Value Based Project Delivery:
Best Value Business Model
Kenneth T. Sullivan, PhD, MBA
Arizona State University
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
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.
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
4
5
Information
Technology
networking
help desk services
data centers
eProcurement
hardware
COTS software
ERP systems
Facility
Management
maintenance
custodial
landscaping
conveyance
security service pest control
building systems
industrial moving
waste management
energy management
Health Insurance/
Medical Services
Manufacturing
Business / Municipal /
University Services
Construction / Design /
Engineering
material recycling
dining
bookstores
multi-media rights
furniture
fitness equipment
online education
document management
property management
audiovisual
communications systems
emergency response systems
laundry
large gc
infrastructure
municipal
laboratory
education
hospital
financial
large specialty
small gc
renovation
repair
maintenance
roofing
demolition
development
supply chain
DBB
CMAR
DB
IDIQ
JOC
Low Bid
IPD
Strategic Partners & Efforts
AAC
Univ. of
Alberta
SFU Alberta
Infra
United States 65 clients
Univ. of
Manitoba
Dalhousie
Univ.
6+ years
Infrastructure
€1.8B plus €1B
Congo
$14B PPP
Tongji University
Brunsfield
Complete Supply Chain
Fulbright Scholarship- RMIT
University of Botswana Teaching IMT
BV tests
PBSRG platform
What Percent of RFP’s
Are 100% Accurate?
8
Who Should Know
More About
Performing/Delivering
the Services Required?
9
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
Impact of Minimum Requirements
High
Low
High
Low
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Low
High
Low
High
Problem with Traditional Approach
Owners
Vendors
“The lowest possible quality
that I want”
“The highest possible value
that you will get”
High
High
Maximum
Minimum
Low
Low
Which of these
Proponents
brings your
organization
the most risk?
High
Low
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Low
High
14
What we have seen…
Vendor
Vendor
Client
Vendor
Vendor
Vendor
15
What we have seen…
Vendor
Vendor
Client
Vendor
Vendor
Vendor
16
What we have seen…
Client
Vendor
17
What we have seen…
Client
Vendor
Client PM
Vendor PM
18
“The Greatest Risk that I
always face, is how to
accomplish all of the things
that our sales team promised
we could do.”
19
What is different…
Vendor
Vendor
Client
Plan
Vendor
Vendor
Vendor
20
What is different…
Client
Plan
Client PM
Vendor
Vendor PM
21
Best Value Objectives
Minimize cost,
increase efficiency
“not just transfer
risk...but minimize
risk”
Vendors
maximize their
profits by being
more efficient
Supply Chain
mentality
“Win-Win”
Reduce
Cost
Minimize the
need for client
management,
direction, and
decision making
Minimize risk
of nonperformance
“High Client
Satisf.”
22
Best-Value Process
23
Best Value Model
Best Value Model
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
What are we trying to accomplish?
Question:
If Purchasing wants to buy a “green
circle”, in which scenario is hiring the
right “green circle” easiest to justify?
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Best Value Process
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Proposal
Evaluations
Interview
Key Personnel
Prioritization
(Identify
Best Value)
Cost
Reasonableness
Check
Pre-Award &
Clarification
Evaluation Criteria
- Price / Cost / Fee
- Project Capability
- Risk Assessment
- Value Added
- Past Performance
Information (PPI)
Short List
prior to
Interviews
(if necessary)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Total Evaluation
Scores are
determined
Decision Matrix to
confirm Selection of
the potential Best
Value Proponent
Project Execution
Risk Reporting &
Close Out Rating
Contract Award
Filter 1
Pre Award Activities
- Training
- Kickoff Meeting
- Plan & Clarify
- Summary Meeting
Project Execution
- Weekly Risk Report
- Director Report
- Performance Meas.
- Close Out Ratings
Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013
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
Phase 1
Blind Submittals
Project
Capability
Risk Plan
Value
Added
= capability to meet
requirements
= risk don’t control
= added scope
Simple, concise,
support w/
performance metrics
Example of Solutions
Risk: Design of Heating/Cooling System
Type: Project Capability
•
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: Noise from Demolition
Type: Project Capability
•
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: 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.
Example of Solutions
Risk: Getting water to the site
Type: Risk Assessment
• 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.
Value Add Plan
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
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.
36
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
Survey Form
38
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
Best Value Process
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Proposal
Evaluations
Interview
Key Personnel
Prioritization
(Identify
Best Value)
Cost
Reasonableness
Check
Pre-Award &
Clarification
Evaluation Criteria
- Price / Cost / Fee
- Project Capability
- Risk Assessment
- Value Added
- Past Performance
Information (PPI)
Short List
prior to
Interviews
(if necessary)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Total Evaluation
Scores are
determined
Decision Matrix to
confirm Selection of
the potential Best
Value Proponent
Project Execution
Risk Reporting &
Close Out Rating
Contract Award
Filter 1
Pre Award Activities
- Training
- Kickoff Meeting
- Plan & Clarify
- Summary Meeting
Project Execution
- Weekly Risk Report
- Director Report
- Performance Meas.
