project review committee refresher/orientation presentation july 28, 2011

Project Review CommitteeRefresher/Orientation Presentation

July 28, 2011

PRC Orientation/Refresher Meeting July 28, 2011

Agenda

• Why CPARB and PRC were formed – Phil Lovell• Role of CPARB and PRC – Eric Smith• Evaluation Criteria Review

1. GC/CM Certification/Re-certification – Linneth Riley-Hall

2. Design Build Certification/Re-certification – Penny Koal

3. GC/CM Project Application – Rick Benner

4. Design Build Project Application – Tom Peterson

• Appeal Process – Tom Peterson• Assignment of Panels – Tom Peterson• Role of PRC Chairs/Conducting a Hearing – Rodger Benson• Appropriate/Inappropriate Areas for Questions – Tom Peterson

PRC Orientation/Refresher Meeting July 28, 2011PRC Orientation/Refresher Meeting July 28, 2011

Alternative Public Works Delivery Rationale

Primarily:1) Increase Flexibility In Procurement

2) Improve Project Delivery/Process Expediency

3) Retain Public Confidence In Contracting

Secondarily:1) Achieve Greater Predictability In Project(s)

2) Outcome (Cost, Quality, Schedule)

3) Reduce Litigious Outgrowth From Projects


RCW 39.10 Enabling Legislation- History• 1991- HSB 1777- enabled 2 pilot Department Of Corrections

(DOC) projects under a DOC/General Administration (GA) Project “TEAM” utilizing GC/CM methodology

• 1994- Codified RCW 39.10 [the “1994 Act”]1) Added Design/Build as alternative project delivery method

2) Increased Public Agency eligibility list

• 1997- Added/modified certain provisions and sunset of 2007

• 2003- Job Order Contracting added

• 2007- Current statute with sunset of 2013

• 2009- Added ECCM/MCCM provisions


RCW 39.10- Alternative Public Works Oversight

(Stepped progressively with legislative actions)

•1995- Alternative Public Works Methods Oversight Committee (APWMOC): primarily user agencies with industry hearing/input activity and legislative staff work

•2003- APWMOC terminated

• 2005- Capital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB) established and work on 39.10 continues

•2007- Project Review Committee [PRC] established to review agency

project and certification applications


CPARB Overview

MISSION:• Determine feasible and effective uses of alternative contracting

procedures

• Qualification standards for contractors bidding on alternative public works (APW)

• Evaluate expansion, continuation, elimination or modification of APW contracting methods.

• Evaluate potential use of other alternative contracting methods


CPARB Overview

MEMBERSHIP:• Public Owners

• Architects and Engineers

• Contractors

• Subcontractors

• Labor

• MWBE

• Surety

• Legislative member representation


Questions?


Agenda

• Why CPARB and PRC were formed – Phil Lovell

• Role of CPARB and PRC – Eric Smith• Evaluation Criteria Review







CPARB DutiesRCW 39.10.230

• Policy recommendations to legislature– Enhance quality, efficiency, accountability

– Expansion, continuation, elimination, modification of alternative Public Works methods

• Appoint members of the PRC

• Develop and administer data collection


PRC DutiesRCW 39.10.250

• Certify or recertify public bodies to use D-B, GC/CM or both

• For non-certified public bodies, review and approve use of D-B or GC/CM on projects


Certification of Public BodiesRCW 39.10.270

• PRC shall determine that the public body:– Has the necessary experience and qualifications to determine which

projects are appropriate for alternative contracting procedures; and

– Has the necessary experience and qualifications to carry out the alternative contracting procedure; and

– Has resolved audit findings


Project Approval ProcessRCW 39.10.280

• PRC shall determine that:– Alternative procedure will provide a substantial fiscal benefit or D-B-B is

not practical for quality or schedule needs; and

– Project meets requirements for using alternative contracting procedure per 39.10.300 (D-B) or 39.10.340 (GC/CM); and

– Public body has the necessary experience or qualified team to carry out the procedure; and

– Public body has resolved audit findings


What PRC Members Need to Know

• A knowledgeable review by the PRC in accordance with RCW 39.10 is of critical importance to public bodies

• What constitutes an experienced public body or a qualified project team– Especially knowledge of RCW 39.10 processes

• Criteria for determining if a project qualifies– RCW 39.10.300 for Design-Build

– RCW 39.10.340 for GC/CM


Panel Members Responsibilities• The panel member shall Individually read the applicant’s

Application for Project Approval

• Develop any clarifying questions and submit them to the panel chair, within the time frame noted in the email from Robyn Hofstad

• Participate on the panel• During the Q&A session ask succinct questions, do not

pontificate• During the panel deliberations do not ask any more questions of

the applicant and direct your discussion to your fellow panelists• Complete the Application Evaluation Sheet


Questions?


Agenda

• Why CPARB and PRC were formed – Phil Lovell• Role of CPARB and PRC – Eric Smith

• Evaluation Criteria Review







Certifying Agencies for GC/CM

• RCW 39.10.270

Project review committee — Certification of public bodies.

(1) A public body may apply for certification to use the design-build or general contractor/construction manager contracting procedure, or both. Once certified, a public body may use the contracting procedure for which it is certified on individual projects with a total project cost over ten million dollars without seeking committee approval. The certification period is three years.

(2) A public body seeking certification for the general contractor/construction manager procedure must demonstrate successful management of at least one general contractor/construction manager project within the previous five years.


(3) To certify a public body, the committee shall determine that the public body:

(a) Has the necessary experience and qualifications to determine which projects are appropriate for using alternative contracting procedures;

(b) Has the necessary experience and qualifications to carry out the alternative contracting procedure including, but not limited to:

(i) Project delivery knowledge and experience;

(ii) personnel with appropriate construction experience;

(iii) a management plan and rationale for its alternative public works projects;

(iv) demonstrated success in managing public works projects;

(v) the ability to properly manage its capital facilities plan including, but not limited to, appropriate project planning and budgeting experience; and

(vi) the ability to meet requirements of this chapter; and

(c) Has resolved any audit findings on previous public works projects in a manner satisfactory to the committee.


GC/CM CertificationsTo date

• Washington State University (7/26/07)

• City of Seattle (1/23/08)

• University of Washington (7/26/07)

• City of Tacoma (2/26/2009)


Re-certification

Why Recertify?


Re-certification Requirements

• Application must be received at least 3 months prior to expiration of the initial certification

• Must be reviewed by the PRC prior to expiration of the initial certification

• The Agency must submit updated information on its capital plan for the next 3 years

• The Agency must state its intended use of the procedures

• Submital of other information requested by the PRC


Re-certifications to date

• University of Washington (7/22/10)

• General Administration (9/23/10)

• City of Seattle (expires 9/23/10)

• Washington State University (9/23/10)


Quiz

When is the City of Tacoma recertification application due?


Questions?


Agenda


• Evaluation Criteria Review1. GC/CM Certification/Re-certification – Linneth Riley-Hall






Certifying Agencies for Design Build

• RCW 39.10.270

Project review committee — Certification of public bodies.(1) A public body may apply for certification to use the design-build or general

contractor/construction manager contracting procedure, or both. Once certified, a public body may use the contracting procedure for which it is certified on individual projects with a total project cost over ten million dollars without seeking committee approval. The certification period is three years.

(2) A public body seeking certification for the design-build procedure must demonstrate successful management of at least one design-build project within the previous five years.


(3) To certify a public body, the committee shall determine that the public body:

(a) Has the necessary experience and qualifications to determine which projects are appropriate for using alternative contracting procedures;

(b) Has the necessary experience and qualifications to carry out the alternative contracting procedure including, but not limited to:

(i) Project delivery knowledge and experience;

(ii) personnel with appropriate construction experience;

(iii) a management plan and rationale for its alternative public works projects;

(iv) demonstrated success in managing public works projects;

(v) the ability to properly manage its capital facilities plan including, but not limited to, appropriate project planning and budgeting experience; and

(vi) the ability to meet requirements of this chapter; and

(c) Has resolved any audit findings on previous public works projects in a manner satisfactory to the committee.


4) The committee shall, if practicable, make its determination at the public meeting during which an application for certification is reviewed. Public comments must be considered before a determination is made.

(5) The committee may revoke any public body's certification upon a finding, after a public hearing, that its use of design-build or general contractor/construction manager contracting procedures no longer serves the public interest.

(6) The committee may renew the certification of a public body for one additional three-year period.

(7) Certified public bodies must submit project data information as required in RCW 39.10.320 and 39.10.350.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=39.10.320

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=39.10.350

Scorecard with CriteriaState of WashingtonCapital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB)Project Review Committee (PRC)

Application Evaluation SheetPublic Agency CertificationDate: ____________________________________

D-BPublic Agency: ___________________________

PRC Member: ___________________________

Evaluation Criteria

Extracted from 2nd Substitute House Bill 1506 Met CriteriaNeeds

Clarification

A. Applicant has the necessary experience to determine which of its projects are appropriate for use of alternative contracting procedures:

B. Applicant has necessary qualifications and experience to carry out the alternative contracting procedure including, but not limited to:

i. Project delivery knowledge and experience

ii. Personnel with appropriate construction experience

iii. Management plan and rationale for alternative public works projects

iv. Demonstrated success in managing public works projects

v. Demonstrated success in managing at least oneD-B project within the past five (5) years

vi. Ability to properly manage its capital facilities plan,including project planning and budget experience

vii. Ability to meet requirements of RCW 39.10

C. Public Body has resolved any audit findings relative to previous projects

PASS FAIL

Overall Evaluation by Committee/Panel Member

Reason for Determination:

Observations/Concerns:

####

Member Determination


RCW 39.10.270 - Certification Requirements

(1) A public body seeking certification must submit to the committee an application in a format and manner as prescribed by the committee. The application must include: a) a description of the public body's qualifications,

b) its capital plan during the certification period, and

c) its intended use of alternative contracting procedures.


Application Format

1. Identification of Applicant

2. Experience and Qualifications for Determining Whether Projects Are Appropriate for DB under Alternative Contracting Procedure (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(a).

3. Project Delivery Knowledge and Experience (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b)(i).

4. Personnel with Construction Experience Using Various Contracting Procedures (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b)(ii).

5. Management Plan and Rationale for Alternative Contracting Projects (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b)(iii).

6. Demonstrated Success in Managing Public Works Projects Involving All Types of Contracting Procedures (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b).


7. Demonstrated Success in Managing at Least One Project Using DB Contracting Procedure Within the Last Five Years (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b).

8. Ability To Properly Manage the Public Body’s Capital Facilities Plan (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b)(vi).

9. Ability to Meet the Requirements of Chapter 39.10 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(b)(vii).

10. Resolution of Audit Findings on Previous Public Works Projects (RCW 39.10.270 (2)(c).

PLEASE REVIEW PAST SUBMITTALS AT: http://www.ga.wa.gov/CPARB/PRC/index.html


http://www.ga.wa.gov/CPARB/PRC/index.html

http://www.ga.wa.gov/CPARB/PRC/index.html

Re-Certification for DB

• Application is similar• Applicant to discuss changes in process since original application• Applicant to list status of planned, current and completed DB

projects• Applicant to provide narrative critique on each DB project the past

six years• Update qualified personnel • List any audit finding for ALL projects agency has undertaken• Provide matrix of projects submitted to data collection


Questions?


Agenda




3. GC/CM Project Application – Rick Benner4. Design Build Project Application – Tom Peterson



GC/CM Project Application Evaluation Sheet


Evaluation Sheet Criteria

To Approve a GC/CM Project the PRC must determine that:

Based upon RCW 39.10.280(2)(a)

A. The GC/CM procedure will provide a substantial fiscal benefit or the use of the traditional method of awarding contracts in lump sum to the low responsive bidder is not practical for meeting desired quality

standards or delivery schedules



B. Project meets qualifying criteria under 39.10.340 (GC/CM)

• The project must meet one of the following conditions:

• Implementation involves complex scheduling, phasing, or coordination;

• It involves construction at an occupied facility that must continue to operate during construction;

• The involvement of the general contractor/construction manager during the design stage is critical to the success of the project;

• The project encompasses a complex or technical work environment;

• The project requires specialized work on a building that has historic significance


Based upon RCW 39.10.280(2)(c)

C. Public body has necessary experience or qualified team, including but not limited to:

• Project delivery knowledge and experience• Sufficient contract administration personnel with construction

experience• Written management plan with clear & logical lines of authority• Necessary & appropriate funding and time to carry out the

project• Continuity of project management team with project type &

scope experience• Necessary and appropriate construction budget




Based upon 39.10.280(2)(e)

E. The public body has resolved any audit findings related to previous public works projects in a manner satisfactory to the committee.


Questions?


Agenda





4. Design Build Project Application – Tom Peterson• Appeal Process – Tom Peterson• Assignment of Panels – Tom Peterson• Role of PRC Chairs/Conducting a Hearing – Rodger Benson• Appropriate/Inappropriate Areas for Questions – Tom Peterson


D/B Project Application Evaluation Sheet



To Approve a D/B Project the PRC must determine that:

Based upon RCW 39.10.280(2)(a)

A. The D/B procedure will provide a substantial fiscal benefit or the use of the traditional method of awarding contracts in lump sum to the low responsive bidder is not practical for meeting desired quality standards or delivery schedules



B. Project meets qualifying criteria under 39.10.300 (D/B)

1.The total project cost is over $10 million dollars (with exceptions)

(a) The design and construction activities, technologies, or schedule to be used are highly specialized and a design-build approach is critical in developing the construction methodology or implementing the proposed technology; or

(b) The project design is repetitive in nature and is an incidental part of the installation or construction; or

(c) Regular interaction with and feedback from facilities users and operators during design is not critical to an effective facility design.


Based upon RCW 39.10.280(2)(c)

C. Public body has necessary experience or qualified team, including but not limited to:

• Project delivery knowledge and experience• Sufficient contract administration personnel with construction

experience• Written management plan with clear & logical lines of authority• Necessary & appropriate funding and time to carry out the

project• Continuity of project management team with project type &

scope experience• Necessary and appropriate construction budget



D. Construction personnel independent of the design-build team are knowledgeable in the design-build process and are able to oversee and administer the contract; and

E. The public body has resolved any audit findings relative to pervious public projects



1. Subject to approval by the PRC the design-build procedure for parking garages may be used regardless of cost.

2. Except for utility projects and approved demonstration projects, the design-build procedure may not be used to procure operations and maintenance services for a period longer than three years. However, a public body may seek PRC approval for a demonstration project (2 allowed) that includes procurement of operations and maintenance services for a period longer than three years. Special requirements for hearing this type of application do apply.

3. Subject to approval by the PRC the design-build procedure may be used for projects where the total cost is between $2 million and $10 million dollars. Approval required whether agency is certified or not and only 10 projects allowed within this parameter.

4. Not subject to PRC approval: • Erection of Pre-engineered metal buildings• Prefabricated modular buildings• Projects over $10 million dollars that are being procured by a Certified

Agency.

Exceptions to the D/B Approval Process


Questions?


Agenda








Appeal Process

Per RCW 39.10.290

Final determination by the committee (PRC) may be appealed to the board (CPARB) within seven days by the public or by an interested party.

The board shall resolve the appeal within forty-five days of receipt of the appeal.

• Appeals to date:1. WSU Certification to use D/B

2. Kennewick School District Project


Questions?


Agenda






• Appeal Process – Tom Peterson

• Assignment of Panels – Tom Peterson• Role of PRC Chairs/Conducting a Hearing – Rodger Benson• Appropriate/Inappropriate Areas for Questions – Tom Peterson


Assignment of Panels

• Panels must be made up of a minimum of 6 members.

• Panels shall have a balance of private and public sector representatives.

• The PRC chair uses the historical spread sheet to make assignments to:1) Assure a balanced panel

2) Spread the panel work amongst the PRC members


Questions?


Agenda






• Appeal Process – Tom Peterson• Assignment of Panels – Tom Peterson

• Role of PRC Chairs/Conducting a Hearing – Rodger Benson

• Appropriate/Inappropriate Areas for Questions – Tom Peterson


RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PANEL CHAIR

• As the application review panel chair you are responsible for the management of the panel, assurance of a thorough and fair evaluation process, and for following Roberts Rules of Order in conducting your meeting.


PREPARING FOR THE HEARING

1. Immediately confirm with the PRC Chair that you are available to assume this assigned responsibility and that you will be able to attend the next PRC meeting to lead your review panel.

2. Confirm with assigned panel members that none of them need to be recused.

3. Work with Robyn Hofstad to set a “questions due date” for your panel members that accommodates your schedule and that allows the applicant time to review questions (5 days) and prepare a response prior to their scheduled interview.

4. Collect questions from your panel members, filter for redundancy or irrelevancy and make sure grammar and clarity is proper. Submit combined questions to Robyn.


THE HEARING INTRODUCTION

• Make sure all panel members have scoring sheets before starting the hearing

• Welcome public body representatives• Introduce panel members• Review agenda and time allotment• Review supermajority requirement for passage, given number of

panel members voting: 6 out of 8 5 out of 7 4 out of 6 (6 panelists minimum required)


THE HEARING20 minutes for applicant’s presentation• Good idea to remind applicant of PRC evaluation criteria prior

to their starting• Advise the applicant that they will have a 5 minute warning

prior to their allotted 20 minute presentation

15 minutes of panel questions & answers• Make sure all panel members have the opportunity to get their

questions in.

10 minutes for Public comment• Public comment (max 2 minutes each) should be limited to

comments about the application.• Questions from the public to the applicant are inappropriate.• Applicant responses to public comment are not appropriate.


THE HEARING

15 minutes for deliberations and determination• Close meeting to outside discussion. All discussion should be

between panel members only.• Further questions to the applicant are inappropriate.• Applicant interjections to discussion is inappropriate.


THE VOTE

Ask for a motion and a second to vote on the application• Ask individual panel members to vote “yes” or “no” on the motion to approve.• Announce vote results and whether supermajority approval was achieved.


THE CLOSE

• Confirm that the agency will receive written notification of the decision within 10 days.

• If application is denied, invite the applicant to re-submit with modifications addressing panel concerns

• Thank public body for coming!


HOUSE KEEPING

• Collect scoring sheets from all panel members, make sure they are complete and signed, and submit them to Robyn.


Questions?


Agenda






• Appeal Process – Tom Peterson• Assignment of Panels – Tom Peterson• Role of PRC Chairs/Conducting a Hearing – Rodger Benson

• Appropriate/Inappropriate Areas for Questions – Tom Peterson


Appropriate Areas for Questions

•Funding/Budget•Schedule•Phasing/Coordination•Occupied Facility•Early Involvement of GC/CM•Complex/Technical Work Environment•Historical Project (If applicable)•Experience of Team with Alternative Procurement•Appropriate Management Personnel


Inappropriate Areas for Questions

•GC/CM Contract Terms & Conditions

•MWBE Goals/Outcomes

•Appropriateness of the project for alternative delivery

•Qualifications of the Owner’s team or their management approach


Questions?


project review committee refresher/orientation presentation july 28, 2011

Documents

project review committee

agency project

agendawhy cparb

cparb overviewmission

public ownersarch

cparb overviewmembership

phil lovellrole of cparb

legislative staff