MN/DOT—ACEC/MN Annual Conference: Partnering for the Future of Transportation
Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.
-
Upload
milton-marshall-hopkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.
![Page 1: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification
Best Practices Review
August 19, 2002
![Page 2: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Slide 2August 19, 2002
Agenda
• Best Practices research plan & subsequent adjustments
• How we determined Best Practices • Results of Best Practices Review
– The States with best practices– Overview of work-paper index
• Best Practice Findings for:– Work-type definitions– Work-type qualification criteria– Process of creating a Pre-qualification List
![Page 3: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Slide 3August 19, 2002
The July Plan
• Research 13 states preliminarily identified for best practices in pre-qualification; 8 states identified for best practices in consultant evaluation. Complete the question-set for all.
• Do research primarily on the Web with subsequent follow-up telephone calls as needed.
• Conduct ALL best practice research before defining Mn/DOT’s processes and implementing Wave 1.
![Page 4: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Slide 4August 19, 2002
Adjustments to July Plan
• Focused research effort on the Web to obtain – Pre-qualification process documentation;– Work-type definitions– Work-type pre-qualification criteria
• Focused analysis effort on Wave 1 work groups.• Deferred follow-up telephone calls• Deferred research into Best Practices for using a Pre-
Qualified list and doing consultant evaluations.
To meet the 9/3 deadline, the Phase 2 Best Practice research has become a parallel activity with Phase 3. That makes it “messier”, but
doesn’t endanger achievement of the project’s objectives.
![Page 5: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Slide 5August 19, 2002
What is “Best Practice”
• Theory: Process Maturity– Five Levels of Process Maturity
• Refer to: Process Maturity Article on L&C Web Page
• Application of theory focused on:• Criterion 1: Documented addresses the extent to which an organization’s
processes are documented. The least mature state of documentation maturity is one in which processes typically are ad hoc, perhaps even chaotic. . . Alternatively, in the most mature state, written documentation is not only consistent throughout the organization, it is an intrinsic element of the process itself.
• Criterion 2: Practiced criterion addresses the consistency of process performance. In the least mature state, processes are practiced in an ad hoc or, at best, intermittent manner. By contrast, the processes of a more mature organization are practiced consistently and throughout the organization
![Page 6: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Slide 6August 19, 2002
Best Practice StatesDOT Pre-Qualified System Post Selection
Evaluation
1. A lberta √ √
2. Ar izona √ √
3. Colorado √
4. Florida √
5. Georgi a √
6. Iowa √
7. Kansas √ √
8. Louisiana √
9. Massachusetts √
10. Michigan √
11. Nevada √
12. New Brnswck. √
13. New Mexico √
14. Ohio √
15. Ontario √ √
16. Texas √ √
count 13 8
![Page 7: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Slide 7August 19, 2002
Introducing Workpaper Index
• Refer to Attached Document
DOTdatabase.xls
![Page 8: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Slide 8August 19, 2002
BP: Work-type Definitions
• Work type definitions are clearly delineated from the qualifications required to perform the work. (i.e., A work type is not defined by the required qualifications) (Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• Work types are specifically assigned to a functional entity or individual who is referred to as the “owner”.
(Iowa)• Work types are defined systematically and
comprehensively, often consistent with the DOT’s internal organization. (Kansas, Iowa)
![Page 9: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Slide 9August 19, 2002
BP: Work-type Definitions (2)
• Work type definitions are a part of the formal pre-qualification process documentation. (I.e., a section within or an appendix to the formal procedure or rule) (Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• Work types are defined at the departmental activity level, not the task level.(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa)
• Work types are defined in terms of process outputs. (Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
![Page 10: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Slide 10August 19, 2002
BP: Correlation with Mn/DOT
Phase WG # Work Group # of MatchesI 1 Project Development/ Preliminary Design 6
I 2 Highway Design 16
I 3 Bridge Design 19
I 4 Bridge Inspection 14
I 5 Environmental Sudies 20
II 6 Materials Testing 19
II 7 Transportation Planning 19
II 8 Communications/Market Research 0
II 9 Mechanic Training 0
II 10 Architectural Design 7
II 11 Right of Way Assistance 8
II 12 Landscape Architecture 11
II 13 Land Surveys 23
III 14 Cultural Resources 4
III 15 CEI/Contract Administration 9
III 16 Right of Way Appraisals 9
III 17 Asbestos Abatement 1
III 18 Sewer Video Inspection 0
III 19 Pre-Construction Project Management 0
III 20 Traffic Engineering 19Multi-modal 34
Total matched 238 of 246 possible
![Page 11: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Slide 11August 19, 2002
BP: Correlation with Mn/DOT
Sum of count BP State
Mn/DOTWork Group Correlation 1. Georgia 2. Kansas 3. Florida 4. Iowa 5. Ohio Grand Total
Asbestos Abatement 1 1
Cultural Resources 1 1 2 4
Project Development/ Preliminary Design 2 2 1 1 6
Architectural Design 1 1 1 4 7
Right of Way Assistance 8 8
(blank) 2 3 3 8
Right of Way Appraisals 6 1 2 9
CEI/Contract Administration 1 1 3 4 9
Landscape Architecture 5 4 1 1 11
Bridge Inspection 1 4 4 3 2 14
Highway Design 6 2 3 3 2 16
Bridge Design 4 4 4 5 2 19
Materials Testing 4 3 6 4 2 19
Traffic Engineering 3 2 6 4 4 19
Transportation Planning 5 7 5 2 19
Environmental Sudies 2 3 7 8 20
Land Surveys 8 4 4 7 23
Multi-Modal 14 9 11 34
Grand Total 59 49 44 62 32 246
![Page 12: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Slide 12August 19, 2002
BP: Qualification Criteria
• Qualification criteria are defined for each work type defined.(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• Qualification criteria are focused on the technical requirements of the work type.(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• Technical requirements are defined to include– Description of the professional staff
(I.e., “a registered engineer… with proficiency”)(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
– Capacity (I.e., “at least two engineers…”)(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
– Past record and experience of the Firm(Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
![Page 13: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Slide 13August 19, 2002
BP: Qualification Criteria (2)
• The experience of “individuals” (used to satisfy “staff proficiency” requirements) is separated from the past record and experience of the Firm. (Georgia)
• Submittal requirements are defined separately from qualification requirements. (Ohio)
• Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) requirements are uniquely identified. (Ohio)
• Administrative qualifications are uniquely identified. (Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
![Page 14: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Slide 14August 19, 2002
BP: Process to Create the List
• A formal documented process exists to create and update the list. (Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• The process is always open. (Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• The pre-qualification expires. (Georgia-3, Florida-1, Iowa-1, Ohio-2)
• Administrative pre-qualification criteria (separate from technical criteria) are predefined and documented. (Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
![Page 15: Mn/DOT CS Pre-Qualification Best Practices Review August 19, 2002.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb15503460f94bb7ee9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Slide 15August 19, 2002
BP: Process to Create the List (2)
• Forms are a part of the documented process(Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio)
• Selection Committees are pre-determined (Georgia, Iowa)
• A formal appeals process exists and is documented. (Georgia, Florida, Iowa)
• A proactive DBE policy/process exists and is documented (Iowa)