2-Appendix V - UTAs Design Quality Procedures.pdf

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT

Design Quality Procedures (Attachment to the UTA

Quality Management Plan QMP)

December 2022

Revision History Revision # Date Prepared By: Approved By Date kshinall Text Box Appendix II

UTA Design Quality Procedures i December 2022

Table of Contents

Section 1—General and Administrative

1.0 Procedure Format

1.1 Preparation and Revision of Design Quality Procedures

1.2 Terms and Definitions

1.3 Documentation Control

1.4 Quality Records

Section 2—Project Management

2.1 Preparation and Maintenance of the Project Management Plan

2.2 Quality Program for Consultants and Sub-Consultants

2.3 Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software

2.4 Use of Senior Staff Specialists as Technical Advisors

Section 3—Planning and Design

3.1 Checking of Calculations

3.1.1 Checking of Calculations Using the Independent Analysis Method

3.2 Checking of Drawings

3.3 Checking of Specifications, Cost Estimates, and Contract Documents

3.4 Checking of Input to Computer Programs

3.5 Review of Studies or Report-Type Documents

3.6 Design Coordination Review (DCR) and Technical Coordination Review (TCR) Of Interim Submissions

3.7 Constructibility Review (CR) of Documents

3.8 Formal Review of Documents By UTA and Other Entities

3.9 Project Management Review of Documents

3.10 Quality Audits Of Planning and Design Functions

3.11 Documentation and Transmission of Design Directives and Revisions

3.12 Quality Control of CADD-Produced Documents

3.13 Implementation of Corrective and Preventive Action

3.14 Design Changes during Construction

3.15 Responses to Field Inquiries

Procedure No.: 1.0 Approved: ___

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 2 December 2022

Section 1—General and Administrative

1.0 Procedure Format

Purpose

The purpose is a concise statement of the reasons for issuing the procedure.

Scope

Generally identifies the conditions under which the procedure is applied within the UTA Capital Development Department. This section also contains statements relative to the extent of treatment or coverage provided by the procedure.

Background or Introduction (Optional)

This section may be included to provide extended background or explanatory information to assist in the understanding and implementation of the procedure.

Responsibilities

This section defines the responsibilities of the individuals (by job title) or department that implement the procedure. Specific responsibilities are delineated to the level necessary in order to avoid ambiguity.

Procedure

This section describes the approved method used by employees to uniformly achieve the intent of the procedure. All forms and figures used shall be included in this section. Procedures should be clear and complete so that inadvertent violation of any requirement is avoided.

Exceptions (Optional)

This section describes the process under which waivers, or deviations from the procedure, may be requested, reviewed, and approved.

Reference (Optional)

This section, when used, is a listing of documents to amplify or identify other interfacing procedures.

Forms (Optional)

This section, when used, lists the titles and numbers of all forms necessary to implement the procedure.

Figures (Optional)

Figures may be included, when necessary, for effective implementation of the procedure.

Figures may be in the form of tables or other supporting descriptive information necessary to enlarge on the requirements or use of the procedure.

Procedure No.: 1.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 3 December 2022

1.1 Preparation and Revision of Design Quality Procedures

Purpose

To define the method, format, and approval requirements related to the preparation and revision of a project’s Design Quality Procedures (DQP) document.

Scope

Design quality procedures provide a standard method or basis for the performance of quality control and assurance activities for UTA design projects.

To provide optimum effectiveness, procedure preparation must be coordinated with the project manager and staff so that their review and comments can be considered before the procedure is finalized.

A project’s design quality procedures document is dynamic and changes will be issued as the program requires refinement or adaptation.

Responsibilities

The project manager is responsible for identifying those activities that require a DQP and defining the scope and content, along with preparation and distribution of each procedure, as applicable.

Individuals within the design organizations, assigned responsibility for the preparation of design quality procedures, are to follow the format established in procedure 1.0, Procedure Format.

While the UTA quality manager is responsible for preparation, coordination, maintenance, and initial approval of the DQP, the project manager may be called upon to initiate or review the procedures.

Procedure

Preparation of a DQP generally follows the outline delineated in procedure 1.0, Procedure Format. The outline may be adjusted when necessary; i.e., if all the sections delineated are not needed, only those that are applicable should be used.

1. Design quality procedures are produced with the header shown on this procedure.

2. The initial number of each procedure indicates the general subject area, as follows:

Section 1 - General and Administrative

Section 2 - Project Management

Section 3 - Planning and Design

3. Procedures are in effect on the “issued” date shown, providing the procedure has an “approved” signature.

4. When a revision is issued to a previously approved procedure, the original issue date continues to be shown and the effective date indicates the activation date of the latest revision. The footer of each page notes the revision date; i.e., October 2006 Revision, January 2007 Revision, etc.

The revised text is highlighted to show the manual holder exactly where the procedure has changed.

Procedure No.: 1.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 4 December 2022

5. All design quality procedures are approved by the UTA quality manager. Revisions to procedures follow the same general review pattern as original procedures. Revision to a procedure requires approval by the UTA quality manager.

Procedure No.: 1.2

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 5 December 2022

1.2 Terms and Definitions

Purpose

To provide standard definitions for specialized terms used in design quality procedures.

Scope

This procedure defines specific quality control/quality assurance or related UTA terms that are not adequately defined in common dictionaries.

Responsibilities

All employees using these Design Quality Procedures are responsible for applying the definitions herein to the terms used in the procedures.

Procedure

For an alphabetized listing of terms and their accepted definitions, for use with the procedures, see appendix A of the Quality Management Plan.

Procedure No.: 1.3

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 6 December 2022

1.3 Documentation Control

Purpose

To define the processes and responsibility for coding, filing, and distributing quality records, design documents, and project standards.

Scope

This procedure is applicable to both technical and administrative documents, along with contractually required submissions and review comments on said submissions.

Responsibilities

The project manager is responsible for ensuring that document control procedures are implemented. The recipients of correspondence or transmittals are responsible for delivering the document to the administrative assistant to be logged, processed, and filed.

Procedures

Please refer to the UTA Capital Development Document Control Procedures manual. The latest version of the manual is available in SIRE document management system, under “Document Control Retention”, located in CDC084 General and Administrative.

Procedure No.: 1.4

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 7 December 2022

1.4 Quality Records

Purpose

To provide a system to ensure that all quality records are identified, collected, indexed, accessible, filed, stored, and discarded.

Scope

This procedure applies to all quality records identified by UTA.

Responsibilities

It is the responsibility of each individual within the project team to ensure that the quality records which they generate are legible and complete.

The project manager is responsible for establishing and issuing written requirements for the control and maintenance of the quality records. The project manager is also responsible for compiling and maintaining project quality records.

The project manager is responsible for control of and access to quality records for a given package until the completion of the QA review. The quality records are then transferred to document control.

Procedure

Identification and Maintenance

Each task manager has a procedure or work instruction identifying all quality records that are generated within the group.

All quality records are legible, dated, and identifiable to the project, person, or event to which they pertain.

All quality records are indexed, filed, and stored to facilitate easy access in accordance with the written requirements of the project manager.

Access to quality records is controlled to ensure the integrity of the records while permitting access to those who need the records.

Storage and Maintenance

All quality records are hard copies, with signatures, and are stored in facilities that provide a suitable environment to prevent damage, deterioration, and loss.

Retention and Disposition

Quality records are retained for the period of time defined in UTA’s retention policy for all design project documents. Any quality record not identified in the policy is retained until at least the closeout of the project.

The latest version of the UTA Capital Development retention policy is available in SIRE document management system under “Document Control Retention” in CDC084 General and Administrative.

Procedure No.: 2.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 8 December 2022

Section 2—Project Management

2.1 Preparation and Maintenance of the Project Management Plan

Purpose

To define the method, format, and approach, associated with the preparation and maintenance of the project management plan (PMP), for guidance of the project staff in the management and performance of the project. FTA requirements for preparation of PMP should be considered.

Scope

A PMP is required for any major project ($10 million or more) in accordance with this procedure or when required by FTA, UTA management, or any other authority.

Background

The project management plan is developed to combine all elements of the project into a strategic plan for the successful completion of the project. It is a communication tool for distribution to the project team so that each member is clear on his or her contribution, when it is due, and how it interfaces with other project elements.

This document is, in effect, a process model that clearly describes what UTA wants, how to achieve these goals, and the resources that are to be devoted to the project.

Responsibilities

Responsibility for preparation of the project management plan rests with the project manager.

The PMP must establish the project parameters for all disciplines involved in design and must reflect UTA’s contractual requirements and contract limitations.

The PMP must be approved by the project manager and the UTA Quality Department prior to distribution.

Procedure

The project management plan is divided into five (5) major sections dealing with the project work program, project organization and control, budget and cost control, schedule control, and safety.

1. Plan Format - The PMP will follow the format shown in Figure 2.1-1.

2. Reproduction of the Plan - The PMP is reproduced on single-sided pages by photocopy method. It is bound in a loose-leaf binder with each subsection begun on a new page for easy substitution or addition of pages when revisions are necessary.

