Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 3 Figure 3-2 DB or DBO Approach For Water Treatment Facility Sample Schedule Action Site Acquisition & Investigations 98 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Raw Water Quality Studies/ Pilot Testing 30% Design (optional) Define Outcomes & Risk Allocation Owners' Permitting (Site & Zoning) Develop RFQ Review SOQ/Shortlist Develop RFP/Draft Contract Review Proposals/Select Contract Negotiations Final Design DBO Permitting Construction Startup and Testing Operations As shown above, the estimated time savings from a DB approach for the treatment plant would likely be on the order of three months. Areas of Concern To present a balanced approach to alternative project delivery, it is important to identify some of the potential problems with this approach. Most of the areas of concern arise due to the limited experience with these project delivery approaches, existing procurement laws developed without consideration of these approaches, and the lack of legal precedents surrounding the risk sharing and task sharing. Provided below in Table 3-1 is a summary of potential areas of concern. 3-4 Texas Water Development Board B1381-Sect3
Owner’s Perspective TABLE 3-1 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONCERN TRADITIONAL VERSUS DB/DBO APPROACH ON PUBLIC PROJECTS CRITERIA TRADITIONAL APPROACH DB/DBO APPROACH Abuses of Discretion Subjective selection of designer is subject to criticism. Presumption of objective result because competitive process selects Contractor. Vendor selection not based on “lowest responsible bidder or most qualified designer” has potential for Owner abuses of discretion, fraud, and favoritism. Proposals Review of Proposals Legal Precedent Oversight During Construction Contractual Arrangements Competition Engineer responsible for design and cost estimate only. Response by Contractor to fully designed final plans and specifications allows objective price proposal development. Engineers selected on subjective basis of capability and experience, not cost. Contractor selected objectively on responsiveness to bid request and responsibility to perform work. Long history analyzing and allocating responsibilities between designer, versus Contractor, versus Owner. Owner or its separate consultant can evaluate quality and workmanship of construction by Contractor. Separate contracts with Contractor and Engineer allow Owner to define roles and responsibilities of each. Larger universe of individual service providers (designers/ Substantial costs can be associated with producing DB or DBO/BOOT proposals due to the requirement for conceptual designs. This can limit competition to larger established participants. Owners often only identify basic needs for project Owner and may not adequately establish standards for aesthetics and asset life. Public Owners may not have in-house personnel with expertise in preparing and administering design-build requests for proposals and contracts May be difficult to compare proposals. Owner must evaluate both technical merits of design and quality related to construction price. Very little case law regarding DB/DBO process and liability currently exists, so there is uncertainty about how courts and arbitrators will resolve new issues associated with the system. 1 Quality standards of performance for contractor are not always clearly defined. Quality of construction should not be sacrificed for cost or schedule. Joint venture team may not have long history together. Allocation of responsibility between Contractor and Designer is developed independently of Owner and assignment of responsibility may be unclear to Owner. Fewer DB entities exist because of uniqueness of relationships and liability, B1381-Sect3 R. W. Beck 3-5
Page 1 and 2: Alternative Project Delivery Texas
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents VI. School Distri
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary statutory/regulat
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Areas of Concern.
Page 9 and 10: Section 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction
Page 11 and 12: Implementation of Stricter Regulati
Page 13 and 14: Introduction TABLE 1-1 GLOBAL WATER
Page 15 and 16: Introduction These large private fi
Page 17 and 18: Section 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DE
Page 19 and 20: Traditional Design-Bid-Build (“DB
Page 21 and 22: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 27 and 28: Engineer-Procure-Construct (“EPC
Page 37: Description of Project Delivery Met
Page 40 and 41: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TRADITI
Page 42 and 43: Section 3 One of the critical areas
Page 46 and 47: Section 3 TABLE 3-1 POTENTIAL AREAS
Page 48 and 49: Section 4 • The company, BexarMet
Page 50 and 51: Section 4 receive an up-front conce
Page 52 and 53: Section 4 • Rate stabilization
Page 54 and 55: Section 4 Pursuant to stringent tim
Page 56 and 57: Appendix A GLOSSARY - B - BOOT: Bui
Page 58 and 59: LEGAL REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVER
Page 60 and 61: Legal Review of Alternative Deliver
Page 64 and 65: Wastewater Legal Review of Alternat
Page 68 and 69: San Antonio Water System Legal Revi
Page 74 and 75: Neil Callahan - National Director f
Page 76 and 77: Comparison Of Traditional Vs. Alter
Page 78 and 79: Comparison Table Comparison Of Trad
Page 80 and 81: Areas of Concern Potential Areas Of
Page 82 and 83: ISSUES CHECKLIST Introduction The d
Page 84 and 85: Issues Checklist • Public input o
Page 86 and 87: Design-Build-Operate (DBO) Issues C

Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?