Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D: GEORGE SELLAR BRIDGE PROJECT, WASHINGTON STATE Project Overview Basic Information Project Name: SR285 George Sellar Bridge (GSB) Additional EB Lane Project Name of Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Location: MP 0.16 to MP 0.39 over the Columbia River between the towns of Wenatchee and East Wenatchee in the state of Washington Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CM/GC, PPP, etc.): DBB Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): A + B + C bidding (cost, working days, and number of total bridge closures) Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): Lump Sum with limited disincentive provisions Methodology The case study interview was conducted on September 7, 2011 in a conference call format. The interview used Cisco’s WebEx to record the call and allowed participants to see answers being recorded in real time via their computer to verify accuracy. The group interview included the lead project manager/engineer from WSDOT, the lead bridge engineer for the project from WSDOT, and the project manager from the contractor, the Max J. Kuney Company. Participants had previously filled out the case study questionnaire developed as part of the protocol for the project. Following a brief introduction to the research project and its objectives, discrepancies between the three sets of questionnaire responses were cleared up. With the remaining time scheduled for the interview, additional open-ended questions from the protocol were asked to develop a better understanding of the project. Following the interview, several additional documents were received by the research team in addition to those provided prior to the interview. Project Description The city of Wenatchee, WA has very limited access as it is bounded to the north by the Wenatchee River, to the West and South by mountains, and to the East by the Columbia River. The SR 285 Senator George Sellar Bridge (Stevens St.) was built in 1950 and is one of only two major access points to the city and carries 50,000-60,000 vehicles a day into and out of the city. Originally built to carry two lanes of traffic in each direction, WSDOT decided to increase the capacity of the bridge by reducing lane widths and adding a third eastbound lane to the through- truss bridge. Project Scope • Removal of the sidewalks on either side of the roadway to make way for a fifth lane • Expansion of bridge deck from 54’ to 61’ wide to accommodate five 11’ wide lanes, a 2’ wide median, and 2’ wide shoulders 202

• To carry the increased load, significant strengthening of 100 truss members was required involving either the addition of steel plates or replacement of the members • The truss strengthening required the removal of 10,000+ rivets near active lanes of traffic and the installation of 35,000 high strength bolts • The parabolic portals on either end of the bridge had to be cut and strengthened to raise their clearance height to accommodate truck traffic further from the centerline of the bridge • Sway frames at either end of the bridge had to be removed and replaced (this was performed without bridge closure) • Construction of a 10 foot wide cantilevered pedestrian and bike pathway on the south side of the bridge • Construction of a tunnel below the East side approach to accommodate the nearby Apple Capital Recreational Loop Trail. • Widening of the bridge approaches on both sides of the bridge and modification of three approach/exit ramps in addition to general civil site work • Construction occurred above an active BNSF railroad line (30+ trains/day) on the West end of the bridge and maintained four open lanes of traffic during the day. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of construction contract: $12,884,988 Final Total Awarded Value of construction contract: $12,700,000 (still processing final payments) Total project cost (including design): $18,420,000 Project Schedule Length: 19 months Project Approved to start process: 11/23/2005 (design funds authorized) Initial Advertising: 1/26/2009 (originally set for 10/2008) Construction Contract Award: 3/24/2009 Original Project Delivery Period: Project to be complete December 2010; 322 working days Final Project Delivery Period: Project completed July 21, 2010; 388 total working days Project Completion Deadline: The owner set the maximum number of total working days to 360 in the bid documents Comments: The owner originally intended to advertise the project for bids in October of 2008. However, strengthening the truss members was found to more complex than originally anticipated and the advertisement date was pushed back to January of 2009 to allow for further development of the strengthening designs and process. This also pushed back the anticipated completion date. 203

Project Delivery Method Agency Project Delivery Experience Table D1 – Agency Project Delivery Method Experience Project Delivery Method Legislative/Legal Authority Number of years of experience with PDM DBB NA; Pilot projects only; General authorization NA; 1-5; 5-10; > 10 CMGC NA; Pilot projects only; General authorization NA; 1-5; 5-10; > 10 DB NA; Pilot projects only; General authorization NA; 1-5; 5-10; > 10 PPP NA; Pilot projects only; General authorization NA; 1-5; 5-10; > 10 Other NA; Pilot projects only; General authorization NA; 1-5; 5-10; > 10 Table D1 lists WSDOT’s legal authority to use and experience with the major project delivery methods. WSDOT has decades of experience with the traditional DBB method but is limited in alternatives that it can use. While the agency cannot use the CM/GC or PPP methods, it is authorized by the Washington state legislature to use the design-build delivery method at its discretion without the need to seek legislative approval. Project delivery method used on this project: DBB with early contractor involvement Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) A DBB project delivery method was chosen for this project because at the time it was authorized, all WSDOT projects of this size were constructed using DBB Procurement Process Prequalification WSDOT does not utilize prequalification for design firms and performs 70% of its design internally. However, as shown in Table D2, performance based prequalification is required on all WSDOT construction projects. Construction contractors are prequalified at the state level, not on a project-specific basis. Contractors must be prequalified annually for each class of work they would to like bid for projects in and must submit examples of their qualifications and prior experience in that class of work. For firms with a net worth in excess of $100,000, pre- qualification includes the submittal of financial statements prepared by a certified and licensed public accountant and the financial opinion of the company by an independent auditor. Table D2 – Administrative and Performance Based Prequalification Requirements Construction prequalification program factors Prequalification Type Administrative Performance Based Prequalification required for all projects Prequalification required for selected projects only Prequalification standards are the same for all projects Prequalification standards are different by project class Procurement Method WSDOT used an A + B + C bidding process in an attempt to get the job completed as quickly as possible. The three items under consideration were total cost, number of working days multiplied by a fixed dollar value per day, and number of total bridge closures multiplied by a fixed dollar 204

value per closure. In the bid documents, WSDOT capped the total number of working days at 360 and the number of total bridge closures at 8. Of the bids submitted, most called for zero total bridge closures somewhat to the surprise of the project management staff. Agency’s Reasons for Choosing Procurement Method This bidding method was chosen for two primary reasons: • To minimize the impact of the project on the travelling public: WSDOT wanted to finish construction and remove any traffic restrictions as soon as possible and wanted to limit the number of total bridge closures to a minimum as this was one of two access points into the town • To ensure supporting projects on either end of the bridge could begin on time: The addition of an eastbound lane to the GSB was one of a string of traffic improvement projects scheduled for the area. The construction of an eastbound bypass and the reconfiguration of adjacent intersections were both scheduled to begin as soon as this project was finished in order to minimize overlap of contractors and traffic delays Although the winning bid called for 322 total working days and the agency specified a maximum of 360 allowable working days, the project was delivered late in 388 working days. Required Document Submittals for Bidding Table D3 lists the quality documents the construction contractor was required to submit as a part of its bid or later after the award of the project. There were very few required submittals including the qualifications and certifications of the construction inspectors and materials testing technicians, the construction testing matrix, and the roles and responsibilities of quality management personnel. Table D3: Required Bidding Documents Did your project advertising/solicitation documents (i.e. IFB, RFQ, RFP, etc.) contain the following? Required proposal/ bid package submittal? If required, is it evaluated to make the award decision? If not required, is it a required submittal after contract award? Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager N/A N/A N/A Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Qualifications of other Quality Management Personnel (design reviewers, construction inspectors, technicians, etc.) Design quality management plan N/A N/A N/A Design quality assurance plan N/A N/A N/A Design quality control plan N/A N/A N/A Construction quality management plan N/A N/A N/A Construction quality assurance plan N/A N/A N/A Construction quality control plan Quality management roles and responsibilities Design criteria checklists N/A N/A N/A Construction testing matrix Quality-based incentive/disincentive features Warranties N/A N/A N/A Optional warranties N/A N/A N/A 205

Notes: The GSB project was designed in-house by WSDOT engineers eliminating the need for the submittal of design quality management documents. As a DBB project, prospective contractors were only required to submit the necessary bidding documents in order to be considered for the project and were not required to submit any document pertaining to quality management. Quality Management Roles Design Phase Summary Table D4 lists the quality management responsibilities of the major project parties. As an internally designed project, design quality management was entirely controlled by the agency and its design and project management staff. The project was designed using standard agency quality management procedures and thus it did not require approval of a new design QMP. While the design and bridge engineering staff were the only ones to perform technical review the calculations, the project management staff assisted with review of the specifications and designs and performed the primary acceptance function. Table D4: Design Quality Management Roles Responsible Party Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency Design Staff Agency PM Staff Design Consultant Staff Constructor’s Pre-const. Staff Agency-hired QA/oversight Consultant Other, specify below Technical review of design deliverables Checking of design calculations Checking of quantities Acceptance of design deliverables Review of specifications Approval of final construction plans & other design documents Approval of progress payments for design progress N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Approval of post-award design QM/QA/QC plans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: • As a project designed in-house by WSDOT, the design quality management process was conducted entirely by WSDOT design personnel. While the design project manager and construction project manager were the same for this project, technical review of the drawings was performed by WSDOT design personnel only. Construction Phase Summary 206

Table D5 shows the division of construction quality management tasks. As a DBB project, WSDOT was actively involved in most tasks including participation in the construction quality control function. While technicians employed by the contractor were used to conduct verification testing (especially rotational capacity testing of installed bolts), this was done under the observation of a WSDOT inspector. 207

Table D5: Construction Quality Management Roles Responsible Party (select all that apply) Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency Design Staff Agency PM Staff Design Consultant Staff Constructor’s Construction Staff Agency-hired QA/oversight Consultant Other, specify below Technical review of construction shop drawings cursory Technical review of construction material submittals cursory Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection Quality control testing Verification testing Acceptance testing Approval of progress payments for construction progress Approval of construction post- award QM/QA/QC plans Report of nonconforming work or punchlist. • Cursory reviews of shop drawings and material submittals were performed by the contractor’s staff, but for the most part were passed on from subcontractors to the agency for approval by either project management or design staff • Quality control testing was performed by either agency or contractor personnel in different cases. Verification testing was typically performed by the contractor and witnessed by agency staff 208

Participants’ Ranking of Impact on Quality Table D6: Rankings of the Impact of Quality Factors Factor Very High Impact High Impact Some Impact Slight Impact No Impact Qualifications of agency design staff Qualifications of agency project management staff Qualifications of agency construction staff Qualifications of the design consultant’s staff N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Design consultant’s past project experience N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Qualifications of the construction contractor’s staff Construction contractor’s past project experience Submittal of Quality management plans prior to work start N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Level of agency involvement in the QM process Use of agency specifications and/or design details Level of detail expressed in the procurement documents (IFB/RFQ/RFP) Use of manuals, standards and specifications developed for DBB type projects Allowing flexibility in choice of design standards and construction specifications Use of performance criteria/specifications Detailed design criteria Warranty provisions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Incentive/disincentive provisions Follow-on maintenance provisions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Innovative financing (PPP/concession) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The rankings shown in Table D6 represent the consensus of the three interview participants regarding the impact of various factors on the overall quality of the project. The table shows a clear emphasis on the importance of quality and project management staff and on the level of detail expressed in the design documents and agency specifications. Quality Management Plans • Neither the design nor the construction phases of this project had explicit quality management plans. Instead, quality requirements and processes were embedded either in Project Management Plans (PMPs) or in the contract and specifications Design The project used the standard design quality management plan used on all bridge projects designed by WSDOT and is included in Chapter 1.3 of the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual. The plan lays out the goals of the design process and their priority and lists the members of the design quality team and their responsibilities in the process. As noted above, there was no explicit design quality management plan for this project. Instead, references to the QC/QA plans and deliverable expectations in WSDOT’s manuals and websites were included in the design PMP along with the scope, the team and responsibilities, the change management plan, the communication plan, the schedule, the risk management plan, the budget, the engineer’s estimate, and endorsements of the plan by all key participants from WSDOT. The 209

PMP was the focus of the planning effort but did not include the development of a separate QMP. Construction As noted above, the project did not have an explicit QMP in place. Instead, aspects of quality management were included in the construction PMP (separate from the design PMP) and in the construction contract and specifications. Important elements of the construction PMP included a team decision-making process, a safety plan, a communication plan (both internal and external), a change management plan, and a risk management plan. The contract required the contractor to conform to the standard specifications of WSDOT in addition to the special provisions included for this project. Included in these amendments to the standard specifications and special provisions were either specific material and testing requirements or references to WSDOT’s standard specifications manual and materials manual which lay out the acceptable materials tests and certification criteria. The contractor was required to perform quality control testing to demonstrate compliance with these documents. Incentives and Disincentives The use of the A + B + C bidding technique and 360 working days cap were two attempts by WSDOT to encourage bidders to shorten the construction schedule as much as possible. In order to make sure bidders stuck to their submitted construction schedules and did not underbid just to win the project, WSDOT included liquidated damages in the construction contract. These damages worked out to just over $6000 per day for each working day the winning contractor went over their bid. As noted above, the project was delivered in 388 working days, above the cap in the bidding process and 66 days longer than the original bid of 322 days. However, no liquidated damages were charged to the contractor as WSDOT approved 57 change orders adding $247,873 to the project cost and an additional 66 working days. There were no incentive or warranty provisions included in the construction contract. Quality Management Organization Model The George Sellar Bridge project was delivered using the traditional DBB delivery method. The use of this standard delivery method is reflected in its QMS as seen in Figure D1. This model is known as a Deterministic QAO would be considered a reactive form of quality management. For this project WSDOT, the agency, performed the design in-house and as a result controlled design QC, design QA, and the decision of when to release the drawings for construction. In terms of construction quality management, WSDOT was responsible for construction QA and releasing construction for final payment, but it left the construction QC function in the hands of the contractor. Even though construction QC was theoretically controlled by the contractor, WSDOT still played a significant role in this function. The contractor was not required to submit a quality control or a QMP, instead they were required to adhere to the project specifications and special provisions and deliver what was shown in the project drawings. The project specifications reference WSDOT manuals regarding performance specifications and/or quality control testing requirements for virtually every material used on WSDOT’s projects. While projects utilizing the Deterministic QAO can sometimes turn adversarial due to the distribution of construction quality management functions, on the GSB project, agency representatives recognized and commented on an extremely high level of teamwork and 210

cooperation between the contractor and the agency throughout construction and the various quality management processes. Project Acceptance Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Quality Management Constructor’s Responsibility Designer’s Responsibility Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit WSDOT’s Design Staff Responsiblity WSDOT’s Construction Staff Responsibility Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Figure D1: George Sellar Bridge QAO Model Summary Effective QM Practices • Use of a joint AGC and WSDOT panel to inform the design process: Faced with the complex task of strengthening the truss members of the bridge while keeping the roadway open to traffic, project managers solicited the input of the joint WSDOT/AGC Bridge and Structures Team. The team is one of several focusing on different topics and is made up of a rotating list of members of volunteers from AGC members and WSDOT structures staff and meets on an as needed basis, though typically monthly. The panel covers planned topics at each meeting in addition to reviewing projects brought to them by WSDOT project managers. 211

• GSB project managers used to the panel both for assistance in drafting a traffic control plan that could adequately maintain a daily traffic load of 60,000 vehicles and to suggest a preferred alternative for the various portal modifications under consideration. In order to maintain a fair bidding process for projects that use the panel, contractors who sit on the panel are still allowed to bid on projects they’ve considered and all meetings are open to the public and have their minutes posted online. • Specific recommendations from the panel included the use of a quick-change movable traffic barrier to rapidly change lane configurations (to take extra lanes at night) in- between daytime and nighttime construction shifts. The project manager noted effective traffic control as one of the key successes of this project and credited this system with much of that success. The panel also recommended one of several portal modification alternatives to use. Although the designers originally believed the bridge would have to be fully closed to make the modifications, none of the contractors included a full closure in their bids and none were needed. • Use of pre-bid meetings for clarification: Several days after the plans were advertised for construction bids, WSDOT held a pre-bid meeting which was advertised in the special provisions of the contract. The project engineer was on hand to answer any questions contractors might have regarding the designs and their intent and interested contractors were invited to visit the site. As the meeting was open to the public, attendance by prospective bidders was not required, though the contractor who won the bid indicated it was extremely useful in preparing the bid. Observations of the Researcher The George Sellar Bridge project was a very successful project and met most of its goals. While the project was delivered late due to the unforeseen complexity of strengthening the truss members, it was delivered slightly under budget and with minimal disruption to the traveling public. In the interview, all of the project representatives agreed the project was a success, though to varying degrees. Part of this success is likely attributable to the communication between the contractor and the agency as the agency design representative and the agency project manager noted several times the high level of teamwork on this project and that while there were plenty of opportunities for things to go very wrong, they didn’t. The project manager attributed some of this success to an early informal partnering process which sought to set the expectation for good communication between the contractor and the agency. Some of this success is also likely due to the fact that the contractor knew what to expect on this project and understood the design process better as a result of the pre-bid meeting. While this project was traditional in terms of its QMS, the use of the joint AGC/WSDOT panel on structures was repeatedly acclaimed to have had a significant role in leading the project to success. The panel stands out as a noteworthy practice for consideration in that it allowed for the input of practicing contractors while maintaining a fair bidding process. 212