Excellence Through Quality - DCD QUALITY...

The ASQ Newsletter for the Design & Construction Division April 2013

www.asq.org/design

DCD QUALITY CONNECTIONS

In this issue

Message From The Chair

World Conference on Quality and Improvement

ASQ DCD Member Satisfaction Survey

eBook on ISO 9001 Interpretative Guide for Design and Construction

Report on ASQ Standards Committee Meeting

Future City Competition

DCD Member Leader Who’s Who – Jeffery L Williams

The FTA’s QMS Guidelines

Preventive Action – Proactive Suggestions

Civil Engineering Responsibilities in Special Inspection

Division Council Member Leaders

Page

Vision: To be the World’s recognized champion and leading authority on all issues related to quality in realizing and maintaining the built environment by the design and construction community and its customers.

Mission: The Design and

Construction Division shall advance individual performance excellence worldwide by providing opportunities to members for learning, quality improvement, and knowledge exchange.

2

3

4

4

8

5

5

9

10

12

13

23


www.asq.org/design

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

Dear members of Design and Construction Division, As I take my turn as your Chair, I want to thank all the volunteers who have stepped up to Leadership positions with ASQ, particularly within our division. ASQ is changing as we seek to become the Global Voice of Quality. As I interact with others in the field of design, construction, and environmental sustainability, I run into people that haven’t heard of ASQ or our division. I encourage them to take advantage of our website and our LinkedIn group. I hope you too will gain insights from this newsletter, visit our social media sights and attend the Sustainability Conference in a Conference at the World Conference in May or the Audit Conference in October. I wish you a good year and success in achieving your goals with the help of ASQ DCD.

Celia Gray ASQ DCD Chair PS – Don’t miss!

ASQ EED/DCD Quality in Sustainability Track at the ASQ WCQI

ASQ DCD Satisfaction Survey

eBook on interpreting ISO 9001 for design and construction project teams

Revised Quality Management System Guidelines have been published

ASQ Standards Committee Report


www.asq.org/design

Environment, energy efficiency, and quality are just a few essential elements of sustainability. ASQ’s Quality in Sustainability Conference sessions tie together these elements with the principles and practices of social responsibility, providing useful tools attendees can readily implement within their organization or business. If this is of interest to you, plan to your like-minded colleagues at the QIS sessions at the ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Indianapolis.

2013 QIS Sessions

Monday, May 6, 2013

1:30-2:30 QS01 – Room 105 Sustainable Supply Chain Management Jennifer Allis, Intel Corp.

QS02 – Room 106 Rainwater Harvesting: A “Tail” of Minimums Dr. Lawrence V. Fulton, Texas State University, San Marcos

3:00-4:00 QS03 – Room 105 Achieving Sustainability in Audits Through Enhancing ISO 19022:2011 Guidelines Gary L. Johnson, ASQ Energy and Environmental Division

QS04 – Room 106 The Impact of Lean Construction, IPD and Collective Kaizen on Project Cost Performance Zofia K. Rybkowski PhD, LEED AP, Department of Construction Science, College of Architecture, Texas A & M University

4:15-5:15 QS05 – Room 105 Sustainability Reporting and the Supply Chain Aimee Siegler, Benchmark Electronics

QS06 – Room 106 The Social Responsibility of Engineering Danny Kahler PE, Kahler Engineering Group

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

9:15-10:15 QS08 – Room 106 Six Sigma DMADV for Building Construction Design Dr. Abdul Razzak Rumane, Dar Alkuwait Alkhaleejia

10:45-11:45

QS09 – Room 105 Translating Quality Skills to Become SR/Sustainability Professionals Holly Duckworth PhD and Panel

QS10 – Room 106 Challenges and Lessons Learned in Reconstruction Quality Assurance in Post-Earthquake Haiti Jacques Liautaud PE, CMQ/OE, CSSBB, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

4:00-5:00 QS11 – Room 105 Continual Improvement for Social Responsibility Andrea Zimmerman, Zmarketeers, Inc.

QS12 – Room 106 GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) Sustainability Reporting at Ball State University Dr. Gwendolen White, Ball State University

Sponsored by ASQ’s

Design and Construction Division Energy and Environmental Division

http://wcqi.asq.org/index.html

http://wcqi.asq.org/index.html


www.asq.org/design

DCD SATISFACTION SURVEY

DCD Voice of the Customer Chair [email protected]

The Design & Construction Division leadership would like your feedback! We have a brief satisfaction survey we would like all members to take at http://tinyurl.com/DCDsurvey. This will assist us in gauging our improvement over the past few years since the last ASQ satisfaction survey. We will send out another survey in the fall to provide member input to the division’s strategic planning process. For questions or any problems with the survey, please contact Peter Stamps, DCD Voice of the Customer Chair, [email protected].

eBOOK ON INTERPRETING ISO 9001FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

John R. Broomfield Vice Chair – Standards

Editor - ISO 9001 Interpretive Guide for the Design and Construction Team Here is our eBook on interpreting ISO 9001 for design and construction project teams. http://asq.org/quality-press/display...tml?item=E1364 If you have no ASQ account then search for this term: "ISO 9001:2008 Interpretive Guide for the Design and Construction Project Team" It was prepared by fellow members of our Design and Construction Division.

It includes the full text of ISO 9001:2008 and provides clause-by-clause interpretations for the client, designer and contractor. It also includes a methodology for developing your process-based management system no matter the type of organization. Gathering a set of documents does not make a management system. It is better to understand and document the management system that actually runs the organization. That way you avoid creating a layer of documents that competes with the real system for the attention of managers, employees and subcontractors. But for new projects this is especially difficult. By sharing the same management systems standard the project team members have a start but it is even better if corporately the project team members already run their organizations with management systems that conform to the standard. Our Interpretive Guide helps each of us understand the other’s role in working systematically to control processes and deliver QA. As Editor, I am now seeking volunteers, from our members, with experience of developing, using and improving process-based management systems to work on the third edition of this interpretive guide. Already Mr. Pancho Castano has volunteered. Pancho has a lot of experience with designing a wikis for sharing management system documentation for an additional Chapter: "Improving Communications Using a Project Wiki QMS" To update the clause-by-clause interpretations we need an Owner, Designer and Contractor to join our team.

mailto:[email protected]

https://rcm-americas.fdnet.com/,DanaInfo=tinyurl.com+DCDsurvey


http://www.asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.html?item=E1364

http://asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.html?item=E1364


www.asq.org/design

Please email me describing your credentials for your proposed role in this work. I am particularly keen to bring in experience of using iPads, other tablets and smart phones (as project communications devices with and without Twitter) to help the project team to understand and meet requirements proactively during planning, designing and executing the plans. Even if you do not want to volunteer for the updating work I would appreciate your suggestions for improving our IG. Many thanks, John

REPORT ON ASQ STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING

John R. Broomfield [email protected]

ASQ Design and Construction Division, Vice-Chair Standards

Report to the Members of the ASQ Design and Construction Division on the ASQ Standards Committee Meeting on 19 March 2013 in New Orleans, LA

First, we remembered the work of Dan Jackson Harper, who had served on the committee for two decades. Visit Dan's memorial guestbook here www.skylinememorialgardens.com.

My responsibilities as DCD’s Vice-Chair, Standards

Monitoring existing approved ASQ standards where division has custodial responsibilities

Monitoring and surveying the industry/discipline for standards needs within division scope

Recommending new standards development projects as needs are identified

Assisting with training and coaching of division and IG leaders Adhering to committee responsibilities defined by operating procedures Participate in 50% of meetings and respond to all ballots Keeping ASQ Standards Committee informed of standards activities for division

represented Reporting status as required by the division

ASQ administers the following ISO Technical Advisory Groups:

TAG 56 – Dependability TAG 69 – Statistical TAG 176 – Quality Management



www.asq.org/design

TAG 207 – Environmental Management Social Responsibility TAG (no number)

ASQ administers the following ISO Technical Committees and Subcommittees: TC69 TC69 SC1 TC69 SC4 TC207 SC4

ASQ administers the following accredited American National Standard Committees: Z1-Dependability Z1-Statistics Z1-Quality Z1-Environment Z1-Audit

ASQ Standards Committee Participation Requirements

TAG Procedures state that participating member responsibilities include: Voting participation

o Timely response of 80% of all ballots over a two-year period

Meeting attendance o In person or electronically, at 75% of TAG meetings over a two-year period

Our Voting Participation

Standards Committee

TAG 56

TAG 69

TAG 176

TAG 207

Total ballots in 2012

1 6 24 11 6

2012 78% 52% 73% 59% 65%

2011 NA 64% 70% 77% 67%

2010 NA 75% 76% 76% 74%

2009 NA 61% 65% 72% 71%

2008 NA 54% 62% 65% 59%

Meeting participation – August 2012


www.asq.org/design

Participation type Number of members Percent of total members

In–person 9 50%

WebEx 6 33%

TOTAL 15 83%

Requirements 14 (of 18) 75%

Membership Balance

Interest Category Number of Participating Members

Percent of Participating Members

General Interest 5 16%

Producer 11 35%

User 15 48%

TOTAL 31 100%

Our Participation is Key

We introduce ourselves to fellow members and welcome new members We designate an alternate if unable to attend

We increase participation by voting, commenting and attending meetings. We update our contact information If you change organizations, we let the ASQ Standards Committee know

We provide post-meeting survey feedback We share our expertise

Motion approved for the following as General Interest members for the 2013 calendar term:

Tracie Clifford Colleen Harper Gadbois Tom Kurihara Charles Nigro Mark Willis

New Business

Healthcare standard


www.asq.org/design

Presented by Dan Reid and Bud Gookins

Helpful Link Standards Central http://www.asq.org/standards/

Our Next Meeting

Location: The Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. Date: August 13, 2013 (followed by two days of work on standards)

If you have questions or concerns regarding Standards (American or International) then please contact me:

John R. Broomfield [email protected] ASQ Design and Construction Division, Vice-Chair Standards

FUTURE CITY COMPETITION

In February during Engineer’s Week, a Future City Competition Final was held in Arlington Va. DCD sponsored a Special Award for innovative design and construction at the finals. Kim Schiffgens and Bob Orkin represented DCD as judges this year. The Meridian Middle School Team from Idaho won the Best Use of Innovative Construction Materials and Techniques award this year. The Future City Competition is a national, project-based learning experience where students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade imagine, design, and build cities of the future. Students work as a team with an educator and engineer mentor to plan cities using SimCity™ 4 Deluxe software; research and write solutions to an engineering problem; build tabletop scale models with recycled materials; and present their ideas before judges at Regional Competitions in January. Regional winners represent their region at the National Finals in Washington, DC in February. http://futurecity.org/awards


https://rcm-americas.fdnet.com/,DanaInfo=futurecity.org+awards


www.asq.org/design

MEMBER LEADER WHO’S WHO

Name: Jeffery L. Williams, Vice Chair 2013/2014 Residence: Naperville, IL Education: Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology from Indiana State University,

and Master of Project Management for Keller Graduate School of Management Introduction to Quality: After 9 years in the Nuclear Power industry as a Construction Engineer with Fluor Daniel, Inc., corporate they invited me to interview for a Sales position in their Chicago corporate office. I accepted an offer, but not for the Sales position. Their VP of Power offered me and I accepted a position as Project Engineer Assurance. In this new role created for me, the initiative was to performed as liaison between Engineering and Quality Management in the Power Division, to better support the division’s pursuit of ISO 9001 certification. One year into the gap analysis process of the plan, a team of volunteers (PM’s and PE’s) myself included, were sent to the Quality Services Group for training and understand of core principles of ISO-9000, operate as QA staff and bring this knowledge and understanding back to the Design Engineering Group. I got trained, then got certified as an RAB accredited Lead Auditor, and never looked back. I spent the next 5 years as a

Project Quality Manager. The last 18 years have been in Environmental & Infrastructure industry (commercial & federal) with The Shaw Group, Inc. (now called CBI, Inc.). Previous Experience: Jeffery has spent the first 15 years of his career with Fluor Daniels, Inc. as a Construction Engineer, a Start-up Completion Engineer, Records Management Specialist, and a Lead Auxiliary Pumphouse Engineer at Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant, Sharon Harris Nuclear Plant, Plant Vogtle Generating Stations, and Comanche Peak Nuclear Generating Stations. The last 18 years has been associated with vary types and sizes ($25K to $850mil) of environmental remediation project (commercial & federal), utility company construction project, retail client environments assessments and infrastructure inspections, quality management system development for several utility companies, and quality system/compliance auditing. ASQ Activities: Vice Chair for the ASQ Design and Construction Division, Senior Member of ASQ, frequent ASQ exam proctor for Fox Valley Section 1208 and current ASQ-CQA. Other Activities: Served as Treasure (twice elected) for local Alumni Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. Family: Married 13 years to Valerie Y, Williams of Naperville, Illinois. We joined families of her two boys and my youngest boy (ages 30, 26, & 24 years old) and blessed with 4 grandchildren so far (6, 5, 2, and 1 years old). Favorite Ways to Relax: Playing bass guitar (fender jazz), golfing (rbz’s), sporting events (high school, college or pros), music, movies (action & comedy), and traveling. Quality Quote: “Measure twice, cut once.” We should plan and prepare in a careful, thorough manner before taking action. (Mieder, 1992 p. 171)


www.asq.org/design

ARTICLES

The Federal Transit Administration’s Quality Management System Guidelines

Richard C. Simon, Urban Engineers – CMQ/OE, CQA

The Quality Management System Guidelines are for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grantees that are undertaking design, construction, or equipment acquisition programs. They may also be used as a guideline for grantees in establishing a Quality Management System (QMS) related to their Operations and Maintenance (O&M) programs or for any organization developing or enhancing a QMS.

The FTA’s Quality Management System Guidelines were first published in 1992, and subsequently updated in 2002. The 1992 and 2002 Guidelines were titled Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines. The third update was published in December 2012 and was re-titled Quality Management System Guidelines since this broader definition is more descriptive of what the Guidelines encompass. The entire document, including new case studies, new sample procedures, and an updated bibliography can be found at this web site;

http://www.fta.dot.gov/images/content_images/FINAL_FTA_QMS__Guidelines_December_2012.pdf

This update to the 2002 Guidelines has placed additional focus on the establishment of quality objectives (or goals), increased the scope of document control, and stressed the importance of continual improvement, in addition to corrective and preventive action.

The following information contains on overview of the new Quality Management System Guidelines:

The 2012 Guidelines keep the same 15 elements and titles as the 2002 Guidelines since many

Grantees and contractors have divided their Quality Plans into 15 sections, each with the title from

the 2002 Guidelines. Although it may be helpful to structure the quality manual or procedures in

accordance with these elements, arrangement of the quality functions for the organization or project

should be tailored to the organizational needs and management structure of the grantee. It is not

mandatory that a Quality Plan be structured corresponding to the 15 elements, only that the Quality

Plan incorporate the concepts of the 15 elements which are:

1. Management Responsibility

2. Documented Quality Management System

3. Design Control

4. Document Control

5. Purchasing

6. Product Identification and Traceability

7. Process Control

8. Inspection and Testing

9. Inspection, Measuring, and Test Equipment

10. Inspection and Test Status

http://www.fta.dot.gov/images/content_images/FINAL_FTA_QMS__Guidelines_December_2012.pdf


www.asq.org/design

11. Nonconformance

12. Corrective Action

13. Quality Records

14. Quality Audits

15. Training

If a Grantee or contractor has a Quality Plan that was acceptable based on the 2002 Guidelines, it will be acceptable under the 2012 Guidelines.

The four chapter format was retained:

Chapter 1 presents definitions and provides an overview for establishing a Quality Management System.

Chapter 2 presents fifteen elements that should be the basis of a quality program for any

organization. Included is the relationship of these Guidelines to ISO 9001:2008.

Chapter 3 discusses a Quality Management System organization and, for capital projects, alternative approaches.

Chapter 4 discusses the development of the Quality Plan throughout the different project

phases from project planning, preliminary engineering and final design, construction and equipment procurement, through testing and startup.

The Guidelines were brought into compliance with ISO 9001:2008 including emphasis on:

Continual Improvement

Quality Objectives

Enhanced Documentation Requirements

In Appendix A, the existing sample procedures that relate to each of the Fifteen Elements were replaced with current procedures from several transit agencies. Before each procedure, a fly sheet was added that includes a brief description of how it fits into the revised requirements.

Existing Appendix B from the 2002 Guidelines, Selections from Long Island Railroad, was deleted and a new Appendix B was added to describe a Quality Management System for Operations and Maintenance.

Several new case studies were added to Appendix C and some of the old ones were removed. For grantees undertaking multiple projects, the development of a Project Quality Plan should be an outgrowth of a functioning QMS. A comprehensive QMS is comprised of a written quality policy, quality plan, written procedures, and support from both management personnel and other staff. It is important to remember that quality improvement need not stem from action taken to correct issues as they arise. Using the quality tools outlined in these Guidelines, grantees can work to continually improve their capital projects throughout the project lifecycle.


www.asq.org/design

Preventive Action – Proactive Suggestions to Decrease the Occurrence of Potential Nonconformities

By: David J. Irish, PE, CMQ/OE HDR Engineering, Inc.

Preventive action, along with other tools, is listed in Section 8.5 Improvement of the ISO 9001:2008 standard as a tool for continuous improvement. Section 8.5.3 Preventive Action continues to describe the required actions to eliminate potential nonconformities through documented procedures that:

a) Determine potential nonconformances and their causes,

b) Evaluate the need for action to prevent occurrence of nonconformities,

c) Determining and implementing action required,

d) Records of results of action taken, and

e) Reviewing the effectiveness of the preventive action taken.

This article is intended to focus on the sources of potential nonconformances that I have experienced on recent projects and to provide suggestions on how potential nonconformances may be alleviated rather than exploring the intricacies of the ISO requirement. These lessons learned may be of value to other organizations implementing project quality management systems by avoiding similar pitfalls. Whereas corrective action is reactive, preventive action is proactive. The goal of exploring preventive actions is to consider potential issues before they happen and implement a preventive action framework early enough to be effective. Some general examples include:

1. Refresher Training - Training in a project Quality Management System (QMS) generally occurs

early in a project life cycle. However, submittals for certain disciplines within a design team may

occur relatively late, or infrequently, in the project life cycle. While updates to the QMS are sent

to team members as they occur, they may not be internalized by the recipient unless the use is

imminent. Refresher training may be used to educate the appropriate team members of the latest

requirements.

2. Increase the Communication Pool - During the course of a project, questions may be asked that

indicate some aspect of the process, a QMS requirement, for example, may be unclear. Instead

of only responding to the individual who posed the question, a communication to the entire team

may be used to clarify the requirement for everyone.

3. Identify Stakeholder Requirement(s) - An outside Agency with review and approval authority may

have specific submittal requirements. These requirements may include such items as full size

mylars, number of additional submittal copies, drawing border requirements, wet seals and

signatures, accompanying documentation or even logging the submittal on their website to

receive comments or submittal status. Once these requirements have been identified,

disseminating the requirements is vital to assure team members comply with the requirements.

4. Identify Similar Project Requirements - A quality manager may have project responsibilities on

multiple ongoing projects. These projects may have similar QMS or statutory requirements. If

questions have been raised on one of the projects, it is likely that the same clarification may be

applicable to the other project(s). As such, disseminating the clarification to team members on

the other project(s) will add value by decreasing the occurrences of needing to relearn from

mistakes that could be avoided.

Because of the complexity of project requirements, the pool for potential nonconformities is large. Early recognition of the potential sources and dissemination of clarifying information is key to eliminating potential nonconformities and adding value to the project. As such, preventive action notification can be a real asset in the quality assurance tool box.


www.asq.org/design

Civil Engineering Responsibilities

In Special Inspection Chuck Kanapicki, P.E. Danny L. Kahler, P.E.

“A paper, written by Chuck Kanapicki, PE and presented by Danny Kahler, PE, won the Best of Session award at the ASCE Texas Conference in Fort Worth this past November.

ABSTRACT

The International Building Code contains requirements for detailed structural inspection of buildings that are critical for public safety, or exceed a certain threshold for occupancy. These requirements are detailed in Chapter 17, Structural Tests and Special Inspections. This type of activity, the verification that the constructed work conforms to the approved plans and specifications, is part of the practice of engineering as defined by NCEES Model Law and the statutes of most States. However, the implementation of Special Inspection varies widely across jurisdictions across the country. In some cases, local certification for Special Inspectors allow vocational practitioners to be responsible for this activity, without being licensed as either a Professional Engineer or Registered Architects. The issue of civil engineering responsibility in Special Inspection of critical structures was a factor in the recent half billion dollar controversy involving the Harmon Hotel in Las Vegas. This session will cover some of the history of special inspections, an overview of the responsibilities established within the building code, and it’s implications on the responsibility of civil engineers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This session will not be a detailed description of all of the tasks involved in Special Inspection, but will focus on the larger professional practice issues. WHAT IS SPECIAL INSPECTION? Special Inspections (SI) are mandated by the International Building Code to verify that work considered critical to life safety and property protection is being or has been constructed according to the approved plans and specifications. This work is primarily structural in nature or work that could affect the structure. A project specific program for Special Inspection is developed by the design professional in responsible charge and it is executed by an SI firm through in-process monitoring of the materials and workmanship that are critical to the integrity of the building structure. To prevent conflicts of interest, the owner or owner’s agent is responsible for funding the SI services. The contractor building the project is prohibited from hiring the SI firm. The building official is the only one with the legal authority to enforce the SI provisions of the code and retains the right of approval for the above.


