| Author |
Message |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 81
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:19 pm: |    |
I am working on a rather large ($45M) Long Term Care Facility for a municipal client. As part of their Request For Prequalification for Contractors, they requested a copy of the Contractor's Quality Control Manual. The submissions had varying degrees of completeness for this requirement. Discussion occurred between the PA and client about ensuring the Contractor lives up to what they have claimed within the Contract Documents...so guess who that falls to?? You guessed it, me, the spec writer. LOL
Does anyone have a spec sections for Field Quality Control Procedures or Contractor's Quality Control Procedures that they would be willing to share with me as a starting point for the new section?
As always, any help would be greatly appreciated and can be forwarded to paul.gerber@rogers.com
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 425
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 06:11 pm: | |
For the quality control measnure to be effective the contractor and his staff need to have some sophistication regarding quality control and be committed to using quality control activities to improve the work.
You can mandate that the contractor does certain tasks but unless his heart is in it your level of sucess may not reach your expectations. The reality is that you cannot regulate this |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 486
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 09:26 pm: | |
Is a new section called for? A conventional Division 01, edited for the project and administered by a competent CCA, and tied to well-written specifications, constitutes the contractor's obligations regarding quality control. A separate section that restates these requirements would seem to me to be redundant. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:42 pm: | |
I would agree with Phil about this. The problem usually isn't the documentation about quality control -- its about the actual performance of the things that we ask them to do. As with so many things that architects complain about ("we need this in the specs! we had a problem!") the real issue is the lack of enforcement of the language that is already available. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 167
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:58 pm: | |
I would also agree with Phil. Most of the requirements in Division 01 relate to QA/QC. Why repeat them?
You may want to require an informational submittal of their QA/QC program in the Quality Requirements section. You can then review that and point out any deficiencies in relation to the requirements of Div 01. |
Steve Taylor
Senior Member
Username: steveatwi
Post Number: 43
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2011 - 03:06 pm: | |
+ 1 regarding the problem of getting the flooring out intact. I would be surprised if a quarter of the planks are re-usable. |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 87
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2011 - 02:06 pm: | |
Sorry I let this thread kind of die.
The issue has come about at the insistance of the client. Even though they prequalified Contractors, because the process was out of our hands and done by a municipal purchasing department (in compliance with the knee-jerk reactionary purchasing policy established to remove the possibility of anyone unreasonable person making unfounded accusatory statements about fairness of the bidding process) we are "stuck" with a couple Contractors who would never have made our cut. Now the facilities people are worried with a $45-50M project with a REALLY tight timeline.
Amazingly it was 2 US sources that gave me the basis of my section (with a lot of editing)...my thanks to Uncle Sam & the UFGS and the LA Unified District School Board for their assistance!
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
Jim Sliff
Senior Member
Username: jim_sliff
Post Number: 109
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2011 - 08:58 pm: | |
FWIW in my little corner of the world (Coatings and Waterproofing consulting/inspection) I can count on the fingers of my daughter's Senegal Parrot's "hand" the number of new construction Specifications I see referencing ANY field QC in these areas (especially Divisions 7 ad 9).
It's something that always bugged me - when I was managing product rep or managing product installations, it seemed the only "QC" was/were the specification(s), with verification occurring only in the case of obvious error or failure (that happened to be noticed by *someone* - not that was "verified" by someone).
The only exceptions I see are on industrial projects (water treatment, tank lining, etc. There just seems to be a horribly mistaken assumption that what's in the specs "happens".
Well, I can tell you from close observation of work in specific areas - it doesn't. The work might not be "bad" - it's just not in compliance with specs and nobody knows except maybe the subcontractor...but not his workers, who rarely get a copy of the specs anyway; they get a "brief" written by the estimator.
I always provided my people with the proper documents. products, etc...but many were not used to that! During one critical meeting on a $500MM project a question came up that required knowledge of a particular detail - and my foreman said "I don't have no plans..." (he did and they'd been reviewed with him 5 months earlier. But he was used to doing things HIS way - not an unusual practice amongst subs).
Needless to say I was searching the floor of the meeting room for an escape hatch; and it was just *OH!* so much fun explaining things to the the owner's lead PM. But he eventually realized they had NO written controls over just about every process, and never had. They assumed the good ol' submittal (and sometimes "mockup") process made things magically "appear as specified".
Wrong.
I am continually amazed by the lack of quality control measures in Specifications. As Anne said, it's lack of enforcement that's the problem.
But if you do not have anyone TO enforce things ...then what? I'm treading a little carefully here so if I sound a little obtuse it's to avoid self-promotion - but no matter what part of the work is being performed, from shop fabrication to use of specified plated or alloy fasteners, if the GC is required to perform QC duties it'll be a rubber stamp job unless consultants and or inspectors are specifically *required* to perform QC work.
GC's, like Architects, cannot possibly be expected to know everything about installation of *every* product. Product reps might know *their* product...but how hard will they lean on their customer if a "fudge" is noted? Not very.
It takes specialized consultants and/or inspectors to objectively verify an control quality of products and installation.
I think what happens is that those in construction either 1) EXPECT Specification compliance, period, or 2) are aware of fees consultant/inspectors get for expert witness work or investigation of major after-the-fact failures, and shy away from them due to cost fears...when most consultants are darned cheap if brought in at the beginning of the project.
The reason? There's FAR less work if the consultant is involved from the start, as the GC and subs are on notice that there WILL be QC measures/inspections on the project, so doing things right will avoid doing things *twice*.
A spec review, a precon, a few surprise field inspections/reports and a final review. Not much to it, really, if it's part of the job from the start.
But bring someone in later...after the job's started...and *every* area has to be checked, destructive testing (for some trades) performed, revisions/rework/change orders orders written, reinspections performed; I'd guess easily 3x as much work, more if a major failure has occurred.
But if nobody's watching the henhouse..... |
|
4specs.com Home Page