Best Value Business Model www.pbsrg.com

Who we are: PBSRG Overview Established in 1994 to assist clients in improving the quality of construction. Research has grown into: Information Measurement Theory (IMT): measuring of current conditions to predict future outcomes Clients implementation of Best-Value Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) Organizational Transformation Models New project management model (alignment/leadership instead of management/influence) PIRMS New best value model New information environment (minimize access and flow of information) Testing of concepts outside of construction Risk management by using deductive logic, minimization of decision making

PBSRG’s Research Results (Performance Based Studies Research Group) Worldwide as a leader in Best-Value Systems Conducting research since 1994 168 Publications 800+ Projects $4.6 Billion Services & Construction 5% Increase in Vendor profit 98% On-time, On-Budget, Customer satisfaction PMI, NIGP, IFMA, IPMA Tests in Netherlands, Botswana/Africa, Malaysia ASU – investments of over $100M due to BV

Research Clients General Dynamics University of Minnesota General Services Administration (GSA) US Solar Heijmans, Netherlands Ministry of Transportation, Netherlands State of Alaska University of Alberta State of Oklahoma State of Idaho Idaho Transportation Department State of Oregon Arizona Parks and Recreation US Army Medical Command USAF Logistics Command University of New Mexico University of Idaho EVIT School District Arizona State University US Corps of Engineers Arizona Public Service (APS) Salt River Project (SRP) Rochester Utility Boise State University Idaho State Lewis & Clark City of Phoenix, AZ City of Peoria, AZ City of Roseville, MN Olmstead County, MN Fann Environmental Brunsfield Fulbright Program /University of Botswana, Africa US Embassy, Bank of Botswana RMIT, Melbourne Australia Aramark, Canon, Qwest, ISP, HP, Chartwells, AP, Pearson Various Contractors and Consultants

Working Commission 117 & Journal International Efforts & Partners 5 years 15 tests for infrastructure Two major GCs Fulbright Scholar University of Botswana PIPS tests RMIT Teaching IMT PBSRG platform Tongji University Brunsfield Complete Supply Chain

A little theory of thought…

Rules of this Discussion This is a deductive presentation Don’t take anything personal!!! Recommend that you minimize decision making (if you don’t know, use the deductive logic) Type A and Type C will be discussed. Neither is better than the other. Both are required. Both are just as important as the other.

Information Measurement Theory IMT Definition: Measurement of information to predict future outcomes IMT Objectives: To minimize the need for decision making To understand why things happen To be able to predict future conditions To minimize the need for data To optimize results

LAWS The Number of Laws of Physics = = 100% Laws PAST 100% Laws PRESENT 100% Laws FUTURE Laws are not created…they are discovered

An Event Final conditions Initial conditions Time One of the most important IMT concepts to understand is the theory of an Event. This diagram shows that for any event, you have initial conditions (Click), time during which the event occurs (click), and final conditions (click) The more information we have before an event begins (click), the easier it becomes for us to predict the final outcome The less information we have before the event begins (click), the harder it becomes for us to predict the future outcome

Proposal: The Event Can Only Happen One Way Initial conditions Final conditions Time One of the most important IMT concepts to understand is the theory of an Event. This diagram shows that for any event, you have initial conditions (Click), time during which the event occurs (click), and final conditions (click) The more information we have before an event begins (click), the easier it becomes for us to predict the final outcome The less information we have before the event begins (click), the harder it becomes for us to predict the future outcome

Deductive Logic No event has had two outcomes All event outcomes can be predicted with “all information” (initial conditions/laws) The more information we have before the event, the easier it becomes to predict the final outcome. The lack of information that an individual has, will never change the final outcome (it will just prevent that individual from predicting the outcome).

Things caused by a lack of information Believe in chance Expectations Believe in control Makes decisions Directs others Influences others

Cycle of Learning Perceive 100% Information Change Process Apply

Learning Speeds All Individuals Learn At Different Speeds Perceive 100% Information Change Process Apply

More “perceptive” perceive at a faster rate, change at a faster rate, and are more accurate with their predictions.

All individuals and organizations have a level of perception that allows them to predict “some” future outcomes.

“Types” of Individuals 100% A Perceive B 100% Information Change Process Perception of Information C Apply 0% Time

To Understand the “A” and the “C” Simplify the Rate of Change Model 100% A simple model is easy to understand Simplicity is when things look very different Eliminate all areas where things look alike (needs too much decision making) Extremes minimize the decision making A B1 Perception of Information B2 C 0% Time

Simplicity: Who perceives more information? 100% A Perception of Information C 0% Time

Type “A” Individual vs. Type “C” Individual Aligns resources Makes decisions Flows more information Influences Wants a favor Doesn’t document Preplans Shifts blame to others Likes to make decisions Does not prioritize Uses five words for every one needed 100% A C C C C Information Level C A C C C C 0% C Time

Type “A” Individual vs. Type “C” Individual Aligns resources Very detailed work Proud of technical skills Is more expensive Wants consensus Likes doing totally new things Does things they understand Requests details Traditional practices Thinks other people act differently Believes experts have risk 100% A C C C C Information Level C A C C C C 0% C Time 22 22

Type “A” Entity vs. Type “C” Entity 100% A Knows who to work with Implements leadership training Measurement of performance Uses dominant information Measures Has a conservative plan Constantly changes their mind Use relationships A C A A Information Level A A C C C 0% Time

How to Create a KSM Left Side (LS) (Type A) vs How to Create a KSM Left Side (LS) (Type A) vs. Right Side (RS) (Type C) 100% LS RS RS LS A + = Information Level C 0% Time

Where is Control? A C LS RS Information Level Time 100% Information No Control Information Level Control No Information C 0% Time

Where is Management? A C LS RS RS Information Level Time 100% No Control Leadership Information Level Control Management No Information C 0% Time

Decision Making? A C LS RS RS RS Information Level Time 100% No Control Leadership No Decision Making Information Level Decision Making Control Control Management No Information C 0% Time

Plot the Following Characteristics LS RS Leadership Alignment Efficiency Change the behavior of others Believe in chance Emotion Becomes the expert in the organization Technical Continuous Improvement Freedom Believes in range/diversity Proactive LS RS

Plot the Following Characteristics LS RS Logical Overview/Process Details Focuses “why” Focuses “what” Measures Performance Accountable Reactive Telescope “in and out” “What if” Maximize information flow Loves meetings LS RS

Plot the Following Characteristics LS RS Does not believe in being controlled Captain of their own ship Can change others “Source of Light” or wisdom to influence all “Mirror” so others can see themselves Can influence anyone Believe in randomness No control over their destiny Feels controlled More activity Incentives Looks inside to improve environment Has a more conducive environment to change LS RS

Conclusions The environment is the person All characteristics can be related to the amount of information By using extreme values, deductive logic can be used Type A characteristics are related To move to a Type A environment, we must minimize Type C characteristics

Questions Is there anything that happens that is not predictable? Does anything happen by chance (was not predictable if all the information was known)? Who is more important to the event, the A or the C? Is there a random event that has been identified by science? Why do people like complexity? Who makes more decisions?

So What is the Big Picture? Where are we going with this?

Cycle of Learning Perceive 100% Information Change Process Apply

Q: When do we know 50% of what we will ever know? 0% Information 100% Information 50% Information? 50% Information? 50% Information? Life Span

Proposal: When we are almost dead. 100% Information (what we will know) 0% Information 50% Information Life Span

Q: How much do we know about everything? 0% Information 100% Information This Much? This Much? This Much? % Known

Proposal: We don’t know very much As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. - Socrates 0% Information 100% Information What we don’t know What we know % of Information

Q: How do we solve what we don’t know? (aka Risk) Do we use what we know to solve what we don’t know? OR Do we use logic to solve what we don’t know? 0% Information 100% Information What we don’t know What we know % of Information

A: Logic can be applied without knowledge/experience 0% Information 100% Information What we don’t know Logic % of Information

What is the model? Identify the expert with as little effort as possible, using measurement and differential Transfer risk and control to the expert through preplanning and risk minimization, focusing on risk that are not controlled Hire the expert Use alignment, planning, & measurement in place of management, control, and direction Create a performance information environment to drive accountability and change Proactive vs. Reactive Supply chain (us mentality) Logic vs. Experience Predictable vs. Chance

Industry Performance and Capability Customers Vendor X Outsourcing Owner Highly Trained Partnering Owner Medium Trained Minimal Experience Price Based

An Event Initial conditions Final conditions Time Laws Laws Time Risk is deviation from expected measurements

Traditional Management Initial conditions Final conditions D1 M&C Laws Laws Time D1: Client makes decisions on budget, time, and expectation D2: Client consultant/professional makes more decisions to make expectations true D3: Vendors attempt to use the lowest possible price to minimize the risk caused by the decision making of client & consultant/professional M&C: The client attempts to force vendor to make expectations happen D2 D3

New PM and RM Model that Depends on Efficiency Initial conditions Final conditions M4 D1 M3 Laws Laws Time M1: Measured designed option that more accurately describe the initial conditions replaces D1 M2: The best value vendor that replaces the client/professional design M1 M3: WRR/RMP measures deviation M4: Final performance measurement M1 M2

Inefficiency vs Efficiency Can you make the transition? Micro-Management Performance dictated by technical information Specification is the requirement Inspection by client Client’s professional is the expert and has control No performance measurements Increase flow of information Relationships (partnering, deals, give and take) used to solve issues Need more people (inefficient) No accountability Leadership Performance dictated by performance information Specification is only the intent Quality control by contractor Vendor has control Performance measurements Decrease flow of information High performance vendors used to minimize risk Need less people (efficient) Accountability

Performance-Based Functions High III. Negotiated II. Performance-Based Value & Performance Maximize Profit Vendor Accountability Minimized Management & Inspection Quality Control Vendor minimizes risk Performance IV. Unstable Market I. Price-Based Treat as a Commodity Volume Based No Accountability Finger Pointing Management & Inspection Minimum Standards Client minimizes risk Competition Low High

Best Value Overview Complete business model for organizations & projects A best value selection and management tool (developed and tested over 16 years) It can be applied to any type of system, organization, structure, procurement, project, or need Best Value is not just a procurement method. It is a selection and management tool that can be applied in: Business Services (IT, dining, consultants, equipment, doc mgmt, insurance, etc.) Facility Services (maintenance, roofing, janitorial, landscaping, supplies, etc.) Design, bid, build (DBB), Design build (DB), Construction manager at risk (CMAR) A/E & Design, Job Order Contracting (JOC), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity BV is not a computer software package, but rather a combination of IMT principles that allows a client to make an informed decision PIPS is a best value selection tool that can be applied to any type of procurement PIPS is not a procurement method, but rather a selection tool that can be applied in any procurement method, such as: Design, bid, build (DBB) Design build (DB) Construction manager at risk (CMAR) or other types It is important to understand that PIPS is not a computer software package, but rather, it is a combination of IMT principles that allows a client to make an informed decision based on information.

What does the Best Value Model do? Makes things simple (measurement, dominant information) Minimizes the fuel of bureaucracy (decision making, non-dominant information, management, control, and direction) Creates transparency Allows organizations/vendors to be highly efficient and successful Proposes that to accurately identify what “is” and then to have a plan to efficiently meet the needs will minimize risk

Silo Buster – Make Things Simple 30K Foot Level Simplicity/Dominant Information Planning / Programming Designer/Engineering Contracting Contractors / Manufacturers Users Inspectors Technical Details

Best Value System: PIPS & PIRMS PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Measurement of Deviation from the Expectation Pre Planning and Risk Management Identification of Potential Best-Value PIPS PIRMS Performance Information Procurement System Performance Information Risk Management System 51

Interview Key Personnel BV Process Filter 1 Past Performance Information Filter 2 Proposal & RAVA Plan Filter 3 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 5 Pre-Planning Phase Filter 6 Weekly Report & Post-Rating High Quality of Vendors Award The process can be explained in the following diagram. This diagram illustrates the different steps that are involved in assisting a client in identifying the potential best-valued contractor. As we go through the process, the lower performers will drop out, and we should be left with the higher performing vendors The first filter is the process is Past Performance Information (click) Low Time

