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.
34 Common Quality Management Tools B.1 Pre-Bid Meeting with Specific Focus on Quality B.2 Industry Review of Requests for Proposals with a Focus on Quality B.3 Alternative Quality Management Approaches in Procurement B.4 Quality-Based Selection System B.5 Use of Warranties B.6 Requirements ManagementâVerification B.7 One-On-One Procurement Meetings with a Focus on Quality B.8 Contractor Involvement in Establishing and Stream- lining Quality Control Standards B.9 Alternative Technical Concepts B.10 External Contractor Panel Input B.11 Independent Party Design Review B.12 Over-the-Shoulder Agency Review B.13 In-Progress Design Workshops B.14 Discipline Task Force B.15 Formal Partnering with Regulatory Agencies B.16 Formal Team-Partnering/Goal-Setting Process B.17 Co-Location of Quality Management Personnel B.18 No Low-Bid Requirement for Subcontractors B.19 Use of Dual CEI/OCEI Roles B.20 Innovation in Witness and Hold Points B.21 Continuous Internal Process Audit B.22 Real-Time Electronic Quality Management Information B.23 Financial Incentives/Disincentives for Quality B.24 Contractor-Controlled QC Testing B.25 ISO 9000 Training Sessions B.26 Project-Specific Quality Management Team Training B.1 Pre-Bid Meeting with Specific Focus on Quality Project plans and specifications or procurement documents are not often perfect. As a result, when contractors prepare bids for projects having only seen the plans and specifications, confusion regarding the intent of the design team and agency can exist. A useful practice to clear this confusion up, improve the accuracy of submitted bids, and improve the quality of the final product is a pre-bid meeting with a focus on quality. Compatible Quality Assurance Organizations (QAOs) Deterministic, Assurance, Variable What Is It? A pre-bid meetingâwith either a focus on quality or a portion devoted to qualityâprovides parties competing for the project with an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the agencyâs design team and project managers. The meeting is designed to reduce or eliminate confusion during the bidding process in order to receive more accurate and responsive bids that have adequately considered all of the key project issues and quality concerns. Why Use It? Helping prospective bidders understand a project and its requirements is in the best interest of all project parties. Devoting a section of a pre-bid meeting to quality ensures that interested bidders pay adequate attention to the quality provisions of project documents and gives them a chance to discover what the agencyâs prime concerns are. Using this information, they can develop estimates that should better reflect the true cost of quality management programs. What Does It Do? A pre-bid meeting with a focus on quality helps bidders to understand the emphasis placed on quality. It provides bidders the time necessary to focus on quality provisions and A P P E N D I X B
35 requirements by prompting them to generate useful questions for the meeting and gives them a chance to hear the concerns and questions of others. When to Use It The agency typically hosts pre-bid meetings several days or weeks after plans are advertised for construction bids, but well before the bid deadline. This necessary interval of time allows prospective bidders to evaluate the project documents and examine the requirements, especially unusual features of work containing important quality requirements. While clarifying meetings are useful for many reasons, the use of pre-bid meetings focusing on quality is especially useful when complex quality requirements have been introduced to a proj- ect or when some flexibility in the interpretation of quality requirements exists. How to Use It In order to maintain a competitive bidding process that does not discourage any potential bidders, attendance at pre-bid meetings should not be mandatory and should be open to the public and all prospective bidders. At the agencyâs discretion, minutes from the pre-bid meeting can be made publicly avail- able online for anyone who could not attend the meeting to review if desired. Agencies should publicly post the meeting time and location and inform any known prospective bidders of the meeting when the project is first advertised for bids. Depending on project needs and site constraints, the agency may elect to have the meeting at the prospective project site. Agencies can elect to generate a simple agenda with ideas for discussion, or can leave the meeting open to contractors to bring their questions and concerns. If the pre-bid meeting is open to more than just quality clarifications, time should be set aside for each of the issues to be discussed (quality, design clarifica- tion, etc.). ExampleâGeorge Sellar Bridge Project (WSDOT) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted a pre-bid meeting on its project to add an eastbound lane to the SR285 George Sellar Bridge in Wenatchee, Washington. At the meeting, project designers from WSDOTâs bridge engineering department were on hand to answer questions from contractors interested in bidding on the project. While the meeting was open to the public and bidders were not required to attend, the winning bidder indi- cated that the meeting was extremely useful in preparing its bid and clarifying the intent of the designers. Bibliography AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Project Delivery Leadership Team Operational Notice, ODOT, Pro- curement Office, February 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/ ODOT/HWY/PDU/docs/pdf/PDLTNotice07.pdf Stellmach, G., PS&E Delivery Manual, ODOT, Office of Project Letting, April 2011. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ OPL/docs/pse_delivery_manual.pdf B.2 Industry Review of Requests for Proposals with a Focus on Quality When developing a request for proposals (RFP), it is crucial to have as much information as possible in order to reduce project risk and successfully communicate the needs of the project. An industry review process involves releasing draft sections of the RFP to short-listed firms. The firms are then able to provide valuable feedback to the owner before the official RFP is released. Compatible QAOs Variable, Oversight, Assurance What Is It? The industry review is an interactive process in which the first version of the RFP is released to firms that have been short-listed by the agency after evaluating request for quali- fications (RFQ) submissions. The firms then provide written comments in response to the draft RFP, and one-on-one meetings between each firm and the owner are arranged to discuss these comments. There may be more than one round of meetings depending on the complexity of the project and the procurement schedule. The RFP is then reviewed and modified before the official RFP is released to the relevant parties. The industry review process may include the development of a risk allocation table which contributes to the enhancement of overall project quality. Why Use It? The primary purpose of an industry review process is to gather information from interested firms in order to reduce risk. The process includes developing a risk allocation table, developing schematic design, defining proposal evaluation details, and other preliminary engineering. The time spent on the industry review process facilitates thorough project
36 planning and preparation of the RFP. An industry review pro- cess has the potential to provide firms with a better under- standing of the project and provides an opportunity to address ambiguous project details before the RFP is released. What Does It Do? The industry review process results in the final documen- tation that is released for an official RFP. The RFP preparation is carried out by state transportation agency (STA) personnel and external technical and legal consultants who facilitate the interactive, iterative review process. The industry review process is critical because it includes the development of a risk alloca- tion table as a trade-off with the proposers. When to Use It The industry review process is designed to take place after RFQs have been received by the owner and before the official RFP is released. For this reason, an industry review process can be implemented on any project that has a two-stage pro- curement process. How to Use It Once the short-listed firms have been selected based on qualifications, the owner should release draft sections of the RFP to the firms and await written comments. A time frame should be provided for returning written comments in order to keep the project procurement process on schedule. One- on-one meetings should then be scheduled to discuss the writ- ten comments. The resulting documentation should then be reviewed, edited, and modified as necessary and resubmitted to proposers with other draft sections of the RFP. This process is an iterative process in which the number of rounds of one- on-one meetings should be dictated by the project complexity and the procurement schedule pressure. ExampleâSH 130 Turnpike Project (TxDOT) The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) utilized an industry review process on the SH 130 Turnpike Project. The public-private partnership (PPP) involves a new 49-mile tollway extending from IH-35 near SH 195, southward to US Highway 183 in Texas. The industry review process enabled the owner to gather as much information as possible on project risk. As a result, a risk allocation table was formed which clearly assigned responsibility among the project team. Bibliography Migliaccio, G., G. E. Gibson, and J. OâConnor, âDelivering Highway Projects Through Design-Build: Analysis of the Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) Procure- ment Process in Texas,â Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Washington, D.C., 2005. Migliaccio, G. C., G. E. Gibson, and J. T. OâConnor, âProcure- ment of Design-Build Services: Two-Phase Selection for Highway Projects,â Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009, pp. 29â39. B.3 Alternative Quality Management Approaches in Procurement Alternative quality management (QM) approaches in pro- curement deal with how designers and contractors are selected for a project. By using prequalification and bidding procedures that consider a designerâs or contractorâs past performance or that reward approaches that deliver a higher quality product, STAs can improve the overall quality of the field from which they select a designer or contractor. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? Many STAs have prequalification policies in place that require parties interested in participating in their projects to meet certain administrative requirements (e.g., capabilities, bonding capacity, etc.). This tool goes a step further and uses performance-based prequalification procedures or bidding processes that include a quality of approach component to improve the quality of parties interested in participating in a project. Why Use It? The use of this tool rewards designers and contractors that have delivered superior levels of quality or performance on their past projects and those that have solutions to project challenges that further the agencyâs project or quality goals. By encouraging higher quality parties to pursue projects, an STA should have a better field participating in its procurement process, which should translate into the delivery of a project with a higher level of quality. What Does It Do? In contrast to verifying quality after a product is com- plete, this tool emphasizes building quality into the project from the very beginning. By rewarding project participants who have demonstrated high levels of performance on their past projects or who have approaches to the current project
37 that further the goals of the STA, this tool helps identify and select high-quality design consultants and contractors. Using higher quality designers and contractors is a proactive form of quality management, which seeks to improve the quality of the project construction process itself. When to Use It Forms of this tool exist in most two-stage procurement processes for design-build (DB) or construction manager/ general contractor (CMGC) projects and in the qualifications- based selection of many design consultants. However, for design-bid-build (DBB) projects and other projects not cur- rently using a form of prequalification or modified bidding procedure, this tool may be useful in improving the field of candidates from which to select design consultants and contractors. How to Use It Prequalification processes are in use at many STAs across the country, but they require some care in their crafting to ensure that they are not excessively exclusive and donât overly impede requirements to procure contractors on a low-cost basis. If prequalification procedures may be useful, STAs should determine which facets of a contractorâs or a designerâs prior experience are worth evaluating in considering them for future projects. The use of bidding procedures which add quality-based components are relatively easy to incorporate. However, unless proper weight is given to the various components (price, sched- ule, special constraints, overall approach, etc.), this approach may end up emphasizing the wrong aspect of a project. If project managers are truly interested in encouraging innova- tive and high-quality approaches to a projectâs challenges, the weighting of the various bid components must reflect that desire. Examples George Sellar Bridge Project (WSDOT) WSDOT used an alternative quality management approach in procuring a contractor to add an additional eastbound lane to the SR285 George Sellar Bridge in Wenatchee, Washington. On that project, WSDOT was originally envisioning several total bridge closures to raise the portals at either end, but wanted to keep these to a minimum. To emphasize the need for a high-quality approach to this problem, WSDOT used an A+B+C bidding process to procure the general contractor on this DBB project. The âtotalâ bid of each contractor was found by adding their bid price to the number of days multi- plied by a price per day and the number of full bridge closures multiplied by a price per bridge closure. As a result, all of the prospective bidders proposed zero total bridge closures, and the winner of the project ultimately delivered the project with zero total closures. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT also uses a form of this tool in their prequalifica- tion procedures. In addition to administrative requirements, a contractor must be prequalified to build a project based on its type or class before the contractor can bid on the project. ODOT also requires its design consultants and contractors to fill out evaluations of themselves and other project parties at the end of every project. These ratings are then tracked by ODOT and used to as a prequalification factor for future work. Contractors or consultants who score too low are prevented from participating on certain projects in the future. To date, ODOT has not used this tool to prevent the participation of any parties, but the capability exists to do so. Bibliography Anderson, S. D., and J. S. Russell, NCHRP Report 451: Guide- lines for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value Con- tracting, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 76 pp. Scott, S., K. R. Molenaar, D. D. Gransberg, and N. C. Smith, NCHRP Report 561: Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, 82 pp. B.4 Quality-Based Selection System Proper procurement is a vital part of assembling an effective project team that can produce a final product. In the traditional procurement approach, cost is commonly the only factor con- sidered in procuring a contractor to build the project. This can make it difficult for an agency to know what type of quality and factors other than favorable cost that the selected contrac- tor is capable of bringing to the project. Alternative project delivery methods can involve the selection of multiple team members in one procurement (e.g., designer and builder), or they may require that the contractor be selected before the price is known (e.g., CMGC). Therefore, an optional approach in team member selection is to require specifically defined quality factors from bidding contractors. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance
38 What Is It? Quality-based selection is a process in which the RFP and the associated bid evaluation process consider quality aspects when evaluating proposals or bids. This can be a best-value procurement approach where quality; cost; and possibly other factors such as contractor qualifications, reviewing past quality performance, and design alternatives are evaluated in the selection process. The agency then selects the contractor that provides the best combination of all of the factors. âBest-value procurement is a process where price and other key factors are considered in the evaluation and selection process to minimize and enhance the long-term performance and value of constructionâ (Scott et al. 2006). In terms of quality, the agency includes in the RFP specific parameters for quality that contractors must include in their submittal. The quality parameters have to be measureable and project specific, not management specific (Anderson and Russell 2001). Examples of quality parameters are past quality performance and experience, quality capabilities, proposed project-specific QMS and corresponding quality management team, and pro- posed innovative quality solutions (Scott et al. 2006, Anderson and Russell 2001). Why Use It? For some projects, the evaluation of responsible low bids is not enough to select a responsible contractor. In addition to cost, other factors, such as quality, can be required in the RFP. This process of including quality as a factor in selecting a contractor enhances the potential project quality. It also signals to contractors that the agency is quality-focused in addition to focused on keeping the project within budget. The selected contractor is then held to the proposed quality requirements. This places the risk of performing to the level of quality required by the agency on the contractor. The agency is then only responsible for oversight and verification of adher- ence to the proposed quality aspects, which reduces the amount of resources and time needed for quality management. What Does It Do? Quality-based selection provides the agency with a quality factor in evaluating received bids. The advantage of including a quality parameter or parameters in the RFP is the ability to consider a contractorâs potential quality performance before awarding the contract (Scott et al. 2006). When to Use It Quality-based selection of contractors would be useful on particularly complex or innovative projects requiring excep- tionally high levels of quality or on unique projects not com- monly performed. The agency must consider the selection process prior to the development of an RFP as contractors must be informed of the quality requirements of their pro- posals and the scoring criteria associated with those require- ments. The process then continues to the evaluation stage in which quality characteristics (past performance, planned approaches, etc.) are factored into the scoring. Agencies must also include contract language requiring contractors to follow through with the quality-related portions of their proposals after they have signed the contract. How to Use It To use this tool accurately, RFP development by the agency is critical. The RFP may include sections describing contrac- tor quality requirements such as submitting information on the design and construction quality managers, describing the overall quality management plan, providing ISO 9000 or similar quality management training, and any other appro- priate quality aspects necessary for the project. The agency must specifically define in the RFP what the agency requires in terms of quality. Once the agency receives proposals from contractors, the agency evaluates each submission according to its scoring process and criteria, including, at a minimum, cost and quality components. An evaluation process needs to be developed by the agency prior to issuance of the RFP. This evaluation process is necessary to quantify or score the quality infor- mation so that the evaluation of all contractor submissions is performed in an equivalent manner. Agencies may want to evaluate the quality scoring of proposals independently to prevent the appearance of bias. The bidding contractor that provides the best combination of quality requirements and total cost (in addition to other scoring categories) is selected as the contractor for the project. In some instances, the bidder with the lowest cost may not be the selected contractor due to a lack of quality requirements in their bid. Tips ⢠The development of the RFP is critical in requiring quality aspects in bids. Lack of proper instructions and requirements in the RFP could make the quality portion of proposals con- fusing to contractors and essentially useless to the agency. ⢠The agency has to develop a process for evaluating the qual- ity portion prior to the release of the RFP. This process then should be included in the RFP so that contractors know how the agency will evaluate their quality information. ⢠Quality requirements of the contractor, such as a proposed QMP, have to be monitored during design and construction
39 to make sure the contractor is adhering to the quality requirements and the proposed quality aspects from the contractorâs proposal. Examples I-15 Widening and Beck Street Bridge Project (UDOT) The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) utilized a technique of quality-based selection of contractors for the I-15 Widening and Beck Street Bridge Project. On this project, UDOT had specific quality requirements developed early on in the project. UDOT then developed and issued an RFP that required contractors to submit specific information for a design quality manager, a construction quality manager, and an overall quality management plan for the duration of design and construction. The agency evaluated the quality aspects in each of the bids and then reviewed the cost portion of the bids. The selected design builder proposed the best combination of cost and quality management. Once the design builder was on board, the agency was in charge of oversight and monitoring of the quality aspects proposed by the design builder to make sure the design builder was adhering to those aspects. I-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) required contractors to submit quality information in their bids for the I-595 Express Corridor Project. This was a PPP project, the first of its kind for FDOT. Therefore, certain quality require- ments had to be a part of the RFP in the selection of a conces- sionaire process. The bidding concessionaires had to include specific information for a design quality manager, construc- tion quality manager, and all other quality management staff proposed for this project. The RFP also requested a descrip- tion of proposed quality management plans for design and construction. Once the concessionaire was selected based on quality, cost, and other important factors that FDOT required as part of the contract, the selected firm was required to provide a quality assurance (QA) plan for both design and construction for review by FDOT. For this project, the selected firm provided and performed the overall QA, the design quality control (QC) and design acceptance plans, and the construction QC and construction acceptance plans. Bibliography AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008. Anderson, S. D., and J. S. Russell, NCHRP Report 451: Guide- lines for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value Con- tracting, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 76 pp. Scott, S., K. R. Molenaar, D. D. Gransberg, and N. C. Smith, NCHRP Report 561: Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, 82 pp. B.5 Use of Warranties Once a project is complete, the final product requires maintenance and repairs so that it remains at a high level of operation. In the traditional method, the STA is the party that performs the maintenance and repair of a completed project, which puts the risk of contractor performance on the agency. If a contractor performs poorly, the project quality could suffer, which could result in a higher probability of needed repair and maintenance during the life of the project. Additional maintenance requires additional materials and agency resources. One way to alleviate this performance risk and potential for additional maintenance is with the use of warranties. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? Warranties and warranty contracting is a process where the selected contractor is held responsible for all maintenance and repair work that occurs during the specified warranty period (Bayraktar et al. 2004). This process provides some freedom to the selected contractor in choosing materials and techniques for a project as long as those chosen align with the best approach and still meet the agencyâs requirements. The contractor then warrants the project and performs work on any defects that occur during the warranty period due to materials or performance of the contractor. Warranties can be an evaluation factor in a best-value procurement procedure where the agency develops specific warranty criteria and presents the criteria in the RFP. The agency then evaluates submitted proposals based on a previ- ously derived procedure to review each proposal in terms of warranty. Why Use It? The use of warranties helps to reduce the amount of agency resources required on a highway project (Anderson and Russell
40 2001). This is because the agency can limit its inspection pro- cess and the resources associated with it during construction, and, during the warranty period of the project, the agency does not have to provide maintenance and repair. Warranties reduce the performance risk for the agency and increase the performance risk for the contractor. The contractor is able to control performance risk more effectively than the agency since the contractor is performing the actual construction work (Anderson and Russell 2001). Quality improvement is the major anticipated advantage of using warranties on highway construction projects (Bayraktar et al. 2004). This is because the contractor has the incentive to perform at a high level of quality during construction so that it can reduce the potential for repairs and maintenance during the warranty period (Hancher 1994). Using warran- ties also increases the contractorâs freedom to use innovative construction technologies and methods on their projects (Bayraktar et al. 2004). What Does It Do? Warranties provide the agency with increased product quality, lower the maintenance and overall life-cycle costs of a project, protect the agency from early project failures, and reduce the amount of site inspections needed (Anderson and Russell 2001, Thompson et al. 2002, Bayraktar et al. 2004). Essentially, the use of warranties places the risk of quality per- formance on the contractor in that the contractor will want to produce a high-quality project so that less warranty work occurs after the project is complete. When to Use It Warranties are useful for almost any type of project. It is common for most projects to include a warranty that covers defective materials and workmanship over a period of 1 year (Hancher 1994). However, this tool is useful in instances where warranty of materials, workmanship, and performance is needed for a period longer than 1 year. War- ranties can also be used in instances where the agency wants to reduce the resources needed for site inspections and future maintenance. The agency has to decide if warranties are to be a part of a project early in the life of a project (Thompson et al. 2002). This allows the agency to develop warranty criteria that are then included in the RFP. From there, contractors provide warranty provisions in the submitted proposal. The con- tractor can then be selected based on warranty information, cost, and possibly other factors pertinent to a particular project. Once the agency selects the contractor, the warranty provisions presented in the proposal become a part of the contract. How to Use It Warranties need to be included in the contract between the agency and the contractor. Typical elements of warranty contracts are the description of the warranty, the duration of the warranty, bonding requirements, maintenance, con- flict resolution, contractor responsibilities, agency responsi- bilities, performance indicators, requirements for corrective action, basis of payment, and insurance coverage (Thompson et al. 2002). At the completion of the project, the warranty period begins. From this point to the end of the warranty period, if any materials, workmanship, or performance defects arise, the contractor is responsible for repairing or replacing the defective work. This is done on an as-needed basis, and any work performed, materials used, and associated costs are the responsibility of the contractor. Tips ⢠Warranties are useful for a variety of projects. However, in terms of highway projects, warranties are used most commonly for paving and pavement-marking projects. ⢠It is important to describe the warranty specifically in the contract to avoid possible conflict during the warranty period. ExampleâWisconsin Department of Transportation Warranty Program (Anderson and Russell 2001, Thompson et al. 2002, Scott et al. 2011) The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) was one of the first state highway agencies to utilize war- ranties and has been doing so since 1994, mostly on pave- ment projects. Since that time, WisDOT has realized several advantages to using warranties in contracts. First, WisDOT acknowledged a reduction in inspection and quality assur- ance personnel on warranty projects, but increased resources for annual inspections during the warranty period. Also, in terms of actual inspections and testing, WisDOT realized that eliminating the duplicative testing used on traditional proj- ects also reduced the contractorâs quality control testing. This saves time and resources for the contractor and ultimately WisDOT. WisDOT views warranty projects and associated specifi- cations as a means of payment to the contractor so that the contractor takes on a specified, reasonable risk. It was very important to WisDOT that the risk assumed by the con- tractor is reasonable. The warranty provides a guarantee to WisDOT that the contractor will complete the project cor- rectly and maintain it properly for the term of the warranty.
41 The contractor then has the freedom to select materials, mix designs, techniques, and a quality control program. In terms of bonds, WisDOT requires a warranty bond be in place for the entire duration of the warranty period. This helps WisDOT ensure that any remedial actions that need to take place do take place. However, WisDOT has worked to try and keep warranty bonds reasonable so that more contractors are able to bid warranty work. Finally, the overall quality of the warranty projects has not suffered in any way for WisDOT projects. WisDOT utilizes distress threshold performance metrics to measure the over- all quality of a pavement project. Two measurements, inter- national roughness index (IRI) and the pavement distress index (PDI) were recorded for warranty and non-warranty projects. Both measurements are based on an inverse scale, with lower values indicating better measurements. For WisDOT, the IRI and PDI values were lower for warranty projects than non- warranty projects. Bibliography Anderson, S. D. and J. S. Russell, NCHRP Report 451: Guide- lines for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value Con- tracting, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 76 pp. Bayraktar, M. E., Q. Cui, M. Hastak, and I. Minkarah, âState- of-Practice of Warranty Contracting in the United States,â Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 2, Washington, D.C., June 2004, pp. 60â68. Hancher, D., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 195: Use of Warranties in Road Construction, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. Krebs, S. W., B. Duckert, S. Schwandt, J. Volker, and T. Brokaw, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Asphaltic Pavement Warranties Five-Year Progress Report, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, Wisconsin, June 2001. www. dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/finalreports/ tau-finalreports/warranties.pdf Scott, S., T. Ferragut, M. Syrnick, and S. Anderson, NCHRP Report 699: Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Warranties on Highway Construction Projects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, 55 pp. Scott, S., T. Ferragut, and S. Anderson, NCHRP Project 20-7, âUse of Warranties in Highway Construction/Task 201,â Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005â2007. Thompson, B. P., S. D. Anderson, J. R. Russell, and A. S. Hanna, âGuidelines for Warranty Contracting for Highway Con- struction,â Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 18, No. 3, Washington, D.C., July 2002, pp. 129â137. B.6 Requirements Managementâ Verification Requirements management (RM) is a defined methodology included in the systems engineering body of knowledge. The approach is used extensively in organizations and on projects where the risk and impact of failure could be high, such as in aerospace and public rail transit. As the complexity of trans- portation project delivery increases, RM is a tool that helps project delivery teams to manage these projects to successful completion. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? RM is an approach that covers the (1) development, (2) com- munication, (3) fulfillment, and (4) verification of require- ments for a scope of work to be completed. The intent of a systematic RM program is to establish, with a measured level of confidence, the degree to which the completed work within a defined scope is conforming to governing requirements. Requirements are an expression of a facilityâs owner or end userâs expectations and needs. A good requirement can be very simply defined as a âclearly communicated parameter.â There are a number of attributes that define a good require- ment, such as verifiable, clear and concise, necessary, and trace- able. The verification of requirements is typically performed using established statistical sampling methodologies and review, inspection, and testing of the completed work. As a result of this verification effort, a measured level of confidence can be determined based upon the anticipated risk of the ful- fillment of each defined requirement. Why Use It? Why use an RM approach to develop requirements? Owners of facilities typically best know the needs and expectations for a specific scope of work. These owners may or may not be able to express these needs and expectations in a format that will allow a designer or builder to deliver a scope of work that will appropriately fulfill the needs and expectations. Using a proven and systematic approach to developing requirements can contribute to successful project delivery. Developing and standardizing good requirements will lower the cost of devel- oping future scopes of work. Why use an RM approach to communicate requirements? Clarity in defining requirements will lower the risk associated with completing a scope of work. If requirements are poorly presented to the entity tasked with completing the work, the risk of having the work done incorrectly and having to
42 perform rework is high. The higher the risk, the higher the proposed cost to complete the work. Clearly communicat- ing requirements will lower the proposed cost to complete a defined scope of work. Why use an RM approach to fulfill requirements? When a designer or builder clearly understands what is expected to be completed, the probability of fulfilling the defined require- ments increases. Completing work correctly the first time and avoiding rework is a recipe for success for all involved. Projects that involve rework are never as good as those that were done right the first time. Performing rework is an unnecessary drain on resources that lowers profit and has a negative impact on schedule. Per- forming work right the first time saves both money and time. Why use an RM approach to verify requirement confor- mance? Verifying that the requirements are being appropri- ately fulfilled is a way of depicting value for money. Work that is of higher risk and of critical nature should be the focus of verification rather than work of lower risk and less critical in impact. By understanding the risk priority, efficiencies can be gained in the verification of requirements of higher risk. The cost of verification can be reduced, with minimal loss in confidence, through the systematic collection of data associated with performance of completed work. What Does It Do? Systematic RM provides a way for owners to clarify their expectations and then communicate those expectations in a format that will lower the perceived risk of completing a scope of work. Systematic verification of requirements provides a data-driven method of evaluating the observed performance of competed work and the ability to focus remedial efforts on those areas of less-than-acceptable performance. When to Use It RM can be applied at several points in the development and delivery of a project. The most benefit will be gained by apply- ing the methodology as early in the process as possible. Planning a project with an RM focus can include establishing a defined set of requirements. Communicating the requirements with an RM focus can occur through use of a simple spreadsheet or database, depending upon the complexity of the requirement set. Verifying requirements and collecting data on the level of conformance can be performed as the work is completed and used to facilitate final acceptance and project closeout. How to Use It A form of RM can be used on any project or type of proj- ect delivery that has requirements that need to be fulfilled and verified. Simple scopes of work can be accommodated through simple MS Excel spreadsheets that delineate require- ments and associated attributes. More complex scopes of work and delivery methods require more robust tools to manage larger volumes of requirements and collected verification evidence. The more complex projects also need more sophis- ticated project management tools, such as schedule and budget management tools. When performed correctly, RM will reduce risk and cost, improve communications among all parties, improve the level of confidence in the quality of completed work, and facilitate focusing on lower performing areas of the work. Tips ⢠RM is a data-driven approach in which more good data will result in a higher level of confidence. A significant effort should be directed to understanding what data are needed, collecting only the needed data, collecting the data quickly, analyzing the data for trends, and then graphically depicting the results of the analysis. ⢠RM and the resulting performance measurement rely on the collection of observations of conforming work as well as any observation of deficient work. Traditional verification efforts typically only report deficient observations (non- conformance reports), which does not allow for a true evalu- ation of performance. Examples TREX Project (Colorado Department of Transportation and Denver RTD) The $1.2 billion design-build contract used an RM program to verify that the design and construction of the light rail lines and the highway reconstruction were completed in conformance with contract requirements. The database of requirements was developed from Colorado Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation District (RTD) standards and from the requirements included in the technical provisions. Agency and general engineering consultant staff were trained to high- light and extract requirements from the contract documents. These staff members then performed scheduled audits of the design packages and construction activity to capture objective evidence that the requirements were being fulfilled. Analysis of the verification data was presented in monthly reports and other special reports, as requested by management. The status of the closeout of the project was monitored through a dash- board that connected the requirement verification data with fulfillment of conditions for acceptance. The TREX Quality Oversight Audit Program was registered to ISO 9000 and won the International Road Federation Global Excellence Award in the category of Quality Management.
