Value Based Project Delivery: Best Value Business Model

Transcription

1 Value Based Project Delivery: Best Value Business Model Kenneth T. Sullivan, PhD, MBA Arizona State University

2 Goals 1. Minimize Cost 2. Minimize Cost by becoming More Efficient 3. Become More Efficient in three ways: Hire people who know what they are doing Preplan before the contract is signed Measure for positive accountability 4. Teach the thinking, concepts, tools, and processes to organizations 2

3 Goals (typical - Owner) Project Organizational Be able to get what you paid for and be able to prove it Demonstrate VALUE! Enhance preplanning and performance measurement techniques Add Best Value as another tool in your toolbox Have higher levels of accountability / breakdown organizational silos Become a Client of Choice 3

4 20 Years 250+ Publications 100+ Funded Partners Projects $6+ Billion Procured

5 Information Technology networking data centers hardware COTS software ERP systems help desk services eprocurement Facility Management maintenance custodial landscaping conveyance security service pest control building systems industrial moving waste management energy management Health Insurance/ Medical Services Manufacturing Business / Municipal / University Services dining multi-media rights fitness equipment online education document management property management audiovisual communications systems emergency response systems laundry material recycling bookstores furniture financial services Construction/ Design/ Engineering large gc infrastructure municipal laboratory education hospital financial large specialty small gc renovation repair maintenance roofing demolition development supply chain DBB CMAR DB IDIQ JOC Low Bid IPD

6 Strategic Partners & Efforts Canada 13 clients 5 provinces 7+ years Infra/IT/Equip 4B+ United States clients 37 states Tongji University Malaysia Complete Supply Chain Fulbright Scholarship- University of Botswana BV tests RMIT Teaching IMT PBSRG platform

7 What Percent of RFP s Are 100% Accurate? 7

8 Who Should Know More About Performing/Delivering the Services Required? 8

9 It Is More Important For The Vendor To Know What To Do Than It Is For Client To Know What The Vendor Should Do 9

10 Impact of Minimum Requirements High Low High Low Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Low Vendor 3 Vendor 4 High Low Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 High

11 Problem with Traditional Approach High Owners The lowest possible quality that I want Vendors The highest possible value that you will get High Maximum Minimum Low Low

12

13 Which of these High Low Proponents brings the client organization Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 the most risk? Low High 13

14 What we have seen Vendor Vendor Client Vendor Vendor Vendor 14

15 What we have seen Vendor Vendor Client Vendor Vendor Vendor 15

16 What we have seen Client Vendor 16

17 What we have seen Client Vendor Client PM Vendor PM 17

18 The Greatest Risk that I always face, is how to accomplish all of the things that our sales team promised we could do. 18

19 What is different Vendor Vendor Client P/P/P Vendor Vendor Vendor 19

20 What is different Client Plan Vendor Client PM Vendor PM 20

21 A Leader s Objectives Minimize cost, increase efficiency not just transfer risk...but minimize risk Supply Chain mentality Win-Win Vendors maximize their profits by being more efficient Reduce Cost Minimize the need for client management, direction, and decision making Minimize risk of nonperformance High Client Satisf. 21

22 Becoming a Client of Choice Vendors want to send their best people to compete on your projects Open, Honest, Fair, Transparent Allow Clarification, Planning, and Coordination Before the Contract is Signed Drive Accountability through Performance measurement 22

23 Best-Value Model 23

24 [Insert Name Here] Model 24

25 Best Value Model

26 Best Value Model

27 Value-Based Selection Hiring or selecting who will create the plan and execute it The quality of the plan and its execution is directly linked to the individuals creating it and doing the work Quality of Plan = Minimization of Risk & Cost 27

28 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

29 Selection Value Based Proposition Selection dictates the maximum capacity to achieve a quality plan Procurement methodologies to identify expertise: Risk and Value focused RFP Process Simple, brief, anonymous evaluation process Evaluation of key project personnel Proven Past Performance Information Ability to identify, prioritize, and minimize risk Interviews of project delivery personnel Focus on specific project needs Minimize marketing information Cost/Financial 29

30 Factors For Success Fair (state/follow rules) Open (no prequalification / open to all with experience) Impartial and Transparent (minimize evaluator bias / share your budget / provide debriefing) Efficient (minimize efforts) 30

