CD Phase Quality Control Plan

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ruppert Rangel, AIA CCS Senior Member Username: rangel Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 12:56 pm:    This question may be in the wrong forum, but I will ask anyway. On a Federal project RFQ, the submittal requests a "Quality Control Plan" for CD phase. We have our own in-office check list, but I am curious if there is a published plan/format/system that may be more appropriate on government projects? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 69 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 01:22 pm:    Quality Control Plans dealing with the design process is something where there is little concensus. This does not stop some clients from requestings a program. Note that such programs are more common in other industries and types of projects. You could implement and ISO 9000 program, but if it was for just one project I would turn the project down. ISO 9000 brings with it a lot of paperwork and there are concerns that it is not easy to apply to the design process. Some of the large A/E firms are implementing ISO 9000 programs in response to requests of institutional clients. You could develop an program modeled off of the work of Demming, TQM, and or Toyota. I think this is a better way to go but this will be a lot of work. This is not a simple process where there is a fixed formula. I would be interested in what you find out. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 324 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 03:26 pm:    An ISO 9000 program is a firm-level commitment typically requiring years to initially accomplish; it is most common among A/E firms providing services to auto industry facilities owners. It does, however, provide a good overview of what a QCP or TQM program on a project level might entail. I can recommend the name a of highly experienced A/E firm quality program consultant if you wish to contact me at phil@specguy.com. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 257 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 04:05 pm:    The following is how the Louisville District of the Corps of Engineers describes it in their district master guide Section 01 45 04.06. Like the Army/Navy/NASA's UFGS masters, this section is designed to be edited using the government's SpecsIntact spec processing software. Though this is intended for design-build projects, where CD preparation is considered part of the "design phase" (i.e., prior to the "construction phase"), perhaps you could use this as a guideline, developing a similar system. One key element of this approach is the "Independent Technical Review" ("ITR") performed by persons who are not members of the project team (but who may be employed by the same firm). 3.2 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (DQCP) All documents shall be technically reviewed by competent, independent reviewers identified in the DQC Plan. The same element that produced the product shall not perform the independent technical review (ITR). The plan must identify the Independent Technical Review Team and their qualifications. The Contractor shall correct errors and deficiencies in the design documents prior to submitting them to the Government. The DQC Plan shall be implemented by a Design Quality Control Manager (DQCM)who has the responsibility of being cognizant of and assuring that all documents on the project have been coordinated. This individual shall be a person who has verifiable engineering or architectural design experience and is a registered professional engineer or architect and can be one of the DESIGNERS OF RECORD. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer, in writing, of the name of the individual, and the name of an alternate person assigned to the position. The Contractor shall include the design schedule in the master project schedule, showing the sequence of events involved in carrying out the project design tasks within the specific contract period. This should be at a detailed level of scheduling sufficient to identify all major design tasks, including those that control the flow of work. The schedule shall include review and correction periods associated with each item. This should reflect calendar days and not dates for each activity. If the schedule is changed, the Contractor shall submit a revised schedule reflecting the change within 7 calendar days. The Contractor shall include in the DQC Plan the discipline-specific checklists to be used during the design and quality control of each submittal. The Contractor shall furnish for review by the government, not later than 10 days after Notice to Proceed, the Contractor Design Quality Control Plan for the design portion of the contract. The professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all design documents and other services to be provided by the prime Contractor and subcontractor/ consultants is of major importance. A logical and functional quality control program requiring technical and interdisciplinary reviews to eliminate errors and deficiencies in the design documents is required. As a minimum, the DQCP will address the following elements: Management Approach - Define the specific management-methodology to be followed during the design phase of the work including the relationship between prime contractor and subcontractors/consultants. Address coordination, quality control, communications and lines of responsibility. The DQCP must also cover the process of review and acceptance of construction submittals as specified in Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES. Management Structure - Delineate the organizational structure and interrelationship of management and the design team including all subcontractor and consultants. Identify the key design and review team members showing their specific responsibilities. Either the designer or the reviewer must be a registered professional for the Architectural, Civil, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical disciplines. List submittals required, dates for submittal, dates for completion of Government review and products required to be submitted. Technical review comments provided by the ITR Team must be submitted with each design submittals. The approved complete checklists shall be submitted at each design phase as part of the project documentation. Designer of Record (DOR)- The registered professional Engineer, or Architect ultimately responsible and liable for adequacy and safety of the design. DOR review is required on all submittals and DOR approval is required on all submittals of extensions of design and submittals of critical materials. See Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES for definitions of these type submittals. 3.2.1 Acceptance of Plan Acceptance of the Contractor's Quality Control Plan for Design is required prior to the start of design. Acceptance is conditional and will be predicated on satisfactory performance during the preparation of design documents. The Government reserves the right to require the Contractor to make changes in his CQC Plan for Design, and operations including removal of personnel, as necessary, to obtain the quality specified. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 933 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 05:33 pm:    We have been an ISO 9000 certified firm for a number of years. (No auto industry clients, though.) Our quality program includes a review of the drawings and specifications by individuals in the firm who are not on the project team near the end of CD preparation. Schedule and budget is allocated for this step when preparing our project plan. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 162 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 07:01 pm:    How does one know quality? That is a HUGE question. It took me almost a year and a half to come up with an answer for my last firm. And in hindsight, it wasn’t enough to keep me there, and I still don't know what it is. Is it "zero defects", a degree of excellence or Excellence itself, conformance with requirements, the extent a thing fits its purpose, or the “wow” factor? Does it guarantee minimal change orders, or repeat clients, or higher profits? Read “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig. It’s a metaphysical thing. But down here closer to earth, Quality Management Systems are indeed a pursuit for perfection, however, they should not be fled into as a knee jerk reaction to fear or a pending lawsuit. And no one system or technique is broad enough to conquer all the issues. They should be different for every firm; tailored for each with a unique culture, production system, business model, etc. There is no one way, no one “Tao”. However, I personally believe in Poka-Yoke, or mistake-proofing and source inspection: it’s the improvement of a system or product by building-in quality into the complete overall system, not just waiting until the end of production to test it like standard practice dictates (QC). Hence, I personally believe quality control is absurd. Quality is not something that can be controlled, it can only be managed. More importantly, it needs to be led, and it takes a great leader to manage quality. It takes a thought-filled proactive frontal attack directly on the defects within the system. What are the defects? What causes them? Where do they occur? And with the answers to these questions, we can come up with a set of early warning devices which will detect constraints; bottle-necks which will not allow the product to continue through the system until the mistakes are corrected. Obviously there is also a cost for quality. Typically, though, my understanding is that failure costs outweigh inspection (QC) and prevention (QA) costs put together. Sounds simple, right? Norman Augustine said: "It costs a lot to build bad products" And Blaise Pascal summed it all up: "I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 325 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 01:42 pm:    Brett: Very thoughtful and insightful. Thank you! Your comment reminded me of the time I went back and read the formal proposal a former firm prepared toward winning a project I was later working on. It included an entire chapter on our quality control program, to be led by one of the firm partners who was designated the Director of Quality. Needless to say, that quality control program didn't exist, the designation was for marketing purposes only, and the partner had had no involvement in the project to date. Nice graphics, though. That's the kind of disengenuousness that has led to such widespread unevenness in A/E service quality. The firms with the honesty to take small consistent steps to get things right the second time are the mature ones - the ones that I would hire, and the ones I now want as clients. While individual firms need individual approaches to quality, it is surprising that there is so little available in the marketplace in basic resources for A/E quality programs. There's a potential there. Is there demand? Will firms pay for outside resources to build their capabilities? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 12:05 pm:    The problems with implementing quality programs in design offices are related to the lack of good models, resistance to change, and lack of support by management. There is a lot of good information out there that has applicability to the professional firms. The trick is to adapt it to our work. An interesting reference is “Toyota Culture” by Liker and Hoseus. The real problem is one of motivation and management support. Working against this change is the concept that quality systems require much paper work, get in the way of the process, and stifle creativity. The other problem is the perceived time, cost, and disruption associated with developing the new system. Some of the disruption results from the discussions regarding what should we do and how we do it. While these are real concerns they stem from misconceptions and lack of knowledge. The best approach is to focus on a system of incrementally improving current systems. Resist the tendency to implement the Grand System and resist the tendency to make the system complex/complete. Quality should be thought of as a process that focuses on continual incremental improvement. Implementation of a quality system requires: 1. Vision of the future and an understanding of the Values of the organization. 2. Documentation of existing processes and standards. Start small. 3. People use the systems and standards. 4. Metrics to help identify the problem. Client feedback is essential but internal metrics are also needed. 5. An ability to be honest and recognize the problems. 6. The ability and commitment to develop and implement solutions. The real issues have to do with people, learning to communicate, and organizational culture. You cannot succeed without strong and consistent management support. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 163 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 04:29 pm:    Mark – bravo, very concise and to the point. I'd like to add to your list if I could: 7. Include the development of an evaluation system, with milestones or indicators, to incrementally assess and measure improvement. This will allow future fine-tuning. More of my crappy shoestring philosophical rhetoric (read at your own risk): I find the measurement of quality to be the most difficult part of developing a quality management system for our profession. How do we measure something that doesn’t really exist? It is not widgets on an assembly line we are counting here. Is there a realistic gauge which tells us when we have achieved perfection or produced a quality set of construction documents or provided quality customer service? Some of the quality guru’s believe that client satisfaction is our goal. Can client satisfaction or customer delight be the measure and the end-in-itself? Can client satisfaction even be measured? It could be said that it is measured by whether we get repeat business or whether the client leads our sales force in the marketing of our firm. Maybe we count the number of drawing errors or typos in the specifications. Maybe we add up the cost of change orders, or the number of RFI’s, or the amount of profit we make. Maybe it is the winning of awards or number of times the firm has been published. I guess all of those things could be considered criteria for measuring quality. But perhaps there is some other measurement, a level of self-satisfaction which encompasses all else? I personally know when I am satisfied with my work (though not often) whether it is recognized by others or not. Then, whose standards do we judge our own accomplishments against? Who is there to give us that great big attaboy? These are questions we must first answer for ourselves, and the collective self of the organization, so that our “vision” and values” can be developed. Thanks Mark, that felt gooood. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 05:51 pm:    If quality doesn't exist, then it can't be measured, let alone controlled. Perhaps, like a building (before it actually exists), it could be imagined, conceptualized or visualized. But the act of imagining is just one of the early steps of bringing it into reality. So perhaps if we can imagine or conceptualize quality, it could be brought to reality, unless there is some inherent barrier to its existence. Of course, quality should not be confused with perfection, which does exist... Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 03:35 pm:    One of the characteristics of the various quality systems is that every one has a slightly different list of key points. In my minimalistic approach I assumed that the proposed item #7 was covered by my item #4. I would argue that quality has many definitions and many dimensions. We are aware of and can measure a fraction of these dimensions. Toyota side steps this difficulty by emphasizing incremental change. They focus their attention on the problems they are experiencing. If there are no “problems” they will raise their standards/expectations thus identifying problems that were not obvious. When the initial problems have been “solved” you will be able to identify other problems which you can then address. The end result is that you should have a more stable system with fewer major problems. Metrics need to be kept few, simple, and objective. Measuring our satisfaction with the quality of our work is problematic since it is subjective and because studies have shown that we are all self delusional regarding the quality of our work. Employee satisfaction is an important metric in that it relates to employee retention and motivation but it is not a good direct measure of quality. While I believe we need to do more than measure client satisfaction, I would consider it one of the fundamental metrics. Client satisfaction is important because unlike some other metrics, feedback from clients can be a reality check. If you follow Toyota’s approach you do not need to define quality. Rather you identify those items that cause problems and you measure the problems and work to eliminate them. If it is not measurable and not causing problems you likely don’t need to worry about it. If something is causing problems you can at least measure the frequency of the problems which can be used to determine whether the corrective actions are effective. This pragmatic approach will allow you to bypass many of the problems associated with developing quality systems. This should reduce the risks and pain of change which hopefully will lead more firms to doing something about the problem. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 08:49 am:    Control plans are pretty common in public work. If your client can't explain...go to the website of any public agency say a school district, college, etc. Look for submittal checklists or such in Division-1. Philip R. Carpenter AIA Senior Member Username: philip_carpenter Post Number: 7 Registered: 08-2008 Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 07:50 pm:    On many of our military projects we have been submitting our own in-house checklists for govt approval for the DQC requirements and have not had any rejections to this point.