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.

31 POINT OF GREATEST INFLUENCE For each transportation DB project, the quality process starts in the procurement phase. For purposes of this report, the procurement phase is defined as including all actions taken by the DOT before awarding the DB project. Thus, it will en- compass all preliminary design activities necessary for the identification of right-of-way requirements and environmen- tal clearances, as well as advancing the design to a point at which it becomes an adequate description of the scope of work. This phase also includes the activities undertaken dur- ing advertising, qualifications/proposal evaluation, discus- sions, and best and final offers. Once the DB contract is awarded, the procurement phase is complete. In a review of the I-15 DB project in Utah, a consultant stated, “it is during the development of the RFQ [request for qualifications] and RFP [request for proposals] that the ulti- mate quality of the project can be most influenced” (Drennon 1998). The relationship between the influence of quality and the stage of the project is shown in Figure 20. Quality is most influenced in procurement and at the beginning of design but rapidly falls off during the later stages of design, construc- tion, and maintenance. During the procurement phase, deci- sions are made as to what is included in the RFQ and/or RFP. Some of these decisions are already decided by state law or published department DB guides. Other decisions are left to be made on a project-by-project basis. This chapter discusses the specific quality management decisions involved in this phase. The major issues that must be determined are as follows: • Determining the level of design development to be de- picted in the RFP; • Determining the types and details of proposed design development elements that will be required to be con- tained in the design-builder’s proposal and how these will be evaluated; • Determining the requirements for post-construction operations and maintenance, if appropriate; • Selecting the type of quality management organization that will be used for this project (see chapter two for details); • Selecting the qualifications that are required for the design-builder’s quality management team and how they will be evaluated; • Identifying the types and content of QA and/or QC plans required to be submitted with the design-builder’s proposal; • Identifying the types and content of QA and/or QC plans required to be submitted for DOT review and approval after award; and • Identifying other quality tasks as may be required by the project’s specific needs. DESIGN-BUILD QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT STRATEGY DB procurement can be done a number of ways, but most methods can commonly be classified as either a one-step or a two-step DB procurement process (Beard et al. 2001). In one-step procurement, the competing design-builders submit their qualifications and past performance information in a single package along with their technical and price proposal. The owner then evaluates all components (qualifications, past performance, technical approach, and price) of the pro- posals and makes the award decision in a single action. Two-step procurement models are often likened to the qualifications-based selection model used in architect/ engineer design services contracting in that the first step is the submission of qualification/past performance information in response to an RFQ, which is then evaluated by the DOT with- out regard to price or technical approach. A “short list” of the most qualified competitors is assembled. The short-listed firms are then issued the RFP and submit price and technical proposals. The major advantage of this system is that com- petitors who are not well qualified are spared the expense of preparing an unsuccessful proposal. In addition, this system has the advantage to the DOT of deepening the pool of poten- tial competitors by reducing the cost of competing (Gransberg et al. 2006). It also reduces the amount of time and energy that a DOT has to invest in the evaluation process by limiting the number of proposals that must be evaluated to only those that come from the best qualified competitors. From a quality man- agement perspective, the two-step process is preferred because it allows the DOT to focus on the potential ability of the pool of competitors to be able to successfully deliver both design and construction quality during the first step without muddying the waters with technical and price information. Transportation Research Circular E-C090 describes the two- step selection process as “essential for success” (Bourne et al. 2006). It also allows the DOT to be very specific as to the CHAPTER THREE DESIGN-BUILD QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES DURING PROCUREMENT PHASE

32 FIGURE 20 Relationship between project stage and influence of quality (adapted from Nickerson and Sabol 2003). types of personnel and experiences that it believes will enhance the potential for delivering a high-quality completed project. Leveraging the Two-Step Selection Process DOTs can leverage their opportunity to influence quality on a DB project by using the two-step selection process. Once the owner issues the RFQ, the design-builders are able to identify the types of design, construction, and quality profes- sionals that they need to be able to make the short list. Additionally, they are able to begin the process of making teaming arrangements with design specialty subconsultants and construction trade contractors to build a highly qualified DB team whose portfolio includes the types of past project experience that the DOT has deemed important to the quality of the given project. They then respond with a statement of qualifications, which is reviewed by the DOT. The short- listing decision is made, and the members of the short list are issued the RFP. In the RFP content analysis of 66 DB proj- ects, 89% of the projects analyzed used the two-step RFQ/ RFP process, which shows the wide acceptance and use of this practice. The two-step process is also a good way to add extra weight to quality components of the project through the requirements stated in the RFQ. This correlates with findings regarding the pre-award evaluation of competitor qualifica- tions reported by Qaasim (2005) for federally funded transit projects. Note that Qaasim calls the competitors “vendors” and “suppliers.” He found that . . . governmental transit agencies rarely invest in Quality Assur- ance Pre-Assessments of prospective vendors since they are often constricted by tight budgets and typically use a low bid process. In fact, using Federal guidelines, even a federally funded ‘Best- Value Procurement’ often uses a 45% weighting for cost, which in most cases still results in the low bidder receiving the award. Since we were unable to employ pre-qualification supplier qual- ity audits before contract award, we lost the value of this impor- tant tool and had to rely on subsequent quality audits to identify supplier deficiencies (emphasis added by author). The finding that the two-step process worked successfully in public projects was confirmed in a 1999 study (Molenaar et al. 1999) of 104 public-sector DB projects, which con- cluded that “public-sector owners should choose the two- step method whenever cost and schedule growth are critical to the project success.” The study went on to advocate the use of best-value selection authorized in the 1996 Federal Acquisition Reform Act when it stated that: “The two-phase design/build method outlined by the 1996 Federal Acquisi- tion Reform Act delivers the best overall budget and sched- ule performance.” This is not the only study to recommend the use of best- value based procurement to achieve higher quality. In the Recommended AASHTO Design-Build Procurement Guide, the authors stated the following: Procuring design-build projects through best-value methods enables agencies to assess the quality of design, the qualifica- tions of design-builders, and a number of other non-price factors. Traditional design-bid-build project delivery does not allow the agency to consider these important aspects of quality in the pro- curement decision. In fact, the ability to utilize a qualifications- based selection on the construction contractor as well as the engineer can be of great advantage to the owner. Although low bid procurement has been used for design-builder selection, this Guide strongly recommends the use of best-value procurement primarily based upon the fact that the design is not complete at the time of project award (Molenaar et al. 2005). Additionally, the AASHTO Primer on Contracting for the Twenty-First Century (2001) discusses “quality factors affecting prequalification, bidding, and contract administra- tion . . . [that] allow for the use of past performance informa- tion, construction quality, and contract progress.” These have been used in DBB as well as DB projects to establish a set of criteria that allows the DOT to identify a competitor with the correct set of credentials that permit it to deliver a quality end product. This guide cites an experience by the Oregon DOT, which used a combination of qualifications and price to award a technically complex bridge project that required spe- cial experience, stating that “the Oregon DOT was quite pleased with the use of this contracting method.”

33 Some states, such as Indiana, have laws that require a low- bid award and do not allow a best-value award, which per- mits the weighting of quality against technical, schedule, and price evaluation criteria. A two-step process called low-bid DB award (Gransberg et al. 2006) allows the DOT to take advantage of the benefits that come from using a more qual- ified DB firm. This method asks each competitor to submit two envelopes. One contains a statement of qualifications and the other holds the bid price for the project. The first envelope is opened, and those competitors that meet a pre- established set of qualification and past performance criteria form the short list. The bid envelopes of those that do not qualify are returned unopened. Next, the bid envelopes of qualified firms are opened, and the project is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. As reported in the findings of one study, “any procurement system that does not factor in qual- ity of past performance in determining qualification to bid future projects is flawed” (Strong 2006). Owners are able to define in the RFQ the most important qualities that they see as necessary for a proposing firm to make the project successful. For example, the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) DB RFQs require submission of “the D/B Firms’ process understanding, team, capabilities, quality program, and past performance” (Design-Build Policy & Procedures 2000). Thus, if a company does not have a qual- ity management program that satisfies the NCDOT’s perfor- mance criteria, it will not be able to propose on the technical aspects of the project. Massachusetts requires an RFQ for each project so that any project-specific issues can be out- lined in the RFQ and addressed by qualified design-builders (Design Build Procurement Guide 2006). In an analysis of 17 state-published DB guidelines, 73% required using a two-step process for DB procurement; however, only 55% of these required the evaluation of the design-builder’s quality program as part of forming the short list of firms. Using Selection Scoring to Emphasize Quality In addition to having a two-step process, DOTs can place ad- ditional emphasis on quality by how they structure the scor- ing criteria for DB projects. It is common sense to understand that design-builders in writing their proposals will focus on the aspects of the project that are required in the proposal and that will be scored. Placing a quality component in the RFQ or RFP indicates to the design-builder that quality is an im- portant issue for the DOT and that a proposal emphasizing quality will be evaluated more favorably. An example of this is shown by the philosophy of the MnDOT on its Interstate 494 DB project. Instead of including post-award incentives, MnDOT determined that . . . certain aspects of the RFP would provide opportunities for the right contractor with the right approach to win the work. To achieve this, RFP selection process included the following: Areas of great importance receive higher scoring weights; Contractor is rewarded in the proposal scoring for exceeding minimum requirements; and Contractor’s past performance is considered during evaluations for future projects (Gladke 2006). In the solicitation document content analysis, 47 of the project documents had the scoring criteria listed for either the RFQ, RFP, or both. Of those 47 projects, nearly two-thirds evaluated quality directly by listing some aspect of the qual- ity program in the scoring criteria. In other words, either a summary of or the entire quality management plan was re- quired for evaluation in the RFQ, RFP, or both, before the project was awarded. The average weighting for the quality component was 12% with a range from 3% to 25%. In the survey response, 48% of respondents required and evaluated part of the quality management program before awarding the DB contract. Another 11% of respondents reported that either part or the entire quality management program was required to be submitted in the proposal, but it was not eval- uated as part of the contract award. Thus, 59% of the respon- dents required the design-builder to articulate its quality management approach in some form in the DB proposal. The remaining 41% of the respondents indicated that the submission of the quality management plan was required after the award of the contract. For these respondents, ensur- ing the quality of the project in the procurement stage rested on the qualifications and past performance of the design- builder—that is, the “quality by qualifications approach” (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004). With this approach, the quality management details are provided by the winning design-builder after contract award. Indeed, of the 41% of respondents who required the quality management plan sub- mitted after award, 64% evaluated, as part of the contract award decision, the qualifications of those who would be di- rectly in charge of the DB quality management program— that is, the DB quality manager, the design quality manager, and/or the construction quality manager. Additionally, 9% required that the qualifications be listed in the proposal, but did not evaluate them as part of the contract award decision. The general survey confirmed the results of the RFP content analysis finding that portions of the quality management pro- gram were required to be included in the proposal and were evaluated in approximately one-half of the responses. Design Development Level in the Request for Proposals A clearly defined scope of work in the RFP is one of the most important factors in achieving the desired level of quality on a DB project. This was stated in a 2005 study by Strong that concluded that determining the “appropriate level of design completion prior to issuance of the request for proposals” is critical to project success (Strong et al. 2005). The scope must include both design criteria for the design work that will be completed by the DB team as well as preliminary design com- pleted by the DOT or its preliminary design consultant to con- vey to the design-builders the design intent, scope of work, and other parameters of the project. Without a well-defined

34 scope, the owner greatly increases the likelihood of nonre- sponsive proposals. It is important that the owner articulates everything that is known about the project and not assume that qualified design-builders will be able to divine the undefined scope of work. Scopes that are too narrow do not allow design-builders the opportunity to provide innovative solu- tions to the design problem (Beard et al. 2001). Thus, a major benefit of DB is lost. Furthermore, the owner unintentionally retains a much larger portion of the design risk than necessary. The rule of thumb on design content is that if there is only one technically acceptable design solution for a given feature of work, the DOT should prescriptively specify it. If there is more than one acceptable solution, then the DOT could utilize performance criteria and/or performance specifications (Grans- berg et al. 2006). The level of design development that is included in the RFP is vital in conveying the scope of work and is dependent on the amount of innovation the owner would like to encour- age for a given project. However, owners can consider the findings of a previous survey that indicate “the level of con- tracting agency satisfaction reported for design-build projects was higher for lower levels of preliminary design completed before design-build contract award” (Design- Build Effectiveness Study . . . 2006). Designs that are nearly complete do not give design-builders adequate room to inno- vate, whereas designs that are not clearly defined make pric- ing the project difficult and risky. The New York State DOT has recognized the need to be cautious of designing above the minimum amount necessary to fully define the scope of work; however, it also recognizes that at times it may be nec- essary to design in more detail to “more accurately estimate the design and construction efforts and their associated costs” (Design-Build Procedures Manual 2005). The Mass- achusetts Bay Transit Authority confirmed this concept when it reported that it had the need to be more prescriptive in future DB RFPs, specifically on transit projects, to ensure that it achieved a high level of intersystem compatibility for its transit stations and track systems (Touran et al. 2007). It is easy to say that the right level of design must be done and included in the RFP, but it is much more difficult to actually put it into practice. Design professionals across the country are going against well-established norms of providing complete designs to now being called on to “decide on the extent of preliminary design (or engineering) and either doing preliminary design or managing preliminary design by others” (Drennon 1998). It will take time for everyone to adjust. The FHWA’s report on DB effectiveness defines it this way: The level of preliminary design that should be completed before a design-build contract is procured depends on the size and com- plexity of the project, the ability of the design-builder to develop a more cost-effective and constructable project design in a timely and competent manner, the degree to which performance specifications are used for the project, and the opportunity to gain valuable design capabilities, with earlier value engineering and constructability reviews as part of the process (Design-Build Effectiveness Study . . . 2006). Guidance on Level of Design The right amount of design will vary as indicated by AASHTO but “according to FHWA, experience in the highway sector suggests that preliminary design efforts of 10 to 15 percent completion are usually adequate for D-B procurement” (Gharaibeh et al. 2005). Included in the Gharaibeh report is a summary of a survey of DB projects by AASHTO that “indi- cated that the designs included in the procurement packages ranged from 5 to 40 percent”; however, he also stated that “it appears that most agencies are moving toward lower levels of design.” In a survey included in the Design-Build Effectiveness Study (2006) carried out for the FHWA, the average level of design prior to the DB contract award was 27%. The authors of that report recommended from their findings that no more than 30% of the design be completed before issuing the DB contract award, while adding the stipulation that “each project should be considered on an individual basis” (Design-Build Effectiveness Study . . . 2006). They also suggest that the per- centage of preliminary design could decrease as the owners gain more experience in the DB process and learn to rely more on performance-based specifications. Additionally, if the DB project has post-construction options for operations and/or maintenance, the level of design is key to determining the quality performance criteria that must be included in the RFP for the post-construction period. This also lends itself to influ- encing the competing design-builders’ thought process re- garding the impact of assuming the liability for operations and maintenance costs after the project is completed. Some state DOTs have set guidelines or targets for design development to help their engineers transition to DB and also to limit the design risks that the department will carry and to avoid stifling innovative proposals (see Design-Build Proce- dures Manual 2005). Colorado has determined “as a mini- mum, the design-build project is to be at the Field Inspection Review (FIR) level . . . typically 20% to 30% complete” (Siebels 1997). Massachusetts, after experiencing problems with a low level of design development on a previous DB proj- ect (Gharaibeh et al. 2005), has set as a policy “a reasonable target would be a 25% design effort with any specific complex issues being identified in the scope of work prior to advertise- ment” (Design Build Procurement Guide 2006). New York has broken down their appropriate level of design develop- ment in the RFP into three categories by design percentage: • Roadway design: 20% to 30% with the focus on hori- zontal and vertical alignment. • Bridge design: to the point where requirements are specified. In many cases, only location is required. Note that if a specific type of structure is specified, the De- partment may be stifling creativity and innovation as well as adversely affecting cost. A preferred approach regarding structure type is to define the allowable types of structures or what types would not be allowed. • Project components that must be compatible with exist- ing conditions such as Intelligent Transportation Sys-

35 tems: progress the design to a 50% to 60% level of com- pletion (Design-Build Procedures Manual 2005). New York has also included in their guidelines an excep- tion to these preliminary design levels. Due to Project phasing constraints, access requirements, or diffi- culties with obtaining approvals or defining criteria for obtaining approvals from certain Stakeholders, it may even be necessary to carry the design of certain elements of a Project to a relatively high level of completion; in some cases, to final design (Design- Build Procedures Manual 2005). This discussion of different DOT approaches to prelimi- nary design development demonstrates that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” level of design in DB. Each project must be individually evaluated to determine the optimal level of design and gain the maximum benefit from using the DB delivery method. One point of agreement for nearly all involved in the DB process is the need for the “preliminary design [to] clearly state the specifications, design criteria, and standards that shall be used in the final design and construction of the project” (Design-Build Guidelines 1997). One of the stated goals of this is “to minimize design over- sights or regulatory violations that could halt the project during construction” (Gharaibeh et al. 2005). Schedule compression is one of the primary reasons for using DB project delivery (Songer and Molenaar 1996). The general survey for this synthesis confirmed the litera- ture when it found that 85% of the respondents listed “reduce schedule” as one of the “primary reasons for [the] decision to use DB contracting.” Having a clearly defined scope of work is vital to realizing this motivation for using DB. It also must be recognized that it is vital to the DB proj- ect success to minimize delays owing to owner-initiated design changes after award. Properly preparing the RFP by furnishing the appropriate level of design development in the RFP as well as other preconstruction issues will help re- alize the benefit of schedule compression. There are certain preconstruction issues that the majority of DOTs take care of before issuing the RFP. In a previous survey (Design- Build Effectiveness Study . . . 2006), three of these were listed with their respective percentages complete at the time of issuing the RFP: • Right-of-way acquisition (89% complete), • Permit acquisition (83% complete), and • Environmental clearance (99% complete). The DOTs are better able to manage these risks associated with all transportation construction projects (Design-Build Effectiveness Study . . . 2006) and they are now required by the recent FHWA rules for using DB project delivery to com- plete these three major preconstruction activities (“Design- Build Contracting: Final Rule” 2002). It should be noted that the provisions of SAFETEA-LU allow some of these activi- ties to be done after the RFP is awarded; however, the rule making for these newest provisions is currently in progress and will not be completed by the time this report is published. Therefore, the previous discussion of RFP design develop- ment sets the stage for defining the resources and systems necessary to manage the quality of any DB project. In essence, this process is meant to create the parameters within which the design-builder must conduct design and construc- tion QA and QC activities. Although they may seem to be overly legalistic, they are extremely important, and the pre- liminary design that is depicted in the DB RFP must be fully compliant to the standards that the DOT expects to enforce during execution of the DB contract. Design Development Required in Design-Build Proposal Documents Nearly of equal concern to owners as the level of RFP design development is the question of how much design will be re- quired of the design-builders in their proposals. This decision varies based on the complexity of the project and how com- fortable the owner is with the DB process. These design ac- tivities act to further define the scope of work for the contract. From the standard DB contract model shown in Figure 21 one can see that the technical portion of the contract is com- prised of the RFP and the winning proposal (Gransberg et al. 2006). Thus, ensuring that the appropriate design submittals are required in the DB proposals serves to further define the required level of quality for the project. A typical example of this principle comes from the Maine DOT’s RFP (2003) for the I-295 Commercial Corridor shown here. Roadway Design Features (20 points): Submit preliminary layout plans for the entire Project including horizontal and vertical align- ments of roadways, ramps, intersections, and bike/pedestrian trails to demonstrate that the proposed complies with environ- mental commitments and Right-of-Way limits. Discuss approach to pavement design in order to meet warranty and design life cri- teria. Identify additional warranty offered, if any, beyond the required five-year term. Show typical section plans for roadway and trail design. Discuss maintainability of roadways and trail. Explain how designs will provide for ease of maintenance and enhanced durability, minimizing the need for excessive mainte- nance and rehabilitation during the proposed service life (20 years). Discuss approach to drainage. Discuss approach to traffic engineering. Describe the needs, type, and location of landscap- ing to be used. . . . Structural Features (20 points): Submit structural concepts for each structure type including retaining walls. Include plans, ele- vations, and cross-sections depicting structure components for each proposed structure type. Submit a description of each struc- ture type. In addition, for each structure type proposed for the Project, the Proposal shall list assumptions used in development of the substructure and superstructure type. Comment on each major structure concerning: Ease and cost of maintenance for extended structure life; quality of materials proposed for struc- tural components; [and] strategy used for maintaining safety, function, and serviceability of structures. Describe any aesthetic treatments proposed to be used on walls, bridges, and other structures (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector 2003).

36 FIGURE 21 Design-build contract model (Gransberg et al. 2006). These requirements contain the main points determined to be essential in most of the RFPs that delineated the require- ments for design; namely, a preliminary layout for the project including vertical and horizontal alignments, structure types, materials, aesthetic treatments, expected maintenance and/or life-cycle costs, as well as the assumptions to be used in de- veloping the proposed design. Other RFPs also request that any innovative design or deviations from standard designs be noted. Sometimes detailed plans on how the new construction will be tied into the existing structures and typical roadway or structure sections are required to allow the owner to be able to gauge the level of quality that is being proposed and priced. The Arizona DOT Design-Build Procurement and Ad- ministration Guide (2001) gives a good example of what is required in the proposal. The technical proposal must include the following: • Preliminary plan sheets showing typical sections; • Horizontal and vertical alignments; • Structure locations and identifications; • Roadway layout concepts; • Signing, striping and lighting concepts, traffic control, and phasing schemes; • Other design features as needed; and • Any sketches or renderings. Therefore, between the preliminary design provided in the RFP and the expanded design development shown in the DB proposal, the project’s design development is advanced to a point at which the competing design-builders are able to commit to a firm, fixed price on a project whose design is not complete. Additionally, the two documents taken together represent the technical benchmark against which all quality management activities will measure success or failure. Therefore, the next requirement is to determine what the quality management system for a given project must look like and to define and allocate roles and responsibilities to the various parties in the DB contract. This is done through the evaluation of project-specific quality manage- ment plans. Proposal Quality Assurance Plan Requirements The FTA (Carter et al. 2002) in its Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines states that one of the “key prac- tices” in ensuring the success of QA and QC programs is to “clearly define requirements of the QA/QC Program in the contract documents.” The WSDOT recognizes this impor- tance in their DB guidebook: The QC/QA Program is a critical component of the design and construction of the project. It partly represents assurance to the Department that the Design-Builder is executing in accordance with the contract (Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development 2004). Including some form of the proposed QA and QC plan in the proposal is essential if the owner wants to know each design- builder’s quality management approach before awarding the DB contract. Respondents to the survey did not see the quality manage- ment plan in such an important light. When asked to rate the impact that quality management plans have on the quality of DB projects on a scale from “no impact” to “very high im- pact,” only 56% believe that a quality management plan has a “very high” or “high” impact on the quality of DB projects. The remaining 44% believe that quality management plans have “some” or “slight” impact on the quality of DB projects. In addition to the survey, the content analysis of 66 RFPs and

37 RFQs found that 71% of the documents had some reference to a pre-award requirement of proposed project quality plan. This includes complete pre-award project quality manage- ment plans, summary plans, and components to these plans or specific sections such as a construction QC plan. This indi- cates that more than one-fourth of the RFPs failed to furnish a mechanism to verify the quality programs of the design- builders in the RFP/RFQ documents before awarding the contract. Even more interesting is the finding that 21% of the documents reviewed had neither a pre-award nor a post- award quality plan listed as a requirement. The survey re- sponses differ somewhat from what was found in the content analysis. In the survey, 59% of respondents required and eval- uated at least part if not all of the quality management pro- gram before awarding the DB contract. The remaining 41% of the respondents indicated that the submission of the quality management plan was required after award of the contract. Those owners who do not require pre-award submission of a quality plan exhibit a high level of trust in their process to award the project to a competent and qualified design- builder. This can be inferred because 79% of the projects in the content analysis that did not require a quality plan in any part of the proposal were carried out with the two-step RFQ/RFP process in which the design-builders must first demonstrate that they meet the required qualifications before they can propose on the project. The finding that the other 21% of these projects did not use a two-step process is dis- turbing in that this leaves the owner a very limited ability to quantify the requirements for quality management in the con- tract documents. A study published in 2004 tracks with this finding when it found that “roughly 80% [transportation] project [DB] RFPs require submission of both quality man- agement qualifications and quality management plans . . . 60% require pre-award design quality planning and owner evaluation of those plans” (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004). In the Recommended AASHTO Design-Build Procurement Guide, the authors list four reasons for including a quality management plan in the procurement stage of a project. This practice: • Allows the agency to use it as a factor in the award decision; • Encourages the design-builder to devise innovative strategies for quality management; • Allows the agency to review the plan prior to award; and • Obligates the design-builder to conform to the plan dur- ing design and construction (Molenaar et al. 2005). All of these reasons benefit the owner and give public agencies an added layer of assurance that the end product will be of acceptable quality before awarding the DB con- tract. Finally, they clearly define the expectation for design and construction quality and give the competitors an oppor- tunity to include the cost of comprehensive design and con- struction quality activities in their price proposal. While recognizing the need for a quality management plan for all DB projects, the scope of the plan can change for different types of projects. Not all DB projects are the same. New York has recognized this in their Design-Build Proce- dures Manual (2005), where it states that: “The Quality Plan Specification . . . should be tailored to fit the size and com- plexity of the Project.” Reason would indicate that the more complex or bigger the project, the more extensive the quality management plan should be. Also, projects that are under intense public scrutiny for political reasons or just for the newness of DB in the state would do well to have a more extensive quality management plan. Although it is good practice to request at least a summary- level quality management plan in the DB proposal, it is much more difficult to know exactly how to evaluate a quality man- agement plan. One Minnesota survey respondent said that: Scoring the quality management requirements during a best- value selection is difficult. We currently require contractors to submit a draft quality management plan in addition to their tech- nical proposal. Sorting through the mountain of information and placing a score on a subjective subject like quality is a very dif- ficult task. This statement supports the idea that the requirements must be clearly laid out so that the proposals can be fairly evaluated. A number of states have invested the effort to develop DB guidelines that articulate their stated policies for implement- ing DB contracting. This study reviewed 17 DOT DB guide- lines as well as stand-alone policy documents on quality management topics. In reviewing the policies and guidelines, three different approaches to the topic of crafting QA and QC provisions for DB solicitation documents were found: • Policy requiring inclusion of QA and QC provisions in all solicitation documents, • Policy stating that including QA and QC provisions in the solicitation documents is optional, and • No stated policy regarding QA and QC provisions in the solicitation documents. It is surprising that the subject of quality management would not be specifically covered in a state’s policy for im- plementing DB. However, the reader must not read too much significance into that finding. Document content analysis is a powerful research tool with one weakness. The methodology only permits the author to record what is written in the docu- ment under analysis. It does not seek to infer why the given topic is included or excluded. Therefore, it is entirely possi- ble that the documents reviewed that did not include policy for the inclusion of QA and QC provisions in DB solicitation documents did so for one of two possible reasons. First, the policy document may have had a narrow original purpose that was not discernable to the author. For instance, the DB policy could have been written specifically for describing the flow of the solicitation process from a global perspective

38 and was not intended to serve as a specific description of RFQ/RFP content. Second, the document may have included a requirement for QA and QC provisions by referring to an- other state document that was not recognizable to the content analyst. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to recommend that DOT policy drafters include specific instructions regarding the inclusion of QA and QC provisions in all policies and guidelines for the development of DB solicitation docu- ments. The next sections contain examples that can be used if necessary. Required Inclusion of QA and QC Provisions In the documents reviewed, the inclusion of QA and QC pro- visions appeared to be derived from one of two situations. The first is a conscious decision by the agency to ensure that quality management is an important feature of the solicita- tion documents, and the other is a legislative requirement that generally came with the formal authorization to use DB proj- ect delivery. The following clause from the Massachusetts DOT is a good example of the first. The Quality Assurance Program is a critical component of the design and construction of the project. It represents assurances to the Department that the Design Build Entity is executing in ac- cordance with the contract documents. The Department will provide the quality assurance and independent testing, but the es- tablished QC/QA Program is the backbone for which the Department will gauge compliance. The Contract Provisions should require that the QC/QA Program submitted with the pro- posal be brought into conformance with the Department’s requirements prior to execution of the contract. The Department must negotiate the provisions of the QC/QA Program and final- ize an acceptable Program prior to award of a contract (Design Build Procurement Guide 2006, italics added). One can clearly see a departmental emphasis on the im- portance of quality management in the DB project. This clause also clearly draws the relationship between the tradi- tional quality management system used for DBB projects and the changes that Mass Highways personnel can expect to see as they transition to alternative project delivery methods. The second reason, legislative mandate, can be seen by the following example of the DB law for Texas. “Design criteria package” means a set of documents that pro- vides sufficient information to permit a design-build firm to pre- pare a response to the department’s request for qualifications and request for proposals and includes the criteria for selection. A design criteria package shall include a description of the project site, survey information, cost or budget requirements, time schedules, conceptual design, a geotechnical baseline report, quality assurance and quality control requirements, special material requirements, applicable ordinances, provisions for utilities, and any other applicable information, as appropriate (Design-Build Contracts . . . 2003, italics added). It is important to note that any variations from traditional QA and QC plans should be mentioned in the DB package as was done in Massachusetts. This will ensure that the differ- ences are called to the attention of the proposing firms and will help prevent confusion and controversy during project execution. The Arkansas DOT specifically mentions this in its DB guide: “The D/B package shall address any quality as- surance requirements that the selected firm must follow in addition to those already in the referenced specifications, policies, and procedures that will assure quality products” (Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures 2006). Similar requirements are listed in the Colorado (Design-Build Guide- lines 1997) and Florida (Design-Build Guidelines 2006) DOT DB guidelines. It is also important to note any tradi- tional QA and QC functions that do not apply to a DB proj- ect. For example, the Arizona DOT in its DB procurement and policy guide notes that a DBB design QC function that requires the designer to submit design-phase plans to the DOT for review generally does not apply in DB projects. This change from DBB design QC is also a requirement listed by the Florida DOT (Design-Build Guidelines 2006). Optional Inclusion of QA and QC Provisions One of the major themes in the literature regarding the prepara- tion of DB solicitation documents is to ensure that the docu- ments are specific to the project’s requirements (Beard et al. 2001; Gransberg et al. 2006). Therefore, it is reasonable for a state’s DB guidelines and policies to be somewhat open-ended, giving flexibility to the individual project manager for a given project to use professional judgment on whether or not QA and QC provisions are included in its DB solicitation documents. New York gives the DOT’s project management team the authority to “determine the specific QA and QC requirements for each project” (Design-Build Procedures Manual 2005). Colorado and Virginia are also good examples of this approach, and the following are excerpts from their DB guidelines: The evaluation criteria contained in the RFQ focuses on specialized capabilities required for the project. Individual criteria are weighted according to their relative importance to the successful completion of the project. The actual criteria selected for use should be applicable to the project and the Proposer’s ability to per- form the work. With this in mind, it is also important to avoid cri- teria that are so restrictive that few, if any, Proposers can meet the minimum requirements. Criteria that may be considered are: Staff available (Project Manager, Design Manager, Construction Super- intendent, Quality Manager, etc.); Quality performance; QA/QC organization (Design-Build Guidelines 2006, italics added). The Project Team will develop the evaluation and scoring crite- ria to determine a shortlist. The criteria should be consistent with the qualifications requested and may include a description of the Offeror’s project understanding and management approach, or- ganization structure, a demonstration of applicable experience, manpower and equipment resources, experience in obtaining en- vironmental permits, obtaining right-of-way, other Design-Build projects, approach to quality assurance and quality control, and their financial ability to do the work (Design-Build Procurement Manual 2006, italics added). In both of these guidelines, there are suggestions as to what is included in the RFP. The phrases “may be considered” and

39 “may include” give the flexibility to change the RFQ based on each project’s unique needs and circumstances. One common practice in the solicitation documents re- viewed in the RFP content analysis requires a summary or an outline of the quality program to be presented in the proposal for evaluation and later requires a final draft of the quality pro- gram to be submitted for final approval after contract award. For example, the Maine DOT required that the proposal for one of their DB projects contain the following information concerning the project’s quality management program: Describe the Proposer’s approach to Quality Management during the design, construction, and warranty phases. Provide an outline of the Quality Management Plan. Describe the roles, responsibili- ties, and accountability relationships of the team members. Describe in detail the methods and measures to be used during con- struction to maintain quality standards, prevent non-conforming work, correct non-conforming work, develop corrective action pro- cedures, and prevent re-occurrence of non-conforming work. Dis- cuss the approach to inspections and callbacks during the warranty period. Discuss the implementation of the Quality plan as it relates to frequency of inspections, results of quality level testing, experi- ence of inspection staff, and corporate involvement (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector 2003). The proposal evaluation plan gave this response a weight of 15% of the total scoring criteria. However, the outline quality management plan was not all that would be required of the win- ning design-builder. After award of the project, the following was required for design and construction quality management: The Design-Builder shall provide a Design Quality Management Plan (DQMP) for project design . . . for review and concurrence by the Department. The DQMP objective is intended to place the re- sponsibility for the quality of the design on the Design-Builder, facilitate construction by the Design-Builder, and allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercising due diligence in overseeing the design process and products. . . . The Design- Builder shall [also] develop, submit, and implement a [construc- tion] Quality Control Plan (QCP), approved by the Department, for those items of work specified that will result in work that meets or exceeds the quality requirements of this Contract. Quality Control for all work is the Design-Builder’s responsibility (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector 2003). It should be noted that the Maine DOT construction qual- ity plan also included details about testing, inspection, non- compliance, qualifications, and responsibilities. Placing these details about the quality program in the RFP effectively makes them contract requirements. This approach of asking for an outline quality management plan in the DB proposal whose final details will be approved by the DOT after award provides a way for owners to ensure they will have a quality program that they can approve and one that will support the ultimate delivery of a well-designed and well-built project. Design-Builder Quality Management Team Qualifications As with any construction project, the final quality of a DB project is a function of the quality of the people who design and build it. From the engineers developing the project plans to the workers striping the finished road, it is essential for the success of every project to have a competent workforce. “The success of implementing a project is dependent on the project manager and his/her staff (people), the company’s systems (methods), the technology/computer system (ma- chinery), and the supplies and other materials” (Atkison 2005). Specifically regarding quality, it has been said that the experience level of the DB contractor is “crucial to the suc- cess” of the quality program (Carter et al. 2002). In the DB process, ensuring workforce competency on a given project begins with the development of the RFQ. Requirements can be listed in this document for the entire design and construc- tion organization as well as individual qualifications and past experience of the project design and construction manage- ment team, including QA and QC personnel. Generally, re- sumes for key personnel are requested, detailing their past experience and performance. The Maryland DOT’s Mass Transit Administration indicates that one of the lessons learned from a DB transit project is that “without minimum staffing levels and experience criteria, [an owner] will not get the same level of experience, effort, documentation or com- fort as when the [owner] or its professional construction manager perform the QA and QC functions” (Lesson 27: Quality Assurance and Quality Control . . . 1997). The FHWA Design-Build Effectiveness Study (2006) indicates that “teams with highly qualified and experienced members are likely to perform the best in delivering a quality project consistent with the terms of the contract.” The FHWA survey also pointed out one of the challenges with implementing DB: the relative inexperience of all parties with DB project delivery when compared with traditional DBB. The issue of DB inexperience of both the DOT employees and design-builder employees was echoed in the survey con- ducted for this synthesis. When asked to identify the challenges to implementing QA on DB projects, the following responses were received: • Adequate number and quality of contractor design and construction QA/QC staff. • Teaching the revised thinking/roles to inspectors. • [DB] requires staff training. • Staff inexperience. • Industry finding qualified QA/QC people. • In rural areas, finding qualified personnel. • Having the right people to administer the plan. A remedy for this challenge is for the DOT to demand that the design-builder furnish highly qualified and experienced personnel on its DB projects and use those projects as a train- ing ground upon which its staff can gain the DB experience it lacks. The only way to guarantee that a design-builder will place qualified individuals on the project team is to list those re- quirements in the project’s solicitation documents (RFQ or

40 RFP). Maryland’s MTA found that the “specification for the QA/QC role in the contract documents must be abundantly clear, specific, and require the D/B contractor to meet mini- mum requirements relative to staffing levels [and] experi- ence of the staff” (Lesson 27: Quality Assurance and Qual- ity Control . . . 1997). Listing the QA and QC personnel requirements in the RFQ or RFP places those requirements in the DB contract and they can be enforced after contract award. An observation from the Pasadena-to-Los Angeles Gold Line Rail project is relevant: “. . . the Authority has observed that the quality of the QC program is largely de- pendent on the DBs’ [design-builders’] own ethics and phi- losophy. Therefore, past performance in the quality arena could be a significant factor when selecting a DB [design- builder] that will also perform the all-important QC func- tion” (Born and Burner 2003). Having indicated the need for qualified personnel on DB projects, the next step is defining the term “qualified” in the context of the given project. Again from the MTA, “Prior experience of QA/QC [is] imperative as well as transit construction/operations experience” (Lesson 27: Quality As- surance and Quality Control . . . 1997). This is in line with the FTA Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines. These guidelines state that: QA/QC Management/Supervisors should possess experience managing professional personnel in similar circumstances or on similar projects. They should have experience with matrix orga- nizations and managing multiple projects. They should have excellent communication skills and a working knowledge of QA/QC and quality management. They should possess certifica- tion as quality professionals for appropriate certifying bodies or have successfully completed training courses in the quality dis- cipline (Carter et al. 2002). Quality management personnel “should not just be the construction employees that happen to be available” (Wich- ern 2004). They need to have related experience and certifi- cations. This usually indicates professional engineers and professional certified quality personnel who have a certain level of similar project experience. Again, there is no silver bullet in qualifications required; different project needs will require different levels of experience, but all projects will require some level of previous QA/QC experience. A MnDOT RFQ furnishes two good examples of the types of qualifications that could be required for design and con- struction quality managers: [The] Design Quality Control Manager must be a registered pro- fessional engineer in the state of Minnesota . . . may work directly for the Design-Builder or may be contracted from an in- dependent firm or organization . . . Must have at least five years of recent experience (within the past ten years) overseeing the design of major urban freeways. [The] Construction Quality Control Manager may work directly for the Design-Builder or may be contracted from an independent firm or organization . . . Must be a registered professional engineer in the state of Min- nesota . . . Must have at least five years of recent experience (within the past ten years) overseeing the inspection and materi- als testing on major highway construction projects . . . (Request for Qualifications T.H. 52 . . . 2001). In addition to qualifications for the QA and QC managers, it is also necessary that the QA and QC reviewers, inspectors, and testing technicians for design and construction are qual- ified for the duties they must perform. The FTA Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines define qualifica- tions recommended for inspectors as follows: “Inspectors should have the appropriate education or experience com- mensurate with the job responsibilities . . . [and] possess the necessary certifications required for assignments [e.g., American Welding Society (AWS), Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Concrete Institute (ACI), etc.]” (Carter et al. 2002). For the same MnDOT project referenced previously, the RFP further listed qualifications for design quality profes- sionals, in addition to the Design Quality Control Manager. The qualifications were as follows: Design QA Engineers: The DQA staff shall include senior expe- rienced engineers to perform audits and quality assurance func- tions as defined by the Design-Builder’s DQMP. An engineer shall be considered a DQA Engineer if he/she is a Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota and has at least ten years of experience. Design QC Engineers: The DQC staff shall include experienced engineers to perform detailed checks of all design calculations and review of construction plans as defined by the Design- Builder’s quality control plan. An engineer shall be considered a DQC Engineer if he/she is an engineer, has practiced in the de- sign discipline and type of work being checked for at least five years, and has at least an equal level of qualifications and experience as the engineer(s) performing the design [T.H. 52 (Rochester) Design-Build Request for Proposals . . . 2002]. Another example of required qualifications for testing and inspection staff comes from an RFP from the NCDOT. The RFP states that: “Technicians performing sampling and testing shall be qualified in accordance with the Department’s training and certification requirements for the specific materials, or in accordance with AMRL/CCRL [AASHTO Materials Refer- ence Laboratory/Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory] accreditation requirements” (Design-Build Package: I-77 South . . . 2006). Often, quality professionals are listed as key personnel or required participants in RFQs and RFPs. In the analysis of RFPs and RFQs, 64% of the projects in the RFP content analysis required a quality professional to monitor quality on a project level, either for design, construction, or both. Of these projects that required a quality professional, 36% required just a project-level quality manager—in other words, a quality manager in charge of both the design and construction quality programs. In addition, eight other proj- ect documents required a project-level quality manager along with design and construction quality managers, 33% required both a design and a construction quality manager, and the

41 remaining 12% of the projects reviewed required either a de- sign or construction quality manager at the project level, but not both. The downside of these statistics is that in 30% of the projects analyzed, the DOT did not establish a contractual requirement for competent quality management personnel. This could lead to post-award disputes regarding the qualifi- cations of the design-builder’s assigned quality management personnel. Without including a requirement for specific qual- ifications in the contract, the design-builder cannot be held to providing personnel with those qualifications. Requiring that key quality management personnel be designated in the pro- posal and having their qualifications evaluated as part of the award process allows the DOT to set a high standard for qual- ity activities at the very outset of the project. In addition to requiring competent, experienced quality management personnel, it is important for the DOT to ensure quality by individually approving the persons who will hold quality management positions. This can be done before the award or after the award of the DB contract. When the qual- ity management professionals are required to be named in the proposal documents, the DOT has the opportunity to com- petitively evaluate the qualifications of the proposed individ- uals. As stated before, in the solicitation documents re- viewed, 42 required a quality professional to monitor quality on a project-wide basis for design, construction, or both. Of these, 60% required the qualifications of the quality profes- sionals in the proposal as part of the evaluated material. Of the remaining documents, 12% required that the quality pro- fessionals be named in the full quality plan after award, and the remaining 28% were silent on the matter of naming the quality professionals and listing their qualifications, thus passing up the opportunity to influence the level of experi- ence and professional competence of the design-builder’s de- sign and construction quality personnel. In addition to requiring that quality personnel be identi- fied, many of the documents analyzed also listed specific re- quirements for the quality personnel. This further narrows the list of qualified people to make sure the “right” type of person is selected for the project. This also appears to be the best way to ensure that the DOT has someone it believes is qualified on the job. Table 8 shows the results from the con- tent analysis of whether or not qualifications were listed with the requirement of the quality manager. More than two-thirds of those projects that required quality managers (69%) also listed specific requirements for whoever would be chosen to fill the position. Furnishing appropriate qualifications for DB quality per- sonnel in the solicitation is important so that they can form part of the contract. Thus, the design-builder will be contrac- tually required to provide individuals with the qualifications listed in the solicitation documents. Based on observations made in the RFP content analysis, the qualifications of inter- est can be separated into three main categories: education, experience, and professional certification. It is, however, in- teresting to note that only 69% of the solicitation documents that required specific quality personnel actually listed the re- quired qualifications for each position. The most commonly required qualifications were professional certification and experience on similar type and size of projects. Experience was most important on the construction side of quality man- agement, whereas professional certification was just as im- portant in all categories of quality management. Often there was more than one requirement for the same person as indi- cated in the examples cited here. Interestingly, the only edu- cation requirements were found for construction quality managers; however, that was not very often. One note on this part of the content analysis, the North Carolina DOT only re- quired a “qualified employee” to serve as the project quality manager without defining in the RFP exactly what “quali- fied” meant. Adding the North Carolina DOT RFPs to the previous total would bring it to a total of 88% of the solicita- tion documents being found to have listed the qualifications of the quality personnel. In the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate if their RFQs or RFPs required the qualifications of the DB quality manager, design quality manager, and/or construc- tion quality manager to be submitted as part of the DB pro- posal. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents indicated that the qualifications of the DB and design quality managers were required as part of the evaluation decision, and 76% in- dicated that the qualifications of the construction quality manager were required as part of the evaluation decision. Additionally, 14% required the submission of qualifications for the DB and construction quality managers either before Qualifications Listed Personnel Type No. of RFPs/RFQs Yes No Design and Construction QA/QC Managers 14 9 5 Design QA/QC Manager 3 1 2 Construction QA/QC Manager 2 2 0 Project QA/QC Manager 15 13* 2 Project & Design/Construction Managers 8 4 4 Total 42 29 13 *Eight of these come from North Carolina, which only listed the requirements as a ìq ualified employee.” TABLE 8 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR TYPES OF QUALITY PERSONNEL REQUIRED

42 or after the award, but did not include those qualifications in the award decision. For design quality manager, the same categories had an 11% response. Only four of the respon- dents indicated that the quality management personnel qual- ifications were not required either before or after contract award. In summary, the survey responses indicate that nearly 90% of the time DOTs know who they will have managing the quality on their DB projects. This tracks with the per- centage seen in the RFP content analysis when NCDOT RFPs were included and provides a modicum of assurance for DOTs that a quality program will be run by competent personnel in such a way as to assure a quality product. To illustrate how qualification requirements are written into an RFQ or RFP, three different examples are cited. The following MnDOT RFQ excerpt is an example of quality management personnel qualifications that are submitted before award submission for an urban freeway project. Construction Quality Control Manager . . . must be a registered professional engineer in the state of Minnesota . . . have at least five years of recent experience (within the past ten years) over- seeing the inspection and materials testing on major highway construction projects. [The] Design Quality Control Manager . . . must be a registered professional engineer in the state of Min- nesota . . . [and] have at least five years of recent experience (within the past ten years) overseeing the design of major urban freeways (Request for Qualifications T.H. 52 Design-Build Project . . . 2001). The Mississippi DOT also furnishes an example from an RFP that requires certain quality management qualifications that would be submitted after contract award. The lead design firm in the CONTRACTOR’s [in this usage, the design-builder’s] organization shall employ a Design Qual- ity Control Manager for the Work and shall provide the name, resume, and references for its proposed Design Quality Control Manager to the MDOT for MDOT approval. The Quality Con- trol Manager shall be a professional engineer licensed by the State of Mississippi with a minimum of 10 years experience in quality management of road and bridge design . . . The CON- TRACTOR shall employ a Construction QC Manager for the Work and shall provide the name, resume, and references for its proposed Construction QC Manager to MDOT for MDOT approval. The Construction QC Manager shall be a profes- sional engineer licensed in the State of Mississippi with a min- imum of 10 years experience in quality management of road and bridge construction (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005, italics added). Finally, the Utah DOT provides an example that has spe- cific educational credentials in a DB RFP for a tunnel project. . . . the Contractor’s Construction Quality Manager shall have a Bachelors degree from an accredited four (4) year institution in en- gineering or related field and a minimum of five (5) years Project Quality Control experience (Request for Proposals, SR-92 . . . 2004). In addition to requiring specific qualifications for the quality managers, quality staff qualifications are also in- cluded in the RFQ or RFP. This is the staff that performs the quality checks, inspections, testing, and so forth. If they do not have the necessary qualifications, it will be much harder to have faith in the results of the quality assessment of the project. For example, if an inspector is not certified and trained for the specific job that must be done, there exists lit- tle credibility in the results of the inspection. Table 9 is a summary of the various qualifications for quality managers that were observed during the RFP content analysis. The analysis specifically sought to identify standard requirements for professional credentials (usually a profes- sional engineer’s license for the state in which the project is being built), education, and project-related experience. One can see by the low numbers shown in the table that relatively few DB solicitation documents availed themselves of the op- portunity to set a standard for quality management personnel qualifications and experience. When one compares these re- sults with the information found in the literature regarding the importance of having competent and qualified quality management personnel, a major disconnect is observed. Therefore, this area appears to be one in which DOTs that are planning on implementing DB project delivery would Percentage* Design Professional certification (always PE) 19% Education 0% Experience 17% Construction Professional certification (almost always PE) 19% Education (university degree) 5% Experience 29% Project Level Professional certification (always PE) 12% Education 0% Experience No. of Observations 8 0 7 8 2 12 5 0 7 17% *Percentages were figured using the RFPs/RFQs that required quality professionals (i.e., 42). TABLE 9 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS OF QUALITY MANAGERS

43 benefit by establishing a fundamental set of quality manage- ment qualification requirements for both the design and construction phases of their typical DB projects. CONCLUSIONS First, DOTs procuring DB projects may require that both design and construction quality management plans be sub- mitted in the design-builders’ proposals. This allows the evaluation of each potential design-builder’s approach to project quality and will mitigate post-award disputes over quality issues during both the design and construction phases of the project. When quality management plans are included in the proposal, they are part of the contract. Second, owners can continue to require quality-specific qualifications for both the design and construction members of the DB team. A strong record of quality performance and quality-specific individual credentials is a powerful method to manage the quality risks inherent to the DB process. Third, owners may establish the project’s quality management system before award. DB project delivery is often a competitively negoti- ated procurement and, as a result, owners can ask competi- tors to enhance their quality management plans if they are found to be weak or inadequate by the proposal evaluation process in their best and final offers (Gransberg et al. 2006). Indeed, DOTs may be leery of awarding a DB project to a design-builder whose approach to quality management is not responsive to the project’s quality requirements. DB offers an owner a myriad of benefits beyond the typical cost and time savings cited in the literature. That the builder is involved in the design and the designer stays involved during construction furnishes a continuity of detailed project knowl- edge that does not occur in the traditional DBB project. To maximize the opportunities available in this delivery sys- tem, the owner may carefully and thoughtfully prepare the RFQ/RFP documents. The owner cannot assume that the design-builder will automatically produce a quality project. The DB contract itself may determine that the requisite level of quality be designed and built into the project. This study has shown that some DOTs are emphasizing quality in their DB projects by writing their solicitation documents in a way that maximizes the opportunities for enhanced quality, whereas other owners are not availing themselves of this opportunity. Managing the ultimate quality of the design product may be more important than managing the quality of the construction product, because the design product defines the quality stan- dards for the construction. Thus, some DOTs are including detailed requirements for the management of design quality in addition to the traditional requirements for construction qual- ity. Ultimately, this study has shown that there is ample opportunity to improve the quality process if the owners in this nation are willing to shift their procurement culture.