RoadQC

Plan-set QC for Texas highway projects

Catch the comments before the district does.

RoadQC reads every sheet of your submittal against TxDOT manuals, standard sheets and the 2024 spec book. It marks what a reviewer would flag, from design criteria to bid codes to typos, and cites the source for each one.

PLAN DESIGN SPEED 60 MPH FM 9999 NOTE: SEE TCP(2-1)-18 FOR PHASE 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL. PROFILE PVI STA 13+11 +1.20% −1.26% L = 150' K = 61 HIGHWAYFM 9999 SHEET TITLEPLAN AND PROFLE STA 10+00 TO 16+00 STAGE60% SUBMITTAL SHEETXX OF 211

Example findings on a 60% plan and profile sheet

1

RDM-KCrest curve K = 61. A 60 mph design speed needs at least 151.

2

STD-REFNote cites TCP(2-1)-18, which is not bound in the set.

3

SPELL-TITLESheet title reads PLAN AND PROFLE.

4

PLACEHOLDERTitle block still reads SHEET XX OF 211.

8,203sheets from 20 real plan sets in calibration
82%of findings confirmed real on the sheet
64 of 107district comments raised on a reviewed 30% submittal
16,437TxDOT 2024 bid codes checked for unit and description

Calibration, October 2026 · text-layer findings · details under Accuracy

How it works

From PDF to comment log in one pass

RoadQC/ FM 9999 widening / 60% submittal
Sample project
FM9999_60pct_submittal.pdf211 sheets · 184 MB
  1. Reading text layer173 sheets
  2. OCR on linework and scanned sheets38 sheets
  3. Matching the index to bound sheets211 sheets
  4. Checking 2024 bid codes and units642 items
  5. AI review of drawings211 sheets
47 findings ready 9 major38 minor
RDM-K · Sheet 31Major

Crest K = 61 at PVI 13+11; 60 mph needs 151.

AcceptRejectAssign
Accepted
STD-REF · Sheet 31Major

TCP(2-1)-18 cited in a note but not bound.

AcceptRejectAssign
Assigned · Traffic
BID-UNIT · Sheet 7Minor

Item 666 arrow marking bid in LF; this code is measured in EA.

AcceptRejectAssign
Accepted
No.SheetCommentReferenceResponse
131Crest K = 61 at PVI 13+11 is below 151 for 60 mph.TxDOT RDM, vertical curves—
231TCP(2-1)-18 cited but not bound in the set.PS&E Prep. Manual—
37Item 666 arrow marking bid in LF; code is measured in EA.2024 bid codes—
42Index lists EC(1)-16; sheet 52 is EC(3)-16.Index check—
Comment log.xlsx Markups for Bluebeam.pdf

What it checks

The comments reviewers write most, checked on every sheet

Each check cites the manual, section and edition behind it, so your designer knows what to fix and why.

Title sheet and index

Index against the sheets actually bound, spec book and FHWA-1273 dates, federal-aid number, reference markers, design-year ADT.

COMP-INDEXTITLE-SPECBOOKTITLE-FEDAID

Standards and references

Standard sheets cited in notes but not bound, citations without an edition, notes that point to sheets missing from the set.

STD-REFSTD-CITEXREF-TITLE

Bid items and quantities

2014 codes in a 2024 set, codes that do not exist, wrong units and descriptions, summary math, estimate against plan totals.

BID-CODEBID-UNITQTY-FORMULA

Design criteria

Curve radius and K values against the design speed of each alignment, side slopes and PGL on typical sections, P&P scale pairs.

RDM-KTYP-SLOPEFMT-PP-SCALE

Traffic, bridge and drainage

MUTCD signing and work-zone values, bridge load rating and sign structures, SW3P forms and EC standards.

MUTCDBDM-LOAD-RATINGSW3P

Drafting and spelling

Typos in titles and notes, street names spelled two ways, placeholders left in, missing seals, date stamps printing field codes.

SPELL-NOTECONS-STREETPLACEHOLDER

Between milestones

Know which review comments were really addressed

Compare the 30% and 60% sets. RoadQC matches sheets even when they are renumbered and follows each earlier comment into the new set.

AddressedThe fix is on the new sheet.
Not addressedThe same problem is still printed.
VerifyThe sheet changed; a person should look.
30% comment60% sheetStatus
Typical sections show no side slopes or PGL4–5Addressed
Federal-aid project number left blank1Not addressed
General notes refer to illumination sheets not in the set6BVerify
Layout sheet title misspelled3Addressed
No reference markers at project limits1Not addressed

Accuracy

Measured on real plan sets, finding by finding

A QC tool that cries wolf costs you time. Every RoadQC finding in calibration was checked against the sheet by reviewers who had not seen the rules.

20 sets, four owners

TxDOT design submittals from 30% to final, ready-to-let sets, a toll authority and a city: 8,203 sheets in all.

Precision you can check

82% of text-layer findings were confirmed real. Most individual rules run at or near 100%; the rest are named and being tuned.

Recall against a district review

On a 30% submittal with the district's markup, RoadQC raised 64 of the 107 comments that could be checked from the plans.

Built for engineering firms

An extra reviewer, not a replacement for one

The engineer of record decides

RoadQC points to likely issues and cites its source. It does not review, approve or seal plans.

Your plans stay yours

Plan sets are never used to train AI models, and you choose how long they are kept.

Works with your owner's rules

TxDOT, toll-authority and city sets are checked against the requirements that apply to that owner.

Every check cites its source

Manual, section and edition on every finding, so a comment can be defended or dismissed quickly.

Pilot program

Run RoadQC on your next submittal

We are working with a small group of Texas transportation firms before general release.

  • Findings on a live 30%, 60% or 90% set, with a walkthrough
  • Direct input on the checks your reviewers want next
  • Pilot pricing, locked in after release

Email us

Tell us your firm, your role and the type of projects you submit. We reply within one business day.