Tgw‘é»? 123.511 4 xx... . . -. . , . ‘ Er‘mfgrréhmtnycun. ‘ . . L. . . . E. «N2 .I ., , ulnar}? H.,»u..n.ufi§§.fcsrvuz§trsr..!..u!;5.l..,¢... (h: ; THESIS 3 4 fi ‘1 Oi This is to certify that the thesis entitled A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEKNT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO ASSIST CONTRACTOR PREQUAUFICATION presented by RODERICK ALLEN ROBINSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASTEROFSCIENCE Acme in BUILDING cousr'gucnon W WW 7 Major pro 5 1' Date 2 Li 00 0 0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 95“}: o z APR 1 0 2005 032‘? .0“ n,“ 3132007 —flé—i+—o-or flu 20m JAN 1 6 2007 ‘ IE5“ 9! i £190 1100 m.“ A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO ASSIST CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION By Roderick Allen Robinson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Building Construction Management 2000 ABSTRACT “A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO ASSIST CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION” By Roderick Allen Robinson A critical management decision, which has a direct effect on project success, is the prequalification of contractors for bidding purposes. A substantial amount of data is generated during contractor prequalification, which must be compiled, processed, analyzed and stored, for the proper selection of contractors, who will successfully complete the contracted work if awarded to them. This research thesis examines the prequalification process with a case study emphasis on minority contractors, identifies areas that can be streamlined and provide construction managers with valuable information to assist with their final selection, through the development and implementation of a construction management information system (CMIS) conceptual model and framework. The following areas: prequalification, minority contractor procurement and information systems are explored and formulate the basis on which the CMIS is developed. The final output of this study is the development of implementation scheme for the proposed CMlS for contractor prequalification and a prototype in Microsoft Access. To My Beloved Family and Friends ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank the following people for their efforts towards the completion of this research thesis. Dr. Matt Syal, for his outstanding motivation, guidance and assistance throughout and the timely completion of this thesis. Professor Tim Mrozowski, for his valuable guidance and input on the legal nature of this study. Dr. William McCarthy, for sharing his expertise in Accounting Information Systems and assisting with the systems development portion of this study. Dr. Robert von Bemuth, for his continued support and guidance throughout. Dr. James E. Jay, for his continued support and guidance throughout. The remaining faculty, staff and students of the Building Construction Management Graduate Program, for their assistance and support. In closing, the author would like to thank all others not mentioned, for their valuable contribution towards the completion of this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 1.1 d—A-t-t—t—l Nam-ANN Overview... Research Area 1.“ Prequallficatiorinm 1.1.2 Contractor Selection Criteria (CSC) 1.1.3 Project Success Factors (PSF’ 3)... Need... Research Scope Objectives... Methodology Deliverables... OrganizafionorTHésis CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Introduction... . Minority Contractor Procurement Goals 2.1.1 The Small Business Act... 2.1.2 Definition of MBE, WBE and DBE’ s 2.1.3 Difficulties Faced by MBE, WBE and DBE’S. 2.1.4 Summary of Research Papers Related to Minority Procurement Goals... The Contractor Prequalification Process- COritrECtbr Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors" 2.2.1 Summary of Research Papers Related to COnttaiCtOr Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors ................. Information Systems (IS) in the Construction Industry... 2.3.1 Information System Applications in Construction Management... 2. 3. 2 Information TechnOIogy TOOIs In ConstructIon Management. 233 Summaryofselected'PapersforInformatlon 3’3“?" “the Cmstmction Industry... Summary... 1.1 4 Prequalifyingw MBE s WBE s and DWBE s.. IX L.'_t'—s555,:2§55 wwoommumbnN‘ ......15 .....15 ......16 ........16 .....17 ...17 ...19 21 .31 ...32 ...33 ‘32: CHAPTER 3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CMIS) CONCEPTS 3.0 Introduction... 3.1 Data Information and Knowledge 3.1.1 Data Defined... 3.1.2 Information Defined 3.1.3 Knowledge Defined... 32 Basic Database System Con-0.855..” 3.2.1 The Database... 3.3 Basic Data Modeling Concepts... 3.3.1 Data Models... 3.4 Summary... CHAPTER 4 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CMIS) DEVELOPMENT 4.0 Introduction... 4.1 Data Collection .. 4.1.1 Survey of Construction Managers 4.1.2 Survey of Bonding Companies. 4.1.3 Survey of Minority Business Enterpnses 4.2 Summary of Data Collection... 4.3.3 Prequalification Data Model Entities, Attributes and Relationships................................................. 4.3.4 Relationships between Entities and Composite Keys 4.4 Summary CHAPTER 5 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTMEM DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT 5.0 Introduction... . 5.1 Implementation SCheme 5.1.1 The Elimination Stage 5.1.2 The Evaluation Stage... vi ...42 42 ......46 .....47 3. 2. 2 The Database Management SyStem (DBMS) 49 .......51 3. 3. 2 The Entity-RelatIonshIp DIagram .52 ........66 ......76 ......78 4.3 Construction Management lnforination System (CMIS) Data Model for Contractor Prequalification...... 4.3.1 The Source Generalization Hierarchy............ 4.3.2 The Subject Generalization Hierarchy.............. .. ..81 .82 ...82 ..92 ..95 ...96 .. ...98 101 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.1.3 SelectionofContractors..................................................... 5.1.4 Summary of Implementation............................................... .....106 ......107 ...107 The CMIS Prototype... 5.2.1 Microsoft Access Prototype Tables 5. 2. 2 Microsoft Access Prototype Relationships 5.2.3 Microsoft Access Prototype Forms and Subfonns.: ......113 ......114 ......119 ......120 ...120 5. 2. 4 Microsoft Access Prototype Queries... 5. 2. 5 Microsoft Access Prototype Reports... Implementation Scheme and Prototype Proof of Concept 5.3.1 Evaluation of the Implementation Scheme... 5. 3. 2 Evaluation of the Prototype Demonstration. 5. 3. 3 Evaluation of the Prototype as a Complete System . .. . ...123 Summary... CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Introduction... Summary of Research... Minority Procurement Goals... 6.1.2 Compilation of Current PrequaIiI‘ication Methods for Prequalification. 6.1.4 DevelopmentoftheCMls'f'o'rcontractor .......................... Prequalification... 6.1.5 Implementation and CMIS PrequallficatIon Prototype ProofofConcept... ...130 Conclusions... Future Areas of Research APPENDIX APPENDIX A-1: Construction Managers Questionnaire APPENDIX A-2: Construction Managers” Interview Responses... APPENDIX B: Bonding Companys’ Interview Responses... APPENDIX C: MBEs' Interview Responses......... APPENDIX D: Project Data Forms Submitted to Construction Responses... Managers for Validation... vii 104 105 110 122 ......124 6.1 1 Summary of Existing RegulatIons for ......125 ............126 6.1.3 Development of Information Parameter Requirements ...126 ...127 128 ...132 ...168 172 176 ...180 APPENDIX E: Contractor Data Forms used to Develop Hypothetical Contractor Base for Validation... .190 APPENDIX F: Prototype Demonstration Reports (Sample)........ .....198 viii Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 5.1 LIST OF TABLES Contractor Selection Cntena Project Success Factors Contractor Selection Cntena Project Success Factors Contractor Selection Criteria Survey Contractor Selection Criteria Survey Results............ Project Success Factors Survey Construction Manager PSF’s Survey Results Designer PSF’s Survey Results Owner PSF’s Survey Results Contractor Scoring Matnx ix .20 .21 .69 .70 .73 74 .75 .75 .102 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5A Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4A Figure 4.48 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 LIST OF FIGURES Construction Project Data Flow Data, Information and Knowledge.......................................... Data Processrng Entity-Relationship Diagram Notations.................................... ERD Cardinalities and Connectivity....................................... Existence Dependency Relational Tables The Contractor Generalization Hierarchy................................ The Source Group Generalization Hierarchy... The Subject Group Generalization Hierarchy... The Contractor Prequalification Data Model Past Projects-Contractor Relationship.................................... Contractor-Officers, Office Personnel and Field Personnel Relationship................................................ The Contractor Prequalification Data Model The Elimination Stage of Contractor Prequalification... The Evaluation Stage of Contractor Prequalification .......... System Prototype The Contractor Prequalification Prototype Data Model... .. Contractor Representation.................................................. Entity Relationship Representation......... Tables and Forms 43 45 .50 .57 59 61 .63 .83 85 .86 .97 .100 ....... 103 .106 108 109 111 112 Figure 5.9 Prototype Query115-116 Figure 5.10 Contractor Comments Form118 xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Overview In a construction management environment, a project could incorporate the work of multiple prime contactors, subcontractors, specialty contractors, suppliers and independent testing agencies, all of which engage in their own contractual relationship with the owner and/or construction manager. Prequalification is critical task in the pre-project planning phase, by which construction managers ascertain the proper selection of contractors who will provide competitive bids and satisfactory completion of the contracted work. Depending on the perceived expectations of key project participants and/or special conditions of the project, the prequalification process serves as a means by which these concerns are addressed by emphasizing the selection from a specific contractor group (i.e. electrical, mechanical, structural etc.). In the following study, the overall contractor prequalification process will be examined, with a case study emphasis on the selection of MBE, WBE and DBE’s for publicly funded projects with minority contractor procurement goals. MBE’s and WBE’s as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) are companies, having 51 % of ownership by one or more individuals who are socially disadvantaged. Social disadvantaged groups are individuals who have been subjected to gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural bias due to association with a particular group, without regard to their individual qualities. In defining DBE’s, the SBA considers firms that are economically challenged, as well socially disadvantaged. Therefore DBE’s are those MBE’s and WBE’s whose ability to compete in the free market enterprise has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business. Primarily, this is determined by assessing assets and net worth of the firm in question. The majority of sizable construction projects are awarded by the government agencies such as the Department of Transportation (Karim and Adeli 1999). Government mandated regulations (i.e. The Small Business Act) mandates that total federal procurement achieve a goal of 20% of federal contracts executed by minority business enterprises (MBE’s), women business enterprises (WBE’s), and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE’s). Individual agencies within the government develop plans for achieving this goal. One method is for an agency to establish contracting goals for individual projects. Reward of these contracts through the bidding process is preceded by prequalification of contractors, which is the responsibility of the construction manager. 1.1 Research Area 1.1.1 Prequalification Prequalification is a critical step in the pre-construction phase of a project and is defined as, a pre-tender process used to investigate and assess the capabilities of contractors to cany out a contract satisfactorily should it be awarded to them” (Hatush and Skitmore 1997a). Its importance is realized when considering the adverse affects that incompetent contractor(s) will have on a construction project. Researchers have identified prequalification as a key decision-making task, in that eliminating inappropriate contractors decreases the chances of delays, cost overruns, substandard work, disputes and bankruptcy (Hatush and Skitmore 1997a). When the local contractor base is large, the project has a better chance of being staffed with competent contractors, but selection of qualified contractors from a specific group (i.e. electrical, mechanical, structural etc.) can be quite challenging. The prequalification process involves multiple information-based parameters such as contractor data, project data and data regarding the expectations of key project participants (i.e. owner, NE, construction manager). A direct relationship exists between contractor data and project data, in that contractors must be able to deliver the project as per specifications and drawings. Additionally, success on a project could depend on satisfying those needs of the owner not explicitly specified in the contract documents. Research on contractor evaluation in regards to owner satisfaction offers the following, ‘. . .the possibility of improving clients’ satisfaction by meeting their needs has been examined along the line suggested by Walker (1989) i. e. the selection of the most suitable contractors who can deliver the physical buildings and meet clients' needs” (Chinyio et al., 1998). Therefore, in order to maximize project success there must be a proper alignment of contractors' capabilities, project conditions and the needs of key project participants during the prequalification process. 1.1.2 Contractor Selection Criteria (CSC) To date, several researchers have examined contractor selection criteria in respect to prequalification, all of which have identified major concerns of owners and owners' representatives for prospective contractors. In a study on subcontractor selection for overseas projects (Shaikh, 1999), the areas that were identified as being key to selecting a qualified contractors were as follows: financial strength, management skills and experienced manpower. In addition, business competence and past failures, which could be attributed to any one or a combination of the above-mentioned areas of concern, was identified as relevant information for prospective contractors. Researchers Hatush and Skitmore (1997b) examined contractor selection criteria for prequalification and also identified financial information and managerial information as key factors of consideration. Adding to the list, general information, technical information and safety information were mentioned as being relevant to procurers of their services. Yet in another study (Hatush and Skitmore 1997a), an examination of contractor selection criteria (CSC) in relation to project success factors was conducted, from which a list of 20 CSC’s were developed and their effect on time, money and safety were assessed. Of the 20 CSC, past failures, financial status, credit ratings, experience, ability, management personnel and management knowledge were the highest-ranking criteria. The comprehensive list of the contactor selection criteria is provided in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Contractor Selection Criteria Source: (Hatush and Skitmore 1997a) Past Failures Management Safety Accountability Management Persoan Experience Modification Rate Financial Status Leggth of time in Business k Ananggments Safety Performance ility OSHA Incidence Rate Management Knowledge Owner/Contractor Relationship Project Management Organization Credit Rating Experiences Financial Stability [Other Relations Technical Personnel East Performance lant and Equipment Another research project examined the effects of high prequalification requirements on the bidding process and the overall success of the project (Wei Lo et al, 1999). Their findings included the same criteria with the addition of current workload, but emphasis was placed on past experiences. Contractors were required to provide a minimum value of a single project or a cumulative amount of work performed in the past five years. In addition, a special requirement was enforced, such that past execution of specific project work items within the last 5 years must be a dollar amount at least 40% of the total project value. In all of the fore-mentioned studies, evaluating contractor selection criteria was identified as key to the successful completion of the project. Once the expectations of the participants are known, the criteria of the selected contractors should reflect those interests. 1.1.3 Project Success Factors (PSF’s) Research on project success factors on construction projects has identified success as being different across projects and individual participants. In a study conducted, Sanvido et al. (1992) offered the following, “Success criteria or a person ’s definition of success as it relates to a building often changes from project to project depending on participants, scope of services, project size, sophistication of the owner related to the project design of facilities, technological implications and a variety of other factors.” This clearly ascertains that any project information, used as a basis for determining contractor selection criteria, could be very dynamic and must receive continuous evaluation at the start of each project phase and/or as old participants fade out and new participants fade into a single project. Project success factors were classified into the following three categories of project participants: owner, designer and contractor (Sanvido et al., 1992). Table 1.2 provides this list in its entirety. Although distinct differences exist, there are identifiable areas of common interest amongst all participants such as financial concerns, schedule, budget and avoiding disputes. Again, any evaluation of contractor selection criteria will have to consider these differences as they apply to different participants, as well as project conditions. Table 1.2: Project Success Factors Source: Sanvido et 1 Satisfaction Schedule Fee and Profit Goal Use Staff Fulfillment Met or Exceeded Met Claims Met Satisfaction Subcontractor Direct Communication or No 1.1.4 Prequalifylng MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s The Small Business Act establishes govemment-wide goals for the procurement of the services from historically underrepresented and disadvantaged groups on all government contracts. As a result, set-aside programs that meet or exceed the goals of the federal government are developed by individual agencies, to insure that a fair proportion of the total government contracts are executed by MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Great pressure is placed on construction managers to achieve these goals, such that failure to do so could result in disqualification and/or litigation. Most MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s tend to be small in size, thus limiting their abilities to perform sizable portions of work. Recent research examining the status of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s exposes the difficulties they have meeting finance, bonding, management skills, labor and training prequalification criteria (Chang, 1989). Assessing the availability of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s involves gathering information from certifying agencies such as the Small Business Administration. Although this information is readily available, additional information on contractors’ current projects, which is a major factor of availability, may require a considerable amount of time to obtain. When gathering and analyzing information on local MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, the dynamics of the construction industry may alter the data from project to project or periodically. For example, if a contractor completes an exceptional project or has a good year, growth of the firm could change its size, bonding capacity, and financial standing, enabling him or her to engage in larger projects in the future. Also, as projects are completed the level of expertise may increase, resulting in a higher level of deliverable quality. Therefore, tracking of such data is important and requires on—going evaluation and updating. 1.2 Need There is an undoubtedly substantial amount of data that must be collected, compiled and analyzed, when prequalifying contractors for bidding purposes. In a construction management environment, the CM is responsible for delivering a project that meets the owners’ intended needs. This is best achieved by aligning contractors” capabilities, through careful analysis of Contractor Selection Criteria, with project specific expectations, described earlier as Project Success Factors. An information system needs to be developed to streamline the decision- making process for prequalifying contractors. If the construction manager is to satisfy govemment-mandated minority participation goals and avoid contract termination, he or she must successfully assess, evaluate and staff the project with available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, capable of successful delivery of the project. Without the aid of an information system, a substantial amount of legwork on the part of the CM must be performed in order to accomplish this task, which could be time consuming, exhaustive and challenging, more so when considering different project expectations among key participants. 1.3 Research Scope The domain of this study will concentrate on national construction management firms whose total billings for 1998 exceeded $200 million, as recorded by Engineering News Record. Additionally, these firms must provide services outside their base locality and deal with MBE, WBE and DBE issues on a daily basis, providing a substantial knowledge base necessary to conduct a study on this topic. In working for a major national construction management firm, it is the researchers observation that acquiring the required participation of MBE, WBE and DBE’s is a high priority of primary project participants (i.e. project managers, owners, public). This priority is realized in the pre—construction phase and sustained during construction to project completion. 1.4 Objectives The goal of this study is to develop a system that would provide construction managers with the accurate, consistent, and timely information on prospective contractors with a case study emphasis on MBE, WBE and DBE’s. In order to meet the overall goal, the following objectives will be achieved. 1. To summarize the existing regulations for minority contractor procurement goals on public contracts 2. To compile current methods of contractor pre-qualification 3. To develop a comprehensive listing of information parameters required for successful contractor selection 4. To develop an information system for contractor selection based on objective #3 5. To implement the IS in a prototype DBMS and apply it to past projects of two CM firms for proof of concept. 1.5 Methodology The research will begin with an investigation of governing statutes and goals programs that create a need for minority contractors. The subsequent steps are as follows: identifying inefficiencies in existing methods of pre- qualification, recommendations for a new system, system development and its validation/application. Examining the current regulation for minority participation will consist of literary review and interviews. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the laws, literature on federal mandates will be obtained. This will be followed by a look at the requirements on a regional basis, preferably the Midwest. Through this survey, the researcher will develop a basic understanding of the administration and enforcement of minority participation goals on construction projects. Before a new system can be developed, current methods of selecting contractor for a project bidding purposes should be understood. This will require examining the way in which CM’s gather, analyze and make decisions based on their analysis. From this examination, a better understanding of the existing system, identifiable areas for improvement and data requirements will be 10 realized. This information will be gathered through existing research on information system (IS) development. Additionally, six regional and/or national construction management firms will be selected, based on the fore mentioned research scope qualifications, to complete questionnaires. Two of the selected firms will be further surveyed through interviews and site visits to observe the prequalification process currently in place. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the prequalification process, two bonding companies with a mid-west base locality and experience in construction bonds, will be interviewed, during which the comparable bond qualification process will be examined. From this examination, similarities and differences of bond qualification and contractor prequalification will be identified. This will help to disclose any additional considerations for the proposed system development. Once there is an understanding of current systems, recommendations for improved and/or new systems can be made. Assuming that each system does provide the CM with the needed information for selecting contractors, the recommendations will involve streamlining the process and providing information that will support better decision-making for future projects. These recommendations will be more prevalent when utilizing a current methodology for developing information systems. To date, development of information systems follows different methodologies. McCarthy and Rockwell (1999) examined two methodologies, structured analysis and database design, and how combining two would provide 11 a preferred approach to system development. This research will incorporate the following steps common to all system development methodologies: . Defining the problem or opportunity for improvement 0 Establish user requirements for the old and proposed new system . Model the old system and proposed new system . Defining scope of the proposed new system (budget & schedule) . Evaluate and examine software solutions 0 Implementation, training and support The chosen methodology will utilize some part of all the above-mentioned steps to develop a database that will support prequalification of contractors. A key step in the development of the system and a major component of this study will be the construction of a conceptual data model of the contractor prequalification procesj/ Implementation, training and support of the final system mot be covered du fto the technological nature that is beyond the scope of this research. The final value-added to the business is a major factor in assessing the successful development and implementation of information systems. Based on their responsiveness to the survey and expressed interest in this research, two CM firms from the selected focus group will be asked to evaluate the final system on its perceived usefulness, savings of time and money, and overall increased efficiency. Participants will be asked to apply the model to a completed project and compare it to their original method of contractor prequalification. Possible parameters of the comparison will be the comprehensiveness of the proposed 12 system, in that there is a complete alignment of contractor selection criteria, project conditions and the expectations of the client. As the research is being conducted, other comparisons may be identified and evaluated. 1.6 Deliverables Upon the completion of this research, the development of a Construction Management lnforrnation System will be presented two ways. First, it will provide a framework, that construction management firms can utilize in developing their own CMIS for contractor prequalification. In addition, basic ideas within this framework can be extended to develop CMIS to support other identifiable areas of construction management. Second, a prototype of the CMIS for contractor prequalification will be developed, using a current database management systems software package. 1.7 Organization of Thesis The organization of this research thesis will be explained in this section. The chapter contents and their relative sequence are as follows: . Chapter 1 - Proposal of the research area, objectives, methodology and deliverables for the development of a CMIS to assist contractor prequalification 0 Chapter 2 - Summarizes existing research and other supporting material for contractor prequalification of minority contractors used for is research project 13 Chapter 3 - Explains the relative Construction Management Information Systems (CMIS) concepts utilized for the system development Chapter 4 - Summarizes the data collection and the resultant development of the CMIS prequalification data model. Chapter 5 - Summarizes the development and proof of concept of an implementation scheme and CMIS prequalification prototype Chapter 6 - Presents the summary and conclusions of the research for the development of the CMIS to assist contractor prequalification l4 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH 2.0 Introduction This chapter is a review of existing research supporting the study of A CMIS for Contractor Prgualification. The literary review conducted for this study consists of Small Business Administration regulations and research publications, placed in the following categories: minority contractor procurement goals, contractor prequalification process, project success factors, and information systems in the construction industry. In addition, a summary of selected research papers is included at the end of each section. 2.1 Minority Contractor Procurement Goals On publicly-funded construction projects (i.e. government buildings, schools, hospitals, highway construction), governmental agencies establish goals for a minimum percentage of the total contract sum to be executed by Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), Women Business Enterprises (WBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). In a construction management environment, it is the responsibility of the construction manager to see that these goals are met by the respective prime contractors and/or subcontractors and solicit the selection of qualified MBE, WBE and DBE as prime contractors and/or subcontractors. Percentages of participation are derived from govemment—mandated regulations (i.e. The Small Business Act), and individual contracting agencies are empowered to develop set-asides that meet or exceed the govemment-wide participation goals. 15 2.1.1 The Small Business Act The Small Business Act (15 USCS 637) establishes a government interest in insuring the advancement and growth of small businesses through the utilization of set-asides on government projects. The act itself identifies 20% as the govemment-wide minimum participation goal of the total prime contracts for each fiscal year. The Small Business Administration (SBA) was formed as a result of the act, and is primarily responsible of the administration and enforcement of the statute. In addition, the Small Business Administration is responsible for designation and certification of MBE, WBE and DBE, which will be referred to as minority firms hereafter. 2.1.2 Definitions of MBE, WBE, and DBE’s The Small Business Administration requires that small business concerns be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Women Business Enterprise (WBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). MBE’s and WBE’s, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), are companies having 51% of ownership by one or more individuals who are socially disadvantaged. Social disadvantaged groups are individuals who have been subjected to gender, racial, ethnic, or cultural bias due to association to a particular group, without regard to their individual qualities. In defining DBE, the SBA considers firms that are economically challenged, as well socially disadvantaged. Therefore DBE’s are those MBE’s and WBE’s whose ability to compete in the free market enterprise has been 16 impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business. 2.1.3 Difficulties Faced by MBE, WBE and DBE’s Typically, MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s tend to be small in size, therefore their ability to perform sizable portions of a project is limited. Studies conducted have identified the following prequalification criteria as problem areas for small business concerns: finance, bonding, management skills, labor and training (Chang, 1989). On most construction projects, progress payments are established, by which contractors are paid for completed portions of work approved by the Architect/Engineer. Minority firms operating on a limited capital are not able to sustain large construction costs that occur between payments (i.e. hourly labor, equipment rental & maintenance, material replacements). Therefore, these firms work with limited staff, field labor and equipment on projects. In addition to financing limitation, operating on a small capital base presents problems for satisfying bonding requirements. 2.1.4 Summary of Research Papers Related to Minority Contractor Procurement Goals The following research papers and govemment-mandated statute supports this section. The literary review provided the researcher with a basic understanding of the administration and enforcement of set-asides on public 17 construction projects. In addition, it helped to establish an understanding of the composition of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, as well as problems faced by them regarding the prequalification process. 2.1.4.1 The Small Business Act (15 USCS 637) The Small Business Act is the government mandate that outlines the procurement procedures of services from minority firms, the powers vested in the Small Business Administration and their administrative duties. In addition, The Act defines the qualifications of MBE, WBE and DBE’s, as well as, establishes the govemment—wide goals for a minimum percentage of the total contracts annually to be executed by minority firms. 2.1.4.2 “Method to Deal with DBE Issues,” (Chang, 1989). This article conducts a comparative analysis of the problems faced by DBE and non-DBE firms. The basis of the study is the contention that problems of financing, bonding, management skills and labor are equally shared amongst both types of contractors. The author’s purpose in conducting this research is to prove that these problem areas are more prevalent to DBE’s, requiring newly structured policies need to address these differences. The focus group for this research, from which data was collected, consisted of 154 DBE and 444 non-DBE contracting firms. Questionnaires were the primary source of data collection followed by a comparative statistical analysis. Each contractor was asked to assess the difficulty and/or ability to 18 satisfy the following project requirements: financing, bonding, management skills and labor. The resultant information was used to quantify how each group shared these difficulties. The author concluded that DBE's did, in fact, experience more difficulties in the above-mentioned areas of construction contracting, as a whole. Although the majority firms were identified in some respects, as sharing some of these problem, the DBE's displayed a marginal differences most cases. Thus, leading to a need for policymakers to construct laws that would address these hardships. This article helps to confirm areas of concern when determining important attributes to track DBE’s in the proposed database. Also, it establishes a need to closely track this information to assist in the contractor prequalification decision- making process for both, minority and majority contractors. 2.2 The Contractor Prequalification Process - Contractor Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors The Contractor prequalification is the process that precedes the project bid, by which contractors are evaluated for their ability to perform if they are selected as the successful bidder. This process is important for the assurance that the selected contractors will carry out their contracted work as per the contract documents (i.e. specifications, drawings, estimate, schedule etc.). The prequalification process is the construction manager’s primary means of screening incompetent contractors during the planning phase, thus reducing risks of negative effects they may have on a project (Lo et al, 1998). The 19 information-based parameters of the prequalification process include contractor selection criteria and project success factors relevant to key project participants (i.e. owner, designer and contractor). Contractor Selection Criteria (CSC) are the particular attributes of prospective contractors, that are evaluated by the construction manager for prequalification purposes. Table 2.1 is a comprehensive listing of Contractor Selection Criteria derived from a study conducted by Hatush and Skitmore (1997b). These CSC's could vary in importance from project to project, but researchers contend that all of these attributes can be grouped into general information, financial information, management information, technical information, or safety information (Hatush and Skitmore, 1997b). Table 2.1: Contractor Selection Criteria (Source: Hatush and Skitmore, 1997a) Failures Personnel Modification Rate Status of time in Business Performance Incidence Rate echnical Persoan Performance and The success of a project can be measured in different ways depending on the project and project participants. In recent studies, researchers have asserted that amongst all procurers of construction services there are common goals regarding time, money and quality (Hatush and Skitmore, 1997a). Therefore, a 20 project that is completed on schedule, on budget and meets the intended design & use is generally considered to be successful. Sanvido (1992) suggests that, “Success criteria or a person’s definition of success as it relates to a building often changes from project to project depending on participants, scope of services, project size, sophistication of the owner related to the design of facilities, technological implications, and a variety of other factors”. With this said, an evaluation of Project Success Factors (PSF's) should reflect the common, as well as specific interests of key project participants such as the owner, designer and contractor. Table 2.2 provides a comprehensive list of Project Success Factors relative to the owner designer and contractor. Table 2.2: Project Success Factors Sanvido et Contractor 2.2.1 Summary of Research Papers Related to Contractor Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors The following research papers support Contractor Prequalification Process relative to Contractor Selection Criteria. The literary review provided the 21 researcher with a basic understanding of the prequalification process, its importance and the effects of proper selection of contractors. Additionally, the selected papers help to define contractor selection criteria and develop a comprehensive list of CSC further evaluation within this study. 2.2.1.1 “Effects of High Prequalification Requirements,” (Lo et al, 1999) The study conducted in this article examined the relative effects that prequalification requirements have on a construction project. Researchers used the Taipei Mass Rapid Transit project for data collection. The project budget was approximately $18 million in US dollars. Samples of thirty underground contracts were used for this research. The study primarily focused on the selection criteria relative to the prequalification process and the resultant effects on the project. Through interviews and questionnaires of owners, contractors and consultants the researchers derived data on schedule, cost and bidding strategies utilized on this project. Exceptionally high prequalification requirements were exposed and found to contribute to adverse conditions such as delays, escalated costs, collusion, fraudulent use of company names and limiting growth of small local contractors. Researchers concluded that the concept of establishing high prequalification requirements to assure successful delivery of the project could cause more harm than good. Instead, prequalification requirements should ' reflect the owners’ needs, as well as the conditions the local contractors 22 environment. In this case, relaxation of prequalification requirements would have been warranted, by the need to increase competition, support the growth of local firms and reduce fraudulent activity. This article provides a substantial amount of information on the contractor prequalification process and selection criteria. In addition, it examines the misconception that high prequalification requirements will create a more successful project environment. All of these findings establish a need for careful review of contractor prequalification requirements as they relate to the utilization of small contracting firms. 2.2.1.2 “Criteria for Contractor Selection,” (Hatush and Skitmore 1997b). This article presents a study on contractor prequalification methods currently used by construction clients. Within this research three aspects of prequalification were examined: gathering of information, assessment and bid evaluation. The basis of this examination was deriving a common set of criteria for prequalification and bid evaluation and the different assessment methods used to facilitate specific needs of clients, as well as the projects. The focus group of the study consisted of nine individuals with similar construction experience, all of which were owner representatives. lnfon'nation was gathered through the use of questionnaires and conducting interviews. The researchers first task was to establish a common set of information that is requested from contractors for prequalification. The following five areas were identified as information: general (administrative purposes), financial, technical, 23 managerial and safety information. The assessment of the information was found to take several forms, none of which fell under a uniform structure across firms. General information consists primarily of administrative data that identifies the contracting firm under consideration for prequalification. Data such as, name of company, legal status of the company (i.e. corporation, proprietorship, partnership etc.), subsidiaries and associated companies, associated trade organizations, names of directors, size, age, image and past Iitigations have been identified as relevant general information. Financial information is comprised of all the relevant data needed to assess the financial status and stability of the contractor. This information is key to determining the contractors’ ability to sustain associated construction cost (i.e. hourly labor, equipment rental, materials etc.) over the course of the project. Data derived from ratio analysis, bank references, creditor references and turnover history are relevant in assessing financial status. Other data such as financial statements, bonding capacity, credit ratings and bank arrangements (i.e. loans, lines of credit, etc.) are key data elements when assessing contractors’ financial stability. Management information consists of relevant data on prospective contractors, used to determine the organization and competence of their management staff. This information provides the construction manager with a means of determining the level of expertise of contractors” ability to manage sizable portions of the project. A lack of basic management principles often 24 causes contractors to fail on construction projects. Relevant data elements for assessing managerial abilities are as follows: management organization, home office support, project staff support, risk management and human relations (i.e. owners, suppliers, contractors, subcontractors etc.) Technical information is comprised of relevant data on the prospective contractors’ ability to complete the contracted work. Data such as available resources (i.e. field staff, equipment, materials etc.), type of work performed, size of projects completed and quality are needed to assess the level of technical expertise. Evaluating contractors’ past project experience of relative to size and type generates this information. Additionally, visits to contractors’ current facilities and jobsites may provide supplemental technical information. Safety information is primarily data that determines the contractors’ tendency for accidents on construction projects. The importance of such data could depend on the type, size and risks related to the contracted work. An emphasis on safety eliminates the associated costs if accidents are minimized In addition, other factors such as work suspensions and litigation that arise from accidents could lead to delays. Researchers suggest that by collecting relevant data such as experience modification rating (EMR) and OSHSA incidence rate an assessment of the safety performance of contractors’ can be made. In examining the assessment of the information, the researchers identified those areas that were evaluated subjectively and quantitatively. In addition, the scoring system utilized by each was assessed for its ability to assist in the decision-making process. The determination of weights based on project and/or 25 clients’ needs were also evaluated. Finally, a brief examination of short listing and bid evaluation was conducted; concluding that short listing was done either randomly or in rotation and bid evaluation was primarily based on the lowest bidder with no real concern for the highest prequalification score. This study establishes a basis for what information is considered and the means by which it is assessed for prequalification. In addition, it provides a starting point for deriving common attributes of contractors and their value of importance, which can be refined upon review of a selected focus group. Lastly, this research establishes a need for a common method of evaluation to assist and streamline the process of prequalification. 2.2.1.3 “How to Select the Proper Subcontractor-Pt 1,” (Shaikh, 1999). This paper examines the basis of subcontractor selection for construction projects overseas. The author identifies the successful selection of subcontractors key to meeting the project plan, thus providing a competitive advantage for contractors performing work overseas. The article identifies and prioritizes areas of major concerns when determining a subcontractors ability to successfully complete the contracted work, as well as factors of success and/or failure. The author establishes that the financial strength of the subcontractor is the key factor for success and failure. Basically, contractors should determine the subcontractors’ ability to manage cash flow and sustain intermediate costs throughout the project. Subcontractors that fail to do so experience these 26 adverse situations (i.e. delays, cost overruns, bankruptcy, contract termination) that will have an effect on the project, as a whole. Therefore, a thorough assessment of a subcontractors financial information is suggested. Project management and support is identified as the second leading factor for success and/ or failure. Subcontracting firms that have a limited amount of field supervisors and small home office staff, will more likely experience problems due to lack of support. Key factors for assessing management and support are business experience, home office support, organization design, customer/supplier relations and risk management. Another area of concern is the level of capital investments made by subcontractors. These investments are primarily the tools and technology to support current demands of construction projects. The amount of a lot of these investments are far reaching for small firms, therefore more traditional methods are deployed. The author further develops success and failures by expanding the above-mentioned criteria. In addition, some minor areas of concern are identified and examined for their implications for success and/or failure of the project. 