1. Value Based Project Delivery: Best Value Business Model Kenneth T. Sullivan, PhD, MBA Arizona State University

2. Goals 1.Minimize Cost 2.Minimize Cost by becoming More Efficient 3.Become More Efficient in three ways: – Hire people who know what they are doing – Preplan before the contract is signed – Measure for positive accountability 4.Teach the thinking, concepts, tools, and processes to organizations 2

3. An Organization’s Strategic Vision Become a (more/better) measured organization – Be able to get what you paid for and be able to prove it – Demonstrate VALUE! Enhance preplanning and performance measurement techniques on contracts & efforts Add Best Value as another tool in the toolbox – Procurement, PM, etc.

4. 4 PBSRG’s Research Results Worldwide as a leader in Best-Value Systems  19 Years  210+ Publications  550+ Presentations  1600+ Projects  $5.7 Billion Services & Construction  98% Customer Satisfaction  Various Awards (PMI, NIGP, IFMA, COAA, IPMA)  Clients: Federal, State, Local, School Districts, Private

5. 5

6. InformationTechnology networking data centers hardware COTS software ERP systems help desk services eProcurement FacilityManagement maintenancelandscaping security service building systems industrial moving waste management energy management custodialconveyance pest control Health Insurance/ Medical Services Manufacturing Business / Municipal / University Services dining multi-media rights fitness equipment online education document management property management audiovisual communications systems emergency response systems laundry material recycling bookstoresfurniture Construction / Design / Engineering large gc infrastructuremunicipallaboratoryeducationhospitalfinancial large specialty small gc renovationrepairmaintenanceroofingdemolitiondevelopment supply chain DBBCMARDBIDIQJOC Low Bid IPD

7. Strategic Partners & Efforts Fulbright Scholarship- University of Botswana BV tests RMIT Teaching IMT PBSRG platform Tongji University 6+ years Infrastructure €1.8B plus €1B Brunsfield Complete Supply Chain United States - 65 clients Univ. of Manitoba Dalhousie Univ. Univ. of Alberta AAC SFU Alberta Infra Congo $14B PPP

8. What Percent of RFP’s Are 100% Accurate? 8

9. Who Should Know More About Performing/Delivering the Services Required? 9

10. It Is More Important For The Vendor To Know What To Do Than It Is For Client To Know What The Vendor Should Do 10

11. Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Performance High Low Risk High Low Performance High Low Risk High Low Impact of Minimum Requirements Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4

12. High Low Performance Owners “The lowest possible quality that I want” Vendors “The highest possible value that you will get” Minimum Problem with Traditional Approach High Low Performance Maximum

14. Which of these Proponents brings your organization the most risk? 14 Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Performance High Low Risk High Low

15. What we have seen… 15 Client Vendor Promises

16. What we have seen… 16 Client Vendor Promises

17. What we have seen… 17 Client Vendor

18. What we have seen… 18 Client Vendor Client PM Vendor PM

19. “The Greatest Risk that I always face, is how to accomplish all of the things that our sales team promised we could do.” 19

20. What is different… 20 Client Vendor Plan

21. What is different… 21 Client Vendor Client PM Vendor PM Plan

22. Best Value Objectives 22 Minimize cost, increase efficiency “not just transfer risk...but minimize risk” Supply Chain mentality “Win-Win” Minimize risk of non- performance “High Client Satisf.” Minimize the need for client management, direction, and decision making Vendors maximize their profits by being more efficient Reduce Cost

23. 23 Best-Value Process

24. Best Value Model

26. Selection Hiring or selecting who will create the plan and execute it The quality of the plan and its execution is directly linked to the individuals creating it and doing the work – Quality of Plan = Minimization of Risk & Cost 26

27. What are we trying to accomplish? Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Question: If Purchasing wants to buy a “green circle”, in which scenario is hiring the right “green circle” easiest to justify?

28. Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Best Value Process Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

29. Selection – Value Based Proposition Selection dictates the maximum capacity to achieve a quality plan Procurement methodologies to identify expertise: Risk and Value focused RFP Process Simple, brief, anonymous evaluation process Evaluation of key project personnel – Proven Past Performance Information – Ability to identify, prioritize, and minimize risk – Interviews of project delivery personnel – Focus on specific project needs – Minimize marketing information Cost/Financial 29

30. Blind Submittals Risk Plan Value Added Project Capability Simpleconcise performance metrics Simple, concise, support w/ performance metrics = risk don’t control = capability to meet requirements = added scope Phase 1

31. Plan 1 – We will use our 20 years of experience in working with mechanical systems to minimize the risk of the heating and cooling system design. Plan 2 – We have identified the design of the heat/cooling system as a risk. It has not been used before in the area. Will ensure that the system performance and installation is verified in the pre-award period. – We have bid using best rated mechanical contractor in the area (rated at 9.8 out of 10.0, next best rated 9.1) – Mechanical contractor identified modifications to the design to improve output and sustainability of the system with the following impacts (mechanical system cost minimized by 15% - see VA#1) – Mechanical system will be provided by one manufacturer, and will be commissioned by the manufacturer, contractor, and general contractor, who will take full responsibility of commissioning the system Example of Solutions Risk: Design of Heating/Cooling System Type: Project Capability

32. Plan 1 – We will work with the user to minimize the impact of noise from demolition. Plan 2 – We have planned to demolition during off hours and weekends. This will have a slight impact on our cost (less than 1%), but the impact to customer satisfaction justifies this. – We will also install rubber sheets on the floors to diminish noise and vibrations. – Both solutions can be performed within your budget. – Both solutions have been used on multiple previous projects w/ high levels of customer satisfaction (9.4/10). Example of Solutions Risk: Noise from Demolition Type: Project Capability

33. Example of Solutions Risk Assessment Example of Solutions Risk: Loss of Radio Flagship in Major Market Type: Risk Assessment Plan 1 – We will work very hard to maintain excellent affiliate relationships. If we lose a radio station (e.g. it changes its format) we will move quickly to replace the lost station. If we cannot quickly replace a flagship station, we can be very creative and could even consider purchasing all local inventory from a new flagship station. Plan 2 – In the past 10 yrs, on over 50 accounts, 7 radio stations format changes have occurred. The following solution is optimal. – We own and will maintain two radio contracts covering the area, where signals can be switched if required. The flagship station will be the station with the stronger signal and greater coverage. – If a station is lost we will have a equal replacement within 2 months. If within two months a replacement is not contracted we will purchase inventory from another station or discount the cost of an inventory purchase and add it to our payments to the client.

34. Plan 1 – Coordination with [water company] is critical. We will coordinate and plan with [water company] as soon as the award is made to make sure that we get water to the site to irrigate the fields. Plan 2 – We will coordinate and schedule the water with [water company]. However, based on past experience there is a high risk they will not meet the schedule (the water company does not meet schedule over 90% of the time). – We will have temporary waterlines setup and ready to connect to the nearby fire hydrant to irrigate until [water company] is ready. – We will also have water trucks on-site if there is problems with connecting the lines. Example of Solutions Risk: Getting water to the site Type: Risk Assessment

35. Value Add Plan at below budget 1.Provide ways to keep project at or below budget – Modifications to requirements to meet budget – Specific cost ($) savings – Supported by metrics (high performance) 2.Increase customer satisfaction 3.Increase performance

36. 36 Example: Value Added Items Reroofing this building will not stop all water leaks. The majority of the leaks are caused by cracks in the parapet walls, broken/missing glass, and poor caulking. For an additional $10K and 3 weeks in schedule we can replace and repair all of these items.

37. Example: Value Added Items Instead of purchasing “Named Licenses”, the Agency may want to consider purchasing “Concurrent Licenses”. In a “Named Licensing” model, the software designates a license per user and only that particular named user can use/access the license. If that named user is in meetings, on vacation, or not using the system, the license is not utilized. In a “Concurrent Licensing” model, the server keeps track of the total number of licenses and loans the licenses to users as they log in. If a user is inactive, the server releases the license and allocates the license to the next user. The advantage is that the Agency is not required to purchase licenses that are not being used, which can result in approximately 25% savings in cost. 37

38. 38 Survey Form

39. Best Value Interviews: Identifying Expertise 1.Why were you selected for this project? 2.How many similar projects have you worked on? Individually and as a Team? 3.Describe a similar project you have developed/worked on to the current project. 4.What is different about this project from other projects that you have worked for? 5.Draw out the process for this project by major milestone activities. 1.Identify, prioritize, and how you will minimize the risks of this project. 2.What risks don’t you control? How will you minimize those risks? 3.What do you need from the client and when do you need it? 6.How are you going to measure your performance during the project? 7.What value do you bring to the project in terms of differences based on dollars, quality, expertise, or time? 39

40. Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Best Value Process Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

41. Prioritization 41

42. 42 Dominance Check & Cost Reasonableness Best-Value is the lowest price Best-Value is within [X%] of next highest ranked firm Best-Value can be justified based on other factors Yes No Best Value Prioritization Best Value Prioritization Yes No Go with Alternate Proposal or Cancel Proceed to Pre-Award Yes No

43. Best Value Model

44. Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Best Value Process Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

45. How to Clarify a Plan What is it / Why is it important? Period of time allotted before work begins to the entity doing the work: – Present their project/service plan – Set a plan for its delivery / clarify that their plan is accurate – Identify the risks and issues that could cause the plan to deviate Identify what you don’t know and when you will know it and how the plan could change based upon what you discover Set plans to minimize those risks from occurring Address all the concerns and risks of the client

46. How to Clarify a Plan What is it / Why is it important? Period of time allotted before work begins to the entity doing the work: – Know how they are being successful and adding value (measurement) What metrics you will use and how you will report them What is the current baseline condition we are comparing against – Identify what you need from the client and have a plan for getting it – Have completely aligned expectations between all parties so everyone knows what is going to transpire and what they are supposed to do – Coordinate the schedule

47. Clarification / Preplanning Period Start Very High Level Cost Verification Included in Proposal Excluded from Proposal Major Assumptions Major Client Risks/Concerns High Level Project Work Plan Client Risks/Concerns PA Schedule Uncontrollable Risks Response to all risks Roles and Responsibilities Value Added Ideas Coordination Review Functionality Technical Level Performance Reports / Metrics Additional Documentation Technical Details Project Schedule High level demos PA Document End

48. 48 Clarification / Preplanning Period

49. Impact of Clarification/Pre-Award (General Services Administration) 49 NoCRITERIATraditional RFPASU-BV 1Number of projects analyzed1110 2Total awarded cost$14,244,385$9,994,887 3Total awarded schedule1,8221,373 4Percent awarded cost below budget4.4%6.0% 5Average time RFP Release to Contract68 days78 days 6Average BV-PA duration (days)07 7Average Overall Change Order Rate 50% Decrease 8Average Overall Project Delay Rate 38% Decrease 9GSA Satisfaction Rating of Contractor/Job 34% Increase For within BV projects, also tested “ 1 week” PA ̶Longer PA had 33% lower change order rate (73% reduced overall) ̶Longer PA had 69% lower delay rate (73% reduced overall)

50. Best Value Model

51. Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Best Value Process Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

52. Measured Environment Must be simple and dominant Must be for the purposes of positive accountability Transparency and openness Measuring against a plan (or expectation created by the individual/team doing the work) 52

53. Weekly Risk Report Excel Spreadsheet that tracks only unforeseen risks on a project Client will setup and send to vendor once Award/NTP issued The final project rating will be impacted by the accuracy and timely submittal of the WRR

54. 54 Unforeseen Risks PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Vendor Performance Client Performance Individual Performance Project Performance PROJECT PLAN Risk Risk Minimization Schedule WEEKLY REPORT Risk Unforeseen Risks METRICS Time linked Financial Operational/Client Satisfac. Environmental Measurement of Deviation from the Expectation Management by Risk Minimization

