Development of a construction quality index and an integrated construction quality index to evaluate the quality of pavement construction projects

Using some type of evaluation process to rate contractors is definitely the current national trend. In the past, several actions by state highway agencies have been taken to develop some kind of rational system of rating the quality of highway construction projects and to utilize these ratings for contractor qualification or bidding purposes. However, setting contractors' bidding limits is the most substantial use of quality ratings while some states do not use them for anything, and some states do not even rate the quality of their projects. The subjectivity is one of the main complaints against current systems. The Construction Quality Index (CQI) and the Integrated Construction Quality Index (ICQI) are ratings of the quality of materials and workmanship on highway projects that, unlike current quality rating models used by state highway agencies, is totally objective.;The CQI/ICQI model tended to assign quality index values consistent with the owner's level of satisfaction with the limited data procured through the LIMS database. FDOT was asked to provide 105 projects to the research team along with an associated "rating" for each project. The projects submitted by FDOT were to be ones that had data entered into the LIMS database.;For the projects that met the criteria for inclusion, the CQI model showed positive results, rendering higher CQI for projects rated "good" by FDOT. The results were clearer when the projects were put into two categories; good and poor. Because the rating by FDOT is a criterion of the model, having a consistent and precise rating is essential for successful application of the CQI model.;There is a tendency that better rated projects by FDOT produce higher ICQI. The mean value of ICQI for projects rated "good" by FDOT construction and materials personnel was higher than the other ICQI mean values for projects rated "average" or "poor." The same relationship can be seen between "average" and "poor."...