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 K: HASTINGS RIVER BRIDGE Project Information Project Name: TH61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project Name of Agency: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Location: T.H. 61 over the Mississippi River along the border of Washington and Dakota County, Minnesota within and near the City of Hastings. Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CMR, PPP, etc.): DB Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Best Value Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): Lump Sum, subject only to certain specified limited exceptions. Project Description The Project scope is to design and construct a new four-lane bridge over the Mississippi River, remove the existing 2-lane bridge, and construct the approaches on the north and south sides of the new bridge. The Case Study project includes: A free-standing arch main span segment with low maintenance, robust and highly redundant concrete tie girders and knuckles. A south approach segment protected with a secondary wearing course. The south approach segment includes two side-by- side bridges that are five-span, solid cast-in- place post- tensioned concrete slabs with an arched soffit over Second Street and a constant 5-ft.- deep cross section for the remainder of the spans. The north approach segment is a low-maintenance five-span precast concrete girder bridge. A north approach roadway constructed on a column-supported embankment, with a performance criterion of less than 2 inches of total settlement complete within three months of embankment construction. The subgrade geotechnical conditions of this approach are extremely high risk. The old bridge was jacked up a number of times in its life due to differential settlement. A main span is a 545-ft. tied arch with free-standing, trapezoidal vertical steel arch ribs and post-tensioned concrete knuckles and tie girders. It is erected using a low float-in operation to maximize public safety. The addition of an independent quality firm during steel fabrication with computed radiography. Testing capabilities. Project Quality Profile Contractor (design-builder) responsibility for all QA and QC – MnDOT audit of QM activities: The overall quality approach required the Contractor to develop, implement, and maintain a quality management system that encompassed the design and construction 283

quality aspects, as well as documentation requirements for the Project. MnDOT audited the Contractor’s quality management system to determine whether quality activities were being carried out and were implemented effectively. The Contractor was to perform Quality Control and Quality Assurance activities for the design of the Project in accordance with the Quality Manual. MnDOT’s oversight role was to entail design audits on the products of the design. The Contractor was to perform construction quality testing and inspection activities. MnDOT then performed construction quality acceptance testing and inspection for verification that the Work met Contract requirements. The Contractor was to document quality activities and maintain quality data in accordance with the policies and procedures defined in the Quality Manual. Negotiated Design Quality Criteria via Confidential Preapproval of Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs): ATCs were used to permit the design-builder to literally negotiate the design quality criteria and the process for submitting and evaluating them was set forth in the Instructions to Proposers (ITP). No changes to the Contract requirements were permitted in the proposal except through the ATC process. ATCs were defined as being “alternative concepts to the Basic Configuration that are equal or better in quality or effect as determined by MnDOT in its sole discretion and which have successfully been used elsewhere under comparable circumstances”, and “a concept is not an ATC if it merely seeks to reduce quantities, performance, or reliability, or seeks a relaxation of the Contract requirements”. Proposers were able to submit ATCs to MnDOT prior to the proposal due date for MnDOT’s comments. MnDOT’s comments were limited to one of the following: o The ATC is acceptable. o The ATC is unacceptable. o The ATC is unacceptable in its present form, but may be acceptable upon the satisfaction, in. o MnDOT’s sole judgment, of certain identified conditions that must be met or clarifications or modifications that must be made. o The submittal does not qualify as an ATC, but may be included in the proposal (that is, the concept complies with the baseline RFP requirements). o The submittal does not qualify as an ATC and may not be included in the proposal. MnDOT then conducted one-on-one meetings with proposers to discuss ATCs and the Proposers were able to incorporate one or more acceptable ATCs in to their proposal. These approved ATCs were known as Pre-Approved Elements (PAEs). MnDOT was careful not to coach the Proposers through the PAE process and provided evaluations rather than scores for each ATC. Furthermore, MnDOT ensured that the people that evaluated the PAEs were not the same people that evaluated the proposals. 284

