How to Write an NCR
Being able to craft an NCR that is both comprehensive and concise, as well as protecting your interests is a delicate art and a valuable skill that is essential for all engineers.
Collaboration, Not Punishment: The Purpose of Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs)
Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs) play a crucial role in construction projects, yet their purpose is often misunderstood. Some clients and contractors view NCRs as punitive measures or mere statistics to track poor workmanship. However, this perception can be detrimental to the industry, fostering a culture of non-reporting and blame shifting. Let’s delve into the true purpose of NCRs and how they contribute to quality management.
The Essence of NCRs
At its core, an NCR serves as a quality record management tool. Its primary function is to document instances where work does not meet specified requirements. Whether accepted or rejected, each NCR must be justified technically, considering its impact on design intent and performance criteria.
Complexity of Construction
Construction projects are rarely straightforward. Unlike a one-size-fits-all approach, where a single specification could cover all scenarios, real-world projects involve diverse conditions. Consider the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) specifications. For instance, MRTS04 applies to earthworks in both Cloncurry and the Gold Coast, encompassing dirt roads, highways, rainforests, and sand islands. Clearly, such a broad specification will encounter exceptions. These exceptions occur when a non-conformance does not significantly affect the overall design intent.
The Role of Engineers
Qualified engineers are essential in navigating these complexities. They collaboratively assess whether a non-conformance impacts design intent and performance criteria. The contractor, client, and designer work together to find project-specific solutions. This collaborative approach ensures that deviations from specifications are evaluated contextually, rather than rigidly.
Not All Non-Conformances can be left ‘As Is’
Instances of poor workmanship or deviations that compromise performance require corrective action. In such cases, NCRs become valuable tools. They facilitate root cause analysis, helping identify underlying issues. As the saying goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” By addressing non-conformances effectively, contractors demonstrate competence and commitment to quality.
In summary, NCRs are not punitive measures but rather essential components of quality assurance. By understanding their purpose and promoting collaboration, we can foster a culture of continuous improvement in the construction industry. Remember, it’s not about blame; it’s about building better together.
Preparing the NCR
The typical NCR consists of the following elements:
NCR Description: what didnt conform?
Proposed Disposition: what we propose to do about it (if anything)?
Root Cause Analysis: why did it happen?
Preventative Action: how will we stop it from happening again?
NCR Description: Clarity & Precision
The Importance of Accuracy
An NCR is a snapshot of non-conforming elements. To ensure clarity and precision:
Quick Turnaround: Often, we need NCRs promptly. Avoid making them onerous to review. Use screenshots, attachments, and annotations (highlighting, circling) to pinpoint the non-conforming areas.
Audience-Centric Approach: Describe the NCR in terms of design, specifications, design intent, and performance. Imagine yourself in the shoes of the client or designer—what information would convince you of the non-conformance?
Proposed Disposition: Beyond Corrective Measures
Cost-Effectiveness: Contractors aim for the most cost-effective solution. Sometimes, leaving the non-conformance “as-is” or suggesting minor remedial works is efficient.
Justification and Persuasion: The onus lies with the Contractor to justify and persuade the client and/or designer. The proposed disposition must not adversely affect the end product’s performance against the design intent.
Strategic Lens: Put yourself in the Client/Designer’s shoes. Ask, “What would convince me to accept this disposition and assume the risk?”.
Impartiality through Evidence:
Refer to technical notes published by a reputable body. E.g. TMR, AustRoads, TfNSW, Standards Australia, etc.
Refer to similar solutions being accepted on other projects from the same client/designer (include contact details of the representative).
Make clear Engineering based justifications for the disposition.
Seek third party advice from an RPEQ to support your argument.
Root Cause Analysis: Unravelling the Why
Contractor’s Tool for Improvement
Avoiding Costly Reoccurrence: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is crucial for preventing repeat incidents. However, it requires a strategic review. Be cautious—it can inadvertently become a blame game.
Contractual Implications: If external factors caused the NCR (beyond the Contractor’s control), it may entitle the Contractor to a variation. Root Causes related to design, wet weather, latent condition or Client directions may lead to Contractor entitlement.
Senior Engineering Review: SPE’s and/or PM’s should do a final review of every NCR before being sent to check for contractual and entitlement implications
Preventative Action: Looking Ahead
Wider Impact Review: Proposed preventative actions must be evaluated for broader consequences. For instance, adding an extra surveyor for slab pours may expedite NCR approval but comes with additional costs.
Avoid Overcommitting: Contractors should avoid promising actions they cannot fulfill. Engage all relevant parties in discussions before proposing preventative measures.
Miscommunication and Operator Error: Address these directly. A toolbox talk for miscommunication may be accepted initially, but long-term solutions are necessary.
Key Take-aways
NCRs aren’t a punishment or a negative KPI. They are a quality record management tool to capture how non-conforming works meet the design intent.
NCRs require a senior review due to the cost, contractual, and program implications and impacts they can cause.
The onus is on the Contractor to thoroughly prepare an NCR with their proposed disposition and preventative action to the approval of the Client/Designer. Therefore, the Contractor should make the argument as thorough, concise and easy to review as practical.
The Key areas of the NCR are:
Description
describe the non-conformance in terms of the exact part of the spec or design drawing which wasn’t conformed to. Include screenshots, attachments, highlighted and circled areas. Make it as easy as possible to follow what wasn’t conformed.
explain exactly what part of the works was non-conforming. Include the lot number with a lot map as a minimum.
Proposed Disposition
Strategise the most cost-effective solution possible that would be acceptable to the Client/Designer.
Develop the proposed solution in concert with the relevant parties involved in executing the solution (Supervisors, Subbies, etc.)
put yourself in the Client/Designers shoes to gauge what you would accept and what risk you would take.
use technical notes from reputable parties, third party RPEQ advice, previous examples of a similar solution being accepted, and more to create an impartiality to your proposal.
Root Cause Analysis
the Root Cause proposed can be interpreted as the party to blame or responsible for the non-conformance and thus liable for the cost of rectification and remedial action.
a non-conformance due to a design issue, wet weather, client instruction, etc. may (depending on the contract) have the Contractor entitled to a variation and/or EOT
the Root Cause determined requires a Preventative Action to address it. So the wider implication of a Preventative Action should be considered when determining the Root Cause.
Preventative Action
Only propose obligations you intend to fulfil
the same preventative action will likely not be accepted for repeated non-conformances.
Finally, while the Client, Designer, and Contractor all have competing interests, the success of a project relies upon collaboration. Like Nash’s game theory, acting completely in our own self-interests will lead towards a worse result for all parties in the end.