Notice To Proceed issuance

[MDH-1102]

I am a PM that deals with DB contracts on a regular basis.  The issue I am currently having is the contracting officer dating the NTP the moment the bonds are approved by legal,  effectively starting the clock on the contractors POP.   Under normal circumstances this doesn't represent an issue but every once in a while a delay of 10,15, 20 days is warranted.  When I asked the contracting officer to hold off on issuing the NTP or to make the effective date later on in the month I am getting serious push back.  My question is, Is the date the NTP issued a unilateral decision of the contracting officer or should it be a PDT discussion?  Is there any guidance that mandates the NTP has to be issued within so many days of award? 

thank you  

[Vern Edwards]

13 minutes ago, MDH-1102 said:

When I asked the contracting officer to hold off on issuing the NTP or to make the effective date later on in the month I am getting serious push back. 

With what explanation? There can be legal consequences for the government if the the CO unduly delays issuance of a notice to proceed. That having been said, the PM and the CO should plan the timing of an NTP before the solicitation is released.

[MDH-1102]

Thanks Vern!  Without getting too much into the weeds...the delay is revolving around FYE budget?  The team can not get to the location until the second week of October.  I was not asking for a delay of months but rather 2-3 weeks.  I should also note that the contractor was on board with postponing the NTP until such time the PDT was able to do a kickoff meeting.  Are the legal consequences that you are referring to initiated by the contractor?  

[ji20874]

In my construction solicitations and contracts, I used a homemade clause to declare that the government anticipated issuing the NTP between _____ and _____, or something like that.

[joel hoffman]

Within the Army Corps of Engineers, we generally awarded the contract and when the contractor submitted acceptable bonding and insurance, we’d schedule, with the contractor, the post award conference for a time ASAP thereafter. The government would issue the NTP upon conclusion of the meeting. We didn’t want to start the clock before the contractor could actually commence work.

A contractor can’t commence work without bonds and insurance and the details in the Post Award are also necessary before starting work. Not fair to start the clock prior to those required activities.. 

[MDH-1102]

Thanks ji20874!  While that seems like a great idea I am afraid our KO's follow a methodology of "that was never done before so we aren't going to do it now".  Believe me it is frustrating at best

 joel hoffman, that is exactly my point, thank you!  

[joel hoffman]

12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Within the Army Corps of Engineers, we generally awarded the contract and when the contractor submitted acceptable bonding and insurance, we’d schedule, with the contractor, the post award conference for a time ASAP thereafter. The government would issue the NTP upon conclusion of the meeting. We didn’t want to start the clock before the contractor could actually commence work.

A contractor can’t commence work without bonds and insurance and the details in the Post Award are also necessary before starting work. Not fair to start the clock prior to those required activities.. 

I don’t remember, but I think that we described the above timing scenario in the solicitations.

[joel hoffman]

P.S. , since a design-build contract is intended to be integrated and promoting faster project delivery with expected schedule related cost efficiencies, there should only be one, initial “NTP”.

When the government allows integrated fast tracking of design and construction for individual design packages and for long lead items, the government should “release” the package for construction and concur with ordering the long lead items prior to the associated  final design packages. This will all be reflected in the integrated D-B schedule.  This happens when the government determines that a final design package is acceptable for start of construction or is satisfied that the long lead items will meet the contract requirements (solicitation and any design provided with the contract proposal) and the design criteria. The contract should describe these processes. 

Edit: These processes are consistent with Design-Build Institute of America  (DBIA) best practices.