Guidebook on 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.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 808 Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction Keith R. Molenaar University of Colorado Boulder, CO Douglas D. Gransberg iowa state University Ames, IA David N. Sillars oregon state University Corvallis, OR Subscriber Categories Administration and Management • Construction TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 808 Project 10-83 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-30870-0 Library of Congress Control Number 2015939732 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the time and effort of the many contributors to this study. We would like to acknowledge our advisory board for their advice in keeping the results practical and immedi- ately implementable. The advisory board included Kristen Betty, Debra Brisk, David Brown, Robert Burns, and James Hunt. We would very much like to acknowledge the student research associates who worked tirelessly on the data collection and authoring of the work: Ghada Gad, Landon Harman, Christofer Harper, Elizabeth Kraft, and Nicola West. Most importantly, we would like to thank the many state highway agency personnel who responded to our surveys, agreed to provide case study data, and met with us to validate the results. Without their volunteer efforts, we could not have finished this work. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 808 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program David A. Reynaud, Senior Program Officer Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Ellen M. Chafee, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 10-83 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specifications, Procedures, and Practices Timothy B. Aschenbrener, Federal Highway Administration-OTS, Lakewood, CO (Chair) Ravi V. Chandran, Connecticut DOT, Rocky Hill, CT Darren Hazlett, Texas DOT, Austin, TX C. Shannon Sweitzer, S&ME, Incorporated, Raleigh, NC Jon Tapping, California High Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento, CA Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D By David A. Reynaud Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This guidebook provides recommendations and tools to assist in developing quality management systems (QMSs) and assistance in creating a better definition of quality management in the context of alternative project delivery. The roles of owners and contractors in QMSs are changing, leading to variation in the roles and responsibilities of quality assurance organization (QAO). These range from the agency-dominated system of quality management associated with the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method to design-build (DB)/public-private partnership (PPP) agreements where the responsibility for quality management is shared to varying degrees between the contractor and owner. This report will be valuable to highway construction engineers by facilitating the development of QMSs for evolving alternative project delivery methods. The need for the research conducted under NCHRP Project 10-83 is, in part, a consequence of both the growing use of alternative project delivery methods and the need for a better definition of quality management in the context of alternative project delivery. Innovations in QAOs and other features of quality programs are being used by state transportation agencies across the country. The objective of NCHRP Project 10-83 was to (1) identify and understand alternative QMSs and (2) develop guidelines for their use in highway construction projects. However, as the researchers at the University of Colorado–Boulder, Iowa State University, and Oregon State University point out, these alternative QMSs are being applied on a project- by-project basis due to the lack of national guidance to promote standard approaches. For transportation agencies, this lack of guidance is resulting in significant investment to develop individual programs and is limiting the ability to capture and utilize knowledge across agencies. For consulting engineers and contractors, this lack of guidance is resulting in significant investment in response to project solicitations, which require unique QMSs for different agencies. The speed at which rapid renewal projects must be delivered creates a demand for a well-defined QMS that can be successfully replicated on a variety of projects. QMS guidelines on a national level will promote efficiency and allow for the transfer of knowledge to continuously improve these systems.

C O N T E N T S 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 What Is Quality? 2 1.3 Quality Definitions 3 1.4 Organization of the Guidebook 3 1.5 Chapter 1 References 5 Chapter 2 The Business Case for Alternative Quality Management Systems 5 2.1 Current Status of Highway Quality Management 5 2.2 Defining the Quality Management Baseline 6 2.3 Future Needs of Highway Quality Management 7 2.4 Impact of Quality Management on Highway Projects 8 2.5 Summary of the Business Case 9 2.6 Chapter 2 References 10 Chapter 3 Quality Assurance Organizations 10 3.1 Introduction 10 3.2 Methodology 10 3.3 QAO Presentation 11 3.4 Fundamental Highway QAOs 19 3.5 Conclusion 21 3.6 Chapter 3 References 22 Chapter 4 Quality Assurance Organization Selection 22 4.1 Introduction to QAO Selection 22 4.2 Factors Influencing the Selection of the Project QAO 23 4.3 Guidance on Using Project Factors to Select a QAO 25 4.4 Chapter 4 References 26 Chapter 5 Useful Tools for an Alternative Quality Management System 26 5.1 Introduction 26 5.2 Tools for Alternative QMSs 27 5.3 Examples of Alternative QMSs 30 5.4 Summary Guidance for Assembling a QMS 31 5.5 Chapter 5 References

32 Appendix A Glossary of Terms 34 Appendix B Common Quality Management Tools 68 Appendix C Highway Project Quality Assurance Organization Selection Guide 81 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.