3. Distribution of the Plan - The initial and subsequent issues of the project management plan are distributed by the project manager to the following:

Project manager of each consultant

Project director

Design manager of each consultant

Quality assurance manager

The project manager is responsible for maintaining a master distribution list and controlled distribution of the plan.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 9 December 2022

4. Revisions to the Plan - The plan must be a dynamic document that conveys the lessons of experience on the job and provides the direction needed to complete the project successfully.

5. Documentation of Revisions - As revisions or amendments to the PMP are distributed, they are accompanied by a transmittal slip listing the current and all previous revisions by revision sequence number, the revision date, and the pages revised or added by that revision as follows:

Revision No Date Pages Revised 1 05-03-06 3-4 added

7-1, 7-2

——(figure 2.1-1 starts on the next page)——

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 10 December 2022

Figure 2.1-1: Planning and Design Plan Format

1.0 Project Work Program

1.1 Project Description

Clearly define the type of project, scope, and limits. Include the description for procurement strategy and any special requirement.

Describe special physical, technical, timing, or other conditions affecting the design.

Include schematic location plans and/or other graphics that will help to visually define the project scope.

1.2 Work Program

Outline the major tasks and subtasks of the project and define their interdependency and relationships to other tasks.

Prepare detailed lists of information required, that is to be provided by others to each discipline, office, and consultants, to complete those tasks or work phases for which they are responsible.

NOTE: Cost and time restraints associated with information requirements and task completions should be identified. Also, the expected source of the information should be clearly noted.

State the approach to be taken on each task; including, where applicable, software to be utilized and/or modified, analysis to be performed, etc.

List those tasks that will require peer review or the services of a technical advisory specialist not yet assigned to the project team.

1.3 Applicable Standards

List all standard documents, design, other applicable criteria, and standard codes required that will be used to evaluate the project deliverables.

1.4 Contract Deliverables

A list of all deliverables, together with descriptions, quantity to be delivered, and the scheduled date, should be included in the plan.

Descriptions of deliverables should include engineering scales, printing method, estimated number of pages or sheets, type of reproducible if applicable, and other information required to clearly establish production time and cost, along with where the printing or artwork is to be done.

The methods of shipping and lead time for shipment of deliverables are to be identified.

2.0 Project Organization and Control

2.1 Project Organization

Define the composition of the team and organizational structure for the project. Use organization charts to show relationships.

Describe the supervisory and technical lead, support, and review responsibilities for each applicable task. Clearly define a job description for each member of the project staff.

Identify the peer reviewers and technical advisory specialists who will provide advice and review of tasks requiring input beyond the experience of the project team.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 11 December 2022

2.2 Client Interface

Identify key project team members by name, job title, mailing address (office location if different), and phone number.

Describe the organizational interfaces among UTA, consultants, agencies, and local jurisdictions.

Describe responsibility for, and intended format and schedule of, progress reports and key presentations to UTA.

List the set of services to be provided by the consultant and the services to be provided by UTA;

e.g., office space, LAN, WAN, software, automobiles, office equipment, etc.

2.3 Subcontract Administration

List sub-consultants to consultant, their project manager, office addresses, telephone numbers, the location where the work is being performed, and briefly describe their scope of work.

Identify the consultant’s person responsible for development of the work program and coordination, review, and acceptance of the work of each sub-consultant.

State each sub-consultant responsibility for staffing, the type of contract-specific deliverables, quality management system to be utilized, and their responsibilities for the checking and review of their deliverables.

2.4 Project Administration

Clearly define procedures for receipt and distribution of project information, including correspondence logging, internal/external distribution, and handling of decisions and direction documents.

Define the project numbering system and the work breakdown structure (WBS) numbers to be used for various tasks, disciplines, offices, etc.

Designate responsibilities for maintenance of project files and define other document control procedures. This should be put together with DQP 1.4 Quality Records in mind, project document retention, and a complete filing index should be created to serve as a storage inventory.

Describe all other project procedures that may differ from, or may not be covered by, the UTA administrative or the quality assurance procedures.

3.0 Budget and Cost Control

3.1 Cost Control System

Describe how the UTA cost control systems are to be applied to the project.

Identify the invoicing procedures for the project.

Identify the billing limitations for the project.

3.2 Budget

Define total project limitations and assumptions by task, criteria, and contracts upon which estimates of person-hours and project budgets were based.

Summarize person-hours by major task.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 12 December 2022

3.3 Variations and Changes

Identify contract provisions with regard to processing and payment for changes in the work program.

Amendments or changes to contracts should be addressed as to the approvals or formalities necessary to make the change.

Changes to the base contract, such as phases of funding and annual funding through supplemental agreements or transferring of funds from one phase of the program, should be addressed.

4.0 Schedule Control

4.1 Project Time Schedule

Establish a project time schedule that coincides with the work program that meets UTA requirements.

