Design-Build Quality Control Services

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

Author Message Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 - 02:33 am:    It appears that the prevailing wisdom and standard practice now is that the owner should engage and pay for a project's quality control services. But what happens when a design-build contract passes the cost on to the contractor? Should the architect be the D-B team member who takes the role of the owner and administers the QA services? "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 315 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 - 03:28 am:    The building code (Section 1704.1 2009 IBC) requires that special inspections be hired and paid for by the Owner. It is recommended that other inspections be retained by the Owner. The Architect can hire the special inspectors only if he is acting as the Owners agent, which the D-B team is not. It behoves the Owner to have a contract that is consistent with the requirements of the building code. I would interpret the code to mean that the Owner and not the D-B team must retain the special inspectors. I would assume that the person administering the special inspection contract should have an agency relationship with the Owner. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 459 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 - 05:19 pm:    While the IBC is clear regarding the requirement that the Owner retain the Special Inspector, and many owners prefer to retain the one or more agencies to provide the source and field quality control services that are identified in the specifications (with certain practical exceptions), it is still the Contractor's (or Design-Builder's) responsibility under AIA contract documents to carry out any other quality control activities necessary to ensure that the work complies with the requirements of the contract documents. I doubt there's much disagreement about this - just a need to define terms. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 316 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 03:17 am:    When we talk about QA and QC there is a lot of confusion. I would suggest that there are competing definitions. The IBC and engineers refer to the testing and inspection activities performed by the Owner as Quality Assurance activities. The activities performed by the contractor to control the work are considered as Quality Control activities. The tests and inspections performed by the Contractor to help him control the work are considered QC activities. For example this definition is used in the AISC standards and the masonary code. According to this definition special inspections and what Phil refers to as "field quality control services" are really quality assurance activities. There is no disagreement that the Contractor is responsible for complying with the contract documents. This distinction is considered appropriate because the Owner takes a passive role with regards to quality and leaves it to the Contractor to control the quality. The Owner and building official require the tests in the specifications to give themselves assurance that they are getting what they expected. They are not using these tests and inspections to control the work. The Contractor is not allowed to rely on the tests and inspections performed by the Owner. In the quality world it is recognized that tests and inspections do not control the quality of the work rather they provide feedback. If you have good quality you do not need inspections. The reason that we have inspections is because we do not know if we have good quality work. In a manufacturing environment or a situation where the Owner and the Contractor were the same entity a different interpretation could be entertained. I recognize that there will be some who will loudly proclaim the definations I put forward are wrong but the reality is that these are the definitions used by the structural codes and by the structural engineers. I would also suggest that the inspections performed by the special inspectors need to identified in the specifications. I recommend that specification writers and architects familiarize themselves with the special inspection activities in Chapter 17 of the 2009 IBC. There are a number of special inspections related to architectural and MEP components. Also note the architects responsibilities related to the Statement of Special Inspections in Section 1705. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1136 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 10:00 am:    Per the PRM: • Quality assurance (usually addressed in Part 1). Includes subjects such as manufacturer qualifications, supplier qualifications, installer qualifications, and testing agency qualifications as well as field samples, mock-up requirements, and contractor’s quality control. Quality assurance requirements in Part 1 include prerequisites, standards, limitations, and criteria that establish an overall quality for products and workmanship: qualifications, regulatory requirements, certifications, field samples. Mock-ups, pre-installation meetings. • Quality control (Parts 2 and 3). Covers subjects such as testing laboratory services, testing and inspection services. Quality control provisions in the conditions of the contract are to verify conformance with the contract requirements. Part 2: Source quality control, fabrication tolerances, inspections, verification of performance. Part 3: Site tolerances, field quality, site tests, inspections, manufacturer's field services. It's clear here that Quality Assurance and Quality Control are two separate, but co-equal, things. It's possible to specify Quality Assurance without Quality Control (although not recommended), but not Quality Control without Quality Assurance. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 91 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 11:00 am:    Definitions from American Society for Quality (ASQ): The terms “quality assurance” and “quality control” are often used interchangeably to refer to ways of ensuring the quality of a service or product. The terms, however, have different meanings. * Assurance: The act of giving confidence, the state of being certain or the act of making certain. * Quality assurance: The planned and systematic activities implemented in a quality system so that quality requirements for a product or service will be fulfilled. * Control: An evaluation to indicate needed corrective responses; the act of guiding a process in which variability is attributable to a constant system of chance causes. * Quality control: The observation techniques and activities used to fulfill requirements for quality. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 92 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 11:08 am:    Definitions per the PRM: Quality refers to the project requirements established in the contract documents. The contract documents will be prepared resulting from the design process. • Quality assurance (QA) refers to the procedures for guarding against defects and deficiencies before and during the execution of the work. During design, QA may include procedures such as obtaining data indicating performance, properties, and other attributes, which meet the requirements. This may include lists of certified products. • Quality control (QC) refers to the procedures for evaluating completed activities and elements of the design for conformance with the requirements. Procedures during design may include document reviews, simulations, and other forms of validation and review, such as meetings with AHJs. Quality assurance and quality control are not exclusive of each other. Quality control for one process may serve as quality assurance for a subsequent process. For example, the QC testing by a manufacturer may be the basis for QA for its intended use. All participants perform various forms of QA/QC, whether or not this is specifically stated in the agreements. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 317 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 01:37 pm:    I am well aware of what the PRM and ASQ say about Quality. I am also aware that you can easily find your head spinning if you try to define quality. Structural engineers have adopted the conventions that the Owner performs QA while what the Contractor does is QC. Stepping beyond the hearsay stated above I would be interested in understanding whether most architectural specifications have been updated to identify the non-structural special inspections. Would also be interested in understanding whether architects are taking the lead in preparing the Statement of Special Inspections. How often do the specifications call for the Contractor to hire the special inspectors? Federal projects excluded since they are not bound to comply with the IBC. Also note the requirements for the Contractors written statement of responsibility called for in Section 1709. This should be noted in the contract documents. Nealon Daniel Cudney, AWS CWI (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 04:04 pm:    AWS D1.1 Sect 1, puts a somewhat different spin on this by requiring the welding contractor to inspect his own work (Contractor's Inspection), and defines a third party inspection performed on behalf of the Owner or Engineer (Verification Inspection) as specified by the Engineer. Verification inspection, if it is to be used, is stated and specified in detail in the Contract Documents by the engineer. See AWS D1.1, sects 1.3 (Definitions), and 1.4 (Responsibilities.) As Quality Assurance and Quality Control in welding with AWS crosses many industries and has been developed over an extensive period, it is worth a lookover for developing a working philosophy of the matter. In addition, to clarify an earlier statement that was observed; inspection should not be performed to see if the work has good quality, rather, it should be to show that the work has sufficient quality. It is easier to define and agree on sufficiency than to define and agree upon goodness. (NDC) Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 318 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 05:24 pm:    AISC 360 which uses AWS D1.1 defines QA as monitoring and inspection tasks not performed by the fabricator. They also clearly state that spcial inspection is a QA activity. Think of the third party inspection per D1.1 as being QA inspections in AISC 360. From my point of view the bigger concerns have to do with the awareness of the special inspection requirements by the other members of the design team and degree to which project documents reflect the requirements in the building code. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 05:39 pm:    I had an Owner once tell me to rename all my Quality Assurance paragraphs as “Quality Control” and all my Quality Control paragraphs as “Quality Assurance”. Those rascals at Arcom apparently have it all backwards according to that Owner's rep. It seems to me that we might eliminate a lot of confusion by not even trying to differentiate between the two. Perhaps we should combine it all and divide it by who will performing the work, calling it “Owner-Initiated Quality Verification” and “Contractor-Initiated Quality Verification”. Then we could bypass everybody else’s notions of what constitutes assurance verses control and my head could stop spinning around. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 03:52 am:    In response to Mark's questions above: MasterSpec's Section 07 81 00 Applied Fireproofing includes a statement addressing Special Inspections under the Field Quality Control article, as do both MasterSpec Division 07 EIFS sections. In our experience, structural engineers initiate the preparation of the Statement of Special Inspections as the majority of the effort involves identifying the appropriate scope of structural inspection for a given design; the civil engineer then contributes the requirements for the soils testing, and the architect for the fireproofing and EIFS provisions if required for a project. This likely varies with other practices but seems a reasonable approach. We've only encountered one substantial public facility owner who requires the Contractor to hire the special inspectors. We have pointed out to this owner that this is counter to the IBC and their state law, but that does not appear to be a contentious issue in their jurisdiction. MasterSpec Section 01 40 00 Quality Requirements includes the requirement for the Contractor's Statement of Responsibility required by IBC 1709 under the Informational Submittals article. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 460 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 09:42 am:    Post responding to Mark is mine. Still sorting out login issues here. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 06:07 pm:    Does delegated-design portions change any of these responsibilities? Does Contractor's "engineer" for delegated-design services prepare a statement of special inspections for the delegated-design portion? Does the Owner still hire special inspectors for delegated-design portions...or is Contractor now "delegated" that responsibility since Contractor has retained an EOR for that portion of work? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 319 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 06:59 pm:    The requirement for a statement of special inspection is imposed on the design professional in responsible charge (typically the architect). See Section 1704.1.1. It would be appropriate for the specifications to require that the specialty engineer responsible for the delegated design prepare a supplemental statement of special inspections addressing the scope of his work. When the delegated design is submitted as part of a deferred approval the supplemental statement of special inspection would be also submitted. Yes the Owner would still hire the special inspectors for the delegated-design proportions. The reasons for the owner hiring the special inspectors is because contractors can bias the results by hiring easy inspectors or complaining about rigorous inspectors who are then reassigned. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 320 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 07:26 pm:    For those who are interested I would refer you to "Guidelines for Special Inspection and Structural Observation In Accordance with the 2007 CBC" prepared by the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. http://www.seaonc.org/pdfs/SI%20and%20SO%20Guidelines%20CBC%202007.pdf This document treats the non-structural requirements as well as the structural provisions. Since the 2007 California Building Code is very similar to the 2006 IBC it should be usefull in other regions. There is a update in progress to update it to the 2010 CBC (2009 IBC)