CECW-CE Regulation 415-1-11 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.

CECW-CE

Regulation

415-1-11

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

ER 415-1-11

1 January 2013

Engineering and Construction

BIDDABILITY, CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERABILITY,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY (BCOES)

REVIEWS

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ER 415-1-11

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CECW-CE

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Regulation

No. 415-1-11

1 January 2013

Engineering and Construction

BIDDABILITY, CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERABILITY,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY (BCOES) REVIEWS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................1

2. Applicability ...............................................................................................................................1

3. Distribution .................................................................................................................................1

4. References ...................................................................................................................................1

5. Definitions...................................................................................................................................2

6. Policies ........................................................................................................................................2

7. Specific Content of BCOES Review Activities ..........................................................................6

8. BCOES Reviews for Projects Using the Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery (MOD) ......8

9. Roles and Responsibilities for BCOES Reviews ......................................................................10

10. BCOES Review Checklists .....................................................................................................12

11. Implementation Plans and Actions .........................................................................................12

Appendixes

Appendix A – Sample BCOES Certification .............................................................................. A-1

Appendix B – Sample BCOES Review Checklist for D-B-B Method of Delivery.....................B-1

Appendix C – Sample BCOES Review Checklist for D-B Method of Delivery.........................C-1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ER 415-1-11

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CECW-CE

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Regulation

No. 415-1-11

1 January 2013

Engineering and Construction

BIDDABILITY, CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERABILITY,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY (BCOES) REVIEWS

1. Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to establish policy and systematic procedures for

conducting effective reviews of a project’s Biddability, Constructability, Operability,

Environmental, and Sustainability (BCOES) characteristics. These reviews are done during

design for a project using the design-bid-build (D-B-B) method or during development of the

request for proposal (RFP) for a design-build (D-B) project. The BCOES review results are to

be incorporated into the procurement documents for all construction projects.

2. Applicability. This regulation applies to all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

organizations that perform design or award or administer contracts requiring construction or

design-build (D-B) construction activities.

3. Distribution. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

4. References.

a. Engineering Regulation (ER) 5-1-11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Business Process

b. ER 1110-1-12 Engineering and Design Quality Management

c. ER 1110-1-8159 Engineering and Design DrChecks

d. ER 1110-2-1150 Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects

e. ER 1110-2-1156 Engineering and Design Safety of Dams Policy and Procedures

f. ER 1110-345-100 Engineering & Design Policy for Military Construction

g. ER 1180-1-6 Contracts – Construction Quality Management

h. ER 1180-1-9 Contracts – Design-Build Contracting

i. ER 11-1-321 Army Programs – Value Engineering

j. Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-214 – Civil Works Review

k. Enterprise Standard-08020 Biddability, Constructability, Operability and Environmental

Review

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

5. Definitions. Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental and Sustainability

(BCOES) Considerations.

a. Biddability is defined as the clarity of the acquisition documents, the soundness of the

government’s evaluation and selection criteria for negotiated acquisitions, and the ease of

bidders or proposers to understand the government’s requirements, allowing the submission of a

competitive bid or proposal that is responsive to the government’s requirements.

b. Constructability is defined as the ease of constructing a specified or designed project

according to the government’s requirements, including the proposed construction duration, and

the ease of understanding and administering the contract documents during their execution.

c. Operability is defined as the ability to efficiently operate and maintain a facility or

facilities over their life cycle when the facility or facilities are built according to the project’s

plans and specifications.

d. Environmental is defined as the ability to best achieve stewardship of air, water, land,

animals, plants, and other natural resources when constructing and operating the project, and

complying with the Environmental Impact Statement or Assessment or other environmental-

related project requirements. The USACE Environmental Operating Principles (EOPs) in ER

200-1-5 provide direction on achieving synergy between the environment and the execution of

projects. The Environmental part of a BCOES review shall address all EOPs including

compliance with all applicable local, state, and Federal environmental requirements.

e. Sustainability is defined as using methods, systems, and materials that optimize

incorporation of a site’s natural land, water, and energy resources as integral aspects of the

development and minimize or avoid harm to the air, water, land, energy, human ecology and

nonrenewable resources on- and off-site of the project.

6. Policies.

a. Emphasis on BCOES Considerations Throughout Project’s Life Cycle. The value of

BCOES reviews is based on minimizing problems during the construction phase through

effective checks performed by knowledgeable, experienced personnel prior to advertising for a

contract. Biddability, constructability, operability, environmental, and sustainability

requirements must be emphasized throughout the planning and design processes for all programs

and projects, including during planning and design charrettes. This will help to ensure that the

government’s contract requirements are clear, executable, and readily understandable by private-

sector bidders or proposers. It will also help ensure that the construction may be done efficiently

and in an environmentally sound manner, and that the construction activities and projects are

sufficiently sustainable. Finally, effective BCOES reviews of design and contract documents

will reduce risks of cost and time growth, unnecessary changes and claims, as well as support

safe, efficient, sustainable operations and maintenance by the facility users and maintenance

organization after construction is complete.

b. Applicability of BCOES Reviews to Different Methods of Delivery. The BCOES review

processes are applicable to both in-house and Architect-Engineer designs, as well as to requests

for proposals (RFPs) developed for D-B construction contracts, and for task orders under

indefinite delivery construction contracts. BCOES reviews should also be done on all major

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

amendments to solicitations before the amendment is issued to bidders or proposers. The

BCOES review process is necessarily adjusted to fit different methods of delivery and different

types of projects. However, nothing in this ER or in the BCOES review process should be

interpreted as a substitute for performance of a complete review of each design or RFP for

accuracy, adequacy, quality, sustainability, and interdisciplinary coordination of design and

technical requirements documents as required by ER 1110-1-8155, ER 1110-2-1150, ER 1110-2-

1156, ER 1110-345-100, EC 1165-2-214 and other applicable directives or instructions.

Reviewers will regularly check USACE lessons learned and knowledge management data bases

prior to and during BCOES reviews in order to update their knowledge.

c. Effective Involvement of the Project Delivery Team (PDT) in BCOES Reviews. The

accomplishment of a quality design or development of an effective RFP package requires the

effective involvement of the entire PDT with project management, engineering, construction,

contracting, real estate, legal, environmental, and operations or installation user/maintenance

personnel each contributing toward a common goal of high quality construction. Errors,

conflicts, disputes, delays, cost and time growth, and operational problems may be minimized

through effective leadership by the project manager and the project’s lead engineer, with

effective involvement of the entire PDT throughout the project delivery cycle.

d. Ensure Involvement of Appropriate and Qualified BCOES Reviewers. Project Managers

will coordinate project reviews at a variety of points during the project’s life-cycle. These

reviews will include the customer and/or using agency (including facility users and facility

operators/maintenance staff), construction, engineering, project management, operations, and

environmental staff to improve the BCOES aspects of designs in the D-B-B method of delivery

and RFPs for D-B construction contracts.

(1) Districts will ensure that the reviewers include construction and operations-maintenance

staff familiar with the project’s location, project site conditions, potential site-related problems,

and plans and requirements for post-construction operations and maintenance. These reviewers

should have extensive knowledge of the construction market place, site and access constraints,

local regulations, facility operations plans and constraints, environmental conditions and

requirements, as well as experience in management of construction projects, determining

construction durations, scheduling construction trades and activities, and experience in the

operations-maintenance of facilities.

(2) The BCOES reviewers also should understand any unique problems and the application

of design assumptions, principles, and specifications during construction and operation.

Temporary assignment of construction or operations staff to the project design work prior to their

assignment at the project site during construction will benefit both the design and the

construction phases of the project.

(3) Construction and maintenance-operations staff inputs are necessary and highly beneficial

early in the design process to allow effective consideration and incorporation of their

recommendations during design or RFP development. Their reviews are also highly beneficial

after final design and coordination reviews when the entire solicitation package is ready for

advertisement, but sufficiently prior to advertisement to allow corrections in the solicitation

documents prior to sending it to industry.

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

e. Scheduling of BCOES Reviews for Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery. Three specific

BCOES reviews will be performed for projects using the Design-Bid-Build method of delivery.

An additional review is required when design has been completed and reviewed, but release to

prospective bidders has been held in abeyance for a period of time exceeding 6 months from the

end of the last BCOES review.

(1) The initial BCOES review for projects using the D-B-B method of delivery will be made

at the concept stage or at the on-board review stage when design process cannot be stopped

(Military Programs) and after the design is sufficiently complete for substantive comment (Civil

Works) (e.g., after basic criteria decisions are recorded in the Design Documentation Report).

(2) The second BCOES review for projects using the D-B-B method of delivery will be

made at the final design stage when complete specifications including contract and special

clauses are developed and fully incorporated in the solicitation documents, at least 30 calendar

days prior to advertisement.

(3) The final BCOES review for projects using the D-B-B method of delivery will be a

backcheck review (see paragraph g. below).

(4) Typically, the BCOES review period for large multi-discipline projects using the D-B-B

method of delivery should be about 10 calendar days for the first (concept or on-board) BCOES

review, about 21-30 calendar days for the second BCOES review, and about 15 calendar days

allowed for back checking of comments. Additional BCOES reviews may be held at various

stages of the Planning-Engineering-Design (PED) phase as determined by the lead engineer or

project manager. The schedule durations for BCOES reviews for smaller, single-discipline

projects would be less, and should be tailored to the project’s complexity and staffs’ capacities.

(a) In all cases, the Project Manager will ensure that BCOES reviews are mandatory parts of

the Project Management Plan (PMP) and the PM will allocate adequate time and funding to

conduct the needed BCOES reviews. The specific time and resources will be negotiated among

the Project Manager and the PDT members and included in the Project Management Plan.

(b) The Project Management Plan schedule will reflect the BCOES review requirements

mentioned above and durations of BCOES review times will not be arbitrarily adjusted due to

revisions in design schedules or RFP preparation schedules.

(5) Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery (MOD). See paragraph 8 in this ER for

sequence and scheduling of BCOES reviews for projects using the D-B method of delivery.

f. Use of DrChecks for BCOES Reviews. The BCOES reviewers shall use Dr Checks to

transmit their comments to the comment evaluators. DrChecks facilitates and documents the

formal review of project documents and it is a module in the ProjNet (www.projnet.org) suite of

tools developed by USACE’s Construction Engineering Research Lab. The comment evaluators

shall also use DrChecks to reply to the BCOES comments. The BCOES comment submitters

shall read the reply of the comment evaluators and shall either backcheck their comments or get

with the comment evaluator and Project Lead Engineer to find a mutually acceptable solution to

the BCOES reviewer’s comment and then backcheck their comment.

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

g. Requirement to Conduct a BCOES Backcheck Review for Certification Prior to Bid

Opening or Start of Proposal Evaluation. A BCOES backcheck will be performed by designated

staff in Engineering and Construction Divisions (or their equivalent) prior to bid opening or start

of proposal evaluation to ensure that all appropriate BCOES review comments have been

incorporated or resolved. This backcheck review should be started 30 calendar days prior to

advertising, and all comments shall be resolved prior to bid opening or proposal evaluation. This

review will serve as the basis for the certification required by paragraph 9 of this regulation. See

Appendix A for a Sample BCOES Certification.

h. Resolution of Disputed Comments. Unresolved BCOES comments that cannot be agreed

upon by the review team will be elevated promptly to the appropriate Section, Branch, or

Division Office Chiefs for resolution.

i. Waiver of BCOES Reviews for Small Projects. If a construction project is small (defined

as having a value less than the simplified acquisition procedures threshold of $150,000) and does

not involve significant risks or complexities, a waiver of the requirement to conduct BCOES

reviews may be requested or proposed by the PM to the Engineering and Construction Chiefs.

(1) The waiver must cite the project’s characteristics that make it appropriate to consider a

waiver of the BCOES requirements. An example of a project that may be appropriate for

submission of a BCOES review waiver request is a $50,000.00 re-roofing construction project on

an existing facility using known materials, standard technical specifications, and standard

acquisition procedures-documents that have been proven successful in their use during the recent

past.

(2) All BCOES waivers requests and approvals of BCOES waivers shall be done in writing

and in advance, and documented in the project file and contract file, as appropriate.

j. Streamlining of BCOES Reviews for Military Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)

Projects. The exigent nature of some OCO projects may require tailoring of the BCOES review

process to adapt to the capabilities and needs of the organizations performing the BCOES review

and the project delivery schedule. Durations of the review phases may be compressed and

different criteria will be appropriate for the BCOES considerations of these specialized projects.

However, the need and benefits of disciplined BCOES reviews remain high for OCO projects

and these BCOES reviews shall be incorporated into the PMP and performed as required by this

ER.

k. Certification of Value Engineering Study Compliance. BCOES certification shall include

certification by the assigned PM and confirmation by the District Value Engineering Officer that

all statutory and regulatory requirements for Value Engineering (VE) for the project have been

completed and results incorporated, or waived by legal waiver authority (see reference 4.i. and

Appendix A).

l. BCOES reviews for projects subject to the requirements of ER 1110-2-1156 and/or EC

1165-2-214 require careful coordination with the review processes specified therein to avoid

duplication of effort and to implement intended roles and responsibilities. For example, the

purpose and scope of the BCOES review is different from an Agency Technical Review (ATR).

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

7. Specific Content of BCOES Review Activities. The BCOES reviews will analyze specific

aspects of the Government’s requirements documents and criteria. The following describes the

specific activities, documents, and aspects of the acquisition that must be reviewed during

BCOES reviews.

a. Biddability Review. All biddability reviews will analyze the completeness, correctness,

compatibility, clarity, and consistency of the collection of plans, specifications, clauses, forms,

bid schedule, and other documents and references that comprise the total solicitation package and

the planned contract. The government is responsible for determining its requirements, and the

solicitation package should be prepared to help bidders or proposers understand clearly the

government’s requirements and to allow the submission of a competitive bid or proposal that is

responsive to the government’s requirements. The biddability review will also include an

evaluation of the soundness of the evaluation criteria that are planned for negotiated acquisitions.

b. Constructability Review. In general, the constructability review includes checking the

compatibility of the design and invitation for bids document or technical aspects of the D-B RFP

with site conditions, materials, equipment, schedules, utility connections, government estimates,

and construction methods relevant to the planned construction. It also includes evaluation of

safety considerations and other planned project and contract features for their ease of successful,

safe execution.

(1) All constructability reviews will include a Plan-In-Hand site visit and review by

appropriate Area/Resident Engineer staff to ensure all visible and known existing characteristics

of the site described in the project design and acquisition documents are included, accurate, and

supportive of the project’s successful acquisition and construction. Contractor office and storage

areas will be among the items checked. Also, for projects involving acquisition of any real estate

interest, coordination will be made with the applicable Chief of Real Estate to ensure all

necessary real estate interests to accommodate all aspects of the planned work are available.

(2) All constructability reviews will also specifically review the planned construction

phasing, sequencing, and period of performance for the contract to ensure that an adequate

construction period is specified. While many designers may initially develop this construction

duration, the final evaluation of the adequacy of the specified period properly rests with the

construction Area/Resident Engineer to review and concur with the period of performance or to

determine if accelerated efforts will be required for a contractor to achieve an aggressive

construction schedule. The planned contract’s requirements for scheduling systems and quality

control also will be checked as part of the constructability review.

(3) The constructability review also needs to evaluate if the procedures used for

development of the bid schedule and independent government estimate (IGE) comply with

policies, and account for items such as accelerated construction, pre-priced contract line items,

and other constructability impacts on the estimated cost for the construction. Additionally, the

constructability review will include a review of the basis for calculating any liquidated damages

for the project, including validation of any projected estimated additional expenses that would be

incurred by the facility customer-user.

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

c. Operability Review. Review of the operability of the facility or facilities to be constructed

must include a good understanding and detailed consideration of the customer’s-owner’s

operations and maintenance requirements, needs, practices, and capabilities after construction

completion and turnover. The Area/Resident Engineer staff should jointly conduct an operability

review with the facility’s planned user(s) and maintainers as a means of improving mutual

understanding and planning for the upcoming construction and facilitating the successful transfer

and understanding of the operability comments by the USACE PDT. The operability review

should include a check of all commissioning requirements, transfer and handover documentation

requirements, and warranty requirements and plans.

(1) For Civil Works projects, the review will include evaluation of Plans, Specifications,

Engineering Considerations and Instructions for Field Personnel (ECIFP) reports (see reference

4.b., Chapter 7), the operations, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R)

plan for the project, and other required documents.

(2) For Civil Works projects, the District’s Operations staff should lead the operability

review of the planned project, with contributions from other BCOES reviewers. For Military

Mission projects, the planned owner-operator-maintainer community such as the facility user and

the installation Director of Public Works (DPW) or Base Civil Engineer (BCE) should lead the

operability review of the planned project, with contributions from other BCOES reviewers.

d. Environmental Review. Review of the compliance of the project’s design, construction,

and operation with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, including Environmental

Operating Principles (EOPs) in ER 200-1-5, is included in BCOES reviews. The environmental

review will address the project’s compliance with all applicable local, state, and Federal

environmental regulations and requirements, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits, required permits for earth disturbance, stormwater management, etc.,

and reports or requirements for any asbestos, lead paint, and other hazardous materials handling ,

removal, and disposal. Archeological, historical, hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste

(HTRW), and military munitions concerns that may impact the project’s execution during the

acquisition and construction phases are also addressed during this review. The District’s

environmental, regulatory, operations, and construction staffs should be engaged in this review

for CW projects, and the installation’s environmental, public works, and the District’s

construction staffs should perform this review for military projects.

e. Sustainability Review. Review of the sustainability of the project to be acquired must

include a good understanding and detailed consideration of the Federal Guiding Principles for

High Performance Sustainable Buildings and compliance with other applicable laws, regulations,

polices, standards, codes and criteria for sustainability related to facilities and infrastructure. The

review should include, but is not limited to application of integrated design principles; energy

performance optimization; water protection and conservation; indoor environmental quality;

and the environmental impact of materials (including green purchasing and diverting wastes

from landfill); facility siting and orientation; building size and layout; stormwater runoff

during and after construction; sourcing and durability; transportation; and certification of

facility performance regarding sustainability. The sustainability reviewers should include

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

engineering and operations staffs of the using organization as well as the District’s LEED,

Sustainability and construction staff members.

8. BCOES Reviews for Projects Using the Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery (MOD).

a. Overview of BCOES in D-B. The D-B MOD combines design and construction within a

single construction contract and uses competitive evaluation of technical and price proposals to

select a contractor to design and build the project. Design by the D-B contractor usually is done

before and sometimes during construction activities under the D-B contract. When parts of the

design are being developed concurrent with construction activities, this is termed a “fast-track”

approach. In contracts using the D-B MOD, final design solutions are provided by the D-B

contractor who is responsible for their own design, construction quality, and for full compliance

with the RFP and the selected contractor’s proposal. After award of a D-B contract, the USACE

organization managing the project and administering the contract will review the D-B

contractor’s design for compliance with the quality and design intent of the RFP and the terms of

the selected proposal by the contractor, as incorporated into the awarded contract.

b. Levels of Technical Criteria in D-B RFP. The Government’s Requests for Proposal for a

D-B acquisition will state project requirements, criteria, and evaluation factors. The D-B RFP

may be prepared using various levels of technical criteria to state the project’s requirements.

Individual projects may be consistent in their level of technical criteria in the RFP, or a particular

project may have varying levels of technical criteria depending upon the specific requirements of

the various technical areas, disciplines, features, and customer needs.

(1) One level of technical criteria under D-B is nominal criteria where the Government

essentially uses an almost total performance specification, stating the purpose, function, and

characteristics of the project in sufficient detail to delineate and characterize functional features

and the visual appearance of the project.

(2) A second level of technical criteria for a D-B RFP is partial criteria where the

Government prepares concept floor plans (or their equivalent facility definition) which indicate a

special mechanical and electrical equipment layout, overall dimensions, and desirable column

locations. Enlarged floor plans are provided, as required, to explain special design conditions.

Minimum requirements for mechanical and electrical equipment layouts, including provisions

for testing, adjusting, balancing and commissioning, should be specified. Preliminary exterior

elevations and cross sections are provided for special design requirements. A site plan is

provided to indicate the building orientation and circulation to the building entrances.

(3) A third level of technical criteria for a D-B RFP is full criteria where the Government

uses a more prescriptive approach to the design and construction, and prepares enlarged floor

plans (or their equivalent facility definition) which indicate a special mechanical and electrical

equipment layout, fire protection information, overall dimensions, desirable or required column

locations or other structural features, and typical wall sections to indicate materials usage.

Requirements for testing, adjusting, balancing and commissioning would be specified. A

preliminary site plan, landscaping plan, exterior elevations, cross sections, floor plans, finish

schedule, door schedule, foundation, framing plan, and sections would typically be provided by

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

the Government in the full criteria approach to D-B MOD. In many cases, the full criteria

approach may only apply to critical project elements or features. In other cases, such as in “site-

adapt” D-B, the criteria may resemble many parts of a complete design.

c. Timing of BCOES Reviews Under D-B. For D-B RFPs using nominal, partial, or full

criteria, the initial BCOES review will be made after the technical criteria are sufficiently

complete for substantive comments.

(1) This initial BCOES review may be best accomplished as a combined on-board functional

review by senior representatives from applicable functional areas or various disciplines.

(2) The second BCOES review will be performed as part of the review of the completed

RFP package prior to it being released to industry. This review will include the requirements of

the proposal evaluation and source selection policies and plans. For MILCON projects using

directive controls, the certification of the BCOES review occurs prior to the District taking credit

for achieving the Ready to Advertise (RTA) milestone (i.e., posting the actual RTA date in P2

system) and HQUSACE issuance of Code A authority to advertise.

(3) After award of the D-B contract and during the design phase, BCOES-type

considerations will be included as part of the contractor’s QC process and the Government’s QA

evaluation of the contractor’s preliminary and final design documents. These post-award

reviews are not formal BCOES reviews, but are part of the overall contract administration and

quality management processes for D-B contracts.

d. Focus of BCOES Reviews For D-B RFPs. The BCOES review will focus on the clarity of

Government D-B requirements in the RFP versus the project’s requirements in the project

approval documents; the inclusion of needed, appropriate constraints in the RFP and the absence

of unneeded, inappropriate ‘designability’ and constructability constraints in the RFP; the

appropriateness and soundness of the planned proposal evaluation criteria; the clarity and

completeness of operability requirements in the performance specifications; clarity and

completeness of addressing environmental constraints and requirements in the performance

specifications; and clarity, completeness, appropriateness of the sustainability aspects of the

performance specifications, and the inclusion of appropriate FAR clauses for green purchasing.

Use of the D-B method of delivery creates highly variable levels of design detail among projects.

However, the BCOES review of the RFP remains necessary, and the review must be tailored to

the D-B MOD, the use of nominal, partial, or full criteria, and other key project characteristics.

e. Scheduling of BCOES Reviews for Projects Using D-B Method of Delivery. The project

management plan for projects using the D-B MOD will reflect the BCOES review requirements

established above and will allocate adequate time and funding to conduct effective BCOES

reviews appropriate for the D-B MOD. BCOES considerations should be an important part of

the initial development of functional requirements for the D-B RFP.

(1) The initial BCOES review should be allocated at least 21 calendar days in the PMP for

project RFPs using nominal or partial technical criteria, and at least 30 calendar days for project

RFPs using full technical criteria.

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

(2) The second BCOES review should be allocated at least 14 calendar days for project

RFPs using nominal or partial technical criteria, and at least 21 calendar days for project RFPs

using full technical criteria.

(3) During the design phase of the D-B contract execution, weekly ‘over the shoulder’

(OTS) conformance reviews by government staff of design development products by the

contractor are recommended to ensure the appropriate BCOES considerations required by the

awarded contract are incorporated into the design documents. These OTS conformance reviews

are especially important in fast-track designs so that sensitive schedules are not delayed or

otherwise negatively impacted.

9. Roles and Responsibilities for BCOES Reviews.

a. Chief of Project Management and Project Manager. The Chief of Project Management at

the assigned District or Center will ensure that adequate time to accomplish these review

activities, as outlined in paragraphs 6.e. and 8.d. above, is included in the project baseline

schedule. Further, they will ensure that adequate design funds for the accomplishment of

BCOES reviews are reserved in the baseline budget as negotiated and included in the Project

Management Plan in accord with ER 5-1-11. The PM assigned to lead the project will rely on

the assistance of the Value Engineering officer, and will ensure that the Value Engineering

process was completed and certified in accord with ER 11-1-321. The assigned PM shall also

ensure timely, effective performance of BCOES reviews and appropriate incorporation of results.

b. Value Engineering (VE) Officer. Upon notification by the responsible PM, the VE officer

will ensure that VE requirements are completed (i.e., studied or waived) for projects. The VE

officer will verify that all rejected VE proposals indicating potential savings over $1,000,000

have been resolved with approval of the MSC Commander. As required, the District VE officer

will sign the appropriate Value Engineering certification (sample at Appendix A) prepared by the

assigned PM for the project. Contracting officers shall not advertise projects that do not have the

required VE Certification completed, so the BCOES review is critical to ensuring this step is

done.

c. Chief of Engineering (or equivalent) and Lead Engineer for the Project. The Chief of

Engineering for the District/Center performing the design or developing the RFP will ensure that

effective BCOES reviews are systematically accomplished and that the resulting comments are

incorporated or resolved in a timely manner. The lead engineer for a project will ensure that

appropriate documents are provided for review and backcheck to the BCOES reviewers, that all

BCOES review comments are evaluated, and that timely feedback on disposition of comments is

provided. The Chief of Engineering for the District/Center or a duly authorized representative,

Branch Chief or higher, will certify in writing that all appropriate BCOES review comments

have been incorporated in the bid or request for proposal documents, or satisfactorily resolved,

and that all BCOES comments, evaluations, and backchecks are documented in DrChecks. The

Chief of Engineering for the District/Center will review and act on all appropriate requests for

waiver of BCOES reviews for small, low risk projects.

(1) For non-CW projects, some Districts have environmental engineering capabilities in their

Engineering Division/Branch, and they may be an appropriate source for environmental and

sustainability considerations in BCOES reviews.

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

(2) Similarly, some of the larger Construction staffs may have significant environmental and

sustainability expertise from training, education and experience, and may be fully capable of

performing an effective environmental and sustainability review of the IFB/RFP package as part

of an overall BCOES review.

d. Chief of Construction (or equivalent) and Area/Resident Engineer for the Project. The

Chief of Construction (or equivalent) will ensure that BCOES reviews for biddability,

constructability, and operability are performed in a timely manner, including coordinating

operability reviews, that review comments are furnished in accord with established suspense

dates, and that a backcheck is conducted. The Chief of Construction or a duly authorized

representative, Branch Chief or higher, will certify in writing that all appropriate BCOES

comments have been incorporated in the bid or request for proposal documents or satisfactorily

resolved, and that all comments, evaluations, and backchecks are documented in DrChecks. The

Chief of Construction for the District/Center will review and act on all appropriate requests for

waiver of BCOES reviews for small, low risk projects. The Area or Resident Engineer for the

project will ensure that qualified field office staff are trained, assigned, and conducting effective

BCOES reviews for all projects planned to be constructed in their office’s area of operations.

e. Chief of Real Estate. For projects involving real estate matters or acquisition of any real

estate interest (e.g., purchase, leasehold, easement, etc.), the Chief of Real Estate will ensure that

BCOES reviews for compliance with all real estate requirements are performed in a timely

manner, that review comments are furnished in accord with established suspenses, and that a

backcheck is conducted in DrChecks. If the project involves acquiring any real estate interest,

the Chief of Real Estate or a duly authorized representative, Branch Chief or higher, will certify

in writing that all necessary real estate interests to accommodate all aspects of the planned work

are available or provided for in the planned solicitation.

f. Chief of Planning. For Civil Works projects, the Chief of Planning will ensure that

BCOES reviews for environmental considerations are performed in a timely manner, that review

comments are furnished in accord with established suspenses, and that a backcheck is conducted.

For Civil Works projects, the Chief of Planning or a duly authorized representative, Branch

Chief or higher, will certify in writing that all appropriate BCOES review comments have been

incorporated in the bid or RFP documents or satisfactorily resolved and that all comments,

evaluations, and backchecks are documented in DrChecks.

g. Chief of Operations. For Civil Works projects, the Chief of Operations will ensure that

BCOES reviews for operability are performed in a timely manner, that review comments are

furnished in accordance with established suspenses, and that a backcheck is conducted. For Civil

Works projects, the Chief of Operations or a duly authorized representative, Branch Chief or

higher, will certify in writing that all appropriate BCOES comments have been incorporated in

the bid documents or satisfactorily resolved and that all comments, evaluations, and backchecks

are documented in DrChecks.

h. Installation Director of Public Works (DPW) and Base Civil Engineer (BCE). For

military mission projects, the responsible Area/Resident Engineer will coordinate with the

appropriate installation DPW or BCE (or equivalent) to ensure that BCOES reviews for

operability are performed in a timely manner and that review comments are furnished in

DrChecks in accord with established suspenses.

ER415-1-11

1 Jan

Chief

Contracting. The Chief

Contracting will ensure that bid opening or start

proposal evaluation is not made prior to the required BCOES written certification (see Appendix

A). When fully justified, the contracting officer, with written advance concurrence

ofthe

Chiefs

Engineering and Construction, may determine that it is in the best interest

the government

to solicit or award without incorporation

all comments or that a BCOES review has been

appropriately waived in writing by the Engineering and Construction Chiefs or their designated

representatives. The written waiver

the required BCOES certification shall be signed

the

Chiefs

Engineering and Construction, and a determination and findings signed by the

contracting officer will be placed in the contract file in place

the certification when solicitation

or award is made without this certification.

10.

BCOES Review Checklists. See Appendix B for a BCOES review checklist for projects

using the design-bid-build method

delivery and Appendix C for a BCOES review checklist for

projects using the design-build method

delivery. These checklists may be used by the BCOES

reviewers to aid in their review. Districts are expected to evolve, expand, create, and apply their

specific lists

items to be checked during BCOES reviews, based on their knowledge,

experience, successes, failures, and customers, along with the particular scope

oftheir

project

workload. Knowledge management sources such as

USACE's Enterprise Lessons Learned

(eLL) system, Installation Design Guides, DrChecks databases, project approval documents, and

relevant engineering and construction industry references should also be consulted when

performing

BCOES reviews.

11. Implementation

Plans and Actions. District and Center commanders will develop and

implement appropriate plans for accomplishing the

BCOES reviews required by this regulation.

These plans will ensure that effective

BCOES reviews are accomplished in a timely manner, the

results appropriately incorporated in solicitation documents, and all

BCOES reviews are

adequately documented. The effectiveness and efficiency

ofBCOES

review activities

Districts and Centers will be evaluated during oversight activities conducted by Regional

Business Centers and

HQUSACE quality assurance activities.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

~I?~

DAVI'J~URNER

Appendixes:

Appendix A - Sample

BCOES Certification

Appendix B - Sample

BCOES Review Checklist

For D-B-B Method

Delivery

Appendix C - Sample

BCOES Review Checklist for

D-B Method

Delivery

Colonel, Engineer

Chief

Staff

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

A-1

APPENDIX A

Sample BCOES Certification

Name of Project/Project Number: ____________________________/________________

Phase or Type of Project: ____________________________

Certification Date: ____________________________

I, (the PM), certify that the Value Engineering process as required by ER 11-1-321 (Change 1 or

latest version), Army Programs Value Engineering has been completed for this procurement

action. I certify compliance with Public Law 99-662 (33 USC 2288) and OMB Circular A-131.

A VE study was (completed/waived) on (date) by the appropriate authority. All rejected VE

proposals indicating potential savings of over $1,000,000 have been resolved with approval of

the MSC Commander.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Assigned Project Manager (dd/mm/yr) Value Engineering Officer (dd/mm/yr)

The Bid or RFP Package has been reviewed for Biddability, Constructability, Operability,

Environmental, and Sustainability (BCOES) requirements in accord with ER 415-1-11. The

undersigned certify that all appropriate BCOES review comments have either been

incorporated into the Bid or RFP Package or otherwise satisfactorily resolved. Comments,

evaluations, and backchecks are documented in DrChecks.

____________________________ ____________________________

Chief, Engineering (dd/mm/yr) Chief, Construction (dd/mm/yr)

____________________________ ____________________________

Chief, Planning (when appropriate) Chief, Operations (when appropriate)

______________________________

Chief, Real Estate (when appropriate)

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan13

B-1

APPENDIX B

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Bid-Build Method of Delivery

BCOES Checklist – D-B-B Method

Project Title & Location:

Project Review Phase:

Date of Documents Reviewed:

Reviewer Name & Phone:

Review Date:

Item

Number

Section for

Review

Y N NA

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Is the scope of the project consistent with authorizing legislation

and program regulations?

Is scope of the project as reflected by the plans & specs consistent

with the approved authorizing document for the project?

Do plans and specs incorporate the customer's stated needs and

objectives?

Are assumptions made during project development consistent with

legislation, approved project documentation, and were they

reviewed with local interests?

Does the acquisition strategy and method of delivery appear

appropriate for the project?

Is scope of construction clear in the project plans and specs?

Are special installation requirements for the Government and/or

the Contractor appropriately addressed?

Is construction phasing clear, feasible, and appropriate?

Is the size and configuration of proposed facilities expected to

function as intended and meet stated project requirements?

Mission goals?

Is the CWE and appropriate contingency covered by a funded

PRC? Do they conform to project approval documents?

Are there conflicts in the specs regarding Measurement and

Payment and Contract Line Items in Bid Schedule?

Is the measurement and payment section complete and clear?

Can the quantity of all items be estimated and verified?

Are the CLINs consistent in the Bid Schedule?

Are the CLINs appropriately linked to specification sections and

definable features of work in the contract?

If options are included, are limits of work associated with each bid

option clearly defined?

If options are used, is the time for the award of options explicitly

specified?

Has consideration been given to whether the option work is

independent of other work?

Should payment for offsite stored materials be permitted, and is

the appropriate clause in solicitation?

Check bid forms to assure bid schedule is simple, clear, and

includes all necessary items of work.

Are estimated quantities reasonable?

Do drawings contain definite, definable pay lines for computing

quantities in CY, CF, SY, SF, etc…?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

B-2

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Bid-Build Method of Delivery (continued)

Item

Number

Section for

Review

Y N NA

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

If estimated quantity is uncertain and expected to vary

substantially, use subdivided items per EFARS/UAI ( i.e.,

excavation, dredging, fill stone, rock excavation, etc.)

Check specifications to assure that work components of lump sum

item are clearly defined.

Check specifications to assure payment paragraph is also a lump

sum item if CLIN is for lump sum amount.

Check drawings to assure that lump sum items and the quantity

for unit price items are not overlapping.

Are contract sequencing and relations to other work appropriate?

Are contract performance time, submittal schedule, and quality

control system adequately defined?

Are specifications and plans consistent with each other?

Do the specifications list submittals needed to effectively

administer the contract (ER 415-1-10)?

Are submittals types (e.g., FIO, GA, etc.) appropriately

categorized in accord with ER 415-1-10?

Does the contract have any unreasonable requirements for

Government inspections?

Are special installation requirements appropriately addressed?

Are quality control and quality assurance appropriately addressed

within the contract documents?

Are there ambiguous requirements or exculpatory type clauses for

which the designer should be more descriptive?

Is this construction contract consistent with the FAR, DFARS,

AFARS, EFARS/UAI?

Is a conflict resolution process appropriately defined?

Is coordination on the location of existing utilities and their

relocation, if required during construction, clear and complete?

Are testing, balancing, commissioning and certifications

addressed adequately?

Are O&M manuals/videos, training, spare parts, keys, warranties,

warranty response times and sources, as-built drawings, and

transfer of O&M data from the construction phase appropriately

addressed?

Do contract documents include all applicable permits to operate

facility (if required)?

Are project and public safety measures adequately addressed?

Do Spec Sections adequately & accurately reference EM 385-1-1?

Are abbreviations and nomenclature consistent with construction

needs?

Is there a consistent system used for indicating sections and

details?

Are title blocks consistent and properly filled out?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan13

B-3

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Bid-Build Method of Delivery (continued)

Item

Number

Section for

Review

Y N NA

Confirm that all major items can be located from data supplied on

drawings.

Are adequate horizontal alignment and elevation control reference

points provided?

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Are essential details and proper verbiage included in drawings and

specs?

Are exact legal property descriptions shown?

Is job site erosion control appropriately addressed?

Do the specifications address the impact of the construction on the

environment?

Is a submittal required for a contractor prepared environmental

plan? Does it address mitigation of water, air, soil, noise

pollution, other (specify)?

Will the project encroach on wetlands or endangered species

habitat?

Has the State or local entity been coordinated with and permits

issued as needed?

Have we verified compliance with requirements of NEPA?

Specifically, has an EA or EIS been completed, and Record of

Environmental Consideration or Finding of No Significant Impact

been signed by appropriate authority?

Are planting and topsoil requirements maintainable and consistent

with the environment?

Is erosion control adequately addressed in rivers/streams and along

shorelines?

Are staging areas well defined (located and dimensioned)?

Are separate staging areas required for work areas separated by

long distances?

Are access and haul routes to work site well defined?

Do the Engineering Considerations and Instructions for Field

Personnel (ECIFP) Report adequately address construction salient

features?

Verify work limits or rights-of-way are shown, well defined and

sufficient for work.

Is all work completely within the work limits?

Adequacy of working area and storage space, and access for

contractors are addressed?

Can periodic inspections be accomplished efficiently and

effectively?

Are load restrictions for heavy equipment or water depths

adequate for construction equipment expected on site?

Appropriate water level gauges are highlighted and useful for job?

Do existing conditions that are mapped depict actual current site

conditions; access, utility availability, drainage, storage area,

existing underground utilities, general site conditions? Has this

accuracy been verified and documented?

Are datum correct and coordinate system correct?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

B-4

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Bid-Build Method of Delivery (continued)

Item

Number

Section for

Review

Y N NA

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Is survey data current, dated and adequate to show existing site

conditions?

Are required and existing conditions clearly defined?

Are Levee Safety and Dam Safety issues addressed if required?

Have local availability of materials and labor skills been

appropriately addressed?

Architectural compatibility with existing facilities and established

installation//base plans is achieved by the design?

Are provisions made to collect operations and maintenance data

during the construction phase for transfer to facility user/owner?

Are CAD/BIM products compatible with facility user/owner

systems?

Is all coordination with any privatized utility provider/owner

accomplished and consistent with the planned contract?

Are LEED, Guiding Principles and LID requirements clearly and

appropriately specified in plans and specs? CLINs?

Are appropriate Environment & Sustainability FAR clauses and

specs associated with included in the specifications/solicitation?

Are warranty provisions clear and enforceable?

Is the site clear of any HTRW? Other subsurface obstructions and

hazards?

Has a Plan-in-Hand Review been accomplished & documented?

Has the operability review been facilitated with the facility

owner/user?

Is there a requirement to coordinate the construction activities with

USACE Mandatory Centers of Expertise? If so, is this

coordination clear and compatible with all other parts of the

contract?

Has the proposed construction schedule prepared by the designer

of record been reviewed to establish a reasonable contract

performance period to be used in the solicitation?

Do solicitation drawings (electronic & paper) comply with current

Geospatial Standards (e.g., SDSFIE 3.0 & A/E/C CADD

Standards 4.0)?

Is VECP clause included in contract documents in accord with

FAR provisions?

Is signed Value Engineering Certification included in the project

package prior to advertising?

Is site clear of military munitions/unexploded ordinance?

Have munitions response site inventory, applicable historical

record review & archives search reports records been checked?

If military munitions/UXO could be present, has planning been

completed to address explosives safety hazards (either as separate

pre-award munitions response project or inclusion of munitions

and explosives of concern construction (MEC) requirements in

contract clauses?

Are there any other outstanding issues?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

C-1

APPENDIX C

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery

BCOES Checklist – D-B Method

Project Title & Location:

Project Review Phase:

Date of Documents Reviewed:

Reviewer Name & Phone:

Review Date:

Item

Number

Section for

Review

Y N NA

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Is the scope of the project consistent with authorizing legislation

and program regulations?

Do RFP technical provisions and other documents incorporate the

customer's stated needs and objectives?

Are assumptions made during project development consistent with

legislation, approved project documentation, and were they

reviewed with local interests/installation/command ‘customers’?

Does the acquisition strategy and method of delivery appear

appropriate for the project?

Are technical & evaluation parts of RFP consistent & compatible?

Have the existing site conditions (visible and sub-surface,

including underground utilities) been adequately investigated and

clearly/accurately depicted in the RFP’s engineering documents?

Is scope of construction clear in the project technical criteria and

engineering documents in the RFP?

Are the minimum design criteria for all desired, essential, or

mandatory elements of the project clearly stated in the RFP?

Does the RFP clearly state the detailed drawings, project

descriptions, quality, and performance requirements that will be

expected as a complete final design after award of the contract?

Is the design review process including required design

submittals/deliverables clearly described in the RFP?

Does the RFP clearly state the number of design

submittals/deliverables the D-B contractor must make and

delineate between design submittals to be reviewed only and those

to be reviewed and approved by the Government?

Does RFP clearly state when design activity stops & construction

may begin for any particular phase/feature of the project?

If the RFP requires design in accord with commercial standards,

codes, & specs, are government PDT members familiar with and

have ready access to all referenced codes, standards, and specs?

Are the Federal, DoD, or Installation/Sponsor criteria, codes,

standards, regulations, etc. applicable in part or in whole to the

project clearly indicated in the RFP?

Does the RFP specifically and clearly require O&M manuals and

O&M training at the system level?

Is the CWE and appropriate contingency covered by a funded

PRC? Does it conform to project approval documents?

Do the proposal requirements align clearly and consistently with

the evaluation factors and agree with the project criteria?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

C-2

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Does the RFP include clear, accurate list of submittal requirements?

Is construction phasing clear, feasible, and appropriate?

Are the appropriate evaluation weights clearly assigned to each of the

evaluation factors in the RFP and the Source Selection Plan?

Do the technical specs match the Source Selection Plan and the

submission requirements/instructions in the RFP?

Does the RFP contain options that may be used to determine what can

be obtained within available funds?

If options are included, are limits of work associated with each bid

option clearly defined? Time for award of options specified?

Are the solicitation and contractor performance periods reasonable?

Are the technical project criteria compatible and consistent with each

other, and the non-technical portions of the RFP?

Should payment for offsite stored materials be permitted, and is

appropriate clause in contract?

Does the RFP contain a construction cost limit (combined design and

construction costs)?

Does RFP state a maximum construction time? If so, is it reasonable?

Does the RFP clearly describe the requirements for building and

systems commissioning, including criteria and lists of systems and

their components?

Does the RFP clearly describe the contractor quality control

requirements for all design work? The government QA process for

design work?

Does the RFP clearly describe the contractor quality control

requirements for all construction work? The Government QA process

for construction work?

Does the RFP clearly describe mandatory Federal requirements for

environmental criteria, standards, and processes?

Does the RFP clearly indicated that all buildings identified for

renovation or demolition have been sampled and tested for the

presence of hazardous materials, lead paint, asbestos, etc. either by

the building owner or the USACE?

Are all operating and construction permits, permitting actions, and

responsibilities for permits appropriately addressed in the RFP?

Are all wetland areas and floodplain limits determined and clearly

delineated on the drawings included in the RFP?

Are utility capacity data and tie-in points clearly delineated on

drawings included in the RFP?

Are potable water system pressure and capacity data tests done and

the test results provided in the RFP?

Are sufficient borings and/or test pits done to delineate general

subsurface conditions and the results provided in the RFP?

Are site-specific requirements such as local codes, required materials,

materials restrictions, and work restrictions in the RFP?

Is there a requirement to coordinate RFP, design submittals, and/or

construction activities with USACE Mandatory Centers of Expertise?

Is this coordination clear & compatible with all other parts of RFP?

Is VECP clause in contract documents IAW FAR provisions?

Is signed VE certification included in package before issuing RFP?

Are LEED, Guiding Principles, and LID requirements clear & in

CLINs?

ER 415-1-11

1 Jan 13

C-3

Sample BCOES Review Checklist for Design-Build (D-B) Method of Delivery

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability

Have we verified compliance with requirements of NEPA?

Specifically, has an EA or EIS been completed, and Record of

Environmental Consideration or Finding of No Significant Impact

been signed by appropriate authority?

Is site clear of military munitions/unexploded ordinance?

Have munitions response site inventory, applicable historical record

review & archives search reports records been checked?

If military munitions/UXO could be present, has planning been

completed to address explosives safety hazards (either as separate

pre-award munitions response project or inclusion of munitions and

explosives of concern construction (MEC) requirements in contract

clauses?

Does the RFP clearly provide guidance for deviating from any shown

drawings/layouts? For example, proposed building footprint meets

square footage criteria but uses different shape/configuration than

shown in the RFP?

For Standard Design Facilities, has applicable Center of

Standardization validated that RFP meets Army Standards and

Standard Designs?

Are there any other outstanding issues?