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 E: WILLAMETTE RIVER BRIDGE, OREGON Project Overview Basic Information Project Name: Willamette River Bridge (WRB) Project Name of Agency: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Location: I-5 over the Willamette River in Lane County at the border of the cities of Eugene and Springfield, OR. Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CM/GC, PPP, etc.): CM/GC Design Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Two stage best-value Construction Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Best-value (85% qualifications/15% preconstruction services price) Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): GMP provided after substantial design completed Project Parties Owner: ODOT Owner’s Program Manager: Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP) is a joint venture of HDR and Fluor hired by ODOT in 2003 to help manage its multi-billion dollar OTIA III bridge infrastructure program of which the WRB project is a part. OBDP acts both in an advisory and management role for ODOT and is in some cases actively involved with the quality management process on a project. Designer: OBEC Consulting Engineers/T.Y. Lin International CM/GC: Hamilton Construction (joint venture with Slayden Construction) Methodology The case study interview was conducted on June 23, 2011 in the Hamilton Construction trailer at the project site. The interview was conducted simultaneously with representatives from all four project parties who had some experience with the QMS on the project: ODOT, OBDP, OBEC Consulting Engineers, and Hamilton Construction. The interview was conducted in accordance with the case study protocol developed by the research team and approved by both an industry panel and the NCHRP review panel. Interviewees were introduced to the research and given a brief summary of the research objectives. The primary interview tool was the questionnaire developed as part of the protocol which focused on generating information that could be readily compared across case studies. As questions were asked and the interviewees responded, a summary of their answers was recorded and projected on the wall of the conference room to ensure that all respondents were satisfied with the summary of their answers. After the interview was concluded, follow-up questionnaires were delivered to each interviewee electronically to capture their demographic information and prior experience in addition to asking clarifying questions from the in person interview. The data collection process concluded with a request for relevant project documents which were mailed to the research team on a CD 213

for later review. Interviewees volunteered their time and were not compensated by the research team in any way. Project Description In 2002 ODOT bridge inspectors discovered shear cracks in the existing bridge carrying I-5 over the Willamette River. As a result, weight restrictions were imposed immediately and heavy trucks were forced to detour 200 miles off this crucial freight corridor until a sufficient replacement could be built. A temporary bridge was constructed and opened to traffic by 2004, but it utilized materials and methods that, while quick to construct, resulted in a structure which was not sufficient for environmental, seismic, or modern design considerations. The primary purpose of the Willamette River Bridge (WRB) project is to replace the temporary 2004 bridge. Project Scope • Construction of an 1800+ foot long arch bridge capable of carrying three lanes of traffic • Demolition of the existing temporary bridge built to replace the original Willamette River bridge in 2004 • Construction of a second 1800+ foot long arch bridge also capable of carrying three-lanes of traffic within the footprint of the temporary bridge • Repair or replacement of the 100 foot long Canoe Canal Bridge also on I-5 • Realignment and grading work to match I-5 to the new bridges • Construction of sound walls along the southern approach • Construction of associated pedestrian trails • Preservation of historic and natural areas on both sides of the river and both sides of the bridge • Installation of extensive artwork in the adjacent park • Safely conducting all work while keeping Franklin Blvd., an exit ramp to Franklin Blvd, and an active Union Pacific Railroad corridor open Project Quality Profile What makes the QM system on this project different from a traditional project? • Presence of Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP): OBDP is a joint venture of HDR and Fluor hired by ODOT in 2003 to help manage its multi-billion dollar OTIA III bridge infrastructure program of which the WRB project is a part. OBDP acts both in an advisory and management role for ODOT and is in some cases actively involved with the quality management process on a project. The presence of OBDP resulted in several deviations from traditional quality management systems. While construction quality management was largely similar to the traditional system, OBDP performed construction engineering and inspection (CEI) tasks interchangeably with ODOT staff, neither overlapping nor replacing ODOT’s own inspections. In contrast, OBDP represented an additional level of design quality control on this project as noted below. 214

• Inclusion of the contractor in earliest design phases of the project: The presence and input of the contractor early in the design process (in the role of construction manager (CM)) was a significant deviation from the traditional design-bid-build system. Working with potential subcontractors, the CM/GC was able to identify constructability issues in the designs and suggest alternatives when changes were most easily and cheaply made. • Multiple, simultaneous layers of design quality control: The design process on this project both benefited from and was burdened by four layers of quality control. In addition to technical review being performed by the designer, it was also performed by the contractor, OBDP, and ODOT for differing purposes. Owner’s reasons for using alternate QM system The presence of OBDP on this project was not a choice, but rather a result of the project’s inclusion in the OTIA III program of infrastructure repair which OBDP was chosen to help manage. Inclusion of the contractor early in the design phase of the project was one of the two primary reasons project managers selected the CM/GC delivery method on this project. ODOT wanted the final bridge to be an iconic arch structure and wanted contractor involvement in the design process in order to make the bridge more constructible which in turn would likely reduce costs. Finally, the multiple layers of design quality control were a result of several overlapping priorities. In order to have a meaningful impact on the design, the contractor performed constructability reviews on a regular basis and was responsible for checking certain technical aspects of the plan. In addition, ODOT wanted to have a direct role in reviewing aspects of the technical design as the Willamette River Bridge required exemptions from a number of ODOT standards for its bridges. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $135,000,000 (including $16 million for design, $2.3 million for preconstruction, $27 million for OBDP’s CEI and design quality assurance) Final Total Awarded Value of project: On-going Project Schedule Length: 7 years Project Approved to start process: 2007 Initial Advertising: August 2007 Design Contract Award: May 7, 2008 Preconstruction Contract Award: June 17, 2008 Notice to Proceed with Construction: January 2009 Original Project Delivery Period: Roadway open December 12, 2012, 5 years. Final Project Delivery Period: Ongoing; Southbound bridge opens August 2011; project design completes November 2011; project completion anticipated by October 2014 for a 7 year project length 215

Project Delivery Method Agency Project Delivery Experience Table E1: 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 E1 lists ODOT’s length of experience with the most common project delivery methods. As with most agencies, ODOT has decades of experience using the DBB method and has only recently begun experimenting with new methods. However, the OTIA III program – which the WRB project is a part of – is almost entirely composed of DB projects and has allowed ODOT to develop extensive experience with this method despite the continuing legal requirement to justify its use. This project is the first CM/GC project ODOT has been authorized to undertake and the PPP method has still not been approved for used in Oregon. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method ODOT selected the CM/GC delivery method for a number of reasons. The primary motivation to use this method was to reduce the length of the project schedule thereby reducing the impact on the traveling public. In addition, ODOT also wanted the contractor to be involved in the design from its earliest stages as they wanted the WRB to be a unique and signature bridge. Project managers recognized that in addition to providing constructability advice, the contractor could improve the design process by informing designers of the schedule and cost impacts of various design alternatives which also allowed the design team to be more flexible when working with local stakeholders. Procurement Process Prequalification Table E2: Administrative and Performance-based Prequalification Requirements Designer 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 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 216

