National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction (2015)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations

« Previous: Chapter 2 - The Business Case for Alternative Quality Management Systems
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance Organizations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22128.
×
Page 21

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.

10 Quality Assurance Organizations 3.1 Introduction Highway QAOs have been evolving since the 1960s. They have moved from a recipe of prescriptive quality specifi- cations to developments in materials inspections and test- ing, to implementation of statistical process control, and ultimately toward performance-based quality management (Hughes 2005, Transportation Research Board 1979, Smith 1998). While the bulk of the research on, innovations of, and strategies for highway project QA have focused on the con- struction phase of the project (Hughes 2005, Transportation Research Board 1979), there is recognition that design has to be an integral part of the discussion of highway project quality (Burati 1992). The importance of including design in the QAO has been made increasingly evident due to the introduction of alternative delivery methods and changing philosophies about the use of consultants in roles historically filled by transportation agency staff. In practice, highway project QAOs have been adjusting to the needs of alterna- tive delivery methods and other changing conditions on a project-by-project basis. This chapter discusses development of five fundamental QAOs. These five fundamental QAOs were developed through literature review, contract document analysis, and case study evaluation. The QAOs establish a consistent and efficient approach to highway-sector QAO planning. 3.2 Methodology Identification of the five QAO models consisted of four distinct phases. A thorough literature review and national survey were used to identify a theoretical framework with 14 potential QAOs. The second phase consisted of a content analysis of 66 contract and policy documents to identify the nine QAOs that are currently in use in the industry. The third phase was data analysis; the 14 identified QAOs were analyzed on the basis of the agency’s quality roles and responsibilities within each QAO. If the agency shared a role, directly contracted the role out to an independent firm, or had sole responsibil- ity, it was considered an agency project quality management role and responsibility. Additional QAO variations were identi- fied depending on how an agency performed the role and/or whether non-agency quality management roles and respon- sibilities were contracted to a single party or multiple parties. These variants were consolidated into five fundamental models by the research team. The fourth phase was validation; the five fundamental QAOs were validated and calibrated by a panel of six industry experts. Experts on the panel had a cumu- lative total of 163 years of industry experience, with each individual having a minimum of 15 years of experience. The panel confirmed that the five fundamental QAOs accurately reflected and were all encompassing of current industry prac- tices. The final report for NCHRP Project 10-83 (published as NCHRP Web-Only Document 212) provides a full description of the process of developing and validating the five funda- mental QAOs. The remainder of this chapter describes the five fundamental QAOs. The description focuses on agency roles in traditional DBB and three of the most common alternative project delivery methods: DB, CMGC, and PPP. 3.3 QAO Presentation Each QAO is graphically represented using the generic QAO framework shown in Figure 4, adapted from Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar (2008). The generic framework shows all of the project quality roles, their relationships, and the surrounding project quality activities that should be consid- ered when designing a complete QAO, including both design and construction. Design quality has not been traditionally included in highway QA discussions, but is required for the alternative delivery methods that are becoming prevalent in the industry. In the variants presented in this chapter, a dotted line is used to indicate whether the agency, contractor, C H A P T E R 3

11 designer, concessionaire, or design builder is responsible for a project quality role. Items appearing above a dotted line are the responsibility of the agency. A vertical dotted line appearing below a horizontal dotted line separates the responsibilities of the designer and the contractor. 3.4 Fundamental Highway QAOs The five fundamental QAOs for the highway construc- tion and design industry identified in this research are the following: • Deterministic. The traditional approach to quality within the highway industry, in which the agency retains respon- sibility over all project quality roles, responsibilities, and activities. • Assurance. The agency is responsible for all aspects of quality except for design and construction QC. • Variable. Design and construction take different approaches to quality. For example, the STA may assign both design phase QC and acceptance to an outside party, while the construction phase QC only may be assigned to an outside party. This approach was found on DB projects. • Oversight. The agency takes on an oversight role by assign- ing design QC, design acceptance, construction QC, and construction acceptance to outside parties. • Acceptance. The agency is responsible only for verifica- tion testing and final acceptance. All other quality roles and responsibilities are assigned to the concessionaire. This variation was found only in PPP arrangements. Figure 5 shows a summary of the five QAOs with respect to both the level of agency control and the approach to project quality assurance. There are two distinct approaches to quality: reactive and proactive. The reactive approach is aimed at detecting and correcting problems that already exist. Desai and Mital (2009) state that “the designer of a product/process/service incor- porates a system of checks and measures that serves to isolate and catch defects as and when they occur. By their very nature, reactive quality assurance strategies are better suited to identify problems and resolve them and as such are clearly defensive in nature.” The reactive approach inspects the quality into the final product. Conversely, the proactive approach to quality is aimed at preventing problems, defects, and/or errors before they occur. The proactive approach provides the project team Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Quality Assurance Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Constructor’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Figure 4. Generic QAO model (adapted from Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008).

12 with the ability to build quality into the final product begin- ning at the design stage instead of inspecting it at a later stage (Desai and Mital 2009). The sections that follow present each of the five QAOs with a description of the assignment of the roles and responsibili- ties, the approach to quality, the applicable project delivery methods, and the existing variations on the fundamental QAO. The description of the assignment of the roles and respon- sibilities clearly identifies the team member responsible for each task and discusses the level of owner control for that QAO. The approach to quality indicates whether the QAO results in a reactive or proactive approach to quality. The proj- ect delivery methods where the QAO has been implemented in the industry as well as the feasibility of the application of the QAO to other project delivery methods are discussed, and, lastly, the variations of the QAO are identified. 3.4.1 Deterministic QAO Figure 6 shows the traditional quality organization on highway construction projects and is well understood by the primary parties involved in a project: agency, contractor, and designer. The agency’s roles in the Deterministic QAO include design QC, design acceptance, construction QC, and Deterministic Assurance Variable Oversight Acceptance Approach to quality Reactive Proactive High Low Level of agency control over quality Figure 5. Fundamental highway industry QAOs based on approach to control and quality. Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Quality Assurance Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Constructor’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Figure 6. Deterministic QAO.

13 construction acceptance. The agency can use third-party consultants to perform any of their roles, but the agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring these roles are success- fully completed on the project. The STA provides guidelines to the contractor as to possible necessary tests and inspections appropriate for the project, but the contractor is primarily reacting to the agency’s direction through the specifications of the project. Smith (1998) states that “the DOT’s role is to approve the QC program, monitor contractor procedures, test results, perform independent tests, and determine acceptance.” The agency is responsible for all acceptance (design and construction) on the project. The Deterministic QAO represents the baseline for alternative QAO discussions and comparisons for this guide. Because of the controlling role of the owner in the Deter- ministic QAO, it is considered a reactive approach to quality (Postma et al. 2002). The agency develops the designs, specifies the materials to be used, and watches over the construction (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). In the Deterministic QAO, “the contractor works within a very controlled environ- ment like that in a method specification project. Assurance using method specifications is based on the owner having complete control of the process and enumeration of contrac- tor means and methods. Detailed owner-directed inspection is the primary control process and final acceptance of the work is essentially automatic” (Smith 1998). The lack of collaboration in the Deterministic QAO con- tributes to the frequently contentious relationship between the owner and the contractor. This adversarial relationship is so pronounced that the Deterministic QAO is sometimes referred to as the “catch and punish” method (Postma et al. 2002). There is no opportunity for collaboration because the contractor (and often the designer) has no input in the QC or acceptance of their own product; they are merely responding to what the agency directs within the RFP, plans, specifica- tions, and bidding documents. Difficulties can arise if there are conflicts because the quality expectations are not explicitly stated in bidding documents and/or contract change orders. The Deterministic QAO is most often implemented on DBB projects, especially when the design is performed within the agency. Gransberg and Shane (2010) concluded that the quality systems used in DBB also pertain to CMGC because the owner still occupies the same contractual position with respect to the designer and builder. The Deterministic QAO would be most appropriately applied to CMGC if the scope of preconstruction work for the contractor was limited to items not directly relating to the design: cost estimates and project scheduling. In contrast, the Deterministic QAO is not well suited for a DB project. This is because the DB deliv- ery method requires the agency to transfer some of the risks associated with the quality of design and construction, which requires a shift in authority for each of these tasks. Applying the Deterministic QAO to a DB project means that the agency retains the quality authority for design and construction, which no longer allows the design builder to manage and assume the risks associated with those tasks (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). 3.4.2 Assurance QAO In the Assurance QAO, the agency has the responsibility for acceptance of design and construction and the decisions to release the design for construction and to release construction for final payment. These responsibilities can be performed in house or by an independent consultant/engineer. Figure 7 graphically depicts the Assurance QAO as applied to a dual contract project (separate contracts for the designer and the contractor). The designer and the contractor are responsible for performing QC of their respective areas because the agency is still responsible for all acceptance on the project. While the contractor and the designer perform their own QC, typically the agency will perform independent assurance and testing to verify the QC tests results (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). The Assurance QAO is a small step beyond the Determinis- tic QAO. Because the agency is still responsible for acceptance design and construction on the project without input from either the designer or contractor, the owner still has a very controlling role in the project. The quality responsibilities have not shifted very far from the deterministic method, and there is still a focus on inspections and materials testing as the way to ensure quality, rather than an emphasis on building quality in through a transfer of responsibility. Additionally, because the owner is so heavily involved in establishing the quality parameters of the project, the designer and the con- tractor are constrained from straying from the prescribed standards. The high level of agency control over the quality on the project also inhibits collaboration between the agency and the designer and contractor regarding quality definition. The lack of collaboration along with the strong emphasis on ensuring quality through inspections of the final products makes the Assurance QAO a reactive approach to quality. The Assurance QAO has been applied to both DBB and DB projects. When applied to DBB projects, as shown in Fig- ure 7, the QC activities above the dotted line are the agency’s responsibility, and the vertical dotted line represents the sepa- rate design and construction contracts. When applied to the DB delivery method, with a single contract for design and construction, all QC activities are the responsibilities of the design builder, as shown in Figure 8. Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar (2008) suggested that agencies with limited DB experience apply these types of quality management policies and procedures because the agencies are still evolving from the DBB method where the contractor controls construction

14 Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Constructor’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance 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 Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Figure 7. Assurance QAO. Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Builder’s Responsibility Figure 8. Assurance QAO with single contract variant. QC and the STA has control over all acceptance functions and over design QC. Another variation on the Assurance QAO used in DB projects is the shared variation. In this variation, the respon- sibilities for design acceptance and construction acceptance are shared by the owner and the design builder, as shown in Figure 9. This organization is still considered to fall into the Assurance QAO because the owner has a role in the assurance on the project. When stakeholders share roles on a project, it is critical that a clear identification of all roles that will be shared in the task are specifically addressed and assigned to prevent confusion on the project. The shared variation of the Assurance QAO could also be applied to the CMGC delivery method, but the contractor would be responsible for con-

15 struction acceptance, and the designer would be responsible for design acceptance. 3.4.3 Variable QAO The Variable QAO differs from the others because the design and construction approach to quality may take on one of several variations. An example of this method has been found on DB projects where the agency is responsible for the con- struction acceptance but not design acceptance, as shown in Figure 10. Because the agency is no longer responsible for design acceptance, the contractor must perform project acceptance on the design side of the project (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). Because the entity producing the final Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Builder’s Responsibility Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance Figure 9. Assurance QAO with single contract variant and shared assurance. Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance 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 Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Constructor’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Figure 10. Variable QAO with single contract variant and construction assurance.

