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 I: US 160 4TH LANE ADDITION, COLORADO Project Overview Project Name: U.S. 160 4th Lane Addition Name of Agency: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Location: U.S. 160 at Farmington Hill Interchange/Wilson Gulch in Grandview Colorado just east of Durango, CO Project Scope: The Project included the design of 4 bridges in mountainous terrain, and crossing U.S. 160 and the environmentally-sensitive Wilson Gulch. Also the project included the addition of a 4th lane on U.S. 160 and the construction of portions of ramps. Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CMR, PPP, etc.): Modified DB Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Low Bid Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): Lump Sum Methodology The case study interviews were conducted on July 7, 2011 over the phone. Three independent interviews were conducted with CDOT employees with responsibility for the overall project management, construction project management and design project management. The interviews were conducted independent of one another. The interviews were conducted in accordance with the case study protocol developed by the research team and approved by both an industry panel and the NCHRP review panel. The interviews began with an introduction to the research and given a brief summary of the research objectives. The questionnaire developed as part of the protocol was completed as a group by the interviewees prior to the interviews. This allowed the interviews to focus more on the questionnaire follow up questions within the case study protocol rather than answering the questionnaire. The data collection process concluded with a request for relevant project documents. Interviewees volunteered their time and were not compensated by the research team in any way. Project Quality Profile The Design-build contractor is responsible for both design and construction QC. Overall CDOT states that the QM system does not differ between Project Delivery Methods Owner’s reasons for using alternate QM system Because the design fell under the design-builder responsibility, resulting in the design builder being responsible for design QC. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $29,428,100 Final Total Awarded Value of project: $29,428,100 – Final contract amount was same as the original award, but additional work was done for the same budget due to savings in the force account items. 261

Project Schedule: completion by Nov. 30, 2010 Project Approved to start process: January 2007 Initial Advertising: June, 2007 Contract Award: April 3, 2008 Original Project Delivery Period: Contract required completion of the project by Nov. 30, 2010 Final Project Delivery Period: The project was 97% complete on December 30, 2009. Today the project is not considered “complete” because there is an issue with cracks in the abutments that is still being worked out. Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Table I1: 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; x General authorization ☐NA; X 1-5; ☐5-10;☐ > 10 Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process This project was delivered with what CDOT calls a modified design build. CDOT’s modified design build is a project delivery method where CDOT procures the services of a construction contractor for design and construct for the project through a single phase, low bid selection process. The design firm had to be selected from a list of CDOT pre-qualified firms. In January 2007 CDOT was informed that the project was funded and it had to be advertised by June 2007. Some design was underway and could be finished by June, but other specialties could not be finished in that time frame. The modified design-build process was proposed, because it was the only way to get the project out for advertisement by June. When the project went out for advertisement it had a partial design complete and the contractor was responsible for designing the bridges, walls and drainage. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Modified Design-build was chosen for this project to enable advertisement by June 2007. Contractor Project Delivery Experience The contractor had experience with large DB projects in the past, even DB projects with CDOT. 262

Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Procurement Phase Summary Table I2: Administrative Prequalification Requirement Designer prequalification program factors Administrative 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 ☐ Designer prequalification program factors Administrative 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 ☐ Note: Anyone bidding or responding to a RFP has to be already on CDOTs prequalified list of designer or contractors. This project required a DB team with the contractor submitting the response to the RFP. The RFP required the proposed DB team to have both a CDOT prequalified contractor and a CDOT prequalified designer. CDOT’s prequalification process is primarily based on financial capabilities. Table I3: 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.) ☐ ☐ ✔ Design quality management plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Design quality assurance plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Design quality control plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Construction quality management plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Construction quality assurance plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Construction quality control plan ☐ ☐ ✔ Quality management roles and responsibilities ☐ ☐ ✔ Design criteria checklists ☐ ☐ ✔ Construction testing matrix ☐ ☐ ☐ Quality-based incentive/disincentive features ☐ ☐ ☐ Warranties ☐ ☐ ☐ Optional warranties ☐ ☐ ☐ Lesson Learned Put language in the contract that helps the designer and contractor avoid pitfalls. Such as more design review to be conducted by an independent contractor or another office of the same firm. 263

Design Phase Summary Table I4: 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 ✔ Construction Phase Summary Table I5: 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. ✔ Quality Management Planning Design QM/QA/QC Plans The only Quality Plan created specifically for this project is the contractor created Design Quality Control Plan (DQCP). In Section 3 – Quality Management of Book 2 (CDOT technical requirements) the contractor is assigned responsibility for creating a Design Quality Control Plan (DCQP) for the project and submitting it to CDOT for approval two weeks before start of work. As specified in Section 3, the DCQP is required to include the following: • Procedures that address all elements of design including, but not limited to, architectural, civil, structural, geotechnical, survey, hydraulic, environmental, traffic, safety, and temporary work. 264

