Applicable Projects:
Each project located on the National Highway System (NHS) as specified in 23 USC 103 where the estimated total project cost is $50 million or more that utilizes Federal-aid highway funding;
Each bridge project located on the NHS where the estimated total project cost is $40 million or more that utilizes Federal-aid funding;
Any major project (as defined by 23 USC 106(h)) on or off of the NHS, that utilizes Federal-aid highway funding in any contract or phase comprising the major project;
Other projects that the Department determines that a Value Engineering (VE) analysis may result in substantial savings in cost and/or impacts to the traveling public;
A construction project where a Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) has been submitted by the construction contractor based on the VECP provision in the contract;
Note – a value engineering analysis shall not apply to any project delivered using the design-build method of construction. A VE analysis is required on projects delivered using the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) method of contracting if the project meets the requirements outlined above.

Process:
The Bureau of Planning shall identify potential projects meeting the applicable criteria and forward them to the Engineering Council for further review. Upon confirmation of the need to conduct a VE analysis, the Engineering Council (EC) will convene a study group to be led by a member of the EC. The group will be comprised of a multidisciplinary team not directly involved with the design of the project. The study group can meet with the project team to learn more about project aspects and rationale of why individual design elements were selected.

A formal written report consisting of the following will be developed:
Project information;
Identification of the VE analysis team;
Background and supporting documentation, such as information obtained from other analyses conducted on the project (e.g. environmental, safety, traffic operations, constructability);
Documentation of the stages of the VE Job Plan:
Information Phase Gather project information including project commitments and constraints;
Function Analysis Phase Analyze the project to understand the required functions;
Creative Phase Generate ideas on ways to accomplish the required functions which improve the project’s performance, enhance its quality, and lower project costs;
Evaluation Phase Evaluate and select feasible ideas for development;
Development Phase Develop the selected alternatives into fully supported recommendations;
Presentation Phase Present the VE recommendation to the project stakeholders;
Resolution Phase Evaluate, resolve, document and implement all approved recommendations;
Summarization of the analysis conducted;
Documentation of the proposed recommendations and approvals received at the time the report is finalized; and
The formal written report shall be retained for at least 3 years after the completion of the project (as specified in 49 CFR 18.42)
For bridge projects the following is expected in addition to the above:
Include bridge substructure and superstructure requirements that consider alternative construction materials; and
Be conducted based on:
An engineering and economic assessment, taking into consideration acceptable designs for bridges; and
An analysis of life-cycle costs and duration of project construction.

The Engineering Council shall:
Be responsible for establishing and documenting VE program policies and procedures that ensure the required VE analysis is conducted on all applicable projects;
Ensure that a VE analysis is conducted as early as practicable in the planning or development of a project – typically between the development of a draft Preliminary Design Report (PDR) and final PDR;
Ensure that all approved recommendations are implemented and documented in a final VE report prior to the project being authorized to proceed to construction advertisement;
Monitor and assess the VE Program, and disseminate an annual report to the FHWA consisting of a summary of all approved recommendations implemented on applicable projects, the accepted VECPs, and VE program functions and activities.
Establish and document policies, procedures, and contract provisions that identify when VECP’s may be used; identify the analysis, documentation, basis, and process for evaluating and accepting a VECP; and determine how the net savings of each VECP may be shared between the agency and the contractor;
Ensure that the required VE analysis has been performed on any projects administered by sub recipients, and ensure approved recommendations are implemented into the project’s plans, specification, and estimate;
Act as the VE Program Coordinator to promote and advance VE program activities and functions.

MaineDOT Value Engineering Procedure

MaineDOT VE procedure rev.9/11/2014

GENERAL
Washington State Department of Transportation Value Engineering Policy
?WSDOT supports the initiatives taken by FHWA and AASHTO for many years to promote the use of Value Engineering (VE) in various transportation programs. WSDOT has developed a process for selecting the appropriate areas and projects for VE studies; performing VE studies at the appropriate time, and evaluating and implementing the recommendations developed in the VE process. The use of VE has the support of the top management of the department and the success of the VE program is dependent on the involvement, cooperation, and continued support of all of the department managers, both in the Headquarters and in the regions.
PURPOSE
VE is a management tool to be used in a systematic process designed to focus on the major and critical issues of a complex project or process, using a multidisciplined team to develop recommendations for the important management decisions that must be made. Using this organized analytical process, with relevant information, the resulting management decisions will provide direction for the continued project development. The outcome of value engineering studies is often cost reduction, but the primary focus is “Value Improvement.”
WSDOT will use the VE process to seek value improvement in various forms. For projects, this may result in improvements in defining the proper scope, functional design, constructibility, coordination (both internal and external), and schedule for development. Other value improvements may include reduced environmental impact, reduced public (traffic) inconvenience, or reduced project cost. In summary, the VE process will seek to evaluate and incorporate, to the extent possible, the values of the design engineer, construction engineer, maintenance engineer, contractor, public, state and federal approval agencies, local agencies, and other stakeholders. The important design decisions that must be made will be formulated from the recommendations developed and presented by the VE team.
PROCEDURE
VE Process
A detailed discussion of the VE process is included in the state VE Training Manual entitled Introduction To Value Engineering Principles and Practices. The VE process will use the eight-step Job Plan as follows:
• Selection Phase – Select the right projects, team, timing, processes, or elements.
??
• Investigation Phase – Investigate the background information, technical input reports (such as traffic, soils, hydraulic, environmental, accidents) and field data, function analysis, team focus, and objectives.
• Speculation Phase – Be creative and brainstorm alternative proposals and solutions.
• Evaluation Phase – Analyze alternatives, technical evaluation, life cycle costs, documentation of logic, and rationale.
• Development Phase – Develop technical and economic supporting data to prove the feasibility of the desirable concepts or ideas. Develop team recommendations. Recommend long-term as well as interim solutions as applicable.
• Presentation Phase – Present the findings and recommendations of the VE team in an oral presentation at the conclusion of the study, and in a written report and workbook following the completion of the study. In many cases, the way the findings are presented can be as important as the findings themselves.
• Implementation Phase – The recommendations formulated by the VE team are given a fair and thorough evaluation by the appropriate managers of the department. Prepare an implementation plan including the response from the managers and a schedule for accomplishing the recommendations.
• Audit Phase – Establish a record system to track the results and accomplishments of the VE program on a statewide basis and to compile the appropriate statistical analysis as requested by management personnel.
Statewide VE Program Manager
The Statewide VE Program Manager is responsible for coordinating and managing the development and implementation of the statewide VE program in close cooperation with the Region VE Coordinators. In general, the duties of the Statewide VE Program Manager include:
• Promote and facilitate the use of VE principles and techniques in various applications including project concepts and design, construction, operations and maintenance, and for specialized problem solving in specific technical areas.
• Assist efforts to promote and support the overall VE program.
• Assist and support the Region VE Coordinators as necessary to assure smooth and
efficient implementation of the VE program objectives and performance of VE
studies.
• Develop with the assistance of the Region VE coordinator the statewide VE study
plan from information furnished by the Region VE Coordinators.
• In coordination and cooperation with the Region VE Coordinator select the team
leader and team members for each VE study.
• Establish a schedule with dates for studies in cooperation with the various Region
VE Coordinators.
• Serve as team leader on various VE studies.
• Coordinate specialized VE study requests from major Olympia Service Center
divisions.
• Develop, schedule, and participate in training for VE coordinators, team leaders, and team members.
• Develop and maintain a monitoring and reporting system to establish a data base for summarizing the VE program results and benefits.
• Assist in providing consultant services, as necessary, to supplement the WSDOT VE program.
• In cooperation with the region VE coordinator notify the team leader and team members in writing prior to each VE study.
Regional VE Coordinator
In addition to other duties, the Region VE Coordinator serves to accomplish the VE program in accordance with department policy and guidelines for VE. Suggested duties include, but are not limited to the following:
• Within a region, promote and facilitate the use of VE principles and techniques in various applications including project scoping, concepts and design, construction, operations and maintenance, and for specialized value improvement in specific technical areas.
• Assist in the study plan development and selection of projects for VE studies from the current and proposed “highway construction programs”. Develop a biennial VE study plan, and update the plan annually. Submit VE planning information to the State VE Program Manager.
• Schedule each VE study and assist in the selection of the team leader and team members in coordination and cooperation with the Statewide VE Program Manager.
• Make arrangements for accomplishing the VE study including facilities and support equipment. Assure that the necessary input information and project plans and details are available for the team through the Project Design Office, and that project contact personnel are available during the study.
• Serve as VE team leader on various VE studies, both inside and outside of the Region.
• Provide specific VE study information (or a copy of the final report and workbook) to the State VE Program Manager at the conclusion of each study.
• Provide opportunity for training of VE team leaders and team members in cooperation with the State VE Program Manager.
• Maintain records of VE program accomplishments within the Region, including involvement of individual team members and availability of trained personnel.
Arrange for individuals who are knowledgeable and project stakeholders to brief the team on the first day of each study. This gives the team its charge and direction by identifying the critical input information, controlling decisions and constraints, and background and history for the study project.
?
SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR VE STUDIES
Projects for VE studies may be selected from any of the categories identified in the Priority Programming Plan including “Preservation” or “Improvement”, depending on the size and/or complexity of the project. In addition to the cost, other issues adding to the complexity of the project design should be considered in the selection process. These complexities may include: critical constraints, difficult technical issues, expensive solutions, external influences, or complicated functional requirements. The types of projects that usually provide the highest potential for value improvement are:
• Projects with alternate solutions which vary the scope and cost;
• New alignment or by-pass sections;
• Widening existing highways for capacity improvements;
• Major structures;
• Interchanges on multi-lane facilities;
• Projects with extensive or expensive environmental or geotechnical requirements;
• Difficult materials requirements or inferior material sources;
• Major reconstruction of existing highways;
• Projects with major traffic control;
• Projects with multiple stages.
The procedure to be used in the project selection process is as follows:
STEP 1. The Region VE Coordinator will identify projects for VE studies in the project summary form and will identify potential VE projects from the available planning documents for future work. The stage of development of each project will be identified.
STEP 2. The Regional VE Coordinator will present the projects identified in Step one to the regional management to prioritize the projects into a Regional VE Plan. (Value studies other than projects should also be considered in the VE Plan).
The Regional VE Plan will be reviewed by the State Design Engineer with respect to the content and schedule of the plan. Revisions (if necessary) will be negotiated with the Region, to finalize the plan for incorporation into the Statewide VE Plan.
STATEWIDE VE PLAN / SCHEDULE
On an biennial basis, the Regional VE Coordinators will submit to the State VE Program Manager the Regional Two Year VE Study Plan with specific projects scheduled by quarter. The Region and OSC division plans will be used to establish the Statewide VE Plan and will become the basis for determining the program needs including team members, team leaders and training. Since this is a working document, close coordination is required between the Olympia Service Center and the Regions. The schedule should be updated as revisions occur.
??
VE STUDY TIMING
The timing of a VE study is critical to the success of the project programming and development. The WSDOT VE program identifies three potential windows of opportunity for accomplishing the VE study.
Concept Stage
At the concept stage of development, the project scope and cost are under consideration. Preliminary engineering information should be available and the specific deficiencies or “drivers” should be identified. At this stage there is the maximum opportunity to consider the various alternatives or solutions and there is high potential that the recommendations of the VE Team can be implemented.
At the conclusion of the VE study, the project scope and cost can be established and the major decisions can be made to direct the further development of the project. When conducting studies on projects in early conceptual stages, care must be taken to focus heavily on issues affecting project “drivers” and not to go after dollar savings per se. The focus here should be on tracking the way the recommendations are implemented.
Schematic Design Stage
At the schematic design stage, the project scope and cost have been established and the major design decisions have been made. Normally some PS&E activities have begun and coordination has been initiated with the various service units that will be involved with the design. At this stage, the established project scope, cost, and schedule will normally define the limits of the VE study. There is still opportunity for a VE study to consider the technical issues for each of the specific design elements.
30 Percent Development Stage
At thirty percent stage most of the important project decisions have been established and the opportunity to effect the project design is somewhat limited. At this stage there is the opportunity to consider any significant design issues that have been identified during the design development. In addition, the constructibility, construction sequencing, staging, and traffic control elements are important to consider at this stage.
The VE study should be a tool to advance the project in the development process. Selecting the project at the proper stage of development and the timing of the study are very important to the success of the VE program.
TEAM LEADER
The quality of the VE study is a direct result of the ability of the Team Leader. This individual will guide the team in its efforts and be responsible for its actions during the
?
study. The Team Leader should be knowledgeable and proficient in both transportation design/construction and the VE process for transportation projects.
Team leadership can be supplied from within the region, or from other Regions, divisions of the Olympia Service Center, consultants, or other qualified leaders outside of the Department. The State VE Program Manager will cooperate with the Regional VE Coordinator to select the team leader. The State VE Program Manager will maintain a statewide pool of qualified team leaders.
TEAM MEMBERS
The VE team is usually comprised of five to eight persons with diverse backgrounds relevant to the specific study. The team may be selected from the Regions, Olympia Service Center, other state or Federal agencies, or private individuals or firms. Team members should have the appropriate expertise to address the major functional areas and critical high cost issues of the study, and must be committed to the time required for the study. For best results the team members should have received VE training prior to participation on a VE study. Local agencies, other state agencies, and communities groups should be invited to participate as team members on a case by case basis depending on project issues.
VE STUDY REQUIREMENTS
The time required to conduct a VE study may vary depending on the complexity and size of the project, but typically will range from three to five days.
The VE study Final Report and Workbook should include a narrative description of project input information, background and history, constraints and drivers, VE team focus areas, and a discussion of the team speculation, evaluation, and recommendations. All of the team’s evaluation documentation including sketches, calculations, analysis, and rationale for recommendations must be included in the Workbook as part of the Final Report. The Regional VE Coordinator will specify the number of copies of the Final Report and Workbook.
IMPLEMENTATION OF VE RECOMMENDATIONS
VE Team’s recommendations will be included in the Final Report and Workbook. Upon receipt of the findings and recommendations from the team, the Regional Managers will review and evaluate the recommendations. A specific response will be developed for each of the VE Team recommendations and prepare a summary statement regarding the decisions for the further project development.
This VE Decision Document will be submitted to the State Design Engineer. The document will become a vital element in the decision record for the project. Project development will then continue based on the decisions developed from the preliminary
engineering and the VE study recommendations (barring participation agreements funded by other agencies, utilities, developers, and so forth).

POLICY & OVERSIGHT DIVISION (POD) February 2014
PROCESSING CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS
TRAINING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview .3
Objective . 4
Contracting Officer’ s Role & Responsibility .5
Definitions .. 6
Modification Types 7-9
Standard Form 30 .10-12
Commonly-Used Modification Authorities .13-16
Consideration ..17-18
Points To Remember ..19

view
OVERVIEW

This training outlines the contract modification process in accordance with FAR Part 43/NOAA policies and procedures.

OBJECTIVE

Discuss the Contracting Officer’ s role & responsibility when executing modifications
Provide definitions
Define/discuss modification types
Discuss preparation/usage of the Standard Form 30
Provide commonly-used modification authorities
Define/discuss consideration
Provide points to remember

CONTRACTING OFFICER’ S ROLE & RESPONSIBILITY
Only Contracting Officers acting within the scope of their authority are empowered to execute modifications.

Contracting Officers shall not execute a modification that causes or will cause an increase in funds without first obtaining a certification of funds availability. (See FAR 43.105 for exceptions.)

Contracting Officers shall ensure that modifications, including changes that could be issued unilaterally, are priced before their execution if this can be done without adversely affecting the interest of the government. (See FAR 43.102 re: negotiating ceiling price. )

DEFINITIONS
Administrative change — unilateral contract change, in writing, that does not affect the substantive rights of the parties (e.g., a change in the paying office or the appropriation data).

Change order — a written order, signed by the Contracting Officer, directing the contractor to make a change that the Changes clause authorizes the Contracting Officer to order without the contractor’s consent.

Supplemental agreement — a contract modification that is accomplished by the mutual action of the parties.

MODIFICATION TYPES

There are two types of modifications —

1) Bilateral – supplemental agreement signed by the
contractor and the Contracting Officer

2) Unilateral – signed only by the Contracting Officer

STANDARD FORM 30 (SF 30)
Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

The SF 30 is a self-explanatory form and when properly executed by the Contracting Officer, constitutes a legal modification.

The SF 30 is a stand alone document which must accurately reflect any and all changes to the contract terms, conditions, scope of work, and/or specifications.

PREPARATION & USE OF SF 30
Block 13 identifies –
The type of change being processed, i.e., change order, administrative change, supplemental agreement, other specified changes.

The authority selected by the Contracting Officer (CO) to execute a specified contract change.

NOTE: The CO must select and complete one of the four fields (13A-13D to identify the proper modification type and authority.

PREPARATION & USE OF SF 30
(Block 13)
13A -Select when issuing an undefinitized contract action pursuant to the Changes clause that permits changes within the general scope of the contract, i.e., a change order. The change order directs the contractor to perform the change with execution of a bilateral modification at a later date incorporating all final negotiated changes.
 
13B -Select when issuing an administrative change to the contract, e.g., a change in the paying office or the appropriation data.

13C -Select when issuing a supplemental agreement, e.g., a negotiated equitable adjustment resulting from the issuance of a change order or other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of the contract.
 
13D -Select for all other changes that are not included in 13A -13C. These changes may be bilateral or unilateral, and the Contracting Officer must indicate appropriate modification type and authority, e.g., Unilateral pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

Commonly-Used Modification Authorities
A proper authority is mandatory for both unilateral and bilateral modifications, but is not necessary for administrative modifications.

General rule–cite an explicit authority that already exists in the contract, i.e., appropriate FAR/other clause.

Cite mutual agreement of the parties ONLY when no other authority exists.

The following tables (not all-inclusive) consist of commonly-used modification authorities that apply to specific contract changes.

CONSIDERATION
Consideration is the benefit each party confers upon the other for the modification; it is required to seal a new bargain.
Consideration is something of value given in exchange for something else & can consist of –
‚Üí Monetary
‚Üí Changes in Specs or Work Statements
‚Üí Delivery
‚Üí Payment Terms
‚Üí Other Contract Terms & Conditions
Contracting Officer cannot agree to modify without consideration, if consideration is required.
NOTE: See FAR 43.102(c) & 50.103 for exceptions to consideration.

CONSIDERATION
Example –
If contractor is entitled to time extension pursuant to a contract clause, no consideration is required, e.g., weather/excusable delays. However, if parties negotiate time extension at request of either, and the requesting party is not entitled to the extension pursuant to a clause, the parties are modifying the contract by making a new deal and must exchange new consideration. (Note: an equitable adjustment is not consideration.)

POINTS TO REMEMBER
Modifications to a contract affect the interests, rights, and obligations of two parties îthe NOAA and the contractor. The responsibility of the Contracting Officer (CO) is to preserve the integrity of the relationship between these two parties. The CO reviews the action to determine whether it is consistent with the existing contract and to ensure that the equities of the existing relationship are preserved and will be continued when a modification is issued.

Contact the POD and/or seek Legal Counsel when you have a challenging modification process!

QUESTIONS

ILC Engineering Design Phase – Status & Plans

Mike Harrison

GDE/BNL
Reference Design Report
The draft report and associated cost estimate was presented to ICFA in Beijing
Reference Design Cost Estimate
Summary
RDR Value Costs

Total Value Cost (FY07)
4.80 B ILC Units Shared
+
1.82 B Units Site Specific
+
14.1 K person-years
( explicit labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr)
1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007)

ILC Engineering Design Phase
We are at an evident change point in the ILC Project.

Two years after the formal formation of the GDE,
the recent completion of the draft Reference Design Report (RDR) marks a major milestone in this global effort.

The GDE is now in the process of restructuring itself and making plans for the engineering design phase, leading to the completion of the ILC Engineering Design Report (EDR) in 2010.
Engineering Design phase will include:
Basic R&D to demonstrate that all components can be engineered
R&D into alternative solutions to mitigate remaining risk.
An overall design to allow machine construction to start within 3 years,
selection between high tech options must be made to allow industrialization efforts.
A comprehensive value-engineering exercise must be conducted.
A complete value cost estimate for the machine must be provided, including a funding profile consistent with the project schedule.
A project execution plan must be produced, including a realistic schedule.
Designs for facilities shared between different area systems , and for site-specific infrastructure. The designs must include the level of detail needed for regions to estimate the cost to host
All necessary information must be provided to regions to evaluate project technical and financial risks in support of a bid to host.
High Priority -Controlling COST
fundamental containment of the current RDR Value estimate (no cost creep).

potential cost-reduction via engineering
clearly identified in the RDR (do we really need two tunnels ?).

Together with the risk-mitigating/cost reducing prioritised R&D program

n.b. the Reference design costs were reduced by ~25% from the original numbers

Industrialization
Second focus: increasing direct involvement of industries

Preparation for mass production
is a critical issue for key technologies,
understanding how individual countries can contribute in-kind

This must be achieved on a truly worldwide basis,
Intend to follow free-market
including seeking out and developing potential (new) industrial bases
For example India
RDR provides guidance
The RDR provides a design and a value estimate that is parametric in nature,
allows us to identify the cost drivers and the technical risks;
critical in prioritizing both engineering and R&D,

primary cost drivers:
SCRF linac technology
CFS,
~70% of the ILC value estimate.

These two will be a major focus during the EDR
Prioritization for the EDR
Based on:
Technical risk mitigation
Cost risk mitigation
Cost reduction
Preparation

Not in the above order:
Quantitative evaluation possible based on RDR Value estimate and plan

Mechanism?
Define proposed Work Packages,
Build Work Breakdown Structure
Secure institutional/funding agency consensus
Getting Started on the EDR:
Re-organize ourselves toward the EDR
Project management-based structure,
Definition, scope and resources

Examine RDR & plan EDR a starting point
Multi-day technical meetings planned
Internally controlled process

Continue the design work and technical R&D

EDR Objectives -Main Linac Technology:
Complete the critical R&D as identified by the R & D Board task forces.
Coordinate/monitor industrialization efforts
Identify a plan for consolidating design work
Identify ways in which the maximum benefit can be obtained from the European XFEL project
Formally launched June 5, 2007
EDR Objectives: Conventional Facilities & Siting (CFS)
CF/S has been identified as an RDR cost driver;
expected to yield cost reduction through value engineering.
Complicated via site/regional dependencies:
Need to delineate global/generic engineering and site/region-specific engineering;
Both categories to be clearly identified in WBS.
Primary EDR Goals:
iteration of CF/S requirements with accelerator designers/engineers ( òvalue engineering’ );
Detailed evaluation of alternative solutions (e.g. shallow site);
Prepare critical information for specific site selection / development;

Lack of an agreed-upon single site is a significant problem

EDR Objectives: Accelerator Systems
Define performance-driven specifications for the accelerator components and infrastructure
Iterate cost/performance trade-offs
CF/S will be a focus;
Demonstrate that the accelerator design fulfills the required performance goals in a cost-effective way;
by demonstration via critical R&D;
by simulation;
Maintain a risk register, and develop alterative fall-back solutions.
Restructuring the GDE
Project Management for the EDR Phase
Devised along functional lines
(instead of institutional or regional )
Many WP’ s will have strong institutional center
Relationship between Project and Institutes through a series of òMemoranda’
Defines a Work Package for a given Institution

we must be extremely careful to develop and maintain inter-regional consensus/balance
ILC Project Management
Global focus
Role of the project managers in relation to the regional directors:

Project Managers are responsible for
Leading the worldwide technical development effort
Setting technical direction and executing the project toward realization of the ILC

Regional Directors are responsible for
Promoting, seeking funding and authorization of the international cooperative program.
ILC Project Management as a proposal for the organization toward EDR
EDR Project Management
Managing a non-centrally funded project:
green indicates a commitment:
institute will deliver
MoUs facilitate connection:
Project Management (authority and responsibility) and institutions (funding and resources).
The òC’ coordinating role in a WP
Each WP has only one coordinator.

Memoranda of Understanding
Until we have central funding, the GDE must continue to seek its resources indirectly via the institutes forming the collaboration.

Responsibilities for delivering a WP must be formally agreed upon between the GDE Project Management and the corresponding institute via MoU.

The institutes are then responsible for obtaining the necessary resources for the task from their funding sources (agencies).

The process by which the WPs are defined, and the allocation of institutes to carry out those WPs through MoUs, must be an open and transparent process allowing all interested parties to make a proposal to carry out the work and to understand and accept the criteria used in decision making.
Resources
SCRF òCenters of Excellence’ in each region
KEK, FNAL/ANL/JLAB, DESY
Infrastructure and key staff ready for EDR
Supports R & D and development of industry

ILC Design and Engineering expertise in each region
CERN has unique expertise in large scale civil engineering, mass production of cryogenic components and cryogenic systems
2007/08 -EDR Meeting Schedule
2007/08 EDR Milestones
May -Project Managers announced:
Akira Yamamoto (KEK)
Marc Ross (Fermilab) chair
Nick Walker (DESY)
Aug. -Korea ILCSC PM submission
Aug. to Oct. -EDR Kick Off Meetings
Oct -DRAFT Work Packages / WBS
Fermilab ILC GDE meeting
Jan. to Feb. 08 -EDR R & D Meetings
March 2008 -Tohoku ILC Meeting
EDR organization in place (WBS, MoU drafts)
Conclusions
GDE transition from reference design phase to the engineering design phase is underway

The goal is to produce a design by 2010 which can be used for project approval, site selection and updated cost estimates. Consistent with construction start ~ 3 years later

Engineering Design phase will benefit from:
Strong, steady support from funding agencies
Institutional commitment to further develop collaborations
A commitment to unify and strengthen governance

The Brooks A&E Act National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Acquisition & Grants Office
January 24, 2006
Acquisition of Surveying and Mapping
A&E – Statute and Regulation
Methodology
Government -Industry Relations
The 2005 Review
Common Ground
A&E – Statute and Regulation
Unique acquisition procedure -Subpart 36.6 of the FAR
Selection based on qualifications
Price negotiated after selection
Mandated by statute -Brooks Architect-Engineers Act of 1972
Significant amendments in 1988
Public Works Act of 1939 -Changes from World War II buildup
Comptroller General Report of 1967
Brooks Architect Engineers Act 40 U.S.C.§1101 Definitions of A&E Services
professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by state law, if applicable, that are required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered, or certified to provide the services described in this paragraph;
(B) professional services of an architectural or engineering nature performed by contract that are associated with research, planning, development, design, construction, alteration, or repair of real property; and
(C) other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, or incidental services, which members of the architectural and engineering professions (and individuals in their employ) may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, and other related services.
Brooks Architect Engineers Act Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 2.1 Definitions of A&E Services
Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by state law, if applicable, that are required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered, or certified to provide those services;

Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature performed by contract that are associated with research, planning, development, design, construction, alteration, or repair of real property; and

Those other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, or incidental services, that members of the architectural and engineering professions (and individuals in their employ) may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, and other related services.
Brooks Architect Engineers Act Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 36.6 Implementation Definitions of A&E Services
Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by state law, which the State law requires to be performed or approved by a registered architect or engineer.

Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature associated with design or construction or real property.

Other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, or services incidental thereto (including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals and other related services) that logically or justifiably require performance by registered architects or engineers or their employees.

Professional surveying and mapping services of an architectural or engineering nature. Surveying is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and shall be procured pursuant to section 36.601 from registered surveyors or architects and engineers. Mapping associated with the research, planning, development, design, construction, or alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and is to be procured pursuant to section 36.601. However, mapping services that are not connected to traditionally understood or accepted architectural and engineering activities, are not incidental to such architectural and engineering activities or have not in themselves traditionally been considered architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to provisions in Parts 13, 14, and 15.
Methodology
Acquisition of A&E takes 240 -360 days
Pricing is by analysis
Acquisition of non A&E takes 60 -120 days
Pricing is by competition
Quality is unchanged between A&E and Non A&E
How Did we Get Here?
1789 Constitution, Article 8
1795 Purveyor of Public Affairs Act
1861 Civil Sundry Appropriations Act
1947 Armed Services Procurement Act
1949 Federal Property & Admin. Services Act
1974 Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
1985 Competition in Contracting Act
1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
1996 Federal Acquisition Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen)
Federal Acquisition System
The vision for the Federal Acquisition System is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’ s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.

All participants in the System are responsible for making acquisition decisions that deliver the best value product or service to the customer. Best value must be viewed from a broad perspective and is achieved by balancing the many competing interests in the System. The result is a system which works better and costs less.
Federal Acquisition System Goals
Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by
Maximizing the use of commercial products and services;
Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior capability to perform; and
Promoting competition
Minimize administrative operating costs;
Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness;
Fulfill public policy objectives
Government -Industry Relations Have Improved
Industries that do business with the federal Government moved beyond adversarial relations with the passage of the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984.

They embraced business partnerships with the passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
COFPAES
Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural & Engineering Services
Proponent of Brooks A&E Act and Maintenance of FAR Subpart 36.6
The 2005 Review of A&E
Conducted by the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council