2.2.1.4 “Evaluating Contractor Prequalification Data: Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors,” (Hatush and Skitmore, 1997a) This article examines contractor prequalification criteria on the basis of project success factors (PSF’s) of time, money and quality. The study was conducted on the premises that selection of inadequate contractors has profound effects on successful completion of construction projects. The study provides a 27 basis by which project administrators conduct careful pre-bid screening of prospective contractors. The focus group for data collection was comprised of 8 construction professionals. Of the group, 6 were used for the initial collection of data and 2 for validation purposes. The researchers developed a list of 20 contractor selection criteria. In a questionnaire, professionals were asked to evaluate each criterion importance to the 3 PSF’s. The results were compiled and validated, with minimal modification. Statistical analysis was conducted on the resultant values gathered from the questionnaires. Expected means and variances were derived for the CSC of undesirable contractors for the remainder of the study. This was done to expose the adverse effects an inadequate contractor would have on the project. The original 20 criteria were then categorized into 10 having a high effect and 10 having a low effect. The result showed that following criteria: past failures, financial status, financial stability, credit ratings, experience, ability, management personnel and management knowledge had the highest contribution to time, cost and safety. From this study, a comprehensive list of criteria provides a basis by which contractor attributes can be derived for a database. 28 2.2.1.5 “Critical Success Factors for Construction Projects,” (Sanvido et al, 1992). In this paper, a study was conducted on determining critical project success factors (CPSF’s) on construction projects as they apply to different project participants. The authors compared and contrasted perceived project success factors of owners, designers and contractors. The purpose of this study is to define success on a project and develop a means by which participants can assess planned project success. The authors begin with defining success on construction projects, as commonly dependent on time, money and quality. Generally, projects that are completed on schedule, on budget and meets quality specifications are considered to be successful. The research suggested that these factors are important to all participants, but there exists factors of success that reflect the individual interests of the owner, designer and contractor. Specific Project Success Factors relative to the owner(s) dealt primarily with his or her acceptance of the completed structure. Concerns such as intended use, functionality, aesthetics, quality, minimal long-term maintenance costs and marketability must be addressed to achieve success. Although owners share the common interest of a project on budget and on schedule, the type of project and/or intended use could place a higher priority on time or money. As an example, owners of professional sports facilities (i.e. football and baseball stadiums, basketball arenas etc.) are concerned with project completion before the start of the respective season, therefore the schedule becomes a driving 29 motivator on the project and will weigh heavily when determining the level of success. Specific Project Success Factors relative to the designer revolved around client satisfaction and professional achievement. Designers concerns regarding success are as follows: satisfied client, quality architectural product, fee and profit met, professional staff fulfillment, marketable product/process, minimal construction problems, minimal liability claims, social acceptance, receipt of payment and a well defined scope of work. Like many in the professional service industry, designers strive towards achieving a level of performance that encourages repeat business from satisfied clients, therefore the above- mentioned factors are key to their plight for success on a project. Specific Project Success Factors relative to the contractor were seemingly close to those of the owner and designer. The researchers identified safety as being an important factor to the overall project success, more so to the contractor than the owner and designer. This is partly due to the operational nature of the contractor, which places his or her staff closer to the physical construction, putting them more at risk. Additionally, the common PSF’s time and money, shared by the contractor, are greatly affected in lieu of accidents (i.e. work suspension, lost and/or damaged resources, OSHA fines etc.) To determine Critical Success Factors, researchers collected data derived for 16 projects from participants representing owners, designers and contractors. This collection of data was in the form of questionnaires, interviews and site visits. Subjects were asked to react to a previously developed model that 30 represented major processes in building facilities, information derived by each function and its usefulness across participants. Statistical analysis was performed on the collected data in order to determine the factors that were critical to planning project success. This research provided an examination of what defines successful projects, looking beyond the common goals of project participants and considering specific interest to develop a collective set of success criteria. In addition, the research provided a way to plan success, foresee trouble on future projects and assess 8. correct problems on current projects. The implications of differing project success factors amongst project participants and across different projects, establishes a need for the tracking of such data for a comprehensive planning of successful projects. 2.3 Information Systems (IS) in the Construction Industry Like most industries, the construction industry is constantly seeking new technologies that will improve productivity and/or efficiency with day-to-day operations in the office and on the jobsites. lnforrnation systems are becoming the enabling technology, long sought out by owners, designers and contractors to streamline the major processes within the construction project life cycle. Although (IS) has been a proven solution for problems faced by manufacturing industry, recent research has identified less advanced computer applications in construction. 31 Construction lags behind other industries when it comes to the level of computerization of operations and management. This is exhibited by low IS spending by construction firms and existing stand-alone systems in place that do not interact with each other. (Jung et al, 1999). Nonetheless, many researchers are exploring the application and usefulness of information systems in the construction industry. In addition, researchers identify enabling information technology (IT) tools to implement these systems. 2.3.1 Information System Applications In Construction Management Currently, many developers are working to create information technology tools necessary for the development of information systems useful to the design and construction process. In a design and construction environment, participants from different disciplines (architecture, construction, electrical mechanical etc.) must be able to collect, transfer and process common project information. Even within a single discipline there may exist different functional areas that must deal with a common data. For example, within a construction firm there may be separate departments for scheduling, estimating and accounting that support the operations of current projects, all of which process the same set of data for each project. In recent studies, these needs are addressed through advancements made towards computer integration of construction projects. In one study, the concept of computer-integrated construction (CIC) was introduced as a derivative of computer integrated manufacturing (CIM). While it ‘ is adaptive to the construction project environment it maintains basic CIM 32 concepts (Jung et al, 1999). Basically, CIC uses computer technology to integrate the planning, design, construction and operations of structures. A major concept of integration is the sharing of information across different firnctional areas and different participants. Other research has identified sizable construction projects as involving different participants from different disciplines acting as a team, therefore problems revolving around data sharing become focal points of IS development (Oxrnan, 1995). 2.3.2 Information Technology Tools in Constniction Management An information system, in simple terms, is the method by which information is collected, transferred and processed. lnforrnation technology tools are the means by which these systems are implemented. These tools are comprised of hardware and software. Additionally, such systems can be stand- alone or networked. In recent studies, systems using technologies such as, shared database, knowledge-based systems (KB) and distributed artificial intelligence (DAI) have been developed to assist, automate and integrate construction management activities. One particular study, Fischer and Froese (1996) examines shared project models for the transfer of project data across various design and construction software packages (i.e. CAD, estimating, scheduling). They suggest that AIE/C computing systems contain partial project models that capture project data from a particular viewpoint or phase of construction and exist independently within a software package. Therefore, standardization of these project models within a 33 shared object-oriented database will encourage the sharing and processing of this data to other software applications. In another study, construction method selection (CMS) is achieved through use of a knowledge-based system (Syal, 1999). Considerations and factors that surround selection of methods for construction is captured in a knowledge base. This information is used to assist the decision making process in determining what construction methods will be used and the selection of the respective resources for particular project work items. The author considers cost estimates and project schedules as highly dependent on the construction methods, thus creating a need for a computerized selection process. A research in a related area identifies distributed artificial intelligence (DAI) as an enabling technology to capture the knowledge and experiences of multiple project participants from different disciplines for project-specific collaboration efforts (Oxrnan, 1995). These efforts include identifying, resolving and managing conflict on construction projects. The major strength in DAI is the use of case-based reasoning (CBR). The concept of CBR utilizes experiential information of past problems to solve current problems. 2.3.3 Summary of Selected Papers for Information Systems In the Construction Industry The following research papers support information systems in the construction industry. The selected papers provided an understanding of some of the existing information systems and the enabling information technology 34 currently used in the design and construction of buildings. In addition, the existing research provide a general basis that will be important to the development of the proposed contractor prequlification database within this research. 2.3.3.1 “Planning for Computer Integrated Construction (CIC)” (Jung et al, 1999). This paper examines a methodology which AlE/C firms utilize in the decision making process involved in IS planning. It begins by describing the need for more utilization of IS within the construction industry and defines CIC as the origins of its basis. Then the article proceeds by explaining the components of the study in relation to measurement, assessment and analysis of each. A case study was performed, in which the proposed methodology was used by a construction firm that was currently planning to develop an information system. The study proceeds by measuring and assessing the five areas of IS concern identified as, planning, sales, design, estimating, Scheduling, materials management, contracting, cost control, quality management, safety management, human resource management, finance/accounting, general administration and research 8. development. Then each business function was evaluated for level of support of the key strategies and scored accordingly. The scoring of the areas of IS concern are manipulated such that final evaluation of each business unit is derived. This evaluation has two dimensions, value-added enhancement and resultant incremental investment. The author 35 suggested that deriving a dollar value for a conceptual system was difficult, so they assessed the cost of improvements to the existing system. Each business unit would then have a rating of high or low value-added enhancement and incremental investment (e.g. estimating returned a high value-added enhancement and low incremental investment). The article offers that this rating would provide the firm with a means of prioritizing CIC planning, such that limited resources can be properly allocated towards IS implementation. In conclusion, the article suggest that previous researchers have focused on technical IS solutions, without any consideration of the logical planning methodology. A CIC planning methodology provides firms with parameters for the extent of implementation, priorities, needs and constraint management. In addition, the methodology addresses key management concerns that are essential for decision-making. When applied to an actual company, the results identified that integrating sales and estimating presented the best opportunities for the firm. The planning methodology may identify different areas of opportunities across firms due to dynamic corporate strategies. 2.3.3.2 “Data, Knowledge and Experience In Mutliuser Information Systems,” (Oxman, 1995). In this paper, the authors develop the idea of the NBC industry as being an environment of multiple participants from different disciplines or domains. All of these participants work in conjunction on construction projects, so there should be a means for them to collect, transfer and process shared information. The 36 authors offer that, there needs to be a generic information model that semantically represents the needs of different participants. This paper examines information systems with multiple users and categorizes them based on the following perceived levels of information sharing: data, knowledge and experience. In pursuit of this research, existing technologies for information sharing were reviewed. These technologies include ICON, artificial intelligence (Al) and case-based reasoning (CBR). All of these systems address the differing perspectives and requirements of different participants relative to project information. This study provides a basis for the utilization of multiuser information systems on construction projects. Since project teams are comprised of people from different backgrounds the way in which information is collected, processed and viewed is different. The systems examined within this study attempt to address these competing needs for information sharing, but it is suggested that the collaboration support of communicating ideas, negotiating solutions and resolving conflict is lacking. 2.3.3.3 “Examples and Characteristics of Shared Project Models,” (Fischer and Froese, 1996) In this paper, two software applications were examined, which utilized shared models for the purposes of integration, Coke (construction knowledge expert) and OPIS. Coke integrates an object based CAD with a knowledge base through a shared project model, to provide constructability feedback on building 37 designs. From a SD representation of a building component, a shared model is developed simultaneously. Data from the shared model is utilized by the system’s knowledge base to assess constructability through reasoning. The second software examined in OPIS, which is centered on an object- oriented database. This database serves as a depository for the interfaced software, collecting data that is common across packages for sharing. Data that is specific to an application is not put into the database. OPIS integrates CIFECAD, AutoPIan, lnCost (estimating) and InTime (scheduling). The authors offer that models provide information about an objects form, function and behavior. Information on form is the existence of the object and its descriptive attributes. Function information provided by the model is the intended role and use of an object. Lastly, models provide behavior information regarding an object’s reaction to different situations. Systems today represent form in conceptual and information models. Behavior is derived from procedures within these models and function is not specifically depicted in the system. Therefore, the authors devote their interest to modeling form, identifying it the starting point of information exchange and the integration capabilities of shared form models The authors conclude that development of shared models is in the interest of three levels of integration application, system and industry. The application level is simply integration of different software packages for the managing a project. System level integration is the sharing of information between computer systems within a firm. Industry level is the sharing of information among industry participants (i.e. AIE, CM, GC, Subs). The basic mechanisms to achieve 38 integration at each level are file exchange, shared databases and application programming interface. To support these levels of information there must exist a way models can map to each other. 2.3.3.4 “Knowledge Based Approach to Construction Method Selection Process,” (Syal, 1999). In this paper, the researcher examines the use of knowledge-based (KB) systems to assist decision-making in the construction planning process. It focuses on construction method selection (CMS) for project work items and the underlying internal and external considerations. With the use of computer technology, these considerations and factors are captured, retrieved and processed for the selecting construction methods. The author offers that much of construction planning is effected by the selection of methods, during the development of cost estimates and schedules. This is due to the cost of utilizing certain resources (labor, material and equipment) and the relative activities that result from these decisions. A case study is presented, in which method selection for a basement wall is examined. The selection process is divided in to three primary steps, (1) selection of construction option, (2) definition of constituent resources and (3) selection of resources. Each of these steps involves retrieving information from the knowledge base. Within the knowledge base, decision-making considerations that are firm related and project related are stored. These considerations in conjunction with the firrn’s historical database of past projects and resource 39 database formulate the information parameters surrounding the method selection process. This article presents use of a knowledge base application for a key activity in the construction planning process. Implementation of this computer technology establishes one of many directions information systems in the construction industry has taken. Capturing the knowledge of experienced personnel in a historical database, such as the knowledge base in this study, will inhibit better decision-making by the less experienced personnel in their absence, which will lead to overall improved construction planning. 2.4 Summary The literary review conducted concentrated on different aspects of construction management closely tied together in the contractor prequalification process and existing applications of information systems (IS). This provided a basic understanding of relevant research areas that formulate the basis of this research, a CMIS that will assist the overall contractor prequalification process, with a case study emphasis on selection of MBE, WBE and DBE’s. After compiling the available existing research on information systems in the construction industry, articles that specifically addressed prequalification of minority contractors, as well as overall contractor prequalification were not discovered. Therefore, the selected articles examine information systems, as they have been applied to various aspects of the NBC industry, to establish a foundation for the development of a construction management information 40 system (CMIS) to assist contractor prequalification. A common aspect of the selected readings is the implicit and explicit need for a system of collecting, tracking, processing and storing information relevant to the management of construction projects, which is the basis for the pursuit of this research. 41 CHAPTER 3: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (CMIS) CONCEPTS 3.0 Introduction The construction industry is highly dependent on collecting, processing and transferring information. On a typical project, as displayed in Figure 3.1, key participants (i.e. owners, designers, construction managers, contractors etc.) communicate project related data in order to perform subsequent tasks or phases on a daily basis. Therefore, there is a need to manage information such that it is accurate, consistent and available when needed. Othenrvise, a breakdown in information management could have adverse effects on the project such as delays, cost overruns and corrective work. Information management is important from project inception to completion, warranting the development of construction management information system (CMIS). In many industries such as manufacturing, information systems are the means by which information is managed. Before a good information system can be designed, it is imperative to know the basic concepts of a database. In understanding databases, there should be a good understanding of data, information and how it is represented in an information system. Development of a good information system will depend on the level of understanding of the fore mentioned concepts. 3.1 Data, Information and Knowledge A fundamental aspect of any information system is understanding the 42 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (NINER ml commerce : cousmucnou ” mean Figure 3.1: Construction Project Data Flow 43 information it will manage. This section will establish the basis of this understanding by differentiating between data, information and knowledge. This content will be revisited in the data modeling sections to gain a deeper and more precise understanding of data and how it’s represented in an information system. Material in this section was derived from Syal’s (1999) Computer Integrated Construction Management class material and Rob and Coronel’s (2000) textbook on database systems. 3.1.1 Data Defined Data is defined as raw facts that can be language, numbers and/or symbols that describes real life objects such as people, events and concepts. The recipients, for whom the data is of interests to, will be referred to hereafter as end users or users. In Figure 3.2, data is represented at the top level as a bid submitted by a single contractor for a particular work package. The datum is merely a dollar value, which tells nothing more than the contractor’s estimated cost for performing the work. Data by itself has minimal meaning to the end user; therefore it must be transformed into information. 3.1.2 Information Defined Information is defined as data that has been processed, in such a way that is provides the end users with useful knowledge. Information is critical to the WWII LEVEL 1 - DATA Contractor 1 Bid: $10,550 no steam WORK PACKAGE #1 W couriwztoa 1 comRACTonz courRAc'roaa : LOW BID: $10,550 HIGH BIDS $12,500 w 510.55) K): 312.500 a). $11,075 BID MARGIN. $2,050 AVG. ESTIMATED COST: $11,375 PROJECT A . LEVEL 3- KNOWLEDGE WORK PACKAGE #1 7} PROJECT A‘ LOW BIDDERS ooumcrom coummoaz‘ commons 1 ,5 Work Package #1: Contractor 1 ; . Work Package #2: Contractor 2 an: $10,550 an $12500 an $11,075 ' Work Package #3; Contractor 1 (Knowledge gained about contractors’ bidding style) WORK PACKAGE #2 commcrom CONTRACTOR: comnmoaa WORK PACKAGE #3 Figure 3.2: Data, Information and Knowledge 45 analysis of project conditions, by which decisions can be made and acted upon. There are two categories that all information falls under, formal and informal. Formal information is objective in nature, external to the end user and is derived from sources of hard facts such as: contracts, specifications, drawings and resource constraints. lnforrnal information is subjective in nature and is the product of the end users analysis of data. Forms of informal information are as follows: opinion, judgments, personal experience, intuition and hearsay. lnfonnal information can be used in conjunction with formal information or as a substitute when formal information is not available for decision-making. In Figure 3.2, information is represented at the second level by a collection of all bids submitted by contractors for a work package. From this collected data, the user can identify the low bidder, determine the average estimated cost and derive the difference between the lowest and highest bid. This information can be used to make key decisions such as selecting a contractor or the re-bidding work package in lieu of substantial marginal differences amongst the bidders. Further processing of information results in a deeper knowledge, crucial to key long-term decisions of upper management. 3.1.3 Knowledge Defined Knowledge defined is the processing of information such that end users are provided with a deeper understanding of reality. This deeper understanding can be viewed the same way as knowledge of an experienced project manager or other upper-level management personnel. Through a comprehensive analysis 46 of compiled information or past experiences, conclusions can be drawn and used as lessons Ieamed for the basis of decision-making on future projects. In Figure 3.2, the collection of bids for all work packages of a project, are compared to identify the contractors who were successful bidders throughout the project Contractors who were successful bidders on multiple packages could be considered for future closed bid situations, where the project manager must come up with a shortlist of contractors who will likely provide the most competitive estimates. 3.2 Basic Database System Concepts The database system is the core component of any information system. The effectiveness of the information system is highly dependent on the quality of the database system and its design. Understanding what a database system is and how it functions is critical to the development of a quality information system. This section will examine the basic concepts of a database system. Material in this section was derived from Syal’s (1999) Computer Integrated Construction Management class material and Rob and Coronel’s (2000) textbook on database systems. 3.2.1 The Database The database is where data is stored and managed. In addition to storing data, the database houses metadata, which is data about data. An example of metadata would be a contract bid amount stored as an integer. In the database, 47 the contractor bid amount would be declared of type integer using the respective database coding language. The data stored within the database is the origin of information that will be used to support decision-making of end users; therefore data contents must be accurate, accessible and consistent. Data redundancy is a major concern of databases designers. A good database design will structure data in such a way that it is not duplicated, thus reducing the possibilities of data deficiencies. A fundamental concept of database design is normalization, defined as storing one fact in one place. By normalizing the database, the occurrence of abnormal data, called anomalies, are greatly reduced. There are three kinds of data anomalies that create inconsistent data in databases: insertion, modification and deletion. As an example, consider a project database that stores contractor bid amounts in three locations. An insertion anomaly would occur when the user must enter a bid amount in three places. A modification anomaly occurs when the user must change a bid amount in three places. A deletion anomaly occurs when the user has to delete a bid amount in three places. In either case, when dealing with a large number of contractors, the increased number of entries, modifications and/or deletions increases the possibility of mistakes and resultant inconsistent data. Databases with inconsistent data will produce bad information, resulting in incorrect analyses and bad decision-making of end users, thus making normalization a crucial concept in developing databases for information systems. 48 3.2.2 The Database Management System (DBMS) The database management system is a software application that manages the data within the database. The DBMS provides the means by which data is transformed into information, needed to support the operations and decisions of the end users. As explained in section 3.1.2, information is the result of processed data. The DBMS has an embedded query language that is used to process data. A query is basically a question asked by the end user, which the DBMS processes and returns an answer. In Figure 3.3, a query is used to determine the average bid for a work package. The DBMS takes the user's request, extracts the needed data from the database, performs the calculation and return the value. From this point on, the end user would only need to enter the data into the database and DBMS would provide the results. To execute queries, the DBMS can perform the following processes to return the requested information: capturing, verifying, classifying, sorting, summarizing, calculating, retrieving, reproducing and disseminating (Syal 1999). Either a single process or a combination of theses processes can be used to yield results. The processes used to determine the average bid are shown in Figure 3.3. The DBMS is a powerful tool that makes use of databases easy and efficient by automating tasks performed by end users. In addition, it provides the user with an integrated view of data so that analysis can be performed and accurate decisions can be made quickly. 49 DATABASE /1 7),};- MANAGEMENT \ r j SYSTEII DATA PROCESSES 1.Reln'ewAl|ConlraclorBidAmomls ZCoullNlrlberolBids 3.8ImAlIConlracl0I BidMlomls 4.DllideSlmolBidAm0lrtsbyNunberoiBlds 5.0mm Figure 3.3: Data Processing 50 PROJECT DATABASE 3.3 Basic Data Modeling Concepts In a database system, database management systems (DBMS) are pre- designed software packages that are used to handle the management and processing of data. As a result, system design should focus on the representation of data within the database. It has been said that good DBMS will perform poorly when the database is designed incorrectly, thus the success of an information system relies heavily on good representation of data through the use of models. This section will examine basic data modeling concepts important to developing a conceptual database model. The primary source of this material in this section was derived from McCarthy’s (1999) Enterprise Information Systems class material Rob and Coronel’s (2000) textbook on database systems. 3.3.1 Data Models A key aspect of designing databases is understanding how data will be represented in an information system. This is achieved through developing a database model, which is the graphical representation of real world objects and events. Database models are categorized into two groups, implementation models and conceptual models. While the implementation model deals with the physical representation of data, the conceptual model places emphasis on the logical representation. 3.3.1.1 Implementation Models Due to the technical nature of implementation models, they are of primary interest to system builders. These physical models depict data at a low level of 51 abstraction, concentrating on system implementation issue such as hardware, software and types of media used to transfer data. Types of implementation models are as follows: hierarchical models, network database models, relational database models, and object-oriented database models. In the database design phase, implementation issues are deferred and system designers shift their focus on the logical aspect of database modeling. 3.3.1.2 Conceptual Models Conceptual models are the logical representation of real world objects and events in an information system. Unlike implementation models, conceptual models represent data at a high level of abstraction and do not deal with the physical constructs (hardware, software, media etc.) of the database. Therefore, the development of a logical model that represents what will be represented in the database, is of primary interest to database designers. A widely used logical model in database design is the entity-relationship diagram. The development of an entity-relationship diagram is a key component of database design and will be the focus of this study. 3.3.2 The Entity-Relationship Diagram The entity-relationship (ERD) diagram is the graphical depiction of the logical database model. The ERD provides a conceptual view of the real world objects that will be represented in the database and how the coincide with one another, from which the final database design will be derived. The existence and 52 interaction of these objects is depicted by three major components of the diagram: entities, attributes and relationships. 3.3.2.1 Entities In an entity-relationship diagram, real world objects such as people, places and events are represented by entities. As shown in Figure 3.4, entities are depicted with a rectangular box with the entity name, normally capitalized. An important idea is the distinction between entity sets and instances of entities. An entity set represents grouping of objects into a common entity, while a single object is an instance of an entity. As an example, the entity contractor is used to identify the contractor object in a database, but ABC construction, Inc. represents an instance of contractor. 3.3.2.2 Attributes Characteristics of entities are defined and represented in an entity- relationship diagram as attributes. In Figure 3.4, the characteristics of the object contractor that will be shared by all contractors in' the database are ID#, name, address, city, state, zip and phone number. Theses characteristics then become the attributes for the contractor entity and are represented by a circle extending from the rectangular box with a connecting line. All entities have an attribute whose value is exclusive to an instance of that entity called a key attribute and is used to differentiate between instances. 53 l l l CONTRACTOR I ENTITY ,L---Ln--sss_l m# E ~—O NAME i —O ADDRESS CONTRACTOR -——0 CITY ‘ , : STATE ATTRIBUTES l H D ZIP L _ __ _ __ - —O PHONE NO. , 3 NAME I , .0 ““325” COMPOSITE KEY l CONTRACTOR I——Q STATE ATTRIBUTES I l—O ZIP 1 )——Q PHONE NO. L J -- BE m25 9 N £2 9 mmmmoo< o. T E... azOm . mm $9.09. 9 w mooo 5238 325.82. 0. mszz 59.0an o. w Him . CP £22 9 20:65.0me 9 P .Eo . 300 e. & mum—”nu.— ” W t >E.—.2w .1 w2<2 Howamm o womaow GZ_DZCm 5528 9 m ALLN 9 m whim 9 m >20 9 o wmmmoo< 9 m U s mDOo wOmDOm me O. .. xi 9 .. xi 9 .. mzoxe 9 .. mzoxe 9 5528 9 F0> .200 mm} w34<> ._.0m=.0mn_ Etc 192.“. mhEzm .1 w._. 9m 0.. :2 020m ._.E>m 01 h2< 020m ....Ewm 0.. W55 05 0.. a m0<¥0 ma «T woOO FOMBDm am 0.. FIELD PERSONNEL w..»: W 0522 OFFICE ERSONNEL I E'm PROJECT < e w m mm m w.:.._.—. 0.. “G A AA P m2<2 0.. W m wOOU .1 8 H5385 N . . N wmw>04m2m “.0 .02 :2... 01 t mZOIn. 01 R 85.200 9 m N mfi o. c N whim 0.. M >._._0 O. T 00059.. 9 M m=§\8 a c ,. , \ \ / CMIGC FINANCIAL — >ch>r m>_..mm r VIOZm a 002.304 N=u m4>._.m 9.2 2003me m>zx Z>Zm I. m>zx m0c30m 000m BANK 6000000 0mra_m_0)._._02 D>._.m .uIOZm g maxim 0:4 >oommmm >Omzo< 23m 3ERTIFICATION 5:?0 a) 53> IvQBE/WBE/DBE acWIaIification Data Model p I of thc Gn‘ Contractor Entity: The contractor entity represents the contractors who are evaluated for prequalification. The contractor has composite key attributes of contractor source code and contractor subject code, which means the contractor belongs to both the comment source and subject group. The remaining attributes for the contractor entity is company name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number, fax number and number of employees. Officers, Office Personnel and Field Personnel Entities: The entities officers, office personnel and field personnel are where data on the key people in the contractor’s firm is stored. Name, title and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code, formulate the key of these entities. The remaining attributes for these entities are title and years with the firm. These entities share the key of contractor due to the existence-dependence condition and as a means of uniquely depicting personnel from contractor to contractor. Without this convention, people with the same names and titles could not be differentiated within the database. The officers, office personnel and field personnel entities all have one-to-many relationships with the contractor entity. Financial Entity: The financial entity is where financial data on the contractor is collected and stored. Annual sales, years and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code, formulate the key of the financial entity. The financial entity has a one-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. MBENVBEIDBE Certification Entity: The MBE/WBE/DBE certification entity is where data on the contractor’s certification is collected and stored. The 87 entry number attribute is the key of this entity. The remaining attributes are agency name, address, city, state, phone number and certification date. MBENVBE/DBE certification has a one-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. Bank Entity: The bank entity is where data on the contractor's bank is collected and stored. Bank source code is the key attribute, meaning that this entity belongs to the comment source group. The remaining attributes are bank name, address, city, state, zip, contact and phone number. The bank entity has a many-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. Safety Entity: The safety entity is where safety data on the contractor is collected and stored. Experience modification rate (EMR), year and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code, formulate the key of safety. The remaining attribute for this entity is number of accidents. The safety entity has a one-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. Bonding Entity: The bonding entity is where bonding data on the contractor is collected and stored. Bonding source code is the key attribute and also represents the bonding entity belonging to the comment source group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, fax number and bonding capacity. The bonding entity has a one-to-many relationship with contractor. Insurance Entity: The insurance entity is where data on the contractor’s insurance is collected and stored. Insurance source code is the key attribute and represents the entity belonging to the comment source group. The remaining 88 attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number and fax number. The insurance entity has a one—to-many relationship with the contractor entity. Trades Entity: The trades entity is where data on the trades a contractor employs is collected and stored. Trade name and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code, formulates the key for the trade. The remaining attributes are description, union affiliation and years of experience. The trades entity has a many-to-many relationship with the contactor entity. Current Projects Entity: The current project entity is where data on the projects the contractor is currently involved is collected and stored. Start date, finish date and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code, formulates the key for current projects. The remaining attributes are description, project name, address, city, state, bond amount, contract sum and percentage self-performed. The entity has a one-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. Past Projects Entity: The past project entity is where data on the contractor’s past completed projects is collected and stored. The attribute entry number is the key for past projects. The remaining attributes are description, project name, address, city, state, contract sum and percentage self-perfonned, start date and finish date. The entity has a one-to-many relationship with the contractor entity. 89 Subcontractor Entity: The subcontractor entity is where data on subs the contractor employed on past projects is collected and stored. The key of subcontractor is subcontractor source code, meaning that the entity belongs to the comment source group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number and fax number. Subcontractor has a one-to- many relationship with the past project entity. Supplier Entity: The supplier entity is where data on suppliers the contractor purchased materials from on past projects is collected and stored. The key of supplier is supplier source code, meaning that the entity belongs to the comment source group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number and fax number. Supplier has a one-to-many relationship with the past project entity. Owner Entity: The owner entity is where data about the owner of the contractor’s past projects is collected and stored. The key of owner is owner source code and owner subject code, meaning that the entity belongs to both the comment source group and comment subject group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number and fax number. Owner has a one-to-many relationship with past projects. CMIGC Entity: The CMIGC entity is where data about the construction managers and/or general contractors of the contractor’s past projects is collected and stored. The key of owner is owner source code and owner subject code, meaning that the entity belongs to both the comment source group and comment subject group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, 90 contact, phone number and fax number. Owner has a one-to-many relationship with past projects. NE Entity: The NE entity is where data about the NE of the contractor’s past projects is collected and stored. The key of NE is NE source code and NE subject code, meaning that the entity belongs to both the comment source group and comment subject group. The remaining attributes are name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone number and fax number. The NE entity has a one-to- many relationship with past projects entity. Project Entity: The project entity is where data about the project, for which contractors are qualifying to bid, is collected and stored. Project subject code is the key attribute, meaning that the entity belongs to the comment subject group. The remaining attributes are project number, project name, start date, finish date, project value, MBE goal, WBE goal and DBE goal. Project has a one-to-many relationship with the bid package entity. Additionally, the entities owner, NE and CMIGC is where information about these project participants, relative to the project is collected and stored. The entities show up twice in Figure 4.1, but they are actually the same entities with the same attributes. This was done for ease of representation and minimizing a cluttered diagram. All of these entities have a one-to-many relationship with the project entity. Bid Package Entity: The bid package entity is where data on the bid packages for the project is collected and stored. Bid package subject code is the key attribute, meaning the entity belongs to the comment subject group. The remaining attributes for bid package are bid package number, bid date, 91 performance bond amount, payment bond amount, bid value, start date and finish date. Bid package has a one-toomany relationship with the contractor entity and the CSI division entity. CSI Division Entity: The CSI division entity is where data on the CSI divisions relative to the project, trades, project, bid packages and the contractor is collected and stored. The key attribute for CSI division is the entry number attribute. The remaining attributes are CSI section number, division and description. The CSI division entity has a many-to-many relationship with trades and a one-to-many with contractor. Qualifying Agent: The qualifying agent entity represents the person(s) within the database that will qualify contractors for bidding purposes. Qualifying agent source code is the key attribute, meaning that the entity belongs to the comment source group. The remaining attributes are name and title. The qualifying agent is associated with the bid package entity, in that there may be different agents for different bid packages through the course of the project. The relationship between qualifying agent and bid package is one-to-many. 4.3.4 Relationships between Entities and Composite Keys Up to this point, relationships between entities and composite keys have been described in generic terms. Each entity is associated with one or more entities, representing one or more relative aspects of prequalification. To provide a general understanding of how relationships and the use of composite keys in a data model represent the reality of the contractor prequalification process, the 92 contractor-past projects relationship and the key of contractor as a composite key for officers, office personnel and field personnel will be examined. In Figure 4.4A, a relationship is shown between the contractor entity and past project entity, with a connectivity of one-to-many. As explained in section 3.3.2.5, the existence of contractor and past project are independent of each other, therefore there is an independent-existence condition. The reality that contractors who are qualifying for a construction project must provide information on their past-completed projects is represented by this relationship. In most cases, the construction manager(s) will request that each contractor provide two or more past projects. The data model represents this reality with the one-to- many connectivity, which implies that each contractor in the database will have multiple past projects recorded, but each past project will be attributed to only one contractor. As explained in section 3.3.2.5, the officers, office personnel and field personnel entities are dependent on the existence of the contractor entity, therefore there is an existence dependency, making them weak entities and contractor the parent entity. As shown in Figure 4.48, the key of the entities officers, office personnel and field personnel is a composite key comprised of name, title and the key of contractor, contractor source code and contractor subject code. The reality that two or more contractors in the database could have people in within their firms with the same name and title, thus by including the key of contractor as part of the composite key, multiple entries of John Smith who is a project manager can be attributed to a specific contractor. 93 $96:sz 8 .oz Galillllliil M 32“. mi 0 .029... Ci 0 5&200 0... m E e~ a». 9 E50 of P E0 01 D. 80003 Cl ”m M 0322 .00 Q1 M w .w 080 5038 00 Q. / F 0000 8300 00 CI . .m m // d L ,/ . N n a /./ ..L x H N mm 1/ /,// M R BE / .. ,, , 9 H r ”a; / k\\\\v/ ///././. m L ‘0; $8665 .6 .0: milk? lri O _ C 33. mg 5 _ .mzoLLnL . e L N 55200 9. m P .m. ..L, o N ...... 9 a h .....x c m llllIlII. I L“... m 4 , a 1 \\ E 0 or m o 9 L 0059 AI u L. a $3: 0322 .00 Or ... h 1 L .I. BE 00 8083 00 I m 9 L m 0322 0 00.58 00 0.. a R L P \\ L .... t L a L P .I L .. m L a .. L 4. m I III.» E3 Imzu Q. n M ES ES.» 0-- u c omzxoumma Bum: Q m 9 .. :30 8.2500 E H SE B ELLE r. m L $22 4 E o L 4. 80009 O- m _L m 0.22 803%. P ,L 0 20.5530 Q. , 2,520 l _ m s I 4.4 infr sys the DB Ful con del 4.4 Summary As explained in Chapter 3: CMIS Concepts, the data model becomes the infrastructure of the implementation of that database in a database management system (DBMS). In order to fully implement the CMIS, the following aspects of the prequalification data model would have to be incorporated into the selected DBMS: o NI entities, attributes and relationships . Coding for executing all of the relevant procedures for contractor prequalification (queries, visual basic, macros etc.) . Data entry screens would be developed for the users’ interface with the actual database when inputting the necessary data. 0 Structured reports used for the prequalification process Full implementation is beyond the scope of this research, therefore only a conceptual implementation scheme and a prototype of the system will be developed and presented for proof of concept in Chapter 5. 95 CHAPTER 5: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT 5.0 Introduction In this chapter, the development of the CMIS contractor prequalification prototype and its proof of concept will be examined. Full implementation of the CMIS would involve delivering a system that incorporates the entire data model, establishing standardized procedures and a coding system consistent with the operations of a particular firm, running various system test, data conversion, training and support. The scope of this research is to provide a strong basis for a complete CMIS implementation; therefore an implementation scheme is presented and prototype was developed and evaluated for its usefulness as a fully implemented information system. 5.1 Implementation Scheme In this section, a scheme for a complete implementation of the CMIS will be developed. The proposed scheme will make assumptions concerning the parameters by which the contractor data will be evaluated. It should be noted that the parameters used are not limiting, such that implementing this scheme could use different measures conducive to the specific practices of a firm, but they are a means of deriving a result and building on this concept. In chapter 4, a complete data model representing the data requirements for the prequalification process was developed and is presented again in Figure 5.1. In order to fully implement a CMIS for contractor prequalification, the 96 «O Ill. - II...// rut-----.. w..-Lu>0..n=20 .00 .02 O n..-....-.n ...I,-.-1 N /\ . - I ...... L 51.0505... .- I I . 080“”an «A.» In - . LII ...- I\ w.. 0-: - w :45.) u 3.02 ~.v>i?. N s - .. H E c 1 m 00<0> 9 o 00.0» 0.52 . N 02w . 0500.00... 00 .02 9 v N H F A S N S E D - A 1. 00<0> 9 m N 20.2: 0.. N N 20.500000 9 .. 0L200 9 0000 9 LL 09%.... W n LL 050 o. 0522 60800 9 000000 02.0200 0 55.200 9 m 0_~ 9 M N 0050 9 m N N N 000000< 9 m 0022 9 w .. 1 1 0000 000000 000 0. .. LL 020 9 may... 0 ...... 0- 0.05.200 O. -_.o<._.zOo W a 02". a x00 9 N 55200 9 E0 9 w 000000< 9 w 00 9 0.0 9 5 05:0 9 m 00:0 9 E 000000< 9 0522 9 >00 9 I E0 9 M 0022 9 0000 50300 30 0. w 000000< 9 000000< 9 0000 000000 000 o. 0000 000000 30 0. 0022 9 0022 9 was ...Omaam 0030 O. mooo ...Omaaw m2 0. 0000 000000 0030 o. 0000 000000 02 o. Contractor PIIilio n FIGURE 5.1 97 woOO FOmBDw 0.05.005 N mm 20.500000 0. m 20.0.20 0. m L 20.500 .00 O. m L>0ez0 00.0» 0.5 02.2 N N Driu» w3.2> #090an w22 009.003 ...2 020m 02>m 0. .02 0200 .0.me 0. mDOO 009.95 mm 0. .200 wmo .200 wm>> .200 mm: wh 9m 0.. W20 9m 0. a m004m2m “.0 .02 a 2“— t szIn. 0.030200 mmmmoo< CMIGC 0.5 9 ws22 01 m000 momDOm <0 QUALIFYING AGENT n=N mh<._.m >.:0 :ONTRACTOR ’ \ FINANCIAL _ L IBE/WBE/DBE :RTIFICATION >220? 02.00 0 00020. E 00229 .0 0..u K .0 0200 m .0 0.2 a .0 500000 .0 0>zx 22.0 .0 0.22 000000 0000 000029002 030 00020 L 04>qm 0.2 >000m00 )szo< ..alification Data Model in. er 00 Th selected database management system (DBMS) would have to incorporate the entire data model and provide a means of processing data into useful information for the selection and/or elimination of prospective bidders. The specific constructs of the DBMS procedures will not be covered in detail, but will be covered in concept with the understanding that each elimination, evaluation and selection can be executed with the help of corresponding procedure(s). The implementation scheme consists of two stages, an elimination stage and evaluation stage. In the elimination stage, prospective contractors are eliminated, based on preset parameters determined by the construction managers. Subsequently in the evaluation stage, those contractors remaining from the elimination stage are evaluated, based on the predefined parameters and given a final score, by which construction managers can use to make their final selection. It should be noted that some procedures in the elimination scheme could be placed in the evaluation stage, and vice versa, depending on the specific operations of the firm. 5.1.1 The Elimination Stage As mentioned earlier, the entire data model represents all that would be incorporated in a fully implemented CMIS for contractor prequalification. Each entity contains relevant data, from which information is processed to eliminate contractors, based on the parameters established by the construction manager. The selected sequence of processes is only suggested, and could be changed to 98 address the specific operations of a firm or all processes could be executed simultaneously by the selected database management system (DBMS). In Figure 5.2, five procedures by which contractors can be eliminated are shown. At the far left are the associated entities from the data model from which the needed data is extracted. In the middle are the procedures where parameters are set that contractors must satisfy or be eliminated. Again, the procedures are conceptual depictions of the actual coding language required to process data and derive a result. At the far right are the results of the procedures, contractors who have satisfied the parameters. The first process is to select contractors who provide the needed Construction Specification Institute (CSI) coverage. The sources of the data are the tables, Contractor, Bid Package and CSI Division. Contractors with recorded CSI divisions equal to the bid package are selected and are stored as procedure 1 results. These results become the selected group of contractors for the next process. The second process is to select contractors who have the proper MBE/WBEIDBE certification. The sources of the data are MBE/WBE/DBE Certification and the results from the first procedure. Contractors who have a certification are selected and are stored as procedure 2 results. These results become the selected group of contractors for the next process. The third process is to select contractors who have the required insurance coverage. Insurance and the results of procedure 2 are the sources of the data 99 CONTRACTOR . ' I. “WM 1 I . .. L‘— — '7 0‘ ~ —w — w PROCEDUREI I. # CSI DIVISION I DATA CONTRACTORCSI I INFORMATION «* RESULTS ”0" ‘ " ‘ ' I MUSTEOUAL ' "" " "I -_ L... L L. LI BID PACKAGE-CSI I DID PACKAGE I I PROCEDUREI g __ RESULTS I PRWEDIRE 2 I . \ L. II 7: ' “GENE/DBE " " " T PROCEDURE1 RESULTS T " ’ PROCEDURE’ ’ CERTIFICATION LL95: /,5 MUST HAVEA BEEOT'OW' RESULTS I I," MBEIWBEIDBE ' - CERTIFICATION Ez‘ ‘ I PROCEDURE2 2‘ / RESULTS PROCEDURE 3 I 3‘? - INSURANCE f ‘WDATA‘ /l» PROCEDURE2RESULTS [INFORMATION k mggguot’g“ .7‘ "“ “ ‘ MUSTHAVEA "’ * "'I , " INSURANCE I" ., ,. _, , j“ a’r—fl w—.\\ PRoceouaea ~: PROCEDURE4 ‘ RESULTS ” I I" L L L . ‘ PROCEDURE2RESULTS - L -- :55 I ”‘37 DATA MUST HAVE AN AVERAGE INFORMATION ,\ ”$3.25 ‘ — —* -A PROJECTS "Mr wI CONTRACT SUM EQUAL "—"““ If " TO OR MORE THAN BID " ,, BID PACKAGE \ VALUE " PROCEDURES if RESULTS I“ '. ' - moms / PRCXIEDLREG N L__.. L -.J PROCEDURESRESULTS ..-. . ..- I\ :RURRENIJ DATA \r: MUST HAVE AVAILABLE I INFORMATION f/ 0:333:55 OJECTS — —-> 0- TI ’ " ‘ T I/ BONDING CAPACITY """M I .‘ EQUAL TO OR GREATER " L BIO PACKAGE THAN eID PACKAGE BOND Figure 5.2: The Elimination Stage of Contractor Prequalification 100 to processed. Those contractors with insurance are selected and stored as procedure 3 results. These results become the selected group of contractors for the following process. The fourth process is to select contractors who have a recorded average contract sum from past projects equal to or more than the bid value. The tables Past Projects, Bid Package and the results from procedure 3 are the data sources. Contractors who satisfy the parameters become the selected group for the fifth process. The final process of the elimination stage is to select contractors who have the required bonding capacity for the bid package. The tables Bonding, Current Projects, Bid Package and the results from procedure 5 are the sources of the data. Contractors who satisfy the parameters become the selected group for the remaining procedures in the evaluation stage. 5.1.2 The Evaluation Stage The next stage of the scheme is an evaluation of those contractors who satisfied all of the parameters of the elimination stage. In the evaluation stage, there are four procedures, by which each contractor is evaluated and given a score of 6, 4 or 2. These scores will be placed into a scoring matrix, shown in Table 5.1, categorized by financial stability, experience, management and safety, which are the four top ranking contractor selection criteria from the survey of construction managers in chapter 4. Each category will carry a weight, designated by the firm, and will be used to return a total score out of 6 for each 101 contractor across all categories. The weights assigned in Table 5.1 reflect the resultant rankings from the survey, but can be changed to address the specific needs of a firm. Table 5.1: Contractor Scoring Matrix I; ‘ CONTRACTORA ’ Weighted Score Category Weight Score (Weight x Score) financial Stability 0.50 6 3 [Experience 0.25 4 1 fianagement 0.10 2 0.2 Eran. 0.15 2 0.3 Total 4.5 In Figure 5.3, the four procedures used to evaluate the remaining contractors are shown. At the far left, are the results of procedure 5 from the elimination stage and the associated entities, from which the needed data is extracted. In the middle are the processes, from which the scores will be derived. At the right is the category where the resultant score will be recorded. In procedure 6, the past projects of the remaining contractors are evaluated for the percentage the bid value is to their average annual sales as a means of assessing their ability to finance the relative bid package. The sources of the data are the tables, Financial, Bid Package and the results of procedure 5 from the elimination stage. For a percentage of 25% and less a score of 6 is assigned. A score of 4 is assigned for percentages ranging from 26% - 50% and a score of 2 is assigned to a percentage 51% or more. The score is applied to the financial stability category in the matrix. In procedure 7, the contractors’ average years of experience of the trades and field supervision they will employ, is evaluated. The tables, Trades, Field 102 DATA SOURCE PROCESS RESULT W inochuui " #—— i1»? I——fi‘ DETERIDJETHE ** I \‘ , _,. , i PERcairAGE BID VALUE ‘ l ”WWW” I FINANCIAL I I ISOFAVERAGEANNUAL I I I swam . ‘ SALES FOR AND ASSIGN I I , scone , ‘ I 7 25% or less = 6 51%ormore=2 PROCEDURE 1 DETERMNE AVERAGE I YEARS or EXPERENOE ‘ AND ASSIGN SCORE PROCEDURE 5 RESULTS PROCEDURE 8 I I DETERMINE AVERAGE I YEARS OF mneme ‘ I ___ I I I I ANDASSlGNSCORE (mfoRuiAnon- I ’ ‘i MANAGBENT I PROCEDURE 8 I DEM AM EWERENOE WDFICATION RATE \ I “FORMATION: .75 or less = 6 .74—1.0=4 1.09me Figure 5.3: The Evaluation Stage of Contractor Prequalification 103 Personnel and the results of procedure 5 are the sources of the data. A score of 6 is assigned for an average of 15 years or more, 4 is assigned for averages ranging from14 - 5 years of experience and 2 is assigned for 4 years or less. The resultant score is applied to the experience category of the matrix. Management is evaluated by the average years of experience of the contractors’ officers and office personnel who will be involved in the project. The tables Officers, Office Personnel and the results from procedure 5 are the sources of the data. A score of 6 is assigned for an average of 15 years or more, 4 is assigned for averages ranging from14 - 5 years of experience and 2 is assigned for 4 years or less. The resultant score is applied to the management category of the matrix. In the seventh and final procedure, contractors are evaluated for their average Experience modification rate (EMR). The table, Safety, and the results from procedure 5 are the sources of the data. For an EMR of .75 and lower a score of 6 is assigned, a score of 4 is assigned for EMR’s ranging from .74 - 1.0 and a score of 2 is assigned for 1.09 and higher. The resultant score is applied to the safety category in the matrix. 5.1.3 Selection of Contractors The proposed scheme for the implementation of the CMIS is to assist the contractor prequalification process, therefore its purpose is not to automate the complete process, but only automate certain tasks, allowing construction managers more time to make judgment-based decisions in their final selection. 104 De Inf: OI: Upon completion of the elimination and evaluation stages, a list of qualified contractors and their scores are recorded. Additional, coding can produce a report listing references of the remaining contractors, from which construction managers can use to confirm recorded data and validate the scoring with the personal account of owners, A/E’s, CMIGC’s, Subcontractors and Suppliers from the past projects. Based on the final scoring derived from the elimination and evaluation stages and the recorded comments of references, a final selection can be made. 5.1.4 Summary of Implementation The proposed scheme for implementation encompasses the entire data model on a conceptual basis only. Through the detailed constructs of system building and coding, this scheme can be expanded into a physical implementation. The scope of this research is to build a framework on which full implementation can be realized, therefore only one of the processes was selected for the prototype development. Based author’s past experience and concerns disclosed in the follow-up interviews, the fourth process of the elimination stage, the past project size, was selected. Again, it should be noted that the selected procedures and their placement in either the elimination stage or evaluation stage is only a suggested scheme. Depending on the firm, some procedures in the elimination stage could be placed into the evaluation stage and vice versa. One such procedure is the elimination of contractors based on their past projects, procedure 4 of the elimination stage. 105 This procedure could be an evaluation measure, but it was selected as an eliminating procedure for the purpose of the research and for developing the CMIS prototype. 5.2 The CMIS Prototype In Figure 5.4, a complete information system is shown as a system with multiple modules. Each module could be a particular component, all of which combined make up the fully implemented system. Prototyping is illustrated with a shaded box, which represents developing a chosen module(s) of the system, such that systems users will be able to assess the usefulness of a complete system implementation, commonly referred to in the Information System (IS) community as proof of concept. Images in this thesis are presented in color. I I I INFORMATION SYSTEM I I _ I ~—~—-—-—1 I MODULE 1 ' MODULE 2 I MODULE 3 I MODULE 4 I I I .___L_______ ____ _i __-_ __ .. ___. L ___ ________# Figure 5.4: System Prototype (Source: McCarthy, 1999) 106 ‘- Mic The entire data model presented in the previous chapter has been reduced to a few entities and relationships, as shown in Figure 5.5. This model represents the portion of the full model that was implemented into a database prototype, using Microsoft Access, and submitted to selected CM firms for proof of concept. 5.2.1 Microsoft Access Prototype Tables In Microsoft Access, entities of a data model are represented with a table. The table serves as a storage area for the data of that particular entity. The entity’s attributes are further represented by column headings within the table. For each table, a primary key is defined and represents the key attribute of the entity. In addition, some tables will have the key attribute(s) of related tables defined as foreign key attributes. A table with its relative attributes was developed for each entity in the data model shown in Figure 5.5. In Figure 5.6, the contractor entity is shown as it represented in a data model and table in the Access prototype. The key attributes, Contractor Source Code and Contractor Subject code, are represented with a key icon to the left of the field name. The attribute, Bid Package Subject Code, is the key attribute of the bid package entity, which also serves as a foreign key in the contractor table. 5.2.2 Microsoft Access Prototype Relationships The relationships between entities in a data model are established in Microsoft Access through the use of the foreign keys. By posting the key 107 .32.... 01 DNZCOnEma ”Smm axa 01 23m FOEHZOO Oi $295 0. m 5528 o. m an o. m whim o. m >to O. 0 mmmmoo... O. M £22 ? w B8 858 mam e. «32". 0.. $201“. 9 5528 0. EN 9 55¢ 9 EU 0. mwmmoo< 0. $52 800 mOmDOm Lam SUPPLIER m._.mhzm .1 PAST PROJECTS . -.. W. a xi 0. a szIn_ 0. Bfizoo 0. an 0. m2; 0. t6 0. Sumo? ? mszz o. 38 #888 30 e. 88 momam 26 1 OWNER ‘ x.:O Oi wmmmoo< Oi m2 howama DESIGNER m._. 9m 0. A :2 onm :56 ot w 35 ot $2 028 mama O. M £22 on a $5.9“. 9m 0. a 8:38 <0 0. QUALIFYING AGENT mmw>04m2m ”.0 .OZ >20 01 mmmeD< 0.. m2 Qm E< 0200 #5).“ . E< DZOm Emma _ m._.04n2m no .02 Oi Eo mi mango? Oi 352.8 or wood L838 8 .1 moon. mumDOm co .1 Microsoft Access Prototype ip Representation H I Entity Relationsh Figure 5.7 111 Contractor Table (Datasheet View) 112 therefore data entry for the simplest database applications could be quite complicating. Access allows the creation of forms to serve as a user-friendly interface for entering data into the various tables. In the Access prototype, forms were designed to guide users through the data entry required for each table, provide sequential flow for using the prototype and assist with navigating between forms. The form created for entering contractor data is shown at the bottom of Figure 5.8. A subforrn is defined as a form within a form and is used to capture data for a table that is related to data in another table. Referring back to the one-to—many relationship between contractor and bid package in Figure 5.7, a bid package can have many prospective contractors, therefore the bid package-contractor form allows data to be entered in contractor subforrn for all prospective bidders on a particular bid package. The continue and previous buttons were created to advance to the next form or go back to the preceding form to make revisions to existing data. As mentioned earlier, these buttons were developed for all forms to provide a sequential order for data entry and navigating between forms. 5.2.4 Microsoft Access Prototype Queries Queries are the means by which database management systems process data into information. Typically, queries will collect data from a table and/or other queries, apply the parameters set by the user and return the resultant data, which can be sorted and further manipulated. In both the elimination and 113 evaluation stages of the implementation scheme, procedures are performed using queries and deliver the results based on the parameters in place. The parameters are set-up in the query design as criteria using a convention called structured query language (SQL). In Figure 5.9, the procedure from the elimination stage that was chosen as the prototype implementation is shown as it appears in the elimination stage diagram in Figure 5.2, in the Access query design view and the applicable SQL for the query criteria for selection. The query collects the contract values from the past project of each contractor, comes up with an average and lists those contractors who’s average contract sum is equal to, or greater than the bid value of the relative bid package. 5.2.5 Microsoft Access Prototype Reports The information derived from the processes of a database management system is of little use, unless it can be presented in an organized format and reports are the means by which information is grouped, sorted and presented. Like queries, the information source could come from a tables and/or queries. Additionally, the reports can be formatted such that they provide the user(s) with the relevant information, organized for their specific needs. Reports in Access will enable users to produce and post calculated values, based on the reported information. A series of reports were developed as an end product of the prototype’s executed procedure. These same reports would be produced for the fully 114 Elimination Stage Diagram PROCEDURE 3 57‘ /" PROCEDURE 4 RESULTS I [I 7 . L _ PROCEDURE 2 RESULTS . ' I . PAST DATA . msr HAVE AN AVERAGE DNFORMATION / PROCEDURE 4 L L_ LL. PROJECTS .— -— . - . CONTRACT SUM EQUAL 7* e -. . .. RESULTS I - I I TO OR MORE THAN BID I" L BID PACKAGE I VALUE ¥ Microsoft Access Prototype Query (design view) QN'cmwflAccm Illentrecler niaVaIua: saga one”. ._ . ‘3; IQa-sauume-vtookmu-b . W _ III-vuwattji in?! wig-I! °aI£IAi . 395$ ELI J; LLIL LIL... .. MILL. MIKE 61400.31 - . . Sci-L. ,mm mean -. at: we rm . Figure 5. 9: Prototype Query 115 Prototype Query Criteria (SOL) ELECT Contractor.[Co Source Code], Contractor.[Co Subject Code], ontractor.[Co Name], Certification.Type, Contractor.Address, Contractor.City, ontractor.State, Contractor.Zip, Contractor.Contact, Contractor.Phone, ontractor.Fax, [Bid Package].[Bid Package Number], Project.[Project Name], Bid Package].[Bid Value], Avg([Past Projects].[Contract Suml) AS AngfContract Sum] ROM Project INNER JOIN (([Bid Package] INNER JOIN (Contractor INNE OIN [Past Projects] ON (Contractor.[Co Subject Code] = [Past Projects].[C ubject Code]) AND (Contractor.[Co Source Code] = [Past Projects].[Co Sour ode])) ON [Bid Package].[Bid Package Subject Code] = Contractor.[Bi ackage Subject Code]) INNER JOIN Certification ON (Contractor.[Co Subje ode] = Certification.[Co Subject Code]) AND (Contractor.[Co Source Code] ertification.[Co Source Code])) ON Project.[Project Subject Code] = [Bid ackage].[Project Subject Code] ROUP BY Contractor.[Co Source Code], Contractor.[Co Subject Code], ontractor.[Co Name], CertificationType, Contractor.Address, Contractor.City, ontractor.State, Contractor.Zip, Contractor.Contact, Contractor.Phone, ontractor.Fax, [Bid Package].[Bid Package Number], Project.[Project Name], Bid Package].[Bid Value] AVING («Avg([Past Projects].[Contract Sum]))>[Bid Package]![Bid Value] Or Avg([Past Projects].[Contract Sum]))=[Bid Package]![Bid Value])); Figure 5.9: Prototype Query (cont’d) 116 implemented system, except that the reports would return the results from the execution of all the procedures from both, the elimination and evaluation stage, as opposed to the selected procedure for the prototype. The first report is a qualified contractor report that list the selected contractors for each bid package, grouped by MBENVBE/DBE certification and contractor and discloses the following contractor data: company name, address, city, state, zip, contact, phone and fax. The second report is a past-project report that lists the past projects of the qualified contractors, which could be used by the qualifying agent for further review of the type of projects completed by each contractor and assess whether or not they are applicable. The report is grouped by contractor and past project and discloses the following information: company name, project name, project description, contract sum, percentage self performed, start date and finish date. The third set of reports is the contractor-reference report that lists past- project references of qualified contractors. This report serves as a call list that the qualifying agent can use to contact references to get a personal account of a contractor’s performance and confirm the recorded data. A separate contractor- reference report was developed for owners, AlE’s, CMIGC’s, subcontractors and suppliers, grouped by contractor and past project and discloses the following information: company name, project name, owner name, contact, phone and fax. The prototype also provides a way for qualifying agents to record the comments of the various contractor references with the comments form. As shown in Figure 5.10, the comments form records the date the comment was 117 Microsoft Access Prototype Q Microsoft Access- Lfl lil- Ed in Inn-t twat Ban—«t Ids W the Min-h” All: II E 61317 I “ F '3’ n “3 21 it WE . I__Qj:* 55'_@__a Q. I grasses” .Ia . nzn E839: IJvIIF-Iav, CONTRACTOR corn-5m wmr—‘fi {EDT Cortactorldodbpqmaclonmduqniersmhemdflr ‘MLMWdNMMbth . . «5mm W ‘fuflhAu‘: “mm“: ‘_ . . I __J m- heard: u[« "_‘_1 p|u|n|d1 Iii-TM " ” I MI" MIccmefl IMJWL mm occurs.“ are mm", Figure 5.10: Contractor Comments Form 118 made, the description of the comment, the qualifying agent who recorded the comment and the concerning contractor. The description is where the qualifying agent could record the source of the comment (owners, AlE’s, CMIGC’s, subcontractors and suppliers) and the nature of the discussion. 5.3 Implementation Scheme and Prototype Proof of Concept For proof of concept, two of the six selected CM firms, for which follow-up interviews were conducted, were asked to participate in the evaluation of the implementation scheme and the prototype. Each firm was given the full implementation scheme outlined in section 5.1 for review and participated in a demonstration of the prototype, using data from a completed project provided by each subject and set of hypothetical contractor data developed by the author. Based on their experiences with the prequalification process, the respondents were asked to assess the following: . Accurateness and applicability of the implementation scheme . Functionality and features of the prototype . Usefulness of the prototype as a fully implemented CMIS for contractor prequalification Their final written evaluations sewed as proof of concept for this research, identifying areas in which the CMIS for contractor prequalification is beneficial and could be developed further. 119 5.3.1 Evaluation of the Implementation Scheme After reviewing the full implementation scheme, both firms concluded that both the procedures and their relative parameters, by which contractors were eliminated, evaluated and selected, were in line with how the prequalification process is currently administered. It was suggested that companies who did not have an organized contractor prequalification system, could benefit from the proposed scheme for selecting contractors for bidding purposes. Additionally, the scheme was successful in evaluating areas of major concern, regarding a contractor’s ability to successfully complete a project, such as management capabilities, financial stability, insurance, bonding and safety. 5.3.2 Evaluation of the Prototype Demonstration The evaluation of the prototype demonstration was preceded by the submission of data from a completed project from each subject. The parameters set for the projects were as follows: . Project value of $ 7 million or more . Anticipated utilization of minority contractors . Select two bid packages of proportional size Each subject was sent a set of forms to provide the relevant project data, which serves as preliminary templates for the collection of data for the proposed system, and is included in Appendix D. A hypothetical contractor base of 12 contractors was developed and applied a means of demonstrating how the prototype administers prequalification 120 process. The same contractor base was used for the projects submitted by both subjects, where 6 contractors were prospective bidders for each bid package. Data such as CSI division employment and MBENVBE/DBE certification was recorded for each contractor. Relevant data for 2 past projects for each contractor was developed and recorded. While the general contractor data was used for both subjects remained the same, the contract sum of the contractors” past projects was adjusted to correspond with relevant bid value of the bid packages. Provided in Appendix E is a set of forms used to develop the relevant contractor data and serves as preliminary templates for the collection of data for the proposed system. After the submission of the project data from each subject and the development of the contractor base were completed, the data was entered into the prototype, using the various data entry forms. Once the data was loaded into the prototype, a series of queries returning information the qualified contractors, as described in section 5.2.4, were executed and the resultant reports ,described in section 5.2.5, were produced. Provided in Appendix F are the reports produced from one demonstration. Subsequently, the demonstration was conducted during a personal office visit to each respondent. The subjects were taken through the data entry phase once, displaying how the project data provided was loaded into the prototype. After completion of the data entry phase, the queries were exhibited and 121 explained in detail. Hard copies of the final reports were printed out, reviewed and evaluated. In evaluating the prototype for its functionality, usefulness and its output, the conclusions of the subjects were as followed: a The prototype was easy to use, with a basic understanding of Microsoft Access. I o The data entry was viewed as a clerical task, but the structured forms would minimize problems transferring data into the prototype . The reports were found to be well organized and easy to interpret. . The contractor reference reports in particular, were viewed as being useful for contacting references of targeted contractors. Overall, both subjects deemed the prototype as being a potentially good tool for prequalifying contractors, with further development. 5.3.3 Evaluation of the Prototype as a Complete System The last assessment the subjects were asked to make is whether or not the prototype would be useful as a fully implemented system, based on their evaluation of the implementation scheme and the demonstration. Mutually, both subjects agreed that the prototype as a complete system would be beneficial based on following findings: 0 The prototype’s ability to interface with document control software already in place (Prolog Manager, Expedition, etc.) 122 o The ability to store contractors” qualifications such as insurance, safety, certifications for use on future projects . The ability to establish parameters for prequalification that are company and/or project specific Overall, the prototype was viewed to be useful as a complete system, but would require a full-time position for on-going maintenance and administering system upgrades. This was not perceived as a drawback, but a reality of implementing any system of this magnitude. 5.4 Summary This chapter completes the development of a Construction Management lnfonnation System (CMIS), to assist contractor prequalification. Through the examination of the implementation scheme, prototype development and proof of concept, it is the conclusion of the researcher that a firm basis for the further development of this concept has been established. In addition, the implementation scheme is perceived as being feasible, requiring only minimal changes to the parameters, which would reflect the specific needs of the user(s) of the system. 123 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.0 Introduction In this chapter, the research for the development of a Construction Management Information System (CMIS) to assist contractor prequalification will be summarized and future recommendations will be examined. This research began with examining relevant factors surrounding the solicitation of minority participation for construction projects with minority goals programs in place. Following this examination was the investigation of the present prequalification process utilized by construction managers and its relevant components such as project success factors (PSF) and contractor selection criteria (CSC). Once an understanding of the prequalification process, as it applies to minority participation and successful completion a construction projects, was established, the development of the CMIS and its applicability to the current operations of construction management firms was investigated. This was then concluded by providing a framework, by which CM firms can implement similar systems for prequalification, as well as, other management task critical for the success of construction projects. 6.1 Summary of Research The major objectives leading to the final completion of this research will be recollected and summarized in this section. The objectives, critical to the development of a Construction Management Information System to assist contractor prequalification, established in chapter 1 are as follows: 124 1. To summarize the existing regulations for minority contractor procurement goals on public contracts 2. To compile current methods of contractor pre-qualification 3. To develop a comprehensive listing of information parameters required for successful contractor selection 4. To develop an information system for contractor selection based on objective #3 5. To implement the IS in a prototype DBMS and apply it to past projects of two CM firms for proof of concept In the subsequent sections, the completion of each objective will be examined and summarized. 6.1.1 Summary of Existing Regulation for Minority Procurement Goals To gain a good understanding of the issues surrounding minority participation on construction projects, existing federal regulations outlining the implementation of minority goals programs on construction projects were investigated. This investigation lead to the Small Business Act, as being the relevant statute that establishes a nationwide goal for a minimum percentage of minority participation of all government funded projects executed each fiscal year. This investigation was followed-up with examining existing research, regarding issues faced by minority firms contracting work with government entities and/or majority firms. In addition, relevant case law was examined, and 125 was used for background information and identified standing state and federal regulation either promoting or hindering minority goals programs. 6.1.2 Compilation of Current Prequalification Methods To establish a working knowledge of the prequalification process, existing literature regarding contractor pre-selection was reviewed. From existing research, questions were developed for the instruments used in this study, which would disclose the particulars of the prequalification process. Six construction management firms were sent questionnaires, two of which participated in a follow-up interview, from which several prequalification schemes were disclosed and compared, identifying commonalities and differences across all firms. In addition, two bonding companies were interviewed and their bonding qualification process was investigated and compared to that of the construction management firms. In three interviews with minority construction firms, the process was examined further, as it applies to the contractor. From this a comparison was made across all respondents, leading to a prequalification scheme that would incorporate the concerns of each subject group, and was integrated into the final data model. 6.1.3 Development of lnfonnation Parameter Requirements for Prequalification To develop a set of lnfonnation parameters, existing research on prequalification was reviewed. From current research, project success factors 126 (PSF) and contractor selection criteria (CSC) were, adopted, investigated and validated through the research methods of this study. Construction management firms were given a predefined set of PSF’s and CSC in a questionnaire, which they evaluated for relevance and ranked for importance, which became the basis of determining what information is required for proper prequalification. In addition, interviews conducted with bonding companies and minority firms disclosed some addition information requirements and validated those established through the survey of construction managers. The resultant set of information parameters were then incorporated into the prequalification data model, which became a major component of the CMIS development. 6.1.4 Development of the CMIS for Contractor Prequalification With good understanding of the prequalification process and the relevant information parameters, the basis for the development was established. From the findings of the data collection regarding the prequalification process, project success factors and contractor selection criteria a basic understanding was gained and used as a platform for the prequalification data model development. In addition, during the follow-up interviews with two construction managers, additional system requirements were disclosed, leading to basic design parameters for the CMIS. ' Following the development of the data model, a conceptual implementation scheme for a complete system was derived. The implementation scheme established procedures and parameters by which contractors could be 127 prequalified. From this implementation scheme, one procedure was selected as the portion of the full scheme to be implemented into a CMIS prequalification prototype in a selected database management system (DBMS). 6.1.5 Implementation and CMIS Prequalification Prototype Proof of Concept From the selected procedure of the implementation scheme for a complete system, the relevant portion of the full prequalification data model was adopted and served as the basic design of the prototype. Based on the researcher’s background knowledge, Microsoft Access was selected as the DBMS, by which the prototype would be developed. From the reduced data model and Microsoft Access as the selected DBMS, relevant tables, attributes and relationships were developed. Based on the parameters of the selected procedure for prequalification, queries that would return the resultant contractors were developed. After the development of the prototype, the two CM firms selected for follow-up interviews participated in an evaluation of the prototype and the full implementation scheme. The CM firms were given the implementation scheme and evaluated it for accurateness and feasibility. To evaluate the prototype, each firm submitted data from a completed project and a hypothetical contractor data was developed, both of which were loaded into the prototype as a means of testing. 128 During a personal visit to each firm, a demonstration of the prototype was conducted, displaying its functionality and various features. From this demonstration and their examination of the implementation scheme, each firm evaluated the prototype for its potential usefulness as a fully implemented system and suggested some additional potential areas of development. This completed the proof of concept, as well as the research and development of the CMIS to assist contractor prequalification. 6.2 Conclusions This research was inspired by the benefits other industries have ascertained through the use of Information Systems (lS) for streamlining both managerial and operational tasks. Due to the management and labor-intensive nature, as well as, the amount of information critical to the successful completion construction projects, it is the opinion of the researcher that these same benefits can be realized in the construction industry. At the beginning of this research it was precluded that a prequalification process for the selection of MBE, WBE and DBE’s would address special concerns in regards to selection of minority firms. It was found through data collection that the minority firms shared some common problems in prequalifying for construction bids, but it was also disclosed that a separate process did not exist, despite the differences in satisfying various contractor selection criteria and the relative project success factors. Instead the prequalification process was found to be the same for all contractors. As a result, the development of the 129 CMIS deviated from that of MBENVBE/DBE selection to a general prequalification process as applied to all contractors with a case study emphasis on minority contractors. Prequalification is a critical step in the pre construction phase of a project and its importance is realized when considering the adverse affects that incompetent contractors will have on a project. Like other industries, pre-project planning in construction establishes checks and balances, by which project success can be ascertained, once the project is undemay. Therefore, contractor prequalification is one such pre-project planning task that has a direct effect on the success of a project. Additionally, it requires collecting, analyzing, processing and storing a substantial amount of information. If this information inconsistent, inaccurate, unavailable or untimely, the effects could be detrimental to the project. Through the design and implementation of a construction management information system (CMIS) to assist contractor prequalification and other important pre- project planning tasks, managers will be provided with accurate, accessible and timely information, by which decisions and procedures, critical to project success, can be based upon. 6.3 Future Areas of Research The development of the CMIS incorporated an implementation scheme for the development of a complete system. Due to the conceptual nature of the scheme, the detailed constructs of databases were not included; instead 130 procedures and parameters for elimination and evaluation of contractors were covered in generic terms. Therefore, the implementation scheme can be expanded into a complete system with further development of database design and implementation measures. In addition, general assumptions were made in developing the various procedures and parameters of the implementation scheme. Through further development, the general nature of existing procedures and parameters could be expanded, as well as, developing additional processes to address the specific needs of a construction management firm and/ or project and return the resultant contractors for final selection. 131 APPENDIX A-1 Construction Managers” Questionnaire Responses 132 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 1 Conlactor Prequalification: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) 0 Obtain financial data 0 Obtain reference from completed projects 0 Obtain bonding letter from surety When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) Local agencies, NMSDC, AGC, City/County/State/DOT and Construction Organizations Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an ‘X” in the relevant column b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 133 Table 1 No. Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking 1 Credit Rating X 6 2 Current Workload X 7 3 Experience X 1 4 Financial Stability X 3 5 Length of Time in Business 6 Management Knowledge 7 Management Personnel 8 OSHA Incidence Rate X 5 9 Owner/Contractor Relationship 10 Past Failures X 2 11 Past Performance 13 Plant and Equipment 14 Safety Performance X 4 15 Technical Personnel 6. List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. 7. Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. o Certifications obtainable o Successfully completed bid projects Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an ‘X” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “I” being the highest. ‘Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 134 Table 2 Construction Manager Relevant Schedule X Profit Under Budget Quality Met or Exceeded No Claims Safety Client Satisfaction X X X X Good Subcontractor Buyout Good Direct Communication aomwmmawN-sg Minimal or No Surprises Z O Diigner Relevant Client Satisfaction X Architectural Quality X Met Design Fee and Profit Goal X Professional Staff Fulfillment Schedule Met Budget Met Marketable Product/Process Minimal Construction Problem comwoacnth-s No Liability Claims Socially Accepted Client Pays Well Defined Scope Owner fillelevant Ranking On Schedule OHBUGQat Intended Use Quality QfiNfi Aesthetics Return on Investment >< ><><><>< be Marketable Building oosiaocnawro-s Minimal Aggravation List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: Our criterions remain safety, cost, schedule, quality and owner satisfaction Designers: Owners: 135 3. Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. 1. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ”for in-house custom program Estimating: MC2 & Excel Custom Scheduling: Primavera Project Controls: Prolog Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ” for in—house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Accounting Custom Package Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e. g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 136 7. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Access Personnel Tracking Access Subcontractor Database 137 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 2 Congaetor Prequalificatgm: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) Most MBE/WBE/DBE F irms will be somewhat weak financially so the prequaliftcation process needs to be focused on technical ability and experience When these two appear equal, look at bonding capability and credit worthinws. The best MBE firm will have established safety ”08'0"”- When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) WBDC — Michigan Minority Business Development Council maintains a database of certified MBE ’s Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an ‘Y’ in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 138 Table 1 Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking Credit Rating Current Workload Experience Financial Stability Length of Time in Business Management Knowledge Management Personnel OSHA Incidence Rate Owner/Contractor Relationship Past Failures Past Performance X 6 Plant and Equipment Safety Performance Technical Personnel N><><>< ...qu >< e. 3:3:gxoooqam.an~g 9. List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. Reference checks 10. Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an ‘X” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. I"Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 139 Table 2 No. Construction Manager Relevant Ranking 1 Schedule X 1 2 Profit 3 Under Bug X 1 4 Quality Met or Exceeded X 1 5 No Claims X 1 6 Safety X 1 7 Client Satisfaction X 1 8 Good Subcontractor Buyout 9 Good Direct Communication X 2 10 Minimal or No Surprises No. Wigner Relevant Ranking 1 Client Satisfaction X 2 2 Architectural Quality 3 Met Design Fee and Profit Goal 4 Professional Staff Fulfillment 5 Schedule Met X 5 6 Budget Met X 4 7 Marketable Product/Process 8 Minimal Construction Problem X 3 9 No Liability Claims 10 Socially Accepted 11 Client Pays 12 Well Defined Scope X 1 No. Owner Relevant Writing 1 On Schedule X 4 2 On Budget X 3 3 Intended Use X 1 4 Quality X 2 5 Aestheties X 6 6 Return on Investment X 5 7 Marketable Building 8 Minimal AggravatiSn x 7 List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: 0 Experience of company 0 Specific experience of project personnel 0 Procedure for project implementation 140 (Cont’d) Designers: 0 Experience of the firm 0 Ability to handle changes 0 Response to field questions re: design Owners: 0 Ability to communicate goals to CM and A/E o Prompt decision making 0 Technical support during turnover phase Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. 5. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e. g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package " for in-house custom program Estimating: Timberline Scheduling: P3 Project Controls: Prolog, Computer Solutions 141 Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e. g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ”for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Bid Fax Subcontractor Notification Commence Marketing 142 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 3 Contractor Prggualification: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. 11. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Ya When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) We follow our ISO 9001 elements 4.6 process Subcontractors completes prequalification form It is put on hold if no work is pending, rejected or approved They are added to the Bid Fax and vendor listing Go through subcontractor proposal review for specific projects When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) 0 Local minority associations of national affiliates 0 Customer prequalification lists Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an fit” in the relevant colunm. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 143 Table l Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking Credit Rating Current Workload X 2 Experience Financial Stability Length of Time in Business Management Knowledge ><>< Management Personnel OSHA Incidence Rate owqameww~g Owner/Contractor Relationship Past Failures Past Performance X 4 Plant and Equipment Safety Performance 909. Technical Personnel X 13. List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. 0 Past relationship with us 0 Do they self Performance or broker everything out Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. *Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 144 Table 2 No. Construction Manager Relevant Ranking 1 Schedule X 8 2 Profit X 7 3 Under Budget X 9 4 Quality Met or Exceeded X 4 5 No Claims X 10 6 Safety X 5 7 Client Satisfaction X 1 8 Good Subcontractor Buyout X 8 9 Good Direct Communication X 3 10 Minimal or No Surprises X 2 No. Designer RSIevant fiRanking 1 Client Satisfaction X 1 2 Architectural Quality X 3 3 Met Design Fee and Profit Goal X 5 4 Professional Staff Fulfillment X 7 5 Schedule Met X 11 6 Budget Met X 10 7 Marketable Product/Process X 4 8 Minimal Constmction Problem X 9 9 No Liability Claims X 6 10 Socially Accepted X 8 11 Client Pays X 2 12 Well Defined Scope X 12 No. Owner Ttelevant Ranking 1 On Schedule X 2 2 On Budget X 1 3 Intended Use X 5 4 Quality X 3 5 Aesthetics X 8 6 Return on Investment X 4 7 Marketable Buildmg X 6 8 Minimal Aggravation X 7 6. List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: 0 Minimal punch list 0 Valve program Designers: Owners: 145 7. Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. 9. 10. 11. 12. 10. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Estimating: Mc’, Excel, Bid Fax, MS Project, Earthworks, AutoCAD Scheduling: Suretrak, P3 Project Controls: Prolog, Timberline, Custom Package Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e. g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 146 11. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Fox Pro - Access - 147 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 3 Ccmtractor Prequalificagion: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. 14. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) We follow our ISO 9001 elements 4.6 process Subcontractors completes prequalification form It is put on hold if no work is pending, rejected or approved They are added to the Bid Fax and vendor listing Go through subcontractor proposal review for specific projecm When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) 0 Local minority associations of national affiliates 0 Customer prequalification lists Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 148 Table l Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking Credit Rating Current Workload X 2 Experience Financial Stability Length of Time in Business Management Knowledge Management Personnel OSHA Incidence Rate Owner/Contractor Relationslg'p Past Failures Past Performance X 4 Plant and Equipment Safety Performance X 5 Technical Personnel X ><>< ~a GISZSOQQQMAWN—g p—i E" List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. 0 Past relationship with us 0 Do they self Performance or broker everything out 16. Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an ‘St” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. I"Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 149 Table 2 No. Construction Manager Re—levant Ranking 1 Schedule X 6 2 Profit X 7 3 Under Budget X 9 4 Quality Met or Exceeded X 4 5 No Claims X 10 6 Safety X 5 7 Client Satisfaction X 1 8 Good Subcontractor Buyout X 8 9 Good Direct Communication X 3 10 Minimal or No Surprises X 2 No. Wigner Rilevant Ranking 1 Client Satisfaction X 1 2 Architectural Quality X 3 3 Met Design Fee and Profit Goal X 5 4 Professional Staff Fulfillment X 7 5 Schedule Met X 11 6 Budget Met X 10 7 Marketable Product/Process X 4 8 Minimal Construction Problem X 9 9 No Uabil'rty Claims X 8 1O Socially Acwpted X 8 11 Client Pays X 2 12 Well Defined Scope X 12 No. Owner Relevant Ranking 1 0n Schedule X 2 2 On Budget X 1 3 Intended Use X 5 4 Quality X 3 5 Aesthetics X 8 6 Return on Investment X 4 7 Marketable Building X 6 8 Minimal Aggravation X 7 List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: Minimal punch list Valve program Designers: Owners: 150 9. Provide any additional overall cormnents related to Project Success Factors. Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. l3. 14. 15. 16. 12. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Estimating: Mc’, Excel, Bid Fax, MS Project, Earthworks, AutoCAD Scheduling: Suretrak, P3 Project Controls: Prolog, Timberline, Custom Package Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e. g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 151 13. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Fox Pro - Access - 152 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 4 Contractor Prequalification: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. 17. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) Standard contractor prequalification form Check references Call suppliers Get copy of financial statement Check with bonding agent Review job requiremenm/wqrectations When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) 0 MMBDC - projects in Michigan 0 AGC - projects outside Michigan Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 153 Table 1 No. Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking 1 Credit Rating X 14 2 Current Workload X I 3 Experience X 6 4 Financial Stability X 2 5 Length of Time in Business X 10 6 Management Knowledge X 4 7 Management Personnel X 5 8 OSHA Incidence Rate X I I 9 Owner/Contractor Relationship X 7 10 Past Failures X 9 11 Past Performance X 8 13 Plant and Equipment X 13 14 Safety Performance X 12 15 Technical Personnel X 3 18. List any additioml relevant contractor selection criteria. Several of these are dependent on each other, for instance, if you manage your workload, are well financially and have good people, then you will undoubtedly ha a good credit rating, good safety record, good past projects and good EMR. 19. Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’S and DBE’s. Goal is to not hire MBE/WBE/DBE ’s solely as a pass-thru, that doesn ’t help anybody. We look for solid and legitimate MBE/WBE/DBE ’ : They are hard tofind! Hiring and teaming with minority firms is a serious strategic goal of our company Any help would be appreciated 154 Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. *Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. Table 2 Construction Manager Relevant Ranking Schedule Profit Under Budget Quality Met or Exceeded No Claims Safety Client Satisfaction Good Subcontractor Buyout Good Direct Communication Minimal or No Surprises DBigner Relevant Client Satisfaction Architectural Quality Met Design Fee and Profit Goal Professional Staff Fulfillment Schedule Met Budget Met Marketable Product/Process Minimal Constmction Problem No Liability Claims 10 Socially Accepted 11 Client Pays 12 Well Defined Scope No. Owner Relevant Rfiiking On Schedule On Budget Intended Use Quality Aesthetiee Return on Investment Marketable Building Minimal Aggravation SCOQNQOI-wa-tg ><><><><><>< l 3N¢N3u§ouusséeuuaugo~us 3 i? cocouaaorewM-s 3 n X><><><><><><><><><><>< QVOO'IthJN-A ><><><><><>< southwest-n» 155 10. 11. List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: 0 Did we get repeat business or a recommendation from clients? 0 Did we learn something? Designers: In general, most want to create a project design they can show off to other clients, not always giving owners best value or having concern for constructible details and documents. Owners: 0 Very concerned with hitting budget Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. 0 Was there overall harmony on the project? 0 How did all players do (subs, owner, A/E)? Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. 17. 18. 19. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High 156 20. Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Estimating: Mc’, ICE 2000 Scheduling: Suretrak, Project Controls: Viewpoint 5. Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Accounting Viewpoint Cut and Fill ICE 2000 14. Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e.g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 15. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Access - D4 Cost Historical cost data 157 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 5 Contractor Pregujalification: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. 20. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? No What are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) All potential subcontractors are required to fill out a prequalification form before being placed on a bed list. The form contains questions concerning bonding capacity, past and current volume, number of workers, union/non-union, safety and EMR, MBE/WBE or Executive order 4 (DBE) certification, an audited financial statement, and past job experience/reconmwndations. We evaluate these raponsa versus the bid package and decide accountability. When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) WBDC - within Michigan and nationwide listings NA WABO — women owned businessa nationwide County or state registrations of MBE/WBE/DBE Dept of Transportation ’s registrations Federal registrations Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. a) Indicate relevant information with an ‘k” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 158 Table l No. Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranfig 1 Credit Rating X 11 2 Current Workload X 5 3 Experience X 2 4 Financial Stability X I 5 Length of Time in Business X 13 6 Management Knowledge X 3 7 Management Personnel X 9 8 OSHA Incidence Rate X 8 9 Owner/Contractor Relationship X 10 10 Past Failures X 6 11 Past Performance X 7 13 Plant and Equipment X I4 14 Safety Performance X 4 15 Technical Personnel X 12 21. List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. 22. o Bonding capacity 0 Union/non-union status Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Financial stability, experience and whether a contractor is union or non-union are atremely important. Our company tradia'onally employs a union workforce and is signatory to several unions. Project Successiactors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. ‘Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 159 Table 2 No. Construction Manager Relevant Ranking 1 Schedule X 3 2 Profit X 2 3 Under Budget X 5 4 Quality Met or Exceeded X 6 5 No Claims X 8 6 Safety X 1 7 Client Satisfaction X 4 8 Good Subcontractor Buyout X 7 9 Good Direct Communication X 9 1O Minimal or No Surprises X 10 No. Designer Relevant Ranking 1 Client Satisfaction X 2 2 Architectural Quality X 7 3 Met Design Fee and Profit Goal X 1 4 Professional Staff Fulfillment X 11 5 Schedule Met X 3 6 Budget Met X 4 7 Marketable Product/Process X 10 8 Minimal Construction Problem X 6 9 No Liability Claims X 5 1O Socially Accepted X 12 11 Client Pays X 8 12 Well Defined Scope X 9 No. Owner Relevant Ranking 1 On Schedule X 1 2 On Budget X 2 3 Intended Use X 7 4 Quality X 5 5 Aestheties X 8 6 Return on Investment X 3 7 Marketable Building X 4 8 Minimal Aggravation X 6 12. List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: Designers: Owners: 160 13. Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. Comterization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction management activities. 21. 22. 23. 24. 16. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Estirmting: Excel Scheduling: Primavera Project Controls: Prolog, Access Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ”for in—house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e.g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 161 17. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Access Track change ordersIRFl’s 162 Construction Questionnaire: Respondent 6 Contractor Prequalification: The following questions address the prequalification process of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s, contractor selection criteria and project success factors. 1. 23. Is your firm’s current method of contractor prequalification a manual process? Yes When operating outside the firm’s base locality, is the prequalification process different? Yes Wlmt are the primary steps taken during the prequalification process? (Provide an attachment if needed) Cerafted Qualification rating Rating Percentage 3 Volume Community Service When operating outside the firm’s base locality, what is the major source(s) of information on available MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s? (Provide an attachment if needed) 0 Owners’ recommendations 0 Interested contractors contact us at bid time a Dodge report Provided in table 1 is a list of contractor selection criteria (CSC) for prequalification of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. 3) Indicate relevant informtion with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant CSC’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. 163 Table 1 No. Contractor Selection Criteria Relevant Ranking 1 Credit Rating X 8 2 Current Workload X I 0 3 Experience X 7 4 Financial Stability X 5 5 Length of Time in Business X 2 6 Management Knowledge X 3 7 Management Personnel X 4 8 OSHA Incidence Rate X I I 9 Owner/Contractor Relationship X I 10 Past Failures X 9 11 Past Performance X 6 13 Plant and Equipment X l4 14 Safety Performance X 12 15 Technical Personnel X 13 24. List any additional relevant contractor selection criteria. 25. 0 Work history with clients @roven cases) Provide any overall comments related to the prequalification process for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. In some cases there are special community organizations to work with, that are MBE, WBE and/or DBE. Project Success Factors: The following question address defining success on a construction by various project participants. 1. Provided in table 2 is a list of perceived Project Success Factors (PSF) relative to Construction Managers, Designers and Owners. a) Indicate relevant PSF’s with an “x” in the relevant column. b) Rank the relevant PSF’s by a placing a number in the ranking column with “1” being the highest. *Evaluate PSF’s for Construction Managers, Designers and Owners separately. 164 Table 2 Construction Manager Relevant Ranking Schedule Profit Under Budget Quality Met or Exceeded No Claims Safety Client Satisfaction Good Subcontractor Buyout Good Direct Communication ammummst-sg ><><><><><><><><><>< guaucuwu Minimal or No Surprises z 0 Designer Relevant Ranking Client Satisfaction Architectural Quality Met Design Fee and Profit Goal Professional Staff Fulfillment Schedule Met Budget Met Marketable Product/Process Minimal Construction Problem CQNGO’IRQNA No Liability Claims 1O Socially Accepted 11 Client Pays ><><><><><><><><><><><>< :uguauwagses 12 Well Defined Scope No. Owner Relevant Rznking On Schedule On Budget Intended Use Quality Aestheties Return on Investment Marketable Building mummth-s ><><><><><><><>< «stoneware Minimal Aggravation 14. List any additional relevant project success factors below. Construction Managers: Designers: Owners: 0 Establish good working relationship for future projects 165 15. Provide any additional overall comments related to Project Success Factors. Computerization: The following questions address the use of computer technology for construction numagement activities. 25. 26. 27. 28. 18. What level is the use of computers for estimating? High What level is the use of computers for scheduling? High What level is the use of computers for project controls? (e.g. document managing, budget forecasting, resource managing etc.) High Identify software packages used for the below listed categories. Enter “custom package ” for in-house custom program Estimating: Timberline ’ Scheduling: Microsoft Project 98 Project Controls: Excel Indicate other construction management activities supported by computer technology and the respective software packages.(e.g. accounting, CAD, Cut & Fill etc.) Enter “custom package ”for in-house custom program Other Areas of CM Software Package Accounting Timberline Does your firm currently utilize any database management software? (e. g Access, Oracle etc.) Yes 166 19. If question #6 is yes, list below the software package and intended use. (Enter “custom package " for in-house custom program) Software Package Intended Use Citrix ln-house communication 167 APPENDIX A-2 Construction Managers’ Interview Responses 168 Construction Manager Interview Responses 1. Explain the contractor prequalification process. Respondent 1 The primary steps of prequaliflcation begin with contacting references, as provided by the contractor; and inquiring about the contractor's overall performance on their project (informal lnfonnation). Next the contractors financial lnfonnation is retrieved and evaluated to determine weather or not the can produce the necessary interim cash flow to continue their operations between progress payments. The contractors past projects are evaluated to determine their experience, technical expertise and their ability to deliver a quality product. in addition, a vendor watch list is produced and circulated internally, listing contractors who have delinquent accounts with suppliers. Respondent 2 The prequalification process is difibrent for the public sector and the private sector. On public projects there is no prequaiification process, the contractors ability to get a bond the project qualifies them to bid the project. On private projects, a prequaiification process that satisfies the owner Is implemented. Primarily lnfonnation such as number of years in the business, capital, available bonding capacity and past projects is requested from contractors. The contractor selection criteria used are based on the owners’ specific needs. Some owners want a large contractor pool in order to get the most competitive bid, therefore CSC may not be as stringent as those owners who went “the cream of the crop” and will pay a premium for their services. Is the prequalification process manual or computerized? What are some areas that need improvement for the existing process? Rmondent 1 The prequaliflcation process is manual for the most part. A subcontractor contact list is stored on a database and printed out when seeking prospective bidders for a new project or bid package. lnfonnation such as name, division of work provided (CSI Divisions) and type (i. e. MBE, WBE, DBE). An improvement of the existing prequaliflcation process would be the ability to retain contractor prequalificatlon lnfonnation from previous projects and use the same lnfonnation on future projects. 169 (Cont’d) Resmnm 2 Manual. Improvements to the existing prequaiification process are a uniform data collection of contractors’ past projects and a means of determining the validity of the lnfonnation provided. Sub- contractors are known to list their best projects and hide their bad projects, so there needs to be a means of finding out the “dirt". What information is requested from MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s for prequalification purposes? Rmndent 1 None. Only the lnfonnation required by all contractors to submit such as, references (i. e. general contractors construction managers, owners etc.) for past-completed projects, financial lnfonnation and lnfonnation on completed projects. Resgndent 2 Minority contractors must provide MBE, WBE and/or DBE certification from a known certifying association. The particular identification number given to them is of no use; just weather or not they are a certified minority firm is of primary concern. Identify problem areas for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s regarding selection criteria resulting in disqualification. Rmndent 1 There exists a small contractor pool for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s that have the financial stability to bid the sizable portions of a project. This creates a non-competitive environment, such that construction managers are not able to get best number for a bid package- Rgsgondent 2 Capability seems to be a problem area for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE's for prequalification. Based on past projects, their technical experiences must match the needed work. in addition, their annual volume and contract sum of completed projects should reflect their ability to execute the contract if awarded to them. This evaluation is based on the judgment of the qualifying agent. 170 Do majority contractors share any of the above-identified problem areas in prequalifying for bidding purposes? Res ndent 1 A small pool of financially stable contractors is a problem amongst the majority contractors. Resflndent 2 Yes. This is a problem that exists within the industry and is not particular to a specific kind of contractor. How are these problem areas dealt with to qualify MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s for future construction bids? Resgndent 1 Simply by being able to identify who 's who among the available minority and majority contractors. Rgpondent 2 When contractors do not have the needed technical experience, opportunities for other work that matches their expertise are located. Sometimes bid packages can be broken down into smaller packages to qualify contractors witir a low annual volume. Comment on the present utilization of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE's on construction projects. Rgggondent 1 it appears that the need for minority participation has created lots of opportunity for repeat work to those minority firms that have established themselves as viable contractors. Rmndent 2 The utilization of MBE's, WBE’s and DBE’s on construction projects is appropriate to avoid unfavorable community relations. 171 APPENDIX B Bonding Companys’ Interview Responses 172 Bonding Company Interview Responses 1. Explain the bonding qualification process Respondent 1 The bonding qualification process is differs from surety to surety. Contractors must submit financial statements for the last 3 fiscal years. Based on the level of bond support, the financial statement will either come in the form of a compilation, review or full audit. The surety would prefer a full audit, but will nonnaliy except a financial statement that is a compilation or review. Typically, larger firms will have periodical audits for their own purposes and will have them ready to submit to the bonding surety. Smaller firms will prepare compilation and review financials on a need to basis. Contractors must also complete a questionnaire that discloses lnfonnation such as general business, past projects and references (owners, designers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers). The surety will review the financial statements to evaluate the contractor's financial stability and contact references to assess performance and payment habits on past projects. Based on the underwriter's judgment, the bond is granted or denied. Resgndent 2 Contractors are required to submit the following: financial statements for the 3 previous fiscal years, personal financial statements for the 3 previous fiscal years, a bank letter disclosing credit line and experience, accounts receivable and payable schedule, work in progress information, pending projects, list of equipment, certificate of insurance, references (owners, architects, subcontractors and suppliers), a competed questionnaire that discloses general business information. This lnfonnation is compiled and submitted to the boning surety for evaluation. Based on the evaluation and the bonding agent's recommendation a bond is either granted or denied. Is the bonding qualification process manual or computerized? Rgppndent 1 The bonding qualification process is a mixture of the manual and computerized. Financial lnfonnation is entered into a computer program, which will derive ratios. Based on the surety and their system, the program can decide weather or not the contractor qualifies for a bond. Otherwise, the underwriter will use the ratios to determine the level of bond support suitable for the contractor. The underwriter performs references checks by either phone or mail. 173 (Cont’d) Resgndent 2 Manual. What information is requested from MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s for bonding? Resgndent 1 None. The criteria apply to all conflactors. For the most part, the bonding surety is not concerned with MBE, WBE and DBE status when qualifying bonds. Their status may be disclosed incidentally, through the questionnaire and personal interaction with the applicant. ' Respondent 2 None, the criteria apply to all contractors. MBE, WBE and DBE status is of no concern to the bonding surety. Identify problem areas for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s in applying for a bonding? Respondent 1 Financial stability and the quality of the presentation of their financial statements. Respondent 2 Problems such as limited cash flow, low assets, not enough experience and personal indemnification will disqualify contractors for bonds. Do majority of other contractors share any of the above identified problem areas? Resgndent 1 Yes, this is a problem shared by all contractors who are denied bonds. Mndent 2 Yes, all contractors who are disqualified share these problems. 174 How do MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s deal with any of these areas of concern in order to qualify for bonding in the future? Respondent 1 Contractors who have been denied a bond for financial reasons are urged to take on smaller jobs to strengthen their capital base. Also, financial statements should be prepared by a C.P.A. who is familiar with construction and knows the manner in which financial lnfonnation should be presented to bonding sureties. Respondent 2 Contractors are recommended to have a GPA. that is familiar with construction and their particular operations. What are some areas that need improvement for the existing process? Respondent 1 The current process is satisfactory, but sometimes underwriters are not given adequate time to make a decision. Resmndent 2 Verifying financial lnfonnation. At times information is misrepresented and the bonding agent will have to make a personal judgment on its validity. Comment on the present utilization of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s on construction projects. Respondent 1 it's a tough issue to deal when qualified non-minority contractors do not get contracts that are set-aside for minority firms. Due to lack of availability, unqualified minority contractors are given work to satisfy goals requirements on a project. Respondent 2 There are not enough minority firms to handle the amount of work that is presently available. The larger firms could do more to promote business development and education in order to create more qualified minority and women owned firms. 175 APPENDIX C MBEs’ Interview Responses 176 MBE Interview Responses 1. What information is requested from construction managers for prequalification purposes? Rgpondent 1 Construction managers are primarily concerned with contractors’ ability to successfully complete the project. Therefore an emphasis is placed gathering information on completed projects such as quality of work, met budget, met schedule and owner's references. Rgppondent 2 Contractors are required to provide name of the principle, address, annual volume and bonding capacity. Also, information on past projects such as contract amount, type (i. e. industrial, commercial or residential), division of work provided (CSI Divisions) and references (i.e. owner(s), construction managers, general contractor) is requested. Respondent 3 Construction managers are concerned with a contractor’s past work experiences such as default projects, history of non-completion, amount of filed claims and management capability, which is provided by the submission of lnfonnation on past and cunent projects. Also, contractors are asked to disclose their Experience Modification Rate, which indicates how safe a contractor has been on past projects. Identify problem areas for MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s regarding selection criteria resulting in disqualification. Resppndent 1 A lot of minority contractors do not look good on paper, but can provide quality work if given the opportunity. These opportunities arise from networking which is an area where minority contractors are lacking. Res ondent 2 Problem areas for minority contractors are lack of experience, unfavorable credit standing, limited access to cash flow and limited bonding capacity. Rmndent 3 No real infrastructure due to lack of administration, cash flow and project planning capabilities. 177 Do majority contractors share any of the above identified problem areas in prequalifying for bidding purposes? Resmndent 1 No. The majority contractors have been able to take full advantage of opportunities created tirrough networking, even when tirey do not nreet selection criteria. Resmndent 2 Yes, especially new entrants trying to establish themselves amongst long-standing successful firms, but they can overcome these obstacles through opportunities created from networking. Respondent 3 Yes. Many fimrs are operating by the seat of their pants and cannot satisfy prequalification requirements How do MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s deal with any of these areas of concern to qualify for future construction bids? Resflndent 1 Minority contractors deal with this problem by becoming politically active and voting people into positions that will create opportunities through referrals for the concerned groups. Rgppndent 2 They do not try in most cases, because of the difficulty of competing with established firms. in addition, there are no major incentives to enter into larger arenas when they can pursue smaller opportunities that have little or no prequalification requirements. Rgpondepg 3 There are many resources available to help entrepreneurs structure and run their businesses. Unfortunately, a lot of minority contractors do not want to be told how to run their operations and decline to participate. Comment on the present utilization of MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE's on construction projects. Respondent 1 There is not enough utilization of minority contractors, only when owners’ require goals is there a substantial amount of contracts awarded to MBE’s, WBE’s and DBE’s. Otherwise, only minority firms that are connected are able to contract work that is worthwhile. 178 (Cont’d) Resgndent 2 Getting better through the development and implementation of business development programs by organizations such as the Small Business Administration. Looks very promising at the corporate level, where large firms like --- and --- strongly enforce goals for minority participation on construction projects, due to their commitment to social responsibility. Rmndent g Not worth it, because tirere are nrore ways to get around the goals programs than implementing them. The purpose is served only when firms buy into the program instead of doing it because its required by the owner. 179 APPENDIX D Project Data Forms Submitted to Construction Managers for Proof of Concept 180 Project Data Forms Complete this form using data from a selected past project that utilized MBE’s, WBE’s and/or DBE’s. The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. Note that the data provided in field number 3, should be generic in nature (i.e. House, Office, Hospital etc.) 1. Project Subject Code Project Number Project Name Start Date (MM/DDIYY) Finish Date (MM/DDIYY) MBE Goal % WBEGoal % 2 3 4 5 6. Project Value $ (in millions) 7 8 9 DBE Goal % 181 Using this form, provide data on the participants of the selected project. The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. The remaining fields should contain generic data, which will not disclose the actual identities of the participants (see example). Only the actual number of participants in each category is of concern. If more than two participants in any category need to be recorded, photocopy a blank form to provide the necessary entries. Project - Owner (Example) 1. Owner Source Code Owner Subject Code Owner Name Address City State Zip Contact Name sosnssnsnewrv Phone( ) —| .0 Fi=1)“ ) 182 Project—Owner 1. wesasnr-wro _rt .0 Owner Source Code Owner Subject Code Owner Name Addres City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) F83“ ) Project - Owner omsmsnewrv -.l P Owner Source Code Owner Subject Code Owner Name Address State Zip Contact Name Phone( ) Fwd ) 183 Project NE 1. QQNP’QPPN .s .0 NE Source Code A5 Subject Code AIE Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) Fa)“ ) Project-NE 1. marriages,» _r. .0 NE Source Code A/E Subject Code AiE Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) FaX( ) 184 Project - cwcc 1. SPQNP’SJ'PPN _r. .0 CMIGC Source Code cur/cc Subject Code CMIGC Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) Fax( ) Project - curse 1. soposemsww _s .0 CMIGC Source Code CMIGC Subject Code CMIGC Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) 185 Using this form, provide data on 1 of 2 bid packages for the selected completed project. The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. Bid Package (1 of 2) 1. Bid Package Subject Code Bid Package Number Bid Date (MM/DDIYY) Performance Bond Amount 5 Payment Bond Amount 3 Estimated Bid Value 3 Start Date (MM/DDIYY) Finish Date (MMiDDiYY) SPNP’QPP’N 186 Using this form provide data on CSI division coverage for bid package 1 of 2 . The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. If needed, photocopy a blank form to provide the necessary entries. CSI Division 1. Entry Number Division 2 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1. EntryNumber Division 2 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1. Entry Number Division 2 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1. Entry Number 2. Division 3. Section Number 4. Description csr Division 1. Entry Number Division_ 2 3. Section Number 4 Description 187 Using this form, provide data on 2 of 2 bid packages for the selected completed project. The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. Bid Pasha! (2 of 2) 1. Bid Package Subject Code Bid Package Number Bid Date (MM/DD/YY) 9.03!” Performance Bond Amount $ Payrmnt Bond Amount 3 Estimated Bid Value 3 Start Date (MM/DD/YY) @NQP‘ Finish Date (MM/DDIYY) 188 Using this form provide data on CSI division coverage for bid package 2 of 2 for the selected completed project . The bolded and italicized field(s) should be disregarded. If needed, photocopy a blank form to provide the necessary entries. CSI Division 1 . Entry Number 2 Division— 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1. EntryNumber 2 Division— 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1 . Entry Number Division 2 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1 . Entry Number Division 2 3. Section Number 4 Description CSI Division 1. Entry Number 2 Division 3. Section Number 4 Description 189 APPENDIX E Contractor Data Forms used to Develop Hypothetical Contractor Base for Proof of Concept 190 Contractor Data Forms A SOPNP’SJ‘PP’N Aer-Ii _30 —I N Contractor Source Code Contractor Subject Code Contractor Name Address City State HP Contact Name Phone ( ) Fax ( ) Number of Employees CSI Division(s) MBEIWBEIDBE Certification 1. Certification Type (MBE,WBE,DBE) Agency Name Address City State Phone ( ) 2. Certification Type (MBE,WBE,DBE) Agency Name Address City State Phone ( ) 191 MBEIWBEIDBE Certification (cont’d) 3. Certification Type (MBE,WBE,DBE) Agency Name Address City State Phone ( ) Past Projects 1. Project Name Description Address City State Contract Sum 3 Start Date (MM/DDIYY) Finish Date (MM/DDIYY) Owner 1. Owner Source Code Owner Subject Code Owner Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) FaX( ) 192 Past Projects - Cont’d NE 1. CMIGC NE Source Code A/E Subject Code Owner Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) FaX( ) CMIGC Source Code CMIGC Subject Code CMIGC Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) FaX( ) Subcontractor 1. Subcontractor Source Code Subcontractor Name Contact Name Phone Number 193 Past Projects - Cont’d Subcontractor 2. Subconbactor Source Code Subcontractor Name Contact Name Phone Number Supplier 1. Past Projects 2. Project Name Description Supplier Source Code Supplier Name Contact Name Phone Number Supplier Source Code Supplier Name Contact Name Phone Number Address City State ContractSumS Start Date (MM/DD/YY) Finish Date (MM/DD/YY) 194 Past Project - Cont’d Owner 1. Owner Source Code Owner Subject Code Owner Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) Fwd ) NE 1. NE Source Code A/E Subject Code AIE Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) Fax( ) 195 Past Projects - Cont’d CMIGC 1 . CMIGC Source Code CMIGC Subject Code CMIGC Name Address City State Zip Contact Name Phone ( ) FaX( ) Subcontractor 1. Subcontractor Source Code Subcontractor Name Contact Name Phone Number Subcontractor Source Code Subcontractor Name Contact Name Phone Number Supplier 1. Supplier Source Code Supplier Name Contact Name Phone Number 196 Past Project- Cont’d Supplier 2. Supplier Source Code Supplier Name Contact Name Phone Number 197 APPENDIX F Prototype Demonstration Reports (Sample) 198 «a e ease . 1| lJIiill.‘ PdtI l I ill —!errr.wp.mufivwfir..w.Guflowmtajyfihzeimgwmtqg ”rewrsvxrmmegxrfluu neat...) ... “Khaki-What.- m¢61w5wrsfitvf..ifihecrafuwfiflunordafiafigu Whmgwtswgpuhftgrfive—rumpwhfifiwphflfiimpgfifi ...t $~Qemt§gfla§ .- oorwdwwé. Fm ooommowih an cow ...mmmin rm ooowimmmin rm cowamnmfi Pm 88.9.95 ..n cow Tommi. rm Iii Elli... til t. or I 087034. 5 - II III ..e a ulna-III silk}. 1.. t..-elk 8 again 5 oooméamin ..m 8N0? 2. 3.08565 .o>< £30m mm 5303.59.80 E... 09 «.mmwitm coo—..mmmin rm . n it All rvififiii .Adflutzrnvnasg painteriit . . it. i n I' b. Iflrdllri(s.r( ll turtle aeem .VN Rama“... Sewn-eases e cubes: 89.8.. an owaxog 2588A 88¢ 2. 33386:. .9< 58m 8 83.528 on... 5:51.... .. ...-t.-.:..........:..-.- -.-...t. -. t..-.J 23% 3.5 $3th sEeZ e9 W mg: L—a‘uA- . .. 8%. 2. 938.52. .5 532 a. 59.5 09 cause 2. meaning. .5 sum 8 $33 .80 88v 2. 23852. .6 8m 9 58388 62 artill‘tSrl: Ital» littl al Ile- [UIrlblsIlli-Is‘oiltl): I n.i.nl Ills-(I t..).ll’rllllrlsi ACN -eS-SMU. .59 assist ...eEsZ chi-g mm: _ 88,. z. usage... 6 8m me 58388 S rttql-L. . r..- .I I. IJIIitrllon- II‘ .19! I III; t 11!} it! lrll. 88m. .59 assumes—x 2:32 e9 _ m ma _ a cubes: 89.8.. an awesomm 0380.5 . I. ill-tr ...‘lklt If. rill Estehaeb ESBSQ 199 «a N ease $5.13rt.wmw.fi.flfipr$w.rfiéfnfrfihbne~nsrrr”abstrvflkt....nistleffi.2mfibcu t... E. fr»? .711 . .- . ”rt. r10...» . r. p. 8E8 ugh? gab 8MB .32 ..R 5?... sewage r. . ...-Si 1.....rh.vs.-v.r..ua§..cEugen-nurmfieafitfi.sheath-.....nnermitcaatuhrfltnfi I III 1‘: . ill I cow 8.08.83 9.60:.) us show 3.05:. mm 89.0w cow 8.80.3.3 962.3 ecu 808 8.39... ms .oozom winillrit’Hh-Pg tutu .r . e. I. .13....1: .erral 1.1.... n..-wt». ct..-{illunz J1... J. ..er...utr ....htr 7....- sBQ 5.5.x. Sag teem. .1-”. '4a—a.\-A- COBB 8R2”: 8%va QOB .. trill-III IIIIIIII'III Illtrllrtr t..-.laiilu II I. liti- l tel : ...... iiui _ .. hsfieebskbsw e\c Sam. 85:39 =e2$§~8§ 2.32 ENS»: tetofiewaou MK} It ayirill 4 ill.— n.. iIeIef.\\r| I!“ .88 3% 338. I it"rlrletti ..irlll rrIi'f It‘ll!!!- l.l on ullrli t'lltrr rrr rvriillIISJrlrtrt. Iiit‘irili.lrt.tleitlt 868.com“ hilly-litrlrlt. ill.- . .ir'. I.'rllr." l.rt. Jill’Ilbau .IIaV-Ilrlbl v .08... on 8.80.80. 5 N 33... 880 Us 952.3 3.59... .l n....t...,i- I rt. .r \..t ...... I ... .. if. e re .1... u 13L..I..I can case can use. r...,.... “Lake-1" »- ‘. I l I r i i t I I i I r I i r..r.l.I-|.u.. g3 85% 3BR fir;l..|.1, .bl...llertrllefltul.r\.n:.is I II. r...\r\rrlltottl.....tl‘.rl.\|etl rt..- 1.. {.11. Iii! I... 1:... . d..-etc ..tfits .1.-‘11 e.. .I uremia-.1- :cmitouesQ 25oz ENS: Vectobsmbsm. o\c 53v. Detach ...-$3.3m Seam :t [...-rt.- Iitfe' l. It"! It 8.08.83 llni‘51ttellitltbttirtrllbt t.1..r||t.lt.tlttelrir. 980...? ecu Boon 8:83. 0050 .558: om cor 8.08.83 8:5. can Boon RUE 3.0... 338. ... ... .. 3:1..3-{1 egg 5N2: SeQ 23m. VeESXSRheM. «Va Sam. 82:39 ..IIrlI. :SETESQ ease? 3&5: m _ Sass use... I ll 11 l a i i II it t i . i. .-..tlrliltll .r l ,. ..It i: Err)? lit {.1 11.1. ..I til...- ---I ti... Ermine»;.23..1.3.th...neonate..routrigger?....e......r.e.€r¢...e..¢...er..-te. tan.»- a... swipiniuf w..“:- efiepithet-is....5v5.tie.se.ne¥..teaewwf.riw.{queue-r. 2; A. tt-Vtttrtrt t it t til i r t . .. a. ...i It . a t:- r.. . . i r . . .. r . . Em. lav-.1. ...” .. .....wetsuit.....ttt§_rirtat cozy-euro... start. ..t.»...m.....¥..t..rfie.r......¢$u xi... 3.. E885 cab .33? cm items“ meosxeek Eek Ly thrill Iltlrl . I... A . .t. .h. .... r. H. ....r.... nut. eWHLI.e.\rnsH’Ru.Jhifrn-rhir ...Mx. near. .31. tn e 1.1. . 200 to N .3: map... I“. ”Fianna: ...Lor.lr.u............. “41......“ .....b; I. Vr ......irxu....)..quwa 1.21.}..- a: f: , ...??Vh. N56,»... Bait. hfiqfikféfiuufifrulpzfiwpfi d.. . , it . s 800.5755 lt'. b . A ...-v Vll.‘v....‘~$h.?.lr 83.2....»me 33 .R 34%.... $55.: ..n .. .u ILJ‘WN. . s .5! Eh... $.wivfilflv.wutuu. awn?! an. ...}... I .....nvp...ufir+4.mn.I-_.u..wka h...“ ... a xiv...) ...—....fl.5......1.....h. n..... Tamara“... 15.9}...555 0:52 00 .2_§a:aoao 202.3— .35— 28 £82. ask 2%.: BESS 2.32 88in Pm 38$» 5 N 3:36: 8.32 BNNEQ gag §§ 32 23:2 32:39 2:32 m 33: ...32 33.33 083.0an 3 082.312. 5 585—. 02. i $3.33 9.32 23:2 32:39 2:32 2 332 2:32 33.3.2 flow—Em 33mm 0:52 8 org.» 5 800.822. 5 8.55 5:. 0E5) w 525.“. R32 33:2 33:39 2:32 N 3:532 2:32 33.32 333333339 anom— oEnz GU org.» 5 ii. 5 8.55 SF of; a £25.“. 332 3:22 32:3 9 2:32 33 .229 2:32 33.3.2 Ema—mam 93 0:52 8 [K 1. . «1. k .. I ...I.P;.“ .quI .11..-. ..lehwvbu.krfigathufihrfivvwnmrJec‘... .i .... . dlqlulua n. ”1.4.. . I. . - ..~ .. 1.11.... y . . .1711.- .I trial... 33 3332 3333:3333hi3333:39 v. . . . .1.; ..... .. a.n.. .n. . ... . ..1 .... .. ....o ... i... .. .. .. . .. ......nu. . . . .. ..... .. 2...»; . ... .5. .. .. Ill.- Pfiafifiw r...d.....vmwu:.....% w ..w.h..........\...r& ...»... .1.... ...}...h. r... 32.5.2526 on... .....i.......fi -.\P«.....1..... ~.I.w...........m...fl. in... .410. 9Wivmfi.....«u..»...._§......&u.s.;u..flk.. 1...»... ...;V$§J»fi¢h......wnméwhmfiuwgfli 204 m3 2 323 32 .2 33:3 2332...: Eon—mam _ounm 050: DU 88., F 2.3 88.5.25 5. 2.5 8.33m .2 a m R32 3:3:nw 332:3 9 3:32 m 3:332 2:32 32.33% 88.2325 28.3235 93 8.5.. 23 .>> 8&2. 33K 3:2: 32:39 2:32 N 3.3.2332 2:32 33.3.: 3333:2289 33m 0502 cu 29.835 89.835 89.: Em 3:38 882 3.2 3:222 32:39 2:32 322$ 2:32 333$ 93; Bin 88.. 3.2... 3.56 85 8.33m .83.: R32 3:352 333:3 9 2:32 33.2332 2:32 33.3: 9.33.5 D: 0502 8 333 3.33% 332323.333: :39 .w..- ...... 4.1... . ......r.... .1.... .. .. ...-..r u ....fit... a... , t .....R... .........r.....__. 5...!!! It? 1 a ..i 205 (Chang, 1989) (Chinyio et al, 1998) (Expedition, 2000) (Fischer & Froese, 1996) (Hatush & Skitmore, 1997a) (Hatush & Skitmore, 1997b) (Jung and Gibson, 1999) (Karim & Adeli, 1999) (Lo et al., 1999) BIBLIOGRAPHY Chang, Luh-Maan. “Method to Deal with DBE Issues.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering. July 1989. vol 115. no 3. 305-319 Chinyio, Ezekiel A., Olomolaiye, Paul 0., Kometa, Simon T., and Harris, Frank C. “ A Need-Based Methodology for Classifying Construction Clients and Selecting Contractors” Construction Management and Economics. 1998, vol 16, 91-98. Expedition Users Guide. Primavera Systems Inc. 2000 Fischer, Martin, and Froese, Thomas. “Examples and Characteristics of Shared Project Models” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. July 1996. vol 10. no. 3 Hatush, Zedan, and Skitmore, Martin. “Evaluating Contractor Prequalification Data; Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors.” Construction Management and Economics. 1997. vol 15, 129-147 Hatush, Zedan, and Skitmore, Martin. “Criteria for Contractor Selection.” Construction Management and Economics. 1997. vol 15, 19-38 Jung, Youngsoo, and Gibson, Edward, G. “Planning for Computer Integrated Construction” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. October 1999. vol. 13. no. 4. Karim, Asim, and Adeli, Hojjat. “00 lnfonnation Model for Construction Project Management.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Sept 1999. Vol 125. no 5. 361-367 Lo, Wei, Krizck, Raymond J., and Hadavi, Ahmad. “Effects of High Prequalification Requirements.” Construction Management and Economics. 1999. vol 17, 603-612 206 (McCarthy et al., 1999) (McCarthy. 1999) (Oxman, 1995) (Perry and Schneider,2000) (Rob and CoraneLZOOO) (Sanvido et al, 1992) (Shaikh, 1999) (Syal, 1999) (Syal, 1999) McCarthy, William E., Rockwell, Stephen R., and Armitage, Howard. “A Structured Methodology for the Design of Accounting Transaction Systems in a Shared Data Environment.” McCarthy, William. Accounting Information Systems- Class Material. Michigan State University. Spring 1999 Oxman, Rivka. “Data, Knowledge and Experience in Multiuser Information Systems” Construction Management and Economics. 1995. vol. 13. 401-409. Perry, James T., Schneider, Gary P. “Building Accounting Systems Using Access 2000. Cincinnati, Ohio. 2001 Rob, Peter, Coronel, Carlos. “Database Systems Design, Implementation and Management”. Cambridge, MA. 2000 Sanvido, Victor, Grobler, Francois, Parfitt, Kevin, Guvenis, Moris, and Coyle, Michael. “Critical Succes Factors for Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. March 1992. Vol 118. no 1. 94-111 Shaikh, N.M. “How to select the proper subcontractor-p 1” Hydrocarbon Processing (International Addition). June 1999. vol 78. no 6. lOOC-IOOD Syal, Matt. “Knowledge Based Approach to Construction Method Selection Process” Journal of Construction Management. Apr-June 1999. vol 14. no. 2 Syal, Matt. Computer Integrated Construction Management- Class Material. Michigan State University. Spring 1999. 207 5 g.§....,._.. Elli > ’1 ,