Sie sind auf Seite 1von 37

Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures Manual

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DPWH QUALITY POLICY 1.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.0 Background and Purpose Basis Scope Implementation

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 QAU Steering Committee QAU Validation Team QAU Technical Working Group QAU Teams

3.0

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Assurance Review and Approval The Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program Adoption of Current AASHTO Quality Assurance Program by the DPWH Observations on Existing QA Program Implementation 3.5.1 The Existing Project Implementation Culture in the Implementing Offices 3.5.2 Unitemized Quality Control in Civil Works Contracts 3.5.3 Lack of resources for Department staff undertaking quality assurance duties 3.5.4 Lack of Testing Equipment in Implementing Office Laboratory 3.5.5 Lack of trained and qualified personnel 3.5.6 Status of the QA Programs of the Department 3.5.7 Standardization of the regional and district laboratories 3.5.8 Accreditation of private testing laboratories

3.5.9 3.5.10 3.5.11 3.5.12 3.5.13 3.5.14 3.5.15

3.5.16 3.5.17 3.5.18

Accreditation of Contractors' and Consultants' materials engineers Accreditation of Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete Batching Plants Handbook of Proper Construction Methodology Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways Accreditation and Assignment of Project Engineers and Project Inspectors Information Awareness Imposition of administrative sanctions to erring engineers involved in the defective implementation of DPWH projects Quality Management System (QMS) Benchmarking of Existing Quality Management Practice Poor document filing system in the Implementing Offices.

4.0

REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS OF CURRENT QAU PRACTICES AND THE CORRESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 4.2 The Role of the Quality Assurance Units (QAUs) QAU Documentation 4.2.1 Checking of Documents 4.2.2 Insufficient and limited standard forms used by current QAU In-House Team. 4.2.3 Project Selection Field Inspection 4.3.1 Not clearly defined and disorganized policy and procedures in the conduct of project assessment. 4.3.2 Design deficiency on the approved plan. 4.3.3 Action Taken 4.3.4 Quality versus Quantity Assessment Report Preparation 4.4.1 After field trips of QAU inspectors, reports are then forwarded to Encoders for typing. 4.4.2 No established or standard common recommendation for common types of defects causing unending correction of reports.

4.3

4.4

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15

4.4.3 Draft report submission within five (5) days would not be possible but can generate an electronic copy containing only Findings/Observations, Recommendations and Action Taken together with the Photograph of Defects. 4.4.4 Pavement cracks do not have clear classification with corresponding recommendations. 4.4.5 No linkage/gateway of the current IT system to incorporate the QAU reporting system. Outdated IT system of BRS. Budgetary allocation for QAU is not included in the proposed annual program of the Department. Performance of Implementing Offices in the two-year period of QA Consultants Capacity building of the Departments Central Office and Regional QAUs QA Program Awareness drive Fast tracking of documentation system Output 24-hour report submission Photograph logs Quality Management Plan Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures Manual

DPWH QUALITY POLICY


We, at DPWH, commit to provide quality, safe and environment friendly public infrastructure facilities that will improve and safeguard the life of every Filipino. We commit to comply with all requirements and continue to strive for improving effectiveness and efficiency in serving the public. We endeavor to implement the RIGHT PROJECTS at the RIGHT COST determined through transparent and competitive bidding; the RIGHT QUALITY, according to international standards, delivered RIGHT ON TIME with close monitoring of project implementation. All to be carried out by the RIGHT PEOPLE, competent, committed and ethical, that will uphold the values of professionalism, excellence, integrity, public service and teamwork.

1 1.1

QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Background


DPWH implemented a Quality Management System to develop a professional internal organization with the aim to optimize the results and fulfill the responsibilities towards increasing the level of public infrastructures in the Philippines. This entails process of continuous improvement and the assurance of conformity to the customers and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Continuous improvement, demonstrating integrity, accountability and transparency are the guiding principles of the daily activities of the Department. The terms quality assurance and quality control were often used interchangeably referring to ways to ensure quality in a service or product. The terms, however, have different meanings. Quality Assurance (QA) refers to the processes and procedures that systematically monitor different aspects of a service, process or facility to detect, correct and ensure that quality standards are being met. Quality Control (QC) on the other hand is the systematic way applying techniques and activities maintain a desired level of quality in an existing product or service through planning, proper use of equipment and methods, inspection and as required, corrective actions. QA is broader in scope than that of QC. Currently, the DPWH is adopting the quality management concept which brought about noticeable development in improving quality measurable by comparisons against international standards through benchmarking. Outside of these improvements, issues and deficiencies are parts of any public projects and the Departments target is to minimize this concerns all for the benefit of the travelling public. Implementation of Quality Assurance Program on all government infrastructure projects is the very objective of the DPWH. To realize this objective, Private Consultants and experts are necessary to gather superior inputs combining the knowledge and experience of both the private sector and the government. This partnership is vital to achieve and expand coverage of assessment and inspection of projects and facilities every quarter. In line for improvement, capacity building of the Central Office and Regional QAUs, as well as compliance of projects and specifications, will be emphasized and specifications as incorporated in the Quality Policy. As the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) entered its 24 th year of auditing civil work projects using quality assurance methods, following the creation of the Quality Assurance Units (QAUs) under

Department Order No. 26, Series of 1990, further strengthened through Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 - Implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual, the Department has been very vigilant in its campaign to implement Quality Assurance Program on all government infrastructure projects. Currently, the DPWH is adopting the quality management concept which is an essential tool towards improving quality measurable by comparisons with international standards through benchmarking. In order to realize this objective, the Department strengthened the QAU through the utilization of Consultants, the first time in the history of DPWH. The Department engaged the services of QA Consultants to implement and further improve the existing Quality Assurance Program in all government infrastructure projects, to further increase the coverage of QA inspection works by at least 15%, and capacity building of the Departments Central Office and Regional QAUs. The use of quality assurance methods has brought about measurable improvements in quality, as reported in the Annual Rating Reports of Quality Control Performance in Project Implementation. Since, there are still points for improvement of the entire QA system at work to further strengthen the quality performance of all participants and stakeholders in the quality assurance system. Defects and deficiencies are still all too common on projects, and more effective means to reduce them need to be identified. The Department continues to suffer from a poor image with the traveling public, primarily due to the late completion of projects, the poor quality of constructed works and the state of repair of existing roads.

1.2

Purpose
To achieve quality, a system of processes and procedures must be manifested. The QAU is adopting a new system to reflect its competence in their functions together with independent auditing authorities to maintain a higher level of quality and efficiency in the performance of the mandated tasks of the DPWH. What is important in this endeavor is the cooperation of all the officers and staff. The QAU policy is to maintain an effective and efficient quality assurance process. Such process underwent critical planning and development together with the QAU Steering Committee and the QAU Members. Through this cooperation, they outlined a series of policies and procedures, including codes and regulations of practice, as well as the assistance of

private firms to minimize lapses, deficiencies and inaccuracies in the construction of public facilities and roads. The assurance of quality is fundamental for all works undertaken by the QAU and should be implemented by all member staff in their work. To that effect the QAU shall: Maintain consistency in work method throughout the duration of the assessment/inspection in accordance with policies, procedures, regulations and codes of practice and without unnecessary deviation whatsoever. Ensure that all policies, procedures, relevant regulations and codes of practice are implemented and systematically reviewed to reflect the QAUs values. Regularly monitor and measure the quality of its work methods, outputs and outcomes with a view to ensuring high quality standards, best value and continuous improvement.

