By
Katherine
Roseberry on Thursday, March 08, 2001 - 12:50 pm:
Joel, On 4 and 5 Aug 1998 you posted messages at the "Water
Cooler" indicating the COE's interest in finding an
authorization to allow payment of a "stipend" to unsuccessful
second phase offerors under the 2 Phase Design-Build
Construction selection procedures covered by FAR 36.3. According
to your counsel, at USACE and in the Districts, the problem was
how to legally justify the payment and how to legally phrase it
in the RFP. I go back to the water cooler for a very long time
and consequently don't know how this particular discussion
ended. The forum archive doesn't go back to 98. Do you have any
information you can share on the stipend issue beyond 5 Aug 98?
By
joel hoffman
on Thursday, March 08, 2001 - 04:53 pm:
Katherine, I know that at least one District has payed
"stipends" to the unsuccessful phase 2 offerors and a couple
others were recently planning to. It is not illegal. Vern
Edwards had advised me that the Air Force has paid something
like this on major weapons systems acquisitions.
The key is to obtain rights (limited rights) to a product. I
have developed a Special Contract Requirement for use on a two
phase D-B acquisition, outlining the Government's and the
Offeror's rights concerning the technical proposal.
Other bits of advice. Make acceptance of a stipend voluntary.
The Offeror retains all rights to the design proposal if it
declines to participate in the stipend. A contractor proposed
this idea to me at an industry seminar.
Establish minimum technical acceptability requirements to be
eligible for a stipend. That will assure that the offeror
expends the effort to develop a reasonable proposal, instead of
just submitting something to get paid , then withdrawing from
the competition or deliberately submitting such a proposal as to
be eliminated.
Pre-establish the amount of the stipend and state it in the RFP.
My rule of thumb is to get your technical experts to develop a
rough estimate of the costs to prepare the phase 2 design
proposal. Then take a percentage (say, no more than 50%) as a
Government share of the risk to develop a design proposal. Don't
pay anything for the management and performance capability
proposal - that is something contractors are used to preparing
for an RFP.
My attorney at Headquarters USACE has stated that stipends are
legal - as long as the Government receives a tangible benefit
for it. The key is to balance the Government's and the
unsuccessful offeror's rights. Don't eliminate someone, then
infuse their significantly better design into the winner's
design. My special contract requirement ("special clause",
"special requirement", "special conditions", or whatever term
your agency uses) addresses this trade-off consideration.
I believe there may have been some discussion in this WIFCON
forum, last year. You might want to search the archives for that
discussion.
Does this help? Happy Sails! Joel Hoffman
By
Katherine
Roseberry on Friday, March 09, 2001 - 08:51 am:
Joel, thanks for the information. I still would like to get
the text of your "special contract requirement" clause. I went
through the forum archive (under design-build) and found
nothing. I found a listing of the old Water Cooler topics which
looked promising but I got error notices when I tried to access
them. If it is not too much trouble, could you please send me
the clause?
Two last questions. Is the Design-Build class that you teach
open to Air Force folks and can you recommend any worthwhile
commercial D-B classes? Thanks again for your help.
By
joel hoffman
on Friday, March 09, 2001 - 02:30 pm:
Katherine, I sent you the STIPENDS SCR. The Air Force often
sends students to the COE PROSPECT Course, #425 Design-Build
Construction. If you know any PM's at AFMC - WPAFB, many have
attended. I sent you the course director's phone number for
availability of spaces. You can ask for standby spaces. We
always seem to have one or two last minute cancellations.
There are no inherent roles and responsibilities or legal duties
of the various parties, in design-build. The FAR does not have
clauses covering the unique roles and responsibilities in
Government design-build construction contracts. Unfortunately,
many people try to simply use A-E
contract clauses. We have developed several successful SCR's and
guide specs for design-build. The guide specs are in final
review for formal adoption at our headquarters. We're trying to
get the SCR's adopted as EFARS clauses but the USACE
bureaucratic wheels turn slowly. You may view the D-B guidance,
through Bob Antonio's GUIDANCE PAGE link, at
http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/chemde/web%20pageinstructions.pdf
The problem with commercial organizations' material is that
there are several forums with model contract guidelines. You
must understand that each organization's material- roles,
responsibilities, risk assignment, etc. is drafted in the best
interest of its constituents. However, I think the best
commercial training and guidance is available through the
Design-Build Institute of America. They have good material on
preparing performance oriented specifications, conceptual
estimating for proposal preparation, etc. Their home page is
found at
http://www.dbia.org/
Hope this info helps. Happy Sails! Joel
|