- Close Out Ratings
Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013
Prioritization
$ 145,000
FIRM A
POINTS
250
FIRM B
POINTS
242
FIRM C
POINTS
213
6.2
8.1
194
350
268
8.7
7.5
8.7
117
200
172
5.0
5.0
5.0
5
100
100
100
25
9.5
9.2
9.1
9.5
25
24
24
7 PPI – Firm (Surveys)
25
1
5
5
5
5
25
25
8 PPI – Project Manager (1-10)
25
9.5
9.2
8.8
9.5
25
24
23
9 PPI – Project Manager (Surveys)
25
1
4
2
4
6
25
13
723
990
838
NO
CRITERIA
POINTS
FIRM A
FIRM B
FIRM C
BEST
1 Cost
250
$ 145,000
$ 150,000
$ 170,000
2 Interviews
350
4.5
8.1
3 Risk Assessment Plan
200
5.1
5 Value Assessment Plan
100
6 PPI – Firm (1-10)
Total
1000
TOTAL POINTS (1,000):
41
Dominance Check & Cost
Reasonableness
Best
Best Value
Value
Prioritization
Prioritization
Best-Value is the lowest price
Best-Value is within [X%] of
next highest ranked firm
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Best-Value can be justified
based on other factors
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Proceed to
Pre-Award
No
Yes
Go with Alternate
Proposal or Cancel
42
Best Value Model
Best Value Process
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Proposal
Evaluations
Interview
Key Personnel
Prioritization
(Identify
Best Value)
Cost
Reasonableness
Check
Pre-Award &
Clarification
Evaluation Criteria
- Price / Cost / Fee
- Project Capability
- Risk Assessment
- Value Added
- Past Performance
Information (PPI)
Short List
prior to
Interviews
(if necessary)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Total Evaluation
Scores are
determined
Decision Matrix to
confirm Selection of
the potential Best
Value Proponent
Project Execution
Risk Reporting &
Close Out Rating
Contract Award
Filter 1
Pre Award Activities
- Training
- Kickoff Meeting
- Plan & Clarify
- Summary Meeting
Project Execution
- Weekly Risk Report
- Director Report
- Performance Meas.
- Close Out Ratings
Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013
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
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
End
Start
Clarification / Preplanning Period
Very High Level
High Level
Technical Level
Cost Verification
Project Work Plan
Performance Reports / Metrics
Included in Proposal
Client Risks/Concerns
Additional Documentation
Excluded from
Proposal
PA Schedule
Technical Details
Uncontrollable Risks
Project Schedule
Response to all risks
High level demos
Roles and
Responsibilities
PA Document
Major Assumptions
Major Client
Risks/Concerns
Value Added Ideas
Coordination
Review Functionality
Clarification / Preplanning Period
48
Impact of Clarification/Pre-Award
(General Services Administration)
No
CRITERIA
Traditional RFP
ASU-BV
11
10
$14,244,385
$9,994,887
3 Total awarded schedule
1,822
1,373
4 Percent awarded cost below budget
4.4%
6.0%
68 days
78 days
0
7
1 Number of projects analyzed
2 Total awarded cost
5 Average time RFP Release to Contract
6 Average BV-PA duration (days)
7 Average Overall Change Order Rate
50% Decrease
8 Average Overall Project Delay Rate
38% Decrease
9 GSA Satisfaction Rating of Contractor/Job
34% Increase
For within BV projects, also tested “<1 week” PA vs “>1 week” PA
̶ Longer PA had 33% lower change order rate (73% reduced overall)
̶ Longer PA had 69% lower delay rate (73% reduced overall)
49
Best Value Model
Best Value Process
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Proposal
Evaluations
Interview
Key Personnel
Prioritization
(Identify
Best Value)
Cost
Reasonableness
Check
Pre-Award &
Clarification
Evaluation Criteria
- Price / Cost / Fee
- Project Capability
- Risk Assessment
- Value Added
- Past Performance
Information (PPI)
Short List
prior to
Interviews
(if necessary)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Total Evaluation
Scores are
determined
Decision Matrix to
confirm Selection of
the potential Best
Value Proponent
Project Execution
Risk Reporting &
Close Out Rating
Contract Award
Filter 1
Pre Award Activities
- Training
- Kickoff Meeting
- Plan & Clarify
- Summary Meeting
Project Execution
- Weekly Risk Report
- Director Report
- Performance Meas.
- Close Out Ratings
Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013
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
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
Measurement of Deviation from the Expectation
Management by Risk Minimization
Unforeseen Risks
PROJECT PLAN
• Risk
• Risk Minimization
• Schedule
METRICS
• Time linked
• Financial
• Operational/Client Satisfac.
• Environmental
WEEKLY REPORT
• Risk
• Unforeseen Risks
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
• Vendor Performance
• Client Performance
• Individual Performance
• Project Performance
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
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
56
56
Current 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%
57
Program Report
ViceDirector
President
DirectorOfficer
1
Procurement
1
PM
PM 11
PM
PM 22
DirectorOfficer
2
