This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 28 November 2013, At: 07:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and EconomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Assessing contractor quality performanceFiruzan Yasamis , David Arditi & Jamshid MohammadiPublished online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Firuzan Yasamis , David Arditi & Jamshid Mohammadi (2002) Assessing contractor qualityperformance, Construction Management and Economics, 20:3, 211-223, DOI: 10.1080/01446190110113693

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190110113693

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

A general decline in the vitality of the US constructionindustry has been observed over the last two decades interms of declining pro� t margins, increases in formallitigation, concerns over quality of work, increases inadministrative overhead and an erosion of competitiveadvantage at the international level (Forbes, 1993;Larson and Gray, 1995). The problem of poor perfor-mance in the construction industry has been widely recognized and has been documented by Oglesby et al.(1989), Alarcon and Ashley (1992) and Forbes (1993).Explicit solicitude has been reported about the declinein construction quality in the past decade, as well as concerns regarding the decrease in customer satis-faction in the construction industry (USACE BlueRibbon, 1983) despite the programmes developed toimprove the process and the products of construction

(Oglesby et al., 1989; Kubal, 1994). The implementa-tion of new contracting techniques, inadequate pricingmethods, lower productivity, insigni� cant technologicalgrowth, reduction in the industry’s net worth, depen-dence on legal assistance, lack of co-operation amongprofessional groups, disappearance of true general con-tractors, increasing dependence on project consultants,outmoded QA/QC programmes, outmoded safety pro-grammes, and transference of professional liability areconsidered by some to be causing the decline in thequality of construction (Hindle and Rwelamila, 1993;Kubal, 1994). The industry’s efforts to increase theoverall quality of construction activities are docu-mented in various publications (CII, 1989a,b; Fox andCornell, 1984; ASQC, 1987; Stukhart, 1989; Chase,1993; Bubshait, 1994; Hart, 1994; Ledbetter, 1994). Itis also true that the second half of the 1990s has seena formidable boom in construction activity, but qualityis still an elusive subject that is dif� cult to measure andfactor into the contractor selection processes.

Construction Management and Economics (2002) 20, 211–223

Assessing contractor quality performance

FIRUZAN YASAMIS, DAVID ARDITI* and JAMSHID MOHAMMADI

Illinois Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Chicago, IL 60616, USA

Received 5 February 2001; accepted 16 November 2001

This paper proposes a radical change in industry practice that will improve the quality of the constructionprocess and the levels of customer satisfaction derived from it by evaluating the quality performance of thecontractor. An alternative theory is developed of what constitutes quality, client satisfaction, performance,and their interrelationships in the context of the construction industry. It should be noted here that the termconstruction client includes both the owner (i.e. the agency or organization funding the project) and theend-user of the construction (i.e. the general public). A comprehensive view of construction quality is proposedthat deals with both the service (as received by the owner) and product (as received by the end-user) aspectsof the construction project as well as the corporate quality culture. Such a dissection of construction activityfacilitates developing strategies to de� ne, operationalize, measure and improve construction quality. A frame-work for the assessment of a contractor’s quality performance is established. This involves gathering a listof contractor quality performance (CQP) indicators that are derived from various quality-related practicesof the contractor at the corporate and project level. Finally, a contractor quality performance (CQP) eval-uation model is introduced that can be used in a contractor prequali� cation and/or selection system. TheCQP indicators are operationalized within the theoretical framework of the CQP evaluation model.

Keywords: Contractor quality performance, quality control, quality assurance, prequali� cation, contractorselection

*Author for correspondence. e-mail: arditi@iit.edu

Construction Management and EconomicsISSN 0144–6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/01446190110113693

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

This paper constitutes an attempt at providing amethod that will improve the quality of the construc-tion process and the levels of customer satisfactionderived from it by focusing on the quality performanceof the contractor. The development of a quality perfor-mance evaluation model is envisioned to evaluatebidders during the contractor selection process. Thepaper � rst discusses an alternative theory of whatconstitutes quality, client satisfaction, performance andtheir interrelationships in the context of the construc-tion industry. It should be noted here that the termconstruction client includes both the owner and theend-user of the construction. A comprehensive viewof construction quality is presented that deals with boththe service received by the owner and the productreceived by the end-user as well as the contractor’scorporate quality culture. Such a dissection of theprocess facilitates developing strategies to de� ne, oper-ationalize, measure and improve construction quality.Second, the paper presents a discussion on qualityperformance and its evaluation. A framework for theassessment of a contractor’s quality performance isdeveloped and a list of contractor quality performance(CQP) indicators is compiled that represents thedimensions of quality performance in construction.These indicators are derived from contractors’ qualitypractices at the corporate and project levels. The CQPindicators are operationalized within a theoreticalframework called the CQP evaluation model. Third,the paper introduces the prototype of the CQP evalu-ation model that can be used in a contractor prequal-i� cation system.

The CQP evaluation model approaches the problemof measuring quality from a different point of view.Rather than assessing the details of the contractor’sinternal processes, it focuses on providing a dependablesystem that can help achieve total client satisfactionwith the contractor’s and the facility’s performance.This evaluation is based on the fact that the quality of the work performed by the contractor (i.e. theproduct), the quality with which it is performed by the contractor (i.e. the service), together with thecontractor’s corporate culture of quality-relatedmatters are very important parameters in the customersatisfaction equation. This model may be used to eval-uate a contractor’s quality performance potential forfuture projects too.

Construction quality and client satisfaction:an alternative framework

The studies published in the literature concerningquality in construction mostly have been about thequality of design and the level of conformance to

design. The architectural/engineering (A/E) design ofa constructed facility includes all the tasks performedto determine the functional speci� cations of the facility.‘Quality of design’ involves the degree to which thefeatures of the facility conform to the client’s needs.In traditional contracting, quality of design is theresponsibility of the A/E � rm; hence it depends on the performance of the architect or the engineer orboth, and is beyond the scope of this paper. The ‘levelof conformance to design’, on the other hand, indi-cates the degree to which the constructed facility delivered by the contractor is consistent with drawingsand speci� cations. Mostly, the level of conformance to design has been interpreted in the constructionindustry much as it is interpreted in manufacturing-based quality theories. As the manufacturing-basedde� nition of quality is being modi� ed to � t the indi-vidual needs of service type industries, so are the de� ni-tions of customer focus, � tness for use, and quality ofperformance. For example, Milakovich (1995) de� nesquality of performance to encompass the reliability ofthe original product and/or service as well as thecompetence, integrity and promptness of staff andsupport services. For owners to receive more value fortheir investment, de� nitions of quality in constructionneed to be expanded to include the performance ofthe company as a whole and the client satisfactionderived from that performance.

There is a shift in business thinking from compli-ance mode to performance mode. While contractorsare striving to improve their overall performance, thecontrol and monitoring mechanisms that clients prac-tice on contractors and their work should also be re-engineered (Wilson and Pearson, 1995). According tothe law of requisite variety, complex systems cannotbe measured by simple mechanisms (Kaydos, 1991).This hypothesis is quite germane for the constructionenvironment, where contractors are confronted withmany dynamic forces, from competition to litigation,that either do not exist in other industries or are atvery different levels. Contractors operating in a muchmore paradoxical business environment need to beassessed in a contemporary manner that will take intoaccount the innovative characteristics that they areexhibiting as businesses. Performance measurementmodels customized for these environments need to bedeveloped.

In both manufacturing and service work environ-ments, the quality of work as received by a customeris formed by: (i) the end product or service, (ii) all thetransformation processes, and (iii) the inputs used toprovide the � nal goods and services (Edosomwan,1988). Businesses deliberately design and deliver theirproducts/services as well as the processes that producethem to satisfy the requirements of their customers

212 Yasamis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

while controlling the inputs. The distinctions betweenthe product, the service and the processes that trans-form resources into value are ambiguous in theconstruction environment. The model in Figure 1 isintroduced to eliminate this ambiguity. In this model,a comprehensive view of quality is presented that dealswith both the service (received by the owner) and theproduct (received by the end-user) related aspects ofthe construction project, together with the corporatequality culture in place in the contracting company.

Corporate-level quality attributes in a contracting company

Corporate-level quality refers to the quality expectedfrom a construction company in addition to the prod-uct and/or service quality. The corporate-level quality in a construction company is experienced through thecorporate quality culture, and the corporate quality cul-ture is the organizational value system that encourages a quality-conscious work environment. It establishes and promotes quality and continuous improvementthrough values, traditions and procedures (Goetsch andDavis, 1997). The existence of a strong quality cultureshould help a contractor achieve client satisfaction aswell as sustaining competitive advantage by deliveringhigher quality service and producing higher quality facilities.

The foundations of the quality orientation of a com-pany are de� ned at the corporate level. Quality orien-tation is recognized by an organizational commitmentto developing and maintaining core competence based

upon a quality focus (Miles et al., 1995). Core compe-tence is what a company does better than anyone else.It should be noted that core competence should beenhanced in line with the business environment, to provide more value to the customer, otherwise it risksbecoming obsolete (Russell and Taylor, 1998). Thebusiness performance and social responsiveness of thecontractor are also factors contributing to the contrac-tor’s quality orientation. Quality-conscious companiesadopt quality management systems that focus on creat-ing and/or sustaining performance improvement in theareas of management involvement and leadership,product and process design, product control, customerand supplier communications, quality improvementprogrammes, employee participation, education andtraining, and quality information (Evans and Lindsay,1996).

The effect of quality system audits on corporate-level quality

The concept of total quality requires organizations toestablish a well structured and explicit system that identi� es, documents, co-ordinates and maintains allthe key quality related activities throughout all relevantcompany and site operations. This system is referred toas the ‘total quality system’. Feigenbaum (1993) de� nesa total quality system as ‘the agreed company wide andplant wide operating work structure, documented ineffective, integrated technical and managerial proce-dures, for guiding the co-ordinated actions of the work-force, the machines, and the information of the

Assessing contractor quality performance 213

Figure 1 An alternative framework to construction quality

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

company and plant in the best and most practical ways to ensure customer quality satisfaction and eco-nomical costs of quality’. The mechanisms that providecontrol processes over quality systems and determinetheir effectiveness are termed ‘quality audits and assess-ments’. A quality audit (i.e. quality system audit) is amethodical and autonomous evaluation to determinewhether quality activities and results comply withplanned arrangements, and whether these arrangementsare implemented effectively and are suitable for achiev-ing the objectives. Most prominent of such frameworksfor quality management are the Malcolm BaldridgeNational Quality Award in the USA, the Deming Prizein Japan, and the ISO 9000 international quality stan-dards (Evans and Lindsay, 1996).

The ISO 9000 series of standards are quality systemstandards that guide a company’s performance of spec-i� ed requirements in the areas of design/development,production, installation and service. They presume thatcertain generic characteristics can be standardized, andthat a well designed, well implemented and carefullymanaged quality system provides con� dence that theoutputs will meet customers’ expectations and require-ments. They mainly require the supplier to have a veri� able process in place to ensure that it consistentlyproduces what it says it will produce. ISO 9000requirements are listed in detail by Evans and Lindsay(1996). ISO 9000 promotes conformance to qualitysystem requirements. One of ISO 9000’s major short-comings is that it does not encourage continuousimprovement within a company in terms of leadership,strategic planning, or customer relations management.Yet, it is a good set of common practices for qualityassurance.

The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award(MBNQA) recognizes US companies that excel in qual-ity management practices and quality results that achievethe highest levels of customer satisfaction. The MalcolmBaldridge criteria are directed towards business results,are non-prescriptive, are comprehensive, are a part of adiagnostic system, include interrelated learning cycles,and emphasize alignment (Evans and Lindsay, 1996).The seven generic categories that are assessed in theMalcolm Baldridge Award are leadership, informationand analysis, strategic planning, human resource devel-opment and management, process management, busi-ness results, and customer focus and satisfaction. Thesecategories derive from the following set of core valuesthat promote delivering increased value to customers and improvement of overall company performance andcapabilities (Evans and Lindsay, 1996): (i) customer driven quality, (ii) leadership, (iii) continuous improve-ment and learning, (iv) employee participation anddevelopment, (v) fast response, (vi) design quality and prevention, (vii) long range view of the future, (viii)

management by fact, (ix) partnership development, (x)corporate responsibility and citizenship, and (xi) resultsorientation.

The Malcolm Baldridge Award goes beyond therequirements of ISO 9000, emphasizing continuousimprovement and customer satisfaction, in addition toISO 9000’s conformance requirements. That is whythe core values that underlie this award may be usedin de� ning the corporate-level quality in the contextof the construction industry. These core values areindicators of outstanding quality management practiceswithin a company. Companies that display an estab-lished quality culture achieve quality results along withthe highest levels of customer satisfaction. The corevalues underlying the Malcolm Baldridge criteria canbe viewed as building blocks to be used in establishinga generic framework for modelling construction qualityand client satisfaction. These core values will provideguidance to construction � rms in interpreting what is expected of them as far as quality practices areconcerned. Construction companies need to designand deliver their quality management systems andapplications within these core values.

Upon analysing the fundamental values that underlieavailable quality audit systems, a list of quality attrib-utes that should exist in a contractor company are compiled to de� ne corporate-level construction quality,and these attributes are presented in Table 1. They arethe cornerstones of a successful total quality manage-ment system, and are representative of the general characteristics of a quality-conscious organization. It isanticipated that their existence in a construction com-pany should increase client satisfaction by providing an infrastructure for quality improvements in companyoperations. They create the quality vision of the con-tractor organization at top management levels.

Project-level quality attributes in construction

Project-level quality can be examined in the followingsix areas: (i) brie� ng by the client, (ii) the designprocess, (iii) materials and component selection, (iv)project assembly on site (construction), (v) projectmanagement activities, and (vi) systems to promoteproject quality (Woodward, 1997). The quality-relateddecisions of the client have to be made prior to thestart of construction, because they set the tone for thetype and function of the construction. Scope de� ni-tion and brie� ng are the phases of the project wherethe client shapes his/her needs and expectations. Thedesign quality, although not an easy concept to de� ne,is the responsibility of the design team whether it bean independent consultant, in-house design groupwithin the contractor’s company or within the client’sorganization (Woodward, 1997). The remaining areas

214 Yasamis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

of material and component selection, on-site projectquality, project management activities, and projectquality management systems are the responsibility ofthe contractor.

Materials and components are products of manu-facturing industries and they yield themselves easily toQA/QC procedures (Woodward, 1997). In addition tomonitoring the quality of these procured parts andequipment that are used in the construction, it is theresponsibility of the contractor to select suppliers whowill provide defect-free products. The actual construc-tion process is controlled by QA/QC procedures underthe quality conformance requirements of the project.The quality of project management deals with the level,complexity and completeness of the tools that are usedin project management. Project quality systems dealwith the management of the quality aspects of theproject. They are inspired by the quality system of thecorporation. Project quality systems include pursuingdocumented practices, not tolerating deviations fromplans and project controls, avoiding paramount opti-mism, thinking ahead in project plans and makingprovisions for deviations before they turn into quality

problems, seeking to ‘get things done right the � rsttime’ and instilling quality management into all actionsof the project team (Woodward, 1997). The policiesrelated to project-level quality are formulated withinthe project strategies of individual projects but, tradi-tionally, project strategy is driven by and involves decisions about the products, services, processes andtechnology, capacity, human resources, facilities,sourcing, operating systems, and quality aspects of aproject organization (Russell and Taylor, 1998).

Service and product dimensions of projectquality

The output of a construction project includes the� nished facility and the contracting service. A completedescription of project quality requires an in-depth lookat both these elements. In this model, the constructedfacility constitutes the product of the constructionproject. The transformation process (i.e. the service)from resources to the constructed facility is referred to as the contracting service. The constructed facilityand the contracting service form the construction

Assessing contractor quality performance 215

Table 1 Corporate quality culture attributes

Corporate quality De� nitionsculture attributes

Leadership Top management encourages the practices that lead to quality performance throughout the organization.Acceptance of quality responsibility by general managers and department heads. Evaluation of topmanagement on quality. Participation by top management in quality improvement efforts. Speci� city ofquality goals. Importance attached to quality in relation to cost and schedule. Comprehensive qualityplanning. Visible quality department. Co-ordination between quality department and others.

Employee Organization’s success depends on the knowledge, skills, creativity and motivation of its workforce. empowerment Employee success depends on opportunities to learn new skills. Provision of statistical training, trade

training and quality related training for all employees. Implementation of employee involvement andquality circles. Responsibility of employees for quality. Employee recognition for superior performance.

Partnerships Fragmented nature of the industry strengthens the importance of teamwork in construction. Internal development partnerships among work units foster information sharing, cross training, � exibility. External

partnerships with supplier, clients, schools sharpen organization’s competitiveness. Creates long-termobjectives. Selection of a contractors suppliers and subcontractors based on quality considerationsencourages high quality material and workmanship. The increasing magnitude of subcontractorinvolvement and the variation in the purchased materials are a dominant source of variability inconstruction. Fewer dependable suppliers, Purchasing policy emphasizing quality over price. Supplierquality control, subcontractor assistance in construction planning.

Information and Data and information needed for measurement and improvement need to be meticulously collected. analysis Analysis of data within the organization lead to improvements in the process and management. Clarity

of process ownership. Less reliance on inspection. Use of statistical process controls at site. Selectiveautomation. Foolproof process design. Preventive maintenance. Employee self-inspection. Automatedtesting.

Continuous Enhancing value to clients through improved construction services and product, reducing errors and improvement rework, improving responsiveness, increasing productivity and effectiveness of resources, enhancing the

organization’s public performance.Client focus The importance a � rm places on client relationships has an indirect effect on quality performance.

The company’s policy and practices on incorporating clients to the project in the short-term, andkeeping long-term relationships with the clients, help attain higher client satisfaction. Organization’sperformance must be results oriented to attain client focus.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

project. The customer satisfaction experienced with the constructed facility and the contracting servicede� nes project-level quality in construction. This papersuggests that quality in construction projects includesa mix of product and service quality dimensions (Table2). The service quality dimensions (Evans and Lindsay,1996) are easily interpreted as they are directly asso-ciated with contracting services. The product qualitydimensions (Garvin, 1988) are associated with theconstruction product, i.e. the constructed facility. Theinterrelationships between the design and the deliveryof construction products and services impede de� ningquality dimensions in precise terms. The elements ofthe project quality process of the design and deliverysystems are not always as visible to the end-users asthey are to the owner and/or the contractor.

To be able to de� ne these elements in a construc-tion project, a results-oriented approach proves useful.This is where the dissection of the construction clientinto the owner and the end-user is employed. It isassumed that the product quality dimensions aremostly associated with the end-user, whereas the owneris the most direct recipient of all service qualityprocesses. In some cases the owner and the end-userare the same entity. When they are not, the productand service quality dimensions re� ect the perceptionsof the party that most directly experiences the productor the service associated with the construction process.

Some interpretations of project-level quality attrib-utes are presented in Table 2. It is expected that acontractor will conform to minimum requirements inall dimensions of project quality while excelling atsome, based on its past experience and core compe-tence. In other words, it is not possible for a contractorto perform � awlessly in all these dimensions. Yet,minimum requirements set for each of them will helpeliminate the ambiguity over what level of quality isexpected from the constructed facility or from thecontracting service. This will also create a benchmarkfor comparing the contractor’s future performance ineach dimension, while creating a universal scale ofmeasurement. The dissection of the constructionproject into its product and service components facilitates the identi� cation of quality traits in theconstruction project. The product and service qualitydimensions create a framework that provides a clearerunderstanding of project quality.

Quality performance in construction

The term performance may take on different meaningsdepending on the context in which it is used.Performance, at a global level, represents results ofactivities. Traditionally it has measured effectiveness(doing the right things) and ef� ciency (doing the things

216 Yasamis et al.

Table 2 Product and service quality dimensions

Dimensions De� nitions

Product qualitya

Performance Basic functions of the facility meets the end-user’s need and intentFeatures Characteristics that supplement basic functions of the facilityReliability The level of con� dence with which the end-user may use the facility, to the end of its design life,

without failureConformance The degree to which construction operations meet the design standards and speci� cationsDurability The amount of use end-user gets from the facility before replacement is preferred to continued

repairServiceability Speed, courtesy, competence with which maintenance on the facility can be carried outAesthetics The level of satisfaction the end-user experiences with the facility’s looks and feelPerceived quality The level of satisfaction the end-user experiences with the facility’s image and publicity

Service qualityb

Time The duration of the contract, including the wait for mobilization on siteTimeliness Completion of the contract on the scheduled dateCompleteness The amount of items on the punchlist upon completion of the projectCourtesy The degree of respect and kindness of the site and of� ce personnelConsistency The ability to repetitively provide the same level of service to all clientsAccessibility and The ease with which the contracting service is obtainedconvenienceAccuracy The ability to provide the right service the � rst time with minimum amount of reworkResponsiveness The ability to react to the unexpected problems encountered during the contract

aGarvin (1988).bEvans and Lindsay (1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

right). Others have attributed numerous dimensions to performance, such as quality, productivity, prof-itability, safety, timeliness, growth, attendance, satis-faction, etc. (Szilagyi, 1988; Oglesby et al., 1989;Kaydos, 1991; Milakovich, 1995). To add to thecomplexity of de� ning performance, many of thesedimensions can be interpreted as functions of eachother. In general, the framework for the de� nition ofperformance in any given context requires: (i) a combi-nation of criteria (not a single measurement), (ii) alevel of analysis (such as end-users, employees, etc.),(iii) a certain focus (kind of performance desired), (iv)a time frame (short or long range), and (v) a measure-ment system (quantitative versus qualitative, objectiveversus subjective) (Szilagyi, 1988).

Quality performance in construction is results ori-ented, and seeks evidence of quality awareness withinthe operations and outputs of a contractor. Quality performance is de� ned over the long term for the effectsto be permanent. Quality performance improvementsare expected to increase the productivity and prof-itability of contractors, as well as increasing client satisfaction. The traditional view of ‘quality versus productivity’ has changed to ‘quality improvement

leads to improved productivity’ in construction as wellas other industries. Improvements in performancerequire the totality of a production system to beimproved, not just some portions of it (Kaydos, 1991).To boost the performance of a system, the quality ofthe complete set of products and services, along withthe environment in which they are produced, need tobe scrutinized. Therefore, the quality performance of acontractor is de� ned at a corporate level (where corpo-rate strategies concerning how to perform the con-struction operation are formulated) and at a projectlevel (where the construction systems produce a physi-cal facility and provide a contracting service). Hence,quality performance in construction requires the con-structed facility to be reliable, the contracting service tobe competent and the contractor organization to bequality-conscious.

Quality management systems consist of: (i) a frame-work for guiding quality related actions by allemployees (design of quality system), and (ii) a meansof assessing how well these actions are carried out(delivery of quality system). In order to provide a clear de� nition of contractor quality performance, it isassumed in Figure 2 that design and delivery modules

Assessing contractor quality performance 217

Figure 2 Construction quality performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

facilitate the quality processes associated with theconstruction product, the construction service, and thecorporate quality culture. The corporate quality cultureis expected to guide the personnel of the constructioncompany vis-à-vis the quality management systemsused within the organization, hence contributing to thequality performance at the corporate level. The qualityperformance at corporate level determines the effec-tiveness of the quality culture and the quality policiesof the organization. A quality management system isthe collection of all processes, tools, techniques andsubsystems that run simultaneously with a produc-tion system (service or manufacturing), and control the production system’s effectiveness, ef� ciency andproductivity. This system is responsible for ensuringthat products conform to customer requirements, thecosts of quality are minimized, and the product isproduced according to standards (Evans and Lindsay,1996).

The quality performance of a contractor at the project level includes the quality of the constructedfacility as well as the quality of the contracting service.It involves: (i) product delivery performance (the tech-nical competence and conformance to speci� cations the contractor demonstrates during the constructionprocess), (ii) service design performance (the compe-tence with which the contractor carries out the con-struction planning activities), and (iii) service deliveryperformance (the construction management and con-tract administration skills the contractor demonstratesduring the construction process). Product design performance is not part of this equation, as it is theresponsibility of the architect/engineer and not the contractor. Project quality performance can be evalu-ated based on the availability and implementation ofcertain quality improvement tools and techniques thatwill help a contractor achieve the project quality attrib-utes previously speci� ed in Table 2. The project-levelquality performance of a contractor is also in� uencedto some extent by the level of quality awareness at thecorporate level (i.e. the quality culture of the � rm).Within the quality performance framework, quality is seen as an element that permeates every strategicdecision, and is re� ected in a � rm’s outputs.

CQP indicators at the corporate level

CQP indicators at the corporate level are the processesan organization uses to achieve the corporate qualityattributes presented in Table 1. Studies have identi-� ed certain requirements as the critical success factorsof a total quality management system (Saraph et al.,1989; Black and Porter, 1996). Black and Porter(1996) provide a particularly thorough listing of crit-ical success factors and these are adopted in this paper

as indicators of CQP at the corporate level. The reli-ability and validity of these factors are tested andaccepted in mostly manufacturing industries. The existence of these indicators in a contracting � rm isanticipated to imply an established corporate qualityculture. The corporate quality culture as de� ned bythe corporate quality attributes is a critical player inachieving total client satisfaction for construction � rms.Hence, by using these corporate-level processes it maybe possible for owners to predict whether they will besatis� ed with the quality performance of the � rm atthe corporate level. The original list of Black and Porter(1996) has been slightly modi� ed in this model toapply to construction companies, and is presented in Table 3. The functions listed in Table 3 cover both the design and delivery aspects of CQP at thecorporate level.

CQP indicators at the project level

CQP indicators at the project level are the tools, tech-niques and processes an organization uses to achievethe project quality attributes presented in Table 2.Referring to the discussion on project-level quality,materials and component management activities,project assembly on site, project management activi-ties, and project quality systems were identi� ed as theresponsibilities of the contractor. Hence, the perfor-mance of the contractor in these areas should beincluded in the de� nition of CQP at the project level.The indicators of CQP at the project level are repre-sentative of these operating areas.

Table 4 shows the breakdown of the criteria thatform the basis of the CQP indicators at project level.The � rst set of indicators consists of the most commonQA/QC tools used in project management today (PMI,1996). The quality management activities are gatheredfrom the literature and are being used by some of thelargest contractors in the USA (Neese and Ledbetter,1991; Ledbetter, 1994). The third set of factors thathelps de� ne CQP at the project level and facilitateachieving some or all of the project quality attributescomprises the remaining project management functions(PMI, 1996).

Contractor quality performance (CQP)evaluation model

The proposed CQP evaluation model uses the set offactors called CQP indicators to evaluate contractors.Isolating quality-related factors in a separate evalua-tion may result in a clearer picture of the links betweencertain contractor characteristics and constructionquality. This emphasis on CQP is necessary because

218 Yasamis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

the lack of focus on what constitutes quality in con-struction might be the very reason why the industry issuffering from a lack of it.

For CQP indicators to be used in the CQP evalua-tion model, their relative signi� cance needs to be deter-mined for calculations. These values can be extractedthrough surveys of owners, end-users, or a mix thereof,for different project categories. For a complete assess-ment, it is suggested that � rst the signi� cance of thecorporate and project quality attributes be determined.Once those weights are established, the contribut-ion of each CQP indicator to the level of satisfaction

of clients with each quality attribute should be deter-mined. This will result in calculating the weights ofthe newly identi� ed CQP indicators that are derivedfrom the signi� cance of quality attributes provided byclients. Once the indicators are � nalized and their rela-tive weights determined, potential contractors could beevaluated on their performance in each CQP indicatorcategory.

Once CQP indicator weights are determined, theycan be used for the evaluation of contractors duringcontractor selection. As a result of this evaluation, eachcontractor may receive an index and the shortlisted

Assessing contractor quality performance 219

Table 3 Corporate quality performance indicators (adopted from Black and Porter, 1996)

Factor 1 People and customer managementHuman resource management in line with company performance plansEmployee recognition/measurement to support quality performance plansManagement of customer relations

Factor 2 Supplier partnershipAssurance of supplier qualityAction to assist and improve the quality and responsiveness of suppliersStrategic management of suppliers

Factor 3 Communication of improvement informationDetermination of quality costsAssessment of needs for quality training and subsequent delivery and reviewBenchmarking of processes in noncompeting organizationsPromotion of quality improvement with outside groups

Factor 4 Customer satisfaction orientationCommitments to customers through strengthening of warranties/policies, etc.Comparisons of customer satisfaction with competitors and internal indicatorsDetermination of improvements in customer satisfactionBenchmarking of Direct competitors’ products and policies

Factor 5 External interface managementRecognition of responsibilities for public health and safety, and the environmentDetermination of customers’ future requirementsIntegration of the design process with customer and operational requirements

Factor 6 Strategic quality managementProcess control and improvement of core processes in accordance with designActive leadership by managers in quality issuesInclusion of employee well-being considerations in improvement activitiesSenior executive commitment to quality through involvement and communicationsDevelopment/implementation of long-term plans/strategies focused on qualityAnalysis of performance and cost data to support improvement priorities

Factor 7 Teamwork structures form improvementUse of speci� c organizational structures to support quality improvementUse of techniques to identify key processes, customers and suppliers

Factor 8 Operational quality planningDevelopment/implementation of short-term plans/strategies focused on quality Consideration of performance requirements in developing short term goals

Factor 9 Quality improvement measurement systemsAssessment and improvement of processes, practices and products/servicesManagement of data/information to support quality improvement effortsProcedures to ensure reliability and improvement of data gathering

Factor 10 Corporate quality cultureConsideration of performance requirements in developing long-term goalsEncouragement of a company wide culture committed to quality improvement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

contractors may be ranked by this index. The ownercan then pick the top contractors in this list to be theinvited bidders. The methodology that allows thisranking is referred to as the CQP evaluation model(Figure 3). After the design stage has begun, potentialcontractors may be subjected to quality performanceevaluation by using the proposed CQP evaluationmodel. The contractors who pass the threshold in thisanalysis may be admitted to the bidding stage. Furthertechnical and � nancial evaluation is carried out at thisstage, in addition to the evaluation of the bid amountand its contents. The order of CQP evaluation and

� nancial/technical quali� cation can be altered readilyif need be. These two evaluations are individualmodules, yet their consecutive use completes theoverall process of contractor evaluation.

The quality performance evaluation described in thispaper assesses the quality orientation of a contractingcompany. It quanti� es certain organizational traits andproject-level characteristics to evaluate the qualityperformance of a � rm systematically. This evaluationis aimed at identifying the contractor’s business prac-tices that are geared towards constructing a higherquality facility and providing a higher quality service.

220 Yasamis et al.

Table 4 Project quality performance indicators

Activities/processes De� nition

QA/QC activitiesInspection Activities such as measuring, examining and testing undertaken to determine whether results

conform to requirementsControl charts Producing graphic displays of the results, over time, of a process. They can be used in monitoring

batch activities, as well as cost and schedule variances, volume of scope changes . . . etc.Pareto diagrams Producing graphic displays as histograms that show how many results were generated by type or

category of identi� ed causeStatistical sampling Choosing a part of a population of interest for inspectionFlowcharting Producing diagrams of how various elements of a system interrelateCause and effect Providing illustrations of how various causes and subcauses relate to create potential problems or diagramming effectsChecklisting Providing structured tools to verify that a set of required steps has been performedMetrics development Development of operational de� nitions of what something is and how it is measured by the QC

process

Quality management activitiesQuality systems Activities of managing and performing the quality management system on the projectPersonnel quality Training of personnel to perform quality activitiestrainingExpediting Activities with third parties prior to delivery of products or services to assure they will deliver on

schedule, speci� cally during procurement and contract expeditingOperability/safety/ Activities of appraising and reviewing designs to � nd and eliminate over design and over value reviews speci� cationConstructability review Activities to ascertain whether design enables the most ef� cient construction methods to be used,

and the planned construction activities are the most effectiveAudits Activities of inspecting, testing and checking of products/services already produced internally and

externally to see if they meet requirements

Project management processesIntegration management Processes required to ensure that the various elements of the project are properly co-ordinatedScope management Processes required to ensure that the project includes all the work required, and only the

work required, to complete the project successfullyTime management Processes required to ensure timely completion of the projectCost management Processes required to ensure that the project is completed within the approved budgetHuman resource Processes required to make the most effective use of people involved with the projectmanagementCommunications Processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection, dissemination, management storage, and ultimate disposition of project informationRisk management Processes concerned with identifying, analysing, and responding to project risksProcurement Processes required to acquire goods and services from outside the contractor organizationmanagementD

ownl

oade

d by

[M

osko

w S

tate

Uni

v B

iblio

te]

at 0

7:45

28

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Contractors are expected to provide a high qualityproduct and service, in addition to providing work thatis within budget and on schedule.

As a � nal note to the development of the CQP eval-uation model, it is necessary to perform extensiveanalysis into the validity and reliability of thesesuggested quality attributes and CQP indicators andtheir cross-relationships. Currently, research is beingcarried out to examine these factors and develop aprototype CQP evaluation tool that can be used byowner organizations in assessing contractor qualityperformance potential.

Conclusion and recommendations

In the process of contractor selection, there is a needto switch from reactive and static evaluations (thatmostly check the technical and � nancial capabilities ofcontractors against predetermined speci� cs) to proac-tive and dynamic evaluations that will motivate and

guide the contractors to enhance the quality of theiroperations and increase competition by producinghigher quality construction. The proposed contractorquality performance (CQP) evaluation model empha-sizes using a bespoke quality audit system for a morethorough evaluation of each bidder’s quality perfor-mance. It is postulated here that in order to makecontractor evaluation more functional, the processshould be customized to meet the ultimate objectivesof owners (e.g. highway agencies, developers, etc.) andend-users (e.g. road users, tenants, etc.) that comprisethe ‘construction customer’ or ‘the client’. Quality andclient satisfaction in construction are operationalizedto form a quality performance assessment system. TheCQP evaluation model may become a standard partof the contractor evaluation process.

One major advantage of the CQP evaluation modelis that it moves existing contractor evaluation methodsto a new baseline that includes the evaluation of con-tractor quality performance. This breakthrough in theexisting contractor evaluation procedures is expected toallow the owner to select a quality-oriented contractorand consequently avoid some of the problems relatedto construction quality and client satisfaction.

Owners expect contractors to provide the highestquality in every dimension of the services that ownersreceive. For quality improvements to be effective andlong lasting, they need to be supported by all partiesinvolved in all processes. Hence, it is critical for ownersto make sure that their and the end-users’ expectationsare well represented in contractor evaluation and selec-tion systems. The manner in which a company formu-lates its corporate- and project-level quality policiesdepends on the quality challenges that are presentedto it by the business environment in which it operates.In other words, the regulations and requirements ofthe business environment on quality issues may forcespeci� c quality policies and practices to be incorpo-rated in the quality management systems of the orga-nizations. For example, the insistence of owners inevaluating the quality performance of contractorsbefore awarding a contract is a motivation for contrac-tors to improve and document their quality manage-ment in order to be competitive and maintain acontinuous � ow of business. Such an approachprovides a win/win situation for both owners andcontractors. Owners may expect a high quality servicefrom contractors; they may also expect a high qualityconstruction, which will in turn satisfy their customers,i.e. the end-users. Contractors, on the other hand, mayexpect high productivity and pro� tability as the qualityof their operations and of their service improves. As aresult, the overall level of quality in the constructionindustry plus the satisfaction of all parties involved(including owners, end-users and contractors) are

Assessing contractor quality performance 221

Figure 3 Contractor quality performance (CQP) evaluationmodel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

likely to increase. The implementation of a qualityscreening of contractors is also expected to improvethe contractor selection process.

It is argued here that an additional and standaloneanalysis of the quality performance of a contractor, incombination with its technical and � nancial perfor-mance evaluation, will result in a better understandingof the contractor’s overall capabilities. The develop-ment of the proposed CQP evaluation model will: (i)provide a guideline for owner organizations in theirassessments of potential contractors’ quality orienta-tion, and (ii) create a yardstick for contractors tomeasure and improve upon their quality practices.

As the dynamics in the construction sector arechanging, the lowest cost competitive bidding modelis being challenged. It has even been suggested thatquality should be considered as the main criterion incontractor selection (Latham, 1994). This approachviews cost as an order-quali� er (i.e. a characteristicsthat quali� es an item to be considered for purchase),not an order-winner (i.e. a characteristic that is the� nal factor in the purchasing decision). To be compet-itive, order-quali� ers must be met and order-winnersmust be perfected. Still, the opportunity cost of doingso should be well evaluated and this principle shouldbe implemented only if the project’s speci� c needsjustify it. In construction projects where such a quality-conscious approach is adopted, the CQP evaluationmay be used to assess contractors to ensure the satis-faction of clients through quality performance.

References

Alarcon, L. F. and Ashley, D. B. (1992) Project PerformanceModeling: A Methodology for Evaluating Project ExecutionStrategies, Source document 80, Construction IndustryInstitute, Austin, TX.

ASQC (1987) Quality Management in the Constructed Project,Construction Technical Committee, ASQC Quality Press,Milwaukee, WI.

Black, S. A. and Porter, L. J. (1996) Identi� cation of thecritical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 1–21.

Bubshait, A. A. (1994) Owner involvement in project quality.International Journal of Project Management, 12(2), 115–7.

Chase, G. W. (1993) Implementing TQM in a ConstructionCompany, AGC of America, Washington, DC.

CII (1989a) Cost of Quality Deviations in Design andConstruction, Publication 10-1, Construction IndustryInstitute, Austin, TX.

CII (1989b) Measuring the Cost of Quality in Design andConstruction, Publication 10-2, Construction IndustryInstitute, Austin, TX.

Edosomwan, J. A. (1988) Productivity and QualityImprovement, IFS (Publications).

Evans, J. R. and Lindsay, W. M. (1996) The Management andControl of Quality, 3rd Edn, West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1993) Total Quality Control, 3rd Edn,McGraw-Hill, New York.

Forbes, L. (1993) Productivity and quality improvement inthe construction industry. In Proceedings of the Second Inter-national Symposium on Productivity and Quality Improvementwith a Focus on Government, Industrial Engineering andManagement Press.

Fox, A. and Cornell, H. A. (1984) Quality in the ConstructedProject, ASCE, Chicago, IL.

Garvin, D. A. (1988) Managing Quality, The Free Press,New York.

Goetsch, D. L. and Davis, S. B. (1997) Introduction to TotalQuality: Quality Management for Production, Processing andServices, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hart, R. D. (1994) Quality Handbook for the Architectural,Engineering and Construction Community, ASQC QualityPress, Milwaukee, WI.

Hindle, R. D. and Rwelamila, P. D. (1993) Changing inBuilding Procurement Systems and Its Effect on Quality inBuilding Construction, Department of Surveying, Universityof Salford, UK.

Kaydos, W. (1991) Measuring, Managing and MaximizingPerformance, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kubal, M. T. (1994) Engineered Quality in Construction:Partnering and TQM, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Larson, E. W. and Gray, C. (1995) Project partnering in theconstruction industry: the wave of the future? NationalProductivity Review, 14(1).

Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.Ledbetter, W. B. (1994) Quality performance on successful

project. Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementASCE, 120(1), 34–46.

Milakovich, M. E. (1995) Improving Service Quality:Achieving High Performance in the Public and Private Sectors,St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Miles, P., Russell, G. R. and Arnold, D. R. (1995) Thequality orientation: an emerging business philosophy?Review of Business, Jamaica, 17(1), 7.

Neese, T. A. and Ledbetter, W. B. (1991) Quality perfor-mance management in engineering/construction. Trans-actions of the American Association of Cost Engineers,A.2.1–A.2.10.

Oglesby, C. H., Parker, H. W. and Howell, G. A. (1989)Productivity Improvement in Construction, McGraw-Hill,New York.

PMI (1996) A Guide to the Project Management Body ofKnowledge, PMI standards Committee, PMI, UpperDarby, PA.

Russell, R. S. and Taylor, B. W. (1998) Operations Manage-ment: Focusing on Quality and Competitiveness, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Saraph, G. V. P., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. G. (1989)An instrument for measuring the critical factors of qualitymanagement. Decision Sciences, 20, 810–29.

Stukhart, G. (1989) Construction materials quality manage-ment. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 3(2),100–13.

Szilagyi Jr., A. D. (1988) Management and Performance, 3rdEdn, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.

222 Yasamis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013

USACE Blue Ribbon (1983) Report of the Blue Ribbon Panelon Management of Construction Quality in the USACE,USACE.

Wilson, P. F. and Pearson, R. D. (1995) Performance BasedAssessments: External, Internal and Self-Assessment Tools

for Total Quality Management, ASQC Quality Press,Milwaukee, WI.

Woodward, J. F. (1997) Construction Project Management:Getting It Right First Time, Thomas Telford, London.

Assessing contractor quality performance 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

45 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2013