QBS Booth at IACC Conference
ACEC Indiana has secured booth E85 (noted in yellow below) at the IACC Conference in November, at the Sheraton Hotel at Keystone at the Crossing. ACEC staff will provide the necessary materials for the conference. Please see the attachment for detailed instructions and talking points for participation.

Tuesday, Nov. 28 p.m. from 3-4:30 p.m.: Susan Al-Abbas, Dave Henkel

Tuesday, Nov. 28 p.m. from 4:30-6 p.m.: Chris Pope

Wednesday, Nov. 29 p.m. from 8-9 a.m.: Trent Newport, Mark Beck

Wednesday, Nov. 29 p.m. from noon-1:30 p.m.: Scott Wilkinson, Jesse Combs

QBS Booth To Do:

Thanks for volunteering to staff the QBS Booth. Please see notes below for your shift.

·  Set up all collateral: banner stand, membership brochures and QBS cleaning cloths.

·  Set out any other items to encourage interest in booth (i.e. candy).

·  Set out fishbowl to collect business cards.

·  Each day, there will be one gift card giveaway. Please pull a business card out of the fishbowl and call/ e-mail the recipient and ask him/ her to come back to the booth to pick up the gift card. Coordinate with other time slot volunteers as to who will do the giveaways.

·  Reference “QBS Talking Points” to educate yourself on ACEC’s stance on QBS.

·  Be sure to wear your “ACEC hat” and promote QBS as the preferred selection process (over marketing specifically for your firm etc.)

Qualifications-Based Selection and Negotiations

in the Procurement of Engineering Services

The Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. 1101-1104) qualifications-based procedure for procuring engineering and design services helps deliver transportation projects more efficiently and cost effectively. Weakening that law would undermine the goals the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has for the next transportation authorization bill by adding costs and compromising project success.

Engineering is a highly skilled, multi-disciplined profession whose services directly affect public safety and welfare. Engineering and consulting firms provide technical expertise, innovation and the latest technologies – skills that are the most important factors in enhancing project performance and cost savings. That’s why engineering services are procured under a different, but highly competitive and transparent process that emphasizes qualifications, experience and expertise.

Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) lowers the overall cost of projects through designs that reduce change orders during construction and minimize long-term operations and maintenance costs. By contrast, a low-bid process can ultimately be more time consuming and costly.

QBS allows government agencies to deliver projects efficiently by focusing on qualifications to achieve the agency’s requirements rather than lowest services cost. Agencies save time and money by eliminating the need to develop a detailed scope of work for bidding. Under QBS, the scope of work is finalized with the most qualified offeror during negotiation of a fair and reasonable cost. Cost-based selection requires and encourages later scope changes that increase design and construction costs and delay project delivery schedules.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why shouldn’t agencies be able to ask for price proposals from 3 or 4 top-ranked firms under a “best value” process?

·  This is unworkable because, at this stage of the procurement process, there is seldom a detailed scope of work beyond basic project parameters and objectives that firms could use to develop accurate price proposals.

·  Most often, after the qualifications-based selection process, agencies work directly with the top-ranked firm to define a complete scope of work on every facet of the project and the firm develops and submits a price proposal based on the project scope.

·  This scoping process also enables the firm to offer innovative options not considered by the agency that would lead to more successful project outcomes – more durable facilities, lower construction costs, shorter construction schedules, lower life cycle costs, etc.

·  By contrast, when cost is a factor in selection, it inevitably becomes the determining factor, trumping quality and innovation. Submitting firms will cut the scope of work first in order to be price competitive. That means the agency might not be getting the design it wants or engineering services it needs.

Does an agency just have to accept the price of the most qualified firm?

·  No. The most-qualified firm is given the first opportunity at negotiating a contract at a fair and reasonable price – the firm is not guaranteed a contract. If the proposed fee is unacceptable, the owner and firm work together to modify the scope of work, schedule and budget to determine if an agreement can be reached.

·  If the agency and the firm cannot agree on price, the agency has complete flexibility to terminate negotiations and turn to the next firm on the short list.

Does QBS result in higher A/E fees?

·  Engineering and design services are a very small percentage of the total project cost, and studies have shown that QBS actually saves money during the construction phase of the project, which is where most of the money is spent.

·  The Maryland experience between 1976 and 1982 showed that fee bidding or submission of separate technical and price proposals may offer lower initial prices but the “savings” are lost in change orders and time delays.

·  A recent study carried out by the University of Colorado and the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed this dynamic, finding quantitative evidence that QBS-based projects experienced fewer change orders and construction cost escalation (3% on average) versus the industry standard (10%).

Is it true that firms have little motivation to hold down overhead costs, as they simply pass those costs onto the agency?

·  No. Engineering firms must comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) cost principles, which outlines very specific rules on what can be charged to overhead.

·  Engineering firms typically get the vast majority of their business from repeat clients. Client satisfaction ranks second only to the firm’s public safety professional responsibility. In the highly competitive private market, it is in the firm’s best financial interest to hold costs down and deliver high value to their clients.

·  By contrast, in-house engineering workforces do not face the same market pressures as private sector firms and have no economic incentive to keep down overhead or other costs. A study carried out by the Polytechnic Institute of NYU compared overhead, direct salaries and other costs between private and public sector engineers and found that an in-house NY DOT design engineer’s cost to the taxpayer exceeds that of a private design engineer by 14 percent.

Does the QBS process benefit only a few firms?

·  The Brooks Act is strongly supported by firms of all sizes. QBS helps small firms compete by providing them a forum to demonstrate the advantages they often have, including niche market expertise, local knowledge, and involvement of senior level management. Under price bidding, small and minority firms are at a disadvantage against larger firms, which can spread costs among a greater number of projects.

·  Large firms support QBS because it provides consistency and predictability across agencies and in multiple jurisdictions.