Procurement
2
PM
PM 33
PM
PM 44
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
58
Report – Overall Program
59
Directors Report
60
Report – End Users
General Overview
1
2
3
4
Total Number of Projects
Percent of Projects Procured Using PIPS
Total Awarded Cost:
Average Number of Risks per Project
TEAM 1
(President /
University / Admin)
19
79%
$5,359,995
3
TEAM 2
Academic Health
Center
14
86%
$2,821,005
8
TEAM 3
Provost College
7.7%
0.6%
7.2%
63%
68%
41.3%
3.4%
37.8%
36%
50%
41.1%
20.0%
21.1%
80%
80%
8.1%
0.1%
8.0%
95%
79%
19.6%
0.1%
19.6%
93%
79%
14.8%
-0.8%
15.6%
100%
60%
4
3
75%
6.75
7.7
10.7
2
2
100%
10
8.5
8.5
1
1
100%
10
8.0
7.0
5
80%
$2,353,761
12
Owner Impacts
5 Overall Owner Impacts (Time & Cost)
6
Owner Change Order Rate
7
Owner Delay Rate
8
Percent of Projects without Owner Cost Changes
9
Percent of Projects without Owner Delays
Contractor Impacts
10
11
12
13
14
Overall Contractor Impacts (Time & Cost)
Contractor Change Order Rate
Contractor Delay Rate
Percent of Projects without Contractor Cost Changes
Percent of Projects without Contractor Delays
Satisfaction Ratings
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total Number of Completed Projects
Total Number of Client Surveys Returned
Percent of Projects Evaluated by Client
Average PM Post Project Rating of Contractor
Average Client Post Project Rating of Contractor
Average Client Post Project Rating of CPPM
61
Report – Internal PM’s
62
Report – Contractors
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Contractor
Contractor 118
Contractor 119
Contractor 120
Contractor 104
Contractor 121
Contractor 105
Contractor 106
Contractor 122
Contractor 107
Contractor 123
Contractor 108
Contractor 124
Contractor 125
Contractor 109
Contractor 126
Contractor 110
Contractor 127
Contractor 128
Contractor 129
Contractor 111
Contractor 112
Contractor 113
Contractor 114
Owner
Change
Order
Rate
721,965
0.3%
220,002
0.7%
269,850
9.4%
459,225
1.6%
241,575
0.0%
1,611,015
0.3%
1,280,362
2.2%
367,650
0.0%
178,440
0.0%
3,227,182 14.9%
327,295
0.0%
69,218
3.5%
1,150,738
1.9%
534,095
2.0%
323,000
3.3%
308,882
1.2%
1,793,355
3.8%
2,956,800
1.3%
1,319,789
2.2%
1,096,707
0.1%
446,100
0.0%
552,815
5.1%
1,841,157 13.0%
Total
Total Awarded
Number of
Cost:
Projects
3
3
1
3
1
8
9
3
1
2
2
1
3
5
1
1
7
4
6
4
1
3
2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Owner
Delay
Rate
18.1%
10.4%
303.0%
2.7%
21.9%
32.9%
31.1%
79.1%
0.0%
0.0%
135.4%
0.0%
7.3%
23.2%
3.4%
24.8%
13.6%
1.7%
16.2%
0.0%
6.9%
29.4%
215.8%
Vendor
Change
Order
Rate
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Vendor
Delay
Rate
Percent
of Late
Reports
Vendor
Performance
66.8%
0.0%
18.2%
18.8%
50.0%
16.3%
3.2%
1.4%
11.4%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
0.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
12.2%
11.0%
9.8%
0.0%
7.0%
0.0%
53%
69%
47%
37%
0%
32%
35%
37%
25%
30%
32%
31%
26%
29%
22%
27%
26%
11%
9%
10%
15%
8%
13%
120%
69%
65%
56%
53%
49%
39%
38%
37%
35%
32%
31%
30%
29%
29%
27%
26%
23%
21%
19%
15%
15%
13%
63
Report – Yearly Analysis
64
Report – Top 10 Riskiest Projects
No
Project
Overall
Awarded Change
Awarded Cost
Duration Order
Rate
Overall
Delay
Rate
Percent
of Late
Reports
Risk
Analysis
Factor
PM
Director
1
Mayo Remodel Suite A652 $
269,850
66
9%
321%
47%
377%
Wycliffe Waganda
Gary Summerville
2
Barn Clean Renovations
$
269,000
80
2%
166%
60%
229%
Wycliffe Waganda
Justin Grussing
3
WBOB Remodel Suite 150
$
273,100
99
1%
96%
37%
134%
Pete Nickel
Gary Summerville
4
Vet Sciences Third Floor
$
96,930
49
3%
86%
28%
116%
Pete Nickel
Gary Summerville
5
Weaver Densford College
of Pharmacy
$
90,862
28
2%
25%
80%
107%
Pete Nickel
Gary Summerville
6
PWB Remodel Suite 6-240
$
127,338
82
17%
23%
64%
104%
Steve Bailey
Gary Summerville
7
PWB Room 7-158B
$
46,504
30
0%
0%
100%
100%
Pete Nickel
Gary Summerville
8
Oak Street Parking
Surveillance
$
246,802
74
0%
0%
100%
100%
George Mahowald
Justin Grussing
9
Snyder Bldg Exterior Door
$
219,000
121
-4%
81%
22%
100%
Wycliffe Waganda
Justin Grussing
$
1,593,561
254
29%
0%
50%
79%
Matt Stringfellow
Justin Grussing
10 Heller Hall Renovation
65
Report – Analysis of Risks
Risk Category
1) Client Impacts
Client Scope Change / Decision
Client Requested Delay
2) CPPM Impacts
1,200
Percent
Impact to
Cost
59%
Percent
Impact to
Schedule
46%
976
59%
37%
-
224
0%
9%
$329,425
885
30%
34%
Number of
Risks
Impact to
Cost
Impact to
Schedule
114
$660,369
111
$
3
$
135
660,369
Design Issue
48
$
189,876
230
17%
9%
CPPM Issue (Codes / Permits)
36
$
46,140
170
4%
7%
CPPM Issue (Energy Mgmt)
2
$
47,533
30
4%
1%
CPPM Issue (Hazardous / Health & Safety)
8
$
35,407
118
3%
5%
CPPM Issue (NTS)
8
$
10,018
64
1%
2%
CPPM Issue (Contract / Payment)
11
$
-
132
0%
5%
CPPM Issue (Other)
22
$
451
141
0%
5%
411
2%
16%
3) Contractor Impacts
43
$21,005
Contractor Issue
11
$
-
101
0%
4%
Contractor Oversight of Design
9
$
21,005
38
2%
1%
Contractor Issue with Supplier / Sub
23
$
-
272
0%
10%
19
$102,544
111
9%
4%
311
$ 1,113,343
2,607
4) Unforeseen Impacts
66
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
University of Alberta – Best Value Performance
Project
Value
Cost
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 months
9.7 (out of 10)
3. Design Services
(Building Redevelopment)
$4M
$500k
12%
0% Cost &
Schedule CO’s
$190k in Value
Added Options
68
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
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
70
Rio Vista Project
NO
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
FIRM A
FIRM B
FIRM C
FIRM D
FIRM E
FIRM G
FIRM H
1 Schedule (Days)
598
730
923
587
478
850
630
2 Risk Assessment Plan Rating
7.3
7.3
2.9
5.3
4.4
5.9
6.5
3 DB Firm Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.9
9.8
9.4
9.2
9.6
9.4
9.5
4 DB Firm Number of Surveys (#)
25
26
5
2
25
9
17
10.0
9.8
8.4
9.2
9.5
7.5
9.7
6 Project Manager Number of Surveys (#)
11
15
3
2
3
1
5
7 Site Superintendent Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.9
10.0
9.9
9.1
9.5
5.0
9.4
8 Site Superintendent Number of Surveys (#)
7
1
3
1
2
1
2
11 Lead Architect Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.5
9.5
9.4
8.1
9.8
9.4
9.6
12 Lead Architect Number of Surveys (#)
18
6
5
1
7
8
4
13 Estimator Performance Ratings (1-10)
10.0
9.6
9.5
5.0
9.9
5.0
9.6
14 Estimator Number of Surveys (#)
15
10
3
1
2
1
5
15 Landscaping Designer Ratings (1-10)
9.1
9.2
5.0
9.8
9.5
9.5
8.7
16 Landscaping Designer Surveys (#)
13
19
1
5
11
6
2
10.0
9.0
9.5
7.6
9.9
5.0
9.5
11
18
6
3
3
1
6
5 Project Manager Performance Ratings (1-10)
17 Landscaping Contractor Ratings (1-10)
18 Landscaping Contractor Surveys (#)
71
Results
Top Award
2007 Gold Award
for
Project Leadership
Rio Vista Recreation Center
72
Fire Station 7
Model Ranking:
29%
76%
22%
98%
FIRM D1
FIRM D2
FIRM D3
FIRM D4
1 Interview Rating
5.9
7.0
6.7
8.2
2 RAVA Plan Rating
6.5
5.2
5.5
6.9
3 PPI - Design Firm (1-10)
9.8
9.8
9.3
9.5
NO
CRITERIA
4 PPI - Design Firm (Surveys)
23
17
6
17
5 PPI - Lead Architect (1-10)
9.8
9.8
9.5
9.5
6 PPI - Lead Architect (Surveys)
10
9
4
10
7 PPI - Mechanical Engineer (1-10)
9.8
9.6
9.0
9.8
5
1
3
9
1.0
9.4
1.0
9.8
1
2
1
6
8 PPI - Mechanical Engineer (Surveys)
9 PPI - Electrical Engineer (1-10)
10 PPI - Electrical Engineer (Surveys)
90%
87%
89%
 “Gold Medal Design Excellence”
FIRM C1
FIRM C2
FIRM C3
1 Interview Rating
7.9
6.4
7.4
(Fire Chief Magazine – 2007)
2 RAVA Plan Rating
6.5
5.7
6.3
3 PPI - GC Firm (1-10)
9.6
9.9
9.5
4 PPI - GC Firm (Surveys)
18
12
13
5 PPI - Key Individuals (1-10)
9.4
9.6
9.4
5
7
6
Model Ranking:
NO
CRITERIA
6 PPI - Key Individuals (Surveys)
 “Design Excellence Merit Award”
(Fire Rescue Magazine – 2007)
 Masonry Guild Design Excellence
Award - 2008
73
73
City of Peoria AZ Results
Criteria
Best Value
Difference
% Change
38
9
NA
NA
Awarded Cost
$74,181,566
$187,935,047
NA
NA
Actual Cost
$79,315,696
$188,683,729
NA
NA
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)
6016
3792
NA
NA
Actual Duration (Days)
8135
4013
NA
NA
Average % Delay
35%
6%
-29.4%
-83%
% Projects On Time (Yes/No)
37%
44%
7%
19%
Owner Satisfaction
20%
93%
73%
74
365%
Number of Projects
Low Bid
Case Study: ASU Food Services Contract
$32 Million Dollars
(Over 10 Years)
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Summary Criteria
RAVA Plan
Transition Milestone Schedule
Interview
Past Performance Information - Survey
Past Performance Information - #/Clients
Past Performance Information - Financial
Financial Rating
Financial Return - Commissions
Capital Investment Plan
Equipment Replacement Reserve
Firm A
(Incumbent)
(1-10)
5.9
(1-10)
5.2
(1-25)
15.8
(1-10)
9.8
Raw #
5.7
(1-10)
7.0
(1-10)
4.0
Raw $
$ 30,254,170
Raw $
$ 14,750,000
Raw $
$ 7,213,342
Finanical Totals $ 52,217,512
Scale
Firm B
$
$
$
$
7.1
7.0
16.8
10.0
3.0
8.7
8.0
60,137,588
20,525,000
4,100,001
84,762,589
Firm C
$
$
$
$
6.3
6.3
13.5
9.8
4.4
6.9
8.0
64,000,000
12,340,000
8,171,811
84,511,811
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%
1 Total Revenue ($M)
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
Difference % Difference
Incumbent New Vendor
$
27.02 $
30.83 $
3.81
14%
2 Total Return & Commissions ($M)
$
2.17
$
2.67
$
0.50
23%
3 Captial Investment Contract ($M)
$
14.75
$
30.83
$
18.08
109%
4 Captial Investment 2006 vs. 2007 ($M)
$
0.26
$
5.70
$
5.44
2092%
No Category
5 ASU Administration (# of People)
7
1.5
-5.5
-79%
6 Customer (Student) Satisfaction (1-10)
5.2
7.1
1.9
37%
7 Myster Shopper Satisfaction
N/A
9.6
--
--
Summary Financial Metrics – Combined ASU
May 2013 Report
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Financial Performance Metrics
YTD Prior
Year
Category
Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals ($K) (Meal Swipes)
Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K) (Meal Swipes)
Retail Sales ($K) (Sun$, M&G Vol, M&G Mandatory and Cash/CC)
Catering Sales ($K)
Camp/Conference Sales ($K)
All Other Sales (Subcontractors & Sushi) ($K)
$
$
$
$
$
$
17,608
659
18,990
2,615
470
3,838
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs
PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5,928
$
69
$ (1,874)
$
149
$ (167)
$ (364)
33.7%
10.5%
-9.9%
5.7%
-35.5%
-9.5%
23,537
728
17,116
2,763
303
3,475
21,497
694
17,019
2,797
487
3,486
Var Act. vs Var Act. Vs
Budget
Budget %
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,039
33
96
(34)
(183)
(11)
9.5%
4.8%
0.6%
-1.2%
-37.6%
-0.3%
7 TOTAL REVENUE
$ 44,180
$ 47,921
$ 45,981
$ 3,742
8.5% $ 1,941
7a
7b
$
$
$
$
$
$
27,485
18,496
$ 3,240
$
498
12.4% $
2.8% $
1,834
103
6.7%
0.6%
11.0% $
130
5.8%
227
9
12.4% $
2.8% $
128
2
6.7%
0.6%
$ 236
11.0% $
130
5.8%
Total Board Revenue
Total Retail Revenue
26,078
18,101
29,318
18,600
8 Commissions on Total Revenue ($K)
$ 2,151
$ 2,387
$ 2,257
$ 236
8a
8b
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Commissions on Board Revenue ($K)
Commissions on Retail Revenue ($K)
9 Commissions Paid to ASU ($K)
1,826
326
$ 2,151
2,052
335
$ 2,387
Performance Metrics
YTD
Actual
YTD Budget
1,924
333
$ 2,257
No
Category
YTD Prior
Year
Actual vs
PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
Var Act. vs
Budget
Var Act. Vs
Budget %
1
Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold
8,454
7,899
6,136
-555
-6.6%
1763
28.7%
2
Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold
4,552
6,320
3,958
1,768
38.8%
2362
59.7%
3
Customer (Student) Satisfaction Survey (1 - 7) (2x/yr)
3a
a. Tempe (MU Plaza Only)
5.42
5.43
5.41
0.01
0.2%
0.02
0.4%
3b
b. Downtown
5.23
5.17
5.20
-0.06
-1.1%
-0.03
-0.6%
3c
c. West
5.12
5.19
4.98
0.07
1.4%
0.21
4.2%
3d
d. Poly
5.19
5.05
4.83
n/a
5.42
82.6
5.43
81.0
5.41
81.7
0.01
0.0
3e
4
e. Total ASU
Catering Satisfaction Survey
n/a
0.2%
0.0%
n/a
0.02
0.0
n/a
0.4%
0.0%
4.2%
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs PY
1
Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals
$ ($K) (Meal
17,608.0
Swipes)
$
2
Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K)
$
(Meal658.6
Swipes)$
3
4
Catering Sales ($K)
$
2,614.8
$
2,763.46961
$
2,797.4
$
148.7
5
Camp/Conference Sales ($K)
$
470.4
$
303.5
$
486.7
$
(166.9)
6
All Other Sales (Subcontractors & $Sushi) ($K)
3,838.4
7
TOTAL REVENUE
7a
23,536.5
$
21,497.4
$
727.6
$
694.5
$
Retail Sales ($K) (Sun $, M&G Vol,
$ M&G Mandatory
18,989.6 and
$ Cash17,115.6
& Credit Cards)
$
17,019.3
$
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
5,928.5
33.7% $
2,039.2
9.5%
68.9
10.5% $
33.1
4.8%
-9.9% $
96.3
(1,874.0)
$
3,474.8
$
3,485.5
$
$
44,179.9
$
47,921.4
$
45,980.8
$
3,741.5
(363.6)
Total Board Revenue
$
26,078.5
$
3,239.7
Total Retail Revenue
$
0.6%
5.7% $
(33.9)
-1.2%
-35.5% $
(183.3)
-37.6%
-9.5% $
(10.7)
8.5% $
1,940.6
12.4% $
1,833.6
-0.3%
29,318.2
$
27,484.5
$
18,101.4
$
18,599.6
$
18,496.2
$
498.2
2.8% $
103.3
0.6%
8
Commissions on Total Revenue
$
2,151.4
($K)
$
2,387.2
$
2,256.8
$
235.9
11.0% $
130.4
5.8%
8a
Commissions on Board Revenue
$ ($K) 1,825.5
$
2,052.3
$
1,923.9
$
226.7
12.4% $
128.4
6.7%
8b
Commissions on Retail Revenue
$ ($K)
$
335.0
$
332.9
$
9.1
2.8% $
2.0
0.6%
130.4
5.8%
7b
9
325.8
10
11
Subsidy/(Refund) - DPC, West
$
& Polytechnic
$
($K) $
Commissions Paid to
ASU ($K) (Commission
on Total Revenue less
Subsidy)
$
2,151.4 $
2,387.2 $
Commission % - Combined
4.87%
4.98%
12
-
2,256.8 $
4.91%
Commission % - Board
7.00%
Commission % - Retail
1.80%
1.80%
1.80%
% Commission Actually Paid to ASU
4.87%
4.98%
4.91%
44,446.6 $
42,495.2
$
7.00%
40,341.4 $
$
-
235.9
$
11.0% $
6.7%
Category
YTD Prior Year
7.00%
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Actual vs PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
Var Act. vs
Budget
Var Act.
Vs
Budget %
1
Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold 8,454
7,899
6,136
-555
-6.6%
1763
28.7%
2
Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold 4,552
6,320
3,958
1,768
38.8%
2362
59.7%
3
Customer (Student) Satisfaction Survey (1 - 7) (2x/yr)
a. Tempe (MU Plaza Only)
5.42
5.43
5.41
0.01
0.2%
0.02
0.4%
b. Downtown
5.23
5.17
5.20
-0.06
-1.1%
-0.03
-0.6%
c. West
5.12
5.19
4.98
0.07
1.4%
0.21
d. Poly
5.19
5.05
4.83
n/a
5.42
0.0
5.43
0.0
5.41
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.2%
#DIV/0!
81.67%
0.0
0.0%
4
e. Total ASU
Client (ASU Personnel) Satisfaction
5
82.56% - Above 80.99% - Above
Avg-Excellent
Catering Satisfaction Survey (from Survey
Monkey - avgAvg-Excellent
score)
n/a
4.2%
n/a
n/a
0.02
0.0
0.4%
#DIV/0!
0.0
0.0%
Retail Sales Metrics
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
1
Cash and Credit Cards
$
2
Voluntary M&G
3
4
Mandatory M&G
Sun Dollars
5
6
YTD Actual
5,129.3
$
$
813.3
$
$
7,231.0
711.6
National Branded Concepts
$
5,104.4
TOTAL RETAIL SALES - NO 3 ABOVE
$
18,989.6
YTD Budget
5,148.8
$
$
749.7
$
$
4,943.4
29.8
$
$
6,243.8
17,115.6
Var Act. vs PY
19.5
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
0.4% $
4,523.3
$
$
674.8
$
(63.6)
-7.8% $
74.9
$
$
5,128.1
-
$
$
(2,287.6)
(681.7)
-31.6% $
-95.8% $
(184.7)
29.8
625.5
13.8%
-3.6%
#DIV/0!
