Exploring the Use of Quality Control Plans for Alternative

Contracting Methods in Highway Projects

Phuong H. D. Nguyen, A.M.ASCE 1; and Daniel Tran, M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Quality control (QC) is an essential component of quality assurance (QA) programs used to monitor and ensure the highway
construction projects’ quality. After receiving the contractor’s QC plan, state departments of transportation (DOTs) conduct review and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

acceptance, monitor the QC process, and ensure construction quality by performing inspection activities. Given that state DOTs are increas-
ingly implementing alternative contracting methods (ACMs), including construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), design-build
(D-B), and public–private partnerships (P3), it is essential to consider the impact of shifting more responsibility to the contractor on quality
management activities, including developing and monitoring QC plans throughout the project development. The objective of this paper was to
investigate the implementation of QC plans for administering QA specifications in highway infrastructure projects delivered using ACMs.
The data collected from a national survey questionnaire of 43 DOTs in the US and structured interviews with seven DOT representatives were
employed to investigate this research’s objective. As a result, eight typical requirements of QC plans in ACM projects were identified in terms
of certification and qualification of QC personnel and process control. Additionally, the standard of care of QC staff in ACMs was not found
to be higher than that in design-bid-build. Nine risk factors related to the oversight of QC plans in D-B, CM/GC, and P3 highway projects
were identified. There was no statistical difference in the nine risk scores among D-B, CM/GC, and P3 projects. The findings from seven
case studies provide insights regarding the implementation of QC plans for ACM highway projects. This study contributes to the body of
knowledge by advancing the understanding of how state agencies execute and oversee QC activities in ACM projects. The outcomes of this
study may help state DOTs identify optimal QC practices to administer the QA process in ACM projects. DOI: 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-
14123. © 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Practical Applications: This study investigates the current state of practice in implementing QC plans to manage and improve QA proc-
esses for highway projects delivered using ACMs such as CM/GC, D-B, and P3. This study synthesized and documented typical QC require-
ments used by state DOTs in reviewing, accepting, and monitoring contractor compliance with their QC plans. Additionally, the descriptive
and inferential testing results of nine risk factors in implementing QC plans in highway projects found in this study enable highway agencies
to effectively justify their monitoring process of the QC plan implementation. Further, the results from seven case studies provide insights and
key lessons learned regarding (1) the guidance and templates for developing a QC plan; and (2) risk perceptions in managing the QC plan
implementation in ACM highway projects that can benefit both the contractors and state DOTs. The outcomes of this study also shed light on
exploring the optimal allocation of responsibilities between state DOTs and contractors in implementing QC activities to administer QA
programs in ACM highway projects.
Author keywords: Quality assurance (QA); Quality control (QC); Alternative contracting methods (ACMs).

Introduction projects (FHWA 2016). According to the Subpart B: Quality

State departments of transportation (DOTs) need to manage and
ensure the quality of completed transportation projects as a meas-
urement of the DOT’s performance in investing tax revenue in im-
proving the state’s infrastructure (Tran and Hoyne 2022). To ensure
construction quality management, state DOTs have spent significant
efforts and resources on managing their quality assurance (QA)
programs used to optimize quality control (QC) activities in their
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction and Operations Man-
agement, South Dakota State Univ., 907 Campanile Ave., Solberg Hall,
Brookings, SD 57006 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-8993-332X. Email: Phuong.Nguyen@sdstate.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural
Engineering, Univ. of Kansas, 1530 W. 15th St., 2135C Learned Hall,
Lawrence, KS 66045. Email: daniel.tran@ku.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 26, 2023; approved on
December 20, 2023; published online on February 28, 2024. Discussion
period open until July 28, 2024; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
Assurance Procedures for Construction of the Title 23 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 637, state DOTs are responsible
for establishing and managing a QA process to make sure that
the quality of highway construction projects sponsored by the
National Highway System (NHS) corresponds with the approved
project documents, such as plans and specifications (Code of
Federal Regulations 2002).
A QA program consists of a rational process and systematic ac-
tions necessary to monitor and ensure the satisfaction in the quality
management of a facility or product (VDOT 2018). The develop-
ment of QA programs, including requirements and practices, is var-
ied among state DOTs. A typical QA program includes (1) QC
plans from contractors, (2) review and acceptance from the agency,
(3) personnel qualification, (4) resolution procedure for disputes,
(5) independent assurance program, and (6) qualification of the
laboratory for verifying material quality (Tran and Hoyne 2022).
In facilitate a QA program, an agency often implements a QC pro-
cess that requires a contractor to submit and perform a specific QC
plan as well as making adjustments according to the agency’s test-
ing and verification outcomes to ensure that the final product meets

© ASCE 04024030-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030

 the quality requirements and expectation of the agency (Cavalline
et al. 2021). To comply with the QC process, contractors prepare a
project-specific document, namely a QC plan, which specifies rel-
evant QC activities and personnel, and make sure that their QC plan
meets the quality requirements of the agency (FDOT 2020a). State
DOTs also require contractors to include proactive actions in their
QC plans to accommodate any changes when the QC process goes
out of control (Clifford 2020).
In the last two decades, apart from the traditional design-bid-
build (D-B-B) delivery method, state DOTs have increasingly used
alternative contracting methods (ACMs), such as construction
manager/general contractor (CM/GC), design-build (D-B), and
public-private partnerships (P3), in the highway sector, which re-
sults in considerable changes in the agency’s requirements and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
management of QC processes (Tran and Hoyne 2022). One of the
obvious changes is the roles and responsibilities between agen-
cies and contractors in implementing and managing QC activities
(Molenaar et al. 2015b). For instance, under a D-B-B agreement,
the agency has the main responsibility for managing the project
quality. On the other hand, under ACMs, such as D-B and P3, the
agency can shift the responsibility of managing project quality to
the contractor depending on how their roles and responsibilities for
QC are defined in the contract (FHWA 2012). Therefore, the im-
plementation of ACMs created a new environment for quality man-
agement in highway construction projects, which challenges the
traditional QC process (Scott and Molenaar 2017). This challenge
affects the efficiency of conducting the QA program and the de-
velopment of QC plans in highway construction projects (FDOT
2020b). A research gap exists regarding the consideration of the
impact of shifting more responsibility to the contractor on quality
management activities, including developing and monitoring QC
plans throughout the project development.
This study aims to investigate the implementation of QC plans
for administering QA specifications in highway infrastructure proj-
ects delivered using ACMs. Specifically, this study concentrates on
identifying the typical QC plans’ requirements for contractors in
ACM highway projects and synthesizing the practical experience
of state DOTs in executing QC processes to manage and advance
their QA programs. The results of this study are expected to provide
guidance for contractors to prepare better QC plans for ACM-
delivered highway projects and highlight the implementation of
QC activities in particular ACMs, including CM/GC, D-B, and P3.
Literature Review
In this section, an overview of implementing QA and QC proce-
dures in ACM highway construction projects is summarized. This
section also specifies the points of departure of this study.
Overview of QA Programs and QC Plans for ACM
Highway Projects
Under a D-B agreement, the design and construction processes of a
project are delivered by a single entity (e.g., design-builder), which
leads to differences in the quality management process compared
with D-B-B projects (AASHTO 2008; ITD 2014). In D-B projects,
state agencies need to thoroughly communicate the project’s qual-
ity requirements and specify all regulative processes and technical
specifications that it intends to implement to monitor the quality of
the design and construction processes (AASHTO 2019). Although
the use of D-B necessitates the design-builder to be responsible for
design, construction, and procurement of materials, the agency still
needs to monitor and perform testing and inspections to ensure the
quality of work. (Tran and Hoyne 2022). Thus, it is important that
© ASCE 04024030-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
roles and responsibilities of contractors and agencies are clearly
defined in D-B contracts (CDOT 2020). However, the agency is
completely responsible for review and acceptance of QC plans re-
gardless of project delivery methods (FHWA 2012).
Some state DOTs have recently developed QA guidance for
their D-B projects and encourage the use of QC plans to facilitate
the quality management outcomes. Texas DOT has developed a
systematic QA process to accommodate its D-B projects by exam-
ining the material testing results from the contractors as part of their
decision-making for QC acceptance (TxDOT 2017). Texas DOT
also necessitates the contractor to prepare and submit a proactive
plan for QC activities, in which QC processes, personnel, and
methods for managing the project quality are clearly defined. Sim-
ilarly, Colorado DOT has established a QA program allowing the
QC acceptance decision to be made based on the contractor’s test
results for its D-B projects (CDOT 2020).
Under a CM/GC agreement, the project quality is managed and
assured throughout the design and construction processes with in-
puts on quality provided in the design stage by the contractor
(CDOT 2015). Using the CM/GC delivery method allows the early
involvement of the contractor to improve communications between
project parties and make prompt changes in the designs given the
feedback from a construction expert (FHWA 2014). As a result,
CM/GC helps reduce conflicts between design and construction
and minimize any changes causing cost and schedule overruns
(FHWA 2014). Due to some similarities in the contractual relation-
ship between the agency and the contractor, highway projects de-
livered by CM/GC and D-B-B might have the same process for
managing construction quality (Molenaar et al. 2015a). In fact,
some state DOTs, such as California DOT, have utilized its QA
program for both CM/GC and D-B-B highway projects with min-
imal adjustments (Caltrans 2015).
Under a P3 agreement, the traditional approaches of QA are not
essentially considered (FHWA 2019). For P3 projects, state agen-
cies across the US have employed a best-value procurement ap-
proach, which lists out the quality management experience as one
of the evaluation factors for the contractor’s selection (Tran and
Hoyne 2022). The US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(FHWA 2019) stated that state DOTs need to consider the P3 con-
tractual structure and specifications with specific incentives to en-
courage the delivery of a final product that meets the DOT’s QA
requirements. In P3 projects, the contractor (i.e., concessionaire)
performs all QC activities specified in their QC plan, and the
agency conducts review and acceptance, inspections, and verifica-
tion of the QC process (Kraft and Molenaar 2015).
Point of Departure
The preparation and implementation of QC processes are essential
to effectively administer QA programs in highway construction
projects (Clifford 2020). Recently, state DOTs have shifted the QC
responsibility to contractors due to two main reasons (Tran and
Hoyne 2022). First, state DOTs can monitor and control the con-
tractor’s QC process and perform inspections and verification for
acceptance of the product quality. Second, the contractor is pro-
vided with more control over the materials, personnel, and equip-
ment used for the QC process. To optimize the QC process, the
contractor is required to develop a proactive QC plan based on the
state DOT’s requirements and expectation of the project quality
(TxDOT 2017; VDOT 2018). The goal of implementing a well-
developed QC plan is to maximize the QC outcomes, reduce re-
work, and improve project performance. However, contractors
often develop QC plans solely to meet the DOT’s requirements
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 rather than establishing a robust, proactive plan to exclusively
enhance project quality (CDOT 2020).
The increasing use of ACMs in highway construction projects
challenges the implementation of QC plans due to the unspecified
responsibilities of agencies and contractors in the quality manage-
ment process (Tran and Hoyne 2022). A research gap in the current
QC literature exists regarding a thorough investigation of QC plans’
requirements and implementation by state DOTs in ACM proj-
ects across the US. Therefore, this study was developed to review,
document, and evaluate current practices of highway agencies in
implementing QC plans to administer their QA program in ACM-
delivered construction projects.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Research Methodology
The existing literature shows that the increasing use of ACMs in
highway construction projects challenges the traditional quality
management process in managing the DOTs’ QA programs, espe-
cially when they have shifted the responsibility for QC processes to
contractors. Therefore, this study focuses on exploring the current
practices of executing QC plans for ACM-delivered highway proj-
ects by (1) identifying the QC requirements for ACM projects to
help contractors better prepare their QC plans; and (2) analyzing
how state DOTs implement and monitor QC processes in ACM
highway construction projects to provide lessons learned. The re-
search methodology of this study includes a mixed use of a content
analysis of standard procedures, reports, and manuals for QA and
QC processes related to ACMs in the existing literature, a survey of
50 state DOTs, and detailed case studies as shown in Fig. 1.
First, a systematic literature review was performed to synthesize
the relevant documents regarding the requirements and implemen-
tation of QA programs and QC plans in ACM highway construc-
tion projects. The search included current industry publications,
academic literature, guidelines and reports from state DOTs, and
federal regulations and manuals to synthesize the current practices
of QA programs and QC inspection and testing activities in ACM-
delivered highway projects. This study attempted to seek both the
most recent documents and historical information to promptly take
into account any changes in the state DOT’s guidelines and man-
uals, if any, in their QA programs and requirements for QC plans
for ACM highway projects.
Second, a web-based survey questionnaire and its paper-based
forms were developed and initially distributed to all state DOTs
across the US, including the District of Columbia DOT. Each DOT
was requested to respond to the survey questionnaire or forward it
to the person or people with the relevant knowledge to be able to
complete the survey. The survey was designed to investigate how
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
© ASCE 04024030-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
QC plans have been implemented nationwide and determine the
state DOTs with comprehensive experience in utilizing QC plans
for their ACM projects for further investigation. Additionally, the
survey allowed state DOT respondents to provide relevant docu-
mentation, references, or attachments that specified detailed infor-
mation regarding the DOT’s use of QC plans.
Accordingly, 43 out of 51 DOTs responded to this survey result-
ing in a response rate of 84.3%. The survey data were then analyzed
to investigate the current practices of implementing QC plans for
improving QA programs of state DOTs. It is noted that the survey
did not require state DOTs to provide answers to every survey ques-
tion. Therefore, there is a variation in the responses to each question
in the survey. The survey questionnaire used in this study has been
given by Tran and Hoyne (2022). Examples of the survey questions
regarding the use of QC plans for ACMs are as follows:
• Does your agency require contractors to submit any QC plans to
the state DOT? If “No”, is your agency considering requiring
contractors to submit any QC plans to the DOT?
• Which alternative contracting methods (D-B, CM/GC, or P3)
are used by your agency? (Please check all that apply.)
• Compared to traditional D-B-B projects, does your agency hold
the contractor QC staff to a higher standard of care for ACM
(D-B, CM/GC, and P3) projects?
• How does your agency conduct QC plan review and approval
processes?
• From your agency’s perspective, please rate the importance/
criticality of the risk factors (i.e., areas of concern) in oversight
of QC plans.
Finally, structured interviews were conducted with selected
DOTs to further investigate the practices of implementing QC plans
in ACM highway projects. The selection criteria included (1) QC
plan’s requirements, (2) types of QC plans required, (3) experience
with QC plans, (4) experience with CM/GC, D-B, and P3, and
(5) availability of the state DOT’s representative to participate in the
follow-up interviews regarding the implementation of QC plans for
ACMs. As a result, this study initially identified 11 state DOTs for
the follow-up interviews. The research team contacted each DOT
via phone calls and emails inquiring their willingness to participate
in the case studies about implementing QC plans to advance their
QA processes in ACM projects. Accordingly, seven state DOTs,
including Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah,
and Virginia, were selected for the subsequent case studies.
The representative of each DOT was provided with the same
list of detailed questions relevant to implementing QC plans for
CM/GC, D-B, and P3, for the structured follow-up interviews. The
DOTs that participated in the interview were asked to provide docu-
ments, guidelines, manuals, and lessons learned related to their QA
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 programs and QC processes for ACMs. The DOT’s representatives
also reviewed and provided feedback on the analysis of this study to
ensure accuracy. The interview questions used for case studies in
this study have been given by Tran and Hoyne (2022). Examples of
the interview questions are as follows:
• Does your agency provide contractors with any templates, docu-
ments, or guidance for developing a QC Plan? If so, can you
share that information with the research team?
• How does your agency monitor, inspect and document the con-
tractor’s implementation of their QC plan?
• If ACM (D-B, CM/GC, or P3) is used in your agency, please
describe the requirements of contractors regarding QC plans for
ACM projects. Does your agency have guidance or templates to
develop QC plans for ACM projects?
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The survey results also show that QC plans from suppliers
and paving contractors are often one of the requirements in the
QA program of North Carolina DOT. Although Utah DOT has
practiced the use of QC plans for years, its QC requirements are
not completely defined. Currently, the Utah DOT’s quality manage-
ment process has been integrated with other programs in its entity.
Virginia DOT has practiced the use of QC plans for D-B projects
and provided contractors with a QC plan template, although con-
tractors are not required to submit QC plans for its D-B-B highway
construction projects.
The survey results also determined whether the standard of care
for QC staff in ACM-delivered highway projects is held at a higher
level compared with D-B-B projects. In this study, the standard of
care is considered as the reasonable level of prudence required of

• What challenges have your agency experienced in the review or
oversight of a contractor QC plans? What strategies has your
agency taken to overcome such challenges?
• How does your agency monitor the implementation of the QC
plan after approval?
• Do the risk factors in oversight of QC Plans vary corresponding
to each different delivery method (D-B-B, D-B, CM/GC, and
P3)? Please explain briefly.
the QC staff who are responsible for QC activities and can be de-
termined by assessing the level of prudence of the QC staff in the
same activities (Banik and May 2006). The following sections pro-
vide specific requirements and contractor’s QC’s staff standards
for implementing QC plans in ACM projects in comparison with
traditional D-B-B delivery. In addition, descriptive and inferential
analysis of typical risk factors in oversight of QC plans in D-B,
CM/GC, and P3 projects are presented.

Results QC Plan Requirements in ACM Highway Projects

The survey result shows that CM/GC, D-B, and P3 delivery meth-
ods have been widely used by state DOTs for their highway con-
struction projects. Specifically, 92% of the 37 DOT responses have
used D-B and its variation for their highway construction projects,
and 35% and 30% of these 37 DOT responses confirmed the use of
P3 and CM/GC, respectively, in their highway projects, as detailed
in Table 1.
The results of the survey also show that the management of con-
tractor QC plans in ACM highway construction projects varied
among state DOTs. For instance, Florida DOT has extensive expe-
rience in practicing and monitoring the contractors’ QC plans to
advance its QC system for highway construction projects. Simi-
larly, contractor’s QC plans have been a common requirement for
the Idaho Transportation Department’s QC processes, and relevant
standard procedures and manuals for implementing QC plans have
been developed since 2020. Kansas DOT has required contractors
to submit a proactive QC plan for its specific items of work, such as
hot-mix asphalt items and concrete structures, on specific highway
construction projects. Nevada DOT requires contractors to prepare
and submit a QC plan for specific operations in particular highway
projects or construction activities. However, Nevada DOT’s QC
guidelines state that contractor’s test results will not be considered
in the review and acceptance decision.
The survey results indicate that there are eight typical requirements
in QC plans, including (1) certifications/qualifications for QC per-
sonnel, (2) process control, (3) random sampling schemes, (4) QC
testing and inspection plan, (5) control of material provider, (6) cor-
rection plan, (7) QC documentation (i.e., reporting and correcting
nonconforming work), and (8) approval of QC plans. The differ-
ence in evaluating the typical elements of QC plans between ACM
and D-B-B projects was identified using a Likert scale: 0 = Not
Different; 1 = Slightly Different; 2 = Moderately Different; and
3 = Very Different. Fig. 2 illustrates a sample form for collecting
data related to evaluating how the typical elements of a QC plan for
ACM projects are different from D-B-B projects.
Then, weighted scores of these elements were calculated to de-
termine the difference in QC requirements between ACMs, includ-
ing CM/GC, D-B, and P3, and D-B-B as presented in Table 2. The
weighted scores of the common QC requirements were calculated
from various responses received for D-B, CM/GC, and P3, includ-
ing n ¼ 34, 11, and 13, respectively. It is noted that the weighted
score was determined by dividing the sum of the product between
the rating and the associated number of responses by the total num-
ber of the responses.
Table 2 indicates that QC requirements for CM/GC and D-B
highway projects have no difference compared with D-B-B highway

Table 1. Distribution of state DOT responses and ACMs used in their highway projects
State DOT D-B CM/GC P3 State DOT D-B CM/GC P3 State DOT D-B CM/GC P3
Alabama x — — Louisiana x — x Oregon x x —
Alaska x x — Maine x x — Pennsylvania x — x
Arizona x x x Maryland x x x Rhode Island x — —
Colorado x x x Massachusetts x — — South Carolina x — —
Connecticut x — — Michigan x — — Tennessee x x —
Delaware — x — Mississippi x — — Texas x — x
Florida x x x Missouri x — — Utah x x x
Georgia x — x Nevada x x x Vermont x x —
Idaho x x New Hampshire x — — Virginia x — x
Indiana x — x North Carolina x x x — — — —
Kansas x x — Ohio x — x — — — —

© ASCE 04024030-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030

 Fig. 3. Agreement on QC staff held to a higher standard of care in
ACMs than in D-B-B.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

not considered to have a higher standard of care compared with QC

Fig. 2. Sample of differences in QC plan between ACMs and D-B-B staff for D-B-B.
projects. There are two typical reasons for not considering a greater stan-
dard of care for QC staffs in ACM-delivered projects. First, the
results show that state DOTs have implemented various QC pro-
cedures and requirements for both ACM and D-B-B highway con-
Table 2. Weighted scores of QC requirements for ACMs in comparison struction projects. Second, in ACM-delivered highway projects, the
with D-B-B projects contractors are required to follow the DOT’s minimum QC require-
ments. For example, Georgia DOT requires the contractors in its
D-B CM/GC P3
Typical elements of QC plans (n ¼ 34) (n ¼ 11) (n ¼ 13) D-B-B and D-B highway projects to follow the similar QC require-
ments for sampling, verification, and inspection. The Colorado
Certifications/qualifications 0.1 0.2 0.3 DOT’s QC manuals state that it implements similar quality man-
for QC personnel
agement activities for D-B-B and CM/GC highway projects, in
Process control 0.5 0.3 1.3
Random sampling schemes 0.2 0.3 0.8
which the DOT performs QA and monitors the QC process per-
QC testing and inspection plan 0.5 0.2 1.4 formed by the contractor. Utah DOT implements the same QC prac-
Control of material provider 0.2 0.1 0.6 tices for all project delivery methods. However, the DOT found
Correction plan 0.6 0.1 1.3 that implementing similar QC processes for ACM-delivered high-
QC documentation 0.8 0.4 1.4 way projects might cause quality-related issues in the construction
Approval of QC plans 0.5 0.3 1.2 stage.
On the other hand, the survey results show that some state DOTs
provided a greater standard of care for QC staff in highway projects
delivered using CM/GC, D-B, and P3, depending upon various QC
projects. Specifically, in D-B highway construction projects, all considerations. First, ACM projects often need greater detailed
the weighted scores were less than 1, which is Slightly Different. QC plans with more items of work specified for QC testing require-
Some elements, including random sampling schemes, certifica- ments. Second, contractors need to perform much higher levels of
tions/qualifications for QC personnel, and control of material pro- QC in ACM projects. Finally, QC staff for ACM-delivered highway
vider, were found with a minimal difference compared with projects might have higher levels of responsibility to perform and
highway projects delivered using D-B-B with the weighted scores meet specific QC requirements of the agency.
equal to or less than 0.2. In addition, other elements, such as QC For instance, Colorado DOT indicated that its quality manage-
documentation, correction plan, process control, and approval of ment procedure depends upon the contractor QC for D-B high-
QC plans, were slightly different from that of projects delivered way projects and utilizes independent QC testing results from the
by D-B-B with the weighted scores of 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.5, contractor, and the DOT performs review and acceptance. In the
respectively. Maryland DOT’s ACM highway projects, the responsibility of
Similarly, there is no difference across eight elements in QC meeting the project quality is shifted to the contractor. Although
requirements for contractors between highway projects delivered there is no official manual showing the level of the standard of care
using D-B-B and CM/GC methods. The majority of the QC re- for QC staff in highway projects delivered using ACMs, Delaware
quirements in CM/GC highway projects were found to be similar DOT mentioned that the contractor is tied to the greater responsibil-
to projects delivered using D-B-B. QC documentation was found ity to perform QC process and meet the DOT’s QC requirements.
to be the most different requirement between D-B-B and CM/GC
highway projects. On the other hand, the requirements for QC plans
in P3 projects were found to be different from that of projects de- Risk Factors in Monitoring Contractor QC Plans in
livered by D-B-B. Specifically, five QC requirements in P3 projects ACM Projects
were found to be different from that of D-B-B projects, including Monitoring the implementation of contractor QC plans in ACM
QC testing and inspection plan, QC documentation, process con- highway projects becomes complex as the contractor has been
trol, correction plan, and approval of QC plans. However, the re- shifted to have greater responsibility to satisfy the DOT’s quality
quirement for qualification/certification of QC staff for P3 was management requirements. For instance, Maryland DOT and
found to be similar to D-B-B. Delaware DOT indicated that the contractor is required to have
Fig. 3 shows the agreement of state DOTs regarding whether more a comprehensive QC plan because they need to be held
the standard of care for QC staff in ACM-delivered projects is accountable for the QC procedures of the design and construction
higher than that of projects delivered using D-B-B. As a result, processes. The transfer of QC responsibility from the state agency
the majority of state DOTs indicated that QC staff for ACMs is to the contractor raises concerns related to implementing QC plans,

© ASCE 04024030-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030

 such as contractor operating at the lower end of specifications and
inexperienced QC personnel. Thus, there is a need for experienced
QC staff familiar with ACMs to work closely with the contractor
and monitor the QC plan implementation.
In addition, ACM highway projects often involve more items
of work that require QC testing, raising concerns about sampling
methods, the validity of the QC test data, and corrections following
QC results. Therefore, it is important to determine the risks in over-
sight of the QC plan implementation to better control the quality
procedures in ACM projects. The survey in this study identified
nine risk factors in oversight of implementing QC plans in ACM
highway projects using five-point scales (0 = Not Applicable or
N/A; 1 = Low Risk; 2 = Moderate Risk; 3 = High Risk; and 4 =
Very High Risk) as shown in Fig. 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In this study, a five-point scale from 0 to 4 was used to provide
semantic insights regarding the severity of the risks and whether or
not the risks have an impact on the monitoring process for QC plans
in ACM-delivered highway projects. Monitoring the implementa-
tion of QC plans in ACM highway projects was found to contain
the following risks: (1) no correction following QC results, (2) no
QC personnel onsite, (3) contractor operating at the lower end of
specifications, (4) validity of QC test data, (5) incorrect sampling
methods, (6) inexperienced QC personnel, (7) control of the mate-
rial provider, (8) DOT losing expertise, and (9) inexperienced
agency personnel. To standardize the measurement of the risks in
monitoring QC plan implementation, the following risk score (RS)
is calculated using Eq. (1):
P tors among these ACM highway projects although the risk scores
ðnkp × rp Þ
RSk ¼ P ð1Þ
nk
where RSk = risk score of the factor k; nk = total number of re-
sponses to the factor k; nkp = total number of responses to the factor
j associated with the rating rp ; and rp = risk rating of the factor k.
For D-B highway construction projects, the survey results show
that the nine risk factors in oversight of QC plans had RS rang-
ing from Moderate to High. Out of 32 responses, 24 state DOTs
(75.0%) rated contractor operating at the lower end of specifica-
tions as High Risk to Very High Risk in monitoring the implemen-
tation of QC plans. Additionally, 20 state DOTs (62.5%) rated
inexperienced QC personnel and incorrect sampling methods as
Moderate Risk to High Risk in oversight of QC plans. On the other
hand, 24 state DOTs (75.0%) rated inexperienced agency personnel
as Low Risk to Moderate Risk in oversight of QC plans for D-B
projects.
Fig. 4. Sample of QC oversight risk assessment.
© ASCE 04024030-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
For CM/GC highway construction projects, the survey results
show that the nine risk factors in oversight of QC plans had the
RS ranged from Low to Moderate. Out of 11 responses, 8 state
DOTs (72.7%) rated contractor operating at the lower end of spec-
ifications as High Risk to Very High Risk in monitoring the im-
plementation of QC plans. Seven state DOTs (63.6%) also found
that incorrect sampling methods and inexperienced QC personnel
are High Risk to Very High Risk in oversight of QC plans. On the
other hand, three state DOTs (27.3%) specified that inexperienced
agency personnel is Low Risk in oversight of QC plans for CM/GC
projects.
For P3 highway construction projects, the survey results show
that the nine risk factors in oversight of QC plans had the RS
ranged from Low to Moderate. Out of 13 responses, 9 state DOTs
(69.2%) indicated that no correction following QC results and no
QC personnel onsite are High to Very High risks in oversight of
QC plans. Additionally, eight state DOTs (61.5%) rated contractor
operating at the lower end of specifications as High Risk to Very
High Risk in monitoring the implementation of QC plans. On the
other hand, four state DOTs (30.8%) indicated that inexperienced
agency personnel are a Low risk in oversight of QC plans for P3
projects.
The Kruskal-Wallis H-test was performed to investigate
whether or not there is any difference in the risk scores among
CM/GC, D-B, and P3 projects. As reported in Table 3, the
p-values of nine risk factors were greater than 0.05, indicating that
there was no statistically significant difference in the nine risk fac-
of implementing QC plans in D-B projects were found greater than
that of CM/GC and P3 projects. A possible reason is due to the
small sample size of CM/GC (n ¼ 11) and P3 (n ¼ 13) compared
with D-B (n ¼ 32). Another reason is that the majority of the risk
factors in monitoring the implementation of QC plans in D-B high-
way projects had a Moderate RS, similar to the risk factors in
CM/GC and P3 projects. Although the risks of contractor operating
at the lower end of specifications and incorrect sampling methods
were found with the highest RS in oversight of the QC plan im-
plementation in ACM highway projects, the risk of inexperienced
agency personnel was found with the lowest RS across the three
ACMs.
Discussion
The results of this study are supported by the case studies where
state DOTs discussed the implementation of QC plans for their
ACM highway projects with regard to the requirements of a QC
plan for contractors, guidance and templates for developing a
QC plan, and risk perceptions in oversight of the QC plan imple-
mentation. Table 4 summarizes the implementation of QC plans in
ACM highway projects of the case studies. The following sections
discuss the QC implementation in each ACM highway construction
project (D-B, CM/GC, and P3, respectively) in detail.
QC Plan Implementation in D-B Projects
The interview results showed that state DOTs implement the same
requirements for contractor QC plans for D-B and D-B-B highway
projects. Accordingly, a contractor QC plan focusing on both the
design and construction processes is often required by state DOTs.
Nevada DOT, as an example, necessitates the design builder to pre-
pare and perform a comprehensive QC process for both design and
construction that meets the DOT’s quality expectation for D-B
highway projects. North Carolina DOT also requires contractor
QC plans that follow the DOT’s QC requirements and include
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis H-test of risk scores for all ACMs
Overall risk D-B risk CM/GC risk P3 risk K-W
Risk factors score score score score chi-squared p-value
Contractor operating at the lower end of specifications 2.75 3.00 2.36 2.15 2.13 0.35
Incorrect sampling methods 2.54 2.81 2.36 2.00 0.18 0.92
No correction following QC results 2.48 2.69 1.91 2.46 0.31 0.86
Inexperienced QC personnel 2.45 2.81 2.18 1.77 0.93 0.63
No QC personnel onsite 2.25 2.53 1.36 2.31 0.70 0.71
Validity of QC test data 2.25 2.44 1.91 2.08 0.54 0.76
Control of material provider 2.20 2.56 1.64 1.77 0.60 0.74
DOT losing expertise 2.11 2.72 1.64 1.00 0.18 0.91
Inexperienced agency personnel 1.84 2.03 1.36 0.77 2.58 0.27
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Summary of QC plan implementation for ACMs

Guidance/templates
State DOT for QC plan ACM used QC plan implementation
Florida Provided D-B For design, the D-B firm submits a quality management plan within 15 working
days following issuance of the written notice to proceed. For construction, the D-B
firm submits a construction QC plan and follow contract requirements for QC,
materials testing, and certification.
CM/GC The construction manager develops a QC plan to monitor the QC of the work,
including QC testing and inspection.
P3 The contractor submits a QC plan in accordance with the DOT’s Standard
Specifications.
Idaho Provided D-B The D-B firm hires a construction QA manager to manage QA activities for both
design and construction.
CM/GC The contractor submits a QC plan to establish the minimum requirements for the
contractor’s QC system.
Kansas Provided D-B The D-B firm submits a quality management plan for design and construction
processes. QA activities were performed by independent firms.
CM/GC The contractor conducts QC testing, and these test results can be used as a basis of
acceptance, provided the DOT’s QA verifies the results.
Nevada No, but provide D-B The D-B firm develops a QC plan for both design and construction.
minimum testing CM/GC The contractor submits a QC plan with innovation and constructability inputs early
requirements in the design and construction phases to reduce quality risks.
P3 The P3 developer submits a QC plan for both design and construction.
North No D-B/progressive D-B The D-B firm develops a QC plan for both design and construction and designates
Carolina a QC manager responsible for implementing and monitoring the QC requirements
of the project.
CM/GC The contractor submits a QC plan with innovation and constructability inputs early
in the design and construction phases to reduce quality risks.
P3 The contractor submits a QC plan for both design and construction.
Utah N/A D-B For design, the D-B firm submits a QC plan to ensure that the design conforms to
the contract requirements and facilitates the DOT’s ability to oversee the design
process and production of design products. For construction, the D-B firm submits
a QC plan to manage the quality of the work during construction to ensure
conformance to the requirements of the project.
CM/GC The contractor submits a QC plan for both design and construction.
Virginia No, but provide D-B The D-B firm develops a QC plan for both design and construction.
minimum testing P3 The concessionaire develops a quality management system plan (i.e., a QA/QC
requirements plan) for both the design and construction phases.

adequate statements about how the contractor will perform QC
activities for its highway projects delivered using D-B and
Progressive D-B. Kansas DOT also requires the D-B contractor
to submit a QC plan that delineates how their QC activities for
specific items of the work, such as planning, design, construction,
geotechnical analysis, and environmental consideration, are com-
plied with the DOT’s QC requirements included in the contract
documents.
Some DOTs require the contractor to have separate QC plans
describing specific QC processes and responsive actions for both
design and construction activities. For example, Florida DOT re-
quests the contractor to have two sets of QC plans for managing
(1) design quality compliance, and (2) construction QC for D-B
highway projects. Specifically, the QC plan for design quality
compliance includes QC activities related to reviewing, checking,
and verifying essential drawings, specifications, and other design

© ASCE 04024030-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030

 documents, whereas the construction QC plan concentrates on test-
ing and performing various quality checks for construction ac-
tivities following the Florida DOT’s Standard Specifications.
Similarly, Utah DOT requires the D-B firm to describe two QC
procedures for design and construction processes in their QC plans.
Particularly, the contractor develops a QC plan for design to per-
form quality management and monitor the design process and
outcomes. In addition, the contractor prepares a construction QC
plan to oversee and ensure the quality of the construction work fol-
lowing the Utah DOT’s QA guidelines.
State DOTs encountered various challenges and risks in over-
sight of the QC plan implementation in D-B highway construction
projects because the contractor is responsible for ensuring the qual-
ity of both design and construction. For example, Virginia DOT
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
found that the reliability of the contractor’s testing results is one
of the main risk factors in monitoring the implementation of QC
plans in ACM highway projects. Virginia DOT also indicated that
it is difficult to clearly define the QC responsibilities in D-B high-
way projects. Therefore, in its D-B projects, Virginia DOT seeks
to adequately transfer the risks in managing QC activities to the
contractor.
The findings of this study show that the top three risks in over-
sight of the QC implementation in highway projects delivered using
D-B included contractor operating at the lower end of specifications
(RS ¼ 3.00), inexperienced QC personnel (RS ¼ 2.81), and incor-
rect sampling methods (RS ¼ 2.81). State DOTs, including Idaho,
Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, and Utah, required the contractor
to establish and maintain an independent quality management sys-
tem to check and verify the outcomes of implementing QC plans in
D-B highway projects. State DOTs also requires the design-builder
to select and assign a QC manager who oversees and ensures that
the contractor follows the QC requirements specified in the con-
tract. Accordingly, if any QC activities and testing processes are
found not to follow the DOT’s procedure, the assigned QC manager
is authorized to stop work until corrective action is taken.
Performing QA activities by independent firms can help the
agency avoid several risks in monitoring the implementation of
QC plans, including inexperienced QC personnel and no QC per-
sonnel onsite. For example, the Idaho DOT representative indicated
that, under D-B contracts, the contractor designates a QC manager
to oversee QC activities, and the DOT performs verification and
inspection of the quality management activities.
QC Plan Implementation in CM/GC Projects
The results of this study show that state DOTs necessitate the same
requirements for preparing QC plans for CM/GC and D-B-B high-
way projects. For instance, in their CM/GC projects, Nevada and
Utah DOTs have used requirements for contractor QC plans similar
to the D-B-B projects. Specifically, the contractor is expected to
submit a proactive QC plan to check the quality of work complied
with the QC requirements stated in the contract. It was noted by
Utah DOT that a QC plan for CM/GC projects should highlight the
importance of achieving high quality during the beginning of the
work, improving communications between project stakeholders,
and ensuring the work compliance to avoid rework. Florida DOT
also emphasizes the responsibility of the contractor in CM/GC
highway projects to oversee the subcontractors’ work, evaluate the
efficiency of construction methods and processes, and make sure
that high-quality work is performed.
State DOTs indicated that the majority of the risks in oversight
of the QC plan implementation in CM/GC highway projects were
ranged in Low (RS < 2.00). A possible reason is that using CM/GC
delivery method allows the contractor to be involved early in the
© ASCE 04024030-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
design process and have the opportunity to review the construct-
ability and provide feedback on the design documents, which then
can reduce the risks of rework and improve the project quality.
For instance, Nevada DOT highlighted that the integration of
the construction manager in the design process can improve the
implementation of QC plans in CM/GC highway projects. Addi-
tionally, the contractor can also continue to oversee the subcon-
tractors’ work and make responsive changes as needed. However,
to avoid the risks in unreliable QC testing results and incorrect
sampling methods, Nevada DOT performs all project acceptance
sampling and testing.
Similar to D-B projects, the top three risks in oversight of the
QC plan implementation in CM/GC projects included contractor
operating at the lower end of specifications (RS ¼ 2.36), inexperi-
enced QC personnel (RS ¼ 2.36), and incorrect sampling methods
(RS ¼ 2.18). To reduce the risks in oversight of implementing QC
plans in their CM/GC projects, North Carolina DOT authorizes res-
ident engineers to evaluate and verify the contractor’ test results to
make sure the QC process complies with the contract requirements.
Florida DOT utilizes a quality management system for material
testing and acceptance to verify the use of materials in their CM/
GC projects and confirm whether the contractor QC testing data
meets their requirements. The Florida DOT’s quality management
system for materials employs automated checks and balances to
make sure that the contractors comply with the use of materials
specified in the contract.
QC Plan Implementation in P3 Projects
The results of this study show that state DOTs provide similar re-
quirements related to QC plans for P3 and D-B-B highway projects.
Specifically, P3 contractors are required to provide quality manage-
ment for both QA and QC processes in highway construction proj-
ects. State DOTs, such as North Carolina DOT, necessitate P3
contractors to have individual QA and QC plans for the design
and construction stages. The contractor needs to ensure that their
QA and QC plans meet the DOT’s minimum QC requirements
specified in the P3 contract. Similarly, Florida DOT requires the
P3 contractor to a QC plan in accordance with the DOT’s Standard
Specifications.
In the Nevada DOT’s P3 highway projects, the contractor is
required to prepare a responsive QC plan for testing and monitor-
ing the QC process, and the DOT performs regular checks and veri-
fication to ensure the contract compliance. Accordingly, Nevada
DOT has shifted the responsibilities in overseeing the material
providers, checking the QC tests, and ensuring the sampling results
to the P3 contractor.
Under P3 contracts, Virginia DOT requires the contractor to sub-
mit a proactive QA/QC plan, which outlines a systematic process
to monitor and enhance the quality management for design and
construction activities. The QA/QC plan for design activities needs
to include actions regarding (1) reviewing design standards, draw-
ings, specifications, and constructability, (2) checking the accuracy
of design reports, (3) communicating the reviews’ outcomes be-
tween QC staff, and (4) preparing QC checklists. The QA/QC plan
for construction activities needs to specify QC staffing, testing pro-
cedures, verification process, and inspection agenda.
Similar to other ACM projects, state DOTs identified various
risks in monitoring the implementation of QC plans in P3 highway
projects related to the reliability of the quality testing results and
nonconforming work due to the QC responsibility being shifted to
the concessionaire entity in P3 highway construction projects. The
top three risks in oversight of the QC plan implementation in P3
projects included no correction following QC results (RS ¼ 2.46),
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 no QC personnel onsite (RS ¼ 2.31), and contractor operating at
the lower end of specifications (RS ¼ 2.15).
In Virginia DOT’s P3 highway projects, it is expected to effec-
tively shift the QA/QC risks to the concessionaire by requiring the
contractor to prepare and implement a QA auditing plan for sys-
tematically monitoring and resolving any issues that might cause
rework. The QA auditing plan is used to identify potential rework’s
causes to make timely responsive actions and update the corrected
outcomes accordingly. To reduce the risks in monitoring the im-
plementation of QC plans in P3 highway projects, Utah DOT rec-
ommended the use of a digital delivery process, including field
inspection tools using geographic information system–based (GIS)
applications and e-Ticketing, which improves the information shar-
ing between the design and construction stages and ensure the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
efficiency in the project delivery.
In summary, the results of this study have expanded the previous
QA/QC research efforts (Molenaar et al. 2015a; Gransberg et al.
2008; Hughes 2005) by (1) determining the difference in QC re-
quirements between ACMs and D-B-B, (2) identifying the risks in
monitoring the implementation of QC plans, and (3) synthesizing
the lessons-learned from various state DOTs in reviewing, accept-
ing, and monitoring QC plans in ACM highway projects. For in-
stance, the findings from this study complement the results from
Kraft and Molenaar (2015) by providing state agencies with an
understanding of the critical risk factors in overseeing the imple-
mentation of QC plans in ACM highway projects. This study also
augments the outcomes from Gransberg et al. (2008) by identifying
the challenges in reviewing and monitoring QC plans for admin-
istering QA programs for highway projects delivered using D-B.
The outcomes of this study are in line with various research
studies (CDOT 2020; VDOT 2018) in specifying the need of a ro-
bust framework that helps state DOTs provide guidance and tem-
plates for developing and administering effective QC plans in ACM
highway projects. Moreover, this study found that state DOTs have
increasingly implemented advanced technologies, including un-
manned aerial vehicles, e-ticketing systems, and digital inspection
tools, for monitoring and improving various quality management
activities in ACM-delivered highway projects.
Conclusion
Managing the quality of construction activities in highway projects
