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 J: I-15 WIDENING, BECK STREET PROJECT, UTAH Project Information Project Name: I-15; Widening, 500 North to I-215 Name of Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Location: I-15, 500 North to I-215, Utah Project Delivery Method (DBB, DB, CMR, PPP, etc.): DB Procurement Procedure (QBS, Best-Value, Low Bid): Best Value Contract Payment Provisions (Lump Sum, GMP, Cost +): Lump Sum Project Description The project consists of the reconstruction of Interstate 15 from 500 North in Salt Lake City to the I-215 overpass in Davis County. The project includes the design, reconstruction, and widening of the mainline highway to include an Express Lane and three general purpose lanes in each direction. The project is approximately 4.1 miles long, and upon completion will add a northbound and southbound Express Lane on I-15. The work includes the total reconstruction of Mainline I-15 between 500 North and the I-215 overpass, as well as Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) structures, bridge structures, earthwork, storm drainage, and the reconstruction of Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) infrastructure necessary to accommodate the highway and bridge construction. The existing Beck Street Bridge will be removed and replaced with twin 600-feet, four-span bridges. Additionally, the 1100 North and U.S. 89 bridges will be replaced with two-span rapid bridges—the first two-span accelerated bridge construction (ABC) structures to be completed in the country. The 800 North Bridge will be removed permanently. The Case Study project includes: • I-15 Mainline: Reconstruct I-15 from 500 North in Salt Lake City to the I-215 overpass of I-15 in Davis County. The project includes the design, reconstruction, and widening of the mainline highway to include an Express Lane and three general purpose lanes in each direction. The work includes the widening of Mainline I-15 from 500 North in Salt Lake City to the I-15 overpass of Beck Street in Portland cement concrete pavement overlaying the existing pavement section; and mill, overlay and widening of the existing asphaltic concrete section from the Beck Street overpass to the I-215 overpass of I-15. The mainline I-15 work includes the total reconstruction of the I-15 overpass of Beck Street. The mainline I-15 work includes: pavement structures; bridge structures (this includes building the abutment walls for the structures to allow a future fifth lane in each direction); necessary earthwork; necessary retaining walls; storm drainage; interstate signing including new Express Lanes; interstate (highmast) lighting; necessary barriers; utility relocations; and the reconstruction of ATMS infrastructure necessary to accommodate the highway and bridge construction. 271

• I-15 Ramp Reconstruction: Ramps connecting to I-15 will be reconstructed to only the extent necessary to tie in the existing ramps to the new I-15 mainline alignments and grade. • US 89 Bridge Reconstruction: The southbound US 89 bridge overpass of I-15 in Davis County will be fully reconstructed to accommodate the new I-15 cross-section. This work includes building the abutment walls to accommodate an ultimate 5 lane section in each direction. • 800 North 1100 North Bridge Reconstruction: The 800 North and 1100 North bridges will be demolished and all unnecessary approach fills removed. These structures will be replaced with a single structure. The reconstruction of this structure will be a part of this project; however, it will not be included in the DB proposals including the Price Proposal. Project Quality Profile The QMPs used on this project were the same as those used on traditional UDOT projects, except the tracking and administration was handled differently. This was because the goals were the same with regards to testing requirements etc. except payment was not by quantity. Lump Sum payment was used; therefore quantities were recorded separately for verification testing. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $110 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $ $135,112,020.00 Project Schedule: 2 years Initial Advertising: 2008 RFP Issued to Shortlist: May 6, 2008 Contract Award: September 29, 2008 Original Project Delivery Period: 2 years, September 30, 2010 Final Project Delivery Period: 2 years, September 30, 2010 Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Table J1: 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;☐ > 10 272

Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process The project was politically popular. Money was given by the Legislator and they wanted the project built soon. DB allowed for a shortened project delivery period. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) The two major reasons for selecting DB as the delivery method were: • Reduce/compress/accelerate the project delivery period. • Establish the project budget at an early stage of design development. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Roadway/Drainage/Floodway, Structures/Geotechnical, Utilities and Cost Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: NA Risk Identification Techniques Used: Risk Register Risk Assessment Techniques: Risk Register Risk Management Techniques: ATC Process Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: A fuel price adjustment provision was included in the RFP to minimize risk to the Design-Builder and to UDOT due to price fluctuations for fuel and asphalt materials occurring throughout the duration of the Contract. Contract price adjustments were to be made to reflect increases or decreases in the prices of gasoline, diesel fuels, and asphalt products from those in effect on the Proposal Due Date. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Procurement Phase Summary Table J2: Administrative and Performance Based Prequalification Requirement Designer 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 ☐ ☐ 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 ☐ ☐ 273

