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.

INTRODUCTION DOTs are accustomed to describing in great detail the means and methods used to carry out the construction of their trans- portation projects in the standard specifications for con- struction. These specifications have been used in DBB and proven over time to be successful in yielding a quality prod- uct. In DB, however, DOTs have the opportunity to allow design-builders to use specific construction means and methods to differentiate themselves from their competitors and to provide efficiencies that may not have been contem- plated by the project’s owner. However, with this opportu- nity there also comes the risk that the means and methods used by the design-builder may not achieve the same quality as those prescribed in DBB contracts. Thus, one of the major quality management decisions that must be made in a DB highway project is to articulate the amount of flexibility that the design-builder will have over construction means and methods. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION MEANS AND METHODS In DBB, DOTs make their standard set of specifications for bridges and roads a contract requirement. In the RFP content analysis, 76% of the solicitation documents referenced the DOT standard specifications for construction. Of these, six allowed for the design-builder to also be evaluated on pro- posed means and methods, if they differed from the DOT standard specifications. Four other RFPs scored the design- builders on proposed means and methods without mention- ing the DOT standard specifications for construction. Two projects, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in California and the Southeast Corridor Multi Modal Project in Colorado, required the contractors to present their means and methods after award. Incidentally, these were both clas- sified as “mega-projects” using an FHWA definition found in the literature (Capka 2007). Therefore, the relative size of these two projects may have had an impact on the decision to ask for construction details after award. Additionally, the survey conducted for this report asked respondents if their agency mandates the use of standard agency (DOT) design/ construction specifications for their DB projects. Just as in the solicitation document analysis, 78% of the respondents answered “yes, on all projects.” Only 8% reported that they never mandate the use of their standard construction specifi- cations. This does not, however, conclude that the standards 54 are not referenced in the solicitation documents. The remain- ing 14% indicated that mandating the use of the DOTs’ standard specifications was project dependent. When these figures are grouped according to the DB experience of the parties, the percentages change significantly. For those respondents who had experience with more than five DB projects, 91% indicated that the DOT mandated the use of DOT standard specifications. The other 9% of respondents indicated that the use of DOT-mandated standard specifica- tions depended on the project. However, only 73% of the respondents who had five or fewer DB projects mandated the use of agency standard specifications on all projects, whereas 12% indicated that they never mandated the use of the DOT standard specifications. Methods for Incorporating Standard Specifications and Methods When asked about mandating the use of the standard DOT- approved construction means and methods, 24% of the respondents indicated that they always mandate the use of their means and methods on DB projects, whereas 58% indi- cated that they never did. The remaining 18% stated that it depended on the project as to whether or not they mandated the DOT standard means and methods. The results of the survey helped identify two methods to approach the use of standard specifications and construction means and methods in the quality management of DB projects. Incorporating Standard Specifications in Construction Only The first method relies on incorporating the state’s standard set of specifications in the construction phase of the DB proj- ect. This makes sense in that the physical construction activ- ities in DB are no different than in DBB. The only difference becomes the determination of responsibility for controlling the quality of those activities. This decision cannot be made out of the DB context. Choosing to implement the means and methods required in the standard specifications can uninten- tionally constrain the design process. Therefore, most states have chosen to use the standard specifications to describe the requirements for quality management during construc- tion. This method is used by the NCDOT, which places QC responsibilities on the design-builder and requires it to CHAPTER FIVE DESIGN-BUILD QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE

55 follow the details of the standard specifications in accom- plishing those duties as shown by the following: The Design-Builder shall perform all quality control for the Quality Management System (QMS) for Asphalt Pavements in accordance with section 609 of the Standard Specifications (Design-Build Package: I-77 from I-485 to SR 2136 . . . 2005). Thus, in this case NCDOT is only imposing the means and methods that might be referenced in its quality management program for asphalt pavements rather than directing that as- phalt pavements be built in accordance with the standard construction specifications themselves. This approach allows the DOT to constrain the means and methods to ones in which it has confidence without becoming overly prescrip- tive and unintentionally creating ambiguities that would be detrimental to the design process. Incorporating Standard Specifications by Reference The second approach is to incorporate the standard specifica- tions and/or construction means and methods merely by ref- erence. Often, in this approach, the quality management clauses shift construction quality to the design-builder and take a hands-off approach to means and methods. This allows the design-builder to utilize those means and methods that best suit its design. An example of this approach is taken from a Utah DOT project: Design-Builder shall be responsible for and have control over the design including QC and QA, construction means, methods, techniques, sequence, procedures, Site security, and Site safety, and shall be solely responsible for coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract Documents, subject, however to all requirements contained in the Contract Documents (Request for Proposals, SR-92 . . . 2005). The reader can see that in this clause the owner has made it clear that the design-builder is fully responsible for determin- ing the construction means and methods that best suit the design completed by the design-builder, rather than trying to impose specific control over the construction process through binding the design-builder to the prescriptive provisions in the state’s standard specifications. A similar approach was used in the San Joaquin Hills project: CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract Documents, subject, however, to all requirements contained in the Contract Documents (Design/Build Services: San Joaquin Hills . . . 1991). To summarize, standard specifications and construction means and methods can be handled either by treating them no differently than they would have been treated in traditional DBB project delivery or by shifting the responsibility for determining appropriate and effective means and methods to the design-builder using the standard specifications as a foundation. Very few of the RFPs reviewed contained specific references to construction means and methods. This leads to the conclusion that although use of appropriate construction means and methods is extremely important to ensure final project quality, most DOTs have chosen to relin- quish direct control over them and shift the responsibility for the quality of the means and methods used in a DB project to the design-builder. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL POLICIES ON DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS In trying to identify certain trends about who conducts the construction QA and QC functions on DB projects some spe- cific activities were looked for in the solicitation document analysis, such as assigning responsibilities for the following QA and QC activities: • Performance of shop and/or working drawing review and approval, • Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on the project site, • Performance of routine QC inspections, • QC testing, and • Nonconforming work (punch list). Construction Shop Drawing Review In the RFP content analysis, 26 project documents specified responsibility for construction shop drawing reviews. The majority of these projects (62%) placed all shop drawing re- view on the design-builder, which makes sense because the designer-of-record works for the design-builder in DB con- tracts. In 15% of the projects, the DOT retained the responsi- bility and risk of reviewing and approving construction shop drawings. In the remaining 23% of the cases, the design- builder was responsible for reviewing and approving the shop drawings, although the DOT retained an active role in verifying the design-builder-performed review. Also con- firming this finding is the survey response to the question of who primarily performs the technical review of construction shop drawings. Of the respondents, 72% indicated that this QA responsibility is placed on the design-builder, whereas the other 28% indicated that the DOT or a third party would review the shop drawings. An RFP issued by the Florida DOT presents a summary of this type of review: The Design-Build Firm shall be responsible for the preparation and approval of all Shop Drawings. . . . The Department shall review the Shop Drawing(s) to evaluate compliance with project requirements and provide any findings to the Design-Build Firm. The Department’s procedural review of shop drawings is to assure that the Contractor and the EOR [engineer-of-record] have both accepted and signed the drawing, the drawing has been independently reviewed, and is in general conformance with the plans. The Departments review is not meant to be a

56 complete and detailed review (Request for Proposal, Milling and Resurfacing of Interstate 95 2003). In other cases, the DOT chose to review only specific ele- ments of the project that were of direct interest, such as struc- tures or lighting (see Part I: Scope of Work T.H. 100 . . . 2001; Request for Proposals, Interstate 229 . . . 2000; Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development 2004). The review in these situations was again just to ensure compliance with contract requirements and the RFP required that the shop drawings be first reviewed by the design-builder. This fur- nishes added confidence in the quality of the constructed product for features of specific interest without usurping the design-builder’s responsibility for total quality management. It also reduces the amount of construction administration that the DOT must conduct to that which adds value to the process. Horizontal and Vertical Control Horizontal and vertical control on the project site is another item analyzed in the RFP content analysis. Forty-two solici- tation documents contained information on this topic. In all cases, the DOT gave control of the construction staking and grades to the design-builder. In 88% of the cases, the design- builder was also responsible for establishing horizontal and vertical control except for some limited preproposal survey- ing, such as that referenced in the Mississippi DOT RFP: “The Department will establish, one time only, State Plane Coordinate System horizontal control monuments. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to establish additional control as may be required to facilitate the staking of the right-of-way” (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design- Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005). In the remaining 12% of the projects there was a more extensive shared responsibility between the DOT and the design-builder. This also occurred in the two examples from EFLHD and the Ohio DOT as shown here: EFLHD: The Government has established basic survey control points for vertical and horizontal control of the project [Request for Proposals IBC-8888(012) Book 1 2001]. Ohio DOT: The Department survey crews have provided the nec- essary survey requirements, listed below: Mainline centerline control and bench marks; Mainline monumentation control . . . Vertical clearances for overhead structures, to serve as a check for the existing vertical clearances (Request for Proposals, SR11 2001). The survey confirms the finding of placing the horizontal and vertical control responsibility in the hands of the design- builder. Respondents indicated that this was the case 92% of the time. Routine Construction Inspection Routine construction inspection is another construction qual- ity aspect that has overwhelmingly been shifted away from the DOT. As written in an RFP issued by the Virginia DOT, this shift was clearly delineated: “The construction QA per- son will perform all of the construction inspection and sam- pling and testing work that is normally performed by the VDOT” (Request for Proposals, A Design-Build Project De- sign and Construction . . . 2002). Once again, the content analysis showed that the majority of the projects (82%) placed routine construction inspection in the hands of the design- builder or both the design-builder and an independent firm. The DOT retained the construction inspection duties in only 13% of the cases (interestingly, all projects in this cat- egory were by DOTs that had performed more than five DB projects) and shared the duties with the design-builder in 5% of the cases. The survey results for who performs routine construction inspection also differ significantly for the more experienced and less experienced survey groups. Seventy- five percent of the less experienced respondents indicated that their agency gave the routine inspection responsibility to the design-builder. Only 53% of the more experienced respondents indicated the same. In addition, 14% of the less experienced group placed the responsibility on their own agency, whereas 32% of the more experienced respondents indicated that the DOT retained the construction inspection responsibility. It is interesting that the DOTs with more experience are less prone to give the routine construction inspection procedures to the design-builder. Although there are numerous ways to outline construction inspection responsibility, the content analysis showed that the approach taken needs to be project specific rather than merely a matter of policy. Below are examples of how the NCDOT, an agency with extensive DB experience, dealt with routine construction inspection requirements on three different projects. 1. Design-Builder Responsibility: “The Design Build Team shall provide a schedule indicating the minimum number of inspectors that will be supplied at different stages during the project duration” (Design-Build Package: I-40 from West of SR 1224 . . . 2005). 2. DOT Responsibility: “Construction engineering and management will be the responsibility of the Design- Build Team. Construction Engineering Inspection [by a third party] will NOT be required in this contract” (Design-Build Package: US64 Knightdale Bypass . . . 2002). 3. Shared Responsibility between Design-Builder and an Independent Firm: “Construction engineering and man- agement, including quality control and inspection, will be the responsibility of the Design Build Team. . . . The Design-Build team shall employ a private engineering firm to perform Construction Inspection for all work re- quired under this contract. This private engineering firm is to be a separate entity, unaffiliated with the Design- Builder in any way. Private engineering firms must be prequalified under the Department’s normal prequalifi- cation procedures prior to bid submission. This Scope of

