Successfully implementing a Quality Assurance Program in a small community Lowell Patton, CPII Public Works Director City of Fernley, Nevada Chair, APWA Certified Public Infrastructure Inspector Council any have asked, “How, within the space of approximately one year, did the City of Fernley successfully implement a Quality Assurance Program for public infrastructure?” The answer is, “With agency support, local contractor buy-in, consistent standards and experienced inspectors.”
developers. This was done by basing a fee upon a very small percentage of the Engineer’s Estimate for construction of the improvements. This Engineer’s Estimate was not an additional step as it was already submitted as a function of calculating the performance bond amount for the public improvements.
The City of Fernley is a growing semi-rural community with approximately 20,000 residents located east of Reno, Nevada. During 2004 and 2005, Fernley was the fastest growing city in the second fastest growing county in the nation (Lyon County). At one time, the City was tracking 50 projects in which public improvements were being constructed. At this time, the Public Works Director, Community Development Director and City Manager saw a need to provide, at a minimum, oversight of construction of a substantial amount of public infrastructure that was being constructed and dedicated by local developers. Soon thereafter the Public Works Director retired and the Community Development Director took the issue before the City Council in the absence of the Public Works Director.
The current Public Works Director was hired in late-2004. As a function of familiarizing himself with the City’s process of construction and acceptance of public improvements, he met many of the contractors that were constructing these public improvements. During these meetings, he asked many of the contractors what they liked and disliked about the Quality Assurance Program and the Public Works Design Standards and Specifications. Many commented that there were various standard details in the standards that contained errors or conflicts with text in the standards. Others commented that there were errors in the standards that rendered a given piece of infrastructure “unbuildable” if all dimensions and tolerances were followed.
The City Council, recognizing the need to oversee construction of public infrastructure that would ultimately be dedicated to the City, directed City Staff to award a contract to Construction Inspection Associates, of Reno, Nevada, to provide Quality Assurance inspection services. At that point, developers were required to retain an independent third party inspection firm, but City personnel didn’t become involved until most of the infrastructure was installed and buried. City water utility crews controlled valve configurations during hydrostatic testing but wouldn’t return until a final walkthrough inspection. Engineering staff didn’t become involved until this same final walkthrough when the streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks were inspected. This action by the City Council may appear to be a simple everyday action of identifying a need and meeting that need with a service contract. This action, however, expressed a much larger commitment to the requirement that public infrastructure would not be allowed to be installed in Fernley without inspection, or oversight of inspection, by someone from the City. Due to budget concerns over the impact of these additional services on the City’s budget, the City Council passed a fee resolution by which all of the costs of the oversight of the Quality Assurance Program were passed through to private 20
APWA Reporter
June 2009
Having been a construction inspector himself, the Public Works Director felt that there was possibly nothing more frustrating to an inspector than inconsistent standards. The “unbuildable” dimensions caused many frustrating discussions between inspectors, engineers and contractors, and these frustrations eroded the trust being established between the contractors and inspectors. The Public Works Director, prior to the adoption of the revised standards, issued many clarifying letters during this period. Through this period it became evident that the standards required revision and that at least some representative section of local contractors would need to be involved in the revision. Over a period of a few months, many of these comments were assembled into a draft revision to the standards. This draft was reviewed with some of the local contractors prior to adoption. The adoption of these revisions served three purposes: local contractors were given a voice in the area of City standards, the revised standards were much more consistent, and the revised standards included references to the new Quality Assurance Program. The revised standards contained references to the Quality Assurance Program that greatly benefited the program. For instance, the standards contained not only a maximum cross-slope for sidewalk (2%), but also the method by which the slope would be verified (an electronic SmartLevel®).