� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Shown as an insert following this page.

DRAFT

1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................2

1.1. Our Commitment to Quality ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.2. Responsibility ................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3. Quality Expectations for Projects .................................................................................................................... 2

2. Quality Management Organization .................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Quality Management Roles ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.2. Quality Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Quality Control Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.1. Studies and Reports Procedures ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Design Calculations Procedures .................................................................................................................... 5

3.3. Plan Sheets (Engineering Drawings) Procedures........................................................................................... 7

3.4. Material Quantities Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 9

3.5. Cost Estimates Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 10

3.6. Technical Specifications and Special Provisions Procedures ........................................................................ 10

3.7. Quality Control Requirement Exceptions ...................................................................................................... 10

4. Quality Assurance Requirements .................................................................................................................... 10

4.1. Final Confirmation Review ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.2. Document Control and Record Requirements ............................................................................................... 11

5. Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

This project Quality Control Plan (QCP) describes the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for the

Spokane Transit Authority (STA) – West Plains Transit Center project. This plan explains the procedures and practices to

be followed to meet the project requirements, and identifies the organizational structure of the staff responsible for

performing quality control activities and verifying compliance.

1.1. Our Commitment to Quality

Quality is a commitment by the Design Team for the West Plains Transit Center project to STA and to itself. This

commitment is first and foremost a state of mind, a commitment to give our best effort and service to STA. This QCP

is prepared to facilitate keeping this commitment.

1.2. Responsibility

Everyone working on this project is responsible for doing their best to deliver high-quality work to STA and our fellow

Design Team Members. Specific responsibilities reside with:

– Bellevue Office Manager and Vice President – Steve Lewis, AICP

– Project Manager – Steve Lewis, AICP

– Task Managers � QC/QA Lead – Aaron Butters, PE � Civil Leads – Mark Burrus, PE; Rick Door, PE � Structural Lead – Kevin Hinkley, PE, SE� IJR Lead – Bob Munchinski, PE� Environmental Lead – Loretta Markham � Right-of-Way Lead – Julie Cope � Public Involvement Lead – Dan Adams

– Individual Employees

1.3. Quality Expectations for Projects

The Design Team expects that the West Plains Transit Center project will be planned and executed in a manner that

delivers quality work products. Specifically, it is the Project Manager’s responsibility to see that this occurs, and it is

the responsibility of project team members to support the Project Manager in achieving this goal.

2.1. Quality Management Roles

Quality Control (QC) begins with assigning the most appropriate person to execute a given task from the outset.

Lochner project team members are individually responsible for the quality of the products under their control. Team

members are assigned to projects based on their technical expertise, experience, and knowledge of similar projects.

DRAFT

�

Project Manager – A Project Manager (PM), is directly responsible to STA and is the project team’s leader

responsible for the overall administration, management, production, and coordination of project deliverables. The PM

(Steve Lewis, AICP) has primary management responsibility for the QC of deliverables on the project and specifically

for the implementation of the QA/QC process described in this project QCP. The PM has assigned a Quality

Assurance Manager (Aaron Butters, PE) to implement the QCP.

Quality Assurance Manager – the Quality Assurance Manager, Aaron Butters, PE will work with team members to

see that QC is performed in accordance with the procedures specified in this QCP. Specifically, this includes checking

to see that QC reviews are completed and documented, and to schedule and perform Quality Assurance (QA).

Originator – The Originator is the author, engineer, scientist, or other qualified person who initiated and completed a

work product, typically the Task Manager. The Originator will also review the QC comments and resolve any

differences regarding those comments. The Originator will accept the Reviewer’s comments, reject the Reviewer’s

comments, or change the Reviewer’s comments. If the Originator rejects or changes the comment, resolution between

the Reviewer and the Originator must occur. The Originator is responsible to make the agreed-upon changes to the

work product. The Originator is responsible for the generation of QC documentation, and to assure that it gets

updated as appropriate and remains with the work product up to the completion of the task and final filing in the

project files.

Quality Reviewer – The Quality Reviewer will perform the detailed review of the study, report, calculation, or design

in accordance with the procedures outlined in the QCP. The Reviewer will have technical knowledge and

qualifications similar or superior to the Originator of the work product being reviewed. The Reviewer will not be

involved in the generation of the documents being reviewed. The Reviewer is also responsible for verifying that any

agreed-upon changes to the work product as a result of the review are incorporated in the final product.