The present document, Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures, This document concentrates primarily on the QAU compliance auditing level, but the same principles would apply to assessment/inspection of other structural risks. This builds on the foundation of existing QAU Qualitybased Framework and the Five-Year Quality Management Implementation (2006-2010). Thus, the DPWHs Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures establishes the principles and mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity, utility, accuracy and integrity of DPWH QA Program and products and services.

1.2

Basis
The quality assurance policies and procedures contained herein are founded on the DPWH existing QA Policy and future directions as stated in its Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program and are congruent with existing documents and manuals, as well as: DPWH Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways, Volume II, Highways, Bridges and Airports (Blue Book), 2012 Edition DPWH Standard Specifications for Public Works Structures, 1995 Edition Project Assessment handbook for BRIDGES Project Assessment Handbook for Roads

Constructors Performance Evaluation System (CPES) Implementing Guidelines for Infrastructure Projects International standards ISO 9001 Department Order No. 73 Series of 2012 - Creation of the DPWH ISO Quality Management System (QMS) Teams Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 - Implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual Quality Management Plan (QMP) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) American Concrete Institute (ACI) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) American Welding Society (AWS) Philippine National Standards (PNS) National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) Occupational Safety and Health Standards Manual (OSHS) Contract Supplemental Technical Specifications and Special Provisions Other DPWH Issuances of Department Orders and Memorandum Circulars

1.3

Scope
These quality assurance policies and procedures will apply to all: Yearly QA Program of the Department Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program Quality Management plan (QMP) QA Project Assessments CPES Assessments

1.4

Implementation
This Policy is implemented through Quality Assurance Procedures that are fully integrated into the annual operational planning, implementation and reporting cycles. These procedures include: an Annual Quality Management Plan specific Quality Assurance Project Plans; and specific Data and Information Quality Assurance Plans

These operational procedures are supported by QA Project Assessment guidelines, review procedures, and other operational standards and guidelines as required.

2.0
2.1

Roles and Responsibilities


QAU STEERING COMMITTEE As the name suggests, a Steering Committee helps to steer a project through from start to completion. Sometimes it might be formed entirely by staff from the organization developing and implementing the project, but more usually it is made up of representatives of key organizations who are partners in the project, and/or who have particular expertise to lend to the project, and/or whose clients are the intended users of the output of the project. It is very important (and useful) to include at least one client of the service, or potential user of the project that is being developed, as their views can be helpful in ensuring that the project is correctly targeted. The QAU Steering Committee (QAU-SC) through the Chairman shall be responsible for the selection and direction of the QAU Teams in the conduct of Quality Assurance Inspection and Assessment for various DPWH Projects nationwide. The QAU-SC is also responsible for the approval of the recommendations given by the QAU Teams as well as the issuance of action memoranda for various DPWH implementing offices. The QAU-SC shall create Validation Team and the Technical Working Group composed of selected members as may be designated by the Chairman with responsibilities provided in Section 4.2 QAU Validation Team and Section 4.3 QAU Technical Working Group. The QAU-SC shall impose appropriate sanctions to erring DPWH officials and project personnel based on the following criteria: For Regional Directors, Assistant Regional Directors for Operations, Project Directors, Assistant Project Directors, Project Managers, Assistant Project Managers, District Engineers, Assistant District Engineers and Chiefs of Construction Divisions/Sections of Field Offices, sanctions shall be based on the quarterly ratings of quality control performance in project implementation pursuant to Memorandum dated 07 April 1989 as amended by Department Order No. 137, series of 1991. Department Order No. 9, series of 2004, further amends Department Order No. 137 shifting the quality control rating to quarterly. For Project Engineers, Resident Engineers and Materials Engineers, sanctions shall be based in defective work as noted in the QAU report and shall be imposed if the written explanations submitted relative to the defects/deficiencies noted in the projects are deemed

not acceptable. Likewise, sanctions shall be based on the nature and extent of the defects/deficiencies noted on both on-going and completed projects. The QAU-SC Chairman may also impose appropriate sanctions to QAU teams for misconduct upon recommendation of the QAU Validation Teams and after given due process. 2.2 QAU VALIDATION TEAM The QAU Validation Teams shall validate the findings and observations and corrective actions implemented on site by the concerned implementing offices based on the project assessment/inspection reports submitted by the QAU teams. Validation inspections shall be conducted immediately upon submission of the said inspection reports on selected regions as may be directed by the Chairman. 2.3 QAU TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP The QAU Technical Working Group (QAU-TWG) as technical arm of the QAU-SC shall continuously review, assess and evaluate the policies and procedures prescribed in this manual, likewise, identify the areas for improvement. The QAU-TWG shall evaluate all reports submitted by the QAU teams and may recommend for corresponding action memoranda for endorsement to QAU-SC. The QAU-TWG shall evaluate all written explanations and planned corrective actions submitted by the concerned implementing offices and may recommend such actions to the QAU-SC. The QAU-TWG shall evaluate the quality performance ratings of all implementing offices on a quarterly basis in accordance with the assessment/inspection report submitted by the QAU teams. 2.4 QAU TEAMS

2.4.1. The QAU Teams shall be responsible for regular inspection and assessment activities including its documentation, to wit: Briefing officials in the field Selection of projects to be inspected Checking project documents Actual field inspection Preparation of Inspection/Assessment Reports Monitoring of corrective actions

2.4.2.

At any given time, the QAU Teams may be directed to conduct investigation of complained projects which includes the following: Actual field inspection Verify materials on-site by submission of samples to BRS laboratory to check compliance with the specification requirements Prepare investigation report with corresponding analysis of findings and recommendations, including action memoranda to be submitted to the office of the Undersecretary concerned. Monitoring of recommended course of actions on the defects/deficiencies which were forwarded to the concerned implementing office in the preparation of the monitoring report.

2.4.3. The QAU Team shall prepare the quarterly ratings based on the results of project inspection/assessment by evaluating the quality control performance of the Regional Offices (ROs), District Engineering Offices (DEOs) and Project Management Offices (PMOs). This includes the assessment of materials quality control and construction procedures in the implementation of DPWH projects. It also takes into account the capability of the organizational unit to implement, resources-wise, the DPWH quality assurance program. 2.4.4. The QAU members who are selected by the Committee as trainer/resource speaker shall conduct extensive training to augment for the number of the QAU members to further increase the coverage of the inspection based on assessment requirements as defined by the Office of the Secretary of the DPWH through QAU-SC.

3.0

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES IN REVIEW


Since the participation of QA Consultants in the DPWH projects quality audit, deficiencies have been observed which basically focused on the quality aspects of the projects in each implementing office concerned. General issues of concerns are also noted and highlighted in this manual for guidance and improvement. The Five-Year Quality Management Program was also reviewed to identify weaknesses that need further improvement. Thus, this manual is a guide for improvement and that the decision-making by senior management is now quality-based and all members of the organization are expected to be quality conscious.

3.1

Quality Assurance Procedures This Quality Assurance Policy is implemented through Quality Assurance Procedures that are fully integrated into the annual operational planning and reporting cycle. These procedures apply to the following:

an Annual Quality Assurance Plan; specific Quality Assurance Project Assessment Plans (for each project assessment); and specific Data and Information Quality Assurance Plans (for each planned database or information service).

The procedures set out below are supported by publications and editorial guidelines and review procedures, and other operational standards and guidelines as required. These procedures will be reviewed annually and recommended changes put forward for approval with the Operational Plan. 3.2 Quality Assurance Review and Approval QA Reviews and approvals follow specific procedures for Internal and External Reviews. Internal Reviews Preliminary internal reviews of draft Quality Assurance Plan will be carried out by the QAU Steering Committee and the other parties as soon as practicable. Revised publications are subject to a second review by the Bureau and the parties. The Bureau of Research and Standards (BRS) will be included in preliminary and second reviews of certain documents or as otherwise agreed. Steering Committee Review assures compliance with Quality Assurance Project Plans and associated procedures. Following any external reviews, documents will go through final review by QAU Technical Working Group, Bureau Committee Chairman, and designated Division Chiefs. External Reviews Following an internal review, certain documents may be subject to external reviews by experts, peers and the designated committee members of other bureaus. Peer Review verifies whether the work satisfies the specifications for review, identifies deviations from standards, and suggests improvements. Reviewers will be selected based upon criteria of expertise, balance, independence and the absence of any conflict of interest. Expert Review seeks the review and comment of qualified experts in the specific subject matter. 3.3 The Five-Year Quality Management Implementation Program (20062010) Review

To address the issue on quality management system of the DPWH, a Department Order No. 72 Series of 2013 was issued directing the DPWH to implement the processes and mandatory procedures in the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual which will be the basis of an Internal Quality Audit (IQA) to be carried out. The implementation of the QMS Manual aims to get confirmation that DPWH QMS meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 and be issued with the corresponding Certification since global awareness in the quality management through this system is wellrecognized and accepted worldwide. Before, the quality assurance has nevertheless played a relatively minor role in management, administered as a separate QA department or as part of the QC department of an organization. Now, the DPWH is embracing total quality management, where the entire management approach is focused on quality as the means to ensure customer satisfaction. The decision-making by senior management is now quality-based and all members of the organization are expected to be quality conscious. 3.4 Adoption of Current AASHTO Quality Assurance Program by the DPWH Due to QA Program of the Department, it has been observed that the DPWH implementing offices were slowly adopting the AASHTO's current quality management practice. The essential elements which comprise AASHTO's Quality Assurance Program are quality assurance, quality control, acceptance, independent, assurance, laboratory accreditation, technician training and certification, contractor quality control plans, minimum testing requirements, and statistical procedures for test result analysis. To date, the DPWH is focusing on the implementation of its renewed Quality Assurance Program with the intention of reducing the administrative costs by reducing the time and effort involved on the part of the department in trying to ensure that a supplier/contractor fully complies with specifications for goods or services provided. The program changes the traditional relationship between the Department and its contractors of goods or services, making the seller (contractor, supplier etc.) responsible for the quality of goods or services sold to the buyer (agency, employer etc.) and the buyer responsible for acceptance of same. This change in relationship shifts the burden of inspection, sampling, testing etc. for quality control (and quality assurance where desired) from the buyer to the seller.

However, the DPWH shall exert more effort to fully implement their QA Program based on latest AASHTO requirements. It is previously reported that the BRS, being the previously lead bureau of quality assurance, has made use of the benchmarking technique to establish the Department's quality management standard relative to the AASHTO Quality Assurance Program. From the report it also describes how BRS proposes to capitalize on recent developments to improve the quality of goods and services delivered to the Department by suppliers of same, including adoption of the AASHTO program. It is now time for the BQS to prepare Guidance Notes on the adoption of the AASHTO QA Program and conduct training on their use since the Bluebook is now updated. However, the Schedule of Minimum Testing requirements need to be updated. Internally, the Bureau of Quality and Safety shall systematically collaborate with the established quality management standard relative to the AASHTO Quality Assurance Program. An assigned Division which will took control of the internal processes to assure that QA Procedures are working properly and that set standards are being enforced. The intent of adopting the AASHTO QA program is to make contractors responsible for the quality of works provided to the Department, and to reduce the time and effort involved on the part of the Department in monitoring compliance by witnessing tests etc, thus to better match available resources. After the adoption of the AASHTO QA Program, quality control would be the primary responsibility of the Contractor. It is therefore essential that the Contractor has a responsive quality control plan and quality control system consistent with the agency's overall quality management system. 3.5 OBSERVATIONS ON EXISTING QA PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Shortcomings on the part of the implementing offices have been recognized during the 2-year participation of QA Consultants in the DPWH projects quality audit and verified as follows: 3.5.1 The Existing Project Implementation Culture in the Implementing Offices As previously reported by the BRS and verified through the QAU assessments of the QA Consultants, the trend in the number of defects and deficiencies has slowly going down although common defects and deficiencies still noted which includes transverse cracking, no weakened plane joint provision, substandard blocking, scaling and honeycombing for

all concrete road projects; under thickness and raveling for asphalt road; insufficient mortar and undersized stones in stone masonry and riprapping works, just to mention a few. The incidence of these common defects is still unacceptably high but slowly declined in occurrence until the last part of the assessment signaling that the strengthened QA Program in placed is working and that awareness in Quality Assurance is indeed improving. Although one issue of much importance to discuss is the Department's implementation culture which is based too much on accomplishment rather than quality. Due to circumstances that put the contractors in pressure towards completion of the project within the time frame, the quality suffered a lot. It is true that this bias appears very entrenched and measures to reinstate quality as a major objective in implementation are required. It is well known that under-investment in quality during construction can significantly add to whole life costs of roads, requiring more expensive maintenance or reconstruction expenditures in the future. However, the briefing of the QA Consultants with the implementing offices during each project assessment in regards with the quality is proven effective in restating awareness towards quality and efficiency of their project implementation. 3.5.2 Unitemized Quality Control in Civil Works Contracts One of the controlling factor in the quality control issue is that quality control is generally a "deemed included" cost or overhead to be included in Contractor's bill item rates under current civil works contracts. Provision of laboratory offices may be a lump-sum item on larger projects. It has been proven during the QA Consultants project assessments that Contractors try by all means to minimize expenditures on QC since no item payment is affected aside from the fact that Contractors own little or none of their own testing equipment despite contract conditions and a Department Order requiring them to do so. Their quality control staff generally are not sufficiently trained or experienced to carry out field and laboratory tests required under contract. This resulted to poor workmanship, under-investment in equipment or poor supervision which later became the basis of defects. 3.5.3 Lack of resources for Department staff undertaking quality assurance duties It is commonly observed that local contractors are not responsible and incapable of implementing QA since the implementing office staff assumed the QA role instead of them doing it. The implementing office personnel