is an important task to ensure project success. Many state DOTs
have required contractors to develop and implement QC plans for
their projects, whereas they are responsible for performing tests to
verify and accept the QC process. The increasing implementation
of ACMs, such as CM/GC, D-B, and P3, in highway projects
has shifted more responsibility to the industry for providing qual-
ity management activities and satisfying QC requirements of the
transportation agencies. However, the current QC literature lacks
explicit guidelines and clear specifications for developing a well-
developed, proactive QC plan, especially in ACM projects where
the design quality plays an important role.
This study aimed to explore the current implementation of QC
plans to monitor QA processes for ACMs in the highway sector.
This study utilized a national survey questionnaire sent to 50 state
DOTs and performed structured interviews with representatives
from (1) Florida DOT, (2) Idaho DOT, (3) Kansas DOT, (4) Nevada
DOT, (5) North Carolina DOT, (6) Utah DOT, and (7) Virginia
DOT, to identify QC plan requirements, risk factors in oversight
of QC plans, and lessons learned from implementing QC processes
in ACM highway projects.
© ASCE 04024030-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
This study found that there are eight typical requirements in
QC plans for ACM highway projects, including (1) certifications/
qualifications for QC personnel, (2) process control, (3) random
sampling schemes, (4) QC testing and inspection plan, (5) control
of the material provider, (6) correction plan, (7) QC documentation
(i.e., reporting and correcting nonconforming work), and (8) appro-
val of QC plans. In addition, there was no difference in require-
ments for QC plans between ACMs and D-B-B with regard to QC
staffing and QC process control. Regardless of the project delivery
methods used, state DOTs require the contractors to prepare and
submit a QC plan that meets the minimum QC requirements for
their highway construction projects. State DOT representatives
confirmed that contractors are provided with more guidance and
clarification of any additional requirements of the QC plan for
ACM-delivered highway projects.
The results of this study show that in D-B-B and CM/GC high-
way projects, state DOTs still remained the predominant role in
managing the QC process. On the other hand, in D-B and P3 high-
way projects, state DOTs often shift the QC responsibility to the
contractor to a certain level of commitment. This study also found
the essential elements of a QA program, including (1) QC plans
from contractors, (2) review and acceptance from the agency,
(3) personnel qualification, (4) resolution procedure for disputes,
(5) independent assurance program, and (6) qualification of the
laboratory for verifying material quality. The survey results show
that the standard of care of QC staff in ACMs was not found to be
higher than that in D-B-B.
This study also identified nine risk factors in oversight of QC
plans in ACM highway project, consisting of (1) no correction
following QC results, (2) no QC personnel onsite, (3) contractor
operating at the lower end of specifications, (4) validity of QC test
data, (5) incorrect sampling methods, (6) inexperienced QC person-
nel, (7) control of the material provider, (8) DOT losing expertise,
and (9) inexperienced agency personnel. Nevertheless, the differ-
ence in these risk factors among D-B, CM/GC, and P3 highway
projects was not statistically significant.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge by investigat-
ing the current implementation of QC plans to effectively monitor
the state DOTs’ QA processes in ACM projects. This study pro-
vides a specific set of QC plan requirements to support contractors
in developing a proactive plan to manage the quality of construction
activities in ACM highway projects. Additionally, the identification
and statistical inferences of the risks in monitoring the QC imple-
mentation in ACM projects are expected to assist highway agencies
in effectively and efficiently performing tests for verification and
acceptance purposes. Lessons learned from practicing QC plans to
administer QA programs in ACM projects from seven state DOTs
can benefit practitioners in improving their QA and QC processes.
The outcomes of this study also shed light on the consideration of
the optimal allocation of responsibilities between state DOTs and
contractors in implementing QC activities to monitor QA programs
in ACM highway projects.
This study has several limitations. First, the results of this study
are limited to using CM/GC, D-B, and P3 in highway projects.
Future studies may include investigations of implementing QC
plans in other ACMs and their variations, such as progressive D-B,
design-build-operate-maintain, design-build-finance, and integrated
project delivery, to help state DOTs improve their QC processes.
Second, the roles and responsibilities between highway agencies and
contractors in implementing QC plans and acceptance of ACMs need
to be certainly specified in the contract. Future research may ex-
plore the optimal allocation of responsibilities between state DOTs
and contractors in implementing QA and QC activities to assist
state DOTs in allocating the risk of lacking QC staff. Future studies
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 can also investigate the performance of ACM-delivered highway
construction projects within the state DOTs that participated in this
study.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge and appreciate the information provided
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Kansas on 06/28/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by the staff members of the numerous State Departments of Trans-
portation who assisted with this study.
References
AASHTO. 2008. Guide for design-build procurement. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2019. Definition of terms related to quality and statistics as
used in highway construction. AASHTO R 10-06. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
Banik, G. C., and A. L. May. 2006. “Emerging legal risks for construction
management professionals.” Leadersh. Manage. Eng. 6 (3): 102–109.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2006)6:3(102).
Caltrans. 2015. Construction quality assurance program manual, 105.
Sacramento, CA: California DOT.
Cavalline, T. L., G. J. Fick, and A. Innis. 2021. Quality control for con-
crete paving: A tool for agency and industry, 207. Ames, IA: National
Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Institute for Transportation,
Iowa State Univ.
CDOT (Colorado DOT). 2015. Construction manager/general contractor
manual. Denver: CDOT Innovative Contracting Program.
CDOT (Colorado DOT). 2020. Design-build quality assurance program.
Denver: CDOT Field Materials.
Clifford, D. 2020. “eConstruction in quality control and assurance.”
Accessed February 10, 2023. https://www.virginiadot.org/business
/materials-download-docs.asp.
Code of Federal Regulations. 2002. “23 CFR Part 637B. Quality assurance
procedures for construction.” Accessed January 3, 2023. https://www
.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/0637bsup.cfm.
FDOT (Florida DOT). 2020a. “MAC FDOT review of QC plans.” Ac-
cessed January 23, 2023. https://www.fdot.gov/materials/mac/training
/contractor.shtm.
© ASCE 04024030-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2024, 150(5): 04024030
FDOT (Florida DOT). 2020b. “Section 6.2: Alternative contracts.
Construction Project Administration Manual (CPAM).” Accessed
January 23, 2023. https://www.fdot.gov/construction/manuals/cpam
/cpammanual.shtm.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2012. Construction quality as-
surance for design-build highway projects. McLean, VA: US Depart-
ment of Transportation, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2014. “Every-Day-Counts:
EDC-2 innovations.” Accessed January 5, 2023. https://www.fhwa.dot
.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-2.cfm.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2016. Analysis of construction
quality assurance procedures on federally funded local public agency
projects. Washington, DC: US DOT.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2019. Public-private partner-
ship (P3) procurement: A guide for public owners. Washington, DC:
US DOT.
Gransberg, D., J. Datin, and K. Molenaar. 2008. Quality assurance in
design-build projects. NCHRP Synthesis 376. Washington, DC: Trans-
portation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Hughes, C. S. 2005. State construction quality assurance programs.
NCHRP Rep. No. 346. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
ITD (Idaho Transportation Department). 2014. “Design-build manual.”
Accessed January 27, 2023. https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/Apps/manuals
/ManualsOnline.html.
Kraft, E., and K. Molenaar. 2015. “Quality assurance organization selec-
tion factors for highway design and construction projects.” J. Manage.
Eng. 31 (5): 04014069. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000289.
Molenaar, K., D. Gransberg, and D. N. Sillars. 2015a. Guidebook on alter-
native quality management systems for highway construction. NCHRP
Rep. No. 808. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Molenaar, K., E. Kraft, C. Harper, D. Gransberg, N. West, G. Gad, D.
Sillars, and L. Harmon. 2015b. Alternative quality management sys-
tems for highway construction. NCHRP Web-Only Document 212.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Scott, S., and K. R. Molenaar. 2017. Guidelines for optimizing the risk and
cost of materials QA programs. NCHRP Rep. No. 838. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
Tran, D., and D. Hoyne. 2022. Agency use of quality control plans for
administering quality assurance specifications. NCHRP Synthesis 590.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
TxDOT (Texas DOT). 2017. Quality assurance program for CDA/Design-
build projects with a capital maintenance agreement with three op-
tional 5-year terms. Austin, TX: Texas DOT.
VDOT (Virginia DOT). 2018. Minimum requirements for quality assur-
ance and quality control on design build. Richmond, VA: Virginia
DOT.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.