Technical Editor – The Technical Editor (Hillary Schlehuber) is primarily responsible to see that documents are

suitable for their target audience. Specifically, such things as: Is the document structured appropriately? Is the tone

and word choice right for the audience? Is the document complete, internally consistent, and easy to understand and

use? The Technical Editor is also responsible for checking uniform format, proper sentence structure, proper syntax,

grammar, and spelling.

Engineer of Record – The Engineer of Record (Mark Burrus, PE) is responsible for applying recognized professional

engineering standards to the generation and production of engineering documents and deliverables. The Engineer of

Record is responsible to see that construction documents (i.e., Contract Plans and Specifications) comply with

applicable design standards and practices. The Engineer of Record will place their Professional License Stamp on the

contract documents, certifying that the document is ready for its intended use.

File Management – Another key factor in QC/QA is file management. Electronic file directories and filename structure

should be established properly from the start and should follow the standards established for the project. Emails and

other project correspondence should be properly filed.

Project Engineer/Task Manager – The Project Engineer(s) is an engineer(s), or other qualified professional(s)

reporting to the PM who is responsible for the development of work products. The Project Engineer is assigned the

primary technical responsibility for the production of specific work elements and tasks. The Project Engineer is also

responsible for scheduling Quality Reviews, including QC reviews and QA. The Project Engineer is supported by other

technical staff working under his/her direct supervision. The Project Engineer is also responsible for resolving

differences of opinions or interpretations between the Reviewers and Originators of work products.

� � � � ! " # $ % ! � & ' ( � ) * ' + , - . * ) /

Project Coordinators/Tech Aides – Project Coordinators/Tech Aides (PC/TAs) are integral members of the project

team and assist the PM (and team) with a variety of activities to keep the project on track. From a QA/QC standpoint

this will include distributing documents, tracking the progress of a Quality Review, and making sure the QA/QC

documentation submitted for filing is complete.

2.2. Quality Definitions

Quality Control – Quality Control (QC) refers to those actions, procedures, and methods to be routinely employed at

levels and under the jurisdiction of a PM during the development of work products to produce the desired quality of

professional services and deliverables.

Quality Assurance – Quality Assurance (QA) refers to those actions, procedures, and methods to be employed at

the management levels and under the jurisdiction of the Project Quality Manager to determine that prudent QC

procedures are in place and are being carried out, and that the desired result of quality professional services, design,

and construction products is being achieved.

Quality Review – Quality Reviews (or simply Reviews) are defined as the formal, internal reviews performed on

deliverables and supporting documents to verify that they are complete and understandable, conform to project

standards, are numerically accurate, and meet the project team’s expectations as outlined in the project’s Scope of

Work. Quality Reviewers perform these reviews.

Discipline Review – Discipline Reviews (DRs) are Quality Reviews conducted primarily by one engineering or

scientific discipline (e.g., a set of civil engineering plan sheets reviewed by a senior civil engineering reviewer, or a

toxicology report reviewed by a senior toxicologist). In these specific cases, the Reviewers are primarily concerned

with the quality of the work product as it pertains to the project Scope of Work for that discipline and the document’s

adherence to sound engineering or scientific practices with respect to that discipline.

Interdisciplinary Review – For engineering design projects, an Interdisciplinary Review (IR) is conducted as part of

an integrated design package to coordinate design responsibility and design details between and within disciplines.

The IR procedure also applies to engineering and scientific reports that involve more than one discipline or that

require significant technical scrutiny, as determined by the Project Engineer/Scientist. The IR will be performed by the

project team, with senior experts as needed, representing the various technical disciplines involved. The IR will be

conducted at major project review milestones to check for potential discipline interferences and to provide

compatibility between disciplines.

Deliverables and work products originated by the Design Team for the West Plains Transit Center project will undergo

Quality Reviews based on the requirements of this QCP. Quality Reviews, and the quality procedures referred to in the

remainder of this document, refer to internal Lochner reviews prior to issuing a document to STA or other stakeholder(s) as

directed by STA. The QC Documentation Form can be found in Appendix A.

Design Team members who do not participate in originating a given work item to be reviewed can assist in performing QC

activities on that item. These Reviewers will perform detailed reviews of work products and deliverables. This review

includes, but is not limited to, STA communication documents, technical deliverables, design criteria, design calculations,

design decision documentation, preliminary through final design plan sheets, studies, white papers, engineering and

scientific data and reports, survey data, cost estimates, and design specifications.

DRAFT

0

The project authors, scientists or planners, engineers, and technicians will originate the designs, plan sheets, and/or reports

in accordance with project standards. The Reviewer for each work element will follow the Standard Review Procedure as

described below.

3.1. Studies and Reports Procedures

Studies, reports, technical memoranda, and other report-type documents require a Quality Review. The products

prepared by the Originator will be reviewed by experienced staff (Reviewer) to verify that the methods, procedures,

assumptions, theories, conclusions, and recommendations are appropriate. If the document contains content covering

more than one technical discipline, it may require review by more than one Reviewer (i.e., an IR). The Originator is

responsible to generate the QC documentation and to assure that it gets updated as appropriate and remains with the

work product up to the completion of the task and final filing in project files.

The document will then be reviewed by a technical editor who’s primary responsibility is to determine that documents

are suitable for their target audience. Specifically, such things as: Is the document structured appropriately? Is the

tone and word choice right for the audience? Is the document complete, internally consistent, and easy to understand

and use? The Technical Editor also has some shared responsibility with Word Processing for ensuring uniform format,

proper sentence structure, proper syntax, grammar, and spelling.

3.2. Design Calculations Procedures

Design calculations will be prepared on an appropriate calculation form. The completed calculation will be identified by

the project name, a description of what the calculation is for, the name of the Originator, the name of the Reviewer,

dates showing when the calculation was made and reviewed, and the sheet number. For multi-sheet calculations, the

sheet number will indicate the total number of sheets used. Sketches used to clarify the calculations and assumptions,

references, units, and conclusions are to be clearly stated and labeled. Drawings or sketch sheets made as a part of

the calculation will be numbered along with calculation sheets. The originals and check-prints of hand calculations will

be assembled in three-ring binders or otherwise compiled in a bound form by the Project Engineer. The Originator is

responsible to generate the QC documentation, to assure that it gets updated as appropriate and remains with the

work product up through completion of the task and final filing in the project files.

3.2.1. Quality Review Procedures

When a calculation or series of calculations have been completed, the Originator will make a photocopy of the

original and provide it to the Reviewer along with the QC documentation.

The Reviewer will mark up the calculations in yellow, red, or green (yellow indicates checked and correct; red

indicates corrections; green indicates deletions). Editorial comments will be marked in blue. The Reviewer will

sign the review copy of the calculation sheet in the “reviewed by” block.

The Originator will back-check the Reviewer’s comments on the calculation sheet(s). If the Originator is in

agreement with the Reviewer, the Originator will check-mark in red each of the Reviewer’s red-marked changes

on the calculation sheet. If not in agreement, the Originator will add in red any additional changes not picked up

by the Reviewer, with the concurrence of the Reviewer. The Originator will cross out in red on the check-print

each of the Reviewer’s red-marked changes that both the Originator and the Reviewer agree should not be

changed. The Originator and Reviewer will resolve differences encountered during the checking process so the

differences are not repeated again. If the two individuals cannot achieve a resolution, the Project

Engineer/Scientist or PM will be asked to resolve the differences.

1 � � � ! " # $ % ! � & ' ( � ) * ' + , - . * ) /

The Originator will change the original set of calculations to reflect the Reviewer’s and Originator’s agreed-upon

comments, then sign and date the “corrected by” block. In this process, the Originator will circle in blue the

corrections made on the calculation sheet(s).

The Reviewer will examine the original calculation sheets to see that the agreed-upon corrections have been

made, highlight them in yellow on the calculation sheets, and sign and date the “verified by” block.

3.2.2. Calculation Revisions after Checking

Design changes that require revisions after review will be documented in the following manner: If the original

sheet can be revised (rather than creating a new sheet), the revision will be made by crossing out the affected

portion, writing in the revision, and footnoting the revision by placing a shape with a number next to it (see

example below). Numbering will always be in consecutive order (1, 2, 3…). At the top of the page, a

corresponding shape will be placed along with the revision date and the revising person’s initials. The revision

will be checked in the same manner as the original calculation, and the Reviewer’s initials and date will be

placed next to the revision footnote.

