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.
effectiveness of these new techniques and teduiology m the mi l i ta ry f a c i l i t i e s procurement program, however, have not been ve r i f i ed Therefore, while i t can be envisioned that fo r the immediate future, the sequential design and construction procurement mode w i l l continue to predominate, there is great potential fo r s ignif icant cost and quality benefits i n continued exploration, development and e]q>enmentation with both technology and the means of procurement Accordingly, i t has been recommended that the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) establish a poller that alternate procurement modes such as phased construction, design/ construct, two-step, and construction management be considered with conventional sequential design and construction bidding, and that the specific mode used be selected and j u s t i f i e d on the basis of cost effectiveness 2 5 2 Practices and Procedures Which Inh ib i t Design and Construction Without regard to procurement mode, there are particular practices and procedures currently required or u t i l i zed i n the management of design and construction services procurement which tend to i nh ib i t not only the selection of optional procurement modes, but the e f f i c i en t operation of the procurement process once selection has been accomplished The Committee believes that certain modifica- tions or revisions could effect reductions in cost, increases m quality and/or savings i n time 2 5 2 1 Procurement o f Design Services Factors Affect ing Quality, Cost, and Timing - The current limitations on the manner m which the Department of Defense can negotiate contracts for design services are contained i n the conqprehen- sive Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 How these l imi ta - tions arose, the way m whidi the phraseology of the Act engenders contractual confusion, and the recent e f for ts by the Department of Defense and other governmental agencies to reexamine the purpose of the Act, are described m House o f Representatives Report No 91-1445âAmending the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act o f 1949 (H R 16443) Specific new legislation has not yet been enacted to address these issues Two specific aspects of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 are of concern to the Committee Hie f i r s t i s that the Act tends to favor sequential design and construction which involves specific negotiations with architect-engineer firms I t does not address or provide fo r the f l e x i b i l i t y reqxured for consideration of other optional procurement modes discussed hereinâe g , those which take advantage o f improved managerial techniques and the potentials which are offered through use of advanced technology of industrialized and systems bmlding The second area o f concern i s the 6 percent fee l imi ta t ion which a l l but precludes design of nimierous small projects 66
contained in the mi l i ta ry f a c i l i t i e s procurement program by architect-engineer f i rms, or other qual i f ied sources of design services, because the fee l i m i t i s , m many instances, even lower than direct in-house payroll costs involved i n the design o f such projects This, i n the opinion o f the Committee, is one o f the fundamental reasons why the Faci l i t ies Procurement Agents have had to maintain an in-house design c i ^ab i l i t y , despite the fact that i f a l l m-house costs were computed on an equivalent basis with the ardxitect-engineer, the design could not be performed within the 6 percent l imi t a - t ion A t h i r d area of concern, not specif ical ly related to the Act but yet m part brought about by the fee l imi ta t ion requirement, IS the communication mechanism used by the Faci l i t ies Procure- ment Agents to describe essential f a c i l i t i e s objectives to the designer for subsequent translation into construction contract documents As indicated previously, the Faci l i t ies Procurement Agents predominately use the seqtiential design and construction mode of procurement With respect to design, they generate two separate but interrelated kinds of c r i t e r i a that govern design procurement and tend to l i m i t the extent of creat ivi ty that can be provided during the design process F i rs t , there are the design requirements (or c r i te r ia ) that define what is to be provided Second, there are c r i t e r i a fo r the "working drawings and specifications" that define how the results of the design e f fo r t are to be communicated to potential construction contractors The c r i t e r i a fo r working drawings and specifica- tions now are promulgated by the Facil i t ies Procurement Agents on the assumption that there is a hig^ probabili ty that differences w i l l arise between the government and construction contractor However, these c r i t e r i a often serve as an exten- sion of the design reqmrements (cr i te r ia) and tend to severely l i m i t design i n i t i a t i v e and engender the frequent comment that the design of mi l i ta ry f a c i l i t i e s is quite routine and sinple and often performed m less than the best professional manner Further, because the design of mi l i ta ry projects and the preparation of working drawings and specifica- tions are governed by c r i t e r i a expressed m ways which often are different from prevailing practice i n the private sector, many private architect-engineers experience f inancial and technical d i f f i c u l t i e s in coii;>leting the i r contractual obliga- tions to the satisfaction o f the Faci l i t ies Procurement Agents The most obvious difference is the Federal government necessity for designing with and preparing "open specifications " One regional f i e l d o f f i c e related that i t s experience indicated that firms taking on feder^ commissopns fo r the f i r s t time are l i ke ly to have to revise as much as %0 perceift of submitted working drawings and specifications i n order to provide fo r open specifications, while firms e3q>erienced i n the design of 67
mil i tary work are l ike ly to have to revise on the order o f only 20 to 25 percent The bulk of such revisions were reported to be necessary m order to accommodate the medianical and electr ical aspects of the open specifications I For optimum results, f l e x i b i l i t y must be provided so that design procurement can be negotiated on the basis o f scope, qual i ty , and timing of the services needed to sa t is fy f a c i l i - t ies objectives, and the qualifications of the f i rm and i n d i v i - duals to be engaged i n the design Furthermore, even when design services are to be obtained as part o f more comprehen- sive design/construct procurement modes, the quali ty of the end product--a completed f a c i l i t y â w i l l be closely related to the caliber of the design, and, consequently, to the fiinds available fo r design Accordingly, i t has been recommended that regulations concerning the form of contract used and payments for design services, whether intended to be procured independently from architect-engineers or as part o f an alternative design and construction procurement mode, be reviewed and adjusted as necessary so that a l l aspects of the design process can be negotiated on the bpsis o f scope, qual i ty , and timing of the services to be performed, and on the q u a l i f i - cations of the source fo r the design service Additionally, I t has been recommended that the design c r i t e r i a issued by the Faci l i t ies Procurement Agents f o r use by the private sector emphasize the description o f the expected result of the design e f f o r t , and avoid to the degree possible, describing how to achieve the design result 2 5 2 2 Review of Design Drawings and Specifications - Review of design drawings and specifications (or similar contract instruments) i s , and should remain, a v i t a l part of the design process As presently performed, however, these reviews un- necessarily delay the design process and frequently either do not achieve the results desired or do not achieve the results in the time desired As a matter of practice, the predesign conference should be the occasion at which either the previously developed program f o r a . f a c i l i t y is e]q)lained to the design team, or the program for a f a c i l i t y is developed i n concert with the design team Sub- sequent intermediate reviews of design should be confined to determining whether the design i s m agreement with the pro* gram lliese should not be occasions for speculating whether other designs or facets of design would better serve the program Final reviews of design should be confined to determining whether the drawings and specifications prepared by the design team adequately describe the f a c i l i t y to be constructed Needless to say, this review should be completed before the project is advertised fo r construction 68
Currently, intermediate reviews are a stopping point in design progress That is to say, copies of drawings and specifications are submitted for review by the design team and design does not progress until the review is completed This practice adds weeks and even months to the design process Accordingly, i t has been recommended that, irrespective of procurement mode used, a l l functional and technical reviews of design drawings and construction specifications be performed concurrently, and that the design process be continuous throughout these reviews 2 5 2 3 Selection of Construction Contractors - A key aspect of military facilities procurement is the actual construction process However, as a result of examining the construction procurement and supervision operations of the regional field offices of the Facilities Procurement Agents, i t is obvious that this aspect is significantly influenced by the fact that many of the construction contractors normally involved are small and either cannot or are unwilling to manage the construc- tion process properly I f the expressions of architect- engineers and representatives of the regional field offices interviewed in the course of this study are taken at face value. I t would be fair to conclude that many small contractors now involved in the process are less competent than those now in civilian work, that the results are less satisfactory, and that the time required for execution is substantially longer Among the more grievous problems identified are the prime contractor's inability to schedule subcontractor work items, inability or unwillingness to review subcontractor submittals, and inability to handle the accounting, labor, and legal paper work required by the Armed Services Procurement Regula- tions This difficult situation results largely from the absence of meaningful contractor selection criteria and an effective policy to ensure the implementation of those c n t e n a that do exist Presently, specific contractor selection procedures vary between the military Departments and i t is not difficult for a contractor, regardless of his past performance and experience or present workload, to compete for and be awarded a military construction project Because of this, i t is reasonable to suspect that many qualified construction contractors do not bid on military work because they must bid in an unsatisfactory competitive environment Under current law and regulations, i t is quite clear that contractors with a record of poor performance can be declared nonresponsible However, there appears to be no concerted effort on the part of the military Departments to document past contractor performance and to use poor performance records as a reason for nonselection for future work The reason most frequently stated for not compiling and using 69
performance records is that poor performance simply cannot be proven to the satisfaction of the courts due to legal techni- calities * On the other hand, i f qualified contractors were preselected, such a procedure would result in considerable cost benefits to the Department of Defense For example, although ini t ia l expenditures for construction for some projects may be higher when executed by a qualified contractor, the increased quality of construction obtained may well result in less corrective maintenance m the tuture Second, qualified contractors have a demonstrated histoiy of requiring less siqiervision and inspection Furthermore, as use of alternative procurement modes becomes more prevalent, the need for prequalification criteria takes on more importance because many of these newer modes inherently require some degree of preselection Accordingly, and even though i t is recognized that a univer- sally applied prequalification procedure may, and probably would, subject the Department of Defense to innumerable charges of discrimination and a significant administrative and litigative burden, i t has been recommended that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics), as a matter of policy and irrespective of the procurement mode used, coordinate the development by the military Departments of a set of standard contractor and svibcontractor preselection criteria which includes but should not be limited to (1) the previous experience and perfor- mance of contractors in terms of project size and nature, and (2) the fiscal integrity of the contractor to handle the project, in terms of available working capital and idle resources It has been further recommended that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) establish policy for rigorously enforcing implemen- tation of and compliance with the standard contractor selection criteria Compliance with these recommendations will require that records of contractor performance be maintained by the mili- tary Departments and evaluated against the established selection criteria when the contractor is considered for future projects Solid evidence that the selection criteria have not been met due to reasons of incompetence, irregular past behavior, or otherwise, would eliminate the contractor from consideration To provide credence to an established The Facilities Procurement Agents have had a prequalification procedure for many years This procedure, developed for the ICBM Program and used on the NASA and Air Force space programs, and the SAFEGUARD and Red Hat programs, is generally restricted in use to construction of an extremely urgent or complicated nature requiring special competency 70
policy for enforcing compliance with the contractor pre- selection criteria, the Committee urges the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) to consider issuing a general announcement of the existence of contractor preselection criteria and of the intent to ensure their implementation through establishment of a system of arbitration by the Office of the Assistant Secretary which wil l permit rapid review and resolution of a contractor's protest against disqualification 2 5 2 4 Assurance of Quality Control - One of th,p most difficult problems m al l construction, not just military construction, is that of assuring quality The military has the additional responsibility of assuring that contractors meet the specific contract requirements governing materials, wage rates, equal opportunity employment, and subcontractor selection imposed on al l government contracts Frequently, more time is spent with these administrative procedures than is allowed for assurance of meeting construction requirements With only minor exceptions, a l l inspection on military con- struction projects is done by military Department employees There are, however, differences in the way this is handled in the three Departments In the Army, the regional field office controls construction on the site The inspectors are full-time employees of the field office In general, no installation or base personnel are used The Navy system is similar to that of the Array, while the base public works officer may serve as Resident Officer in Charge of Construction at times, the inspection personnel are regional rather than base employees The Air Force, on the other hand, uses its regional offices for surveillance only Resident inspection, supervision, and contract administration is accomplished primarily through the command structure (base personnel), although private architects and engineers are retained under Title I I * contracts for some supervision and inspection tasks Title I and Title I I are phrases used informally to refer to general classes or types of architect-engineer services As so used. Title I refers to those services that may be furnished in connection with the advanced or master planning of facilities or installations, or that may be furnished in connection with the development of designs, drawings, eind specifications, for the alteration, repair, or construc- tion of facilities Similarly, Title I I refers to those services that are furnished by an architect-engineer subsequent to the award of a construction contract Title I I therefore, refers to supervision and inspection of the construction and attendant services It should be noted that use of these terms does not imply the scope or items of services that may be required for any particular project 71
The Army assigns approximately f i v e f u l l - t i m e people per m i l l i o n dollars of constructionâapproximately three o f whom would be i n the f i e l d and two m the o f f i c e handling administrative details Hie Navy assigns approximately four man years per m i l l i o n dollars o f construction o f which two are f u l l - t i m e i n the f i e l d The A i r Force was unable to give coiq)arable figures because inspection personnel were not assigned i n a corresponding manner The Amy's px«sent supervision, inspection, and overhead (SIOH) charge i s 5 8 percent This i s the average figure charged t o a l l projects (not including housing), the Department reports that actual SIOH charges t h i s year varied from project t o project over a range o f 3 5 to 8 5 percent The Navy SIOH charge i s 6 percent, and the Department asserts that t h e i r actual v a r i a t i o n by project i s 5 1 t o 6 5 percent The A i r Force reported i t s SIOH charge t o be 5 46 percent f o r 36 projects t o t a l l i n g only $4,500,000, 21 o f whidi were under $100,000 and 21 o f whidi were at isolated radar bases Unfor- tunately, as discussed previously, the accounting systems used by the Departments vary enou^ so that comparative analyses could not be made with confidence No one can assure q u a l i t y f o r the owner However, t h i s does not mean that nonowner personnel cannot be used, and e f f i c i e n t l y used, m q u a l i t y control The tests required f o r meeting construction specifications can be conducted by the architect-engineer or the construction contractor, and the Department o f Defense has several regulations pertaining to t h i s process One of p a r t i c u l a r importance i s Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Uider t h i s system the contractor must establish and operate a q u a l i t y control program to assure that a l l siq;>plies and services, whether by contractor, subcontractor, or vendor, s a t i s f y contract requirements The program includes perfor- mance o f a l l required inspections and tests To meet these requirements, the contractor must establish a separate quality-control organization of at least one f u l l - t i m e person f o r the l i f e o f the project as well as a plan o f operation Personnel report to the same top management as the project superintendent The government must approve the organization and the operating plan, and can i n s i s t tqpon what i t regards as the necessary number o f people as w e l l as approval o f t h e i r technical competence The basic problem i s i n achieving understanding of the system by both procurement agents and contractors The system has been i n effect since 1961, but has had only l i m i t e d use i n i t s intended form Much o f the t e s t and p£q>er work submittals can be handled by the contractor, with review by the govern- ment inspector f o r compliance with the i n i t i a l plan 72