Inspection and Other Strategies for Assuring Quality in Government Construction (1991)
Chapter: COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT OF AGENCY PRACTICES
COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT OF AGENCY PRACTICES
Overall the committee is impressed with the quality, dedication and success of every Federal Agency in performing its mission. Nevertheless the committee notes that there is room for improvement and is encouraged by the fact that the agencies are seeking ways to continually improve.
Agency quality management activities have been strongly questioned in some quarters. Evidence cited involves observed costs for correcting construction deficiencies. For example, one audit of selected DoD projects found that 82 percent of those projects contained . . . "defects that the construction contractors should have been required to fix either during construction or when it later became evident that the contractors had deviated from the plans and specifications." 23 Some critics argue that agencies depend too heavily on contractors' quality control systems for quality assurance on federal projects. These critics often call for increased inspection by agency staff or third-party contractors. While the committee does not share this view, we are convinced that agency practices can and should be improved, particularly with respect to the following observations:
Agency quality management practices vary too widely, especially when comparing DoD and DoE practices. Contractors performing work for more than one agency find themselves having to perform differently in different situations. This causes confusion, loss of efficiency, and an adverse effect on quality. One small, but important, improvement that should be made is to develop consistent definitions for quality and quality-related actions among all agencies.
Of all the agency practices reviewed, the committee considered the Corps of Engineers quality practices to be the most