• Identify the applicable computer programs to develop and check designs. • Identify design input requirements and perform on-going audits of the design input requirements. • Procedures to control and independently ensure that the design meets the requirements of the Contract Documents, including provisions for Sub-consultants’ designs and configuration management activities. • Procedures for approval of released for construction documents and revision control. • A process to ensure that the design inputs are communicated to and accessible by, the relevant designers responsible for incorporating design inputs into the design. • How changes to design inputs are identified, reviewed and approved by authorized personnel prior to their implementation. • Procedures to identify and track design document deliverables. • Procedures to identify, record and track field design changes. • A description as to how the design team schedules the design efforts, including task force meetings, design reviews, constructability reviews, design meetings, independent design checks and a scheduled for Release for Construction Documents and final Design Documents. • A process for the contractor’s Engineer responsible for the design to prepare, review, and approve all changes, including field design changes, to Release for Construction Documents and Final Design Documents. • A process to communicate design changes to the construction site on a timely basis consistent with the progress of construction activities. Construction QM/QA/QC Plans The CDOT Special Provisions US 160 4th lane issued February 4th 2008 has a requirement for a contractor created quality control plan (QCP). This plan is separate from the design quality control plan and must also be reviewed and approved by the Engineer (which is CDOT) prior to the start of work. The QCP shall address all of the following: • The name, qualifications, duties, responsibilities and authorities of each person assigned a QC function. • A description of the responsibilities and authority , and a resume of experience, of the QC Manager. • Procedures for preparing, reviewing and presenting materials submittals, including those of subcontractors, vendors, offsite fabricators, suppliers and purchasing agents, for assuring they conform to contract requirements. The schedule in the CDOT Field Materials Manual will govern minimum submittal requirements. 265

• QC inspection methods and procedures for all stages of operations. At a minimum, the items in the CDOT inspectors Checklist and CDOT Construction manual shall be inspected. • Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats for inspection for all phases of the work. • Names of testing and engineering firms to be used, if any. • Procedures for identifying, evaluating, and reporting non-conformance discovered during QC/QA inspections and testing. The contractor was also required to prepare a Paving Quality Control Plan outlining the steps taken to minimize segregation of HMA. The plan was required to be submitted to the Engineer (CDOT) and approved before beginning the paving operations. The contractor was only specifically assigned QC responsibilities for concrete and asphalt paving. Use of mandated agency quality management plans The agency did supply Book 2, the field materials manual, and design requirements for the project. These references do include some quality management procedures. A specific agency quality management plan was not identified during the case study. Quality staff qualifications Design Quality Control Manager – fully qualified to act as the contractor’s representative in authorizing the drawings for construction. Contractor Shotcrete quality control technician – must hold the appropriate ACI certifications. Contractor QC Manager – Shall not be the contractor’s superintendent. Contractor testing staff – As stated by CDOT’s Book 2 “the Contractor shall have properly qualified testing staff on site to test permanent material items incorporated into the work where required by the CDOT specifications and the CDOT Filed materials Manual. At a minimum the tester(s) shall be certified to test material items using testing procedures as shown in the CDOT Field Materials Manual (FMM) in effect at the time of bidding.” Contractor quality assurance test results The contractor tests can be used by the agency for quality assurance testing and acceptance. However this was not common practice on this project. General Quality Management Procedures Project QM system overview Same as DBB project, except the designer was contracted through the contractor. No independent assurance on the project No owner verification testing performed on the project 266

Final acceptance still has not been granted on the project because of cracking abutments. CDOT did award partial acceptance on the majority of the project by the end of 2009. Standard of Care Yes, CDOT did hold the DB staff to a higher standard of care. Alternate Quality Management Systems The design was conducted by the design builder on this team which required the typical CDOT quality management system to be modified by assigning design QC to the design builder and requiring the design builder to create the design quality control plan (DQCP) for submittal and approval by CDOT. The design reviews and the design forms were two of the topics of the DQCP that came up during the interviews. Further information on each of these topics is discussed below. Design Review Formal design reviews between CDOT and the Design-build team were conducted at the 30, 60 and 90% stages of the completion of the design development process. Four types of reviews were conducted as appropriate during the formal design reviews. The four types of reviews are listed below: • Constructability review – Performed by the construction management and project engineers. The scope of the constructability review is in accordance with the corresponding stage of design development. The CR considers: o Consistency with design concept objectives. o Adequacy of information on the plans and specifications to construct the work. o Ability of the design to be constructed within the required schedule given site restrictions, economics of the proposed construction, availability of materials, construction equipment requirements, and local work force availability. o Consistency with environmental mitigation requirements. o An assessment of the design details relative to the practicality of achieving specified tolerances, access needed to properly install or construct work elements, and interdisciplinary conflicts. o Proper incorporation of review comments from prior constructability review (if any). • Design coordination review – Addresses the design approach, suitability, completeness, interferences, and conformance with Contract requirements. The design coordination review will be conducted by the design task lead. • Final package review – Performed after design quality checks have been completed and is verification that the package is complete and approved for construction. 267

