Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 60


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 59
47 CHAPTER 3 Interpretation, Applications, and Recommendations for Implementation 3.1 Development of Best-Value algorithm and the requirements to submit information Procurement Methods and documentation to be responsive to the best-value evaluation plan. This section of the report presents a best-value procure- d. Depending on the nature of the evaluation plan, an ment framework that was developed from the performance evaluation panel may be formed to conduct the formal benchmarking case study results and the analysis of best-value evaluation of best-value proposals. This will happen concepts addressed in Chapter 2. The proposed framework when some element of the design must be evaluated to presents practical, objective criteria and processes (including ensure that it complies with agency regulations, design a scoring system). The results of the national transportation policy, and specifications. agency survey validated the proposed framework. Objective e. Proposals are then received and evaluated in accordance screening criteria to identify suitable projects for best-value with the published evaluation plan and the award is procurement methods are also provided. To facilitate the made using the selected best-value award algorithm. project-selection process, a screening and selection tool has 2. Two-Step Best-Value Procurement: For those projects that been developed and is included in Appendix F. would benefit from the use of a competitive screening The screening criteria are important because they also system to develop a shortlist, the two-phase best-value provide the basis from which the content of the best-value pro- procurement generally follows these steps: curement method is selected considering the needs of the proj- a. Step 1 is evaluation of qualifications and quality informa- ect. Both one- and two-phase procurement processes, similar to tion (P.1P.5 and Q.4) and development of a shortlist of those in the case study projects, are integrated with the best- best-qualified bidders. It must be noted that this method value parameters and are implemented in the following manner: involves a more detailed evaluation of qualifications than the current administrative prequalification process in use 1. One-Step Best-Value Procurement: For those projects that by many state construction agencies. It is anticipated that the owner determines will derive no benefit from using the agency will publish a formal "request for qualifica- a competitive screening system to develop a shortlist, tions"for each individual project using evaluation criteria the single phase best-value procurement would generally that have been customized to the needs of the given high- follow these steps: way construction project. For each evaluation criteria, the a. The owner selects which best-value parameters are most agency must develop a measurable standard against which appropriate for a given project. From the list of possible the qualifications would be measured. best-value evaluation criteria shown in Table 3.1, the b. The "statements of qualifications" (SOQs) will be evalu- owner then selects those criteria associated with the ated, and the list of prequalified firms will be announced. chosen best-value parameters whose formal evaluation c. A best-value RFP will be published detailing both the will add value to the project. award algorithm and the method by which the Step 1 b. These criteria then make up the evaluation plan, and a qualifications ranking/scores will be carried over into best-value rating (scoring) system is selected to complete the final evaluation. the evaluation plan. d. The evaluation panel will evaluate all responsive pro- c. A best-value award algorithm is then selected based on posals in accordance with the published evaluation plan the scope and complexity of the given project, and the and award will be made according to selected best-value best-value RFP will be published detailing both the award award algorithm.

OCR for page 59
48 The use of both systems allows the proposed best-value procurement method to retain maximum flexibility while maintaining an appropriate focus and tradeoff between cost and non-cost parameters. Additionally, it provides the owner with a powerful selection tool that draws the bulk of its details from the methods used to successfully procure the case study projects. Best-Value Parameters Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2 illustrated the research team's initial attempt at conceptualizing a best-value framework. As described in that chapter, the best-value parameters, Figure 3.1. Best-value concepts. which reflect the ultimate goals of the project, form the foundation of the best-value contracting framework. Using Figure 2.1 as a basis, the research team then developed Fig- given generic evaluation criterion was repetitive use by ure 3.1 to better depict the relationship between the param- those agencies that have experimented with best-value pro- eters and the components making up the evaluation plan. curement. Accordingly, the following standard was devel- Once the owner has determined which parameters are oped for selecting a given best-value evaluation criterion to most appropriate for a given project, the remainder of be recommended for use in the proposed framework: the details of the best-value procurement can be determined. The evaluation criteria stem directly from the best-value To be recommended, the criterion must appear in >50% of the parameters, with the selected criteria then yielding the appro- sample population solicitations, or, if none are >50%, the single priate rating system and award algorithm. highest occurrence will be used. With this standard in mind, Table S.1 was revised into MAP Case Study Evaluation Criteria Table 3.1. It should be noted that the only evaluation crite- to Best-Value Parameters rion that did not meet the 50% rule was "Project Schedule The first step in deriving a proposed best-value procure- Evaluation." It was included based on the advisory panel ment framework is to map the results of the best-value survey indicating that it had a "high potential" for successful project case study content analysis to the best-value param- implementation. The widespread use in the highway indus- eters and evaluation criteria. To do this, the research team try of A+B contracts, through which a contractor-proposed determined that the best measure of potential success for a schedule is integrated into the award algorithm to determine Table 3.1. Summary evaluation criteria as identified with best-value parameter from total case study project population. Number of Contracts Using Best-Value Parameter Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Designation (Total = 50) Price Evaluation A.0 42 Project Schedule Evaluation B.0 19 Financial & Bonding Requirements P.0 35 Past Experience/Performance Evaluation P.1 44 Safety Record (or Plan) P.1 25 Key Personnel & Qualifications P.2 41 Utilization of Small Business P.3 30 Subcontractor Evaluation/Plan P.3 29 Management/Organization Plan P.4 31 Quality Management Q.4 27 Proposed Design Alternate D.0 26 Technical Proposal Responsiveness D.1 37 Environmental Considerations D.1 25