Transportation Research Record 1813 ■
Paper No. 02-3941
Contractor-Led Quality Control and
Quality Assurance Plus Design–Build
Who Is Watching the Quality?
Jim Ernzen and Tom Feeney
Recent innovations by the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT)
in the use of design–build procurement for highway construction are pre-
sented. Explosive population growth in Arizona has pushed its DOT to
the limits of its capacity and has challenged the department to develop
innovative ways to stretch its resources to meet its constituents’ needs. In
1996 the department spearheaded the passage of a pilot design–build law
aimed at completing public-sector construction projects more rapidly
than could be done by traditional methods. An evaluation of the mate-
rial quality program used in the second design–build project in this pro-
gram is described. The project reconstructed an extremely congested
7-mi segment of Interstate 17, a primary artery carrying 180,000 vehi-
cles per day through the city of Phoenix, widening it from 6 to 10 lanes.
The design–build contract was awarded after A+B bidding, which con-
sidered the bid price to do the work and the time required to complete
the project, and was the largest ever awarded at the time. It was won by
a design–builder who implemented a very aggressive schedule that
required double-shift work for nearly 2 years. In another contracting
first, the agency also assigned the design–builder responsibility for the
quality control and quality assurance functions on the project, with
Arizona DOT providing verification sampling and testing only. The con-
crete compressive strength and material density for the project are
examined and are compared to statewide averages for traditional
design–bid–build projects in which Arizona DOT performed the qual-
ity assurance function. Analysis of the data shows that despite a highly
compressed schedule, the quality of the material on the project exceeded
the project specifications and was similar to the quality of work com-
pleted for the state under traditional contracting methods with an Arizona
DOT–operated quality assurance program.
State departments of transportation face a wide variety of challenges
in serving their state constituencies. The public and the media often
criticize the performance of agencies without always understanding
the complexity of the issues that public transportation officials face,
including budget constraints, ecological concerns, and growth or
no-growth initiatives. State agencies are increasingly under public
pressure to complete all aspects of their work—from long-term
transit planning, to new road construction, to local maintenance
operations—at a faster pace, usually with fewer personnel.
An increasing number of state highway agencies are turning to
alternative project delivery systems such as design–build to help
them deliver projects more quickly. Some agencies have found that
this is especially advantageous when they are replacing or upgrad-
ing sections of urban freeways that are overloaded with traffic and
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, Box 870204,
Tempe AZ 85287-0204.
253
that must remain open during construction. The lure of these alter-
native methods lies primarily in their ability to compress the sched-
ule by overlapping design and construction and to create team syn-
ergies that can often expedite the project. Sanvido surveyed 351
building projects from 1992 to 1997 for the Construction Industry
Institute and reported that design–build projects were completed on
average 33% faster than design–bid–build projects (1). So, although
the increased delivery speed is appealing to state highway agencies
that are constantly under pressure to open lanes sooner, the concern
is whether they are sacrificing quality for the sake of speed. Sanvido’s
study also surveyed the projects for quality; however, the data
gathered were rather soft in nature, asking the users if they were
“satisfied” with different aspects of the structure and so forth. The
results from the Construction Industry Institute survey for qual-
ity, not surprisingly, showed very little difference in the quality
of the work between projects constructed by the different delivery
methods.
Although the pressure for faster performance mounts, state high-
way agencies are also finding that the workforces needed to perform
these increasing numbers of tasks are shrinking. Higher wages in the
private sector are luring many personnel away from the state agen-
cies, and that makes their tasks doubly hard. Although national
statistics are hard to determine, one midwestern state found that
although its workload has tripled since 1980, its personnel level
dropped by 18.5% during the same period (Dave Cox, Federal High-
way Administrator, State of Oregon, personal interview, June 15,
2001). To combat this, some state agencies are contracting the
responsibility for quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA),
a domain once strictly held by the agency. This combination of in-
creased pressure to perform faster along with decreased numbers of
personnel and an increased dependence on outsourcing of the quality
function has some in the transportation community concerned.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Explosive population growth over the last decade in the Southwest
has pushed the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT) to the
limits of its capacity and has challenged the department to develop
innovative ways to stretch its resources to meet its constituents’
needs. In 1996 Arizona DOT sponsored a pilot design–build pro-
gram that was aimed at completing public construction projects
more rapidly than could be done by traditional methods. The second
project in the program was the reconstruction of 7 mi of Interstate
17, a primary artery carrying 180,000 vehicles per day through the
city of Phoenix, widening it from 6 to 10 lanes. The $80 million proj-
ect was the second in the design–build pilot program and at the time
254 Paper No. 02-3941
was the largest single contract awarded by the department (Doug
Nintzel, Public Affairs Officer, Arizona DOT, personal interview,
June 2000).
The project scope created one high-occupancy vehicle lane in
each direction, constructed auxiliary lanes in both directions be-
tween each of the eight traffic interchanges (TIs), reconstructed the
on- and off-ramps at each TI, and added several miles of sound
walls near residences. It also installed traffic-monitoring cameras
and added variable-message signs, ramp meters, and traffic-counting
equipment, linking I-17 to an existing freeway management sys-
tem. The scope of the project also called for the demolition of
bridges at two major crossroads, each carrying 40,000 vehicles per
day and the reconstruction of eight-lane single-point urban inter-
changes. The freeway was widened entirely within the existing
right-of-way corridor, so the project site was extremely congested.
The work also abutted many politically influential businesses in the
downtown Phoenix area, so the successful execution of the project
was deemed critical to the success of the entire statewide design–
build program. Figure 1 shows a drawing of the roadway before and
after construction.
CONTRACT DESCRIPTION
The contract was awarded by a two-step best-value methodology
based on a combination of technical merit and price to a joint ven-
ture formed by Granite and Sundt Constructors teamed with URS
Greiner as the principal design firm. Because of the location of the
project and the effect that the traffic congestion would have on
nearby business owners, the price proposal used a method known as
A+B bidding, which considered the bid price to do the work and the
time required to complete the project. Although Arizona DOT esti-
mated the project duration to be 900 days, the winning design–build
team proposed to complete the project for $79.7 million in just
609 days. The project also included approximately $3.8 million in
financial incentive clauses with a schedule component and a quality
component. Arizona DOT offered a financial incentive for early
completion of the two major crossroad bridges, the auxiliary ramps,
and the overhead freeway lighting. On the quality side, Arizona
DOT also paid incentives for superior performance of the public
relations and quality management programs and for exceeding pave-
ment smoothness, material strength, and construction workmanship
FIGURE 1 I-17 roadway before and after construction.
Transportation Research Record 1813
requirements. The incentive system that Arizona DOT used for
material strength test and smoothness results was exactly the same
as the system that it has used for many years on its traditional
design–bid–build projects. Arizona DOT paid particular attention to
the balance between schedule incentives and quality incentives, with
49% of the incentives offered for schedule compression and 51%
offered for material quality.
This paper reports on the quality of the concrete compressive
strength and the material density test data for the project completed
by the design–build team. These results are then compared with aver-
age values gathered from other Arizona DOT projects contracted via
the traditional design–bid–build manner in which Arizona DOT
provided the QA function.
QUALITY FUNCTION
Although Arizona DOT had experimented with contracting out the
QA function, this was the largest and highest-profile project in
which it placed the responsibility for both QC and QA on the entity
contracted to perform the work. In the technical specifications
Arizona DOT defined the roles and responsibilities of the three
entities to be involved with the quality management plan: the design–
builder, Arizona DOT, and an independent assurance entity. Fig-
ure 2 shows an organizational chart of the roles and responsibili-
ties. Although the design–builder controlled the quality manage-
ment plan, the construction QC and QA, and the design QC and
QA, both the design–builder and Arizona DOT shared the respon-
sibilities for the independent assurance, which was performed by
a previously approved local testing laboratory. Arizona DOT de-
signed the roles during the proposal stage so that, although the
design–builder led the team, Arizona DOT maintained the final re-
sponsibility for acceptance of the workmanship, the materials, and
the design and periodically audited the contractor data to ensure
the adequacy of the design–builder’s procedures (2). Throughout the
project, Arizona DOT performed random verification testing and
an independent assurance sampling and testing of the final prod-
uct at a specified frequency of one test for every five tests performed
by the design–builder to check the reliability of the design–builder’s
tests. However, the design–builder detailed and managed the plan
to work with many different entities involved with both design and
construction. The design–builder performed tests according to a
predetermined schedule and actually performed more tests than
required by the specifications and the Materials Division within
Arizona DOT.
When a particular material was selected for verification testing,
three split (or companion) samples were taken; one was under con-
trol of the design–builder and the other two were under the control
of Arizona DOT. Two of the samples were tested immediately,
with one of the Arizona DOT samples being held in reserve for dis-
pute resolution. If the test results were similar for the two samples
tested, the test result was accepted. If the two test results were not
similar, the design–builder and Arizona DOT would work together
to find the source of the discrepancy. If no source of test discrep-
ancy could be found, an independent testing laboratory then
tested the final sample; the results of this test were binding on
both parties, and the cost for such testing would be borne by the
party found to be in error. Figure 3 shows a diagram outlining how
this process was designed, and Table 1 outlines the allowable vari-
ations between the design–builder and Arizona DOT test results
under the verification program.
Ernzen and Feeney Paper No. 02-3941 255

Design Builder

Corporate Management

Quality Construction Design Production

Management Production (Quality Assurance)

Technical
Review

Workmanship Materials Workmanship Design

Inspection Control Control Control

Materials Design
Acceptance Oversight
(If Verified) Review

ADOT

Central/ District Office

Regional
Offices

Project Manager/Resident Engineer

(Acceptance Decisions)

Workmanship
& Materials Materials Workmanship
Independent Verification & Oversight &
Assurance Acceptance Acceptance

Correlation

FIGURE 2 QC and QA roles and responsibilities (ADOT  Arizona DOT).

DESIGN–BUILD PROJECT CONCRETE DESIGN
STRENGTH AND TEST DATA
The project included large quantities of concrete, which was used for
a variety of construction activities such as footings, sound walls,
drilled shaft foundations, and portland cement concrete pavement.
The design–builder, being familiar with Arizona DOT and its mate-
rial procedures, instituted a project-level concrete mixture classifica-
tion system similar to that which Arizona DOT uses on its traditional
work. The designer specified three classes of concrete: Class S for
structural concrete, Class B for nonstructural concrete, and Class P
for concrete pavement. There were four different Class S structural
concrete mixtures with various compressive strength requirements,
depending on their use on the project. The different concrete classifi-
cations were primarily used for the following different activities:
Class S 3,000-psi concrete was used on sound walls and footings,
Class S 3,500-psi concrete was used for all drilled shaft founda-
tions, Class S 4,000-psi concrete was used on median barriers, and
Class S 4,500-psi concrete was used on all bridge decks. Furthermore,
all portland cement concrete pavement was designed with Class P
4,000-psi concrete, whereas nonstructural elements such as curbs
and gutters and all sidewalks were designed with Class B 2,500-psi
concrete. The specifications mandated that all concrete strength
requirements be met at 28 days of age, although the design–builder
did on occasion use additional mixtures that met the 28-day strength
requirement at an earlier date to facilitate the construction schedule.
256 Paper No. 02-3941 Transportation Research Record 1813

Sample Accepted by QC

Test by QA Team Verification by ADOT

NO
Results Compare Contractor & ADOT
Favorably Investigate Issue

YES
NO
Tests are Used Discrepancy
for Acceptance Solved

Use of Verification
Test to Accept or
Reject

FIGURE 3 Materials acceptance flowchart.

TABLE 1 Allowable Variations for Design–Builder and Arizona DOT Test Results Under the
Verification Program
SOILS
VERIFICATION TEST
TEST vs.
DESIGN-BUILDER TEST +/-
Plasticity Index 3
# 200 Sieve, % 1.5
Optimum Moisture, % 1.0
Proctor Density, pcf 2.0
Compaction, % 2.0
AGGREGATE (Base, Sub-base, Backfill, and Mineral Aggregates)
VERIFICATION TEST
TEST vs.
DESIGN-BUILDER TEST +/-
Sieve Analysis, %
# 16 and larger 4.0
# 40 3.0
# 200 1.5
Fractured Faces 9
Sand Equivalent 5
Plasticity Index 2
Moisture, % Optimum 1.0
Proctor Density, pcf 2.0
Compaction 2.0
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
VERIFICATION TEST
TEST vs.
DESIGN-BUILDER TEST +/-
Coarse Aggregate
# 8 and larger sieves, % 4.0
Fine Aggregate
# 4 mm, % 4.0
Larger than # 200 to less than # 4, % 3.0
# 200, % 1.5
Sand Equivalent 5
Air Content, % 0.5
Slump, inches 0.5
Temperature, °F 2
28-day Compressive Strength, % 15
Ernzen and Feeney Paper No. 02-3941 257

TABLE 2 I-17 Design–Build Project Concrete Compressive Strength Data

Typical Use On Total Number Average 28-day
Specified Concrete Material The Project of Tests Taken Strength (psi)
Class "S" Concrete Bridge
4500 psi Decks 44 5294
Class "S" Concrete Median
4000 psi Barriers 245 5272
Class "S" Concrete Drilled Shaft
3500 psi Foundations 101 4501
Class "S" Concrete Sound Walls
3000 psi and Footings 864 4664
Class "B" Concrete Sidewalks and
2500 psi Curb and Gutter 331 3897
Class "P" Concrete Concrete
4000 psi Pavement 315 5139
TOTAL NUMBER OF
CONCRETE TESTS 1900

Throughout the construction process the design–builder obtained
samples and recorded 1,900 compressive strength tests, of which
25 failed to meet the strength requirements of the specifications.
Although statistics on failed test results are not kept by Arizona
DOT, conversations with its materials specialists revealed that the
test failure rate on the I-17 design–build project was no higher than
the rate that it typically experiences on its traditional projects in
which it does the QA work. In fact, the design–builder performed
many more tests than required by the contract specifications and in
this light provided Arizona DOT with a much higher level of QC
than is typically received (Randy Allenstein, Arizona DOT materi-
als specialist, personal interview, July 2001). In addition, 535 slump
tests were conducted on the delivered concrete materials. The strength
test results were the averages for three 4- × 8-in. cylinder breaks.
Table 2 shows the classifications of the material, the specified
strength, the typical use on the project, the number of test samples
taken, and the average strength obtained from the tests.
ARIZONA DOT HISTORICAL CONCRETE DATA
The Arizona DOT operates several regional testing laboratories
across the state, and these maintain databases of historical test results
for concrete samples. The local Phoenix Office provided test results
for 7,663 samples obtained from 1996 through 2000 for comparison
with the results for the I-17 project. These projects were all contracted
by the traditional design–bid–build method, with Arizona DOT pro-
viding the QA testing for the project. These test results were also the
averages for three cylinder breaks. The classification and strength of
the concrete in the historical data correlated directly with the classi-
fication and strength of the design–builder’s concrete; however, be-
cause of specification changes and the introduction of new mix de-
signs, the exact mix designs were not compared; only the specified
compressive strengths were compared. Table 3 shows the average
compressive strength of concrete from Arizona DOT historical data
along with the number of tests recorded.
CONCRETE DATA COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
The I-17 project data were compared with Arizona DOT historical
data, and conclusions can be made from the individual classifica-
tions. Table 4 shows the average compressive strength for each
classification and each data set. The most important thing to note
is that none of the test results even approaches the point of falling
below the specification strength. The analysis becomes a question
of which data set exceeded the specified strength by a greater mar-
gin. Closer inspection reveals that the strengths of the Class P con-
crete and the Class S 4,000-psi concrete are virtually equal for the
two data sets, with the strength of the concrete for each data set
exceeding the specified strength by 32%. When the other four clas-
sifications are factored in and all the scores are adjusted for their

TABLE 3 Arizona DOT Historical Baseline Concrete Compressive Strength Data

Total Number Average Compressive
Specified Concrete Material of Tests Strength (psi)
Class "S" Concrete
4500 psi 633 5646
Class "S" Concrete
4000 psi 557 5299
Class "S" Concrete
3500 psi 896 5057
Class "S" Concrete
3000 psi 2945 5152
Class "B" Concrete
2500 psi 681 4662
Class "P" Concrete
4000 psi 1951 5129
TOTAL NUMBER OF
CONCRETE TESTS 7663
258 Paper No. 02-3941 Transportation Research Record 1813

TABLE 4 Comparison of Concrete Compressive Strength Data

Specified Concrete Material Average Compressive Strength

ADOT Historical I-17 Design-Build
Baseline Data Project Data
(psi) (psi)
Class "S" Concrete
4500 psi 5646 5294
Class "S" Concrete
4000 psi 5299 5272
Class "S" Concrete
3500 psi 5057 4501
Class "S" Concrete
3000 psi 5152 4664
Class "B" Concrete
2500 psi 4662 3897
Class "P" Concrete
4000 psi 5129 5139

percentage of the total number of tests, the average concrete com-
pressive strength for the I-17 design–build project exceeded the
specified level by 45%. The average strengths for the Arizona
DOT historical database surpassed the specification requirement
by 52%. Of interest here is the fact that both the design–build proj-
ect and the projects whose data are included in the Arizona DOT
historical database operated under the same pay adjustment pro-
gram, which adjusts pay up or down on the basis of the increases
or decreases in material quality based on a statistical standard. In
other words, a new set of incentive rules was not applied to the
design–build project.
I-17 DESIGN–BUILD PROJECT MATERIAL
DENSITY TESTS
Three types of density tests were performed: aggregate base ma-
terial density tests, drainage density tests, and earthwork density
tests. The drainage and the aggregate base density tests consisted
of proctor tests done with imported or mix materials used as sub-
base materials for either pipe bedding or footings, whereas the
earthwork density tests were completed with natural materials,
which required compaction before backfill was placed. Therefore,
the earthwork density tests evaluated a combination of workman-
ship quality and the quality of the natural materials present on the
project site, whereas the drainage density tests and the aggregate
base density tests evaluated a combination of workmanship qual-
ity and the quality of the imported materials. The design–builder
tested samples throughout the duration of the project, taking sam-
ples for a total of 1,552 tests. These test results were gathered, and
an average density was calculated for each category. Table 5 shows
the type of density test, the number of samples tested, and the cal-
culated average density, which ranged from a low of 96.49% to a
high of 99.25%.
ARIZONA DOT HISTORICAL DENSITY TEST DATA
The Arizona DOT maintains a database of density test data similar
to the database of concrete test data. The database includes data
from all projects across the state of Arizona. However, the informa-
tion in the database is organized slightly differently from the I-17
project’s data. The data gathered from the database represent those
from projects with a wide range of characteristics, from large to
small contract value, from bridge to freeway construction, and
from complicated to fairly simple, all of which were completed be-
tween 1999 and 2000. Overall, the data represent a wide cross sec-
tion of 101 projects that were under construction at that time, with
a total of 1,034 test results examined. Table 6 lists the density test
used as well as the average density, the number of samples tested,
and the number of projects for each test category. The density re-
sults from the Arizona DOT historical database ranged from 97.64%
to 101.13%.
DENSITY DATA COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
A side-by-side comparison of the results of the density tests for the
I-17 design–build project and the data in the Arizona DOT histori-
cal database is presented in Table 7. Again, the discussion is not one
of failing materials but one of which data set exceeded the speci-
fications by how much. The I-17 density specifications were 95%
compaction in each of the three tests, and on average, the project
data clearly met that specification. The Arizona DOT historical data-

TABLE 5 I-17 Design–Build Project Density Test Data

Test Number Average
Description of Tests Density
Drainage Density 675 96.49%
Earthwork Density 591 97.70%
Aggregate Base Density 286 99.25%
Total Number of Tests 1552
Ernzen and Feeney
TABLE 6 Density Classification and Sample Size from Arizona DOT Baseline Data
Test Description Number of Projects Number of Tests Average Density
Drainage Density 20
Earthwork Density 48
Aggregate Base Density 33
Total Density Projects and Tests 101
TABLE 7 Material Density Test Data Comparison
Test ADOT Baseline Data
Description Average Density
Drainage Densities 98.33%
Earthwork Densities 97.64%
Aggregate Base Densities 101.13%
Total Cumulative Average 99.03%
base includes data for many projects with various specification re-
quirements, so it was not possible to measure those data against a
single standard percentage. The average for the I-17 project data was
equal to the statewide average in one of the three density categories
(earthwork density) and was slightly below the statewide average in
the other two categories. One would expect more scatter in this com-
parison because the data are for work done with widely different in-
place materials in different areas of the state. However, the two cat-
egories in which the design–builder’s averages failed to meet the
statewide averages included workmanship as well as imported ma-
terials, although the differences were small. Discussions with Ari-
zona DOT materials personnel indicated that in the contracting com-
munity technician knowledge of density testing is often not as strong
as knowledge of concrete strength testing, so this may be an area in
which Arizona DOT needs to remain vigilant (Randy Allenstein,
Arizona DOT materials specialist, personal interview, July 2001).
However, the availability of good-quality imported subbase ma-
terials in the Phoenix metropolitan area has recently begun to de-
cline, which could explain the differences between the two data sets
(Jay Guertin, Arizona DOT project engineer, personal interview,
September 2000).
SUMMARY
It is inevitable that state departments of transportation will continue
to face more complex projects than ever before and be pressured to
do more, faster, with less. Current alternatives for these agencies are
to use alternative delivery systems or to create incentives for sched-
ule compression and to shed more of the traditional agency missions
such as QA and QC to the contracting community. As state highway
agencies move further in this direction, it is incumbent on them to
first plan carefully during the procurement phase to ensure that they
choose qualified teams. They must then draft contracts and specifi-
cations that put sufficient checks and balances in place so that these
Paper No. 02-3941 259
181 98.33%
590 97.64%
263 101.13%
1034
I-17 Design-Build Project Average
Density
96.49%
97.70%
99.25%
97.81%
project delivery methods return quality equal to or better than that
obtained by the traditional methods.
The reconstruction of Interstate 17 in Phoenix, Arizona, used two
innovative concepts: design–build and a contractor-led quality man-
agement program. The I-17 project incorporated both of these con-
cepts into one large public reconstruction project in the center of the
seventh largest city in the United States. Despite the constraints of
working on one of the most heavily traveled roads in the state, the
design–build team of Granite and Sundt Contractors completed the
project in 30% less time than Arizona DOT had originally estimated.
A review of the materials testing data showed that despite the com-
pressed schedule and difficult working conditions, the results of the
concrete strength tests exceeded the specification requirement by
45%, on average. This compared very favorably with the results for
traditional Arizona DOT projects whose data are included in a his-
torical database, for which the average compressive strength test
result surpassed the specification by 52%. Likewise, the density tests
showed similar results, with the average densities for the design–
build project being between 96.49% and 99.25% and those for the
traditional projects ranging from 97.64% to 101.13%. Therefore,
although this comparison shows that the material quality is margin-
ally higher with traditional design–bid–build contracting and agency-
controlled QA, the differences are very small and the results are very
encouraging for other state highway agencies that are considering
moving in this direction and that are concerned about project quality.
REFERENCES
1. Sanvido, V. Project Delivery Systems: CM at Risk, Design–Build,
Design–Bid–Build. Research Report 133-11. Construction Industry Insti-
tute, Austin, Tex., April 1998.
2. Allenstein, R. Materials Sampling and Testing Report. Arizona Depart-
ment of Transportation, Aug. 1999.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Construction Management.