Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 69


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 68
56 project's quality control engineer might carry a total possible score A detailed discussion of best-value evaluation rating systems of 5 points, whereas, the quality management plan may carry a for the other two award algorithms is found in Chapter 2. maximum total score of 45 points. If the maximum total score for The details of each evaluation rating system should ultimately all rated categories adds up to 1,000 points, then the weight be based on the requirements of the individual project assigned to each rated category is proportional to its individual under analysis. Those projects that are relatively straightforward maximum total score.Continuing with this hypothetical example, should have a simple rating system. On the other hand, those if this project's estimated cost is $20 million,the value of each point projects that are technically complex will need a more complex will be $20,000.Thus,the cost value of the engineer's qualifications rating system to be able to identify the best value. Additionally, will be $100,000 and the cost value of the quality management the owner must ensure that the rating system can be mapped plan feature of the design is $900,000. Thus, the overall evaluated back to the project screening system and ensure that those areas value of the two is $1.0 million or 5% of the project. The reader are thoroughly evaluated.Any weighting that is developed must must remember that these values are not absolute. However, if the be consistent with the project screening criteria as well and amount of money at risk if the project is not properly constructed ensure that those areas that have the greatest importance in the is estimated at $5.0 million, then these rated categories are under- procurement are the most heavily weighted. Finally, the owner weighted relative to the entire project value. Therefore, more should test the weighting with a small number of pilot projects weight should be given (i.e., more points assigned) to the quality to ensure that the system behaves as anticipated. management feature of the project in the evaluation plan. If, on the other hand,the quality management aspects of this project are 3.3 Summary of Proposed Best- a minor portion of the work, and the technical and performance Value Procurement Framework risk lies in other rated categories, then these two evaluation cate- gories may be over-weighted, and the points assigned to them Table 3.5 is a summary of the proposed best-value pro- should be reduced and moved to other more important categories. curement framework. It shows how the practical, objective Table 3.5. Summary of best-value procurement framework. Award Algorithm BV Meets Technical Cost-Technical Parameter and Criteria--Low Bid Tradeoff Evaluation Criteria (Cost) (Qualitative) Value Unit Price Price Price: A.0 X X X Time Schedule: B.0 X X X Cost Cost: C.0 X X Qualifications Prequalification: X P.0 Past Project Performance: P.1 X X Key Personnel Experience: P.2 X X Subcontractor Information: P.3 X X Project Management Plans: P.4 X X Safety Record/Plan: X X X P.5 Quality Quality Management: Q.0 X X X Design Alternates Design with Proposed Alternate: D.0 X X Technical Proposal Responsiveness: D.1 X Environmental Considerations: D.2 X X Rating System Adjectival or Modified Satisficing Direct Point Scoring Satisficing