Design-Build Trifecta A joint presentation of DBIA WESTERN PACIFIC REGION

Transcription

1 Design-Build Trifecta A joint presentation of DBIA WESTERN PACIFIC REGION and AIA LOS ANGELES September 16, 2014

2 Design-Build Trifecta MODERATOR: SPEAKERS: Robert J, Hartung, Hon AIA, DBIA President, Alternative Delivery Solutions LLC Brandye K. D Lena, Executive Director of Facilities Planning Purchasing, SOCCCD Andrea Cohen Gehring, FAIA Principal, DLR Group David Callis, Vice President and Division Manager, Swinerton Builders 2

3 Addressing the 3 GREATEST CHALLENGES of the Design-Build Project Delivery 3

4 1. HIGH COST OF COMPETING FOR A PROJECT How to Cut Procurement Costs

5 2. OWNER LOSES CONTROL OF THE DESIGN Keeping the Owner Involved

6 3. PROTECTING ONE S INTEREST VS. WHAT IS BEST FOR PROJECT Meaningful Team Collaboration

7 CASE STUDY IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE A-400 Building Replacement 7

8 High Cost of Competing for a Project HISTORICALLY, very expensive to compete High cost for A/E to produce drawings, sometimes with color renderings and animated 3-D models Costs for GCs somewhat more than as D-B-B low bid procurement Stipends help, but... 8

9 High Cost of Competing for a Project ACTUALLY, very little cost competing for this project Inexpensive RFQ process to short-list to three finalists Only three site plans conveying three different concepts required/allowed in response to RFP GC had to agree that the conceptual designs could be designed and constructed within the District s advertised budget 9

10 » Project Planning

11 PROBLEM #1 Typical High Cost of Procurement Solution: Low Cost IVC A400 Project Procurement RFQ Process 8/2012 through 9/2012 Issue RFQ package to industry Receive and score 18 SOQs, short-list to six highest ranked Interview to choose top three finalists 11

12 Low Cost IVC A400 Project Procurement RFP Process 10/2012 through 12/2012 Issue RFP package to three finalists Receive written proposals Conduct interviews charettes Board of Trustees approval January 2013 NTP for design 12

13 Best Value Procurement Scoring RFQ 50% - DIR questionnaire (GC/arch/SEOR) 50% - Past performance (GC/arch personnel, project history) 13

14 Best Value Procurement Scoring RFP Price (scoring of price on next slide) Technical expertise and design solution Life cycle costs Skilled labor force availability Safety record Management plan (including applying IPD and LEAN principles, and voluntary shared savings plan) Interviews/charettes 14

15 RFP Scoring of Price Total advertised budget (MAP): $8,850,000 15

16 RFP Scoring of Price Scored Elements of Price (Fixed Lump Sum Amounts) Design and preconstruction services (A/E/GC/key subs) Construction services (also called GCs strictly defined) Fee (profit and overhead including bonds and insurance) 16

17 RFP Scoring of Price Hard Costs (MAP minus Fixed Price Elements) Target price upon which to design the project Contains only the hard costs of construction (CSI Div 2 48) Open book sub buyout during and after design completion eventually converted to lump sum amount 17

18 Solution: PROBLEM #2 Owner Loses Control of the Design Owner involved in design from procurement (program level only), through DSA approval 18

19 Team Collaboration Began During Procurement The charette session demonstrated how well the teams would coordinate and get along with each other and District And demonstrated proposer s ability to follow District instructions and be productive in the process This set the table for collaboration after award 19

20 Stakeholder Involvement District stakeholders involved in design through regularly scheduled sessions (more in the beginning, less as design evolved) Stakeholders level of involvement managed well by the District 20

21 PROBLEM #3 Protecting One s Interest vs. What is Best for the Project Solution: Focus on what s best for the project 21

22 Collaboration Maintained During Design An open sharing of budget limitations provided a greater understanding by all (District stakeholders, contractor, architect, others) of the balance required between fixed budget vs. creative, iterative design. The financial arrangement made it easier for the entire team to focus on designing to a fixed budget (vs. focusing on individual interests) 22

23 Collaboration Maintained During Design There was appropriate give and take by the District stakeholders to help the design-builder achieve the best design for the fixed budget Hard costs of 2% was set aside as a cost savings incentive pool in the contract for design-builder and key subs to share 23

24 History of this Project Delivery Method SDCCD, Dave Umstot Model with Innovations Included best practices of design-build procurement included most IPD Principles Reduced cost to compete Encouraged collaboration Included fee incentive program Included elements of LEAN construction 24

25 Conforms to California Code California Education Code 81700, et seq. (design-build for all California community colleges) 25

26 Owner s Perspective Stakeholder Management Engage the evaluation team early Mutual respect for expertise Clearly define roles and responsibilities Manage expectations Recognize when there is a need for course correction 26

27 Charette The Short-List Interview Charette rules of conduct Charette required elaborate on one of three presented design schemes No prepared material but tools for interactive charette No leave behinds 27

28 Evaluation Criteria Project management plan Quality assurance measures Understanding project requirements 28

29 » RFQ/Interview Process

30 How We Came to Understand the Process Read the RFQ Meet with DLR Group Assembled the remainder of our team Tentatively agreed to move forward pending RFP requirements 30

31 Design-Build Team Work Plan Ensure partnering atmosphere Confirm scope and program Develop detailed design schedule with major milestones Early enhancement/alternates confirmed Early submission or multiple submission (DSA) Engage entire team (including all stakeholders) Involve subcontractors early for constant budget updating 31

32 Design-Build Team Work Plan continued Ongoing constructability review process Coordination and buy-in from all team members Incorporation of BIM Strategize early procurement Management of approval time Ensure creative design concept from architect 32

33 33

34 34

35 » Pre Proposal Meeting/Charette

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 After Selection How we moved from trial charette into actual charette, thus running with the design of the project almost immediately. 39

40 40

41 41

42 » Challenges & Solutions

43 Challenges & Solutions After award, how did we keep the same synergy and collaboration that was demonstrated at the charette session prior to award? Kept the same team leaders who were involved in the procurement charette, 100% involved through the critical conceptual and schematic design phases when stakeholder input is most critical. Those persons understood the concept and led others in their organizations to follow in the same manner. The team leaders remain engaged periodically as needed. 43

44 Visioning Meeting Notes from Irvine Valley College Bldg A400 Visioning Meeting How do we measure success? South Orange County Community College District Meet or under budget On-time delivery High quality DB team is successful Anyone involved will want to share project results/successes at conferences & with industry; Build trust at every opportunity (keep commitments, open communication, no hidden agendas, tell the truth even if it is bad news, never lie about anything) Swinerton Achieve or exceed schedule objectives Achieve design excellence within project budget High Quality Owner happy at end of day DLR Group High quality, on-time delivery Minimize changes as design progresses (need enough time to coordinate all parts of the design, need right people at the right meetings) 44

45 Where Are We Today? 45

46 Saddleback College Site Improvements Saddleback College Stadium ATEP/Irvine Valley College, 1st Building What s Next for SOCCCD?

47 Questions?