Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DPWH QUALITY POLICY
1.0QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY
1.1Background and Purpose1.2Basis1.3Scope1.4Implementation
2.0ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1QAU Steering Committee2.2QAU Validation Team 2.3QAU Technical
Working Group2.4QAU Teams
3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
3.1Quality Assurance Procedures3.2Quality Assurance Review and
Approval3.3The Five-Year Quality Management Implementation
Program3.4Adoption of Current AASHTO Quality Assurance Program by
the DPWH3.5Observations on Existing QA Program
Implementation3.5.1The Existing Project Implementation Culture in
the Implementing Offices3.5.2Unitemized Quality Control in Civil
Works Contracts3.5.3Lack of resources for Department staff
undertaking quality assurance duties3.5.4Lack of Testing Equipment
in Implementing Office Laboratory3.5.5Lack of trained and qualified
personnel3.5.6Status of the QA Programs of the Department
3.5.7Standardization of the regional and district
laboratories3.5.8Accreditation of private testing
laboratories3.5.9Accreditation of Contractors' and Consultants'
materials engineers3.5.10Accreditation of Asphalt and Portland
Cement Concrete Batching Plants3.5.11Handbook of Proper
Construction Methodology3.5.12Standard Specifications for Public
Works and Highways3.5.13Accreditation and Assignment of Project
Engineers and Project Inspectors3.5.14Information
Awareness3.5.15Imposition of administrative sanctions to erring
engineers involved in the defective implementation of DPWH
projects3.5.16Quality Management System (QMS)3.5.17Benchmarking of
Existing Quality Management Practice3.5.18Poor document filing
system in the Implementing Offices.
4.0REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS OF CURRENT QAU PRACTICES AND THE
CORRESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1The Role of the Quality Assurance Units (QAUs)4.2QAU
Documentation4.2.1Checking of Documents4.2.2Insufficient and
limited standard forms used by current QAU In-House Team.
4.2.3Project Selection4.3Field Inspection4.3.1Not clearly defined
and disorganized policy and procedures in the conduct of project
assessment.4.3.2Design deficiency on the approved plan. 4.3.3Action
Taken4.3.4Quality versus Quantity Assessment4.4Report
Preparation4.4.1After field trips of QAU inspectors, reports are
then forwarded to Encoders for typing.4.4.2No established or
standard common recommendation for common types of defects causing
unending correction of reports.4.4.3Draft report submission within
five (5) days would not be possible but can generate an electronic
copy containing only Findings/Observations, Recommendations and
Action Taken together with the Photograph of Defects.4.4.4Pavement
cracks do not have clear classification with corresponding
recommendations.4.4.5No linkage/gateway of the current IT system to
incorporate the QAU reporting system.4.5Outdated IT system of BRS.
4.6Budgetary allocation for QAU is not included in the proposed
annual program of the Department.4.7Performance of Implementing
Offices in the two-year period of QA Consultants4.8Capacity
building of the Departments Central Office and Regional QAUs4.9QA
Program Awareness drive4.10Fast tracking of documentation
system4.11Output4.1224-hour report submission4.13Photograph
logs4.14Quality Management Plan4.15Quality Assurance Policy and
Procedures Manual
DPWH QUALITY POLICYWe, at DPWH, commit to provide quality, safe
and environment friendly public infrastructure facilities that will
improve and safeguard the life of every Filipino.We commit to
comply with all requirements and continue to strive for improving
effectiveness and efficiency in serving the public.We endeavor to
implement the RIGHT PROJECTS at the RIGHT COST determined through
transparent and competitive bidding; the RIGHT QUALITY, according
to international standards, delivered RIGHT ON TIME with close
monitoring of project implementation. All to be carried out by the
RIGHT PEOPLE, competent, committed and ethical, that will uphold
the values of professionalism, excellence, integrity, public
service and teamwork.
1QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY1.1Background DPWH implemented a
Quality Management System to develop a professional internal
organization with the aim to optimize the results and fulfill the
responsibilities towards increasing the level of public
infrastructures in the Philippines. This entails process of
continuous improvement and the assurance of conformity to the
customers and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
Continuous improvement, demonstrating integrity, accountability and
transparency are the guiding principles of the daily activities of
the Department.
The terms quality assurance and quality control were often used
interchangeably referring to ways to ensure quality in a service or
product. The terms, however, have different meanings. Quality
Assurance (QA) refers to the processes and procedures that
systematically monitor different aspects of a service, process or
facility to detect, correct and ensure that quality standards are
being met. Quality Control (QC) on the other hand is the systematic
way applying techniques and activities maintain a desired level of
quality in an existing product or service through planning, proper
use of equipment and methods, inspection and as required,
corrective actions. QA is broader in scope than that of QC.
Currently, the DPWH is adopting the quality management concept
which brought about noticeable development in improving quality
measurable by comparisons against international standards through
benchmarking. Outside of these improvements, issues and
deficiencies are parts of any public projects and the Departments
target is to minimize this concerns all for the benefit of the
travelling public.
Implementation of Quality Assurance Program on all government
infrastructure projects is the very objective of the DPWH. To
realize this objective, Private Consultants and experts are
necessary to gather superior inputs combining the knowledge and
experience of both the private sector and the government. This
partnership is vital to achieve and expand coverage of assessment
and inspection of projects and facilities every quarter. In line
for improvement, capacity building of the Central Office and
Regional QAUs, as well as compliance of projects and
specifications, will be emphasized and specifications as
incorporated in the Quality Policy. As the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) entered its 24th year of auditing civil
work projects using quality assurance methods, following the
creation of the Quality Assurance Units (QAUs) under Department
Order No. 26, Series of 1990, further strengthened through
Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 - Implementation of the
Quality Management System (QMS) Manual, the Department has been
very vigilant in its campaign to implement Quality Assurance
Program on all government infrastructure projects. Currently, the
DPWH is adopting the quality management concept which is an
essential tool towards improving quality measurable by comparisons
with international standards through benchmarking.
In order to realize this objective, the Department strengthened
the QAU through the utilization of Consultants, the first time in
the history of DPWH. The Department engaged the services of QA
Consultants to implement and further improve the existing Quality
Assurance Program in all government infrastructure projects, to
further increase the coverage of QA inspection works by at least
15%, and capacity building of the Departments Central Office and
Regional QAUs. The use of quality assurance methods has brought
about measurable improvements in quality, as reported in the Annual
Rating Reports of Quality Control Performance in Project
Implementation. Since, there are still points for improvement of
the entire QA system at work to further strengthen the quality
performance of all participants and stakeholders in the quality
assurance system. Defects and deficiencies are still all too common
on projects, and more effective means to reduce them need to be
identified. The Department continues to suffer from a poor image
with the traveling public, primarily due to the late completion of
projects, the poor quality of constructed works and the state of
repair of existing roads.
1.2PurposeTo achieve quality, a system of processes and
procedures must be manifested. The QAU is adopting a new system to
reflect its competence in their functions together with independent
auditing authorities to maintain a higher level of quality and
efficiency in the performance of the mandated tasks of the DPWH.
What is important in this endeavor is the cooperation of all the
officers and staff.
The QAU policy is to maintain an effective and efficient quality
assurance process. Such process underwent critical planning and
development together with the QAU Steering Committee and the QAU
Members. Through this cooperation, they outlined a series of
policies and procedures, including codes and regulations of
practice, as well as the assistance of private firms to minimize
lapses, deficiencies and inaccuracies in the construction of public
facilities and roads.
The assurance of quality is fundamental for all works undertaken
by the QAU and should be implemented by all member staff in their
work. To that effect the QAU shall:
Maintain consistency in work method throughout the duration of
the assessment/inspection in accordance with policies, procedures,
regulations and codes of practice and without unnecessary deviation
whatsoever. Ensure that all policies, procedures, relevant
regulations and codes of practice are implemented and
systematically reviewed to reflect the QAUs values.
Regularly monitor and measure the quality of its work methods,
outputs and outcomes with a view to ensuring high quality
standards, best value and continuous improvement.
The present document, Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures,
This document concentrates primarily on the QAU compliance auditing
level, but the same principles would apply to assessment/inspection
of other structural risks. This builds on the foundation of
existing QAU Quality-based Framework and the Five-Year Quality
Management Implementation (2006-2010). Thus, the DPWHs Quality
Assurance Policy and Procedures establishes the principles and
mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity, utility, accuracy and
integrity of DPWH QA Program and products and services.1.2BasisThe
quality assurance policies and procedures contained herein are
founded on the DPWH existing QA Policy and future directions as
stated in its Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program
and are congruent with existing documents and manuals, as well as:
DPWH Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways, Volume
II, Highways, Bridges and Airports (Blue Book), 2012 Edition DPWH
Standard Specifications for Public Works Structures, 1995 Edition
Project Assessment handbook for BRIDGES Project Assessment Handbook
for Roads Constructors Performance Evaluation System (CPES)
Implementing Guidelines for Infrastructure Projects International
standards ISO 9001 Department Order No. 73 Series of 2012 -
Creation of the DPWH ISO Quality Management System (QMS) Teams
Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 - Implementation of the
Quality Management System (QMS) Manual Quality Management Plan
(QMP) American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) American Concrete Institute (ACI) American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) American Welding Society (AWS) Philippine
National Standards (PNS) National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP) Occupational Safety and Health Standards Manual
(OSHS) Contract Supplemental Technical Specifications and Special
Provisions Other DPWH Issuances of Department Orders and Memorandum
Circulars1.3ScopeThese quality assurance policies and procedures
will apply to all: Yearly QA Program of the Department Five-Year
Quality Management Implementation Program Quality Management plan
(QMP) QA Project Assessments CPES Assessments1.4ImplementationThis
Policy is implemented through Quality Assurance Procedures that are
fully integrated into the annual operational planning,
implementation and reporting cycles. These procedures include: an
Annual Quality Management Plan specific Quality Assurance Project
Plans; and specific Data and Information Quality Assurance
PlansThese operational procedures are supported by QA Project
Assessment guidelines, review procedures, and other operational
standards and guidelines as required.2.0Roles and
Responsibilities2.1QAU STEERING COMMITTEEAs the name suggests, a
Steering Committee helps to steer a project through from start to
completion. Sometimes it might be formed entirely by staff from the
organization developing and implementing the project, but more
usually it is made up of representatives of key organizations who
are partners in the project, and/or who have particular expertise
to lend to the project, and/or whose clients are the intended users
of the output of the project. It is very important (and useful) to
include at least one client of the service, or potential user of
the project that is being developed, as their views can be helpful
in ensuring that the project is correctly targeted. The QAU
Steering Committee (QAU-SC) through the Chairman shall be
responsible for the selection and direction of the QAU Teams in the
conduct of Quality Assurance Inspection and Assessment for various
DPWH Projects nationwide.The QAU-SC is also responsible for the
approval of the recommendations given by the QAU Teams as well as
the issuance of action memoranda for various DPWH implementing
offices.The QAU-SC shall create Validation Team and the Technical
Working Group composed of selected members as may be designated by
the Chairman with responsibilities provided in Section 4.2 QAU
Validation Team and Section 4.3 QAU Technical Working Group. The
QAU-SC shall impose appropriate sanctions to erring DPWH officials
and project personnel based on the following criteria: For Regional
Directors, Assistant Regional Directors for Operations, Project
Directors, Assistant Project Directors, Project Managers, Assistant
Project Managers, District Engineers, Assistant District Engineers
and Chiefs of Construction Divisions/Sections of Field Offices,
sanctions shall be based on the quarterly ratings of quality
control performance in project implementation pursuant to
Memorandum dated 07 April 1989 as amended by Department Order No.
137, series of 1991. Department Order No. 9, series of 2004,
further amends Department Order No. 137 shifting the quality
control rating to quarterly. For Project Engineers, Resident
Engineers and Materials Engineers, sanctions shall be based in
defective work as noted in the QAU report and shall be imposed if
the written explanations submitted relative to the
defects/deficiencies noted in the projects are deemed not
acceptable. Likewise, sanctions shall be based on the nature and
extent of the defects/deficiencies noted on both on-going and
completed projects.The QAU-SC Chairman may also impose appropriate
sanctions to QAU teams for misconduct upon recommendation of the
QAU Validation Teams and after given due process.2.2QAU VALIDATION
TEAM The QAU Validation Teams shall validate the findings and
observations and corrective actions implemented on site by the
concerned implementing offices based on the project
assessment/inspection reports submitted by the QAU teams.
Validation inspections shall be conducted immediately upon
submission of the said inspection reports on selected regions as
may be directed by the Chairman. 2.3QAU TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPThe
QAU Technical Working Group (QAU-TWG) as technical arm of the
QAU-SC shall continuously review, assess and evaluate the policies
and procedures prescribed in this manual, likewise, identify the
areas for improvement.The QAU-TWG shall evaluate all reports
submitted by the QAU teams and may recommend for corresponding
action memoranda for endorsement to QAU-SC.The QAU-TWG shall
evaluate all written explanations and planned corrective actions
submitted by the concerned implementing offices and may recommend
such actions to the QAU-SC.The QAU-TWG shall evaluate the quality
performance ratings of all implementing offices on a quarterly
basis in accordance with the assessment/inspection report submitted
by the QAU teams.2.4QAU TEAMS2.4.1. The QAU Teams shall be
responsible for regular inspection and assessment activities
including its documentation, to wit: Briefing officials in the
field Selection of projects to be inspected Checking project
documents Actual field inspection Preparation of
Inspection/Assessment Reports Monitoring of corrective
actions2.4.2. At any given time, the QAU Teams may be directed to
conduct investigation of complained projects which includes the
following: Actual field inspection Verify materials on-site by
submission of samples to BRS laboratory to check compliance with
the specification requirements Prepare investigation report with
corresponding analysis of findings and recommendations, including
action memoranda to be submitted to the office of the
Undersecretary concerned. Monitoring of recommended course of
actions on the defects/deficiencies which were forwarded to the
concerned implementing office in the preparation of the monitoring
report.2.4.3. The QAU Team shall prepare the quarterly ratings
based on the results of project inspection/assessment by evaluating
the quality control performance of the Regional Offices (ROs),
District Engineering Offices (DEOs) and Project Management Offices
(PMOs). This includes the assessment of materials quality control
and construction procedures in the implementation of DPWH projects.
