Urban gas project quality evaluation method, system and equipment

Abstract

The invention discloses an urban gas project quality evaluation method, system and device, and belongs to the technical field of project quality evaluation, and the evaluation method comprises the steps: determining the construction stage of an engineering project; assigning a weight to each secondary index corresponding to the quality behavior in the evaluation system, and assigning a weight to a management subject corresponding to the engineering entity quality in the evaluation system; performing engineering quality quantitative evaluation on the third-level indexes of the evaluation system; summarizing the evaluation scores of the third-level indexes, and calculating the score of a second-level index centesimal system of the evaluation system; determining a quality behavior centesimal score and an engineering entity quality centesimal score; allocating the centesimal score of the engineering entity quality to the management main body corresponding to the engineering entity quality according to the weight of the management main body, and determining the final score of each responsibility main body; and determining a final centesimal score of the engineering project. According to the method, the project entity quality evaluation score is fed back to the management subject for evaluation through a certain weight, and separation of the quality behavior and the project entity quality evaluation result is avoided.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of engineering quality evaluation technology, and specifically relates to a method, system and equipment for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering. Background Technology

[0002] In recent years, urban gas safety issues have become increasingly prominent, with frequent gas accidents. Some of these accidents have exposed major hidden dangers such as regulatory gaps in engineering quality and loss of quality control in key processes, which seriously affect the inherent safety of urban gas facilities. Engineering quality hazards have become an important factor leading to safety accidents after the projects are put into use.

[0003] Currently, there are no standards or technologies for quantitatively evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects. The existing GB / T50375-2016 "Standard for Evaluation of Construction Quality of Building Engineering" adopts the evaluation method after the completion acceptance, which is based on the evaluation of physical construction quality and does not include evaluation technologies for quality behaviors in the process of engineering construction, such as project construction organization, survey and design, supervision, and construction.

[0004] Chinese patent (publication number CN113449981A) discloses a comprehensive fuzzy evaluation model for standardized quality management in power engineering, establishing a standardized evaluation index system for quality management. It obtains the goals and requirements of standardized quality management in power engineering, dividing the constructed project quality evaluation index system into three levels: a goal layer, a criterion layer, and an index layer. These three levels are further divided into three levels of indicators, clarifying evaluation methods for indicator weight calculation, handling of missing indicators, and evaluation level classification, effectively filling the gap in standardized quality management evaluation in the power industry. However, it does not reflect the connection between the quality of the engineering entity and quality management behavior, nor does it include the quality of compliant construction in the evaluation scope. During the evaluation process, for indicators that are inapplicable or nonexistent, the weights of the obtained indicators need to be distributed to other indicators of the same level so that the sum of the weights of the corresponding level indicators remains 1. However, for urban gas engineering, the applicability of evaluation indicators varies greatly depending on the construction stage and construction mode. Adjusting the weight distribution of missing indicators would lead to excessive complexity and inconsistent scales. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a new method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the above problems, this invention discloses a method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects, comprising:

[0006] Determine the current construction stage of the project;

[0007] Based on the construction stage of the project, weights are assigned to each secondary indicator corresponding to the quality behavior in the evaluation system, and weights are assigned to the management entities corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system.

[0008] The engineering quality is quantitatively evaluated based on the three-level indicators of the evaluation system.

[0009] The evaluation scores of the three-level indicators are summarized, and the percentage scores of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system are calculated.

[0010] Based on the percentage scores of the secondary indicators in the evaluation system, the percentage scores for quality behavior and engineering entity quality are determined.

[0011] The percentage score for the quality of the project entity is allocated to the corresponding management entity based on the weight of the management entity, thus determining the final score for each responsible entity.

[0012] The final percentage score for the project is determined based on the final scores of each responsible party.

[0013] Furthermore, the process of determining the construction stage of the project includes the following steps:

[0014] Construct a primary indicator system for the quality evaluation of urban gas engineering projects; the primary indicator includes quality behavior and the quality of the engineering entity.

[0015] For each primary indicator, construct secondary indicators;

[0016] For each secondary indicator, a tertiary indicator for specific implementation evaluation is constructed;

[0017] Assign a standard score to each of the three-level indicators.

[0018] Furthermore, the secondary indicators of the quality behavior include the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit, and non-destructive testing unit;

[0019] The standard score ratio for the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit, and non-destructive testing unit is 3:1:1:1:1:1.

[0020] Furthermore, the secondary indicators of the quality of the engineering entity include pipeline installation engineering, gate station civil engineering, equipment installation engineering, gate station pipeline engineering, electrical installation engineering, instrumentation installation engineering, communication engineering, and quality accident events;

[0021] The standard score ratio for the pipeline installation project, gate station civil engineering project, equipment installation project, gate station pipeline project, electrical installation project, instrumentation installation project, and communication project is 60-70: 4-8: 4-8: 5-10: 4-8: 4-8: 2-4.

[0022] Furthermore, the rules for determining the construction stage of a project are as follows:

[0023] Pre-construction stage: The stage before the commencement of the main installation work;

[0024] Mid-construction phase: The phase from the commencement of the main installation work to the pre-commissioning of the main installation work;

[0025] Late construction phase: the pre-commissioning and subsequent phases of the main installation project.

[0026] Furthermore, the weight allocation for each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system is as follows:

[0027] The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit and non-destructive testing unit is 10-30:5-8:3-10:7-10:8-10:3-7;

[0028] The weight allocation of the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality in the evaluation system is as follows:

[0029] The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, general contracting unit and construction unit is 3-8:5-10:5-12:17-30.

[0030] Furthermore, the process of allocating the percentage score of the project entity quality to the corresponding management entity based on the weight of the management entity, and determining the final score of each responsible entity, includes the following steps:

[0031] The final score F1 of the construction unit is determined by the following formula:

[0032] F1=M1W1+BW′1+M 1-4

[0033] Where M1 is the percentage score of the construction unit in quality behavior; W1 is the weight of the construction unit in quality behavior; B is the percentage score of the project entity quality; W′1 is the weight of the construction unit in the project entity quality; M 1-4 Points will be deducted for construction quality compliance by the construction unit;

[0034] The final score F2 of the supervision unit is determined by the following formula:

[0035] F2=M2 W2+BW′2

[0036] Where M2 is the percentage score of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; W2 is the weight of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; w′2 is the weight of the supervision unit in the quality of the project entity;

[0037] The final score F3 for the survey and design unit is determined using the following formula:

[0038] F3 = M3W3

[0039] Wherein, M3 is the percentage score of the survey and design unit in the quality behavior; W3 is the weight corresponding to the survey and design unit in the quality behavior;

[0040] The final score F4 for the construction unit is determined using the following formula:

[0041] F4 = M4W4 + BW′3

[0042] Wherein, M4 is the percentage score of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W4 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W′3 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality of the project entity.

[0043] The final score F5 for the nondestructive testing unit is determined using the following formula:

[0044] F5 = M5W5

[0045] Where M5 is the percentage score of the non-destructive testing unit in the quality behavior; W5 is the weight corresponding to the non-destructive testing unit in the quality behavior.

[0046] Furthermore, determining the final percentage score for the project based on the final scores of each responsible party includes the following steps:

[0047] The final percentage score of the project is determined based on the total final score of each responsible entity and the sum of the evaluation weights of each responsible entity participating in the project quality evaluation.

[0048] Furthermore, after determining the final percentage score of the project based on the final scores of each responsible party, the process includes the following steps:

[0049] Calculate the percentage score for the project quality evaluation of each contractor separately;

[0050] The contractor's annual quality performance score is calculated by weighting the percentage scores of the quality evaluation of the projects undertaken by the contractor in that year.

[0051] This invention also discloses a quality evaluation system for urban gas engineering projects, comprising:

[0052] Construction phase unit, used to determine the construction phase of an engineering project;

[0053] The allocation unit is used to assign weights to each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system according to the construction stage of the project, and to assign weights to the management entity corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system.

[0054] Evaluation unit, used to quantitatively evaluate the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system;

[0055] The calculation unit is used to summarize the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators and calculate the percentage scores of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system.

[0056] The unit is defined to determine the percentage score for quality behavior and the percentage score for engineering entity quality based on the percentage scores of the secondary indicators in the evaluation system.

[0057] The responsibility entity evaluation conclusion unit is used to allocate the percentage score of the project entity quality to the management entity corresponding to the project entity quality according to the weight of the management entity, and determine the final score of each responsible entity.

[0058] The project evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the final percentage score of the project based on the final scores of each responsible party.

[0059] The contractor's annual quality performance evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the contractor's annual quality performance score based on the percentage score of the quality evaluation of the projects undertaken by the contractor in the year.

[0060] The present invention also discloses an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the above-described method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering.

[0061] Compared with existing technologies, the embodiments of the present invention have at least the following advantages: The present invention incorporates construction management, survey and design quality, supervision quality control, construction quality, and non-destructive testing quality into the evaluation scope, and also includes the compliant construction quality of the pre-construction procedures. By supervising, inspecting, and evaluating the quality of urban gas projects under construction, quality problems and management weaknesses can be identified. Through problem rectification, potential quality hazards can be eliminated, quality behaviors can be standardized, and the inherent safety of the project and its safe, stable, long-term, full-service, and high-quality operation after completion can be ensured. The evaluation score of the project entity quality is fed back to the quality management entity evaluation through a certain weight value, avoiding the physical separation between quality behavior and project entity quality evaluation results. The present invention incorporates compliant construction quality into the evaluation scope, forms annual quality performance based on the contractor's annual evaluation results, expands the scope of quality, and forms a "comprehensive quality" evaluation method.

[0062] Other features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the following description, or may be learned by practicing the invention. The objects and other advantages of the invention can be realized and obtained through the structures pointed out in the description and drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0063] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0064] Figure 1 A flowchart of a method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to an embodiment of the present invention is shown;

[0065] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of an evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention is shown;

[0066] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of the evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0067] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0068] Currently, a comprehensive engineering quality system for urban gas projects, based on standardized quality behavior and standardized engineering entity quality control, has not yet been established, and quantitative evaluation standards for project quality management are lacking. There is an urgent need to construct a set of engineering quality evaluation standards and methods that encompass the quality behavior of all parties involved in construction and the quality of the engineering entity. Through engineering quality evaluation, prominent problems and weaknesses in engineering quality control can be identified, effectively eliminating engineering quality risks and hidden dangers. Furthermore, contractor quality evaluation results can be applied to the evaluation of bidding performance, promoting the construction of a trustworthy urban gas market.