Any time limitations and penalties in the contract should be clearly indicated and strategies to meet tight completion dates should be clearly stated for each deliverable.

4.2 Schedule of Project Deliverables

A clear and concise schedule must be prepared that indicates submission of project deliverables, internal reviews, major internal meetings, project status reports, and all other major milestones in achieving the project goals.

—— (end of figure 2.1-1)——

Procedure No.: 2.2

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 13 December 2022

2.2 Quality Program for Consultants and Sub-Consultants

Purpose

To establish the requirements for quality control of design documents prepared by consultant and its sub-consultants.

Scope

This procedure applies to all technical consultants retained and sub-consultants to provide UTA with project services such as surveys, investigation, testing, analyses, and/or design and services during construction.

Background

UTA requires of its consultants a professional level of diligence and care, in performance of the scope of services, equal to that expected of its own staff. Contracted planning, design, and construction-related services must comply with the quality program, including all applicable provisions of the DQP and documentation requirements. QA reviews of design submittals and formal audits of the quality process at the consultant’s premises will document the consultant’s compliance with the quality program.

All prospective consultants and their sub-consultants should be made aware of the quality control requirement at the time they are contacted for their services.

Responsibilities

The consultant’s design manager has the responsibility of ensuring that his/her and any sub-consultant’s staff gain familiarity with the project’s quality program and procedures through continuous liaison with the design quality assurance organization.

The design quality manager is responsible for conducting QA/QC training classes during the early stages of the project that the consultant or sub-consultant’s design staff may attend. In addition, copies of the approved DQP are distributed to all sub-consultants for their guidance.

The UTA quality manager is responsible for assessing the consultant’s understanding of the program through formal QA audits.

Procedure

1. Consultants and sub-consultants are to be advised of the intent of this procedure prior to their preparation of a work program and budget.

2. The consultant or sub-consultant is to be provided with the DQP and invited to attend quality indoctrination sessions conducted by UTA quality manager.

3. The consultant or sub-consultant follows the procedures along with the rest of the design team.

4. Compliance with the program is assessed during QA audits by the UTA quality manager.

Procedure No.: 2.3

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 14 December 2022

2.3 Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software

Purpose

To prescribe the method and documentation required before computer software may be used for performing design calculations or other manipulations for the project.

Scope

The requirements for validation of software apply to any purchased, contracted, or locally prepared software, which is to be used for design or calculations. UTA has provided a record-keeping system so that once the verification process is complete, it need not be duplicated for identical design applications.

Responsibilities

The design quality manager audits implementation of this procedure and provides guidance when its application is questioned.

Project managers are to immediately identify the software to be used and assess the availability of validation documentation for that software. When documentation for a particular application does not exist, appropriate assignments must be made to fulfill the requirements of this procedure.

Project managers review the available validation documentation to assure themselves of the similarity of the application and the software parameters.

Procedure

1. When it is determined that a first-time usage of software or a new application is required for engineering calculations, the software or software application is to be validated and documented as follows:

A hand calculation with the same formulation or a parallel technique must be documented and checked in accordance with DQP 3.1.

NOTE: In order to provide effective and efficient validation, checked calculations from a previous project or the input and output from a validated program may be substituted for original hand calculations.

The same input and assumptions utilized in the hand calculations are formatted and input into the computer to check the software. Computer input is to be checked in accordance with DQP 3.4.

The output of the computer is compared to the results of the hand calculation with each corresponding answer annotated as equivalent values. Differences which are not obviously accountable to rounding are to be explained on the output sheet.

Complete documentation of the validation, to include fully checked calculations, checked computer input, printout of program when available, annotated output printout and a brief description of the processes followed are to be maintained in the office file.

2. This software quality control procedure, when performed by any consultant or sub-consultant employee, will become an acceptable project-wide validation.

3. Commercially available programs that come with validation documentation are acceptable if project personnel review the documentation and sign off, attesting that it conforms to the standards set forth herein.

Procedure No.: 2.3

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 15 December 2022

4. Sub-consultants to consultants who utilize software in the performance of their contracted planning and design work will be held to standards similar to those set forth herein.

References

DQP 3.1 Checking of Calculations

DQP 3.4 Checking of Input to Computer Programs

Procedure No.: 2.4

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 16 December 2022

2.4 Use of Senior Staff Specialists as Technical Advisors

Purpose

This procedure establishes situations under which senior staff with special expertise should be assigned, along with their functions, during execution of the project.

Scope

At the proposal stage, those tasks or groups of tasks that involve unusual or intricate procedures and planning or design techniques are identified. Adequate budget is to be assigned for senior specialists, or special outside consultants, to serve as technical advisors during the conceptual phase of the project and to follow up on the results of those tasks during the design development phase and before submission of preliminary or final documents to UTA.