31 Request For Proposal (RFP) Contents: Current / Existing conditions Desired outcomes / Objectives Proposal requirements and selection criteria Education describes how the vendor must think (paradigm shift) RFP 31

32 RFP / Solicitation Use existing RFP document and add Best-Value language Does not change contract language Does not change design / specs Always provide your budget Always provide your schedule Have legal review Have an educational meeting 32

33 RFP Intent Defensive Document VS Enabler of Value Creation 33

34 Should We Issue the Budget? The owner wants the best-available option that meets the requirements. Requirements are: Time constraints Cost constraints Expectations - Needs/Req/Quality 34

35 Should We Issue the Budget? Yes 35

36 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

37 3 Written Submittals Blind Evaluations: standard templates, no modifications, and no names. Risk Assessment = risks you don t control 2 pages each, 6 pages in total 37

38 Project Capability 38

39 Project Capability Template 39

40 Example of Solutions Risk: Design of Heating/Cooling System Type: Project Capability Plan 1 We will use our 20 years of experience in working with mechanical systems to minimize the risk of the heating and cooling system design. Plan 2 We have identified the design of the heat/cooling system as a risk. It has not been used before in the area. Will ensure that the system performance and installation is verified in the pre-award period. We have bid using best rated mechanical contractor in the area (rated at 9.8 out of 10.0, next best rated 9.1) Mechanical contractor identified modifications to the design to improve output and sustainability of the system with the following impacts (mechanical system cost minimized by 15% - see VA#1) Mechanical system will be provided by one manufacturer, and will be commissioned by the manufacturer, contractor, and general contractor, who will take full responsibility of commissioning the system

41 Example of Solutions Risk: Noise from Demolition Type: Project Capability Plan 1 We will work with the user to minimize the impact of noise from demolition. Plan 2 We have planned to demolition during off hours and weekends. This will have a slight impact on our cost (less than 1%), but the impact to customer satisfaction justifies this. We will also install rubber sheets on the floors to diminish noise and vibrations. Both solutions can be performed within your budget. Both solutions have been used on multiple previous projects w/ high levels of customer satisfaction (9.4/10).

42 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment = risks you don t control 42

43 Risk Assessment Template Typical Risk Assessment Template 43

44 Example of Solutions Risk: Loss of Radio Flagship in Major Market Type: Risk Assessment Plan 1 We will work very hard to maintain excellent affiliate relationships. If we lose a radio station (e.g. it changes its format) we will move quickly to replace the lost station. If we cannot quickly replace a flagship station, we can be very creative and could even consider purchasing all local inventory from a new flagship station. Plan 2 In the past 10 yrs, on over 50 accounts, 7 radio stations format changes have occurred. The following solution is optimal. We own and will maintain two radio contracts covering the area, where signals can be switched if required. The flagship station will be the station with the stronger signal and greater coverage. If a station is lost we will have a equal replacement within 2 months. If within two months a replacement is not contracted we will purchase inventory from another station or discount the cost of an inventory purchase and add it to our payments to the client.

45 Example of Solutions Risk: Getting water to the site Type: Risk Assessment Plan 1 Coordination with [water company] is critical. We will coordinate and plan with [water company] as soon as the award is made to make sure that we get water to the site to irrigate the fields. Plan 2 We will coordinate and schedule the water with [water company]. However, based on past experience there is a high risk they will not meet the schedule (the water company does not meet schedule over 90% of the time). We will have temporary waterlines setup and ready to connect to the nearby fire hydrant to irrigate until [water company] is ready. We will also have water trucks on-site if there is problems with connecting the lines.

46 Value Added 46

47 Value Add Plan 1. Provide ways to keep project at or below budget Modifications to requirements to meet budget Specific cost ($) savings Supported by metrics (high performance) 2. Increase customer satisfaction 3. Increase performance

48 Value Added Template Typical Value Added Template 48

49 Example: Value Added Items Idea: Purchase Concurrent Licenses instead of Named Licenses Why: In a Named Licensing model, you must purchase a license for every user and only that particular user can access the software. If that named user is in meetings, on vacation, or not using the system, the license cannot be utilized. In a Concurrent Licensing model, the system loans out the licenses to users as they log in. If a user is inactive, the server releases the license and allocates the license to the next user. Expected Benefit: The advantage of the concurrent licenses is that the Agency will not have to purchase licenses that are not being used, which can result in approximately 20%-30% savings in cost. 49

