Quality Assurance in Design-Build Projects (2008)

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.

15 INTRODUCTION One of the benefits of DB is the opportunity for the owner to shift some of the risks associated with the design and con- struction of a project (Beard et al. 2001). The shifting of risk, however, parallels the shift in authority. A public owner can delegate as little or as much authority for quality manage- ment tasks as it wishes; however, it must remember that the agency itself will always ultimately be responsible for the satisfactory completion of the project. Thus, the determina- tion of which party to the DB contract is assigned the author- ity to perform both design and construction QA and QC essentially drives the final form of the organization that will be fielded to accomplish those critical tasks. ORGANIZING FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DB project quality must be reviewed within the context of the DB contract itself. Project delivery can be modeled as a three-legged stool whose legs are cost, schedule, and quality (as defined by the details of design). The quality is estab- lished in the traditional DBB delivery method by developing a completed design on which construction contractors can bid (Ellis et al. 1991). Then, as the time is fixed by a speci- fied contract completion date, the only leg of the stool left to ensure a level platform is the bid price (Ellicott 1994). As a result, DBB can be defined as a “system where the con- structor tells the owner how much it will cost to deliver the quality defined in the design within the specified period of performance” (Gransberg et al. 2006). DB, as currently being used in the transportation sector, usually requires the design- builder to offer a firm fixed price for a project whose scope is defined by a set of performance criteria within a specified pe- riod of time (Molenaar and Gransberg 2001). This leaves the details of design as the variable leg in the DB stool, placing the design-builder in a position where the details of design, and hence the resultant level of quality, are constrained by both the budget and the schedule. Therefore, to be success- ful, the design-builder must complete the final design to match both the DB contract’s cost and schedule. This makes it particularly important to both the owner and the design- builder that the requirements for quality be clearly articu- lated in the DB project’s RFP to ensure that the resultant proposals are as responsive to the owner’s needs and desires as the budgetary, technical, and schedule constraints of the project allow. To achieve this state, the owner must have determined in the solicitation documents how it will distrib- ute the authority for the management of quality during design and construction, and that plan is essentially encapsulated in the quality management organization. Quality Management Spectrum In DB, the RFP must make the distribution of quality man- agement responsibilities totally clear. The owner can choose to assign specific responsibilities to the design-builder and retain the rest for itself. Additionally, it is also possible to retain a third party to conduct quality management activities. This firm could be under contract to either the design-builder or the owner. The survey responses and content analysis indicated that this third party was given many different titles. Some of the more common were general engineering con- sultant, design oversight consultant, and independent quality consultant. It is not that the processes or activities for ensur- ing quality are different in DB. The vast majority of activities will remain the same. The difference lies with whom will be responsible for performing the activities (Tam et al. 2003). In 74% of the projects reviewed, quality management responsi- bilities were at least generally assigned in the solicitation documents. The other 26% may have had quality manage- ment responsibilities defined in other solicitation documents, such as incorporated references and policies that the authors were not able to access. This is almost identical to the survey response where 72% of respondents answered affirmatively to the question, “Do either your RFQ or your RFP contain quality management roles and responsibilities?” Once the quality management distribution decision is made, both the design-builder and the owner must assemble organizations to carry out those functions. Table 2 lists typical design and construction quality management tasks that must be assigned to one party or another to ensure quality on any transporta- tion construction project. Figure 8 is the theoretical spectrum of quality management extending from one end, where the owner conducts all quality management functions, to the other, where the owner assigns the total quality management program to the design-builder and satisfies its FHWA-mandated oversight responsibilities (Stefani 2004) using some form of PQA. Table 3 expands on the Figure 8 concept by showing the details of the possible combinations of quality management functions in tabular form. It moves from assigning all the quality management CHAPTER TWO DESIGN-BUILD QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

16 Design Construction Quality Control (QC) Technical review of design deliverables Checking of calculations Checking of quantities Review of specifications Technical review of shop drawings Technical review of material submittals Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection; QC testing Establishment of horizontal and vertical controls on site Quality Assurance (QA) Acceptance of design deliverables Approval of final construction documents Approval of design progress payments Approval of post-award QC plan QA inspection QA testing Verification/acceptance testing Approval of construction progress payments Approval of post-award QC plan Project Quality Assurance (PQA) Approval of post-award QM/QA plans Audit of design QA activities Over-the-shoulder design review Approval of post-award QM/QA plans Independent verification/acceptance testing Oversight Note: These lists are not meant to be all inclusive. After Transportation Research Circular E-C074 (2006). TABLE 2 TYPICAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT TASKS ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS functions to the design-builder, as happens in many PPP proj- ects overseas (Tyborowski et al. 1997), to the other end of the spectrum where the owner holds all the quality management functions. It also includes third-party QA participation as found in the DB RFP content analysis. This results in 14 dif- ferent types of QA organizations. Not all of these types of DB quality management organi- zations were found in the content analysis. Table 4 is an ex- tract from Table 3 showing only the quality management organizations that were found in the solicitation document content analysis. The states that used each type of quality management organization are also listed. Additionally, a 2006 study completed for the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) on QA and QC organizations for DB mega-projects (Potter and McMahon 2006) substantiated the spectrum shown in Figure 8. Classifying Quality Management Organizations Table 4 illustrates two things. First, a large group of DOTs is comfortable assigning the majority of the quality manage- ment functions to the design-builder based on the number of times the Type 1 organization was observed in the RFP FIGURE 8 Quality management spectrum.

17 Design QA Design QC Construction QA Construction QC Comments Type 1 DBr DBr DBr DBr DOT oversight of design and construction Type 2 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DBr DOT and 3rd party share construction QA Type 3 DBr DBr DBr and DOT DBr DOT and DBr share construction QA Type 4 3rd DBr 3rd DBr 3rd party QA; DBr QC Type 5 3rd and DBr and DOT DBr 3rd and DBr and DOT DBr QA is shared; DBr QC Type 6 DOT DBr DBr DBr or 3rd DOT design QA only Type 7 DBr DBr DOT DBr or 3rd DOT oversight of design Type 8 DOT DBr DOT DBr DOT QA; DBr QC Type 9 DOT DBr DOT or 3rd DBr or 3rd 3rd party is involved in construction QA or QC Type 10 DBr and DOT DBr DOT DBr DOT and DBr share design QA only Type 11 DBr and DOT DBr DBr and DOT DBr DOT and DBr share QA Type 12 DOT DOT DBr DBr DOT oversight of construction Type 13 DOT DOT DOT DBr DBr construction QC only; traditional DBB QM Type 14 DOT DOT DOT DOT Force account project done with DOT forces Note: DBr = design-builder; DOT = department of transportation (i.e., the projectís owner); 3rd = third party (independent firm retained to conduct QA and QC or independent assurance responsibilities); QM = quality management. TABLE 3 POSSIBLE QUALITY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS content analysis. Second, some DOTs have chosen to vary the type of quality management organization that they em- ploy from project to project. This can be seen for the states of Florida, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia, which used more than one organizational type. All four of these states reported multiple DB project experiences and therefore have evolved their DB quality management approach based on their actual project experiences. This analysis leads to the conclusion that a DOT can add clarity to its RFP by classify- ing the type of quality management organization that it believes best suits the quality needs of a given project and publishing that organizational structure in its DB RFP. To assist the readers of this document in applying the find- ings of this portion of the study to their own projects, examples of each type of quality management organization in Table 4 are now provided. Excerpts from actual RFPs explain exactly how each type of quality management organization is defined and how they were classified in the content analysis. Type 1 Organization Design-builder does all QA and QC, and DOT furnishes PQA—In the Type 1 organization, the design-builder is re- sponsible for design QA and QC and construction QA and QC. The DOT retains responsibility for oversight of the design-builder’s QA and QC activities through some form of PQA. This is referred to by various terms such as indepen- dent assurance, owner verification, or due diligence. In some Design QA Design QC Construction QA Construction QC States Type 1 DBr DBr DBr DBr CA (Alam eda Corridor), CO, MN, MO, NV, OR, TX, UT, VA, WA, Wash DC, EFLHD, Alberta Type 2 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DBr CA (San Joaquin Hills), FL, MN, UT, VA Type 3 DBr DBr DBr and DOT DBr ME Type 7 DBr DBr DOT DBr or 3rd NC, UT Type 8 DOT DBr DOT DBr AK, FL, NC Type 9 DOT DBr DOT or 3rd DBr or 3rd LA, MS, NC Type 11 DBr and DOT DBr DBr and DOT DBr NM, SD Note: DBr = design-builder; DOT = department of transportation (i.e., the project’s owner); 3rd = third party (independent firm retained to conduct QA and QC or independent assurance responsibilities); EFLHD = Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division. TABLE 4 QUALITY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS FOUND IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS

18 cases, a third-party independent quality firm is retained to conduct IA, oversight, and/or verification of the design- builder’s QA and QC activities during both design and con- struction. This case corresponds to the maximum level of PQA activities in that the DOT is not involved in any of the QA activities that it usually conducts in a DBB project. An example from Missouri illustrates the RFP verbiage that would be associated with a Type 1 quality management organization. The Contractor shall perform the quality management necessary for the Contractor to comply with its obligations under the Con- tract Documents. . . . All materials and each part or detail of the Work shall also be subject to oversight, audit and testing by the Commission [DOT] and other Persons [third party] designated by the commission. (Final Request for Proposals for The New I-64 Design-Build Project 2006) Type 2 Organization Design-builder does design QA and QC and construction QC and DOT performs construction QA and design PQA—In the Type 2 organization, the design-builder is responsible for de- sign QA and QC and construction QC. Because the DOT is not involved in design QA, it must perform design PQA, which is referred to as auditing, oversight, or review. The DOT is responsible for construction QA; therefore, there is no need for construction PQA. In certain cases, the DOT as- signs the construction QA to an independent quality firm and does not perform the QA functions with the DOT’s own forces. The following example from a MnDOT RFP indi- cates this type of organization. [Design] Design-Builder Responsibility. The objective of the DQMP [design quality management plan] is to place the respon- sibility for conducting DQC [design quality control] reviews and performance of DQA [design quality assurance] duties solely with the Design-Builder, yet allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in oversee- ing the design process and design products. The Department reserves the right to audit the DQMP. [Construction] Design-Builder Responsibility. The objec- tive of the CQMP [construction quality management plan] is to place the responsibility for conducting CQC [construction qual- ity control] reviews and inspection duties solely with the Design-Builder, yet enable the Department to perform its CQA [construction quality assurance] audits, IA, and acceptance test- ing [T.H. 52 (Rochester) Design-Build Request . . . 2002, italics added]. Type 3 Organization Design-builder is completely responsible for design QA and QC and construction QC, and construction QA is shared be- tween design-builder and DOT. DOT performs design PQA—The Type 3 organization is similar to Type 2 in that the design-builder is responsible for the design QA and QC and the construction QC. The DOT must still perform design PQA either with its own forces or with an independent qual- ity firm. The difference, however, lies with who performs the construction QA. In Type 3, both the design-builder and the DOT share responsibilities for construction QA. Because the DOT is involved in this, Type 3 does not require construction PQA. The Maine DOT used this approach as shown in the following RFP excerpt. [Design] [To be included in the proposal] . . . Describe the QC/QA procedures for preparing and checking all plans, speci- fications, calculations, reports, and all other documents that designers will prepare for use by the Design-Builder. Indepen- dent checking and back checking of these documents shall be in accordance with industry accepted practices. . . . [Construction] The Design-Builder is responsible for all aspects of the quality of construction, including labor, equipment, materials, inciden- tals, processes, construction methods, and QC. . . . The Depart- ment is responsible for approving the QCP [quality control plan], and assuring that the Design-Builder is following the QCP. . . . The Department may conduct Quality Assurance by review of QC Reports; random inspection of work; randomly accompany- ing the inspector during QC Inspections/Testing; sampling and testing (Request for Proposals, I-295 . . . 2003, italics added). Type 7 Organization Design-builder is solely responsible for design QA and QC and may share responsibility for construction QC with an in- dependent quality firm—DOT must perform design PQA and is responsible for construction QA. In the Type 7 organiza- tion, the design-builder is completely responsible for the de- sign QA and QC of the project. Once again, the DOT must perform design PQA. Construction QC is shared between the design-builder and an independent quality firm or performed solely by the design-builder. The DOT performs construction QA. The following example from Utah indicates that the design-builder will be responsible for the construction QC. Perform [meaning the design-builder] all of the Quality Assurance (QA) tasks required to ensure that the design of the project com- plies with all of the terms of the Contract. The Department will perform all of the Quality Assurance tasks required to ensure that construction meets all of the requirements of the Contract. . . . Perform [referring to the design-builder] all of the Design Quality Control checks outlined . . . Perform [referring to the design- builder] all of the Quality Control (QC) inspection, sampling, and testing needed to ensure that the final installed product meets or exceeds the specifications outlined in the contract documents (Request for Proposals SR-201 . . . 2004, italics added). Type 8 Organization Design-builder is responsible for all QC. DOT is responsible for all QA. PQA is not required—In the Type 8 organization, the design-builder is responsible only for the QC portion of the design and construction. The DOT performs the design and construction QA. PQA is not required because the DOT already is involved through QA in both design and construc- tion. The MnDOT used this organization as outlined in the following RFP excerpt. To ensure the quality of the Design-Build project, Mn/DOT will manage and perform construction and design QA and construc- tion IA functions. Construction QC and design QC plans and