Getting Started: Developing a BV Requirement Filter 1 Past Performance Information Filter 2 Proposal & RAVA Plan Filter 3 Interview Key Personnel Filter 4 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 5 Pre-Planning Phase Filter 6 Weekly Report & Post-Rating High Setup Phase Quality of Vendors Award The process can be explained in the following diagram. This diagram illustrates the different steps that are involved in assisting a client in identifying the potential best-valued contractor. As we go through the process, the lower performers will drop out, and we should be left with the higher performing vendors The first filter is the process is Past Performance Information (click) Low Time

Touching Base…. Remember, goal of doing something different is to be better than you are right now Which means you have to change…. And people don’t like to change…. So before implementing anything new in your organization let’s think through what we should do…

Key Factors Before Implementing PIPS Most organizations are slow to change (Type C), and most individuals in these organizations are slow to change (Type C). Therefore, you cannot force the entity to change overnight. Change must be slow. Implement BV (or any new system) as a pilot test. Do not educate the entire organization on the PIRMS process. Keep it under the radar so everyone feels comfortable. The process must create a win-win. 100% A Information Level C 0% Time

Critical Factors of Success Setup Phase Identify core group Identify strategic plan / goals Identify and measure current level of performance Prepare critical documents / process Testing Phase Implement BV on pilot projects or groups Documentation and Modification Phase Analyze implementation Make modifications based on proper concepts and principles Educate

The Core Group The Core Group is a small group of individuals that will handle all functions of the Pilot Program. Core group is vital to long-term success. Core group must be carefully selected based on proper characteristics Core Group might include: Upper Management (Boss) Business Analyst Project Manager Procurement Officer Subject Area: IT, Facilities / Engineering, etc. Core Group must be heavily educated on concepts. That is they need to understand the “why” not just the “what”

Identifying Current Level of Performance A client should identify their current level of performance (to use as a comparison). For example Total size ($) Performance of incumbent (OT, OB, 1-10) Original proposal vs actual & current results Number of projects procured per year Average change order rate Average project delay or number of issues Overall customer satisfaction

Establish The Strategic Plan There are two main categories of activities that may jeopardize the sustainability of a best-value organizational transformation. These areas are performance risk and political risk. Performance risk is the risk of the vendor not completing the project within the financial projections, performance requirements, or to the satisfaction of the user. This risk can be mitigated by implementing the Best-Value selection process and the weekly risk report. Political risk includes resistance from both internal and external parties, including; business services & procurement personnel, upper management, project management, and the vendors. Political risk is more difficult to minimize and will take the greatest amount of effort. To minimize political risk, a long-term strategic plan must be established which outlines how the user will get to where they want to go.

The Strategic Plan A strategic plan is essential to the long-term success of a best-value program. The strategic plan must be established before beginning a pilot program and should be documented in writing. By having the strategic plan in writing, all decisions can be minimized by simply following the outline of the plan. The majority of users have not established strategic plans.

Contents of the Strategic Plan Client must establish goals (short term / long term). Potential goals/metrics may include: Increase vendor performance (OT, OB) Reduction in change orders Increase customer satisfaction Increasing (or maintaining) current level of competition Reducing the amount of management time Reducing procurement time Minimize any litigation Increase efficiency of project managers Education/Implementation strategy (w/ risks & plans) Schedule

All Research Must Relate Back To The Strategic Plan No meetings / decisions should be set without establishing the strategic plan / goals of the research. Any decisions that must be made must have an impact to the strategic plan. Meetings to have Who to educate Pilot projects to select Speed of implementation

Duties of Core Group Be educated Educate others (inside and outside your organization) Maintain and enhance the strategic plan Ensure there is a maintained weekly report for the whole effort Ensure there is a maintained WRR for each project effort as soon as it starts Maintain the directors report Maintain an up to date case study at all times Be able to show the value of the Best Value effort at all times DR, WRR, Case Study, others Integrate with other clients and users Help ensure the vendors’ success

