The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 25... ...
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)
|
From page 26... ...
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 Procurement 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 specifications 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 extension of the design reqmrements (cr i te r ia)
|
From page 27... ...
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 comprehensive design/construct procurement modes, the quali ty of the end product -- a completed f a c i l i t y -- 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 unnecessarily 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 .
|
From page 28... ...
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 construction process properly I f the expressions of architectengineers 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 Regulations 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
|
From page 29... ...
performance records is that poor performance simply cannot be proven to the satisfaction of the courts due to legal technicalities * 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 universally 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)
|
From page 30... ...
policy for enforcing compliance with the contractor preselection 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 construction 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)
|
From page 31... ...
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 construction -- approximately 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)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.