Please see the other D-B topic for some information. (By the way, you need only ask your question under one topic. Everyone can see it. Asking the same question twice could be confusing and adds time to respond)

By E.Palaneeswaran on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 10:32 am:

Mr. Vern,

I am sorry if I have asked too many things in this forum. Infact, I am doing my Ph.D. studies on "Contractor Selection Systems for Design-Build Projects". In this process, I am studying various International practices (including some best practices and innovative approaches). Earlier, I launched a two phase survey (internet based-cum-postal). At present, I am nearing my completion of my studies. These kind of discussion forum enlighten me with useful information and helps in filling up the 'knowledge voids'.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 09:25 am:

Palanees:

Are you looking for a tutorial about how to do these things, or are you conducting a survey to find out how different organizations do them?

By E. Palaneeswaran on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 06:04 am:

How price proposals (in Design-Build) are evaluated? If price proposals are evaluated by any weighted scoring, what are the evaluation criteria?

Should the price proposals be evaluated further before comparison, even after a price responsiveness checks for 'completeness', 'realism' and 'completeness'.

How Net Present Values of cashflows (discounted cash flows) accounted in comparing different proposals?

I forgot to mention that the successful bidder's 250 unit family housing obtained in our 1971 era 2 step, sealed bid procurement looked like barns. UGGGGLY! The Air Force would never use 2 step sealed bidding to obtain housing, now days! Happy Sails!

Vern, thanks for the clarification of the question.

I don't know if anyone is using LPTA for D-B phase 2. I suspect not. I have used it several times with some success for a one step D-B selection. However, we used it in cases where the design requirements were well defined, with little or no chance for the offerors to employ innovation or discretion in the design solution. There may be cases where a 2 phase D-B, Part 36.3 project may fit these circumstances.

Back in the beginning of my Air Force stint, in 1971, the Air Force used the two-step sealed bidding procedures (still in FAR Part 15.5) to procure Family Housing. That procedure was (is) remarkably close to the LPTA Part 15 procedures, with respect to the technical-design portion of a proposal. In two-step sealed bidding, we obtained technically acceptable design-technical proposals in step one, then awarded to the lowest priced, responsible bidder in step 2.

I believe the biggest distinction between the Part 14, 2 Step, and the Part 15, LPTA, procedures is that qualification proposals were probably not evaluated in 2 step sealed bidding. These were generally reserved for the Contracting Officer's "responsibility determination".

I suppose one could include some minimal criteria, such as requirements for the D-B to have registered designers, etc. in a 2 step, sealed bid procurement. Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Monday, May 15, 2000 - 10:12 am:

To Joel and Palanees:

Lowest-price-technically-acceptable (LPTA) source selection is an example of a non-compensatory method of evaluation: an offeror's technical advantages cannot compensate for a higher price and a lower price cannot compensate for any degree of technical unacceptability.

In theory, an agency could use the LPTA method in phase two a two-step design-build selection. See FAR 36.303-2(a). I do not know whether any agencies have actually done so.

To: Mr. (or Ms.) E. Palaneesewaran

You asked:
a) "Within the multi-criteria decision making frameworks of Design-Builder selection, can a higher score in any one attribute be assumed to 'makeup' or 'compensate' a lower score in another attribute?"

b)Are there any 'non-compensatory' methods used for Design-Builder selection?

Sorry, I did not understand the second question. Regarding your first question (a);

Yes, we can trade-off weaknesses or disadvantages in one evaluation category against a strength or advantage in another category. In the first phase of a two-phase source selection, there are no prices submitted, only qualification proposals. We first evaluate the qualifications of individual offers (tenders) against the pre-determined evaluation criteria.

After evaluating the individual qualification proposals, we make a trade-off analysis of the relative strengths and weakness between the phase one proposals to select the 3-5 firms to be invited to compete in phase 2.

In phase 2, there will be considerably more evaluation criteria, including technical-design, full blown "performance capability" (such as qualifications, organization, management and control systems, etc.)and prices.

Individual offers are again evaluated against pre-determined criteria. Then, we make the phase 2 trade-off analysis between the offers to select the winner.

The phase 2 process is about the same as most other competitively negotiated acquisitions. It is conducted under Part 15 of the FAR and its various Supplements (FAR 15, DFARS 15, AFARS 15, EFARS 15). These are all available in various locations on the Internet. Hope this helps - - Happy Sails! Joel

By E.Palaneeswaran = palanees on Monday, May 15, 2000 - 08:17 am:

Thanks Mr. Joel!

Most approaches to Design-Builder selection, check the Design-Builder submittals for some mandatory requirements and then evaluate them using some weighted scoring of multiple criteria. This is commonly practiced in both Design-Builder prequalification and Design-Build tender evaluation.

(a) Within the multi-criteria decision making frameworks of Design-Builder selection, can a higher score in any one attribute be assumed to 'makeup' or 'compensate' a lower score in another attribute?

[For example, can a lower 'weighted score' (or shortfall) in "Human Resources" criterion be compensated with a higher 'weighted score' in "Past Experience" or "Financial Strength" (or vice-verse)? Or can a higher 'weighted score' in a technical aspect compensate lower 'weighted scores' in some other technical aspects?

Are there any 'non-compensatory' methods used for Design-Builder selection?

By Joel Hoffman on Wednesday, May 10, 2000 - 01:00 pm:

The 1st phase evaluation criteria may not be complete in every respect because of the lead time involved in finalizing the second phase.We supplement it in phase 2.

For instance, specific key design and construction management personnel shouldn't be left dangling - they will be assigned or employed somewhere else in the meantime. I would evaluate that in phase 2.

When we ask the offeror to commit to specific key subcontractors, we would probably do that in phase 2. Early commitment ties the hands of the prime to negotiate competitive pricing from key subs. I would often evaluate this in phase 2.

We might also ask the offeror to expand on certain management systems or processes they intend to use.

Hope this answers your question. Happy Sails! Joel Hoffman

By palanees on Wednesday, May 10, 2000 - 01:15 am:

Should a Design-Build team atttributes be evaluated/ scored again along with the bid proposals (technical and price proposals) for tender award, even though they have already been prequalified/ shortlisted for meeting resources required?

By joel hoffman on Saturday, April 8, 2000 - 04:45 pm:

Priscilla, We use the stnadard A-E contract FAR Clause from Part 36, entitled "Requirements for Registration of Designers". This clause allows designers to be licensed in any state or territory. For designs requiring state environmental permits (sewer, water, wastewater treatment, storm water retention, etc.), the state will require a locally licensed designer of record to prepare the permit application.

We also require the offerors to identify and submit(in a specific, uniform format, using a standard form to make evaluation easier and easier to compare) the proposed designers of record for each major design discipline. This is a required proposal submission item "Specific Personnel" in our equivalent to Section "L". We evaluate their qualifications, experience and capabilites, as a subfactor, in our equivalent to Section "M".

(The proposed designers or permit preparers for the permitted disciplines must be licensed in the state the project is located in, while the rest just have to be properly licensed.)

Hope this answers your questions. Happy Sails!

By Priscilla Harris on Friday, April 7, 2000 - 09:01 am:

Joel Hoffman, the entity, whether a joint venture or E & C contractor must have a licensed design professional. For federal design/build projects if the professional license, required in the state the project is being built in or must the design professionl simply be licensed in some U.S. jurisdiction?

Gordon - We have contracted with A-E primes, general contractor construction firms (using A-E sub), as well as with general contractors with in-house design capabilities. All have advantages and disadvantages - it depends on the specific tendering team's capabilities and the specific project. Happy Sails!

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, March 14, 2000 - 05:51 am:

Gordon, do you need this information immediately or can you wait until you can attend a class or seminar or read a book?

The Design Build Institute of America has a very good Manual of Practice. It isn't totally applicable to Government FFP contracts, but can give you some excellent advice. I believe they are on the Web.

I teach design-build for Government FFP contracts for the Corps of Engineers, including the subject you asked about However, the question you asked is a 3 hour topic! We will eventually put out some published guidance on the web.

There is some general guidance on the web under the COE's Huntsville Engineering and Support Center's home page.

Go to www.Hnd.usace.army.mil Highlight Product Lines, Chemical Demilitarization, Design-Build Guidance.

Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Monday, March 13, 2000 - 05:26 pm:

You are asking for a massive amount of information ("any information you have"). Can you tailor your request to be more specific?

Have you looked at FAR Subpart 36.3? Have you looked at any of the large number of books about design-build contracting?

By gordon hackley on Monday, March 13, 2000 - 05:10 pm:

Please provide any information you have on selecting and awarding a design build construction contracg. Does it matter it the contract is written to an A&E firm or should it be written to a general construction contractor?  

Design-Build topics

Per your request, I also sent you some sample source selection evaluations from some course material, including trade-off analyses, for three Corps of Engineers' D-B projects.

By E.Palaneeswaran on Friday, May 19, 2000 - 05:55 am:

Thank you very much, Mr. Joel!

The concept of "Trade-off analysis" sounds very interesting. I wish to know more about this "best practice".

Unfortunately, I didn't receive your email (mentioned in your message) on the US Army Materiel Command's "Best Practices Guide to Source Selection." May be due to some internet problems.. I suppose!

Could you please email me that again. Sorry for bothering you again..Thanks a lot.

OOPS! FAR 36.3 is the correct reference for 2 Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, not "36.2" Happy Sails!

By joel hoffman on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 09:38 pm:

To review FAR 36.2, you can go to http://www.wifcon.com/

click on "regulations"

Click on "Federal Acquisition Regulations"

Find FAR 36.2. Hope this helps!

I recommend "www.wifcon.com" as your homepage, if you work daily in government Contracting, contract administration, etc.
Happy Sails! Joel

By joel hoffman on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 12:02 pm:

1. Go to "http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/"

click on "techinfo"

click on "design-build guidance"

follow the directions to Part 6 "Basis of Award"

This will provide some idea of how we describe the importance of pricing. It can be equal to, less than or more important than the technical/qualifications criteria.

2. We perform a "trade-off analysis" of the relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals, including price and qualifications and technical factors for each.

I E-mailed you the US Army Materiel Command's "Best Practices Guide to Source Selection." It explains the trade-off process.

Hope this helps....... Happy Sails! Joel

By E.Palaneeswaran on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 06:12 am:

How evaluation results of technical proposals and price proposals should be combined to make Design-Builder selection decisions in a "Best Value" framework?

I E-mailed you a brief powerpoint outline of the procedures. Sorry, I don't have access to the electronic version of our COE Design-Build course material....... Happy Sails! Joel

By E.Palaneeswaran on Monday, May 15, 2000 - 08:32 am:

Thanks. That information was very useful. Could you please tell me where I can get more information regarding "the recently implemented FAR 36, 2 Phase Design-build selection procedures"

See other topic, "Design-Build", for a response. This question and my answer are in reference to the Government equivalent of "short listing" design-build firms, using the recently implemented FAR 36, 2 Phase Design-build selection procedures. Happy Sails! Joel Hoffman

By Palaneeswaran on Wednesday, May 10, 2000 - 01:20 am:

Should a Design-Build team atttributes be evaluated/ scored again along with the bid proposals (technical and price proposals) for tender award, even though they have already been prequalified/ shortlisted for meeting resources required