16 Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance Design Builder’s Responsibility Figure 11. Variable QAO with single contract variant and design assurance. design product is responsible for internal acceptance, the design phase of the project is considered to have a proactive approach to quality. On the construction side, however, the agency still maintains control of construction acceptance, resulting in a reactive approach to quality on the construction side. For the example considered in Figure 10, the agency is taking a different approach to quality in the design phase than it is taking in the construction phase. This results in implementing two different approaches to quality across not only the agency but also the design builder, which can complicate attempts at creating continuity across the project. Another example of the Variable QAO is when the respon- sibilities of the agency include design QA, but do not include construction acceptance and QC. Figure 11 presents this variation. In this case, the design phase of the project has a reactive approach to quality, and the construction phase has a proactive approach requiring the owner to perform project acceptance for construction activities. This version of the Variable QAO also has different approaches to quality in the design and construction phases, complicating efforts to have a single quality philosophy across the entire project. A critical element of a proactive approach to quality and an agency successfully shedding acceptance responsibility is the agency’s communication of the quality requirements within the RFP. Agencies must provide enough guidance so that respon- dents can include the appropriate services and approach to quality in their proposals (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). While this arrangement requires fewer agency resources over the duration of the project, these resources must be focused on ensuring that the quality requirements are communicated within the contract documents. Figure 11 shows the Variable QAO with design assurance and a single contract variant. This variant results in a proactive approach to construction qual- ity. However, it results in a reactive approach to design quality because the agency maintains control of the design acceptance function. The reactive approach forces the agency to focus on the reviews and inspections required to perform design accep- tance. The Variable QAO can be difficult for an agency to man- age because the project team must have the ability to manage both proactive and reactive quality approaches. As with the previous model, another variation of the Vari- able QAO occurs when the design phase quality management is reactive and the construction phase quality management is proactive. In this case, the agency is responsible for both design acceptance and design QC, while the contractor/design builder is responsible for construction acceptance and con- struction QC. Figure 12 shows this variation. While this vari- ant was not observed in the industry during this research, it involves different approaches to quality in the design and construction phases, so it is a valid variation of the organiza- tion. The oversight panel for this project verified that it should be included in this guidebook. The reverse of this variation, in which the agency is responsible for construction acceptance and QC while the designer is responsible for design accep- tance and QC, would not occur because construction QC always resides with the contractor. The Variable QAO construction assurance variation has been implemented on DB projects as shown in Figure 10. No examples were found in this research with the design assur- ance variation being used on either DBB or CMGC projects; however, there is nothing within the variation itself that would prevent it from being implemented on a dual contract (DBB or CMGC) project. 3.4.4 Oversight QAO In the Oversight QAO shown in Figure 13, the agency is responsible for the decisions to release the designs for construction and to release construction for final payment. The designer is responsible for design QC and acceptance,

17 while the contractor is responsible for construction QC and acceptance. In the Oversight QAO, the agency no longer has direct control over the day-to-day quality management of the project and is no longer dictating how to produce the quality required by the project scope. Rather, the agency’s role is to ensure that both the designer and contractor quality assurance plans are effective at meeting the agency’s quality require- ments (stipulated in the contract) and that the plans are being implemented. From the agency’s perspective, the Oversight QAO must be a proactive approach to quality. The producers, the designer, and the contractor are responsible for all aspects of the qual- ity of the products that they produce. The agency’s primary responsibility is oversight of the quality of the project. The Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance Design Builder’s Responsibility Figure 12. Variable QAO with agency design quality responsibility. Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance 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 Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Constructor’s Responsibility Designer’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Figure 13. Oversight QAO.