43 Intercounty Connector Project (Maryland State Highway Administration) The $2.4 billion Intercounty Connector project was a new alignment toll highway covering over 18 miles that was com- pleted through three mega design-build contracts that were undertaken simultaneously. The general engineering consul- tant team assisting the Maryland State Highway Administration in the oversight of the project used an RM program to manage the collection and analysis of the large volume of verification data that was generated by this complex and complicated proj- ect. The three separate DB contracts were generally uniformly structured with only site-specific modification to accommo- date environmental and situational needs. The RM program was used to capture all requirement verification evidence, all quality-related documents generated by each of the three DB teams, and all the results of material sampling and testing. The project had a significant emphasis on environmental impact mitigation measures, and all commitments were included in the RM program and tracked through to resolution and clo- sure. This project won a number of project management awards including the Design-Build Institute of America Project of the Year and the International Road Federation Global Excellence Award in the category of Quality Management. Columbus Crossroads Project (Ohio Department of Transportation) This $200 million design-build project used an independent quality firm to verify that the design and construction efforts were completed in conformance with contract requirements. The independent quality firm was a member of the proposing design-build team, but was contractually bound to report all findings equally to the Ohio Department of Transportation and the design builder. The independent quality firm used a RM program to identify the key requirements identified in the technical provisions, Ohio DOT standards and manuals, City of Columbus standards and applicable AASHTO stan- dards. As the design and construction work was completed, the independent quality firm captured objective evidence that the applicable requirements were being fulfilled. To bring efficiency to the construction inspection effort, each of the construction-related requirements were risk profiled to ensure that the highest risk requirements were the focus of verifica- tion efforts. All data collected by the independent quality firm as well as applicable and validated data from the contractorâs QC efforts were analyzed and reported monthly to both the Ohio Department of Transportation and the DB team. All field data collected by the independent quality firm were with global-positioning-system (GPS)-enabled, ruggedized electronic tablets that contained all applicable design docu- ments and all contract requirements. Verification data were uploaded daily into the central independent quality firm database for approval and analysis. Project closeout was monitored through a dashboard that depicted the progress of fulfilling the conditions for acceptance that applied each of the elements of work. B.7 One-On-One Procurement Meetings with a Focus on Quality One-on-one meetings during procurement allow propos- ers to discuss issues with the agency and obtain clarification regarding the RFP and any Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) from the proposer. Compatible QAOs Acceptance, Oversight, Assurance What Is It? A one-on-one meeting is an opportunity for proposers to meet with the agency, discuss concerns, and gain clarifications relating to project details. Additionally, the proposer is able to discuss their own ATCs with the agency; however, the agency will not discuss any ATCs from other proposers. While similar meetings may be included as part of an industry review of an RFP (Tool B.2), these meetings are used expressly for com- munication purposes and do not provide proposers with an opportunity to modify the RFP. Why Use It? The agency implements this tool to provide proposers with a better understanding of the project RFP. Furthermore, it allows the agency to gain insight into the proposerâs train of thought. A one-on-one meeting also provides the opportunity to discuss project complexities and establish good communi- cation practices, which will be valuable throughout the project. Meetings such as these provide a forum for sharing ideas that may improve the quality or design of the project. What Does It Do? The primary function of a one-on-one meeting is to facili- tate the discussion of issues and ATCs prior to the submittal of the proposals. The proposers should not view these meet- ings as an opportunity to gain commitments from the agency or to achieve an unfair advantage over the other proposers. Similarly, the agency should not provide any proposer with information during a one-on-one meeting that is not made available to the other proposers. One-on-one meetings are not considered during the evaluation of proposals.
44 When to Use It One-on-one meetings take place after releasing the RFP and before proposers submit their proposals. The agency sets the meeting date and all participants attending, either by telephone or in person, are identified. One-on-one meet- ings facilitate discussions and highlight ambiguities or areas of miscommunication, making them particularly valuable on complex projects. How to Use It Prior to initiating one-on-one meetings, the agency must develop specific ground rules that govern what the meetings are, how the meetings will take place, and when the meetings will occur. The project agency instigates one-on-one meet- ings during the procurement phase, and the attendance of proposers is mandatory. Additionally, all attendees must sign an acknowledgement of the ground rules for conducting the meetings prior to the one-on-one meeting. The agency reserves the right to disclose to all proposers any issues dis- cussed during a one-on-one meeting, unless the disclosure reveals confidential information related to the proposerâs ATCs or business strategy. Examples T.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) conducted one-on-one meetings for the Hastings Bridge Project. The meetings with proposers for this CMGC project were used to discuss ATCs. The proposers were able to incorpo- rate one or more accepted ATCs into their proposal once the agency accepted it at the meeting. The pre-approved ATCs were known as pre-approved elements (PAEs). MnDOT was careful to not coach the proposers through the PAE process, but rather provided evaluations of each ATC. MnDOT also ensured that the individuals evaluating the PAEs were not the same people evaluating received proposals. I-15 Widening and Beck Street Bridge Project (UDOT) UDOT held one-on-one meetings with proposers for the I-15 widening project from 500 North to I-215 in Utah. The meetings conducted during the procurement phase were a valuable form of communication as the project had a very tight budget. These meetings along with discussions between UDOT and the design builder during the preconstruction phase enabled the project team to review ways to reduce the project cost. Additionally, the meetings provided an opportunity for the project team to discuss a particularly complex bridge involved in the project that required individual attention. Bibliography FDOT, Alternative Technical Concepts Review, Tallahassee, Florida, 2011. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ designbuild/DBDocuments/RFPDocs/AlternativeTechnical Concepts.pdf FHWA, Construction Program Guide: Alternative Technical Concepts, USDOT, Washington, D.C., 2012. http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/atc.cfm MnDOT, Approach to Alternative Technical Concepts, MnDOT Design/Build Program, White Paper No. MN-11, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 2003. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/design build/whitepapers/atcaugust2003.pdf MnDOT, Design-Build Manual, Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 2011. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/documents/ online/DB_Manual.pdf B.8 Contractor Involvement in Establishing and Streamlining Quality Control Standards Transportation agencies develop extensive manuals and standard specifications detailing QC and acceptance pro- cesses on their projects in order to ensure that project quality standards are met. However, because construction projects are each unique, some standard requirements may not apply or may not be well suited for a particular project. Allowing for changes to quality standards may result in more efficient quality management programs, which still meet project goals and requirements. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? This tool recognizes the unique nature of every construc- tion project and the value that contractors can add to quality management processes by streamlining sampling frequencies and requirements where appropriate. Why Use It? The purpose of this tool is to streamline quality control aspects of projects where appropriate without sacrificing overall quality and still meeting the goals of the project. This
45 should result in a more efficient and less costly quality man- agement program. What Does It Do? The use of this tool essentially opens up the state trans- portation agency to considering alterations to its traditional specifications and testing requirements. While the agency typically applies these standards to every project, adopting the approach of this tool would mean an agency is willing to consider adjusting some project-specific quality specifications when opportunities arise and the contractor presents clear reasons to do so. When to Use It Contractor-proposed, alternate quality standards/ specifications can be used on projects with prescriptive, not performance-based, quality specifications and are particularly useful in dealing with innovative or uncommon situations. The flexibility afforded by this tool is useful in instances where materials are used in a non-traditional manner. How to Use It This tool can be used formally or informally. Used formally, this tool would involve the addition of contract language allowing for the use of contractor-proposed alternatives to quality specifications, only if sufficient justification is pro- vided and documented. In order to use this tool informally, the agency and the contractor must establish a close working relationship in which both parties operate in good faith and recognize that the decision to approve or deny a project-specific specification ultimately resides with the agency. Tips Agencies can experiment with the use of this tool informally first by asking contractors to point out areas of perceived inefficiency or âoverkillâ in the quality management programs on the projects they are constructing to see if valuable feed- back is available and contractors are interested in suggesting alternatives. ExampleâWillamette River Bridge Project (ODOT) ODOT successfully used this tool on their Willamette River Bridge Project, where I-5 crosses the Willamette River. On that project, the close relationship between the CMGC and ODOT resulted in several CMGC proposed alternatives to ODOTâs standard quality specifications. In one case, hot-mixed asphaltic cement (HMAC) was to be used to pave the trails in the parks surrounding the project in order to meet the needs of the local park agencies. The typical ODOT HMAC specification required development and submittal of project-specific mix designs and optimum rolling procedures designed to provide the highest quality results on major paving jobs. In this case, those specifications would have added costs for very little return, as the demand on bike path pavement is so much less than the demand on Interstate highway pavement, which the specifications were written for. The costs of the submittals and testing, when applied to the very small quantities needed for the bike paths, resulted in extremely high prices for the pavement. After the CMGC made their case for the alteration, ODOT was able to write a âminor hot mix asphaltâ specification that was more in line with what the local park agencies used on their bike path projects, meeting the needs of the project and its stake- holders at a reduced cost. Bibliography Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), The Source, GDOT. Atlanta, Georgia, 2010. http://www.dot.ga.gov/ doingbusiness/TheSource/Pages/home/aspx B.9 Alternative Technical Concepts The ATC process involves reviewing ATCs prior to the submittal of proposals in order to ensure that they do not conflict with the project design and construction requirements. Allowing proposers to submit ATCs for review encourages innovation and creativity, avoids potential delays associated with design, and achieves the best-value solution for the public. Compatible QAOs Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? An ATC is an alternative concept developed by a proposer, which is better than or equal to the basic configuration in quality or effect, as judged by the agency. The ATC process enables proposers to present innovative alternatives for the design and construction of a project. The agency then reviews the ATCs before proposers submit proposals. The agency reviewing the ATCs provides an indication of whether the ATC is acceptable or not. If the agency considered an ATC acceptable, the proposer who presented the ATC is able to include it in their proposal.
46 Why Use It? This tool enables the agency to obtain a preview of pro- posals prior to formal submission, while still ensuring that the proposers maintain their advantages through confidenti- ality. Similarly, the proposers are able to gain insight into the agencyâs needs and expectations. The ATC process is beneficial because it allows the design and construction quality criteria to be clarified and renegotiated, if necessary, potentially enhancing the quality of the final project. Finally, ATCs allow the agency to obtain the best value for the public (FDOT 2011). What Does It Do? The ATC process provides the opportunity for proposers to submit innovative and creative ideas as alternatives to the basic configuration for a project. The agency is able to consider these ATCs as part of the selection decision. ATCs are beneficial because they avoid potential design-related delays and conflicts while providing a best-value solution for the project. When to Use It The agency should implement the ATC process prior to the submittal of proposals. It is particularly useful on projects where the agency desires innovation in the design or where there are high risks involved. How to Use it The RFP should describe the ATC process and inform pro- posers of the one-on-one meetings required to review ATCs prior to submitting their proposal. The agency then does not allow changes to the contract requirements in a proposal, except through an ATC. Once an ATC has been submitted, the agency reviews it. The agency typically only approves an ATC if the concept has been used elsewhere under comparable circumstances. The agency must be careful not to coach the proposer through the review and may respond with one of the following statements (responses used by MnDOT): ⢠The ATC is acceptable for inclusion in the Proposal. ⢠The ATC is not acceptable for inclusion in the Proposal. ⢠The ATC is not acceptable in its present form, but may be acceptable upon the satisfaction, in the Agencyâs sole dis- cretion, of certain identified conditions which must be met or clarifications or modifications that must be made. ⢠The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but may be included in Proposerâs Proposal because it appears to be within the requirements of the RFP. After evaluation, proposers are able to include all of their approved ATCs in their proposal. At no point prior to the proposal is it acceptable for the agency to share details of one teamâs ATCs with any other proposing team. Addition- ally, some agencies choose to ensure that the personnel evaluating ATCs are not the same as those evaluating the proposals. ExampleâT.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) MnDOT implemented an ATC process, known as a PAE process, on the Hastings Bridge Project. Geotechnical issues were a major quality challenge for this project; therefore, MnDOT desired innovation for the foundation of the north approach. The PAE process was successful in providing MnDOT with a design solution for the north approach, which involved column-supported fill. This innovative concept, presented as an ATC, saved the project $100 million. Bibliography FDOT, Alternative Technical Concepts Review, Tallahassee, Florida, 2011. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ designbuild/DBDocuments/RFPDocs/AlternativeTechnical Concepts.pdf FHWA, Construction Program Guide: Alternative Technical Concepts, USDOT, Washington, D.C., 2012. http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/atc.cfm MnDOT, Approach to Alternative Technical Concepts, MnDOT Design/Build Program, White Paper No. MN-11, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 2003. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/design build/whitepapers/atcaugust2003.pdf MnDOT, Design-Build Manual, Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 2011. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/documents/ online/DB_Manual.pdf B.10 External Contractor Panel Input Constructability is an important feature of quality plans. However, constructability can be easily forgotten by designers working with pen and paper rather than physical materials with real dimensions. Designs for which the construction process has not been adequately considered may prove infeasible to build and/or difficult to bid responsibly. Con- structability is a facet of design that must be considered in a clear, rational manner, preferably utilizing the construction knowledge of experienced professionals. When project factors preclude involving the construction contractor during the design phase, the advice and input from practicing construc- tors can still be utilized in the form of an external contractor panel review.
47 Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable What Is It? An external contractor review of designs can be an impor- tant tool used by agencies to not only reduce design errors, but also improve the overall quality of the plans produced for their projects. While many agencies utilize internal design reviews to consider constructability issues, input from prac- ticing construction professionals, with current knowledge of available means, methods, and necessary equipment, is often more valuable. Why Use It? External contractor reviews of project designs can be used for several reasons. First, a general constructability review can determine whether a project is buildable as designed or whether the design provides sufficient information to accurately estimate the cost of building the project as designed. Secondly, external contractor reviews can address specific feasibility questions from designers regarding one or more design alternatives. In this case, external reviews are conducted to explore the impact of a particular design decision. Regardless of the reason, reviews should lead to higher quality plans that require fewer adjust- ments later on and lead to fewer construction errors. What Does It Do? This tool provides project designersâwhether in house or consultantsâwith the chance to directly address experienced construction professionals unrelated to the project and pro- spective bidders with their concerns and questions. Even if the design team has already conducted an internal constructability review, the tool opens the designs up for additional improve- ments. The additional review may cover the same topics addressed by the internal review, or the external reviewers may find entirely new opportunities to improve constructability. When to Use It While every project might benefit from the input of con- struction professionals, the added time and effort required to conduct an external design review, though minimal, means that external design reviews should be used on projects with characteristics outside of the norm: exceptional space or sched- ule constraints, projects with multiple alternatives under con- sideration, particularly technical projects, and so forth. Although external reviews take place prior to advertising a project for bids, project teams have a wide time frame in which to conduct such reviews. When these reviews are con- ducted during the design phase, they will affect the value and the information gained in the review. Seeking the advice of an external contractor panel early in design can allow for a better alternatives analysis and decision process as well potentially preventing designs from heading toward expensive or difficult- to-construct options. Reviews conducted after substantial designs have been generated can better identify specific issues that can be resolved before construction begins. The use of an external contractor panel to review designs is not compatible with CMGC, DB, or PPP delivery methods as each of these methods already includes a contractor during the design process. How to Use It STAs have experimented with various methods for imple- menting external contractor reviews of a design while maintain- ing a fair and competitive bidding process. Two of the primary processes involve using a panel, either one that is assembled for a specific project or a standing panel. For a project-specific panel, panel participants can be selected in various ways, through publicly posting invita- tions for comment and review during an open meeting, iden- tifying contractors interested in participating through local Association of General Contractors (AGC) chapters, soliciting the input of contractors outside of the local region not likely to bid on the project, using local contractors with intimate knowledge of the region, requiring a minimum of two con- tractors to participate on each review, and not informing contractors of which ideas were selected for incorporation into the design (Dunston, Gambatese, and McManus 2005). These methods can be used for project-specific panels where contrac- tors are given time to review the current designs and either allowed free rein to comment or directed through a series of questions and concerns generated by the designer. Alternatively, a standing panel can be used that meets at reg- ular intervals and has rotating seats of agency staff and regional contractors. This method, employed by WSDOT, is used to eliminate claims of impropriety and relies on open meetings where designers from several projects can come with their questions or concerns for review. Contractors who sit on the panel are still allowed to bid on projects they have considered and meeting minutes are publicly posted for anyone to review. While the project-specific and standing-panel methods are organized differently, both can be used to improve the build- ability and bid-ability of quality designs. Tips ⢠The use of construction contractors interested in bidding on a project can sometimes generate the most specific,
48 useful recommendations, but requires the greatest diligence to ensure a fair bidding process. In contrast, a standing panel or the use of contractors not likely to bid on a proj- ect may be best at reducing claims of a non-competitive or unfair bidding process, but may produce less specific information. ⢠An effective implementation of external contractor reviews requires the buy-in not only of the agency, but of the pro- fessionals who will participate as well. Getting local chapters of the AGC, the American Council of Engineering Com- panies (ACEC), or their local equivalent on board with the process may help ensure participation and reduce the potential for complaints. ⢠Consult the contracting, design, and legal communities when setting up a new process that may be perceived as having an impact on the bidding process. ExampleâGeorge Sellar Bridge Project (WSDOT) The addition of another eastbound lane to the George Sellar Bridge in Wenatchee, Washington, involved complex traffic control operations to keep the bridge open during construction. Project managers took their questions to a joint AGC/WSDOT panel for assistance in drafting a traffic con- trol plan that could adequately maintain a daily traffic load of 60,000 vehicles. In addition, designers asked the panel to suggest a preferred alternative for the various portal modifications under consideration. As a result, the panel made specific rec- ommendations regarding the use of a quick-change movable (âzipperâ) traffic barrier to rapidly change lane configurations in between daytime and nighttime construction shifts and recommended one of several portal modification alternatives based on a number of project factors. Bibliography Dunston, P. S., J. A. Gambatese, and J. F. McManus, âAssessing State Transportation Agency Constructability Implementa- tion,â Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 5, 2005, pp. 569â578. B.11 Independent Party Design Review Typically, the STA performs verification reviews during the development of a project design. This is done to ensure that the proper quality is being provided to the agency. In some instances, the agency is not equipped to perform reviews or is not able to provide an objective review. Therefore, the agency can use an independent party to review the design. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight What Is It? Independent party review is a process where the agency hires a third-party firm to provide quality inspections and verification reviews during design. The independent review team involves a qualified consultant that can provide objective design reviews that are not biased by the contractual relation- ship that exists between the designer and the agency. Inde- pendent party review provides another avenue for agencies to use for reviewing the design. Why Use It? There are instances where an agency may not have the neces- sary resources or expertise to provide complete and thorough design reviews when the agency does not perform the design in house. In these cases, it would be beneficial to the agency to hire a third-party, independent review consultant to perform design reviews in place of the agency. This would place design review responsibilities on the hired independent party, while the agency retains control of how the reviews occur. What Does It Do? This tool helps to reduce the resources and time needed by an agency for a project. Since the independent party performs the design reviews, the agency can reduce the staff requirements and can eliminate the time needed for each review. Also, an independent review consultant may possess additional exper- tise that can take the design reviews to an advanced level. Having a more qualified team perform reviews of complex and specialty projects can reduce the technical requirements risk for the agency. When to Use It Third-party independent reviews are used successfully on specialty projects or in instances where the agency lacks the necessary resources and time to meet specific design mile- stones. Independent reviews are very useful for situations where the agency lacks the expertise needed to perform an accurate review (Capers et al. 2011). How to Use It The agency needs to decide before design begins whether design reviews can be accomplished internally. This decision should be based on determining whether fair reviews are
49 possible and whether agency resources are available. If it is decided that the agency cannot provide an objective review of the design or that the needed resources will not be available, then a third party can be hired to conduct reviews. The third-party independent review team conducts the reviews based on the process and requirements developed by the agency. This includes reviewing the design for all required quality aspects developed by the agency prior to starting design. In addition, the independent review team will pro- vide reviews at all specified intervals agreed to by the agency and the design team. Essentially, the third-party review team provides reviews based on the direction issued by the agency. Tips This is an advantageous tool in instances where the agency cannot perform fair reviews. The independent third-party reviewer will help to decrease the biases and in turn help the design team reach the goals required by the agency. ExampleâWillamette River Bridge Project (ODOT) ODOT used a unique structure for design reviews on the Willamette River Bridge Project. For one, this project included a third-party joint venture hired by ODOT. This entity, called the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP), helps ODOT manage its multi-billion dollar bridge infrastruc- ture program, which includes the Willamette River Bridge. One of the responsibilities of the OBDP was to provide qual- ity control reviews during design and construction. During construction, ODOT and OBDP worked together to perform construction inspections and testing. However, during design, OBDP functioned independently from ODOT so that they could provide an objective review of the design. Note also that the CMGC delivery method was used for this project. This meant that the contractor was involved in the design process. Based on the setup of the project, the design review process included several reviews: internal design team reviews, agency reviews, contractor reviews, and OBDP reviews. This setup was burdensome due to the numerous reviews, but it was very beneficial in producing complete and high-quality design. In order to have a meaningful impact on the design, the con- tractor conducted constructability reviews on a regular basis. In addition, the design team regularly performed technical requirement reviews. Also, ODOT wanted to have a direct role in reviewing technical aspects of design due to the complexity and high profile of the project. Finally, OBDP was respon- sible for providing input and commentary on design at key milestones. OBDP then issued the final design disposition for each key design milestone, acknowledging that all comments were accurately responded to, but ODOT was ultimately in charge of accepting the design deliverables. Bibliography AASHTO, AASHTO Consultant Contracting Guide, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008. AASHTO, AASHTO Guide to Quality in Preconstruction Engi- neering, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2003. Capers, H., H. Ghara, K. C. Rehm, N. Boyd, T. Swanson, C. Swanwick, R. J. Healy, R. W. Dunne, and R. S. Watral, NCHRP Project 20-68A, âBest Practices in Quality Con- trol and Assurance in Design, Scan 09-01,â Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., August 2011. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-68A_09-01.pdf FHWA, Guidance on QC/QA in Bridge Design in Response to NTSB Recommendation (H-08-17), USDOT, AASHTO, 2011. http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/project_devel/design/ bridge_design/Downloads/QC-QA/Guidance%20on%20 QC-QA%20in%20Bridge%20Design.pdf B.12 Over-the-Shoulder Agency Review During the design phase of a project, reviews take place to verify quality and adherence to the agencyâs design criteria. When utilizing alternative project delivery methods, specifi- cally DB, more quality aspects become the responsibility of the contracting firm. If the agency decides to assign design and construction QC and acceptance responsibilities to the design builder, the agency will still need to perform quality oversight. One tool for the agency to use in performing quality oversight is the over-the-shoulder agency review. Compatible QAOs Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? The over-the-shoulder agency review, also called an over- sight review, is a process of informal design review that the STA performs during the design of a project, without stopping the design process to prepare a formal submittal (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). These types of design review mainly assess whether the contractor is properly meeting the design requirements and design criteria of the contract. In addition, these reviews can also address whether the design quality management plan activities are occurring in accor- dance with the agency-approved, contractor-developed, quality
50 management plan as well as overall project quality require- ments (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). Why Use It? When the agency decides to assign quality responsibilities to the contractor, the agency still performs the QA role. To properly perform QA, the agency needs tools or procedures that assist with QA. In terms of design QA, the agency can use over-the-shoulder reviews, which ensure that the design is progressing according to the contract requirements with- out the need to prepare a specific design submittal package and provide agency input to the design where it will be both desired and helpful (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). Once the contractor requests an over-the-shoulder review, the contractor continues forward with design, which helps to keep design on schedule. Additional monitoring and reviews during design can help to increase the contractorâs adherence to required criteria, increase the quality of the design, and, in turn, increase the quality of the constructed project. What Does It Do? Over-the-shoulder design reviews allow the design team an opportunity to walk the agency reviewers through all the design assumptions made, constraints realized, and solutions developed prior to formal design submittals. If used properly, over-the-shoulder reviews can be effective at saving time, eliminating later frustration, and providing an open forum where meaningful exchanges of ideas and options can occur. This helps to improve quality since issues that affect design criteria and project quality can be reviewed and addressed before the construction phase. Over-the-shoulder design assists the agency with overall QA activities. When to Use It This tool is most effective when it is used to check specific design criteria. Certain projects may have strict or difficult performance and design criteria. To make sure that the con- tractor is adhering properly to these criteria, the contractor requests an over-the-shoulder review by the agency. This allows the contractor to present a specific portion of the design in an informal review that verifies certain aspects of the design and is not a complete design document review or formal design submittal. How to Use It The agency must decide early in the planning phase whether informal monitoring should take place during design. If over- the-shoulder reviews will be used, the agency includes a state- ment in the RFP issued to bidders indicating the ability to request informal, over-the-shoulder reviews. Then, during design, the agency will perform reviews of the ongoing design as well as monitor and audit the design quality management plan when requested by the contractor. Additionally, the agency must determine how many reviews the contractor is allowed and what amount of agency time and resources should be allocated to this task. Finally, the contract must also contain information on the over-the-shoulder review process. This informs the con- tracting firm of how the over-the-shoulder review process will work. This information should address when the reviews will take place and what the steps are in requesting and per- forming an over-the-shoulder review. In most cases, over- the-shoulder design reviews should only take place on design aspects that are on the critical path (Gransberg, Datin, and Molenaar 2008). Tips ⢠An over-the-shoulder review is a helpful tool when the agency is confident that it can internally review design on an ongoing or informal basis. ⢠The purposed of this tool is mostly to address adherence and inclusion of criteria in the design. The tool is not for constructability review, as that should take place between the design entity and construction entity of the DB firm. Examples T.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) MnDOT implemented over-the-shoulder agency reviews for design of the T.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project. This DB project, utilizing the Oversight QAO, had significant performance criteria that needed to be met to address the unstable soils that are present at the site of the bridge. For example, the north approach of the bridge had a performance criterion stating that no more than 2 inches of settlement within 3 months of the embankment construction was allowed. This criterion was included in the project because the previous bridge had to be raised by jacking on several occasions during its lifespan due to differential settlement, and MnDOT wanted to avoid this problem with the new bridge. Because of the complexity of the design and the high-level performance criteria of this project, MnDOT completed design reviews (in addition to the internal DB firm reviews) using the over-the-shoulder review process to verify that the correct design was being furnished based on the strict performance criteria.
