Inspection and Other Strategies for Assuring Quality in Government Construction (1991)
Chapter: SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE'S DELIBERATIONS
and extensive experience to undertake this study.4 This document is a report of that committee's deliberations.
SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE'S DELIBERATIONS
The BRB's committee examined the factors that affect the need for inspection, and the extent and nature of inspection during construction, with the goal of recommending techniques for enhancing the value of inspection that will achieve more cost-effective construction of federal projects. Most federal facilities are constructed under fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of open competitive bidding. Agencies use detailed design criteria and construction specifications to describe the characteristics of materials and workmanship required, and use inspection to monitor contractor compliance.
The committee met several times during a period of about one year, and heard testimony of federal agency representatives and experts in the private sector and academia. Early in their deliberations, the committee agreed that construction quality is inextricably related to design quality, and that inspection is only one of a number of methods for assuring quality in the constructed facility. More importantly, the committee found that many of the problems perceived with construction quality in the United States today are beyond the reach of inspection. While the committee's work was focused on inspection, the committee's report unavoidably touches on design and other strategies for achieving quality.
In particular, the committee asserted that in their judgment major problems of quality in U.S. construction today begin in planning and design. Construction contractors are expected to deliver facilities that conform to requirements presented in drawings and specifications prepared by planners and designers. If these drawings and specifications are not accurate, complete,
4 | Biographical sketches of the committee members are presented in Appendix A. |
and clearly presented, or if they describe a facility unlikely to meet the needs of owner and users, even the most careful and conscientious construction will not deliver quality. Cost growth in construction—costs greater than were estimated in design—is one indicator of lost quality.
If the design is effective in getting the requirements right and estimating accurately, then cost growth is attributable to construction problems. However, this is not often the case. One study in the private sector involving the construction of nine fast-track5 industrial projects revealed that the cost of repair or replacement (rework), an average of more than 12 percent of the total installed project costs, was attributable primarily to design errors (25 percent) and owner and designer changes (54 percent), and only 17 percent to construction errors.6 These rework costs were borne by the owner in the form of contract modifications or change orders.
In the federal sector, design is generally completed prior to issuance of construction contracts. A study of projects constructed for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) found average cost growth of approximately 6 percent attributable primarily to design error (50 to 65 percent) and owner changes (23 to 35 percent).7 More recent data furnished the committee by the Corps and NAVFAC indicate that similar cost growth is still