Owner’s reasons for using alternate QM system Implementing a PAE process allowed the Owner to get a “sneak-peek” at the contractor’s bid before submittal. The confidentiality of the process provided each competitor with the ability to retain advantages that it developed. The major area where innovation was desired was the foundation of the north approach. The column-supported fill that was proposed came through the ATC/PAE process. It is also interesting to note that this project had a not-to-exceed value of $220 million and it was awarded at a $100 million below that amount. Much of the savings are ascribed by the design-builder to the impact on cost and schedule risk of the ATC/PAE process. MnDOT believes that PAEs are valuable for high risk bridges such as the Hastings River Bridge. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $119,830,890 Final Total Awarded Value of project: On-going Project Schedule: 4 years Project Approved to start process: 2008 Initial Advertising: August 31, 2009 RFP Issued to Shortlist: 13 Jan 2010 Contract Award: July 1, 2010 Original Project Delivery Period: Roadway open Oct 1st 2013, Final Cleanup Jun 2014, 4 years. Final Project Delivery Period: Achieving the Intermediate Completion Deadline and opening TH 61 in its final configuration by May 31, 2013. Substantial Completion Deadline: Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion by June 1, 2014. Intermediate Completion Deadlines: The Contractor shall complete all Work required to open all roadways, sidewalks, trails in their final configuration by October 1, 2013. Final Acceptance Deadline: Contractor shall achieve Final Acceptance within two years (730 Calendar Days) following Substantial Completion. Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Table K1: 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 Best Value DBB ☐NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ✔General authorization ☐NA; ✔1-5; ☐5-10;☐ > 10 285

Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process A design-build project delivery method was chosen for this project because the Interim Highway Commissioner directed the acceleration of the project. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Design-build was chosen for this project to accelerate the project delivery period as schedule was most significant on this project. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Cost, schedule, geotechnical scope Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: NA Risk Identification Techniques Used: Risk register Risk Assessment Techniques: Risk register Risk Management Techniques: ATC/PAE process Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: To allow MnDOT to budget for the Project and reduce the risk of cost overruns, the Contract included restrictions affecting the Contractor’s ability to make claims for an increase to the Contract Price or an extension of the Completion Deadlines. The Contractor had agreed in the Contract to assume such responsibilities and risks and had reflected the assumption of such responsibilities and risks in the Contract Price. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Procurement Phase Summary Table K2: Administrative Prequalification Requirement Designer prequalification program factors Administrative 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 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 ✔ 286

Table K3: 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ Lesson Learned: For future projects MnDOT would like to have a designated document control manager. This would work to eliminate the difficulty getting everyone notified of changes. Design Phase Summary Table K4: 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 ✔ 287

Construction Phase Summary Table K5: 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 punchlist. ✔ ✔ Quality Management Planning QA/QC Plans The quality management process used on this project was a formal one that was project specific. The Contractor’s quality management system had to contain a Quality Manual (QM) that encompassed all Contract requirements with regard to design, construction, and documentation for all quality processes. Design Quality Management Plan: At a minimum, the Design Quality Management section included: Define sound Design Quality Control and Quality Assurance review processes Describe how all design criteria, Contract requirements, and other design inputs are defined, reviewed, and approved Describe the design and verification activities separately. Describe how the design team schedules the design efforts, including design reviews, verification and checking stages, and issue dates of design deliverables. Include details as to the level of involvement of MnDOT, local, and regulatory agencies in the design development and design review process. The Contractor is encouraged to involve MnDOT in all design development processes, including Independent Technical Reviews, and Constructability Reviews. Describe how the security of documents will be controlled during the Project. Describe the coordination of the design with construction 288

