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

VALUE ENGINEERING (VE) SUMMARY
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
DT1342 4/2008 (Replaces ED1022)

Project ID
FORMTEXT ?????
Date
FORMTEXT ?????
Project Title
FORMTEXT ?????
Regional Project Manager/Region/Telephone Number
FORMTEXT ?????
Project Limits
FORMTEXT ?????
Consultant Project Manager (If Applicable)/Consulting Firm/Telephone Number
FORMTEXT ?????
Highway/County
FORMTEXT ?????
Estimated Project Cost (per Environmental Document)
FORMTEXT ?????
Project Description
FORMTEXT ?????
Describe Project Need
FORMTEXT ?????
Segments or Elements Studied
FORMTEXT ?????
Study Dates
FORMTEXT ?????
Study Participants (Include Participant’s Name, Agency, Section or Office, and Position Title)
FORMTEXT ?????
Comments
FORMTEXT ?????
Summary of VE Cost Savings
(From VE Recommendations Summary Sheet)
A1. Number of Proposed VE Recommendations [1]

FORMTEXT ?????
A2. Value of Proposed VE Recommendations [1] [2]

FORMTEXT ?????
B1. Number of Approved VE Recommendations

FORMTEXT ?????
ADVANCE \D 10.0B2. Value of Approved VE Recommendations [2]

FORMTEXT ?????
C1. VE Study Contract Cost

FORMTEXT ?????
C2. Project Staff Cost [3]

FORMTEXT ?????
C3. Total VE Study Costs (C1 + C2)

FORMTEXT ?????
ADVANCE \D 10.0D. Net VE Cost Savings (B2 – C3)

FORMTEXT ?????
[1] Do not include design suggestions or recommendations applicable only to dismissed environmental alternatives. Hold submittal of this form until selection of the preferred alternative to accurately report potential cost savings.
[2] Cost savings compared to original design.
[3] Estimated WisDOT (and Design Consultant) staff cost to administer & participate in VE study.
ATTACH VE RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY SHEET
Submit to Bureau of Project Development, Project Services Section, Room 651, HFSTB

2005 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Using VE in Design Build
Presented by:
Jerry R. Blanding
Innovative Contracting Engineer
FHWA -NRC
July 21, 2005
Sheraton Gunter Hotel
San Antonio, TX
Using VE in Design Build
Regulatory Definitions

DB Final Rule -History & Application

VE & DB A Federal Perspective

Additional Resources
Value Analysis/ Value Engineering
Why is Design-Build different from Design Bid Build?
23 CFR Part 636 – Design Build
Design-bid-build means the traditional project delivery method where design and construction are sequential steps in the project development process.

Design-build contract means an agreement that provides for design and construction of improvements by a contractor or private developer. The term encompasses design-build-maintain, design-build-operate, design-build-finance and other contracts that include services in addition to design and construction. Franchise and concession agreements are included in the term if they provide for the franchisee or concessionaire to develop the project which is the subject of the agreement.

Value Analysis/ Value Engineering
Design Build Final Rule:
23 CFR § 627.5 (e)

In the case of a Federal-aid design-build
project the (State) shall fulfill the requirement by
performing a value engineering analysis
prior to the release of the Request for Proposals
document.
Using VE in Design Build -Florida DOT Example
All projects with an estimated cost of $20 million or more shall have
a minimum of one VE study conducted during project development.

The estimated cost shall includes all costs associated with the
project including but not limited to:
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Administrative Cost.
Using VE in Design Build -Florida DOT example
The VE study shall be conducted during one of the following
phases of project development:
Initial Concepts
Comparison of Alternatives
Final Design

For Design Build Projects, the VE study shall be conducted prior to
the release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) Document.

The greatest potential for improvement is during the Initial
Concepts or Comparison of Alternatives review period.

TRB Task Force A2T51 – Innovative Contracting
January 1988 – 23 representatives of the highway industry participated
Mission of TRB Task Force A2T51
Compile information on contracting practices
Assess how current practices affect quality, progress and cost
Suggest measures for improving contracting practices and promoting quality in construction
December 1991 – TRB Circular #386 -Innovative Contracting Practices
Special Experimental Project No. 14 Innovative Contracting
Initiated 2/13/90
Objective – Evaluate project specific contracting practices which
Maintain product quality
Reduce life cycle cost
Practices proposed for evaluation
Cost-plus-time Bidding
Lane Rental
Warranty Procedures
Design-Build
TEA-21 Design-Build Legislation Section 1307
FHWA implemented the Final Rule in January 2003.

