Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:


Pages 14-71

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 14...
... CHAPTER 2 : STATE OF THE PRACTICE 2.1 Introduction and Overview 2.1.1 Background During the 1990's, the transportation industry began catching up with the building construction industry by experimenting with various forms of alternative project delivery (Songer and Molenaar 1996; Anderson and Damnjanovic 2008) as well as alternative quality management systems (Miron et al 2008)
From page 15...
... California's highways will generate enormous benefits to the traveling public and the environment (Dowall and Whittington 2003)
From page 16...
... development. Table 2-1 compares the potential for meeting three quality objectives among three project delivery methods based on an analysis of federal projects (Uhlik and Eller 1999)
From page 17...
... project documents (i.e. RFPs, specifications, etc.)
From page 18...
...  Quality.
From page 19...
...  Design-bid-build (DBB) : A project delivery method where the design is completed either by in-house professional engineering staff or a design consultant before the construction contract is advertised.
From page 20...
... many years after the completed project has been in operation. The failure of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in 2007 is an extreme example of how an early design decision, in this case deciding to exclude the gusset plates that ultimately failed in the bridge load rating design guidance, can ultimately degrade the quality of a large project (NTSB 2008)
From page 21...
... procurement phase. This report then defines the procurement phase as including all actions taken by the STA prior to awarding the design or construction contracts.
From page 22...
... documents to fit the project's specific technical and management requirements will attract the kinds of competitors that have the correct set of personnel and experiences. 2.4.1 FHWA Quality Assurance Policy for Alternative Project Delivery Understanding FHWA alternative project delivery quality assurance policy involves remembering that the foundation for it comes from 23 CFR 627, which springs from Title 23 US Code.
From page 23...
... Figure 2-2 – Quality Assurance Concept as Described by the FHWA (adopted from Yakowenko 2010) One can see that the major shift in perspective is the idea that QA is an umbrella under which all quality management activities take place and that the owner's primary QA role is one of acceptance.
From page 24...
... quality (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004)
From page 25...
... Program as a requirement of each DB project. The Design QA Program for DB projects includes the following two elements:  Design Quality Control (QC)
From page 26...
... Figure 2-4 – Integrated Quality Management Model (IQ2M) [adapted from Synthesis 376 (Gransberg et al 2008)
From page 27...
... Figure 2-5 – IQ2M Model Adapted to Conform to the FHWA EDC QA Approach (after Yakowenko 2010) 2.4.2 USACE Quality Assurance Policy for Alternative Project Delivery The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
From page 28...
... performed by contractors. The QMP must be consistent with the organizational QM unless otherwise documented.
From page 29...
... Figure 2-6 – USACE QA Model for Alternative Project Delivery (USACE 2006) USACE utilizes a systems approach to quality and does not break it out as a separate category of agency responsibility.
From page 30...
... goal for the change management process will be to optimize project performance and customer satisfaction throughout the project life cycle." (USACE 2006)
From page 31...
...  The PDT remains responsible for the quality of the design criteria and for assuring that the construction conforms to the accepted design as well as to the contract requirements. The PDT's role is that of quality oversight by concurrence of the DOR and contract quality control activities, including spot-checking submittals to ensure that they conform to the contract and accepted design." (USACE 2006)
From page 32...
... Figure 2-7 – USACE Relative Project Delivery Timelines (USACE 2009) 2.4.2.3 Summary of USACE Alternate QM The USACE QM approach for projects delivered using alternative methods can be summarized as follows:  USACE sees QA as the agency's role in QM.
From page 33...
...  Process-based approach,  Systems approach to management,  Continual improvement,  Factual approach to decision-making, and  Mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers" (Miron et al 2008)
From page 34...
... Table 2-3 – FHWA Developed AQS Tools (Miron et al 2008)
From page 35...
... perform a technical peer review of the design at the 30%, 60% and 90% phases of design (Kwak and Bushey 2000)
From page 36...
... initial, operational, and maintenance would tend to favor the CM [GC] quality and reject the low bid traditional method of project delivery" (Kwak and Bushey 2000)
From page 37...
... the required design quality management process, and that, in turn, would cue design-builders to prepare design quality management plans that detail their proposed process for each specific project that can be evaluated as a part of the selection process. Unfortunately, in practice this is not occurring.
From page 38...
...  Variable assignment of design QC and acceptance responsibilities on a project-by-project basis.  Assigning design QC to the design-builder and the design acceptance to the STA.
From page 39...
... Department…The Department's project staff Oversight role during design and Design Review consists of monitoring and auditing design progress, interpreting contract requirements, and verifying design compliance with contract requirements.
From page 40...
... Table 2-4 – General DB Design Review Categories Type Design-builder responsibility STA responsibility Comments % of Projects in Content Analysis Defined Reviews To be responsive, must follow defined reviews in contract documents Defines reviews in the RFP Reviews may be performed by design-builder, STA or 3rd party 83% Proposed Reviews Propose design reviews for project as part of proposal or after award of contract Accepts or rejects proposed design reviews Reviews may be performed by design-builder, STA or 3rd party 17% The second approach, proposed reviews, is to allow the design-builder to propose the schedule of design reviews in their response to the RFP or during negotiations after the award of the contract. This is the stated policy of the Arkansas DOT: "There will be no pre-defined reviews scheduled by the Department.
From page 41...
... No Mandated Reviews When there is no STA-mandated design review checkpoint required before final design, the burden of design compliance is fully placed on the design-builder. In theory, this is one of the benefits of utilizing DB project delivery.
From page 42...
... The CONTRACTOR will prepare and submit a single preliminary design submittal for the entire project. Preliminary design shall include roadway plan and profile, bridge type, selection layout, drainage, erosion control, signing, architectural and traffic control plans.
From page 43...
... Joel Hoffman of USACE explained the rationale as: "Philosophy is that once the designer-ofrecord approves construction and extension of design submittals, the builder can proceed - don't wait on us, unless there is a specific government approval required." Thus, one critical issue regarding determining the appropriate number of design reviews is the need for the designbuilder to maintain an aggressive schedule. If the project is not schedule-constrained, the DOT can afford to inject more design review points.
From page 44...
... Table 2-6 – Communicating Design Review Responsibilities (Louisiana DOTD 2005)
From page 45...
... with quality. Design reviews are an integral part of any design QA program.
From page 46...
... many of the traditional QA activities are performed by the agency that either completed the design in-house or holds a design contract with a design professional (Gransberg et al 2008)
From page 47...
... 2.6.2 Construction Quality Management in CMGC Projects Establishing construction phase quality management relationships occurs in the procurement phase, nurtured during the design phase, and applied when work begins on the project. Before starting work, the contractor needs to know and understand the roles of the agency's QA personnel as well as the designer's responsibilities during the construction of a CMGC project.
From page 48...
... Table 2-8 – Distribution of Construction Quality Management Tasks in Case Study Projects Construction Quality Management Tasks Assigned Responsibility* Does not apply Agency Designer CMGC Independent consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 0 1 9 1 6 Technical review of construction material submittals 0 2 7 0 7 Checking of pay quantities 1 4 3 0 6 Routine construction inspection 0 3 3 4 4 Quality control testing 0 0 2 10 1 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control 0 0 3 6 2 Verification testing 0 3 3 2 4 Acceptance testing 0 7 2 0 3 Independent assurance testing/inspection 0 3 3 0 5 Approval of progress payments for construction 0 9 0 0 3 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 0 8 1 0 2 Report of nonconforming work or punchlist.
From page 49...
... a contractual requirement for a configuration audit as part of the project acceptance process. The A/NZS approach externally validates the IQ2M model proposed in Figure 2-5 in the previous section.
From page 50...
...  Monthly initially then moving to Quarterly review/audit observations of verification records of the testing equipment used to perform WSDOT QV and Design/Builder's QA testing activities.  Initially month by month then moving to Quarterly review/audit observations of the Design/Builder's QA tester training records.
From page 51...
... and the panel refunded the penalty amount the next month based on the speed and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken to remedy the problem. 2.8 Validation, Verification and Acceptance Activities It is important to remember the differences between the three terms to be able to understand how these concepts are applied in DB and CMGC projects.
From page 52...
... verification sampling and testing to determine the acceptability of completed work items and for final project acceptance. Verification Sampling and Testing will be performed by the Department to validate Design-builder Sampling and Testing as well as the quality of the material produced.
From page 53...
... The Construction Engineering Manager [employed by an independent firm] shall be responsible for coordinating and directing all Acceptance and Assurance inspections, sampling and testing to he conducted hereunder.
From page 54...
... solicitation documentation such as in the Invitation to Bid (IFB) , Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
From page 55...
... Figure 2-9 – Survey Responses Table 2-9 – Survey Respondents' Experience with Each Project Delivery Method Project Delivery Method Years of Experience with Given Project Delivery Method 1-5 6-10 >10 DBB 0 0 22 All CMGC 4 1 0 AK; CO; CT; OR UT - DB 5 3 9 CA; MO; NV; TN; VT AK; KY; NM CO; GA; MN; NJ; OH; OR; UT; VA; WA PPP 9 1 2 AK; CO; GA; MN; MO; NV; OH; OR; TN UT CA; VA To ensure that Table 2-9 is not misinterpreted, it should be noted that based on the wording of the survey question, a state with authorization to use a given project delivery method but no experience would be forced to answer "1-5 years." Tennessee is an example of an agency with the authority to use PPP but with no actual project experience. Additionally, the questionnaire 53
From page 56...
... instruction directed a state that has not completed a project using a given method but has one or more projects under development to also answer "1-5 years." California is an example of this having only received DB authority within the past two years. In spite of these two special cases, the impact on the survey analysis is nil since the two subpopulations were split between those with five or less years of DB experience and those with more.
From page 57...
... Figure 2-10 – Agency Quality Management Approaches by Project Delivery Method Finally, the survey asked if the QM system used on projects delivered using alternative methods was different than the one used for DBB projects and 64% responded that they were the same. Based on the responses shown in Figure 2-10, this is inferred to mean that the agency's QM policy does not change.
From page 58...
... experience requirements that impact design quality. Table 2-11 – Level of Design Outsourcing Survey Responses Percent of Design Program that is Outsourced State 0-20% CA, MO, NV, OR 21-50% AK, CO,MN, NE,NM, OH, VT, WA 51-70% NJ, VA >71% CT,GA, KY, UT While in-house designs are in no way inferior to those completed by design consultants, STA project managers have less control over work assigned to agency design professionals (Alder 2007)
From page 59...
... Table 2-12 – Procurement Solicitation Document Content Do your project advertising/ solicitation documents contain the following? Required proposal/bid package submittal?
From page 60...
... can successfully be addressed through the evaluation of competing design and construction proposals before awarding a DBB design contract, a CMGC preconstruction contract, or DB contract. It also lends weight to the conclusion that experienced STAs use the procurement phase as a tool to articulate project quality requirements and constraints.
From page 61...
... Table 2-14 – Design Phase QM Responsibilities for Design Process Who performs the following design quality management tasks? RANK % RANK % RANK % Technical review of design deliverables Total <5yrs exp >5yrs exp Agency design staff 1 64% 1 60% 1 77% Agency project management staff 3 41% 2 40% 3 46% Project design consultant 2 50% 2 40% 2 69% Independent quality consultant 4 32% 5 20% 4 38% Project constr.
From page 62...
... Table 2-15 – Design Phase QM Responsibilities for Design Close-out Who performs the following design quality management tasks? RANK % RANK % RANK % Approval of final construction documents Total <5yrs exp >5yrs exp Agency design staff 1 55% 1 40% 1 69% Agency project management staff 2 45% 2 20% 2 62% Project design consultant 5 5% 3 0% 5 8% Independent quality consultant 3 14% 3 0% 3 23% Project constr.
From page 63...
... Table 2-16 – Construction Phase QM Responsibilities for Routine QM Tasks Who performs the following construction quality management tasks? RANK % RANK % RANK % Technical review of construction shop drawings Total <5yrs exp >5yrs exp Agency design staff 1 59% 1 60% 1 54% Agency project management staff 3 36% 2 40% 4 38% Project design consultant 2 45% 2 40% 3 46% Independent quality consultant 4 32% 4 0% 1 54% Project constr.
From page 64...
... Table 2-17 – Construction Phase QM Responsibilities for Acceptance and Close-out Who performs the following construction quality management tasks? RANK % RANK % RANK % Verification testing Total <5yrs exp >5yrs exp Agency design staff 3 18% 2 20% 6 8% Agency project management staff 1 41% 1 40% 2 38% Project design consultant 5 9% 2 20% 5 8% Independent quality consultant 1 41% 5 0% 1 46% Project constr.
From page 65...
... A glance at table 2-16 and table 2-17 confirms the assertion made by Ernzen and Feeney (2002) with regard to "increased dependence on outsourcing of the quality function." The majority of the experienced agencies delegated the construction QM authority to an independent quality consultant for every QM task, achieving a rank of either first or second for all possible categories.
From page 66...
... Figure 2-11 – Contractor QA Test Usage 2.9.4 Quality Management Planning QM planning spans the entire life cycle of the transportation project. Ensuring that the requirements for alternative design and construction QM systems are clearly defined is critical to their successful execution (Gransberg and Windel 2008)
From page 67...
... approve alternative technical concepts as well as lock down the content of the design before awarding the contract (MnDOT 2010)
From page 68...
... Figure 2-12 – Rated Impact on Final Quality of Various Factors 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Qualifications of the construction contractor's staff Qualifications of agency project management staff Qualifications of the design consultant's staff Qualifications of agency design staff Qualifications of agency construction staff Construction contractor's past project experience Incentive/disincentive provisions Use of performance criteria/specifications Design consultant's past project experience Use of agency specifications and/or design details Allowing flexibility in choice of design standards and construction specifications Detailed design criteria Use of manuals, standards and specifications developed for DBB type projects Warranty provisions Submittal of QM plans prior to work start Level of agency involvement in the QM process Level of detail expressed in the procurement documents (IFB/RFQ/RFP) Innovative financing (PPP/concession)
From page 69...
... 2.9.6 Impact on Quality To understand better the differences in the perceived impact on quality, the absolute value of the difference between the rank assigned by the inexperienced agencies and the experienced agencies was calculated and listed in table 2-19. Combining these with the information in Figure 2-12 allows one to infer the trends in this data.
From page 70...
... 2.9.7 Challenges to Achieving Quality The final section of the survey asked the respondents to relate their experience with respect to achieving project quality. Again, it provided a list of factors found in the literature (Yuan et al 2007)
From page 71...
... 2.10 Summary NCHRP Synthesis 379 comment by Anderson and Damnjanovic (2008) aptly points out the "popular mythology" that surrounds the culture shift from traditional project delivery and its "catch and punish" QM system to something different.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.