Design ODOT traditionally self-performs roughly 70% of its own design work in-house and outsources the remainder to engineering firms in Oregon. However, in the last 10 years, Oregon’s multi- billion dollar OTIA III infrastructure initiative has reversed those numbers with the bulk of design being performed by private engineering firms to provide a stimulus to the state economy. As shown in Table E2, all design firms seeking to perform work for ODOT must meet minimum administrative prequalification requirements. In addition, design firms competing for work using alternative delivery methods (DB or CMGC) must also undergo performance-based prequalification. Performance-based prequalification involves evaluating firms based on their ability to complete the necessary work using the proposed delivery method and relies heavily on past experiences and on the strengths and competencies of the design team. In the case of the WRB project, design teams were required to submit evidence of their ability to design seven different bridge types utilizing four different structural materials since the concept for the bridge design wasn’t finalized yet. Construction As shown in Table E2, all general contractors seeking to construct ODOT projects must meet minimum administrative prequalification requirements including demonstrating sufficient bonding capacity and being on a list of ODOT approved bidders. In addition, contractors seeking to bid for projects using alternative delivery methods must also meet certain performance based prequalification requirements. While these requirements are project specific, typically companies are evaluated based on their prior experience building the particular type or class of work and the experience and compatibility of the project team. For projects utilizing DB as the delivery method, after the initial set of prequalified parties is identified, the field is then narrowed down, based on prior experience and the responses to the RFQ, to a shortlist of companies who will be asked to submit proposals. Contractor-Designer Evaluations ODOT also utilizes an evaluation process to ensure that contractors and designers work well together during projects and to give them a chance to bring problems with a project party to the attention of ODOT. At the end of every project, the designer (if private) fills out an evaluation about the builder and vice versa. In order to remain on the list of approved bidders or designers, parties must maintain a certain score which is based on these evaluations. While it appears to place the success of a company in the hands of another, it is reportedly rare that these scores result in the disqualification of a designer or contractor or their removal from the approved bidders list. Procurement Method Design ODOT used a two stage best-value method to procure the design team. First, ODOT issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) which included several pass/fail criteria and was scored based on qualification only. From the RFQ submissions, a shortlist of top scoring designers was generated. Those on the shortlist were invited to submit proposals in response to the request for proposals (RFP) ODOT issued. Top scorers from the RFP process – which was again judged predominantly on qualifications with some pass/fail criteria – were then invited to participate in 217

an interview. The final design team was selected from this interview process which included both questions the interviewees had seen, and some they had not. As part of the RFQ process, significant submittals related to the design quality management process were required. Interested parties were required to submit their QMPs in addition to the qualifications of the design quality manager as part of their project proposal, both of which factored into the award decision. Once selected, the design team was later required to include a design QMP template to be used by all of its design consultants as part of its contract with ODOT. Construction Shortly after the design contract was awarded, ODOT used a scoring system to select a preconstruction manager based 85% on the ability of a firm to advise on and eventually construct the project. The remaining 15% of the score was based on the proposal price for the preconstruction phase of the project. While the expectation from all parties was that the construction manager would likely receive the construction contract, ODOT was under no contractual obligation to offer it. During the design phase of the project, the CMGC wasn’t actually producing any work and was therefore not required to submit any quality management or control plans with its preconstruction phase proposal. However, once the construction contracts were awarded, Hamilton Construction was required to submit these documents along with the qualifications of the construction quality manager. Agency’s Reasons for Choosing Procurement Method Due to the iconic nature of bridge and the anticipated complexity of the design, ODOT project managers wanted to be certain that the designer and the contractor were qualified to design or build the Willamette River Bridge. The procurement processes for both the designer and contractor revealed this priority in their emphasis on qualifications rather than price. 218

Required Document Submittals for Bidding Table E3: 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? Yes Yes Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager (OBEC/TYLin) Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager (Does not fit CMGC) Qualifications of other Quality Management Personnel (design reviewers, construction inspectors, technicians, etc.) Design quality management plan Design quality assurance plan Design quality control plan Construction quality management plan Construction quality assurance plan Construction quality control plan Quality management roles and responsibilities Design criteria checklists Construction testing matrix Quality-based incentive/disincentive features Warranties Optional warranties Table E3 lists the various documents which were required submittals during the proposal processes for both the designer and the CMGC on the project. As the table demonstrates, only the design firms competing for the project were required to submit their quality plans and qualifications prior to the award of the design contract. In contrast, because the companies competing to win the CM/GC contract were competing primarily based on preconstruction management abilities and costs, they were not required to submit their quality plans or credentials ahead of time. Instead, these documents were required submittals just before the start of construction. Quality Management Plans and Roles Design As noted above, the design team for the WRB project was required to provide a copy of their standard QMP to be used by its internal quality managers and those of its subcontractors and consultants. Given the unique nature of the project for ODOT in terms of its CM/GC delivery method and the use of an outsourced design consultant, the design QMP for this project was relatively new for the agency. Rather than the standard 2-3 parties participating in the process – the owner, the designer (could be the owner), and potentially an independent QC consultant – the WRB project involved four separate parties in the design QC process each with unique roles which are shown in table E4. 219