perform the required tests and inspection for the Contractor instead of supervising the performance of quality control work by the Contractor. This does not help the contractors become independent. The contractors therefore is lacking in delivering the requirements in compliance to QA procedures. This affects the condition of the projects in question which lacks quality. While it is true that the lack of resources available to the implementing offices and local contractors means that their staff have to manage to the best they can. However, the consequence of this lack of resources and the roles quality control staff are obliged to play is that staff adopt improvised procedures to deliver projects, and lines of reporting and individual's responsibilities become confused. At this point, the condition becomes worst and it becomes easier for unscrupulous people to exploit weaknesses in the system to their own advantage, and to the detriment of project quality. 3.5.4 Lack of Testing Equipment in Implementing Office Laboratory During the QA Consultants project assessments, the implementing offices, particularly the District offices, lack laboratory test equipment and qualified, trained staff to carry out field or laboratory tests in District laboratories. Therefore, the capability of Regional and District laboratories to carry out specified testing is limited. As reported by the BRS, District and sub-district laboratories now total 174. There are 156 districts and 18 sub-districts nationwide. Equipment in the regional laboratories needs repair or replacement and many laboratories cannot undertake the full range of testing required, particularly for cement. There are six regions with Universal Testing Machines (UTM) that are not serviceable and four regions with unserviceable pipe tester while two regions have no capacity to conduct tests on asphalt, while the remaining regions are not capable of performing complete tests on asphalt. Consequently, the ability of District and Regional Engineers to properly discharge their duties is compromised. Currently, the Department is on its way to improve the capability and capacity of Department laboratories to conduct QC/QA testing at four (4) different levels nationwide as (a) Level I - subdistrict or district, (b) Level II subdistrict or district with enhanced capabilities, (c) Level III - region, (d) Level IV - Central Office (BRS). In line with this, the audit and repair of existing laboratory equipment in the Department's regional and district laboratories and BRS are also ongoing to make best use of valuable Department assets, which would be very costly to replace. The audit is based on the annual inventory, conducted by BRS, for all equipment located in the BRS, district and regional office laboratories. For the non-

operational, repairable laboratory equipment, the BRS is preparing for bidding the repair of the equipment. 3.5.5 Lack of trained and qualified personnel The presence of trained and qualified personnel who will manage the implementation of projects at district and regional level is one of the most important factors in project implementation. These personnel must have a wide range of knowledge about quality control to address the shortcomings experienced within the implementing offices. In line with this, the accreditation of DPWH Materials Engineers was enforced by virtue of Department Order No. 12-A series of 2013 in order to strengthen the Quality Assurance Program of the Department and to ensure that only qualified and competent materials engineers are assigned in the implementation of DPWH projects. The accreditation of DPWH Materials Engineers is made a requirement for assignment to DPWH projects effective January 2, 2015 which is a positive step towards qualityconscious project implementation. Further, the continuous upgrading of rank and accreditation of Project Engineers were given priority to address the lack of accredited personnel to supervise the implementation of DPWH projects. 3.5.6 Status of the QA Programs of the Department The Departments QA programs as laid down in the Five-Year Implementation Program which were made to address the shortcomings are hereby discussed: 3.5.7 Standardization of the regional and district laboratories To date, the standardization of regional and district laboratories enhanced the testing capability of the regional and district offices to improve quality control in project implementation. The equipment requirement for each region and district was standardized and the lacking equipment were provided which is of great help during the QA Consultants participation in quality audit. The issuance of Department Order No. 11 Series of 2013 enhanced the materials testing capability of the implementing offices and improve quality control in project implementation. Through this, a Star Rating System for testing laboratories of the Regional and District Offices is being adopted and the corresponding guidelines for its implementation are prescribed which is a positive result of QA Program. 3.5.8 Accreditation of private testing laboratories Likewise, the accreditation of private testing laboratories was made to service the testing requirements of Contractors for quality control to augment the testing capability of the regional and district laboratories. As of 2012, 92 private testing laboratories have been accredited and/or have renewed their accreditation and 31 of these are in Metro Manila. 3.5.9 Accreditation of Contractors' and Consultants' materials engineers

In addition, to ensure that only qualified and competent materials engineers will be assigned by contractors and consultants to DPWH projects the Department has carried out accreditation of materials engineers on a regular basis, every March and September of the year. This is further reinforced by the issuance of Department Order No. 29 Series of 2013 which created the accreditation committee for DPWH and Contractors/Consultants Materials Engineers to ensure that only qualified and competent Materials Engineers are assigned to DPWH projects. 3.5.10 Accreditation of Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete Batching Plants The accreditation of asphalt and Portland cement concrete batching plants ensured that only asphalt and concrete mixes of the highest quality will be used in all public works and highways projects as a result of the issuance of Department Order No, 253, Series of 2003. From then on concrete and asphalt produced by duly accredited plants are being used in DPWH projects which is a positive step towards quality-conscious working environment. To date, the numbers of accredited asphalt suppliers and concrete suppliers have been growing at favorable rate. However, a regular checkup of those accredited batching plants must be conducted and may be included during the QA project assessment to validate the quality of their production. Non conformities with the standard operating procedures must have appropriate sanction mechanisms to ensure highest quality of asphalt and concrete mixes being produced. 3.5.11 Handbook of Proper Construction Methodology A review of different manuals and handbooks pertaining to materials prepared for reference and guidance of the project implementors to ensure quality of completed works must be reviewed department-wide. It is encouraged that the review undergo revisions with the involvement of different DPWH staff of all bureaus and offices to consolidate different ideas and practices to yield a more positive and productive result. 3.5.12 Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways The recent development of the DPWH Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways, Volume II, Highways, Bridges and Airports (Blue Book) by releasing the 2012 Edition is timely to align with the international standards in the implementation of all infrastructure projects. However, the DPWH Standard Specifications for Public Works Structures remained unchanged since 1995 which fall behind the international standards. With the current trends and technological advancements, this Specification must undergo relevant changes to adopt the remarkable changes in the construction industry. 3.5.13 Accreditation and Assignment of Project Engineers and Project Inspectors

