QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE:
DEFINING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE CONTRACTOR’S QC AND THE OWNER’S QA
Alison B. Kaelin, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager
KTA-Tator, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract: With the success of the SSPC
painting contractor certification programs
(PCCP) and increasing Owner requirements
for both quality control (QC) by the
contractor and quality assurance (QA) by
third party inspectors, there is more
confusion than ever over which types of
inspections, and to what level of detail,
should be performed by whom.
This paper reviews and discusses the
SSPC PCCP criterion applicable to QC and
QA, specifications and other industry
standards that address QC and QA, and
provides an approach to the appropriate
division of hold point inspections and
documentation responsibilities of QC and
QA to achieve the maximum benefit of the
quality process.
Introduction
Every painting project begins with
the expectation that the result will be a
painted structure that will be protected for a
minimum period of time. In order to
achieve that goal, Owners rely on a variety
of tools such as the specifications, contractor
certification, quality control, and quality
assurance inspection (either internal or third
party) to verify that the work is performed
as specified. While many projects require
quality control and/or quality assurance
inspections, few if any, differentiate
between the roles of quality control versus
quality assurance or provide guidance on the
responsibilities of each.
This paper discusses the difference
between the functions of quality control and
quality assurance, reviews the SSPC
certification program requirements, other
recognized industry standards and
transportation specifications that establish
minimum standards of practice for quality
control and quality assurance qualifications,
inspections, and documentation. It
concludes with recommendations to Owners
and others on how to maximize the benefits
of quality control and quality assurance
inspections.
Evolution of QC and QA in the Coatings
Industry
When the coatings inspection
industry began to evolve in the 1970’s, there
was little distinction between the roles of
QC and QA. Most early coating inspection
was performed as a response to the
inspection parameters established in the
nuclear power industry and ANSI/ASME
N45.2.6, “Qualification of Inspection,
Examination and Testing Personnel for
Construction Phase of Nuclear Power
Plants” and ANSI N101.4, “Quality
Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied
to Nuclear Facilities. These standards
defined the qualifications of coatings
inspectors and coating inspection tasks that
were required during installation or
maintenance to nuclear power-generation
facilities. ANSI N45.2.6 specifically
applied to third party inspectors retained by
the Owner, performing hold point inspection
of contractor activities. As coating
inspection expanded beyond the nuclear
power arena and into other industry
segments like transportation and water
storage and supply, most Owners continued
to rely on third party inspection to verify
that contractor activities were performed
according to the specification. That is, the
Owner’s representative often performed all
of the testing required at inspection hold
points.
In the 1990’s and 2000’s, with the
increased recognition of the International
Standards Organization (ISO), American
Society of Quality (ASQ), and other
certifications, more and more Owners,
consultants and contractors started moving
to the concept of a total quality system
involving a clear division between QC and
QA responsibilities. Owners began to
recognize that while third party inspection
was still necessary, it was not intended, nor
desirable, for the Owner’s inspection to
replace QC by the contractor.
Unfortunately, this awareness was
not always transferred to the specifications
as specific QC requirements. The result is
that QA personnel are continuing to provide
the primary role of inspecting and accepting
the work. When the roles of QC and QA
personnel are not defined, the loss of a
critical component of a total quality system
results and often creates a confrontational
position between QA personnel and the
contractor. On the other hand, when the QC
and QA personnel both perform their
respective roles during coating system
installation, the quality of the end product
improves. Due to the improving
understanding of quality systems, more and
more organizations and end users are
attempting to better define their expectations
for both the QC and QA.
Defining The Difference
Quality Control (QC) is performing
the necessary observations, testing and
documentation that verifies the work
performed meets or exceeds the minimum
standards established by the project
specifications or contract. Quality control
involves the routine and systematic
inspections and tests that are conducted to
verify that each phase of the work is in
compliance with the specification. Quality
control is the contractor’s responsibility.
Quality Assurance (QA) is the
process to verify that the quality of work
performed is actually what was reported by
quality control. Quality assurance is an
audit function, used to verify that quality
control is being performed and performed
properly. It may include review of QC
documentation or conducting actual testing
on a spot or periodic basis. Quality
assurance is typically performed by the
Owner or a third party inspector on the
Owner’s behalf.
In simple terms, the contractor is
fully responsible for every aspect of the
project from the equipment and materials,
and experience and training of personnel, to
the quality of the final product. Quality
control by the contractor is meant to provide
in-process verification that the cleaning and
painting is being performing as designed to
provide a quality final product. Quality
assurance by the Owner is meant to verify
that the quality control implemented by the
contractor meets the requirements of the
specification, to further assure that a quality
final product will result.
QC is a full-time requirement and
has responsibilities for every aspect of the
surface preparation and painting process.
QA can be full or part time or performed at
specific stages (e.g., following surface
preparation) of the painting process to verify
the adequacy of the contractor’s QC. When
the Owner does not perform QA or provides
limited QA inspection, half of the total
quality management process is lost.
Both QC and QA are necessary
components to verifying specification
compliance and quality workmanship, but
the presence of the Owner (or third party
inspector) performing QA on a project does
not relieve the contractor of the
responsibility of performing QC.
While not the focus of this paper, it
cannot be forgotten that QC is more than the
performance and documentation of
inspections. The quality control process
includes procedures for verifying that
specifications, product information, and
revisions are communicated to the job site;
verification that the equipment and
standards employed to perform QC are
functional, correct and traceable; and
procedures for documenting and resolving
deviations, non-conformance and corrective
actions.
Control of Work
The difference between QC and QA
relative to the control of work is also
critical. Only the QC has the authority to
direct the contractor’s employees or
production operations. When a contractor is
required to retain an 3rd party QC
representative, the QC will not be a direct
employee of the contractor and may not
have the ability to direct or ensure
implementation of corrective actions on the
part of the contractor’s personnel. A similar
situation may occur when the Owner
requires the coating manufacturer to perform
QC functions on the job site through the
technical representative. It must be
recognized that this approach does not have
a contractual relationship, observations may
not be free of bias, may result in conflicts
between the manufacturer and contractor,
and does not provide either a QC or QA
function.
When the Owner performs his own
QA (with direct staff), he has a contractual
relationship with the contractor, and
therefore can exert control through the
contract (or by withholding payment or
stopping work) when operations or
conditions are non-conforming.
When an Owner subcontracts third
party QA, the third party QA does not have
a contractual relationship with the
contractor; therefore, the third party QA
typically can only advise and document the
non-conformance of the contractor’s
operations and advise the contractor’s QC or
the Owner. If the contractor fails to correct
the non-conformance, the Owner must
decide whether to stop work, withhold
payment, accept the non-conformance or
take other action.
Both the Owner and the third party
QA representatives must be careful not to
direct or unduly interrupt contractor
operations due to potential contract issues
regarding control of the work and costs
related to work stoppages.
Sequence of QC And QA Inspections
The specific duties of QC and the
QA personnel will vary from project to
project. The coating inspection process
typically dictates that after certain activities
(e.g., surface preparation), work should be
inspected, rework performed as necessary,
and the surfaces accepted by QC and QA
before the contractor can move on to the
next step of the maintenance painting
process. These specific inspection items are
typically referred to as “hold points.”
 A rule of thumb is that the QC
inspection of each hold point should occur
first and any non-conforming items
identified by QC should be corrected, re-
inspected and accepted by the QC. The QA
inspection should only occur after the work
(hold point) has been inspected and accepted
by the QC inspector. The QA inspector
should then verify that the work that the QC
inspector accepted meets the requirements
of the specification. If the QA inspector
identifies non-conforming items, they
should be repaired and re-inspected by the
QC inspector before the QA inspector
accepts the work and the contractor
proceeds to the next step of the painting
process. It is often helpful, if not necessary,
to have the QC inspector and the foreman
present during the QA observations, so that
any deficiencies can be identified and
confirmed by all parties. This also allows
QC and the foreman to clearly identify areas
requiring rework to the laborers and reduces
delay of production activities.
The QA process typically includes
both a review of tests or documentation
provided by QC and duplicate inspection or
testing of certain hold points (e.g., dry film
thickness measurements) as an audit
function to verify that the results reported by
the QC are accurately reflecting the quality
of the work.
When results of QC and QA
inspection differ, the QA observations
typically supersede those of the QC. The
actual resolution of differing QC and QA
observations should be defined in the project
specification or discussed and agreed upon
by all stakeholders in the pre-job meeting.
SSPC’S Approach to QC And QA
Responsibilities
SSPC Qualification Procedures for Quality
Control (QC)
SSPC: The Society for Protective
Coatings (SSPC) has established four (4)
qualification procedures for contractors that
include minimum requirements for quality
control (QC). Qualification Procedure No.
1, Standard Procedure for Evaluating
Qualifications of Painting Contractors (Field
Application to Complex Structures),” better
known as QP-1, establishes specific
requirements for the qualifications and
duties of the contractor’s QC personnel on
field coating application projects. QP-3,
“Standard Procedure for Evaluating
Qualifications of Shop Painting
Applicators,” QP-8, “Standard Procedure for
Evaluating the Qualifications of Contracting
Firms that Install Polymer Coatings and
Surfacings on Concrete and Other
Cementitious Substrates”, and QP-6,
“Standard Procedure for Evaluating the
Qualifications of Contractors Who Apply
Thermal Spray (Metallizing) for Corrosion
Protection to Steel and Concrete Surfaces,”
have similar QC requirements. QP-6
requires the contractor to be either QP-1 or
QP-3 certified to supplement the procedure.
Each of the contractor qualification
standards identifies minimum requirements
relative to quality control personnel,
programs, inspections and documentation.
The following provides a brief review by
key topic. While the specific duties of the
QC are not well defined in the SSPC QP-1,
QP-3, QP-8, and QP-6 standards, the
supporting documentation required by the
respective standards (i.e., QC program
application, audit criterion) provides
additional insight on the requirements for
the contractor’s QC.
Minimum QC Qualifications
Under QP-1 and QP-3, the QC
Supervisor is responsible for oversight of
the QC inspectors. The QC Supervisor is
required to have 3 to 5 years experience and
formal training (the content and duration are
not specified). The QC Inspector is to have
a minimum of 2 years experience and formal
training for QP-1; however QP-3 allows the
QC Inspector to substitute in-house training
for formal training. QP-8 requires the QC
Manager and QC Inspectors to have 2 years
experience, eight hours of general QC
training and 16 hours of concrete training.
QP-6 refers to the Thermal Spray Supervisor
(TSS) and Thermal Spray Inspector (TSI)
rather than QC. It requires the TSS to have
minimum of two years experience (or one
year experience and formal training in SSPC
C-7) and qualification under internal
programs defined by AWS and SSPC. The
TSI must be internally qualified to perform
thermal spray inspections.
It should be noted that there is no
established curriculum, duration, or
evaluation of knowledge or practical testing
required under the QP-1 and QP-3
standards. Refresher training is not required
by QP-1, QP-3, QP-8, or QP-6.
Written Procedures / Quality Manuals
QP-1 requires the contractor to have
written procedures to ensure that major
operations (surface preparation, primer,
intermediate and top coat applications) are
inspected. It suggests that these procedures
are components of a “QC Manual.” QP-3
simply requires the QC to have relevant
inspection standards. QP-8 specifically
details that standard operating procedures
(SOPs) must be included in the contractor’s
QC manual and delineates the specific
procedures requiring SOPs (e.g., moisture
testing in concrete). QP-6 requires the
contractor to have formal written procedures
for performing and documenting
inspections.
Authority of the QC / Management
QP-1 requires that there is written
authority for the QC Inspectors to report
directly to management and have stop work
authority for non-conforming work. QP-3 is
similar but adds that there must be evidence
that the QC Inspector reports directly to
management, not any production-related
Supervisor or Manager. QP-8 and QP-6 do
not define the authority of the QC. QP-6
does require the TSS to be involved in
material and equipment decisions and to be
on-site during all surface preparation and
thermal spray applications.
QC Inspection Hold Points
QP-1 does not define the specific
hold points to be reviewed by QC.
However, the SSPC QP-1 Annual Internal
Audit Report / Checklist for SSPC Certified
Contractors (Rev 02/04), indicates that hold
point inspections are to be conducted during
each major operation. It states that
examples of hold points include: pre-
cleaning, surface preparation, primer,
intermediate coat, top coat application, and
cure.
QP-3 defines hold points during:
1. receipt of items to be coated
2. inspection of repaired and
coated items
3. storage of repaired and
coating items
4. surface preparation
5. storage of coating materials
6. handling
7. repair
8. labeling
9. handling and shipment
QP-8 requires hold point inspections
based upon the detailed requirements of the
QC plan. QP-6 requires hold point
inspection for major operations defined as
surface preparation, acceptance, thermal
spray (primer) application, seal and
subsequent coating application.
Documentation / Reports
QP-1 does not define the information
that must be documented by the QC. The
SSPC QP-1 Annual Internal Audit Report /
Checklist, specifically requires that the QC
prepare daily reports that include the
following information (at a minimum):
1. compressed air cleanliness
2. dry film thickness
3. air temperature
4. humidity
5. dew point
6. surface temperature
7. abrasive cleanliness
8. degree of cleanliness
achieved
9. surface profile
10. batch numbers of paint used
11. batch numbers of thinner
used
12. mixing according to
specification
QP-3 provides a similar list;
however, it adds wet film thickness and the
type and amount of thinner used. QP-8 does
not define the information to be recorded
other than a reference to the QC program
requirements. QP-6 requires documentation
of the hold point inspections performed on
major operations.
SSPC QS-1, Standard Procedure for
Evaluating a Quality Standard of
Contractors That Apply Protective Coatings
and Linings
SSPC has prepared the above
standard for inclusion in the 2005 SSPC
Volume 2, Systems and Specifications. It
provides a supplemental standard (QS-1) for
use by Owners that require a higher level of
QC on projects than is addressed in the QP
standards. This standard must be specified in
addition to the applicable QP standard.
Minimum QC Qualifications
QS-1 requires the contractor to
employ a QC Manager reporting directly to
management that is an SSPC PCS, NACE
Certified Coating Inspector or holds a BS
degree in materials science or corrosion
engineering. QC Inspectors must have
successfully completed NACE CIP Level I
and confirm visual acuity through testing
every ten years.
Written Procedures / Quality Manuals
QS-1 requires implementation of a
quality system rather than simply a QC
manual. The written quality control manual
must follow the guidelines of ANSI
Q10013, “Guidelines for Developing
Quality Manuals.” The QC Manual should
include procedures for control and
distribution, the general scope of
inspections, equipment calibration up-to-
date reference and testing procedures. The
quality system and manuals must include
quality planning and development of
specific work plans, procedures for project
document review, document and data
control, and internal review.
Authority of QC / Management
QS-1 requires written documentation
of training of managerial staff and
demonstrated management review of
fieldwork and QC documentation. It
requires that a designated replacement be
provided should the QC Manager be absent.
Inspection Hold Points
QS-1 recommends that the
contractor provide a project-specific work
plan defining the inspections, reference
standards, and documentation required by
the specification. It requires that the work
plan be maintained on-site and be available
for review.
Documents/Reports
QS-1 requires that results of all
inspections and tests be recorded in a
written report and adequately describe areas
tested, testing performed, reference
methods, results and signatures.
Additional QS-1 Requirements
QS-1 introduces several other
requirements that are not included in the QP
standards for contractors. The include:
Program Review – QS-1 requires annual
written review of the QC Manual by the QC
Manager to the management.
Review of Documentation – QS-1 requires
periodic internal review of QC
documentation by the QC Manager.
Resolution of Client Complaints – QS-1
requires that the QC Manual include a
policy to address the investigation, auditing,
and resolution of client complaints.
SSPC 03-14, Chapter 3, Quality Control for
Protective Coatings Projects
The SSPC Publication, “The
Inspection of Coatings and Linings, A
Handbook of Basic Practice for Inspectors,
Owners, and Specifiers,” 2nd Edition (SSPC
03-14), Chapter 3, Quality Control for
Protective Coatings Projects, provides
recommended practice for individuals
involved in quality control inspections and
features a series of recommended coating
inspection forms. Chapter 3 suggests the
QC inspector should also maintain a daily
work log that identifies the duties performed
each day, non-conforming items, and
supplemental information that cannot be
recorded on standardized forms.
Chapter 3 provides two (2) specific
forms to assist the QC in documenting the
recommended hold point inspections. Form
4 is a daily coating inspection form and
Form 5 is a dry film thickness measurement
worksheet. Forms are appended with
permission from SSPC.
SSPC Qualification Procedures for Quality
Assurance (QA)
SSPC has one qualification
procedure applicable to QA: Qualification
Procedure No. 5 (QP-5), “Standard
Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of
Coating and Lining Inspection Companies.”
The SSPC QP-5 program establishes a
certification for inspection companies whose
focus is the industrial coating and lining
industry. It evaluates an inspection
company's ability to provide consistent
quality inspection of coatings & linings for
its clients (typically third party QA). Like
the portions of the SSPC QP certifications
related to QC, QP-5 provides minimum
requirements relative to the qualification of
quality assurance personnel, programs,
inspections and documentation. The new
QS-1 incorporates many QP-5 requirements.
Minimum QA Qualifications
QP-5 requires the company to
employ a Total Quality Manager that reports
directly to the president or management
team. The TQM must have a minimum of
10 years experience and be a SSPC PCS,
NACE Certified Coating Inspector or hold a
BS degree in corrosion science or
engineering. Inspectors employed by a QP-
5 certified company are divided into three
levels of responsibility primarily based upon
experience and education. Level I is the
lowest and Level III the highest.
Level I requires a high school
diploma and 6 months experience in Level I
skills or an Associates degree or higher and
3 months experience in Level I skills.
Level II requires a high school
diploma, 1 year experience in Level I skills
and qualification as a Level I or a high
school diploma plus 3 years experience in
the duties of a Level I or an Associates
degree or better and 1 year experience in the
duties of a Level I or a Bachelors of Arts or
Science and 6 months experience in the
duties of a Level I.
Level III requires a high school
diploma and 6 years of Level II qualification
or a high school diploma and 10 years of
Level II experience or an Associates degree
and 7 years experience as a Level II, or a
Bachelors of Arts or Science and 5 years
experience as a Level II. At minimum, all
QA Inspectors must successfully complete a
written coating inspection training course.
In additional to coating inspection
training, QA Inspectors are required by QP-
5 to undergo annual physical testing for near
distance acuity (vision) and color perception
and annual coating inspection refresher
training.
Written Procedures / Quality Manuals
QP-5 requires participants to develop
a complete quality system that addresses:
1. Quality Policy and
Management Commitments
2. Organizational, Management
Structure, and Reporting
Relationships
3. Procedures for performing
coating inspections and tests
4. References to inspection
equipment, calibration,
maintenance and
measurement standards
5. Internal audit procedures and
schedule
The program must be reviewed
annually and documented by a written report
to management on its effectiveness and
suggested changes.
Management of QA
QP-5 requires that the total quality
manager audit the QA inspection staff and
provide oversight of the implementation of
the quality system. In addition, QP-5
requires participants to train auditors and
perform auditing of the implementation of
the quality system (i.e., Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Procedures of
Coating Inspection).
Hold Points Requiring QA Inspection
QP-5 does not define which hold
points should be inspected by the QA; rather
it states that the scope of QA inspections are
dictated by contract.
Documentation / Reports
Similar to the above, QP-5 does not
specify the documentation required to be
maintained by the QA. However, Section
11.0, Certificates and Reports provides a
format for written QA inspection reports.
Additional QP-5 Requirements
QP-5 places several additional
requirements on QA that are not included in
contractor QP programs.
Internal Audits – Internal audits are required
to be performed on a minimum number of
QA projects. Internal auditors must
complete a formal auditor training program
and be qualified as Level II Inspector or
higher.
Internal Review of QA Reports – QP-5
requires a process for reviewing QA
inspection reports internally by a competent
supervisor.
Annual Refresher Training & Visual Testing
– Inspection personnel are to be provided
annual refresher training in inspection
practices and standards and tested for visual
acuity annually.
Resolution of Client Complaints – QP-5
participants must have a policy to address
the investigation, auditing, and resolution of
client complaints.
Table 1 (at the end of this paper),
summarizes the differences between the QP-
1, QP-3, QP-8, QP-6, QS-1, and QP-5
standard requirements relative to QC and
QA.
Planned 2005 SSPC Actions Related to QC
and QA
SSPC has indicated that in early
2005 it will convene a meeting with all
auditors to discuss and resolve auditing
discrepancies within the certification
programs.
SSPC will also be introducing in
early 2005, an on-line training program for
QC Managers and Supervisors for contractor
QP certifications. The training will focus on
procedural requirements of the programs
including equipment calibration and
traceability, required documentation, and
resolution of specification deviations and
non-conformance. It is expected that this
will become a requirement for the QP
certifications.
Other Organizations Defining QC And QA
Responsibilities
NACE Coating Inspector Training and
Certification Program
Qualifications of Inspection Personnel
The NACE International Coating
Inspection Program (CIP) began certifying
coatings inspectors over 20 years ago. The
CIP establishes three levels of certification
for individual coatings inspectors
(regardless of whether they perform QC or
QA).
Level 1 – Requires successful completion of
a one-week training session.
Level 2 – Requires successful completion of
a second one-week training session.
Certified Coating Inspector – Requires
successful completion of Level 1 and Level
2, a peer review, and 2 years of verifiable
coatings-related work experience. The peer
review consists of a 2-hour oral examination
administered by a 3-member review board.
Hold Points
The NACE training provides a
comprehensive review of the observations,
tests and examinations that may be
performed by a coating inspector during the
coating process but does not define them
relative to QC and QA. The NACE
International Coating Inspector Training and
Certification Program Session I – Student
Manual (7/1/98), “The Coating Inspector’s
Checklist” indicates inspection tasks ranging
from pre-surface preparation to surface
preparation and coating application.
ANSI/ASME N45.2.6, Qualification of
Inspection, Examination and Testing
Personnel for Construction Phase of Nuclear
Power Plants
ANSI/ASME N45 2.6 establishes
criteria for companies to internally certify
individual coatings inspectors through
experience, education and testing as Level I,
II, or III coating inspectors. The SSPC QP-
5 standard adopted the levels used by
ANSI/ASME N45.2.6.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)
ASTM has several standards that
discuss coating inspectors and
responsibilities; however, they do not
differentiate between QC and QA. ASTM
standards discussing inspector
responsibilities or inspection and inspection
activities related to applicator certification
include:
D4227-99, Standard Practice for
Qualification of Coating Applicators for
Application of Coatings to Concrete
Surfaces
D6237-98, Standard Guide for Painting
Inspectors (Concrete and Masonry
Substrates)
D4228-99, Standard Practice for
Qualification of Coating Applicators for
Application of Coatings to Steel Surfaces
D3276-00, Standard Guide for Painting
Inspectors (Metal Substrates)
D5161-04, Standard Guide for Specifying
Inspection Requirements for Coating and
Lining Work (Metal Substrates)
D4537, Establishing Procedures to Qualify
and Certify Personnel Performing Coating
Work Inspection in Nuclear Facilities
Painting and Decorating Contractors of
America (PDCA)
PDCA has three (3) specifications
that address inspection requirements.
P2-92: Third Party Inspection Qualification
and Responsibilities: Defines the
qualifications, responsibilities and
procedures for third party inspectors. It
provides minimum training requirements
equivalent to NACE Level I and a minimum
of three years experience. It states that third
party inspectors should pass annual visual
acuity testing. It suggests that the
inspector’s authority, testing procedures,
instrumentation, hold points and
documentations be reviewed at the pre-job
conference.
PDCA P4:94: Responsibilities for
Inspection and Acceptance of Surfaces Prior
to Painting and Decorating: Indicates that
the contractor is required to inspect surfaces
for compliance with the specification and
that the Owner has the responsibility to
determine if the preparation of the surface is
complete.
PDCA P8-00: Owner’s Responsibility for
Maintenance of Paints and/or Coatings:
Defines the Owner’s responsibilities for an
appropriate maintenance painting program.
It suggests that the Owner is responsible for
periodic inspection of painted surfaces and
that inspections by the Owner (e.g., QA)
should be performed jointly with the
contractor (e.g., QC).
None of the PDCA specifications
address the specific division of QC and QA
responsibilities.
Transportation Specifications
Addressing QC And QA Requirements
A review was conducted of the
standard specifications for over 50
transportation authorities as listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
state transportation websites. Specifications
were examined for either QC or QA
requirements relative to: personnel
training/experience, written
procedure/quality control manuals,
management, inspection hold points and
documentation requirements
Where QP1 certification was
required by the specification, it was assumed
that the minimum QP1 requirements for the
above topics (i.e., training/experience) were
invoked.
Table 2 (appended) delineates the
standard specifications that include either
QC or QA requirements.
Twenty-four of the over 50 standard
specifications reviewed (approximately
50%) contained QC requirements or
required QP-1 certification. Fourteen of the
24 specifications relied solely on QP-1
certification. Three of the states required
the contractor to complete Owner-developed
QC forms to document QC inspection of
specified hold points.
Five of the standard specifications
addressed QA requirements. One state
required QA to complete an Owner
developed form. It should be recognized
that QA requirements are often handled on a
per contract basis rather than through
standard specifications.
The following provides a brief
overview of two states that have recently
modified their existing standard
specifications and contract documentation to
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
contractor’s QC and the Owner’s QA.
Ohio Department of Transportation
In 2004, Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) implemented a new
specification (Item 514 Painting of
Structural Steel: Dated March 22, 2004).
Item 514 of the Ohio DOT specification
requires the QC to have specific training by
NACE Certified Coating Inspector or an
SSPC Certified Protective Coatings
Specialist in coating inspection techniques.
It also requires the QC to attend an ODOT
bridge painting pre-qualification course.
The specification provides a specific
definition of a hold point (called quality
control points) as “points in time when one
phase of the work is complete and approved
by the QC and ready for inspection by the
Engineer or inspector (QA) before
commencing the next phase of work.” This
definition clearly invokes both QC and QA
inspections of certain hold points. It also
states that the QC should not routinely be
involved in production duties. Item 514
identifies ten hold points for QC inspection.
The ODOT course also provides the
QC with specific forms to be completed
each day documenting successful
completion of each quality control point. A
second form is provided to record the
number, range and average of dry film
thickness measurements performed by QC.
Illinois Department of Transportation
The Illinois Department of
Transportation (ILDOT) undertook a major
revision of it’s maintenance painting
program in 2002 – 2003 through the
introduction of QP-1 and QP-2 certification
requirements for some projects,
development of a new coating specification
and implementation of specific ILDOT
forms for completion by the contractor’s QC
and ILDOT or third party QA inspectors.
The QC and QA forms define the required
hold point inspections that must be
performed by the QC and QA, respectively.
Staffing of QC And QA Personnel
Another factor that can have a
tremendous impact on the effective
implementation of QC and QA is the
contractor’s schedule, number of work
crews or locations, the QC having other
responsibilities, and adequate staffing of QC
and QA personnel.