After the final rule, states can use design-build without HQ approval for Qualified Projects
ITS projects > $ 5 million
Other projects > $50 million

SEP-14 will continue for smaller projects unless Congress approves language in the reauthorization bill eliminating this threshold.

In 2005 FHWA will complete the required òReport to Congress’ on the effectiveness of design build.
Existing SEP-14 Design-Build Contracts vs. Qualified Projects

Advantages of Design-Build
Single Point of Responsibility
Quality / Innovation
Potential Time or Cost Savings
Improved Risk Management
Earlier Knowledge of Firm Costs
Lower Incidence of Claims
Reduced Project Administration
Critical Characteristics for Public Sector Design-Build Projects Design-Build Selector Georgia Institute of Technology / University of Colorado www.colorado.edu/engineering/civil/Design-Build/DBS/
Poor DB Projects Don’ t Have:
Well Defined Scope
Shared Understanding of Scope
Owner’ s Construction Sophistication
Adequate Owner Staffing
Established Budget
Established Completion Date

Suitability
NEPA, and major ROW and utility issues must be clear
Should have a Strong design component
Reasons for selection should not be:
Obligation of funds
Compensate for inadequate agency resources
NEPA – RFP Release: Where Does VE Fit?
FHWA Perspective on Using VE in Design Build
VE is a mandate for NHS projects $25 million and over
VE must be performed prior to release of the RFP
Multiple VE’ s may be appropriate for major projects
VE studies are performed to add value to a project, not simply to reduce costs.
All valid suggestions should be included in the study report. Management must determine what impact the VE suggestions may have on the environmental or public hearing agreements.
FHWA Perspective on Using VE in Design Build
VE should be performed on NEPA alternatives or on selected RFP requirements.

FHWA has not objected as long as VE is done prior to release of RFP at a reasonable point with the coordination of the Division Office.

Innovative Contracting Best Practices Web Site
Utah State University
www.ic.usu.edu
Practical information on warranties, A+B, lane rental and design-build contracting
What is it?
Why should you use this?
Criteria for project selection?
Who is currently using it?
Example provisions

Additional Resources on SEP-14 Design-Build Projects
FHWA HIPA-30 web page
www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/progadmin/contracts/d_build.htm

WSDOT Design-Build Process for Highway Projects
www.wsdot.wa.gov/designbuild/db/dbguidebook.htm

Economic Recovery: Water Quality Infrastructure February 2009
What’ s All This Talk About Economic Recovery?

What is the Federal Government doing?

What is the State Water Board doing?

What should Applicants be doing?
Economic Recovery Bill
The latest versions will:

Preserve and create job and promote
economic recovery.

Provide grants for Clean Water State
Revolving Funds (CWSRF).
Will focus on shovel-ready projects as the
priority.
House Recovery Bill
The House Bill contains the following:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will award grant to the CWSRF programs within 30 days of enactment.

The CWSRF program shall enter into financing contracts with the funds:
Within one (1) year of enactment for 50% (or 9 months after grant, if later) of the funds.
Within two (2) years (or 21 months after the grant, if later) for the remainder of the funds .

No State matching requirement.

House Recovery Bill
Total allotment of $6 billion nationwide.
– California’ s share would be about $425 million.

50% of funds for Principal Forgiveness / Negative Interest / Grants

80% of funds to meet affordability criteria determined by Governor.

20% of funds to address water and energy-efficiency goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage environmentally sensitive project planning, design, and construction.

1.5% of funds may be reserved by EPA for Tribal Grants
Senate Recovery Bill
Total allotment of $4 billion nationwide.
– About $280 million for California

Financing contracts will be for projects that are ready to proceed to construction within 180 days of enactment

100% of funds may include additional subsidization, including principal forgiveness and negative interest rate loans

Not less than 15% of the funds shall be designated for green infrastructure, water efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative projects

1.5% of funds may be reserved by EPA for Tribal Grants

CWSRF Policy Amendments/ Administrative Actions
CWSRF Policy Amendments/ Administrative Actions (cont.)
How Do I Get the $$$$

Submit a Financial Application if your project is ready-to-proceed.
Even if your project is not on the Priority List.
Applicant assigned a Project Manager to assist in the application process.

Get on Project Priority List.
Work closely with your Project Manager to ensure all documents are submitted for funding commitment.
Stay tuned for further news.

2009 CWSRF Public/Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) Priority List Workshops *

February 11, 2009 -San Luis Obispo – Central Coast Regional Water Board
February 18, 2009 -Redding -Central Valley Regional Water Board
February 19, 2009 -Sacramento -Central Valley Regional Water Board
February 24, 2009 -Victorville -Lahontan Regional Water Board
February 25, 2009 -Palm Desert -Colorado River Regional Water Board
February 26, 2009 -Riverside -Santa Ana Regional Water Board

March 3, 2009 -Los Angeles -Los Angeles Regional Water Board
March 4, 2009 -San Diego -San Diego Regional Water Board
March 11, 2009 -Fresno -Central Valley Regional Water Board
March 18, 2009 -Santa Rosa -North Coast Regional Water Board
March 19, 2009 -Oakland -San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board

April 1, 2009 -South Lake Tahoe -Lahontan Regional Water Board

* Dates are subject to change

For dates and locations, visit the CWSRF website:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/index.shtml

2009 California Financing Coordinating Committee (CFCC) Funding Fairs

February 3, 2009 -Chino -Inland Empire Utilities Agency
February 5, 2009 -Bakersfield -UC Merced, Bakersfield Center

March 10, 2009 -Eureka -City of Eureka Wharfinger Buliding

April 2, 2009 -Merced -University of California Cooperative Extension

May 7, 2009 -Sacramento -California Environmental Protection
Agency Headquarters Building

For location information, visit the CFCC website: www.cfcc.ca.gov

Contact/Resources Information
New Economic Recovery Website
Questions

THE APPLICATION OF VALUE ENGINEERING ON PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN SAUDI ARABIA
BY:
Mohammad Ali Husain Al-Sughaiyer
Supervised By:
Dr. Saadi Assaf
Date:
June 1987
Summarized By:
Omar A. Al-Dukhayyil
Outline
Objectives
Definition
Value Engineering in Saudi Arabia
Research Methodology
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Conclusion

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this thesis are:

To introduce value engineering concept.
Finding out the extent of use of value engineering on public construction projects.
Determining reasons and roadblocks for extending the use of value engineering in Saudi Arabia.
Suggesting some ways to expand the use of value engineering in Saudi Arabia.
Value Engineering
Is defined as an organized creative effort which analyzes the functions of the products or services for the purpose of achieving the required functions at the lowest possible cost without sacrificing quality, performance, and reliability.
Value Engineering in Saudi Arabia

Mid-seventies (Ministry of Defense & Aviation)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Discussing the government development plans and the importance of value engineering concept, followed by discussing its process.
Survey:
Government Agencies.
Consulting Firms.
Results and analysis of the collected responses.
Suggestions on expanding the use of value engineering in Saudi Arabia.

Results & Analysis

Responses were divided into two groups:
Those who apply VE. (MODA)
Those who do not apply VE.
Results & Analysis
Those who do not apply VE: it was found the following:
Only 11.7% of the responses from government engineers understand VE very well.
Only 25.7% of the responses from consultant engineers understand VE very well.
70.6% of the responses claimed that the main reason for not implementing VE technique is that the concept was not practically introduced to them.
68.6% of the responses consulting firms claimed they had never been asked to conduct such a study for additional fee.

Recommendations
Introduce the concept of value engineering to all government agencies.
Enforce a government regulation.
Value engineering should be conducted first for large construction projects.
The implementation should be supported by the top management.
Establish a value engineering society.
Conclusion
VE is a successful technique that has been tested in many countries.
VE can be applied at any stage of the project’s development.
The most important reason for not applying VE in this country is that the concept is not very well known.
Government regulations through a government procurement system do not encourage the idea of VE.
There are no qualified personnel to apply this concept.
Top management’s support is essential to introduce and operate a successful VE program in organizations.

Thank you