55. Project Management Creating a Measured Environment: Weekly Risk Report – Tool for documenting risk that impacts the project – Measurement in terms of cost, schedule, and client expectation Director’s Report – Overall performance summary of multiple projects running simultaneously Performance evaluation – Client closeout evaluation of vendor performance – Accountability metric updates Past Performance Information 55

56. 56 U of MN Objectives The UMN has a goal to be recognized as a top research institution in the world In 2005, CPPM partnered with the PBSRG (ASU) to implement the PIPS Best Value Process CPPM’s Objectives of the Best-Value Program are to: – Contract to high performers – Respond faster to customer needs – Increase performance (on time, on budget, high quality) – Increase efficiency of procurement (spend taxpayers money more efficient) – Create a fair and open process for all vendors

57. 57 Award Analysis: – Number of Best-Value Procurements: 161 – Awarded Cost: $50.6M (11% below average cost) – Average Number of Proposals: 4 – Projects Where Best-Value was also Lowest Cost: 53% – 85% of projects were awarded to vendor with highest / second highest RAVA Plan (7.3 vs 5.9) Performance Information: – Contractor Impacts: 0% Change Orders / 4% Delay – Vendor post project rating: 9.6 – Average Contractor Increase in Profit: 5% Current Results

58. 58 PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4 Procurement Officer 1Procurement Officer 2 Director Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Contractor 3 Contractor 6 Contractor 1 Contractor 8 Contractor 9 Contractor 7 Contractor 2 Contractor 4 Contractor 8 Contractor 9 Contractor 2 Program Report Director 1Director 2 PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4 Vice President

59. 59 Report – Overall Program

60. 60 Directors Report

61. 61 Report – End Users

62. 62 Report – Internal PM’s

63. 63 Report – Contractors

64. 64 Report – Yearly Analysis

65. 65 Report – Top 10 Riskiest Projects

66. 66 Report – Analysis of Risks

67. University of Alberta Since late 2010, Strategic Objectives: 1.Become a measured organization. 2.Increase pre-planning and risk minimization through accountability. 3.Procure and contract with high performing vendors. 4.Increase the accountability and performance of vendors throughout the contract lifetime. 67

68. University of Alberta – Best Value Performance 68 ProjectValueCost Savings Schedule Impacts Satisfaction / Performance 1.Custodial Services (campus-wide) $18M$2M 10% 5.5% performance Improvement 10 (out of 10) 2. DB Construction (Research Facility) $30M$8-12M 25% 14-18 months9.7 (out of 10) 3. Design Services (Building Redevelopment) $4M$500k 12% 0% Cost & Schedule CO’s $190k in Value Added Options

69. University of Alberta - Expansion Butterdome Refacing – Design & Construction Fire Alarm Systems – Design & Construction Travel Management Services – Bus. Service Founders Hall – Design & Construction eProcurement Solution – IT Service CM under $500k Program – Construction CM under $2.5M Program – Construction New Residence Hall $37M – DB – Design & Construction Building Automation System Furniture 69

70. 70 City of Peoria, AZ Results Number of Best-Value Procurements: 65 Estimated Budget: $586 Million – (DB/CMAR/JOC) – (Wastewater, Office Buildings, Fire Station, Parks, Roadway) – (AE Services, Radio, Maintenance, Software) Average Number of Proposals per Project: 6 Results: – Overall C/O Rate: 0.01% (compared to 7%) – Final Results: 100% Satisfaction – Final Results: 9.1 Rating (10 max) – 5 Projects where money returned

71. 71 Rio Vista Project

72. 72 Results Top Award 2007 Gold Award for Project Leadership Rio Vista Recreation Center

73. 73 Fire Station 7 “Gold Medal Design Excellence” (Fire Chief Magazine – 2007) “Design Excellence Merit Award” (Fire Rescue Magazine – 2007) Masonry Guild Design Excellence Award - 2008

74. 74 City of Peoria AZ Results CriteriaLow BidBest ValueDifference% Change Number of Projects 389NA Awarded Cost $74,181,566$187,935,047NA Actual Cost $79,315,696$188,683,729NA Average % Over Budget 7%0.4%-6.5%-94% Average Change Order % 14%0.5%-13.5%-96% % Projects On Budget (Yes/No) 3%66%63%2100% Awarded Duration (Days) 60163792NA Actual Duration (Days) 81354013NA Average % Delay 35%6%-29.4%-83% % Projects On Time (Yes/No) 37%44%7%19% Owner Satisfaction 20%93%73%365%

75. Case Study: ASU Food Services Contract $32 Million Dollars (Over 10 Years)

76. After 1 Year: Monitoring Based on Measurements Increase sale of food by 14% Increased cash to ASU by 23% Minimized management cost by 80% Increased customer satisfaction by 37% Increased capital investment by 100%

77. Summary Financial Metrics – Combined ASU May 2013 Report

78. Detailed Metrics & Reporting Total Transparency May 2013 Report

79. ASU Dining Performance Summary

80. What is different Value focus, simple, transparent, risk-based, measured, expertise- driven Leverage experience of industry experts to minimize risks and increase efficiency Select and give advantage to high performers in the procurement process, consider value (cost & ability) (the capability of the key PEOPLE you hire will correlate more to project success than any other factor) Proper preplanning BEFORE contract is signed Risk-based, value-based contracting Consistent measurement of risk and performance with accountability loops 80

81. Vision Partner with progressive and innovative organizations Move industry towards value-based, preplanning, and measured (accountable) environment Implement and enhance best value concepts, approach, and tools Provide education, research, and assistance 81

82. Strategic Goals (typical) Be able to get what you paid for and be able to prove it – Demonstrate VALUE! Enhance preplanning and performance measurement techniques Add Best Value as another tool in your toolbox Have higher levels of accountability / breakdown organizational silos 82

83. Tools to Support Best Value Implementation 83

84. Supplemental Project Support 84 Best Value Project Kit: -Online resource for running BV projects -Chronological roadmap of process steps -Downloadable templates, documents, models, & training guides -Common pitfall identification & avoidance

85. Supplemental Project Support 85 Best Value Project Kit: - Concise - Graphics / Visuals - Agendas and critical action steps

86. Supplemental Project Support 86 Best Value Project Kit: - Downloadable templates, models, & training guides

87. Supplemental Project Support 87 Best Value Project Kit: - Guides to help prepare for each step

88. Supplemental Project Support 88 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

89. Supplemental Project Support 89 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

90. Supplemental Project Support 90 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps - Key process deliverables training

91. Supplemental Project Support 91 Best Value Project Kit: -Both Client AND Vendor

92. Supplemental Project Support Key Benefits: Roadmap Constant availability (24 / 7) Concise information (“how to” highlights) Easy to use Continuously updating Supports self-sufficiency! Improves application within your specific environment! 92

93. 93

94. Comments / Questions 94 W W W. P B S R G. C O M

95. Tools to Support Best Value Implementation 95

96. Supplemental Project Support 96 Best Value Project Kit: -Online resource for running BV projects -Chronological roadmap of process steps -Downloadable templates, documents, models, & training guides -Common pitfall identification & avoidance

97. Supplemental Project Support 97 Best Value Project Kit: - Concise - Graphics / Visuals - Agendas and critical action steps

98. Supplemental Project Support 98 Best Value Project Kit: - Downloadable templates, models, & training guides

99. Supplemental Project Support 99 Best Value Project Kit: - Guides to help prepare for each step

100. Supplemental Project Support 100 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

101. Supplemental Project Support 101 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

102. Supplemental Project Support 102 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps - Key process deliverables training

103. Supplemental Project Support 103 Best Value Project Kit: -Both Client AND Vendor

104. Supplemental Project Support Key Benefits: Roadmap Constant availability (24 / 7) Concise information (“how to” highlights) Easy to use Continuously updating Supports self-sufficiency! Improves application within your specific environment! 104

105. Case Study: ASU Food Services Contract $32 Million Dollars (Over 10 Years)

106. After 1 Year: Monitoring Based on Measurements Increase sale of food by 14% Increased cash to ASU by 23% Minimized management cost by 80% Increased customer satisfaction by 37% Increased capital investment by 100%

107. Summary Financial Metrics – Combined ASU May 2013 Report

108. Detailed Metrics & Reporting Total Transparency May 2013 Report

109. ASU Dining Performance Summary

110. How Partners work with us Desire to test BV concepts within their organization Form a Strategic Partnership with our group – Strategic Plan, Contract, education efforts, etc. Identify/self-identify champion(s) of pilot / core group – Ensure proper executive level support Choose a test project or projects – Project team, needs, baseline metrics, etc. Initial Efforts & First project(s) – Strategic Plan w/ metrics – Step-by-step assistance, educate heavily all along the way, support all aspects of the project, etc. etc. 110

111. 111 City of Peoria, AZ Results Number of Best-Value Procurements: 65 Estimated Budget: $586 Million – (DB/CMAR/JOC) – (Wastewater, Office Buildings, Fire Station, Parks, Roadway) – (AE Services, Radio, Maintenance, Software) Average Number of Proposals per Project: 6 Results: – Overall C/O Rate: 0.01% (compared to 7%) – Final Results: 100% Satisfaction – Final Results: 9.1 Rating (10 max) – 5 Projects where money returned

112. 112 Rio Vista Project

113. 113 Results Top Award 2007 Gold Award for Project Leadership Rio Vista Recreation Center

114. 114 Fire Station 7 “Gold Medal Design Excellence” (Fire Chief Magazine – 2007) “Design Excellence Merit Award” (Fire Rescue Magazine – 2007) Masonry Guild Design Excellence Award - 2008

115. 115 City of Peoria AZ Results CriteriaLow BidBest ValueDifference% Change Number of Projects 389NA Awarded Cost $74,181,566$187,935,047NA Actual Cost $79,315,696$188,683,729NA Average % Over Budget 7%0.4%-6.5%-94% Average Change Order % 14%0.5%-13.5%-96% % Projects On Budget (Yes/No) 3%66%63%2100% Awarded Duration (Days) 60163792NA Actual Duration (Days) 81354013NA Average % Delay 35%6%-29.4%-83% % Projects On Time (Yes/No) 37%44%7%19% Owner Satisfaction 20%93%73%365%

116. Tools to Support Best Value Implementation 116

117. Supplemental Project Support 117 Best Value Project Kit: -Online resource for running BV projects -Chronological roadmap of process steps -Downloadable templates, documents, models, & training guides -Common pitfall identification & avoidance

118. Supplemental Project Support 118 Best Value Project Kit: - Concise - Graphics / Visuals - Agendas and critical action steps

119. Supplemental Project Support 119 Best Value Project Kit: - Downloadable templates, models, & training guides

120. Supplemental Project Support 120 Best Value Project Kit: - Guides to help prepare for each step

121. Supplemental Project Support 121 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

122. Supplemental Project Support 122 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps

123. Supplemental Project Support 123 Best Value Project Kit: - Short (< 5 min) interactive training videos - Agendas and critical action steps - Key process deliverables training

124. Supplemental Project Support 124 Best Value Project Kit: -Both Client AND Vendor

125. Supplemental Project Support Key Benefits: Roadmap Constant availability (24 / 7) Concise information (“how to” highlights) Easy to use Continuously updating Supports self-sufficiency! Improves application within your specific environment! 125

126. 126 Dominance Check & Cost Reasonableness Best-Value is the lowest price Best-Value is within [X%] of next highest ranked firm Best-Value can be justified based on other factors Best-Value is within budget Yes No Yes Best Value Prioritization Best Value Prioritization Yes No Go with Alternate Proposal or Cancel Proceed to Pre-Award Yes No Yes No Proceed to highest ranked proposal within budget