Integrated Project Delivery

Transcription

1 2014 HDR Architecture, 2014 HDR, Inc., all all rights reserved.

2 Integrated Project Delivery It s A New World, And How It Can Benefit Municipal Owners Rich Atoulikian, PMP, PE Rich.Atoulikian@hdrinc.com Cal Rozario, PMP Calcino.Rozario@hdrinc.com

3 Agenda Brief History of Project Delivery Drivers for Alternative Delivery Alternate Delivery Models for W/WW Infrastructure Additional Resources 3

4 4

5 5

6 Agenda Brief History of Project Delivery Drivers for Alternative Delivery Alternate Delivery Models for W/WW Infrastructure Additional Resources 6

7 Project Delivery A Brief History Master Builder Concept Segregated Services Model Filippo Brunelleschi Leon Battista Alberti Early 1700 s Industrial Revolution Added project complexity Specialization of services Miller Act ? E&C collaboration & communication 7

8

9 The Day Trust Ended Between Design Professionals and Contractors July 17, 1981

10 The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse July 17,

11 Everything Changed! The day after, open E/A/C communications ended Traditional delivery became contentious Owner becomes a mediator One positive result..alternative Delivery Methods emerge Miller Act KC Hyatt DBIA Formed 1993 AD Methods Emerge 11

12 Agenda Brief History of Project Delivery Drivers for Alternative Delivery (AD) Alternate Delivery (AD) Models for W/WW Infrastructure Additional Resources 12

13 Drivers For AD Speed of delivery o Accommodates compressed schedules Consent decree Development pressure Transparency o Risk shifting and sharing o Open book approach o Best value, not least cost approach 13

14 More Drivers For AD One Point of Responsibility o Control changes and avoid claims Foster Collaboration Between Designer/Builder o Constructability Input During Design Other drivers o QBS Selection of Design-Builder or CMAR o Desire to gain AD experience o Can keep capital dollars local o Incorporate Owner/O&M input (Progressive DB) o Cost Savings??? 14

15 Agenda Brief History of Project Delivery Drivers for Alternative Delivery Alternate Delivery Models for W/WW Infrastructure Additional Resources 15

16 AD Models for W/WW Infrastructure Design-Bid-Build Design/CM-at-Risk Design-Build o Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum) o Progressive Design-Build D-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO DBOOT P-DB LS-DB Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control 16

17 Design - Bid - Build (Traditional Project Delivery) What entity has all the risk and control in this delivery model? Owner Spearin Doctrine applies... Design Professional General Contractor Contract Communication Trade Subcontractors Equipment Suppliers 17

18 Design - Bid - Build Best Applications Owner is pleased with results of past D-B-B projects Owner desires high degree of involvement in design Schedule is not a priority Project is complex or scope is uncertain Enabling laws do not allow alternative project delivery Owner Designer GC 18

19 Design - Bid - Build Disadvantages Multiple contracts for owner to manage Owner warrants design documents Owner bears majority of risk Reduced opportunity for collaboration between designer & constructor Minimal ability to consider non-cost factors Owner Designer Contractor 19

20 AD Models for W/WW Infrastructure Design-Bid-Build Design/CM-at-Risk Design-Build o Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum) o Progressive Design-Build D-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO DBOOT P-DB LS-DB Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control 20

21 Construction Management At-Risk (CMAR) Engineering Firm Role Designer to Owner Owner s Rep (Criterion Engr.) Owner General Contractor Role Construction Manager At- Risk Design Professional Control and Risk Preconstruction Collaboration CMAR Contract Trade Subcontractors Equipment Suppliers Communication 21

22 Design/CM-At-Risk Best Applications Owner desires high degree of involvement & control Owner desires more construction input into design Owner desires less construction risk Schedule is a priority Project is complex or scope is uncertain Ensures maximum local subcontractor participation Designer Owner Trade Subcontractors CMAR Equipment Suppliers 22

23 Design/CM-At-Risk Delivery The Plus During Preconstruction Design Phase Construction Phase Preconstruction Phase Services Budget Conformance Scope Conformance Schedule Conformance Design Reviews Design Workshops MOPO Development Value Engineering Constructability Reviews Phasing Plans Bid Gap Analysis Subcontractor Qualification Early out Packaging Design Professional and CMAR create best value while minimizing claims and litigation 23

24 Design/CM-At-Risk Disadvantages Split Design & Build responsibilities o (Spearin Doctrine applies) May cost more if not structured efficiently Multiple contracts for owner to manage Designer Owner CMAR Trade Subcontractors Equipment Suppliers 24

25 AD Models for W/WW Infrastructure Design-Bid-Build Design/CM-at-Risk Design-Build o Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum) o Progressive Design-Build D-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO DBOOT P-DB LS-DB Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control 25

26 Traditional D-B Contract and Communications Lines Engineering Firm Role Designer to a Contractor (Design Assist) Owner s Rep (Criterion Engr.) Owner General Contractor Roles Contractor to Designer Control (Integrated) Design-Builder Risk Contract Communication Trade Subcontractors Equipment Suppliers 26

27 Traditional Design-Build Best Applications Existing conditions, scope and desired outcomes well understood and defined Owner does not want direct involvement in detailed design and construction Operational and aesthetic issues well defined Conventional, well-understood technology Owner has experience with AD Owner Design-Builder 27

28 Traditional Design-Build Disadvantages Lump Sum price may not reflect final cost Owner involvement limited once price established Design less detailed during bidding Increased potential for change orders or claims if Owner wants changes after pricing Lengthy and costly process to develop prescriptive D-B procurement Owner Design-Builder 28

29 Progressive Design-Build Contract and Communication Lines Engineering Firm Role Designer to a Contractor (Design Assist) Owner s Rep (Criterion Engr.) Owner General Contractor Role Contractor to Designer Control (Integrated) Design-Builder Risk Contract Communication Trade Subcontractors Equipment Suppliers 29

30 Progressive Design-Build Best Applications Time is critical Owner has specific technology, aesthetic, and equipment preferences Owner desires high degree of involvement during design, preconstruction & construction Owner desires a single point of responsibility Project more complex and scope is uncertain Owner Design-Builder 30

31 Progressive Design-Build Disadvantages More up-front design effort to get to a firm price than with Traditional D-B Firm price is set later than with Lump Sum D-B Owner may need more time to understand final construction cost development (i.e. GMP) Owner Design-Builder 31

32 How Does An Owner Choose? Design-Bid- Build CMAR Design-Build 32

33 Comparison of Project Delivery Methods D-B-B LS D-B P D-B CMAR Selection Criteria Price based Price based Qualifications based with price considerations Qualifications based with price considerations Owner Involvement & Flexibility Good through detailed design. Minimal after construction contract is awarded Good through preliminary design. Minimal after D-B contract is awarded Good throughout entire design and construction phases Good throughout entire design and construction phases Relative Schedule Slowest Faster Faster Faster Number of Owner Contracts to Coordinate & Manage At least 2 Usually 1 Usually 1 At least 2 Potential to Deliver Least Cost Very Good (in favorable market conditions with good design) Good Very Good to Great Good to Very Good Cost Control Reduced control once construction contract is awarded Early cost identification. Least control after preliminary design is completed Later cost identification. Most control throughout entire project Later cost identification. More control throughout entire project Potential for Change Orders & Claims Higher Higher Lowest Lower 33

34 Alternative Project Delivery Summary Powerful, flexible delivery methods that must be wellmanaged Methodology has gained favor with many Owners across the industry Trend will continue in foreseeable future 34

35 Survey on Owner Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction Risk Distribution Transition to Operation Overall Experience Communication Quality of Completed Project Owner Involvement in Design Source: Water-Design Build Council,

36 Value, $Billions Alternative Delivery Market Trends CMAR Revenues DB Revenues Future Projection Source: ENR, June

37 What s Next?? Design-Bid-Build Design/CM-at-Risk Design-Build o Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum) o Progressive Design-Build D-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO DBOOT P-DB LS-DB Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control 37

38 Agenda Brief History of Project Delivery Drivers for Alternative Delivery Alternate Delivery Models for W/WW Infrastructure Additional Resources 38

39 For More Information on Municipal W/WW D-B Delivery Water Design Build Council o The Municipal Water and Wastewater Design- Build Handbook, 2nd Edition o ( Design Build Institute of America o General info on Alternative Delivery o Standard Form AD Contract Documents 39

40

41 When Does an AD Method Make Sense? 41

42 Why Are Owners Increasingly Turning to Alternative Project Delivery? To have a greater control in contractor selection Foster early collaboration between Designer and Builder Desire for a greater role in project execution Accommodation of schedule drivers 42

43 Prevalent AD Models for W/WW Infrastructure Design-Bid-Build Design/CM-at-Risk Design-Build o Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum) o Progressive Design-Build D-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO DBOOT P-DB LS-DB Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control 43