1、STD.AASHT0 SRCH GCPE-ENGL L77b b37804 003855b 772 1996 Guide for Contracting, Selecting, and _ STD-AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL L99b Ob39804 0038557 829 1996 Guide for Contracting, Selecting, and Managing Consultants in Preconstruction Engineering DEVELOPED BY THE AASHTO Task Force on Preconstruction Engin
2、eering Management PUBLISHED BY THE American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5800 O Copyright 1996, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officiais. Ail Rights Reserved. Prin
3、ted in the United States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publishers. ISBN: 1-5605 1-032-3 STD*AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL L77b m Ob37804 0038558 7b5 m AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
4、 1994-1995 President: Wayne Shackelford, Georgia Vice President: Bill Burnett, Texas Secretaryflreasurer: Clyde E. Pyers, Maryland Regional Representatives: Region I Patrick Garahan, Vermont Region II Ben Watts, Florida Region III Darre1 Rensink, Iowa Region IV Larry Bonine, Arizona Executive Direct
5、or: Francis B. Francois, Washington, D.C. . 111 STD*AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL L99b m Ob39801r 0038559 bTL m AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Win 1994-1995 Dan Flowers, Chairman, Arkansas Kenneth C. Afferton, Vice Chairman, New Jersey William A. Weseman, Secretary, FHWA Alabama, Don T. Arkle, Jack F. Caraw
6、ay, William E. McCraney Alaska, Timothy Mitchell, Boyd Brownfield, Dave McCaleb, Loren Rasmussen Arizona, John L. Louis, Dallis Saxton Arkansas, Bob Walters, Dan Rowers, CaliJornia, Waiter P. Smith Colorado, James E. Siebels, Ken Mauro Connecticut, Bradley J. Smith, Earle R. MUMM, James E Byrnes, Jr
7、. Delaware, Michael A. Angelo, Raymond M. Harbeson, Chao H. Hu, Joseph Satterfield, Michael Simmons Paul DeBusk D.C., Luke DiPompo, Sanford H. Vinick Florida, Freddie L. Simmons Georgia, Jim Kennerly, Walker Scott, Hawaii, Kenneth W. G. Wong Idaho, Doug Chase, Loren Thomas Illinois, Gary G. Gould, K
8、en Lazar Indiana, Phelps Nika, David M. Pluckebaum, Iowa, Dave Little, Donald L. East, Kansas, James O. Brewer, Richard G. Adams Kentucky, Jack Sacksteder, Steve Williams, Louisiana, Nick Kalivoda, William Hickey, Maine, Walter A. Hendrickson, Maryland, Anthony M. Capizzi, Massachusetts, Frederick J
9、. Nohelty, Jr., Hoyt J. Lively David Andrewski George E Sisson Charles S. Raymer Kent Israel Michael E. Bums Robert D. Douglass Stanley W. Wood, Jr., Thomas E Broderick, III Michigan, Charles J. Arnold Minnesota, Gerald J. Rohrbach Mississippi, Wendel T. Ruff, J. Richard Young Missouri, Frank L. Car
10、roll Montana, Carl S. Peil, Ronald E. Williams Nebraska, Donald L. Turek, Eldon D. Poppe Nevada, Steve R. Oxoby, James Dodson New Hampshire, Gilbert S. Rogers New Jersey, James J. Snyder, Walter W. Caddell, Kenneth C. Afferton, Charles A. Goessel New Mexico, Charles V. Trujillo New York, Peter Bella
11、ir, Robert A. Dennison, North Carolina, G. T. (Tom) Shearin, North Dakota, David K. O. Leer, Ken Birst Ohio, Christopher L. Runyan, Donald K. Oklahoma, Clee Turbyfill, C. Wayne Philliber, Oregon, Thomas D. Lulay Pennsylvania, John J. Faiella, Jr., Puerto Rico, Jose E. Hernandez Rhode Island, J. Mich
12、ael Bennett South Carolina, William M. DuBose, III South Dakota, Monte R. Schneider, Tim Tennessee, Clellon Loveall, Paul Morrison Texas, Robert L. Wilson, Mark Marek US. DOT, Steve A. Jones (FHWA), William Weseman (MA), Richard J. Worch (FAA), John Rice (FAA), Seppo Sillan (FHWA) Utah, Heber Vlam,
13、Byron Parker, Kim Schvaneveldt, P. K. Mohanty Vermont, John L. Armstrong, Robert M. Murphy, Donald H. Lathrop Virginia, E. C. Cochran, Jr., D. O. Litton, J. R. Bowles Washington, Dennis Jackson West Virginia, Randolph Epperly, Wisconsin, Robert Pfeiffer Wyoming, Robert D. Milburn, David J. Hanlin, P
14、hilip J. Clark D. R. (Don) Morton Huhman Bruce E. Taylor Dean A. Schreiber, Mahendra G. Patel Bjorneberg, Larry Engbrecht Norman H. Roush Donald A. Carlson, Paul Bercich iv STD-AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL Lb Ob3980Li 00385b0 313 M Alberta, Allan Kwan British Columbia, Merv E Clark Guam, Cesar L. Somera Ho
15、ng Kong, H. S. Kwong Manitoba, A. Boychuk Northern Mariana Islands, Elizabeth H. New Brunswick, C. Herbert Page Newfoundland, Terry McCarthy Northwest Territories, Peter Vician Nova Scotia, Al MacRae Salas-Balajadia Ontario, Gerry McMillan Saskatchewan, Tom Gutek Mass. Metro. District Commission, Ne
16、w Jersey Turnpike Authority, Port Authority of NY however, a complete scope of services (work) will save a great deal of time and misunderstanding in the negotiation phase. The scope document must be clear and precise. It will serve as the foundation for the consultants proposal and contract. The co
17、nsultant selection process, in many jurisdictions, is coming under increasing scrutiny. People outside the agency, as well as State Legislatures, are examining the process and questioning agency decisions. It is critically important that the agency have a clearly defined policy and procedure which d
