This document discusses two approaches that grant recipients use for construction contracts: design-bid-build and design-build. With design-bid-build, the engineer is selected based on qualifications to complete the design, then the constructor is selected through competitive bidding based on the lowest price. With design-build, the engineer and constructor are selected together to work as a team, with the constructor's price being negotiated rather than based on competitive bidding. The document compares the pros and cons of each approach and how they ensure projects provide water quality benefits at a reasonable cost.

1. Construction Contract ApproachesClean Water Management Trust FundBoard of Trustees MeetingFebruary 14, 2010Construction Contract Approachesand Project ValueClean Water Management Trust FundBoard of Trustees MeetingFebruary 14, 2010

2. TopicsGrant recipients’ contracting approachesComparing approachesEnsuring project value

3. Contracting approaches Two basic approaches grant recipients use to contract for construction:- design-bid-build- design-build Key difference is the “bid” part

4. Bidding: - obtaining pricing by competitive process - qualified contractor with lowest price is selected: “lowest qualified bidder”

5. Contracting approaches Other differences: - when contractors get involved - how contractors are selected - how contractors price construction GRs in two groups, differing purchasing reqs: - local govts and State agencies (by State law) - private nonprofits and SWCDs (no State law)

6. Contracting approachesDESIGN-BID-BUILDEngineer is selected(based on qualifications)grant application, award, and contractdesign and permitConstructor is selected (based on low bid) construct

7. Contracting approachesDESIGN-BID-BUILDgrant application, award, and contractEngineer is selected(based on qualifications)design and permitConstructor is selected (based on low bid)construct

8. Contracting approachesDESIGN-BID-BUILDDESIGN-BUILDEngineer is hand-pickedConstructor is hand-pickedgrant application, award, and contractgrant application, award, and contractEngineer is selected (based on qualifications)design and permitdesign and permitConstructor is selected (based on low bid)constructconstruct

9. Comparing approachesDESIGN-BID-BUILDDESIGN-BUILDGRs: private nonprofits and SWCDs

10. Constructor selection: GR’s preference; less process time/cost (established team)Constructor pricing: negotiated

11. Construction observation/admin:less time/cost (more collaborative, flexible)Construction quality: usually better

12. Final cost vs. budget: projects generally close out at budgeted cost (neither overrun nor revert)GRs: local govts and State agencies

13. Constructor selection: competitive; more process time/cost (law-mandated)Constructor pricing: bids

14. Construction observation/admin: more time/cost (more oversight needed)Construction quality: usually good

15. Final cost vs. budget: CWMTF asked to fund overruns; underrun projects revert unneeded funds

16. Ensuring project valueBoth contracting approaches widely accepted

17. Ensure water quality benefits at reasonable cost

18. Improve evaluation of applicationsDiscussion