www.asq.org/design

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The concept of SI appears to have originated in the 1927 edition of the International Conference of Building officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (UBC) as “Special Engineering Supervision.”(1) This practice was most likely established after investigations of earthquake related failures in southern California found that a combination of poor workmanship and inadequate design standards led to many failures. It is interesting to note that Special Engineering Supervision predates the requirements for engineering licensure in the State of California by two years. It appears that the former was in response to what was deemed a failure on the part of the construction industry while the later, as a result of the St. Francis dam failure, was in response to what was deemed as a failure of the engineering profession. SI is not typically performed on major public works projects (non-occupied fixed works such as highways, dams, transit systems and the like). These projects are typically not under the jurisdiction of the building official and the public works agency usually follows other regulations to provide the required testing and inspections services. In other words, if you have to obtain a building permit from a jurisdiction’s building department then you probably will be subject to SI. SCOPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION From the “Model Program for Special Inspection” issued by the ICC(2) we have the following:

“There are several areas of construction regulated by the International Building Code (IBC) where Special Inspection is mandatory. These inspections are to verify that work that is considered critical to life safety and property protection is being or has been constructed according to the approved plans and specifications.”

Also

“Special Inspection is the monitoring of the materials and workmanship that are critical to the integrity of the building structure. It is the review of the work of the contractors and their employees to assure that the approved plans and specifications are being followed and that relevant codes and ordinances are being observed. The special inspection process is in addition to those conducted by the municipal building inspector and by the registered design professional in responsible charge as part of periodic structural observation.”

The regulated areas of construction include:

Inspection of fabricators

Steel construction

Concrete construction

Masonry construction

Wood construction

Soils

Pile foundations

Pier foundations

Wall panels and veneers

Sprayed fire-resistant materials

Exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS)

Special cases

Smoke control

Special inspection for seismic resistance and wind requirements


www.asq.org/design

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Again from the “Model Program for Special Inspection” issued by the ICC we have the following:

“Duties of Special Inspectors and/or Inspection Agencies include the following: General requirements – Special Inspectors shall review approved plans and specifications for Special Inspection requirements. Special Inspectors will comply with the Special Inspection requirements of the enforcing jurisdiction.

Signify presence at jobsite

Observe assigned work

Report nonconforming items

Provide timely reports

Submit final report”

“Duties and Responsibilities of the Project Owner The project owner, the registered design professional in responsible charge, or an agent of the owner is responsible for funding Special Inspection services. The Special Inspector/Agency shall not be in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor or material supplier (see IBC Section 106.3.5). In the case of an owner/contractor, the Special Inspector/Agency shall be employed as specified by the building official.”

“Duties and Responsibilities of the Design Professional in Responsible Charge The design professional in responsible charge has many duties and responsibilities related to special inspection, including the following:

Prepare Special Inspection program

Respond to field discrepancies

Review shop drawings and submit revisions to approved plans”

“Duties and Responsibilities of the Contractor

Notify the Special Inspector

Provide access to approved plans

Retain special inspection records”

“Duties and Responsibilities of the Building Official Of all the team members involved in the construction process, the building official is the only one with the legal authority to enforce the special inspection provisions of the code (see IBC Section 104.4). The employment of a special inspector or agency shall not relieve the building department of responsibility for special inspections required by the code. The specific duties and responsibilities of the building official relating to special inspection include the following:

Review submittal documents for compliance with special inspection requirements

Approve special inspection program

Approve special inspectors/inspection agencies

Monitor special inspection activities

Review inspection reports

Perform final inspection”

LAWS, CODES AND STANDARDS (OTHER THAN IBC) THAT AFFECT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION From various state laws and professional engineering acts we have:


www.asq.org/design

CALIFORNIA 6701. Professional engineer defined “Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged….. , and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work. 6703.1. Supervision of construction defined “Supervision of the construction of engineering structures” means the periodic observation of materials and completed work to determine general compliance with plans, specifications, and design and planning concepts. However, “supervision of construction of engineering structures” does not include responsibility for the superintendence of construction processes, site conditions, operations, equipment, personnel, or the maintenance of a safe place to work or any safety in, on, or about the site. For purposes of this subdivision, “periodic observation” means visits by an engineer, or his or her agent, to the site of a work of improvement.

FLORIDA (7) "Engineering" includes the term "professional engineering" and means any service or creative work, …. . the inspection of construction for the purpose of determining in general if the work is proceeding in compliance with drawings and specifications,

NEVADA NRS 652.050 1. “The practice of professional engineering” includes, but is not limited to: (a) Any professional service which involves the application of engineering principles and data, such as surveying, consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning and design, or responsible supervision of construction or operation in connection with any public or private utility, structure, building, machine, equipment, process, work or project, wherein the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health or property is concerned or involved. (b) Such other services as are necessary to the planning, progress and completion of any engineering project or to the performance of any engineering service. NOTE: The above paragraph “is interpreted to mean the inspection and testing of construction falls within the practice of professional engineering.”(3)

TEXAS § 1001.003. Practice of Engineering (c) The practice of engineering includes: (9) Engineering for review of the construction or installation of engineered works to monitor compliance with drawings or specifications;

From ASTM E329 – 05 “Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in the Testing and/or Inspection of Materials Used in Construction” (4) we have:

7.2.1 The testing and inspection services of the agency, that provides the quality control or quality assurance program, or both, as related to construction practices or materials, or both, shall be under the direction of a person charged with engineering managerial responsibility. The person shall be a licensed professional/registered engineer and a full-time employee of that agency. The person shall have at least five years engineering experience in testing and inspection of construction materials. The organization may consist of one or more separate facilities providing inspection or testing services or both. A


www.asq.org/design

licensed professional/registered engineer may have engineering managerial responsibility for one or more facilities within the organization.

IMPLEMENTATION MODELS AND EXAMPLES Interpretative Guides The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) and the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) have published guidelines for implementation of a Special Inspection program from the standpoint of the structural engineer of record. CASE in their guide(5) has issued a position statement on Special Inspection as follows:

“The interests of the public, clients, and the AE community are best served when materials and workmanship critical to the structural integrity of structures are monitored through the Special Inspections process by the Structural Engineer of Record (SER). The extensive on-site presence of the SER through the Special Inspections process is the best means to protect the public, control claims and losses, and improve quality of the completed project. The SER is the only member of the design team with the expertise and intimate knowledge of a particular building's Structural System and, therefore, is the best qualified to recognize and respond to site conditions that require the application of structural engineering judgment. As the Special Inspector, the SER is able to communicate required corrections or Owner-directed changes before they are built into the structure, provide prompt responses to contractor's field questions, expedite corrective measures to address contractor errors, help build and maintain team communication and working relationships with the contractor, and minimize misinterpretation of the structural design intent. The SER should serve as the Special Inspector wherever possible and practical.”

The State of Florida’s requirements for structural inspections on threshold buildings appears to support this philosophy in part (see the section on Regional Implementation Examples below). The Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) has taken a slightly different stance in their guideline(6):

“The “registered design professional in responsible charge” (“The RDP”) is identified in CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 106.3.4.1 [IBC Chapter 1 Section 106.3.4.1] as the entity whose duties are “reviewing and coordinating submittal documents prepared by others....for compatibility with the design of the building.” This same section requires that the project owner make this designation as part of the permit application. Thus there is only one RDP in responsible charge for each project, and, except on certain types of projects, the architect will generally perform that role. There are of course other “registered design professionals” involved in the project, including the structural engineer, civil engineer, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineers. The structural engineer may assume the role of The RDP on small projects with little or no architectural elements or on seismic retrofit projects. There may also be projects where the civil, mechanical, or electrical engineer could assume the coordinating role. In most cases however, the architect, as The RDP, would be technically responsible for preparing the statement of special inspections (SSI). Even so, the structural engineer should be the primary decision maker regarding the inspection and observation requirements for the purely structural items involved as well as the structural anchorage of non-structural elements. This document is written with the


www.asq.org/design

assumption that the engineer responsible for the structural design is working closely with the architect assigned the coordinating role in preparing the statement of special inspections and in monitoring the special inspections and observations.”

Regardless, if the SER chooses to be the Special Inspector they may be subject to the same accreditation requirements imposed on agencies engaged in the testing and/or inspection of materials used in construction as described in ASTM E329. The requirements include but are not limited to:

Be accredited;

Establish and maintain a documented quality system appropriate to the type, range, and volume of

inspections and testing activities it undertakes that is available for use by the agency’s personnel;

Have managerial staff with the authority and resources needed to discharge their duties;

Have arrangements to ensure that its personnel are free from any commercial, financial, and other

pressures that might adversely affect the quality of their work;

Have a technical manager (however named) who has overall responsibility for the technical

operations;

Have a quality manager (however named) who has the responsibility for the quality system and its

implementation; and

Have a field supervisor shall have at least five years inspection experience in the type of work being

supervised.

Regional Implementation Examples As Special Inspection (SI) is a Building Official (BO) driven process its implementation is similar to that for plan review or obtaining building permits in that one must obtain the approval on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction and case by case basis. Jurisdictions of large metropolitan areas such as New York City or Los Angeles County can level the playing field somewhat in that uniform requirements for SI agencies and inspection/testing personnel are established across a large geographic market area, making it easier for SI agencies to comply with BO requirements and expectations. Los Angeles County has even established a Deputy Inspector program where the BO licenses the person performing SI and makes that inspector solely responsible to the BO in the performance of their duties, presumably because they see the SI as an extension of the BO. These Deputy Inspectors are typically not licensed professional engineers; rather they are paraprofessionals with specialized skills in inspection and testing. Some regions of the country also realize the benefit to all parties in a uniform approach. Washington State has established the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO) to achieve this uniformity statewide(7). SI agencies and their inspection/testing personnel must respectively be accredited to ASTM E329 and certified in accordance with International Code Council (ICC) special inspection requirements. On a cautionary note, the San Francisco Bay Area at one time had a Special Inspection Committee (SIC) that function in the same manner as the WABO discussed above. The local BO along with representatives from an organization of the SI services providers forged out a set of requirements and an approval process for both parties to follow. Once the SIC approved an SI agency they were free to work in any of the SIC jurisdictional areas. However, the SIC was legally challenged and the committee disbanded leaving the BO and SI agencies to go through a jurisdiction by jurisdiction and case by case basis approval process. No discussion would be complete without mentioning the State of Florida’s requirements for structural inspections on threshold buildings(8). In 1983, the Florida Legislature passed the engineering construction oversight law, known as the Threshold Inspection Law, to provide guidance and define roles


www.asq.org/design

and responsibilities of owners, architects/engineers of record and contractors involved in the construction of “threshold buildings.” In this case all applicants must be Professional Engineers, in good standing, licensed in the State of Florida. In addition they must: 1. Have had experience on at least three threshold type buildings. 2. Demonstrate completion of three years of experience in performing structural field inspections on

threshold buildings, and two years of experience in the structural design of threshold type buildings. The beginning dates of projects shall be no older than ten years prior to the date of the application.

3. Submit three letters of recommendation from Professional Engineers whose principal practice is structural engineering in the State of Florida, one of whom must be certified special inspector.

A Threshold Building is defined in Section 553.71(7), Florida Statutes, as 1. Any building greater than three stories or 50 feet in height OR 2. A building having an Assembled Occupancy which exceeds 5,000 sq.ft. and has a occupancy content

of greater than 500 persons. This Florida program is different from the previous examples in that it is a state law and as such falls under their professional practice act even though the SI is statutorily responsible to the BO(9). However, as one Florida PE cautions, “Inspections performed by the Special Inspector should not serve as a surrogate in carrying out the responsibilities of the building official, the architect, or the Engineer of Record. The threshold inspection plan and the work of the Special Inspector should not be relied upon to replace a comprehensive quality control program established by the contractor. Therefore, the contractor's contractual or statutory obligations are not relieved by the presence or any action of the Special Inspector (FS 553.79 (5)a).” (10) DISCUSSION Professional Responsibility versus Regulatory Requirement From the “Model Program for Special Inspection” issued by the ICC we have the following:

“Of all the team members involved in the construction process, the building official is the only one with the legal authority to enforce the special inspection provisions of the code (see IBC Section 104.4). The employment of a special inspector or agency shall not relieve the building department of responsibility for special inspections required by the code.”

Also

“Although Section 1704.1 of the IBC requires the owner or the registered design professional acting as the owner’s agent to provide for specially qualified inspectors, the approval of these inspectors is solely the responsibility of the building official.”

Yet as discussed in the sections above state engineering practice acts and ASTM E329 requires that a licensed professional engineer be in responsible charge of activities that verify construction is in compliance with plans and specifications. So, is Special Inspection engineering or is it regulatory agency responsibility? There are two clearly defined roles defined in Chapter 17 of the IBC for the civil/professional engineer, that of the design professional and that of the SI agency’s technical manager. Other roles may such as that of the BO, the SI or the contractor may be but are not required to be a professional engineer with the exception of for the state of Florida’s threshold buildings. State engineering practice acts typically have statements concerning the engineer’s role in assuring compliance with plans and specifications but do not go into specifics.


www.asq.org/design

State of Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Task Force Recently, the State of Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors appointed a Task Force(3) to “…revisit and possibly revise the language in the NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) to specifically address special inspector duties of Engineer Manager in responsible charge for these services,” and requested that the Task Force issue a “whitepaper” of its finding to the Board. The Task Force determined that “inspection and testing of construction falls within the practice of professional engineering.” They also found that “it is common in the inspection and testing fields for subordinates to possess expertise that the professional engineer does not,” but “it remains the engineer’s responsibility to supervise this individual and orchestrate expert services, whether by a subconsultant or subordinate, within the overall inspection and testing program to develop an engineering opinion regarding the compliance of work with the design documents or codes.” The above lead to a discussion concerning the basic organizational approaches for providing inspection and testing services. These are:

1. The Engineer in Responsible Charge (EIRC) performs the work

2. The ERIC is the immediate supervisor of the person performing the work

3. The EIRC manages though a chain of command

Cases 1 and 2 clearly satisfied the requirements for responsible charge. Case 3 proved to be “complicated” and therefore “more difficult” to determine if this case satisfied the requirement for responsible charge. It was however determined that “an engineer actively engaged in providing inspection and testing services within the general boundaries of the standards listed below (ASTM E329 and others) will be in responsible charge for those services.” Qualifying Experience for Professional Licensure Finally, it has been the experience of some that SI or construction inspection in general is not considered qualifying experience for professional licensure by some state boards(11). In these cases design is considered the necessary qualifying experience while inspection is characterized as an activity that does not require engineering judgment. Certainly the state of Florida with their threshold inspection program and CASE in their position paper appears to support this position. Regardless, the profession, legally and ethically, requires that one practice engineering within their area of competence. Quality Program Finally, from a quality program point of view is Special Inspection quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC)? For the purposes of this publication we define these as follows:

QA – All those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide confidence that a product or

service will satisfy given requirements for quality.

QC – All contractor/vendor operational techniques and activities that are performed or conducted to

fulfill the contract requirements.

The language, requirements and responsibilities found in Chapter 17 of the IBC would lead one to believe that Special Inspection is quality assurance in that the contractor’s role is limited to notification, providing access and the like. However, in comparison to contractor quality control (CQC) projects, where the contractor is responsible for performing the required tests and inspections, the owner’s quality assurance takes on a different role. On CQC projects the owner typically uses the 10% spot check rule of thumb to assure themselves that the contractor’s QC function is performing as required. Looking at Special Inspection from this point of view we find that Special Inspection probably is a hybrid of owner/design professional/regulatory agency oversight (QA) and contractor in-process testing and inspection (QC). SI practitioners have expressed that the SI program often becomes the default contractor QC program, in other words the only documented project quality program.


www.asq.org/design

CONCLUSIONS As stated in the State of Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Task Force Whitepaper(3) “…the intent…was to determine if the system was broken…” It may not be broken but may need some improvement. Professional Practice and Risk The authors believe that testing and inspection activities meant to establish compliance to plans and specifications, especially plans and specifications that are required to be prepared by a licensed design professional, fall under the requirements of professional practice acts for civil engineers and have the professional liabilities associated with that work. However, the authors acknowledge that the BO has a publicly mandated duty as well and is charged with the “sole responsibility” for key aspects of the SI program. However the special inspector does not enjoy certain sovereign immunities that the BO does. Further, the special inspector although answerable to the BO is not employed by the BO. These potential conflicts need to be addressed and reconciled. Quality Assurance versus Quality Control The authors believe that SI is a QA activity independent from the contractor’s quality control. Regardless, recent headlines cite the existence of significant construction defects as evidence of failure of the SI process. This cause and effect representation could lead one to believe that the SI process controls the contractor’s means, methods, schedule, sequence, choice of materials, and skill of tradesmen. These factors are not under the control of the special inspector and this need to be clearly understood, especially with respect to BO and other stakeholder expectations. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation: At a minimum, statues and regulations regarding the roles and responsibilities of the registered civil engineer should be brought into alignment with the SI process as described in Chapter 17 of the IBC and ASTM E329. Commentary: California has, in 6703.1. Supervision of construction defined, done this to a certain extent in that what they describe resembles Structural observation as defined in Chapter 17 of the IBC. However, the question of responsible charge with respect to the SI agency business practice model needs clarification. The State of Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Task Force Whitepaper(3) addresses this in their recommendations with the following suggestion:

“Delete the words “responsible supervision of construction or operation” and replace them with: “observation, inspection, and testing of construction for the purpose of providing the client with a greater degree of confidence that construction complies with the project documents.”

Note that the above is not intended to discourage any state or jurisdiction for establishing additional requirements such as the state of Florida has for threshold projects. Recommendation: The risk exposure and liabilities of the special inspector need to be better defined and/or understood. Commentary: Special inspection is the sole responsibility and therefore special inspector and the special inspection agency are in some form or fashion agents of the building official. However, the building official enjoys certain immunities while the agents under their authority and control do not. Further complicating this arrangement is the fact that the special inspector must be paid by the owner or the owner’s agent making the special inspector beholden to them. Recommendation: As IBC Chapter 17 is a national code requirement, it should be resolved, preferably at a national level, if special inspection experience qualifies as professional experience for state licensure.


www.asq.org/design

Commentary: With advances in design and construction technology come the ever increasing demand for establishing and maintaining one’s competency in a given field. It may be time to reexamine existing assumptions and attitudes about construction inspection and material testing and see if it requires engineering judgment and as such has graduated to the level of professional practice. Recommendation: Establish IBC requirements for a contractor quality control program. Commentary: This recommendation may not be feasible for the majority of projects that require special inspection, but as with Florida’s threshold program there should be a threshold dollar value or some other criteria that requires a contractor quality control program. REFERENCES (1) John R. Henry, P.E., “Special Inspection, Structural Observation and Quality Assurance under the 2000 IBC,” Structural Engineer, April, 2002. (2) “Model Program for Special Inspection: Based on IBC Chapter 17,” International Code Council (2005). (3) State of Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors “Task Force Whitepaper on The Role of the Engineer in Responsible Charge of Inspection and testing Services,” October 28, 2010. (4) ASTM E329-05. (2005) “Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in the Testing and/or Inspection of Materials Used in Construction,” American Society for Testing and materials, West Conschocken, Pennsylvania. (5) “Guide to Special Inspections and Quality Assurance,” Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), CASE Special Inspection Committee, Third Edition 2004. (6) “Guidelines for Special Inspection and Structural Observation, In accordance with the 2007 CBC,” Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), SEAONC Construction Quality Assurance Committee (2010). (7) “Agency and Inspector Performance Qualification Standard 1701,” Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO), revised January 2007. (8) “Application for Special Inspector Certification Under Section 553.79(5)(a), Florida Statutes,” Florida Board of Professional Engineers, Tallahassee, Florida. (9) Kevin P. Kelly, “The Threshold Inspector: Champion of the Public Weal or Construction Industry Rogue?” The Florida Bar Journal, July/August, 1999 Volume LXXIII, No. 7. (10) Nabil Hmeidi, P.E., “Technical [email protected] – Threshold Inspection,” Ellis and Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. (11) Charles J. Kanapicki, P.E., “Special Inspections and the Structural Engineer of Record,” ASCE Conf. Proc. 137, 102 (2004), DOI:10.1061/40700(2004)102



www.asq.org/design

2013/2014 Design and Construction Division Board and Committees

Division Officer Nominee List (Require a vote)

Position Member

Name Member Email Term Member #

Immediate Past Chair Strategic Planning

Charles Kanapicki

[email protected] 2013/2014 273726

Chair Celia Gray [email protected] 2013/2014 1315008

Chair Elect Anita McReynolds Lidbury

[email protected] 2013/2014 63404399

Secretary Benjamin Truijillo

[email protected] 2013/2014 63376928

Treasurer Robert Orkin [email protected] 2013/2014 372804

Division Board List (Require a vote)

Vice Chair Social Responsibility

Brian Palmquist

[email protected] 2013/2014 63328716

Vice Chair /Web Liaison Cliff Moser [email protected]

also AIA sponsor 2013/2014

63140534

Vice Chair/ Conference

sponsors Certification

John Mascaro [email protected]

2013/2014 977776

Vice Chair/VoC Peter Stamps [email protected] 2013/2014 243612

Vice Chair/Awards Jeff Williams [email protected] 2013/2014 244751

Division Standing Committees/Liaisons

Position Member Name Member Email Start Date Member #

Audit Chair Certification

Ray Crawford [email protected] 2013/2014 490982

Membership Chair

Danny Kahler [email protected] 2013/2014

63140534

Nominating Chair

Charles Kanapicki [email protected] 2013/2014

273726

Publications Chair

Charles Kanapicki [email protected] 2013/2014

273726

WCQI Program Chair

L. Catherine Hader [email protected]

2013/2014 63492270

Audit

Conference Program Chair

Anita McReynolds-Lindbury

[email protected]

2013/2014

Standards

Chair John Broomfield [email protected]

2013/2014 408497

LinkedIn Greg Wennerstrom [email protected] 2013/2014







Excellence Through Quality - DCD QUALITY...

Documents

Transcript of Excellence Through Quality - DCD QUALITY...