Ultimate responsibility for the quality of the work rests with the project manager. Technical advisors must therefore answer to the project manager.

Responsibilities

The project manager has overall responsibility for coordination of technical and design review activities.

The project manager should take steps to ensure cooperation of task managers and other UTA staff responsible for work elements or tasks for which technical advisory services are required.

The task manager schedules the technical advisory service for that task, design element, or other activity, pertaining to the assigned area of responsibility, so as to not adversely affect delivery schedules.

The technical advisor gives the project manager timely written assessments necessary to allow completion of design documents or other deliverables.

It is the responsibility of the project manager and task managers to take appropriate action to carry out the directions of the technical advisors, even in their absence from the project office.

Procedure

1. The most qualified senior staff member with expertise in the type of design or element of work in question should be selected to serve as technical advisor at the project’s inception if it was not done at the proposal stage.

2. The project manager establishes the work program and schedule of activities for the technical advisor.

3. The technical advisor consults with, and gives direction to, the project manager responsible for the task in question in the development and analyses of design alternatives and design and construction techniques.

4. The technical advisor reviews study results or designs during the course of the project to ensure that concepts are sound, that directions are being properly interpreted and carried out, and that the study or design, as presented to UTA, conforms to requirements and the current state-of-the-art. The technical advisor provides direction and follow-up on the following:

Procedures, standards, design guides, and design criteria established by project staff and

UTA.

Concept drawings, design details, artists’ renderings, and models defining the basis of design.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 17 December 2022

Design analyses, sketches, and calculations.

Studies and reports dealing with value engineering, constructability, technical facility, and alternatives analyses.

Technical sections of specifications.

5. If conflicts occur, the problem is resolved between the technical advisor and the project manager.

Procedure No.: 3.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 18 December 2022

Section 3—Planning and Design

3.1 Checking of Calculations

Purpose

To provide guidelines for preparation and checking of engineering calculations.

Scope

This procedure applies to all hand calculations which are the basis for study, construction, or procurement documents provided to UTA.

Computerized calculations are to be checked in accordance with DQP 3.4 after the software is validated per DQP 2.3.

Introduction

All calculations are to be done on standard UTA or consultant calculation sheets. All information is to be printed, title boxes filled in completely, initials used in the sign-off blocks, pages numbered, sketches used as required to clarify the calculations, and all assumptions, references, units, and conclusions are to be clearly stated.

The originals and check prints of all hand calculations are to be indexed and stored in three-ring binders by the project manager, or a designee, until filed with document control.

Responsibilities

Project Manager Assures that the personnel assigned to the project are capable of performing the analysis or calculations required. Assures that the original calculations and check calculations are assembled, indexed, maintained, and stored in an orderly fashion.

Designers (Originators)

Use standard UTA or consultant’s calculation sheets. Present all calculations in a neat and logical manner which is conducive to checking.

Provide the calculations to the checker in a timely fashion. The originator is also the back-checker and may also act as the verifier.

Checker Thoroughly checks the calculations starting with assumptions, mandated parameters, references, given values and formulas, omissions, and correctness of arithmetic. The checker is responsible for asking questions of the designer in areas that are not clear or seeking technical advice if unsure of any particular element of the calculation.

Procedure

1. When a calculation or series of calculations have been completed, the originator makes a photocopy of the original and provides it to the checker for checking.

2. The checker checks each component of the calculations and highlights in yellow all portions checked as correct. Information identified as incorrect is lined through and corrected in red.

Comments by the checker should be made on the check print in black ink. When the calculation has been completely checked, the checker signs and dates the “checked by” block on the check print copy of the calculation sheet.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 19 December 2022

3. The originator back-checks the checker’s marks on the check print. To document the back-checking process, the originator:

Check-marks in green each of the checker’s red-marked changes if in agreement and adds in green, with the concurrence of the checker, any additional changes not picked up by the checker.

Crosses out in green each of the checker’s red-marked changes that both the originator and the checker agree should not be changed. The back-checker should not obliterate the checker’s marks.

NOTE: The back-checker and checker should resolve differences encountered during the checking process, so they are not repeated over and over again. If resolution cannot be achieved by the two individuals, the project manager should be consulted to resolve the differences.

Following back-checking, the originator changes the original set of calculations to reflect the agreed-to corrections.

1. The checker examines the original calculation sheets to verify that the agreed-to corrections have been made. Each correction verified as made to the original is circled on the check print in green. When all corrections are verified, the checker signs and dates the “checked by” block on the original calculation sheet.

2. The original calculations and check prints are then sent to the project manager to be indexed, stored in three-ring binders, and placed in the project files.

