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.

DEFINING PROJECT’S ULTIMATE QUALITY The design phase of a DB project is the phase in which the ul- timate quality of the constructed facility is quantified through the production of construction documents. A previous study of DB quality management stated that: “Quality cannot be as- sumed into the project. It must be designed and built into the project in accordance with the DB contract itself” (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004). It is intuitively obvious that the final quality of the construction is directly related to the quality of the project’s design. Thus, design QA and design QC activities are necessary to assure the final quality of the products pro- duced during design development. An important factor in achieving high-quality design is free and open communication between all parties during the design phase (Beard et al. 2001), and DBIA’s Manual of Policy Statements states that: “DBIA advocates both formal and informal project partnering and considers the partnering philosophy to be at the foundation of design-build delivery” (Manual of Policy Statements 1998). Design-Build Partnering Partnering is a concept that seeks to bring the various parties to a contract together in a manner that creates an environment of open communication and trust. It has been used success- fully in transportation projects since the late 1980s. A study of the Texas DOT’s early DBB partnering program found that partnered projects outperformed nonpartnered projects in every category in which they were compared and provided an effective means to control both cost and time growth (Gransberg et al. 1999). A study of the Naval Facility Engi- neering Command’s DB partnering process produced similar results and dramatically demonstrated the benefits of apply- ing partnering principles to DB projects (Allen et al. 2002). A study of the Arizona DOT’s partnering efforts on a major DB project in Phoenix found that partnering DB transporta- tion projects was a natural fit when it stated: Design-build by its nature lends itself to the partnering concept. The partnering concept ideas of increased communication, align- ment of goals, and development of a dispute resolution system fit perfectly with design-build’s overarching theme of single-point responsibility for the owner. Increased pressure because of sched- ule compression typical of most design-build projects makes partnering a vital necessity (Ernzen et al. 2000). Because most formal partnering programs begin shortly after contract award, it is logical to include the discussion of 44 the benefits of partnering in the design phase of this report. It may be noted that in many cases, “actual partnering” begins during the design-builder’s team-building period that ac- companies proposal preparation during the procurement phase for the designers and constructors on the design- builder’s team. Additionally, many DOTs apply partnering principles to developing strong working relationships with external stakeholders, such as state environmental agencies, political entities, major property owners that will be affected during the project, and special consultants. These procure- ment phase partnering efforts often involve internal DOT lawyers, engineering discipline areas, procurement person- nel, and so forth and can have the same impact on the project as the DB team partnering prior to contract award. Notwithstanding the pre-award internal partnering oppor- tunities for the DOT’s and the design-builder’s teams, the first opportunity to extend that partnering effort to the DOT’s and design-builder’s project personnel happens on contract award. The goal of the initial partnering meeting should be to create the conduits of communication that are necessary to transmit critical design information and owner preferences to the design-builder’s design team as well as to develop the struc- ture for ensuring that not only the designers on the owner’s and designer’s team are aware of critical information, but also that the constructors are included in the information loop to ensure that the level of constructability on which the price proposal was established is not compromised during the design phase. Design-Build Partnering Communications Protocol “Open communications is the key to any partnering process” (Ernzen et al. 2000). The DB team for the Arizona DOT DB project developed a protocol based on a series of weekly joint meetings after the initial partnering workshop to foster an envi- ronment of free-flowing communications. Figure 22 displays the content and outcomes of those routine meetings as well as the attendees. Of particular importance for this synthesis is that the design-builder’s primary design and construction quality managers were prominently involved in each of the sessions. Figure 22 shows that the outcomes of one meeting drive the subject of the next meeting starting with design status and even- tually ending up with a public relations release that updated the traveling public and other third-party stakeholders of develop- ments of interest in the project. This commitment to partnering CHAPTER FOUR DESIGN-BUILD QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES DURING DESIGN PHASE

FIGURE 22 Arizona DOT I-17 design-build project partnering communications protocol (after Ernzen et al. 2000). 