Table J3: 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ Note: Warranties and incentive/disincentive features are outlined in the RFP, but are not required in the proposal or evaluated. Design Phase Summary Table J4: Design Quality Management Roles Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Consultant design staff Constructor’ s preconstructi on 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 ✔ Notes: • This project did not involve an Agency-Hired QA/Oversight Consultant. 274

• The Project Design Consultant was required to do their own QC before submitting deliverables. • Agency Personnel included Design staff, a Project Manager and Construction staff. Construction Phase Summary Table J5: 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 QA/QC Plans Utah Department of Transportation specified that the Quality Management Plan (QMP) had to include procedures for:  Design-Builder Construction Quality Control  Design Quality Control and Assurance  Agency Inspection and Testing In addition, the QMP had to include methods and procedures to ensure the quality of project elements, including management, administration, design and testing for geotechnical and other disciplines. Use of mandated agency quality management plans The agency mandated the use of standard agency QM plans. 275

Quality staff qualifications The Quality Program set out by Utah Department of Transportation specified the following qualifications: Construction Quality Manager (CQM): Must have no less than four years of experience in construction quality management and inspection and testing after having become a licensed P.E. Must be a licensed P.E. in the State of Utah by the time of Notice To Proceed (NTP) The CQM shall not be replaced without prior written approval from the Agency Design Quality Manager (DQM): • Must have no less than eight years of total design engineering experience on projects with similar scope and complexity and four years of continuous experience as a licensed P.E. • Must be a licensed P.E. in the State of Utah by the time of Notice To Proceed • The DQM shall not be replaced without prior written approval from the Agency. Proposers had to submit an organization chart showing the planned Quality Control (QC) organizations with the names of independent sampling and testing laboratories included. The chart also had to state who the QC staff would report to within the Proposer’s organization. The number of project quality staff members was to be appropriate for the complexity and composition of the construction activities consistent with the schedule, the location, and geotechnical and environmental factors relating to the work. The Agency reviewed and approved staffing levels for adequacy. Furthermore, the Quality Management Plan (QMP) had to specify procedures that: • Familiarize all Project staff with their requirements and responsibilities according to the Contract Documents • Educate, train, and certify Project staff performing activities affecting or measuring the quality of the Work and ensure that they achieve and maintain reasonable proficiency Contractor quality assurance test results The Agency conducted the quality assurance testing. General Quality Management Procedures Standard of Care No different to DBB projects. Alternate Quality Management Systems The Design-Builder had the primary responsibility for the overall quality of the work on the I-15 Widening Project. This included the quality of work produced by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, and vendors. 276

An IQF was not required for this project. Utah Department of Transportation was to conduct oversight and inspection for the project. Agency Authority: The Agency’s roles in the Quality Program were to: • Provide inspection and testing for quality checkpoint (QCP) on-site meetings and plan and specification reviews • Monitor and audit the Design-Builder’s Quality Program activities to ensure adherence to the QMP • Conduct owner oversight inspection and testing (oversight, sampling, inspection, and evaluation) as part of owner independent assurance (OIA), including the off-site oversight inspection and testing of the fabrication of precast and prestressed concrete structures and of structural steel • Conduct all acceptance testing • Perform the final walk-through, final audit of records, and final acceptance of Work The Agency also coordinated its quality activities through the following components: Owner Design Oversight (ODO): The ODO was to oversee the design of the Project by participating in the design reviews, providing documentation, and coordinating with the Design- Builder and the Agency to ensure that the design met the requirements of the Contract. Owner Oversight Inspection and Testing (OIT): OIT comprised the inspection of all on-site work performed to verify that all work had been constructed in reasonable conformance with the Released-for-Construction plans, specifications, and approved shop drawings. OIT is on-site material sampling and testing. Owner Independent Assurance (OIA): OIA comprised split sampling and testing performed by the Agency’s Region Laboratory. These tests and observations of the sampling and testing procedures were to be performed to confirm that all testers were qualified and certified and that the test methods and procedures are performed accurately. Summary QA Project Approach For this project the Agency retains the traditional QA roles. The Agency was responsible for the project quality assurance, while the Design-Builder was responsible for design QA, design QC, construction QA and construction QC. 277