50 Past Performance Information PPI will be collected on the critical Entities: Firm/Key Firms Project Manager (Individual)/Team Leader(s) Key Subs or Suppliers and Other Key Individuals Each Entity must prepare and submit a list of references, customer surveys, and Past Performance Information Scores ENTITY Vendor Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Prepare Reference List Prepare and Send Survey Questionnaires to Past Clients Collect/Receive Completed Surveys Enter data into Reference List Package all material (Reference List and Surveys) and Submit 50

51 Financial Proposal/Bid Cost Dependent on project type

52 Financial Proposal (VGS) Vendor generated solution

53 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

54 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

55 Best Value Interviews: Identifying Expertise 1. Why were you selected for this project? 2. How many similar projects have you worked on? Individually and as a Team? 3. Describe a similar project you have developed/worked on to the current project. 4. What is different about this project from other projects that you have worked for? 5. Draw out the process for this project by major milestone activities. 1. Identify, prioritize, and how you will minimize the risks of this project. 2. What risks don t you control? How will you minimize those risks? 3. What do you need from the client and when do you need it? 6. How are you going to measure your performance during the project? 7. What value do you bring to the project in terms of differences based on dollars, quality, expertise, or time? If buying a product, demos are done here 55

56 Selection Model 56

57 Selection Case Study 57

58 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

59 Best Value Model

60 How to Clarify a Plan What is it / Why is it important? Period of time allotted before work begins to the entity doing the work: Present their project/service plan Set a plan for its delivery / clarify that their plan is accurate Identify the risks and issues that could cause the plan to deviate Identify what you don t know and when you will know it and how the plan could change based upon what you discover Set plans to minimize those risks from occurring Address all the concerns and risks of the client

61 How to Clarify a Plan What is it / Why is it important? Period of time allotted before work begins to the entity doing the work: Know how they are being successful and adding value (measurement) What metrics you will use and how you will report them What is the current baseline condition we are comparing against Identify what you need from the client and have a plan for getting it Have completely aligned expectations between all parties so everyone knows what is going to transpire and what they are supposed to do Coordinate the schedule

62 Clarification / Preplanning Period Start End Very High Level Cost Verification Included in Proposal Excluded from Proposal Major Assumptions Major Client Risks/Concerns High Level Project Work Plan Client Risks/Concerns PA Schedule Uncontrollable Risks Response to all risks Roles and Responsibilities Value Added Ideas Coordination Review Functionality Technical Level Performance Reports / Metrics Additional Documentation Technical Details Project Schedule High level demos PA Document

63 Clarification / Preplanning Period 63

64 Impact of Clarification/Pre-Award (General Services Administration) No CRITERIA Traditional RFP ASU-BV 1 Number of projects analyzed Total awarded cost $14,244,385 $9,994,887 3 Total awarded schedule 1,822 1,373 4 Percent awarded cost below budget 4.4% 6.0% 5 Average time RFP Release to Contract 68 days 78 days 6 Average BV-PA duration (days) Average Overall Change Order Rate 50% Decrease 8 Average Overall Project Delay Rate 38% Decrease 9 GSA Satisfaction Rating of Contractor/Job 34% Increase For within BV projects, also tested <1 week PA vs >1 week PA Longer PA had 33% lower change order rate (73% reduced overall) Longer PA had 69% lower delay rate (73% reduced overall) 64

65 Clarification & Preplanning Case Study 65

66 Best Value Model

67 Best Value Process Filter 1 Proposal Evaluations Filter 2 Interview Key Personnel Filter 3 Prioritization (Identify Best Value) Filter 4 Cost Reasonableness Check Filter 5 Pre-Award & Clarification Project Execution Risk Reporting & Close Out Rating Contract Award Evaluation Criteria - Price / Cost / Fee - Project Capability - Risk Assessment - Value Added - Past Performance Information (PPI) Short List prior to Interviews (if necessary) Total Evaluation Scores are determined Decision Matrix to confirm Selection of the potential Best Value Proponent Pre Award Activities - Training - Kickoff Meeting - Plan & Clarify - Summary Meeting Project Execution - Weekly Risk Report - Director Report - Performance Meas. - Close Out Ratings Copyright Arizona State Univ. 2013

68 Measured Environment Must be simple and dominant Must be for the purposes of positive accountability Transparency and openness Measuring against a plan (or expectation created by the individual/team doing the work) 68

69 Weekly Risk Report System Excel Spreadsheet that is setup by the Client and sent to the vendor once Award/NTP has been issued Vendor must submit the report every week (Friday) until project is complete 69 69

70 Measurement of Deviation from the Expectation Management by Risk Minimization Unforeseen Risks PROJECT PLAN Risk Risk Minimization Schedule WEEKLY REPORT Risk Unforeseen Risks METRICS Time linked Financial Operational/Client Satisfac. Environmental PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Vendor Performance Client Performance Individual Performance Project Performance

71 Project Management Creating a Measured Environment: Weekly Risk Report Tool for documenting risk that impacts the project Measurement in terms of cost, schedule, and client expectation Director s Report Overall performance summary of multiple projects running simultaneously Performance evaluation Client closeout evaluation of vendor performance Accountability metric updates Past Performance Information 71

72 U of MN Objectives The UMN has a goal to be recognized as a top research institution in the world In 2005, CPPM partnered with the PBSRG (ASU) to implement the PIPS Best Value Process CPPM s Objectives of the Best-Value Program are to: Contract to high performers Respond faster to customer needs Increase performance (on time, on budget, high quality) Increase efficiency of procurement (spend taxpayers money more efficient) Create a fair and open process for all vendors 7272

73 Current Results Award Analysis: Number of Best-Value Procurements: 161 Awarded Cost: $50.6M (11% below average cost) Average Number of Proposals: 4 Projects Where Best-Value was also Lowest Cost: 53% 85% of projects were awarded to vendor with highest / second highest RAVA Plan (7.3 vs 5.9) Performance Information: Contractor Impacts: 0% Change Orders / 4% Delay Vendor post project rating: 9.6 Average Contractor Increase in Profit: 5% 73

74 Program Report Vice Director President Procurement Director Officer 1 1 Procurement Director Officer 2 2 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 Contractor 1 Contractor 3 Contractor 9 Contractor 4 Contractor 2 Contractor 6 Contractor 7 Contractor 8 Contractor 3 Contractor 1 Contractor 7 Contractor 9 Contractor 4 Contractor 8 Contractor 2 Contractor 2 74

75 Report Overall Program 75

76 Directors Report 76

77 Report End Users General Overview TEAM 1 (President / University / Admin) TEAM 2 Academic Health Center TEAM 3 Provost College 1 Total Number of Projects Percent of Projects Procured Using PIPS 79% 86% 80% 3 Total Awarded Cost: $5,359,995 $2,821,005 $2,353,761 4 Average Number of Risks per Project Owner Impacts 5 Overall Owner Impacts (Time & Cost) 7.7% 41.3% 41.1% 6 Owner Change Order Rate 0.6% 3.4% 20.0% 7 Owner Delay Rate 7.2% 37.8% 21.1% 8 Percent of Projects without Owner Cost Changes 63% 36% 80% 9 Percent of Projects without Owner Delays 68% 50% 80% Contractor Impacts 10 Overall Contractor Impacts (Time & Cost) 8.1% 19.6% 14.8% 11 Contractor Change Order Rate 0.1% 0.1% -0.8% 12 Contractor Delay Rate 8.0% 19.6% 15.6% 13 Percent of Projects without Contractor Cost Changes 95% 93% 100% 14 Percent of Projects without Contractor Delays 79% 79% 60% Satisfaction Ratings 15 Total Number of Completed Projects Total Number of Client Surveys Returned Percent of Projects Evaluated by Client 75% 100% 100% 18 Average PM Post Project Rating of Contractor Average Client Post Project Rating of Contractor Average Client Post Project Rating of CPPM