51 I-15 Widening, Beck Street Bridge Project (UDOT) UDOT utilized over-the-shoulder agency reviews during the development of the design for the I-15 Widening and Beck Street Bridge Project. This was a DB project where UDOT could participate in design reviews and was allowed to com- ment as requested or as it deemed necessary. The reviews took place with the contractorâs design quality manager (DQM), the design staff, and the agency. Bibliography FHWA, Current Design-Build Practices for Transportation Projects, USDOT, Washington, D.C., 2011. http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/construction/contracts/pubs/dbpractice/06.cfm Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar, NCHRP Syn- thesis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 130 pp. Hedden, J. A., and M. J. Quagliata, â9 Mile to Go,â Roads & Bridges, July 2010, pp. 60â65. http://www.roadsbridges. com/sites/default/files/60_9%20Mile%20Bridge%20 0710RB.pdf Michigan Department of Transportation (MIDOT), Project Requirements Book 2âAmbassador Bridge Plaza Gateway Completion, n.d. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ mdot/Final_RFP_Book_2_Project_Requirements_ 381501_7.pdf WSDOT, Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Develop- ment, June 2004. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ 46196EB8-F9D0-4290-8F55-68786B1DA556/0/Design Build_GuidebookJun2004.pdf B.13 In-Progress Design Workshops In-progress design workshops are meetings of the designer, the contractor, and the agency that take place throughout the design process to discuss and verify design progress. This tool encourages communication among the project parties and mitigates future misunderstandings or conflicts while enhancing design quality through knowledge sharing. Compatible QAOs Variable, Oversight What Is It? Throughout the design phase, the state transportation agency or the contractor is able to request a meeting with the designer in order to discuss the progress of the design. These in-progress design workshops are intended to assist the designer and/or the contractor in resolving design issues and questions. Why Use It? In-progress design workshops ensure that the project team has a consistent understanding of the project assumptions and expectations. This tool allows issues to be resolved early in the project, before they carry through the project pro- cess. Furthermore, the workshops provide an opportunity to enhance the quality of the project and enable the agency to review design information. What Does It Do? In-progress design workshops provide a forum for the relevant project parties to review and discuss design details. This tool establishes communication between project parties at a time when decisions have a large impact on the quality of a project. All parties involved in the project are able to align their understandings of the project and assign future corrective actions if needed. When to Use It This tool is implemented at any stage during the design phase of a project. It is best suited to projects delivered using alternative project delivery methods in which the designer and the contractor are contractually obligated to coordinate with one another. How to Use It The agency or the contractor requests an in-progress design workshop at least 5 days prior to the workshop date. This enables the contractor and/or the designer to submit drawings or other documents for review during the workshop. The agency may choose to limit the number of in-progress design workshops held per week due to resource restraints. The agency should keep a written record of following details: ⢠A list of the workshop participants. ⢠A description of the items covered. ⢠Identification of discrepancies and comments. ⢠A report on past and planned corrective actions. ⢠Identification of follow-up action items. ExampleâT.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) MnDOT used in-progress design workshops on the Hastings Bridge Project. The DB project involved replacing
52 the existing two-lane bridge over the Mississippi River with a new four-lane bridge. Contractor-driven, in-progress design workshops were held throughout the design process to address specific issues, such as the pier design and the arch design. These workshops were vital in keeping the design on schedule. Bibliography California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Project Requirements Book 2 for Design and Construction on State Highway, April 2011. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/ designbuild/sanmateo101rfp/Project-Requirements.pdf MnDOT, Design-Build Manual, Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 2011. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/documents/ online/DB_Manual.pdf B.14 Discipline Task Force As the name suggests, a discipline task force is a group of indi- viduals focused on one specific discipline. Discipline task forces are formed to ensure coordination across project disciplines. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? Each discipline task force focuses on a specific discipline of work and includes designers, key construction personnel, and the agencyâs experts. Task forces meet weekly to discuss the discipline and to plan phased action items as necessary. The meeting minutes from each task force meeting are recorded. Individuals should be involved in more than one discipline task force in order to ensure consistent cross-discipline coordination. Why Use It? The primary purpose of discipline task forces is to provide consistency and improve coordination across all project dis- ciplines. Additionally, regular meetings on specific topics aid in management and communication among all parties, as well as enhancement of project quality. What Does It Do? This tool ensures that attention is given to every aspect of the project. Furthermore, implementing discipline-specific meetings ensures that any necessary action is taken in a timely manner. When to Use It Discipline task forces could apply to projects of any deliv- ery method. It is feasible for discipline task forces to hold meetings during any phase of a project. Additionally, there is potential for new task forces to form throughout the project as the need arises. How to Use It A discipline task force requires creating a team of appro- priate individuals representing each necessary party on a project, who can meet regularly to discuss their discipline and responsibilities in relation to the project. These individuals need to have the knowledge and authority to be able to address issues relating to the discipline. Similarly, they need to be able to coordinate with other discipline task forces to provide con- sistency across project disciplines. ExampleâT.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) Discipline task forces were utilized for the Hastings Bridge Project owned by MnDOT. The core disciplines involved in the bridge replacement project were roadway, drainage, structures, traffic, and utilities. Other disciplines included Intelligent Transportation Systems, geotechnical design, and quality. Bibliography Lane, L. B., NCHRP Synthesis 373: Multi-Disciplinary Teams in Context-Sensitive Solutions, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. B.15 Formal Partnering with Regulatory Agencies Permit requirements from regulatory agencies can be dif- ficult and time consuming to obtain. Part of the reason for this is that there is often insufficient communication between project parties who are applying for permits and the permit- granting agency. By forging a more open relationship between project parties and regulatory agencies, the permitting pro- cess can be streamlined. The spirit of cooperation and col- laboration will help the team to more effectively interpret the permitting requirements, as opposed to potentially disagreeing about the interpretation of requirements. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance
53 What Is It? Partnering with regulatory agencies involves having open and honest communication among regulators, the STA, and the party applying for a permit (e.g., contractor, design builder, or concessionaire). The purpose of the communication is to explain the ramifications of alternatives to meet permit require- ments in real time, rather than a back-and-forth exchange of permit applications, review, and denials. Why Use It? The purpose of partnering with regulatory agencies is twofold. First, it helps regulators understand what effects their proposed changes to contractor work plans will actually have. This is crucial, as contractors sometimes have a better understanding of the ramifications of various construction options than the regulators reviewing the plans. This exchange of information is crucial to helping regulators understand that while there may not be a perfect solution, the proposed solution is optimal and fulfills not just the letter, but also the spirit of the applicable regulations. Second, by encouraging a dialogue between regulators and contractors, streamlining the permitting process itself can save valuable time in the project schedule. What Does It Do? Partnering and the associated dialogue establish a working relationship between contractors (who develop construction means and methods) and regulators (who evaluate construc- tion means and methods for permit compliance). By open- ing the process up to explanation and allowing contractors to address the concerns and alternatives of regulators, the back-and-forth submission of permit proposals and permit denials can be avoided. By removing this tedious step from the process, permits can be obtained faster and regulators can be assured that the best measures possible are being taken to satisfy their regulations. When to Use It Encouraging dialogue between contractors and regulators should be done with care and is not warranted for every project. However, on projects involving contractors with a demonstrated commitment to fulfilling their obligations and providing high-quality solutions rather than the lowest-cost ones, partnering between the two parties can be very suc- cessful at streamlining the process and satisfying regulatorsâ concerns. This technique is well suited to project delivery methods in which the contractor has intimate knowledge of the designâ such as in CMGC, DB, and PPPâand is a part of the project team during the permitting process. How to Use It State highway agencies can initiate the use of this tool by first evaluating the contractor and the contractorâs willing- ness to work directly with regulators to develop the optimal, although not necessarily the lowest-cost, permitting solution. Having established that the project builder is willing to put in the extra effort necessary to establish a positive dialogue with regulatory agencies, agency personnel can schedule and host meetings of all three parties in which regulators can dis- cuss their concerns with contractor plans and contractors can explain or modify their proposed work plans. Tips ⢠While this technique can be used for DBB projects, permits are often secured prior to the selection of a contractor on DBB projects. As a result, the use of this tool on such projects may not be possible as construction means and methods will not have been developed prior to the permitting process. ⢠The use of this tool requires the buy-in of both contractors and regulators, which may not always be possible. Explaining that the goal of the process is to develop optimal solutions and to streamline the process may help. ExampleâWillamette River Bridge Project (ODOT) ODOT and its CMGC used this technique with great success on the Willamette River Bridge Project in Eugene, Oregon. The CMGC was part of the early phases of design and was actively involved in applying for project permits. The CMGC had an extensive history of in-water work and fine-tuned the design of their work platform to minimize its impact on the river and the environment despite the increased cost of doing so. As a result, the CMGCâwith ODOT at its sideâwas able to walk envi- ronmental regulators through the design, explain why it was an optimal solution and why the options proposed by the regula- tors would trade reductions in certain impacts for increases in others, and alleviate any concerns the regulators had. The result was a significant reduction in the permitting process and an excellent working relationship among ODOT, the CMGC, and the various environmental regulatory agencies on the project. Bibliography FHWA, Planning and Environmental Linkages Partnering Agreement, USDOT, 2009. http://environment.fhwa.dot. gov/integ/final_signed_partnering_agreement_June09.pdf
54 Ford, M. L., NCHRP Web Document 39: Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation: Scan 7 of 8: Innova- tions in Public-Public Partnering and Relationship Building in State DOTs, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. http://online pubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w39-7.pdf Nevada Department of Transportation Partnering Program. https://nevadadot.com/Projects_and_Programs/Road_ Projects/Partnering.aspx B.16 Formal Team-Partnering/ Goal-Setting Process Highway projects include precise objectives and goals that are developed by the agency during the planning and devel- opment of a project. These goals are then presented to con- tractors in the form of criteria, specifications, and designs in the invitation for bid (IFB) or RFP. In some instances, there is a discrepancy between the agencyâs and the selected contrac- torâs understandings of and expectations for these goals. This can have a significant impact on project quality. To establish a common understanding of project goals and to ensure that the contractor understands what the agency wants, team- partnering and goal-setting sessions can be used. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? A team-partnering/goal-setting process is a tool where the participation of a selected contractor (and/or subcontractor) is requested in partnering and goal-setting sessions. This is done to establish a positive working relationship between the agency and the contractor, to review the agencyâs goals and objectives, and to ensure that the contractor understands the goals set by the agency. These sessions allow the contractor to provide recommendations to the agency. Why Use It? This is an important tool for the agency to use in establish- ing a working and trusting relationship as well as in creating a shared understanding of the goals and objectives set for a particular project. This is essential as more quality responsi- bilities shift from the agency to the contractor because more trust between the parties is necessary to help ensure the suc- cess of the project. The partnering and goal-setting sessions can clarify any disconnects or discrepancies in the partiesâ understandings of what is to be achieved on the project. Also, the contractor can make suggestions to the agency on how to achieve quality goals effectively throughout the project. What Does It Do? Team-partnering and goal-setting sessions help to create an effective relationship between the agency and the con- tractor that is critical as responsibility for quality shifts away from the agency. Team partnering and goal setting establish a common understanding of project goals between the agency and the contractor, assist with ensuring that the agency and contractor are in alignment with their expectations, and help to avoid disagreements or misunderstandings later on in the project. When to Use It This tool is very useful in instances where the agency transfers quality responsibilities to the contractor. When the agency transfers quality responsibilities such as quality con- trol and quality acceptance to the contractor, a higher level of trust needs to exist between the agency and the contractor. To create this superior level of trust, team-partnering exer- cises are very beneficial and establish a better foundation for the working relationship than ad hoc or informal processes might. The team-partnering and goal-setting process should be developed by the agency prior to selecting a contractor. Then, once the contractor is selected, the agency and contrac- tor need to establish team-partnering and goal-setting pro- cedures before any construction begins. This is helpful for avoiding any issues that could arise during construction that were not addressed prior to breaking ground. How to Use It This tool is used most effectively when the agency develops the partnering and goal-setting process before the contractor is selected because then the agency may require partnering and goal setting as part of the RFP or contract. The selected contractor must then fully participate in the team-partnering program the agency establishes and must attend goal-setting sessions to discuss and develop a mutual understanding of the project goals. The goal-setting sessions should also be used as an open forum in which the contractor can make sug- gestions about how the goals will be achieved. Tips Partnering and goal setting can be essential tools for other factors beyond quality. They open up communication between
55 parties and build a relationship that helps prevent conflict and mistrust later on in the project. Examples I-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) FDOT implemented team-partnering exercises for the I-595 express corridor improvements project, a PPP project. Partnering was an essential part of that project in light of the new delivery method being used and the tight schedule that was established for the project. At the highest level, partnering exercises took place between FDOT and the concessionaire to establish a mutual understanding of goals, an understanding of each partyâs role, and the expectations of the project. Other partnering exercises included sessions between the CEI and the OCEI. This was done to gain a better understand- ing of how these two individuals responsible for ensuring the quality of the project would work together throughout the duration of the project. Finally, partnering exercises were required between the design builder entity of the concessionaire firm and each of its subcontractors. This was done to make sure that all parties had a mutual understanding of the goals and expectations regarding quality, schedule, and budget. These partnering exer- cises also helped to establish a working relationship between the design builder (who was new to working in south Florida and did not know the local subcontractors) and the subcontractors in the south Florida area. Mountain View Corridor Project (UDOT) UDOT utilized team-partnering and goal-setting sessions on the Mountain View Corridor Project. That project used a CMGC delivery method and included construction of a new highway, transit-way, and trail system in western Salt Lake and northwestern Utah counties. Due to the complexity, size, and varying scope of the project, UDOT initiated partnering and goal-setting sessions. First, UDOT included in the RFP a requirement that all parties involved in the performance of the projectâincluding UDOT, the selected architectural and engineer designers, the contractors, and all the subcontractorsâmeet on a regular basis. These meetings were used to establish and maintain open lines of communication thereby ensuring a relationship of trust and to develop effective team partnering among other administrative discussions. Secondly, the selected contractor was required to partici- pate in an initial goal-setting meeting with UDOT. This was used to review UDOTâs goals, to ensure that the contractor understood these goals, and to provide the contractor with an opportunity to suggest how to accomplish each of the goals. Bibliography Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Partnering 101: A Guide to the Basics of Partnering with ADOT, August 2011. http://www.azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/Partnering/ pdf/partnering_101.pdf Caltrans, Partnering with Caltrans, n.d. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/construc/partnering.html Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar, NCHRP Synthe- sis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 130 pp. Nevada Department of Transportation Partnering Program. https://nevadadot.com/Projects_and_Programs/Road_ Projects/Partnering.aspx Texas Department of Transportation Partnering Program. http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/ partnering_program.html WSDOT, Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Develop- ment, June 2004. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ 46196EB8-F9D0-4290-8F55-68786B1DA556/0/Design Build_GuidebookJun2004.pdf WSDOT, Partnering Field Guide for WSDOT Projects, WSDOT, March 2009. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Business/ Construction/ProjectPartneringProgram.htm B.17 Co-Location of Quality Management Personnel Co-location involves all quality management personnel being located in the same place for the duration of the project. It allows for efficient collaboration and improved communi- cation among these members of the project team. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? Co-location of the quality management personnel, as the name suggests, requires locating all quality management personnel at the same facility throughout the life of a proj- ect. This tool brings project resources together at one loca- tion, creating the opportunity for increased communication, improved project quality, greater efficiency, and enhanced project understanding. Why Use It? This tool is beneficial to the process of developing and implementing quality management plans. Work is completed
56 more efficiently and with fewer communication-related delays. Additionally, co-location is important for understanding agency concerns and for receiving agency reviews in a timely manner. When to Use It Co-location is a useful tool for any project that requires collaboration between project team members. In particular, co-location is beneficial to complex projects that may require a great deal of regular communication in order to ensure that the project team has an understanding of the project. Obviously, co-location can occur for the whole duration of the project. How to Use It Co-location involves some or all of the project team, including quality management personnel, working in the same building. This requirement would be specified by the agency in the RFP. ExampleâSH 130 Turnpike Project (TxDOT) TxDOT used co-location for the SH 130 Turnpike Proj- ect due to the magnitude of the 49-mile tollway project. This co-location enabled an environment that enhanced the effec- tiveness and intensity of communication required for the large project (Migliaccio, Gibson, and OâConnor 2009). Additionally, âthe quality assurance personnel were able to sort out any issues in reasonable time by visiting other project personnel, who are located in the same building.â (Migliaccio, Gibson, and OâConnor 2009). Bibliography Migliaccio, G. C., G. E. Gibson, and J. T. OâConnor, âProcure- ment of Design-Build Services: Two-Phase Selection for Highway Projects,â Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009, pp. 29â39. B.18 No Low-Bid Requirement for Subcontractors In order to use alternative project delivery methods like DB or CMGC, many STAs must file for an exemption from laws that require construction projects to be procured using a competitive low-bid process. When these exemptions are granted, clauses are sometimes added to the contracts requir- ing the design builder or CMGC to procure subcontractors on a low-bid basis. However, the inclusion of such clauses removes an important quality management tool from the contractor. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? This tool involves the inclusion or exclusion of certain clauses from a construction contract. One use of this tool would be to omit any clauses dictating the manner in which a contractor must procure subcontractors. On the other hand, using this tool would mean the inclusion of a clause specifically allowing contractors to award their subcontracts based on factors other than price. Why Use It? The use of this tool allows construction contractors to procure subcontractors with quality in mind. On projects that are broken up into phases or bid packages, allowing con- tractors to use the same subcontractors on multiple phases of a project (without running an additional bid competition) reduces learning curves and allows contractors to benefit from a more knowledgeable subcontractor. What Does It Do? Removing subcontractor procurement clauses from the contract allows contractors to retain subcontractors for the duration of projects that are broken up into separate work packages that might normally be bid out separately. As a result, the construction team is able to take advantage of lessons learned throughout the project rather than introduc- ing multiple subcontractors with separate learning curves for each package. In addition, the contractorâoften chosen on the basis of prior qualifications and/or quality management plansâis free to use subcontractors it has worked with in the past that understand and respect the contractorâs quality management process. When to Use It This tool is especially useful on projects where there is a recurring need to perform similar types of complex or technical construction several times during construction. An example would be a large bridge project in which two or more complex spans must be produced in several phases. While each phase might typically require a separate subcontractor procurement process, this tool would remove the need for such repeat procurements.
57 How to Use It To use this tool, a project team must decide before the procurement process has started not to require contractors or DB teams to obtain their subcontractors on a low-bid, competitive basis. The approval to include or remove clauses from the construction contract allowing this practice may require approval from legal authorities to ensure that it does not violate state or federal statutes. Tips It should be noted that the use of this tool does not remove the contractorâs obligation to meet disadvantaged business enterprise percentage goals, but rather the tool allows the contractor to maintain a greater level of continuity in project team members, which can lead to an improvement in quality. ExampleâWillamette River Bridge Project (ODOT) The removal of competitive pricing requirements was particularly successful on ODOTâs Willamette River Bridge Project, which consists of two similar, but not identical, long-span arch bridges. The CMGC on the project reported that being able to use the same subcontractors from the first bridge on the second bridge, rather than having to select a new low-bid subcontractor, allowed the project team to utilize lessons learned in the complex rebar installation process with great success. As an example of a contract clause allowing subcontractor selection on the basis of factors other than the lowest bid, see the following from ODOT: STATE OF OREGON CMGC CONTRACT 9.1.1(c)âThe CMGC may select Subcontractors to perform Construction Phase Services utilizing either a competitive bidding process or through negotiation, at CMGCâs discretion. Bibliography Gambatese, J., K. Dettwyler, D. Rogge, and L. Schroeder, Oregon Public Contracting Coalition Guide to CM/GC Con- tracting, Oregon Public Contracting Coalition, Portland, Oregon., February 2002. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/ loans/docs/CMGCGuide05.pdf 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. ODOT, State of Oregon Sample CM/GC Contract for Willamette River Bridge, 2008. http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/ HWY/MPB/docs/cmcg/wrb/cmgc_sample_contract.doc B.19 Use of Dual CEI/OCEI Roles During construction, testing and inspections take place to measure and monitor the quality of work. This is done in a variety of ways, and one such method is the use of CEIs. A CEI is a hired independent engineering consultant used to inspect, test, and verify the quality of a project. When imple- menting this particular tool, there are two CEIs; one is hired by the constructing firm and one by the agency. Compatible QAOs Acceptance What Is It? A CEI is an entity that performs verification inspecting and testing. With the use of a CEI and an OCEI, there are two entities in charge of managing and accepting quality. The CEI is the entity hired by the contractor to handle day-to-day quality management (quality control) responsibilities. The agency-hired CEI (the OCEI) conducts audits with statistical sampling verification testing on the overall work performed by the contractor (quality acceptance). Why Use It? The use of both a CEI and an OCEI provides a check and balance of quality control and acceptance from the contrac- tor side and the agency side of a contract. Use of both a CEI and OCEI prevents a contractor from producing low-quality work since a separate entity hired by the agency also manages quality. In addition, the CEI and OCEI essentially handle all of the quality management for the project, allowing the agency to focus resources on other important areas of the project. What Does It Do? The dual CEI/OCEI process helps to keep quality in check. The CEI performs the common construction quality con- trol activities while the OCEI provides construction quality acceptance. The OCEI offers the agency a way to check a con- tractorâs adherence to the quality provisions of the contract. With the two quality consultants on a project, both the con- tractor and the agency monitor quality so that quality does not suffer if there is a lack of quality incentives on a project. When to Use It Certain projects have attributes that make them candi- dates for the use of a CEI and OCEI. When a project lacks specific contract incentives or financial goals (such as cost
58 plus contracts), the contractor may not emphasize quality as strongly as the agency would like. In this situation, the use of a CEI and OCEI requires the contractor to utilize a CEI, an independently hired consultant, who then must communi- cate and interact with the agencyâs hired OCEI. This process ensures that project quality meets agency requirements. For this tool to be successful, the CEI and OCEI must be hired early in the project, at least before the beginning of con- struction. Both entities need be in place before construction starts so that quality during construction is managed properly from the very beginning. Once the CEI and OCEI are in place, it is best that they work together on quality management for the duration of the project construction. How to Use It As a quality management system (QMS) begins to take shape on a project, the use of a CEI and an OCEI for quality control and acceptance must begin early on. Once the decision is made, the contractor and agency select an independent engineering consultant to act as the CEI, and the agency selects an OCEI to represent its interests. Once each consultant is in place, partnering exercises should take place between the OCEI and the CEI to improve the interactions that will take place between them. After construction begins and for the duration of the project, the CEI performs the construction quality control testing for the contractor and the OCEI performs quality acceptance for the agency. Tips ⢠Specifications and drawings must be detailed for the CEI to be able to perform proper testing and inspections of the construction work. Lack of specifications leaves a gap in the design, and the CEI has no guidelines to follow. ⢠Partnering exercises would help to establish a relationship between the contractorâs CEI and the agencyâs OCEI. Refer to Tool B.16 for more information on team partnering. ExampleâI-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) FDOT implemented dual CEI/OCEI roles for the I-595 express corridor improvements project. On that project, the role of the concessionaire CEI was to provide daily quality control activities by adhering to the specifications and design provided in the contract. Then, to make sure that the conces- sionaire was performing work at the level of quality detailed in the contract, FDOT also hired a construction consultant to act as the OCEI. The OCEI audited the quality testing and inspections performed by the CEI to make sure that the concessionaire was adhering to the specifications and design provided in the contract. Bibliography Connecticut Department of Transportation, Construction Engineering and Inspection Information Pamphlet for Con- sulting Engineers, Bureau of Engineering and Highway Oper- ations, Office of Construction, August 2008. http://www. ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dconstruction/consultant/ information_pamphlet_2008.pdf Ellis, R. D., B. Guertin, and J. Shannon, Best Management Practices for the Out-Sourcing of Design and Construction Engineering Services on FDOT Construction Projects, FDOT, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 2000. B.20 Innovation in Witness and Hold Points During construction, there are certain stages, or points, when inspection, testing, and verification may need to take place. This is done at critical points where specific aspects such as checking technical quality requirements, safety requirements, and proper completion have taken place so that the next activity or activities can proceed. These critical points during construction are called witness and hold points. Compatible QAOs Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? A hold point is a mandatory verification point beyond which a process cannot proceed without authorization by the agency (Chung 1999). Hold points are commonly assigned to critical aspects of the work that cannot be inspected or cor- rected at a later stage as they will no longer be accessible. The final inspections or tests at a certain phase of construction (e.g., underground work) where no further work is allowed to progress without acceptance by authorized personnel is a hold point. A witness point is an identified point in the work process where the agency may review, witness, inspect, or undertake tests on any component, method, or process in the work being performed (Chung 1999). The presence of authorized agency personnel (i.e., the witness) is suggested during a witness point inspection or test. When a witness point arises, the contractor notifies the agency. At that point, the agency can choose to inspect or not inspect. In either case, the succeed- ing activity may proceed.
59 Why Use It? At certain points during construction, a critical aspect of the project is complete and needs thorough inspection and testing as the next activity will be covering or enclosing that particular work, and it will be very difficult to perform rework once it is covered or enclosed (e.g., subsurface grading and preparation for a paving project). The agency then makes use of witness and hold points to monitor the verification activities of the contractor (Chung 1999). What Does It Do? The use of hold and witness points allows the agency to instill inspections for work that is overly critical to the proj- ect. It allows the agency to either witness a test or inspection (witness point) or to provide permission for work to proceed (hold point). This helps the agency to verify the work and to keep the contractorâs work at the required level of quality. When to Use It During construction, the contractor is required to imple- ment a quality management plan that includes a witness and hold procedure. Then the agency and contractor agree to spe- cific points when inspections and testing will occur during construction. How to Use It For this tool to be effective, witness and hold points have to be established before construction work begins. The agency and the contractor create an inspection and testing procedure that both parties agree to that will be put in place during construction. Once all specific points are identified, each has to be defined as either a witness point or a hold point. Hold points should include all overly critical points in construction where the agency must grant permission to proceed forward with construction activities. All other points can be designated witness points, where the agency will be present for an inspection, but permission to proceed is not required. For the contract, the agency must provide information to the contractor on the agencyâs inspection and testing pro- cedure and how the witness and hold point process will work. Specifically, the agency should provide the sequence of activities involved in the process, specify the checks or tests to be performed and the acceptance criteria, indicate the hold and witness points for which verification of qual- ity is a prerequisite to the succeeding work, and identify the authority that provides approval for each hold point (Chung 1999). Tips ⢠For this tool to be most effective, the Instructions to Pro- posers (ITP) must be discretely defined so that the contrac- tor understands the inspection and testing requirements of a project. ⢠Innovative practices in using witness and hold points can be developed to make the ITP process more efficient. ExampleâI-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) FDOT implemented witness and hold points during con- struction of the I-595 express corridor project. This PPP proj- ect was the first of its kind in Florida. Therefore, innovative and new techniques had to be established for the overall QAO. Two major procedures of the quality system that affect all project work are the witness and hold procedure and the test- ing and sampling requirements (TSR) procedure, initiated by subcontractors, inspected by the design builder QC, and veri- fied by the Consultant Construction Engineering and Inspec- tion (CCEI). The witness and hold point procedures followed the traditional method, but included a few innovative and technological ideas. For one, all work and materials used to advance the project were recorded and regulated by multiple parties (contractorâs QC staff, CCEI, and OCEI). This helped to validate the con- cessionaireâs work internally and externally. Then, for electri- cal inspections and testing, all requests for witness and hold points were made electronically. The process included email requests that are then converted to text messages so that field personnel can receive the request if email is unavailable. Both of these innovative ideas have helped to produce efficient testing and inspection procedures on the I-595 corridor project. Bibliography Chung, H. W., Understanding Quality Assurance in Construc- tion: A Practical Guide to ISO 9000, E & FN Spon, London, United Kingdom, 1999. Gransberg, D. D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar, NCHRP Synthe- sis 376: Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, 130 pp. Hoyle, D., ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook: Using the Stan- dards as a Framework for Business Improvement, 6th Edition, Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2009. WSDOT, Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Devel- opment, June 2004. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ 46196EB8-F9D0-4290-8F55-68786B1DA556/0/Design- Build_GuidebookJun2004.pdf
60 B.21 Continuous Internal Process Audit QC procedures are developed prior to beginning work. Then, as the work occurs, the necessary parties utilize the proper QC procedures to check the work. Once QC testing and inspections are complete, an audit of the QC procedure can take place to verify that the agency is following the QC procedures correctly. Compatible QAOs Acceptance What Is It? A quality system (or process) audit is an independent and documented process for obtaining evidence on various aspects of quality performance and then evaluating this evidence objectively to determine whether established criteria have been met (Juran and Godfrey 1999; Hoyle 2009). Auditing provides the agency with assurance that a specific aspect of performance is being met (Juran and Godfrey 1999). According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), continuous audit- ing is a method used to perform control and risk assessments on a high-frequency basis (n.d.). Essentially, a continuous internal process audit is a procedure where each party that is part of a project team performs audits of its quality control procedures on a regular basis. Why Use It? Specific QC procedures developed prior to the start of a project help an agency to perform the correct QC for the work the agency completes. Yet, there are times when the QC procedures are complex and/or for special or uncommon work. In these cases, it is beneficial for the organization to perform continuous internal audits of the QC processes. What Does It Do? Internal process audits help the agency to verify that the project QC procedures were followed correctly and completely (UDOT 2011). This additional verification provides internal assurance that the work that a party completes is performed using QC procedures developed prior to beginning of the project. When to Use It Continuous internal process audits should be used to audit QC procedures once the work is complete, and necessary testing and inspections have occurred. Audits can also occur before each review meeting and, specifically for the agency, before advertisement and procurement or releasing docu- ments for construction. How to Use It Each organization that is part of the project team (agency, design team, contractor, etc.) has to provide an auditor to perform the internal process audit (UDOT 2011). This audi- tor then performs audits on the work that that organization performed and only the work that it performed. Once specific QC procedures are completed, QC inspection and/or testing documentation is submitted to the agency. The auditor then verifies whether the submitted documentation is complete and that the proper QC procedures were followed. If deficiencies are determined during the review, the auditor returns the documentation with comments to the agency individuals who originally submitted the QC documents. If no issues are found in the audit, then the auditor signs off on the QC documentation and work goes forward. Tips It is beneficial for the agency to use this tool as well as encourage or require all contracted parties to utilize this tool. ExampleâI-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) FDOT required a continuous internal process audit for the I-595 Express Corridor Project. This was the first time that the PPP project delivery method was used by FDOT for any project. The contract called for a concessionaire team to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the project for 30 years after completion of construction. This put the responsibility for quality on the concessionaire as ultimately it was in the concessionaireâs best interest to provide high quality to minimize future operation and maintenance costs. This meant that the overall quality management plan had to be adjusted for PPP. In this case, the Acceptance QAO was used. In the Acceptance QAO, FDOT was responsible for inde- pendent assurance and had an OCEI to perform these duties. The concessionaire team was then responsible for all other elements of quality management. This was accomplished with a mandatory requirement from FDOT for direct audit- ing by the OCEI, who was hired by FDOT, and direct auditing by the CEI, who was contracted under the concessionaire. Bibliography Hoyle, D., ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook: Using the Standards as a Framework for Business Improvement, 6th Edition, Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2009.
61 Juran, J. M., and A. B. Godfrey, Juranâs Quality Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1999. The Institute of Internal Auditors. n.d. https://na.theiia.org/ Pages/iiahome.aspx UDOT, Quality Control/Quality Assurance Procedures, July 2011. http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n= 2520422050557729 B.22 Real-Time Electronic Quality Management Information Real-time electronic management of quality management information (and other project documents) was the most fre- quently utilized tool observed in the case studies examined for this guidebook. The benefits and uses of such systems are many and various. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? While listed as a single tool, in reality, electronic manage- ment of the quality management process can look very dif- ferent depending on the needs of the project and agency. At a minimum, such a system should allow for the uploading and organizing of daily reports for review and submission to the necessary team members. The reports can then be referenced and their submission verified later if needed. Some systems incorporate recording devices for inspectors to use in the field, which can then automatically upload checklists and inspection results. Other systems provide statistical analysis and decision tools, integrated databases, and administrative tools for use at an enterprise/agency-wide level. In addition, utilizing a central location for all QC tests and a system to flag failed tests can be very useful on large projects where non-complying sections of work may not be fixed immediately. Why Use It? The benefits of an electronic data management system (EDMS) vary based on the scope of the system and the level at which project participants utilize it. The primary benefits are organizing large volumes of information and providing a clear record of submission, receipt, and approval of everything from daily reports to QC tests performed by a third party. Deploying a system to the field in the form of handheld devices streamlines the inspection process and ensures that every item of work is checked so that any incomplete reports can be flagged for review. What Does It Do? The use of software (and some hardware devices) to man- age quality management provides several advantages. First, it organizes project documents in a centralized location for later reference. This is vital on large transportation or infra- structure projects where large volumes of information and reports are generated daily or weekly. Second, this tool pro- vides users with access to information they are authorized to view and alter via the Internet or an intranet. Third, the tool tracks non-compliance issues and ensures that all areas of concern are followed up on and closed out. Finally, electronic management of quality management information is custom- izable. For the most part, if project managers can imagine a type of functionality and justify the expenditure to acquire it, software and hardware companies can find a way to develop it. When to Use It As projects grow in size and complexity, the use of an elec- tronic information management system also becomes valuable. While these systems provide the organization and standardiza- tion needed by projects spanning long time periods and large geographic distances, they can also be useful on smaller projects when they are set up to contribute information to a large data- base that the agency can use in future decisions. How to Use It The implementation of electronic management of quality management information requires varying levels of commit- ment from an STAâs staff depending on the types of informa- tion to be captured and the level of functionality required. A simple system would provide a central location for depositing and organizing electronic files with varying levels of access for different project team members and might only exist for the life of the project. More complex, enterprise-level systems would require the buy-in of agency upper management in procuring the necessary equipment and software develop- ment services, of field inspectors to use the systems to their full potential, of contractors and designers to use the system, and of the agency as a whole to use information gleaned from one project as part of a database of knowledge for future projects. Examples SH 130 Turnpike Project (TxDOT) TxDOT used a particularly comprehensive EDMS on their SH 130 Turnpike Project, completed in 2008. The Electronic Laboratory Verification Information System (ELVIS) was a web-based EDMS developed to support the construction
62 quality assurance program. ELVIS supported the input of 43 different field and laboratory test results as well as their correlation with the results of agency verification testing. ELVIS provided a wide range of data-management, project- management, and deficiency-monitoring functions as well as statistical analysis and enterprise-level management tools. The system was credited with large reductions in the number of non-conformance reports generated as well as a significant reduction (18.7% to 4.6%) in the amount of uncorrected material deficiencies (Yuan, Fu, and Raba 2006). Portland Transit Mall Revitalization (TriMet) The Portland Transit Mall Revitalization Project included the installation of a light rail line along the entire length of the Portland Transit Mall. This CMGC project, managed by TriMet transit agency, utilized electronic collection and reporting of quality control systems. This allowed the TriMet resident engineer to streamline the reporting process and provided easy access to a searchable database of reports for later reference that included field reports and laboratory testing results. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) The USACE uses a contract administration program known as the Resident Management System (RMS), of which the Quality Assurance System (QAS) and the contractor- accessible Quality Control System (QCS) are components. This comprehensive system provides project management and control functionality for all aspects of construction. The QCS allows contractors to exchange daily QC reports, material test results, and correspondence with USACE personnel and allows them to âperform quality control activities more consistentlyâ (USACE 2011). Bibliography Migliaccio, G. C., G. E. Gibson, and J. T. OâConnor, âPro- curement of Design-Build Services: Two-Phase Selection for Highway Projects,â Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009, pp. 29â39. USACE, Quality Control System: User Manual and Training Guide, 2011. http://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rms_qcs_ manuals/qcs_manual_2_38.pdf Yuan, J., C. N. Fu, and G. W. Raba, âImplementation of a Web- Based Electronic Data Management System: Case Study of Highway Megaproject Construction Material Quality Assurance Program,â Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1956, Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 1â13. B.23 Financial Incentives/ Disincentives for Quality The use of financial incentives to speed project delivery is well established in the highway construction industry. Less common is the use of financial incentives (or disincentives) for quality management purposes. This tool can be a cost- effective way to elicit performance from contractors, design builders, or CMGCs that goes above and beyond the estab- lished minimum levels of quality. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight What Is It? Financial incentives and disincentives for quality are com- posed of appropriate contract clauses defining incentive terms as well as the necessary mechanisms for comparing a contrac- torâs performance to the incentive criteria and awarding earned incentives or withholding payment as part of a disincentive. Why Use It? Incentive clauses are one way that STAs can increase the level of quality on their projects without needing to revise their quality standards or define an optimum allocation of resources toward quality. By incentivizing contractors to exceed quality minimums, STAs can let contractors allocate their resources toward earning quality incentives in the most cost-effective manner possible, resulting in increased levels of quality for minimum increases in cost. Disincentives are useful in motivating contractors to address the concerns of an STA and to address non-compliance issues in a timely manner. By establishing the right to charge con- tractors for their failure to address shortcomings quickly in the contract, STAs can demonstrate their commitment to the timely resolution of unsatisfactory work without need- ing to confront contractors through the dispute process. Dis- incentives can also be used to encourage high-quality work by essentially âchargingâ contractors for substandard work. What Does It Do? Incentives essentially provide a bonus to the contractor for performing at a high-quality level. When a contractor has the ability to increase income on a project by performing, the project will benefit from the increased care in performance. Disincentives essentially provide a charge to the contractor for not performing at the level of quality required by the agency. In this case, the contractor loses income on a project. Contrac- tors do not like to lose income; therefore, the contractor will
63 try to perform at a high level of quality consistently or repair the deficient work as quickly as possible. When to Use It Incentive clauses should be used when project managers have a clear idea of which aspects of a projectâs quality they would like to see maximized. When project managers are unsure of their priorities, it may be difficult to accurately award incentives when they are earned. Disincentive clauses should be used when project managers have specific quality or procedural concerns. If ride quality, dimensional tolerances, and so forth are particularly impor- tant to a project, managers may consider using disincentives in conjunction with incentives to encourage the production of high-quality work. Disincentives can also be useful when project managers want to discourage certain behaviors such as delaying the correction of substandard work or failing to meet schedule deadlines. How to Use It The use of incentives/disincentives requires several key components. First, the contract clauses related to their use must clearly spell out the purpose of the incentives/disincentives, the targeted type of performance or behavior, the criteria for evaluating the contractorâs performance, the value of awards or disincentives, and the source of the money for the incentive award pool or where disincentive fines will come from. Second, STAs must provide some means of evaluating the priorities laid out in the contract against a contractorâs performance using pre-defined criteria. Finally, there must be some mech- anism for transferring award funds from the incentive pool to the contractor and for withholding payment from or levying charges against the contractor for disincentives. Tips Award funds do not need to be dedicated solely to schedule or quality incentives but can instead be pooled together along with incentive programs (safety, environmental compliance, community relations, etc.). This general incentive fund can be filled entirely with agency funds or can be partially filled with contractor funds. In the second scenario, the money âbelongsâ to the contractor and is theirs to lose or win depending on performance. Examples T.H. 61 Hastings Bridge Project (MnDOT) On the Hastings River Bridge Project, MnDOT used finan- cial disincentives to ensure that the contractor promptly dealt with non-compliance issues. Subject to MnDOTâs determi- nation, the contractor could be assessed a $100/hour mon- etary deduction for failure to facilitate satisfactory progress or completion of the work. Hourly charges could be applied during periods when MnDOT determined that the contrac- tor had not satisfactorily responded to a documented non- compliance. No charge was to be assessed if the contractor corrected the deficiency within 1 hour of written notification from MnDOT. I-15 Widening and Beck Street Bridge Project (UDOT) UDOT established an incentive program on the project to widen I-15 near Beck Street to provide the design builder with the opportunity to earn âIncentive Awardsâ for superior performance in certain key areas of the project. UDOT devel- oped the program to encourage and reward consistent excellence in achievement of the technical specifications, workmanship, and the administrative program requirements. The design builder could only earn the awards through clear and consistent superior performance over the term of the contract. UDOT capped the incentive fund at $1.2 million, and scope expan- sion would not increase the fund. However, scope reductions could reduce the fund. The agencyâs goal was for the design builder to perform in a manner that allowed for the maximum possible award. The agency predefines and weights the various incentive criteria for each incentive period appropriately to ensure high-quality performance in areas most critical to the agency. Bibliography Anderson, S. D., and J. S. Russell, NCHRP Report 451: Guidelines for Warranty, Multi-Parameter, and Best Value Contracting, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 76 pp. Sillars, D. N., Establishing Guidelines for Incentive/Disincentive Contracting at ODOT. ODOT Research Group, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2007. B.24 Contractor-Controlled QC Testing While the concept of contractors performing their own QC testing is not new, some transportation agencies still require that the contractor hire a third-party, independent, material testing and inspection laboratory to perform the actual tests and inspections required for the project. With the removal of this requirement, contractors receive greater schedule flex- ibility, and project costs can decrease without sacrificing the level of quality on the project.
