Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contracting Practices (2015)

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.

51 SUMMARY OF CASE EXAMPLES The primary aspects of these case examples are summarized in Table 23. All IDIQ contracts and the work order case example in this table are presented in detail in Appendix D. Tables 24–28 present the advertise/award and work order development procedures implemented by each agency in those case examples for construction or maintenance ser- vices. This chapter does not present those procedures for Cases 6 and 7 because they correspond to the design services contract (not the focus of this synthesis) and the work order case study, respectively. However, they are further reviewed in Appendix D. Terminology used in the following tables is the same as that used in preceding chapters unless the authors are referring to a particular agency. SUMMARY A complete analysis of the case examples presented in this chapter led to the conclusion that once the IDIQ contract is awarded, the agency is able to use the contractor to furnish different preconstruction services at the work order level in much the same way as CMGC projects, which may result in better pricing because of more constructable designs. How ever, this appears to be restricted to single award IDIQ contracts. In addition, it was found that IDIQ contracting techniques allow agencies to improve their response capability under situations that require immediate action by the agency. This alternative contracting approach has proven to be an effective tool to make provisions in advance of anticipated contingency events. This was the primary reason that led some agencies mentioned in this chapter to implement these practices. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents one federal and six state IDIQ contracts executed by different transportation agencies in the United States. Each case in this chapter was purposely selected to illus- trate different approaches currently in use by public owners to procure construction and maintenance services. In addition, this chapter includes an analysis of a multiple award design IDIQ contract. These contracts represent the use of most of the key practices and procedures discussed throughout this report including: • DBB and DB delivery methods; • Single and multiple award contracts; • Low-bid, QBS, and best-value contractor selection techniques; • Unit price and lump sum payment provisions; and • Project types from different work categories consid- ered in this study; construction and maintenance (a focus of this report) and design services (not a focus of this report). Five cases were previously developed by the authors for research conducted for MnDOT: New York State, Florida, Missouri, and Minnesota DOTs, and the CFLHD. Also, the New York State DOT’s emergency bridge replacement IDIQ contract was included. This case was previously analyzed in NCHRP Synthesis 438: Expedited Procurement Procedures for Emergency Construction Services (Gransberg and Loulakis 2012), and the reader can refer to that document for additional detail if desired. Finally, a multiple award IDIQ contract exe- cuted by the South Carolina DOT to procure design services was added to this study. chapter five INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT EXAMPLES

52 Agency (Case no.) Case (IDIQ model) Locations(s) Minimum Guaranteed Value Maximum Value Advertise /Award (PDM) Payment Provisions Central Federal Lands Highway Division (1) Roadway Surfacing, Resurfacing, and Repair (multiple award) Northern California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho $50,000 per awardee $35 million per awardee RFP: One- step best- value (DBB) Fixed price New York State DOT (2) Bridge Maintenance Work Various Routes (single award) Broome, Chenango, and Tioga counties $50,000 $1.2 million IFB: Low-bid (DBB) Fixed price Florida DOT (3) Design-Build Push- Button Contract (single award) District 7 $12.5 million $20 million RFP: One- step best- value (DB) Fixed price Missouri DOT (4) Asphalt Pavement Repair—Route I-55/ I-57 (single award) Route I-55: Ste. Genevieve, Perry, Cape Girardeau, and Scott counties. Route I-57: Mississippi County N/A $125,000 IFB: Low-bid (DBB) Unit price Minnesota DOT (5) Noise Walls (single award) Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties $750,000 $2.5 million IFB: Low-bid (DBB) Unit price South Carolina DOT (6) Bridge Design Engineering Services (multiple award) Statewide N/A $2.5 million per awardee RFQ: One- step QBS Cost-plus-award- fee lump sum unit price New York State DOT* (7) 981G Ramapo River Bridge Replacement (single award) Rockland County, New York N/A (total cost = $1.4 million) N/A N/A Time and materials *Work order case. N/A = not applicable. TABLE 23 SYNTHESIS CASE SUMMARIES Case 1 – Central Federal Lands Highway Division Advertise/ Award Procedure Work Order Development Process TABLE 24 CASE 1—ADVERTISE/AWARD AND WORK ORDER DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES

53 Case 2 – New York State DOT Advertise/ Award Procedure Work Order Development Process JOC = job order contract. TABLE 25 CASE 2—ADVERTISE/AWARD AND WORK ORDER DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES Case 3 – Florida DOT Advertise/ Award Procedure Similar to the procedure adopted by CFLHD for Case 1 (see Table 22), but Florida DOT uses a single award IDIQ format. Work Order Development Process TABLE 26 CASE 3—ADVERTISE/AWARD AND WORK ORDER DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES Case 4 – Missouri DOT Advertise/ Award Procedure Similar to the procedure adopted by New York State DOT for Case 2 (see Table 23). Work Order Development Process TABLE 27 CASE 4—ADVERTISE/AWARD AND WORK ORDER DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES

54 Case 5 – Minnesota DOT Advertise/ Award Procedure Work Order Development Process TABLE 28 CASE 5—ADVERTISE/AWARD AND WORK ORDER DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES