Procurement process
The procurement process is framed by applicable laws and the owner’s experience with design build. Important decisions in the procurement process are the selection method, handling of alternate designs, and use of incentives and stipends.
Selection method
The selection process establishes how design-build proposers exchange information with the owner. Agencies often pre-qualify bidders through a request for qualifications (RFQ) process. The bidders are most often joint ventures between design and construction firms. Typically, three bidders are prequalified.
Prequalification ensures only high-quality bidders receive the request for proposals, and minimizes the risk of default during implementation. Prequalification also increases the bidder’s likelihood of success and often identifies its competitors. The RFQ evaluates both technical and financial capabilities of bidders; the submissions usually undergo a completeness review by the owner to determine compliance to the terms and conditions.
Once prequalified D-B teams are identified, an RFP is issued, requesting project-specific information, including costs. Types of selection methods for complex design-build projects include cost/design competition (i.e. ‘best value’) and cost competition.
Best-value selection methods provide for the consideration of cost, schedule, and other more subjective factors such as project management, design, QC, and team reputation. This type of selection is gaining in popularity among design builders and owners due to the ability to consider all relevant factors. (For example, visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/designbuild/designbuild.htm)
Best-value D-B means the highest overall value to the owner, considering quality and cost. The contract award is based on the lowest adjusted score, which is determined by dividing the price proposal by the technical proposal score or similar equation. Essentially, value = price/quality.
Incentives and disincentives
Similar to what might be expected on a design-bid-build project, monetary incentives and disincentives encourage certain project outcomes and discourage others. However, in design build, the D-B team will finish the design and has more room to innovate, which gives it greater control over project outcomes. The incentives and disincentives in bridging documents should be carefully written, and are usually capped with a maximum cumulative incentive or disincentive.
An example can be found with the Fore River Bridge, spanning the Weymouth Fore River in Quincy and Weymouth, Massachusetts. For this project, traffic impacts were a high priority. The bridging documents enabled the design builder to restrict traffic during limited time periods. They allowed monetary incentives to minimize the restrictions, as well as disincentives for exceeding the traffic restrictions.
Alternates
The RFP may allow proposers to submit alternate designs. Alternates may also include project schedules and construction methods. Review of alternate designs can take significant time and effort, so alternate designs are sometimes not allowed, or are limited in number. Alternate designs are kept confidential between the owner and the alternate design proposer and are not usually shared with other proposers. However, if an alternate design is approved that changes the basis of the bid, project constraints, or project risk allocation, other proposers may be notified of the changes to the RFP. Agencies should define the preferred design direction and also limit alternate design direction(s) in the RFP.
After selection, the design build team may identify alternate designs or value engineering change proposals (VECP). The latter usually consists of a design change and change in project value. Bridging documents should include whether VECPs will be allowed and, if so, how they will be handled.
Stipends
Stipends are partial compensation to unsuccessful proposers for their proposal development costs. Stipends are not always provided. Their amount varies depending on how attractive the project is to potential bidders. Acceptance of a stipend may affect use of unsuccessful bidder’s information. When they are provided, bridging documents must clearly state conditions for award of the stipend (e.g. submission of a compliant bid by a shortlisted team).
Conclusion
Bridging document preparation should focus on project definition, risk allocation, defining the procurement/selection process. Best practices should be followed. The bridging team must work closely with the owner to determine and convey the project objectives. It must be sufficiently flexible to incorporate project changes and bidder feedback, and to evaluate alternates. During the design-build phase, the bridging team must be ready to supplement owner personnel so timely and informed decisions can be made to facilitate the D-B process.
| FOR MORE INFORMATION… |
| For more on best practices—from project/people selection and front-end processes to document quality control and submittals—see this author’s piece online at www.constructionspecifier.com/design-build-bridging-documents-for-complex-projects-part-three. |
Robert Connors, PE, CCS, has more than 25 years of experience in engineering and management. He has a varied project portfolio that includes buildings, bridges, rail, wind turbines, and maintenance facilities. Connors specializes in procurement documents, project management, construction cost estimating, cost accounting, scheduling, claims analysis, finance, and contract administration. A certified construction specifier, he is also past treasurer of the Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA’s) New England Region. He can be reached at robert.connors@stvinc.com.