• Quality Assurance Audit – A QA audit will be performed by the Project Quality Assurance Officer at the end of each completed final package to assure that plans, specifications, calculations and design reports have been checked, reviewed, and properly signed-off in conformance with the DQCP. Design Quality Forms Design quality forms were included as part of the appendix of the DQCP. These forms were incorporated into the different QC processes detailed in the DQCP and were enacted during the project. These forms helped to organize and track different aspects of the project. These forms were also considered to be a very successful element of the quality management system. Factors impacting the quality of the project Table I6: Rankings of the Impact of Quality Factors Factor Very High Impact High Impact Some Impact Slight Impact No Impact Qualifications of agency design staff ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Qualifications of agency project management staff ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Qualifications of agency construction staff ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Qualifications of the design consultant’s staff ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Design consultant’s past project experience ☐ ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ Qualifications of the construction contractor’s staff ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction contractor’s past project experience ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ Submittal of Quality management plans prior to work start ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ Level of agency involvement in the QM process ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Use of agency specifications and/or design details ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Level of detail expressed in the procurement documents (IFB/RFQ/RFP) ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Use of manuals, standards and specifications developed for DBB type projects ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Allowing flexibility in choice of design standards and construction specifications ☐ ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ Use of performance criteria/specifications ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Detailed design criteria ☐ ✔ ☐ ☐ ☐ Warranty provisions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ Incentive/disincentive provisions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ Follow-on maintenance provisions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ Innovative financing (PPP/concession) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ✔ 268

Summary QA Project Approach The Assurance QAO was used for this project and is shown in Figure I1. Project Acceptance Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Owner Verification (if req’d) Quality Management Design Builder’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility Figure I1 - U.S. 160 4th Lane Expansion, Assurance Quality Management Organization Observations of the Researcher Overall all discussions of project quality encompassed design quality and the design quality control plan. Even though the CDOT special provisions document requires the contractor to provide a QCP that appears to be specific to construction, everyone refers to the design quality control plan for the project whenever asked about any kind of quality plan (management, assurance or control). The innovation on the project was limited due to the CDOT constraints on the project. CDOT dictated the type of bridges, the aesthetics of the bridges and even completed some of the designs before the contractor was brought on board. Additionally CDOT retained control of some aspects of the design such as lighting, and landscaping. CDOT Staff Bridge had a difficult time relinquishing control over the bridge designs. Staff Bridge would have preferred more design reviews. However with the number of design reviews already required for the project it was challenging to manage the number of submittals and have CDOT respond within two weeks. One thing that helped this process was getting commitments up front from internal CDOT/Staff bridge personnel for the project and the project requirements. 269

Another difficulty with design was gaining an understanding within Staff Bridge personnel as to the difference between a design requirement and a design preference. If it was a preference and CDOT accepted the “change” then the contractor is entitled to additional monies to implement the preference. A specific example is that of the size of the monuments on the abutments. Originally they were very small, but met the requirements. CDOT wanted larger monuments and eventually approved them. Due to the apparent lack of a construction quality control plan and the fact that CDOT performed testing on all materials, it appears that the QMS for the construction phase of this project was the traditional approach, heavily directed by the agency. CDOT does allow for the use of contractor test results for QA and acceptance testing, but did not do so on this project. Originally in the RFP there was a requirement for the contractor to provide a full-time third party inspector on the project for the duration of the project. However this was removed due to the costs associated with providing this service (approx. $150,000 - $200,000). Originally this was included in the RFP to take some of the burden off of CDOT and shift it to the contractor. The third party inspector was going supposed to be on the ground adding another layer of inspection to the project. Instead CDOT became responsible for the task of a full-time inspector looking over the shoulder of the contractor. In the end it is believed that CDOT spent more to internally provide the full-time construction inspector than they would have had the contractor hired a third party inspector. But at the time of contract award there was no budget to do so. The project overall is considered a success, however currently there are on-going negotiations between CDOT and the design builder regarding cracks on the abutments. The contractor found the cracks during inspections and now there are negotiations as to how to fix the cracks and prevent future ones. This is considered to be the main quality issue on the project, but everyone is working together on resolving the issues (it is mostly agreed to be a design issue). Lessons learned/changes for future projects • Add into the RFP process an interview of the design consultants and shift the responsibility of design review and checking the drawings to the consultants. • Add a requirement that a third party or different office of the design firm review the drawings. • Hire additional consultants to help man the project for CDOT. The amount of paperwork was enormous even though it was design-build. • It depends on the project, but change the design requirements so more innovation could be implemented on future projects. Have Staff Bridge loosen design requirements rather in addition to a reduction in the number of design reviews. • Assign QC responsibility for earthwork in addition to asphalt and paving. 270