78 Report Internal PM s 78

79 Report Vendors No Contractor Total Number of Projects Total Awarded Cost: Owner Change Order Rate Owner Delay Rate Vendor Change Order Rate Vendor Delay Rate Percent of Late Reports Vendor Performance 1 Contractor $ 721, % 18.1% 0.2% 66.8% 53% 120% 2 Contractor $ 220, % 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 69% 69% 3 Contractor $ 269, % 303.0% 0.0% 18.2% 47% 65% 4 Contractor $ 459, % 2.7% 0.0% 18.8% 37% 56% 5 Contractor $ 241, % 21.9% 2.7% 50.0% 0% 53% 6 Contractor $ 1,611, % 32.9% 0.0% 16.3% 32% 49% 7 Contractor $ 1,280, % 31.1% 0.7% 3.2% 35% 39% 8 Contractor $ 367, % 79.1% 0.0% 1.4% 37% 38% 9 Contractor $ 178, % 0.0% 0.6% 11.4% 25% 37% 10 Contractor $ 3,227, % 0.0% -0.6% 5.4% 30% 35% 11 Contractor $ 327, % 135.4% 0.0% 0.0% 32% 32% 12 Contractor $ 69, % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31% 31% 13 Contractor $ 1,150, % 7.3% 0.0% 4.2% 26% 30% 14 Contractor $ 534, % 23.2% 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29% 15 Contractor $ 323, % 3.4% 0.0% 6.8% 22% 29% 16 Contractor $ 308, % 24.8% 0.0% 0.0% 27% 27% 17 Contractor $ 1,793, % 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 26% 26% 18 Contractor $ 2,956, % 1.7% 0.0% 12.2% 11% 23% 19 Contractor $ 1,319, % 16.2% 0.0% 11.0% 9% 21% 20 Contractor $ 1,096, % 0.0% 0.0% 9.8% 10% 19% 21 Contractor $ 446, % 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 15% 15% 22 Contractor $ 552, % 29.4% 0.0% 7.0% 8% 15% 23 Contractor $ 1,841, % 215.8% 0.0% 0.0% 13% 13% 79

80 Report Yearly Analysis 80

81 Report Top 10 Riskiest Projects No Project Awarded Cost Awarded Duration Overall Change Order Rate Overall Delay Rate Percent of Late Reports Risk Analysis Factor PM Director 1 Mayo Remodel Suite A652 $ 269, % 321% 47% 377% Wycliffe Waganda Gary Summerville 2 Barn Clean Renovations $ 269, % 166% 60% 229% Wycliffe Waganda Justin Grussing 3 WBOB Remodel Suite 150 $ 273, % 96% 37% 134% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville 4 Vet Sciences Third Floor $ 96, % 86% 28% 116% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville 5 Weaver Densford College of Pharmacy $ 90, % 25% 80% 107% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville 6 PWB Remodel Suite $ 127, % 23% 64% 104% Steve Bailey Gary Summerville 7 PWB Room 7-158B $ 46, % 0% 100% 100% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville 8 Oak Street Parking Surveillance $ 246, % 0% 100% 100% George Mahowald Justin Grussing 9 Snyder Bldg Exterior Door $ 219, % 81% 22% 100% Wycliffe Waganda Justin Grussing 10 Heller Hall Renovation $ 1,593, % 0% 50% 79% Matt Stringfellow Justin Grussing 81

82 Report Analysis of Risks Risk Category Number of Risks Impact to Cost Impact to Schedule Percent Impact to Cost Percent Impact to Schedule 1) Client Impacts 114 $660,369 1,200 59% 46% Client Scope Change / Decision 111 $ 660, % 37% Client Requested Delay 3 $ % 9% 2) CPPM Impacts 135 $329, % 34% Design Issue 48 $ 189, % 9% CPPM Issue (Codes / Permits) 36 $ 46, % 7% CPPM Issue (Energy Mgmt) 2 $ 47, % 1% CPPM Issue (Hazardous / Health & Safety) 8 $ 35, % 5% CPPM Issue (NTS) 8 $ 10, % 2% CPPM Issue (Contract / Payment) 11 $ % 5% CPPM Issue (Other) 22 $ % 5% 3) Contractor Impacts 43 $21, % 16% Contractor Issue 11 $ % 4% Contractor Oversight of Design 9 $ 21, % 1% Contractor Issue with Supplier / Sub 23 $ % 10% 4) Unforeseen Impacts 19 $102, % 4% 311 $ 1,113,343 2,607 82

83 Measurement Case Study 83

84 Risk Encounters by Stakeholders

85 High-Performing PM s vs. Traditional PM s 9 Average Number of Risks That Delayed or Increased Cost Original Completion Date PM 1 (RM Score 4.2) PM 2 (RM Score 3.9) PM 8 (RM Score 2.9) PM 9 (RM Score 2.5) 0 Project Schedule

86 Vision Partner with progressive and innovative organizations and people Move industry towards value-based, preplanning, and measured (accountable) environment Implement and enhance best value concepts, approach, and tools Provide education, research, and assistance 86

87 Comments / Questions W W W. P B S R G. C O M 87