Civil engineering project managers succeed or stumble for reasons that are often easy to spot if you know where to look. In my recruiting work for owners, public agencies, and consultancies, the same three factors show up again and again. First, do they understand their PE responsibilities and the line between management and responsible charge? Second, can they operate a quality system that prevents rework rather than just documenting it? Third, do they manage change orders without blowing up either the schedule or the client relationship?
This guide is the screening playbook my team and I use every week. It blends scenario interviews, hands-on plan reviews, small scheduling and budget exercises, and practical permitting checks that quickly reveal whether a project manager is truly ready to lead work in the real world.
Start with what PE, QA, QC, and control actually mean on a live job
Before I set up interviews, I align the definition of the job with the definitions in law and guidance. A licensed PE owes the public a duty rooted in ethics and responsible charge. The NSPE Code of Ethics is my first north star, and it is useful in interviews because it puts safety, competence, and honesty in plain language that candidates can discuss without legalese. NSPE’s Code is a clear anchor for questions about public safety and truthfulness in statements of work.
Next is responsible charge. I want a PM to explain what they may stamp, what they must review, and where oversight ends. The NCEES Model Law defines responsible charge as direct control and personal supervision. It is a concise phrase, but it carries weight in a scenario conversation about delegation.
Quality is the other pillar. If we are talking highway or bridge work with federal aid, there is a formal quality assurance framework that state DOTs must maintain. The requirement shows up in 23 CFR 637 Subpart B, which is why I expect PMs to distinguish owner QA from contractor QC when we discuss inspection and testing plans.
USACE projects make the distinction very explicit. QC belongs with the contractor, while government QA verifies that QC is effective. You can see that division described in the Corps’ Construction Quality Management materials and course requirements. I reference those in PM interviews because many candidates have touched a Corps job at least once. USACE CQM guidance and the updated USACE bulletin on CQM training are short and practical.
Scenario interviews that surface judgment, not memorization
My best interviews feel like a working session. I put one realistic problem on the table and let the PM show me how they think, who they would call, and which document they would open first. I tailor the prompt to the kind of work the employer actually does.
On a municipal road project, I might hand over a one page sketch and say, “You are in responsible charge for this traffic signal modification. Your EIT flagged a potential conflict with the current MUTCD. What do you do next and what do you write down.” I am listening for a precise path that involves the standard, a local supplement if one exists, and a record of the judgment. The best candidates will ground their answer in the ethics duty to protect the public and the definition of responsible charge when they explain why they will not sign until the conflict is resolved.
For the QA/QC side, I use a prompt that puts source inspection and materials verification at risk. Example dialogue from a recent search:
Me: Your ready mix supplier missed a field test yesterday. The inspector did not take cylinders for two deck pours. What is the QA and QC path here.
Candidate: Contractor QC writes a nonconformance, expands testing immediately, and notifies the owner. The owner performs QA verification per the quality assurance program. We evaluate the risk to the element and document acceptance or removal. I update the Inspection and Test Plan and report the variance to the resident engineer.
The reason I like this scenario is that it gives savvy PMs a way to point to real rules. On federally aided highway projects, states must operate an approved QA program for materials and construction per 23 CFR 637, and FHWA summarizes the oversight focus areas clearly, including sampling and testing. Citing those anchors shows me a PM can tie their judgment to policy.
Plan set reviews that reveal how a PM prevents rework
I always include a plan set review in the hiring process. A good PM catches constructability and sequencing problems while there is time to fix them. I once watched a candidate pull out a red pen and quietly circle a culvert note that conflicted with the temporary traffic control phase. They did not grandstand. They just said, “Phase two closes the access needed to set this box, unless we build an early detour.” That is gold, because it shows how they think about operations and staging.
If you want a structured backbone for your plan review work sample, you can borrow from FHWA materials on constructability and work zone practices. The agency’s best practice guidebook highlights constructability review strategies and the value of CPM scheduling as a coordination tool. It is written for operations, but it maps directly to the kind of conflicts PMs should spot during design reviews. FHWA’s work zone guidebook is a helpful reference checklist.
On heavy civil searches I also ask for a back check philosophy. Do they prefer cold eyes from a peer, or layered design checks with checklists? I do not care which camp they sit in, so long as they can describe how comments get resolved and how they prove the resolution before submittal.
Short scheduling exercises that expose how a PM manages float and risk
The fastest way to learn how a PM thinks about schedule is to have them build or repair a tiny network in front of you. I give them eight or ten activities from a recent job and ask them to sketch a critical path. Then I ask what would happen if one long lead piece of equipment shows up late.
There are good public sources that frame what quality looks like. The GAO Schedule Assessment Guide is dry, but it is a useful scorecard for whether a schedule is logical, well resourced, and protected by risk analysis. I also keep links to FHWA primers on contract time determination and CPM methods in case a hiring panel wants to calibrate its expectations for highway work. FHWA’s contract time guidance and the Federal Lands CPM guides are practical summaries.
One client asked me to include a recovery exercise for a coastal bridge project. We sat the final two candidates in a quiet room with a printed network and a one page risk register. One candidate proposed a slick bar chart. The other ran through network logic, noted which activities could move to a weather tolerant window, and suggested a formal time impact analysis for one change that affected several near critical paths. The chief engineer chose the second candidate because the thought process mirrored the way they run progress meetings. For a written standard, the Federal Lands CPM guide even walks through calendars, logic, and linking tasks in straightforward steps, which is the way we scored the exercise. Federal Lands CPM guidelines are a good read for interviewers.
Budget prompts that separate estimate literacy from guesswork
Budget exercises do not need to be elaborate. I bring a short cost summary, a couple of production rates, and ask the PM to explain which contingencies belong at which phase. If they can connect phase to estimate class, the conversation gets better fast. AACE International’s guidance on estimate classification is the backbone for that discussion. Even if a candidate has not memorized the table, I want to hear the idea that a conceptual estimate carries different accuracy and risk than a prebid takeoff. The AACE 18R-97 Cost Estimate Classification document lays out the principles many owners reference.
In a recent interview for a water resources PM, I asked which quantity they would spot check first on a channel job. They chose excavation and hauling, then backed into crew sizes and durations that fed right back into the schedule we had just discussed. That closed the loop. When budgeting and scheduling talk to each other, PMs make better calls on scope and change.
Client and permitting interface checks you can run in twenty minutes
Permitting is a place where otherwise excellent PMs can stumble. My screen is simple. I ask what permits the last three projects required, who signed them, and what the review timeline looked like. If a PM mentions construction stormwater coverage, we dig deeper. The EPA’s Construction General Permit program is a useful reference because it lays out federal permitting in areas where EPA is the NPDES authority and points to training, coverage and modifications to the current permit cycle.
For work affecting wetlands or waters, I listen for Section 404 awareness and early coordination. The EPA’s summary of the program states that a permit is required before placing dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, with some exemptions. A PM who can discuss how the team handled delineations, avoidance, and timing during design usually has fewer surprises in construction. You can find the quick overview on the EPA’s Section 404 permit page.
When I talk to PMs who spend time on Corps or NAVFAC jobs, I ask how they coordinate QC submittals with government QA reviews. The Corps’ Construction Quality Management course and bulletins make that division of responsibility explicit. I am not testing trivia. I am checking that they know who is on point and how submittals move. The public descriptions for CQM for Contractors spell it out in a few sentences.
One more permitting angle is ethics. If a PM tells me they would “soft pedal” a field change to avoid re-permitting, I will end the interview. Tying the discussion back to NSPE’s canons keeps the conversation grounded in professional duty.
Change order control that protects the relationship and the baseline
Change happens. The difference between a strong PM and an average one is how they document, price, and negotiate. I like candidates who can explain the anatomy of a change, from field discovery to time impact analysis to independent cost review. The Office of Inspector General’s review of FHWA oversight work has a plain definition I often quote to panels. A change order is a mechanism that documents negotiated agreements to amend an existing construction contract, including plan changes, specification changes, and changes in cost or time. That is the baseline vocabulary I expect in an interview. DOT OIG on FHWA change orders provides the succinct framing.
For deeper process, I like referring clients to a 2025 Volpe guide that walks through contracting practices and their impact on change order risk across project phases. It is research focused, but practical enough that a hiring panel can turn a couple of pages into interview prompts about documentation and role clarity. Volpe’s 2025 change order report is a solid shared reference.
The most revealing change order prompt I use is short. I hand over a single paragraph describing an unforeseen utility conflict that pushes a retaining wall into a different foundation type. The PM has to outline immediate field actions, documentation, pricing method, and time impact analysis. The best answers set a safe hold, get utility as-builts verified, and move the draft change through pricing with an independent check, then walk a time impact analysis on the network with the scheduler present. If they can talk about the difference between additive scope and owner requested betterment, we are in very good shape.