It also takes into account the capability of the organizational
unit to implement, resources-wise, the DPWH quality assurance
program.2.4.4. The QAU members who are selected by the Committee as
trainer/resource speaker shall conduct extensive training to
augment for the number of the QAU members to further increase the
coverage of the inspection based on assessment requirements as
defined by the Office of the Secretary of the DPWH through
QAU-SC.3.0QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES IN REVIEWSince the
participation of QA Consultants in the DPWH projects quality audit,
deficiencies have been observed which basically focused on the
quality aspects of the projects in each implementing office
concerned. General issues of concerns are also noted and
highlighted in this manual for guidance and improvement. The
Five-Year Quality Management Program was also reviewed to identify
weaknesses that need further improvement. Thus, this manual is a
guide for improvement and that the decision-making by senior
management is now quality-based and all members of the organization
are expected to be quality conscious.3.1Quality Assurance
ProceduresThis Quality Assurance Policy is implemented through
Quality Assurance Procedures that are fully integrated into the
annual operational planning and reporting cycle. These procedures
apply to the following: an Annual Quality Assurance Plan; specific
Quality Assurance Project Assessment Plans (for each project
assessment); and specific Data and Information Quality Assurance
Plans (for each planned database or information service).The
procedures set out below are supported by publications and
editorial guidelines and review procedures, and other operational
standards and guidelines as required.These procedures will be
reviewed annually and recommended changes put forward for approval
with the Operational Plan.3.2Quality Assurance Review and
ApprovalQA Reviews and approvals follow specific procedures for
Internal and External Reviews.Internal ReviewsPreliminary internal
reviews of draft Quality Assurance Plan will be carried out by the
QAU Steering Committee and the other parties as soon as
practicable. Revised publications are subject to a second review by
the Bureau and the parties. The Bureau of Research and Standards
(BRS) will be included in preliminary and second reviews of certain
documents or as otherwise agreed.Steering Committee Review assures
compliance with Quality Assurance Project Plans and associated
procedures. Following any external reviews, documents will go
through final review by QAU Technical Working Group, Bureau
Committee Chairman, and designated Division Chiefs.External
ReviewsFollowing an internal review, certain documents may be
subject to external reviews by experts, peers and the designated
committee members of other bureaus.Peer Review verifies whether the
work satisfies the specifications for review, identifies deviations
from standards, and suggests improvements. Reviewers will be
selected based upon criteria of expertise, balance, independence
and the absence of any conflict of interest.Expert Review seeks the
review and comment of qualified experts in the specific subject
matter.3.3The Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program
(2006-2010) ReviewTo address the issue on quality management system
of the DPWH, a Department Order No. 72 Series of 2013 was issued
directing the DPWH to implement the processes and mandatory
procedures in the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual which will
be the basis of an Internal Quality Audit (IQA) to be carried out.
The implementation of the QMS Manual aims to get confirmation that
DPWH QMS meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 and be issued with
the corresponding Certification since global awareness in the
quality management through this system is well-recognized and
accepted worldwide. Before, the quality assurance has nevertheless
played a relatively minor role in management, administered as a
separate QA department or as part of the QC department of an
organization. Now, the DPWH is embracing total quality management,
where the entire management approach is focused on quality as the
means to ensure customer satisfaction. The decision-making by
senior management is now quality-based and all members of the
organization are expected to be quality conscious.3.4Adoption of
Current AASHTO Quality Assurance Program by the DPWHDue to QA
Program of the Department, it has been observed that the DPWH
implementing offices were slowly adopting the AASHTO's current
quality management practice. The essential elements which comprise
AASHTO's Quality Assurance Program are quality assurance, quality
control, acceptance, independent, assurance, laboratory
accreditation, technician training and certification, contractor
quality control plans, minimum testing requirements, and
statistical procedures for test result analysis. To date, the DPWH
is focusing on the implementation of its renewed Quality Assurance
Program with the intention of reducing the administrative costs by
reducing the time and effort involved on the part of the department
in trying to ensure that a supplier/contractor fully complies with
specifications for goods or services provided. The program changes
the traditional relationship between the Department and its
contractors of goods or services, making the seller (contractor,
supplier etc.) responsible for the quality of goods or services
sold to the buyer (agency, employer etc.) and the buyer responsible
for acceptance of same. This change in relationship shifts the
burden of inspection, sampling, testing etc. for quality control
(and quality assurance where desired) from the buyer to the seller.
However, the DPWH shall exert more effort to fully implement their
QA Program based on latest AASHTO requirements.It is previously
reported that the BRS, being the previously lead bureau of quality
assurance, has made use of the benchmarking technique to establish
the Department's quality management standard relative to the AASHTO
Quality Assurance Program. From the report it also describes how
BRS proposes to capitalize on recent developments to improve the
quality of goods and services delivered to the Department by
suppliers of same, including adoption of the AASHTO program.It is
now time for the BQS to prepare Guidance Notes on the adoption of
the AASHTO QA Program and conduct training on their use since the
Bluebook is now updated. However, the Schedule of Minimum Testing
requirements need to be updated. Internally, the Bureau of Quality
and Safety shall systematically collaborate with the established
quality management standard relative to the AASHTO Quality
Assurance Program. An assigned Division which will took control of
the internal processes to assure that QA Procedures are working
properly and that set standards are being enforced.The intent of
adopting the AASHTO QA program is to make contractors responsible
for the quality of works provided to the Department, and to reduce
the time and effort involved on the part of the Department in
monitoring compliance by witnessing tests etc, thus to better match
available resources. After the adoption of the AASHTO QA Program,
quality control would be the primary responsibility of the
Contractor. It is therefore essential that the Contractor has a
responsive quality control plan and quality control system
consistent with the agency's overall quality management
system.3.5OBSERVATIONS ON EXISTING QA PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATIONShortcomings on the part of the implementing offices
have been recognized during the 2-year participation of QA
Consultants in the DPWH projects quality audit and verified as
follows:3.5.1The Existing Project Implementation Culture in the
Implementing OfficesAs previously reported by the BRS and verified
through the QAU assessments of the QA Consultants, the trend in the
number of defects and deficiencies has slowly going down although
common defects and deficiencies still noted which includes
transverse cracking, no weakened plane joint provision, substandard
blocking, scaling and honeycombing for all concrete road projects;
under thickness and raveling for asphalt road; insufficient mortar
and undersized stones in stone masonry and riprapping works, just
to mention a few. The incidence of these common defects is still
unacceptably high but slowly declined in occurrence until the last
part of the assessment signaling that the strengthened QA Program
in placed is working and that awareness in Quality Assurance is
indeed improving.Although one issue of much importance to discuss
is the Department's implementation culture which is based too much
on accomplishment rather than quality. Due to circumstances that
put the contractors in pressure towards completion of the project
within the time frame, the quality suffered a lot. It is true that
this bias appears very entrenched and measures to reinstate quality
as a major objective in implementation are required. It is well
known that under-investment in quality during construction can
significantly add to whole life costs of roads, requiring more
expensive maintenance or reconstruction expenditures in the
future.However, the briefing of the QA Consultants with the
implementing offices during each project assessment in regards with
the quality is proven effective in restating awareness towards
quality and efficiency of their project
implementation.3.5.2Unitemized Quality Control in Civil Works
ContractsOne of the controlling factor in the quality control issue
is that quality control is generally a "deemed included" cost or
overhead to be included in Contractor's bill item rates under
current civil works contracts. Provision of laboratory offices may
be a lump-sum item on larger projects. It has been proven during
the QA Consultants project assessments that Contractors try by all
means to minimize expenditures on QC since no item payment is
affected aside from the fact that Contractors own little or none of
their own testing equipment despite contract conditions and a
Department Order requiring them to do so. Their quality control
staff generally are not sufficiently trained or experienced to
carry out field and laboratory tests required under contract. This
resulted to poor workmanship, under-investment in equipment or poor
supervision which later became the basis of defects. 3.5.3Lack of
resources for Department staff undertaking quality assurance
dutiesIt is commonly observed that local contractors are not
responsible and incapable of implementing QA since the implementing
office staff assumed the QA role instead of them doing it. The
implementing office personnel perform the required tests and
inspection for the Contractor instead of supervising the
performance of quality control work by the Contractor. This does
not help the contractors become independent. The contractors
therefore is lacking in delivering the requirements in compliance
to QA procedures. This affects the condition of the projects in
question which lacks quality. While it is true that the lack of
resources available to the implementing offices and local
contractors means that their staff have to manage to the best they
can. However, the consequence of this lack of resources and the
roles quality control staff are obliged to play is that staff adopt
improvised procedures to deliver projects, and lines of reporting
and individual's responsibilities become confused. At this point,
the condition becomes worst and it becomes easier for unscrupulous
people to exploit weaknesses in the system to their own advantage,
and to the detriment of project quality.3.5.4Lack of Testing
Equipment in Implementing Office LaboratoryDuring the QA
Consultants project assessments, the implementing offices,
particularly the District offices, lack laboratory test equipment
and qualified, trained staff to carry out field or laboratory tests
in District laboratories. Therefore, the capability of Regional and
District laboratories to carry out specified testing is limited.As
reported by the BRS, District and sub-district laboratories now
total 174. There are 156 districts and 18 sub-districts nationwide.
