I found this unsettling bit of information on the Institute of Quality Assurance website, and it got me thinking: “Is this true in our trenchless world?” Unfortunately, the answer is “Yes.”

Oftentimes, agencies consider only quantity or price when conducting a rehab program. However, those items are only part of the equation, and they take a backseat to the quality of the materials and installation when it comes to long-term functionality.

In the United States, customers require and anticipate a quality product. Few, however, verify the quality that they actually receive. Put another way, they ignore quality management issues. Quantity of work typically supplants verification of quality.

Generally, few purchasers perform a meaningful inspection at the end of the warranty period to evaluate if work is maintaining the quality level purchased. When the specification promotes quantity without accountability, quality will suffer.

Unless a severe failure immediately occurs, the new installation becomes a future maintenance problem for the customer. Not long ago, I had the opportunity to share information at a municipal forum conducted by the Trenchless Technology Center in Ruston, Louisiana. Two of the agencies attending indicated that they experienced failures with cured-inplace pipe (CIPP) products after a period of only five to seven years.

In both cases, the liners failed to hold shape, making excavation necessary.

Through discussion, we established that both agencies’ bid documents failed to contain enough verbiage to verify quality of product. Awarding projects based upon price is OK, but quality assurance/quality control measures should be in the bid documents and understood, otherwise it’s, “caveat emptor.”

There are two essential steps in any CIPP project. First is the production of the resin-saturated composite tube; the second is the resin curing. When CIPP is installed, a flexible pipe or composite is being manufactured onsite, comprising a combination of fibre material and liquid resin. The fibre holds the liquid resin in place, which then becomes the structural backbone of the finished CIPP. Both agencies neglected to require submittals outlining in detail the ingredients or methodology to be employed to create the composite CIPP. Items such as: Verifying the felt and resin materials were compatible. Verification that the resin used was mixed thoroughly. Verifying the fabric material was not over stressed during installation. Leaving these items, as well as others, up to the contractor is not appropriate and leads us to a position of assuming.

In summary, there are two ways we, as an industry, can proceed when awarding a trenchless project: First, we can select critical junctures or checkpoints at which personnel verify that the contractor is meeting redetermined performance standards and correct deficiencies, if necessary. By stringing enough performance verification checks together, we ensure specified product delivery and long-term quality.

Second, our bid documents can assume that a quality product is installed. By assuming, we do not set performance standards nor do we hold contractors accountable for quality assurance. Under this scenario, failures such as those highlighted above are more likely.

Unfortunately, all too often agencies adopt the latter scenario, and any cost-savings achieved at bid time are negated when the same line needs repair before the end of its design life.

Whether the product is CIPP, FF/DR, sliplining, HDD, jack-and bore or chemical grouting, all trenchless processes have unique fundamental characteristics that need to be quality-controlled during construction to ensure specified product delivery. Customers need to put into place systems verifying installation quality, inspection and testing requirements that address the complicated supplier chain common on most Trenchless Technology projects.

Otherwise, caveat emptor.