Agency Use of Quality Control Plans for Administering Quality Assurance Specifications (2022)

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.

5   Background The quality of completed transportation projects plays a pivotal role in the success of a state department of transportation (DOT). These projects represent tangible products by which the public can measure the DOT’s performance in investing tax revenue to improve the state’s infrastructure. As a result, inspection throughout the construction phase is critical to the success of a construction project. State DOTs have devoted major attention and resources to construc- tion quality management, including quality assurance (QA) measures designed to control and verify construction, material, and product quality. In fact, all state DOTs are required by the Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 637 Subpart B – Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction (23 CFR 637) to have a QA program to ensure that the materials and workman- ship incorporated into each federal-aid highway-construction project on the National Highway System (NHS) conform to the requirements of the approved plans and specifications, including approved changes. Historically, state DOTs have specified quality standards, including detailed instructions describing the required materials and construction methods. For many years, state DOTs solely performed testing and inspection to verify construction quality. During those years, there were no formal quality control (QC) requirements (Hughes 2005). State DOTs were responsible for quality control, or QC, by stipulating how the contractor performed the work and monitoring the construction operations to decide if the work was in compliance and if full payment should be made (Hancher et al. 2002). Many state DOTs have recently transferred the responsibility for QC processes to contractors while they continued performing tests for acceptance or verification. The two main reasons for the shift of QC responsibility from the state DOT to the contractor were: (1) if the state DOT controls the contractor’s process, the state DOT implicitly accepts responsibility for the product and must accept it, irrespective of the quality; and (2) it is the contractor’s production equipment and personnel that are used to produce the material and work and, therefore, the best entity to control these items is the contractor (Hughes 2005; Caltrans 2015). An essential component of QC is to develop a QC plan (QCP). Typically, QCPs are written by contractors based on DOT requirements and specifications and approved by state DOTs. Well-developed, proactive QCPs should be used to reduce process variability and prevent rework, as well as to aid in delivering projects on schedule and within budget. However, QCPs are often developed with the sole purpose of meeting agency specification requirements rather than producing a well-reasoned and proactive plan to prevent potential problems. Based on the quality of QCPs being submitted, some DOTs have even stopped requiring QCPs. It is important to note that research and training focused on acceptance sampling and testing is currently available, and national-, regional-, and state-certification programs have been developed C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

6 Agency Use of Quality Control Plans for Administering Quality Assurance Specifications to support those efforts. However, there is a lack of research and training on reviewing the contractor’s QCP and the appropriate methods of DOT oversight of QC inspection and testing activities. Reviewing and documenting the state of the practice in the areas of contractor QC and agency use of QCPs for administering QA specifications, including adequate agency over- sight of the QCP, is the goal of this synthesis. Synthesis Scope, Goals, and Objectives The scope of this synthesis is to use information collected from the literature review, national survey questionnaires, and case-based interviews to establish the current state of the practice of agency use of QCPs for administering QA specifications. The overarching goal of this synthesis is to summarize and document the various QC require- ments used by state DOTs, including how QCPs are reviewed, accepted, and monitored to achieve project specifications, and what actions are being taken by an agency when QCPs are not being followed. The goal was achieved by accomplishing the following objectives: • Identifying requirements of contractors regarding QCPs for various project-delivery methods; • Identifying guidance and/or templates provided by DOTs for QCPs; • Documenting minimum certifications/qualifications for QC personnel required by agencies; • Identifying QCP review and approval/acceptance processes used by DOTs; • Determining DOT compliance monitoring and inspection of contractor implementation of QCPs; • Identifying incentives that DOTs are using to encourage effective and/or innovative QC; • Documenting actions that an agency takes when QCPs are not followed; • Identifying innovative efforts in construction QC; and • Documenting risk in oversight of QCPs. The QCP is a framework for the contractor to deliver quality construction. The main pur- pose of a QCP is to “measure those quality characteristics and to inspect those activities that impact the production at a time when corrective action can be taken to prevent appreciable nonconforming material from being incorporated into the project” (Burati et al. 2003). Most state DOTs have used QCPs in varying manners with varying degrees of success. However, little research has explored and documented effective practices for the areas of contractor QC, including effective agency oversight of the QCP. This synthesis will help state DOTs and trans- portation agencies affirm the effectiveness of practices being used, adopt new practices, or develop an effective strategy for using QCPs for administering QA specifications. In addition to a comprehensive literature review, the synthesis is based on new data from a survey of state DOTs, a set of structured interviews, and case examples. A general survey on the agency use of QC plans provided responses from 43 US state DOTs. The analysis of information was gathered from state DOT construction manuals and specifications, QC guidelines, and relevant QA and QC documents. Finally, seven case examples from different state DOTs were conducted to furnish specific information on the agency use of QCPs for administering QA specifications. Key Definitions To help the reader gain a full understanding of the content of this report, this synthesis will use a number of key terms related to QA and QC. It is recognized that each state may have unique definitions of technical terms describing QA- and QC-related terms. However, to main- tain consistent definitions throughout the report, the following terms are used in this synthesis: Acceptance: The process whereby all factors used by the agency (i.e., sampling, testing, and inspection) are evaluated to determine the degree of compliance with contract

Introduction 7   requirements and to determine the corresponding value for a given product (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Accredited laboratories: Laboratories that are recognized by a formal accrediting body as meeting quality system requirements, including demonstrated competence to perform standard test procedures (AASHTO R 10-06 2019). Certified technician: A technician certified by some agency as proficient in performing certain duties (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC): A project delivery method in which a construction manager is selected to provide input during project design and then becomes at risk for the final cost and time of construction (Tran et al. 2018). Design-bid-build (DBB): A traditional project-delivery method where the design is completed before the construction contract is advertised (AASHTO 2008). Design-build (DB): A project-delivery method where both the design and the construction of the project are simultaneously awarded to a single entity (AASHTO 2008). Dispute resolution: The procedure used to resolve conflicts resulting from discrepancies between the agency’s and the contractor’s results of sufficient magnitude to impact accep- tance and payment (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Independent assurance (IA): Activities that are an unbiased and independent evaluation of all the sampling and testing (or inspection) procedures used in the QA program. IA pro- vides an independent verification of the reliability of the acceptance (or verification) data obtained by the agency and the data obtained by the contractor. The results of IA testing or inspection are not to be used as a basis of acceptance. IA provides information for quality system management (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Inspection: The act of examining, measuring, or testing to determine the degree of compli- ance with requirements (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Process control (PC): A method for keeping a process within boundaries and/or the act of minimizing the variation of a process. PC activities may include sampling, testing, inspec- tion, and corrective action performed by a contractor in addition to QC requirements to improve the likelihood that the final product will meet the specified level of quality (Trans- portation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Public-private partnership (P3): A contractual agreement formed between public- and private-sector organizations, which allows more private-sector participation in heretofore public endeavors. The agreements usually involve a government agency contracting with a private company to finance, renovate, construct, operate, maintain, and/or manage a facility or system (Tran et al. 2018). Qualified technician: A technician who has been determined to be qualified (i.e., meeting some minimum standard) to perform specific duties (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Quality assurance (QA): All those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide con- fidence that a product or facility will perform satisfactorily in service or making sure the quality of a product is what it should be (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). QA specification: Specifications that require contractor QC and agency acceptance activities throughout the production and placement of a product. Final acceptance of the product is usually based on a statistical sampling of the measured quality level for key quality charac- teristics (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Quality characteristic: That characteristic of a unit or product that is actually measured to determine conformance with a given requirement. When the quality characteristic is mea- sured for acceptance purposes, it is an acceptance quality characteristic (AQC); when measured for PC (QC) purposes, it is a process control quality characteristic (Transporta- tion Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Quality control (QC): The process specified by the agency for a contractor to monitor, assess and adjust their production or placement processes to ensure that the final product will

8 Agency Use of Quality Control Plans for Administering Quality Assurance Specifications meet the specified level of quality. This can include state-specified QC requirements and contractor-identified QC in the form of PC (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Quality measure: Any one of several mathematical tools that are used to quantify the level of quality of an individual quality characteristic (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Quality control plan (QCP): A project-specific document prepared by the contractor that identifies all QC personnel and procedures that will be used to maintain all production and placement processes “under control” and meet the agency specification requirements. The document also addresses actions to be taken in the event that a process goes “out of control.” (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C235 2018). Synthesis Methodology This synthesis is the result of an intersection of the following four independent sources of information: • Literature review; • Survey of state DOTs using a web-based questionnaire; • Analysis of information related to QC plans and QA specifications gathered from state DOTs; and • Case examples of agency use of QCPs. The research team conducted a comprehensive literature review of agency use of QCPs and QA specifications. The team searched current academic literature, industry publications, state DOT websites, and government reports to find the most current trends and practices for reviewing the contractor’s QCP and appropriate methods of DOT oversight of QC inspec- tion and testing activities. Based on the information gathered from the literature review and input from the NCHRP panel, the research team developed a questionnaire and conducted a survey of state DOTs. The purpose of the survey was to collect information on current nationwide practices, uses, and implementation of QCPs for administering QA specifications and to identify state DOTs with knowledge and experience that warrant additional investigation. In addition, the question- naire allowed state DOT respondents to provide document links, references to websites, or attachments that offered specific DOT information on the use of QCPs. The survey questionnaire was distributed in web-based and paper-based forms to the mem- bers of the AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements (COMP), which includes members representing all 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT (no response from the District of Columbia). After sending several requests to participate in the survey, 43 com- pleted questionnaires were obtained, providing an 84% response rate. The responses were then tabulated, evaluated, and supplemented with follow-up telephone calls and emails as needed for clarification. Next, the research team analyzed information gathered from state DOT con- struction manuals, QA specifications, reports, guidelines, and templates related to QCPs. Finally, the case examples were conducted to supplement the findings from the survey and obtain specific examples of how QCPs are reviewed, accepted, and monitored and what actions are taken by an agency when QCPs are not being followed. The case examples were selected based on the literature review and survey responses indicating an agency’s willingness to par- ticipate in the research. Additionally, it is equally important to select the cases that can capture the various QC requirements used by state DOTs (e.g., types of QCPs or QC requirements by different project-delivery methods). Seven case examples were conducted with the state DOTs

Introduction 9   of Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. The case examples include documented information from DOT staff and provide specific information related to agency use of QCPs for administering QA specifications. Synthesis Organization This report is composed of five chapters. The first chapter introduces the subject area and covers the scope, objectives, and study methodology. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the most relevant issues to QCPs and QA programs and specifications. This chapter briefly discusses QA programs, QA for alternative-contracting methods, construction quality and inspection, an overview of contractor QCPs, and review and acceptance of QCPs. Chapter 3 discusses current practices of reviewing the contractor’s QCP and appropriate methods of DOT oversight of QC inspection and testing activities. This chapter presents key findings related to how QCPs are reviewed, accepted, and monitored to achieve project specifications and what actions are being taken by an agency when QCPs are not being followed. Chapter 4 presents seven case examples regarding how state DOTs use QCPs for administering their QA specification. This chapter discusses, in detail, issues related to QC plans and QA programs, QC plan review and approval processes, and innovative efforts in construction QC. Finally, Chapter 5 briefly sum- marizes the information presented in previous chapters and offers conclusions and opportuni- ties for future research regarding the contractor’s QC plan and appropriate methods of DOT oversight of QC inspection and testing activities. The synthesis also includes a references section, a list of acronyms, and four appendices.