Equipment in the regional laboratories needs repair or replacement
and many laboratories cannot undertake the full range of testing
required, particularly for cement. There are six regions with
Universal Testing Machines (UTM) that are not serviceable and four
regions with unserviceable pipe tester while two -regions have no
capacity to conduct tests on asphalt, while the remaining regions
are not capable of performing complete tests on asphalt.
Consequently, the ability of District and Regional Engineers to
properly discharge their duties is compromised.Currently, the
Department is on its way to improve the capability and capacity of
Department laboratories to conduct QC/QA testing at four (4)
different levels nationwide as (a) Level I - subdistrict or
district, (b) Level II - subdistrict or district with enhanced
capabilities, (c) Level III - region, (d) Level IV - Central Office
(BRS). In line with this, the audit and repair of existing
laboratory equipment in the Department's regional and district
laboratories and BRS are also ongoing to make best use of valuable
Department assets, which would be very costly to replace. The audit
is based on the annual inventory, conducted by BRS, for all
equipment located in the BRS, district and regional office
laboratories. For the non-operational, repairable laboratory
equipment, the BRS is preparing for bidding the repair of the
equipment. 3.5.5Lack of trained and qualified personnelThe presence
of trained and qualified personnel who will manage the
implementation of projects at district and regional level is one of
the most important factors in project implementation. These
personnel must have a wide range of knowledge about quality control
to address the shortcomings experienced within the implementing
offices.In line with this, the accreditation of DPWH Materials
Engineers was enforced by virtue of Department Order No. 12-A
series of 2013 in order to strengthen the Quality Assurance Program
of the Department and to ensure that only qualified and competent
materials engineers are assigned in the implementation of DPWH
projects. The accreditation of DPWH Materials Engineers is made a
requirement for assignment to DPWH projects effective January 2,
2015 which is a positive step towards quality-conscious project
implementation.Further, the continuous upgrading of rank and
accreditation of Project Engineers were given priority to address
the lack of accredited personnel to supervise the implementation of
DPWH projects.3.5.6Status of the QA Programs of the Department The
Departments QA programs as laid down in the Five-Year
Implementation Program which were made to address the shortcomings
are hereby discussed:3.5.7Standardization of the regional and
district laboratoriesTo date, the standardization of regional and
district laboratories enhanced the testing capability of the
regional and district offices to improve quality control in project
implementation. The equipment requirement for each region and
district was standardized and the lacking equipment were provided
which is of great help during the QA Consultants participation in
quality audit.The issuance of Department Order No. 11 Series of
2013 enhanced the materials testing capability of the implementing
offices and improve quality control in project implementation.
Through this, a Star Rating System for testing laboratories of the
Regional and District Offices is being adopted and the
corresponding guidelines for its implementation are prescribed
which is a positive result of QA Program.3.5.8Accreditation of
private testing laboratoriesLikewise, the accreditation of private
testing laboratories was made to service the testing requirements
of Contractors for quality control to augment the testing
capability of the regional and district laboratories. As of 2012,
92 private testing laboratories have been accredited and/or have
renewed their accreditation and 31 of these are in Metro
Manila.3.5.9Accreditation of Contractors' and Consultants'
materials engineersIn addition, to ensure that only qualified and
competent materials engineers will be assigned by contractors and
consultants to DPWH projects the Department has carried out
accreditation of materials engineers on a regular basis, every
March and September of the year. This is further reinforced by the
issuance of Department Order No. 29 Series of 2013 which created
the accreditation committee for DPWH and Contractors/Consultants
Materials Engineers to ensure that only qualified and competent
Materials Engineers are assigned to DPWH
projects.3.5.10Accreditation of Asphalt and Portland Cement
Concrete Batching PlantsThe accreditation of asphalt and Portland
cement concrete batching plants ensured that only asphalt and
concrete mixes of the highest quality will be used in all public
works and highways projects as a result of the issuance of
Department Order No, 253, Series of 2003. From then on concrete and
asphalt produced by duly accredited plants are being used in DPWH
projects which is a positive step towards quality-conscious working
environment. To date, the numbers of accredited asphalt suppliers
and concrete suppliers have been growing at favorable rate.However,
a regular checkup of those accredited batching plants must be
conducted and may be included during the QA project assessment to
validate the quality of their production. Non conformities with the
standard operating procedures must have appropriate sanction
mechanisms to ensure highest quality of asphalt and concrete mixes
being produced.3.5.11Handbook of Proper Construction MethodologyA
review of different manuals and handbooks pertaining to materials
prepared for reference and guidance of the project implementors to
ensure quality of completed works must be reviewed department-wide.
It is encouraged that the review undergo revisions with the
involvement of different DPWH staff of all bureaus and offices to
consolidate different ideas and practices to yield a more positive
and productive result. 3.5.12Standard Specifications for Public
Works and HighwaysThe recent development of the DPWH Standard
Specifications for Public Works and Highways, Volume II, Highways,
Bridges and Airports (Blue Book) by releasing the 2012 Edition is
timely to align with the international standards in the
implementation of all infrastructure projects.However, the DPWH
Standard Specifications for Public Works Structures remained
unchanged since 1995 which fall behind the international standards.
With the current trends and technological advancements, this
Specification must undergo relevant changes to adopt the remarkable
changes in the construction industry.3.5.13Accreditation and
Assignment of Project Engineers and Project InspectorsSince the
issuance of Department Order No. 73, Series of 1998, more and more
accredited field engineers are assigned to supervise DPWH projects.
