Click for next page ( 28


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 27
27 Table 9. Largo Extension Price Proposal Struc- WMATA's provided precaution in protecting proprie- ture tary, pricing, and technical information in the proposal process. In the event that participants detect inconsis- Base Proposal Item De- Amount tencies in the project requirements, the contract assigns scription the following order of precedence for the documents: All Work Lump sum (to be 1. Change Orders and Contract Amendments. determined by pro- 2. Section 00500: Agreement and Section 00600: Bonds poser) and Certificates. Authority Share of Part- $20,000 3. Section 04450: Representations and Certifications. nering Cost* 4. Section 00800: Special Provisions. Authority Share of Dis- 5. Section 00700: General Conditions. $50,000 putes Review Cost* 6. Division 01, General Requirements. Safety Awareness Program 7. Contract-Specific Mandatory Drawings and Specifi- $500,000 Costs cations. Schedule Incentives $900,000 8. WMATA's Design Criteria. Allowance for Fiber Optics $600,000 9. Standard Drawings and Specifications. Allowance for Spare Parts $2,000,000 10. Design-Builder's Accepted Technical Proposal. BASE PROPOSAL To be determined PRICE (TBD) Design Review *Design-builder portion of partnering and dispute The contract stipulates a two-phased design review: review costs are part of lump sum bid. Intermediate Review and Final Review. The design re- OPTIONS* AMOUNT view includes specifications, drawings, and submittals. A--Reduced Excava- TBD WMATA was to review design submittals solely to as- tion/Aerial certain their conformance to the Mandatory Docu- ments. The Mandatory Documents as defined by the B--Retained Fill TBD RFP are: C--Reduced Excava- TBD tion/Retained Fill** Division 00, Proposing and Contracting Require- D--6-Month Extension TBD ments. E--9-Month Extension TBD Division 01, General Requirements. *Proposers choose option A or C and option D or E. Division 02 to 16, Specifications. **Option C may only be selected if option B is as well. WMATA Design Criteria. WMATA Construction Safety Manual. WMATA evaluated the proposals based on the Base WMATA Insurance Requirements. Proposal Price plus the price of options multiplied by a Volumes 1 to 5, Mandatory Drawings. factor (not given in the RFP). The factor allowed for All other documents incorporated by reference in Alternatives A or C and Alternatives D or E, with af- the above. fordability as a key consideration. At first, each of the proposers submitted proposals WMATA was to approve or disapprove submittals that exceeded the cost budget estimated by WMATA. when, in its sole judgment, those submittals deviated WMATA then requested that the proposers submit from the Mandatory Documents. The contract's General their BAFO. The BAFO adjusted the project milestones Conditions further indicate that WMATA's review, ap- so that final completion and acceptance had to be proval, or acceptance of submittals would not waive the achieved in 1,005 days from Notice to Proceed, a reduc- design-builder's responsibility for the quality, technical tion of 130 days (approximately 4 months) from the accuracy, and coordination of the design documents. duration indicated in the RFP, which in essence main- tained the original December 2004 completion date. Suspension and Termination After price negotiations, WMATA awarded the Contract The contract required liquidated damages if the de- 2 work through a DB contract to LGS. sign-builder does not achieve the project work within the specified period of performance or if the design- Key Contract Provisions builder does not meet project milestones. Table 10 shows the sum per day for each calendar day that con- Ownership of Documents stitutes a delay in the project schedule. The request for proposal and contract documents does not address ownership of documents beyond

OCR for page 27
28 Table 10. Largo Extension Milestones and Liquidated Damages Sum per calen- Milestone Description Required Date dar day Complete service rooms Duct connections to service rooms Notice to Proceed 1 Full access to station contractor to al- (NTP) + 564 $1,500 low commencement of Contract 3 2 Complete energization of line NTP + 765 $1,500 Achievement of Operations Readiness $4,500 3 NTP + 975 (ORD) Date (ORD) Final Completion and Acceptance December 30, 2004 As-built drawings (Note: After the 4 Manuals RFP, the date was $1,500 Punch list items changed to November 30, 2004) The contract stipulated that WMATA has the au- Dispute Resolution thority to extend the period of performance as often as The contract required the use of a DRB as the first and in time periods deemed necessary by the perform- stage in resolving contractual or process disputes re- ance of the work. It also had a preestablished table that lated to the project work. Each party was obligated to identified expected dates of adverse weather for each pay 50 percent of the costs of the DRB. Disputes that month of the year. These days were to be the responsi- could not be resolved at the DRB level were ultimately bility of the design-builder and factored into its sched- to be brought by the complaining party to the Armed ule. Adverse weather conditions exceeding the desig- Services Board of Contract Appeals. nated number of days were to be a risk borne by The contract also required the development of a WMATA. partnership charter to encourage cooperation among The contract stipulated that should a suspension of the owner, design-builder, lead design professional, and work order be issued in the life of the project and sub- principal subcontractors and suppliers. While the estab- sequently canceled, the design-builder must resume lishment of such a charter does not negate the legal work. The contract has provisions for an equitable ad- relationship of the parties, it is meant to achieve the justment to the project schedule, price, or combination following goals: thereof and any other contract provisions affected by the suspension in the event that 1. For the owner and design-builder to establish a cohe- sive partnership with the objective to build a quality 1. The suspension results in an increase in schedule or product on time, at a satisfactory cost to the owner and cost to the design-builder in performance of the con- a satisfactory profit to the design-builder. tract, and 2. To establish trust and open communication for the 2. The design-builder submits a claim within 30 days of life of the project. resuming work. 3. To develop an understanding for the management of the project. Contractor Proposed Changes in Standards or 4. To resolve disputes. Requirements 5. To avoid disputes and confrontation. The contract included provisions for design-builder submissions of VECPs in the design phase of the pro- Other Provisions ject. The provisions stipulated that WMATA will accept The contract included a safety awareness program VECPs according to the following conditions: requires provision that provides incentives to the design-builder significant change to contract and mandatory docu- for positive safety performance. The design-builder was ments, decreases contract price, maintains contract to share in an incentive value worth 1 percent of the requirements, does not require an unacceptable exten- Base Proposal Price or contract value upon the date of sion to schedule, and passes a 2-phase review and eval- completion (whichever is higher). To determine the in- uation process. Phase 1 involved conditional approval centive, the contract employed a formula for determin- and Phase 2 involved final approval. WMATA was to ing IR on the job site. The contract assumed a base IR share the savings with the design-builder 50/50 based of 4.0. The actual IR at the date of substantial comple- on net savings. tion is computed using the following formula: