C:MYDOCU~1JANECORPSECURITY STPAGE2.PDF

CEMP-CE

Regulation No.

415-1-13

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

Construction

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION

(DCS) CH1

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ER 415-1-13

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

CEMP-CE Washington, DC 20314-1000

Regulation

No. 415-1-13 29 February 1996

Construction

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION (DCE)

1. Purpose. This regulation prescribes the administrative and

technical evaluation and reporting system for the Military and

Civil Works Construction Program.

2. Applicability. This regulation applies to HQUSACE elements,

major subordinate commands (MSC), districts laboratories, and

field operating activities having military and/or civil works

construction responsibilities.

3. References.

a. AR 335-15, Management Information Control System

b. ER 5-7-1(FR), Project Management

c. ER 415-1-10, Contractor Submittal Procedures

d. ER 415-1-11, Biddability, Operability and Environmental

Review

e. ER 415-1-15, Construction Time Extensions for Weather

f. ER 415-345-38, Transfer and Warranties

g. ER 715-1-10, Architect Engineer Responsibility Management

Program

h. ER 1180-1-6, Construction Quality Management

This regulation supersedes ER 415-1-13, 1 September 1987.

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

4. Policy. The Design and Construction Evaluation (DCE) effort,

under the overall direction of the Director of Military Programs,

Chief, Construction Division and executed by Construction

Evaluation Branch (CEMP-CE), shall encompass all phases of the

project, identify quality Management failures, and provide the

basis for improvements through feedback and distribution of

evaluation information. The process is based on project

construction evaluation during any stage of construction.

Problem areas will be analyzed by the DCE team to determine the

reasons and/or source of the problem. Determination will be made

whether it is due to construction practice, error in design, or

major changes in criteria requirements. A letter and trip report

will be prepared by the DCE team for dispatch to the division

commander for action. This report will indicate the team

composition, projects visited, and highlights of evaluations in

narrative conclusion and recommendation format. The letter will

include a summary of the evaluation, required follow-up action,

and references to the trip report. Appropriate comments on

resource management, quality management, and reference to other

significant findings should be included. The division commander

will advise CEMP-CE of the appropriate corrective action to be

taken by the responsible office on the DCE team findings. In

making the analysis, the DCE team will specifically consider the

following aspects of construction projects:

a. Construction. All phases of construction execution will

be examined for compliance with the contract provisions and

HQUSACE guidance. Particular care will be exercised to identify

important and repetitive type problems and problems related to

inadequate or improper control. These problems are of particular

interest in determining a need for new or improved management

procedures. Other deficiencies peculiar to the job should be

identified for action and independently recorded by district

and/or division representatives.

b. Design. Problems discovered which are considered to be

design oriented will be investigated by the office responsible

for design, determining where in the process the problem

originated. The contract documents will be examined to determine

the need for revised or additional guidance. The specific areas

2

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

of interest include basic design judgment and practice;

suitability of the design, materials and equipment for the

application and geographic location; design adequacy,

thoroughness and clarity; cost-effectiveness; energy

conservation, safety, environmental considerations; and

conformance with user functional requirements.

c. Criteria Requirements. Contract documents will be

reviewed for conformance with established HQUSACE guidance.

Unauthorized deviations from the requirements of the various

design manuals, guide specifications, design standards, engineer

technical letters (ETL), engineer regulations (ER), army

regulations (AR), etc., should be noted. An authorized deviation

should always be noted. Items of a proprietary nature or items

unsuitable for the intended application are expressly of interest

and should be reported. Instances of repetitive misuse of

criteria will be analyzed by the appropriate team members for

inadequate requirements and for recommendation of directive

action.