Figure J1: I-15 Widening QAO Model. Example of Alternate QM System Used on This Project One-on-one interviews with proposers during the procurement phase and discussions between UDOT and the Design-Builder during the pre-construction phase were successful for the I-15 Widening Project. This communication was valuable to the project because the budget was very tight on this project. Therefore, it was important for the Agency to be able to sit down with the Design-Builder early on in the project and review ways to reduce cost. In addition, the project involved a particularly complex bridge which needed to be discussed individually. Components such as this were further addressed in the specifications for the Quality Management Plan (QMP). The QMP had to specify those elements of the Contract Documents, Design Documents, and Construction Documents that require special attention to or emphasis on quality, including applicable standards of quality or practice to be met, level of completeness, and/or level of detail required. It also had to specify the process for any necessary Design Exceptions for the project. This process should include the packaging and submittal to UDOT for review. Observations of the Researcher UDOT ensured the quality of the I-15 Widening Project by enabling frequent communication and specifying complete documentation processes from procurement through to project completion. Documentation seemed to be emphasized throughout the Project documentation. This is not only important for the quality of the I-15 Widening Project, but it provides a reference for future projects. Project Acceptance Construction Quality Assurance Design Quality Assurance Design Quality Control Construction Quality Control Design Released for Construction Construction Released for Final Payment Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Owner Verification (if req’d) Project Quality Assurance Independent Assurance (if req’d) - functional audit -physical audit Designer- Builder’s Responsibility Owner’s Responsibility 278

Effective QM Practices The following Quality Management practices were used on the I-15 Widening Project and achieved enhanced quality through increased communication and documentation. • One-on-One Meetings: The Agency conducted one-on-one meetings with each Proposer to discuss issues and clarifications regarding the RFP and Proposer’s ATCs. The Agency reserved the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during the one-on-one meetings, except to the extent that the Agency determines, in its sole discretion, that such disclosure would impair the confidentiality of an ATC or would reveal a Proposer’s confidential business strategies. Participation at such meetings by the Proposers was mandatory. If any one-on- one informational meeting was held, the Agency reserved the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during the one-on-one meetings. However, the Agency was not to disclose any information pertaining to an individual Proposer’s Proposal, ATCs, or other technical concepts to other Proposers. • Alternative Technical Concept (ATCs) Process: A process for pre-Proposal review of Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) that conflict with the requirements for design and construction of the Project, or otherwise require a modification of the technical requirements of the Project, was set forth to: o Allow Proposers to incorporate innovation and creativity into the Proposals o Allow the Department to consider Proposer ATCs in making the selection decision o Avoid delays and potential conflicts in the design associated with the deferring of reviews of ATCs to the post-award period o Obtain the best value for the public The Agency was able to respond with one of the following statements: o The ATC is acceptable for inclusion in the Proposal; o The ATC is not acceptable for inclusion in the Proposal; o The ATC is not acceptable in its present form, but may be acceptable upon the satisfaction, in the Agency’s sole discretion, of certain identified conditions which must be met or clarifications or modifications that must be made; or o The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but may be included in Proposer’s Proposal because it appears to be within the requirements of the RFP. • Competitive Range: The term “Competitive Range” means a list of the most highly rated Proposals, based on initial Technical Proposal ratings and evaluations of Price Proposals, which were judged by the Agency to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. Borderline 279

