFR 637B, DOTs are allowed to define the personnel qualifications for sampling and testing. FHWA has provided additional guidelines and works with DOTs on implementing them. Several AASHTO standards exist that address testing technicians’ qualifications and related QA topics. Research to harmonize these efforts and develop guidelines into one document (a guide to QA) could serve DOTs, especially because there are new personnel entering the QA field.

Coordination in training materials, especially online training materials, is an area the cooperative models are doing in different ways. Twenty DOTs use online training to supplement their classroom training. Online training is also available through the AASHTO Technical Training Solutions program for over 20 standard practices and test methods used in certification programs. It is beyond the scope of this synthesis project, but there appears a need for future research to quantify the benefits of training and certification and to develop a common method to evaluate training program effectiveness for both online and in-person training.