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 F: PORTLAND TRANSIT MALL REVITALIZATION, OREGON Project Overview Basic Information Project Name: Portland Transit Mall (Greenline) Revitalization Name of Agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Location: 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 +): Cost plus fee with a GMP Project Parties Owner: TriMet Designer: URS Corporation CM/GC: Stacy and Witbeck/Kiewit Pacific – A Joint Venture Methodology The primary case study interview was conducted on September 28, 2011 at TriMet’s main office in Portland, OR. The interview was conducted with TriMet’s QA manager and Stacy and Witbeck’s QC manager for the project. Additional follow up questions were directed to URS’s project manager for the project. 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. Interviewees were asked to fill out the project specific questionnaire developed as part of the protocol before the interview. During the interview, discrepancies in answers to the questionnaires were clarified and additional questions from the case study protocol were asked. 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. The data collection process concluded with a request for relevant project documents which were provided on a CD for later review. Interviewees volunteered their time and were not compensated by the research team in any way. Project Description The installation of light rail transit in Portland’s Transit Mall was part of a larger revitalization project. The Portland Mall was redeveloped in the 1970s as part of a series of urban renewal projects. It was praised when it first opened for its foresight, design, and execution. In the 228

intervening years, the condition of the Portland Mall and its fixtures deteriorated. While the full revitalization project improved road and walk ways both physically and aesthetically and encouraged and resulted in a number of storefront improvements and nearby development, this case study deals with the installation of the light rail line along the full length of the Portland Transit Mall. The project allows for simultaneous operation of an extensive bus and light rail transit system along the same corridor. The project extends from Portland’s Union Station south along SW 5th and 6th Avenues to I-405. Project Scope • Construction of 1.4 miles of light rail track, gantries, and supporting systems along both SW 5th and SW 6th Avenue (2.8 miles total) • Construction of a triple track turnout loop at the southern extent of the project • Tie-in of the new lines to existing light rail lines • Installation of 12 new light rail stations along with signage and shelters • Extensive utilities relocation Project Quality Profile What makes the QM system on this project different from a traditional project? • Inclusion of the contractor early in the design phase: 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 CMGC 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 of the project benefited from multiple levels of quality control. In addition to the quality control function performed by the designers on their own work, TriMet also had its design staff reviewing designs and calculations and the contractor was actively involved in reviewing designs for potential conflicts on a weekly basis. Owner’s reasons for using alternate QM system: Working in the constricted urban environment of Portland’s downtown, TriMet recognized the need early on for contractor involvement in the design process in order to streamline the construction process and minimize potential disruptions to the public. This priority was specified in the project RFP issued to potential bidders. In addition, the RFP also specified TriMet’s desire that the CM/GC provide design reviews to ensure an economical and efficient design. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $103,000,000 Final Total Awarded Value of project: $113,000,000 ($7 million for design) Project Schedule Length: 5 years Preliminary Design Contract Award: November 2004 Design Contract Award: December 2005 229

Preconstruction Contract Award: March 2006 Construction Contract Award: January 2007 Original Project Delivery Period: September 2009 Final Project Delivery: September 2009 Project Delivery Method Agency Project Delivery Experience Table F1: 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 Project delivery method used on this project Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC). Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method TriMet selected the CM/GC method for a multitude of reasons including: to reduce the project delivery period; to encourage innovation and value engineering; to redistribute risk; due to the complexity of the project; and for the increased flexibility afforded during construction. While these were all considered when selecting the delivery method, the primary reasons were to reduce the lengthy project schedule and for the flexibility afforded during construction. DB was also considered as it offers a shortened delivery period, but the CM/GC method was chosen for its ability to rapidly respond to local problems during construction. This flexibility was crucial in the urban environment of the project where uncertainty was high and managers in the field needed authority to make quick decisions which ultimately would affect the project budget and schedule and resulted in a variable scope, conditions the CM/GC method is well suited for. 230

Procurement and Prequalification Process Prequalification Table F2: 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 Design TriMet traditionally only self-performs preliminary engineering on their projects before handing them off to engineering consultants for more detailed design and completion. When procuring a designer, TriMet uses a standard two-stage process beginning with a request for qualifications. After establishing that interested designers are qualified for the project, the field is narrowed to a shortlist for further consideration and interviews before a final selection is made. TriMet has no formal administrative prequalification, but does require performance based prequalification for all designers in the first round of procurement. Construction As with design, TriMet has no formal administrative prequalification requirements for contractors interested in working on TriMet projects. The only real prequalification is the request for qualifications process which TriMet uses when procuring contractors on most of their projects. On this project in particular, the initial request for qualifications phase allowed TriMet to narrow the field of interested contractors to a qualified shortlist. Contractors on the shortlist were issued a request for proposals and then evaluated using a best-value process which primarily focused on their qualifications but also considered cost of preconstruction services and fee for construction services. Agency’s Reasons for Choosing Procurement Method TriMet uses an in-house guidance document to help project managers select the optimal procurement method for their project. Despite being a semi-public agency, TriMet is bound by the same contracting rules as the Oregon Department of Transportation and must justify its use of any contracting methods other than competitive low-bid in accordance with the Oregon Revised Statutes. In the case of the CM/GC delivery method, there is only one procurement method recommended by TriMet’s guidance document for this delivery system. Once the CM/GC method was selected and its exemption publicly justified, the resulting choice of procurement method was automatic. 231

Required Document Submittals for Bidding Table F3: 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 Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager 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 Notes: The owner required very little in terms of quality plans from either the designer or the contractor in their proposals besides the qualifications of the construction quality manager(s). The construction quality manager was required to have five years of construction related quality experience and a minimum of two years of experience managing quality programs. Quality Management Plans and Roles Design TriMet maintains a formal design quality assurance program in accordance with Federal Transit Administration requirements. TriMet’s program documents require design consultants and TriMet’s own in-house design staff to submit a robust design QA program for approval. TriMet always retains the design QA function, and often assists with design QC as well. On this project drawings and design calculations were submitted to TriMet not just for approval, but for technical review as well. However, because TriMet only participated in preliminary design, there wasn’t a separate design team reviewing the drawings. Instead, TriMet’s resident engineer was an integrated part of the project management team as see below. TriMet requires design consultants to utilize standard agency specifications which are then updated for each project specifically. In addition, the agency issues a 500+ page Design Criteria manual to the designers which express TriMet’s expectations for the design effort in addition to standard drawings. 232

Table F4: Design Quality Management Roles Responsible Party (select all that apply) 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 N/A Checking of design calculations N/A Checking of quantities N/A Acceptance of design deliverables N/A Review of specifications N/A Approval of final construction plans & other design documents N/A Approval of progress payments for design progress N/A Approval of post-award design QM/QA/QC plans N/A Construction TriMet maintains on-call contracts with several surveying entities and independent materials test/inspection labs. These labs perform confidence testing and quality assurance functions at the discretion and direction of TriMet’s resident engineer rather than some set percentage. As seen below, many construction quality management functions had multiple parties participating in either primary or secondary roles. In addition to the parties shown, inspectors from several city agencies also performed a QA function and performed their own QC tests when dealing with their own utilities. The construction QMP was no different from a standard DBB quality plan as TriMet always performs the QA function, regardless of delivery method. 233

Table F5: 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 Technical review of construction shop drawings N/A S P Technical review of construction material submittals N/A P S Checking of pay quantities N/A P Routine construction inspection N/A S P Quality control testing N/A P S Verification testing – Note 1 N/A P P Acceptance testing N/A P Approval of progress payments for construction progress N/A P Approval of construction post- award QM/QA/QC plans N/A P Report of nonconforming work or punchlist. N/A S S P P – Primary responsibility; S – Secondary responsibility Participants’ Ranking of Impact on Quality Table F6: 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 Design consultant’s past project experience Qualifications of the construction contractor’s staff Construction contractor’s past project experience Submittal of QMPs 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 Detailed design criteria Warranty provisions Incentive/disincentive provisions Follow-on maintenance provisions Innovative financing (PPP/concession) 234

QAO Analysis The QAO for this project lies somewhere between a deterministic and an assurance model. On this project, construction QC was run by the contractor with inspections and assurance and verification testing performed by the owner. Design QC on the other hand was shared jointly with the owner, designer, and contractor. While the designer necessarily performed the bulk of the QC function, both the owner and the contractor performed technical reviews of drawings, calculations, or feasibility. 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 F1: Portland Transit Mall QAO Summary Effective QM Practices • Contractor involvement early in the design: Given the urban nature of the project, the inclusion of the contractor in the design process was recognized as a necessity. The input provided by the CM/GC proved valuable in identifying potential problems early in design before they were encountered in the field. In addition, by involving the contractor early on, they were able to procure long lead items early which required substantial quality control tests like light poles and gantry supports preventing potential delays due to failed 235

quality tests later on. The early involvement also allowed the contractor to begin relocating conflicting utilities during design before the official construction contract was issued. This pre-work allowed the subsequent construction effort to move much more rapidly through downtown, minimizing the disruption to the public and preventing costly mistakes due to poor utility relocation in the process. • Electronic recording and submission of daily reports: Quality control inspectors from the general contractor were equipped with electronic recording devices and very comprehensive checklists to complete their daily inspections and reports. The extensive checklists ensured that multiple features of every item of work were physically checked and attested to in the daily reports before being listed as complete. Electronically submitting the daily reports to TriMet’s resident engineer streamlined the reporting process and provided easy access to a searchable database of reports to consult if need be including field reports and laboratory testing results. • Allowing contractor to utilize own inspectors for QC testing: Typically TriMet requires that their contractors hire an outside laboratory to perform QC testing for them. On this project however the agency allowed the contractor to use their own inspectors and technicians to do the QC testing. TriMet’s willingness to do this was based in part on the reputations for quality and integrity of both parties in the contracting joint venture and in part on their requirement that all inspectors and technicians be nationally certified to perform their field inspections. This decision saved the contractor money and streamlined the scheduling process by removing the inherent scheduling complications which occur when dealing with an independent firm. • Use of the CM/GC delivery method: TriMet utilized a cost plus fixed fee payment provision to pay the CM/GC and also required a GMP the contractor could build the project for. This combination of delivery and payment methods resulted in very high levels of flexibility and autonomy for the managers in the field. Rather than requesting a change order for each deviation from the project plans (i.e. encountering a utility in an unexpected location) and then waiting for it to be submitted and approved, managers in the field could make rapid decisions without fear of assuming more risk. Observations of the Researcher The selection of the CM/GC delivery method and the resulting consequences dominate most of the unusual and successful features of the quality management of this project. While it may be difficult in some cases to determine where exactly quality management ends and project management begins, it’s safe to say that the two are linked in some way. On this project the contractor demonstrated high levels of integrity and clearly warranted the latitude it was given to employ its own quality control inspectors. 236