Alternative Procurement
Spruce Groves Experience
with Best Value
PRESENTED BY PAUL FESER
PARKS PLANNING AND PROJECT MANAGER
CITY OF SPRUCE GROVE
Spruce Grove

City of 30,000 people

Trading area of 70,000 people.

2015 Corporate plan


Capital Budget - $51,904,585
Major Projects

A new Public Works Facility

Sports and Recreation Facility

Renovation of the Elks Hall

Construction three Class A baseball diamonds

Jubilee park (60 acer community park)

Fuhr Sports Park (twin artificial turf facility)
Procurement Background
o History of delivering great projects
o Challenged to do more with less
and often completed projects
“off the side of our desks”
o Starting to see a few contracts
monopolize our time
o A desire to get better
Our Goal
o We wanted contractors to want to work for us
(choose Spruce Grove over other communities)
o We wanted to hire the best contractor, and have
them send me their A-team
o We wanted to manage risk
o We needed to increase our capacity
o I wanted a contractor to prove they were the best,
and I was willing to pay for the best.
Options
o
Tender, RFP, RFQ
o
Pre-qualifications
o
Preferred bidders lists
o
Minimum standards
o
City standards
o
Worked to the limits of purchasing
policy
The result was the same, more work for
us.
We wanted to be better
DEFINITION OF INSANITY:
“DOING THE SAME TASKS OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS.”
ALBERT EINSTEIN
We kept doing what we were always doing;
and it never got better at it.
Best Value
o
Is added to your current purchasing process, does not replace it
o
Clear, transparent and fair
o
Expert vendors can clearly show their expertise
o
Simple measurements
o
Minimize risk, not transfer risk
o
Scrutinized by our finance team and City Clerks office
Best Value Objectives
Allow us to minimize Risk, increase
accountability and increase
performance
Arizona State University
Performance Based Studies
Research Group
www.pbsrg.com
Spruce Grove Best Value Contracts

City Custodial Contract $200,000 a
year, 6 year term

Elks Hall renovation $1million general
contractor

Sports and Recreation Facility
Construction Manager. $10.6 million
We are anticipating using Best Value for an
IT project this year
Best Value Process
Selection
Filter 1
Proposal
Evaluations
Pre Planning
Filter 2
Interview
Key
Personnel
Filter 3
Prioritization
(identify
Best Value)
Project Management
Filter 4
Filter 5
Cost
Pre-Award &
Reasonableness Clarification
Check
Traditional Procurement
Selection
Filter 1
Proposal
Evaluations
Project Management
Filter 2
(sometime)
Interview
Key Personnel
Project Execution
Project Execution
Risk Reporting
and Close Out
Rating
Selection

Blind evaluation - no sales pitches or irrelevant information

Based on verifiable information

4 submissions – Project capability, Risk plan, Value added plan and
past performance

Using a three point rating system
•
1 – you missed the boat
•
5 – I don’t know if you get it
•
10 – you get it, you know your stuff
Selection
Selection

Interview

Pre-Construction Services Manager (estimator/constructability reviews)

Project Engineer/Construction Manager

Site Supervisor
I wanted to see,
o A leader not a manager
o Short concise answers, not a storyteller
o Understanding the source of risks and how to mitigate them, not
transfer them
o Not a salesperson but can express their opinion
Selection
Non winning vendors
Winning Vendor

General Vague responses

Very detailed schedule

Instead of clarifying a question,
answered a wrong question, told us
great information

Spoke about the risk/benefit of a
phased tender

“I work for you”

Sales person


Suspicious will hand off project to a
junior staff
Active partner to completion of
project

Community Value

Somewhat vague with risk mitigation


Told us what we wanted to hear
Positive experience with your
architect

Open to collaboration
Clarification

Risk management plan

Schedule

Identify the known unknowns

Roles

Project finance and scope
Where we are today
Contracted Jen-Col Construction limited as our construction manager on February 21st,
2014.
Pre construction services was completed on time and budget
o Cost estimate within 2% of the tendered price
o Identified over $300,000 in cost savings opportunities with
no impact on the program for the building.
Where we are today
We received our site on August 18th and construction started on August 28th.
Construction Financial Summary
Original contract,
$ 11,142,06
Approved change orders, $ -92,967
Adjusted contract,
$10,457,131
Value completed,
$ 3,466,186
Construction Detail
Foundation
Underground mech.
Structural Steel
Parapets & Roofing
Completed for $22,167
under
Completed on budget
Completed for $10,862
over (1%) (design miss)
90% complete and on
budget
Where we are today

Late start due to developer and design issues (documented)

Anticipate turn over date of November 10th 2015

So far, all schedule milestones have been met

Starting and end dates for piling contractor

Starting and end dates for structural steel

Delivery dates for air handling units

All concrete pour dates
Two quotes
“I’m sorry Mr. Feser, but your requirement to provide five references on
our site supervisor is too difficult of a task and if you don’t waive this
requirement we will be forced to withdraw from the bidding process”
Non successful bidder
“I hope you don’t mind Paul, I checked online and seen you were
hosting a provincial soccer tournament on the fields next door. I
moved our construction fence back about 40 feet and leveled the
area. This way, if a ball goes over the fence a parent will be able to
safely get it”
Site supervisor from Jen-Col construction.
Thank you
Clarification

Filter 1 Summary