Prequalification of construction worksRELATED APPLICATIONS
This patent application claims priority from U.S. provisional patent application No. 61/121,618 entitled "construction detection priority" filed on 11.12.2008, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Background
The present invention generally relates to systems and methods for management of construction projects. In particular, the present invention relates to systems and methods for implementing prequalification between multiple organizations in the construction industry and for managing the project bid process.
In construction projects, a project owner or general contractor requests bids from other organizations (subcontractors, material suppliers, etc.). Participants in the construction project will be selected according to the information contained in the submitted bid proposal. However, some general contractors set minimum requirements regarding financial security and the ability of an organization to complete a project, and may require the organization to submit a prequalification application before allowing the organization to submit a bid for the project. Although various prequalification applications contain similar data, there is no standardized format. Thus, the nature and format of the prequalification application will typically be different for each general contractor. Thus, whenever an organization wants to bid on a contract project with a new general contractor, the organization must perform the lengthy and time consuming process of completing the prequalification application.
SUMMARY
In one embodiment, the present invention provides a networked computer system for obtaining prequalification information and distributing the prequalification information to one or more participants for approval. The system includes a network-based server that establishes electronic communication between the server and a first device over a network and receives business information for a first organization from the first device over the network. The business information includes a plurality of data items related to a first organization. The second organization submits a request for a subset of the data items, and one or more of the requested data items are displayed to the second organization. The system receives authorization for each displayed data item from the second organization and generates a final aggregate authorization document that includes each authorized data item. The system then receives a final approval from the second organization for the final aggregate approval document and stores a prequalification indication indicating that the first organization is approved to bid for contracting the construction project of the second organization.
In some implementations, the data items are aggregated into a first aggregated data document prior to making the data items available to a second organization. The first organization provides an electronic signature that confirms the accuracy of the data items included in the first aggregated data document before the data items are displayed to the second organization.
In some embodiments, the system displays separate data items to different participants associated with the second organization and receives approval from the different participants. The first data item is displayed to the first participant and the second data item is displayed to the second participant. The system then receives an approval for the first data item from the first participant and an approval for the second data item from the second participant.
In another embodiment, the present invention provides a system and method for managing bid proposals from pre-qualified organizations. A computer-based system establishes electronic communication between a server and a first device over a computer network. The system then receives business information for the first organization from the first device over the computer network. The business information includes a plurality of data items related to a first organization. The system also establishes electronic communication between the server and the second device over a computer network and receives minimum requirements from the second organization over the computer network. The minimum requirements include a plurality of data items defining requirements for candidates for prequalification. If the business information meets the minimum requirements, the first organization can submit the bid proposal to the second organization. If not, the system does not allow the first organization to submit the business proposal.
Other aspects of the invention will become apparent by consideration of the detailed description and accompanying drawings.
Brief description of the drawings
FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a networked construction project prequalification system, according to one embodiment.
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a construction project prequalification system according to one embodiment.
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating another embodiment of a prequalification process.
FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface showing an overview of data items in a library.
FIG. 5 illustrates a user interface displaying a prequalification request notification.
FIG. 6 is a relationship diagram illustrating different types of subscribed services available according to one embodiment of the prequalification system.
Fig. 7 illustrates a user interface showing a request for additional information notification.
FIG. 8 is an example of a first aggregated data document according to the process of FIG. 3.
FIG. 9 is an example of a final aggregated data document according to the process of FIG. 3.
Fig. 10 is an example of data flow between participants according to the process of fig. 3.
FIG. 11 shows a user interface requesting a prequalification form.
FIG. 12 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a prequalification process.
FIG. 13 illustrates a user interface showing a notification requesting a human qualifications pre-review.
FIG. 14 is a flow diagram illustrating the project bid process for a pre-qualified SCE.
FIG. 15 illustrates a user interface showing a list of available projects.
FIG. 16 illustrates a user interface showing a list of currently pending bids.
Detailed Description
Before any embodiments of the invention are explained in detail, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and the arrangement of components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the following drawings. The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or of being carried out in various ways.
Fig. 1 schematically illustrates a network-based construction engineering management system (CPMS) including a prequalification system. The CPMS server 101 stores data about one or more construction projects, processes payments, and schedules information. And provides a communication interface for participants associated with the construction project. One such CPMS is described in U.S. patent application No. 11/032,699, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Although the prequalification system is described below as being incorporated into the CPMS, the prequalification system can alternatively be implemented as a stand-alone system.
The CPMS server 101 includes one or more storage devices (e.g., hard disk drives or flash memory), one or more processors, and a network connection. The storage device of the CPMS server 101 stores computer-executable instructions that provide a graphical user interface and perform methods, such as the methods described in detail below. The computer-executable instructions may be provided using any suitable computer language, including, for example, C, C + + or Java. The graphical user interface may similarly be encoded using any suitable computer language, such as HTML. The CPMS server 101 provides a web-based user interface accessible through various remote computer systems 103, 105, 107, 109, and 111. The remote computer system is connected to the CPMS server 101 directly through a local area network or connected to the CPMS server 101 through an internet connection. The remote computer system of FIG. 1 may be any web-enabled electronic device, including, for example, a personal computer, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), or a cellular telephone.
Fig. 2 illustrates one example of a CPMS server 801 that includes a processor 803, the processor 803 operable to execute instructions stored on a first computer readable memory 805. The CPMS801 also includes memory to store a list library 807. The form library includes data items provided by the organization for possible inclusion in the prequalification application, as described in further detail below. Once the data items are provided by the organization to the form repository, the organization may complete multiple prequalification applications by reusing the data items provided to the form repository to complete the prequalification applications, as described in more detail below. The ability to reuse the same data items for multiple applications increases efficiency by not requiring the user to re-enter the same data each time a new prequalification application is completed.
The contents of the form library include files stored in a variety of different formats. The stored files may include forms generated by the CPMS801 based on information provided by the organization, documents created by other systems and uploaded to the CPMS801 (e.g., pdf documents), separate text data items entered into the CPMS801 graphical user interface by the user, or various other file formats. As described in further detail below, the data items stored in the list repository include information about the operations of the organization in an effort to reach prequalification. The data items may include, for example, total business information, business classifications, operational capabilities, contracting information, lists of employees, total diversity information, geographic operating areas, LEED certification, work party agreements, licenses, performance information, product service segments, banking information, financial statements, references, litigation information, quality assurance programs, safety information, binding compliance requirements, automobile insurance information, pollution insurance information, employer liability insurance information, total liability insurance information, occupational liability insurance, refuge insurance information, worker's indemnity insurance information, any additional insurance information, and lien history information.
The CPMS server 801 further includes a memory 809 that stores at least one request package for each reviewing organization (e.g., general contractor) registered with the system. As described in detail below, the request package defines the data items required to complete the prequalification application. The request package is a reusable structure that is provided by the prequalification system as a unified request for data items whenever a new submitting organization is considered for prequalification using a particular reviewing organization. As further shown below, although the pre-qualification application for a reviewing organization will include a unique set of data items arranged in a unique format, the reusable request package allows the reviewing organization to request the unique set of data items in a format readily available to all submitting organizations using the pre-qualification system. As with data items in the form library, the same package can be reused by the pre-review organization to request data items from multiple submitting organizations (e.g., subcontractors). Furthermore, the ability to reuse this data increases efficiency by allowing the reviewing organization to request lists of data items in a common format without requiring the reviewing organization to redefine the lists of data items each time a new prequalification application is generated. Further, the reviewing organization may create a plurality of unique request packages that are appropriate for the respective projects, types of projects, geographic locations, and the like.
The memory 809 may also include various prequalification application templates that may be populated with data items from the form repository 807, as described below. As described in detail below, some embodiments require different participants within an organization to review and approve individual data items in a prequalification application. Accordingly, the CPMS801 also includes a memory 811 that stores a mapping that identifies which participants provide approval for which data items in the prequalification application. Although memories 805, 807, 809, and 811 are shown in fig. 2 as separate memory units, the memories may also be embodied as different storage locations on the same storage unit (e.g., a hard disk drive).
CPMS801 is accessible over a network by various other computers 813,815 so that participant organizations, such as subcontractors (computer 813) and general contractors (computer 815), can access and modify data stored in the various memories and can execute computer programs stored on memory 805.
Fig. 3 shows an example of one method of using the CPMS 101 of fig. 2. In the example of fig. 3, the subcontractor organization registers with the CPMS and completes the prequalification process for the general contractor. Thus, subcontractors act as submitting organizations, while general contractors are reviewing organizations. However, the prequalification system follows a similar process for other prequalification requests, including those between the project owner and general contractor, subcontractors and material suppliers, and the project owner and architect.
The submission organization (e.g., subcontractor) begins by submitting the data items included in the form library (step 898). As described above, data items may be provided by uploading electronic documents created outside of the system, by completing an editable "prequalification questionnaire" provided by the system, or by various other data entry methods. FIG. 4 shows an example of an overview page of the contents of the SCE's database. The prequalification system according to this embodiment is designed to obtain a large amount of information relating to the business operations of the construction engineering entity. Data that may be provided by subcontractors to the database includes total business information, financial information, reference data, legal information, total quality management information, security information, binding information, insurance information, and litigation history.
The general business information may include contact addresses, employees, minority status, federal status, licensing information, experience, and trade designations. Financial information collects relevant bank information as well as financial statements and federal and state tax documentation. Because the prequalification system and the CPMS are used by multiple building-related entities of multiple construction projects, the reference may be provided as a link to another participant registered with the CPMS, or may include names and contact information of industrial entities that do not use the CPMS or the prequalification system.
The SCE's database may also store information related to the overall quality management (TQM) program and security programs (including OSHA violations) of the organization. Information relating to bindings (e.g., agencies and capacity), insurance (liability, compensation for workers, automobiles, etc.), and prior or pending litigation, including, for example, bankruptcy and contractual disputes, is also collected.
Some of the data provided to the library may include an associated expiration date. The inclusion of an expiration date ensures that the data used to complete the prequalification process is current. The effective date may be set by the submitter (e.g., subcontractor), reviewer (e.g., general contractor), or system. As shown in FIG. 4, the summary page of the SCE's database shows the date on which the data was last updated and whether the data was current or expired. The user can add, Edit or update data by selecting the appropriate "Edit" button.
Returning to FIG. 3, the prequalification process may be initiated by a submitting organization or an reviewing organization (e.g., a subcontractor or a general contractor, respectively). Regardless of which organization initiated the process, the system requests a prequalification application on behalf of the general contractor (i.e., reviewing organization) (step 900). This request includes a request package listing all the data items that are required by the reviewing organization for prequalification considerations.
None of the information or organization data stored to the system is transferred between the entities using this embodiment of the prequalification system without explicit permission from the owner of the data (e.g., submitting organization). FIG. 5 illustrates a notification sent to subcontractors when the general contractor requests data for a prequalification application (step 900, FIG. 3). The prequalification system sends a notification to the subcontractor's inbox. This notification provides the identity of the general contractor requesting the information (general contractor XYZ) and provides two buttons that allow the user to select whether or not to allow the general contractor to access and process the data items from the library.
The system accesses the prequalification application template from memory (step 902) and accesses business information provided by the subcontractor from the form library (step 904). The system then populates the template application with the subcontractor's business information (step 906). Although each reviewing organization typically has a slightly different prequalification application, much of the business information required to complete the application is the same. Thus, the system is able to generate a complete prequalification application for submission to a reviewing organization based on previously stored business information relating to subcontractors. However, the reviewing organization can define a customized set of information needed for consideration of prequalification. Similarly, the submitting organization may select which information to include in the form library. As described above, the data items in the list library may be reused for multiple prequalification applications. Thus, the submission organization does not need to enter a completely new set of data items for each new prequalification application.
FIG. 6 illustrates the overlap and differences in information requested by some reviewing organizations and provided by some submitting organizations. In this example, the "general contractor XYZ" requires general, financial, reference, security, binding, insurance and litigation history information when performing a prequalification review. Thus, the request package sent by the general contractor XYZ does not include information about TQM or legal status, and therefore, the general contractor XYZ does not receive information from subcontractors during the prequalification review. In contrast, the "other general contractor" requires less information and receives only general information, financial information, references, and litigation history as the prequalification request is received.
Similarly, as described above, the submitter may choose to submit only a subset of the information when registering and populating the database. As shown in fig. 6, although the "new contractor" submits all kinds of information in the database, the "universal plumbing company" submits only data related to general information, financial information, reference materials, and legal information. Thus, the "new contractor" can submit the complete prequalification application to "general contractor XYZ" and "another general contractor" without providing additional information.
In contrast, the data items included in the form library of "universal plumbing company" would not be sufficient to provide a complete prequalification application for "contractor XYZ" and "another contractor". Thus, when attempting to complete the prequalification application for "universal plumbing company", the system will recognize that some required information is missing and display a notification to "universal plumbing company".
FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a notification provided to a submitting organization when the data items included in the form repository are insufficient to complete a prequalification application. The notification may be sent in the form of an email (or other electronic communication) or may be displayed to the user as an on-screen notification when the user attempts to submit an incomplete application package. The notification in this example prompts the subcontractor to click on a "view" button, which then presents a screen identifying the information needed before the prequalification request is processed.
Optionally, in some embodiments, the subcontractor is given the option of submitting a prequalification application, which is the missing information typically required by the general contractor. When an incomplete prequalification application is received, the general contractor may decide to review the application as is or refuse to consider the prequalification application until the missing information is provided. In some embodiments, the notification of FIG. 7 provides the subcontractor with the option to provide missing information, cancel the submission process, or submit a prequalification application without missing information.
Referring again to FIG. 3, after the prequalification application is completed by the system, it is displayed to the subcontractor for review (step 908). If all the information is correct and the completed application is satisfactory, the SCE confirms the accuracy of the provided data item by providing a signature (step 910). In some cases, the system allows a user to provide an electronic signature of a document before forwarding an application to a reviewing organization. In other cases, the SCE may need to print a prequalification application and provide a physical signature. This completed application is an example of a first aggregated data document. FIG. 8 provides an example of a complete prequalification application. The application is in a page format and lists information about subcontractors. A representative of the SCE organization provides an electronic or physical signature on the bottom of the page.
Some embodiments also include an auto-commit module that can be turned on or off at the discretion of the commit organization. Upon receiving the request package from the reviewing organization, the auto-submission module automatically provides the requested data items to the reviewing organization without requiring signature or approval from the submitting organization. When the auto-submit module is turned on, the submitting organization never sees a complete prequalification application. The submitting organization (e.g., subcontractor) is notified of the data items requested by the general contractor and simply confirms that the data items are stored on the system and are accurate.
Returning to FIG. 3, if the SCE determines that some of the information provided in the prequalification application is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory, the SCE is able to edit, change, or update the information (step 912). In some embodiments, the SCE is able to edit the information directly in the prequalification application using the editable text field. However, in some cases, the SCE will need to change the data items stored on the server. After making the necessary changes to the subject data item, the system again populates the application template (step 906) and displays the application to the subcontractor for signature (steps 908 and 910).
After the prequalification application (or other first aggregated data document) is signed by the subcontractor, the system requests approval of the prequalification application from the general contractor. In some cases, the entire prequalification application is provided to a single approval participant associated with the general contractor organization. However, in some embodiments, the system breaks the data items included in the application into individual data items (step 914) and requests approval of each individual data item separately. In some cases, different data items must be approved by different participants in the general contractor organization.
The system stores a mapping file that identifies the participants associated with the general contractor organization and lists data items from the prequalification application that must be approved by each participant (step 916). In this example, there are three data items in the prequalification application that must be approved by a total of three different participants associated with the general contractor. The next time each of the three identified participants accesses the system, they are displayed each of the three data items (steps 918, 920, and 922). The participant then approves or rejects the corresponding data item (steps 924, and 928). At this stage, the participant may also provide ratings on data items from one to five ratings. In other embodiments, the grade scale may be different, such as a one to ten scale or a percentage-based scale.
In this example, the general contractor and approval participants associated with the general contractor are provided with a copy of the data originating from the subcontractor's repository. The general contractor does not have direct access to the subcontractor's pool. Thus, data items may be modified for a particular prequalification application without changing the data items stored in the library. Similarly, if the data items in the library change after the prequalification application is submitted, the general contractor may not automatically receive the updated data items.
As discussed above, the reviewing organization (in this example, the general contractor) can define which participants need to approve individual data items and the prequalification application as a whole (i.e., the mapping file). In addition, the general contractor may define which "non-approved" participants are able to view the information submitted using the prequalification information. For example, a first participant within a general contractor organization may need to approve only insurance information submitted by subcontractors. However, the first participant may be able to view the entire prequalification application. Similarly, the second participant may not need to approve the insurance information, but may have an opportunity to view the insurance information.
After the individual data items are considered by one or more participants within the reviewing organization, they are again compiled into a final aggregate approval document having the ratings and approvals specified by the individual participants associated with the reviewing organization (step 930). The final aggregated approved document may be displayed in various ways. For example, it may be displayed electronically by displaying a list of data items and corresponding approvals and ratings in a graphical user interface. Alternatively, the final aggregate approval document may be compiled into a printable page format summary file that may be viewed and printed by the general contractor. Fig. 9 provides an example of the latter. The aggregate approval document provides some information about the SCE organization and also lists the results of the approval of the individual data items. In the example of fig. 9, financial information, binding information, and litigation history information are approved. However, the security information provided by the SCE is rejected. The rejection may be because details of the information are not provided or determined to be insufficient.
In some embodiments or according to general contractor preference settings, the system may be configured to automatically reject the prequalification application in its entirety if any individual data item is rejected. Alternatively, the reviewing organization may approve the prequalification application despite the rejection of one or more individual data items. Further, in some embodiments, the reviewing organization can send a notification to the submitting organization providing additional details about the rejected data item and request that the submitting organization modify business practices associated with the data item. For example, if the SCE's insurance is insufficient, the system may send a notification to the SCE stating that the prequalification organization will be rejected in its current form, but may be approved if insurance coverage increases.
FIG. 10 further illustrates the aggregation and disaggregation of data items that occurs in steps 900, 906, 914, and 930. As described above, the general contractor sends a request package 939 to the subcontractors that includes a list of all data items required to complete the prequalification application. SCE 940 provides the data items to the system, which are then compiled into a complete prequalification application 942 for signing by the SCE (step 906 in FIG. 3). The data items from prequalification application 942 are then segregated (step 914 in FIG. 3) and forwarded to different participants associated with the general contractor for approval. In the example of fig. 10, the list of general information, financial information and reference material provided by the SCE is forwarded to the first participant for approval. The security, binding, and insurance information is forwarded to the second participant 946, and litigation history is reviewed by the third participant 948. Approval or denial is received by first, second and third participants 944, 946 and 948, respectively, and incorporated into final aggregate approval document 950 (step 930 of fig. 3).
As described above, in some cases, the SCE may choose to submit a prequalification application without providing all of the requested material. In some embodiments, the missing data items may be displayed in the aggregate approval document in a different color, font (e.g., bold), or other visual indication, depending on the preference settings configured by the general contractor. Alternatively, the prequalification application with the missing data items may be screened out entirely.
After reviewing the aggregate approval document, the general contractor organization provides a final approval or denial of the subcontractor applicant (step 932). If the application is denied, a notification is sent to the subcontractor and the subcontractor is not allowed to bid on the building work of the general contractor (step 934). However, if final approval is granted, the subcontractor is approved to bid for the construction project that was published by the general contractor, and an indication of the approval is stored on the system (step 936). Depending on the implementation of the system or the general contractor's preferences, the final approval of the prequalification application may be provided by an electronic signature-a physical signature on the aggregate approval document-or by simply clicking on the "approve" button on the graphical user interface of the system.
Some embodiments of the present invention provide additional information that may be accessed and reviewed by the general contractor during the prequalification process. For example, as described above, the prequalification functionality can be incorporated into or connected to a construction engineering management system (CPMS). The CPMS may include functionality that allows the general contractor to assess subcontractor performance during the project. In some embodiments, previously submitted assessments are compiled and an assessment score for the SCE is generated by the prequalification system.
The prequalification functionality may also be incorporated into or interfaced with the bid management system. Such a system may constantly monitor the total number of projects that a subcontractor has submitted bids, the total number of projects awarded to the subcontractor based on those bids, and the dollar value (e.g., budget) of the projects awarded. In some embodiments, the prequalification system can make this information available to the reviewing organization (e.g., the general contractor) during the prequalification process.
As described above, the prequalification process may be initiated by a reviewing organization (e.g., general contractor) or by a submitting organization (e.g., subcontractor or material supplier). FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a screen interface provided by a prequalification system that prompts a submitting organization to request prequalification from one or more organizations. The interface provides a list of organizations registered with the prequalification system and identifies tasks related to the organization (e.g., general contractors, subcontractors, architects, etc.). The list also indicates whether the organization accepts the prequalification request and whether the user has been prequalified with the organization. The user presses a "View" button located near each organization listing to View additional information about the organization, including, for example, a list of projects currently pending and bids currently open. The user then selects one or more organizations using the check boxes on the left side of the list and clicks on the "Submit" button at the bottom of the interface to initiate a prequalification process for the selected organizations.
The same or similar interface used by the submitter in requesting prequalification from the reviewer may be used by users acting in the "reviewer" capacity. For example, "universal plumbing company" may use the interface of fig. 11 to request a prequalification from "another general contractor". The "universal plumbing company" may then use the same interface to request prequalification information from the "first material supplier". The "universal plumbing company" serves as a submitter in the first example, and serves as a reviewer in the second example.
Because the reviewing organization is able to browse through the list of potential submitting organizations, the interface of FIG. 11 may be utilized by subcontractors, material suppliers, and other potential submitting organizations as a sales tool. The potential submitting organization may choose to make certain information available for browsing. This information may include, for example, a summary of the organization's operational capacity, capabilities, execution history, and even previous reviews or certificates provided by the customer. Thus, a general contractor seeking a new subcontractor to invite to prequalification may use the prequalification system to view at will subcontractors that have registered with the system.
As shown in fig. 11, not all organizations receive the prequalification process. This may be because the organization is not interested in working with any additional organization at this time. However, it may also be because organizations prefer to initiate prequalification requests themselves. For example, a "hardware store," i.e., a material provider, indicates that it does not want a reviewer to request prequalification information. Instead, the "hardware store" itself will initiate the prequalification process. Similarly, "GCcontractors," i.e., the general contractor, indicates that it does not want to receive unsolicited requests for prequalification. These preferences are defined by the organization when the organization registers with the CPMS or prequalification system.
The examples provided above describe a system for automatically generating a prequalification application and for requesting and receiving manual approval of the contents of the prequalification application. However, in some embodiments, the system provides automatic approval or denial of the prequalification application. Fig. 12 illustrates one such automatic prequalification process using the CPMS server of fig. 2. The SCE organization begins by registering with the CPMS (step 201). Prior to using the prequalification system, the SCE organization (submission organization) provides various data items to populate a library of data items stored on the prequalification system (step 203). As described above, the data items may be updated as separate documents (e.g., electronic documents in PDF format for SCE business operations) or may be submitted via one or more prequalification questionnaires (e.g., editable forms with text fields) provided by the prequalification system.
After providing the data items to the library, the subcontractor browses general contractors and other building project participants who can accept the application for prequalification (see FIG. 11 above). The subcontractor organization identifies the general contractor (the reviewing organization) and requests qualification pre-review approval (step 205). The data from the subcontractor's pool is then sent to the selected general contractor (step 207).
As described above, the reviewing organization may require data items that have not yet been provided to the form library of the submitting organization. If the selected contractor requires additional information that is not already provided by subcontractors in the library (step 209), the prequalification system sends a notification to the subcontractor identifying the additional information required (step 211). The subcontractor provides the required additional information (step 213) which is sent to the CPMS and the selected general contractor (step 215). The CPMS then compares the information submitted by the subcontractor to predetermined criteria defined by the general contractor (step 217). The predetermined criteria include a list of minimum requirements for prequalification and an indication of preferences and measures for rating the SCEs that are eligible for prequalification during the bidding process.
If the subcontractor meets the minimum requirements for prequalification (step 219), a notification is sent to the subcontractor (step 221) and the subcontractor is allowed to bid on the contract project for the selected general contractor. However, if the subcontractor does not meet the minimum requirements for prequalification, the system sends a notification (step 223) and the subcontractor is prevented from submitting bids to contract the project associated with the selected general contractor.
In some cases, the automated prequalification system may not be able to determine whether a particular SCE meets minimum requirements. In such a case, the system sends a notification to the general contractor and requests manual review and approval of the subcontractor (step 225). For example, the general contractor may set a minimum threshold for automatic approval and a maximum threshold for automatic rejection. When the value of the data item falls in the intermediate range between the approval minimum and the rejection maximum, the system requires manual approval or rejection from the general contractor. After the general contractor approves or rejects the prequalification request (step 227), applicable notifications are sent to the subcontractors (steps 221 or 223).
The prequalification process may also be initiated by the general contractor. In such a case, the general contractor requests access to the data items from the subcontractor's library (step 229). A notification is sent to the SCE requesting approval for data access (step 231). In this embodiment, data is not shared with any participant registered with the CPMS without explicit approval by the owner of the data. If the subcontractor approves the request for information (step 233), a copy of the data items from the subcontractor's repository is sent to the general contractor and the automated prequalification system (step 207), and the prequalification process continues as described above. However, if the subcontractor refuses the request for information (step 233), the system sends a notification to the general contractor (step 235) and the prequalification process does not continue.
The prequalification system according to this embodiment includes an automated filtering system that compares information submitted by libraries submitting an organization to minimum requirements defined by reviewers. To implement this automatic filtering system, the reviewer completes the form defining the minimum requirements. Numerical fields such as minimalist coverage, employee minimum number, and inventory value may be evaluated by one-to-one comparison or to a measured degree. For example, a submitting organization may be pre-qualified even if one category does not meet the minimum requirements of a reviewing organization, assuming another related category exceeds the minimum required by some amount.
However, in some cases, automatic filtration systems are not able to make adequate determinations. For example, if several categories are close to or below a threshold, the final prequalification determination may be based on comments from the submitting organization's preferences or other textual information provided in the library of the submitting organization. In such a case, the prequalification system will send a notification to the reviewing organization requesting manual review of the prequalification application (step 225, FIG. 12). Fig. 13 provides an example of such a notification. The reviewing organization may view some or all of the data from the pre-qualification application submitting the organization by clicking on the "Review" button. The reviewing organization then approves or rejects the prequalification request by selecting an applicable button.
While the examples described above discuss an automatic prequalification system that automatically approves or denies a prequalification application, other systems can provide for automatic rejection of prequalification applications, but require manual approval of the application. In such a system, the general contractor defines one or more minimum requirements. If the value of the data item submitted in the prequalification application does not meet the minimum requirements, the application is automatically rejected without intervention from the reviewing organization. However, if the value of the data item exceeds the minimum requirements, then prequalification is forwarded to the review organization for manual review.
In still other embodiments, the prequalification system does not automatically deny the application when the value of the data item falls below the minimum requirement. Conversely, when the reviewing organization begins its manual review, the system marks the data items as insufficient. Deficient data items may be marked using different text colors, using different fonts, by providing on-screen notifications, or by other methods of changing the review organization.
While the system described above facilitates approval of prequalification applications by routing data for approval or by automatically approving data items, the system may also be used to complete prequalification applications for reviewing organizations that are not registered with the system. In such a case, the submitting organization may upload a copy of the prequalification application of the off-system reviewing organization to the system. The system will fill in the necessary fields and compile other necessary files from the library of the submitting organization. The complete application may then be printed by a submission organization and manually submitted to an out-of-system review organization. Alternatively, the system may provide a standard, unified format for prequalification applications that may be generated using data items from the library and printed for manual submission to an off-system review organization.
After a submitting organization (e.g., subcontractor) receives approval for prequalification from a reviewing organization (e.g., general contractor), the submitting organization is allowed to submit bids for projects related to the reviewing organization. One such bid submission process is shown at 14. The SCE, now the bidding organization, views the available projects from the organization to which it is pre-qualified (step 901). The SCE selects a project and reviews the project details (step 903) and decides whether to submit a bid for the project (step 905). If the SCE does not want to submit a bid, the SCE may return to browse other available projects (step 901). Alternatively, the subcontractor can prepare the bid for the project and submit the bid to the general contractor or other reviewing organization (step 907). The general contractor receives a list of several bids and views the bid details (step 909). As described in detail below, the CPMS processes the received bids and prequalification preference information to display the submitted bids in accordance with the suggested rankings. The general contractor then selects subcontractors based on the bid information and the prequalification information. The selected SCE receives notification that their bids have been accepted and that they have been awarded projects (step 913). The SCE is then added to the project, and the project is then added to the SCE's "Current project" list (step 915). All other bidding organizations receive notification that they have not selected for the project (step 917).