Table E4: Design Quality Management Roles 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 Approval of post-award design QM/QA/QC plans As initial designs were produced, they were simultaneously distributed to the designer’s CAD managers and discipline checkers, and senior independent reviewers from OBDP, in addition to the CM/GC construction liaison for constructability reviews at key milestones. Quantity checks and technical reviews were also performed by agency staff from ODOT. Involvement by ODOT was largely due to the unique nature of the bridge which required a large number of ODOT standards in their Bridge Design and Drafting Manual to be evaluated and overruled, decisions that could only be made by ODOT personnel. OBDP was responsible for gathering the comments and responses from all the parties involved, organizing them, and presenting that information to ODOT. Every comment from ODOT, OBDP, or the construction liaison required a response from the designer. While OBDP was in charge of issuing the “final disposition,” a recognition that all comments were accurately responded to, ODOT was ultimately in charge of accepting design deliverables for construction. These four levels of design quality checks resulted in a design QC process that was significantly more rigorous than that performed by agency staff for in-house design work. Construction In contrast to the design quality management on the WRB project, the construction QMP was a set of documents from the contractor indicating its compliance with the standard ODOT QMP and testing procedures. The details of this plan are spelled out in ODOT’s standard provisions and specifications and in the Manual of Field Test Procedures. 220

Table E5: Construction Quality Management Roles 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 no OBDP Technical review of construction material submittals no OBDP Checking of pay quantities no OBDP Routine construction inspection OBDP & agency 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. OBDP & agency As seen in Table E5, construction quality management on this project appeared different from that used on traditional DBB projects due to the presence of OBDP’s construction engineering inspection staff. In reality, OBDP and ODOT staffs were interchangeable from the contractor’s perspective and did not add an additional layer of QA testing or inspections, but rather each performed some of the functions without overlap. 221

Participants’ Ranking of the Impact of Quality Factors Table E6: Rankings of the Impact of Quality Factors Please rate the following factors for their impact on the quality of this project: 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 Design consultant’s past project experience Qualifications of the construction contractor’s staff Construction contractor’s past project experience Submittal of Quality management plans prior to work start 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 (N/A) Detailed design criteria Warranty provisions(N/A) Incentive/disincentive provisions(N/A) Follow-on maintenance provisions (N/A) Innovative financing (PPP/concession) (N/A) The rankings shown in Table E6 represent the consensus of the four interview participants regarding the impact of various factors on the overall quality of the project. The most highly ranked factors were those related to the qualifications of project staff members – both from the agency and the designer and contractor as well – and the detailed requirements and specifications used on the project. Quality Management Organization Model The Willamette River Bridge project was the first ODOT project of its kind to be delivered using the CM/GC delivery method. Despite the ground breaking nature of its delivery method, the quality management structure on the project was similar to traditional DBB projects. In fact, in terms of construction quality management, the process and structure was generally identical to that utilized by ODOT on its DBB projects. As seen in Figure E1, the QAO model for this project, ODOT retained the construction quality assurance function and is ultimately responsible for releasing final payment for the project when it is satisfied with the construction. Hamilton Construction, the constructor/contractor, performed the construction QC functions itself (via its subcontractors and subcontracted testing labs). The one piece of construction quality management on this project that was unique was the presence of OBDP CEI staff. However, due to their interchangeable role with ODOT CEI staff, there was little perceived difference to the contractor in terms of oversight or construction QA. Where the model deviates from traditional DBB quality management is on the design side. As shown by the dashed line intersecting the lower left hand box, while design QA was performed 222

by ODOT’s staff, design QC was shared between the design team, the contractor, and ODOT/OBDP’s design staff. As seen in Figure E2, the design QC flow chart, the designer provided initial drawings for review and QC to its own discipline checkers and managers and to the contractor’s team as well for constructability reviews. In addition, drawings were also provided to ODOT and OBDP staff for technical review and comments, and additionally to ensure that all necessary design checks were performed by the designer as part of the design quality assurance function. The interview and questionnaire confirm that both ODOT and OBDP performed separate QA reviews of key deliverables and that each was actively involved with design QC at different points in the design process. The presence of constructability reviews and four party reviews in the QC process and the two levels of design QA are two of the primary differences between the quality management structure on this project and that used on traditional DBB projects as seen in figure E1. One of the recurring themes in the WRB project interview was that the project team tried to maintain ODOT’s traditional quality management structure whenever it made sense to do so. As a result, while owner verification testing and independent assurance for construction were not explicitly mentioned in the interview, they are still included in the model. This is because ODOT’s traditional quality management structure requires that they be there. Independent assurance for design on the other hand is not common on ODOT’s projects and is not referenced in any of the case study information. While this function does exist on some projects, it does not appear to on the WRB project and has been masked in the model as a result. 223

Project Acceptance Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Quality Management Constructor’s Responsibility ODOT/OBDP’s CEI Staff Responsibility Designer’s Responsibility ODOT/OBDP’s Design Staff Responsibility Owner Verification (if req’d) Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Figure E1: WRB QAO Model 224

Figure E2 – Willamette River Bridge Design QC Chart

Summary Effective QM Practices • Incorporation of the contractor in the design process: Incorporating the contractor in the design process was cited again and again by project participants as a successful technique for improving the project. As a consultant rather than general contractor early in the design phase, the CMGC informed designers of the consequences of design decisions in terms of cost, schedule, constructability, and even permitting requirements and was able to make holistic design recommendations which provided the agency with the most value. More importantly, the CMGC’s in-depth knowledge of the design and intent allowed it to specifically emphasize detailed and complex aspects to subcontractors. The result was more accurate bids from subcontractors and a more accurate estimate from the CMGC throughout the design process. This close coordination and understanding was especially helpful in the complex sequence required to install the rebar for the arches of the bridges and was cited as one of the chief successes of the project. • Flexibility afforded by the CMGC method: The CMGC method created a cooperative rather than adversarial relationship between the contractor and the agency. This relationship was further strengthened because the contractor’s staff had experience working with ODOT previously and was involved with the design process from the beginning. As a result, the contractor was able to suggest changes to the specifications that reduced sampling frequencies and requirements where appropriate, saving the contractor and the agency time and expense. One particular example was in the reduction of testing frequencies for the hot mixed asphaltic cement (HMAC) on the project. While ODOT has rigorous standards for testing HMAC pavements, on the WRB project, it was only used for pedestrian and bike paths. The contractor recommended scaling back the submittals and testing frequencies for the HMAC which were designed for interstate highway applications. The result was a product in line with the requirements of the local park agencies tailored to the project. • No competitive pricing requirement for subcontractors: The first bridge across the Willamette River was complex and difficult to construct. However, because the construction contract did not require the general contractor to seek competitive bids from subcontractors (a common requirement on CM/GC projects), the contractor was able to use the same subcontractors on the second bridge span without having to go through a second bidding process. Reusing the same subcontractors made it possible to utilize lessons learned from the first bridge span to ease construction of the second. Observations of the Researcher The contractor experienced two primary deviations from a traditional project. First, the presence of OBDP on this project added an extra entity to interface with. However, when it came to construction, OBDP functioned simply as an extension of ODOT and did not add any additional steps to the construction quality management process. Second, the contractor was able to fully participate and contribute to the project from its earliest design phases as a member of the pre- construction team. This participation led to a high level of knowledge of the project when it came time to provide a GMP to the owner and resulted in a more accurate project budget and 226

schedule and allowed the contractor more time to identify and avoid complicated pitfalls and possible mistakes. While still similar to the design quality management processes for a DBB project, the process used on this project had some notable differences. First was the addition of OBDP to the design review process. Unlike in the construction phase of the project, during design, OBDP functioned largely independently of ODOT in terms of design review and acted as a single point of contact to consolidate all the pertinent information before distributing it to ODOT. Additionally, unlike on a DBB project, both ODOT and OBDP were involved in the design QC aspect of this project with their reviewers providing input and commentary at key milestones. This resulted in four simultaneous layers of design quality control which several project parties found burdensome and which slowed the design process, a key consideration since schedule reduction was a priority. Given the needed input of the owner and the favorable impact of including the contractor in the design process, the burden of multiple reviewers may have been an unavoidable side effect of what was an otherwise successful design quality management process. 227