NOTE: An alternate way to check calculations is to prepare an independent calculation and compare the results to the originals. DQP 3.1.1 provides for this type of checking. This alternate method is especially applicable to structural design of major structures.

Reference

DQP 2.3 Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software

DQP 3.1.1 Checking of Calculations Utilizing the Independent Analysis Method

DQP 3.4 Checking of Input to Computer Programs

Figure

Figure 3.1-1 Sample Calculation Check Print (See next page)

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 20 December 2022

FIGURE 3.1-1: Sample Calculation Check Print

Procedure No.: 3.1.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 21 December 2022

3.1.1 Checking of Calculations Using the Independent Analysis Method

Purpose

To provide standards and procedures for an independent design check of structural design calculations and drawings.

Scope

This procedure applies to the structural design of all major structures constructed within UTA interchange areas as part of the UTA development project, and other major structures as may be selected by the structures project manager. Major structures include bridges and box culverts or tunnels with total lengths as measured along the roadway centerline greater than 20 feet, retaining walls with both a total length greater than 100 feet and a maximum exposed height greater than 5 feet, and parking structures. Checking of MSE walls shall be the responsibility of the MSE wall vendor. Independent design check involves the complete verification of all design elements and details to ensure structural integrity, constructability, and all project standards and criteria have been satisfied. It also includes the checking of drawings that depict the elements of design for the structure. This check results in two complete sets of design calculations, i.e., the original set of calculations and the independent design set of calculations.

Computerized calculations may be used provided that the software is validated per DQP 2.3.

Checking of components may be accomplished by comparison with similar designs, provided that sufficient documentation exists and it can be produced for audit that similar designs have been checked according to design quality procedures.

Responsibilities

Project Manager Assures that the personnel assigned to the project are capable of performing the analysis or calculations required. Assures that the independent design check is performed.

Designer (Originator)

Presents all calculations in a neat and logical manner. Performs corrections or redesign as agreed with the checker.

Checker The checker will be an experienced structural engineer, currently licensed as a professional engineer. The checker may be a member of the design team, but must not have been involved in the design of the structure being checked. The checker shall personally make independent engineering calculations for all elements of the structure as shown on the completed drawings. These calculations shall not be assigned to another person. The checker is responsible for asking questions and resolving discrepancies and deficiencies with the designer, or seeking technical advice if unsure of any particular element of the calculations.

Back-Checker (Designer)

Confirms corrections made by the checker.

Verifier (Checker)

Confirms that the back-checked corrections have been accurately made on the drawings.

Procedure No.: 3.1.1

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 22 December 2022

Procedure

1. When a project reaches a stage of completion where checking can begin, the originator shall assemble the following material:

Design criteria and memoranda as established by the client

A clear, unmarked set of plans with a numbered and dated check print stamp on each sheet

Draft special provisions

The originator signs or initials the check print stamp on each print. Then all materials are delivered to the checker.

2. The checker reviews the general plans and typical sections for any obvious omissions, conflicts, or incompatible structural framing. A constructability review of the configuration and details shall be made.

3. The checker checks the design criteria and general notes for conformance with the client’s requirements.

4. The checker completely recalculates the geometric layout. Use of computer programs is recommended as long as the program has been validated according to DQP 2.3. These calculations shall be documented in the same manner as original calculations to indicate that checks were made.

NOTE: Structural design check calculations are not started until items 2 through 4 are completed. Any discrepancies must be resolved with the originator. If revisions are necessary, the originator will revise the design and details before the checker proceeds.

5. The checker produces a set of independent calculations for a computer analysis of the structure.

6. The drawings are checked in accordance with DQP 3.2. The special provisions and payment items (if submitted) are checked for conflicts and omissions. The checker produces an independent set of quantity calculations.

7. If discrepancies are found, the following steps apply:

a. The checker notifies the originator that a possible discrepancy exists.

b. The originator checks the checker’s calculations governing the discrepancy, following the primary yellow line checking procedures in this DQP and signs off as having done so on the calculation sheets.

c. A statement of resolution, initialed and dated by both the originator and checker, is placed with or on the checker’s calculations.

d. If revisions are necessary, the originator revises the design and details before the checker proceeds further. The checker performs a yellow line check of the revision and signs off those calculation sheets as the checker.

References

DQP 2.3 Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software

DQP 3.2 Checking of Drawings

Procedure No.: 3.2

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 23 December 2022

3.2 Checking of Drawings

Purpose

To provide a uniform, orderly, efficient method for checking drawings before they are released for use as procurement or construction contract documents.

Scope

The checking of drawings, like any other checking, requires a minimum of two individuals: a checker/verifier, and an originator/back-checker.

Timely checking of drawings is important for efficient performance. A drawing used as a base by several disciplines should be checked and corrected before further additions are made to eliminate the need to check and correct the same items on subsequent drawings.

Responsibilities

The project manager is responsible to see that this procedure is implemented on all project drawings and that the check prints are stored for QA audit.

The originator of the work on a document has the primary responsibility for accuracy and adequacy. It is not intended that the originator rely upon the checking system to complete the drawing.

The originator of each document is responsible for making the check print, stamping, and dating it, following that check print through the checking process, and obtaining the required signoffs.

The originator also functions as back-checker and may also be the verifier.

The checker is responsible for checking the drawings, independent of the originator. The checker may also function as the verifier.

The back-checker (originator) reviews the checker’s comments and supervises the corrections to the drawings.

The verifier confirms that the corrections are made on the drawings.

Procedures

1. Initiating the Checking Process

As the drawings are completed in final format and deemed ready for checking, the originator signs or initials the title block of the drawings, makes a check print copy of each sheet, and stamps it with the check print stamp (figure 3.2-1). The Check prints are then passed to the checker.

2. Checking

The checker checks the drawings for technical adequacy and conformance to any applicable standards and format and performs specific accuracy checks required for that type of drawing.

Checking activity is recorded directly on the check print. The checker is responsible for ascertaining that the drawing is consistent with the corresponding checked calculations and signs off on the stamp under “Drawing Checked Against Calculations and Calculation Check Confirmed”. To document the checking process, the checker highlights in yellow on the check print each part that is found to be correct. Information found to be incorrect is lined through and corrected in red on the check print.

NOTE: Red or yellow should not be used to note comments or instructions. These colors are reserved for the checking process. Comments or instructions should be written in black ink.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 24 December 2022

The checker signs and dates the check print stamp upon completion of the checking. in the case where no corrections, additions or deletions are found, there is no need for backchecking or further signatures on the check print stamp.

3. Back-Checking

The originator (acting as back-checker) reviews the checker’s marks on the check print.

To document the back-checking process, the originator:

Checkmarks in green each of the checker’s red-marked changes if in agreement that the original should be changed, and adds in green, with the concurrence of the checker, any additional changes not picked up by the checker.

Crosses out in green each of the checker’s red-marked changes that both the originator and the checker agree should not be changed. The back-checker should not obliterate the checker’s marks.

NOTE: The back-checker and checker should resolve differences encountered during the checking process, so they are not repeated over and over again. If resolution cannot be achieved by the two individuals, the appropriate project manager or higher supervisor should be consulted to resolve the differences.

Signs and dates the check print stamp.

4. Correcting the Drawing Original

Correction of the drawing original should be supervised by (or drafted by) either the originator or checker, since both know exactly what needs to be done.

When making the corrections to the drawing original, the engineer, draftsperson, or CADD operator circles in blue each correction on the check print as incorporated.

The person correcting the drawing signs and dates the “corrected” block on the check print stamp. A new drawing original is printed and given to the verifier, along with the check print.

5. Verifying the Corrected Check Print

The verifier compares the check print with the new drawing original to affirm that the agreed-to corrections have been incorporated without error.

If the corrections are not made or are erroneous, the check print, with penciled instructions, is returned to the corrector.

The verifier circles in green each blue-circled item that had been incorporated correctly on the original drawing.

The verifier signs and dates the check print stamp, as applicable.

After the corrections have been verified, the checker initials on the “checked by” line in the title block of the drawing original.

6. Disposition of the Checked Drawing

The completed original (or CADD file) is put under the control of the project manager in order to prevent further changes in the drawing that could invalidate the checking which has been done.

The project manager releases the checked drawing to other disciplines to use as a baseline for their input, or to UTA.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 25 December 2022

NOTE: When there is a change to a checked drawing, a new check print must be made to check the area that has been changed. The check print is stamped and labeled check print 2, 3, 4, etc., as applicable, and attached to the previous check prints. The checking follows the same procedure as that of the original check print, except that only the portions that changed are marked up as having been checked.

Figures

Figure 3.2-1: Check Print Stamp

Figure 3.2-2: Sample Check Print Process

Figure 3.2—1: Check Print Stamp

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 26 December 2022

Figure 3.2—2: Sample Check Print Process

Procedure No.: 3.3

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 27 December 2022

3.3 Checking of Specifications, Cost Estimates, and Contract

Documents

Purpose

To provide guidelines for the checking of specifications, cost estimates, and contract documents.

Scope

This procedure applies to all specifications provided to a client for construction or procurement.

For special provisions with input from two or more disciplines, the document should go through a review process involving the contributing disciplines, as described in DQP 3.8, Design Coordination Review (DCR) and Technical Coordination Review (TCR) of Interim Submissions, or DQP 3.5 Review of Studies or Report-Type Documents.

Background

Checking and review of design documents are conducted to assure that the engineering for the project is sound. This procedure supplements design in order to assure that work is adequately specified, the current contract documents are utilized and properly completed, and the cost estimate of the work to be performed provides the client with adequate budgetary guidelines.

Responsibilities

The project manager is responsible for implementing this procedure on the project on an on-going routine basis.

The originator of the work has the primary responsibility for accuracy and adequacy. It is not intended that the originator rely upon the checking system to find and correct mistakes.

The originator is responsible for making the check print, following that check print through the checking process, and obtaining the required signoffs.

The checker is responsible for checking the documents, independent of the originator.

Procedure

1. Check of Contract Documents (General Conditions)

The originator provides a completed copy of the documents to the checker with the check print stamp on the reverse side of the first page and the originator’s input highlighted in yellow.

The checker verifies that the current or proper issue of the client’s documents has been utilized and the information inputted by the originator is accurate for the project.

Corrections are noted in red. After completing the check, the appropriate line on the check print stamp is signed and dated.

The originator back-checks and oversees the incorporation of the changes into the original document.

The checker or originator verifies that the typed-in changes are correct and signs and dates the verified block on the check print.

2. Check of Specifications (Special Provisions)

The originator provides to the checker a complete copy of the specifications with a check print stamp on the reverse side of the first page.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 28 December 2022

The checker reviews the specifications for applicability and clarity. Each page is marked through, indicating that it was reviewed; corrections are annotated in red, and the sheet tabbed for easy location. Upon completion of the checking, the checker signs and dates the check print stamp.

The originator back-checks the corrections and checkmarks it in green if in agreement. If not in agreement, the originator confers with the checker. If both agree that the correction should not be made, the originator crosses out in green the red marks. Upon completion of the back-check, the originator has the agreed-to corrections incorporated into the specifications, and signs and dates the check print stamp.

Either the originator or checker verifies that the corrections have been typed into the original document and signs as the verifier on the check print stamp.

NOTE: The individual that performs the corrections on the document is not allowed to also sign as the verifier, indicating that all the agreed corrections are properly incorporated in the document.

3. Checking of Cost Estimates

The originator provides a copy of the final estimate, the quantity take-off computations, and the source data for unit pricing and item numbering to the checker, with the check print stamp on the back of the first page of the estimate.

NOTE: The procedure for checking quantity take-off computations is the same as that used for calculations. (See DQP 3.1) Unit prices, if not furnished by UTA, must have UTA review during the design.

The checker compares the total quantity for each item on the estimate sheet against the computation sheet, marking the estimate sheet in yellow if correct and red if a correction is needed. Unit prices, item numbers, extensions, and totals are checked in the same fashion for cost estimates that are computerized. DQP 2.3, Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software, and DQP 3.4, Checking of Input to Computer Programs, apply.

The cost estimate shall also be cross-checked against the summary of quantity sheet of the drawings if one exists.

The originator back-checks the corrections and, if in agreement, has the changes made and verifies the changes if they are made by a third party.

Exceptions

If for some extenuating circumstance documents must be sent to UTA before this procedure has been fully implemented, the following will apply:

The project manager must notify UTA that the documents have not been checked and explain the reasons.

The documents must be stamped, “Unchecked. For Information Only”. If unchecked documents are to be submitted to the client for bidding purposes, they should be stamped “For Bidding Purposes Only—Not To Be Used For Construction.”

UTA should be notified in the transmittal letter that the checking process has not been completed.

Exceptions to the procedural documentation of the check prints can be given only by the design quality manager.

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 29 December 2022

References

DQP 2.3 Quality Control and Validation of Computer Software

DQP 3.1 Checking of Calculations

DQP 3.4 Checking of Input to Computer Programs

Figure 3.2.1: Check Print Stamp (applicable for this procedure)

Procedure No.: 3.4

UTA Design Quality Procedures Page 30 December 2022

3.4 Checking of Input to Computer Programs

Purpose

To provide for systematic checking of computerized design calculations to minimize the possibility of input errors.

Scope

This procedure is to be utilized for checking both non-local (batch) input and local keyed input to software programs.

Responsibilities

The project managers are responsible for the implementation of this procedure and for the project drawings and check prints that are stored for QA review.

The designer (originator) provides the input/output documents and other associated data to the checkers in a timely and complete manner so that the checking can be quick and thorough.

The checker thoroughly checks the input parameters and all assumptions, references, and mandated values. In the case of interactive CADD input, the checker thoroughly checks graphical output by measurement or visual verification to ensure that the desired results have been achieved.

Procedure

1…