Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 46

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 45
33 The best-value parameters, evaluation criteria, evaluation best-value procurement where the team could obtain case rating systems, and award algorithms described in this section study and performance data for Phase 2 of this study by fol- are a generic synthesis of what the entire design and construc- lowing up with the designated contact person. The survey tion industry defines as best-value procurement. Some of the was e-mailed to AASHTO representatives from each of the differences in concepts are due to the agencies that use them 50 state highway agencies and various other affiliated trans- and some are due to the nature of the projects themselves. The portation organizations. The initial contact list consisted of next sections discuss the results of a survey regarding the use representatives from the AASHTO Subcommittee on Con- of best-value procurement in the highway construction indus- struction and related highway organizations. The survey try and a benchmark comparison of project performance asked that questions be completed by the personnel respon- results for best-value contracting with design-bid-build. sible for procuring and administering the agency's con- struction program, particularly with regard to alternative contracting methods. 2.5 National Transportation Agency The research team received 44 responses, including 41 from Survey Results transportation agencies. Of the 41 agency representatives As outlined in the Research Approach presented in Sec- responding, 27 respondents answered that the agency had tion 1.4, the research team developed a survey to obtain some experience with best-value procurement, two agency information related to the state of practice of best-value pro- representatives responded that the agency had no experience curement in the transportation industry. The questionnaire, but planned to use best-value procurement in the near future, shown in Appendix C, was designed to identify the current and 12 respondents indicated that the agency had no experi- state of practice in the industry and to identify key respon- ence with best-value procurement. The answers to this ques- dents that could provide additional project-related informa- tion revealed that among the respondents, the majority tion for follow-up case studies. It identified transportation (66%) of agencies had experience with some form of best- agencies that are using or considering the use of a best-value value procurement. procurement process consistent with the definitions and The second question asked respondents to define the par- concepts discussed in the previous section. It also asked ticular selection strategy or strategies used among the meth- respondents to identify any new best-value concepts that ods defined in the questionnaire. The following list may not be reflected in the literature or the team's database. summarizes and Figure 2.5 depicts the variety of selection Lastly, it asked if respondents had specific projects using strategies used and the frequency of their use: Figure 2.5. Selection strategy used in best-value procurement.

OCR for page 45
34 10 of 27 used Meets Technical Criteria--Low Bid (37%) 16 of 25 used Past Performance (64%) 7 of 27 used A+B (26%) 15 of 25 used Projected Time (60%) 6 of 27 used Adjusted Bid (22%) 13 of 25 used Personnel Qualifications (52%) 6 of 27 used Weighted Criteria (22%) 11 of 25 used Management Capabilities (44%) 3 of 27 used Multi-parameter (11%) 6 of 25 used Public Interface Plan (24%) 2 of 27 used Cost-Technical Tradeoff (7%) 6 of 25 used Technical Capability/Solutions (24%) 1 of 27 used Adjusted Score (4%) 9 of 25 used other categories (36%) The responses indicated that the best-value selection strat- The survey results for the transportation agencies indicate egy used most often (37%) was meets technical criteria--low that past performance and projected time are the most fre- bid. Several respondents included A+B bidding and multi- quently used criteria followed by qualifications of personnel. parameter bidding as selection strategies in the "other" cate- In comparison, the larger sample population cited past per- gory. If these strategies are assumed to be equivalent as noted formance and qualifications of key personnel as the most fre- in the definition, the multi-parameter strategy was the next quently used criteria. In the case of transportation agencies, most frequently used strategy (31%). This distribution indi- it appears that projected time performance is a more impor- cates that the best-value selection strategies adopted by tant criteria, and they have more experience with time as a bid transportation sector agencies are more closely aligned with parameter than other commonly used criteria. the low-bid system compared with the frequency distribu- The fourth question asked respondents to identify a for- tion of the award methods of a larger sample of projects, mula or algorithm (if applicable) used to combine price and including vertical projects and projects outside of the trans- technical criteria. Eleven of 27 (41%) respondents provided a portation sector, presented in this chapter. The larger sample formula or algorithm to combine price and technical criteria. population presented in Figure 2.4 indicated that the The most frequent algorithm (cited by 4 of 11 respondents) weighted criteria and cost-technical tradeoff strategies was a multi-parameter formula (A+B) using time as the addi- were the most frequently used, constituting one-half of the tional parameter. This result is consistent with the responses sample population. to the third question. Other formulas cited were adjusted The third question asked respondents to identify what key bid, adjusted score, a prequalification rating formula, and criteria were used by the agency in the qualification or selec- weighted criteria combined with life-cycle cost. tion process. The following list summarizes and Figure 2.6 The fifth question asked respondents to identify what rela- depicts the key criteria and frequency of their use: tive weightings of price and technical factors were used, where Figure 2.6. Key criteria used in the qualification or selection process.