Orientation Briefing

1
Alternative Project Delivery Texas Council of
Engineering Companies
Mike Ellicott Vice Chancellor Facilities Planning
Construction Texas Tech University
System November 28, 2007
Preserving the Past Building the Future
2
Texas Tech University System
TTU 28,000 Students TTUHSC 2,000 Students Angelo
State 6,400 Students
Amarillo
Lubbock
Dallas
Abilene
Midland
El Paso
San Angelo
Odessa
Marble Falls
Junction
Fredericksburg
3
FPC Mission

• FPC supports Texas Techs academic missions by
  creating high-quality, innovative campuses
  through professional planning, design, and
  construction management.
• Preserving the Past While Building the Future
• We Make It Happen

4
Vision Statement

• FPC is a Mission-Driven Team that
• Focuses on Excellence
• Exceeds Customer Expectations
• Operates with Absolute Integrity
• Utilizes Fair, Consistent, and Competitive
  Business Practices
• Employs Comprehensive, Integrated Processes
• Improves Continuously and
• Celebrates its Successes

5
Responsibilities

• Master Planning (All Campuses)
• Life Cycle Project Management
• Project Development
• Design Management
• BOR THECB Project Approval
• Financial Budget Management
• Construction Contracting
• Construction Administration
• Construction Inspection/Code Compliance
• Contract Close Out
• Landscape Enhancement Program
• Public Art Program

6
Responsibilities (Cont.)

• Interior Design and Management
• Space Planning
• Interior Design
• Interiors Construction Administration
• Furniture Procurement
• Client Relocation
• BOR Facilities Committee Liaison
• THECB Reporting and Coordination
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SW3P)
• System HUB Coordinator
• Local Community Coordination
• Campus Agency Liaison

7
Project Management Workload

• Under Construction (13) 175,955,388
• In Design (14) 167,810,000
• Future Projects (11) 238,000,000
• Total Active Program (41) 581,765,388
• Completed Projects (61) 515,929,051
• TOTAL (91) 1,097,694,439

8
FPC Operating Guidelines

• Build Something
• Obey the Rules
• Ensure Fair and Open Competition
• Employ Best Value Contracting
• Form Partnerships
• Commission Major Projects
• Promote HUB Participation
• Use Standard Templates
• RFQ, RFP, Contracts,Amendments, etc.

9
Capital Project Selection

• Component Institutions Manage the Selection and
  Prioritization of Capital Projects
• THECB MP1 Process
• TRB Project Process
• FPC Manages All Capital Projects
• New Construction Projects 1.0 million
• Repair and Renovation Projects 2.0 million
• Others as Directed

10
Construction Related Contracts

• Professional Services
• Design Professionals
• Owners Representatives
• Testing and Surveying
• Commissioning and TAB
• Construction Services
• Construction
• Construction Management
• Commodities
• Public Art
• Furniture (Through TTU, TTUHSC, and ASU)

11
Construction Delivery Options

• Design-Bid-Build (Traditional Method)
• Low Bid
• Competitive Sealed Proposal
• Construction Manager at Risk
• Design-Build
• Construction Manager - Agent (Owners
  Representative)
• Job Order Contract (JOC)

12
Design-Bid-Build
Project Start
Substantial Completion
Select Designer
Design Project
Select Contractor
Construct Project
Time
13
Design-Bid-Build

• Traditional Method
• Longest Project Delivery Method
• No Contractor Involvement in Design
• Lacks Flexibility Less Responsive to Change
  Change is Expensive
• Adversarial Relationship Based on Price, Not
  Value
• Easy to Evaluate

14
Construction Manager At Risk
Substantial Completion
Project Start
Select Designer
Design Project
Select CM
Construct Project
Pre-Construction Services
Time
15
Construction Manager At Risk

• Competitive Best - Value Selection
• Select Early in the Design Process - Faster and
  More Responsive to Change
• Involve CM in the Design Process
• Open Book Approach Based on a Guaranteed Maximum
  Price (GMP)
• Allows for Shared Savings
• Requires Additional Review of Proposals and Pay
  Applications

16
Design-Build
Project Start
Substantial Completion
Select Design/Build Team
Design Project
Construct Project
Pre-Construction Services
Time
17
Design-Build

• Competitive Best - Value Selection
• Single Contract Entity
• Fast Track Projects with Well-Developed Scope and
  Specifications
• Commercial Projects
• Residence Halls Office BuildingsParking
  Garages
• Ambiguous Projects
• Research and Healthcare Facilities

18
Research Results

• PSU Study of 351 ProjectsCompared to
  Design-Bid-Build
• CM_at_Risk 1.6 Lower Cost 13.3 Faster
• Design/Build 6.1 Lower Cost 33.5 Faster
• Massachusetts Study of 926 Projects
• Complex Design-Bid-Build Procurement
  Methodologies Double the Prices and Increase
  Project Delivery Times by 55

19
Owners Rep (CM Agent)

• Competitive Value-Based Selection
• Third-Party Construction Management Expertise
• Fiscally Responsible for Texas Techs Funds, But
  CM-Agent Funds are Not at Risk
• Owners Representative (Extension of In-House
  Staff)

20
Job Order Contract

• Quick Reduced Paperwork
• Less Detailed Design Documents
• Requires a Well-Defined Scope and Comprehensive
  Specifications
• Requires an Up-Front Cost Estimate
• Good for Small Projects
• Prior Planning Prevents P- Poor Performance

21
Selection Options

• Best Qualified Qualifications Alone
• Best Price Lump Sum, Low Bid (Price Alone)
• Best Value Competitive Sealed Proposals
  (Price, Time, Qualifications, and Other Factors)
• All Competitive Selections
• All Require HUB Subcontracting Plan

22
Best Qualified Selection

• Based Only on the Firms Qualifications
• Price Not Considered
• Evaluate
• Experience
• Unique Skills
• Approach
• Staff Qualifications
• HUB Commitment (As a )
• Record of Claims and Litigation

23
Best Price Selection

• Compete on Price Alone
• Assumes
• Unambiguous, Complete Plans Specs
• Low First Cost Low Final Cost
• Only Construction Price Matters
• Simple, Easy to Evaluate
• Not a Value-Based Selection
• Does Not Consider HUB Commitment

24
Best Value Selection

• Competitive Sealed Proposals
• Compete on Multiple Factors
• Price
• Time
• Capability and Reputation of Firm
• Capability and Reputation of Team
• HUB Commitment
• Financial Capability
• Safety Record

25
FPC Contracting Policies

• Use QBS for all Professional Services
• Use Best Price Contracting for All Low-Cost,
  Non-Time Sensitive Projects
• Use Best-Value Contracting for All Others
• CSP for Projects Under 5.0 M
• CM At Risk for Projects Over 5.0 M or for
  Complex Projects Under 5.0 M
• Consider CM-Agent for Complex and Out-of-Town
  Projects
• Examine All Projects for Design-Build
  Opportunities

26
Typical Evaluation Criteria

• HUB Subcontracting Plan Go/No Go
• Cost/Fees
• Time
• Firm Experience Workload
• Project Team Experience
• Management Plan
• HUB Contracting Commitment
• Record of Claims and Litigation
• Safety Record

Not Requested for Professional Services
27
Typical Evaluation Committee

• Vice Chancellor and/or Associate Vice Chancellor
• Project Manager
• Interior Designer
• Client Representative(s)
• Physical Plant Representative
• General Counsel (Non-voting)
• FPC Director of Contract Admin (Non-voting)
• Others As Required(i.e., Inspector, TT Police,
  etc.)

28
Doing Business with FPC

• Watch the Electronic State Business Daily
• Read the whole RFQ/RFP
• Attend the Pre-Response Meeting
• Provide All the Information Requested
• Provide a HUB Subcontracting Plan
• Provide a HUB Contracting Commitment
• Turn in your Proposal On the Right Day At
  the Right Place, and At the Right Time

29
Lessons Learned

• Best Value Contracting Requires
• Significant Up-Front Preparation
• Structured Selection Process
• Selection Committee Stability
• Patience
• Shared Savings Make Little Difference
• Planning and Design Not Always Valued
• Someone Will Always SayI Can Build It Cheaper

30
Top Texas Tech Issues

• Strategic Planning
• Master Planning
• Construction Cost Inflation Volatility
• Cost of Energy / Sustainable Design

31
Balancing Act

• Fair, Consistent, Open Competitive Processes

Cost
Time
Documents
Work
Law
HUB
Quality
Relationship
32
Alternative Project Delivery Texas Council of
Engineering Companies
Mike Ellicott Vice Chancellor Facilities Planning
Construction Texas Tech University
System November 28, 2007
Preserving the Past Building the Future