2019Case17KirbyGroupEngineering

65 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2019 trades personnel will construct Mock-Ups (or FOKs in situ on site) as required to demonstrate the quality of finished work, for approval. The Construction Management Team (CMT) and the Client then perform inspections of these Mock-Ups and provide feedback, review comments on any deficiencies, engineering updates or changes required versus the project specifications and standards and/or regulatory requirements to set the benchmark standard. Once the Mock-Up (or FOK) has been agreed as meet ing the requi rements and specifications by both CMT and Client, it is then recorded using photographs where necessary and logged through the submi ttal process accompanied by the relevant QA Benchmark or FOK form, as a receipt/acceptance of the specialist installer’s FOK/Mock-Ups. This then serves as a benchmark agreed between the parties for quality of materials and workmanship for the full scope, as contracted. Future work wi l l be compared to the benchmark in order to establish whether it meets the requirements and project specifications, i.e. engineering matching. Mock-Ups must not be removed or covered over without the prior permission of the CMT. Where agreed with the CMT, the specialist installer may utilise the first sample or portion (FOKs) of the permanent works as the benchmark or Mock-Up. The CMT will examine the first 5% to 10% of the permanent works in stages, where appropriate, in accordance with the project approved Inspection & Test Plan (ITP) and provide feedback to the specialist installer on the quality of the works and workmanship, provided thereafter, in accordance with the contract and customer requirements. The matrix in Table 1 summarises the provision and use of samples across the various construction disciplines. Table 1. Discipline Field Installation Sample Matrix Submittals, samples, Mock-Ups, and FOKs would in the first instance be presented or submitted to the CMT who then refer to the Design Engineer, Client, End User’s Operat ional team and others as appropr iate for comment/approval before responding to the specialist instal ler. No work would be under taken prior to obtaining and incorporating as required the comments of CMT, Client, and nominated others. Typically, the following status codes would be used by the CMT when returning comments on drawings, calculations, method statements , submi ttal s or any other submi tted documents, i.e. QA Benchmarks or FOKs. The standard qual i ty assurance forms used by Ki rby Group Engineering are: • MF6.26 QA Benchmark Register template R0 • MF6.27 QA Benchmark Inspection form R0 Figure 2. MF6.26 QA Benchmark Register Sample Figure 3. MF6.27 QA Benchmark Inspection form R0 This results in a standardised work approach on sites. The benefits of standardised work includes documentation of the current process for al l changes made, shifts, reductions in variability, easier training of new operators, reductions in injuries and strain, and a baseline for improvement activities. This standard work approach can be considered an RFT approach bringing quality to the source. Advantages of the RFT approach include: Figure 1. PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) Approach