5. Procedures. The following paragraphs outline the Design and

Construction Evaluation Program procedures:

a. Team Composition. Each evaluation team shall be composed

of a civil engineer, a mechanical engineer, an electrical

engineer, an architect for habitable structures, and a

structural engineer when required, each of whom should be

thoroughly experienced in the respective discipline. When

possible HQUSACE will staff a complete team. Division/district

representatives are welcome to accompany the team as additional

members. Team composition for each trip will be outlined in the

announcement letter described below.

b. Selection and Scheduling. An advance travel schedule of

evaluations covering approximately six months will be prepared

and distributed semiannually by HQUSACE (CEMP-CE). The

scheduling goal will be an annual to biannual visit to each

district based on their construction workload. The installation

and projects to be evaluated will be selected by HQUSACE based on

the amount and stage of work, time of year, and date of the last

3

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

visit. Normally, projects of less than $1,000,000 will not be

evaluated. A letter announcing each evaluation visit with the

proposed travel itinerary and a project listing will be forwarded

to the appropriate division office approximately one month in

advance. Recommended changes will be discussed and coordinated

with a HQUSACE (CEMP-CE) representative to establish the final

itinerary. An evaluation will generally extend for a two-week

period and include projects at several installations in the same

geographical area. Installations and projects scheduled during a

separate visit will normally be within a single division boundary

but may encompass more than one district. (Evaluations across

division boundaries will be avoided.)

c. Travel Arrangements. Each team member shall be responsible

for his/her own travel arrangements in accordance with the final

itinerary. The visited division and/or district will notify the

appropriate personnel and make all necessary arrangements for

local transportation and lodging for the team. The itinerary

will list the projects and installations selected for evaluation.

d. Reporting. Each team member will be responsible for

inspecting, evaluating, and reporting on his/her particular area

of expertise. Each team member is expected to report his/her

findings with appropriate recommendations on the design and

construction Observation Card, ENG Form 4702-R, for consideration

(see Appendix A). Cards documenting all significant comments and

required actions will be completed daily or after each project

evaluation. Findings will be discussed at the exit interviews at

the field office and at the district. Copies of all observation

cards will be provided to the appropriate division and district

staff for follow up action, if required. The record observation

card file will be maintained at HQUSACE. A trip report will be

completed within two weeks after completion of the trip. A

letter will be prepared by the team leader for dispatch to the

division commander within one month of completion of each trip,

enclosing the trip report. Within one month after receipt of the

letter and trip report, a response will be forwarded to CEMP-CE,

to include required follow-up and corrective measures which will

provide a basis for future evaluations and feedback for similar

experiences at other locations. Requirements Control Symbol(RCS)

exempt: AR 335-15, paragraphs 5-2e(5) and 5-2e(7).

4

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

e.

Field Evaluations.

The administrative evaluator will use

a checklist,

(see Appendix B),

when checking the districts

operating procedures and, Appendix C,

while performing the review

of construction office records and procedures.

They are not all

inclusive and the evaluators may ask for additional information

over what is included on them.

These checklists may change from

year to year as special areas of concern are investigated.

6.

Feedback.

Upon completion of each field evaluation visit,

the evaluation findings will be reviewed and necessary technical

and editorial changes will be made to each record observation

card to ensure accurate information in entry format for the

Construction Evaluation Retrieval System (CERS).

The system’s

file will be utilized for feedback, including printouts of

previous findings for follow-up by team members and periodic

distribution of common problems to the field.

Card comments on

design and criteria items are distributed to

elements of HQUSACE Engineering Division for

and additions to technical manuals and guide

Action on feedback related to standard plans

appropriate level in HQUSACE.

the appropriate

necessary revisions

specifications. .

is initiated at

7.

Subordinate Command Responsibilities.

Divisions/districts

will develop regulations and procedures for conducting their own

Design-Construction Evaluation program utilizing the suggested

checklists at Appendices B and C.

When developed these

procedures and regulations will be furnished to CEMP-CE for

information.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

3 Appendices

APP A - ENG Form 4072-R

APP B - District Office

Checklist

APP C -

Construction Office Checklist

ROBERT H. GRIFFIN

Colonel,

Corps of Engineers

Chief of Staff

5

.

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX

A

OBSERVATION CARD

(ENG Form 4072-R)

LOCATION

OBSERVATION CARD

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX A (Cont’d)

Instructions

- ENG Form 4072-R

NOTE:

Items

marked

With "

need

only

be

completed

on

the

t~rst

card

tor

each

contract

evaluated.

Alltnsen10ns

are

to

be

lett

hand

JUStified (start

at

lett).

"LOCATION

·oESCRIPTION

-APT

II

CAR

Oil

TY~E

S~LCII

"CATCOOE

"DDMMYY

-QIST

CONlll

•rLH

•AG

p

L>.CODE

SUBJECT

COMMENT

HE:.COMMENOATION -

AC

liON

AGENCY

Rt.SPONSE

BY

OFFICE

Self-explanatory

Year

1n

whteh

VtSII

ts

made

followed

by

sequent181

number

lor

each

tnsunoc VISited

SeQuential number on each card

at

each tnsllloc

VISited

Type

of observatiOn and evaluattontanspectiOil. In hrst

blOCk

ansert

·c·

tor

constructiOn,

'"0"

tor

design. ..M

..

for

ma~ntenanee

or

·o·

tor

other. In

second

block

ansert

"f"

lor OCFI.

•p"

tor

PCI, "'R" tor

OCE

and "'W" tor

Warranty

InspectiOn.

Appropraate

Guide Spec

number

for subfeet addressed

F

tve

diQit

Army

Ca1egory

Code

or

SIX

dtglt Atr Force Catttgory

C..odt!

Date of evaluatiOtlltnspectton

day,

month,

year

Self-explanatory

Contract Number

Increments

of

a contract encompassmg several tacllltteS.

Thts will occur when a Single contract

1s

awarded,

1.e

••

a barrat:ks complex conSisting

ot

a

BOO,

ct.apet, bregade

headquarters. etc

.•

Leave

blank

1f

contract

ts

for

a

sengle

tacdny.

lnttaals

ot

technteal

ev~uator

Insert

"'AR"

11

Army,

•Af•

at

Atr Force,

'"01"

tf

other

"P"

II

a photograph taken. otherwtse leave btank

OetiCtenCY

code

Bnel

descnptton ot

sublfJCt

addressed,

1.0.

paragraph

11U8

trom spuc1hcatms.

Self-explanatory

Sett-exptanalory

Agency

responSible tor taktng

act100

•y•

tor yes

response

requared

..

·N"tor

no

response

requared.

Name

of IndiVIdual rnalung observatiOn.

OffiCe Symbol

of

IndiVIdual malung observatiOn.

Reverse

of

ENG

Form

4702-R,

Apr

88

1U!l(.IUlllS'I!l(f1l.TIO?l~SES

09{pJ'

(.l.oall rtprotfuaion autliori.utf-

ofank71UISte.rs

avaifaDfe

from

focal

19r{O)

A-2

ER 415-1-15

29-Feb-96

APPENDIX B

DISTRICT OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 1 0F 2

DISTRICT DATE:

YES NO

ER 415-1-13 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION EVALUATIONS

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE IMPLEMENTING REG/SOP?

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE INSPECTION SCHEDULE?

ARE TRIP REPORTS PREPARED?

ARE TRIP REPORTS ADEQUATE?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ER 415-1-11 BCOE REG

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE IMPLEMENTING REG/SOP?

HAS PPM INCORPORATED ADEQUATE REVIEW TIME, MONEY IN PMP

HAS THE DIVISION/DISTRICT IMPLEMENTED ARMS?

ARE SPECIAL CLAUSES AVAILABLE FOR FINAL BCO REVIEW?

IS FEEDBACK PROVIDED ON DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS?

WAS BACK CHECK REVIEW CONDUCTED?

INCORPORATION OF COMMENTS CERTIFIED BY CONST & ENGR?

DOES CONTRACTING DIVISION OPEN BIDS PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION?

IF YES DOES FILE CONTAIN DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ER 715-1-10 ARCHITECT ENGINEER RESPONSIBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DOES DIVI5SION/DISTRICT HAVE IMPLEMENTING REG/SOP?

IS POLICY IMPLEMENTED SATISFACTORILY?

HAS THE DIVISION/DISTRICT MADE ANY RECOVERIES

DO THEY USE FOR IN-HOUSE DESIGNS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ARCHITECT ENGINEER SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION

IS THE REQUIREMENT INCLUDED IN A/E CONTRACTS

HOW MANY VISITS ARE SPECIFIED? ,AUTHORIZED?

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? (I.E. DESIGN ERROR, FIELD PROBLEM)

ARE A/E REPORTS RESPONSIVE?

WHAT FUNDS ARE USED FOR PAYMENT? (EDC OR S&A)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES

DOES DIST USE OUTSOURCING TO COVER SHORTFALL OF IN-HOUSE RESOURCES?

ER 415-345-38 TRANSFER AND WARRANTIES

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE IMPLEMENTING REG/SOP?

IS POLICY IMPLEMENTED SATISFACTORILY?

IS DRAFT 1354 PROVIDED BY DESIGNERS?

DOES PM PROVIDE EDC COSTS TO AREA ENGR FOR 1354

(ER 5-7-1 FR) RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

B-1

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX B

DISTRICT OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 2 0F 2

DISTRICT DATE:

YES NO

ER 1180-1-6 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT - QUALITY ASSURANCE

WRITTEN QA PLAN SIGNED AND DATED?

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

WORKLOAD

ORGANIZATION

STAFFING

RESPONSIBILITY

TRAINING

ARE NEEDS IDENTIFIED?

PLAN TO MEET NEEDS?

PRE-AWARD

PARTICIPATE IN DESIGN CONFERENCES?

INPUT TO CQC SPEC, SCHEDULE REQ'MTS, ETC.

BCO REVIEW PROCEDURES IDENTIFIED?

PLAN-IN-HAND REVIEWS

POST-AWARD QA SURVEILLANCE

PARTICIPATE IN CONTROL PHASES?

PROBLEM SOLVING - RFI CONTROL?

DEFICIENCY MONITORING

QA TESTING

POLICY

FACILITIES

SCHEDULE/LIST OF QA TESTS?

REPORTING PROCEDURES OUTLINED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (LD)

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE IMPLEMENTING REG/SOP?

DOES LD COMPUTATION COMPLY WITH GUIDANCE?

WHAT HAPPENS TO LDS COLLECTED? CREDITED TO AE/RE OFFICE?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

LESSONS LEARNED/FEEDBACK TO FIELD

DOES DIVISION/DISTRICT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PROCEDURE?

IS IT EFFECTIVELY USED BY FIELD ORGANIZATION?

HOW DOES DISTRICT/AREA STAFF MANAGE HQUSACE FEEDBACK DOCUMENTS?

CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

IS DISTRICT USING ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION?

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

IF YES, WHAT IS YOUR ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENTS? TIMELY

PERCENT OF CLAIMED AMOUNT

HAS DISTRICT INITIATED PARTNERING CONCEPTS

IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

IN DEALING WITH THE CUSTOMER

B-2

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX C

CONSTRUCTION OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 1 0F 5

CONTRACT: DATE:

YES NO

QUALITY ASSURANCE (ER 1180-1-6)

PLANNING SUPPLEMENTS

STAFFING

QA SURVEILLANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

JOB SPECIFIC QA TESTING TO INCLUDE TYPE AND FREQUENCY

DEFINABLE FEATURES OF WORK

IS PLAN CURRENT?

DATE OF LAST REVISION

COMMENTS

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING DEFICIENCY CORRECTION

DOES OFFICE HAVE A DEFICIENCY MONITORING PROCEDURE?

IS THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

, IMPROVEMENT NEEDED , UNSATISFACTORY

QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

DOES OFFICE HAVE LAB SERVICES AVAILABLE?

IS LAB CERTIFIED?

ARE QA TESTS BEING PERFORMED?

FREQUENCY

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

DOCUMENTATION OF MEETINGS

ARE MINUTES OF PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE ADEQUATE?

ARE MINUTES OF COORDINATION MEETING ADEQUATE?

MINUTES PROPERLY SIGNED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ENVIRONMENTAL

DOES CONTRACT REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN?

IS THE PLAN ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY APPROVED?

IS PLAN WORKING SATISFACTORILY?

WAS THE NPDES PERMIT OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

LABOR REQUIREMENTS

IS AREA STAFF MONITORING CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE WITH

DAVIS-BACON?

DRUG FREE WORKPLACE AND WORKFORCE LEGISLATION?

SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL & DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS GOALS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

C-1

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX C

CONSTRUCTION OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 2 0F 5

CONTRACT: DATE

YES NO

QUALITY CONTROL (ER 1180-1-6)

WAS CEGS 01440 USED TO SPECIFY CQC?

WAS QUALITY CONTROL PLAN SUBMITTED?

CONTENT OF PLAN

DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION

QUALIFICATIONS ETC.

DELEGATION LETTERS

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

THREE PHASE INSPECTION PROCEDURES

CONTROL TESTING

REPORTING PROCEDURES

LIST OF DEFINABLE FEATURES

ACCEPTANCE DATE NTP DATE

WAS ACCEPTANCE TIMELY?

IF NOT WAS ACCEPTABLE INTERIM PLAN SUBMITTED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

QC REPORTS

ARE REPORTS PREPARED DAILY?

DO THEY IDENTIFY 3-PHASE CONTROL PROCESS?

SEPARATE DOCUMENTATION OF PREP. AND INITIALS PROVIDED?

DO THEY INDICATE FINDINGS/CORRECTIVE ACTIONS?

ARE DEFICIENCIES TRACKED TO INSURE CORRECTION?

QC TEST RESULTS INCLUDED?

IN AGREEMENT WITH QA REPORTS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

QA REPORTS

ARE REPORTS PREPARED FOR EACH VISIT DAY?

ARE THEY PREPARED ON ENG FORMS 2538-1-R & 2-R?

HAS AE/RE OR DESIGNEE INITIALED ANY REPORTS?

DO THEY INDICATE QA ACTIVITIES/FINDINGS?

QA TEST RESULTS INCLUDED?

IN AGREEMENT WITH QC REPORT?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

SAFETY

IS SAFETY PLAN ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY APPROVED?

ARE HAZARD ANALYSIS ADEQUATE?

ARE WEEKLY "TOOL BOX" MEETINGS HELD AND DOCUMENTED?

ARE MONTHLY SUPERVISORS SAFETY MEETINGS HELD AND DOCUMENTED

ANY LOST TIME ACCIDENTS?

RESIDENT OFFICE ACTIVITY HAZARD ANALYSIS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

C-2

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX C

CONSTRUCTION OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 3 0F 5

CONTRACT: DATE:

YES NO

SCHEDULING

IS NETWORK ANALYSIS PROPERLY SPECIFIED?

IS DATA EXCHANGE FORMAT BEING SPECIFIED?

IS NAS BEING USED TO MONITOR PROGRESS?

HAVE APPROPRIATE MEASURES BEEN TAKEN WHEN PROGRESS IS LESS THAN

SATISFACTORY?

COMMENTS

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ER 415-1-10 CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (SUBMITTAL REGISTER)

IS IT INCLUDED IN SPECIFICATIONS?

IS IT CURRENT?

IS TURNAROUND TIME SATISFACTORY?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ER 415-1-15 CONSTRUCTION TIME EXTENSIONS FOR WEATHER

CLAUSE INCL IN CONTRACT?

EVALUATIONS ON A MONTHLY BASIS?

MODIFICATION WRITTEN QUARTERLY WHEN CONTRACTOR DUE TIME?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

DOES OFFICE PREPARE CONTRACTOR EVALUATIONS?

ARE EVALUATIONS TIMELY?

DOES OFFICE PREPARE ARCHITECT ENGINEER EVALUATIONS?

ARE EVALUATIONS TIMELY?

HAVE EVALUATIONS BEEN PROPERLY DOCUMENTED?

DOES FIELD OFFICE HAVE INPUT ON IN-HOUSE DESIGNS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

O & M MANUALS

DO CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ADEQUATELY SPECIFY REQUIREMENT FOR SYSTEMS

ORIENTED MANUALS?

DOES OFFICE HAVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND PROCESSING?

ARE MANUALS FURNISHED TIMELY?

IS SYSTEM TRAINING PROVIDED TIMELY?

DOES CONTRACT CONTAIN ANY SPECIAL REQ, IE EXTENDED WARRANTY

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

SYSTEMS COMMISSIONING

IS CEGS-15995 INCLUDED IN AIR FORCE CONTRACTS?

C-3

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX C

CONSTRUCTION OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 4 OF 5

OFFICE: DATE:

YES NO

AS-BUILT DRAWINGS

DOES OFFICE HAVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND PROCESSING?

DOES OFFICE MONITOR MONTHLY AS PART OF PROGRESS PAYMENT?

ARE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FURNISHED TIMELY?

DOES CONTRACT CONTAIN ANY SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ER 415-345-38 TRANSFER AND WARRANTY

DOES OFFICE HAVE MOU WITH CUSTOMERS?

IS DRAFT 1354 PREPARED BY DESIGNER?

IS 1354 FURNISHED TO USER AT FINAL INSPECTION?

IF NOT THEN WHEN IS IT FURNISHED?

DOES IT CONTAIN S&A, EDC, AND DESIGN COSTS?

ARE FOUR AND NINE MONTH WARRANTY INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED?

REVIEW INSPECTION REPORTS FOR SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND FOLLOW UP

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

BCOE REVIEWS (ER 415-1-11)

WHAT % OF CONTRACTS ARE REVIEWED?

HOW MANY REVIEWS?

WHEN

ARE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED?

ARE DOCUMENTS COMPLETE?

IS FEEDBACK ON COMMENTS PROVIDED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS

HAS CONTRACTOR ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED PAYMENT BREAKDOWN?

DOES OFFICE HAVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND PROCESSING?

DO PROCEDURES COMPLY WITH PROMPT PAYMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS?

ARE PAYMENTS PROCESSED TIMELY?

HAS ANY INTEREST BEEN PAID?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

ARCHITECT ENGINEER SITE VISITS

IS THE REQUIREMENT INCLUDED IN A/E CONTRACTS?

HOW ARE THESE VISITS HANDLED?

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

C-4

ER 415-1-13

29 Feb 96

APPENDIX C

CONSTRUCTION OFFICE CHECKLIST 6 FEB 96

DCE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 5

OF 5

CONTRACT DATE

MODIFICATION NO. AMOUNT $ TIME DAYS

MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION

REASON AMPRS REASON CODE

DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED IN MODIFICATION FILES

YES

NO

ALL MODIFICATIONS

BUDGET ESTIMATE

MISCELLANEOUS COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (DATE )

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (DATE )

PRENEGOTIATION OBJECTIVES FAR 15.807(b)(DATE )

CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL (DATE )

PRICE ANALYSIS FAR 15.805-1

PRICE NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUM FAR 15.808

MODIFICATIONS > $25,000

INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE FAR 36.203

ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY SIGNED (DATE )

MODIFICATIONS > $500,000

COST OR PRICING DATA FAR 15.804-2

FACTUAL AND JUDGMENTAL ITEMS IDENTIFIED?

FAR 15.801 AND 15.804-6

IS LEVEL OF RELIANCE SHOWN IN PNM?

IS CERTIFICATION ADEQUATE? FAR 15.804-4

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FAR 15.805-4

COST ANALYSIS FAR 15.805-3

MODIFICATIONS > $500,000 FAR 15.805-5

AUDIT OBTAINED

AUDIT USED IN NEGOTIATIONS

AUDIT, RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES IN PNM?

BUSINESS CLEARANCE MEMORANDUM (PRE- AND POST-)

RATING

SATISFACTORY

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED UNSATISFACTORY

C-5