Describe how the Contractor will maintain an accessible, centrally controlled manual, database, or list that contains all relevant design inputs or references to design inputs to be used by design personnel to incorporate into the design. Define the design outputs (i.e., the specific plans and specifications) to be produced. Include quality measures and encourages continuous improvement of the design deliverable products Describe how changes to design are identified, reviewed, and approved by authorized personnel prior to their implementation. Describe the method of communicating changes or revisions made in the field. The following design reviews were specified by the Contractor: Discipline Coordination Reviews (DCR): These reviews assure that all aspects of the design are considered as the design progresses. Independent Technical Reviews (ITR): This review provides the technical expertise of senior staff to the design. Reviewers are not involved directly in the project design; their reviews focus on assuring that the design meets all project requirements, utilizes the best technology and methodology available, and includes client-specific preferences. Constructability Reviews (CR): These reviews assure that construction-related expertise is incorporated into the design. The construction engineers and project manager or designee will complete these reviews, adding practical construction considerations to the design. Construction Quality Management Plan: The Quality Manual also had to include a Construction Quality Management section that accomplished the following: Provides quality measures and encourages continuous improvement of the construction phase Educates all construction staff of their role in the quality management system and ensures they understand their role is to build the Work in accordance with the Released for Construction Documents and the Project requirements Ensures all construction quality staff understand their role is to determine whether the Work meets the Project requirements Integrates all Subcontractors and Suppliers in the construction quality management system Involves MnDOT throughout the entire construction process The Quality Manual also included an Inspection and Testing Plan describing all of the proposed inspections and tests to be performed throughout the construction process. MnDOT had provided a Construction Quality Inspection and Testing Plan in the Quality Manual Template. The Contractor was to tailor the Inspection and Testing Plan to meet the Project requirements. The Design Quality Management Plan was required before Notice To Proceed (NTP) was granted. The Contractor wanted to get going on the project, so enough of a plan was given to get early approval and then revision was done to the plan later. An audit was also done to and mismatches were found when compared to the manual. The audit was necessary after Design QM plan approval, but it was not tied to payments. 289

In addition, the Contractor had to ensure that internal quality audits, for each element of the quality management system, were performed at least every six months. The Contractor specified that internal audits to be completed during the Project would include the following: Audits of deliverables to the Owner or other stakeholders before they are delivered Audits of the document control system Periodic informal spot-audits of Owner comment forms, internal comment forms, RFIs, and Design Change paperwork to spot trends, problem areas, or inefficiencies Audits of quality activities Use of mandated agency quality management plans A specific set of qualifications for the quality management staff of design consultants and construction contractors was mandated for this project. Standard agency specifications, design details and construction means and/or methods are sometimes used on MnDOT projects. MnDOT required that the Quality Management System (QMS) to be comprised of the Contractor’s quality policy, quality objectives, design and construction quality plans, quality procedures, work instructions, and records. The QMS had to: Establish comprehensive quality management processes and procedures Integrate the quality goals of both the design and construction elements of the Project Define the minimum standards and procedures for quality management Assign the responsibilities for specific quality management functions The Contractor was to be responsible for all Work for the design and construction quality of the Project and for fully complying with the Project’s scope of work and their Quality Manual. Quality staff qualifications The overall Quality Manager had to have a PE. However, MnDOT had difficulty finding someone with a good knowledge of the process. The Design Quality Manager (DQM) had to be different from the Designer-of-Record and was supposed to be a full-time person. The person did not end up being full-time as expected indicating that the role of the DQM was not clear. In addition, the Contractor and its design Subcontractor(s) were required to maintain all required authority, license status, professional ability, skills and capacity to perform the Work. General Quality Management Procedures Standard of Care No different from DBB projects. Alternate Quality Management Systems The Contractor specified that Quality Control was the responsibility of the design team, construction team, and Environmental Compliance Team. The Design QA staff performed audits to ensure that the design activities for the design of the Project conformed to the policies and procedures defined in the Quality Manual. 290

The construction quality staff was to perform quality inspection and testing to ensure that materials and the constructed Work meet Contract requirements. MnDOT performs construction quality acceptance testing and inspection for verification that the Work meets Contract requirements. The Project Quality Assurance organization was to operate under the oversight of the Quality Manager, who had to report directly to the Executive Management Committee and also to MnDOT. The Construction Quality Manager (CQM) had the overall responsibility for quality activities performed prior to and during construction. The CQM was to be responsible for: supervising field testing and inspection personnel, auditing suppliers’ quality management systems and ensuring that production testing and inspection is being carried out and is providing quality results, reviewing test records from previous production, coordinating the flow of quality information from the supplier and subcontractors to the Project, evaluating and analyzing quality data from all sources to determine trends and compliance with Project requirements, and to assess the effectiveness of the Project’s construction quality activities, assisting the Quality Manager in training workers in the Quality Management System ensuring Critical Activity Point Managers perform at Critical Activity Points. The Design Quality Assurance Manager (DQAM) was to assist the Quality Manager with the design-related training, audits, and implementation of the Quality Management System. The DQAM was to perform day-to-day assurance activities, including audits of deliverable packages and review of design inputs. For this Project, it was specified that the Quality Management System review team was to meet monthly. The group was to include: Executive Management Committee Quality Manager Design Quality Assurance Manager Construction Quality Manager Summary QA Project Approach MnDOT deliberately chose a hands-off approach to quality management in this project. The RFP contained a clause that encouraged over-the-shoulder review of design products and tasked the designer-of-record to be involved in the construction quality management process. The QAO for this project is an Oversight QAO and is shown in Figure K1. 291

Figure K1: Hastings Bridge QAO. Example of Alternate QM System used on this Project Geotechnical issues were the major quality challenge in this project. DB project delivery did not allow MnDOT to complete a thorough subsurface investigation and therefore, it chose to transfer the risk to the design-builder. The pre-proposal submission interactivity via the ATC/PAE process was effective in both stimulating an innovative solution to the project’s greatest quality problem and in ensuring the long term quality of the project. Their approach to managing the long-term settlement of the north approach segment involved the use of a column-supported embankment (CSE) constructed using driven steel pipe piles. The piles support the load of the new embankment materials and transfer the stress from this load to the dense soils below the clay and immediately overlying the bedrock. The design represents the best solution with respect to long-term settlements and the potential impact of settlements on the project schedule. The column-supported embankment allowed for a three year warranty for settlement. The design- builder also proposed to install an instrumentation package to permit MnDOT to monitor settlement for the life of the warranty and beyond. The use of the settlement performance criterion instigated this uncalled for feature, and the instrumentation package gave MnDOT personnel a much higher level of confidence in the ultimate performance of the column- supported fill, a technique with which MnDOT had no prior experience. 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) Project Quality Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Designer- Builder’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility 292

The following Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) were incorporated into the design and construction approach: ATC 02 • Tied-Arch Alternative ATC 08 • Structural Concrete ATC 03 • Continuous Settlement Monitoring ATC 09 • South Approach Structure Fixity ATC 04 • Vessel Collision Loads ATC 10 • Hanger Corrosion Protection System ATC 06 • Bridge Geometrics ATC 11 • PI Coordinator Observations of the Researcher The success of this project appeared to be due to the amount of communication allowed by the Owner before the proposals were submitted. Proposers were given the opportunity to discuss their ideas with the Owner and gain evaluation of these ideas. This was valuable because the Owner had an idea of what to expect from the proposals and the Contractors were not “guessing” what the Owner wanted. It also allowed design and construction quality criteria to be clarified and renegotiated if necessary. Effective QM Practices The following practices were implemented for the project and contributed to managing the quality of the project. These practices were thought to be effective largely because they increased the communication between project parties allowing for better collaboration. ATC/PAE Process: Approved ATCs were known as Pre-Approved Elements (PAEs). MnDOT then conducted one-on-one meetings with proposers to discuss ATCs and the Proposers were able to incorporate one or more acceptable ATCs in to their proposal. Disciplinary Task Forces: Each task force will focus on a specific discipline of work with the involvement of individuals in more than one task force to ensure proper and consistent cross discipline coordination. Each task force will meet weekly with the meetings documented by meeting minutes and time phased action items. Over-the-shoulder design reviews: These were informal examinations by MnDOT of design documents during the project design process. They mainly assessed whether the requirements and design criteria of the Contract Documents were being followed and whether the contractor’s design quality management plan activities were being undertaken in accordance with the approved Quality Manual. In-Progress Design Workshops: Throughout the design process, the Contractor or MnDOT could request (with at least five Working Days’ notice) in-progress design workshops to discuss and verify design progress and to assist the Contractor and/or its designer(s) in resolving design questions and issues. 293

Quality Oversight Visits: Throughout the design process, MnDOT could make oversight visits to discuss and verify design progress and ascertain the overall progress of the Project with respect to the Contractor’s Quality Manual. Disincentive: Subject to MnDOT’s determination, MnDOT could assess the Contractor a $100-per-hour monetary deduction for failure to facilitate satisfactory progress or completion of the Work. Hourly charges were able to be applied during periods during which MnDOT determined the Contractor had not satisfactorily responded to a documented non-compliance. No charge was to be assessed if the deficiency was corrected by the Contractor within one hour of written notification from MnDOT. 294