RD551 - Project Delivery Method Reviews by the Department of General Services for Fiscal Year 2019 – November 1, 2019
Code of Virginia § 2.2-4383.A requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to:
“report by December 1 of each year to the Governor and the Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on General Laws, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology the following information: (i) the number of projects reviewed pursuant to Articles 2 (§ 2.2-4380) and 3 (§ 2.2-4381) and (ii) for each project (a) the identity of the state public body or covered institution and a description of each such project, (b) the estimated cost of the project at the time of the Department's review, (c) the recommendation made by the Department concerning the proposed procurement method, and (d) the final procurement method used by the state public body or covered institution."
Pursuant to this requirement, DGS is reporting data for projects reviewed during Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019). During Fiscal Year 2019, DGS reviewed sixteen (16) project procurement submittals. Of those sixteen submittals, twelve (12) were for Construction Management at Risk (CM) procurement and four (4) were for Design-Build (DB) procurement. The details of these reviews can be found in the attached table titled “DGS Procurement Reviews/Recommendations in Fiscal Year 2019".
The stated project values ranged from $400,000 to $200M. The average cost of the projects was $50.8M and the median cost was $34.5M. The CM projects had stated values which ranged from $5.4M to $200M. The average cost of the CM projects was $53.6M and the median cost was $41M. The DB projects had stated values which ranged from $400,000 to $90M. The average cost of the DB projects was $42.4M and the median cost was $39.5M.
DGS concurred with the Agency’s or Covered Institution’s selected method of procurement on 16 of the 16 submittals (100%).
Of the sixteen (16) projects where DGS concurred:
• In one (1) instance, the Agency or Covered Institution decided not to proceed with the project.
• In the remaining fifteen (15) instances, the Agency or Covered Institution continued with the procurement as submitted.