Construction

Quality Assurance in Materials and Construction

Scope and Methodology of Review

Scope

As cited in 23 CFR 637, every Division Office is responsible for the approval of the State's quality assurance program. As part of the Office of Infrastructure's stewardship activities they have initiated a multi-year review focusing on the adequacy of State's quality assurance programs. Infrastructure's review concentrated on the quality assurance program as developed by the State focusing on regulatory compliance and technical assistance. The review has brought attention to the use of contractor test results in the acceptance decision.

In contrast to the Office of Infrastructure's review, this national review focused on how Division Offices evaluate and approve the State's quality assurance program and what criteria are considered in that approval. An additional focus of this review was the Division Office's monitoring of the State's implementation of the approved program. The foundation for this review is the six elements of a QA program. These six elements are considered to be the building blocks of an acceptable quality assurance program and served as the basis for the review of the Division Office's evaluation, approval, and monitoring of the quality assurance program and are discussed in more detail later in this report.

These six elements are outlined in various documents such as the National Quality Improvement Task Force Report on QA Procedures for Highway Construction (FHWA DP-89, June 1994) and the AASHTO Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance (February 1996). Although other documents may group these activities differently, it is helpful to define the quality assurance program using these six elements:

1. Contractor quality control,
2. Agency acceptance,
3. Independent assurance,
4. Dispute resolution,
5. Laboratory accreditation and qualification, and
6. Personnel qualification/certification.

In order to have a better understanding of the content of this report, it is valuable to have a clear understanding of the definition of these elements. As the Team discovered during this review, the terms used for the six elements often have different meanings depending on the particular jargon used in each State. For the sake of clarity for this report, these six elements are further defined and described. It is important to understand that these six elements work together to ensure a complete effective QA program. If one or more of the six elements is missing from a Division Office's oversight, the program as a whole is significantly weakened and risk is increased.

1. Contractor Quality Control

Contractor quality control (QC) is a defined systemspecifically designed to allow the contractor to monitor, assess, and adjustthe production or placement processes of specific materials to ensure that thefinal product will meet the level of quality specified. The QC testing is different than theacceptance testing discussed in the section below; its purpose and function isto measure those quality characteristics and inspect those activities thatimpact the quality of the finished product at a time when corrective action canbe taken if needed. These efforts andtesting defined and performed by the contractor should be able to identifynonconforming material and prevent its incorporation into the finalproduct. It also functions to identifyproper control and provide a level of confidence that the work is beingcompleted according to the established specifications.

The minimum contractor QC activities should be defined inthe construction contract as part of a plan utilized during construction. The activities of this plan include materialtesting requirements, inspection activities, corrective action when required,and management control to ensure that the work conforms to the contractrequirements.

2. Agency Acceptance

Agency acceptance is defined as the process used by the Agencyto evaluate and determine the degree of compliance of the final project withcontract requirements. The Agencyacceptance program is composed of elements that enable the State to determinethe quality of the product as specified in the contract requirements. These activities include verificationsampling, testing, and inspection. Insome instances, this can also involve determining a quality-based pay factorfor a given finished product. The Agencyacceptance program should include inspection schedules, lot sizes, samplesizes, testing frequency, quality measure, pay factors, and acceptancelimits. If contractor data is utilizedin the acceptance decision the program would also include a validation methodand risk evaluations.

3. Independent Assurance

Per 23 CFR 637, the purpose of independent assurance (IA) activitiesis to provide an unbiased and independent evaluation of all the samplingand testing procedures used in the acceptance decision. This system is designed to verify the qualityof the data, not the quality of the material, which is being obtained duringthe course of highway construction. The IAsamples evaluate the sampling and testing personnel and their associatedequipment. Deficiencies in testing orequipment can be discovered by comparing IA test results. Through this process, the integrity of thesystem is monitored and therefore provides a level of confidence in the datathat is obtained and used in the acceptance decision.

There are two methodologies for performing IA activities,project-based and systematic. Project-based is a more traditional approach in which the personnel on aspecific construction project are evaluated by periodic IA samples andobservations. The results of these testswould then be used to determine if any discrepancies exist in the sampling andtesting procedures of the people and equipment being utilized on the project. Results of project-based IA are reported as part of project materials certifications.

In the systematic approach, the IA sample is still utilized to determine any discrepancies in testing or equipment, however since it is not performed in concert with project activities it would become necessary to track the individual testing technicians and associated equipment. If a State elects to use the systematic approach to IA, the regulations require an annual report be submitted to the Division Office.

4. Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution is a documented process that is used to resolve conflicts resulting from discrepancies between the State's and the contractor's test results. This type of resolution is very specific to addressing test results that are used in the acceptance decision and should not be confused with contract administration dispute resolution processes (partnering, mediation, arbitration, and so on).

This process may involve items such as test procedure review, sample retesting, comparison testing, and third-party testing. Regardless of specific process elements, the entire dispute resolution process should balance the risk of both parties and offer a consistent approach for all construction projects.

5. Laboratory Accreditation and Qualification

As part of 23 CFR 637, each State shall have a central laboratory accredited by the AASHTO Accreditation Program or a comparable laboratory accreditation program approved by the FHWA. In addition, all testing performed as part of the acceptance decision must be completed by a qualified laboratory. These laboratories include State laboratories that are not part of the AASHTO Accreditation Program, contractor laboratories, and vendor laboratories. It is necessary for the States to define and list the specific criteria that are used to determine the components of a qualified laboratory.

6. Personnel Qualification/Certification

As part of 23 CFR 637, all sampling and testing data to be used in the acceptance decision shall be performed by qualified sampling and testing personnel. The State needs to define the criteria that are used to determine these qualifications; in general the components include:

• Formal training,
• Hands-on demonstration,
• Written examination, and
• Periodic re-qualification.

This process will also document how the list of qualified personnel is maintained.

Methodology

To identify key states for this review the Team focused on the following criteria:

• Dollar size of Federal-aid program; small, medium, and large.
• Acceptance testing method; contractor testing versus Agency testing.
• Ranking of subject matter during the national review program solicitation; low, medium, or high.
• Geographic representation in each Director of Field Services area; North, South, and West.
• Participation in other recent national reviews.

The Division Offices selected for the review were Utah, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Illinois, District of Columbia, and Texas.

In addition to site selection, the Team also focused on the content of the questions to be asked during the review. The Team developed a four-part questionnaire that examined the six elements of QA, general oversight, staffing, and support and improvements needed in the program. The four parts of the questionnaire examined the Division Office, State DOT, consultant, and industry roles and responsibilities in the QA program. The Division Offices were given the option to provide the specific portion of the questionnaire to consultants and/or industry, if applicable. The interviews captured input from FHWA Division Administrators, FHWA program managers, and State QA leaders and program managers. The basis for the questionnaire was 23 CFR 637 and Technical Advisory (TA) T6120.3 (Appendix B). The questionnaire asked the Division Office how they administered the six elements of the program, if they considered each element and the overall program to be effective, and how they made this evaluation. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.