57 Work describes and defines requirements for the con- struction inspection, materials sampling and testing, and technician level contract administration by the private engineering firm (commonly referred to as ‘Construc- tion Engineering & Inspection’ [CEI] firms) required for construction of this project” (Design-Build Package: I-77 from I-485 to SR 2136 . . . 2005). One can see that the NCDOT has made a conscious decision in each case to apply an appropriate level of control based on the technical requirements of each project. The WSDOT provides a fourth approach to construction inspection responsibility distribution, as described the Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development (2004): WSDOT’s inspection involvement will be less extensive than under design-bid-build, depending on the construction schedule and the type of project. The primary role is to monitor the pro- gression of the construction against the Construction Documents submitted by the Design-Builder. The inspector’s authority has not changed, although [the inspector’s] work will be coordi- nated with the Design-Builder inspector. On projects where WSDOT performed final design on portions of the project, the WSDOT inspector’s role will be similar to that under design- bid-build projects. With mixed assignments on-site, the WSDOT and Design-Builder inspectors will need to maintain close coor- dination to ensure none of the required QC measures are missed (italics added). Witness and Hold Points The WSDOT implemented this policy in its RFP for the Thurston Way Interchange project through the use of a DB construction inspection technique drawn from the building construction industry called “witness and hold points” (Gransberg et al. 2006). A “witness point” is defined in the WSDOT Guidebook as an oversight activity and “hold points” are mandatory inspections held at specific points in construction progress (Guidebook for Design-Build Highway Project Development 2004). Often these are points at which the design-builder is ready to bury a major feature of work, such as a utility line, or to cover a feature up by casting it in concrete. They represent points in the DB project schedule at which the design-builder must notify the DOT and arrange for a mutual inspection of those features of work that are identified in the contract. The WSDOT RFP language is as follows: Witness and Hold Points are to be established where notification of WSDOT is required for WSDOT’s option of observing or visually examining a specific work operation or test. Witness Points are points identified within the inspection plan which re- quire notification of WSDOT. Work may proceed beyond a wit- ness point with or without participation by WSDOT provided proper notification has been given. Hold Points are mandatory verification points identified within the inspection plan beyond which work cannot proceed until mandatory verification is per- formed and a written release is granted by WSDOT. Witness and Hold Points should be identified in the construction process where critical characteristics are to be measured and maintained, and at points where it is nearly impossible to determine the ade- quacy of either materials or workmanship once work proceeds past this point . . . The QC Plan shall contain inspection plans for each construction work item included in the project whether performed by the Design-Builder or a subcontractor or vendor (Request for Proposals, Thurston Way Interchange 2000). The Arizona DOT also uses witness and hold points as a mechanism to control the adequacy of routine construction inspections (Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide 2001). In doing so, it sets “quality checkpoints” cou- pled with quality incentives. Typically, the Arizona DOT covers DB construction inspection by “requiring the D/B firm to provide independent inspections and materials testing with ADOT oversight and having the contractor perform the QC and the QA by an independent portion of the D/B firm with ADOT providing oversight and independent sampling and testing” (Design-Build Procurement and Administration Guide 2001). Quality Control Testing The central aspect of construction quality control is QC test- ing. QC testing is also an area where the content analysis found that DOTs have overwhelmingly given responsibility to the design-builder. In the 39 projects that specifically men- tioned construction QC testing in the DB RFP, the DOT did not retain control in any of them. In all but two cases, the design-builder was assigned direct control. In the two excep- tions, a third party was required to perform part of the test- ing. DOTs, however, did not give up the right to make further inspections or to perform their own verification and accep- tance testing. The following example from an RFP issued by the Mississippi DOT illustrates how it gave the responsibil- ity of construction QC testing to the design-builder while retaining verification and acceptance testing responsibilities. The CONTRACTOR is required to conduct concrete and asphalt sampling and testing in accordance with MDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. . . . The CONTRACTOR may elect to conduct other sampling and testing for his own benefit. . . . [MDOT] or its duly authorized representative may conduct QA inspections, verification sam- pling and testing for concrete and hot mix asphalt, all other acceptance testing, and independent assurance testing (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Over St. Louis Bay . . . 2005). The Texas DOT was one of the exceptions in their DB RFP for State Highway 130, a mega-project with its own unique characteristics. Because of the magnitude of the proj- ect, the Texas DOT chose to rely on an independent QA firm. The RFP indicated the independent firm’s responsibilities as follows: For quality assurance purposes, the department shall provide or contract for, independently of the design-build firm, any inspec- tion services, or verification testing services necessary for acceptance of the transportation project (SH 130 Turnpike Proj- ect Exclusive Development Agreement 2001).

58 Both exceptions are based on the idea that the DOT must ultimately ensure that the construction QC system supports rather than constrains project progress and, by either giving the design-builder full responsibility or inserting an indepen- dent quality firm, the DOT is ensuring that it has clearly delineated the requirement for QC testing during the course of construction. The survey results, however, once again come to a differ- ent conclusion as to who is responsible for construction QC testing. In the less experienced group, the design-builder was responsible for the construction QC testing in 88% of the responses. In the more experienced group, the design-builder was responsible in only 60% of the responses. There is a sim- ilar discrepancy in the amount of construction QC testing responsibility that the DOT retains. The less experienced group retained the responsibility in less than 1% of the re- sponses, whereas the more experienced group indicated that 26% retained the construction QC testing responsibility. These responses raise the question of why would more expe- rienced DOTs retain construction QC responsibilities when these responsibilities could be given to the design-builder. Nonconforming Work The final construction QC issue is the disposition of noncon- forming work (often called the “punch list”) and determining the party that will be responsible for making the final inspec- tions and reporting final conformance. Twenty-five of the projects specified who was responsible for reporting noncon- forming work. Intuitively, this is the point in construction quality management that most of the DOTs seem to have retained control. In 64% of the RFPs analyzed, the DOT re- tained the responsibility for reporting and determining non- conforming work. For example, a Utah DOT RFP stated that: “Nonconforming Work is Work that the Department deter- mines does not conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents” (Request for Proposals SR-201 . . . 2004, italics added). This is a clear statement of the DOT’s perceived re- sponsibility for final acceptance of the completed project. Interestingly, in 32% of the projects, the design-builder was assigned responsibility for conducting inspections and preparing the reports of the nonconforming work. This is not meant to imply that the DOT was absolving itself from re- sponsibility for final acceptance of the project, but rather that the DOT was requiring the DB team to conduct what would best be termed a “rolling punch list.” This approach reports nonconformance as it is discovered and encourages the design-builder to make corrections as soon as practical rather than waiting to the end of the project. These inspec- tions are used as the basis for a final report that documents the findings. Presumably, the DOT would then use this as a basis with which to conduct its own final acceptance activities. The two following examples, from the Colorado and Utah DOTs, show how this was expressed in RFPs: [Colorado] The Contractor shall establish and maintain a non- conformance system and procedures for uniform reporting, con- trolling, and disposition of nonconformance (Request for Proposal, Book 1 . . . 2000). [Utah] The CPOC [construction proof of compliance] shall identify and document in a nonconformance report (NCR) all elements of the Work that have not, or are believed to have not, been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications. The NCR shall be submitted to the IQM [independent quality manager] in writing within 24 hours of identification, and a copy sent to the design engineer. . . . The Department will not grant acceptance for any portion of Work that has an outstanding NCR (Request for Pro- posals Parley’s Crossing Tunnel @I-215 . . . 2004). A word of caution on this method comes from a survey respondent who stated that: Design-builders are often afraid of reporting nonconforming work. Many teams feel that their record for nonconforming work will be held against them when they are being scored on the next best-value design-build project (Request for Qualifications T.H. 52 . . . 2001). Use of an Independent Firm to Manage Nonconforming Work In North Carolina, the nonconformance report comes from an independent firm, which is the same firm that performed the construction QC inspection as follows: “The CEI firm shall document any observed omissions, substitutions, defects, and deficiencies noted in the work, take corrective action neces- sary, and advise the DEPARTMENT accordingly” (Design- Build Package: US64 Knightdale Bypass . . . 2002). In regard to who reports nonconforming work, the survey confirmed the findings of the RFP analysis. Of the survey respondents, 78% indicated that either the DOT or a third- party consultant hired by the DOT reported nonconforming work. The remaining 22% indicated that either the design- builder’s construction or design staff was responsible for reporting nonconforming work. Verification and Acceptance Testing To support final project acceptance, the responsibility for final inspections as well as any verification or acceptance testing must be determined. The content analysis set out to find who was responsible for the verification and acceptance testing. As with the report of nonconforming work, DOTs have generally retained this quality function. Of the 40 proj- ects that listed who was responsible for verification and acceptance testing, 88% assigned the responsibility to the DOT. Another 5% required an independent firm that worked directly for the DOT to accept this responsibility. Interest- ingly, three RFPs assigned this responsibility to the design- builder. The survey responses support these findings by indicating that 88% of the time the DOT or a third party hired by the DOT performs verification and acceptance testing,