18 agency can conduct project oversight inspection and testing either with in-house staff or with an independent quality firm contracted directly to the agency. To effectively perform the project oversight role in house, the agency should educate its staff on the non-traditional skill set required to be success- ful. The designer and contractor approach to quality does not have to be proactive, unless required by the agency’s contract. The designer and/or contractor can create an oversight plan in which the approach to quality is reactive (focused on inspect- ing a final product rather than finding the defects before they are implemented). Either way, designers and contractors have not historically had much responsibility for the QA aspects of projects and may need specific acceptance training to perform this function. While the agency ultimately retains the risk for quality on every project, in the Oversight QAO, risk is shifted to the designer and the contractor. Shifting the risk results in both the designer and contractor having to “buy-in” to the quality management of the project because they are each responsible for creating their respective acceptance plans that ensure that the quality goals and requirements of the project are met. Because the Oversight QAO shifts the responsibility for acceptance to the designer and the contractor, agency, designer, and contractor integration increases, requiring a higher level of collaboration among the three in order to meet the quality requirements of all parties. In this QAO, all parties are involved in the quality management of the project, and the designer and contractor also have contractual account- ability for not only the quality of the final product that they deliver to the agency, but the actual processes of delivering that product. Because of the high level of collaboration required by the Oversight QAO, it would be difficult to implement on a project with a linear approach, where the designer and the contrac- tor are not involved early in the project; thus, the Oversight QAO would not be a good choice for a DBB project. How- ever, for project delivery methods in which the designer and contractor are brought in early on a project, such as DB and CMGC, the Oversight QAO is complementary to the inher- ent collaboration of the methods. In a DB project, all QC and acceptance for the project would fall to the design builder, as shown in Figure 14. 3.4.5 Acceptance QAO The Acceptance QAO is specific to PPP projects. In this organization, the owner has responsibility only for final project acceptance and owner verification testing. The party contracted to complete the project, typically the concessionaire, is responsible for all other quality activities on the project, as shown in Figure 15. Since the agency is no longer providing 100 percent of the financing for design, construction, opera- tions, and maintenance, there is a shift in financial liabilities, which also pertains to the shift in quality responsibilities (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). Because PPP deliv- ery is not as prevalent as other delivery methods within the United States, limited projects were included in this research. The Acceptance QAO shown in this guidebook is based on several Texas Department of Transportation projects that are using the PPP delivery method, but other PPPs around the country apply similar approaches. There are additional varia- tions of the PPP quality methods in use around the world, but because they are not implemented in the business envi- ronment of the United States, they were not included in the document review or the survey responses. Of all the QAOs, the Acceptance QAO provides the agency with the least amount of direct control over the quality assur- ance of a project. The agency’s primary focus, as required by FHWA Technical Advisory 6120.3, is to perform oversight of the design and construction quality management efforts to satisfy their legal responsibilities to the public (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). This requires the agency to perform Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Builder’s Responsibility Figure 14. Oversight QAO with single contract variant.

19 owner verification testing, which is commonly performed by an independent engineer. The independent engineer is hired jointly by the concessionaire and the agency and performs not only owner verification testing but also independent assurance and any other acceptance activities that are part of the concessionaire’s responsibility. However, the agency typically pays 100% of the fee for owner verification testing. Note that even the decision to accept the design for construction and accept the construction for final payment is the responsibil- ity of the concessionaire. This is because of the concessionaire’s financial liability for corrections to any design or construction deficiencies during the operations and maintenance period (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). The agency’s involvement in ensuring the quality of the project is focused on establishing the quality requirements, accepting or approving submitted quality assurance plans, and ensuring that quality plans are being implemented. Therefore, the agency must take a proactive approach in the Acceptance QAO. The agency will have some oversight responsibilities to meet the due diligence requirements for federal funding, but these responsibilities are not considered to dominate the overall quality assurance of the project. This oversight is usu- ally conducted through agency verification by either in-house staff or an independent engineering consultant contracted to the agency. The designer, contractor, and/or concessionaire create the quality plans required by the contract, and, as long as the plans meet the requirements of the contract, the agency approves them. In the Acceptance QAO, succinctly stating the quality requirements in the contract with the project team is the primary responsibility of the agency in delivering a successful project that meets quality expectations. Collaboration between the agency and the concession- aire in the Acceptance QAO is low because, after the quality requirements are stated within the contract documents with the concessionaire, the agency is minimally involved. Meeting the quality requirements of the project is the responsibility of the concessionaire, while the agency performs enough of an oversight role to ensure that it is meeting federal requirements for due diligence and to ensure that the concessionaire is fol- lowing its own project quality management plan. 3.5 Conclusion Quality roles and responsibilities on projects are transition- ing due to the use of different project delivery methods, the needs of the industry for faster and better projects, and the Project Acceptance Construction Acceptance Design Acceptance 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 Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Owner’s Responsibility Concessionaires’s Responsibility Owner Verification Figure 15. Acceptance QAO.