The following is an example of a completed revision footnote:

Revised DMP 6/07/06

Checked STG 6/14/06

If a new sheet is required, the checking procedure will be as described above. These new sheets will become

supplements to the original calculation. Whenever practical, revisions will be made by the first Originator and

checked by the first Reviewer. Revisions should be coordinated with affected disciplines.

3.2.3. Correlation between Calculations and Plan Sheets

It is desirable to review design calculations prior to originating design plan sheets (engineering drawings). To

avoid rework the calculations should be reviewed prior to reviewing the design plan sheets. The design data to

be used in the plan sheets should be clearly identified in the design calculations.

Plan sheets should reflect what the design calculations show. Reviewers will check to see that the plan sheets

match the calculation sheets.

3.2.4. Calculation Revisions after Final Plan Sheet Review

Revisions to design calculations required after the plan sheets have been reviewed will be documented as

described above. Revisions at this stage will be carried through to affected portions of the design and

coordinated with other disciplines. If final plan sheets have yet to be stamped by a Professional Engineer, the

revisions will be made to the calculation sheets and documented on the final plan sheets. If final plan sheets

have been stamped, the revisions will be made per the procedures noted below or the project’s specific change

procedures.

3.2.5. Checking Input to Computer Program Calculations

Input for computer programs will be subject to the same checking procedures as calculations, as applicable.

Additional requirements include the following:

1

DRAFT

"

– When a computer program is run for design, a record copy of the input and output will also be printed at

the same time. If QC is being done via electronic markup then the record copy can be PDF or similar

format rather than hard copy.

– The input will be yellow-line checked (as described above) and signed off by the Reviewer. Corrections

will be noted in red on hard copy, or per the standards of the review software used for electronic files.

– The Originator will review the corrections and either rerun the program or hand-calculate and write (in

red) the correct values in the output, as appropriate. The Reviewer will verify the corrections and initial

the corrections on the output.

– If the program is rerun, a new, complete, yellow-lined check-print of the input should be generated,

signed, and dated by the Reviewer.

Check-prints of input should be kept with the output and with other project calculations and placed in the project

hard copy files. Electronic files, such as PDF, may be kept in lieu of hard copy. These can be scans of the hard

copy, or direct output from electronic reviews.

3.3. Plan Sheets (Engineering Drawings) Procedures

The review of plan sheets will require a minimum of two individuals: an Originator and Reviewer. The word “sheet” in

this section refers to either sheet files, roll plots, or a similar format for delivering information.

Timely reviewing of sheets is important for efficient project performance. A sheet used as a base by several

disciplines will be reviewed and corrected before further additions are made; this will eliminate the need to review and

correct the same items on subsequent sheets.

3.3.1. Responsibilities

The Project Quality Manager will see that Review procedures are implemented for plan sheets and the check-

prints are assembled and submitted with the pertinent work package.

The Originator of the work on a document has the primary responsibility for the accuracy and adequacy of the

deliverable and for seeing that the Scope of Work has been satisfied. The Originator should not rely upon the

review system and procedures to “complete” the plan sheet.

The Originator of each document is responsible for making the check-print, stamping and dating it, following the

check-print through the review process, and obtaining the required signoffs. This includes following the process

through correcting and verifying the document corrections and preparing the documents for the project files.

Reviewers are responsible for reviewing the sheets independent of the Originator.

3.3.2. Completing the Sheet

As each sheet is completed in draft format and deemed ready for review, the Originator will sign or initial the title

block of sheets; make a check-print copy; then affix, number, and date the check-print stamp on the print of each

sheet.

2 � � � ! " # $ % ! � & ' ( � ) * ' + , - . * ) /

3.3.3. Reviewing

The Reviewer will check the check-print of the sheet for technical adequacy and conformance to any applicable

standards and format and perform checks appropriate for that type of sheet. Reviewing activity is recorded

directly on the check-print. The Reviewer is responsible for ascertaining that the sheet is consistent with the

corresponding calculations and signing off on the check-print when those calculations have been properly

checked. To document the review process, the Reviewer will highlight in yellow on the check-print each part that

is correct. The Reviewer will mark corrections and additions in red and deletions in green. Comments or

instructions will be written in blue.

The Reviewer will sign and date the check-print stamp upon completion of the review.

If no corrections, additions, or deletions are found, there is no need for the adjudication of review comments or

further signatures on the check-print stamp. The original check-print sheet, signed in the appropriate checked

block, will be returned to the Originator for placement in the project file.

3.3.4. Back-Checking

The Originator will review the Reviewer’s marks on the check-print and personally make or supervise the update

of the original sheet. The Originator will check-mark in red each of the Reviewer’s red-marked changes if in

agreement that the original should be changed, and add in red, with the concurrence of the Reviewer, any

additional changes not picked up by the Reviewer. The Originator will not obliterate the Reviewer’s marks and

comments. The Originator and Reviewer will resolve differences encountered during the review process. If the

two individuals cannot achieve a resolution, the Project Engineer will be asked to resolve the differences. The

Originator will then sign and date the check-print stamp as back-checked.

3.3.5. Correcting the Sheet

Either the Originator or Reviewer will correct the original sheet or, if it is done by another party, supervise the

correction of the original sheet.

When making the check-print corrections to the original sheets, the person correcting the sheets will circle in

blue each correction as it is incorporated. This individual will then sign and date the check-print stamp as

“corrected” upon completion of the corrections.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = < > ? @

DRAFT

A

3.3.6. Verifying the Corrected Check-Print

When corrections are made by a third party (not the Originator or Reviewer), the Check-Print will be “verified” by

either the Reviewer or Originator, to establish that the agreed-upon corrections have been incorporated. If

corrections are not made or are incorrect, the check-print with penciled instructions will be returned to the

individual making the corrections.

The Reviewer or Originator will verify the corrections and highlight in yellow each blue-circled item (on the check-

print) after reviewing its incorporation on the original sheet. This individual will then sign and date the check-print

stamp as “verified.” After corrections have been verified, the Reviewer will initial the “checked by” block in the

title block of the original sheet (check-print copy).

3.3.7. Disposition of the Reviewed Sheet

The reviewed, original sheet (or Computer Aided Drafting and Design [CADD] file) is put under the control of the

Project Engineer, CADD Manager, or a designee to prevent further changes to the sheet that could invalidate the

Review that was done. Each checked sheet will be locked to prevent additional changes, and a hard copy will be

printed and filed in the project files as the final reviewed or “checked” sheet. Once the hard copy is filed, an

electronic copy of the file will also be archived to allow design to advance on the original electronic copy.

Archived electronic files will be locked to prevent future changes unless unlocked at the direction of the Project

Engineer or PM.

The Project Engineer or a designee will release the reviewed sheet to other disciplines to use as a baseline for

their input. When there is a change to a checked sheet, a new check-print should be made to check the area that

has changed. The check-print will be stamped and labeled Check-Print 2, 3, 4, etc., as applicable, and attached

to the previous check-print(s). The review will follow the same procedure as that of the original check-print,

except that only the portions of the sheet that were changed are marked as having been checked.

3.3.8. Incorporation of Final Confirmation Review Comments

If changes required from a Final Confirmation Review (FCR) are simple in nature, the Project Engineer or a

designee may abbreviate the previously defined review process by noting the changes in red on a new check-

print (which will be sequentially numbered) and sign the check-print, indicating that the changes do not materially

affect the design. After which the normal correcting and verifying processes will be followed. If changes required

are extensive or significant, the full series of Quality Reviews will be completed prior to issuing the documents as

final.

3.4. Material Quantities Procedures

Material quantity computations (i.e., “take-offs”) will be subject to the same review procedures as calculations, as

applicable. Additional items specific to material quantities include the following:

– Quantities will be checked by independent, approximate calculation. (The degree of approximation will be

such that significant discrepancies would be detected.)

– Summaries should be checked against individual sheet quantities.

– The Project Engineer will also review the quantities.

! % � � � ! " # $ % ! � & ' ( � ) * ' + , - . * ) /

3.5. Cost Estimates Procedures

Upon completion of the Cost Estimate (or “Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost”), a Reviewer will check the estimates

against the contract documents for accuracy and completeness using the same review procedure required for

calculations. The Cost Estimate Quality Review will include the review of unit costs, bid item cost development,

subtotals and total costs, and verification of the input of quantities to the Cost Estimate spreadsheet or tool. Once

complete, the QC Documentation Form will be completed, signed, and a hard copy will be printed and filed in the

project files as the final reviewed or “checked” product.