64 Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? This tool removes restrictions placed on contractors that force them to retain an independent laboratory for QC test- ing and inspection. Why Use It? While construction projects are planned, and given sections of work are scheduled to be completed at certain times, those plans and schedules are not always kept or met. While sched- ules can be adjusted to make up for lost time, the inclusion of third-party inspectors and materials testing labs can greatly complicate efforts to reschedule work or take advantage of a faster than anticipated rate of progress. Allowing contractors to utilize their own directly employed personnel for QC test- ing and inspection ensures that contractors will always have someone on hand to perform QC functions when needed. This schedule flexibility itself can save some projects money, but further savings are realized by removing the overhead and profit costs of independent laboratories. What Does It Do? Allowing contractors to perform QC functions using their own personnel simplifies scheduling, reduces costs, and maintains equivalent levels of quality when compared to requiring a third party to perform the same functions. Allowing contractor-controlled QC testing is done by removing contract clauses that require the use of indepen- dent laboratories or independent inspectors or inserting clauses that present contractors with the option to use their own personnel provided certain conditions are met. When to Use It This tool is compatible with all five possible QAOs because contractors are always responsible for construction QC func- tions on their projects. However, removing requirements for contractors to retain an independent laboratory to perform those functions should only be done when three conditions can be met. First, the contractor must have the capability and capacity to perform the types and volume of testing and inspection necessary. Second, the contractor must be able to demonstrate that removing the requirement for an indepen- dent, third-party firm will result in improved schedule per- formance and/or reduced costs for the contractor and agency. Finally, the agency must establish a prior relationship with the contractor or have some way of verifying the contractorâs reputation for delivering high-quality projects. How to Use It The actual implementation of the tool itself is straight- forward: it involves removing clauses from a project contract or standard specifications for a project that require a contractor to retain a third-party independent laboratory to perform QC inspection and testing. The removed material must be replaced with a clause that establishes acceptable certifica- tion bodies or levels that inspectors and technicians directly employed by the contractor need to have. The addition of this clause involves an understanding of the types of inspections and tests that must be performed and the certifications neces- sary to perform them. Tips Rather than removing clauses that require independent QC inspectors and technicians outright, agencies may con- sider inserting language in the contract or specifications presenting the option to the contractor to self-perform QC functions provided that certain conditions are met and that the contractor can demonstrate the benefits of performing QC itself. ExampleâPortland Transit Mall Revitalization (TriMet) TriMet typically requires that contractors hire an outside, independently certified laboratory to perform QC testing. On TriMetâs South Corridor Light Rail Extension Project however, the agency allowed the contractor to use directly employed inspectors and technicians to do the QC testing. TriMetâs willingness to do this was based in part on the reputa- tions for quality and integrity of both parties in the contract- ing joint venture and in part on TriMetâs requirement that all inspectors and technicians be nationally certified to perform the needed inspections and testing. This decision saved the contractor money and streamlined the scheduling process by removing the inherent scheduling complications that occur when dealing with an independent firm without sacrificing quality. Bibliography Caltrans, Quality Control Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt for the Quality Control Quality Assurance Process, Division of Con- struction, June 2009. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/ qcqaman1.pdf
65 FHWA, Contractor Quality Control Plans, Contractor Guide- lines, and Example Quality Control Plan, USDOT, Federal Lands Highway Office, Washington, D.C. February 1998. http://www.cflhd.gov/resources/construction/documents/ qc_plans.pdf B.25 ISO 9000 Training Sessions Many alternative contracting strategies that highway proj- ects utilize allow the agency to pass along quality respon- sibilities to the contractor. In these instances, the agency is in a position to oversee and verify quality, but the contrac- tor handles most of the formal quality tasks. This helps to decrease quality responsibilities for the agency and reduces the resources needed for a project. Yet, since the agency has little or no part in most quality activities in this setup, the agency needs a way ensure that the selected contractor can meet the quality, cost, and delivery requirements (Hoyle 2009). One way to accomplish this is providing quality management training for all individuals and associated firms involved with construct- ing the project. Compatible QAOs Acceptance What Is It? ISO 9000 is a set of standardized requirements for a QMS that assist with managing quality. The International Organi- zation of Standardization (ISO) maintains the standards. The ISO 9000 requirements provide a common foundation for instilling a quality culture in organizations that embrace eight quality principles (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008). ISO 9000âs quality management objective is to âbreak down communication barriers, change paradigms, and ensure that every department in an organization knows how its work affects other processes or areas in the organization. Aligning a quality management system with the organizationâs current management system facilitates planning, allocating resources, defining complementary objectives, and evaluating the orga- nizationâs overall effectivenessâ (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008, Hoyle 2009). Why Use It? When the agency places most of the quality management responsibilities on the selected contractor (i.e., Acceptance QAO), it reduces the quality management responsibilities of the agency. Therefore, the agency needs fewer resources to carry out quality management responsibilities. However, the agency must still be confident that the contractor is meeting the required level of quality. One way to assist in this pro- cess is to require the contractor to provide ISO 9000 quality management training to the contractorâs employees, which includes training internal personnel and the subcontractors contracted under the selected contractor. Requiring quality management training for all involved in constructing the project helps the contractor to achieve the level of quality that the agency expects. What Does It Do? This tool provides the agency with a way to require a spe- cific level of quality and a common understanding of the quality management system when the agency is not assum- ing most or any of quality management responsibilities on a project. The tool requires the contractor to train all involved with building the project in ISO 9000 quality management principles. When to Use It This tool is most effective for projects that put more of the QAO responsibilities on the contractor. In the Acceptance QAO, the agency monitors and accepts the work based on quality, while the contractor performs the rest of the project quality responsibilities. This âhands offâ approach by the agency means that a large amount of trust needs to be established between the agency and the contractor so that the agency can trust that the contractor will meet to the level of quality required by the project. Actual training of contractor and subcontractor personnel may occur at many different times throughout the duration of a project depending on when those personnel are actually involved in the project. How to Use It To use this tool properly, the agency must require con- tractually that the contractor utilize ISO 9000 quality man- agement principles and provide ISO 9000 training for all of its staff and the subcontractors that are involved with the project. The agency must then enforce the ISO 9000 training. To accomplish this, the agency might consider assisting the contractor with the training. Alternatively, the agency can require bidding contractors to have ISO-9000-certified indi- viduals on the project team. Another approach that an agency can use is to hire an ISO-9000-certified team to provide the ISO 9000 training or require the contractor to hire this con- sultant team. The ISO 9000 consultant can provide proper training to make sure that all involved in the project have a common
66 understanding of the quality expected on the project. The cost of hiring the consultant may be offset by the cost savings realized when an entire team has the same understanding of quality goals and objectives. Tips Refer to the Section B.25 bibliography for additional infor- mation on ISO 9000 quality management. ISO 9000 is not commonly used on U.S. transportation projects, but it is an internationally accepted system that has a record of providing successful quality management. This tool can be used in the same manner as other QMSs that the agency may be more familiar with, such as the advanced quality system (AQS) approach developed by the FHWA. Refer to Miron, Rogers, and Kopac (2008) for more information on the AQS approach. ExampleâI-595 Express Corridor Project (FDOT) FDOT established ISO 9000 training for the I-595 Express Corridor Project. This highway reconstruction and improve- ment project was FDOTâs first PPP project. Therefore, FDOT had to adjust the QAO to match the PPP method. For this project, the Acceptance QAO was utilized, making the devel- opment of the QMS and the provision of the associated staff the responsibility of the concessionaire. The concessionaire selected for the project had experience internationally with PPP projects and several team mem- bers held ISO 9000 certifications in Europe. This experience and knowledge of ISO 9000 proved useful on the project in reducing the learning curve associated with managing the full QMS for the project. However, the concessionaire had lim- ited knowledge of local subcontractors and their experience related to the PPP delivery method and quality management in general. As a result, the concessionaire trained the 160+ sub- contractors on the project QMS. This helped to develop the subcontractorsâ knowledge of PPP and ISO 9000 requirements and additionally helped to develop a working relationship between the concessionaire and the subcontractors. It should be noted that ISO 9000 was not required for this project, and the requirements were only used as reference material by the concessionaire due to the ISO certifications held by several team members. Bibliography Chini, A. R., and H. E. Valdez, âISO 9000 and the U.S. Con- struction Industry,â Journal of Management in Engineer- ing, ASCE, Vol. 19, No. 2, Washington, D.C., April 2003, pp. 69â77. Hoyle, D., ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook: Using the Stan- dards as a Framework for Business Improvement, 6th Edition, Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2009. International Organization for Standardization, http://www. iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/-management_and_leadership_ standards/quality_management.htm Miron, A., R. B. Rogers, and P. A. Kopac, âApplying Advanced Quality Systems in the Highway Industry,â Public Roads, Vol. 72, No. 2, September/October 2008, pp. 1â14. B.26 Project-Specific Quality Management Team Training Agencies implement quality training of their personnel to emphasize the importance of high-level project quality. The extent of the training corresponds to the scope and complexity of the project, along with the education and experience of the personnel. Compatible QAOs Deterministic, Assurance, Variable, Oversight, Acceptance What Is It? All quality management personnel receive project-specific training necessary to achieve quality and technical requirements relating to their activities and, more importantly, understand how the project quality control plan will be executed on the given project. The requirements are specified in the contract documents and in the project quality control plan. If the qual- ity management personnel are performing an activity that requires certification, then the certification will be received after proper training. Why Use It? Training for quality management personnel is specified in order to emphasize the importance of quality as well as to highlight the concept that quality is best achieved when the work is installed the first time. Finally, mandatory training for quality management personnel encourages the exchange of quality-related information among the project team members and reduces non-compliance. What Does It Do? Training for quality management personnel provides indi- viduals with the necessary skills and knowledge to achieve a
67 suitable level of quality in project activities, as specified by contract documents. Training ensures the establishment of high quality from the beginning of the project and establishes that personnel responsible for achieving quality are qualified to do so. When to Use It This tool can be used on any project at any time through- out the project whether implemented by the agency or the contractor. How to Use It Each quality management personnel member receives training necessary to satisfy the quality and technical require- ments of a project, as specified by construction documents for the element of work to be performed. All personnel receive training on the project quality control plan and their specific roles from the design builderâs quality manager. The extent of the training received by each quality management person- nel member depends on their education and experience and the scope of the work. Quality management personnel are responsible for the quality of the work. ExampleâMountain View Corridor Project (UDOT) UDOT has used quality management personnel training for the Mountain View Corridor Project. Quality manage- ment personnel are expected to have the necessary education, training, and certifications for their discipline. Furthermore, any individual who has an impact on quality through per- forming an activity is required to be familiar with the con- tract document specifications. Bibliography Brown, T. J., R. Hallenbeck, M. Baird, and C. Rice, âA Transpor- tation Executiveâs Guide to Organizational Improvement,â Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-24(42) âGuidelines for State DOT Quality Management Systems,â June 2006. MnDOT, Quality Management Process for Design-Bid-Build Final Plan Development, MnDOT, April 2012. http://www. dot.state.mn.us/design/qmp/documents/QMP-manual.pdf