20 growing acceptance of the utilization of consultants by STAs. The five fundamental QAOs for the highway design and con- struction industry range from a QAO in which the agency has sole responsibility for all quality functions to a QAO in which the agency is only responsible for final acceptance and meeting federal requirements. Figure 16 summarizes the roles and responsibilities of the five QAOs at the highest levels. When DB is the project delivery method, all of the non-agency quality responsibilities become the responsibility of the design builder. The Acceptance QAO has only been found in PPP projects, so the concession- aire is the party performing all non-agency quality roles and responsibilities. Further investigation of the QAOs was conducted to iden- tify the approach to quality, the level of owner control, and the delivery methods for which the QAO is applicable. The approach to quality was expressed as reactive, heavily focused on final product inspections; or proactive, building quality into the process. The level of owner control was expressed as high, medium, or low. It was found that as the level of owner control moved from high to low, the approach to quality moved from reactive to proactive. Identifying applicable delivery methods was done through review of actual exam- ples in the industry. A delivery method was also identified as potentially applicable if the QAO could align with the project delivery method based on the timing of the parties’ involve- ment, the level of collaboration involved in the QAO, and the level of owner control. A summary of these results is shown in Figure 17. Common traits/factors are observed among all of the QAO models: 1. Construction QC is the responsibility of the contractor. “The contractor is, as is any manufacturer, the only one who can control the quality of his work” (Shilstone 1992). 2. Final project acceptance is always performed by the agency. 3. The contract verbiage regarding the roles and responsibil- ities for quality has to be very concise and well documented to be successful. Quality Assurance Organization Design Acceptance Design QC Construction Acceptance Construction QC Deterministic Agency Agency Agency Contractor Assurance Agency Designer Agency Contractor Variable Designer Designer Agency Contractor Oversight Designer Designer Contractor Contractor Acceptance Concessionaire Concessionaire Concessionaire Concessionaire Figure 16. Roles and responsibilities of the five fundamental QAOs. Quality Assurance Organizations Quality Management Approach Level of Owner Control Identified Delivery Methods Potential Delivery Methods Example States and Agencies Using QAO Deterministic Reactive High DBB, CMGC None All Assurance Reactive High DB CMGC, DBB NM, SD, LA, MS, NC, AK, FL Variable Mixed Medium DB CMGC NC, FL, MN, VA, UT, ME, CA Oversight Proactive Low DB CMGC CA, CO, MN, MO, NV, OR, TX, UT, VA, WA, WASH DC, FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Diversion, Alberta, Canada Acceptance Proactive Low PPP None TX, FL Figure 17. Characteristics of the five fundamental QAOs.

21 4. The QAO decision should be made before the first team member is procured (e.g., request for qualifications [RFQ], RFP, or invitation for bid [IFB]), whether it is for design, construction, or both at the same time. The quality man- agement responsibilities have to be clearly laid out in the procurement documents in order for the designer and/or the contractor to be able to appropriately provide for the amount of staffing and risk they will be assuming on the project. 3.6 Chapter 3 References Burati, J. L., “Causes of Quality Deviations in Design and Construction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, 1992, pp. 34–49. Desai, A., and A. Mital, “Managing Quality: The Transition from Reactive to Proactive Strategies,” International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2009, pp. 63–79. Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar, NCHRP Synthesis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- ington, D.C., 2008, 130 pp. Gransberg, D. D., and J. S. Shane, NCHRP Synthesis 402: Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, 128 pp. Hughes, C. S., NCHRP Synthesis 346: State Construction Quality Assurance Programs, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, 76 pp. Postma, S. E., R. Cisneros, J. Roberts, R. Wilkison, J. Clevenger, and A. Eastwood, “I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Project Design/Build Evaluation 2001 Annual Report,” UT-02.11, Utah Department of Transportation Research Division, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2002. Shilstone, J. M., “Quality Management for Concrete Pavement Under Performance Standards,” Transportation Research Record 1340, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 48–55. Smith, G. R., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 263: State DOT Management Techniques for Materials and Construc- tion Acceptance, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, 51 pp. Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 65: Quality Assurance, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1979, 42 pp.

Next: Chapter 4 - Quality Assurance Organization Selection »
Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction Get This Book
×
 Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction
Buy Paperback | $61.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 808: Guidebook on Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction provides national guidance on standard approaches relating to quality management systems (QMSs).

The basis for the report stems from a lack of guidance that resulted in significant investment on the part of transportation agencies, contractors, and consultants to develop unique QMSs for different agencies on a project-by-project basis. 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.

The report will guide readers through the process of developing a QMS that is both responsive to specific project needs and broad enough to be replicated with project-specific adaptations on future projects of similar scope, complexity, and delivery schedule.

The project quality assurance organization (QAO) selection forms presented in the report are available online.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 212: Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction documents the research process to develop the guidebook.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!