Under the SSPC certification
requirements, while the contractor is
required to provide a QC representative,
there is no guidance on the number of QC
personnel or QC time necessary to achieve
adequate quality control. For projects
involving multiple structures or locations, or
multiple crews, it is unlikely that a single
QC inspector could perform the necessary
observations, testing and documentation to
verify that all the work was performed as
required by the project specification or the
QP-1 program requirements. If the QC
inspector is performing additional duties
(i.e., acting as the competent person or
assisting in production operations), his or
her ability to adequately perform QC is
further compromised. None of the QP
requirements prevent the QC from
performing other functions.
Where there is inadequate QC
coverage of the key hold points, the QA
inspector may be the only one performing
observations and testing. This results in the
loss of the primary component (quality
control) of the total quality management
system. It can also lead to confrontation
between the contractor and the QA when
non-conformances are observed, since the
QC has not been involved in the initial
inspection and correction of the work.
Similar to the above, inadequate QA
staffing can also result in inadequate quality
auditing of the QC. The level of QA
inspection and the number of assigned staff
is typically established by the Owner based
on an engineer’s estimate of the project
schedule and contractor’s labor. However,
once a contractor has been selected, the
contractor typically dictates the schedule,
number of work crews, work areas and
working hours. The QA staffing plan
should be carefully evaluated against the
actual contractor’s schedule to determine if
adequate QA staff is available to facilitate
production while maintaining quality
assurance.
Another potential problem with QA
staffing is that with shrinking painting
budgets, often QA time on-site is limited by
the project budget. For example, the QA
may be limited to an eight-hour workday,
while actual contractor operations occur for
12 to 14 hours per day during peak periods.
As most of the coating work is performed at
the end of the day, the QA inspector may
not be on-site during the mixing and
application of the coating. A reasonable
rule of thumb is that the QC and QA should
be present for the complete duration of the
workday or week.
When QA staffing is inadequate, the
ability to observe all operations is
compromised. In the absence of effective
QC, valuable QA time is lost performing
initial inspections. When QC and QA tasks
are not clearly defined, significant
duplication in inspection efforts can occur.
Separating QC And QA Responsibilities
Qualifications
QC qualifications appear to be
inconsistently defined in most of the
documents researched. Since QC has the
primary responsibility for the quality of the
end product, QC personnel should have a
minimum level of experience and formal
training to perform and document the
implementation of the QC process.
Consideration should be given to requiring
QC personnel to document proficiency in
coating inspection through formal
certification or successful completion of a
specific curriculum.
When SSPC QP1 is specified, the
experience and training of the proposed QC
should be verified. Annual refresher
training and visual acuity testing should be
considered for SSPC QP personnel similar
to that by QP-5.
Most documents required third party
QA to demonstrate a minimum level of
certification and experience. The SSPC QP-
5 certification program has significant
requirements for the qualifications of third
party QA inspectors.
Procedures
Similar to the above, the contractor
should be required to follow written QC
procedures and maintain documentation for
recording the QC observations.
Most specifications reviewed did not
specify submission of QA procedures.
Documentation was required for most QA
inspections.
Hold Points
A review of the requirements of the
above criterion for QC and QA inspections
suggests that the QC has full-time
responsibility for all phases of the project.
Further, given the contractor’s control of the
equipment, personnel, material and
processes, they must through QC, be
responsible for testing of its operation and
adequacy. QA is typically specified at
specific critical hold points and for periodic
verification that the QC is being
implemented. A comparison of the criterion
specified in the documents reviewed
indicates that an appropriate division of hold
points between QC and QA may be as
delineated in Table 3 (at the end of this
paper).
Appropriate division of hold point
inspections of the QC and QA personnel
should result in the ultimate responsibility
for quality being that of the contractor and
allow QA to fulfill is it role by definition, as
an audit function, rather than as the sole
entity responsible for the quality of a
coatings project. Clear delineation of QC
and QA responsibilities also allows both the
QC and QA personnel to perform their
respective functions effectively to achieve
the total quality system and resulting in a
quality final product.
Recommendations
Owners
Evaluate and revise current standard
specifications, special provisions and
contracts (i.e., contractor and Owner or third
party inspection) to clearly define the
responsibilities of QC and QA personnel.
Require adequate QC coverage
based on projected schedules or minimum
QC coverage by crew, structure, location, or
working hours.
Require QC personnel to meet
minimum standards of training and
experience, provide QC procedures and
maintain documentation that will be used to
verify the quality of the final product.
When specifying SSPC or similar
certifications, require the contractor to
provide evidence of QC personnel
qualifications and training, necessary QC
equipment, QC procedures and the type of
documentation to be completed by the QC
inspector. Require QS-1 in addition to QP
certifications.
Develop Owner specific QC forms
or require the QC to complete Forms 4 and 5
presented in SSPC 03-14, Chapter 3 as
minimum documentation.
Develop Owner specific QA forms
for use by internal QA or third party QA.
Evaluate QA coverage based upon
the contractor’s proposed work plan,
number of crews, locations or working
hours.
Contractors
Recognize that the QC is the first
step in the total quality process and the
importance of adequate employee training
and experience and adherence to QC
procedures and documentation.
Provide for adequate level of QC in
the project estimate and bids.
Third Party Inspection Agencies
Clarify in advance with Owners and
Contractors the sequence of QC and QA
inspections, resolution of conflicts and how
to communicate non-conforming conditions.
Verify whether the scope of the
inspection is quality control or quality
assurance. Clarify QA inspection hold
points versus QC responsibilities.
Organizations Serving the Coatings Industry
SSPC, NACE, PDCA, ASTM and
other organizations defining coatings
inspection criteria or certification guidelines
should evaluate the appropriate
qualifications/experience, inspection and
documentations specific to QC and QA in
their standards. Consider annual retraining,
minimum training curriculum or training
hours or certifications for QC personnel.
SSPC should evaluate their
certification programs for consistency
between the different QP standards.
Consideration should be given to defining
minimum training requirements for QC and
management of the QC process similar to
the approach used for QP-5 certified
inspection companies. Some the actions
planned for 2005 appear to indicate that
SSPC is moving in this direction.
FHWA/AASHTO should consider
developing master guidelines and
specifications relative to the QC and QA on
transportation projects.
Conclusions
It is only through the establishment
of clear qualifications, responsibilities and
documentation requirements for both QC
and QA on a given project, that the full
benefit of the total quality management
process can be realized. Benefits can
include avoiding duplication of
documentation and inspection, reduction of
conflicts between the contractor and Owner
and third party QA, real or perceived under
or over inspection, and most importantly,
long lasting protection of the structure or
asset.
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Training and Experience

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-12 QP-5
QC Supervisor: QC Supervisor: QC Manager and Thermal Spray Supervisor: QC Manager: SSPC PCS, NACE Total Quality Manager: 10 years experience
3 – 5 years 3 – 5 years experience QC Inspector: 2 Demonstrate knowledge of SSPC CS Certified Coating Inspector or BS and SSPC PCS, NACE Certified Coating
experience and and formal training or years experience 23, QP-1 and QP-3 (for concrete QP-8 in material science or corrosion Inspector, or BS in corrosion science or
formal training 10 years experience and 8-hours and AWS C.2.20) and two years engineering. engineering.
QC Inspector: QC Inspector: minimum 2 general QC experience or one year experience and QC Inspector: Successful Inspectors (All):
minimum 2 years years experience and training and 16 successful completion of SSPC C-7 completion of NACE CIP Level I Successful completion of written coating
experience and formal or in-house hours training. Participate in SSPC Thermal or equivalent. inspection training program and
formal training training concrete/polymer Spray Training Course or equivalent Physical Qualifications verify written/practical exam
coating training (minimum 16 hours) or 2 years every 10 years: Annual refresher training
documented experience through the *Near distance visual acuity Physical Qualifications:
equipment manufacturer and formal (Jaeger) *Near distance visual acuity (Jaeger)
training program (minimum 8 hours). *Color perception *Color perception
TSS must be qualified under the (Ishihara or Farnsworth) (Ishihara or Farnsworth)
contractor’s program as a Thermal Level I Inspector:
Spray Operator and meet testing HS diploma and 6 months experience OR
requirements of AWS C2.16, SSPC Associates degree and 3 months experience
CS 23 as appropriate. Level II Inspector:
Thermal Spray Operator: Internal HS diploma and 1 year experience as a Level
program for training per AWS C.2.16 I OR Associates degree and 1 year
or equivalent experience as a Level I OR BA or BS and 6
Thermal Spray Inspector: Internal months experience as a Level I
program for training, qualifying and Level III Inspector:
certifying inspector. HS diploma and 6 years experience as a
Level II OR Associates degree and 7 years
experience as a Level II OR BA or BS and 5
years experience as a Level II
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Written Procedures / Quality Manuals

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
Written procedures to By specification QC Manual including Formal written procedures for Quality Control Manual following Written Quality Manual
insure major Requires QC have SOPs on: documentation and performing format of ANSI Q10013 – Management structure
operations relevant inspection Repair of deficient inspections Guidelines for Developing Inspection Company’s general scope of
(surface standards substrate Quality Manuals inspections and tests
preparation, Pre-treatment of Include procedures for: Reference to inspection, verification, and test
primer, substrate Control and distribution procedures to be utilized
intermediate and Contaminant testing Job descriptions Reference to any inspection equipment,
top coat) is Surface Profile Traceability of measurements calibration, equipment maintenance and
inspected Moisture in concrete General scope of inspections measurement standards used
i.e. QC Manual Moisture/vapor Up-to-date procedures for Audits schedule and procedure
emission performing test
Storage, mixing and References for equipment and
thinning of measurement standards
coatings Procedures for handling non-
Installation methods conformance
Testing coating for Quality Manuals to define and
cure, holidays, document how quality
adhesion, and requirements will be met and
thickness include project-specific work
Curing plan outlining inspection and
test plan
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Management (Authority of QC Inspectors, Supervisors, Managers and Total Quality Manager)

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
There is written There is a QC Not defined Thermal Spray Supervisor is required Written documentation of training Total Quality Manager most report to or be
authority for the Manager/Supervisor to involved in material and and experience of managerial executive management
QC Inspectors to who supervises QC equipment decisions and be onside staff Auditors required
report directly to Inspectors. during all quality hold points, Demonstrate management review
management, and There is evidence that the surface preparation acceptance, of field work and QC
to stop non- QC Inspectors report and all thermal spray application. documentation
conforming work directly to Appoint designated replacement
and inform the management, not any for QC Manager in case of
production production-related absence
supervisor of Supervisor or
required Manager.
corrective rework. QC Personnel have
written authority to
stop non-conforming
work when necessary
and order corrective
rework.
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Inspection Hold points

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
1. pre-cleaning 1. receipt of items to At minimum, per Procedures for verifying proper Specific hold points to be Not specified
2. surface preparation be coated contractors QC thermal spray application and defined on a job specific basis
3. primer 2. inspection of manual sealing in the project-specific work plan
4. intermediate repaired and coated Procedures for inspection and as part of the Quality Control
5. topcoat items documentation for each major Manual
6. cure 3. storage of repaired operation (e.g., surface preparation, Work plan to be on site at all
and coated items , primer application, seal and times
4. surface preparation subsequent coating application)
5. storage of coating
materials
6. handling
7. repair of damages
8. labeling
9. handling and
shipping
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Documentation / Report Content

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
1. compressed air 1. compressed air At minimum, per 1. As discussed in hold points Results of all inspections and Includes:
cleanliness cleanliness contractors QC tests to be recorded in written Identification of instruments
2. dry film 2. wet film thickness manual report as discussed in test Description of test area and results
thickness 3. dry film thickness method Date of inspection
3. air temperature 4. air temperature Includes: Identification of instruments or test methods
4. humidity 5. humidity Identification of instruments used
5. dew point 6. dew point Description of test area and Reference to sampling method
6. surface 7. surface temperature results Name, signature and title
temperature 8. abrasive cleanliness Date of inspection
7. abrasive 9. degree of cleanliness Identification of instruments or
cleanliness achieved test methods used
8. degree of 10. surface profile Reference to sampling method
cleanliness 11. batch numbers of Name, signature and title
achieved paint used
9. surface profile 12. thinner used and
10. batch numbers amount
of paint used
11. batch numbers
of thinner used
12. mixing
according to
specification
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SSPC PCCP REQUIREMENTS1

Internal Audits and Program Review

QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
Audits – None Audits – None Audits – None Audits – None Audits – None Audits required on a minimum 50 % of
Program Review - Program Review - None Program Review – Program Review – None Program Review - Annual written projects
None None report to management on QC Annual written program review to
program management required
Internal Auditors: Meet SSPC Level II and
complete formal auditor training

Other Requirements
QP-1 QP-3 QP-8 QP-6 QS-1 QP-5
Review of Review of Documentation Review of Review of Documentation - Review of Documentation - Review of Documentation - Independent
Documentation - None Documentation - Require periodic internal review of inspection reports / results / tests
None review of quality by competent supervisor
- None documentation by QC
Manager

Refresher Training - Refresher Training - None Refresher Training - Refresher Training - None Refresher Training - None Annual
None None
Resolution of Resolution of complaints - Resolution of Resolution of complaints - None QC Manual must include QC Manual must include complaint policy and
complaints - None None complaints - None complaint policy and trigger trigger audit or investigation
audit or investigation Record of complaint investigation and
Record of complaint investigation resolution required
and resolution required
1: Requirements based upon the applicable qualification procedure, application form and instruction and annual internal audit report form and checklist. Note: application package and internal audit

report form and checklist not yet developed for QP-8 and QP-6.
2: Note QS-1 was approved September 1, 2004 but has not been released pending publication of SSPC 2005, Volume II, Systems and Specifications.
 TABLE 2
SPECIFIED QC REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY AGENCIES
Owner / Specifying Agency Training / Written Procedures / Authority &/or Inspection Documentation /
Experience Quality Manuals Management of QC Hold points Report
Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Canada) YES YES YES YES YES
(Owner Form)
Delaware River Port Authority QP1 QP1 NO YES YES
Illinois DOT YES YES YES YES YES
(Owner Form)
Ohio DOT YES NO NO YES YES
(Owner Form)
Nebraska Department of Roads YES NO NO YES YES
Maine DOT QP1 YES NO NO YES
Rhode Island DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Connecticut DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Massachusetts DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New Jersey Highway Authority QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
NJ/NY Port Authority QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New York City DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New York City Transit Authority QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New York State DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New York State Thruway QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
New York TBTA QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Ohio Turnpike Commission QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Oklahoma DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Texas DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Utah DOT QP1 QP1 NO NO QP1
Alabama DOT NO NO YES NO YES
Alaska DOT NO NO NO YES YES
Maryland SHA QP1 YES NO YES YES
Indiana DOT QP1 YES YES YES NO
Note: If QP1 specified, training and QC manual assumed.
SPECIFIED QA REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY AGENCIES
Owner / Specifying Agency Training / Written Procedures / Quality Management Inspection Hold Documentation / Report
Experience Manuals points Content
Delaware River Port Authority NO NO NO YES NO
Illinois DOT NO NO NO YES YES
Maine DOT NO NO NO YES NO
Oregon DOT NO NO NO YES NO
Alaska DOT YES NO NO YES NO
 TABLE 3 – Division of QC and QA Hold Point Inspections

Hold Point Inspection Quality Quality

Control Assurance
Ambient Conditions (pre-preparation) DT DT
Pre-surface preparation conditions (welds, rust, edges, etc.) OV OV
Pre-surface preparation conditions (grease, dust, etc.) and/or SP-1 V V
Surface preparation equipment operation and abrasive size/type DV/PT DR/RV/PT
Abrasive Cleanliness PT PR/PT
Compressed Air Cleanliness DT DR/PT
Soluble Salt Contamination OT OR/PT
Soluble Salt Remediation OV OV
Ambient Conditions (pre-mixing and application) DT DT
Mixing and materials (batch nos., pot life, thinner, etc.) OV OR/PT
Application equipment operation (pressures, agitation, type, etc.) DV/PT DR/DV/PT
Compressed Air Cleanliness (spray application) DT DR/PT
Wet Film Thickness OT OR/PT
Stripe coat, caulking, intercoat cleanliness, etc. OV OR/OV
Dry Film Thickness OT OT
Visual Appearance (runs, drips, sags, etc.) OV OV
Repairs OV OV
Legend
Type of Verification Frequency of Verification
V = Visual D = Daily
T = Testing O = Occurrence-based
R = Review of QC report or testing P = Periodic