B-205393 L/M, JAN 15, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-205393 L/M, JAN 15, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

DIGEST: GAO BELIEVES THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATION WHICH ADDS NEW SUBPART 1-18.5, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (PROFESSIONAL) SERVICES FAILS TO SATISFY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN PRIOR REPORT CONCERNING NEED FOR PROVIDING FEDERAL AGENCIES SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE REGARDING USE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND PHASED CONSTRUCTION.

MR. PHILIP G. READ, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:

BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 16, 1981, YOU REQUESTED OUR COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS WHICH ADDS SUBPART 1-18.5, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (PROFESSIONAL) SERVICES. THE AMENDMENT IS A RESULT OF OUR REPORT, DATED OCTOBER 26, 1977, LCD-77 348, IN WHICH WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE FPR PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES REGARDING THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS AND PHASED CONSTRUCTION. RECOMMENDED THAT SUCH GUIDANCE BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS SUITABLE FOR THE USE OF THE TECHNIQUES AND THE CRITERIA TO BE USED IN SELECTING CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS WHICH RESULTED IN OUR OCTOBER 1977 RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE DEGREE OF SPECIFIC GUIDANCE OUR REPORT INDICATED WAS NECESSARY. SUBSECTION 1-18.502-3(C) THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES IS LIMITED TO SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS. THESE PROJECTS ARE TO BE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF FACTORS SUCH AS PROJECT COMPLEXITY, MAGNITUDE, UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, AND OTHER FACTORS DETERMINED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

IN OUR REPORT WE CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLICITY OF FACTORS THAT MAY IMPACT THE TIMELY EXECUTION OF A PROJECT, A SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF EACH PROJECT SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DELAY CAUSING FACTORS. WE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROJECT RECORDS SHOULD REFLECT THE ANALYSIS. OUR RECOMMENDATION ENVISIONED THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD PROVIDE AGENCIES A CLEAR AND UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS, DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS, AND FINAL DECISION ON THE USE OF THE TECHNIQUE. WE BELIEVE THAT SUBSECTION 1-18.502-3(C) FAILS TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR AND UNIFORM FRAMEWORK AND THUS FAILS TO ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.

IN SUBSECTION 1-18.504-2, EVALUATION CRITERIA, THE AMENDMENT IDENTIFIES SEVERAL TYPICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR USE BY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SELECTION BOARDS. THE CRITERIA ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND INCLUDE THE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL COMPETENCE OF THE FIRM AND ITS EMPLOYEES, PRIOR GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR CONTRACTS, CAPABILITY OF THE FIRM TO MEET TIME LIMITATIONS AND A GENERAL CATCHALL PROVISION.

THE LISTED CRITERIA ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE EMPLOYED BY THE AGENCIES AT THE TIME OF OUR REPORT. IN THAT REPORT, HOWEVER, WE POINTED OUT THAT EACH AGENCY ACTUALLY USED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND INCLUDED DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE SAME CRITERIA. OUR RECOMMENDATION ENVISIONED THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AGENCIES TO USE SPECIFIC, CLEARLY DEFINED CRITERIA. SUBSECTION 1-18.504-2 FAILS TO REQUIRE AGENCIES TO USE ANY SPECIFIC CRITERION BUT INSTEAD MERELY LISTS TYPICAL CRITERIA WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AND HAS NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED THE TYPICAL CRITERIA LISTED. TO ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE BELIEVE THE AGENCIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND THAT THE MANDATORY CRITERIA SHOULD BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED.

WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS TO OFFER.