Thoughts on Quality Assurance
Introduction. From my time on phase 2 I have been heavily involved with quality management and, for the sake of discussion, I thought I’d articulate what I’ve learnt. If anybody in the UK or Aus has been similarly involved in QA or would like to provide additional comments on the alternative perspective, I welcome your thoughts and insights.
Quality Assurance is an interesting and broad topic that:
- forms an integral element of USACE’s role as the client’s representative
- comprised a large majority of my day-to-day activity on phase 2, and
- provided good links into the full breadth of engineering activities from project scheduling, contract management, finance, safety, and technical engineering.
The following paragraphs highlight what I believe to be the key elements of QA from my experience to date, pointers on how to ensure it is covered effectively along with a little info on some issues faced on the JOC project. It is not exhaustive and it began to run the risk of progressing into a full-blown essay – Please feel free to ask for more detail on anything you’d like to know more on.
The Preconstruction Conference. Prior to any construction work, these are held in order to ensure mutual understanding i.e between the client and principle contractor. It is apparent that these are often not done properly with patchy attendance from the quality team. The Contractor quality control (CQC) team is fundamental to ensuring the quality of the finished product so the whole CQC chain of command should be included in these meetings. This ensures a proper understanding of the client’s priorities and design intent are passed on to the QC and QA team members with less opportunity for misunderstanding or interpretation.
The Quality Assurance Plan. This are an excellent management tool but is often neglected or not even written but, without them, co-ordination of QA objectives can be extremely difficult. This must be considered a high priority for anybody involved in the management of a large project and is particularly pertinent to our future role as PQEs. East Campus is fortunate to be in possession of a detailed QA plan and its content can be broken down into the following sections:
- Govt staffing requirements and the functions of each QA team member
- Govt trg requirements and qualification levels required for each team member
- Govt pre-award activities
- DFOW list (see below)
- Govt monitoring and testing activities (responsibilities, frequency, detail, standards referenced)
QA reports. Similar to a site diary for supervision of site work, quality management requires accurate daily reports. These often seem tedious and unnecessary at the time of writing but invaluable several months later when a claim is received from the Contractor. As a rule, the daily reports should include details of:
- Meetings attended and instructions given
- Results of tests, deficiencies observed in work and actions taken.
- Developments that may lead to a change order or claim against the government (bad weather, RFIs received or design conflicts/deficiencies identified).
- Progress of work (incl manpower and equipment on site), causes and extent of delays.
- Safety Issues.
Deficiency tracking system. Elements of work which the QA team believe fail to meet the requirements of the contract must be recorded in a database for monitoring. This allows the client to know how much work was completed right first time and also prevents deficient work being covered up and forgotten. This is particularly important as, from my experience, contractors prefer to separate their production and CQC with deficient work often being monitored and corrected by a separate ‘Tiger team’ once work has moved forward. The deficiency list must be updated regularly with status, and dates of corrective action. From experience, I can confirm that this action is always best performed before the sub-contractor leaves the site!
Defined Features of Work (DFOWs). Any item of work with a separate and distinct method of applied QC including inspection, testing and reporting can be considered a DFOW. The principal is close to that of producing a product or work breakdown (PBS or WBS) with the addition of each DFOW item containing detailed lists of paperwork required from the contractor, products to be used, preparation and execution requirements, and testing & inspection regime for acceptance. For me, I often found myself relying on this paperwork more than the drawings to understand and QA the work I was responsible for.
Control phases. USACE conceptualize quality control into a three phase process consisting of a preparatory phase, initial phase and, finally, an acceptance phase. More often than not, quality issues on site can be attributed to a failure in the preparatory phase, making it the most important from a QA perspective. This may run counter-intuitively to anybody that views the QA team as primarily focused on the acceptance process. Briefly, the ‘prep phase’ should answer the following questions:
- Are materials on hand, and if not, when and how will they be arriving & stored?
- Are delivered materials as per the contract requirements and stored properly?
- What exactly do the contract specifications and submitted paperwork require to happen?
