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 H: MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, UTAH Project Information Project Name: Mountain View Corridor (MVC) Project Name of Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Location: The Mountain View Corridor encompasses Salt Lake County west of Bangerter Highway between I-80 and the Utah County border. It also includes northwest Utah County west of I-15 from the Salt Lake County border to the north shore of Utah Lake. Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CMR, PPP, etc.): CM/GC Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Best-Value Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): GMP Project Description Initial construction includes building two outside lanes in each direction with signalized intersections where future interchanges will be located. This new roadway requires extensive grading and excavation (earthwork), relocating utilities, acquiring property, constructing drainage systems, building bridges and structures, and laying new pavement. Trail sections will also be built. Future construction will build out the remainder of the corridor by adding interchanges and more lanes to achieve a fully functional freeway. The Mountain View Corridor (MVC) is a planned highway, transit-way, and trail system in western Salt Lake and northwestern Utah Counties that will serve13 municipalities in the Project area. The Project is planned to be built in phases as the infrastructure is needed and as funding becomes available. The initial build will provide two lanes in each direction with at-grade intersections. The CM/GC process being used by the Agency could enable the northern terminus of the initial build project to be extended to the north as far as possible. Construction includes approximately 10 miles of new divided highway and frontage roads. Further work may include, but is not limited to: Utility adjustments Removals Clearing Grading Drainage Structural aggregate courses Paving Striping Signage, fencing, and other appurtenances ATMS Intersection construction Reconstruction & realignment of cross streets Mainline and overpass structures Retaining walls Seeding Landscaping Concrete flat work Aesthetic treatments Electrical Lighting 250

Project Quality Profile UDOT will provide some quality control and all quality assurance for the Project. The contractor is responsible for assuring the quality of the work of the subcontractors at all levels. UDOT or its designee will perform limited inspection and testing to audit and verify that all work and materials comply with the drawings, specifications, and all reference standards. Audits will be performed on a systematic basis and will be coordinated with the Quality Control Plan or as warranted by general quality trends. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $450 million construction proposal Final Total Awarded Value of project: $730 million (project still on-going) Project Schedule: Project Approved to start process: 2005 Initial Advertising: June 13th, 2009 RFP Issued to Shortlist: June 11th, 2009 Contract Award: August, 2009 Original Project Delivery Period: Projected Construction Completion Date is December 2013 Final Project Delivery Period: On-going The subsequent phases of MVC will be built as funding becomes available. Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Table H1: 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; ☐15; ☐5-10;☐ > 10 Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process The I-15 Project was taking place at the same time and was a Design-Build project. Therefore, UDOT could not afford the risk of doing another big DB project as the consulting community would not be available. The Project Manager was told that MVC had to be a CM/GC project instead. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) The most significant reason for selecting CM/GC for this project was Risk Management. 251

Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Cost and schedule. The Contractor was required to participate in a formalized ongoing risk analysis and mitigation process established by UDOT. In general, this process consists of a series of workshops where risks and mitigation strategies are identified and implemented. UDOT expects that, as design, cost estimating, constructability reviews, and other pre-construction activities progress, risks and unknowns will be reduced by successfully implementing mitigation strategies in order to reduce both Project costs and Project contingencies. A key outcome of the risk workshops should be costs of the risks identified. Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis The Contractor’s bid becomes the GMP with the exception of risks that were identified in design and for which UDOT has decided to take ownership. The contractor’s final bid, or GMP, does not include the cost of these risks. The UDOT PM sets up Risk Contingency Funding to cover these known risks. The contractor’s GMP combined with the Risk Contingency Funds represents the total GMP which must be within the Commission Approved Amount for the project. Risk Identification Techniques Used Risk Register and Opinion of Probable Costs. Traditionally UDOT has addressed risk through a process of identification and mitigation that is not substantiated by rigorous analysis. However, with the implementation of large CM/GC projects, better analysis efforts have been established. MVC is a current state funded project that illustrates the capabilities of CM/GC to analyze and mitigate risks. Risk Assessment Techniques Risk assessment for the project involves reviewing the Baseline Cost and Schedule. Then, risks related to the Baseline (cost of risk and cost of delay) are identified and quantified. Risk Management Techniques UDOT plans to implement active risk management as a collaborative process for UDOT, the program management team, the design team, and the general Contractor to assess risks, opportunities, and benefits while controlling the Project’s cost and schedule. UDOT’s active risk management plan calls for an iterative process where all the parties involved (program management, design, and general contracting teams) identify and quantify risks; as well as develop mitigation strategies in a collaborative, consensus-based environment. In particular, the process consists of four key steps as follows: Step 1: Baseline Risk Assessment o Review Baseline Cost and Schedule o Identify and Quantify Risks Related to Baseline (cost of risk and cost of delay) Step 2: Risk Response Strategies o Develop Recommendations to Mitigate/Avoid High Risks 252

o Develop Recommendations that Add Value Step 3: Risk Analysis on Response Strategies o Identify Risks Associated With Response Strategies o Quantify Threats and Opportunities Step 4: Tracking, Monitoring, and Control o Identify Risk Owners, Monitoring Frequency o Continuously update cost of risk and risk management plan o Document and report progress o At Key Milestones, Update Cost and Schedule Risk Technique used to Draft Contract In their response to the RFP contractors were instructed to explain how they will identify, price, and mitigate risk through the formalized risk management process that UDOT intends to use. Furthermore, proposers were required to explain how they will support the team during pre- construction and construction activities in achieving a cost at or below traditional projects. In addition, the proposers were instructed to address the following points relating to risks associated to price: Risks that would increase the unit prices Mitigation that would decrease the unit prices Amount of quantity change that would justify a change in unit prices Assumptions used to create unit cost Actions taken by the Contractor during pre-construction to identify and minimize risk Effect of schedule on costs Effect of work by others such as utilities or municipalities in the Project corridor 253

Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Procurement Phase Summary Table H2: Administrative and Performance Based Prequalification Requirement Designer prequalification program factors 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 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 ☐ ☐ Table H3: Required Bidding Documents Requirements of the project advertising/solicitation documents (i.e. IFB, RFQ, RFP, etc.) Required proposal/ bid package submittal Evaluated to make the award decision Required submittal after contract award 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ Note: The items above are not specifically asked for in the RFP, but they are evaluated. 254

Design Phase Summary Table H4: Design Quality Management Roles Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Consultant design staff Constructor’s preconstruction staff Agency-hired QA/oversight consultant 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 ✔ Construction Phase Summary Table H5: Construction Quality Management Roles Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Consultant design staff Constructor’s construction staff Agency-hired QA/oversight consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings ✔ ✔ Technical review of construction material submittals ✔ ✔ 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 punch list. ✔ ✔ Quality Management Planning QA/QC Plans The design QM plans are no different from the QM plans used on traditional design projects. For UDOT the delivery method does not affect the quality methods. The quality methods are driven by the size of the project. The contractor was required to develop, implement, and maintain a Quality Control Plan that assures equipment and material conformance to the applicable requirements of every section of 255

the specifications. The Quality Control Plan had to focus on providing continuing attention to producing and installing error-free work that complies with the Contract. The Quality Control Plan had to include, at a minimum, provisions for continued education and training, toolbox meetings, various meetings with subcontractors and suppliers, and other activities designed to accomplish the following: • Emphasize the importance of high-quality work • Stress the concept that quality is best achieved during initial installation of the Work • Enhance the exchange of technical and other information pertaining to quality throughout the Contractor’s organization • Eliminate non-complying work requiring rework or replacement In addition, the Quality Control Plan had to include the Contractor assuring the quality of the work of the subcontractors at all levels. Use of mandated agency quality management plans UDOT mandated the use of standard agency specifications, the same as those used on routine projects. Quality staff qualifications The following information had to be provided by each proposer: • A narrative describing how the proposed key members of the team will meet the stated Project goals and build a professional and collaborative Project Team • Project Team members’ organizational chart • A spreadsheet list of similar projects and details of projects completed by the contractor or are nearing completion during the last five years • A discussion of the qualifications of the following Key Personnel: o Project Principal o Project Manager o Project Controls Manager o Construction Manager o Quality Manager o Lead Estimator o Utility Manager o Up to two other persons that the Proposer considers as key to the success of the Project 256

• A narrative that describes successful methods, approaches, and innovations implemented on the listed projects • Resumes and two references for each Key Personnel Contractor quality assurance test results Yes. UDOT will provide all quality assurance for the Project while the contractor is responsible for assuring the quality of the work of the subcontractors at all levels. General Quality Management Procedures Standard of Care There is no difference in standard of care for this project when compared with DBB projects. Alternate Quality Management Systems The integrated QMS is designed to provide adequate confidence and objective evidence that the work performed by Copper Hills Constructors (CHC) and its Subcontractors, for the Mountain View Corridor Project meets the requirements of the Contract Documents and the rules and regulations contained therein. CHC uses a Quality Team approach to implement the Project Quality Control Plan. The CHC Project Manager is the Quality Team Leader. The Quality Team members include: • Deputy Project Manager – Controls • Construction Quality Manager (CQM) • Quality Control (QC) staff • The CHC Construction Staff • Subcontractors • Suppliers • UDOT The Project Manager is responsible to provide adequate resources to the CQM including the assignment of qualified and trained personnel for management and Quality verification activities including internal quality audits. The CQM is authorized to stop the Work if it is judged the Work is performed contrary to or in the absence of prescribed controls, safety requirements, or approved methods, and further would make it difficult or impossible to establish acceptability of the results. Upon issuance of a Stop Work Order, the CQM shall immediately notify the UDOT Resident Engineer, the CHC Deputy Project Manager - Controls, and the CHC Deputy Project Manager - Operations. The CQM and staff will verify and document the quality and technical requirements of the project, which shall be achieved through selected inspections, surveillance, tests, and audits. Quality Record Documents that verify the achievement of the quality and technical requirements of the Contract and the rules and regulations contained therein shall be retained in the Project Quality Records File which will be the property of UDOT at Final Owner Acceptance. 257

The CQM will perform regular management reviews and quality audits of the implementation and maintenance of the Project Quality Management System to verify and document its effectiveness in controlling the quality of the Work performed by CHC, Subcontractors, and Suppliers for the Project. The CQM will provide reports, as needed, to the CHC Joint Venture Board regarding the implementation and maintenance of the Project Quality Control Plan and its effectiveness in controlling the quality of the Work. These reports will form a basis for improvement of the CHC Quality Management System. The CQM is also responsible to provide as a liaison with external agencies participating in the Mountain View Corridor Project on matters relating to the Project Quality Control Plan. Summary QA Project Approach The Mountain View Corridor project follows the Assurance Quality Management Organization as the Owner is to perform all the quality assurance, with the exception of the subcontractor quality assurance being carried out by the contractor. The quality control is the responsibility of the designer and the contractor. 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 Owner Verification (if req’d) Quality Management Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Constructor’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Figure H1: Mountain View Corridor QAO 258

Example of Alternate QM System Used on This Project One quality method that has been beneficial to the MVC project is the everyday meetings of the project team. These collaborative discussions provided a forum for optimal solutions to be reached. For example the Juniper Canyon Bridge was originally designed to be a 3-span structure because it went over two mini canyons. The contractor asked if one of the canyons could be filled since it appeared that it did not carry any drainage. The environmental group finally looked into it at the contractor’s urging and determined that one of the canyons could be filled and the other spanned. It is likely that this solution and the resulting reduction in bridge cost would not have been reached had the contractor not been able to question it the design in the meetings. The following outcomes were achieved: • Design Optimization – Juniper Canyon Bridge • Construction Optimization - Earthwork balance • Utility Relocation Optimization – High pressure gas main protect in place, and design around conflict Observations of the Researcher The current success of this project could be attributed to the frequent collaboration of the project team. It has been identified that retaining the same project staff members throughout preconstruction and construction is important in order to maintain consistency and to avoid the loss or misinterpretation of assumptions made throughout the process. In terms of quality, emphasis is placed on maintaining quality records in an organized manner. This is seen as important record for this project as well as future projects with similar quality management systems. The large size of this project warranted a slightly different approach than other UDOT projects and a particular emphasis on risk management was required. Effective QM Practices The following practices are used on the MVC project and lead to enhanced quality: Project Records File and Distribution System: CHC will establish and maintain a Project Records File and Distribution System at the project office. This system is to include electronic data and hard copies. Records shall be filed in an organized manner, indexed, and retrievable. The Records file index system shall provide sufficient information to permit prompt retrieval and identification of the Record and the item(s) or activity to which it applies. Corrections to all Records shall be controlled and appropriately reviewed by the originating department. All corrections shall include the date and the identification of the person authorized to make the correction and the person making the correction. Regular Project Team Meetings: The RFP specified that all parties involved in the performance of the Project, including UDOT, the UDOT-selected Architecture/Engineering firm, the prime Contractor, and all subcontractors will meet together on a regular basis (at least monthly) to establish and maintain open lines of communication with the goal of ensuring relationships of trust and 259

cooperation on the Project. Further meetings conducted throughout the project include pre-construction Meetings, Weekly Owners/Progress Meetings and Partnering. Reviews: The contractor is required to participate in formal constructability and material availability reviews that are conducted at up to four milestones throughout the Project. These formal reviews are to focus on identifying revisions to improve clarity for bidding, identifying potential design revisions that would reduce construction costs, and identifying elements to improve the time performance for the Project. This practice is not identified as a quality method initially; however, reviewing the elements to improve the time performance is likely to promote discussions about project quality throughout the duration of the project. Quality Personnel Education and Training: Personnel performing or managing activities that have an effect on quality are required to be familiar with specific requirements of the Contract Documents. They are also expected to have all necessary education, training, and certifications where applicable for each area of discipline, as required. The extent of training is to correspond with the following: o Scope, complexity, and nature of the activity o Education, experience, and proficiency of the person o Specific requirements of the Contract Documents Goal-Setting Session: The Contractor was required to participate in an initial goal-setting session with UDOT. The intended outcome of this session was to review UDOT’s goals to ensure that the Contractor understands these goals and to allow the Contractor to provide recommendations to UDOT regarding these goals. A session of this nature is important to the quality of the project as it ensures that the owner and the contractor are in alignment with their quality expectations and avoids future disagreements or misunderstandings at a later stage. 260