Guidelines for Optimizing the Risk and Cost of Materials QA Programs (2017)

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.

1 Project Background and Objectives In response to shrinking budgets and dramatic reductions in both the numbers and expe- rience levels of inspectors and engineers, several state departments of transportation (DOT) are seeking ways to achieve greater efficiencies in quality management, often targeting cur- rent practices that may be either disproportionate to what is needed to ensure a quality product [e.g., does a concrete sidewalk warrant the same level of quality assurance (QA) as a bridge deck?] or outdated given advances in testing technology (i.e., is there a more efficient or effective way to accept this material?). The purpose of such inquiry is not to downplay the importance of QA but to recognize that it is an inherently scalable activity driven by, among other considerations, an orga- nization’s tolerance for risk, material/product variability, and cost. A well-designed QA program can provide confidence that the materials and workmanship incorporated into a project will be in reasonably close conformance to the approved plans and specifications. Conversely, an inadequate QA plan can increase the risk of short- and long-term failures, possibly leading to reduced design life, increased maintenance costs, service interruptions, and/or safety hazards. Logically, the more comprehensive and robust the QA strategy, the less risk of material failure or non-conformance; however, an overly rigorous QA plan can result in unnecessary project costs—an outcome that most agencies cannot afford in this time of flat or declining resources. The objective of NCHRP Project 10-92 was to therefore develop a methodology to help DOTs identify and evaluate opportunities to optimize or enhance their materials QA prac- tices to achieve a better balance between efficiency and risk reduction. For example, modifi- cations or enhancements to an existing QA strategy might entail adopting a less rigorous plan (e.g., fewer tests, use of verified contractor test data for acceptance purposes, and/or greater reliance on certification or inspection) to achieve the same result or incorporating more advanced, performance-oriented acceptance tests—even at a higher cost—if such practices improve durability, reduce the risk of failure, or enhance performance. Research Approach and Key Findings To develop this methodology, the research team assessed the current state of practice of materials QA by performing a thorough review of relevant research, regulatory require- ments, guidance manuals, and other appropriate material on QA and risk management as they relate to transportation construction projects. S u m m a r y Guidelines for Optimizing the Risk and Cost of Materials QA Programs

2 Guidelines for Optimizing the risk and Cost of materials Qa Programs This literature review effort was supplemented by an industry survey of 37 state Depart- ments of Transportation (DOTs) and individual interviews conducted with 8 DOTs. Key findings from the literature and data collection efforts, summarized in “Part 1: Research Report,” include the following: • Current material QA practices vary widely among DOTs, and what is acceptable for one DOT may not be for another. QA practices are also evolving, particularly with regard to increased use of alternative project delivery methods that shift more responsibility to indus- try for managing quality, and with advances in general understanding of materials/product behavior and use of more performance-based quality measures and non-destructive test- ing technologies that provide for continuous sampling and data collection. To appeal to a national audience of DOTs, the optimization model must be sufficiently flexible and robust to accommodate the range of materials and acceptance practices in use today as well as any new products or practices that may emerge in the future. The goal of the model is not to prescribe quality management solutions but to create a flexible framework that DOTs may customize or tailor to suit their own programs and projects. • Several DOTs currently optimize their materials QA practices to some extent, particularly for acceptance, by modifying their standard sampling and testing schedule to reflect dif- ferent tiers or levels of effort based on material criticality, quantities, type/size of project, project delivery method, and similar factors. There were no noteworthy differences in the types of optimization strategies used that could be correlated to a DOT’s size, geographic location, or other factors, suggesting that these strategies could be universally applied. • Some DOTs have developed processes to incorporate risk considerations in their materials QA practices. This is essentially an extension of DOT efforts to tier materials QA based on the criticality of materials by applying a more formal framework for risk-rating materials. Although these processes are largely qualitative in nature, they suggest that a solid founda- tion exists for developing and implementing a more in-depth process for optimizing the costs and risks of materials QA, as contemplated under this research project. • Although there are abundant examples of QA optimization models in the literature, related research studies suggest that real world application of quality cost calculations is not common, largely due to difficulties in identifying and tracking actual costs of quality (i.e., costs of prevention, appraisal, and failure). Research Product Based on the findings summarized above, the research team developed a flexible meth- odology, as described in “Part 2: Guidelines,” for identifying an appropriate QA invest- ment point for materials incorporated into transportation construction projects based on an analysis of risks and costs. As QA practices vary widely among DOTs, the goal of the “Guidelines” is not only to pre- scribe quality management solutions but instead to provide a flexible analytical framework that can be applied to the range of materials acceptance practices in use today as well as to any new products or practices that may emerge in the future. Recognizing the difficulty that some users may encounter in identifying and measuring the costs of quality, a three-level optimization framework was developed that allows for both qualitative and quantitative evaluation options. The anticipated benefits of the “Guidelines” include: • Enhanced understanding of the cost and value of materials QA, • More efficient allocation of QA resources, and • Better alignment between project risk profile, delivery method, and QA practices to help agencies deliver a quality project for the lowest overall cost.