A contractor who doesn’t know the quality of their own work is asking for trouble
Alberto Munguia, P.E., PMP, M.ASCE
Senior Construction Project Manager for multimillion highway projects in Central and Southwest Texas
By: Alberto Munguía, PMP
I was just recently participating in a conversation about a lawsuit between an earthwork Contractor and a Consultant company that provides inspection services during construction. The conversation was about an article that appeared in a magazine. The article explained that the contractor blamed the engineer for failure to achieve a specified soil compaction on a project because the Consultant didn’t test as frequently as the contract required. This is a common problem originated by the contractor misunderstanding to believe that the consultant is performing the quality control that belongs to him. Danny Kahler PE. Commented: “Texas law requires a licensed engineer to professionally assure the construction quality of any public project, but specifically exempts them from being responsible for the contractor's control of the quality (fyi... I didn't write the law - if anyone objects to this concept they probably need to take it up with the State legislature) “. Is important to understand that the consultant’s responsibility besides the quality assurance is to enforce the contractual requirements to ensure that the contractor is performing the necessary quality control. In the real world however, very often consultants fail to enforce contractual obligations in regards to the contractor’s quality control responsibilities. It seems that Contractors in this case believe that they are saving money by using the consultant’s quality assurance results to monitor their construction processes. This assumption has been proved to be very ineffective because contractors are unable to identify in a timely manner when construction processes, are not producing the expected result to meet quality requirements. If a contractor can reliably produce work that conforms to plans and specifications, and have their own internal quality system to demonstrate that construction processes meet with quality requirements, they will avoid unexpected results that most likely will end in disputes over its quality, and likely will satisfy the stakeholders’ needs.
A good system to satisfy stakeholders’ needs when administering quality control in embankment is the Field Book for Quality Control in Earthwork Operations. You might wonder?
- Who will find this field book very useful?. Field Book for Quality Control in Earthwork Operations was created as a tool to assist construction companies that provide quality control services as well as earthwork contractors.
- What Benefits can be achieved with the use of this field book. The main objective is that every field tests performed during the construction process can be documented systematically and in an efficient way. This field book also provides essential knowledge of soil which empowers the user with a better understanding of the behavior of the soil used as building material.
- How can this field book represent a great benefit to business owners? It is not a secret that training is a necessary practice to ensure business success but, it is a fact that due to this financial climate, companies frequently choose to use their resources in other areas rather than in training. This field book condenses basic knowledge into a few pages that serves the user to make better choices when building road embankments. Also this book represents a practical tool that can be used in specific places throughout the job site to collect test results, data and more over it provides some minimum training necessary for users to have a better chance to succeed in their daily efforts to control the quality of road construction.
- This field book is part of a Conformance Series for Highway Construction and Inspection. Knowledge on this subject is very extensive, therefore additionally you will find a website that explores issues discussed within the book and extra information related to road construction. Users can explore and learn more specific information about construction inspection of roads by visiting the following site: www.cs4highway.com
Meanwhile let’s continue building high quality roads that will take us and our families quickly and safely back home.
Project Management | Infrastructure | Vertical Build | PMP | MIEAust | NER
10 年Interesting... Another blame game... Its quite obvious both parties have failed (ethically) to a certain extent. If the consultant fulfills her quality control obligations then the contractor doesn't have a point to prove. Did the consultant conduct the minimum number of tests as required by law/project specs? Answering no would mean the consultant takes some of the blame. Yes,some of the blame. Either way, the consultant and contractor's quality assurance and control should be independent. If the consultant was guilty of insufficient sampling, then the contractor has as much blame for not going by its internal quality process.
Engineer, consultant,JD w/30 yrs experience in structural engineering, design, inspections, forensic, & expert witness.
10 年Alberto: The quality control and assurance on a job is both the contractor and consultant's responsibility. As a prior testing engineer in charge of quality control such as taking density tests on a road project, it was my duty to take required testing as dictated by the project specifications both in terms of number of tests, and frequency. Thus, it was my duty if a test failed to report such results to the contractor and not allow him to continue with successive layers for example when backfilling a pipe trench until the density test passed. At the end of the final lift it was my responsibility and ultimately the project engineer to certify that the work was satisfactory and in compliance with the project plans and specifications. So, now the situation is when there is substandard construction in the road and there is a failure causing damages. What are the rights and duties for both the contractor and consultants? Is the consultant charged with the duty for testing and quality control is trying to evade liability by claiming the contractor is responsible for his own quality control? or is the contractor also liable for his own construction issues and defects by failing to utilize a quality assurance plan during construction? who is ultimately responsible? Was there any design errors or defects in the drawings or specifications? 1. Did the contractor perform his duties as to follow the specifications and design drawings? 2. Did the consultant perform his duties in quality control pursuant to the plans and specifications? 3. Who breached their duty? 4. What was the actual and proximate cause of the breach, such as damages? 5. Who is liable? Any discussion or comments will be appreciated.