Since the issuance of Department Order No. 73, Series of 1998, more and more accredited field engineers are assigned to supervise DPWH projects. This accreditation of Project Engineers and Inspectors help to ensure that only qualified and competent field engineers are being assigned. To date, as per Department Order No. 10, Series of 2014, the 46 th Partial List of Initial Accreditation of Project Engineers and Inspectors have been released and through this endeavor the DPWH will continuously supply sufficient amount of qualified and competent engineers to supervise the DPWH projects nationwide. But, the only setback is that due to the focus of the government towards quality of the projects, aside from the enforced QAU functions and QA programs, very few field engineers are aiming to get upgraded since they will be answerable to the project whatever the quality audit turns out to be. With this, the DPWH shall exert more effort to encourage the field engineers to cooperate and have an active role in this endeavor. 3.5.14 Information Awareness A number of implementing offices staff are not aware of the Department Issuances, Memorandum Circulars, Special Orders, other essential documents and even DPWH Specifications (Bluebook) that should be used in the performance of their duties. Quality management is clearly not observed in this area where such documents should be accessible to them. The Bureau of Research and Standards (BRS) on their part shall emphasize information drive by providing technical information fliers and posters pertaining to proper construction methods and quality control in various items of work involved in the implementation of the project. It is necessary that the heads of the implementing offices shall be in full compliance in disseminating information deemed necessary for their staff to perform their duties accordingly. Compliance to QA Program is also mandatory since the Department is now seeking accreditation with the International Standard Organization (ISO). The current flyers of the BRS shall be updated to suit the standard practice as highlighted in the recently concluded training workshops by the QA Consultants to the DPWH personnel as part of their contract package. It is from this training workshop that the information therein is found outdated and needs further review to suit the overall acceptable standards. Flyers, when updated, shall also be distributed by the QAU during the Entry Meeting for additional references of the implementing offices. 3.5.15 Imposition of administrative sanctions to erring engineers involved in the defective implementation of DPWH projects

During the 2-year participation of QA Consultants to QA Program of the Department, Department Order no. 5 Series of 2012, the imposition of outright sanction to DPWH field engineers who refuse to provide pertinent project documents during QAU inspections/investigations was issued to address the concern of QA Consultants where the implementing offices field engineers refused to provide pertinent project documents in some instances that hinder the proper conduct of project assessment/inspection. In addition, a new system of sanctions was instituted by BRS corresponding to the severity of defective works in order that the field engineers assigned to the projects will exercise utmost care and vigilance in project supervision to minimize the occurrence of defects/deficiencies. Sanctions are issued to the concerned engineers if their explanations on the defects noted on projects that they supervised were not acceptable upon evaluation based on the approved guidelines. It is reported that 1,179 field engineers have been warned, 243 have been meted six months suspension, 54 were issued with one year suspension and 8 were perpetually disqualified from handling/supervising projects and the number is still growing until full compliant with the QA program. 3.5.16 Quality Management System (QMS) Department Order No. 73 Series of 2012 was issued to create the DPWH ISO Quality Management System (QMS) Teams to enhance and standardize the Department's quality of public service delivery and to become consistent with the requirements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Teams managed the implementation of the QMS Certifiable to ISO 9001:2008 Project and their responsibilities. To further prepare the Department in ISO accreditation, Department Order No. 72 Series of 2013 was later issued in the implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual. In line with the Department's policy to continuously improve the delivery of its services, all Bureaus and Services, NCR and Region XI Regional Offices, and, South Manila and Davao City Engineering Offices are hereby enjoined to cooperate. 3.5.17 Benchmarking of Existing Quality Management Practice The adoption of Benchmarking and World Best Practice is best described as the barometer to define the highest standard of practice available in the world. The various aspects of the Department's existing quality management practice will be set down in writing to define the Department's quality system in outline. The quality system will describe the organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes and resources for

implementing quality management. Measures needed to further improve the performance of the Department shall be identified. 3.5.18 Poor document filing system in the Implementing Offices. In-house developed applications like the Documents Tracking System (DoTS), Personnel Information System (PIS), and Executive Information System (ExIS) to systems end-users are a good result of enhancing the computer-enabled system of the department. This shows how serious the Department is in terms of information technology utilization. But in most cases, the concerned project engineers and materials engineers do not present the required documents to the auditing body during the project assessment or investigation because of the missing filing system and file retrieval system. The documents are either misplaced or placed somewhere that is not accessible. As the Department is seeking for ISO certification, it is therefore recommended that a systematic filing system be implemented on all DPWH implementing offices, with proper cataloguing and filing in a library or allocated file storage facilities. Document control shall also be accessible through electronic means. A librarian or file custodian is hereby proposed to look after those important documents whether in physical files or electronic format for immediate retrieval during the course of QAU assessment. 3.5.19 Accreditation The on-going program of accrediting private laboratories for materials sampling and testing, including private facilities engaged in the production and supply of asphalt and concrete mixes in DPWH projects is a positive step to further strengthen the QA Program of the Department. The DPWH continuously supply sufficient amount of qualified and competent engineers to supervise the DPWH projects nationwide as a result of the on-going program of accrediting Project staff - from the Department, Consultants and Contractors in various capacities including Project Engineer, Project Inspector and Materials Engineer. Recently, BRS proposed to formulate an accreditation program for Bridge Engineers in order to ensure that only competent Project Engineer will be assigned to supervise/handle bridge projects of the Department. This endeavor will help strengthen the current practices in terms of supervising bridge projects and that proper construction methodology will be employed accordingly.

The 5-year QA Plan was founded through issuance of Department Order No. 1, Series of 2011 which clarifies the requirement for contractors to have ISO 9000 certification and later deferred through Department Order No. 4, Series of 2014 which give contractors sufficient time to comply with the implementation of ISO certification which is in effect until January 1, 2014. This step in the implementation of ISO certification is a long term solution which is an important part of the QA Program implementation which caters to the needs of the global competitiveness. This is in line with the objective of the Department to seek its own ISO certification. 3.5.20 Political Intervention in Project Procurement and Implementation The strong political culture affecting the district-wide project procurement process as well as the implementation program is one of the big hindrances in the objective of the Department of quality-based project output. Local government officials were the common authority in regards with awarding of projects under his area of jurisdiction which commonly given to his preferred contractor, if not his own. It is reported that the implementing office staff headed by the district engineer or regional engineer are deciding under the influence of the politicians who control the entire DPWH procurement and implementation processes. It is with this reason that we find the move of the DPWH Secretary to implement Promotional Examination to legally put the respective DPWH officers in each Implementing Offices against the blundering claws of such unscrupulous politicians who are wrecking the DPWH system. It is further supported with the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) where the burden of the DPWH in regards with the projects which are directly implemented by politicians were lessen to an extent. We may not know how much this impacted the entire DPWH operation since PDAF is totally declared against the law. Stricter moves should be adopted by the DPWH to address this matter since those smallest units of the DPWH, the district engineering offices, seemed owned by these politicians. 3.5.21 Outsourcing QA through Consultants The recent developments in QA project assessments and improvements in the QA Program of the Department are slowly taking place through the fortification of consultants. This is the pilot trial of the BRS which is now to be adopted by the BQS which introduced wider scope in the present Department operations and activities in terms of quality assurance. It is worth mentioning that the joint efforts of the BRS and QA Consultants that the use of quality assurance in the construction industry contribute to

the improvement in quality and timeliness of road works and further encouraged more cooperation by more consultants in promoting the QA Program. QA Consultants are a few steps away in quality improvement of the industry, thus, will require Contractors to provide both QC and QA as part of the services being provided to the Department. 3.5.22 Accreditation of QAU and QA Consultants The pilot QAU Outsource, also known as QA Consultants which started in 2011 to 2013 is a positive step towards compliance with the QA Program of the Department. Since the Department has limited capacity and capability in quality assurance, the QA Consultant is a better option. It is previously proposed by the BRS that selected staff members in the Department be trained as QA assessors or auditors, to lead the management of quality improvement envisaged in the Five-Year QA Plan but then there is no suitable formal training course available in the Philippines. Once suitable training courses are identified by BQS, which can be undertaken by distance learning, and which together with suitable QA experience and academic background, this training courses lead to accreditation of the QA personnel as members of a recognized Quality Assurance body, the BQS should also begin giving accreditation to the QA Consultants as part of the QA body. This will actively promote the management of quality improvements in the Department.

4.0

REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS PRACTICES AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS

OF

CURRENT QAU CORRESPONDING

4.1

The Role of the Quality Assurance Units (QAUs) The basic responsibility of the QAU is the auditing of the infrastructure projects that the Implementing Offices create. The choice of which activities to prioritize in assessment and inspection is loaded with them. It is important to have a concrete system in assessing these activities to limit preferences. There will be many pressures from colleagues in other areas of the organization (PMO, regional, district) who will be asking for help, and the QA units resources will have to be allocated carefully in order to maximize their effectiveness. Based on QA Consultants review, the scope of the assessment is wide ranging, including review of technical as well as disbursement aspects of projects. The time taken to assess projects varies from hours for minor projects to 2 or 3 days for major projects. The assessments are intended to

police or audit the QA activities of the implementing offices to identify any major defects/ deficiencies. To increase the coverage of project assessment by the QAUs, Department Order No. 68, Series of 2004 was issued by the Department to supplement the quarterly assessment being conducted by the Quality Assurance Unit-Central Office (QAU-CO) by the assessment of the Quality Assurance Unit-Regional Office (QAU-RO). The QAU-RO is mandated to assess all foreign assisted projects implemented by the different Project Management Offices (PMOs) including some district implemented projects, except for projects under the 6th ADB which are being reviewed by the QAU-CO as per agreement with the Bank. The QAU-CO, however, shall continue to assess projects implemented by the regional and district offices, aside from ADB projects. During the QA Consultants 2-year participation in the program, the QAURO became part of the QAU Consultants Team to address the issue of non-cooperative implementing offices during the QA assessments. Where defects or deficiencies are identified in assessment, the implementing office is informed, and is required (a) to provide an explanation and (b) to have corrective/rectification works carried out, deduct non-complying works from progress billings and/or refund any overpayment. Sanctions are applied to concerned field engineers where the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory. The project assessments are carried out on a quarterly basis. There are about 200 active QAU (Central/Regional Office) members who carry out the assessments in teams of two or more. The QAUs commit to assess a minimum of 5 projects in each district each quarter. 4.2 QAU Documentation

4.2.1 Checking of Documents The difficulty of the concerned District Engineers/Project Engineers in presenting/providing the required documents causes delays in the project assessment/inspection. With limited time allotted for the QAU Teams to complete their assessment, QAC recommends that QAU Team to proceed with the field inspection provided that the following documents are available: Approved/As Built Plan Approved Program of Works Straight Line Diagram Change or Variation Order, if applicable

Detailed Unit Price Analysis The QAC recommends that projects without such documents should no longer be inspected/assessed and should be reported as non-compliant. Non-compliance resulted to an outright sanction as per D.O. No. 05, Series of 2012 which is specially created for this purpose. 4.2.2 Insufficient and limited standard forms used by current QAU In-House Team. The forms in use by the QAU are Project Assessment Report (PAR), Detailed Accomplishment Report (DAR), QAU Assessment Checklist and Exit Meeting. These are limited and are not sufficient for data gathering of the project to be used as database in checking the status, reporting or management review and analysis. There are no standard forms used to record findings on noted defects, test results, project assessed, etc. To ensure that quality assessments are being conducted by QAU Engineers, QAU Standard Forms were created to document evidence of the inspection/assessment activities. These forms have underwent trials by QAC and submitted to QAU-BQS for approval. Further, through training workshops conducted, the QAU Standard Forms for use during project assessment were outlined, discussed and approved. Refer to Appendix 1. 4.2.3 Project Selection 4.2.3.1 List of on-going and completed projects from PMS. Prior to QA project assessment, the lists of projects for assessment were prepared by BQS. Those lists are being verified in the DPWH website. To avoid confusion in the actual percentage of accomplishment as well as the status of each project if already been underwent QAU assessment, BQS should have a close coordination with the Bureau of Construction to check the current status of those projects. 4.2.3.2 Discrepancies in percentage of reported accomplishment of projects versus actual field accomplishment. Based on experiences of both QAC, the reported project accomplishment based on the Project Monitoring System (PMS) is different from the actual accomplishment. One of the criteria in project selection is that the project should be at least 50%

accomplished in order to be assessed for quality. In the given list prior to departure of QAU during the scheduled field inspection, some projects indicate to have 50% accomplishment but actual inspection of the project shows only to have 20% accomplishment. As a result, minimal major pay item of works can be assessed. QAC recommends realistic accomplishment should be reported by the implementing offices to the PMS. 4.2.3.3 Some projects in the given list were already assessed by QAU in-house. Upon arrival of QA Consultant team at the project site, DE/PE would indicate that their project has already been assessed by the QAU-In House within the current year with no records to show. To solve this problem, a Certificate of Assessed Projects was developed by the QA Consultant to document the project inspection which is included in the attached list of forms. See Appendix 1. 4.2.3.4 Assessment on selected projects is carried out once a year only. To date, the focus of QA assessment is to verify compliance of projects to plans and specifications which is done once a year. In doing so, the projects are not checked as to quality since most projects are already completed when QAU arrives. QAC recommends that projects should be assessed twice in its entire project duration if the focus is quality. Initial inspection/assessment should be carried out preferably at 40-50% accomplishment and final inspection/assessment at 90-95% accomplishment prior to issuance of Final Completion Certificate. With this, awareness in quality of construction may be expected for projects implemented by implementing offices. 4.3 Field Inspection

4.3.1 Not clearly defined and disorganized policy and procedures in the conduct of project assessment. Lacking policy and procedures for the guidance and uniformity of QAU inspection/assessment is a major missing link in achieving remarkable result in quality control of the implementing offices and the quality

assurance by the concerned QAU members. Taking into considerations the engagement of the QAC in project assessment, a Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures (QPP) Manual incorporating the Guidelines in Inspection/Assessment for Roads, Bridges, Flood Control and Buildings was formulated for approval of BRS and hence may be further developed to meet the needs of the QAU as a whole. In this case, QAU In-house could give inputs to improve the Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures and Guidelines in the Conduct of Assessment which should be adopted by both QAU In-house and QAU Outsource (QAC) in order to perform a standard procedure in the manner of assessment. Immediate review and approval of this document is highly important that would affect QA Program of the Department. During the training workshops conducted by the QA Consultants, QAU Project Assessment/Inspection Parameters were outlined and approved by the body as compiled in Appendix 2. Guidelines in the conduct of QA project assessment were detailed in Appendix 3. 4.3.2 Design deficiency on the approved plan. It has been observed that there are some design deficiencies in the approved plans of the project. Such are not considered as defects or deficiencies in the QAU report since the QAUs function is to assess the compliance of the project to its existing plan and specification. It is therefore recommended the inclusion of design deficiencies in the findings and observation and coordinate with the Bureau of Design to verify said design deficiencies. 4.3.3 Action Taken 4.3.3.1 Site Instructions It has been noted that there is no specific date of rectification period indicated in the issued Site Instruction (SI). Since Site Instruction is an order issued to the Engineer of the Contractor for the execution of work or to correct any defect in accordance with the approved plans and contract provisions, the following is recommended in the issuance of SI:

The Site Instruction should specify time frame or rectification period in which corrective action should be done. An SI without specified period shall be considered as invalid, therefore is considered as findings. Defects with issued SI should be corrected within five (5) calendar days after issuance thereof for ongoing projects and 14 calendar days for completed projects. Further, should the contractor failed to do the necessary rectification, Field Engineers should write a follow up letter to the contractor to do recommended corrections as specified in the SI. Furthermore, it has been a practice that when an SI is issued by Field Engineers to the Contractor to correct the noted defect and the corrective action made is acceptable to QAU, the Field Engineer is no longer included in the sanction or Memo issued by the Undersecretary for Technical Services. As a result, though avoidable, common type of defects/deficiencies is prevalent in construction of projects, with no solution or improvement to prevent continuous occurrences. In line with this, enforcement of Field Engineers to implement quality in construction does not rely on the number SI issued to contractor and action taken to correct deficiencies but implementation of correct construction procedures and close supervision by Field Engineers. Therefore, Field Engineers should still be answerable in the poor quality or defective implementation of DPWH projects. 4.3.3.2 Corrective Actions QA Consultants observed the following during the course of QA assessment/ inspection: The same type of common defects are noted every assessment such as cracks, honeycombs, improper cutting of weakened plane joints, no/insufficient asphalt sealant, excessive asphalt sealant, etc. It is a common practice that when QAU Team accepted the corrective action on noted defects/deficiencies, the Field Engineers are no longer included in the sanction or Memo issued by the Undersecretary for Technical Services which often results to reoccurrence of the same defects in the succeeding projects

since the concerned Field Engineers are not held liable and therefore quality control and quality assurance is taken for granted. Some contractors deliberately do not perform corrective action to rectify the defects even with an SI issued by PE. Instead the Contractors wait for QAU to do the inspection/assessment, give recommendations and PE to forward QAU findings and recommendations to the contractor for implementation. Graphical analysis for Region 1 alone for four (4) trips conducted in 2012 indicate the trend in the frequency of occurrences of common type of defects with corrective action. Out of 80 projects assessed, 57 defects were noted requiring corrective actions and only 13 conform to plans and specifications. This shows that the actual root cause of the common type of defects/deficiencies have not been properly identified or is not adequately addressed, hence the reoccurrence of defects. Likewise, the Contractors failure to implement its own quality assurance program should be a ground to disciplinary action of the Contractor. Therefore it is recommended that Field Engineers shall be issued Memorandum to provide an explanation to identify the cause of defects and work to prevent its recurrence as part of their corrective action. Similarly, the erring Contractors should be sanctioned for continuous recurrence of defects in their implemented projects. QAU findings and observations of assessed project should be forwarded to CPES as part of Contractors performance monitoring for evaluation. 4.3.4 Quality versus Quantity Assessment Currently, due to time constraint QAU is conducting the following test for on-going and completed projects: PCCP coring (to determine thickness and compressive strength). ACP coring (to determine the thickness and density). Test Pitting (to determine the thickness of sub base and base course).

For a more thorough evaluation of underlying quality of materials, QAU may perform the following additional test:

Field Density Test (FDT) to determine the degree of compaction of

in-placed materials. This is applicable to on-going and completed projects with prepared sub base and base course materials. Test for Soil Samples to verify the quality of materials used such as Grading, Plasticity and Laboratory Compaction. With the current tests conducted, QAU could assess 20 projects per district per trip while the above test may incur additional 13 days or a total of 25 days on various type of infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, building, flood control, etc.) Analysis showed that for ongoing projects involving different types of structures (PCCP, ACP, Bridge, Flood Control and/or Building) 25 days is needed for the total of 20 projects in each regional office concerned. Likewise, for completed projects 21 days will be needed. This assumption is limited to only one (1) road project per district per implementing office to verify the quality of work and to perform the required tests stated above. However, this will require assistance of the implementing office both on manpower and equipment. This shows that the required test would result to additional budget allocation in the conduct of Project Assessment/Inspection. While quality assurance is the objective of QAU, a more detailed assessment would be possible with more quality testing, but consequently this would require more time thus an increase of number of days of assessment is proposed. But if increasing the present allotted number of days would no longer be reasonable, reduction of the targeted number of projects to be assessed per district on per trip is one possible option or by deploying additional QAU teams in order that the quality assessment would be carried out. 4.4 Report Preparation

4.4.1 After field trips of QAU inspectors, reports are then forwarded to Encoders for typing. Because of the limited time required to submit a draft report for review of QAU BRS, PERTCONSULT engineers developed the Integrated QAU Excel Based Reporting System or IQeBRS to expedite and streamline the submission of the report. While in the field, QAU engineers will encode information in PAR, Summary of Findings and Proposed Recommendations. IQeBRS will then generate 24-hour report for transmittal to BRS or DPWH website and QAU engineers to finalize the report upon return to office.

The IQeBRS follows the standard report format required by QAU BQS and uses series of phrases templates, with options to describe the station limit. Photographs of defects are also included. Data gathered in the report are linked to Quarterly Ratings Report and Extent of Defects and Recommendations. Since one of the function of QAU is to monitor the performance of implementing offices, using data stored in IQeBRS, subsequently it can provide a graphical illustration of the performances of the implementing offices and Project Engineers which measures the quality of projects handled as to conformance to specifications, defects requiring corrective actions, and requiring removal and replacement. This graphical report is recommended for inclusion in the memorandum for the Implementing Office to be aware of the performance of their field engineers and the status of quality implementation of their projects. IQeBRS is user friendly. In order to attain its efficiency, the following requirements should be met: 1. Proficiency in typing and use of Microsoft office excel by QAU inspectors. 2. Each QAU inspector must be provided with laptop and tablet during field inspection. A manual on how to use the IQeBRS is prepared by PERTCONSULT as shown in Appendix 5. 4.4.2 No established or standard common recommendation for common types of defects causing confusion among QAU members QAC draft report, specifically recommendations to common defects is subject to checkers/reviewers judgement. The BRS assigned checkers have varying recommendations on certain defects, particularly on the Defects Correction Policy. For the QACs part, recommendations noted by QAU BRS were encoded in the IQeBRS data base. As a result, several recommendations for the same type of defect appeared in the database causing confusion. To address this problem, a Summary of Defects and Recommendations with severity is prepared by QAC for easy reference and to have uniformity in the preparation of reports. The approved summary would then be the

database for the list of defects and the corresponding recommendations as shown in Appendix 4. 4.4.3 Draft report submission within five (5) days would not be possible but can generate an electronic copy containing only Findings/ Observations, Recommendations and Action Taken together with the Photograph of Defects. QAC recommends a total of ten (10) working days (2 weeks) to submit the Final Report that would include photocopying of attachments and printing, with breakdown as follows: 5 days 2 days 2 days 1 day generation of electronic report review and checking of report printing of report photocopying of attachment and binding of report

As a result, the report can be easily disseminated to the concerned implementing offices for perusal and immediate action. 4.4.4 Pavement cracks do not have clear classification with corresponding recommendations. The QAC established standard guidelines in classifying cracks by using diagram presentation with corresponding recommendations. These guidelines were distributed to the implementing offices during the entry meeting for reference purposes. It is recommended further that flyers alike should be distributed in the Implementing Offices to create awareness and further update their knowledge. 4.4.5 No linkage/gateway of the current IT system to incorporate the QAU reporting system. While the DPWH is re-inventing its information systems and technology infrastructure to reflect the organization's new thinking on strategic focus for infrastructure development, information sharing through intranet and internet should be enhanced to suit today's technological advancements and current trends. This new focus will be to develop a more user-friendly information system which is accessible to public which will result to a more transparent system within the organization. Along with this, the PMS should be enhanced and additional tools should be developed for a more convenient and user-friendly information system.

Sorting of projects based on category, source of funding, allotment, etc. will come in handy, especially for Department's executives, managers and QAU-related purposes or for project selection. It is therefore advisable to upgrade the Department's existing Information Technology system to incorporate the QAU reporting system. 4.5 Outdated IT system of BRS and BQS. The Quality Consultants' electronic files such as reports (e-files) were not recognized in the current system used by these bureaus, like MS Office versions (MS Words, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint, MS Outlook, among others), which were lower than what the private companies are using. Therefore the Bureau of Research and Standards (BRS) should be upgraded to an acceptable standard since it is the core policy maker of the research and quality programs of the Department. The same holds true for the BQS. The computerization program within the bureau is a positive step towards compliance with the QA Program of the Department since it is the implementing bureau of that QA Program. Since the inception of the idea of IT literacy in the Department, enhanced IT system for these bureaus is recommended for inclusion in the IT program. Sophisticated computers running on current operating systems, i.e., Windows 7 and 8, shall replace the old and obsolete lower versions which are still running and used within the office premises. Procurement of additional computers, improved IT system in the BRS to cope with the latest IT technology is highly recommended. 4.6 Budgetary allocation for QAU is not included in the proposed annual program of the Department. Include proper budgetary allocation for QAU annually. In this way, allocation for QAU assessment will not be a problem anymore. This will result in the increase of the coverage of projects to be assessed without further delay since the budget is already available. 4.7 Performance of Implementing Offices in the two-year period of QA Consultants The engagement of QA Consultants in the span of two (2) years have impacted the course of QA management program of the Implementing Offices in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao areas. However, no clear basis to conclude that it is indeed advantageous on the part of the government. The BQS shall create ratings and performance reports of the Implementing Offices for reference purposes during the participation of QA Consultants.

This will be used as a tool to identify how the QA Consultants have impacted in the current QA program of the Department. 4.8 Capacity building of the Departments Central Office and Regional QAUs One of the main objective of enhanced QA Program is to achieve the expanding coverage of the total number of projects for assessment per quarter through capacity building by conducting seminars/trainings for all QAUs to address deficiencies in the manner of conducting QA project assessment/inspection, including additional specific recommendations towards improving the quality of assessment/inspection. All improvements introduced in the conduct of project assessment/inspection are to be adopted. Technology transfer specifically in the use of IQeBRS, an excel based reporting system designed to fast track the preparation of reports are to be applied. Familiarization with the Quality Management Plan is also mandatory on the part of the Implementing Offices and the Department as a whole. 4.9 QA Program Awareness drive The QA Consultant has promoted awareness to the implementing offices with regards to quality assurance and quality control. Compliance to plans and specifications as well as quantity and quality of materials incorporated into the works undertaken was also emphasized. 4.10 Fast tracking of documentation system Utilizing the IQe-BRS, an excel-based reporting system, the documentation process of QAU report preparation will be faster and uniform since common findings and recommendations were already incorporated in the program template. See Appendix 5. Through the use of computer and IQeBRS, a standard report template and uniform reporting is established since the same recommendation will be adopted for a particular finding. 4.11 Output Completed assessment/inspection reports of projects undertaken are now in print and e-copy with attached photos. Related information for a particular project can be easily retrieved for specific use. It is believed that the documentation process will be more efficient. Plus, it will provide a better presentation of the assessment, in case, any third party stakeholder would come across these outputs. 4.12 24-hour report submission

The status of each project being implemented by the Implementing Offices has been reportedly a subject of doubts since QAU teams were accused of malpractices wherein reports were fabricated. To minimize, if not totally eliminate negative feedbacks, a summary of deficiencies of the assessed projects should be submitted by the QA Consultants to the BQS through email. Such communications are to be acquiesced to the Implementing Office concerned within 24 hours after the conduct of project assessment. In this way, the involvement of QAU, the assessment team with the Implementing Offices (assessed office) will be controlled which in turn will result to more reliable reporting. 4.13 Photograph logs Augmentation of "Action Taken" through submission of revised photograph log form by implementing offices is an additional tool in the assessment and evaluation. In addition, it provides visual evidence of the assessment that may be used for preventive planning and standards. . The photolog can also be used as reference of the Validation Teams in checking the corrective and planning for preventive actions to the works done by the implementing offices as well as the recent QAU assessment conducted by the QAU Teams. 4.14 Quality Management Plan The existing QA Program of the Department does not form part of the Quality Management Plan (QMP). Through the partnership with a QA Consultant a QMP was prepared and submitted as part of the deliverables of their contracts. This is to receive a third party observation for the purpose of defining the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the officers and personnel involved in the QA Program. The partnership resulted in the description of all the processes and/or activities involved in conducting project assessment/inspection in and the implementation and will be the basis of the quality assurance policies for the entire Department. The QMP, however, shall be subjected for further planning and consultations to improve the processes and procedures since the issuance of Department Order No. 72 series of 2013 - Implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) Manual to seek ISO certification of the Department. 4.15 Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures Manual

This QA Policy and Procedures Manual contain the scope of QA Program and QAU processes. This also includes how the QAU should conduct the quality assurance standard assessment/inspection. The Manual has been developed to supplement the Quality Management Plan. Utmost care and vigilance must be observed to further enhance this Manual in line with the five year development plan of the DPWH.