19 FIGURE 9 Survey responses for DOT approach for quality assurance. functions will be the responsibility of the Proposers (Part I: Scope of Work T.H. 100 . . . 2001, italics added). Type 9 Organization Design-builder is responsible for design and construction QC. DOT is responsible for design QA and shares construc- tion QA with an independent quality firm—The Type 9 orga- nization is similar to Type 8 in that the design-builder is responsible for the QC of the project and the DOT is respon- sible for the QA of the project. Also, PQA is not required for either design or construction because the DOT is involved in the QA. The difference from Type 8 is that an independent quality firm is involved in the construction QA for the project. The Mississippi DOT indicated the use of this organization in the following RFP. Project services shall include but are not limited to . . . Quality Control for both design and construction services. . . . Follow- ing the incorporation of [Mississippi DOT’s] MDOT’s com- ments from the Final Design Review Phase, the CONTRAC- TOR shall prepare and submit a Release for Construction submittal to MDOT for MDOT’s final review and Released for Construction stamp. . . . The CONTRACTOR may proceed with Work in compliance with an approved Quality Control Plan including any associated sampling and testing requirements prior to receipt of a drawing depicting the Work as issue stamped “Released for Construction” and prior to the receipt of all re- quired Governmental approvals; however, all such Work shall be at the CONTRACTOR’S sole risk. . . . COMMISSION or its duly authorized representative may conduct QA inspections, verification sampling and testing for concrete and hot mix asphalt, all other acceptance testing, and independent assurance testing (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Biloxi to Ocean Springs Bridge. . . 2005, italics added). Type 11 Organization Design-builder is responsible for all design and construction QC, whereas design and construction QA is shared between the design-builder and the DOT—The Type 11 organization involves the design-builder in all aspects of quality manage- ment. The design-builder is completely responsible for the design and construction QC. The design and construction QA responsibilities are shared between the design-builder and the DOT. Thus, there is no need for PQA. The DOT is al- ready involved in the QA. This is the organization used by New Mexico in a DB project as the following RFP excerpts indicate. ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT . . . Oversight and audit of Contractor design and construction, including Verification Sampling and Testing . . . Independent Assurance. . . . The Contractor will be required to plan, implement, and provide a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA and QC) Program for its design and construction operations. . . . The Department will review the Contractor’s program to assure that it meets guide- lines and minimum requirements established by the Department. Department approval of the program will constitute Department agreement that it meets these criteria, but the Contractor shall maintain ownership of the program and shall be fully responsi- ble for its execution. . . . The Department may establish and maintain its own quality assurance and/or an independent qual- ity assurance organization to oversee and/or perform quality audits of the Contractor’s management, design, construction and maintenance activities, the Contractor’s Quality Assurance pro- cedures, Verification Sampling and Testing and the quality of the final product (Request for Proposals, US 70 Hondo Valley . . . 2001, italics added). Quality Management Organization Survey Responses As seen in Table 4 and in the DB RFP citations that follow, there is no consensus on the best way for quality management responsibilities to be distributed in a DB project. In some cases, the DOT has chosen to make the design-builder responsible for all quality management functions and, in other cases, just for the QC functions. Often, there is a sharing of responsibility between the design-builder, the DOT, and/or a third-party independent quality firm. The survey results also offer no consensus on DB quality management responsibili- ties. When asked to indicate “Which of the below best describes your agency’s approach to DB QA,” the responses were mixed. Figure 9 shows the results for this question. As can be seen, “agency uses two or more of approaches” was the most popular answer (45%); however, it was closely followed at 35% by DOTs that place the primary QA responsibility on the design-builder while the DOT only audits or oversees the program—in other words, Type 1 as defined in Table 3. The use of multiple approaches supports the findings in the content analysis of solicitation documents in which some state DOTs or agencies—such as Florida, North Carolina, and Utah—employed different quality management organizations

