Experiences of Federal Agencies with the Design-Build Approach to Construction (1993)

Presented below are summaries of the completed questionnaires that were submitted by the various agencies. The information is mostly in the form in which it was received; however, some information has been edited to facilitate making comparisons between different projects and to eliminate extraneous or duplicative comments. Also, only the “Overall” ratings for Ouality, Costs, and Time are shown in the evaluation tables. The ratings for the narrower categories under these broad headings were left off to avoid presenting excess information.

The average ratings shown under the heading “Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project” are on a scale of 0 to 10. They were calculated by multiplying the ratings shown in the evaluation tables for each project by the following weighting factors: much worse=0; somewhat worse=2.5; about the same=5; somewhat better=7.5; and much better=10--and then finding the average.

Agency: Air Force

Project Description: Headquarters building; 218,00 sq. ft.; three stories.

Project Complexity: Medium (many users; security; vaults; special communications requirements).

Project Location: Belleville, Illinois.

Year of Contract Award: 1987.

Type of Contract: “Not to exceed ” cost.

Method of Contractor Selection: Selection was based on management plan proposal plus “not to exceed” cost.

Amount of Contract: $17.2 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Five.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Design-build specialist.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Major items of work designed to approximately 35%, with complete specifications.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Three stories.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Original design was bid twice and all bids were well over funds available.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43

Comments: Design time was extended because design-build team had never worked together and did not communicate well at first.

Agency: Air Force

Project Description: Cryptologic support center; 129,000 sq. ft. addition and alteration; 13,900 sq. ft. renovation.

Project Complexity: High (clean rooms; labs; anechoic test chambers; and physical and electronic security).

Project Location: San Antonio, Texas.

Year of Contract Award: 1988.

Type of Contract: “Not to exceed” cost.

Method of Contractor Selection: Selection was based on management plan proposal plus “not to exceed” cost.

Amount of Contract: $15.6 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Seven.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor/A-E firm team.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Major items of work designed to approximately 35%, with complete specs.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Physical and electronic security; siting problems; and multi-buildings.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save time; project need date was critical.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 5.71

Comments: Many user changes during project life caused by many different opinions on what should be in the project.

Agency: Air Force

Project Description: B-1B avionics facility; 89,600 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium (large clean room with cooling water and vacuum system).

Project Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Year of Contract Award: 1988.

Type of Contract: “Not to exceed” cost.

Method of Contractor Selection: Only one proposal received; it met all requirements and was within funding limit.

Amount of Contract: $8.7 million.

Number of Proposals Received: One.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor and A-E firm as team.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Major items of work designed to approximately 35%, with complete specifications.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: None.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save time; project was a late starter with a critical need date.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.25

Comments: None.

Agency: Air Force

Project Description: Student officer housing; 192,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Low.

Project Location: San Antonio, Texas.

Year of Contract Award: 1988.

Type of Contract: “Not to exceed” cost.

Method of Contractor Selection: Selection was based on management plan proposal plus “not to exceed” cost.

Amount of Contract: $13.3 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Unknown.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor and A-E firm as team.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Major items of work designed to approximately 35%, with complete specifications.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: None.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Wanted to take advantage of contractors experience in “state-of-the-art” building concepts.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.79

Comments: None.

Agency: General Services Administration

Project Description: Office building; 28 floors; 600,000 net sq. ft.; 857,000 gross sq. ft.

Project Complexity: High (concrete structures with granite facings; fast food service; conference center; health facilities; computer center; underground parking; day care center; fast track schedule).

Project Location: Chicago, Illinois.

Year of Contract Award: 1988.

Type of Contract: Fixed price (Converted from a 30-year lease-purchase arrangement).

Method of Contractor Selection: Negotiated procurement; source selection; greatest value concept, with technical factors given more weight than price.

Amount of Contract: $153.9 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Four.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Owner-developer.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Concept stage (15%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Developer was to purchase land; design, and provide financing, approximate $42,300,000.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save time; top GSA management believed that it could be completed faster.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 5.00

Comments: None.

Agency: General Services Administration

Project Description: Office building; 974,000 gross sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium.

Project Location: New York, NY.

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Guaranteed Maximum Price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source selection (greater value--technical proposal evaluation).

Amount of Contract: $276 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 13.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Developer.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Concept design (15%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: None.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Developer desired due to enormity of project.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 4.5

Comments: None.

Agency: General Services Administration.

Project Description: Courthouse; 921,000 gross sq.ft.

Project Complexity: High.

Project Location: New York, NY.

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Guaranteed maximum price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source selection (greatest value--technical proposal evaluation).

Amount of Contract: $241 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 13.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Developer.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Concept design (15%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Courthouse design requirements.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Developer desired due to enormity of project.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average Rating = 4.5.

Comments: None.

Agency: General Services Administration

Project Description: Federal building/courthouse; 90,000 occupiable sq. ft.