This accreditation of Project Engineers and Inspectors help to
ensure that only qualified and competent field engineers are being
assigned.To date, as per Department Order No. 10, Series of 2014,
the 46th Partial List of Initial Accreditation of Project Engineers
and Inspectors have been released and through this endeavor the
DPWH will continuously supply sufficient amount of qualified and
competent engineers to supervise the DPWH projects nationwide.But,
the only setback is that due to the focus of the government towards
quality of the projects, aside from the enforced QAU functions and
QA programs, very few field engineers are aiming to get upgraded
since they will be answerable to the project whatever the quality
audit turns out to be. With this, the DPWH shall exert more effort
to encourage the field engineers to cooperate and have an active
role in this endeavor. 3.5.14Information Awareness
A number of implementing offices staff are not aware of the
Department Issuances, Memorandum Circulars, Special Orders, other
essential documents and even DPWH Specifications (Bluebook) that
should be used in the performance of their duties. Quality
management is clearly not observed in this area where such
documents should be accessible to them. The Bureau of Research and
Standards (BRS) on their part shall emphasize information drive by
providing technical information fliers and posters pertaining to
proper construction methods and quality control in various items of
work involved in the implementation of the project.
It is necessary that the heads of the implementing offices shall
be in full compliance in disseminating information deemed necessary
for their staff to perform their duties accordingly. Compliance to
QA Program is also mandatory since the Department is now seeking
accreditation with the International Standard Organization
(ISO).The current flyers of the BRS shall be updated to suit the
standard practice as highlighted in the recently concluded training
workshops by the QA Consultants to the DPWH personnel as part of
their contract package. It is from this training workshop that the
information therein is found outdated and needs further review to
suit the overall acceptable standards.Flyers, when updated, shall
also be distributed by the QAU during the Entry Meeting for
additional references of the implementing offices.3.5.15Imposition
of administrative sanctions to erring engineers involved in the
defective implementation of DPWH projectsDuring the 2-year
participation of QA Consultants to QA Program of the Department,
Department Order no. 5 Series of 2012, the imposition of outright
sanction to DPWH field engineers who refuse to provide pertinent
project documents during QAU inspections/investigations was issued
to address the concern of QA Consultants where the implementing
offices field engineers refused to provide pertinent project
documents in some instances that hinder the proper conduct of
project assessment/inspection. In addition, a new system of
sanctions was instituted by BRS corresponding to the severity of
defective works in order that the field engineers assigned to the
projects will exercise utmost care and vigilance in project
supervision to minimize the occurrence of defects/deficiencies.
Sanctions are issued to the concerned engineers if their
explanations on the defects noted on projects that they supervised
were not acceptable upon evaluation based on the approved
guidelines. It is reported that 1,179 field engineers have been
warned, 243 have been meted six months suspension, 54 were issued
with one year suspension and 8 were perpetually disqualified from
handling/supervising projects and the number is still growing until
full compliant with the QA program. 3.5.16Quality Management System
(QMS)Department Order No. 73 Series of 2012 was issued to create
the DPWH ISO Quality Management System (QMS) Teams to enhance and
standardize the Department's quality of public service delivery and
to become consistent with the requirements of the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Teams managed the
implementation of the QMS Certifiable to ISO 9001:2008 Project and
their responsibilities.To further prepare the Department in ISO
accreditation, Department Order No. 72 Series of2013 was later
issued in the implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS)
Manual.In line with the Department's policy to continuously improve
the delivery of its services, all Bureaus and Services, NCR and
Region XI Regional Offices, and, South Manila and Davao City
Engineering Offices are hereby enjoined to
cooperate.3.5.17Benchmarking of Existing Quality Management
PracticeThe adoption of Benchmarking and World Best Practice is
best described as the barometer to define the highest standard of
practice available in the world. The various aspects of the
Department's existing quality management practice will be set down
in writing to define the Department's quality system in outline.
The quality system will describe the organizational structure,
responsibilities, procedures, processes and resources for
implementing quality management. Measures needed to further improve
the performance of the Department shall be identified.3.5.18Poor
document filing system in the Implementing Offices.In-house
developed applications like the Documents Tracking System (DoTS),
Personnel Information System (PIS), and Executive Information
System (ExIS) to systems end-users are a good result of enhancing
the computer-enabled system of the department. This shows how
serious the Department is in terms of information technology
utilization. But in most cases, the concerned project engineers and
materials engineers do not present the required documents to the
auditing body during the project assessment or investigation
because of the missing filing system and file retrieval system. The
documents are either misplaced or placed somewhere that is not
accessible.As the Department is seeking for ISO certification, it
is therefore recommended that a systematic filing system be
implemented on all DPWH implementing offices, with proper
cataloguing and filing in a library or allocated file storage
facilities. Document control shall also be accessible through
electronic means. A librarian or file custodian is hereby proposed
to look after those important documents whether in physical files
or electronic format for immediate retrieval during the course of
QAU assessment.3.5.19AccreditationThe on-going program of
accrediting private laboratories for materials sampling and
testing, including private facilities engaged in the production and
supply of asphalt and concrete mixes in DPWH projects is a positive
step to further strengthen the QA Program of the Department.The
DPWH continuously supply sufficient amount of qualified and
competent engineers to supervise the DPWH projects nationwide as a
result of the on-going program of accrediting Project staff - from
the Department, Consultants and Contractors in various capacities
including Project Engineer, Project Inspector and Materials
Engineer. Recently, BRS proposed to formulate an accreditation
program for Bridge Engineers in order to ensure that only competent
Project Engineer will be assigned to supervise/handle bridge
projects of the Department. This endeavor will help strengthen the
current practices in terms of supervising bridge projects and that
proper construction methodology will be employed accordingly.The
5-year QA Plan was founded through issuance of Department Order No.
1, Series of 2011 which clarifies the requirement for contractors
to have ISO 9000 certification and later deferred through
Department Order No. 4, Series of 2014 which give contractors
sufficient time to comply with the implementation of ISO
certification which is in effect until January 1, 2014. This step
in the implementation of ISO certification is a long term solution
which is an important part of the QA Program implementation which
caters to the needs of the global competitiveness. This is in line
with the objective of the Department to seek its own ISO
certification.3.5.20Political Intervention in Project Procurement
and ImplementationThe strong political culture affecting the
district-wide project procurement process as well as the
implementation program is one of the big hindrances in the
objective of the Department of quality-based project output. Local
government officials were the common authority in regards with
awarding of projects under his area of jurisdiction which commonly
given to his preferred contractor, if not his own. It is reported
that the implementing office staff headed by the district engineer
or regional engineer are deciding under the influence of the
politicians who control the entire DPWH procurement and
implementation processes.It is with this reason that we find the
move of the DPWH Secretary to implement Promotional Examination to
legally put the respective DPWH officers in each Implementing
Offices against the blundering claws of such unscrupulous
politicians who are wrecking the DPWH system. It is further
supported with the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF) where the burden of the DPWH in regards with the
projects which are directly implemented by politicians were lessen
to an extent. We may not know how much this impacted the entire
DPWH operation since PDAF is totally declared against the
law.Stricter moves should be adopted by the DPWH to address this
matter since those smallest units of the DPWH, the district
engineering offices, seemed owned by these politicians.
3.5.21Outsourcing QA through ConsultantsThe recent developments in
QA project assessments and improvements in the QA Program of the
Department are slowly taking place through the fortification of
consultants. This is the pilot trial of the BRS which is now to be
adopted by the BQS which introduced wider scope in the present
Department operations and activities in terms of quality assurance.
It is worth mentioning that the joint efforts of the BRS and QA
Consultants that the use of quality assurance in the construction
industry contribute to the improvement in quality and timeliness of
road works and further encouraged more cooperation by more
consultants in promoting the QA Program. QA Consultants are a few
steps away in quality improvement of the industry, thus, will
require Contractors to provide both QC and QA as part of the
services being provided to the Department. 3.5.22Accreditation of
QAU and QA ConsultantsThe pilot QAU Outsource, also known as QA
Consultants which started in 2011 to 2013 is a positive step
towards compliance with the QA Program of the Department. Since the
Department has limited capacity and capability in quality
assurance, the QA Consultant is a better option. It is previously
proposed by the BRS that selected staff members in the Department
be trained as QA assessors or auditors, to lead the management of
quality improvement envisaged in the Five-Year QA Plan but then
there is no suitable formal training course available in the
Philippines. Once suitable training courses are identified by BQS,
which can be undertaken by distance learning, and which together
with suitable QA experience and academic background, this training
courses lead to accreditation of the QA personnel as members of a
recognized Quality Assurance body, the BQS should also begin giving
accreditation to the QA Consultants as part of the QA body. This
will actively promote the management of quality improvements in the
Department.
4.0REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS OF CURRENT QAU PRACTICES AND THE
CORRESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS4.1The Role of the Quality Assurance
Units (QAUs)The basic responsibility of the QAU is the auditing of
the infrastructure projects that the Implementing Offices create.
The choice of which activities to prioritize in assessment and
inspection is loaded with them. It is important to have a concrete
system in assessing these activities to limit preferences. There
will be many pressures from colleagues in other areas of the
organization (PMO, regional, district) who will be asking for help,
and the QA units resources will have to be allocated carefully in
order to maximize their effectiveness.Based on QA Consultants
review, the scope of the assessment is wide ranging, including
review of technical as well as disbursement aspects of projects.
The time taken to assess projects varies from hours for minor
projects to 2 or 3 days for major projects. The assessments are
intended to police or audit the QA activities of the implementing
offices to identify any major defects/ deficiencies. To increase
the coverage of project assessment by the QAUs, Department Order
No. 68, Series of 2004 was issued by the Department to supplement
the quarterly assessment being conducted by the Quality Assurance
Unit-Central Office (QAU-CO) by the assessment of the Quality
Assurance Unit-Regional Office (QAU-RO). The QAU-RO is mandated to
assess all foreign assisted projects implemented by the different
Project Management Offices (PMOs) including some district
implemented projects, except for projects under the 6th ADB which
are being reviewed by the QAU-CO as per agreement with the Bank.
The QAU-CO, however, shall continue to assess projects implemented
by the regional and district offices, aside from ADB
projects.During the QA Consultants 2-year participation in the
program, the QAU-RO became part of the QAU Consultants Team to
address the issue of non-cooperative implementing offices during
the QA assessments.Where defects or deficiencies are identified in
assessment, the implementing office is informed, and is required
(a) to provide an explanation and (b) to have
corrective/rectification works carried out, deduct non-complying
works from progress billings and/or refund any overpayment.
Sanctions are applied to concerned field engineers where the
explanation submitted is unsatisfactory.The project assessments are
carried out on a quarterly basis. There are about 200 active QAU
(Central/Regional Office) members who carry out the assessments in
teams of two or more. The QAUs commit to assess a minimum of 5
projects in each district each quarter.4.2QAU
Documentation4.2.1Checking of DocumentsThe difficulty of the
concerned District Engineers/Project Engineers in
presenting/providing the required documents causes delays in the
project assessment/inspection.With limited time allotted for the
QAU Teams to complete their assessment, QAC recommends that QAU
Team to proceed with the field inspection provided that the
following documents are available: Approved/As Built Plan Approved
Program of Works Straight Line Diagram Change or Variation Order,
if applicable Detailed Unit Price AnalysisThe QAC recommends that
projects without such documents should no longer be
inspected/assessed and should be reported as non-compliant.
Non-compliance resulted to an outright sanction as per D.O. No.
05, Series of 2012 which is specially created for this purpose.
4.2.2Insufficient and limited standard forms used by current QAU
In-House Team.
The forms in use by the QAU are Project Assessment Report (PAR),
Detailed Accomplishment Report (DAR), QAU Assessment Checklist and
Exit Meeting. These are limited and are not sufficient for data
gathering of the project to be used as database in checking the
status, reporting or management review and analysis. There are no
standard forms used to record findings on noted defects, test
results, project assessed, etc.
To ensure that quality assessments are being conducted by QAU
Engineers, QAU Standard Forms were created to document evidence of
the inspection/assessment activities. These forms have underwent
trials by QAC and submitted to QAU-BQS for approval. Further,
through training workshops conducted, the QAU Standard Forms for
use during project assessment were outlined, discussed and
approved. Refer to Appendix 1.
4.2.3Project Selection4.2.3.1List of on-going and completed
projects from PMS.Prior to QA project assessment, the lists of
projects for assessment were prepared by BQS. Those lists are being
verified in the DPWH website.To avoid confusion in the actual
percentage of accomplishment as well as the status of each project
if already been underwent QAU assessment, BQS should have a close
coordination with the Bureau of Construction to check the current
status of those projects. 4.2.3.2Discrepancies in percentage of
reported accomplishment of projects versus actual field
accomplishment. Based on experiences of both QAC, the reported
project accomplishment based on the Project Monitoring System (PMS)
is different from the actual accomplishment. One of the criteria in
project selection is that the project should be at least 50%
accomplished in order to be assessed for quality. In the given list
prior to departure of QAU during the scheduled field inspection,
some projects indicate to have 50% accomplishment but actual
inspection of the project shows only to have 20% accomplishment. As
a result, minimal major pay item of works can be assessed.
QAC recommends realistic accomplishment should be reported by
the implementing offices to the PMS.
4.2.3.3Some projects in the given list were already assessed by
QAU in-house. Upon arrival of QA Consultant team at the project
site, DE/PE would indicate that their project has already been
assessed by the QAU-In House within the current year with no
records to show.To solve this problem, a Certificate of Assessed
Projects was developed by the QA Consultant to document the project
inspection which is included in the attached list of forms. See
Appendix 1.
4.2.3.4Assessment on selected projects is carried out once a
year only.
To date, the focus of QA assessment is to verify compliance of
projects to plans and specifications which is done once a year. In
doing so, the projects are not checked as to quality since most
projects are already completed when QAU arrives.QAC recommends that
projects should be assessed twice in its entire project duration if
the focus is quality. Initial inspection/assessment should be
carried out preferably at 40-50% accomplishment and final
inspection/assessment at 90-95% accomplishment prior to issuance of
Final Completion Certificate. With this, awareness in quality of
construction may be expected for projects implemented by
implementing offices.
4.3Field Inspection
4.3.1Not clearly defined and disorganized policy and procedures
in the conduct of project assessment.
Lacking policy and procedures for the guidance and uniformity of
QAU inspection/assessment is a major missing link in achieving
remarkable result in quality control of the implementing offices
and the quality assurance by the concerned QAU members. Taking into
considerations the engagement of the QAC in project assessment, a
Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures (QPP) Manual incorporating
the Guidelines in Inspection/Assessment for Roads, Bridges, Flood
Control and Buildings was formulated for approval of BRS and hence
may be further developed to meet the needs of the QAU as a whole.
In this case, QAU In-house could give inputs to improve the Quality
Assurance Policy and Procedures and Guidelines in the Conduct of
Assessment which should be adopted by both QAU In-house and QAU
Outsource (QAC) in order to perform a standard procedure in the
manner of assessment. Immediate review and approval of this
document is highly important that would affect QA Program of the
Department.
During the training workshops conducted by the QA Consultants,
QAU Project Assessment/Inspection Parameters were outlined and
approved by the body as compiled in Appendix 2.
Guidelines in the conduct of QA project assessment were detailed
in Appendix 3.
4.3.2Design deficiency on the approved plan.
It has been observed that there are some design deficiencies in
the approved plans of the project. Such are not considered as
defects or deficiencies in the QAU report since the QAUs function
is to assess the compliance of the project to its existing plan and
specification.
It is therefore recommended the inclusion of design deficiencies
in the findings and observation and coordinate with the Bureau of
Design to verify said design deficiencies.
4.3.3Action Taken4.3.3.1Site InstructionsIt has been noted that
there is no specific date of rectification period indicated in the
issued Site Instruction (SI).
Since Site Instruction is an order issued to the Engineer of the
Contractor for the execution of work or to correct any defect in
accordance with the approved plans and contract provisions, the
following is recommended in the issuance of SI:
The Site Instruction should specify time frame or rectification
period in which corrective action should be done. An SI without
specified period shall be considered as invalid, therefore is
considered as findings. Defects with issued SI should be corrected
within five (5) calendar days after issuance thereof for ongoing
projects and 14 calendar days for completed projects. Further,
should the contractor failed to do the necessary rectification,
Field Engineers should write a follow up letter to the contractor
to do recommended corrections as specified in the SI.
Furthermore, it has been a practice that when an SI is issued by
Field Engineers to the Contractor to correct the noted defect and
the corrective action made is acceptable to QAU, the Field Engineer
is no longer included in the sanction or Memo issued by the
Undersecretary for Technical Services. As a result, though
avoidable, common type of defects/deficiencies is prevalent in
construction of projects, with no solution or improvement to
prevent continuous occurrences.
In line with this, enforcement of Field Engineers to implement
quality in construction does not rely on the number SI issued to
contractor and action taken to correct deficiencies but
implementation of correct construction procedures and close
supervision by Field Engineers. Therefore, Field Engineers should
still be answerable in the poor quality or defective implementation
of DPWH projects.
4.3.3.2Corrective Actions
QA Consultants observed the following during the course of QA
assessment/ inspection: The same type of common defects are noted
every assessment such as cracks, honeycombs, improper cutting of
weakened plane joints, no/insufficient asphalt sealant, excessive
asphalt sealant, etc.
It is a common practice that when QAU Team accepted the
corrective action on noted defects/deficiencies, the Field
Engineers are no longer included in the sanction or Memo issued by
the Undersecretary for Technical Services which often results to
reoccurrence of the same defects in the succeeding projects since
the concerned Field Engineers are not held liable and therefore
quality control and quality assurance is taken for granted.
Some contractors deliberately do not perform corrective action
to rectify the defects even with an SI issued by PE. Instead the
Contractors wait for QAU to do the inspection/assessment, give
recommendations and PE to forward QAU findings and recommendations
to the contractor for implementation.
Graphical analysis for Region 1 alone for four (4) trips
conducted in 2012 indicate the trend in the frequency of
occurrences of common type of defects with corrective action. Out
of 80 projects assessed, 57 defects were noted requiring corrective
actions and only 13 conform to plans and specifications. This shows
that the actual root cause of the common type of
defects/deficiencies have not been properly identified or is not
adequately addressed, hence the reoccurrence of defects.
Likewise, the Contractors failure to implement its own quality
assurance program should be a ground to disciplinary action of the
Contractor. Therefore it is recommended that Field Engineers shall
be issued Memorandum to provide an explanation to identify the
cause of defects and work to prevent its recurrence as part of
their corrective action. Similarly, the erring Contractors should
be sanctioned for continuous recurrence of defects in their
implemented projects. QAU findings and observations of assessed
project should be forwarded to CPES as part of Contractors
performance monitoring for evaluation.
4.3.4Quality versus Quantity AssessmentCurrently, due to time
constraint QAU is conducting the following test for on-going and
completed projects: PCCP coring (to determine thickness and
compressive strength). ACP coring (to determine the thickness and
density). Test Pitting (to determine the thickness of sub base and
base course).For a more thorough evaluation of underlying quality
of materials, QAU may perform the following additional test: Field
Density Test (FDT) to determine the degree of compaction of
in-placed materials. This is applicable to on-going and completed
projects with prepared sub base and base course materials. Test
forSoil Samples to verify the quality of materials used such as
Grading, Plasticity and Laboratory Compaction.With the current
tests conducted, QAU could assess 20 projects per district per trip
while the above test may incur additional 13 days or a total of 25
days on various type of infrastructure projects (roads, bridges,
building, flood control, etc.)Analysis showed that for ongoing
projects involving different types of structures (PCCP, ACP,
Bridge, Flood Control and/or Building) 25 days is needed for the
total of 20 projects in each regional office concerned. Likewise,
for completed projects 21 days will be needed. This assumption is
limited to only one (1) road project per district per implementing
office to verify the quality of work and to perform the required
tests stated above.However, this will require assistance of the
implementing office both on manpower and equipment. This shows that
the required test would result to additional budget allocation in
the conduct of Project Assessment/Inspection.While quality
assurance is the objective of QAU, a more detailed assessment would
be possible with more quality testing, but consequently this would
require more time thus an increase of number of days of assessment
is proposed. But if increasing the present allotted number of days
would no longer be reasonable, reduction of the targeted number of
projects to be assessed per district on per trip is one possible
option or by deploying additional QAU teams in order that the
quality assessment would be carried out.4.4Report
Preparation4.4.1After field trips of QAU inspectors, reports are
then forwarded to Encoders for typing.Because of the limited time
required to submit a draft report for review of QAU BRS,
PERTCONSULT engineers developed the Integrated QAU Excel Based
Reporting System or IQeBRS to expedite and streamline the
submission of the report. While in the field, QAU engineers will
encode information in PAR, Summary of Findings and Proposed
Recommendations. IQeBRS will then generate 24-hour report for
transmittal to BRS or DPWH website and QAU engineers to finalize
the report upon return to office.
The IQeBRS follows the standard report format required by QAU
BQS and uses series of phrases templates, with options to describe
the station limit. Photographs of defects are also included. Data
gathered in the report are linked to Quarterly Ratings Report and
Extent of Defects and Recommendations. Since one of the function of
QAU is to monitor the performance of implementing offices, using
data stored in IQeBRS, subsequently it can provide a graphical
illustration of the performances of the implementing offices and
Project Engineers which measures the quality of projects handled as
to conformance to specifications, defects requiring corrective
actions, and requiring removal and replacement. This graphical
report is recommended for inclusion in the memorandum for the
Implementing Office to be aware of the performance of their field
engineers and the status of quality implementation of their
projects.
IQeBRS is user friendly. In order to attain its efficiency, the
following requirements should be met:
1. Proficiency in typing and use of Microsoft office excel by
QAU inspectors.
2. Each QAU inspector must be provided with laptop and tablet
during field inspection. A manual on how to use the IQeBRS is
prepared by PERTCONSULT as shown in Appendix 5.
4.4.2No established or standard common recommendation for common
types of defects causing confusion among QAU members
QAC draft report, specifically recommendations to common defects
is subject to checkers/reviewers judgement. The BRS assigned
checkers have varying recommendations on certain defects,
particularly on the Defects Correction Policy.
For the QACs part, recommendations noted by QAU BRS were encoded
in the IQeBRS data base. As a result, several recommendations for
the same type of defect appeared in the database causing
confusion.
To address this problem, a Summary of Defects and
Recommendations with severity is prepared by QAC for easy reference
and to have uniformity in the preparation of reports. The approved
summary would then be the database for the list of defects and the
corresponding recommendations as shown in Appendix 4.
4.4.3Draft report submission within five (5) days would not be
possible but can generate an electronic copy containing only
Findings/ Observations, Recommendations and Action Taken together
with the Photograph of Defects.
QAC recommends a total of ten (10) working days (2 weeks) to
submit the Final Report that would include photocopying of
attachments and printing, with breakdown as follows:
5 days-generation of electronic report2 days-review and checking
of report2 days-printing of report1 day-photocopying of attachment
and binding of reportAs a result, the report can be easily
disseminated to the concerned implementing offices for perusal and
immediate action.
4.4.4Pavement cracks do not have clear classification with
corresponding recommendations.
The QAC established standard guidelines in classifying cracks by
using diagram presentation with corresponding recommendations.
These guidelines were distributed to the implementing offices
during the entry meeting for reference purposes. It is recommended
further that flyers alike should be distributed in the Implementing
Offices to create awareness and further update their
knowledge.4.4.5No linkage/gateway of the current IT system to
incorporate the QAU reporting system.While the DPWH is re-inventing
its information systems and technology infrastructure to reflect
the organization's new thinking on strategic focus for
infrastructure development, information sharing through intranet
and internet should be enhanced to suit today's technological
advancements and current trends. This new focus will be to develop
a more user-friendly information system which is accessible to
public which will result to a more transparent system within the
organization. Along with this, the PMS should be enhanced and
additional tools should be developed for a more convenient and
user-friendly information system. Sorting of projects based on
category, source of funding, allotment, etc. will come in handy,
especially for Department's executives, managers and QAU-related
purposes or for project selection.It is therefore advisable to
upgrade the Department's existing Information Technology system to
incorporate the QAU reporting system.4.5Outdated IT system of BRS
and BQS. The Quality Consultants' electronic files such as reports
(e-files) were not recognized in the current system used by these
bureaus, like MS Office versions (MS Words, MS Excel, MS
Powerpoint, MS Outlook, among others), which were lower than what
the private companies are using.Therefore the Bureau of Research
and Standards (BRS) should be upgraded to an acceptable standard
since it is the core policy maker of the research and quality
programs of the Department. The same holds true for the BQS. The
computerization program within the bureau is a positive step
towards compliance with the QA Program of the Department since it
is the implementing bureau of that QA Program.Since the inception
of the idea of IT literacy in the Department, enhanced IT system
for these bureaus is recommended for inclusion in the IT program.
Sophisticated computers running on current operating systems, i.e.,
Windows 7 and 8, shall replace the old and obsolete lower versions
which are still running and used within the office premises.
Procurement of additional computers, improved IT system in the BRS
to cope with the latest IT technology is highly recommended.
4.6Budgetary allocation for QAU is not included in the proposed
annual program of the Department.Include proper budgetary
allocation for QAU annually. In this way, allocation for QAU
assessment will not be a problem anymore. This will result in the
increase of the coverage of projects to be assessed without further
delay since the budget is already available. 4.7Performance of
Implementing Offices in the two-year period of QA ConsultantsThe
engagement of QA Consultants in the span of two (2) years have
impacted the course of QA management program of the Implementing
Offices in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao areas. However, no clear
basis to conclude that it is indeed advantageous on the part of the
government. The BQS shall create ratings and performance reports of
the Implementing Offices for reference purposes during the
participation of QA Consultants. This will be used as a tool to
identify how the QA Consultants have impacted in the current QA
program of the Department.4.8Capacity building of the Departments
Central Office and Regional QAUsOne of the main objective of
enhanced QA Program is to achieve the expanding coverage of the
total number of projects for assessment per quarter through
capacity building by conducting seminars/trainings for all QAUs to
address deficiencies in the manner of conducting QA project
assessment/inspection, including additional specific
recommendations towards improving the quality of
assessment/inspection. All improvements introduced in the conduct
of project assessment/inspection are to be adopted. Technology
transfer specifically in the use of IQeBRS, an excel based
reporting system designed to fast track the preparation of reports
are to be applied. Familiarization with the Quality Management Plan
is also mandatory on the part of the Implementing Offices and the
Department as a whole.
4.9QA Program Awareness drive
The QA Consultant has promoted awareness to the implementing
offices with regards to quality assurance and quality control.
Compliance to plans and specifications as well as quantity and
quality of materials incorporated into the works undertaken was
also emphasized.
4.10Fast tracking of documentation systemUtilizing the IQe-BRS,
an excel-based reporting system, the documentation process of QAU
report preparation will be faster and uniform since common findings
and recommendations were already incorporated in the program
template. See Appendix 5.Through the use of computer and IQeBRS, a
standard report template and uniform reporting is established since
the same recommendation will be adopted for a particular finding.
4.11OutputCompleted assessment/inspection reports of projects
undertaken are now in print and e-copy with attached photos.
Related information for a particular project can be easily
retrieved for specific use.It is believed that the documentation
process will be more efficient. Plus, it will provide a better
presentation of the assessment, in case, any third party
stakeholder would come across these outputs.4.1224-hour report
submissionThe status of each project being implemented by the
Implementing Offices has been reportedly a subject of doubts since
QAU teams were accused of malpractices wherein reports were
fabricated. To minimize, if not totally eliminate negative
feedbacks, a summary of deficiencies of the assessed projects
should be submitted by the QA Consultants to the BQS through email.
Such communications are to be acquiesced to the Implementing Office
concerned within 24 hours after the conduct of project
assessment.In this way, the involvement of QAU, the assessment team
with the Implementing Offices (assessed office) will be controlled
which in turn will result to more reliable reporting.4.13Photograph
logsAugmentation of "Action Taken" through submission of revised
photograph log form by implementing offices is an additional tool
in the assessment and evaluation. In addition, it provides visual
evidence of the assessment that may be used for preventive planning
and standards. .The photolog can also be used as reference of the
Validation Teams in checking the corrective and planning for
preventive actions to the works done by the implementing offices as
well as the recent QAU assessment conducted by the QAU Teams.
4.14Quality Management PlanThe existing QA Program of the
Department does not form part of the Quality Management Plan (QMP).
Through the partnership with a QA Consultant a QMP was prepared and
submitted as part of the deliverables of their contracts. This is
to receive a third party observation for the purpose of defining
the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the officers and
personnel involved in the QA Program. The partnership resulted in
the description of all the processes and/or activities involved in
conducting project assessment/inspection in and the implementation
and will be the basis of the quality assurance policies for the
entire Department.The QMP, however, shall be subjected for further
planning and consultations to improve the processes and procedures
since the issuance of Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 -
Implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual to
seek ISO certification of the Department.4.15Quality Assurance
Policy and Procedures ManualThis QA Policy and Procedures Manual
contain the scope of QA Program and QAU processes. This also
includes how the QAU should conduct the quality assurance standard
assessment/inspection. The Manual has been developed to supplement
the Quality Management Plan. Utmost care and vigilance must be
observed to further enhance this Manual in line with the five year
development plan of the DPWH.