20 50% 24.5% Agency personnel DOT with 1-5 DB Projects DOT with > 5 DB Projects Design-builder’s design staff Design-builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant 46.2% 42.2% 34.6% 0.8% 0.0% 32.5% 19.2% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FIGURE 10 Comparison of experienced DOT assignment of responsibility for review of design deliverables with DOTs having 1 to 5 design-build projects’ worth of experience. for different projects. This may also indicate that not all qual- ity management organizations neatly fit within the categories listed on the survey, and some respondents believed that there was no adequate answer. Respondents who answered in this manner could have had one of two possible meanings: 1. The agency makes the design-builder primarily respon- sible for QA and retains an independent consultant to perform what this report is now calling PQA, or 2. The agency retains its traditional QA roles and retains a consultant to assist it. Unfortunately, the wording of this question does not allow one to differentiate between the two possible meanings. However, if one then looks at the question that asked the re- spondent to identify the primary responsibility for various traditional design and construction tasks, one can see that for most design and construction QA tasks, the majority response indicated that these responsibilities were assigned to the design-builders’ team members with a relatively large share also being assigned to an agency-hired consultant, as shown in Figures 10 through 14. It is interesting that the respondents who had more expe- rience tended to shift more responsibility back to the agency. In every case shown in Figures 10 through 14 for the respon- dents with five or fewer projects of DB experience, the design-builder’s staff had a higher percentage than the agency personnel. With the more experienced respondents, this only occurred in two of the categories: “checking of de- sign calculations” and “technical review of construction shop drawings.” This infers that the first possible meaning was probably indicated by more of the respondents than the sec- ond possible meaning. It is also interesting that 15% of the agencies in Figure 9 retain the traditional QA roles in DB projects. This group may also be the one that had the least experience and as a re- sult is still evolving its DB quality management policies and procedures on the DBB basis where the contractor has QC and the DOT has QA. Finally, Figure 9 shows that the ap- proach involving an independent third-party firm conducting QA registered only 5% of the respondents. This does not mean that other approaches did not involve an independent firm in QA activities. This analysis furnishes no clear-cut consensus for how to best organize quality management roles and responsibilities in DB and probably serves best to rein- force the previous conclusion that quality management organizations need to be tailored on a project-specific basis. Specific examples can, however, be instructive in under- standing the different options available to DOTs when performing a DB project. When specifically analyzing construction QA activities, in some RFPs, the design-builder is responsible for the QA activities in construction, but is required to hire an indepen- dent third party to do the work, as shown in the following RFP excerpts from Virginia and Utah. [Virginia] The Offeror shall be responsible for 100% QA work and QA sampling and testing for all materials. These functions shall be performed by an independent firm that has no involve- ment in the construction QC program/activities [Request for Proposals, A Design-Build Project Approaches and Bridge over Garden Creek Canal (Route 609) . . . 2006].

21 50% 60% 70% 80% 11.4% Agency personnel DOT with 1-5 DB Projects DOT with > 5 DB Projects Design-builder’s design staff Design-builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant 24.4% 73.0% 59.0% 2.5%0.0% 15.7% 14.0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FIGURE 11 Comparison of experienced DOT assignment of responsibility for checking design calculations with DOTs having 1 to 5 design-build projects’ worth of experience. 50% 60% 24.1% Agency personnel DOT with 1-5 DB Projects DOT with > 5 DB Projects Design-builder’s design staff Design-builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant 52.6% 44.8% 25.6% 2.5%3.4% 27.6% 19.3% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FIGURE 12 Comparison of experienced DOT assignment of responsibility for review of specifications with DOTs having 1 to 5 design-build projects’ worth of experience. [Utah] Members of the CQO [construction quality organization] who have TPOC [testing proof of compliance; i.e., QA] responsi- bilities (this includes the CPOC [construction proof of compliance] Manager) shall not be employees of constructors or suppliers work- ing on or providing materials to the project (Request for Proposals SR-265 . . . 2004). In other cases, the design-builders are allowed to perform construction QA with their own employees who have no con- struction production responsibilities. The following example is from the Washington State DOT: Persons performing Quality Control and/or Quality Assurance functions shall be at an organizational level that reports directly to upper level management of the Design-Build firm to assure in- dependence from the influences of the project production staff. All key personnel performing Quality Control and/or Quality Assurance functions shall be designated as such and shall not be assigned to perform any conflicting duties (Request for Propos- als, Thurston Way Interchange . . . 2000). However, one survey respondent believes that “ensuring independent QA Management from [the] contractor” is a

22 50% 60% 70% 2.40% Agency personnel DOT with 1-5 DB Projects DOT with > 5 DB Projects Design-builder’s design staff Design-builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant 17.90% 61.60% 56.50% 11.60%11.50% 24.50% 14.10% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FIGURE 13 Comparison of experienced DOT assignment of responsibility for review of construction shop drawings with DOTs having 1 to 5 design-build projects’ worth of experience. 50% 60% 28.2% Agency personnel DOT with 1-5 DB Projects DOT with > 5 DB Projects Design-builder’s design staff Design-builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant 48.7% 28.8% 29.5% 0.0% 21.8% 21.8% 21.8% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FIGURE 14 Comparison of experienced DOT assignment of responsibility for review of construction material submittals with DOTs having 1 to 5 design-build projects’ worth of experience. challenge. On the other side of the contract, there are some DOTs that retain responsibility for construction QA, but may not perform it themselves. They state in the RFP that an independent third party may perform it. An example comes from the MnDOT. The Department’s role in construction is to provide . . . quality as- surance (QA) and independent assurance (IA) of all construction activities, inspection, and material testing. . . . The Department will do this with either its staff or a consultant acting as its repre- sentative (Request for Qualifications T.H. 52 . . . 2001, italics added). An interesting note is that none of the projects retained the traditional roles of QA and QC that are found in DBB where the contractor is only responsible for construction QC and the DOT performs design QA and QC and construction QA (Type 13 organization). All the DOTs have written RFPs that put more responsibility for quality on the design- builder. Another interesting finding is that in a few cases the DB RFP placed the responsibility for design QA and at times construction QA and QC on a third-party IA firm under contract with the design-builder. This was the case with Utah’s I-15 project and Texas’ Central Texas Turnpike