Project Complexity: High.

Project Location: White Plains, NY.

Year of Contract Award: 1992.

Type of Contract: Fixed price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source selection (greatest value--technical proposal evaluation).

Amount of Contract: $32.5 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 9.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Consortium (point venture)

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Concept design (15%.)

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Courthouse design.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Project designated for design-build test.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average Rating = 4.5.

Comments: Time savings by design-build lost due to extended procurement time due to source selection.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Installation of heating equipment in various facilities to replace a central heating plant.

Project Complexity: Medium (project involved making heating load calculations to retrofit boilers, coils, piping, and controls in existing buildings).

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Year of Contract Award: 1986.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus-fixed-fee with a bonded negotiated fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation panel, based on technical and cost proposals (criteria: project, design, and construction management; technical, construction, phasing, and scheduling approach, and key personnel).

Amount of Contract: $0.7 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Seven.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Conceptual approach on how to retrofit individual buildings; approximately 10% design, and possible equipment selection.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Coordinating the phasing out of the central heating plant with the simultaneous installation of the new equipment.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Because it permitted simultaneous design and installation of equipment in the various facilities.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 8.75

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Office building addition, 3 stories; 34,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium (project included system furniture; private offices; premise wiring; paging and area warning).

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Year of Contract Award: 1987.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus fixed-fee with a bonded fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation board, based on technical and cost proposals (Criteria: project, design, and construction management; technical and construction approach, and key personnel).

Amount of Contract: $4.0 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Six.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General Contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Preliminary engineering report (20%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Work stations (system furniture); premise wiring; paging and area warning.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save money; the costs to the government were expected to be lower. Also, the facility requirements were well defined.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 8.93

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Operations support office building; 6 stories; 300,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium (project included with systems furniture; private offices; premise wiring; paging and area warning).

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Year of Contract Award: 1988.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus fixed-fee with a bonded fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation board, based on technical and cost proposals (criteria: project, design, and construction management; technical and construction approach; and key personnel).

Amount of Contract: $25.0 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Seven.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Preliminary engineering report (20%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Work station quantity; premise wiring; paging and area warning.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To get “more building for the money”; also, the facility requirements were well defined.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 9.64

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Orbiter processing facility expansion; 2 stories, 61,000 sq. ft. addition; 21,400 sq. ft. rehabilitation of existing annex.

Project Complexity: High. (1st floor highly technical with clean room, vacuum system, compressed air, premise wiring, paging and area warning).

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida

Year of Contract Award: 1989.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus-fixed-fee with a bonded fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation board, based on technical and cost proposals (criteria: project, design, and construction management; technical and construction approach; and key personnel).

Amount of Contract: $7.4 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Seven.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Study (20%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: 1st floor, laboratory-type, clean room, vacuum system, premise wiring, paging and area warning, logistics areas and computer area.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To get “more building for the money”; also the facility requirements were well defined.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 9.29

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Canister rotation facility; 6,480 sq. ft., 140 ft. high.

Project Complexity: High (facility includes 100 ton crane; clean-room-type HVAC; special trunnion support; and class 100,000 clean area.

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus-fixed-fee with a bonded fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation panel, based on separate technical and cost proposals (criteria: project, design, and construction management; technical and construction approach; key personnel; and crane manufacturers resources).

Amount of Contract: $6.4 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Three.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Preliminary engineering report (20%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: High bay (140 ft.) with a 100 ton crane, trunnions for rotation, clean room HVAC.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save money; also the facility requirements were well defined and no changes in requirements were expected.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 8.21

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Project Description: Processing control center; 3 stories; 99,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: High (project included underfloor computer-type HVAC; raised floor; premise wiring; paging and area warning; fire detection; and pre-action sprinkler).

Project Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus-fixed-fee with a bonded fixed-price cap.

Method of Contractor Selection: Source evaluation panel; based on technical and cost proposals (criteria: project, design, and construction management; and technical and construction approach).

Amount of Contract: $11.2 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Six.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Design-builder.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Preliminary engineering report (20%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Raised floor, under-floor air conditioning, premise wiring, paging and area warning, pre-action sprinkler.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To get “more building for the money”; also the facility requirements were well defined.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 8.57

Comments: Planning and programming time was somewhat worse than for a traditional project because of time required to select contractor (9 months).

Agency: U.S. Postal Service

Project Description: Mail delivery distribution center; 138,695 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium-high (while the building is quite simple, certain site restrictions made project difficult; see unusual aspects below).

Project Location: Redmond, Washington.

Year of Contract Award: 1990.

Type of Contract: Fixed price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Proposals were reviewed to ensure they met solicitation requirements; those that did, were rated for various factors, establishing a competitive range; cost proposals were opened for those in competitive range. Low cost then determined successful contractor.

Amount of Contract: $7.7 million (award).

Number of Proposals Received: Not indicated.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General Contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 10%.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Pile foundation; structural slab; pre-engineered roof structure and roof system; 3,000 gallons domestic water storage; 120,000 gallons fire water storage; city street improvement; and card access system.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To award design quickly (for budgetary reasons) and to shorten time for entire project.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 4.64

Comments: None.

Agency: U.S. Postal Service

Project Description: Mail delivery distribution center; 137,802 sq.ft.

Project Complexity: Low-medium (project was developed to avoid wetlands, located on site).

Project Location: Kent, Washington.

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Guaranteed maximum price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Proposals were reviewed to ensure they met solicitation requirements; those that did, were rated for various factors, establishing a competitive range; cost proposals were opened for those in competitive range. Low cost then determined successful contractor.

Amount of Contract: $6.3 million (award).

Number of Proposals Received: Not indicated.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Design-build contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 10%.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Wetlands on site; structural slab; card access system.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To award design quickly (for budgetary reasons) and to shorten time for entire project.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43

Comments: None.

Agency: U.S. Postal Service

Project Description: Vehicle maintenance facility (47,945 sq.ft); and parking structure (392,922 sq.ft.).

Project Complexity: Medium (project is on a undersized urban site; vehicle maintenance facility is somewhat complex in nature).

Project Location: Seattle, Washington.

Year of Contract Award: 1990.

Type of Contract: Fixed price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Design competition; an honorarium was paid to prequalified contractors. Technical proposals and price proposals were given equal weight.

Amount of Contract: $14.0 million (award).

Number of Proposals Received: Three.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 10%.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Pile foundation; closed circuit TV security system; card access system.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To award design quickly (for budgetary reasons) and to shorten time for entire project.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43

Comments: None.

Agency: U.S. Postal Service

Project Description: Combination general mail facility (678,000 sq. ft.) and vehicle maintenance facility (20,000 sq. ft.); 2 stories.

Project Complexity: High (1. site was landfill and require venting; 2. complex mechanical system).

Project Location: New York City.

Year of Contract Award: 1989.

Type of Contract: Guaranteed maximum price (GMP), with cost incentives (savings below GMP shared); no schedule incentives.

Method of Contractor Selection: Two-step selection: (1) qualifications evaluated; (2) contractor chosen based on plans submitted by qualified offerors--evaluated using standard USPS criteria.

Amount of Contract: Initially $134.0 million; now $139.0 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Two.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor (NYC area).

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 10% concept design, with guide specifications, special criteria and landfill plan.

Unusual Aspects of the Project: NYC labor rules; landfill site; pile-supported 2-story building; foundation/structural work started before GMP set.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To: (1) minimize delays and claims; (2) centralize responsibility for design decisions, especially detail design.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 2.14

Comments: Quality of both design and construction were poor unless work was monitored; contractor became uncooperative and claims-happy when he realized his GMP was too low.

Agency: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Project Description: Office building; 177,000 gross sq. ft. with 80 underground parking spaces.

Project Complexity: Medium (simple structure with complex site and program).

Project Location: Pasadena, California.

Year of Contract Award: 1984.

Type of Contract: Cost-plus fixed fee with guaranteed maximum price.

Method of Contractor Selection: Evaluated on basis of qualifications of the contractor and his A-E team (no cost discussions).

Amount of Contract: $17.0 million.

Number of Proposals Received: One.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General Contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: None (specified site, scope and budget).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Project was not government funded.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: To save time and money.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 7.86

Comments: Change orders and other contract problems were minimized by having the general contractor be responsible for the design.

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Project Description: Commissary (store & warehouse); 90,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: Medium (very limited data was given to the designer--not even square footage--but construction was mostly straightforward).

Project Location: Boston, Massachusetts.

Year of Contract Award: 1989.

Type of Contract: Lump Sum.

Method of Contractor Selection: Proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation team on the basis of designs, drawings and descriptions, specs, color boards, schedule, qualifications, and cost.

Amount of Contract: $9.0 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Four.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Joint venture--design firm and general contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 10%

Unusual Aspects of the Project: The design-build contractor was given only minimal functional requirements.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Not indicated.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 7.14

Comments: When this project was approximately 80% complete, it was transferred from one Corps Division to another.

Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers.

Project Description: Youth activity center.

Project Complexity: Low technical complexity; medium function complexity.

Project Location: Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

Year of Contract Award: 1987.

Type of Contract: Design build; fixed-fee.

Method of Contractor Selection: One-step selection based on reponses to request for proposals developed by private A-E.

Amount of Contract: $2.1 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 5.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Joint venture (contractor and A-E).

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: (15%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Nonappropriated funds.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Design build is better and cheaper than traditional approach when nonappropriated funds are used.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 5.5.

Comments: None.

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Project Description: Dining Facility.

Project Complexity: Medium.

Project Location: Robbins AFB, Georgia.

Year of Contract Award: 1987.

Type of Contract: Design build; fixed-fee.

Method of Contractor Selection: One-step selection based on responses to request for proposals developed by private AE.

Amount of Contract: $5.2 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 7.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Joint venture (contractor and A-E).

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: (25%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: None.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Directed by Congress.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.0.

Comments: None.

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Project Description: Special operations headquarters.

Project Complexity: High

Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Year of Contract Award: 1991.

Type of Contract: Design build; fixed-fee.

Method of Contractor Selection: One-step selection based on responses to request for proposals developed by private A-E.

Amount of Contract: $25.5 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 5.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Joint venture (contractor and A-E).

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: (30%).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: Special security requirements.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Directed by Congress.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 1.875

Comments: This project was/is probably our worst design-build project; environmental delays (wood-pecker endangerment) caused one year delay in notice to proceed and changes in user requirements caused changes in design.

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Project Description: Comprehensive health care center.

Project Complexity: High.

Project Location: McConnel AFB, Kansas.

Year of Contract Award: 1992.

Type of Contract: Design/build, fixed-price.

Method of Contractor Selection: One-step selection based on responses to request for proposal developed by private A-E.

Amount of Contract: $16.7 million.

Number of Proposals Received: 8.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Joint venture (contractor and A-E and medical equipment supplier).

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: 80% (design taken from previously completed project).

Unusual Aspects of the Project: None.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: Directed by Congress.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 5.36

Comments: None.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project Description: Outpatient clinic; 74,000 sq. ft.

Project Complexity: High (clinics, labs, surgery).

Project Location: VA Medical Center, Martinez, California.

Year of Contract Award: 1992.

Type of Contract: Competitive negotiation, lump sum.

Method of Contractor Selection: Competitive negotiation based on firm's qualifications and experience with similar facilities, along with the proposed cost. No design submission required, just adherence to specification and criteria. (VA had completed essentially design development drawings and performance/prescriptive specification.)

Amount of Contract: $11.4 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Eight.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: General contractor.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Design development drawings plus a specification, 50%

Unusual Aspects of the Project: VA hospital was closed. We needed to construct clinical space fast to treat veterans.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: We used design-build to save time.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 7.14

Comments: See project No. 27.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project Description: Modular transitional bed buildings (2); 60,000 sq. ft. total.

Project Complexity: Medium-high (hospital bedrooms and nurses stations).

Project Location: VA Medical Center, Palo Alto, California.

Year of Contract Award: 1990.

Type of Contract: Competitive negotiation, lump sum.

Method of Contractor Selection: Competitive negotiation based on firm's qualifications and experience with similar facilities, along with the proposed cost. No design submission required, just adherence to specification and criteria. (VA had completed essentially design development drawings and performance/prescriptive specification but design level drawings weren't done.)

Amount of Contract: $5.4 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Two.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Modular building manufacturer.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Floor plan and specification, 20%

Unusual Aspects of the Project: A VA hospital building was damaged in an earthquake, we needed to provide beds fast to avoid overcrowding other buildings.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: We used design-build to save time.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43

Comments: See project No. 27.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project Description: Modular transitional clinic buildings (2); 30,000 sq.ft. total.

Project Complexity: High (clinical labs).

Project Location: VA Medical Center, Palo Alto, California.

Year of Contract Award: 1990.

Type of Contract: Competitive negotiation, lump sum.

Method of Contractor Selection: Competitive negotiation based on firm's qualifications and experience with similar facilities, along with the proposed cost. No design submission required, just adherence to specification and criteria. (VA had completed essentially design development drawings and performance/prescriptive specification, but design level drawings weren't done).

Amount of Contract: $5.75 million.

Number of Proposals Received: Three.

Type of Firm to Which Contract Awarded: Modular building manufacturer.

Extent to Which Design Was Developed Before Contract Was Awarded: Floor plan and specification 20%

Unusual Aspects of the Project: A VA hospital building was damaged in an earthquake. We needed to provide beds fast to avoid overcrowding other buildings.

Why Design-Build Approach Was Used: We used design-build to save time.

Subjective Comparison to Traditional Project: Average rating = 6.43

Comments: General. We have found design-build to be a great time saver in getting projects built. By essentially completing design development we have

avoided criticism from the industry that the cost of preparing proposals is prohibitive. We got such complaints on a design-build parking garage project at the VA medical center in Nashville, where we asked proposers to provide a design with their offer. We will probably not do that again. We feel design-build works on federal projects only when full funding is generated prior to the start of design. One of the best advantages of the design-build approval is that it allows the use of quality as a selection factor. We insist on quality firms, and the selected firms seem to be very intent on providing good work because they recognize that it may help them get future projects with VA where quality is a selection factor.