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.

Get a free sample review See sample findings
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.

86%of report findings confirmed real on 10 letting sets RoadQC had never seen
2,486sheets in that blind test, from overlays to bridge replacements
27 of 30findings our engineer spot-checked were real
16,437TxDOT 2024 bid codes checked for unit and description

Blind test, November 2026 · 10 public TxDOT letting sets · 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 plan sets it had never seen

A QC tool that cries wolf costs you time. So we measured RoadQC the way you would use it: one run, on letting sets it was never tuned on, with every sampled finding checked against the sheet.

86% of findings were real

We ran the full review once on 10 public TxDOT letting sets held out from tuning, 2,486 sheets in all. A random sample of 523 findings was labeled against the sheets in a separate AI-assisted review that could not see how RoadQC had scored them. 86% of the findings in the report were real.

Spot-checked by our engineer

Our professional engineer reviewed 30 report findings picked at random and judged 27 of them real comments he would send to the designer.

Every finding checked twice

A rule flags a possible issue, then the AI looks at the sheet image and confirms it or throws it out. Findings it cannot confirm are listed apart, marked "worth a look".

The 86% says how often a finding in the report is right. It does not count errors in a set that RoadQC missed, so it is no substitute for your own QA/QC review. Calibration also covers 34 more public letting sets, 7,342 sheets, that were used to tune the rules.

Sample reviews

What RoadQC found in sets that went to letting

Each of these was found by a rule, confirmed by the AI check on the sheet image, and verified by hand. All come from public TxDOT letting sets on Plans Online.

Title block

Three sheets carry another project's highway and control-section in their title blocks.

Checked against: Title block vs. title sheet
Completeness

Five sheet numbers each appear on two different pages of the letting PDF.

Checked against: Sheet numbers vs. index of sheets
Standards

Two sheets cite ED(3)-14 and FPM(1)-12, but the set binds ED(3)-25 and FPM(1)-22.

Checked against: Standard sheets bound in the set
Signing

A CW20-2D sign is shown at 36 in. × 36 in.; the bound BC(2) standard calls for 48 in. × 48 in.

Checked against: BC(2) standard
Geometry

A crest vertical curve has K = 31, below the minimum of 44 for a 40 mph design speed.

Checked against: TxDOT Roadway Design Manual
Stationing

A match line at STA 598+00 falls outside its own sheet's range of 574+00 to 586+00.

Checked against: Plan sheet station ranges
Bid items

The general notes have sections for Items 503, 618, 624 and 731, but none of them is in the estimate.

Checked against: General notes vs. estimate
Consistency

One street is spelled four different ways across the set.

Checked against: Street names across all sheets

Project and consultant names are withheld: the point is what a second look catches, not who missed it. Ask for a full sample report, or name a letting set and we will review it for you.

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.

Built on TxDOT's own rules

Checked against TxDOT manuals, the 2024 spec book and the standard sheets bound in your set.

Every check cites its source

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

Pricing

One full version. Try it free, then pay per sheet.

Every run gets the rules checks, the AI review of every drawing and the AI check of every finding. See it first on a public letting set or a free trial, then buy credits.

Free

$0to see what RoadQC finds
  • Sample review of any public TxDOT letting set you pick
  • Free trial of the full version on your own project
  • The same full report a paying run gets
  • No card needed
Get a free sample review

Full version

$2.00per project sheet$0.50 per bound standard sheet · $50 minimum per run
  • Rules checks with a citation on every finding
  • AI check of every finding against the sheet image
  • AI review of every drawing
  • OCR for scanned and linework sheets
  • Comment log in Excel and markups for Bluebeam
  • Comment tracking from 30% to 60% to 90%
  • Team accounts and project history
Get the full version
Example: 60% submittal, 250 sheets
170 project sheets × $2.00$340.00
80 standard sheets × $0.50$40.00
Per milestone$380.00

What counts as a standard sheet?

TxDOT and owner standard sheets bound in the set. RoadQC checks that each one is indexed, current and cited, but does not re-check its content.

Is each milestone billed?

Yes. Each submittal you run is billed by its sheet count, so a 30% and a 60% run of the same project are two runs.

How do we pay?

Buy prepaid credits from $250; they don't expire while your account is open. Each run draws down your credits, with a $50 minimum per run. Prices exclude any applicable sales tax.

What happens to our plans?

Plan sets are never used to train AI models, by us or by our AI provider, whose commercial terms prohibit it. Trial uploads are deleted 30 days after each run, and you can delete any set at any time. See the privacy policy.

Free sample review

See a full review of a TxDOT letting set, free

Uploads of your own submittals open with the RoadQC platform. Until then, pick any project from TxDOT Plans Online and email us its link or CSJ. We run the full version on it, rules, AI review and the AI check of every finding, and send you the report within one business day.

  • Find a project on TxDOT Plans Online; public letting sets need no permission to share
  • Join the waitlist for a free trial on your own 30%, 60% or 90% submittal when uploads open
  • Uploading your own project plans will require your firm's permission, since they belong to your firm and its client

Email us

For a sample review, send the Plans Online link or CSJ of the project. To join the waitlist, tell us your firm and role. We reply within one business day.