$
$
6,693.1
17,019.3
$
$
1,139.3
(1,874.0)
22.3% $
-9.9% $
(449.3)
96.3
-6.7%
0.6%
11.1%
Subcontractor Sales Metrics
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs PY
Total Transparency
-
Performance Metrics
No
Detailed Metrics & Reporting
4.2%
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
1
Declining balance-mandatory ($K)
$
1,239.5
$
838.9
$
859.0
$
(400.6)
-32.3% $
(20.2)
2
3
Declining balance-voluntary ($K)$
Other Sales ($K)
$
358.4
2,240.5
$
$
382.1
2,253.9
$
$
363.1
2,263.4
$
$
23.6
13.4
6.6% $
0.6% $
19.0
(9.5)
5.2%
-0.4%
4
Total Subcontractor Sales ($K)$
3,838.4
$
3,474.8
$
3,485.5
$
(363.6)
-9.5% $
(10.7)
-0.3%
-2.3%
May 2013 Report
ASU Dining Performance Summary
Criteria
Sales
Commission
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
(From
(From Year 1) (From Year 2) (From Year 3) (From Year 4)
Incumbent)
14%
11%
24%
13.5%
8.3%
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
23%
6%
20%
22%
10.8%
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
ASU Management
Requirement
Reduced
79%
--
--
--
--
Student Satisfaction
37%
Increase
1%
Decrease
9%
Increase
3%
Increase
0.2%
Increase
What is different
• Value focus, simple, transparent, risk-based, measured, expertisedriven
• 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
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
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
Tools to Support
Best Value
Implementation
83
Supplemental Project Support
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
84
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Concise
- Graphics / Visuals
- Agendas and critical
action steps
85
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Downloadable
templates, models, &
training guides
86
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Guides to help
prepare for each step
87
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
88
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
89
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
- Key process
deliverables training
90
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
-Both Client AND
Vendor
91
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
Comments / Questions
WWW.PBSRG.COM
94
Tools to Support
Best Value
Implementation
95
Supplemental Project Support
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
96
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Concise
- Graphics / Visuals
- Agendas and critical
action steps
97
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Downloadable
templates, models, &
training guides
98
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Guides to help
prepare for each step
99
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
100
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
101
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
- Key process
deliverables training
102
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
-Both Client AND
Vendor
103
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
Case Study: ASU Food Services Contract
$32 Million Dollars
(Over 10 Years)
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Summary Criteria
RAVA Plan
Transition Milestone Schedule
Interview
Past Performance Information - Survey
Past Performance Information - #/Clients
Past Performance Information - Financial
Financial Rating
Financial Return - Commissions
Capital Investment Plan
Equipment Replacement Reserve
Firm A
(Incumbent)
(1-10)
5.9
(1-10)
5.2
(1-25)
15.8
(1-10)
9.8
Raw #
5.7
(1-10)
7.0
(1-10)
4.0
Raw $
$ 30,254,170
Raw $
$ 14,750,000
Raw $
$ 7,213,342
Finanical Totals $ 52,217,512
Scale
Firm B
$
$
$
$
7.1
7.0
16.8
10.0
3.0
8.7
8.0
60,137,588
20,525,000
4,100,001
84,762,589
Firm C
$
$
$
$
6.3
6.3
13.5
9.8
4.4
6.9
8.0
64,000,000
12,340,000
8,171,811
84,511,811
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%
1 Total Revenue ($M)
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
Difference % Difference
Incumbent New Vendor
$
27.02 $
30.83 $
3.81
14%
2 Total Return & Commissions ($M)
$
2.17
$
2.67
$
0.50
23%
3 Captial Investment Contract ($M)
$
14.75
$
30.83
$
18.08
109%
4 Captial Investment 2006 vs. 2007 ($M)
$
0.26
$
5.70
$
5.44
2092%
No Category
5 ASU Administration (# of People)
7
1.5
-5.5
-79%
6 Customer (Student) Satisfaction (1-10)
5.2
7.1
1.9
37%
7 Myster Shopper Satisfaction
N/A
9.6
--
--
Summary Financial Metrics – Combined ASU
May 2013 Report
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Financial Performance Metrics
YTD Prior
Year
Category
Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals ($K) (Meal Swipes)
Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K) (Meal Swipes)
Retail Sales ($K) (Sun$, M&G Vol, M&G Mandatory and Cash/CC)
Catering Sales ($K)
Camp/Conference Sales ($K)
All Other Sales (Subcontractors & Sushi) ($K)
$
$
$
$
$
$
17,608
659
18,990
2,615
470
3,838
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs
PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5,928
$
69
$ (1,874)
$
149
$ (167)
$ (364)
33.7%
10.5%
-9.9%
5.7%
-35.5%
-9.5%
23,537
728
17,116
2,763
303
3,475
21,497
694
17,019
2,797
487
3,486
Var Act. vs Var Act. Vs
Budget
Budget %
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,039
33
96
(34)
(183)
(11)
9.5%
4.8%
0.6%
-1.2%
-37.6%
-0.3%
7 TOTAL REVENUE
$ 44,180
$ 47,921
$ 45,981
$ 3,742
8.5% $ 1,941
7a
7b
$
$
$
$
$
$
27,485
18,496
$ 3,240
$
498
12.4% $
2.8% $
1,834
103
6.7%
0.6%
11.0% $
130
5.8%
227
9
12.4% $
2.8% $
128
2
6.7%
0.6%
$ 236
11.0% $
130
5.8%
Total Board Revenue
Total Retail Revenue
26,078
18,101
29,318
18,600
8 Commissions on Total Revenue ($K)
$ 2,151
$ 2,387
$ 2,257
$ 236
8a
8b
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Commissions on Board Revenue ($K)
Commissions on Retail Revenue ($K)
9 Commissions Paid to ASU ($K)
1,826
326
$ 2,151
2,052
335
$ 2,387
Performance Metrics
YTD
Actual
YTD Budget
1,924
333
$ 2,257
No
Category
YTD Prior
Year
Actual vs
PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
Var Act. vs
Budget
Var Act. Vs
Budget %
1
Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold
8,454
7,899
6,136
-555
-6.6%
1763
28.7%
2
Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold
4,552
6,320
3,958
1,768
38.8%
2362
59.7%
3
Customer (Student) Satisfaction Survey (1 - 7) (2x/yr)
3a
a. Tempe (MU Plaza Only)
5.42
5.43
5.41
0.01
0.2%
0.02
0.4%
3b
b. Downtown
5.23
5.17
5.20
-0.06
-1.1%
-0.03
-0.6%
3c
c. West
5.12
5.19
4.98
0.07
1.4%
0.21
4.2%
3d
d. Poly
5.19
5.05
4.83
n/a
5.42
82.6
5.43
81.0
5.41
81.7
0.01
0.0
3e
4
e. Total ASU
Catering Satisfaction Survey
n/a
0.2%
0.0%
n/a
0.02
0.0
n/a
0.4%
0.0%
4.2%
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs PY
1
Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals
$ ($K) (Meal
17,608.0
Swipes)
$
2
Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K)
$
(Meal658.6
Swipes)$
3
4
Catering Sales ($K)
$
2,614.8
$
2,763.46961
$
2,797.4
$
148.7
5
Camp/Conference Sales ($K)
$
470.4
$
303.5
$
486.7
$
(166.9)
6
All Other Sales (Subcontractors & $Sushi) ($K)
3,838.4
7
TOTAL REVENUE
7a
23,536.5
$
21,497.4
$
727.6
$
694.5
$
Retail Sales ($K) (Sun $, M&G Vol,
$ M&G Mandatory
18,989.6 and
$ Cash17,115.6
& Credit Cards)
$
17,019.3
$
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
5,928.5
33.7% $
2,039.2
9.5%
68.9
10.5% $
33.1
4.8%
-9.9% $
96.3
(1,874.0)
$
3,474.8
$
3,485.5
$
$
44,179.9
$
47,921.4
$
45,980.8
$
3,741.5
(363.6)
Total Board Revenue
$
26,078.5
$
3,239.7
Total Retail Revenue
$
0.6%
5.7% $
(33.9)
-1.2%
-35.5% $
(183.3)
-37.6%
-9.5% $
(10.7)
8.5% $
1,940.6
12.4% $
1,833.6
-0.3%
29,318.2
$
27,484.5
$
18,101.4
$
18,599.6
$
18,496.2
$
498.2
2.8% $
103.3
0.6%
8
Commissions on Total Revenue
$
2,151.4
($K)
$
2,387.2
$
2,256.8
$
235.9
11.0% $
130.4
5.8%
8a
Commissions on Board Revenue
$ ($K) 1,825.5
$
2,052.3
$
1,923.9
$
226.7
12.4% $
128.4
6.7%
8b
Commissions on Retail Revenue
$ ($K)
$
335.0
$
332.9
$
9.1
2.8% $
2.0
0.6%
130.4
5.8%
7b
9
325.8
10
11
Subsidy/(Refund) - DPC, West
$
& Polytechnic
$
($K) $
Commissions Paid to
ASU ($K) (Commission
on Total Revenue less
Subsidy)
$
2,151.4 $
2,387.2 $
Commission % - Combined
4.87%
4.98%
12
-
2,256.8 $
4.91%
Commission % - Board
7.00%
Commission % - Retail
1.80%
1.80%
1.80%
% Commission Actually Paid to ASU
4.87%
4.98%
4.91%
44,446.6 $
42,495.2
$
7.00%
40,341.4 $
$
-
235.9
$
11.0% $
6.7%
Category
YTD Prior Year
7.00%
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Actual vs PY
Var Act. vs
PY %
Var Act. vs
Budget
Var Act.
Vs
Budget %
1
Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold 8,454
7,899
6,136
-555
-6.6%
1763
28.7%
2
Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold 4,552
6,320
3,958
1,768
38.8%
2362
59.7%
3
Customer (Student) Satisfaction Survey (1 - 7) (2x/yr)
a. Tempe (MU Plaza Only)
5.42
5.43
5.41
0.01
0.2%
0.02
0.4%
b. Downtown
5.23
5.17
5.20
-0.06
-1.1%
-0.03
-0.6%
c. West
5.12
5.19
4.98
0.07
1.4%
0.21
d. Poly
5.19
5.05
4.83
n/a
5.42
0.0
5.43
0.0
5.41
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.2%
#DIV/0!
81.67%
0.0
0.0%
4
e. Total ASU
Client (ASU Personnel) Satisfaction
5
82.56% - Above 80.99% - Above
Avg-Excellent
Catering Satisfaction Survey (from Survey
Monkey - avgAvg-Excellent
score)
n/a
4.2%
n/a
n/a
0.02
0.0
0.4%
#DIV/0!
0.0
0.0%
Retail Sales Metrics
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
1
Cash and Credit Cards
$
2
Voluntary M&G
3
4
Mandatory M&G
Sun Dollars
5
6
YTD Actual
5,129.3
$
$
813.3
$
$
7,231.0
711.6
National Branded Concepts
$
5,104.4
TOTAL RETAIL SALES - NO 3 ABOVE
$
18,989.6
YTD Budget
5,148.8
$
$
749.7
$
$
4,943.4
29.8
$
$
6,243.8
17,115.6
Var Act. vs PY
19.5
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
0.4% $
4,523.3
$
$
674.8
$
(63.6)
-7.8% $
74.9
$
$
5,128.1
-
$
$
(2,287.6)
(681.7)
-31.6% $
-95.8% $
(184.7)
29.8
625.5
13.8%
-3.6%
#DIV/0!
$
$
6,693.1
17,019.3
$
$
1,139.3
(1,874.0)
22.3% $
-9.9% $
(449.3)
96.3
-6.7%
0.6%
11.1%
Subcontractor Sales Metrics
No
Category
YTD Prior Year
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
Var Act. vs PY
Total Transparency
-
Performance Metrics
No
Detailed Metrics & Reporting
4.2%
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. Vs
%
Var Act. vs Budget Budget %
1
Declining balance-mandatory ($K)
$
1,239.5
$
838.9
$
859.0
$
(400.6)
-32.3% $
(20.2)
2
3
Declining balance-voluntary ($K)$
Other Sales ($K)
$
358.4
2,240.5
$
$
382.1
2,253.9
$
$
363.1
2,263.4
$
$
23.6
13.4
6.6% $
0.6% $
19.0
(9.5)
5.2%
-0.4%
4
Total Subcontractor Sales ($K)$
3,838.4
$
3,474.8
$
3,485.5
$
(363.6)
-9.5% $
(10.7)
-0.3%
-2.3%
May 2013 Report
ASU Dining Performance Summary
Criteria
Sales
Commission
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
(From
(From Year 1) (From Year 2) (From Year 3) (From Year 4)
Incumbent)
14%
11%
24%
13.5%
8.3%
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
23%
6%
20%
22%
10.8%
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
ASU Management
Requirement
Reduced
79%
--
--
--
--
Student Satisfaction
37%
Increase
1%
Decrease
9%
Increase
3%
Increase
0.2%
Increase
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
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
111
Rio Vista Project
NO
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
FIRM A
FIRM B
FIRM C
FIRM D
FIRM E
FIRM G
FIRM H
1 Schedule (Days)
598
730
923
587
478
850
630
2 Risk Assessment Plan Rating
7.3
7.3
2.9
5.3
4.4
5.9
6.5
3 DB Firm Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.9
9.8
9.4
9.2
9.6
9.4
9.5
4 DB Firm Number of Surveys (#)
25
26
5
2
25
9
17
10.0
9.8
8.4
9.2
9.5
7.5
9.7
6 Project Manager Number of Surveys (#)
11
15
3
2
3
1
5
7 Site Superintendent Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.9
10.0
9.9
9.1
9.5
5.0
9.4
8 Site Superintendent Number of Surveys (#)
7
1
3
1
2
1
2
11 Lead Architect Performance Ratings (1-10)
9.5
9.5
9.4
8.1
9.8
9.4
9.6
12 Lead Architect Number of Surveys (#)
18
6
5
1
7
8
4
13 Estimator Performance Ratings (1-10)
10.0
9.6
9.5
5.0
9.9
5.0
9.6
14 Estimator Number of Surveys (#)
15
10
3
1
2
1
5
15 Landscaping Designer Ratings (1-10)
9.1
9.2
5.0
9.8
9.5
9.5
8.7
16 Landscaping Designer Surveys (#)
13
19
1
5
11
6
2
10.0
9.0
9.5
7.6
9.9
5.0
9.5
11
18
6
3
3
1
6
5 Project Manager Performance Ratings (1-10)
17 Landscaping Contractor Ratings (1-10)
18 Landscaping Contractor Surveys (#)
112
Results
Top Award
2007 Gold Award
for
Project Leadership
Rio Vista Recreation Center
113
Fire Station 7
Model Ranking:
29%
76%
22%
98%
FIRM D1
FIRM D2
FIRM D3
FIRM D4
1 Interview Rating
5.9
7.0
6.7
8.2
2 RAVA Plan Rating
6.5
5.2
5.5
6.9
3 PPI - Design Firm (1-10)
9.8
9.8
9.3
9.5
NO
CRITERIA
4 PPI - Design Firm (Surveys)
23
17
6
17
5 PPI - Lead Architect (1-10)
9.8
9.8
9.5
9.5
6 PPI - Lead Architect (Surveys)
10
9
4
10
7 PPI - Mechanical Engineer (1-10)
9.8
9.6
9.0
9.8
5
1
3
9
1.0
9.4
1.0
9.8
1
2
1
6
8 PPI - Mechanical Engineer (Surveys)
9 PPI - Electrical Engineer (1-10)
10 PPI - Electrical Engineer (Surveys)
90%
87%
89%
 “Gold Medal Design Excellence”
FIRM C1
FIRM C2
FIRM C3
1 Interview Rating
7.9
6.4
7.4
(Fire Chief Magazine – 2007)
2 RAVA Plan Rating
6.5
5.7
6.3
3 PPI - GC Firm (1-10)
9.6
9.9
9.5
4 PPI - GC Firm (Surveys)
18
12
13
5 PPI - Key Individuals (1-10)
9.4
9.6
9.4
5
7
6
Model Ranking:
NO
CRITERIA
6 PPI - Key Individuals (Surveys)
 “Design Excellence Merit Award”
(Fire Rescue Magazine – 2007)
 Masonry Guild Design Excellence
Award - 2008
114
114
City of Peoria AZ Results
Criteria
Best Value
Difference
% Change
38
9
NA
NA
Awarded Cost
$74,181,566
$187,935,047
NA
NA
Actual Cost
$79,315,696
$188,683,729
NA
NA
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)
6016
3792
NA
NA
Actual Duration (Days)
8135
4013
NA
NA
Average % Delay
35%
6%
-29.4%
-83%
% Projects On Time (Yes/No)
37%
44%
7%
19%
Owner Satisfaction
20%
93%
73%
115
365%
Number of Projects
Low Bid
Tools to Support
Best Value
Implementation
116
Supplemental Project Support
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
117
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Concise
- Graphics / Visuals
- Agendas and critical
action steps
118
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Downloadable
templates, models, &
training guides
119
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Guides to help
prepare for each step
120
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
121
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
122
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
- Short (< 5 min)
interactive training
videos
- Agendas and critical
action steps
- Key process
deliverables training
123
Supplemental Project Support
Best Value Project Kit:
-Both Client AND
Vendor
124
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
Dominance Check & Cost
Reasonableness
Best
Best Value
Value
Prioritization
Prioritization
Best-Value is within budget
Best-Value is the lowest price
Best-Value is within [X%] of
next highest ranked firm
Yes
Yes
Proceed to highest ranked
proposal within budget
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Best-Value can be justified
based on other factors
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Proceed to
Pre-Award
No
Yes
Go with Alternate
Proposal or Cancel
126