23 Type Design QA Design QC Design PQA Construction QA Construction QC Construction PQA 1 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DBr DBr DOT or 3rd 2 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DOT or 3rd DBr none 3 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DBr and DOT DBr none 7 DBr DBr DOT or 3rd DOT DBr or 3rd none Note: DBr = design-builder; DOT = department of transportation (i.e., the project’s owner); 3rd = third party (independent firm retained to conduct QA and QC or independent assurance responsibilities). TABLE 5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS WITH PQA (SH 130), as well as in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia on smaller projects. For the projects that allocate all QA and QC responsibil- ity to the design-builder, the DOT still has quality responsi- bilities. Ultimately, the DOT is the entity responsible to the public for getting the project finished at an acceptable qual- ity level. A third layer of quality management, PQA, has been introduced for the purpose of the DOT ensuring that the design-builder has produced a product that meets the contract requirements and to satisfy the FHWA-mandated oversight requirements on federally funded projects. Often, this new layer is called verification testing, IA, audit, or oversight in the literature and the solicitation documents. One DOT respondent to the survey expressed this exact idea, in relation to design first and then construction, as follows: If a consultant designed the project for us (owner) on a tradi- tional DBB project, we wouldn’t require as extensive of QA and QC practice nor would we audit the process like we do on our Design-Build projects. We have placed more QA, QC, and inspection requirements on the design-build team. We also added an additional layer of testing (verification testing) that the department must do. However, we plan on changing back and reducing the number of layers (combining QA and QC) and having the department play a more active role in testing and inspection (italics added). Two other respondents to the survey also expressed a sim- ilar observation in relation to construction: • “A significantly greater [construction quality] responsi- bility is given to the contractor . . . [the] Department primarily does only verification testing.” • “Quality activities are performed by Design/Build per- sonnel and [are] clearly described in the approved QA and QC program. Oversight of [the] quality program [is performed] by [the] agency and/or [a] consultant.” Applying the Project Quality Assurance Model to Organizations By definition, PQA cannot be performed by the design- builder. It must be performed by the DOT or by an indepen- dent third-party firm. This prevents the design-builder from being responsible for all the QA and QC. Table 5 is a revision of Table 4 with the added PQA category in quality manage- ment organizations in which PQA is necessary. It should be noted that QA organization Types 8, 9, and 11 shown in Table 3 do not require PQA and therefore are not included in Table 4. The 2006 Maryland SHA study of DB mega-project QA and QC found that 8 of the 11 case study projects surveyed used what the Maryland report called “quality oversight,” which is essentially the same as the activities that this synthesis calls PQA (Potter and McMahon 2006), validating the above find- ings. The report also stated that the Maryland SHA “do[es] not have a separate Quality Oversight (QO) program devel- oped . . . so [will] need to develop the program and train their staff” (Potter and McMahon 2006). When the DOT or a third-party firm is involved in QA ac- tivities there is no need for the PQA activities. This is shown in Types 2, 3, and 7. PQA is needed only for the design portion of the work because the DOT is involved in construction QA. Some examples are given here to illustrate how this has been defined in RFPs. Keep in mind that each of these RFPs first assigned the QA responsibility to the design-builder. For Type 1, this includes both design and construction QA; for Types 2, 3, and 7, only design QA was assigned to the design-builder. PQA Model Type 1 Organization DOT or independent quality firm provides PQA for design and construction—In the revised Type 1 organization, either the DOT or an independent quality firm must provide PQA for both the design and the construction of the project. This is required because the design-builder carries the responsi- bility for both the design and construction QA and QC. The only possible way for the DOT to ensure that the design- builder’s quality management plan is effective is to review it in some manner. The RFPs in the content analysis referred to this as due diligence, oversight, validate, verify, or audit. This organization is shown in Figure 15. The following RFP excerpts show how this has been writ- ten into the solicitation documents. [Colorado] [The design quality management process] Allows the SEC [Southeast Corridor] Representative to fulfill its responsi- bilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products by the Contractor demonstrating, through its quality assurance process, that the DQMP is under- stood and followed by the Contractor’s organization. . . .

24 FIGURE 15 Design-build project quality assurance model for a Type 1 quality management organization. [The construction quality management process] Allows the SEC Representative to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the construction process by the Contractor demonstrating through the quality assurance process that the CQMP is understood and followed by the Contractor’s organization (Request for Proposal, Book 1 . . . 2000, italics added). [Utah] [After assigning QA to the design-builder] The Depart- ment will perform Independent Assurance (IA) testing and in- spection to validate the accuracy and reliability of the CPOC [construction proof of compliance] testing and inspection. The Department will also perform Verification inspection and testing to confirm that the work and materials meet contract require- ments. . . . The Department will audit, as needed, the DPOC [design proof of compliance] processes and Design Documents to verify compliance with the Contract Documents. The Depart- ment will be invited to attend all reviews (Request for Proposals Parley’s Crossing Tunnel . . . 2004, italics added). [Virginia] . . . the VDOT will limit their design oversight to spot checks to insure that the design work complies with the RFP requirements. . . . The VDOT’s construction role will be limited to oversight of the QA firm activities, verification sampling and testing, independent assurance sampling and testing, review of progress payments, and oversight of the contractor’s construc- tion management scheduling, document control, etc. (Request for Proposals, A Design-Build Project Design and Construction . . . 2002, italics added). [Washington State] WSDOT . . . will comment on Design Work, but will not require comment responses unless work is deemed to be outside the provisions of the contract. . . . [After assigning QA to the design-builder] Department Responsibili- ties Verification sampling and testing will be performed by WSDOT to validate Design-Builder sampling and testing as well as the quality of the material produced. An Independent Assurance Program will also be conducted by WSDOT to eval- uate all sampling and testing used in the acceptance of mater- ial (Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange . . . 2000, italics added). PQA Model Type 2 Organization DOT or independent quality firm provides PQA for design and construction QA—In the Type 2 organization shown in Figure 16, PQA is necessary only for the design of the proj- ect. The construction quality is already ensured by the DOT participation in construction QA. Oversight of design is nec- essary to ensure that the design-builder’s quality program fulfills its intended function. The following example from Minnesota expresses the required design PQA function of the DOT. The objective of the DQMP is to place the responsibility for con- ducting DQC reviews and performance of DQA duties solely with the Design-Builder, yet allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products. The Department reserves the right to audit the DQMP [T.H. 52 (Rochester) Design-Build Request for Proposals . . . 2002, italics added]. PQA Model Type 3 Organization DOT or independent quality firm provides PQA for design and DOT shares construction QA with design-builder—In the Type 3 organization (see Figure 17), as in the Type 2 organization, PQA is necessary only for the design of the project. The con- struction quality is already ensured by the DOT participation in construction QA. Oversight of design is necessary to ensure that the design-builder’s quality program fulfills its intended function. The following example from Maine expresses the re- quired design PQA function of the DOT. The DQMP objective is intended to place the responsibility for the quality of the design on the Design-Builder, facilitate con- struction by the Design-Builder, and allow the Department to

25 FIGURE 16 Design-build project quality assurance model for a Type 2 quality management organization. FIGURE 17 Design-build project quality assurance model for a Type 3 quality management organization. fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in oversee- ing the design process and products (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector . . . 2003, italics added). PQA Model Type 7 Organization DOT or independent quality firm provides design PQA and construction QA; independent quality firm shares construc- tion QC with design-builder—In the Type 7 organization (see Figure 18), as in the Type 2 and Type 3 organizations, PQA is necessary only for the design of the project. The con- struction quality is already ensured by the DOT participation in construction QA. Oversight of design is necessary to ensure that the design-builder’s quality program fulfills its intended function. The following example from Utah expresses the required design PQA function of the DOT. The DESIGN-BUILDER will review all designs to ensure the development of the plans and specifications are in accordance with the requirements of the Contract. . . . The Department will audit, as needed, the DESIGN-BUILDER processes and Design Documents to verify compliance with the Contract Documents. The Department will be invited to attend all reviews (Request for Proposals Parley’s Crossing Tunnel . . . 2004, italics added). There were several instances in which the entire quality management structure was not clearly defined in the solicita- tion documents reviewed by the authors. Because any change in the traditional quality management structure would have to

26 FIGURE 18 Design-build project quality assurance model for a Type 7 quality management organization. be outlined in the contract documents, it was assumed, for the purposes of design QA, that the DOT would perform design QA activities unless specifically stated in the RFP. In regard to the other projects in which not enough information was ob- tained, there were no more assumptions made; however, with the information obtained from the content analysis, it was determined that all projects have quality management struc- tures that will most likely correspond to the ones outlined in Table 4. QUALITY RESPONSIBILITIES IN DESIGN-BUILD One of the most challenging aspects of DB is having all par- ties clearly understand their roles in regard to design and con- struction quality. It is very important that the DOT ensure that it writes its RFP with a clear definition of how the qual- ity management responsibilities will be assigned between the owner and the design-builder. The solicitation document content analysis found that no DOT used the same quality management organization on DB that is traditionally used on DBB projects. The DB PQA model as applied to the differ- ent quality management organizations makes the DOT and the design-builder responsible for different aspects of qual- ity. As stated by the Arizona DOT in the Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide (2001), Both the Design-Builder and the Department are jointly respon- sible for quality management. The Design-Builder is responsible for quality as the producer and constructor, while the Depart- ment is responsible for quality as a specifier and buyer. DB requires that all of the traditional quality management tasks that were performed for DBB also be completed in execution of the DB project. The difference is merely the assignment of the responsibility for each task to the owner, a third-party independent quality firm, or the design-builder. This “shifting of responsibility for QA and QC . . . requires clear de- finition of roles for both the owner and contractor. The owner and contractor must carefully define the QA and QC program, including roles and responsibilities, within the bid documents so those participants are clear as to their requirements” (Carter et al. 2002). This places the quality roles in the contract documents where all parties are legally bound to follow them. The need for clearly defining quality responsibilities has been documented by other studies (Strong 2005). Indeed, even the FTA Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines state, “QA/QC pro- gram effectiveness hinges on clear allocation of roles and responsibilities to the involved parties” (Carter et al. 2002). This is also an issue that was brought up by survey respondents when asked for the three biggest challenges to implementing QA on DB. One respondent listed “communicating QA/QC roles” as the number one challenge, whereas another respondent listed “recognize the difference between QC and QA.” Several state DOTs have written guidelines to help their employees better understand and implement DB in an orga- nized manner. These guidelines provide general and/or detailed state accepted and required procedures for imple- menting DB projects. The authors analyzed 17 of these guidelines, searching for how quality responsibilities were communicated within DOT policy documents. Two different types of quality definitions exist in the state DB guidelines: explicit and open-ended. In addition, some guidelines do not specifically mention the roles for quality management. In seven of the guidelines, the quality management responsibili- ties are left open-ended, whereas explicit quality management responsibilities are used four times. In six instances, quality management responsibilities are not mentioned in the guide- lines. The explicit guidelines mandate the way the DOT will handle DB quality management responsibilities, whereas the

27 open-ended guidelines allow the quality management respon- sibilities to be determined on a project-by-project basis, but some quality management responsibilities may be explicitly defined (see Arizona DOT). Examples are given here. • Explicit (Colorado): The Contractor shall be responsible for Quality Control inspection and testing. The plans should address any QC requirements that the Contractor must follow which are in addition to those already in the reference specifications, policies, and procedures. The Contractor should be required to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP), which outlines details of inspection and testing to control quality products (plans, construc- tion, etc.). Quality Assurance (QA) is the responsibility of CDOT [Colorado DOT]. QA consists of all the sam- pling, testing, and inspection necessary for CDOT to assure conformance with the contract requirements (Design-Build Guidelines 1997). • Open-ended (New York): During preparation of the RFP the Department’s Project Management Team will need to determine the Design-Builder’s inspection requirements and sampling and testing requirements for both Verifica- tion Sampling and Testing (by the Department) and QC sampling and testing (by the Design-Builder). . . . The Department’s Project Management Team will need to determine the specific QA and QC requirements for each project (Design-Build Procedures Manual 2005). • Open-ended (North Carolina): “The Department will de- termine the type of Construction Engineering Inspection and Quality Assurance to be required on a project by proj- ect basis. The Department will consider the selected design-build team, a third party private engineering firm or existing Department construction staff to provide these services” (Design-Build Policy & Procedures 2000). The Arizona DOT Design-Build Procurement and Ad- ministration Guide—(2001) allocates quality management responsibilities in the following excerpt: • Quality Control—always the Design-Builder’s. • Quality Conformance Inspections—either the Design- Builder’s or the Department’s. • Quality Acceptance Sampling and Testing—either the Design-Builder’s or the Department’s. • Quality Verification—always the Department’s includ- ing checklist completion. • Independent Assurance—always the Department’s. • Acceptance of the Work—always the Department’s; can use the results from the Design-Builder’s quality conformance inspections and quality acceptance sam- pling and testing in arriving at a decision. Different reasons may exist for this difference in quality management responsibility allocation that is spelled out in the state DB guidelines. Some states may feel more comfort- able with the DB process and have experienced staff to make the necessary quality management responsibility allocation. Quality Assurance Responsibility Matrices In addition to communicating effectively within the DOT or- ganization, it is also imperative that the competitors on a DB project understand what is required of them to fulfill the contract requirements. One seemingly effective way to com- municate quality tasks is to present the different tasks and the respective responsible parties in the form of a matrix or chart that is easily understood. In the Arizona DOT Cortaro Road Interchange RFP, such a matrix was published, furnishing a clear way to ensure that all parties to a contract understand their quality management responsibilities. In the RFP analy- sis, this was the only one that included a responsibility matrix for construction and a matrix for design and construction quality responsibilities. This Arizona DOT RFP quality re- sponsibility matrix is reproduced in Appendix B to provide the reader an example from which to develop a similar tool for a future DB project. The responsibilities were divided into those for which the design-builder is responsible and those for which the DOT is responsible, thus clarifying the design-builder’s responsibili- ties in regard to the project. Washington State DOT, in their Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development (2004), has developed a risk matrix (Table 6) to show on a project-by-project basis the shift in QA responsibilities when comparing DBB with DB. The following comes from an example project given in the Guidebook. Although the Washington State DOT uses this matrix internally and does not currently include it in its RFPs, the inclusion of this type of matrix in the RFP would facilitate the understanding of the de- sign and construction quality responsibilities in DB projects. These examples, along with other studies, conclusively show that QC is almost always placed on the DB contractor (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2002; McLawhorn 2003; Bourne 2006). QA, however, is much more varied. A report for the Wisconsin DOT stated that “many states choose to retain QA oversight, but confer QA responsibility on the [design-build] contractor” (McLawhorn 2003). This is nearly the same con- clusion reached by a study performed for the Texas DOT that said “Although a few agencies view QA as the sole responsi- bility and purview of the owner, some owners are moving towards placing the QA responsibility in the hands of the design-builder, while retaining an oversight QA function through monitoring and/or auditing and independent assur- ance testing”—that is, PQA (Gharaibeh et al. 2005). This report qualified this statement by saying that “Agencies that have experienced quality problems on projects are retaining QA responsibility” (Gharaibeh et al. 2005). Risk Allocation in Quality Assurance Organizations Assigning responsibility for quality management tasks es- sentially creates a distribution of risk among the parties to the DB contract. Therefore, a DOT could undertake a deliberate

