![[NASA Logo]](../Images/nasaball.gif) |
NASA Procedures and Guidelines |
||||
This Document is Obsolete and Is No Longer Used.
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
| | TOC | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | AppendixH | image022 | image023 | Image3-1 | Image_G-1 | ALL | | |||||
This chapter provides guidance for managing the design process, obtaining A-E services, developing the design criteria package, and preparing, reviewing, and approving the final design. The guidance will help project managers produce accurate, and complete final designs, including plans and specifications, for constructing a given facility project. In those instances where the project is to be accomplished by a design and build type contract the Contracting Officer (CO) should be consulted for guidance concerning the applicable A-E procurement process. The design guidance contained in this chapter is applicable to all facility design work regardless of the procurement process used to obtain the design. See Figure 4-1, Design Checklists, for a graph presentation of the design process.
The FPM shall ensure that organizations and personnel involved in preparing the design know that information or work products are not released to the public or other persons without a need to know and that contracts with A-Es or others contain similar limits. Public release of information in a design is to be made only by the appropriate Government officials. The design package will not include any classified information. Any necessary classified information shall be submitted separately.
4.2.1 Start of Final Design.
4.2.1.1 In the case of CoF-funded projects, how early to start designs requires a judgment in each case that considers the risk of expending resources versus the likelihood of the project being authorized and funded. The objective is to have designs underway on most discrete projects to ensure Congress that the cost estimates and implementation schedules are substantially in order. Also NASA policy requires "Early fiscal year award of all construction projects approved and funded in the year that construction resources are received." (see NPD 8820.2A, Design and Construction of Facilities) which means designs must start early to support this policy. On projects where a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was prepared the PER may serve as preliminary design work with final design starting at completion of the PER. In addition to adhering to policy, early completion of design provides some additional benefits including the following:
a. Updated CCE (see paragraph 3.20, Current Cost Estimate), based on significant design progress that is available during congressional reviews, will confirm that the facility project cost estimates and execution schedules are valid.
b. Early release of the solicitation documents coupled with sufficient bidder response time can contribute to more responsive and competitive bids for construction work.
4.2.1.2 Prior to the start of final design, during the design, and when preparing the bid package, the need for multiple work packages should be considered. Usually individual designs and construction work or bid packages include an entire operable facility but, in some cases, it is advisable to segregate portions of the total project scope into separate packages. The purpose of multiple work packages should always be to provide better project control that can lead to a cost or schedule advantage. The FPM should be reasonably sure that the advantages outweigh the added design and procurement effort and the potential interface problems between two or more contractors performing either in parallel or sequentially on the same construction site. Some considerations that affect the decision for multiple work packages are the following:
a. The sheer size of a single package versus the financial and management resources of potential bidders might restrict competition.
b. Use of multiple packages may alleviate concern about meeting program milestones by getting an early start on activities like demolition, site preparation, access roads, procurement of long-lead time items, and/or utility services while design of the balance of the facility is being completed.
c. Establishment of firm physical interfaces for specialty items such as bridge cranes and other collateral equipment may allow the items with substantial lead times to be contracted separately and early enough to offset long-lead time.
d. Breakout of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other such items that are normally subcontracted into separate bid packages could result in cost savings by avoiding the general contractor's overhead and profit. However, the Government takes full responsibility for successful implementation.
e. Isolation of difficult work to avoid delays in the balance of the project.
f. Late modification of requirements may result in added contract scope that can be separately defined. It may be a separate or additive/deductive item (see paragraph 4.4.2, Additive or Deductive Bid Items) package that can be included in the IFB for the project. This additive/deductive item would be picked up only if the approved funds cover both the basic scope and the additive/deductive item. Thus, with favorable bids, the total requirement is satisfied without the necessity for reprogramming and/or delayed completion.
g. If multiple year funding is planned or directed for the construction work, multiple work packages may be appropriate. These can be either options (see paragraph 4.4.3, Options) or separate bids.
4.2.1.3 Prior to start of final design work, the FPM must have the following as appropriate:
a. For CoF-funded projects, guidance, direction, and FP&D funding from the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division,
b. For discrete projects, a Facility Project Management Plan per paragraph 3.22.1.2,
c. For non-CoF funded projects, a properly approved NASA Form 1509, Facility Project-Brief Project Document, and
d. A completed PER, if one was authorized for the project.
4.2.2 Staffing Needs.
4.2.2.1 A Center FPM must be appointed to be responsible for ensuring the functions required to provide a complete facility project design are accomplished prior to the construction contract advertisement date. The FPM guides the preproject planning team that includes representatives of customer, design, and O&M organizations, and other stakeholders as appropriate, although any of the stakeholders may act as the team leader. The team will support the facility project design process through the 35-percent design review by ensuring the criteria and documentation used to start the design include all pertinent requirements, and by reviewing and providing comments on the 30-percent design package. The preproject planning activities end at the 35-percent design but members of the team usually continue to support the design effort.
4.2.2.2 The various functions such as clarification of requirements and design reviews that are required to support the design of a facility project should be provided by appropriate members of the facility project team. This team includes both the Center Civil Service facility staff and qualified support contractor personnel. During the design phase, the construction management team including the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) and construction manager should be appointed in order for these individuals to be involved in, and become familiar with, the technical aspects of the project's design and the contract documentation.
4.2.3 The FPM must ensure the design complies with the scope outlined in the authorizing documents. The FPM must also ensure the designed facility meets the current advocate/user requirements, and that the functional and regulatory requirements of EO 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, are met at the lowest overall life-cycle cost. The FPM should ensure the design and the CCE are concurrently developed and continually reviewed to avoid the delays that result when construction estimates exceed the authorized project amounts.
4.2.4 Early Design Process.
4.2.4.1 Early coordination of all facility projects with the in-house environmental staff and Occupational Health Office ensures timely assessment and preparation of required environmental permits or reports as required by environmental regulatory agencies. This should occur in the planning and/or development phases of the project. This coordination should be confirmed by the FPM at the start of the design phase. If it has not occurred, the FPM must expedite this coordination.
4.2.4.2 During the CoF budget process, the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division, will inform the Centers and related Program Offices, which proposed projects are supported by Headquarters. When ready the Centers may request design funds (NASA Forms 1509 and 1510 for each project must accompany the request) for Headquarters-supported projects. Generally for discrete projects, the request follows approval or is concurrent with a request for approval of the Facility Project Management Plan (see paragraph 3.22, Facility Project Management Plan). Centers may perform some preliminary contracting actions, but may not award the design contract until FP&D funds are received from the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division. For non-CoF (see Figure 2-1) funded projects, the Program Office or local funding source must authorize design funds. These funds are released based on a specific request for design funds or at the time of project approval.
4.2.5 Operations and Maintenance Considerations. The FPM, in coordination with the O&M preproject planning team member, should ensure that operations/maintenance considerations are developed ahead of or concurrently with the facility design effort. Policy and guidance for proper consideration of maintenance issues and requirements are provided in NPR 8831.2, Facilities Maintenance Management. The identification of the O&M considerations should have a milestone completion date that coincides with the 60-percent design review. The 60-percent and 90-percent designs should incorporate the considerations as appropriate.
4.2.6 For discrete CoF projects, the FPM must review/update/expand the project's schedule in the project's management plan in accordance with paragraph 3.22.1.3. For CoF minor program or non-CoF funded projects, a schedule allowing adequate time for design, reviews, and procurement activities must be developed and maintained throughout the design phase. See Figure 3-2, CoF Project Funding Schedule, for normal design and construction funds availability dates for CoF funded projects.
Facilities Design Services are provided to most NASA Centers by several methods. These methods include the use of in-house A-E services, task ordering for contracted Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) A-E services, and procurement of A-E services on a project-by-project basis through a source selection process. Any of these methods may be used to provide the same outcome: a complete design package that can be constructed with either "in-house" construction resources, or an "outside" construction contractor.
4.3.1 Regardless of which method is used to secure design services, the FPM must develop and provide to the A-E a statement of work for the specific design effort that should include a description and scope of the project, a copy of the project's 1509/1510, any project management plans that were developed for the project, a copy of the PDRI, PER, studies, any other project documentation, and the engineering estimate for the project (see Paragraph 3.19.3.1, Engineering Estimate) to be designed. The A-E must understand that this is the maximum cost of the construction contract including contractor mark-ups and overhead.
4.3.2 The following paragraphs describe the various methods of obtaining A-E design services.
4.3.2.1 Onsite A-E Services. Most Centers have resident, onsite contractor A-E services that include planners, architects, and engineers on a long-term contract basis. These firms may have only an A-E services contract, or an A-E services contract that includes any number of facilities services such as Operations and Maintenance, Logistics, or other support. These onsite resources can be a good source for A-E services because most of these contractor organizations are staffed with personnel with corporate knowledge of the Center's facilities, knowledge of previous modifications to those facilities, and a working understanding of the organizations that occupy those facilities. Knowledge of the facilities enables the A-E contractor to provide accurate designs with the least amount of disruption to the occupants because the designers have better access to information regarding facilities and missions associated with the facilities. A-E services from these contractors are typically obtained by providing funding and a Task Order against their existing contract. The Contracting Officer can provide guidance to the FPM on the process to use in securing these services.
4.3.2.2 IDIQ A-E Services. Some NASA Centers have in-place contract(s) with a single (or multiple) A-E firm(s) on an IDIQ basis. An IDIQ A-E contract is usually awarded once every few years and provides the FPM with contracted A-E firm(s) that are available on an as-needed basis with pre-negotiated rates, specified contract duration, and minimum as well as maximum contract monetary limits. The contract COTR will provide the FPM or Program Manager with assistance in selecting the firm for the specific design work and guidance on the process to use in securing the A-E services.
4.3.3 Procurement of Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services.
4.3.3.1 A-E professional services contracts employing a source selection process are normally awarded based upon A-E qualifications, without specific regard for price or other factors. Professional A-E services mean the following:
a. Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by applicable State law, which the State law requires to be performed or approved by a registered architect or engineer.
b. Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature associated with design or construction of real property.
c. Other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature or services incidental thereto (including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals and other related services) that logically or justifiably require performance by registered architects or engineers or their employees.
d. Professional surveying and mapping services of an architectural or engineering nature. Surveying is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and shall be procured from registered surveyors or architects and engineers. Mapping associated with the research, planning, development, design, construction, or alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural and engineering service. However, mapping services that are not connected to traditionally understood or accepted architectural and engineering activities, are not incidental to such architectural and engineering activities or have not traditionally been considered architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to provisions in [FAR] Parts 13, 14, and 15.
4.3.3.2 All contracts for professional services that have an anticipated dollar value exceeding $2,500 and not exceeding $100,000 (simplified acquisition threshold) is reserved exclusively for small business concerns and shall be set aside for the exclusive participation by small business firms (see FAR 13.003 , Policy). Any award to a large business at this value must be justified in writing to the CO. The threshold for set-asides will vary from time to time because of special law or policy changes; therefore, it should be verified with the CO. Each requirement should be evaluated with the CO and documented (updated as required) in the acquisition plan included in the management plan (see paragraph 3.23.2, Content).
4.3.3.3 Publicizing Procurement Actions. The Government shall publicly announce all requirements for A-E services. Normally, the advertisement must have been published for at least 30 days to allow time for prospective firms to respond. These requirements are usually satisfied through advertisement in the Government Wide Point of Entry (GPE). The NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) provides an electronic means of posting notices of procurement actions and automatically posts the notice to the GPE. The time needed to get an advertisement published is added to the 30-day timeframe. FPM's should account for these times in their planning and scheduling.
4.3.3.4 Selecting Architect-Engineers. Professional A-E services contracts are awarded based upon the A-E qualifications; therefore, the FPM must provide the salient characteristics and criteria of the project requirements to the Architect-Engineer Selection Board for use in the A-E solicitations (see paragraph 4.3.3.5 for criteria content). This criteria is critical for the following:
a. Publicizing the project description, selection criteria, and estimated volume range of the work that must be included in the GPE advertisement.
b. Preparing and submitting Standard Form (SF) 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, and SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Questionnaire for Specific Project, by the A-E firms.
c. Evaluating SF 254's and SF 255's by the selection board in arriving at their recommendations to the selection official. The criteria is essentially all the selection board can use in their evaluation.
d. Administering the A-E contract and project after award of the design contract.
4.3.3.5 Selection Criteria. See NFS 1836.602-1. The selection criteria shall include the following:
a. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.
b. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, knowledge and demonstrated experience in applying sustainability concepts and principles to facilities and infrastructure problems through an integrated design approach. Sustainability concepts and principles include, but are not limited to, energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials over the immediate past 10 years (see Appendix G, Sustainability).
c. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.
d. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.
e. Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project. This requirement assumes that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms available given the nature and size of the project.
f. Volume of work previously awarded to the firm by NASA with the object being equal distribution of contracts among qualified A-E firms including minority-owned firms and firms that have not had prior NASA contracts.
4.3.3.6 Architect-Engineer Selection Board. See NFS 1836.602-2. An Architect-Engineer Selection Board will make the evaluation of A-E firms. For component facilities, the parent organization's board performs the evaluation with support from the component facility. The Center Director or designee (selection authority) is responsible for establishing the board, which will be composed of the selection authority and at least three voting members. Members will be experienced in engineering, architecture, construction, and procurement matters. Their duties are as follows:
a. Collect and maintain data and information on A-E firms,
b. Review and evaluate data submitted by A-E firms,
c. Conduct oral and/or written discussions with the firms recommended to the section authority for any contract estimated to cost in excess of $100,000, and
d. Prepare a report for submission to the selection authority recommending, in order of preference, at least three firms considered the most highly qualified to perform the required services.
4.3.3.7 After receiving the evaluation board recommendations, the selection authority (see NFS 1836.602-4) will then review the recommendations and subsequently take one of the following actions:
a. Approve the recommended list as submitted,
b. Rearrange the order of preference, or
c. Return the recommendations to the board for such follow-up actions as may be considered necessary.
4.3.3.8 The selection authority shall advise the board of the final action. The CO will be advised of the final action, which will serve as authorization to commence negotiations.
4.3.4 Simplified Selection Procedures. See NFS 1836.602-5. A-E services estimated to cost less than $100,000 (simplified acquisition threshold) may, under the authority of the Center Director or designee, be procured by following one of the two simpler selection procedures than the one described above.
4.3.4.1 Selection by the board. The A-E selection board will review and evaluate the interested firms. A report will then be prepared containing a list of at least three firms. Those firms, which are considered the most highly qualified, will be listed in order of preference. The report will then be submitted to the CO and will serve as authorization to commence negotiation.
4.3.4.2 Selection by the chairperson of the board. When the board decides that formal action by the board is not necessary in connection with a particular selection the chairperson will then perform the functions of the board and submit the report to the Center Director or designee for concurrence. The cognizant official will then review the report and concur, followup, or return it to the chairperson for such action as may be considered necessary. When concurrence is obtained the chairperson will furnish a copy of the concurred report to the CO, which will serve as authorization to commence negotiations.
4.3.5 Negotiations. The CO is responsible for contract negotiations. The negotiation team may include the FPM or designee and others as appropriate. Because the selection process is qualifications based, negotiations can only be conducted with the first-ranked firm. Failing agreement on price and other matters with the first-ranked firm, negotiations are terminated and the firm notified. Thereafter, negotiations will proceed with the second-ranked firm and the process is successively repeated until an acceptable agreement and contract award is achieved. In negotiating the price, the content, cost, and current value of the PER, if prepared for the project, should be considered to avoid paying twice for the same work.
4.3.6 A-E Contract Award. When NASA and the selected A-E reach mutual agreement the CO is responsible for drafting and awarding the A-E contract in accordance with the FAR. Prior to award, the FPM should carefully review the contract documentation to ensure that it fully satisfies project needs.
Prior to starting the final design effort, the FPM must ensure the design criteria and documentation includes the applicable requirements in this chapter and has been reviewed and approved by the preproject planning team.
4.4.1 Optimum solutions to satisfy the user requirement will depend on sensible interpretation of the design criteria rather than rigid adherence to preconceived ideas or opinions. Special facility features, some of which are required by law, must be identified to ensure integration rather than appending the features late in the design cycle. Advocating the use of standard details whenever possible will speed up preparation of drawings and allow the application of the designer's time to the critical aspects of the design. Frequent interface between the user and the FPM ensures that requirement changes are identified early when they can be accommodated without major redesign. Use of design alternatives or GFP may be necessary if the CCE exceeds the approved funding. Designers occasionally utilize vendor literature when specifying equipment or components. It is important to ensure that, by using this approach, other essentially equal items that are competitively priced are not excluded by specifying some superficial feature(s) or specific manufacturer's model. Using the term "or approved equal" will minimize the problems associated with using model numbers to establish standards of performance of equipment.
4.4.2 Additive or Deductive Bid Items.
4.4.2.1 Facility design must account for all project criteria and budget limitations. Sometimes, the use of additive and deductive alternate items is appropriate. If considered appropriate, their use must be coordinated with the CO before they are included in the design and solicitation documents (see NFS 1836.213-370, Additive and Deductive Items).
4.4.2.2 Additive or deductive bid items can be determinative and, as a result, caution is necessary. Some important factors must be considered when employing additive or deductive bid items. These are (1) each additive or deductive bid item must be an independent element of the project that does not precondition the base project (i.e., the base project must be usable by itself); (2) each bid item must be clearly within the scope of the approved project; and (3), each bid item must be coordinated with other work schedules and the project activation date.
4.4.2.3 Additive or deductive bid items are considered solely in the initial solicitation and for contract award purposes. These bid items aid in determining the appropriate contract scope within the approved Government estimate.
4.4.3 Options.
4.4.3.1 At times, options may be used in addition to or in lieu of additive or deductive bid items. An option is defined in the FAR as a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract or may elect to extend the term of the contract.
4.4.3.2 Options generally must comply with the three conditions above (paragraph 4.4.2.2) for additive or deductive items but must be priced and included in the initial solicitation and the CO shall make a written determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the options will be exercised. Use of options is controlled by FAR Part 17.2 and NFS Part 1817.2. The use of an option must be coordinated with the CO concurrent with the decision to employ the option method.
4.4.4 Sustainable Design. Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, requires federal agencies to apply sustainable design principles to the "...siting, design, and construction of new facilities." To meet this requirement the FPM must incorporate the appropriate sustainable design elements into facilities planning, and design to enhance reliability and balance facility life-cycle cost, environmental impact, and occupant health, safety, security, and productivity. The essential elements of NASA's sustainability include the following (for details see Appendix G, Sustainability):
a. Energy efficiency and water conservation,
b. Site selection to minimize environmental and transportation impact and if possible, to enhance the environment,
c. Use of sustainable materials (i.e., reused, recycled, recyclable, nontoxic, low embodied energy content, renewable),
d. Emphasis on durability and efficiency of materials and equipment,
e. A healthy environment, not limited to indoor air quality,
f. Features in support of enhanced worker productivity,
g. Design for personnel safety and security,
h. Design for decommissioning and disposal,
i. Enhanced building operating and maintenance characteristics (i.e., design for reliability and maintainability, continued efficiency, and low toxicity),
j. A philosophy that defines integrating operations and maintenance experience into the facility acquisition process (i.e., maintainable design),
k. A philosophy that defines facility operational objectives, then tests and verifies that all building systems and components have been properly installed and perform to the level intended (i.e., Continuous Building Commissioning), and
l. Design meets facility operational objectives and specifies testing and verification (see NASA's Reliability Centered Building and Equipment Acceptance Guide) to ensure that all building systems and components have been properly installed and perform to the level intended.
4.4.5 Life-Cycle Design.
4.4.5.1 A facility's life expectancy is a key element for establishing the study period required for the life-cycle cost analysis; therefore, prior to start of design, the desired life expectancy of the project must be established, i.e. permanent vs. temporary construction.
4.4.5.2 The design of Federal buildings must meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 434, Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings. One of the requirements is that the agency shall "ensure that the decision-making process for the design of the building shall employ the methodology for estimating and comparing the life-cycle cost of Federal buildings and for determining life-cycle cost-effectiveness prescribed in subpart A of 10 CFR part 436, Federal Energy Management and Planning Programs. The FPM must ensure the life-cycle cost requirements are included in the design contract and that the requirements are met in the final design.
4.4.6 Value Engineering.
4.4.6.1 Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic application of recognized techniques that are used to determine the lowest practical overall cost of a facility. It analyzes the function as well as materials and equipment of which the facility consists. The purpose is to achieve the required function, while minimizing the overall costs, and remain consistent with the requirements of performance, reliability, and maintainability. VE is not a cost-cutting technique that will minimize the initial cost at the expense of performance, operation, and maintenance costs, or vice versa. VE must be used with caution so that performance, reliability, maintainability, and life expectancy remain constant at the level required to satisfy stated requirements. Assuming the above, any design alternatives that appear to be economically advantageous and meet life-cycle cost requirements, are to be incorporated. NASA policy concerning the use of VE is presented in NPD 8820.2, Design and Construction of Facilities.
4.4.6.2 The initial VE actions are in the planning and design process where techniques consist basically of conducting performance and cost comparisons of potential alternate methods of satisfying the validated requirement. The techniques can easily and successfully be applied by in-house personnel or contractors who are competent in the disciplines involved, are made familiar with the requirement, and are willing to explore all possible solutions without preconceived notions of how it should be done.
4.4.6.3 Tradeoff analyses performed during the preparation of the PER and prior to budget requests constitute integral parts of the facility's project management and cost-control process. PER's develop best-cost approaches while continuing VE helps further ensure that costs are minimized during the design process when detailed selections of systems, components, and materials are made.
4.4.6.4 The FPM must ensure that the designer is required to incorporate VE techniques in the design analysis in addition to the life-cycle cost requirements of paragraph 3.16, Life-Cycle Cost. In addition, the designer must be required to incorporate the requirements of EO 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition.
4.4.7 Basic Design Considerations. Notwithstanding the importance of VE and minimizing life-cycle cost, certain factors remain that the designer must adhere to. The FPM must ensure that the designer is aware of these factors that constrain the design to both minimum and maximum limits. These factors are as follows:
a. Requirements - the design must be based on the actual functional and technical requirements that have been established.
b. Scope limitations - the design must stay within the approved project scope.
c. Budgetary limitations - the design must be accomplished so that the facility can be built and made functional within the approved budget amount.
d. Construction timing - the start date, duration, and completion of construction must meet the program milestones.
e. Operability/maintainability - the design will consider and include features that foster effective and efficient facility operation and maintenance as appropriate. It should incorporate appropriate features to support the O&M use of Reliability Centered Maintenance technologies (see NASA's Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Guide For Facilities and Collateral Equipment).
f. Constructability - the design drawings and specifications must be appropriately detailed showing what is to be built.
g. Master plan - the design siting and layout will conform to the approved Center master plan (see Appendix F, Master Planning) and take advantage of existing utilities and accesses.
h. Geographical location/orientation - the design shall take into consideration seismic, wind, flood, heating/cooling, and other environmental factors.
i. Metrication - the design shall comply with NPD 8010.2, Use of the Metric System of Measurement in NASA Programs, (NPD 8010.2D) (see also Appendix F, paragraph F.3, Metrication).
4.4.8 Design for Energy Efficiency.
4.4.8.1 For new construction, the design agent shall provide written certification that the design meets or exceeds the energy performance standards as set forth in 10 CFR Part 434, Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings. For rehabilitation of existing facilities, the design agent shall provide written certification that the design of the rehabilitated facility elements meet or exceed the energy performance standards as set forth in 10 CFR Part 434 for new buildings. The FPM should ensure careful attention is directed toward energy conservation in the planning and design stages of facility projects as this can provide major benefits to the life-cycle cost reduction of facilities.
4.4.8.2 The FPM shall ensure that designs for new facilities and renovations to existing facilities include installation of check metering as required by 10 CFR Part 434.
4.4.9 NASA SPECSINTACT.
4.4.9.1 SPECSINTACT is an acronym for Specifications-kept-intact. The SPECSINTACT system is an automated specification program developed by NASA which uses standard Master Text to prepare specifications for facility construction projects. SPECSINTACT, available for download, serves as a convenient data source for specification writers and engineers preparing construction documents and provides consistency in NASA facilities projects. SPECSINTACT shall be used for all applicable CoF projects and should be used for all other facility projects where applicable. The SPECSINTACT system has been supported and enhanced for interagency use by NASA, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
4.4.9.2 The SPECSINTACT Master Text is consistent with the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) format. The format is divided into divisions and subdivided into sections that define a portion of the work or requirements. The sections are further defined utilizing the following three comprehensive parts:
a. Part 1 - General,
b. Part 2 - Products, and
c. Part 3 - Execution.
4.4.9.3 The text defines the qualitative requirements for products, materials, and workmanship upon which the contract is based. The text may also contain performance requirements. Included in the text are references to Government and industry standards. Text has been reviewed for technical adequacy, legal content, and conformance with procurement regulations.
4.4.9.4 The references incorporate the names and document numbers of various organizations and agencies that publish industry recognized standards and Government standards.
4.4.9.5 Construction specifications are part of the contract documentation pertaining to the construction of a facility. The contract documents contain the legally enforceable requirements of a project. The specifier shall use pertinent sections when preparing the construction specifications. Each section used shall be edited using only the data that is specifically applicable to the project. Sections shall be coordinated with other portions of the contract documents. The specifier shall coordinate the documents to avoid repetitious or conflicting requirements. Sections for items not covered by SPECSINTACT Master Text shall be consistent with the format and terminology used by PECSINTACT.
4.4.9.6 A SPECSINTACT Construction Specification System Technical Users Guide is available for download to facilitate the use of the system.
4.4.10 Standards for Specific Facilities. The FPM should ensure that features of a facility project that need special design consideration are identified in the design requirements. Conversely, many elements of the facility project may require minimal design analysis, with the apparent range of alternative solutions actually being limited by the Center's specific needs, conditions, and preferences. Documenting the Center's standards and preferences for frequently occurring design elements (e.g., exterior and interior finishes, space planning) can significantly streamline the design process. The resulting standardization (sometimes referred to as "local specs") will also simplify future remodeling, maintenance, and operational activities. The FPM must ensure the Center's standards and preferences are included in the design requirements.
4.4.11 Facility Design Analysis.
4.4.11.1 The design analysis includes performing calculations and investigating the basis for the drawings and specifications. Important design assumptions and other factors, including references, should be clearly explained in the calculations. Standards, codes, and any other constraints on the design should also be identified.
4.4.11.2 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The design process should include FMEA's in accordance with NASA STD 8719.7, Facility System Safety Guidebook and the RCM philosophy in Chapter 2 of Reliability Centered Maintenance Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment, which states NASA has determined that the most economical and efficient FMEA approach is to use a combination of rigorous (formal) and intuitive analysis depending on system criticality and failure impact. Candidates for rigorous analysis include, but are not limited to, wind tunnel drive motors, supercomputer facilities, and mission support systems where single points of failure exist. In addition, a more rigorous analysis may be needed for those systems and components where the streamlined or intuitive RCM process has been utilized and the resultant reliability is still unacceptable in terms of safety, cost, or mission impact. See the referenced RCM guide for details.
4.4.11.3 If the design involves sophisticated and/or complex facilities, the design alternatives considered should be presented. Components or systems suitable for VE should be identified (see FAR Part 48, Value Engineering, and NFS Part 1848, Value Engineering, for guidance on the contracts aspects of a VE program).
4.4.11.4 At a minimum, the design analysis package should include calculations or rationale by the appropriate design discipline as applicable. The following key design elements should be addressed in a design analysis:
a. Architectural (building efficiencies) - net usable versus gross square feet or volume,
b. Emergency egress concept (fire rating of corridors, distances to exits),
c. Structural - foundation and structural load includes live, dead, wind, snow, seismic, and structural loads; as well as, special loads such as cranes or hoists,
d. Fire resistance of building construction and the occupancy separations,
e. Mechanical (HVAC) - includes HVAC loads, distribution, system type (e.g. chilled water, DX) controls, pipes, fittings, valves, pump sizes. Other mechanical items such as hoists, conveyors, other machinery, and systems would have similar analysis,
f. Electrical (power needs) - includes emergency generators for emergency power requirements, transformers, switchgear; illumination and types of fixtures, distribution, cables, and panels,
g. Fire protection systems - includes sprinklers, detectors, alarms,
h. Civil - surveys, grades, soils, pavements, site utilities,
i. Specialties - security, warning, hazard detection and protection systems, environmental controls, life-cycle costs, communications, and
j. Offsite Utilities - verify required offsite utilities are available.
4.5.1 The design criteria package must contain all of the material that provides a thorough and complete basis for developing the final design drawings and specifications that describe the required facility project. Where a PER is included in the package, it should be made clear that it is the responsibility of the design organization to reevaluate and verify that PER design criteria and assumptions remain correct.
4.5.2 Design Criteria Package Content. For projects to be designed by an A-E, the descriptive material would be prepared before the start of the A-E negotiation process. Essentially, the same package used for A-E procurements must be available if another Government agency or the in-house facility staff is required to perform the design effort. The following should be provided in the criteria package to the CO, to another Government agency, or the in-house facility staff as appropriate:
a. A Statement Of Work (SOW) and a PER, if developed, that describes the contract deliverables including, period of performance, and any special conditions that apply. In accordance with FAR Part 36.601-3, the SOW shall require the design agent to specify the use of the maximum practicable amount of recovered materials consistent with performance requirement, availability, price reasonableness, and cost effectiveness. Where appropriate, the SOW shall also require the design agent to consider energy conservation, pollution prevention, and waste reduction to the maximum extent practicable in developing the construction design specifications. The SOW shall require that the design/specifications include the appropriate clauses and specifications from chapter 4 of NASA's Reliability Centered Building and Equipment Acceptance Guide and shall specify the acceptable test limits for the PT&I technologies to be used in acceptance testing on various equipment and systems.
b. Special studies or analyses pertaining to siting, hazards, systems, processes.
c. The Government CCE for construction.
d. Sketches, drawings, or graphics that show intent and/or scope.
e. Soil boring logs and/or test results.
f. Functional requirement documents.
g. As-built drawings of interfaces with existing facilities or utilities.
h. Guidance on the use of the NASA SPECSINTACT System (SPECSINTACT Users Guide).
i. Environmental Assessments or Impact Statements.
j. The list of GFP items to be incorporated into the design.
k. A schedule for the design phases with intermediate completion milestones (30-percent, 60-percent, and 90-percent design reviews); and, review of content of design analyses, intermediate and final drawings, specifications, and the construction cost estimate.
l. An estimate of the cost to prepare the final design drawings and specifications. The estimate should include cost for the professional, technical, and clerical efforts, and other expenses involved in the development of the required information and documentation including all intermediate deliverables.
m. Funded Purchase Request (PR) or task order for design work to be accomplished by an A-E.
This subsection includes details of the Center management of the design of a facility project. The design effort being managed includes the preparation of intermediate through final drawings, specifications, schedules, analyses, cost estimates, and other materials needed to develop a final design package for use in constructing the approved project.
4.6.1 General Considerations
4.6.1.1 The responsibility for the facility project design phase is usually delegated to the Center FPM for actual accomplishment of the planned work. The development of A-E drawings, specifications, and related construction contract documents must meet the project criteria; and, result in a complete and usable facility that meets the physical scope of the approved project and can be constructed within the approved funding.
4.6.1.2 The FPM must reach agreements with the design agent on the following items before proceeding with the design:
a. Respective responsibilities and authorities,
b. Design review program (see paragraph 4.6.2, Design Reviews (30-percent, 60-percent, and 90-percent),
c. Organization and interfaces,
d. Explicit facility criteria,
e. Comprehensive plan and schedule for the design, and
f. Requirement for beneficial occupancy.
4.6.1.3 Management of the design phase includes the establishment of realistic schedules for the preparation and completion of the drawings and specifications, as well as reviews and incorporation of changes generated during the reviews, to ensure the functional and technical adequacy are considered to preclude overall project schedule slippage including:
a. The schedule for the preparation of the facility design should allow sufficient time for the actual design work and for reviews of the intermediate and final designs,
b. Complex project design may include a work breakdown structure and the use of a network planning-analysis system such as the Critical Path Method (CPM) to identify and resolve interface problems, establish interim and major milestones, and measure progress towards completion of the facility design, and
c. Design reviews should ensure functional and technical adequacy and reduce the potential need for change orders during the construction phase.
4.6.2 Design Reviews (30-percent, 60-percent, and 90-percent).
4.6.2.1 The number of design reviews and the times scheduled for each will vary with the size of the project and the complexity of the technical problems. In all cases, specific reviews should be designated and must include the appropriate personnel who are needed to participate, such as the FPM and Center personnel who have functional sufficiency in design, fire, health, safety, O&M, and environmental areas. The instructions for the designer should include the timing and submission requirements for each review. In addition to the scheduled formal reviews, ad hoc reviews are encouraged and should be used by the designer and stakeholders as appropriate. The assigned reviewers must be aware of their responsibilities in terms of providing meaningful written comments in a timely manner.
4.6.2.2 The conduct of the functional and technical reviews of facility project design work is normally the responsibility of the Facilities Office at the Center where the project is to be located. Procedures for the review of Center/major facility projects generally include the following:
a. Advice to the designer concerning the continuation of work during performance of the design review and the requirement that specific authorization be given to the A-E firm prior to their proceeding past a design milestone,
b. Distribution of the documents to interested agencies and/or Headquarters, if requested, before a scheduled design review,
c. Preparation of a written record of all review comments; and, when required, specific agreement and resolution of conflicting comments, and
d. Where there is a significant revision in requirements and/or limited time available for design work, ongoing reviews can be conducted with the designer. This will allow the review comments to be resolved and direction provided on an expedited basis.
4.6.2.3 The general policy for facility project design review is as follows; however, the use of equivalent commercial practice milestones (e.g., that of the American Institute of Architects - AIA) is acceptable.
a. Predesign conferences are normally scheduled when unique design features or conditions require a special effort. Furthermore, ad hoc reviews should be encouraged and used as appropriate throughout the design process.
b. Review of preliminary drawings (30-percent) includes particular attention by the Center to ensure that the design makes adequate provision for mission related functional arrangements and special technical requirements. Included in the review is the need to ensure that the design is for a facility that is economical to operate and maintain, conserves energy, incorporates sustainability, and fulfills the functional requirement at the lowest overall cost. The FPM shall ensure that the preproject planning team members participate in this review and provide their comments. At this stage, technical reviews and approvals of facility project engineering design work generally include reviews of completed preliminary drawings, design analyses, calculations, list of details, list of equipment schedules, index of specifications, and preliminary cost estimates based on reasonable alternatives. Once this review is complete and concurrence of comments is complete the design is considered to be nominally 35-percent complete in accordance with NPD 8820.2A, Design and Construction of Facilities.
c. When the intermediate drawing review (60-percent) is completed, further requests for design revisions should be limited to those generated by validated changed requirements. The 60-percent review generally includes reviews of full-size drawings and details with flag notes and equipment schedules, design analyses, calculations, redlined specifications, and a full-project preliminary cost estimate. This review should include verification that the construction of the facility, as indicated by the drawings and specifications, is practical.
d. Review of prefinal and final drawings (90-percent and 100-percent) should be done principally to incorporate all review changes. The review process is essentially complete when all pertinent comments developed during the reviews are incorporated into the design documents. At the submission of final documents and prior to being made part of the bid package for construction, the design documentation should be reviewed to verify that:
(1) The final drawings and specifications are accurate and complete.
(2) Conflicts between the specifications and the directions and notes on the drawings and other documents have been identified and resolved.
(3) Design package scope of work is in compliance with that scope of work authorized by Congress or NASA Headquarters. Deviations shall be reported and resubmitted for approval.
(4) All environmental and special use permits have been identified or approved and the design package includes any special requirements resulting from these permits.
e. After the final review (100-percent), the A-E firm shall be required to correct any deficiencies that may still exist in the design drawings, specifications, and other documentation furnished by the A-E.
f. The detailed facility project cost estimate is an essential part of the documentation for the review process at the 30-percent, 60-percent, and 90-percent design completion points. The FPM must ensure the estimated cost of the project does not exceed the project funding level, including construction costs and any applicable contingencies and field inspection costs.
4.6.3 Design Cycle Completion. The final action in the design cycle is the sign-off approval of the drawings (see paragraph 2.5.6.2), specifications, GFP lists, that are to be included in the bid packages.
4.7.1 A PAR is the detailed analysis and verification of the documentation that comprises a proposed solicitation package for the facility project work. The PAR involves a series of meetings that should start at the 60-percent design review and proceed to the final preparation of the contract solicitation documents. The purpose is to ensure that the proposed contract documentation meets the following requirements:
a. Recognizes additive or deductive alternatives, options, or other special limitations or conditions,
b. Schedules accomplishment of the work to meet the established milestones for completion and activation of the facility,
c. Contains all the contract solicitation documentation required for the type of contract being planned (see paragraph 4.8), and
d. Provides proper interfaces for all other project contracts.
4.7.2 Early in the acquisition planning, the type of construction contract should be considered. The FPM, CO, and other appropriate personnel should make a final decision on the contract type (see paragraph 4.8, Contract Types) before the final PAR. This decision must be made in time for the necessary contract documentation to be prepared for the final PAR.
4.7.3 All contract solicitation documentation will be included in the PAR (i.e., cover letter, general provisions, special provisions, and the engineering drawings and specifications). The participants and extent of the review should be determined by professional judgment based on the nature and scope of the project. The PAR will normally be conducted by the FPM and will involve, as a minimum, work package managers, senior representatives from the involved in-house design group or A-E, the construction manager, the COTR, and a representative from the procurement, safety, and legal activities. The FPM should make provision for specialists to review specific elements of the solicitation package as appropriate. Copies of the solicitation package should be distributed to all reviewers in time for comments to be prepared and submitted prior to a PAR meeting. The intent here is for comments to be considered in advance so that final deposition may be agreed upon, in most cases, at the PAR meeting.
4.7.3.1 For each facility project, the documents provided for the PAR should include the following:
a. Design drawings, specifications, work descriptions, and procedures.
b. Cover letter to issue the IFB or Request For Proposal (RFP) and general provisions.
c. Special work conditions (see paragraph 4.7.3.2).
d. Current cost estimate (sensitive controlled information).
e. List of any GFP including schedule showing location, condition, status, and date the GFP will be transferred to the contractor's control. This list will also include procedures that require action by the contractor to protect and account for the GFP.
f. A schedule that provides a time-phased logical sequence of activities and events that are to be accomplished and milestones to be achieved by the contractor. The form will vary to suit the complexity of the project.
4.7.3.2 Special Work Conditions. In many instances, the actual performance of work at the project site is subject to special conditions that must be considered in the development of the Government cost estimate and schedule for the construction work. Special conditions need to be identified and made part of the contract documents for the PAR. They could include the following:
a. Need for the contractor to complete certain work on a special schedule, especially when two or more contractors make parallel work efforts,
b. Work efforts that are necessary but not identified in the drawings and specifications (i.e., items of work such as construction of temporary access roads, site preparation, tree removal, work areas, trailers),
c. Pollution control during construction, dust suppression, erosion protection, or runoff control into streams, and lakes to protect flora and fauna,
d. Hazard control measures to protect adjacent facilities and/or personnel from noise, vibration, sparks,
e. Disposal of excess construction materials or debris either onsite or offsite,
f. Use of utilities or installed equipment such as cranes and elevators,
g. Safety items, security measures, and badging of contractor personnel,
h. Use of special facilities such as docks and/or rail spurs,
i. Availability of Government services, security, fire protection, emergency medical,
j. Salvageable equipment or materials to be removed, stored, refurbished, or prepared for disposal, and
k. Limitations on the movement of contractor personnel and equipment to the work site to prevent interference with previously scheduled operations or rush hour traffic.
4.7.4 Specific PAR procedures should have been included in the Facility Project Management Plan (see paragraph 3.22.2.f). The PAR information concerning the solicitation package should be recorded on Form 1580, Facility Project Preadvertisement Review Checklist, as shown in the Figure 4-1, Design Checklist. The PAR checklist should be prepared in accordance with the instructions shown in Appendix C, Forms and Instructions, at the first PAR meeting and updated at each subsequent meeting. The last update of the checklist, after the 90-percent design review, must include the signatures of the participants. Authorization for the proposed procurement will be provided when the PAR and the checklist are complete; and if required, the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division, is in agreement with that planning (see paragraph 4.7.5). No package will be issued for bids that do not conform to the completed checklist.
4.7.5 The signed PAR checklist is forwarded to the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division, as a prerequisite for authorization to solicit contract proposals for the following discrete projects:
a. Projects with an estimated cost in excess of $5.0 million, and
b. All other projects identified by the Headquarters Director, Facilities Engineering Division requiring submission of a PAR.
4.8.1 It is NASA policy to use fixed-price contracts for all construction projects. In selected cases, an exception to this policy may be in the best interest of the Government. Approval for exceptions to fixed-price contracts must be obtained through the Contract Officer. Even with a fixed-price type contract, it may be desirable to introduce a positive or negative incentive associated with the achievement of an important intermediate milestone or completion of some element of the work on a fast-track basis. In general, contract types vary as to the degree and timing of the responsibility assumed by the contractor for the cost of performance. In addition to conventional "build to design" contracts, fixed price contracts include design-build, design-furnish-install, and two-step contracts (see paragraph 5.5.2).
4.8.2 There are basically two families (types) of contracts used in construction: fixed-price and cost-reimbursement. The specific type of contract to be used should be determined based on the degree of risk for contract performance. When the risk is minimal or can be predicted with an acceptable degree of certainty, a fixed-price contract is preferred. As the uncertainties become more significant, consideration should be given to use of other fixed-price or cost-type contracts to accommodate these uncertainties and avoid placing too great a cost risk on the contractor.
4.8.2.1 In a fixed-price contract, the contractor agrees to deliver all supplies and services defined by the contract document at the times specified for an agreed-upon price unless the contract is modified to change the work required.
4.8.2.2 Cost reimbursement contracts are appropriate when the estimated costs of the planned contract effort cannot be sufficiently determined to use a fixed-price-type contract. The Government agrees to reimburse the contractor for all costs, which are allowable and incurred in the performance of the contract.
4.8.3 The FPM and CO should seek to use the appropriate contract type under the FAR. If the solicitation is for a negotiated procurement versus an IFB, the FPM should coordinate with the CO about the exact process differences and adjust resources accordingly. For discrete projects, the FPM and CO may find it beneficial to hold a team briefing or training session in order to ensure a correct, timely process.
During the design process, it is the responsibility of the FPM to ensure preparation of the Facility Activation Plan. This plan should outline the steps in the facility activation process with milestones to measure progress. The plan also should identify the resources and budgets necessary to implement the activation elements.
4.9.1 Application. The activation plan provides information for the implementation of all tasks necessary to activate the facility. This plan can be informal or developed as a formal document depending on the nature and complexity of the required activation. Prior to completion of the final design work, the office exercising project-approval authority should approve the activation plan. During construction of the facility, the plan shall be updated and expanded as necessary to meet any changing activation requirements.
4.9.2 Content. The Facilities Activation Plan should include the following as appropriate:
a. Identification of the FPM and other individuals or organizations responsible for the facility's activation,
b. Description of the facility operational requirements, the operational need dates, and the schedule for facility move in,
c. Description of the activation requirements including subsystem tests, integrated systems tests, communications requirements not provided in the basic facility, furniture, noncollateral equipment, and personnel moves,
d. Preparation of budgets for all activation elements and an identification of the funding source,
e. Description of network bar-type charts depicting a time phased schedule with milestones for the following:
(1) Development of the activation plan,
(2) Plan approval,
(3) Noncollateral equipment installation (including ground support equipment - GSE),
(4) Integrated systems safety review,
(5) Integrated systems test,
(6) Operational readiness review,
(7) Facility systems training,
(8) Punch list,
(9) Data systems design and installation,
(10) Systems furniture design, purchase, and installation,
(11) Telephone installation, and
(12) Personnel move-in.
| TOC | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | AppendixH | image022 | image023 | Image3-1 | Image_G-1 | ALL | |
| | NODIS Library | Program Management(8000s) | Search | |