45 in DB project execution not only creates a mechanism to ensure that design quality issues are addressed as they are encountered but also extends the design decisions into the construction phase and evaluates their impact on constructability as well as resultant construction quality. The regular and routine involve- ment of the owner’s project team members provides a point at which owner PQA activities, such as over-the-shoulder design reviews and other quality management tasks, can be undertaken if the DOT has decided to assign design and construction QA and QC responsibilities to the design-builder. Some DOTs enhance this effort by requiring that the design-builder’s design team be collocated with the construction team and, at times, the DOT DB project personnel. DESIGN QUALITY MANAGEMENT Because design details define construction quality require- ments, it would follow that DOTs that must commit them- selves to the cost of construction before approving the project’s final design, as happens in DB, would devote a significant portion of their DB solicitation packages to defin- ing the required design quality management process. This, in turn, would cue design-builders to prepare design quality management plans that detail their proposed process for each specific project that can be evaluated as a part of the selection process. Unfortunately, in practice, this is not occurring. A previous study of design quality management requirements in 75 DB projects across the nation found that only 18% of the DB solicitation documents required a design quality man- agement plan to be submitted as part of the DB proposal (DeCorso 2004). Additionally, only 17 of these projects re- quired a design QC plan after award, and only two took the next step by requiring a complementary design QA plan. Thus, the literature shows that design quality management is an area that has the greatest potential for improvement. Perhaps this is owing to a lack of policy guidance in the area of design management because of the DBB practice of pub- lic engineering agencies traditionally doing much of their design work using in-house professional engineers. There- fore, DOTs are not availing themselves of the opportunity to evaluate different design-builders’ approaches to ensuring design quality by not asking for design quality management plans before award. DOTs give up control of the details of design by selecting DB project delivery; therefore, depend- ing merely on the qualifications process to guarantee design quality, as in a pure design contract, may not be sufficient. With the dominant organizational type being a constructor- led DB team (Songer and Molenaar 1996), the designer’s client is no longer the owner. Therefore, it would seem to be imperative that the DB teams’ approach to producing a qual- ity design be evaluated before award. Thus, it is imperative to have a clear definition of design quality management. The MnDOT provided an excellent definition for quality management during the design phase of a DB project when it listed the objectives of the Design Quality Management Plan. The Design Quality Management Plan is intended to: • Place the primary responsibility for design quality on the design-builder and its designer(s). • Facilitate early construction by the design-builder. • Allow the Department to fulfill its responsibilities of exercis- ing due diligence in overseeing the design process and design products while not relieving the design-builder from its obli- gation to comply with the contract (Gonderinger 2001). The MnDOT’s three-pronged approach not only satisfies its obligations for project oversight as a result of federal fund- ing, but also ensures that the responsibility for the quality of the design is placed clearly on the design-builders’ shoulders. It also speaks toward achieving a major benefit accrued by the owner when selecting DB project delivery: project schedule compression through overlapping design and construction

46 activities. Therefore, it becomes important to not only adopt a good definition for design quality management but to also clearly define the allocation of responsibilities between the DOT and the design-builder after project award. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESPONSIBILITIES DURING DESIGN One of the advantages of DB is the opportunity for the DOT to contract out QA and QC activities and thus reduce the workload on the DOT employees. As shown in chapter two, nearly all of the RFPs analyzed allocated the design QA functions to the design-builder, with the owner merely re- taining oversight in the form of review and verification of the design’s ability to meet the stated contract requirements. In New Mexico, the role of the State Highway and Trans- portation Department was defined in one RFP as “Oversight and audit of Contractor design and construction, including verification sampling and testing and independent assurance” (Request for Proposals, US 70 Hondo Valley 2001). This was followed by defining the responsibilities of the design- builder: “The Contractor will be required to plan, implement, and provide a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program for its design and construction operations” (Request for Proposals, US 70 Hondo Valley 2001). New Mexico did however include the following paragraph in the RFP: The Department may establish and maintain its own quality as- surance and/or an independent quality assurance organization to oversee and/or perform quality audits of the Contractor’s man- agement, design, construction, and maintenance activities, the Contractor’s Quality Assurance procedures, Verification Sam- pling and Testing and the quality of the final product (Request for Proposals, US70 Hondo Valley 2001). This statement provided the DOT with a contractual safe- guard to use if the design-builder did not follow approved quality management procedures. Thus, the assignment of design quality management responsibilities becomes an exer- cise in risk analysis and management with the agency seeking to optimize the ultimate allocation. A finding in an earlier study indicated that “Agencies that have experienced quality problems on projects are retaining QA responsibility” (Gharaibeh et al. 2005). This experiential adaptation of the quality management system springs from the legal issues as- sociated with the design process, where agencies are being careful to not unintentionally assume design liability by in- volving themselves too deeply in the design process. Use of Agency Personnel Versus Consultants Another issue that surfaces with design QA involves deciding whether to perform the design QA with DOT employees or to retain an independent consultant to perform it on behalf of the owner. The FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) contracts out all of its QA, while retaining the responsibility to ensure that the construction conforms to the requirements. The following is an excerpt from an EFLHD RFP that illustrates the approach. The Contractor [the design-builder] shall be responsible for all work as described in these RFP documents. The scope of work includes . . . quality control/quality assurance for design and construction, materials sampling, and testing. . . . EFLHD will perform management, design, and construction oversight activi- ties of the Contractor’s operations and end products to satisfy the Government that the Contractor meets the contract require- ments. Included in the oversight activities will be design re- views, construction acceptance, independent verification testing activities, and oversight of maintenance of traffic and permit compliance as outlined in this RFP [Request for Proposals IBC- 8888(012) Book 1 2001]. Department of Transportation Design-Build Guideline Approaches for Design Quality Assurance When reviewing the guidelines published by various state DOTs, there are three different policies established in deter- mining the QA roles in DB projects: • Variable assignment of design QA responsibilities on a project-by-project basis; • Assigning design QC to the design-builder and the design QA to the DOT; and • Assigning design QA and QC to the design-builder with the DOT performing oversight and verification (i.e., design PQA). Variable Approach In the first approach, the assignment of design QA roles can be varied from project to project. This recognizes that every project is different and that, depending on size, delivery speed, and technical complexity, the optimum assignment of QA responsibilities will be different based on individual project needs, as shown in the Arkansas Design-Build Guide- lines and Procedures (2006): The D/B package shall address any quality assurance require- ments that the selected firm must follow in addition to those al- ready in the referenced specifications, policies, and procedures that will assure quality products (plans, materials, construction, etc.). Quality management criteria require at least three indepen- dent roles, including (1) quality control by the selected firm, (2) acceptance or verification by the Department’s Resident Engi- neer (RE) office, and (3) independent assurance by the Depart- ment’s central office staff. The responsibilities for all three roles and minimum sampling, testing and inspection frequencies shall be defined in the scope. If any of the three roles is eliminated, project quality shall be closely monitored and an objective analysis shall be made of the impact of the change on the quality of the project. DOT Design QA In the second type of design QA approach, the design-builder is responsible for the design QC and the DOT is responsible

47 for the design QA. This approach parallels the DBB assign- ment of responsibilities for construction quality management. The Colorado DOT, Massachusetts Highway Department, and the Florida DOT use this method, and an example of this comes from the Arizona Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide (2001): The Design-Builder shall be required to submit a design quality management plan which describes how the Design-Builder will control the accuracy and completeness of the plans, specifica- tions, and other related design documents produced by the Design-Builder. . . . ADOT will still retain a quality verification role as it does for other quality management issues. For design work, quality verification will be accomplished through the use of design reviews led by the PM and performed by ADOT’s technical groups or the general consultant, if one is used. Design-Builder Design QA Finally, the third approach assigns the design-builder both design QA and QC, and the DOT steps back from active par- ticipation and responsibility and, instead, only performs oversight and verification of design quality. This approach can best be called design PQA in accordance with the defi- nition given in chapter two. This is followed by the New York State DOT. The contractual requirements for design management and QA/QC are the primary responsibility of the Design-Builder rather than the Department. . . . The Department’s project staff Oversight role during design and Design Review consists of monitoring and auditing design progress, interpreting contract requirements, and verifying design compliance with contract requirements (Design-Build Procedures Manual 2005). Regardless of how the design QA and QC responsibilities are assigned, they must be performed. When the DOT will perform the design QA activities, the contract documents (i.e., the RFP) need not further explain design QA activities. However, when the design-builder is assigned the design QA responsibilities, it is imperative to present the requirements in the RFP so that confusion is eliminated or minimized and the DOT understands exactly what services it will receive with the proposal as well as how to integrate its PQA activi- ties during design. REVIEWS OF DESIGN DELIVERABLES One of the traditional ways that DOTs have ensured quality design is by being able to fully review the design before it is advertised for bids. In DB, DOTs do not have this same op- portunity. One of the major advantages of DB is schedule compression, which happens by being able to start construc- tion before the full design is finalized. In the survey, 85% of state DOT respondents to the general survey indicated this as a reason for implementing DB. Another advantage of DB is the transfer of risk from the DOT to the design-builder, and in the survey 53% of state DOT respondents also indicated this risk transfer as a reason for implementing DB. In a DB con- tract, the design-builder is responsible for the adequacy of the design in relation to the contract documents. DOTs must be aware that “increased control over project design might not only reduce potential design-build benefits but might also carry with it the risk of liability for the entire project” (Wichern 2004). Arkansas clearly states this in their Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures (2006): “With Design-build con- tracting, the design risk is placed with the Design-build firm, and the Department’s review will determine if the proposed design meets the objectives of the Contract Provisions.” Thus, many states that do place the responsibility for de- sign QA and QC on the design-builder use specified design review checkpoints, a design PQA activity, to ensure that the design is proceeding according to contract requirements. This also fulfills the DOTs’ responsibility to the public to deliver projects that have been designed and built in accor- dance with public law and good engineering practice. These checkpoints exist so that the design-builder’s final design is acceptable to the DOT and is in accordance with the perfor- mance criteria contained in the contract documents. Design Review Checkpoints The RFP content analysis found that there are two general ways that design review checkpoints are determined as sum- marized in Table 10. The first method, defined reviews, defines them in the RFP. The DOTs state in the RFP which reviews they will conduct and what must be included in the Type Design-Builder Responsibility DOT Responsibility Comments % of Projects in Content Analysis Defined Reviews To be responsive, must follow defined reviews in contract documents Defines reviews in the RFP Reviews may be performed by design-builder, DOT or 3rd party 83 Proposed Reviews Propose design reviews for project as part of proposal or after award of contract Accepts or rejects proposed design reviews Reviews may be performed by design-builder, DOT or 3rd party 17 TABLE 10 GENERAL DESIGN-BUILD DESIGN REVIEW CATEGORIES

48 % of Projects in Content Analysis Comments No Review Before Final 15% DOT still provides oversight and comments informally One Review Before Final 56% Can be anywhere from preliminary design until just before the final design review Multiple Reviews Before Final 29% The exact number of reviews can range from two to one for every major feature of work TABLE 11 REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGN REVIEWS FOUND IN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS review. The design-builders must then account for the re- quired reviews in their proposal and schedule of the project. The following example comes from a Mississippi DOT RFP and outlines the design review requirements for the project. Preliminary Design Phase (Minimum 30% Plans): The CON- TRACTOR will prepare and submit a single preliminary design submittal for the entire project. . . . Final Design Review Phase (100% Plans): Final Design may be broken down into packages (i.e., Roadway, portions of Bridges, Drainage, etc.) as deter- mined by the CONTRACTOR. Following completion of the de- sign for each submittal for the Project, the CONTRACTOR shall prepare and submit a Final Design Submittal for review by MDOT. . . . Released for Construction Documents: Following the incorporation of MDOT’s comments from the Final Design Review Phase, the CONTRACTOR shall prepare and submit a Release for Construction submittal to MDOT for MDOT’s final review and Released for Construction stamp (Request for Pro- posals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replace- ment on US 90 Biloxi to Ocean Springs Bridge . . . 2005). This is by far the most common way to identify the required reviews. In the solicitation document analysis, 41 projects had design reviews as a requirement of the contract. Of these 41 projects, 83% told the design-builder at what point the design would be reviewed. The second approach, proposed reviews, is to allow the design-builders to propose the schedule of design reviews in their response to the RFP or during negotiations after the award of the contract. This is the stated policy of the Arkansas DOT: “There will be no pre-defined reviews sched- uled by the Department. The selected firm and the Depart- ment will decide on the appropriate timing of reviews during execution of the contract” (Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures 2006). The WSDOT used this approach for the Thurston Way Interchange. For any designs for which early construction reviews will not be conducted, at least one design review shall be conducted before completion of 100 percent design. The percentage of design will be mutually agreed upon between the Design-Builder and WSDOT, but should be near the mid-point of design . . . (Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange 2000). In the solicitation document content analysis, DOTs em- ployed this approach in only 17% of the projects reviewed. Appropriate Number of Design Reviews In addition to how the design reviews are defined, the num- ber of required design reviews by the DOTs varies from state to state. However, the content analysis identified three main trends: • No formal review before final (release-for-construction) design review, • One review before the final design being released for construction, and • Multiple reviews before the final design review. Also, in many instances the design-builder is encouraged to request informal reviews that are not required but allow the DOT to provide more frequent input to ensure that the final design will meet the contract requirements. These reviews are often called “over-the-shoulder” or “oversight” reviews to indicate that the design process will not stop proceeding to wait for comments that result from these informal reviews. Table 11 provides a summary of the different categories of required number of design reviews and the corresponding percentage of occurrences in the RFP analysis. No Mandated Reviews When there is no DOT-mandated design review checkpoint required before final design, the burden of design compliance is fully placed on the design-builder. In theory, this is one of the benefits of utilizing DB project delivery. However, the DOT must still provide assurance that the contract will be completed with all the requirements met in a timely manner. In the RFPs analyzed for this project, 41 mentioned the de- sign review requirements, with 15% using the approach of no DOT-mandated design review checkpoints before the release-for-construction design review. The MnDOT detailed its design PQA approach in one RFP as follows: The Department will participate in oversight reviews and reviews of early construction as part of its due diligence responsibilities. If the Department, in its review, observes that the Design-Builder is not complying with contract requirements and/or that the QC/QA checks are not complete, it will notify the Design-Builder in writing that construction may not proceed until the noted items are corrected. The Department’s oversight review and comments will not constitute approval or acceptance of the design or subse- quent construction (Part I: Scope of Work T.H. 100 . . . 2001).

49 This PQA activity (sometimes termed due diligence) must be accomplished through an oversight approach as stated in the Minnesota RFP referenced earlier or by an audit approach referenced in the following Utah RFP of the design-builder’s review procedures. The Utah RFP also shows that although the DOT does not conduct a progress design review, the design-builder must do so with oversight from 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. . . . The DESIGN-BUILDER shall conduct oversight reviews, and the Department may participate in these reviews and comment as requested or as it otherwise deems necessary. . . . The DESIGN- BUILDER shall determine the materials to be compiled for each review. Formal assembly and submittal of drawings or other documents will not be required, but the Design-Builder is en- couraged to provide informal submittals to facilitate reviews. The review may be of progress prints, computer images, draft documents, working calculations, draft specifications or re- ports, or other design documents. . . . The DESIGN-BUILDER will conduct informal milestone reviews at approximately the 60% stage of project elements to determine whether the Con- tract requirements and design are being followed. The Depart- ment will be invited to attend these reviews (Request for Pro- posals, SR-92 . . . 2005, italics added). The Utah RFP goes on to discuss the design review process for the final design deliverable. When the designer has completed a design package to 100% and the package has been checked and audited, a formal design sub- mittal is assembled and distributed for review, including plan sheets, calculations, specifications, and other pertinent data. The Designer shall prepare for these reviews a full set of drawings and other documents stamped “Checked and Ready for Review.” . . . After the 100% comments have been addressed and the design documents have been checked and audited, a “ready to be released for construction” submittal package is assembled and distributed to the Design-Builder and the Department for release for construction (Request for Proposals, SR-92 . . . 2005). To preserve the definition of design liability, Utah also re- quires the design-builder to complete a certification process on the final design package and specifies the time limit to which the DOT must adhere to furnish timely acceptance. When a design package is ready to be released for construction, the DESIGN-BUILDER shall certify all of the following related to the Work: • The design is in accordance with the Contract requirements. • The design has been checked in accordance with UDOT accepted quality procedures. • No design exceptions exist that have not previously been approved by the Department. The Department will conduct its review and accept or reject the final design package within seven (7) Working Days of receipt of the final design documents (Request for Proposals, SR-92 . . . 2005). Single Design Review In the second category of DB design review, the DOT re- quires a single official review of the design before the review of the final design deliverable. This gives the DOT an inter- mediate point at which to verify that the design development is proceeding in accordance with the contract requirements and to ensure that it is progressing according to the schedule. The Mississippi DOT uses this type of design review for its DB projects. An example is listed here. The CONTRACTOR will prepare and submit a single prelimi- nary design submittal for the entire project. Preliminary design shall include roadway plan and profile, bridge type, selection lay- out, drainage, erosion control, signing, architectural and traffic control plans. MDOT will review Preliminary Design Submittals within 21 Days of the submittal . . . (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005). The Mississippi DOT also provides for an “optional design review” with the following RFP clause: At the request of the CONTRACTOR, MDOT will provide optional design reviews on design packages as requested by the CONTRACTOR. MDOT as appropriate will review optional design Submittals within 14 Days . . . (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005). This RFP goes on to define the final design review process as follows: Final Design may be broken down into packages (i.e., Road- way, portions of Bridges, Drainage, etc.) as determined by the CONTRACTOR. Following completion of the design for each submittal for the Project, the CONTRACTOR shall prepare and submit a Final Design submittal for review by MDOT. . . . Following the incorporation of MDOT’s comments from the Final Design Review Phase, the CONTRACTOR shall pre- pare and submit a Release for Construction submittal to MDOT for MDOT’s final review and Released for Construc- tion stamp (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design- Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005). Another example comes from the WSDOT in the RFP for the Thurston Way Interchange. The exact point of the design review is not listed, but it is left to be decided on execution of the contract. For any designs for which early construction reviews will not be conducted, at least one design review shall be conducted before completion of 100 percent design. The percentage of design will be mutually agreed upon between the Design-Builder and WSDOT, but should be near the mid-point of design . . . (Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange 2000). The requirement of only one official review by the DOT is, by far, the most popular design review process currently used as found in the RFP analysis. Of the RFPs analyzed for this paper, 56% used this type of design review process.

50 Multiple Design Reviews In the final category of design reviews, the DOT requires more than one official DOT review before the design can be released for construction. This was the process found in 29% of the RFPs that included information about design reviews. The Maine DOT required in one RFP that “formal design package submit- tals shall be made . . . at the 50% and 80% design development stage of any design package intended to be RFC [released-for- construction]” (Request for Proposals, I-295 Commercial Street Connector 2003). The EFLHD also requires more than one design review before the design is released for construction and in an RFP it states the reasons for the reviews: Initial submittals are intended to provide the Contractor a means of proposing and obtaining acceptance for horizontal and verti- cal alignment deviations from the Government preliminary de- sign plans; deviations from the Government preliminary bridge Type, Size, and Location (TS&L) plan; and changes in basic parameters of the project. . . . Intermediate Design Submittal: The purpose of this submittal is to ascertain that the design is progressing in accordance with the requirements of the project, that existing field conditions have been properly identified and dealt with, and that the Contractor has coordinated the design with EFLHD, NPS, the permitting agencies, and the utility com- panies [Request for Proposals IBC-8888(012) Book 1 2001]. There are two variations on this category that were found and require mentioning in this section. The first is when the DOT requires an independent design QA firm to do the de- sign reviews with the DOT only providing limited oversight. This is the current situation with the SH 130 project in Texas. The RFP states: DQAM [design quality assurance manager] will conduct a for- mal over-the-shoulder review presentation to the TTA [Texas Turnpike Authority] at the TTA’s office. The over-the-shoulder review presentation will be held, following the DQAF’s [design quality assurance firm’s] approval of: the Corridor Structure Type Study Report; the Preliminary (30%) Design Submittal; the Intermediate (65%) Design Submittal; and the Final (100%) Design Submittal. . . . Developer’s designer shall furnish to the DQAF at least five (5) mandatory design submittals, and if nec- essary, any resubmittals (Request for Proposals to Construct, Maintain and Repair . . . 2001). The second variation is when the DOT requires certain design reviews and attends the reviews, but is not the re- sponsible party for the review. In the following example, the DB firm was responsible for the formal design reviews with the DOT in attendance. The DQA Manager will conduct formal milestone reviews at the 30%, 60%, and 90% (or as otherwise agreed by the WSDOT and Design-Builder) stage of project elements to determine whether the Contract requirements and design are being followed and that QC/QA activities are following the approved QMP. . . . The DQA Manager shall compile and maintain documentation of the review. The Department will be invited to attend these reviews (Request for Proposals, Everett HOV Design-Build Project 2004). In the vein of deciding the appropriate number of DOT design reviews for a given project, it is interesting to note that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently changed its pol- icy for DB design reviews, reducing the number of reviews from four (30%, 60%, 90%, and final) to two (intermediate and final) (MILCON Transformation Model RFP 2006). The reason for the change was to reduce the potential for delays owing to waiting for government reviews. In a personal com- munication with the author, Joel Hoffman of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explained the rationale as: “Philosophy is that once the designer of record approves construction and extension of design submittals, the builder can proceed— don’t wait on us, unless there is a specific government ap- proval required.” Therefore, one critical issue regarding de- termining the appropriate number of design reviews is the need for the design-builder to maintain an aggressive sched- ule. If the project is not schedule constrained, the DOT can afford to inject more design review points, whereas design reviews can be minimized on a fast-track project. Over-the-Shoulder Reviews In addition to the design reviews outlined previously, another noticeable trend is the inclusion in the RFP of a statement inviting the design-builder to request informal over-the- shoulder reviews to ensure that the design is progressing according to the contract requirements without the need to prepare a specific design submittal package and to provide owner input to the design where it will be both desired and helpful. These reviews fall into the DOT PQA category. These statements are included in RFPs regardless of the num- ber of required design reviews. Almost always, however, a statement is also included that removes liability from the DOT for any comments that may be incorporated from the informal reviews. The following extract comes from the EFLHD RFP referenced earlier: Over-the-Shoulder reviews may be scheduled by the Contractor or EFLHD. Over-the-Shoulder reviews are strongly encouraged to enhance the partnering efforts between the Contractor and the Government. . . . The number and timing of the reviews will be discussed at the Start-up Conference. . . . Over-the-Shoulder reviews will be conducted for informal review of designs. The intent of Over-the-Shoulder reviews is to provide guidance to the Contractor during the course of the project. Over-the-Shoulder reviews do not take the place of the Overall Project Submittals [Request for Proposals IBC-8888 (012) Book I 2001]. The WSDOT included this in one RFP: “Throughout the design process, the Design-Builder may request additional oversight visits by Washington State DOT to discuss and ver- ify design progress and to assist the Design-Builder and/or its designer(s) in resolving design questions and issues” (Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange . . . 2000). Design reviews are an integral part of any design QA pro- gram. They ensure the constructability of the project and that the design meets the contract requirements. Even though the design-builder is responsible for both of these in DB, DOTs must provide themselves with assurance that the design- builder is carrying out its responsibility. This is done by DOT

51 Stage of Design Development Design Check and Certification to Design-Builder Design Review Definitive Design Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager Interim Review Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager Readiness for Construction Design Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager Final Design Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager Working Plans and Related Documents Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager As-Built Plans Designer and Design Quality Control Manager LA DOTDís designated representative Major Temporary Components Designer and Design Quality Control Manager Design Quality Control Manager Temporary Components Designer and Checker Not applicable From Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) (Request for Proposals, New Mississippi River Bridge . . . 2005). TABLE 12 COMMUNICATING DESIGN REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES design reviews using one of the three approaches outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Design Review Responsibility Communicating who is responsible for the design reviews is also essential to the smooth execution of these quality activ- ities. There are a variety of ways this can be done, including lists, charts, diagrams, or designating responsibility in con- tract clauses. Table 12 is taken from a Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) DB RFP and provides a good example of how to effectively communicate design review responsibility. In addition to deciding which reviews will be conducted and when, deciding who will perform the reviews is just as critical to the success of DB projects. Because the DOT is not performing the design with its own designers, design QA and QC responsibilities will shift in DB. Table 12 shows that the Louisiana DOTD has assigned virtually all the design QA and QC responsibility to its design-builder, only entering the process to verify the as-built plans. Because the design phase defines the standard of quality for the constructed project, it is imperative that the design documents are professionally re- viewed and checked to ensure a quality project. The general survey sought to identify the trend in design quality respon- sibilities by asking the respondents to indicate the entity that was primarily assigned the responsibility for a list of com- mon design quality management tasks. However, a large number of the respondents did not confine themselves to fur- nishing a single answer to each question. Many indicated that the responsibility for the tasks was indeed shared among some combination of the agency, the design-builder, and the agency’s consultants. This response defeated the original intent of the question; however, it still yielded valuable in- formation regarding the distribution of design quality man- agement responsibility among the parties to a DB contract. Table 13 summarizes the survey responses to the question of assigned responsibility for design quality management tasks. Table 13 shows that the design-builder or a third-party consultant has been given more responsibility than is seen in traditional DBB in performing design quality management tasks that lead up to the final acceptance of the design. Agen- cies are assigning the design-builder the responsibility for Who Perform s the Following Design Quality Management Tasks? (Type Task) Agency Personnel Agency- Hired Consultant Design- Builder’s Design Staff Design- Builder’s Construction Staff Checking of Design Calculations (QC) 15.4% 15.2% 68.7% 0.8% Checking of Quantities (QC) 13.8% 11.2% 53.1% 21.8% Review of Specifications (QC) 32.9% 25.0% 38.9% 3.2% Technical Review of Design Deliverables (QC) 30.9% 28.6% 40.0% 0.6% Acceptance of Design Deliverables (QA) 57.9% 15.8% 22.9% 3.3% Approval of Final Construction Plans and Other Design Documents (QA) 82.0% 5.2% 9.9% 2.9% Approval of Progress Payments for Design Progress (QA) 81.8% 9.1% 2.0% 7.1% Approval of Post-Award Design QM/QA/QC Plans (QA) 84.4% 9.7% 5.9% 0.0% TABLE 13 SURVEY RESPONSES FOR DESIGN QUALITY MANAGEMENT TASK RESPONSIBILITY

52 Who Perform s the Following Design Quality Management Tasks? (Type Task) Agency or Agency- Hired Consultant Design-Builder Checking of Design Calculations (QC) 38.5% 61.5% Checking of Quantities (QC) 41.5% 58.5% Review of Specifications (QC) 71.9% 28.1% Technical Review of Design Deliverables (QC) 65.4% 34.6% Acceptance of Design Deliverables (QA) 84.6% 15.4% Approval of Final Construction Plans and Other Design Docum ents (QA) 92.3% 7.7% Approval of Progress Paym ents for Design Progress (QA) 100% 0% Approval of Post-Award Design QM/QA/QC Plans (QA) 100% 0% TABLE 14 SURVEY RESPONSES FOR DESIGN QUALITY MANAGEMENT TASK RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESPONDENTS WITH MORE THAN FIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS design QC tasks, such as the checking of design calculations, the checking of quantities, the technical review of design de- liverables, and the review of specifications. Because these tasks are primarily associated with the production of design deliverables, the DOT is facilitating the overall schedule by stepping back from these tasks and giving the design-builder