28 Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Process Risk Owner Shared Contractor Owner Design-Builder Design Issues Plan conform ance with regulations/guidelines/RFP X X Plan accuracy X X Design criteria X X Conform ance to design criteria X X Design review process X X Design QC X X Design QA X X Owner review tim e X X Changes in scope X X Constructability of design X X Construction DBE com pliance X X Safety/safety QA X X Construction quality/work ma nship X X Schedule X X Materials quality X X Materials documentation X X Material availability X X Initial perform ance requirem ents of QA plan X X Final construction/ mate rials QC/QA plan X X Construction/ ma terials QA X X Construction QC X X Construction QA procedural com pliance auditing X X Construction IA testing/inspection X X Construction staking X X Erosion control X X Spill prevention X X Shop drawings X X Equipm ent failure/breakdown X X Work met hods X X Early construction/at-risk construction X X Community relations X X Perform ance of defined m itigation m easures X X Warranty X X After Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development 2004. TABLE 6 WASHINGTON STATE DOT DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT RISK MATRIX risk analysis similar to the one shown in Table 6 before mak- ing its final decision as to the appropriate QA organization that is appropriate for a particular project. Table 7 is an example of applying the Washington State DOT (Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Devel- opment 2004) risk model to comparing a Type 1 organization (see Figure 15) in which the design-builder is assigned most of the QA responsibility with a Type 8 organization shown in Figure 19 in which the DOT will perform the design and con- struction QA. One can clearly see the differences in risk allocation by choosing one organization over the other. In Table 7, one can see that there are more shared risks for the Type 1 organiza- tion compared with the Type 8 organization. Shared risk typ- ically translates to the potential for disputes and delays unless the DOT clearly defines how those shared risks will be divided between the parties. Therefore, this type of analysis provides not only a visual way to display the allocation of risk, but also a mechanism for identifying those areas in which further clarification in the DB project’s solicitation documents is needed. It might also result in an excellent means with which to communicate the DOT’s intent for risk allocation by including the matrix in the DB RFP. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS AND QUALITY IN DESIGN-BUILD A point to consider in the rearranging of quality tasks in DB is the involvement of outside, independent consultants work- ing either for the design-builder or for the DOT. Conven- tional wisdom says that DOTs have fewer professionals to manage the increasing workload. Outside professionals hired for a short time can supplement standard DOT forces in times when the workload is heavier than normal. The FHWA’s final rule on DB contracting (“Design-Build Contracting: Final Rule” 2002), while retaining the previous rules for QA on federally funded projects, gives DOTs significant latitude with regard to the details of how they meet their federally mandated QA responsibilities. The final rule allows DOTs to rely on a “combination of contractual provisions and

29 Type 1 Type 8 Risk Owner Shared Design- Builder Owner Shared Design- Builder Design Issues Plan conform ance with regulations/guidelines/ RFP X X Plan accuracy X X Design criteria X X Conform ance to design criteria X X Design review process X X Design QC X X Design QA X X Owner review tim e X X Changes in scope X X Constructability of design X X Construction DBE co mp liance X X Safety/safety QA X X Construction quality/work ma nship X X Schedule X X Materials quality X X Materials documentation X X Material availability X X Initial perform ance requirem ents of QA plan X X Final construction/ ma terials QC/QA plan X X Construction/ mate rials QA X X Construction QC X X Construction QA procedural com pliance auditing X X Construction IA testing/inspection X X Construction staking X X Erosion control X X Spill prevention X X Shop drawings X X Equipm ent failure/break X X Work met hods X X Early construction/at-risk construction X X Community relations X X Perform ance of defined m itigation measures X X Warranty X X TABLE 7 EXAMPLE RISK ANALYSIS FOR TYPE 1 VERSUS TYPE 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS acceptance methods.” It also permits DOTs to rely on “qual- ity control sampling and testing as part of the acceptance decision, provided that adequate verification of the design- builder’s quality control sampling and testing is performed to ensure that the design-builder is providing the quality of ma- terials and construction required by the contract documents” (“Design-Build Contracting: Final Rule” 2002). Therefore, the use of independent consultants in a DB PQA program is not constrained by federal regulations. In the selection of solicitation documents analyzed, five RFPs were found that required construction QC to be per- formed by an independent quality firm; three of these came from North Carolina, one from Louisiana, and one from Florida. All chose to require that the design-builder hire the independent consultant and the cost was included in the DB contract. Theoretically, the DOT could itself choose to retain the independent consultant. Excerpts from the RFPs from each state are cited here. [North Carolina] The Design-Build team shall employ a private engineering firm to perform Construction Inspection for all work required under this contract. . . . The CEI [construction engineer- ing and inspection] firm shall be responsible for all construction inspection, field materials sampling and testing, and technician level contract administration for the construction of the project (Design-Build Package: I-77 South . . . 2005).

30 FIGURE 19 Design-build project quality assurance model for a Type 8 quality management organization. [Florida] The DESIGN BUILD FIRM will provide a separate (independent) entity to perform Quality Control Engineering (Interstate 75 over the Peace River Bridges . . . 2001). [Louisiana] The Design-Builder shall retain the services of an independent engineering consulting organization (the QC Engi- neering Firm) to oversee, manage, certify, and perform construc- tion QC activities . . . (Request for Proposals, New Mississippi River Bridge . . . 2005). For construction QA, independent quality firms were re- quired to participate in only five cases. Two of these were mega-projects (SH 130 in Texas and I-15 in Utah) and three were smaller projects in Virginia. All the construction QA was contractually required to be performed by the indepen- dent quality firm operating under contract with the design- builder. In the case of some RFPs from Minnesota, the DOT included the option to use either an independent firm or the DOT forces to perform construction QA. For design QA and QC, the conclusion from the solicita- tion documents examined is that design QA responsibility was assigned to either the DOT or the design-builder. In all cases, design QC was performed by either the DOT or the design-builder. This does not indicate, however, that independent firms were not involved in design QA and QC procedures. In some instances, the RFP stated that if a design-builder did not have enough qualified professionals to independently perform the design and the subsequent quality checks, an independent firm must be contracted to perform those services. An excerpt from a RFP from the Maine DOT provides an example. If Design Checkers are not available within the design firm con- ducting the design work, the Design-Builder shall arrange with an independent firm, other than the design firm or subsidiaries of the design firm, to conduct QC checks (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector 2003). SUMMARY To produce a quality product, an organization to manage quality activities must be in place. With the changing quality roles found in the DB delivery method, it is imperative that quality responsibilities and the responsible parties are clearly stated in the contract documents. This will alleviate confu- sion and help both DOTs and design-builders better under- stand their roles on each project. As found in the solicitation document content analysis and confirmed by the survey responses, there is no single way in which these quality man- agement responsibilities are distributed across all DB proj- ects. Therefore, it is even more important that they be clearly stated in the solicitation documents.