Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published January 2002

Contractor-Led Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plus Design—Build: Who Is Watching the Quality?

Abstract

Recent innovations by the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT) in the use of design—build procurement for highway construction are presented. Explosive population growth in Arizona has pushed its DOT to the limits of its capacity and has challenged the department to develop innovative ways to stretch its resources to meet its constituents’ needs. In 1996 the department spearheaded the passage of a pilot design–build law aimed at completing public-sector construction projects more rapidly than could be done by traditional methods. An evaluation of the material quality program used in the second design–build project in this program is described. The project reconstructed an extremely congested 7-mi segment of Interstate 17, a primary artery carrying 180,000 vehicles per day through the city of Phoenix, widening it from 6 to 10 lanes. The design–build contract was awarded after A+B bidding, which considered the bid price to do the work and the time required to complete the project, and was the largest ever awarded at the time. It was won by a design–builder who implemented a very aggressive schedule that required double-shift work for nearly 2 years. In another contracting first, the agency also assigned the design–builder responsibility for the quality control and quality assurance functions on the project, with Arizona DOT providing verification sampling and testing only. The concrete compressive strength and material density for the project are examined and are compared to statewide averages for traditional design-bid-build projects in which Arizona DOT performed the quality assurance function. Analysis of the data shows that despite a highly compressed schedule, the quality of the material on the project exceeded the project specifications and was similar to the quality of work completed for the state under traditional contracting methods with an Arizona DOT—operated quality assurance program.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Sanvido V. Project Delivery Systems: CM at Risk, Design–build, Design-Bid-Build. Research Report 133-11. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Tex., April 1998.
2. Allenstein R. Materials Sampling and Testing Report. Arizona Department of Transportation, Aug. 1999.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: January 2002
Issue published: January 2002

Rights and permissions

© 2002 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Jim Ernzen
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, Box 870204, Tempe AZ 85287-0204
Tom Feeney
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, Box 870204, Tempe AZ 85287-0204

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 69

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 12

  1. Research on Quality Risk Assessment and Application of Large-scale Clu...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Comparing Contract Administration Functions for Alternative and Tradit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Life cycle cost evaluation of alternatives to the nuclear density gaug...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Cost Overrun in Public-Private Partnerships: Toward Sustainable Highwa...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Indefinite Delivery–Indefinite Quantity Contracting...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Comparative Evaluation of Public–Private Partnerships in Roadway Prese...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Cost Savings Analysis of Performance-Based Contracts for Highway Maint...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Introduction to Design-Build Project Administration
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Design Quality Management in the Design-Build Project
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Contracting in highway maintenance and rehabilitation: Are spatial eff...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Framework for Performance-Based Contractor Prequalification
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Survey on Construction Contractor Incentive Mechanism Design
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub