Tailor Brown

CON 244 Pre-Course Assignment

Design/Build vs. Design-Bid-Build

This article compares two contractual methods for capital improvement projects (construction and
A&E). The two methods are Design/Build (DB) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB), and both are used in
Government contracting. In the DB method, a single prime contractor is responsible for both the design
and construction on a single contract. In this method, the contractor bears the risk so the
communication and collaboration between the design phase and the construction phase tends to be
better. In the DBB method, two contracts are awarded: one for the design phase and one post design for
the construction phase. In this method, the Government bears the risk as they coordinate with two
different prime contractors on two different contracts. No one method is the best for every
requirement, but independent research has shown that overall DB had less change orders, more
schedule control, were less costly, and a had better-quality end product.

I really liked this article as I was unaware of the independent research that had been done at the
Construction Industry Institute and different Universities across the country on the outcomes between
DB and DBB. In my experience, which agrees with the article, DBB is the most traditional and the
method I have seen utilized the most. Since I myself have never made the determination of which
method to utilize, it seems like the biggest reason is more ownership of the design and a better
solicitation outcome for construction when you solicit with a completed design. Also, I think with a DB
you might have to do a source selection versus going straight to an A&E contractor for just design as you
would for the design phase of DBB. I will definitely take this research into mind in the future when
deciding which method to use.

GAO Case: File: B-414081 - Date: February 6, 2017 - Brasfond USA Corp.

This GAO case was about a contractor protesting the way their proposal was evaluated and the overall
best value decision. The Government had 4 evaluation factors and included subfactors that required the
contractor to address specific technical capabilities. They didn’t necessarily argue that the Government
veered from the evaluation factors but rather that they evaluated the contractor unreasonably. GAO
found all Government evaluation accounts reasonable and in line with the RFP. GAO stated that it is the
contractor’s duty to submit a complete proposal and not the Government’s job to infer or interpret a
proposal. GAO also agreed with the best value decision and found the price premium justifiable due to
the technical merit evaluation.

The Government did a great job of following the RFP evaluation factors and documenting clear and
consistent rational during the source selection process. In my opinion, this was key to the protest being
denied. The one area that did surprise me was the 35% difference in cost being described as a “slight
difference”. I did agree with the contractor in the sense that a 35% difference is not slight. However,
because the Government had a clear and consistent rational documenting why the price premium was
in the Government’s best interest, GAO didn’t find their decision to be unreasonable.
ASBCA Case: No. 54109 - Under Contract No. DACA21-00-C-0021 - Conner Bros. Construction
Company, Inc

This was a Board of Contract Appeals decision document on an appeal that stemmed from a CO denying
a contractor’s certified claim. The contractor’s claim was to gain back time and money lost during the
9/11 time period in which he was denied access to a military installation site. The contractor’s
arguments for the appeal were: other contractors were still allowed on site, there were other alternate
means by which they could have performed the work, and they are allowed monetary compensation
under the changes clause or the stop work clause. The appeal was ultimately denied because the court
determined that there was a larger government objective and all non-essential personnel were subject
to the site closure, there were not feasible alternatives, and the definition of the changes clause and the
stop work clause did not apply to this contractual situation.

I had never been exposed to an appeal decision document dealing with this before and could see it
being relevant to future situations regarding terrorist attacks or pandemics. I appreciated seeing the
court’s thought process of analyzing the change order and suspension of work clauses in relation to
fitting this contractual situation or not. As a newer contracting professional, I am surprised the original
claim was denied. However, I am not surprised the appeal was denied. Also, the contractor and COR
really should have looped the CO in as soon as the contractor was denied access to the site, not weeks
later.