WHY DOING IT THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT DOESN’T DO IT ANYMORE

Introduction:

For the most part, what has been easy to develop in California has already been developed.  In the next wave of post-recession residential construction, large subdivision development of massive amounts of single-family detached product are giving way to high-density mixed-use in-fill projects in urban and previously developed areas.  With the shift in product type, there is a shift in construction type.  Construction in the next cycle will predominantly be made up of significantly more complex steel and/or concrete structures with much more complex building systems designed for mixed use applications and incorporating new technologies in building components. 

The current “state-of-the-art” in Third-Party Quality Assurance as is known in the residential wrap-up insurance business has evolved from practices developed specifically for single-family detached residential projects.   These inspection practices are, for the most part, universally accepted by the insurance carriers requiring third-party quality assurance.   They do not, however, represent the best practices available for large, complex high-density residential and commercial projects.  By exploring the differences between single-family detached projects and the large, complex projects, the shortcomings in the prevalent quality assurance programs become apparent.  By recognizing the specific project dynamics encountered in commercial and high-density projects and focusing the quality assurance effort in the right places, a much more effective quality assurance program becomes possible at considerably less effort, and therefore considerably less cost.

“STATE-OF-THE-ART” FOR THIRD PARTY QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES:

Historically, quality assurance providers in the residential construction industry have done a wonderful job of developing and defining the concept of Third Party Quality Assurance and establishing the benchmark for the service in the minds of the insurance industry.   However, their experience and perspective was clearly based on the single-family detached point of view.  They focused their approach on standard details, standard checklists, and sampling of units, which are all valid when dealing with merchant builders of single-family detached product located in suburban areas.  The insurance industry would be best served to approach high-density residential and commercial projects from a fresh perspective.

UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS:

High-rise residential construction projects are far more similar to major commercial construction projects than single-family detached projects. With high-rise residential projects and commercial projects, we are dealing with a completely different type of construction, a different type of contractor and a different “culture” when it comes to practices and standards of care.  The following are a few contrasts in these two different corners of the industry:

• Construction Type:  Single-Family detached projects and typical low-rise multi-family projects are most commonly built utilizing conventional wood frame construction.  They are predominately one and two stories for Single-Family projects and three to four stories for Low Rise construction projects.  In contrast, High-Rise/Mid-Rise residential and commercial construction are commonly built utilizing non-combustible steel or concrete structural systems.  High-Rise construction, defined as those buildings exceeding 75 feet in height, is required to be of Type I construction.

Type I construction requires the use of non-combustible structural elements such as reinforced concrete, fire protected steel, or masonry.  Mid-Rise buildings may be constructed to maximum height of 65 feet and may be constructed of Type I, II, III construction which does not allow use of conventional wood framing as the primary structural system.  

Types I & II Building Elements are of noncombustible materials. 

Type III Exterior walls are of noncombustible materials and the interior building elements are of any material permitted by the code. 

Type IV H. T. (Heavy Timber) – Exterior walls are of noncombustible materials and the            interior building elements are of solid or laminated wood without concealed spaces. 

Type V Structural elements, exterior and interior walls are of any materials permitted by the code. 

1. Fire-resistance rated construction. 
2. Non fire-resistance rated construction.

• General Practice:  Type V construction is more commonly supervised by “merchant builders” typically incorporating more standard residential building systems and involving less technically sophisticated tradesmen.  High-Rise/Mid-Rise construction are typically supervised by general contractors or construction managers who are engaged by the developer under fairly comprehensive contract requirements.  The construction involves more complex and diverse building components with more complex issues at system interfaces.  The controls process necessary to deal with these issues are, therefore, more sophisticated than single-family or low- rise residential construction and requires more involvement in the construction process by the design professionals. 
• Role of the Architect:  In Type V construction projects, the Architect rarely plays a significant role in contract administration, shop drawing review, and Request for Information (RFI) processes.  On Type I projects the Architect should play a significant role to verify general compliance with design intent and is the “final decision maker with regard to design intent” per most standard contracts when it comes to interpretation of design intent and typically plays a significant contract administration role throughout the construction process.  On Type V projects, the Architect is commonly on an “on call” basis during the construction phase and plays a very minimal, if any, role in contract administration.
• Use of Design Documents:  On Type V projects, the plans and specifications are not held as the true authority when it comes to details and specifications.  Commonly, the primary purpose of the plans is to obtain a permit.  The details and material selections are worked out through the 

builder’s purchasing department and in the construction of model homes, which then become the template for subsequent home construction.  On High-Rise/Mid-Rise projects, the plans and specifications are the absolute authority for contract scope of work and project requirements.

• Submittal Process:  On Single-Family and most Low-Rise projects, there is rarely a formalized submittal process involving the design professionals.  The developer’s purchasing department makes decisions on the products utilized in the project.  On High-Rise/Mid-Rise projects, there should be a comprehensive submittal and shop drawing approval process where compatibility and interface issues are worked out and where the design professionals can confirm that the Contractor’s proposed materials and detailing selections meet the design intent of the plans and specifications It is imperative that the submittal and approval process is accomplished prior to material procurement and installation.
• Requests for Information (RFI) Process:  Usually far less formal on Single-Family/Low-Rise projects, where the project superintendent typically resolves questions as they come up in the field.  On High-Rise/Mid-Rise projects, highly successful contractors insist on a formal process of getting the answers from the design professionals and Owner in writing as a part of their own risk management processes.  
• Safety:  Single-Family/Low-Rise projects tend to see more minor injuries due to misuse of power tools and fall risks from two-story homes is significantly different than fall risks in High-Rise projects.  Typically on Single-Family/Low-Rise projects, hardhat rules are more lax as well as all formal safety rules and enforcement practices by the builder.  On High-Rise/Mid-Rise projects the risks of serious injury are greater, hardhat requirements are typically enforced, and we typically see a much more sophisticated approach to safety awareness and enforcement.

On High-Rise/Mid-Rise projects, the repercussions of not having the proper management control systems in place for the execution of the project can be great and can result in excessive change orders, budget overruns and project delay as well as defective construction. Prevalent quality assurance practices derived from single-family detached and low-rise residential construction focus the majority of effort on field inspections.  In High-Rise residential construction, catching it in the field is far too late.  

If an improperly flashed window is discovered on a detached housing project, it can simply be corrected.  If a curtain wall system on a High-Rise project is discovered to be incorrectly flashed, the cost to cure can be significant and the impact of delaying the project could be substantial.  Therefore, it is critical in High-Rise residential projects to avoid the problems in the first place.    The most effective and efficient approach to assuring quality in a High-Rise/Mid-Rise project is to focus significant effort prior to the start of construction and during the initial phases of each construction activity.  Establishing a good quality assurance strategy that defines the necessary preparatory, initial and follow up phases by the builder allow the Quality Assurance Program to be a confirmation and verification process.   

QUALITY ASSURANCE APPROACH FOR COMMERCIAL AND HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:

• Outline of Best Practices: 

The following approach has been developed specifically for High-Rise/Mid-Rise construction projects being built utilizing best management practices in their design and construction.  

• General Description of Approach:  

The Quality Assurance Program Manager (QAPM) will work together with the insurer to prepare a comprehensive Constructor questionnaire that is focused on determining whether the Constructor has the proper management control systems in place and that the design professionals have been engaged to provide the appropriate services to the construction process.  The QAPM will provide a comprehensive review of the plans and specifications, require responses from the design team and follow through to reconcile all identified plan review issues.  The QAPM will review all of the critical aspects of the contractor’s approach to the project management and quality control strategies.  Then, the QAPM will confirm that these processes are being implemented in the field as a part of his/her field observation process.

• Project Design and Management Practices Criteria:

1. Architect Involvement – Minimum Requirements:
2. Architect required to review and approve all submittals and shop drawings
3. Architect required to conduct regular periodic consultation and field visits and provide field observation reports to the Owner/Constructor and QAPM
4. Architect required to review & approve all change orders and RFI’s
5. Architect required to provide appropriate specialty consultant team such as Acoustical Consultant, Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning, Electrical and Low Voltage Systems consultants. 
6. Commissioning Services: Owner is required to have a building commissioning consultant as a part of the project team.
7. Early Plan Review:  90% Construction Drawings and Specifications required to be reviewed by QAPM and Plans to be made available for review at 90% complete construction document phase.
8. Involvement of appropriate manufacturer’s technical representatives in design process and involvement in submittals and installation process to preserve manufacturer’s warranties.
9. The project has a well-defined process for Requests for Information (RFI’s) and Submittal/Shop Drawing approval process.
10. Constructor to have their own established quality control program:
    1. Contractor to have a designated Quality Control Manager as primary function.
    2. Quality Control Manager (CCM) to provide daily report addressing quality of the work, items requiring re-work and follow up.
    3. Project has comprehensive Special Inspection program.
    4. Project has full time certified inspector on special or exotic systems such as EIFS and Green Roof systems.
    5. A program shall be in place to ensure follow up and resolution on all discovered open issues identified through inspections by the design team, special inspectors, and QAPM.
11. Contractor has made sure that there are certified applicators on all systems where certified applicators are required to preserve manufacturer’s warranty.
12. Contractor has a Mock-Up program for critical or complex building components and systems.

1. Contractor has a comprehensive project schedule (CPM) with regular monthly schedule updates.

1. Contractor has a well-defined Safety Program.

• Assurance and Confirmation Process – Outline of QAPM Services:

1. Plan Review:
   1. Detailed review of the project plans at the 90% complete level
   2. Review the geotechnical and other design critical reports 
   3. Issue a detailed commentary on the plans and plan details
   4. Require responses from the project design consultants
   5. Work with design consultants to reconcile plan and detail issues
   6. Clean –up review at 100% complete plans

1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Developer and Architect:
   1. Review duties of Architect
   2. Review composition of design team and specialty consultants
   3. Review for involvement of manufacturer’s technical representatives
   4. Specification review for manufacturer’s warranty requirements
   5. Review architect’s administrative practices for RFI’s and submittals

1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Developer, Architect and Contractor:
   1. Review contractor’s administrative practices for RFI’s and submittals
   2. Review contractor’s Quality Control program
   3. Review Special Inspection program
   4. Review inspection plan for exotic systems
   5. Review contractor’s plan for self-performed work
   6. Review subcontractor list for certified applicators
   7. Review contractor’s mock-up program
   8. Review of contractor’s schedule and update practices
   9. Review contractor’s Safety Program

1. Document review of all program documents.

1. Pre-construction meeting with project team.

1. Site meeting at start of all critical systems installations.

1. Monthly project review and field quality assurance inspections.

COMPARATIVE COST OF THIS APPROACH

As with all consulting services, the cost of the service is related to the level of effort rand the level of experience required to perform the service.  As you can see, this program focuses a considerable amount of effort at the front end.  Experienced construction managers know that the level of effort required to achieve a measured effect on the project outcome increases exponentially over the time from concept to completion of a project.   

The greatest effort should be focused on making sure the right practices are in place in the first place then the follow on effort is related to making sure these best practices are being maintained and field verification of installation practices.

The prevailing approach to quality assurance is dependent on catching errors in the field before they are covered up.  The energy is focused at the “back end” in an effort to catch problems before they are covered up. This is extremely ineffective on large complex projects and can lead to intolerable delay and disruption in the construction process.  The level of effort required to have a meaningful effect on quality with a “back end” approach is extremely high, therefore, due to market constraints, these programs are typically watered down to the point of being  ineffective. 

The level of effort required to provide the prevailing approach to quality assurance derived from Single-Family detached home construction tends to be directly related to the quantity of units inspected.  The level of effort to provide the approach detailed in the comprehensive methods as described above is independent of unit count and more related to project size, complexity and duration of construction.

The QAPM based comprehensive approach outlined above is projected to be cost competitive with a traditional quality assurance program.  A specific proposal should be prepared for each project based on the design, the systems incorporated into the project and the anticipated construction timeframe.  Generally, the larger the project, the greater the savings will be over a standard market rate quality assurance program.  Key to the success of such a comprehensive program is the experience of the QAPM and his or her ability to understand the project from a technical detail and systems perspective as well as a construction management perspective.