RICHARD THOMAS

The issue pertained to the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Bill and specific House Language (Grayson Amendment - Sec. 501) with the requirement that cost or price to the federal government be given at least equal importance as technical or other criteria in evaluating competitive proposals for Defense Contracts (low cost, on big-ticket items such as the design and construction of facilities, does not offer best value to the federal government in terms of a quality project that is sustainable).

We met with the Department of Veterans Affairs about the public-interest value of the Design-Build project delivery method. More specifically, we discussed the overall value in providing Design-Build education to the VA's project managers (for facilities) nationwide.

The issue was with regard to Defense procurement (Senate and House FY 2011 Defense Authorization Bills) in that cost should not be the determining factor on big-ticket items such as the design and construction of facilities (best value overall to DOD in the long run is in the public interest).

The Transportation Reauthorization (Highway) Bill for the period of 2011 to 2016 and the fact that the Design-Build project-delivery method is in the national interest on major transportation projects (with the goal of authorizing $2.5 million for the training of state and local owners and design and construction practitioners on the effective integration of design and construction services, and Design-Build best practices to ensure success on Design-Build transportation projects).

Defense procurement -- House and Senate FY 11 Defense Authorization Bills -- H.R. 5013 language in the House-passed version -- and the requirement that cost or price to the federal government be given at least equal importance as technical or other criteria in evaluating competitive proposals for Defense contracts (low cost is not always the best value to the federal government, especially on non-commodity procurement such as the design and construction of facilities).

Our work was with regard to the six-year Transportation (Highway) Reauthorization Bill (2011 through 2016) and how the Design-Build project delivery method is in the national interest.

Our work is in conjunction with the Transportation (Highway) Reauthorization Bill for Fiscal Years 2010-2015. The Design-Build project delivery method is the national interest from the standpoints of budget, schedule, combined with much less litigation.

Lobbying issue consisted of the 2010-2015 Transportation Reauthorization (Highway) Bill and the national-interest aspects of Design-Build language being included in the Bill (Report Language) as it pertains to Design-Build training at the state and local level. The use of Design-Build as a project-delivery method on major transportation projects provides both a cost and time savings while being much less litigious.

Our work is with regard to the Design-Build project delivery method as it pertains to the Transportation (Highway) Reauthorization Bill in addition to facilities at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Design-Build is in the national interest with regard to budget, schedule and much less litigation.

Our work is in conjunction with the Transportation (Highway) Reauthoriztion Bill for Fiscal Years 2010 - 2015. The Design-Build project delivery method is in the national interest from the standpoints of budget, schedule, combined with much less litigation.

Our work has been with regard to the Transportation (Highway) Reauthorization Bill for Fiscal Years 2010 - 2015. The Design-Build project delivery method is in the national interest because of budget, time frames and the fact that litigation is held to a minimum.