59 whereas the design-builder is responsible only 12% of the time. Although the majority of the states retained the verifi- cation and acceptance testing responsibilities, this does not mean that they will perform the actual tests with their own forces. Some DOTs indicated in the RFP that the DOT reserved the right to appoint a representative to perform the tests (see the following example from the Florida DOT). Standard RFP clauses are represented. [Arizona] The design-build firm shall be responsible for the quality of the construction and materials incorporated into the project and is responsible for most QC actions. The Department has the responsibility of determining the acceptability of the con- struction and the materials incorporated into the project. The Department will use the results of the firm’s inspection, sam- pling, and testing, and the Department’s surveillance inspection, and verification sampling and testing to determine the accept- ability of completed work items and for final project acceptance. Verification Sampling and Testing will be performed by the Department to validate Design-Builder Sampling and Testing as well as the quality of the material produced (Contracts and Spec- ifications Section . . . 1997). [Florida] The Department or Department’s representative will perform independent assurance, verification, and resolution test- ing services in accordance with the latest Specifications. The Design-Build Firm will provide quality control testing in accor- dance with the latest Specifications (Request for Proposal, Milling and Resurfacing of Interstate 95 2003). [Minnesota] The Department, through its owner quality assur- ance (QA), will have the primary responsibility for verification of the quality of both the design and construction work. The Department reserves the right to conduct inspection, sampling, testing, and evaluation associated with QA and IA [indepen- dent assurance] [T.H. 52 (Rochester) Design-Build Request 2002]. [Mississippi] [Mississippi DOT] or its duly authorized represen- tative may conduct QA inspections, verification sampling and testing for concrete and hot mix asphalt, all other acceptance testing, and independent assurance testing (Request for Propos- als, Addendum 1, A Design-Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Biloxi to Ocean Springs Bridge . . . 2005). [Utah] The Department will be responsible for construction QA. The Department will perform the same inspections and tests it performs on a standard design-bid-build project (Request for Proposals, SR-92 . . . 2005). Design-Builder Verification and Acceptance Testing In three of the projects reviewed, the design-builder was responsible for the verification and acceptance testing. One of these projects, the RFP for the Eastern Transportation Cor- ridor in California, was a toll collection and revenue man- agement system for which the verification and acceptance testing was based on a 60-day trial period after completion. For projects involving highway construction, however, the two projects that used design-builder verification and accep- tance testing were a mega-project, the Colorado Southeast Corridor (SEC) Multi-Modal Project, and a major urban Interstate makeover, I-64 in Missouri. Excerpts from the RFP are given for both projects. [Colorado] In cases where inspections are to serve as the basis for compliance verification, the Contractor shall prepare detailed inspection procedures and submit these to the SEC Representa- tive for review. The Contractor shall conduct each inspection in accordance with the inspection procedures reviewed by the SEC Representative; no inspection shall be performed prior to ob- taining the SEC Representative review of such inspection proce- dures. The Contractor in a suitable inspection report clearly showing if the inspection passed or failed based on the “pass/fail criteria” established in the procedure, shall document the results (Request for Proposal, Book 1 . . . 2000, italics added). [Missouri] The following quality planning aspects shall be in- cluded in the Quality Manual . . . the Quality Assurance staff position responsible to perform the verification responsibilities including inspection, checking, and testing . . . the method of per- forming Quality Assurance verification responsibilities including inspection, checking, and testing (Final Request for Proposals for The New I-64 Design-Build Project 2006, italics added). In another mega-project, the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor, an independent firm was to be retained for the acceptance and assurance responsibilities. The RFP states that: The Construction Engineering Manager [employed by an inde- pendent firm] shall be responsible for coordinating and directing all Acceptance and Assurance inspections, sampling, and testing to the conducted hereunder (Design/Build Services: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor . . . 1991). Finally, in Utah’s I-15 mega-project, a third party was specifically listed as assisting the DOT to fulfill its verifica- tion and acceptance testing responsibilities (Request for Pro- posals, I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Project . . . 1997). To summarize this section of the report, it is fair to say that in the majority of the cases the DOT assigned the re- sponsibilities for construction quality management primarily to the design-builder while retaining either traditional QA or PQA for itself or a third-party consultant that worked as the DOT’s agent. POST-AWARD CONSTRUCTION QUALITY PLANS In the RFP content analysis, 45% of the projects required some part of a construction quality plan either before or after award of the contract, and 40% required an entire post-award construction quality plan (presumably including both QC and QA) that would not be scored in the proposal evaluation. In addition, 41% of the survey respondents also indicated that they require a post-award construction quality manage- ment plan. In one RFP, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, post-award construction QC and QA plans were specifically required. In four other projects, only post-award construction QC plans were required. Most often, the sub- mission required the quality plan to be submitted for DOT approval within a specific number of days before the start of construction. For example, a project in Washington, D.C.,

60 required the contractor to comply with the following: “Be- fore the start of any construction, submit a written quality control plan for acceptance” [Request for Proposals IBC- 8888(012) . . . 2001]. In another example, from the Missis- sippi DOT, a specific time is listed for the submission of the construction QC plan and the requirements: The CONTRACTOR shall submit a Quality Control Plan that outlines how the CONTRACTOR shall assure that the materials and Work are in compliance with the CONTRACT Documents. The initial plan shall be submitted to the [DOT] for review and approval at least 30 days prior to the beginning of any construc- tion activity (Request for Proposals, Addendum 1, A Design- Build Project Bridge Replacement on US 90 Biloxi to Ocean Springs Bridge . . . 2005). The New Mexico DOT included the following in an RFQ about a construction quality plan: The Contractor will be required to plan, implement, and provide a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program for its de- sign and construction operations. . . . The Department will review the Contractor’s program to assure that it meets guidelines and minimum requirements established by the Department. Depart- ment approval of the program will constitute Department agree- ment that it meets these criteria, but the Contractor shall maintain ownership of the program and shall be fully responsible for its execution (Request for Proposals, US 70 Hondo Valley . . . 2001). Some of the post-award construction quality plans are required as a follow-up to a draft or summary presented in the proposal. This was the case in 13 of the 17 projects that required a post-award construction quality plan. The RFP first required a pre-award draft of the plan so that the DOT understood and could evaluate the design-builder’s quality management approach before awarding the contract. The rationale seems to be that because the design is not complete, it is neither feasible nor necessary to require a complete qual- ity plan in the proposal. This also serves to reduce proposal preparation costs for the competing design-builders. The MnDOT has used this method. Its RFP states: [After award,] the Design-Builder shall submit a Construction Quality Management Plan (CQMP) (based on the Draft CQMP submitted in its Proposal) that addresses Construction Quality Control (CQC), including coordination of the Department’s Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) and Independent Assur- ance (IA) procedures [T.H. 52 (Rochester) Design-Build Re- quest . . . 2002]. It would seem that this last approach would be the most rea- sonable. It makes quality management planning an evaluated portion of the proposal, but does not impose an undue burden on the competitors by asking for a detailed document that is based on their hypothetical approach to the project. Addition- ally, because the winning proposal typically becomes a part of the contract (Beard and Belle 2003), the award is permitted to be made without the need to subsequently modify the contract as the quality management plans are modified in accordance with the final approved design. Finally, it is surprising that nearly half the RFPs did not ask the design-builders to provide some detail as to their quality management approach for the project. These RFPs obviously were using the “Quality by Qualifications” (Gransberg and Molenaar 2004) approach to articulating their requirements for quality management, which relies on the evaluation of the design-builders’ qualifications and past performance record to ensure that quality will be brought to the design and construction through the quality of the personnel and firms that complete the work. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS The quality of the people who perform the construction qual- ity management functions on a project is an important factor in the reliability of the results of the inspections and tests. Therefore, the DOT is interested in those who supervise and perform these inspections and tests. As discussed in chapter three, 59% of the projects in the content analysis required that a project or construction quality manager be listed in the proposal as part of the competitive evaluation. Also, as was discussed in the same chapter, the primary qualifications for these personnel were experience and professional licensing or certification as appropriate for their assigned duties, as well some education requirements. Fifteen of the projects had requirements for construction quality personnel in the RFP that must be identified and approved after the contract has been awarded. The majority of these projects (73%) required that all personnel who had a construction quality function or task be identified with their levels of certification and other qualifications. Many of them (64%) also specify the number of full-time personnel who will be assigned to the project. An excerpt from a South Dakota RFP is a good example: The CQMP shall provide the information regarding the Design/ Builder’s organization in providing quality management of all of the construction processes. The number of full-time equiva- lent employees with specific Quality Control responsibilities shall be included, as well as a chart showing lines of authority and reporting authority. . . . The Design/Builder shall identify the names, positions, qualifications, duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person proposed in a quality function for con- struction (Request for Proposals, Interstate 229 . . . 2000). Another 33% of the RFPs required that QC testing and/or inspection supervisors be submitted and approved after award of the contract. The following comes from the EFLHD RFP describing the contents of a post-award construction QC plan: Personnel qualifications . . . Document the name, authority, relevant experience, and qualifications of person with overall responsibility for the inspection system . . . Document the names, authority, and relevant experience of all personnel directly responsible for inspection and testing [Request for Proposals IBC- 8888(012) . . . 2001]. A quality product requires people who perform in a qual- ified manner. To ensure that construction is performed at a

61 minimum level of quality, the DOTs must know the qualifi- cations of those who will work on their projects. CONCLUSIONS As can be seen from the various examples and statistics cited in this chapter, there are myriad combinations that can be used to ensure construction quality on a DB project. The main conclusion is that each project is unique and to gain the greatest benefit of DB, each project must have a construction quality management plan crafted specifically for that proj- ect. As DOTs gain more experience with DB, they will better understand how to best manage construction quality in a DB project.