Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
102 This appendix presents the details of each case listed in Table 21, chapter five. The objective of this appendix is to portray the specific characteristics and IDIQ contracting procedures of the cases in a manner that gives the reader the background to understand how each contractâs features contributed to the analysis reported in this synthesis report. Details of each case are presented in a standard manner to allow an easy comparison of procuring and administrative procedures between contracts. The presentation of these details vary slightly for multiple award IDIQ contracts (Cases 1 and 6) by adding a section for work order placement procedures and indicating the number of awardees. Similarly, case 7 reports the details of a single work order and as a result does not follow the standard format of the previous six cases. In Cases 1 through 5, contract details were obtained through structured interviews (either in-person or telephonically) with the agency and then complemented by a comprehensive review of contract documents. Case 4 was developed through formal content analysis techniques in solicitation documents. On the other hand, Case 6 corresponds to a work order previously analyzed by two of the authors when developing a synthesis report about expedited procurement procedures. Collection and processing of data for this project followed the same procedures of the first five cases. ROADWAY SURFACING, RESURFACING, AND REPAIRâCENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION This contract provides an example of a typical federal multiple award IDIQ contract. Although CFLHD has been using this alternative contracting approach to procure construction and maintenance services for five years, it is important to understand that this agencyâs contracting practices are based on the FAR, which are a product of the an extensive IDIQ experience available in the federal contracting realm. Like all federal agencies, FHWA procurement procedures are regulated by the FAR, which âis expected to reflect optimum practices from years of experience of all U.S. federal organizationsâ (Gransberg and Rueda 2014). Therefore, the following case should be considered as representative of effective IDIQ contracting procedures at the federal level. Case 1âCFLHD: Roadway Surfacing, Resurfacing, and Repair IDIQ Contract Terminology: Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Work Order Terminology: Task Order IDIQ Contracting Model: Multiple Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: $50,000 per awardee. Maximum Value: $35,000,000 per awardee. Minimum Value per Work Order: $50,000 Maximum Value per Work Order: $7,500,000 Number of Awardees: 3 (three) Project Delivery Method: DB Appendix d idiQ Contract examplesâCase details
103 Scope: This MATOC was used by CFLHD to reduce the project delivery period in roadway surfacing, resurfacing, and repair projects in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Northern California. It was restricted to roads owned and operated by the National Park Service. The scope of work for task orders may include, but are not limited to, the following construction services: âtraffic control (permanent and temporary), contractor sampling and testing, asphalt milling, profile grinding, asphalt paving, thin asphalt overlays, patching, crack & joint sealing for flexible and rigid pavements, chip seals, micro- surfacing, slurry seals, ultra-thin bonded wearing course, subexcavation, minor drainage improvements, placement of aggregate, roadway pulverization, grading, and slope stabilizationâ (CFLHD 2012). Advertise/Award Procedures: As shown in Table 24 (chapter five), CFLHD advertises the RFP for the contract along with a statement of work for the first task order. The RFP contains guidelines for contractors to prepare statements of qualifications that must be submitted simultaneously with price proposal for the first task order. Upon collection of bids, the agency proceeds to evaluate proposals based on a number of factors such as previous experience, logistic skills, qualifications, financial capability, and price proposals. âEvaluation factors for the technical proposal are approximately equal to priceâ (CFLHD 2012). In spite of the fact that contract language allows the selection of three or more firms whose proposals seem to provide the highest overall value for the agency, CFLHD interviewee mentioned that this agency usually awards three contractors. After using the price proposal for the first task order as the cost factor in the best-value procedure, these prices are used to select the low-bid for the first task order among successful bidders. Work Order Placement Procedures: Unlike what has been seen in multiple award IDIQ contracts awarded by state DOTs (as will be shown in Case 6), federal public owners use straightforward competitive work order placement procedures. Basically, CFLHD advertises task orders to a pool of eligible firms with guidelines for contractors to prepare price proposals that will be used to determine the low bid and award the task order. This process is repeated for each task order allowing contractors to submit up to date prices for each project and eliminating the need for escalation clauses. Work Order Development: Table 24 also shows the complete task order development process. In addition to the work order placement procedure described above, the flow chart contained in this table shows an optional jobsite visit with awarded contractors in order for them to get a better understanding of each work order to prepare more responsive price proposals. Payment Provisions: This contract uses fixed price task orders in accordance with price proposals submitted by contractors for each project. Mobilization Clauses: The use of competitive task orders allows contractors to bid prices for mobilization in accordance with the specific requirements of each project. Price Escalation Clauses: As mentioned before, the use of competitive procedures to award task orders eliminates the need for price escalation clauses since contractors bid up to date prices for each task order. Summary: This case shows typical IDIQ procurement practices implemented by transportation agencies at the federal level, specifically the benefit and implications associated to multiple award contracts regulated by the FAR. In addition to the benefits typically associated with high competitive environments, such as lower price proposals (Carr 1983), this case showed how the use of competitive work orders reduces the high uncertainty perceived by contractors in IDIQ procedures. The preparation of price proposals on a work order basis allows contractors to bid up to date prices in accordance with the requirements and characteristics of each project such as location, type of work, and work quantities. The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract. By implementing competitive work orders, the agency eliminates the need for escalation and mobilization clauses in the base IDIQ contract allowing those two costs to be specific to the scope for each work order. Advertising the contract along with the statement of work for the first work order allows CFLHD to evaluate biddersâ technical capabilities and conduct efficient best-value selection procedures.
104 Optional jobsite visits create an opportunity for pool contractors to better understand project requirements allowing them to prepare more responsive proposals per work order. Setting the minimum guaranteed value of the contract equal to the minimum value per task order allows the owner to commit to issue no more than one task order, while still providing to contractors an incentive to submit low price proposals. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT This case corresponds to a state DOT with great experience in IDIQ contracting. Currently, New York State DOT manages a number of programs intended to acquire supplies and/or services through the issuance of work orders. In addition to executing job order contracts (one of its terms for IDIQ) to procure construction and maintenance services, which this agency has been doing for about eleven years, New York State DOT also uses on-call contracts for design and engineering services. Although it seems to be a small contract for minor maintenance activities, Case 7, which is also from New York State DOT, will show that this transportation agency also uses this contracting approach for larger construction projects. The total cost of the work order in Case 7 is even larger than the maximum possible value for the entire contract presented below. Case 2âNew York State DOT: Bridge Maintenance for Various Routes IDIQ Contract Terminology: Job Order Contract (JOC) Work Order Terminology: Job Order IDIQ Contracting Model: Single Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: $50,000 Maximum Value: $1,200,000 Minimum Value per Work Order: A minimum value per work order was not established for this contract. Maximum Value per Work Order: $500,000 Project Delivery Method: DBB Scope: In view of the ineffectiveness observed in the use of traditional DBB contracting techniques to procure highway maintenance services, the New York State DOT decided to implement alternative IDIQ methodologies to improve their contracting practices for this type of project (NYSDOT 2007a). This case is part of a set of bridge maintenance/repair JOCs that constitute a three-year pilot program approved for federal funding on December 2007 through the Special Experimental Project No. 14âAlternative Contracting (SEP-14) (NYSDOT 2012). Work has included red flag culvert repairs, steel repairs, gusset plate repairs, and scour repairs in three of the seven counties that in Region 9 (see Figure D1).
105 FIGURE D1 Case 2âContract locations (NYSDOT 2009). Advertise/Award Procedures:This contract uses a straightforward IFBâa low-bid procurement process (see Table 25 in chapter five), but slightly different from traditional low-bid selection procedures. Instead of submitting unit prices in response to the IFB, interested contractors are required to bid two different adjustment factors to be applied to asset of unit prices for different work items contained within a Construction Task Catalog, which are intended to include all pay items to be required to perform work under all job orders. These adjustment factors are intended to represent contractorsâ profit and overhead under two different working conditions; Normal Working Hours and Other Than Normal Working Hours. âThe Adjustment Factor for Normal Working Hours includes work conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Adjustment Factor for Other Than Normal Work Hours includes work conducted from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, any time Saturday, Sunday, or a Holiday, or when the Department can only provide site access for a work day of less than 7 hoursâ (NYSDOT 2009). To select the low bid, the extended price (unit price x bid quantity) for each item in the Construction Task Catalog is multiplied by these adjustment factors in accordance with the expected use to be given to each factor throughout the contract. Then, adjusted extended prices are totaled and these totals are used to select the lowest price proposal. It is important to note that bid quantities are stated by the agency only for selecting purposes. Work Order Development: Table 25 (chapter five) shows the detail process followed by New York State DOT to develop each job order under this contract. An important aspect to be highlighted in Table 25 is the high level of interaction and communication between the agency and the contractor. The first part of this process corresponds to a Joint Scope Meeting in which both parties have the opportunity to discuss the scope and requirements of each project. During the development of the job order, there are two other occasions when the agency and the contractor can discuss project-related issues; when sending the draft of the detailed scope of work to the contractor for his/her revision and upon submission of the proposal by the contractor. The main element of this proposal is the project schedule which will determine the use of each adjustment factor. Table 25 describes a high interactive contracting system as recommended by some authors and studies found while conducting the literature review (OFPP 1997; Thornton 2002). When reviewing this case, it can be concluded that this type of relationships may be more easily established in single award IDIQ contracts. Reviewing input from multiple firms in a multiple award contract can be a complex process and may negatively impact the relationship between the agency and awardees. Payment Provisions: In a similar manner as used to select the low bid, adjustment factors are used to establish a fixed price per work order. Proposals submitted by the selected contractor for each work order (see Table 25) must include a price proposal calculated using unit prices contained in the Construction Task Catalog and the project schedule prepared by the contractor. Thus, the price for each work item is calculated by multiplying its unit price by
106 the estimated work quantity by the appropriate adjustment factor (unit price x estimated quantity x adjustment factor). Finally, all adjusted extended prices are totaled and this value is used to establish the fixed price for the project. Mobilization Clauses: In this contract New York State DOT compensates contractors for mobilization expenses in three different ways. First, the Construction Task Catalog contains some mobilization pay items for different special equipment; thus, a given mobilization pay item is considered to pricing a job order only when its respective piece of equipment is required to complete the project. Second, some relevant unit prices include mobilization costs. Finally, other mobilization costs that the contractor considers not covered by the two options mentioned before are expected to be covered by the adjustment factors, so firms must consider this aspect when submitting their factors. Price Escalation Clauses: This contract allows the adjustment of bid adjustment factors over time. It can be made not more frequently than annually and by request of the contractor. New York State DOT uses the annual Construction Cost Index published by the ENR. Summary: The great experience of this agency (in comparison with other state DOTs) makes this case particularly important for this study since it allows a review of a mature IDIQ contracting system for single award IDIQ contracts. Although federal agencies usually have more experience acquiring goods and services through IDIQ techniques, these agencies do not usually execute single award IDIQ contracts for construction or maintenance services. As will be seen in Case 4, Missouri DOT has adopted an IDIQ approach similar to one described in this section, using adjustment factors and a Construction Task Catalog. During the interview conducted with Missouri DOT, it was clear the usefulness of this system helped to avoid unbalanced bids. The following is a list of efficient practices observed in this contract in relation to IDIQ contracting procedures. This contract provides a number of opportunities for New York State DOT to discuss project-related issues with the contractor, creating a highly interactive procurement system as recommended by some authors. The use of the Construction Task Catalog allows a greater budget control by New York State DOT, preventing bidders from submitting unbalanced bids The use of escalation clauses to modify adjustment factors over time allows the agency to execute multi- year contracts with less risk for the contractor. Additionally, unlike other price escalation clauses observed in this study, this contract allows the contractor to decide whether or not to modify adjustment factors on an annual basis, reducing a little more the risk assumed by the contractor. DESIGN-BUILD PUSH-BUTTON CONTRACT This contract has been referenced several times in the report for its particular characteristics. This is a three-year $20 million contract (maximum value) for safety improvement projects. This type of contract was created in an effort to combine the benefits of DB with the expeditious procedures of IDIQ techniques. It is similar to the multiple award federal contracts analyzed in Case 1 in some aspects, but this DB-PB contract was awarded to a single contractor. This is a unique contract that may be used as an example to show the inherent flexibility of this approach. Case 3âFlorida DOT: Design-Build Push-Button Contract IDIQ Contract Terminology: Design-Build Push-Button Contract (DB-PB) Work Order Terminology: Task Work Order IDIQ Contracting Model: Single Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: $12,500,000 (first task work order) Maximum Value: $20,000,000 Minimum Value per Work Order: A minimum value per work order was not established for this contract.
107 Maximum Value per Work Order: A maximum value per work order was not established for this contract. Project Delivery Method: DB Scope: Given the high sensitivity of safety-related projects, some agencies have made efforts to improve procurement practices for this type of project in order to avoid unnecessary delays resulting from complex contracting procedures. In view of the good results obtained from the use of DB contracts and the great capability of IDIQ techniques to compress project delivery periods, Florida DOT decided to combine these two approaches into a single DB-PB contract. When awarding this contract for District 7 the agency had already identified multiple potential projects and grouped them into 13 upcoming task work orders. For instance, the first task work order, which was advertised along with the contract, contained 11 different projects in different locations for a total cost of $12.5 million. Table 23 (chapter five) shows that this corresponds to the minimum guaranteed amount stated for this contract. This contract contains a broad scope allowing the contractor to perform several types of work. âThe type of projects that may be assigned under this Contract shall include, but not be limited to modifications and improvements to median openings, intersections, signing and pavement markings, traffic signals, highway lighting, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Elements of work may include roadways, structures, intersections, interchanges, geotechnical activities, surveys, drainage, signing and pavement markings, signalization, lighting, utility relocation, maintenance of traffic, cost estimates, environmental permits, quantity computation books, coordination, public involvement efforts, and all necessary incidental items for a complete projectâ (FDOT 2009). Figure D2 contains before and after photographs of several projects delivered by this contract. FIGURE D2 Case 3âAfter and before pictures (adapted from FDOT 2011). Advertise/Award Procedures: The process to advertise and award the contract was very similar to the one adopted by CFLHD for Case 1, but in this case, the agency used a single award IDIQ format. The Florida DOT advertised an RFP containing guidelines for interested contractors to prepare and submit bid packages that included both technical and price proposals. The latter included two elements: Bid Price Proposal for the first task work order. Master Pay Item List Pricing, which is intended to comprise all work items required for subsequent task work orders.
108 Pay items and bid quantities were provided by the agency. To evaluate bid packages using best-value techniques, Florida DOT first scored the technical aspects based on the criteria shown in Table D1. Finally, having evaluated the technical proposal, the agency used Equation D1 as the final selection formula to award the contract to the bidder that submitted the proposal with the lowest Adjusted Score. TABLE D1 CASE 3âTECHNICAL SCORE EVALUATION CRITERIA Item Value Design 25â40 Construction 25â40 Innovation 0â10 Value added 5â10 Maximum Score 80 (Eq. D1) Where: BPP = Bid Price Proposal for initial Task Order, ML = Master Item Lists Pricing, and TS = Technical Score. Work Order Development: The complete task work order development procedure used for this contract is presented in Table 26 in chapter five. The main difference between this procedure and those described for pervious cases is in the submission of final designs by the contractor for Florida DOT approval in order to proceed with the performance of the task work order. Payment Provisions: For this contract each task work order is priced using a fixed price determined by using a Master Pay Item List with the bid unit prices submitted by the successful contractor. The design cost portion for each task work order is compensated as a percentage of the construction cost. Along with the price proposal for the first task work order, the contractor should include three different design compensation rates for three different levels of complexity; low, medium, and high. âThe lowest percentage will represent the least complexity and the highest percentage will represent the highest complexityâ (FDOT 2009). Under any circumstances the compensation for design costs may exceed 20%. Initial proposal should specify the level of complexity for the first task work order. For all subsequent task work orders, design costs will be negotiated based on their level of complexity using the rates originally proposed. Mobilization Clauses: Florida DOT tackles this issue by asking proposers to submit a Maintenance of Traffic plus Mobilization (MOT + MOB) item for the first task work order. This item represents a percentage of the total proposed construction cost to be used in all task work orders; a percentage that must not exceed 20% and which will be used for all subsequent task work orders. Price Escalation Clauses: This contract provides for adjustments of contractorâs monthly payments using the PPI published by the BLS for Highway and Street Construction. However, during the first year of the contract this index was discontinued and combined with the one for Other Heavy Construction into a new index called Other Nonresidential Construction. Florida DOT makes payments for the price adjustment the month following the earnings. The adjusted price is calculated as presented in Equation D2. (Eq. D2) Where: PA = Payment Adjustment, CMPPI = Current Month Producer Price Index, LPPI = Letting Month Producer Price Index, and CME = Contractor Monthly Earnings.
109 Summary: In spite of the fact that this contract was mainly intended for relatively simple safety improvement projects, the large number of projects to be completed during the three-year period and the different types of work contained in the contract scope require certain technical and logistic skills from the contractor. Additionally, Florida DOT seems to be motivated to conduct a strict contractor selection process by the large size of the minimum guaranteed amount. In other words, it can be considered as a high risk contract in comparison with other IDIQ contracts executed by state agencies. Therefore, a stricter best-value selection process looks like a good strategy to mitigate this risk. The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract in relation with IDIQ contracting procedures. Best-value selection procedures were used as a risk mitigation strategy to ensure the selection of a firm with the required technical and logistic skills for a reasonable price. The compensation of design costs as a percentage of the construction cost allows Florida DOT to implement DB-IDIQ contracts with a simple way to compensate contractors for preconstruction activities. Moreover, the use of three different rates to be used in accordance with the complexity perceived in each task order provides a certain degree of flexibility required in a broad-scope contract such as this one. By grouping a number of small projects into a single task work order, the contractor may make a better use of its resources reducing overhead costs that would be transferred to the agency. ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPAIRâROUTE I-55/I-57 This contract uses adjustment factors submitted by the contractors to adjust a Construction Task Catalog in much the same fashion as the New York State DOT in Case 2. In many ways Missouri DOT IDIQ practices are similar to those described in Case 2. However, the contract presented below shows the application of these practices on a much smaller scale. In comparison with the $1.2 million ceiling of Case 2, this contract established a not-to-exceed amount of $125,000 for asphalt pavement repair activities. Case 4âMissouri DOT: Asphalt Pavement RepairâRoute I-55/I-57 IDIQ Contract Terminology: Job Order Contract Work Order Terminology: Job Order IDIQ Contracting Model: Single Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: A minimum guaranteed value was not established for this contract. Maximum Value: $125,000 Minimum Value per Work Order: A minimum value per work order was not established for this contract. Maximum Value per Work Order: A maximum value per work order was not established for this contract. Project Delivery Method: DBB Scope: âThe scope of this project is to provide asphalt pavement repair on an as needed basis in response to sudden occurrences, such as physical damage by the elements, or as a result of wear and tear. The work will be prescribed through individual Job Orders issued to the contractor by the engineer for each work locationâ (MoDOT 2010). Work conducted under this contract was limited to interstate route I-55 in Ste. Genevieve, Perry, Cape Girardeau, and Scott counties; and route I-57 in Mississippi County. Any work location under this contract is limited to a 2- mile section of roadway, âA 2-mile section shall be defined as 2 miles in one direction on a divided highway or 2 miles in both directions on an undivided highwayâ (MoDOT 2010).
110 Advertise/Award Procedures: The advertise/award process used in this contract is similar to the one used in by New York State DOT in Case 2. However, in this case interested bidders are required to bid three adjustment factors instead of two. These three adjustment factors are presented in Table D2. For the selection of the low bid these factors are applied to expected amounts of total work to be performed by the contractor under each working condition associated to the adjustment factors. Table D3 presents an example of the calculation of the Bid Total for a given contractor. The combination of adjustment factors that leads to the lowest bid total is selected as the low bid. TABLE D2 CASE 4âADJUSTMENT FACTORS Adjustment Factors Normal Work Adjustment Factor 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. MondayâFriday Nighttime Work Adjustment Factor 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. MondayâThursday Weekend Work Adjustment Factor 7:30 p.m. on Friday through 6:00 a.m. on Monday, night or day, or a holiday TABLE D3 CASE 4âBID TOTAL CALCULATION EXAMPLE Item Description Approximate Quantity Unit Adjustment Factor Unit Amount Work performed during normal hours 105,000.00 Dollars 1.15 $120,750.00 Work performed during normal hours 13,000.00 Dollars 1.2 $15,600.00 Work performed during normal hours 7,000.00 Dollars 1.25 $8,750.00 Bid Total $145,100.00 Work Order Development: Table 27 in chapter five illustrates the job order development process followed for this contract. When comparing this procedure with the one implemented by New York State DOT in Case 2, a great similarity can be seen between these two agencies. Both practices allow a high degree of interaction between the agency and the contractors. Payment Provisions: The contractor is compensated for the work actually performed, using the unit prices contained in the Construction Task Catalog and applying the adjustment factors as required. Mobilization Clauses: Missouri DOT includes in this type of contracts some mobilization items on its Construction Task Catalog. The set of mobilization pay items included in the catalog is determined in accordance with the scope of the contract and they are expected to be used in accordance with the specific requirements of each job order. Price Escalation Clauses: This contract allows modifications in some specific pay items contained in the Construction Task Catalog using an index published by an external consultant. Summary: The fact that Missouri DOT has been using job order contracts for only five years and the great similarity between the structure of this contract and the one executed by New York State DOT (explained in Case 2) suggests that Missouri DOTâs practices were probably developed based on the IDIQ contracting system of this other agency. While conducting the interview for this case, the interviewee commented that this is the second version of this type of IDIQ contract executed by Missouri DOT. Originally, this agency used on-call contracts (name used for earlier version of IDIQ contracts), but they perceived that these contracts had been negatively impacted by unbalanced bids submitted by interested contractors. Therefore, this agency decided to move forward to a methodology that improved their budget control. The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract in relation to IDIQ contracting procedures. This contract allows Missouri DOT to increase its response capability under contingency events that require asphalt pavement repair activities.
111 From all agencies mentioned in chapter five and this appendix using IDIQ contracts to procure maintenance and or construction services, Minnesota DOT is the one with least IDIQ experience. However, between April 2013 and February 2014 (ten months), this agency successfully awarded 23 IDIQ contracts for a wide variety of projects including bituminous surfacing, micro-surfacing, seal coating, milling, noise wall construction, and drainage projects. The inclusion of this contract in the study provides an example of an IDIQ contract with a narrower scope of maintenance/repair activities than the MoDOT case. This case is restricted to the maintenance and repair of existing noise walls. The contract was procured using the same methodology that Minnesota DOT has successfully used to procure more complex and larger construction projects as those mentioned above in this paragraph. This case shows the characteristics of an IDIQ contract executed through a procurement methodology that is still under development, but which seems to becoming a useful tool for this agency to award recurrent tasks. Case 5âMinnesota DOT: Noise Walls IDIQ Contract Terminology: IDIQ Contract Work Order Terminology: Task Order IDIQ Contracting Model: Single Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: $750,000. It was originally stated at $300,000. Maximum Value: $2,500,000 Minimum Value per Work Order: A minimum value per work order was not established for this contract. Maximum Value per Work Order: A maximum value per work order was not established for this contract. Project Delivery Method: DBB Scope: This contract scope comprised maintenance/repair activities for existing noise walls located in Minnesota DOT Metro District, specifically in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington counties. Work orders in this contract are expected to include the following services: â[â¦] removing any plywood, removing in place noise wall wood planking except for the bottom board, furnishing and installing new treated wood planking on the existing posts, and salvage and re-installing rub rail at locations where removedâ (MnDOT 2013b). The IFB for this contract presented to contractors a preliminary priority list of in-place walls planned to be included in the task orders, proving to bidders a better insight of the contract in order for them to submit more responsive proposals. Furthermore, bidders noticed that each task order was expected to cover at least 1,000 lineal feet and typically one wall, giving them more information about the characteristics of the work orders. Figure D3 shows anticipated contract locations on three different counties; Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington. As mentioned above, this contract also anticipated work on three more counties. NOISE WALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Limiting the size of the jobsites may help Missouri DOT to easily identify project candidates for this disqualified for this contract. The use of the Construction Task Catalog allows greater budget control by Missouri DOT, preventing bidders from submitting unbalanced bids. contract. In this case, if a given project covers more than a 2-mile section of roadway, it would be
112 FIGURE D3 Case 5âContract locations in Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington counties. Advertise/Award Procedures: This contract uses a low-bid procurement bidding process to select a single contractor to perform all work orders. The IFB is advertised to solicit a price proposal, and some information that the agency will evaluate to determine which proposer is the lowest responsible bidder. Table 28 in chapter five illustrates the including all pay items to be required for the execution of all task orders issued under the contract. Likewise, the Bid Schedule contains bid quantities used to select the low-bid which correspond to a rough draft of total work quantities for the entire contract. The contract was then awarded to the bidder that submitted the lowest price proposal calculated by totaling the extended prices in the price proposal. This is a straightforward process similar to the one used by CFLHD in Case 1, but conducted for the selection of a single contractor. Work Order Development: Table 28 also illustrates the process followed to develop task orders under this contract. Basically, Minnesota DOT identifies the project and prepares the task order document using pay items and unit prices contained in the Bid Schedule. Then it is sent to the contractor for signature. Once the task order document is signed, the agency proceeds to issue the notice to proceed and the contractor begins with the construction/maintenance activities. After task order completion, the agency must determine if the work delivered by the contractor is consistent with the contract and task order documents. The agency does not disburse the final payment to the contractor until all work has been accepted. Payment Provisions: Payments are made to the contractor in accordance with the actual quantity of work performed and the unit prices contained in the Bid Schedule. Mobilization Clauses: This contract does not include a separate mobilization pay item. Instead, bidders must consider these expenses when preparing price proposals. Price Escalation Clauses: In order to compensate contractors for any possible increase in construction prices, this contract provides for adjustments of all items in the Bid Schedule by 2% once per year on the anniversary date of the letting of this Contract. advertise/award process used by Minnesota DOT in all its IDIQ contracts. Price proposal consists of a Bid Schedule
113 Summary: This is a unit price IDIQ contract executed through simple procurement procedures. There are a number of factors that allow inferring that this case may be perceived by potential bidders as a low risk contract, making it easier for them to prepare price proposals. These factors are: the narrow scope of the contract, the preliminary priority list of potential projects, the minimum section of wall to be repaired with a task order, and the use of a minimum guaranteed amount, which in fact was modified in favor of the contractors and is relatively high in comparison with other IDIQ contracts executed by other agencies. The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract in relation to IDIQ contracting procedures. The inclusion of a minimum guaranteed amount works as an incentive to contractors for the submission of lower price proposals. The narrow scope of the contract, the inclusion of a preliminary list of projects in the solicitation, and the predict the requirements and characteristics of the work orders. It reduces the level of uncertainty and the need for large contingencies in price proposals. The elaboration of the preliminary priority list of projects allows MnDOT to elaborate more efficient Bid Schedules. The uniformity of the scope permits the estimation of proportional bid quantities, increasing the confidence of Minnesota DOT with regard to the selection of the low bid. STATEWIDE BRIDGE DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES This contract has two relevant characteristics that make it a good case for this report; it is an IDIQ contract for design services and it was awarded to multiple firms. This case provides an insight of multiple award practices implemented by state DOTs. Some features of this contract have been referenced in the report given the singularity of this approach. Unlike multiple award federal contracts, all contract documents reviewed for this report in relation to this IDIQ contracting model showed a clear trend for the use of non-competitive work orders in multiple award IDIQ contracts. This case can be used as a reference to compare these practices at the state and federal level. Chapter four of this report contains more information related to the use of this type of contracts by state agencies. Case 6âSouth Carolina DOT: Bridge Design Engineering Services IDIQ Contract Terminology: On-Call Contract Work Order Terminology: On-Call IDIQ Contracting Model: Multiple Award IDIQ Minimum Guaranteed Value: A minimum guaranteed value was not established for this contract. Maximum Value: $2,500,000 per firm Minimum Value per Work Order: A minimum value per work order was not established for this contract. Maximum Value per Work Order: A maximum value per work order was not established for this contract. Number of Awardees: 6 (Six) Scope: This multiple award contract was awarded by the South Carolina DOT in January 2014 for the procurement of bridge design engineering services for the âpreparation of preliminary plans, right of way plans, and final construction plans for roadways and bridgesâ (SCDOT 2014) across the state. Work orders under this contract may include the following services: âsurveys, roadway design, hydrology/hydraulics, construction support services, utility coordination, geotechnical borings and design engineering, environmental documentation and permitting, bridge and structural design, and other related duties deemed necessaryâ (SCDOT 2014). determination of a minimum section of wall to be repaired with each task order, allows the contractor to better
114 Advertise/Award Procedures: This contract used a QBS procedure for the selection of six successful firms. Table D4 comprises the selection criteria used to evaluate each consultant firm and the weight assigned to each selection factor. Consultant firms were required to submit a set of documents to allow South Carolina DOT to score them on each factor contained in this table. After scoring all qualification packages, all firms are ranked and those with the six highest scores are selected to participate in the contract. TABLE D4 CASE 6âSELECTION CRITERIA Criteria Weight Experience, qualifications, and technical competence of the staff proposed for the type of work required 35% Past performance of the firm/team on similar type projects 25% Responsiveness to the SCDOT, and the availability/readiness of the proposed staff 15% Team makeup; ability of firm to perform all aspects of the services 10% Familiarity of the firm/team with SCDOT practices and procedures 10% DBE utilization plan 5% Work Order Placement Procedures: The procedure used by South Carolina DOT to distribute work orders among awardees is also mentioned in chapter four along with other approaches used by some state DOTs. Work order with selection ranking. âOnce the list has been exhausted, work will then be assigned to best maintain equity in the value of work unless an exception is approvedâ (SCDOT 2014). Figure D4 illustrates this process. FIGURE D4 Case 6âOn-call placement process. Payment Provisions: Prices for all services under this contract are individually negotiated between South Carolina DOT and each consultant firm. These negotiations do not have an impact (positive or negative) on the ability of consultant firms to be considered for the performance of any work order. Mobilization Clauses: This contract does not include mobilization clauses. Price Escalation Clauses: This contract does not include price escalation clauses. placement procedures used in this contract are divided into two stages. On-calls are initially assigned in accordance
115 Summary: This case corresponds to a multiple award on-call contract executed by South Carolina DOT. This particular contract is intended to procure bridge design engineering services. However, this DOT uses the same approach to procure a wide range of professional services. The main difference between this approach and typical with other multiple award approaches implemented by other states DOTs, this contract provides for an equitable firms, some agencies such as Delaware, Maine, and Vermont DOTs award all responsive and responsible contractors. The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract in relation to IDIQ contracting procedures. The execution of this multiple award contract allows South Carolina DOT quick access to a pool of contractors increasing the capabilities of this contracting approach. By awarding a predetermined number of consultant firms, the agency is able to guarantee work for all awardees. It would not be possible for Delaware, Maine, and Vermont DOTs approaches since they award an indefinite number of firms. EMERGENCY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT This project was selected for inclusion in this report because it illustrates the use of an IDIQ contracting at the work Case 7âNew York State DOT: 981G Ramapo River Bridge Replacement (Work Order) IDIQ Contract Terminology: Stand-by Contract Value of Work Order: $1,400,000 Scope: Design and construction of two-lane bridge over the Ramapo River. Demolition of existing concrete arch bridge damaged by flooding from Hurricane Irene/Tropical Storm Lee. Both abutments were undermined and the superstructure failed as the foundation settled (see Figure D5). The approach to the bridge was then washed out making it impassable. The replacement bridge was designed by the New York State DOT Main Office Structures Design Bureau. The design was purposely constrained around the use of available structural steel members. The same was true for the design of the precast deck and approach slab panels. Information on the availability of construction materials was furnished by the Statewide Emergency Bridge Contractor (Secrist et al. 2011). FIGURE D5 Case 7âRamapo River Bridge damage. multiple award federal contracts is the lack of competition to assign the work order among awardees. In comparison distribution of the work order. Likewise, while this contract was awarded to a predetermined number of consultant order level as a response strategy for emergency situations. This was just a single work order that was part of a much larger overall disaster response that was necessitated by the flooding that occurred as a result of Hurricane Irene/Tropical Storm Lee in August and September 2011. Additionally, this case shows how earlycontractor involvement in the design process in much the same manner as a CMGC project yields a highlyconstructable design to be completed in a very short period of time. The high degree of interaction that New York State DOT maintained with its contractors in IDIQ contracts has been previously highlighted in Case 2.
116 Right-of-Way: Right-of-way was not an issue in this project. Permitting: Executive Order declaring emergency temporarily suspended the routine permitting process, which eliminated most permitting issues. Rationale: New York State DOT was faced with massive infrastructure damage in the wake of the two storms. The scope of the recovery operation provides a suitable context within which to understand this particular emergency project. In a nutshell, New York State DOT accomplished the following work as part of the recovery effort: Repaired 1,300 miles of roadway, repaired 37 bridges and 250+ culverts using internal maintenance crews. Emplaced 12 temporary bridgesâ11 owned by the DOT and the last one owned by a contractor. Awarded 14 emergency restoration contracts in 4 weeks. The NYSDOT had instituted an IDIQ contract (called a stand-by contract in the DOTâs terminology) for emergency bridge repair and replacement services in 2007 (NYSDOT 2007b). The contract âallows the Department to replace collapsed or otherwise unusable bridges on an emergency basis⦠[and] to perform other emergency bridge work such as structural repairs, erecting shoring to stabilize a damaged bridge, or demolition, removal, and disposal of a damaged superstructure or bridge componentsâ (NYSDOT 2007b). This contract is one of a number of tools available to the department for use as determined by the New York State DOT emergency response system. Procurement: In the Ramapo Bridge Replacement Project, the IDIQ for emergency bridge construction was linked with in-house design teams in a delivery method that mirrors CMGC project delivery, which allows the construction contractor to make substantial input to the design process through constructability reviews, furnishing pricing information on available construction materials, and synchronizing the design with the construction means and methods (West et al. 2012). In this case, the statewide Emergency Bridge contractor furnished information to the in- house design team regarding accelerated bridge construction methods (ABC) which led to the decision to utilize off- the-shelf precast bridge deck and approach slab panels as well as to design around readily available steel sections. Because the IDIQ contract was in place, no time was wasted on the procurement process. Time Line: Table D5 is the timeline that was followed to replace the Ramapo River Bridge. TABLE D5 981G RAMAPO RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT TIMELINE (Secrist et al. 2011) Date Event Remarks August 25, 2011 Executive Order (EO) 17 declaration of emergency August 31, 2011 Inspection of damaged bridge completed This is merely 1 of over 500 bridges inspected in the aftermath of the event. September 1, 2011 EO 19 temporary suspension of contracting competition provisions Provides NYSDOT flexibility to address critical needs September 11, 2011 Construction begins 10 days from inspection completion September 19, 2011 Design of replacement bridge complete 20 days from inspection completion October 26, 2011 Permanent bridge completed 57 days from inspection completion; 5 days ahead of schedule Summary: The NYSDOT response to the massive amount of damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee in the Hudson River Valley furnishes a model for wide-scale infrastructure repair and restoration. The 981G Ramapo River Bridge Replacement Project was only one among many disruptions of vital transportation service that needed to be restored, and the fact that NYSDOT had the prescience to put the necessary emergency construction capacity in place years before the disaster; through its Statewide Emergency Bridge IDIQ contract it was able to restore service in less than two months.
117 The following is a list of effective practices observed in this contract in relation to IDIQ contracting procedures. IDIQ contract for emergency bridge repair on a statewide basis. It must be noted that the contract also contains provisions to erect temporary bridges that are stockpiled at a bridge park on Long Island (Secrist et al. 2011). Integrated in-house design with Statewide Emergency Bridge Contractor input, using a process similar to CMGC. Constrained the design team to using available steel sections. Employed accelerated bridge construction techniques including standard precast bridge deck and approach slab panels.