How I audit QA/QC thinking in one meeting
I invite final candidates to a short working session with the technical lead and the construction manager. We put a real Inspection and Test Plan on the table and ask the PM to walk through hold points, sampling, and documentation. I expect them to know where the owner’s QA program lives and how nonconformances get closed. The state DOT oversight role under 23 CFR 637 gives structure to that conversation and FHWA’s summaries of oversight focus areas help non engineers on the panel understand what good looks like.
On Corps heavy civil jobs we sometimes add a CQM vocabulary check. That does not mean we quiz the candidate. It means we ask them to explain the difference between a preparatory inspection and an initial inspection, and who signs what. The publicly available USACE CQM study guide explains how QC belongs with the contractor and how government QA validates the system. Candidates who have lived this world will answer in two sentences and ask for your latest QC plan.
The portfolio evidence that makes a hiring decision easy
Resumes tell me where a PM has worked. Portfolios tell me how they work. When I screen civil PMs I ask for four short artifacts from the last two years. A sample schedule excerpt with logic and calendars, a change order log that shows status and cause, an RFI register with average aging, and a redacted plan review comment set with resolutions. If the role touches permitting, I want a redacted stormwater submittal cover or a correspondence log with the regulator. These are not heavy lifts. They are just the natural breadcrumbs of a well run job.
When a PM can explain how portfolio metrics tie to best practice, the decision gets easy. The GAO schedule guide is one way to judge whether a schedule is credible. The AACE estimate classification gives vocabulary for estimate maturity. Even if your projects are local road widenings or pump stations, those standards help interviewers and candidates align on what good looks like.
At one interview, a candidate pulled up a change order dashboard on a tablet and filtered by cause. Their largest bucket was utility conflict. They had a one page memo outlining how they were piloting early potholing and revising the risk register at 60 percent design. No slides. Just a direct story from a jobsite problem to a process fix.
Red flags you can test for in less than an hour
Great PMs are not perfect. They are honest and consistent. Here are the signs I watch for, each paired with a quick test you can run during interviews:
- Vague on responsible charge. Ask them to explain what they would and would not stamp and why. Ground the follow up with the NCEES definition.
- Confusion between QA and QC. Hand them an ITP and ask who owns each line. Use 23 CFR 637 to anchor the owner’s QA role.
- No plan for permitting timelines. Ask for the three longest lead permits on their last job and how they sequenced submittals. Point to the CGP overview and Section 404 to confirm awareness.
- Hand waving on change orders. Give them a one paragraph scope change and ask for a time impact outline. Keep DOT OIG’s definition nearby to calibrate the room.
What a complete hiring loop looks like in practice
When a client needs a ready PM, we run an end to end loop that takes about two weeks from first shortlist to offer. The pieces are simple, but they work because they mirror the work.
Day one, candidates get a short scenario prompt tailored to the employer’s sector. Their answers are scored by the technical lead and me. Day three, we bring finalists in for plan review, plus a micro schedule and budget exercise scored against the GAO and FHWA style criteria for logic and contract time reasonableness. That does not mean we act like auditors. It just means we use public best practices as a rubric. GAO’s schedule guide and FHWA’s contract time material are the two links I share with interviewers who want to read up.
We close with permitting and client interface checks. The candidate walks us through one permit sequence they owned and one change order they managed, including the independent cost review step and the time impact analysis outline. If the role involves federal aid highways, we confirm they understand the owner QA obligations and how their team’s QC feeds that program. The anchor is 23 CFR 637.
Finally, reference calls are specific. I ask a superintendent how the PM handled a field test failure. I ask a regulator how complete the submittal package was on first pass. I ask a scheduler if the PM fixed logic when scope shifted or pushed for float that did not exist. Those three calls tell the truth quickly.
Bring it all together
Screening civil PMs is not a riddle. It is a series of small, honest tests that mirror the job. Ask scenario questions that invite judgment rooted in ethics and responsible charge. Use a plan review to catch how they prevent rework. Put a pencil to a tiny CPM network and a short cost summary so they can prove they understand time, money, and risk together. Confirm that permitting and client interfaces are handled with the same care as design. When change shows up, expect a documented path that protects time and cost without poisoning the relationship.
The public guidance that owners and agencies use is your friend when hiring civil PMs. The NSPE Code points to the duty that underpins responsible charge. The NCEES Model Law explains what direct control means. The federal QA framework shows you how contractor QC and owner QA meet. FHWA and GAO materials give you a simple yardstick for schedules and contract time. EPA and Corps permitting pages remind everyone what must be in place before machines move dirt. Use those touchstones, then hire the PM whose small decisions point in the same direction when the job is messy and the clock is running.