- What is the procedure for accomplishing the work? i.e sub contractor’s method of works, including health and safety assessment and sources of potential conflict etc…
- Are we all happy? This is a final chance for parties to air concerns with the plan or nature of work. The cost and time implications of discussing these concerns later will often be much higher so is quite important.
As built drawings. This is an important product for the end-user. The team here in East Campus hopes for updated drawings every month but the contract only requires them upon final completion. This can frustrate attempts to review work and identify conflicts before they become issues. It is recommended that, if possible, submission of these is specific and agreed in writing with appropriate penalties for failing to comply. To be effective, a review procedure must be in place.
Quality Assurance Testing. The general rule followed by USACE is that QA should test the work at approximately 5% of the Contractor’s QC frequency. This commitment to, basically, duplicate work the client has already paid the Contractor to do should be understood and appreciated in terms of the workload generated for the QA team as well as the value gained by the client in terms of verifying the Contractor’s efforts. I have, at times, felt that the Contractor has taken advantage of this overlap of responsibilities, making the following point even more relevant.
Quality Control Requirements. The Contractor must be required to provide the CQC function in terms of the roles performed and the qualifications of those that perform them. My greatest issues with the CQC team on the JOC project have been:
- QC being performed by unqualified personnel (an electrical engineer inspecting the placement of reinforcement for structural concrete)
- Double-hatting manpower (fine until you have a full day of concrete placement and your QC rep has to supervise it “remotely” as they’re elsewhere on site inspecting other features of work – ensure the contract specifies different roles as “not to be performed by an individual performing other role” if possible)
- 3rd Party testing inspectors being considered sufficient (Relying on the concrete testing technician to QC a concrete placement – the contractor is now demolishing $44,000 of concrete pavement because of this. Unsurprisingly, the technician was only concerned with slump testing etc… and not the location of expansion joints or texture applied during finishing).
Baseline schedule. Is it submitted by the contractor and accepted by the relevant engineer / manager? Is it resource loaded, with updates (complete or just status) submitted monthly? A function of QA is to identify potential delays and to do this, comparison must be made between the schedule and actual progress on site. Identifying potential delays or poor progress early can help prompt the contractor into recovering time before it becomes an issue.
Summary. Ultimately, a much longer post than I had originally intended. Hopefully, it gives you a flavor of the nature of QA work and can function as a starting block for anybody responsible for establishing the quality management process on future projects.
Hi James,
I am intrigued to know what medium USACE use to handle the often vast quantities of documentation involved in the QA process. Is this all hard copy paper documentation or do they use any digital Information Management Systems (IMS)? On Kings Cross S2 we use a Cloud based IMS system for all our documentation and processes which all the stakeholders are mandated to use. Although I’m in the process of looking into this through my thesis, digital IMS seems to offer some obvious benefits.
Would be interested to know your thoughts on either of the systems you use over there in cowboy country!
Hello Al,
USACE have a system called RMS (Resident management system) that allows them to perform the wider contracts management piece covering contractor submittals, QC/QA, changes, modifications, scheduling, payments to name but a few. It’s a bespoke system that, similar to your project, the contractor is obligated to use under the terms of the contract… however, the contractor don’t like it for tracking “punchlist” items so also use PROLOG software which uses coloured pins on copies of the design drawings. Clicking on the pin brings up details of the deficiency, status and progress towards closeout.
I appreciate the benefits of the contractors system, particularly for supporting completion of work and knowing what deficiencies are where. However, from a QA perspective, I prefer RMS for its reporting functions. The full capability is a topic that’s probably too long and broad for the blog, but I’d be happy to assist in passing on more details on it’s functions etc…
James, Similar question to you as to Al: What from does ‘as built’ information take and how is building information transferred from contractor to client/FM? Will this be hard copy or BIM and how do the QC results get moved from RMS?