Proposals were not to be excluded from further consideration if the Proposers had a reasonable chance of being selected if meaningful discussions were conducted and appropriate improvement was achieved. The Agency could meet with and receive presentations and conduct interviews with Proposers prior to determining the Competitive Range. This allowed Proposers to provide clarifications to their Proposals or otherwise to address issues that might prevent the Proposal from being placed in the Competitive Range. The Agency reserved the right to hold discussions and to issue a request for Proposal Revisions (otherwise known as Best and Final Offers [BAFOs]), but was under no obligation to do so. If discussions were held, they were to be held with all Proposers in the Competitive Range and were intended to allow Proposers to revise their proposals. If the Agency requested BAFOs, Proposers in the Competitive Range could be informed of and requested and/or allowed to revise their Proposals, including correction of any Weaknesses, minor irregularities, errors, and/or Deficiencies identified to the Proposers by the Agency following initial evaluation of the Proposals. Upon receipt of the Proposal Revisions, the process of evaluation was to be repeated. The process was to consider the revised information and re-evaluate and revise ratings, as appropriate. • Summary of Innovation and Enhanced Quality: The Proposers were to prepare a summary of no more than three pages that outlined the specific areas in which the Proposer had introduced innovation and provided enhanced quality in long-term performance, durability, or maintainability through the information submitted with its Proposal. The Proposer had to state in the summary the specific sections of the Technical Proposal in which the proposed innovations and enhancements were discussed. • Document Control: The QMP had to specify procedures for meeting documentation requirements and document control for the filing of design criteria, reports and notes, calculations, plans, specifications, schematics, supporting materials, etc. and for the specific responsibilities of personnel to satisfy these requirements. The Design-Builder had to maintain these documents for the duration of the Contract; organize, index, and deliver them to UDOT for Final Acceptance. Also, the Design-Builder had to maintain a record of internal quality activities and summarize internal quality activities in monthly progress reports. The QMP had to identify (by name) the Document Control Supervisory personnel for the maintenance and management of records and documents pertinent to Agency activities. The Agency required electronic documentation of the Project and strongly encouraged the use of video documentation where appropriate. Furthermore, the Design-Builder had to maintain daily manpower and equipment reports for construction-related activities as well as for each Subcontractor. They also had to maintain a Daily Occurrence Log of construction activities in narrative form and document all significant occurrences on the Project, including: o Unusual weather 280

o Asserted Force Majeure events o Events and conditions causing or threatening to cause any significant delay, disruption, or interference with progress of Work o A general overview of the current Project activities, including MOT o Significant injuries to a person or property o A listing of all activities on the current Monthly Plan Update that are being actively prosecuted o A daily record (in a standard format) of all labor, materials, and equipment expenses incurred for each activity The Design-Builder had to document all quality, inspection, and test activities, including any delays encountered, work that did not conform to the requirements of the Contract and design, and the corrective actions taken regarding such nonconforming work. In addition, the DQM was to maintain a written record of all design reviews and oversight visits. The written record was to: o List the participants in each review or visit o Report all items discussed o Identify discrepancies noted and report on corrective action(s) taken or planned o Identify follow-up action items, due dates, and the responsible party o Identify items needing resolution and time constraints for resolution • Over-the-Shoulder Design Reviews: The DQM was to conduct design reviews, and UDOT could participate in these reviews and comment as requested or as it otherwise deems necessary. The DQM, design staff, and UDOT jointly determined the materials to be compiled for each review. If mutually agreed upon for specific review items, these over-the-shoulder reviews may be facilitated by the transfer of electronic files. • Milestone (30% and 60%) Reviews: The DQM was to conduct formal milestone reviews at the 30% (Concept) and 60% (Intermediate) stage of Project elements to determine whether the Contract requirements and design criteria were being followed and that QC/QA activities were following the approved QMP. The DQM and UDOT may have agreed that 30% and 60% reviews may be waved for certain elements. • Incentive/Disincentive: An incentive program was established to provide the Design-Builder the opportunity to earn an incentive award (“Incentive Award”) for superior performance in certain components of the Project. The program was designed to encourage and reward consistent excellent achievement of the technical specifications, workmanship, and the 281

administrative program requirements. The Incentive Award could be earned only by clear and constant superior performance over the term of the Contract. It was the Agency’s desire that the Design-Builder perform in such a superior manner so as to ultimately earn the maximum possible Incentive Award. The maximum pool of the Incentive Award under the Contract was One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,200,000). This amount was not to be increased if work was added to the Project, but could be reduced if Work was deleted. Incentive criteria were established to measure the actual achievements of the Design- Builder. The various incentive criteria were predefined for each Incentive Period and weighted appropriately to encourage Design-Builder achievements in the Project elements that were the most critical to the Agency. A Performance Evaluation Team was to prepare Evaluation Reports for all performance areas and evaluate the Design-Builder’s performance using the identified criteria. Performance and activities was continuously observed and evaluated. Material and Ride Quality Incentives were also included and followed the Agency’s 2008 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 282