18、emonstrates a fair and equitable selection process open for all. This guide outlines the processes that are in predominant use throughout the country. Consultant contracts should clearly outline the terms and conditions under which the consultant is expected to function. In cases of dispute, the wri
19、tten word takes precedence over any oral understanding. price for the professional services the consultant provides. In return for providing the services and product, the consultant is entitled to a reasonable profit. Many of the clauses and requirements do not vary with each individual contract. Th
20、ese should be standardized and approved by the agencys legal staff as well as the various technical units affected. This standardization can include such items as indemnity, insurance, dispute resolution, and bonding requirements. This standardization is frequently referred to as “boilerplate” langu
21、age. However, even beyond this, many agencies develop model agreements. The use of model agreements significantly reduces processing and review time. It is normal for unanticipated changes to become necessary during design. The basic contract must clearly state how contract modifications will be mad
22、e and must spell out the manner in which compensation will be paid. the prime consultant must clearly define the responsibility of the agency, the prime consultant, and the subconsultant. Normally, the agency will hold the prime consultant responsible for full performance, including that of the subc
23、onsultant. Another consideration for an agency facing a new or modified program is the training of One of the most important steps in developing a consultant contract is the preparation of a A fundamental precept in negotiating the contract is that the agency is willing to pay a fair The use of subc
24、onsultants is frequently necessary. The contract between the agency and viii Executive Summary STD-AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL 199b Ob3980Li 00385b4 Tb9 There are several ways of structuring payments to consultants. The two most frequently Management of the consultants work, as well as management of the p
25、roject, is extremely used are “cost plus fixed fee” and “lump sum.” important. Many agencies designate one person as project manager and all direction to the consultant must be through that individual. This helps to simplify and clarify the lines of communication and responsibility. The project mana
26、ger is responsible for approving the consultants invoices and must assure the agency that work is progressing on time and within budget. thoroughly experienced engineers and must be trained in contract management. Individuals who are selected to be consultant project managers should possess a solid
27、technical background. In order to assure that the agency can provide people with this skill, a viable in-house design force is essential. It is only by learning design first-hand that a person will be able, later on, to effectively manage a consultant project. This means an adequate level of in-hous
28、e work must be continued to train and perpetuate an experienced core of in-house personnel. No state can ever afford not to continue some level of in-house staff experienced in design, environmental, right of way, or construction engineering. It is recommended that a basic cadre experienced in resea
29、rch should also be maintained. Agencies are encouraged to provide staff with formal training in management of consultants. In addition to management concepts, ethical considerations are often confronted by staff. Agency employees should receive instruction in an agencys code of ethics. In order to a
30、dequately manage the consultant program, project managers must be Consultant management is distinctly different from traditional project engineering. Executive Summary ix STDUAASHTC SRCH GCPE-ENGL L99b Ob37804 00385b5 9T5 W Position Statement AASHTO recognizes the use of consultants can be a cost-ef
31、fective way to supplement agency staff in the performance of preconstruction engineering. AASHTO also recognizes that the success and quality of the consultant effort is dependent on the procedures, organization, and training policies of the agency. Therefore, it is AASHTOs position that: For those
32、agencies utilizing consultants to perform preconstruction engineering, a pre-established procedure for procuring and managing consultants should be developed and consistently applied. This guide was developed for that purpose. xi STD-AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL L99b b39804 00385bb 831 Table of Contents TA
33、SK FORCE MEMBERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. POSITION STATEMENT Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION-USING CONSULTANTS . Chapter 2 ESTABLISHING THE CONSULTANT PROGRAM . Establishing a Need for Consulting Services Balancing the Program Project Development and Environment (he-Design) Design Construction Engineering . Other
34、Types of Consulting Services Chapter 3 PREPARING FOR CONSULTANT CONTRACTS Project Developmentfidentify Needed Consultant Services Contract Type Advertise Project/Statement of Interest . Review Responses/Develop Short List Request for Technical Proposal Chapter 4 SELECTING CONSULTANTS . Selection . P
35、rocess for Selecting Consultants Separate Selection of a Consultant for Each Project . Selecting Consultants from a he-Established List . Selecting Consultants for Use on an “as-needed” or “on-call Basis Qualifications . Selection Methods . Competitive Selection Noncompetitive Selection . Combining
36、Several Projects into One Selection . Two-step Selection . Competitive Bidding Price Competition Establish Selection Committee . Establishing Selection Criteria . Establishing Schedule for Completing Contract vi vii xi 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 8 8 9 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 15
37、xiii STD*AASHTO SRCH GCPE-ENGL L77b Ob37804 00385b7 778 Detailed Scoping Conference 15 Negotiate a Contract 16 Receive and Evaluate Technical Proposals/Conduct Interviews Final Ranking/Approval and Notification . 15 15 Chapter 5 DEVELOPING CONSULTANT CONTRACTS Detailed Scope of Services Contract Lan
38、guage General Definitions . Errors and Omissions . Insurance Dispute Resolution . Disadvantaged Businesses . Extensions. Modifications. and Terminations Subconsultants . Special Considerations . ; Indemnity (Liability) . Key Personnel . Legal Review . Payment Methods . Cost Plus Fixed Fee Lump Sum C
39、ost Per Unit of Work Specific Rates of Compensation . Other Cost Limitations . Maximum Amount Payable . Audits . Preaward Audits . Audits of Subconsultants Final Audits., . Approval . Chapter 6 MANAGING CONSULTANTS Technical Monitoring (Scope of Services Develop an AASHTO position and recommend guid
40、elines for effective management of consultants and the contract process; Develop and distribute a publication that will provide guidance in organizing, developing, and effectively managing a consultant program for use by AASHTO members and related government agencies. This AASHTO Guide for Contracti
41、ng, Selecting and Managing Consultants in Preconstruction Engineering was prepared for public officials who have the responsibility for engaging private sector engineering work or other related services. A 1992 AASHTO survey of state transportation agencies indicated an increase in the use of consul
42、tants to perform all aspects of engineering and related activities. This increased use of consultants is prompted by new legislation at the national, state, and local level as well as personnel constraints which have made it imperative that states and consultants form a partnership to provide qualit
43、y engineering services in the most cost-effective manner. Selecting the best available consultant engineering or related firm and negotiating for compensation requires hours of research, organization, evaluation and responsible decision making. The goal of most procurement officials is “total value,
44、” a result which occurs when the most competent consultant firm, engaged at a fair and equitable cost, develops a project design or study that serves the clients best interest in construction, life-cycle cost, and quality. In order to achieve quality in the preconstruction phase of a project there m
45、ust be a clear and complete scope of services. Without this understanding, it is impossible for the consultant to provide a quality product. Ambiguities and inaccuracies because of poor scope of services may result not only in errors and omissions during the preconstruction phases, but also during t
46、he construction phase when correcting may be very costly and involve litigation. Although not continually referred to throughout this guide, its underlying principle is that every step of the consultant selection and management process is predicated on the goal of producing a quality product for the
47、 public. There are costs involved. It may cost more money and time to review and inspect. It may cost more to train people to do the job correctly. However, these expenditures in turn can prevent errors and omissions, thus saving unexpected costs. Introduction-Using Consultants 1 STD.AASHT0 SRCH GCP
48、E-ENGL L7b m Ob3780Li 0038573 LT An item of major concern in justifying the use of consultants is cost. Cost-effectiveness continues to be brought forward as a criterion for use of consultants. While it can be shown that the use of consultants can be a very cost-effective decision to meet peak workl
49、oads or to do specialty work, it may not be less costly. In addition to providing adequate staff to oversee consultant work, there is clearly a need to maintain an adequate level of in-house expertise with the capability of perpetuating its engineering experience through training in all areas. Also, there is a need to have trained staff to research and develop or oversee the development of policies, standards, guidelines, and technical publications required for the daily operations of the transportation system and to assure that a continuous quality