Al, Does the digital input to the IMS get ported across to a BIM model i.e. if concrete is QA checked using consistence tests the results of which are uploaded are these then visible on a layer in the model that is eventually handed over as the maintenance and safety files? If not how is ‘as built’ information transferred from the QA process into the client at completion?
Rich, good questions. The as-builts are in the form of redlined or fully updated drawings. They are supposed to be submitted to us from the Contractor on a monthly basis but in reality it appears the real figure is closer to twice a year. East Campus Office don’t have CAD software though, so the CAD files get sent up to District for them to assess. What we do get is a monthly pack of updated, interactive, pdf versions of the drawings. The interactive nature includes clouds with links to relevant RFIs and changes/mods, which has often proved invaluable.
On completion of the project, the client receives a hard copy and pdf’d drawing pack of the as built condition along with AutoCAD drawings. At present the format must be AutoCAD v14, which is a little outdated but that’s the nature of government. From what I can tell, there is limited use of BIM.
I’m not sure I understood your question about how QC results get moved from RMS. Are you asking how they get extracted into something that the client can hold for future records? If so, the RMS database itself becomes a record upon successful completion of the contract and can be opened to research future issues. That record will be in RMS and also in a series of extracted excel, word, and acrobat compatible tables provided to the client in electronic form.
If your question was more to do with moving QC results from Contractor to USACE, then I can provide further clarity here also. When I access the QA page in the software, I am presented a list of outstanding actions including a section for verification of QC tests. For example, coming into work this morning, I had a single action which was with respect to the production of 6 test cylinders for a recent concrete placement. That was relatively easy to confirm as I observed them doing it. Validation of QC results is a little more involved e.g for validation of compression strength results I refer to test results from the 3rd party lab which includes USACE on the distribution. More general Contractor QC reports get imported into RMS by the contractor and then appear within their daily QC.
Thanks James, that answered all of my questions very fully! Ill leave you colleagues to consider differences in US and UK practice. At first glance it would seem that you receive more information in a less coordinated manner.
James you open with a statement about QM and then refer to QA. Beware the confusion of terms. The American Society for Quality are usually quite hot on this albeit that interpreting definitions for construction scenarios is challenging.
My take is: QC is a test that generates results (binary pass/fail or ordinate). QC feeds into a process that is intended to ensure end quality, this is a QA process. QA processes are designed in advance of execution and applied during execution. A QA process can contain decision trees such that actions can be changed in order to deliver the right product. QM is the higher level feedback loop that learns from output of QA processes and leads to different approaches over time. This is usually seen as most relevant to manufacturing processes and E&M or anything that is a repeat not the bespoke nature of construction. To be fair a quality manager is a professional in the field and generally puts QA in place which directs the QC that will occur and their are several ways that this can manifest in the contractor organisation
I think that some of the responsibilities you ascribe to QA such as baseline schedule are programme management, contract and commercial manager territory (although potentially to be picked up at a higher level of management through QA processes). I do wonder if we should talk about this more somewhere on the course?
Talking of quality, I’m sure the word ‘flavour’ has a ‘u’ in it…..
Richard, sort of! The client here has only required the M&E elements of the IMS (Feildview) to be mapped across to the BIM model, however not structural elements like concrete and steel testing. (I assume this requirement is based on the increased maintenance/shorter lifespans of M&E elements compared to structural elements?).
However, Carillion (along with many other main contractors I understand) use a system called Create Master who compile all the H&S File/as-built info on their behalf. Create Master are provided access to all IMS (BIM, Feildview, etc) we use and pull all the information together for the client, including items such as concrete QA checks.
Hope that sort of answers your question.
Thanks Al,
I’m impressed that at least some information is moves directly between systems. I’m a little confused by the statement “access to all IMS ( BIM Fieldview, etc)” because it implies BIM is a particular package and not the overarching IMS for the structure i.e. the position should surely be “are provided access to the BIM system(s) (IMS, Fieldview etc)” and the plurality of BIM systems is itself a worry. Is there a particular system used for some of the building information that is referred to as the BIM model and other locations for information about the building that are thought of as not being BIM?
You’re quite right, in questioning the use of the terminology, however, in this instance I have defaulted to USACE’s definition of quality management. Construction quality management is viewed more as the combination of contractor and government tasks to ensure work is completed on time, to budget, to spec, and safely. It consists of the contactors quality control management plan and the government’s QA (the reviews, tests and inspections used by the government to ensure QC is working effectively and the end-product complies with the required specifications).
Your categorization of some activities as outside of QA leads us on to an important debate. Though I would concede that the project/program/portfolio manager is very concerned with the scheduling, so too is the QA team; failure to include the schedule within the QA realm fails to recognize the former’s role in CQC – ensuring the project is constructed on time. To be effective QA must be proactive and looking at upcoming tasks as well as what is happening on site. In the preparatory phase QA examines the contractor’s readiness to start work i.e knowing that the work and laydown areas will be ready with preceding work completed; to do that, QA must have a strong understanding of the schedule and the relationships between tasks. Involvement in the schedule also provides an important commercial benefit e.g QA of activities such as payments. As a general rule, the QA team here regularly reduces the value of progress payments by several hundred thousand dollars (or 10%), simply by understanding the true level of progress and the financial value of “deficient” items.
In my opinion, baseline schedule refers better to the mutually agreed and “non-negotiable” project schedule. From a QA stand-point, just saying “schedule” is a little too vague: is it the project schedule, or the contractor’s (or even the sub-contractor’s) schedule? From my experience, the two rarely correlate and, though QA must understand both to be effective, it is the baseline schedule which is more important.
Does this correlate with standard practice in the UK? How can a single project manager for the client have a full grasp of the status of the project or is there just less scrutiny of the contractor’s QC?
Also, yes; I’m picking up a lot of bad habits with respect to Yankee spelling – I even said aloom’num the other week instead of aluminium, which was a little disgusting!
Rich,
Our data and handover procedure works as follows. We record everything on site directly onto Fieldview, via tablets, providing a database of all pre and post pour inspections, photos of all concrete delivery tickets and onsite test results. Once the cube results come back this is also included in the Fieldview database.
Separate to this a record of the same information is kept as a hard copy, pour by pour with redline drawings of the pour showing the exact location of construction joints. These hard copies are handed over to the client in stages, by milestones not date. For example a month after completing the B-1 primary works we handed the information over and we will continue to do this in stages. Not because we are contracted to do so, but to reduce the workload for everyone at the end of the project.
In addition to handing over hard copies of everything as we go, we record all information in our BIM software (Bentley ProjectWise/Navigator) , so a master BIM model will be handed over at the end of the project. This model will have all the separate pours and construction joints and be connected to the Fieldview information, enabling the viewer to click on an element and see all the Fieldview information. This requirement of the model is a contractual one as specified by London Underground.
Thanks Henry, That’s an impressive degree of communication. I might ask for a couple of delivery ticket photos from you please!
Henry, Fieldview sounds like a good bit of software. From what I can tell, our contractor’s software, Prolog, only allows you to add information to say the test was done and to type in the results. It sounds like you’ve also got a much tighter grip on QC and as builts… my initial guess would be that the added functiinality of freeview plays an important factor. Does your QC photograph the batch tickets using the tablet for upload their and then or is it a little more involved?
The Contractor here delegates the majority of their QC to the 3rd party – but they can only test and inspect according to US standards. They don’t have access to drawings so don’t know what the requirement is. If I saw an as built highlighting the different placements I would be very surprised.
Out of interest, who performs the QA on your site for the client? How large is the team and how often do you see them on site watching placements etc….?
Henry, I must say your system sounds very smooth and efficient. John Holland’s is quite clunky, Everything is hand written, then scanned into Project Pack Web (this must be similar to Fieldview). We then annotate a master set of drawings with a red pen to show as builts which are later scanned in. We have an undergraduate engineer currently drawing a BIM model of the bridge for her thesis project. I believe BIM would remove a number of the RFI’s we currently send across to the Client and Designer.