Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 65


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 64
54 Table 20 AGENCY APPROACHES TO MARKET RESEARCH, PARTNERING, AND PROCUREMENT Question Yes No Sometimes During the procurement phase for a PBMC, does your agency identify potential bidders and their 8 1 1 capabilities? (80%) (10%) (10%) Do you interview industry leaders to obtain their input before drafting an RFP for a PBMC 5 2 3 procurement? (50%) (20%) (30%) Do you issue Requests for Information to learn more about what a PBMC entails from the private sector 2 6 2 point of view? (20%) (60%) (20%) Do you issue a RFQ or LOI with a request for supporting qualifications before issuing an RFP for a 1 6 3 PBMC? (10%) (60%) (30%) Do you issue an announcement of forthcoming procurements regarding an RFP and allow questions and 5 5 0 answers prior to the issuance of an RFP? (50%) (50%) (0%) 9 0 1 Do you hold one or more pre-proposal conferences and respond to both oral and written questions? (90%) (0%) (10%) Do you allow potential contractors to have individual discussions with a PBMC technical program 3 5 2 manager in advance of issuing an RFP? (30%) (50%) (20%) Do you provide baseline inventory and condition data to potential bidders either in advance of issuing 7 1 2 the procurement or as a part of the RFP? (70%) (10%) (20%) Do you allow potential bidders to inspect the facilities they may be responsible for maintaining to deter- 10 mine the accuracy of the baseline inventory and condition data and estimate the cost of doing different 0 0 types of maintenance work on the road that will be covered by the PBMC? (100%) Do you seek agreement with bidders that the performance measures that will be used are practical to 1 9 0 apply and will yield measurements consistent with the project objectives the agency is trying to achieve? (10%) (90%) (0%) Do you seek agreement with bidders that the incentives and disincentives incorporated in the PBMC are 2 5 3 reasonable? (20%) (50%) (30%) 1 6 3 Do you have prospective bidders review and comment on the draft RFP? (10%) (60%) (30%) Is developing a strong partnership between your agency and the contractor an essential part of your 7 1 2 approach to a PBMC and is the importance of partnering reflected in all your procurement announce- ments and the RFP? (70%) (10%) (20%) Note: The number of responses to each question sums to only 10, even though 11 agencies said they have done PBMC. One agency did not complete these questions. The second question was "Do you seek agreement with different maintenance activities on those sections. LOS bidders that the incentives and disincentives incorporated in refers to either the condition of an asset or the service level the performance-based contract are reasonable? If not, why that is achieved--for example, roughness of pavement (an not?" Responses from five agencies appear in Table 22. asset) or grass height resulting from mowing (a service). Typically, the LOS for each type of asset and service is scored on a scale of 0 (worst possible) to 100 (best possible) MAINTENANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE AND and the results weighted to achieve a composite LOS score, BENCHMARKING also on a scale of 0 to 100. Respondents were asked questions about the degree they NCHRP Project 14-13 resulted in a guide on customer- used two resources developed under other NCHRP projects: driven benchmarking for maintenance activities. Bench- (1) Web Document 8: Highway Maintenance Quality Assur- marking is defined as using outcome, output, and input ance (Smith et al. 1997) and (2) Guide for Customer-driven measures along with factors outside an agency's control to Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities (Hyman 2006). identify best performers and their corresponding business As discussed, the NCHRP Highway Maintenance Quality processes and work methods, which by definition are best Assurance project involves random sampling of highway practices. Customer-driven benchmarking focuses on cus- sections and periodically measuring the LOS resulting from tomer-driven outcomes (Hyman 2004).