Procurement and Contract Management-Participant Guide - Procurement and Contract Management

Participant Guide - Procurement and Contract Management
Pdf Summary
<strong>Case Study 1: Sealed Bid</strong>

The Dealer's Choice HA conducted a bid for fence construction due to budget concerns. They divided the project into a base bid and alternate bids to manage costs. Despite a fire at Site 1A, they proceeded without amending the IFB specifications to avoid delays. ACE Fencing won due to a significantly lower bid, awarded a $52,000 contract.

<strong>Questions:</strong>
1. There were issues with proceeding with outdated IFB specs post-fire.
2. The maintenance chief should not have deferred handling the changed conditions.
3. Award to ACE was logical due to budget constraints.
4. A swift re-evaluation factoring the fire could have been conducted.

<strong>Case Study 2: Cost Analysis</strong>

Can Doit Consultants provided a budget exceeding the PHA's estimate, prompting a review of cost justifications and potential over-budgeting areas in labor, overhead, and profit.

<strong>Questions:</strong>
1. Steps include evaluating cost validity and necessity.
2. Inquiry needed into high overhead and profit figures.

<strong>Case Study 3: Competitive Range</strong>

The challenge is to determine the competitive range for organizational assessment, with scores juxtaposed against cost proposals varying between $250,000 and $540,000.

<strong>Direction:</strong>
Firms with the best technical scores relative to cost, like EXP and NKT, should be prioritized to ensure value.

<strong>Case Study 4: Architect/Engineer Contracting Method</strong>

Although granted to the top technically scoring firm, cost considerations (initially $210,000 reduced to $195,000) could question fiscal prudence due to alternatives under budget.

<strong>Questions:</strong>
1. Properly prioritized evaluation but possibly lacked cost negotiations.
2. Consider the cost-effectiveness more rigorously.

<strong>Case Study 5: Noncompetitive Contract</strong>

HACK sought to contract HAL, Inc. directly for system enhancements due to their existing infrastructure, using urgent operational needs as justification.

<strong>Questions:</strong>
1. Justifications are weak without exploring alternatives.
2. LHA should research competitor pricing and justification.

<strong>Case Study 6: Elevator Contract</strong>

The vaguely defined Statement of Work risks accountability in maintenance contracts, with potential disputes in execution clarity.

<strong>Recommendations:</strong>
1. Specify roles and duties clearly.
2. Shortcomings can disrupt service due to unmet expectations.

<strong>Case Study 7: Specifications</strong>

An immediate purchase of specific brands was suggested, risking noncompliance with procurement norms.

<strong>Recommendations:</strong>
1. Ensure competitive, transparent bidding.
2. Avoid brand-specific requests without justification.

<strong>Case Study 8: Inspecting, Accepting</strong>

A flawed receiving protocol led to unpaid goods not being inspected, causing a financial loss when rectified.

<strong>Recommendations:</strong>
1. Implement strict receiving and inspection procedures.
2. Train staff on proper protocol.

<strong>Case Study 9: Contract Administration</strong>

Issues in modifications, especially interest and bad debts included in Change Order B and the lump sum of Change Order A, highlighted financial oversight shortcomings.

<strong>Questions:</strong>
1. A thorough evaluation before accepting lump-sum changes.
2. Review the legitimacy of proposed additional costs.
Keywords
Sealed Bid
Cost Analysis
Competitive Range
Contracting Method
Noncompetitive Contract
Elevator Contract
Specifications
Inspecting
Contract Administration
Budget Constraints