3.6. Technical Specifications and Special Provisions Procedures

As work progresses, the Project Engineer will maintain a list of items for which a Technical Specification and/or a

Special Provision is required in the contract documents. This list will be given to the specification writer(s), or

Originator(s), at the time specification preparation begins. The Technical Specifications and Special Provisions will be

maintained in the project files using appropriate version control procedures.

The Project Engineer and other staff responsible for plan sheets will also be responsible for making notes of

supplemental items to be included in the specifications and for transmitting them to the specification writer(s). These

notes, similar to calculations, will also be kept on file for future reference. Notes should be clear enough to permit the

specification writer to amplify and combine them into the specification as needed.

The Quality Review procedures for Technical Specifications and Special Provisions will follow the Quality Review

requirements defined in Section 4.1 for Studies and Reports.

The Project Engineer or his/her designee will complete the Quality Review of Technical Specifications and Special

Provisions. The check includes the review of standard specification language to determine that the specifications are

applicable to the design. Each step in the quality process will be completed and documented as required in the Project

Quality Plan. The Project Engineer and Engineer of Record will thoroughly review Technical Specifications that will be

included in the contract documents.

3.7. Quality Control Requirement Exceptions

If extenuating circumstances exist and documents need to be transmitted to STA before these QC procedures have

been fully implemented, the following will apply:

– The Project Engineer will notify the PM that the documents have not been checked and explain the reasons.

– Before transmittal of unchecked documents, documented permission of the PM will be obtained.

– After documented permission has been obtained, the documents will be stamped “Unchecked–For

Information Only.”

– STA should be notified in the transmittal letter that the Lochner Quality Review process has not been

completed.

– Only the PM or Quality Assurance Manager can grant exceptions to the procedural quality documentation of

check-prints and other deliverables.

The processes outlined below are aimed at the observance and assurance that prudent QC procedures are in place

and are being carried out, and that the desired result of quality services is being achieved.

DRAFT

! !

4.1. Final Confirmation Review

Prior to final submittal of an STA deliverable, report, or Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) package, the PM

may conduct a final completeness review to determine that QC, project, and Scope of Work requirements are met.

The Project Engineer/Scientist will prepare the Final Confirmation Review set of deliverables by:

– Obtaining document originals, with signatures or initials in the appropriate boxes as authored/drawn,

designed, and reviewed.

– Signing the title blocks of plan sheets or in the space otherwise provided for approval signature or,

alternatively, requesting others designated to sign specific document sets in the appropriate space.

– Assembling final document originals into sets of final deliverable documents or other appropriate formats for

reproduction and/or submission.

Once the Final Confirmation Review is completed, verifying requirements are met and agreed-upon review comments

are incorporated, the Project Engineer/Scientist will sign the QC Documentation Form and the PM will sign the Quality

Assurance Documentation Form that states in the title block the document submitted is final and a hard copy will be

printed and filed in the project files as the submitted product.

4.2. Document Control and Record Requirements

Quality Review materials (including a final set), QC Documentation Forms, review package materials, and Comment

Resolution Forms will be filed in the project file.

The project file takes two forms: 1) electronic files and 2) hard copies of documents. Typically, the project file structure

is reflective of the contract or Scope of Work established at the start of the project and noted in the PMP. Following

the Quality Assurance review of a Quality Review package, hard copies of the items below will be filed in the project

file:

– QC Documentation Form

– QC Check-Print Sets

– QC Clean Print Sets

– Quality Assurance Documentation Form

Following the comment resolution meeting, hard copies of the items below will be filed in the project file:

– Original Review Package Mark-ups (if provided by any Reviewer).

– Copy of a completed Comment Resolution Form (CRF). The Remarks column is completed by the Originator,

and the CRF is signed by the Project Quality Manager or designee.

– Any QC Check-Print Set (if changes were necessary following revisions from the review).

– Final Work Product

These documents are to be retained and archived pursuant to the Lochner document retention policy.

! $ � � � ! " # $ % ! � & ' ( � ) * ' + , - . * ) /

DRAFT

! �