FIG. 15 shows an example of an interface through which a SCE selects a project for which a bid is to be submitted. The interface provides a list of projects stored by project name. For each project, the interface also displays a list of tasks for which the bid was accepted and identifies the organization that is receiving and reviewing the submitted bid. The bidding organization may view additional project details, such as other related organizations, building timelines, and project sites, by clicking on the "view next to project list" button. The bidding organization then selects one or more projects to submit bid information via the electronically populated forms and/or via the uploading of electronic documents.
FIG. 16 illustrates an example of an interface through which a general contractor or other reviewing organization views submitted bids and selects an organization related to a project. The interface provides a plurality of drop-down selection boxes that allow the reviewing organization to select projects and tasks within the projects. Based on these selections. The interface provides a list of all bids that have been submitted for the project. The list identifies the total estimated dollar amount submitted by the bidding organization and the organization. The CPMS also provides a "prequalification level" and a "bid level" for each bid submission.
As described above, the automated prequalification system evaluates information submitted in a prequalification application and may assign a score to the submitting organization based on the reviewing organization's preferences. The reviewing organization is also requested to provide a system of measures for different categories of information when defining minimum requirements for prequalification. For example, the general contractor may be primarily concerned with the percentage of projects that the subcontractor completed previously on time and under budget. Another general contractor may be more concerned with any previous or pending litigation for a subcontractor. Based on the measured preferences of the reviewing organization, the prequalification system assigns a score to each SCE that is prequalified. The CPMS assigns a "prequalification level" based on the prequalification score of the bidding organization as compared to other bidding organizations for the given project. The prequalification level may also be influenced by other factors such as the number of current projects associated with the bidding organization compared to the number of employees of the bidding organization.
While each reviewing organization can create its own customized level framework by providing a rating system for different categories of information, in some embodiments, the system uses the levels of individual categories of information to create a generalized level framework. The generalized ratings framework may provide an organization with an aggregate common rating score based on comparable data used in several prequalification applications. In some embodiments, the prequalification level score may be displayed by the potential submitting organization as a sales tool to attract new contractors, who may then request the submitting organization to initiate the prequalification process. As a result, the reviewing organization is able to determine whether to approve the submitting organization for prequalification using its own custom rating framework, but may also compare potential submitting organizations with other potential submitting organizations before initiating the prequalification process by viewing the aggregated generalized ratings of the organizations.
The CPMS also assigns a "bid level" to each submitted bid. Bid grades are calculated based on the prequalification scores and information contained in the bid proposal, including, for example, project completion dates and estimated costs of completion. As shown in fig. 14, the "universal plumbing company" has a lower prequalification score than the "new contractor". However, since the bid submitted by the "universal plumbing company" is substantially lower than the bid submitted by the "new contractor", the "universal plumbing company" receives the highest bid level.
Because the subcontractor is selected, the reviewing organization may view, download, and print bid proposals from each bidding organization by selecting a "view" button adjacent to each bid list.
While the above examples primarily discuss interactions between subcontractors and general contractors, the present invention may be used to facilitate interactions between other "submitting organizations" and "reviewing organizations". Further, the prequalification system can be incorporated into a comprehensive project management system that maintains calendars, updates project budgets, and initiates payments among project participants. Alternatively, the prequalification system can be a stand-alone application that does not participate in the engineering management process. Finally, while the examples described above include manual approval (FIG. 3) or automatic approval (FIG. 12), some embodiments of the present invention include various combinations of automatic and manual approval. For example, some embodiments of the present invention can automatically reject an application based on minimum criteria set by the reviewing organization, but require manual approval of the application before the submitting organization is qualified for pre-review. Various features and advantages of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings.