CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING Presenter Name John Moore

612 views
512 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
612
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING Presenter Name John Moore

  1. 1. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING Presenter Name John Moore Chief Contracting Division Savannah District 20 May 2010
  2. 2. <ul><li>AGENDA </li></ul><ul><li>ACQUISITION PROCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACQUISITION PLANNING </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACQUISITION DECISIONS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>BEST VALUE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>BEST VALUE CONTINUUM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TRADE OFFS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SOURCE SELECTION DECISION </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS </li></ul><ul><li>IDIQ CONTRACTS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MATOC COMPETITION PROCESS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BENEFIT OF MATOCS/SATOCS </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. RFP Process
  4. 4. Considerations in Acquisition Planning <ul><li>Project Size and Budget </li></ul><ul><li>Scope Complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Urgency </li></ul><ul><li>Customer/Politics </li></ul><ul><li>Funding Stream </li></ul><ul><li>Market Conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-Economic Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of Current Contract Vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>In-House Staff Capacity/Capability </li></ul>
  5. 5. Acquisition Decisions <ul><li>In-House vs. Contract </li></ul><ul><li>Solicitation – IFB or RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Contract Type – Fixed Price or Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Small Business or Unrestricted </li></ul><ul><li>Design-Bid-Build or Design-Build </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Contract or New Acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>Sole Source or Competitive </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisition Planning is Risk Management ! </li></ul>
  6. 6. The Best Value Continuum CONTRACTOR Least Control Assumes Greatest Risk/ Control Assumes Greatest Risk/Control Invitation for Bid – Sealed Bid Low Price Technically Acceptable Price-Performance Trade-off One Step Design-Build Two Step Design-Build GOVERNMENT
  7. 7. THE BEST VALUE CONTINUUM <ul><li>INVITATION FOR BID </li></ul><ul><li>PROs: </li></ul><ul><li>Relatively fast acquisition phase </li></ul><ul><li>Less Resources needed during acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>CONs: </li></ul><ul><li>Government assumes most risks </li></ul><ul><li>No quality control over Contractor selection </li></ul><ul><li>No negotiations! </li></ul><ul><li>Long lead time for design </li></ul>
  8. 8. Request for Proposal <ul><li>PROs: </li></ul><ul><li>Contractor selection based on pre-established evaluation criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Performance evaluated with price </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to negotiate </li></ul><ul><li>CONs: </li></ul><ul><li>More resource intensive </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisition Time is Longer </li></ul>THE BEST VALUE CONTINUUM
  9. 9. BEST VALUE TRADE-OFFS <ul><li>PROJECT REQUIREMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>SIZE </li></ul><ul><li>COMPLEXITY </li></ul><ul><li>FUNDING STREAM </li></ul><ul><li>RESTRICTIONS </li></ul><ul><li>COST </li></ul><ul><li>SCHEDULE </li></ul><ul><li>QUALITY </li></ul><ul><li>SCOPE </li></ul><ul><li>PAST </li></ul><ul><li>PERFORMANCE </li></ul>RISK
  10. 10. SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA <ul><li>True discriminators have the following characteristics: </li></ul><ul><li>A reasonable expectation of variance among offerors </li></ul><ul><li>An assessable variance (quantitative or qualitative measurement ) </li></ul><ul><li>The requirement(s) warrant a comparative evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>of that Factor ( worthy of a Price/Cost Premium ) </li></ul>Do Criteria Focus on Issues of Substance? Is there time to evaluate the selected criteria? ID of skilled evaluators to assess the criteria?
  11. 11. <ul><li>THE SOURCE SELECTION DECISION </li></ul><ul><li>Represents the Source Selection Authority’s rational and independent judgment; </li></ul><ul><li>Is based on a comparative analysis of the proposals; </li></ul><ul><li>Must be consistent with solicitation evaluation factors and subfactors. </li></ul><ul><li>Must Reflect Why Discriminators among Offerors (e.g. Lower Risk, Better Past Performance, Strengths and Weaknesses) are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Worth of any Price Premium, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not Worth of a Price Premium </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Socio-economic Considerations : Unrestricted Small Business 8(a ) SDVOSB HubZone
  13. 13. SOCIO-ECONOMIC TARGETS Small Businesses 32.0% Small Disadvantaged Businesses 18.0% Women-Owned Small Businesses 5.8% HUBZone Small Businesses 10.0% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Bus. 3.0% HBCU/MI 13.0%
  14. 14. IDIQ Contracts <ul><li>Single Award (SATOC) </li></ul><ul><li>One contractor </li></ul><ul><li>(no competition for task orders) </li></ul><ul><li>Examples </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8(a) < $3 Million </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A-E </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O&M Construction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multiple Award (MATOC) </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple contractors </li></ul><ul><li>(compete for task orders) </li></ul><ul><li>Examples </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GSA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>COS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> etc </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. MATOC COMPETITION PROCESS • RFP Letter & SOW • Evaluation Criteria Identified in RFP Letter • Technical Board for Design Build T.O.s • Importance of Price vs Technical • Source Selection Decision
  16. 16. THE BENEFIT OF MATOCS/SATOCS • Time Advantage - No 30 day Synopsis • Ability to manage workload/manpower • Limited Number of Offerors • Less Cost to Issue/Award a T.O. • Can Involve Contractors During Design Development • More Balanced use of MATOCs and Stand Alone Contracts as Workload Draws Down
  17. 17. Questions?

×