[0069] like Figure 1 As shown, the present invention proposes a method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects, which includes the following steps:

[0070] Step S1: Construct a quality evaluation system for urban gas engineering (e.g., Figure 3 As shown, the evaluation system includes three levels of evaluation indicators: the first level indicators are the overall indicators, the second level indicators are the decomposition indicators, and the third level indicators are the implementation indicators.

[0071] Step S2: Construct the primary indicators of the evaluation system; the primary indicators include quality behavior and engineering entity quality;

[0072] Step S3: For each primary indicator, decompose and construct secondary indicators;

[0073] Step S4: For each secondary indicator, construct a tertiary indicator for specific implementation evaluation (as shown in Table 1);

[0074] Step S5: Assign a standard score to each tertiary indicator (as shown in Table 1);

[0075] Step S6: After assigning scores, collect the construction progress of the project and determine the construction stage of the project.

[0076] Step S7: Based on the construction stage of the project, assign weights to each secondary indicator (responsible entity) corresponding to the quality behavior in the evaluation system, and assign weights to the management entities corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system; among them, the management entities corresponding to the quality of the project entity are the construction unit, the supervision unit, the general contractor and the construction unit.

[0077] Step S8: Summarize the weights of the secondary indicators to form the corresponding weights of the primary indicators;

[0078] Step S9: Quantitatively evaluate the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system;

[0079] Step S10: Summarize the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators and calculate the percentage scores of the second-level indicators in the evaluation system;

[0080] Step S11: Add up the percentage scores of the secondary indicators of each responsible party for quality behavior to calculate the percentage score of quality behavior;

[0081] Step S12: Add up the percentage scores of the secondary indicators of each professional discipline for the quality of the project entity, and calculate the percentage score of the quality of the project entity.

[0082] Step S13: Based on the percentage scores and corresponding weights of the secondary indicators of each responsible entity in the quality behavior, the percentage scores of the engineering entity quality are allocated to the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality according to the weight of the management entities, and the final scores of each responsible entity are calculated.

[0083] Step S14: Calculate the final percentage score of the project evaluation based on the final scores of each responsible entity and the sum of the evaluation weights of each responsible entity participating in the project quality evaluation.

[0084] Step S15: Calculate the percentage score for the project quality evaluation of each contractor;

[0085] Step S16: Calculate the contractor's annual quality performance score by weighting the percentage scores of the quality evaluation of the contractor's annual projects.

[0086] Table 1 Quality Evaluation System for Urban Gas Engineering

[0087]

[0088]

[0089]

[0090]

[0091] The secondary indicators for construction units include sub-indicators such as project management organization and planning, quality control, contractor management, and compliant construction quality (deduction item). The standard score ratio for project management organization and planning, quality control, and contractor management is 1:1:1. Each secondary sub-indicator is further allocated to a corresponding tertiary indicator.

[0092] It should be noted that the tertiary indicators and corresponding scores for each secondary indicator in Table 1 are for illustrative purposes only.

[0093] In some embodiments, the secondary indicators of quality behavior include decomposed indicators for responsible entities such as construction units, supervision units, survey and design units, general contracting units, construction units, and non-destructive testing units;

[0094] The standard score ratio for the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit, and non-destructive testing unit is 3:1:1:1:1.

[0095] The secondary indicators of engineering entity quality include engineering breakdown indicators such as pipeline installation engineering, gate station civil engineering, equipment installation engineering, gate station pipeline engineering, electrical installation engineering, instrumentation installation engineering, communication engineering, and quality accident events;

[0096] The standard score ratio for the pipeline installation project, gate station civil engineering project, equipment installation project, gate station pipeline project, electrical installation project, instrumentation installation project, and communication project is 60-70: 4-8: 4-8: 5-10: 4-8: 4-8: 2-4.

[0097] In some embodiments, the rules for determining the construction phase of a project are as follows:

[0098] Pre-construction stage: The stage before the commencement of the main installation work;

[0099] Mid-construction phase: The phase from the commencement of the main installation work to the start of the pre-commissioning of the main installation work;

[0100] Late construction phase: the pre-commissioning and subsequent phases of the main installation project.

[0101] As shown in Table 2, the physical quantity of the project varies at different construction stages. In the early stage, the physical quantity is small and the proportion of the project's physical quality is low. In the middle stage, the physical quantity begins to increase and the proportion of the project's physical quality increases accordingly. In the later stage, the physical quantity is basically completed and the proportion of the project's physical quality is the highest.

[0102] In some embodiments, the weight allocation for each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system is as follows:

[0103] The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit and non-destructive testing unit is 10-30:5-8:3-10:7-10:8-10:3-7;

[0104] The weighting ratio of the project management organization to the secondary sub-indicators of planning, quality control, and contractor management is 2.5-5:5-18:2.5-7.

[0105] The weight allocation of the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality in the evaluation system is as follows:

[0106] The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, general contracting unit and construction unit is 3-8:5-10:5-12:17-30.

[0107] The weighting ratio of quality behavior to engineering entity quality is 4-7:3-6, with a total weighting of 100%.

[0108] For example, the weight allocation results are shown in Table 2.

[0109] Table 2 Weight Allocation of Evaluation Indicators

[0110]

[0111]

[0112] It should be noted that the weighting of different construction stages and the corresponding standard scores in Table 2 are presented as examples.

[0113] The purpose of allocating the scores for the quality of the project entity to the construction unit, supervision unit, general contractor and construction unit with different weights is to reflect that the management entities also bear certain management responsibilities for the quality of the project entity, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of management through the actual quality of the project entity.

[0114] In some embodiments, the specific steps for quantitatively evaluating the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system in step S9 are as follows:

[0115] Step S9.1: Use the expert evaluation method to evaluate the three-level indicators listed in "Quality Behavior" and obtain the evaluation score Z;

[0116] Specifically, the evaluation rules for the three-level indicators listed in "Quality Behavior" are shown in Table 3.

[0117] Table 3 Quality Behavior Evaluation Rules

[0118]

[0119]

[0120] Step S9.2: Non-compliance with item "1.1.4 Compliance with Construction Quality" will result in a deduction of points from the final score for the construction unit. The deduction rules are shown in Table 4.

[0121] Table 4. Rules for Evaluating the Quality of Compliance Construction

[0122]

[0123] Step S9.3: The expert evaluation method is used to evaluate the three-level indicators listed in "Engineering Entity Quality" and obtain the evaluation score Z. The evaluation rules are shown in Table 5.

[0124] Table 5. Rules for Evaluating the Quality of Engineering Entities

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] Furthermore, step S10 summarizes the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators, and the method for calculating the percentage score of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system is as follows:

[0128] Step S10.1: Calculate the percentage score of the secondary indicators of the responsible entity's quality behavior;

[0129] Further, step S10.1-1: Calculate the percentage score M1 of the construction unit's secondary indicators:

[0130]

[0131] In the formula, Q1 is the sum of the actual scores of the construction unit's secondary sub-indicators, Q1=∑M 1-i M 1-i M represents the actual score of the construction unit's secondary sub-indicators. 1-i =∑Z 1-i Z 1-i P1 represents the actual score of the third-level indicators that actually participated in the evaluation within this sub-indicator; P1 is the sum of the standard scores of the second-level sub-indicators of the construction units that actually participated in the evaluation, P1 = ∑T 1-i T 1-i T represents the standard score of the secondary sub-indicator that actually participates in the evaluation. 1-i =∑S 1-i S1-i This refers to the standard score of the tertiary indicator that actually participates in the evaluation within this secondary sub-indicator.

[0132] Further, step S10.1-2: Calculate the percentage score M of the secondary indicators of the quality behavior of other responsible entities. i :

[0133]

[0134] In the formula, i≥2; Q i Q is the sum of the actual scores of the three levels of indicators for which the responsible parties for quality behavior actually participated in the evaluation. i =∑Z i Z i P represents the actual score of the three-level indicators for evaluating the participation of the responsible parties in quality-related behaviors. i P is the sum of the scores of the three-level indicators for the actual participation of the responsible parties in the evaluation of quality behavior. i =∑S i S i The standard scores for the three levels of indicators used to evaluate actual participation in quality behavior.

[0135] Step S10.2: Score M' of the secondary quality indicators of the engineering entity on a percentage basis. i Calculation method:

[0136]

[0137] In the formula, i≥1, Q' i Q' is the sum of the actual scores of the three-level indicators in the evaluation of the quality of the engineering entity, representing the actual participation of various professional disciplines. i =∑Z' i Z' i P' represents the actual scores of the three-level indicators for the evaluation of the quality of the engineering entity, based on the participation of various professional disciplines. i P' is the sum of the standard scores of the three levels of indicators for the actual evaluation of the quality of the engineering entity by various professional disciplines. i =∑S' i S' i The standard scores for the three-level indicators that are actually evaluated by various professional disciplines involved in the engineering entity quality assessment.

[0138] Furthermore, step S11 involves summing the evaluation scores of the secondary indicators for each responsible party regarding quality behavior, and calculating the percentage score for quality behavior:

[0139]

[0140] A represents the percentage score for quality behavior, and n represents the number of secondary indicators.

[0141] Furthermore, step S12 involves summing the evaluation scores of the secondary indicators for each specialty of the engineering entity quality to calculate the percentage score for the engineering entity quality using method B.

[0142]

[0143] M'8 is the sum of deductions for quality incidents in the engineering entity quality.

[0144] Furthermore, in step S13, based on the percentage scores and corresponding weights of the secondary indicators of each responsible entity in the quality behavior, the percentage scores of the engineering entity quality are allocated to the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality according to the weight of the management entities, and the final scores of each responsible entity are calculated.

[0145] Step S13.1: Calculate the final score F1 of the construction unit:

[0146] F1=M1W1+BW'1+M 1-4 (6)

[0147] In the formula, M1 is the percentage score of the construction unit's quality behavior, W1 is the weight corresponding to the construction unit's quality behavior, B is the percentage score of the project entity quality, W'1 is the project entity quality weight assigned by the construction unit, and M 1-4 Deductions for construction quality and compliance by the construction unit, M 1-4 =∑Z 扣 Z 扣 Points will be deducted for compliance with construction quality regulations for the construction unit.

[0148] Step S13.2: Calculate the final score F for other responsible parties. i ;

[0149] F i =M i W i +BW' i (7)

[0150] In the formula, i≥2, M i W is a percentage-based score for the quality behavior of the responsible party. i B represents the weight corresponding to the quality behavior of the responsible party, B is the percentage score of the engineering entity quality, and W' is the weight corresponding to the quality behavior of the responsible party. i The quality weight of the engineering entity assigned to the management entity.

[0151] Furthermore, step S14 calculates the final percentage score for the project evaluation based on the final scores of each responsible party:

[0152] Step S14.1: Sum the final scores of the responsible parties to calculate the final project quality evaluation score G;

[0153] G=∑F i(8)

[0154] Step S14.2: Accumulate and calculate the total weight R of the projects involved in the quality evaluation of the engineering project;

[0155] R = ∑W i (9)

[0156] Step S14.3: Calculate the final percentage score H for the project evaluation;

[0157]

[0158] Furthermore, step S15 calculates the percentage score for the project quality evaluation of each contractor:

[0159]

[0160] In the formula, i≥2; M i The responsible party's quality behavior is scored out of 100 points; W i The weight corresponding to the quality behavior of the responsible party categorized by the contractor; W' i The weight of the physical quality of the project body assigned to the responsible entity to which the contractor is classified; C i The contractor's project quality is scored out of 100 points. For the construction unit:

[0161]

[0162] For other contractors, C i =B.

[0163] Furthermore, step S16 involves calculating the contractor's annual quality performance score E by weighting the percentage scores of the contractor's annual project quality ratings:

[0164]

[0165] In the formula, n represents the number of projects undertaken by the contractor; h i K is the percentage score for the contractor's i-th project; i This represents the percentage of the completed contract amount for the i-th project within an assessment period relative to the total completed contract amount for the contractor.

[0166] The evaluation indicators in the evaluation system framework can be added or removed according to the actual engineering project, and the weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator can be adjusted according to the actual situation.

[0167] This invention provides a method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects. The evaluation scope includes the quality behaviors of all responsible parties involved in construction and the quality of the engineering entity itself. It creatively incorporates the compliant construction quality of the construction unit into the quality behavior evaluation; adjusts the weighting of evaluation items according to different construction stages, and feeds back the engineering entity quality score to the quality management entity at a certain proportion, making it an important component of the quality behavior evaluation. This reflects that substandard engineering entities inevitably involve non-standard quality behaviors. It can solve the problems of incomplete engineering quality evaluation indicators and the disconnect between quality behavior evaluation and engineering entity quality evaluation.

[0168] In one embodiment, for a specific engineering project, the responsible parties involved in the evaluation include one construction unit, one supervision unit, one surveying and design unit, three construction units (Pipeline Construction Unit A, Indoor Pipeline Construction Unit B, and Gate Station Construction Unit C), and one non-destructive testing unit. This embodiment does not include an EPC general contractor. For the specific steps of this embodiment, please refer to the aforementioned urban gas engineering quality evaluation method, which will not be repeated here.

[0169] Step S6: Collect project construction progress data. In this embodiment, the main installation project has started, but the pre-commissioning operation has not yet begun, which is the mid-stage of construction.

[0170] Step S7: Based on the construction stage of the project, assign weights to each secondary indicator (responsible entity) corresponding to the quality behavior in the evaluation system, and assign weights to the management entity corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system. See Table 6 for specific data.

[0171] Step S7.1: The weight of the secondary indicator for the construction unit is 15%, and the weight allocation of the secondary sub-indicators is as follows:

[0172] Step S7.1-1: Secondary sub-indicator project management organization and planning 4%;

[0173] Step S7.1-2: Secondary sub-indicator quality control 7%;

[0174] Step S7.1-3: Secondary sub-indicator contractor management 4%;

[0175] Step S7.1-4: The quality of compliance construction, a secondary sub-indicator, is a deduction item in the total score and does not account for weight.

[0176] Step S7.2: The secondary weight of the supervision unit is 8%;

[0177] Step S7.3: The secondary weight of the survey and design unit is 5%;

[0178] Step S7.4: The secondary weight of the construction unit is 8%;

[0179] Step S7.5: The secondary weight of the non-destructive testing unit is 7%;

[0180] In step S7.6, the weight of the construction unit in the quality of the project entity is 5%, the weight of the supervision unit is 8%, and the weight of the construction unit is 27%.

[0181] Step S8: Summarize the weights of the secondary indicators to form the corresponding quality behavior weights (43%) and engineering entity quality weights (40%).

[0182] Table 6 Weight Allocation of Evaluation Indicators

[0183]

[0184]

[0185] Step S9: Quantitatively evaluate the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system;

[0186] Step S9.1: According to the evaluation rules in Table 3, experts conduct a quantitative evaluation of the engineering quality based on the three-level indicators of quality behavior, as shown in Table 7;

[0187] Step S9.1-1: Quantitatively evaluate the three-level indicators of the construction unit;

[0188] Table 7 Summary of the Quantitative Evaluation of the Three-Level Indicators of the Construction Unit

[0189]

[0190]

[0191] Step S9.1-2: Quantitatively evaluate the three-level indicators of the supervision unit, see Table 8;

[0192] Table 8 Summary of Quantitative Evaluation of Three-Level Indicators for Supervision Units

[0193]

[0194] Step S9.1-3: Quantitatively evaluate the three-level indicators of the survey and design unit, see Table 9;

[0195] Table 9 Summary of Quantitative Evaluation of Level 3 Indicators for Survey and Design Units

[0196]

[0197]

[0198] Step S9.1-4: Quantitatively evaluate the three-level indicators of the construction unit, see Table 10;

[0199] Table 10 Summary of the Quantitative Evaluation of the Three-Level Indicators of Construction Units

[0200]

[0201]

[0202] Step S9.1-5: Quantitatively evaluate the three-level indicators of the non-destructive testing unit, as shown in Table 11;

[0203] Table 11 Summary of Quantitative Evaluation of Level 3 Indicators for Nondestructive Testing Units

[0204]

[0205] Step S9.2: According to the evaluation rules in Table 4, experts evaluate the construction quality (M) of the construction unit's compliance with regulations. 1-4 A quantitative evaluation was conducted, as shown in Table 12;

[0206] Table 12 Summary of Quantitative Evaluation of Compliance Construction Quality Three-Level Indicators

[0207]

[0208] Step S9.3: According to the evaluation rules in Table 5, the experts conduct a quantitative evaluation of the quality of the engineering entity, as shown in Table 13;

[0209] Table 13 Summary of Quantitative Evaluation of Three-Level Indicators for Engineering Entity Quality

[0210]

[0211]

[0212]

[0213] Step S10: Summarize the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators and calculate the percentage score of the second-level indicators in the evaluation system; Step 10.1: Calculate the percentage score of the second-level indicator of the quality behavior of the responsible entity;

[0214] Step S10.1-1: Calculate the percentage score M1 of the secondary quality behavior indicators of the construction unit;

[0215]

[0216] Step S10.1-2: Calculate the percentage score M2 of the secondary quality behavior indicator of the supervision unit:

[0217]

[0218] Step S10.1-3: Calculate the percentage score M3 of the secondary quality behavior indicator of the survey and design unit:

[0219]

[0220] Step S10.1-4: Calculate the percentage score M4 of the secondary quality behavior indicator of the construction unit:

[0221]

[0222] Among them, Z 4-i S represents the actual score of the third-level indicator for the evaluation of the actual participation of the i-th construction unit; 4-i The standard score for the third-level indicator is the actual evaluation score of the i-th construction unit.

[0223] Step S10.1-5: Calculate the percentage score M5 of the secondary quality behavior index of the non-destructive testing unit.

[0224]

[0225] Step S10.2: Calculate the percentage score of the secondary quality index of the engineering entity;

[0226] Step S10.2-1: Calculate the percentage score M'1 for the secondary indicators of the pipeline installation project:

[0227]

[0228] Step S10.2-2: Calculate the percentage score M'2 of the secondary indicators for the gate station civil engineering:

[0229]

[0230] Step S10.2-3: Calculate the percentage score M'3 for the secondary indicators of the equipment installation project.

[0231]

[0232] Step S10.2-4: Calculate the percentage score M'4 for the secondary indicators of the gate station pipeline project.

[0233]

[0234] Step S10.2-5: Calculate the percentage score M'5 for the secondary indicators of electrical installation engineering:

[0235]

[0236] Step S10.2-6: Calculate the percentage score M'6 for the secondary indicators of the instrument installation project:

[0237]

[0238] Step S10.2-7: Calculate the percentage score M'7 for the secondary indicator of communication engineering:

[0239]

[0240] Step S11: Calculate the percentage score for quality behavior by summing the evaluation scores of the secondary indicators for each responsible party for quality behavior.

[0241]

[0242] Step S12: Calculate the percentage score for the overall quality of the project by summing the evaluation scores of the secondary indicators for each professional specialty.

[0243]

[0244] Step S13: Based on the percentage scores and corresponding weights of the secondary indicators of each responsible entity in the quality behavior, the percentage scores of the engineering entity quality are allocated to the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality according to the weight of the management entities, and the final scores of each responsible entity are calculated.

[0245] Step S13.1: Calculate the final score for the construction unit:

[0246] F1=M1W1+BW'1+M 1-4 =82.2×15% + 70.4×5% - 4 = 11.85 points;

[0247] Step S13.2: Calculate the final score of the supervision unit:

[0248] F2 = M2W2 + BW'2 = 81.2 × 8% + 70.4 × 8% = 12.13 points;

[0249] M2 represents the percentage score of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; W2 represents the weight of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; W'2 represents the weight of the supervision unit in the quality of the project entity.

[0250] Step S13.3: Calculate the final score for the survey and design unit:

[0251] F3=M3W3=90.5×5%=4.53 points;

[0252] M3 represents the percentage score of the surveying and design unit in the quality behavior; W3 represents the weight of the surveying and design unit in the quality behavior.

[0253] Step S13.4: Calculate the final score for the construction unit:

[0254] F4=M4W4+BW'3=84.1×8%+70.4×27%=25.74 points;

[0255] Wherein, M4 is the percentage score of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W4 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W'3 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality of the project entity.

[0256] Step S13.5: Calculate the final score for the non-destructive testing unit:

[0257] F5=M5W5=89.9×7%=6.29 points;

[0258] M5 represents the percentage score for non-destructive testing units in quality behavior; W5 represents the weight corresponding to the non-destructive testing units in quality behavior.

[0259] Step S14: Calculate the final percentage score for the project evaluation:

[0260] Step S14.1: Sum the final scores of the responsible parties to calculate the actual score for the project quality evaluation:

[0261] G=∑F i =11.85+12.13+4.53+25.74+6.29=60.54 points;

[0262] Step S14.2: Accumulate the total weights of the projects involved in the quality evaluation of the engineering project:

[0263] E = ∑W i =15% + 8% + 5% + 8% + 7% + 5% + 7% + 27% = 83%;

[0264] Step S14.3: Calculate the final percentage score for the project evaluation:

[0265]

[0266] Step S15: Calculate the percentage score for the project quality evaluation of each contractor:

[0267] Step S15.1: Calculate the quality evaluation score of the supervision unit on a percentage basis:

[0268]

[0269] Step S15.2: Calculate the percentage score for the quality evaluation of the survey and design unit:

[0270] h3 = M3 = 90.5 points;

[0271] Step S15.3: Calculate the construction unit's quality evaluation score out of 100:

[0272] Step S15.3-1: Calculate the percentage score for the quality evaluation of Construction Unit A:

[0273]

[0274] Among them, M 4-1 C is the percentage score for the quality behavior of construction unit A. 4-1The score is calculated on a percentage basis for the physical quality of the project undertaken by Construction Unit A.

[0275] Step S15.3-2: Calculate the percentage score for the quality evaluation of Construction Unit B:

[0276]

[0277] Among them, M 4-2 C is the percentage score for the quality behavior of construction unit B. 4-2 The score is calculated on a percentage basis for the physical quality of the project undertaken by Construction Unit B.

[0278] Step S15.3-3: Calculate the percentage score for the quality evaluation of Construction Unit C:

[0279]

[0280] 80.34 points;

[0281] Among them, M 4-3 The score for construction unit C's quality behavior is out of 100. 4-3 The score is based on a percentage system for the physical quality of the project undertaken by Construction Unit C.

[0282] Step S15.4: Calculate the percentage score for the quality evaluation of the non-destructive testing unit:

[0283] h5 = M5 = 89.9 points;

[0284] Step S16: Taking Construction Company A as an example, calculate the contractor's annual quality performance score:

[0285] Step S16.1: Construction unit A undertook and evaluated 3 projects during the year, with a total contract value of 21.9 million yuan. The first project had a contract value of 7.6 million yuan and a project quality evaluation score of 82.35 out of 100; the second project had a contract value of 5.2 million yuan and a project quality evaluation score of 61.11 out of 100; and the third project had a contract value of 9.1 million yuan and a project quality evaluation score of 78.65 out of 100.

[0286] Step S16.2: Calculate Contractor A's annual quality performance score:

[0287]

[0288] This invention incorporates the quality behavior of all parties involved in urban gas engineering construction, the quality of the engineering entity, and the quality of compliant construction into the evaluation scope. This yields a quantitative evaluation result of the overall quality of the project and a quantitative evaluation result of the individual quality of participating contractors. Furthermore, by evaluating the projects undertaken by contractors in a given year, the invention provides a quantitative performance record of the contractors' annual quality, thus providing a basis for contractor assessment, management, and bidding.

[0289] like Figure 2 As shown, based on the above-mentioned urban gas engineering quality evaluation method, this embodiment proposes an urban gas engineering quality evaluation system, including:

[0290] Construction phase unit, used to determine the construction phase of an engineering project;

[0291] The allocation unit is used to assign weights to each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system according to the construction stage of the project, and to assign weights to the management entity corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system.

[0292] Evaluation unit, used to quantitatively evaluate the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system;

[0293] The calculation unit is used to summarize the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators and calculate the percentage scores of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system.

[0294] The unit is defined to determine the percentage score for quality behavior and the percentage score for engineering entity quality based on the percentage scores of the secondary indicators in the evaluation system.

[0295] The responsibility entity evaluation conclusion unit is used to allocate the percentage score of the project entity quality to the management entity corresponding to the project entity quality according to the weight of the management entity, and determine the final score of each responsible entity.

[0296] The project evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the final percentage score of the project based on the final scores of each responsible party.

[0297] The contractor's annual quality performance evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the contractor's annual quality performance score based on the percentage score of the quality evaluation of the projects undertaken by the contractor in the year.

[0298] The present invention also proposes an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the above-described method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering.

[0299] The present invention also proposes a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the above-described method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects.

[0300] Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features; and these modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects, characterized in that, include: Determine the current construction stage of the project; Based on the construction stage of the project, weights are assigned to each secondary indicator corresponding to the quality behavior in the evaluation system, and weights are assigned to the management entities corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system. The engineering quality is quantitatively evaluated based on the three-level indicators of the evaluation system. The evaluation scores of the three-level indicators are summarized, and the percentage scores of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system are calculated. Based on the percentage scores of the secondary indicators in the evaluation system, the percentage scores for quality behavior and engineering entity quality are determined. The percentage score for the quality of the project entity is allocated to the corresponding management entity based on the weight of the management entity, thus determining the final score for each responsible entity. The final percentage score for the project is determined based on the final scores of each responsible party.

2. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, Before determining the construction stage of the project, the following steps are included: Construct a primary indicator system for the quality evaluation of urban gas engineering projects; the primary indicator includes quality behavior and the quality of the engineering entity. For each primary indicator, construct secondary indicators; For each secondary indicator, a tertiary indicator for specific implementation evaluation is constructed; Assign a standard score to each of the three-level indicators.

3. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 2, characterized in that, The secondary indicators of the quality behavior include the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit, and non-destructive testing unit; The standard score ratio for the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit, and non-destructive testing unit is 3:1:1:1:1:

1.

4. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering according to claim 2, characterized in that, The secondary indicators of the quality of the project entity include pipeline installation engineering, gate station civil engineering, equipment installation engineering, gate station pipeline engineering, electrical installation engineering, instrumentation installation engineering, communication engineering, and quality accident events; The standard score ratio for the pipeline installation project, gate station civil engineering project, equipment installation project, gate station pipeline project, electrical installation project, instrumentation installation project, and communication project is 60-70: 4-8: 4-8: 5-10: 4-8: 4-8: 2-4.

5. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, The rules for determining the construction stage of a project are as follows: Pre-construction stage: The stage before the commencement of the main installation work; Mid-construction phase: The phase from the commencement of the main installation work to the pre-commissioning of the main installation work; Late construction phase: the pre-commissioning and subsequent phases of the main installation project.

6. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 3, characterized in that, The weight allocation for each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system is as follows: The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, survey and design unit, general contracting unit, construction unit and non-destructive testing unit is 10-30:5-8:3-10:7-10:8-10:3-7; The weight allocation of the management entities corresponding to the engineering entity quality in the evaluation system is as follows: The weighting ratio of the construction unit, supervision unit, general contracting unit and construction unit is 3-8:5-10:5-12:17-30.

7. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 3, characterized in that, The process of allocating the percentage score for the quality of the engineering entity to the corresponding management entity based on the weight of the management entity, and determining the final score for each responsible entity, includes the following steps: The final score F1 of the construction unit is determined by the following formula: F1=M1W1+BW'1+M 1-4 Where M1 is the percentage score of the construction unit in quality behavior; W1 is the weight of the construction unit in quality behavior; B is the percentage score of the project entity quality; W'1 is the weight of the construction unit in the project entity quality; M 1-4 Points will be deducted for construction quality compliance by the construction unit; The final score F2 of the supervision unit is determined by the following formula: F2=M2W2+BW'2 Where M2 is the percentage score of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; W2 is the weight of the supervision unit in the quality behavior; W'2 is the weight of the supervision unit in the quality of the project entity; The final score F3 for the survey and design unit is determined using the following formula: F3 = M3W3 Wherein, M3 is the percentage score of the survey and design unit in the quality behavior; W3 is the weight corresponding to the survey and design unit in the quality behavior; The final score F4 for the construction unit is determined using the following formula: F4 = M4W4 + BW'3 Wherein, M4 is the percentage score of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W4 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality behavior; W'3 is the weight of the construction unit in the quality of the project entity. The final score F5 for the nondestructive testing unit is determined using the following formula: F5 = M5W5 Where M5 is the percentage score of the non-destructive testing unit in the quality behavior; W5 is the weight corresponding to the non-destructive testing unit in the quality behavior.

8. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of determining the final percentage score for the project based on the final scores of each responsible party includes the following steps: The final percentage score of the project is determined based on the total final score of each responsible entity and the sum of the evaluation weights of each responsible entity participating in the project quality evaluation.

9. The method for evaluating the quality of urban gas engineering projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, After determining the final percentage score of the project based on the final scores of each responsible party, the following steps are included: Calculate the percentage score for the project quality evaluation of each contractor separately; The contractor's annual quality performance score is calculated by weighting the percentage scores of the quality evaluation of the projects undertaken by the contractor in that year.

10. A quality evaluation system for urban gas engineering projects, characterized in that, include: Construction phase unit, used to determine the construction phase of an engineering project; The allocation unit is used to assign weights to each secondary indicator corresponding to quality behavior in the evaluation system according to the construction stage of the project, and to assign weights to the management entity corresponding to the quality of the project entity in the evaluation system. Evaluation unit, used to quantitatively evaluate the engineering quality of the three-level indicators of the evaluation system; The calculation unit is used to summarize the evaluation scores of the three-level indicators and calculate the percentage scores of the second-level indicators of the evaluation system. The unit is defined to determine the percentage score for quality behavior and the percentage score for engineering entity quality based on the percentage scores of the secondary indicators in the evaluation system. The responsibility entity evaluation conclusion unit is used to allocate the percentage score of the project entity quality to the management entity corresponding to the project entity quality according to the weight of the management entity, and determine the final score of each responsible entity. The project evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the final percentage score of the project based on the final scores of each responsible party. The contractor's annual quality performance evaluation conclusion unit is used to determine the contractor's annual quality performance score based on the percentage score of the quality evaluation of the projects undertaken by the contractor in the year.

11. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the urban gas engineering quality evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1-9.

Images