The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

chive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

IJQRM
20,5 Quality management practice
in highway construction
Mireille G. Battikha
532 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Received February 2002
Revised August 2002
Accepted August 2002 Keywords Construction industry, Quality management, Quality assurance, Quality control
Abstract This paper describes the quality management function as practiced in highway
construction. This function is displayed as an interrelated system, which identifies the main quality
activities. Documents and records used in these activities are also reviewed. A model for multilevel
quality management involvement is defined, encompassing contractors, engineers, and managers.
The model describes the quality management tasks and the roles assumed in a scheme relating
construction quality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them. The scheme can be
applied to any construction domain and quality management organizational structure. The study
advances the understanding of how quality management is performed and engages participants at
several management levels.

International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 20 No. 5, 2003
pp. 532-550
q MCB UP Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656710310476516
Introduction
Construction quality is a critical factor in determining project acceptance and
resultant contractual payment levels. Participants in the construction industry
have become notably conscious of the role of quality as an essential means to
achieve client satisfaction and gain a competitive advantage. Acceptable
quality levels in construction have long been a problem to attain on time and
within budget in a highly dynamic, complex, and competitive environment.
With inefficient or nonexistent quality management procedures, significant
expenditures of time, money, and resources are wasted on construction projects
(Rounds and Chi, 1985). This lack of quality due to deficient construction
quality management is detected through nonconformance to established
requirements.
In construction, nonconformance occurs when the finished state of a
project, and/or its components, deviates from established requirements, and
requires decisions to be made regarding their acceptance and/or rectification.
Quality-related problems during construction can be projected on the
operating life of the finished project. To the contractor, nonconformance can
yield penalties, as well as cost and time burdens for rework, which can
convert into productivity loss (Battikha, 2000a). It can also result in client
dissatisfaction, which directly leads to loss of market share and potential
profit reductions of the construction firm. To the owner/user,
nonconformance can translate into problems related to safety, service, and
economy. With effective quality management, quality-related problems can
be eliminated, and prevented at early stages, prior to nonconforming
occurrences (Battikha, 2002b, c). This paper describes the quality Highway
management function as practiced in highway construction. A model for construction
multilevel quality management involvement is defined, encompassing
contractors, engineers, and managers. It provides a scheme, which relates
quality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them, and can
apply to any construction domain and quality management organizational
structure. The quality management tasks performed, the roles assumed, and
533
the documents used are also highlighted. The study will advance the
understanding of how quality management is performed and engages
participants at several management levels.

Defining quality
Numerous expressions have been adopted to define quality in both the
manufacturing and the construction industry. Crosby (1979) defined quality
as “conformance to requirements”. Juran’s definition pointed to quality as
“fitness for use” in terms of design, conformance, availability, safety, and
field use (Omachonu and Ross, 1994). Other definitions are also available
and include: “customer satisfaction”, as indicated in Burati et al. (1991);
“conformance to predetermined requirements”, as defined by the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); and “the totality of factors and
characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy
given needs” as defined by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) (as listed in Parti, 1996). Issues
regarding the scope and intent of each of these definitions have been
discussed elsewhere (Davis et al., 1989; Parti, 1996). These definitions are
interdependent and the choice of one depends on the domain and the
purpose of its use. In construction, defining quality as “conformance to
established requirements” (Construction Industry Institute, 1989) renders its
achievement or lack thereof detectable, and its measurement and assessment
quantifiable.
A general graphical interpretation of the foregoing definitions is depicted in
Figure 1. It illustrates, based on a quality level scale, the conformance of the
product/service to the design requirements and the conformance of these
requirements to the client needs/expectations, in the execution and the design
stages respectively. This reflects the quality of each of the product/service and
the requirements (i.e. design output). Client needs/expectations are at the base
for varying the quality of the product/service (i.e. degree of goodness). The
higher the standards levels to which the needs/expectations conform, the
higher the degree of goodness (i.e. quality). Standards can improve in time with
the advancement of technology and innovation. The advancement process can
benefit from the feedback provided by clients. Their satisfaction in the
product/service is also a reflection of its quality.
IJQRM
20,5

534

Figure 1.
Interpreting quality
definitions

Quality management systems

Properly implemented, formal quality management systems provide a vehicle
for achieving quality (i.e. conformance to established requirements). As defined
by ANSI, a quality system is “the organizational structure, responsibilities,
procedures, processes, and resources for implementing quality management”
(Arnold, 1994). Quality management refers to the set of quality activities
involved in producing a product, process, or service, and encompasses
prevention and appraisal (Burati et al., 1992). It is “a management discipline
concerned with preventing problems from occurring by creating the attitudes
and controls that make prevention possible” (Crosby, 1979). Quality activities
include the determination of the quality policy, objectives, and responsibilities
and implementing them through quality planning, quality control, quality
assurance, and quality improvement, within the quality system (ASQC, 1997).
Quality control (QC) denotes the sum of activities performed by the contractor to
make sure that the product or service meets established requirements
(AASHTO, 1995, cited in Weigel et al., 1996). Quality assurance (QA) refers to
the activities performed to provide adequate confidence that a product or service
will meet established requirements (AASHTO, 1995, cited in Weigel et al., 1996).
ISO 9000 series standards furnish conceptual guidelines with which to
structure and implement the elements of a quality system (Arnold, 1994). They
provide guidance on quality management, and present models for quality
assurance by fostering the structure through which to implement the total
quality management (TQM) business philosophy (Arnold, 1994). TQM means
thinking about quality as a system approach using all functions of the
enterprise as a process, and integrating them at all levels (Omachonu and Ross,
1994). This management approach is geared towards engaging the entire
organization in a system, for the purpose of satisfying customers through
continuous improvement (Drummond, 1992). Quality is a product of the Highway
system, thus the system must be designed to guarantee that requirements will construction
be met. Figure 2 displays the system approach to quality management for
achieving quality.
In construction, achieving conformance to established requirements consists
of a series of quality management activities during the various phases of a
project. In the design phase, quality requirements for the end products and/or
535
their performance are specified to meet the user’s needs. Depending on whether
the specifications are method-type, end-result or performance-related,
construction methods and materials are specified by the owner’s agent, or
defined later by the contractor, to permit achievement of these requirements,
and quality management procedures are developed to ensure compliance with
the specifications. During construction, nonconformance in terms of end
products (the finished state of the constructed product), output products of
activities (the states through which the end-product passes during its
construction), and/or in-process characteristics may be detected. Appropriate
actions must then be taken to rectify nonconforming situations and, if possible,
diagnosis and elimination of the reasons causing nonconformance, in order to
avoid similar situations during the remainder of the project and on future
projects (Battikha and Russell, 1998).

System approach in highway construction

A model of the quality assurance system that the highway construction
industry has been applying for the last 50 years (Chamberlin, 1995) is presented
in Figure 3. The nomenclature of this management system in terms of quality
assurance refers to the quality management system encompassing all quality
activities.
From the model shown in Figure 3, the process is as follows. The owner, or
highway agency, specifies the required product using drawings and

Figure 2.
System approach to
quality management
IJQRM
20,5

536

Figure 3.
Ideal quality assurance
system

specifications, which contain quality characteristics, quality levels and ranges

of tolerances, acceptance sampling and testing plans, and acceptance criteria.
The contractor executes the product following established
construction/manufacturing processes and quality control procedures. The
contract considers a fair allocation of risk between the contractor’s expectation
of compensation and the owner’s expectation of quality (Chamberlin, 1995). In
highway construction management, the trend has been to the contractor
assuming responsibilities for controlling quality, and the owner judging
acceptance (Chamberlin, 1995).

Model for multilevel quality management

Despite the variations in procurement strategies for projects, with respect to
QA/QC organization and administration (Hester, 1979), common characteristics
remain apparent for conducting quality management activities. Three main
levels of control/assurance are noted in most existing programs. Whether the
quality control agent reports to the contractor’s organization or to the owner’s Highway
organization, the production group (foreman, contractor) is the one that can construction
control the quality at a high degree. The interface of control and assurance for
reporting deviations to the QA management (QA director) can take place
through a QC/QA professional, usually an engineer. This is achieved by
performing the tests and inspections formally required by the quality system,
and reporting recurring nonconformance to the QA director/manager, who in
537
turn, issues a request for corrective action to the contractor/construction
manager (MoTH, 1992). QA management starts at the interface level by
inspecting the contractor’s work, or asks the contractor for certification in case
the QA is limited to audits and surveillance (i.e. the QA does not perform
inspection/test activities to verify the conformance of construction processes
and products to requirements). A QC/QA engineer who reports to the QA
director accomplishes this interface. The QA department can be from either the
contractor’s or the owner’s organization. However, the segregation of the
contractor from the management authority, reflecting the QC and QA
responsibilities, needs to be maintained. Figure 4 presents a generic scheme of
the various roles and responsibilities at the different levels of QA/QC, including
the tasks normally undertaken and the documents/records involved. This
synthesis has been derived from quality management practice in highway
construction (MoTH, 1992).
The applicability of the multilevel management scheme, depicted in Figure 4,
to the different organizational structures in quality management is illustrated
in Figures 5-8. The organizational structures for managing quality include four
approaches for developing and administering a quality assurance program
(Hester, 1979):
(1) project designer;
(2) force account (managed by institutional owners);
(3) contractor; and
(4) special consultant (exclusive of project designers and contractors).
Table I outlines how the multilevel management scheme applies to the four
approaches, and pinpoints examples of some construction domains to which
each approach is most suitable (Hester, 1979).

Documents and records

Documents usually required in quality management include: ISO 9000 series
standard guidelines; quality manual referencing or containing quality
management procedures; work instructions; specifications; inspection and
test plans; nonconformance reports; etc. These documents may vary with the
quality system established by the organization. Elements of these documents
are elaborated upon in the following subsections.
IJQRM
20,5

538

Figure 4.
Levels of construction
QA/QC, roles, tasks and
documents
 Highway
construction

539

Figure 5.
Management levels
applied to project
designer approach

Figure 6.
Management levels
applied to force account
approach

ISO 9000 series standards

ISO 9000 standards refer to the guidelines of the standard, and with respect to
highway construction, this applies to ISO 9001 elements (International
Organization for Standardization, 1994, 2000).

Quality manual
A quality manual translates the ISO requirements to the organization setting
(Pekar, 1995). A quality manual is set to contain or to reference procedures that
IJQRM
20,5

540

Figure 7.
Management levels
applied to contractor
approach

Figure 8.
Management levels
applied to special
consultant approach
 Project designer
Production
level Contractor
Management Project designer develops and
level administers QA program and
assigns a trained staff of field
personnel which provide
administrative and surveillance
services
Interface level The designer’s field personnel
either perform selected QA
tasks (e.g. laboratory and field
testing), or select and manage
specialized consultants to
perform these tasks
Construction Projects using phased
domains construction techniques,
projects that are technically
complex, and projects that
require a lot of design
interpretation or coordination
during construction (e.g. water
and wastewater treatment
facilities, industrial plants,
power generating stations)
in construction
Model applicability
practice
Table I.
Force account
Contractor
Government agencies,
corporate and institutional
owners establish an internal
QA program (e.g. state
highway departments)
The owner may employ
specialized consultants for
unusual construction
conditions or short duration
work
Trained and indoctrinated
personnel from the parent
organization with direct
owner control during
construction perform the
tasks at this level
Used for public works
construction, and by
contractors, and public and
private owners where a series
of projects having a repetitive
type of construction is
anticipated (e.g. highways,
bridges)
Contractor
Contractor
Responsibility for QC and QA
is placed on the contractor.
The project owner or designer
may have limited
administrative roles such as
assuming final audits. The
contractor may assign a
superintendent or engineer as
a nominal QA representative
The contractor usually
subcontracts all or part of the consultants perform the tasks
inspection, testing and
engineering functions to
outside testing laboratories
and consulting engineers
Military, corporate and
institutional organizations
require this type of approach
Special consultant
Contractor
The special consultants are
responsible for administering
the QA program. They are
usually design professionals,
construction management
firms, or sophisticated testing
laboratories employed by the
owner, and are independent of
both the designer and the
contractor
Personnel from the special
at this level
Mainly used on projects with
complex or highly specialized
QA requirements, and where a
clear determination of liability
is required. Applications of
this approach include
contracts for soils and
foundation inspections,
concrete placements and field
welding
construction
Highway
541
IJQRM form the quality system. It should define policies, goals, and objectives of the
20,5 organization and its interfaces (ASQC, 1997).

Quality management procedures

Quality management procedures address the where, who, what, and when of
important quality activities (Hayden, 1996). They translate the requirements of
542 the quality manual into procedures needed for the department to comply with
quality requirements (Pekar, 1995). Samples from quality management
procedures on equipment calibration are presented as follows (Pekar, 1995):
Test equipment will be certified in accordance with Quality Assurance Work Instructions,
and shall be tested against devices certified and traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).

Test equipment determined to be accurate and reliable through examination by Metrology

will be certified and the results of the examination recorded on the computer through
application of the calibration software.

Work instructions
These contain instructional details on how to execute work, so that the
requirements of the quality management procedures can be achieved. They
spell out the scope of work, responsibilities, method statement, inspection
plans, and forms to record results (Pekar, 1995; ASQC, 1997). A sample work
instruction for a calibration procedure is provided below (Pekar, 1995):
Readings are taken in three random locations along the measurement range for inside and
depth measurements using the calibration test stand.

Specifications
AASHTO (1968) (cited in Gendell and Masuda, 1988) defined specifications as
“the compilation of provisions and requirements for the performance of
prescribed work”. Specifications may contain elements of more than one
specification form, usually related to materials of construction, techniques of
construction, equipment used during construction, or performance of the
finished product as well as its plans of acceptance and payment. Given the
change in size and complexity of the highway construction industry,
specifications for highway construction have been evolving with the
development of improved performance predictors and methods of measuring
compliance (Chamberlin, 1995). Traditional specifications, known as method
specifications or prescription (materials and methods) specifications, were the
earliest form used. They are specified by the highway agency and include exact
materials, proportioning and mixing limits, and procedures for the contractor
to follow (Chamberlin, 1995). Variability in material property and construction
techniques is not considered, while full pay can be granted as long as the
contractor complies with the methods assigned. The major shortcoming of
traditional specifications is that “even when properly followed, the Highway
specifications may not always produce the desired end result” (Chamberlin, construction
1995). This is because they are based on past conditions that may not be similar
to the current situation. Moreover, they do inhibit potential innovations in
construction initiated by the contractor. Method specifications require that an
inspector be present on the site at all times, in order to determine whether the
contractor complied with the specification requirements (Roberts et al., 1996).
543
An example of typical statements included in a method specification for
compaction is as follows (Roberts et al., 1996):
The air temperature at the time of placement shall be at least 408F (4.48C) and rising or shall
be above 458F (7.28C) if falling. Initial rolling shall include at least 2 coverages with a 10-ton
vibratory roller. Intermediate rolling shall be performed with 6 coverages of a rubber-tired
roller. The minimum roller weight shall be 15 tons (13Mg) and the tire pressure shall be at
least 90psi (621kPa). Intermediate rolling shall be completed before the mixture cools below
1758F (79.48C). The final rolling shall be accomplished with a tandem steel-wheeled roller.
Sufficient passes shall be made with the final roller to remove all roller marks and other
pavement irregularities. All rollers shall be operated at a speed not to exceed 3 miles per hour
(4.8km/hour). All rollers shall stay as close as practical behind the paver or roller in front of it.
In order to meet the complexity of construction, specifications continue to
evolve and reflect the development of highway technology in which the quality
of the end product is assessed using “specific measurable attributes, and can be
determined by controlling selected materials and construction (M&C) variables
through the processes of design, inspection, and testing at the time of
construction” (Chamberlin, 1995). These specifications are standardized with
some variations between different places and are called end-result
specifications (e.g. soil density). This type of specification holds the
contractor responsible for production, and allows the use of innovative
construction equipment and/or methods. However, variability and measuring
compliance to specifications remains problematic given the difficulty of
achieving 100 percent compliance to specification limits, even under tight
control (Chamberlin, 1995).
Statistical specifications for highway construction began in the 1960s and
are usually part of a statistical quality control. They sought a method to
measure the attributes and their compliance, which accounts for the inherent
variability in the M&C variables (i.e. by adjusting tolerances, and
acknowledging the difficulty of obtaining 100 percent compliance) and which
employs statistically-based acceptance sampling (Chamberlin, 1995). End-
result acceptance criteria have been combined with statistically-based
sampling procedures and have been referred to as statistical end-result
specifications (ERS). Setting quality levels and acceptance procedures remains
with the accepting agency, while the QC is the contractor’s responsibility.
Payment adjustments in these specifications reflect the amount of reduction
and the optimized risk distributed between owner and contractor, however this
amount does not relate to any loss of performance of the product/pavement
IJQRM (Chamberlin, 1995). Therefore, evidence of compliance cannot guarantee the
20,5 finished product performance given that the relation between the end product
characteristics and its performance remains unidentified.
In response to the previously stated deficiencies, research on specifications
has focused on performance-related features since the early 1980s. Essentially,
performance-related specifications (PRS) for highway construction aim at
544 improving specifications “to reflect the best understanding of what determines
quality and to create a contractual framework that maximizes cost
effectiveness” (Chamberlin, 1995). Consequently, relationships between test
results and expected performance were sought. PRS are “specifications for key
M&C factors that have been demonstrated to correlate significantly with long-
term performance of the finished work. These specifications are based on
quantified relationships (models) between M&C characteristics measured at
the time of construction and subsequent performance. They include sampling
and testing procedures, quality levels and tolerances, and acceptance (or
rejection) criteria. Typically, PRS also include payment schedules with positive
and/or negative adjustments that are directly related through the performance
models to changes anticipated in the worth of the finished work as a result of
departure from the acceptable quality level” (Chamberlin, 1995). Recent
advances in PRS development and research can be found in Chamberlin (1995).
Trends in specifications reflecting warranty on pavement performance have
also been reported in Shober et al. (1996) and Schmitt et al. (1996). A distinction
needs to be made between different specifications associated with the term
performance. These specifications are defined as follows (Chamberlin, 1995):
.
Performance specification: defines how the end product should perform
over time (e.g. descriptions in terms of alterations in the physical
condition of pavement surface, response to load, or in terms of cumulative
traffic needed to drive the pavement into failure, etc.).
.
Performance-based specification: defines required levels of fundamental
engineering properties: (e.g. resilient modulus, fatigue properties) which
are predictors of performance and usually not amenable to acceptance
testing during construction.
.
Performance-related specification: defines required level of M&C factors
that correlate with fundamental engineering properties, which predict
performance. These factors are amenable to acceptance testing during
construction.

Acceptance plans
An acceptance plan is defined as “an agreed-upon method of taking and
making measurements on a sample for the purpose of determining the
acceptability of a lot of material or construction” (AASHTO, 1986, cited in
O’Connell, 1991). It is agreed upon by the contractor and the highway agency,
and defines the characteristic(s) which forms the basis for acceptance, the
sample size (the part of work to be accepted at a time), the sampling procedure, Highway
the frequency of testing, the method of testing, and the adjusted payment construction
schedule. It also includes the way in which the test results will be treated for the
purpose of judging the acceptability of the portion tested (Erickson, 1989). An
acceptance plan is usually part of a statistical ERS and can be of two types
(AASHTO, 1986, cited in O’Connell, 1991):
545
(1) it is based on attributes to which statistical procedures are applied and
the characteristics evaluated are checked as to whether they are present
or absent, hence reflecting acceptance or rejection;
(2) it is based on variables, which relies on a statistical procedure based on
measuring quantitatively the characteristics rather than counting them.
An example of an acceptance plan used by the New Mexico State Highway
Department, as cited in O’Connell (1991), is presented below:
The bituminous pavement structure course shall be divided into acceptance sections or lots
approximately 1,500 tons each for the purpose of defining areas represented by each series of
acceptance tests. The density of each acceptance section or lot will be evaluated by a
minimum of five tests with a portable nuclear density test device, in conformity with ASTM
D 2950, performed at randomly selected sites within the test section or by cut pavement
samples in conformity with AASHTO T-166. The mean density obtained for the five tests in
each acceptance section or lot shall be at least 93 percent of the established voidless density as
determined by the Rice procedure. In addition, each individual test value obtained within an
acceptance section or lot shall be at least 90 percent of the established voidless density and
shall not exceed 98 percent of voidless density.
The payment schedule is as follows:
The payment of a unit price will be adjusted for roadway density as outlined in the following
[Table II. Price adjustment for roadway density]. The adjustment will be applied on a lot by
lot basis for each lift. The adjustment will be based on the average of five density tests. The
price adjustment will be applied only to the pay item for Plant Mix Bituminous Pavement.

Adjustable payment plans

The purpose of the pay schedule is to define relationships between quality
levels and payment levels. It is a critical element in the acceptance plan, the
purpose of which is to define a way to handle the payment of a product that is
neither clearly acceptable nor rejectable (O’Connell, 1991). In traditional
specifications, payment terms were based on pass-fail with little consideration
to variability (Chamberlin, 1995). Defective work was either removed or
accepted at full price or accepted at reduced price. Negotiations for price
reductions were performed based on the case in question and reflected
arbitrary and inconsistent judgments. In statistical ERS where variability was
tolerated and compliance to specification could be measured accurately, it
became convenient to incorporate adjustable payment schedules into
construction specification as an additional tool to support the contract
agreement (Chamberlin, 1995).
IJQRM
Average density Percent of contract
20,5 % of maximum density price to be paid
a
Above 98
97 to 97.99 85
96 to 96.99 91
546 Between 93 and 96 100
92 to 92.99 96
91 to 91.99 91
90 to 90.99 85
a
Less than 90
Note: a This lot shall be removed and replaced to meet specification requirements as ordered by
the project manager. In lieu thereof, the contractor and the project manager may agree in writing
Table II. that for practical purposes, the lot shall not be removed and will be paid for at 50 percent of the
Price adjustment for contract price
roadway density Souce: New Mexico State Highway Department, cited in O’Connell (1991)

There are two basic types of adjusted payment schedules namely: the stepped
(tabular) and the continuous (O’Connell, 1991). In the stepped pay schedule the
pay factor is assigned to different discrete ranges of quality. An example of a
stepped pay schedule has been shown in Table II. The continuous pay schedule
relies on the percent pay reduction or percent of contract price to be reimbursed
in a form of an equation, which is a function of the quality level of the inspected
characteristic (O’Connell, 1991). Approaches to address adjustment payment
schedules development rely on two main concepts: plans built on judgment,
and plans considering a rational relationship between quality and performance
(Chamberlin, 1995). Judgment plans consider price reductions in accordance
with either the average of the quality characteristic under investigation, the
frequency of deviations, or the percent of work within tolerance determined
from the mean and standard deviation of inspected results (NCHRP, 1976, cited
in Chamberlin, 1995). “Judgment plans are not considered to be rational
because they are not supported by a relationship that quantitatively links the
payment schedule to the anticipated performance of the finished work”
(Chamberlin, 1995). Rational plans have been developed, since the 1980s, with a
consideration to the predicted cost associated with decreased or improved
performance (e.g. life cycle costs), rather than on the variation in the
performance itself (Chamberlin, 1995). As such M&C variables correlating with
performance and which fall under the contractor’s control, need to be identified
and segregated from variables which do not fall under the contractor’s control,
and be formulated in some mathematical algorithm relating them to pavement
performance (Chamberlin, 1995).

Inspection and test plan

An inspection and test plan is a plan prepared by quality management
personnel, in conjunction with contractors, and includes the acceptance criteria
of the product/process to be tested/inspected, and the responsibility, timing, Highway
frequency, scope, and method of inspection or testing. This document forms the construction
basis of quality verification, and describes the inspection and tests to be
undertaken in order to provide evidence of conformance to established
requirements (MoTH, 1992).

Inspection form and test report

547
Inspection forms and test reports are used to document inspection and test
results based on the agreement filed in the inspection and test plans. Other
inspection related reports are also used to keep a diary of activities (e.g. daily
diary report, daily summary report). Dates, routine weather comments,
inspection personnel, and unusual events affecting the activity are usually
noted (The Asphalt Institute, 1989). A daily summary report also summarizes
the results of all tests performed during the day and a list of all amounts of
materials received and used.

Non-conformance report
Nonconforming items are identified and reported on a nonconformance report,
which is reported by the QA/QC engineer/inspector to the QA manager. The
nonconformance is described and accordingly a disposition is prescribed for
remedial action as being either (MoTH, 1992):
.
“Do”: requires that the contractor will accomplish unachieved work.
.
“Re-do”: requires that all deficient work be removed and redone.
.
“Rework”: requires that the deficient item be repaired to make it
conforming.
.
“Use-as-is”: is filed when work is accepted as-is with some
nonconformance.
A corrective action is requested in case of repetitive nonconformances to
eliminate the root cause of the problem and avoid its recurrence. Time allocated
and verification of completion is also reported. In some cases the QA manager
files a corrective action request to the contractor as a separate document.

Corrective action request

This document contains a description of the proposed corrective action and
relevant completion and verification dates as well as approval sources (Arnold,
1994).

Construction deficiency report

Nonconforming items that do not exhibit a serious deficiency and can be
remedied by regular work practice are not reported on a nonconformance
report, but on a construction deficiency report and may be discarded after
completion of remedial work.
IJQRM Defect notice
20,5 In case a deficiency is noticed to be a safety hazard, which requires immediate
attention, the contractor must be notified immediately through a fast
communication medium (e.g. phone) (MoTH, 1992). Following the verbal
notification a “defect notice” is filed to confirm it. If corrective action is not
performed within specified time limits, a nonconformance report is filed to the
548 contractor.

Conclusions
This paper has described the quality management function as practiced in
highway construction. A system approach to quality management, which
highlights the main quality activities, has been presented. Documents and
records used in these activities have also been reviewed. A model for managing
quality has been defined and shown to apply to any construction domain and
organizational structure for developing and administering a quality assurance
program. The model involves multilevel quality management participation,
encompassing contractors, engineers, and managers. It describes the quality
management tasks and the roles assumed in a scheme relating construction
quality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them. This study
advances the understanding of how quality management is performed and
engages participants at several management levels.

References
AASHTO (1968), Highway Definitions, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1986), Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling
and Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1995), YACHT Quality Assurance Guide Specification, YACHT Joint
Construction/Materials Quality Assurance Task Force 6/21/95 ed., American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Arnold, K.L. (1994), The Manager’s Guide to ISO 9000, The Free Press, New York, NY.
(The) Asphalt Institute (1989), The Asphalt Handbook, Manual Series No. 4 (MS-4), The Asphalt
Institute, Lexington, KY.
ASQC (1997), Interpretive Guidelines for the Application of ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001-1994 or
Q9002-1994 for Owner’s, Designer’s, and Constructor’s Quality Management Systems,
ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Battikha, M. (2000a), “Integrating construction productivity and quality management”,
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference, CSCE, London, Ontario, pp. 150-7.
Battikha, M.G. (2002b), “QUALICON: computer-based system for construction quality
management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 2,
pp. 164-73.
Battikha, M. (2002c), “Problem patterns for infrastructure construction quality management”,
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technology in
Transportation, ASCE, Cambridge, MA, pp. 545-52.
Battikha, M.G. and Russell, A.D. (1998), “Construction quality management – present and Highway
future”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 401-11.
construction
Burati, J.L. Jr, Farrington, J.J. and Ledbetter, W.B. (1992), “Causes of quality deviations in design
and construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 1,
pp. 34-49.
Burati, J.L., Matthews, M.F. and Kalindindi, S.N. (1991), “Quality management in construction
industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117 No. 2, 549
pp. 341-59.
Chamberlin, W.P. (1968), “Report on workshop sessions for Portland Cement Concrete”,
Proceedings of the Statistical Quality Assurance Workshop, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, October 22-24, pp. 11-14.
Chamberlin, W.P. (1995), Performance-Related Specifications for Highway Construction and
Rehabilitation, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 212, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Construction Industry Institute (1989), Measuring the Cost of Quality in Design and Construction,
Publication 10-2, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY.
Davis, K., Ledbetter, W.B. and Burati, J.L. Jr (1989), “Measuring design and construction quality
costs”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 385-400.
Drummond, H. (1992), The Quality Movement: What Total Quality Management is All About,
Kogan Page/Nichols Publishing, London/East Brunswick, NJ.
Erickson, J. (1989), “Meeting the quality management issue on highway construction”, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 162-7.
Gendell, D.S. and Masuda, A. (1988), “Highway specifications: link to quality”, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Hayden, W.M. Jr (1996), “Connecting random acts of quality: global system standard”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 34-44.
Hester, W.T. (1979), “Alternative construction quality assurance programs”, Journal of the
Construction Division, Vol. 105 No. CO3, pp. 187-99.
International Organization for Standardization (1994), ISO 9001:1994 Quality Systems – Model
for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing, ISO,
Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization (2000), ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management
Systems – Requirements, ISO, Geneva.
MoTH (1992), Quality Assurance Program Manual, Province of British Columbia Ministry of
Transportation and Highways, Maintenance Branch, Maintenance of Provincial Roads
and Bridges, Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data, Victoria.
NCHRP (1976), Statistically Oriented End-Result Specifications, Synthesis of Highway Practice 38,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
O’Connell, K.J. (1991), “Risk analysis of statistically based acceptance plans for the construction
of highway pavement with application to density of bituminous concrete”, PhD
dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Omachonu, V.K. and Ross, J.E. (1994), Principles of Total Quality, St Lucie Press, St Lucie, FL.
Parti, E.W. (1996), “Issues in pursuing quality in faculty program development”, Journal of
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
IJQRM Pekar, J.P. (1995), Total Quality Management: Guiding Principles for Application, ASTM Manual
Series: MNL 22, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
20,5 Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R., Lee, D.-Y. and Kennedy, T.W. (1996), Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction, 2nd ed., NAPA Education Foundation,
Lanham, MD.
Rounds, J.L. and Chi, N.Y. (1985), “Total quality management for construction”, Journal of
550 Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 117-28.
Schmitt, R.L., Whited, G.C., Waelti, G.J., Hanna, A.S., Russell, J.S. and Bahia, H.U. (1996), “Current
initiatives in quality asphaltic pavement construction: the Wisconsin experience”,
Transportation Research Record, No. 1543, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 120-4.
Shober, S.F., Whited, G.C. and McMullen, K.W. (1996), “Wisconsin Departement of
Transportation’s asphaltic pavement warranties”, Transportation Research Record,
No. 1543, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
pp. 113-19.
Weigel, J.J. Jr, Cominsky, R.J. and Moulthrop, J.S. (1996), “Design and implementation of a
dynamic quality management system for HMA: a case study”, in Decker, D.S. (Ed.),
Quality Management of Hot Mix Asphalt, STP 1229, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA,
pp. 46-55.