control. Additionally, it effectively prevents the unintentional assumption of design liability through directive design review comments (Gransberg et al. 2006). For the design QA tasks of accepting and approving final construction plans and design documents, DOTs have by and large retained the responsibil- ity. This makes sense because DOTs still have ultimate re- sponsibility for the design and construction and final quality of each project. DOTs cannot contractually assign their pub- lic duty to another party. They can have design-builders and third-party consultants help achieve an assurance of quality, but, at the end of the day, they must be able to affirm that each project has been constructed to the requisite quality level. The survey asked each respondent to cite the number of DB projects in which its agency had been involved. This al- lowed the responses to be divided by experience level. In this case, the responses from agencies with more than five DB projects were assembled as a single group for comparison with the responses of the total population shown in Table 13. The idea is to capture the potential differences from an agency whose quality management system has been able to benefit from lessons learned in early DB projects and those by agen- cies that are embarking on their first series of projects. Intu- itively, those with more DB quality management experience may have a better knowledge of how to distribute the respon- sibility for design quality. Table 14 shows the survey re- sponses from this group and the agency and agency-hired consultant numbers have been summed, as have the numbers for the two design-builder entities, to give a clearer picture of how experienced agencies divide design quality management responsibilities between the two parties to the DB contract. It is interesting to note that in every category the more experi- enced DOTs retain a higher percentage of responsibility for design QC tasks and most of the time they retain responsibil- ity for design QA tasks and give less responsibility to the design-builder than the general population. The differences between the experienced respondents are especially signifi- cant in the categories of the technical review of design deliv- erables, the acceptance of design deliverables, the review of specifications, the approval of progress payments for design, and the post-award design quality management plan approval. These are the points in the design process at which the final design decisions are made, and the experienced DOTs appear to feel the need to impose themselves in the design quality management process at these points. Additionally, although it is not shown in Table 13, only 20% of the survey responses of the more experienced DOTs indicated that they were using a third-party consultant to per- form design QA tasks. This is less often than was indicated by the less experienced DOTs, where a consultant was used by 50% of the respondents. This makes sense because a DOT with little or no previous DB experience could mitigate the risks associated with inexperienced agency personnel by re- taining an experienced DB consultant to assist it with the quality management during its first series of DB projects. CONCLUSIONS The design phase of a DB project is the phase in which the ul- timate quality of the constructed facility is quantified through the production of construction documents. Because this is the point of the project at which quality is defined, it is essen- tial that the design quality management responsibilities be clearly defined in the solicitation documents. DOTs might re- quire that some form of design quality management planning be included in the design-builders’ proposals to demonstrate the importance of design quality to the competitors and give themselves an opportunity to evaluate each design-builder’s proposed approach. This also allows the design-builders the opportunity to include the cost of design quality management resources and activities in their price proposal and, more im- portantly, in their schedule. It may be important to determine the number of design re- views that will be conducted during the DB project design

53 phase and clearly assign the responsibility for conducting those reviews. Publishing them in the project’s solicitation docu- ments creates the necessary contractual requirements for both parties to the DB contract. The RFP content analysis and the survey response data indicate that there is no optimum number, but rather that this is really a function of the project’s magnitude and technical complexity. A more complex project would receive more intermediate design reviews, as would a larger project. The key issue is to ensure that a DB project with an aggressive schedule is not unintentionally delayed by unneces- sary reviews. Therefore, a DOT can seek to minimize the num- ber of design reviews and consider using alternative techniques, such as the over-the-shoulder design review, to supplement the formal reviews and fulfill its PQA responsibilities. One of the advantages of DB is the opportunity for the DOT to contract out QA and QC activities to the design- builder or a third-party consultant, thus reducing the work- load on the DOT employees. It is common practice to assign the design QC to the design-builder in DB projects. In many cases, the design QA is also given to the design-builder. The owner may, however, retain oversight in some manner to ful- fill its federally mandated quality responsibilities as well as its ultimate responsibility for the quality of the constructed project. Many different ways to perform the oversight have been outlined in this chapter. The most important issue is to clearly define at what point PQA activities will occur and how the DOT and the design-builder will interact regarding their assigned design QA and QC responsibilities.