Soils and Materials Laboratory, Technical Support
There have recently been reports in a number of publications that relate to the production and distribution of sub-standard cement, from a large manufacture, that  may render the concrete produced from the cement liable to an expansive reaction between cement alkalis and reactive silica in the aggregate. 
This situation was reported in NEW CIVIL ENGINEER of the 27/1/2005, and I would particularly bring your attention to the inset item headed "How could it happen".
Obviously this has a very serious knock on effect, possibly causing early failure of concrete structures and significant expensive in replacing concrete now, or at time earlier than had been predicted for the life of the structure, or concrete item.
The problem is said to have been caused by "rogue staff". It is not clear in the reports I have read if the "rogue staff" that were alleged to have deliberately falsified certificates were employed in a laboratory facility. 
It could be that correct testing was being undertaken but being presented differently by others.
However it stated in one publication that the production of substandard cement had been happening for over two years. The article suggests auditing of the plant, that did comply with current  requirements, was being done and yet it appears to be ineffectual.
I am of course making the assumption that this production plant did have a testing laboratory.
It is also my opinion that this situation indicates that those receiving cement for inclusion in their own manufactured products should have laboratories and staff, or access to such laboratories, so that they can test the incoming supplies. 
If as suggested the period of two years has been reported correctly, nobody involved in the concrete production chain can be too pleased with themselves.
I am an ex laboratory man, I know the benefits that such a service can bring, I am therefore very disappointed in the  way these services are being utilised in relation to highways construction and maintenance, or should I say not utilised. 
When somebody tells me that it is no longer necessary to sample and test because the supplier has procedures in place that warrant testing by the customer unnecessary, I am unimpressed, and my experience tells me to keep sampling and laboratory testing.
Another major example of not taking advantage of, or ignoring, good sampling and testing procedures provided by a competent soils and materials laboratory appears to be the A10 Wadesmill Bypass. 
It would be nice to think that in the fullness of time a report will be published on the "heave" of the stabilised components of the road pavement so that lessons can be learnt for the future. 
But, with what is known of the potential problems of sulphate bearing soils in relation to in situ soil stabilisation, and the information that is available in British Standards and Highways Agency  documents it would suggest that incorrect or insufficient laboratory investigation was performed. 
I do not like to believe that it was carried out badly or that it was ignored for "commercial" reasons.
It would be encouraging to think that quite soon those in authority will understand that an efficiently run suitably staffed laboratory facility should not be seen as a cost to an organisation but a means of saving a considerable amount of money. 
Indeed such a facility should ensure that the money spent/invested in a project is invested wisely so that the materials employed will give long term performance, ensuring that it is a considerable time before re-investment in the fabric of the project is required. This approach, as well as being commercial good sense to the "owner" and "funder" of the highway, has got to be regarded as "Best Value" and "Environmentally Friendly", and you achieve quite a few "points" for these parameters under BVPI.
Traditionally these organisations were the government or the local authority, but now with the longer term maintenance contractual arrangements I believe contractors, or consortia of contractors and consultants, need to reappraise there attitude to good soils and materials laboratory support. It is likely that they wish to retain these contracts and it is indicated that quality as much as price will be a deciding factor in winning/retaining the work.
A further very serious point in relation to those employed in the industry is that I personally would not particularly want to be a civil/road maintenance engineer in a middle management situation at the moment, without good technical support being available to me, and the means of imposing that technical support.
The current situation where we have engineering middle management in court facing manslaughter charges is not a good reflection on the construction/highways maintenance industry, or a happy career scenario for any engineer.
I appreciate this piece of text may not be particularly well crafted, but it is written by a Materials Engineer trying to indicate the broad concerns I have over the path the industry seems to be taking, and the reduced amount of technical support that is being employed.
Perhaps one of the publications who seem to be reflecting this concern would like to do a head count on how many true Soils and Materials Engineers there are left in the industry, i.e. people with actual knowledge of road making materials gathered over at least a ten year period and are active in actual construction /highways maintenance work.
The above definition excludes "suits" with the title of Materials Engineer who just quote all the recent accreditations and certifications, or experienced Materials Engineers who have become "management".
It is possible I am biased in my views, and given my background I will have these opinions. 
But I absolutely believe that the pendulum has swung far enough, with regard to the reduction of technical support, and it needs to start its return or it will crash through the side of the clock with dire consequences, some of which may have already been experienced.
Finally it is evident to me that the continuing rise in the use of this website, especially by some of the larger highways related organisations, who frequent it on a daily basis and who I will not embarrass by naming them, indicates there is a need for such technical guidance.
However if I ever thought the presence of this site and the information it provided was influencing organisations to not provide in-house technical backup and support, rather than promote the use of such a service, I would cease publishing it on the internet.
The purpose of my website when it was conceived was to provide information and guidance to individual technicians and engineers working in the industry to increase their understanding of the materials and processes that they are involved in, that prime intention remains.

 Motto of the Month
"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem."