Alternative Quality Management Systems for Highway Construction (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX G: TUTTLE CREEK DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE PROJECT, KANSAS Project Information Project Name: Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Assurance Project Name of Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Location: Tuttle Creek, north of the Manhattan, Kansas, along the Big Blue River Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CM/GC, PPP, etc.): CM/GC Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Best-Value Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): Progressive GMP using FAR Clause 16.403-2 Fixed-price incentive (successive targets) contracts Project Description The Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Assurance Project is the largest Dam Safety, ground modification project on an active Dam that has ever been performed. This project consisted of multiple contracts to make various repairs to the dam. The Ground Modification base contract was awarded in 2005 to Treviicos South for $49M (this was the ECI/CMGC Contract). A contract to provide structural reinforcement and bearing rehabilitation on the 18 Spillway Tainter Gates was awarded in 2007 and completed in 2010 for $10M. The wire ropes for the Tainter Gates will be replaced in 2011 and 2012. The Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Assurance Project included the following activities: • Construction of cement slurry walls for stabilization of the downstream foundation • Construction of a relief well buried collector system • Construction of an upstream riprap overlay • Spillway rehabilitation • Structural lead paint and repainting Project Quality Profile The QMS that was used on this project was not substantially different from that used by other agencies. USACE has documentation outlining the approach to QA and quality procedures on projects. Also, an individual project specific QMP was written for the Tuttle Creek Dam project. In addition, the construction, design and project management organizations were all ISO certified. Owner’s reasons for using alternate QMS There was an implication or thought that if the construction contractor is involved throughout the design process, the design quality, and construction quality should both be better. However, the construction contractor was brought in early for technical expertise more than quality concerns. 237

The belief was that the quality had to be better than going with a traditional method, but it was difficult to quantify. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: Original Program Amount was $206M ($250M when adjusted for inflation to mid-point of construction) Final Total Awarded Value of project: $175M ($122M for the ECI Portion of Work) Project Schedule: Project Approved to start process: Design period was from June 2004 to Dec 2007 Contract Award: 09/07/2005 Construction Contract Award. No date for design contract award as design was in-house by the District Engineering Staff. Original Project Delivery Period: 2012 days Final Project Delivery Period: 2391 days Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Table G1: Agency Project Delivery Method Experience Project Delivery Method Legislative/Legal Authority Number of years of experience with PDM DBB ☐NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ✔General authorization ☐NA; ☐1-5; ☐5-10; ✔ > 10 CMGC ☐NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ✔General authorization ☐NA; ☐1-5; ✔5-10;☐ > 10 DB ☐NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ✔General authorization ☐NA; ☐1-5; ☐5-10;✔ > 10 PPP ✔NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ☐General authorization ✔NA; ☐1-5; ☐5-10;☐ > 10 Other ☐NA; ☐Pilot projects only; ☐General authorization ☐NA; ☐1-5; ☐5-10;☐ > 10 Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process The primary delivery method was Early Contractor Involvement, which is the USACE version of CM/GC. However, it should be noted that this contract contained multiple Contract Line Items, some of which were 100% designed at the time of construction solicitation. The selected delivery method had a positive result on the outcome of the project. The project delivery team felt the project was so complex that it would benefit from having real time construction contractor feedback as the design progressed. A formal acquisition plan was not created for this solicitation. Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) was the selected delivery method because the Project Delivery Team (PDT) felt it needed the construction expertise of a contractor to be a part of the development of the design. This was an in-house design so ECI was the chosen delivery method that could provide the real-time constructor feedback. This feedback was especially necessary given the fact that this was a high risk active dam. Per the solicitation, the contractors experience in working on high risk dams was taken into account. The interaction between the Corps and Contractor during the design process helped the PDT develop a design that resulted in an economical fix ($75M under budget) that minimized dam safety concerns with few frivolous/costly modifications. Market research 238

and a pre-solicitation meeting were held. The market research indicated there were offerors available to execute this type of work. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method The most significant reason for choosing the selected project delivery method was to get early construction contractor involvement. Additional reasons included: Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Flexibility needs during construction phase Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Cost, schedule and scope Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Risk Register Risk Assessment Techniques: Monte Carlo Simulation Risk Management Techniques: Contingencies for cost and time, schedule simulation Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Climatology analysis to assign average number of weather days per month and asphalt, diesel and steel escalation clauses. A 2002 Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement indicated that the Tuttle Creek Dam was at an unacceptable level of risk if an earthquake was to occur. The consequences of an earthquake-induced breach would include the loss of the dam, extensive downstream damage and a high potential loss of life. As is typical for USACE projects, contracts include terms and conditions to allocate risk to the appropriate project parties. The required risk assessment process involves two steps, a detailed definition of the problem, and the development of an event tree to provide a framework for analyzing the annual economic risk of various alternatives. Once the risk assessment process has been followed the most feasible alternative can be selected. USACE may deem a risk analysis or risk assessment of the slope stability of a project to be appropriate due to changes in performance of the slope, changes in design criteria, or changes to the loading conditions. Examples of risk analyses utilized by USACE include: • Poisson Distribution • The Six Sigma Rule 239

• Expert Elicitation in Geological and Geotechnical Engineering - the formal quantification of expert opinion into judgmental probabilities. • Weibull Distribution - the most general method for developing a historic frequency of occurrence model. This method of reliability analysis is used to determine the probability of failure, reliability, or hazard function of a component with time using unsatisfactory performance data. • Monte Carlo simulation - a method of reliability analysis that should be used only when the system to be analyzed becomes too complex for use of simpler methods of reliability analysis. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Procurement Phase Summary Table G2: Administrative and Performance Based Prequalification Requirement Designer prequalification program factors Prequalification Type Administrative Performance Based Prequalification required for all projects ☐ ☐ Prequalification required for selected projects only ✔ ✔ Prequalification standards are the same for all projects ☐ ☐ Prequalification standards are different by project class ☐ ☐ Construction prequalification program factors Administrative Performance Based Prequalification required for all projects ☐ ☐ Prequalification required for selected projects only ✔ ✔ Prequalification standards are the same for all projects ☐ ☐ Prequalification standards are different by project class ☐ ☐ Table G3: Required Bidding Documents Requirements of the project advertising/solicitation documents (i.e. IFB, RFQ, RFP, etc.) Required proposal/ bid package submittal Evaluated to make the award decision Required submittal after contract award Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager ☐ ☐ ☐ Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager ☐ ☐ ✔ Qualifications of other Quality Management Personnel (design reviewers, construction inspectors, technicians, etc.) (Note 1) ✔ ✔ ✔ Design quality management plan N/A (Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Design quality assurance plan N/A (Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Design quality control plan N/A(Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction quality management plan N/A(Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction quality assurance plan N/A(Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction quality control plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Quality management roles and responsibilities ☐ ☐ ✔ Design criteria checklists N/A (Internal) ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction testing matrix ☐ ☐ ✔ Quality-based incentive/disincentive features (Note 2) ☐ ☐ ☐ Warranties ☐ ☐ ☐ Optional warranties ☐ ☐ ☐ 240

Note 1: The advisory staff was required to submit their qualifications and that was a factor in the award of their consulting contract. The construction contractor had a design office liaison position that had qualification requirements that were required by the contract but not evaluated. Note 2: The government created an incentive on this contract that attempted to recognize the construction contractor’s efforts during pre-construction services. This was tied to quality and if specific kinds of changes did not occur, the construction contractor would share in the remaining funds of the incentive. This was stipulated by the government at the outset but during contractor performance was renegotiated by the government and the contractor to better align with contract performance specifics (wanted to properly incentive the contractor) Design Phase Summary Table G4: Design Quality Management Roles Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Consultant design staff Constructor’s preconstruction staff Agency-hired QA/oversight consultant Technical review of design deliverables ✔ ✔ ✔ Checking of design calculations ✔ Checking of quantities ✔ ✔ Acceptance of design deliverables ✔ ✔ ✔ Review of specifications ✔ ✔ ✔ Approval of final construction plans & other design documents ✔ ✔ Approval of progress payments for design progress ✔ Approval of post-award design QM/QA/QC plans ✔ All tasks involving the Agency-hired QA/oversight consultant also involved construction field staff/Division HQ staff. 241

Construction Phase Summary Table G5: Construction Quality Management Roles Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Consultant design staff Constructor’s construction staff Agency-hired QA/oversight consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings ✔ ✔ Technical review of construction material submittals ✔ ✔ Checking of pay quantities ✔ Routine construction inspection ✔ Quality control testing ✔ Verification testing ✔ Acceptance testing ✔ Approval of progress payments for construction progress Approval of construction post-award QM/QA/QC plans Report of nonconforming work or punchlist. ✔ All tasks, excluding acceptance testing, also included construction field staff. Quality Management Planning QA/QC Plans The design QMPs used on this project were different from DBB projects because this was a one of a kind design that involved both an advisory panel of experts as well as allowing for the construction contractor to participate in the design review process to help improve quality. The QMP was not different as such, but it emphasized how heavily the government intended to rely on the construction contractors input. The construction QMPs used on this project were no different from the QMPs used on traditional DBB construction projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans USACE requires designer prequalification standards only for selected projects and standards are determined specific to that project. The design for this project was an in-house design; therefore no prequalification standards were needed. That said this project did employ an Advisory Panel of Experts that provided consulting throughout. These experts were from the design, construction, and academia fields. There were not specific qualifications that would preclude someone from submitting a proposal for this panel, but the selection criteria was specific to discourage submission except only the highest qualified people. Also, USACE did not mandate the use of standard agency specifications. The technical specifications were anything but standard given the nature of the project. However, the government did rely on some standard “front end” contract specifications such as QC program requirements. 242

USACE did not mandate the use of standard agency construction means or methods. One of the primary reasons for bringing the construction contractor on board early was to foster “outside the box” means and method. Quality staff qualifications The agency mandated a specific set of qualifications for the quality management staff of design consultants and construction contractors on this project. The qualifications for the advisory panel were designed to try and capture experts in the field for this kind of work. The construction contractors Construction Quality Control (CQC) manager needed to be a graduate engineer or construction manager with five years of experience. Contractor quality assurance test results USACE utilized contractor QA test results for acceptance on this project. General Quality Management Procedures Standard of Care The agency did not hold the Contractor’s quality management staff to a higher standard of care than it set for the internal staff. This was a very unique project and everyone was held to a higher standard. Alternate QMS The QMS used on this project was taken from USACE Regulations such as Regulation No.1180- 1-6. This regulation specified the following roles and responsibilities for project parties: Contractor Responsibility: • General: Contractors shall be made responsible for all activities necessary to manage, control, and document work so as to ensure compliance with the contract plans and specifications. The contractor's responsibility includes ensuring adequate QC services are provided for work accomplished on and off site by his/her organization, suppliers, subcontractors, technical laboratories and consultants. The work activities include safety, submittal management, and all other functions relating to the requirement for quality construction. • Staffing: It is the contractor's responsibility to carefully examine the contract requirements for CQC and provide personnel capable of complying with the CQC requirements of the contract clauses and technical provisions. The CQC staff must be of sufficient size and have the qualifications necessary to ensure contract compliance. The CQC system manager must report directly to the project superintendent or someone higher in the contractor's organization. • Quality Control Plans and Procedures: Contractors will be required to prepare a quality control plan for all projects except those excluded under the discretionary authority described in USACE regulations. 243

Government Responsibilities: • General: Quality assurance is the process by which the government assures end product quality. The process starts well before construction and includes reviews of the plans and specifications for biddability, constructability, operability and environmental responsibility, plan-in-hand site reviews, coordination with using agencies or local interests, establishment of performance periods and QC requirements, field office planning, preparation of QA plans, reviews of QC plans, enforcement of contract clauses, maintenance of QA and QC inspection and work records, and acceptance of completed construction. • Planning: Prior to construction, the following activities will be performed: (1) Develop a written quality assurance organizational operating plan. This plan will be developed with input from the area/resident engineer and will address the overall QA operations of the district and field offices. The plan will be reviewed and updated as often as necessary but not less than annually. (2) Participate in pre-award activities. (a) Participate in the design review conference. (b) Conduct biddability, constructability, operability and environmental reviews. (c) Conduct site plan-in-hand reviews. (d) Establish the contract CQC requirements. (3) Review field office workloads and staffing needs. (4) Assure office and field personnel have a clear understanding of QA/CQC responsibilities. Training needs shall be identified and addressed through the appropriate combination of in-house and PROSPECT course attendance. (5) Review the contractor's CQC plan and assure affirmative answers to the following questions as a minimum: (a) Does the plan adequately cover control of all features of the contract? (b) Is the CQC staff adequately sized to maintain quality and accomplish tests required? (c) Have the persons responsible for each definable feature of work, all tests, and submittal control and review been identified? (d) Do the qualifications of the staff appear adequate for the control and test requirements? (e) Is the delegation of responsibility and authority to the CQC staff manager clear? Does this person report directly to the highest ranking contractor personnel on-site with responsibility for the overall management of the project? (f) Are the CQC organization lines of authority and responsibility clear? (g) Are individual control and test duties clearly assigned? 244

(h) Do the proposed control and test report forms include all the required features and reporting items? Are system commissioning procedures clearly detailed? (i) Does it comply with the specific requirements established by the contract? (j) Are definable features of work identified? (6) Accept the CQC plan subject to satisfactory performance and reserve the right to require revisions to correct unsatisfactory performance. • Implementation and Enforcement: During construction the following activities will be performed by quality assurance personnel (QAP): (1) After the preconstruction conference, the area/resident engineer or other responsible designee shall conduct a coordination meeting with the contractor on the CQC/QA program. (2) Delay construction start until after the coordination meeting and submittal and acceptance of at least the interim CQC plan, if required. (3) Require revision of the CQC plan and its execution as necessary to obtain quality. (4) Verify adequacy and calibration of test equipment, application of specified test standards and computation of test results. (5) Spot check CQC approved submittals. (6) Review contractor's daily quality control reports (QCR) to assure that they adequately document his/her quality control operations. (7) Hold periodic job-site assurance conferences on CQC/QA interrelationship of activity and effectiveness. (8) Participate in the three-phase control process as necessary to assure that the contractor is adequately conducting the required control processes. (9) Conduct government QA tests at the job-site to assure acceptability of the completed work. A sufficient number of tests, but not less than five percent of the frequency of the CQC tests, should be scheduled to verify CQC test procedures and results. QA testing and inspection should be conducted at unannounced intervals. The contracting officer's representative should verify the accuracy and calibration of equipment, assure correct application of specified test standards, and verify the coverage and accuracy of required CQC tests by observing approximately ten percent of the CQC tests. (10) Monitor contractor's procedures for tracking construction deficiencies to assure acceptable corrective action and that an audit trail is maintained. (11) Ensure that new work is not placed on unacceptable work or that progress payments do not include the value of non-conforming construction. (12) Prepare QA reports (QAR) and all other necessary QA documentation as detailed below: (a) Quality assurance personnel will prepare a report for each visit day of construction on each contract and each project accomplished by government plant and hired labor. 245

(b) Quality Control/Quality Assurance report. As a minimum this combined form will cover project details, results of the QA comments pertaining to the CQC activities. (c) The resident engineer/project engineer or their designees are responsible for assuring that the QAR contains all relevant items of information. (13) The QAP will review the entries on the contractor's QCR. The QCR should contain information on the contractor's quality control operations and not be burdened with other information. (14) Document contractor performance throughout the contract and initiate interim and final unsatisfactory ratings where necessary. • QA for Procedural Specifications: Some QA testing in the case of certain critical earthwork and concrete dam structures must be conducted continuously. A comprehensive QA testing program is necessary on the part of the government when specifications limit the contractor to prescriptive procedures leaving the responsibility for end product quality to the government. Contracting officers must limit contractor responsibilities for tests to those which control the prescriptive procedures and strictly avoid any duplication of government testing. • Performing Acceptance Inspections: Subsequent to CQC completion inspections, acceptance inspections of completed construction are a government responsibility. Summary QA Project Approach The Tuttle Creek project utilizes a Deterministic QAO, shown in Figure G1, in which USACE is responsible for the construction QA and the contractor is responsible for the construction QC. In this project the design was done in-house; therefore, the designer responsibilities of design QA and design QC also lie with USACE. 246

Figure G1: Deterministic QAO for Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Assurance Example of Alternate QMS Used on This Project Due to the rare technology used on the active Tuttle Creek Dam it was a challenge to develop a set of contract documents for this project. Similar quality management challenges arose during the design and construction phases in which specifications had to be reviewed or developed to cater to the unique project conditions. The quality management of the design phase required a new performance specification to be developed for a technology that had never been used for the required application before. Likewise, evaluating quality during the construction phase required careful review of the performance specifications as they were difficult to apply. For example, one test required a 90 day wait before it could be conducted. This brought up the question of whether or not the contractor should remain mobilized for 90 days in case of a failed test. This unique situation required USACE to review whether the testing/design could have been designed differently for these situations. Observations of the Researcher This project utilized an established USACE quality management system; therefore, quality procedures were detailed and understood. The QMS was enhanced by employing an Advisory Panel of Experts that provided consulting throughout the project. Conversely, the quality management system was difficult to implement when existing performance specifications did not cater to the rare technology used on the project. 247

Effective QM Practices The following is a list of effective practices used on USACE projects. • Advisory Panel: One of the biggest successes in quality management on this project was the involvement of an advisory panel as well as the construction contractor involved during the design development. • Resident Management System (RMS): This is an automated system for submittal and document control. It allows for the creation of reports that are tailored for the project, office, fund type, customer as required. Key reports that can be created include Status of Construction Reports, Construction Placement Summaries, System Milestone Schedules and QA/QC Daily Narratives. In addition, custom reports can be created by utilizing data elements such as administration, finances, QA/QC, submittals and schedules. • Design check: The designer must have his work checked by highly experienced technical person before each design submittal. This checking procedure is essential to the production of a quality product and must be incorporated into every QCP. • Quality control checklists: These checklists enable designers and their checkers to ensure that all considerations are systematically addressed. • Interdisciplinary checks: Interdisciplinary coordination is a key element of the QCP. It should be evident throughout the entire design process. The checks are usually conducted by the design team members who check each other’s work for the purpose of assuring compatibility between drawings and specifications produced by the various disciplines. • The following practices are reviews that may be utilized to ensure the timely delivery of cost-effective, quality services and products. • District Quality Control (DQC) Review: A DQC review is a quality control measure in which an internal peer review is conducted by a technical element within a district. It consists of a formal procedure or set of procedures intended to ensure that the developed product adheres to a defined set of quality criteria or meets the requirements of the client, customer, and regulations. A DQC is similar to, but not identical to, QA. • Agency Technical Review (ATR): Upper management may require an ATR. An ATR is an independent technical review, which is a critical examination by a qualified person or technical team outside the submitting district that is not involved in the day-to-day technical work that supports a decision document. The ATR can be performed at any stage of product development, even during construction as a measure of quality, confidence, and reliability. In order to receive a certification, the ATR process requires a formalized comment and resolution process. • Independent External Peer Review (IEPR): Like the ATR, an IEPR may be required by upper management. An IEPR is an independent review of the technical efficacy of a 248

decision document by a review organization external to USACE. An IEPR is conducted on projects that meet mandatory or discretionary triggers. • Quality management review: In order to assure that USACE Regulations are met USACE headquarters, conduct quality management reviews. These reviews assess the effectiveness and implementation of individual USACE command’s quality management plans. 249