Integrated Project Delivery: A Case Study on Process Improvement and Embracing a True Collaborative Team Approach.

Transcription

1 Integrated Project Delivery: A Case Study on Process Improvement and Embracing a True Collaborative Team Approach October 14,

2 Brenda Bullied Project Manager, Lawrence + Memorial Hospital Josh DiGloria Construction Manager, Suffolk Construction Scott Mueller Architect, TRO Jung Brannen 2

3 Learning Objectives Explain process of implementing an IPD contract Identify benefits and challenges of IPD Outline importance of stakeholder buy-in Describe tactical collaboration tools used at L+M

4 Building Statistics

5 IPD Contractual Structure Tradi&onal Construc&on Approach Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) O O A C A C

6 IPD Participant Structure One Contract O A C Lump-Sum Consultants ICL* Consultants ICL* Subcontractors Lump-Sum Subcontractors Cost -Plus Consultants Risk Sharing Bubble *ICL = Incentive Compensation Layer Cost-Plus Subcontractors

7 Co-location

8 Production Preparation Process Production Preparation Process 3-day collaborative event to design facility 3-day collaborative event to design facility Pre-planning Building parameters Process flows Patient experience = focal point

9 3P Event

10 3P Event

11 3P Event

12 3P Event 3P Final Floor Plan

13 Team Structure PIT Groups IPD Core Team Structure SMT Senior Management Team L&M Crista Durand A/E Team Bob Peterson Contractor Peter Campot L&M Brenda Bullied Shraddha Patel PMT Project Management Team A/E Team Pamela Mace Contractor Josh DiGloria Ed Tobin Structural PIT Project ImplementaFon Teams M.E.P. Engineering I.T. & Low Voltage PaFent Experience Exterior Envelope Medical Equipment Site Design Interior Finishes

14 Commitment-Based Tracking Exterior Interior to date % % # of % # % Day acfvifes # complete complete # of acfvifes complete complete 5-Nov % % 6-Nov % % 7-Nov % % 8-Nov % % 9-Nov % % 10-Nov 11-Nov 12-Nov % % 13-Nov % % 14-Nov % % 15-Nov % % 16-Nov % % 17-Nov 18-Nov 19-Nov % % 20-Nov % % 21-Nov % % 22-Nov 23-Nov 2 0 0% 1 0 0% 24-Nov 25-Nov 26-Nov % % 27-Nov % % 28-Nov % % 29-Nov % % 30-Nov % %

15 Lean: Target Value Design

16 Results: Cost $45.0 $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $38.5M $36.2M $34.5M $33.1M $34.5M $31.8M Owner ConFngency IncenFve CompensaFon Layer $20.0 ConstrucFon Costs $15.0 Consultant Fees $10.0 $5.0 Owner Costs $- IniFal EsFmate Contract Values Final Values

17 Results: Schedule Design 12 months Permit 7 months Design 6 months Permit 5 months Construction 12 months Construction 18 months Reductions: Construction 33% Design 50% Permit 28% Project Total 37%* 13 months

18 Challenges Allocation of Resources Owner Change Request Process Timely & Durable Decisions 18

19 Benefits Schedule: Reduced Design Minimum User-driven Changes Value Add: HVAC controls Value Add: Geothermal Value Add: Higher FF&E Package Schedule: Reduced Construction Costs: on budget, and savings Value Add: Waterproofing belts & suspenders Value Add: Upgraded Millwork Value Add: Improved Staff satisfaction and efficiencies Value Add: Access Control Points

20 Collaborative Results The level of client ownership of the project design was unprecedented for the L+M Cancer Center Architect Scott Mueller Being a part of the team from day 1 of design and being a part of the 3P event was a huge opportunity we wish we could have this involvement on every project. Construction Manager Joshua DiGloria The amount of value that the hospital received and the amount of input we had was extraordinary. Owner Brenda Bullied

21 Discussion 21