Far 36.301(b)(3) - Use of Two-Phase Design Build Selection Procedures lists the following criteria to be considered by CO's in order to use design build selection procedures in construction projects.

 

3) The following criteria have been considered:

(i) The extent to which the project requirements have been adequately defined.

(ii) The time constraints for delivery of the project.

(iii) The capability and experience of potential contractors

(iv) The suitability of the project for use of the two-phase selection method.

(v) The capability of the agency to manage the two-phase selection process.

(vi) Other criteria established by the head of the contracting activity.

 

Most of the points seem pretty straight forward.  My question deals with (iv) because it seems so vague, possibly by design no pun intended. For those of you with experience, what factors would contribute to the suitability of a construction project to use "design-build" as opposed to "design-bid-build" or another way I'm not thinking of? 

32 minutes ago, LearningCurve1018 said:

For those of you with experience, what factors would contribute to the suitability of a construction project to use "design-build" as opposed to "design-bid-build" or another way I'm not thinking of? 

Mine is limited but from the experience of a couple of agencies from years ago.

First thought is you might check your own agency supplement to the FAR and other policy as there may be further discussion of criteria and what needs to be addressed.

Beyond the agency requirements other factors considered were - The complexity of the project, the history of similar projects being done via design build, and even the location of the project as it relates to unique needs that need to be addressed in the design.

I have to same something about (v) as well.  Not only capability of agency to manage the selection process but to administer the awarded contract too. I may be over simplifying but from my view the administration of an awarded contract is much more complex than managing the selection process. 

Learning,  let me first explain that the language you are quoting in FAR 36.3 was developed to authorize and promote the two phase design-build selection process as well as to more generally authorize the use of design-build construction contracting in the federal government. See also FAR 36.104.

In the mid-1990s, those agencies using design-build were primarily using a specifically authorized (Title 10) “One-Step Turnkey” process, which required proposers to prepare and submit preliminary design proposals along with their pricing and other technical information against an unknown field of competitors. This was very expensive for industry to propose and time-consuming for government agencies to evaluate all of those proposals. And the  proposer had no idea whether one or two or 20 other firms were competing for the same contract.

The two phase D-B method is used to short-list only a small number of the most highly qualified firms in Phase 1 to compete in Phase 2  The short-listed firms then prepare preliminary design information, often more non-price information and prices. 

NAVFAC was primarily using the 2 Step sealed bidding method in FAR Part 14 in the mid-90’s. 

 FAR 36.301(b)(3) does not really address acquisition planning and those project aspects to consider before selecting design build or design-bid-build.  

That is an entirely different discussion.

Having taught design build construction classes for 23 years, I have some course material that I could send you in the form of PowerPoint slides and notes. Contact me Thru WIFCON messenger and I will send you what I can. 

13 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Mine is limited but from the experience of a couple of agencies from years ago.

First thought is you might check your own agency supplement to the FAR and other policy as there may be further discussion of criteria and what needs to be addressed.

Beyond the agency requirements other factors considered were - The complexity of the project, the history of similar projects being done via design build, and even the location of the project as it relates to unique needs that need to be addressed in the design.

I have to same something about (v) as well.  Not only capability of agency to manage the selection process but to administer the awarded contract too. I may be over simplifying but from my view the administration of an awarded contract is much more complex than managing the selection process. 

Agree about the complexity because it is an integrated process with unique, non-traditional and vastly different roles and responsibilities, which are not covered in the FAR. It requires a different set of Paradigms for all parties. 

Although a design build contract is a construction contract, it requires some different contract clauses, which I helped develop for the Corps of Engineers over the course of 25 years. I can send you my outline course material on those clauses and perhaps a WORd file narrative. 

Please note that I design build contract is not an A-E contract . We don’t use those FAR clauses . And we don’t refer to the designer as the A-E. 

11 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

the language you are quoting in far 36.3 was developed to promote the two phase design build selection process as well as to more specifically authorize the use of design build construction contracting in the federal government. See also FAR 36.104.

FAR 36.104 seems to state that design-build will be the default when design-bid-build is not used or appropriate.  Thank you for the historical context of use of design-build and the development of 36.3, interesting stuff. 

56 minutes ago, LearningCurve1018 said:

FAR 36.104 seems to state that design-build will be the default when design-bid-build is not used or appropriate.  Thank you for the historical context of use of design-build and the development of 36.3, interesting stuff. 

I should have said “...as well as to generally authorize the use of design-build construction contracting in the Federal Government.” I edited my post, accordingly.