RFP Obstacles In most cases, BV can be incorporated into any user/client with very little modification. However, experience has shown that the resistance of individuals are the greatest obstacle to creating change. The most common statements are: “This is not the way we normally do it...” “I recommended that you change the process to do this...” “It makes more sense to do it this way...” “I don’t think this is legal...” “Let me play devil’s advocate…”

Should We Issue A Budget? The owner wants the best-available option that meets the requirements. Requirements are: Time constraints Cost constraints Quality

Minimizing Budget Risk “To Share” or “Not to Share” – the Budget If “To Share” Risk: If cheaper than budgeted – vendors will come up to the budget Risk: If more expensive than budgeted – vendors will come down and look to change orders for margin Advantage: Gives high performers the edge in identifying it as a risk – offer solutions (differentiation) Reality: Still have price competition& cost reasonableness so budget knowledge only helps high performers and puts low performers at a disadvantage

Minimizing Budget Risk If “To Not Share” Risk: Estimates can be too high, with no offerings of risk minimization Risk: If one very low bidder, can cause confusion in BV selection Advantages: Don’t worry about price gouging (but so few bidders now days) Reality: Helps non-performers be more competitive Conclusion Greater risk in not giving the budget than giving it No real risk in giving the budget – only perceived risk

Low Performer Can a low-performer ever give you high performance? Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Performance High Low Risk Can a low-performer ever give you high performance? “No, by definition, they are a low performer.” How does a low-performer increase their competitiveness? “Since they can’t change their current level of performance, they must be the best at....$$$$”

Giving out your budget has no impact to a low-performer Impact of No Budget Giving out your budget has no impact to a low-performer High Low High Contractor 1 Contractor 4 Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Risk Performance Price Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Low High Low

PIPS Best Value System PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Measurement of Deviation from the Expectation Pre Planning and Risk Management Identification of Potential Best-Value

Go to PA 1-3

Current Project Information Award Filter 6 Weekly Report & Post-Rating Filter 1 Past Performance Information Filter 2 Current Project Information Filter 3 Interview Filter 4 Identify Potential Best Value Filter 5 Pre-Award Phase High Quality of Vendors Award Low Time

Filter 6 – Weekly Risk Report Weekly Report & Post-Rating Filter 1 Past Performance Information Filter 2 Current Project Information Filter 3 Interview Filter 4 Identify Potential Best Value Filter 5 Pre-Award Phase High Quality of Vendors Award Low Time

Weekly Reporting System Excel Spreadsheet that tracks only unforeseen risks on a project Client will setup and send to vendor once Award/NTP issued Vendor must submit the report every week (Friday). The final project rating will be impacted by the accuracy and timely submittal of the WRS 74

Management by Risk Minimization Unforeseen Risks RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Risk Risk Minimization Schedule WEEKLY REPORT Risk Unforeseen Risks METRICS Time linked Financial Operational/Client Satisfac. Environmental PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Vendor Performance Client Performance Individual Performance Project Performance

Overview of SHIP Test Objectives Establish contract with SHIP provider for college students in Idaho BSU Objectives: Maximize value (performance and cost) of SHIP Have an environment of risk minimization and performance measurement Minimize client effort in selection and management Minimize decision making Education of PIPS Measurement of differential BSU would like to create a “consortium” of universities/colleges in Idaho for a single SHIP contract

Deliverables Major project deliverables include: Set and Educate Project core team and Set BSU Strategic Plan Capture current level of performance and cost Plan providers Cost structure Program structure and details Identify differentials, gaps, and overlaps Create RFP Educate Vendors Run Selection and Interviews Run Pre-Planning and Risk Management Award & Transition Establish and maintain measurement system

Overview Create a statewide Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) consortium Boise State University (BSU) Idaho State University (ISU) Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC) 3-Year Contract | $36 Million Measurements of Success Reduce internal University program administration costs Maintain or increase Customer Satisfaction (University & Students) Maintain or increase cost-effectiveness of program to students State of Idaho

What Should We Include In RFP? Request For Information (RFI) General request to vendors Ask vendors what information they need to see in the RFP to create and provide an accurate proposal Has no contractual implications, just providing information to the client RFI RFP State of Idaho

Selection Criteria & Weights Responding contractors were evaluated on: Premiums (Student, Spouse, Dependents) (200 Points) Interviews (350 Points) Program Administrator Claims Administrator Waiver Administrator Data Base Manager Marketing Manager Risk Assessment and Value Added (RAVA) plan (250 Points) Risk Assessment – ability to identify and minimize potential risk unique to this project Value Added Option – ability to add value to the project in terms of time, money or quality Scope Plan (50 Points) Concise synopsis of the work that will be performed (major tasks, steps, or work packages). Vendors impression of how they will achieve the objectives of the consortium Past Performance Information (150 Points) Firm State of Idaho

Summary of Proposal Submittal Filter 6 Weekly Report & Post-Rating Filter 1 Past Performance Information Filter 2 Proposal & RAVA Plan Filter 3 Interview Filter 4 Prioritize (Identify Best Value) Filter 5 Pre-Award Phase (Pre-Plan) High Proposal Includes: Cost/Financial Information RAVA Plan (3) Scope Plan (2) PPI Quality of Vendors The process can be explained in the following diagram. This diagram illustrates the different steps that are involved in assisting a client in identifying the potential best-valued contractor. As we go through the process, the lower performers will drop out, and we should be left with the higher performing vendors The first filter is the process is Past Performance Information (click) Low Time State of Idaho 81 81

Coverage/Plan Characteristics Consortium goal was to standardize coverage between all three University's (to maximum extent possible). However, deviations were made as necessary (BSU athletic coverage, ISU RX Coverage, Capitated Fee, etc) Consortium goal was to increase plan characteristics (to provide better coverage for students) State of Idaho

SHIP Analysis State of Idaho

Analysis of Proposals State of Idaho

Overall Best-Value Results Previous Program: Student Premiums increased $124/year (past 4 years) Spouse & Dependent Premiums increased $126/year Best-Value Results: Student Premium has decreased by 2% (-$26) Spouse & Dependent Premium has decreased by 19% (-$519) In general, Benefits/Coverage have been increased State of Idaho

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

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% 87 87

2009 Performance Metrics

Performance Metrics – Combined ASU FY 2010

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 90 90

CPPM Strategic Plan First organization to establish and follow a Strategic Plan Ultimate Goal: CPPM take over entire program and is successful in implementing and sustaining the program. Year 1 – Pilot Testing Year 2 – Evaluation and Continued Testing Year 3 – Expansion Year 4 – Expansion Year 5 – Infusion & Transition Year 6 – Transition

CPPM Strategic Plan Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Identify and educate core group Identify qualified vendors Implement best-value Analyze pilot projects Year 2 Continue testing best-value Evaluate core group and refine Expand test to different trades (General Construction) Educate more internal CPPM staff Implement a weekly project tracking system Refine list of qualified vendors Educate and debrief qualified vendors on initial project results Year 3 Allow other CPPM personnel to test Automated online Directors Report Monitor all CPPM projects (LB & BV) Expand testing (A/E Services) Identify performance of UMN PM’s, Procurement, other critical areas, etc. Train CPPM on all BV components Year 4 CPPM acquire and perform all best-value functions (educate and train) PBSRG assist on areas of weakness CPPM handle analysis and tracking of all weekly reports Implement best-value on a larger scale Educate other UMN groups (Energy, Zones, Permitting, Codes, ect)

Transitional Plan

Current Construction Results 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%

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

Report – Overall Program

Report - Directors

Report - End Users

Report – Internal PM’s

Report - Contractors

Report – Yearly Analysis

Report – Top 10 Riskiest Projects

Report – Analysis of Risks

Research from Contractor Delays Contractor Risks % Delivery of Materials Delayed 28% Installation errors 26% Incorrect material ordered or delivered 11% Alteration of installation needed 9% Manufacture didn't have sufficient materials Misunderstanding of Construction Documents 6% Door Frames incorrect size 4% Soil compaction 2% 52% of risks due to errors in materials delivered

Targeted Business Group (Minority & Disadvantaged) Out of 63 qualified contractors, 18 are TGB (29%) Out of 161 PIPS Projects, 26 were awarded to TGB Contractors (16%) Awards were based on best-value, which shows that there are high performing TGB vendors in the MN community