Ohio Department of Transportation MONTGOMERY IR-75 MODERNIZATION! "!# "! $%&'!()$%( $*+%(,(%$-+ Appendix G Ohio Department of Transportation District 7 1001 St. Marys Avenue Sidney, OH 45365
CH2M HILL PROJECT QUALITY PLAN General The Project Quality Plan (PQP) is an integral part of the CH2M HILL Transportation Business Group s (TBG) Quality Management Plan. The quality manager (QM) is responsible for developing the PQP, the PM is responsible for approving the PQP, with the project delivery leader (PDL) responsible for endorsing the PQP. This document describes the quality-related activities that will take place on this project. It is comprised of three main elements: Quality Assurance Quality Control Documentation Requirements Purpose of the PQP The purpose of the PQP is to ensure that the steps necessary to deliver a quality product to ODOT are identified at the onset of the project, including mitigation of significant risk issues. The PQP is addressed early in project conception so that quality activities are included in the scope and fee agreed upon with the client. Consistent development and implementation of the PQP requires a unified and solid commitment from CH2M HILL management, the PM, and the project team. Project Objective The objective of the project is to attain a balance between reasonable cost (project budget) and a high degree of client and project team satisfaction. ODOT, CH2M HILL, and the entire project team share the commitment to quality on this project. Specific commitments regarding scope and timeframes for ODOT reviews will be established at the project chartering meeting. Definitions There are many definitions of quality assurance and quality control in the engineering profession, and the two terms are often used interchangeably. For application on CH2M HILL TBG projects, the following definitions shall apply: Quality Assurance (QA) an overall program that establishes projectrelated policies, standards, guidelines, and systems aimed at producing an acceptable level of quality in the team s products. Quality Control (QC) project-specific activities that apply the policies, procedures, standards, guidelines, and systems developed in the QA program to maintain an acceptable level of quality in the team s products, through application of sound project management principles and practices. Project Management Plan Page 2
Budget for Quality-Related Activities The complete scope, schedule, and budget for the project are included in the project workplan. All quality-related activities outlined here are included in the budget provided in the project workplan. Any questions regarding scope, schedule, or budget should be directed to the PM. Quality-related activities undertaken by the designers and checkers are considered to be part of the design function, and time worked should be charged to the appropriate design task number(s) as listed in the project workplan. Quality-related activities undertaken by the QM and all reviewers are considered to be part of the QC function, and time worked should be charged to the appropriate QC task number(s) as listed in the project workplan. Quality Assurance Specific elements of the QA program include establishment of: Roles and responsibilities for the project team Quality reviews Guidelines for dealing with professional disputes with client direction Policy for sealing of documents It is essential that ODOT decision makers, local public agency stakeholders, and CH2M HILL senior staff be involved early and often throughout the design process, not just for deliverable reviews. Roles and Responsibilities General Each firm on the project team is fully responsible for the work produced by its staff and each individual is responsible for his or her own work. Review of the work, regardless of whom (or which firm) may perform the review, should not in any way relieve the originator of the work (or his or her firm) of their responsibility to perform within the standards of the industry. Project Manager As PM, Steve Wanders, is responsible for overall project execution, including client interface and satisfaction, coordinating project work, conducting risk assessments, approving the PQP, maintaining the project schedule and budget, and assuring that the appropriate reviews have been budgeted, planned and completed. In conjunction with TBG management, the PM is responsible for assembling a qualified and sufficient staff for the project. Deputy Project Managers As Deputy PMs, Daniel Baah and Rick Splawinski will provide assistance to the PM in executing the project and maintaining the project schedule, budget, and quality. Project Management Plan Page 3
Quality Manager As QM, Van Walling establishes, maintains, and determines compliance with the technical and management aspects of project quality. The QM is also responsible for validating the risk assessments, developing and implementing the PQP, developing and managing the budget, schedule, and staffing for quality-related activities, and coordinating the quality reviews. The QM reports directly to the PDL and is not under the direct line authority of the PM. Task Managers Task managers are listed for each discipline in the Project Team Organization Chart. Task managers are responsible for complete delivery of the assigned project elements, under the technical direction of the Deputy PMs. Project Engineers Project engineer assignments may be made for individual plan components or discrete design responsibilities within each discipline. Project engineers are responsible for the preparation of assigned plans, specifications, and estimates, including applicable technical memoranda, reports, and design calculations. The Quality Process Log is the repository for the current list of the project engineers for each discipline. CAD/CAE Lead Joe Everette, CAD/CAE lead, is responsible for developing and implementing the CAD/ CAE project instructions, CAD file setup and maintenance, overall plan preparation, and deliverable production. This includes coordination of these efforts between CH2M HILL s Dayton office, other CH2M HILL offices (if needed), and subconsultants. Designers Designers are responsible for the development of hand- or computergenerated design calculations, leading to the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. Designers are to document their work by entering their initials and date on design calculations and checklists used in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. The designers initials are also to appear on the plan sheets for which they are responsible. The term designer refers to a functional role rather than a job title. The PM, Deputy PMs, task managers, project engineers, etc. may serve as the designer for a given task. The Quality Process Log is the repository for the current list of the designers for each discipline. Checkers Checkers are responsible for providing an independent, detailed (i.e. line-by- Project Management Plan Page 4
line ) check of hand- or computer-generated design calculations, plans, specifications, and estimates. In keeping with the goal of providing continuous quality, these activities are to occur on an on-going basis throughout the design process. Checkers are to document their work by entering their initials and date on design calculations and checklists used in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. The checkers initials are also to appear on the plan sheets for which they are responsible. The term checker refers to a functional role rather than a job title. The PM, Deputy PMs, task managers, project engineers, etc. may serve as the checker for a given task. The Quality Process Log is the repository for the current list of the checkers for each discipline. Reviewers (Bidability, Compatibility, Constructibility, Technical) All reviewers should be committed to treating the assignments as equal to their other client work. The acceptance of this role means an uncompromising commitment to the QC review process, budget and schedule, as well as an overall commitment to the success of this project. Reviewers are responsible for checking the accuracy and completeness of the project deliverables within the guidelines shown for each review type as described in Section 6.2.4. The reviewers function is not to re-study or re-design the work, but to find errors, omissions, or conflicts, and to ask questions or raise issues regarding design features that may present a problem. A reviewer is not expected to find answers to all questions asked or to resolve all issues raised. Many review comments may not note or correct errors in the strictest sense. Rather, reviewer comments may present a better alternative (in the opinion of the reviewer). Such comments should not necessarily be discouraged (indeed, these may form the basis for lessons learned and improvements for future submittals). However, reviewers should bear in mind that the intent of the QC review process is to produce a deliverable product that is appropriate, biddable, constructible, and economical, and which contains as few errors and omissions as practicable. In addition to task-specific queries, the reviewers should evaluate and comment on the following: Do the data and results support the conclusions? Do the assumptions seem reasonable? Have the client's requirements been satisfied? Are the analysis methods appropriate? Are there requirements that were not met? Are these appropriately documented? Additional Reviewer Responsibilities In addition to the reviewer responsibilities outlined in the above Section, all technical reviewers should make themselves available for discussions with project team members prior to formal deliverable review points. This interaction Project Management Plan Page 5
during project execution is a crucial part of CH2M HILL s continuous quality approach. For example, a designer should discuss design criteria, assumptions, and methodology with the appropriate technical reviewer prior to starting work. A designer assessing a key decision point in their work should know who the applicable technical reviewer is, and should discuss the pertinent issues with that technical reviewer as part of the early decision-making process. Technical reviewers are responsible for checking the reasonableness of the field data that is relied upon for the technical reports (evaluation and conclusions). The technical reviewer should confirm the reasonableness and completeness of the field data during the first review of deliverables based on that data. Each technical discipline should retain the field records with the reports within their control (i.e. in office files) throughout the project so that they can be accessible as needed while work is progressing and archived properly during project closeout. Specifications should be reviewed by the technical reviewer for each discipline. A technical reviewer should be assigned to review compliance with commitments made in the environmental document. Risk mitigation measures for preparation of the cost estimate should be developed to incorporate local standards of practice. Such practices may include use of actual bid prices from recent similar projects (factored for inflation and other appropriate adjustments), and use of price databases maintained by the client. An experienced technical reviewer who is familiar with local market pricing conditions, escalation factors, contractor s overhead and profit, and related factors should carry out an independent review of the cost estimate. Quantities should be checked prior to incorporating those quantities into the cost estimate. Project Team Staff Each team member is responsible for producing quality work, and for helping fellow team members to produce quality work. Quality Reviews Several quality reviews will be conducted for this project. These internal reviews can be categorized as follows: Project Delivery Technology: Discipline-Specific Technology: Comprehensive Table 2 outlines the frequency and schedule for these reviews. All of these various reviews constitute a budgeted, planned, and formal process of examination and inspection of project work products and deliverables. It is imperative that all project team staff recognizes and understands that none of these formal quality reviews are intended to be a substitute for maintaining quality in the ongoing performance of their work. Project Management Plan Page 6
Project Delivery Reviews Project delivery reviews include status reviews, senior management reviews, and milestone reviews. Status Reviews. The purpose of the status reviews is to address financial metrics and project progress, and to ensure that planned PQP activities are being conducted. These reviews are to be conducted by senior management staff from CH2M HILL (including representatives from TBG s project delivery function). Senior Management Reviews. The HIGH risk assessment of this project indicates that semi-annual senior management reviews are required. These reviews are to be conducted by senior management staff from CH2M HILL (including representatives from TBG s project delivery, staffing, and technology functions). Milestone Reviews. The PM, DPMs, and other project staff, as needed should conduct these reviews, after each Stage submittal. Specifically, these reviews should address project execution and focus on schedule, budget, quality, client satisfaction, staffing, and subconsultant performance. Technology: Discipline-Specific Reviews. Technology: discipline-specific reviews include technical reviews and field reviews. Technical Reviews. Technical reviews are to be performed for all work products prior to submittal for client review. The technical reviews are to focus on the appropriateness, constructibility, and economy of the design; the bidability, completeness, and consistency of the plans; accuracy of payment quantities; and confirmation that requested design changes from previous internal and client reviews have been completely addressed. Field Reviews. Field reviews involve visits to the project site to verify compatibility of the design with the field conditions expected to be encountered during construction. These reviews should be conducted as part of the design process, and as often as deemed necessary by the DPMs. Technology: Comprehensive Reviews. Technology: comprehensive reviews include bidability reviews, compatibility reviews, and constructibility reviews. Bidability Review. The bidability review is a review of the construction contract documents, prior to the bidding, which seeks to identify errors, omissions, Project Management Plan Page 7
conflicts, ambiguities, inaccuracies, and deficiencies. Bidability reviewers should confirm that sufficient information is provided in the plans and specifications to allow contractors to prepare bids without undue risk, uncertainty, or contingencies; that payment quantities are complete and in agreement with checked quantity calculations; and that construction requirements are consistent throughout the contract documents. Compatibility Review. The compatibility review is a review of combined work elements to identify and resolve conflicts that may exist among the various functional elements of the plan. Compatibility reviews should consider such items as consistency between the same functional elements that appear in different locations in the plans, specifications, and estimate; compatibility of different functional elements in all three dimensions; and compatibility of functional elements with respect to construction staging and phasing. Constructibility Reviews. The National Constructors Group, Inc. (NCG), along with select CH2M HILL staff, will perform specialized reviews of construction plans and specifications to identify construction requirements in the plans and/or specifications that are impractical, unnecessarily costly, risky, or difficult to build. Constructibility reviews consider such items as contractor access, site constraints, availability of resources, and relationship to other project work. Review Categories Quality Reviews Frequency Parties Involved Project delivery Status reviews Monthly Senior management staff from CH2M HILL Senior management reviews Semi-annually Senior management staff from CH2M HILL Milestone reviews After each stage submission PM, DPMs, QM Technology: discipline-specific Technical reviews Before submission of work products to client QM, task managers, project engineers, technical reviewers Field review Before each stage submission Task managers, project Engineers, other staff as needed Technology: comprehensive Bidability review Before Stage 3 submission QM, task managers, project engineers, bidability reviewer Compatibility review Constructibility review Before each stage submission Before each stage submission QM, task managers, project engineers, compatibility reviewer QM, task managers, project engineers, NCG The 15 Step Process for Quality Control is a spreadsheet that summarizes the QC process in the context of the overall project schedule. It depicts the interrelationship between: Project Management Plan Page 8
Work product development and checking Quality (internal) reviews (as defined in Table 2) and comment reconciliation process ODOT (external) reviews and comment reconciliation process Project team roles and responsibilities Professional Disputes with Client Direction Design changes or revisions may be requested or required by ODOT. Such changes may, in the opinion of the designer, reviewer, and/or PM, constitute an unsafe design or otherwise unwise decision. Differences of opinion with clients are among the most difficult problems to address. A balance should be struck between meeting client needs and producing a plan that does not compromise public safety or expose CH2M HILL or any member of the project team to liability. Should such a situation arise, the PM should consult the QM. The QM, and/or a designated reviewer, can provide assistance in interpretation of a design policy or guideline that may be in question, technical mediation, or the assembling of appropriate documentation of a decision. The PM is responsible to resolve and record any disputes with client direction to the satisfaction of both ODOT and CH2M HILL. Policy for Sealing of Documents No final professional document for this project shall be distributed until its contents have been reviewed and approved by the person in responsible charge. This person is responsible and accountable for the adequacy, suitability, and quality of the professional work contained in the document (usually the task manager or project engineer). All final plans shall bear the seal of an Ohio Professional Engineer or Professional Surveyor of the person in responsible charge of that plan component, certifying that the plan was prepared by that person or under his or her direct supervision. For this project, the plans will bear the seal of more than one registered professional, where more than one person or firm has been responsible for the work shown or contained. The responsible persons are the only persons permitted to place a seal or certification on the plans. Sealing in absentia or certification without review shall not occur. Plan Element/Sheet(s) Person(s) Sealing Plan Element/Sheet(s) Title Sheet Bridges Drainage Lighting Maintenance of Traffic Steve Wanders Dave LeBlanc, Vince Nganga, Mark Henderson (LJB), Rick Rockich (TranSystems) Chris Sherk Mark Hunter Daniel Baah Project Management Plan Page 9
Plan Element/Sheet(s) Person(s) Sealing Plan Element/Sheet(s) Noise Walls Public Utilities (water and sanitary) Retaining Walls Right of Way River Hydraulics Roadways Signing and Pavement Marking Traffic Signals Rick Splawinski Jack Jang (CEC) Emad Farouz, Rick Splawinski Doug Briggs, Joe Kuhlmann M.P. Cherian (DLZ) Daniel Baah Steve Jewel (DLZ) Steve Jewell (DLZ) Quality Control Technical Risk Assessment The PM has performed a technical risk assessment of the project. Based on this information, the project has been classified as a HIGH risk. and high risk factors are listed in Table 3 along with appropriate mitigative measures. Managing Technical Risks Managing these technical risks should include employing fundamental engineering and best practices; utilizing appropriate resources including senior technical staff with clear assignments of accountability; identifying and implementing appropriate technical needs including technical training where needed; understanding and balancing project cost budget, schedule and technical quality; and monitoring the risk factors and staying current with migitative measures. Discipline Technical Factors Risk Mitigative Measures Bridges and Structures Steel plate girder (river bridges) horizontally curved mainline & ramp bridges). Use appropriate senior bridge staff from CH2M HILL and subconsultant design firms. Load rating Load rating calculations now required with new bridge designs; use appropriate senior bridge staff. Roadway and bridge geometrics High Schedule is critical; must establish and fix geometry early Project Management Plan Page 10
Discipline Technical Factors Risk Mitigative Measures Bridge specifications (retaining wall specs) Use appropriate senior geotechnical and structural staff. Drilled shafts (maybe) Use appropriate senior geotechnical and structural staff. Retaining walls (most MSE; some top-down and combination) High Use appropriate senior geotechnical and structural staff engage ODOT and CH2M HILL technical reviewers early in wall type selection process. Noise walls (structure-mounted) Emphasize ODOT responsibility for acoustic and geometric design, include noise wall loadings in supporting retaining wall design criteria. Uniform design criteria, design appearance High Coordinate design criteria, cost estimating assumptions, plan and report formats between design firms prior to execution of designs. Absent aesthetic design direction from ODOT, record and gain endorsement for aesthetic assumptions prior to execution of structure designs. River hydraulics High Use appropriate senior hydraulic staff from subconsultant design firm; engage ODOT and MVCD reviewers early in hydraulic design process. Geotechnical High Use appropriate senior geotechnical staff from CH2M HILL and subconsultant design firm; engage ODOT and CH2M HILL technical reviewers early in recommendation and design process. Highways Geometric design urban streets and arterials) Schedule is critical. Finalize and obtain ODOT s and other stakeholders concurrence of Main Street Interchange and related local streets network early. Engage appropriate decision makers including ODOT and City of Dayton. Geometric design freeways and interchanges Schedule is critical. Establish and fix geometry early. Engage appropriate senior technical resources. Project Management Plan Page 11
Discipline Technical Factors Risk Mitigative Measures Safety and operational effects of geometry Engage appropriate senior staff early and throughout design process. Hydrology and drainage High Use appropriate senior hydraulic staff from subconsultant design firm; engage ODOT and MVCD reviewers early in hydraulic design process. Roadside design (includes barrier design) Work zone traffic control/maintenance of traffic High Engage appropriate senior staff early and throughout design Establish approach to traffic phasing, construction staging and work zone safety early. Engage appropriate senior staff including NCG early and throughout project execution. Signing and pavement marking Use appropriate senior staff early and throughout design process Right-of-way engineering High Schedule for R/W clearance is critical. Establish R/W design criteria and processes including concurrence from ODOT and Montgomery County early. Engage appropriate design resources and ODOT/County reviewers early and throughout project execution. Illumination design Use appropriate senior staff early and throughout design process Utility relocation (major issue, Jobs & Progress Plan focus) Construction cost estimating (major issue, Jobs & Progress Plan focus) High High Engage affected utility companies and ODOT early and throughout project execution. Seek, document and obtain written commitments from utility companies and ODOT regarding utility protection, accommodation, or relocation including schedule and cost. Engage appropriate senior staff early and throughout project execution. See Section 6.2.1.11 of PQP. Monitor and update construction cost estimate regularly as design progresses. Written documentation of cost variances including reasons of variances should be brought to light as soon as possible and reported to ODOT as part of periodic project progress report. Project Management Plan Page 12
Discipline Technical Factors Risk Mitigative Measures Survey & Mapping High Engage appropriate senior staff for technical oversight of data collection and quality, and data requirements, and formatting for mapping. Drainage & Hydraulics High Engage appropriate use of senior technologists in establishing staff training and technical needs early and throughout project execution. Design Criteria High Establish, document, and obtain concurrence with ODOT of key design criteria, at project onset, including understanding of design exceptions definitions, processes and requirements CAE High Identify and develop appropriate CAE process to meet the project/odot needs. Engage appropriate senior CAE technologists at the project onset to provide assistance in developing the project CAE process. Employ the use of best practices Geotechnical High Use appropriate senior geotechnical staff from CH2M HILL subconsultant design firm; engage ODOT and CH2M HILL technical reviewers early in recommendation and design process. Traffic Engineering Intelligent transportation systems Identify and establish opportunities for ITS implementation early in the design process. Traffic signal system design Coordinate design process early with City of Dayton and ODOT. Engage appropriate senior staff Access management (Main St. unresolved) Schedule is critical. Establish and fix proposed Main Street/I-75 interchange including access points early. Identify and engage key decision makers including ODOT, City of Dayton, and other stakeholders. Project Management Plan Page 13
Discipline Technical Factors Risk Mitigative Measures Traffic and highway safety (need to quantify) Establish criteria for quantifying safety early with ODOT and stakeholders. Parking planning and design Establish parking requirements including access, loss of existing parking, and potential damages with the City of Dayton and ODOT early in the design process. Pedestrian and bicycle planning and design (Main) Establish provisions and requirements for pedestrians and cyclists early in the design process with the City of Dayton, ODOT and other stakeholders. Engage appropriate decision makers. Conformity with Client Requirements Design criteria, specifications, documentation requirements, etc. should conform to ODOT and applicable federal requirements. The applicable design criteria for the project should be developed and discussed with ODOT and the Local Public Agency (LPA). The adopted design criteria should be approved by ODOT. See Attachment 1, Scope of Services (rev. 3/19/04) for references to ODOT design, plan preparation, standard construction drawings, and specification guidelines, and other reference materials. Design Exceptions Designers should document and keep records of the project design exceptions. The appropriate task manager should prepare a written summary of the project design exceptions in accordance with ODOT L&D Section 105.5. for design features that do not meet the applicable standards. The PM should advise ODOT, in writing, about design features that do not meet the applicable standards. ODOT is responsible for processing and obtaining approvals for design exceptions. A record of approved design exceptions from ODOT should be kept in the project files. Project Management Plan Page 14
Project Quality Plan Tools All team members should build quality into the designs, plans, specifications, estimates, etc. through the utilization of the tools described herein, and through the performance of normal self-checking. Designers are responsible for the implementation of the checking procedures described below to document the detailed checking of the work prepared under their direction. Design and Plan Preparation Checklists Design and plan preparation checklists should be used to verify and document the adequacy of the production and review efforts, and to reduce rework on each work element. Designers and checkers are encouraged to use the checklists shown in the ODOT L&D Manual, Volume 3 (Roadway) and on the ODOT Office of Structural Engineering website (Bridge Plan Checklists); however, other checklists may be used at the discretion of the designer and checker. Checklists are to be initialed and dated by the designer and the checker. Quality Certification Form The task manager for each discipline or work element, or their designee, should be responsible for certifying that the work produced conforms to PQP requirements. Specifically, the task manager or their designee should certify that: Work products have been checked in accordance with PQP requirements prior to submittal for internal quality review(s) (i.e. technology: discipline-specific reviews and technology: comprehensive reviews as defined in Section 1.2.2); Work products have been reviewed in accordance with PQP requirements prior to submittal for client review; and Internal quality review comments have been addressed and reconciled in the work product as documented on the Review Comment Form. Reviewers should certify that they concur with the reconciliation of their review comments as recorded on the Review Comment Form. Task managers should be responsible for ensuring that review comments have been addressed and reconciled as stated on this form. Reviewers are not responsible for back checking the final revised documents prior to submittal. Task managers or their designees for each discipline or work element should sign the Quality Certification Form to certify compliance with the PQP requirements listed above. Reviewers should sign the Quality Certification Form (along with the completed and reconciled Review Comment Form see Section 1.3.7 of the PQP) to document their concurrence with the disposition of their review comments. Review Procedures All reviewers (bidability, compatibility, constructibility, and technical) should document their review comments two ways; by using the Review Comment Form, and by providing markups directly on the product(s) (i.e. plans, Project Management Plan Page 15
specifications, reports, and estimates) they are reviewing. Review Comment Form Reviewers should use this form to record their review comments. The electronic version of the form is preferred, but paper versions are acceptable. Review comments should be categorized by type as indicated on the form and described as follows: Comment Code F = Fatal flaw; must be revised S = Serious problem; needs to be addressed, could escalate to F if left unattended C = Coordination problem; disciplines need to talk R = Revision needed; not serious N = Note to designer; not serious, no need to incorporate, but could result in a better product in the future The completed form should be e-mailed to the task manager or project engineer and QM immediately upon completion of the review. Task managers or project engineers should use the electronic version of this form to record their responses to the review comments. Responses should be categorized by type as indicated on the form and described as follows: Response Code A = Agree or Will Comply; will revise (no written response required) P = Partially Agree; will revise to some degree (see written response) D = Disagree; will not revise (see written response) Issues categorized as P or D should be reconciled between the task managers or project engineers and reviewer(s) immediately. The resultant agreed-upon disposition of the comment should be entered on the form. The form should then be e-mailed to the QM and reviewer(s). The reviewer(s) should reply to the QM and task manager documenting their concurrence with the disposition of the comments. The QM is responsible for monitoring the reviews and verifying that all comments have been reviewed and addressed. The QM should provide feedback to the PM on any review comments not accepted and incorporated. The PM is responsible for decisions regarding acceptance or the rejection of comments or suggestions, and to confirm that the comments/responses have been appropriately incorporated into the deliverable. The PDL, appropriate Senior Technologists, or Chief Engineers may be consulted for direct input to help resolve disputes involving differences in judgment of the PM and other project staff. Markups Electronic reviews (e.g. use of redlining software for plan sheets) are an acceptable option as part of the checking process. Technical reviews, however, are required to be conducted the old fashioned way, i.e. marking up hard copies of the plans, specifications, estimates, and other deliverable products in Project Management Plan Page 16
accordance with the standardized color-coded, checking procedure detailed in the CAD/CAE project instructions. Reviewers are to initial and date the plan component (plan, specification, estimate, and report) for which they have review responsibility. ODOT and Reviewing Agencies Comments The task managers in consultation with the appropriate staff should address and prepare written responses to ODOT and LPA review comments. The PM and DPMs should review the response and discuss with the task managers prior to submitting to ODOT. Documentation Requirements Project Team Acknowledgement of PQP Requirements Project team staff should become familiar with the project workplan, including the project instructions and quality documents. Before individuals begin work on the project, they should confirm that they have received and understand the project workplan and PQP. Quality Process Log Maintenance & Availability The QM should develop and maintain the Quality Process Log (QPL) to document all quality-related activities on the project. The QPL identifies the designer, checker, and the reviewer for each work product. Documentation of QC Activities The project team staff is responsible for adherence to good practices of work documentation, ongoing review and consultation, and documentation of decisions to support the quality of deliverables. Documentation Control Project documents should be kept as stated under Section 5.7 of the project workplan. These documents should not contain personal statements, obvious unprofessional statements, inappropriate opinions, or misrepresentation that could harm CH2M HILL and/or its reputation. Project documents should contain records of design decisions, actions, directions, assumptions, or correspondence that pertains to CH2M HILL s delivery of the project. Design Documentation Task managers should document and keep records of design decisions made on the project, as noted in Section 5.7 of the project workplan. Design documentation, including calculation sheets, prepared by CH2M HILL staff should be recorded on CH2M HILL forms. Similarly, design documentation prepared by subconsultant staff should be recorded on each respective company s forms. Project Management Plan Page 17
Filing of QC Documentation Electronic Files Electronic versions of the QC review-related documents described in Section 6.3 of the PQP (including technical risk assessment, design exceptions, quality certification forms, review comment forms, etc.) should be maintained in the QA/QC folder in the project directory on CH2M HILL s Dayton office server. QC checking-related documentation (e.g. design and plan preparation checklists) is not required to be filed. Paper Files Paper versions of the documents described in Section 1.3 of the PQP for which electronic versions are not available should be maintained in the QA/QC volumes of the project notebooks at CH2M HILL s Dayton office. The PM is responsible for purging and archiving project records in accordance with CH2M HILL s policy on hardbacking and storage. The PM should contact the Project Delivery Manager for a current copy of the policy. Project Management Plan Page 18