Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Design Build - Project Delivery Model Trends Sean M. Collins, AIA, LEED AP HGA Architects and Engineers Christine Guyott, FCSI, RD Rippe & Associates 2014 FCSI Conference Phoenix, Arizona Friday, April 11th, 2014
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY MODEL TRENDS AGENDA INTRODUCTION HISTORY & CONTEXT DESIGN-BID-BUILD CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK DESIGN-BUILD INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU? LESSONS LEARNED CASE STUDY
HISTORY & CONTEXT THE RISE OF PROFESSIONALISM Leonne Battista Alberti: first intentional separation of the art from the craft (1456) Establish architecture as a profession distinct from the science of engineering and construction From 15th century into 19th century Architects retained responsibilities for both design and construction Source: William G. Hasbrook, Jr., DBIA, Fundamentals of Project Delivery 2004 by DBIA
HISTORY & CONTEXT PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Greater professional specialization Increase in specialized knowledge Promotion and advocacy of professional interests and markets Ethical standards of practice Rise of conflict-of-interest issues LEGAL SEPARATION OF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION The Miller Act (1935) Public contracting laws mandating separation of design from construction & contractor selection solely on cost Professional licensing requirements Source: William G. Hasbrook, Jr., DBIA, Fundamentals of Project Delivery 2004 by DBIA
INDUSTRY EVOLUTION & MARKET CHANGES ECONOMY & THE GREAT RECESSION China building boom & Inflation Recession & competition Consolidation in the market Owner s searching for value Fee Pressure INDUSTRY EVOLUTION Technology BIM Rise of the DBIA Increased competition Hangover
PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS DESIGN-BID BUILD CM-AT-RISK DESIGN-BUILD INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
DESIGN-BID-BUILD OWNER FOOD SERVICE SUBS STRUCT ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL COST ESTIMATING COST ESTIMATING SD DD CD Bid Construction Administration
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AT-RISK OWNER FOOD SERVICE SUBS STRUCT ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL COST ESTIMATING COST ESTIMATING SD DD CD GMP Construction Administration
DESIGN-BUILD OWNER SUBS FOOD SERVICE GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL STRUCT ARCHITECT COST ESTIMATING SD DD GMP CD Construction Administration
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY GENERAL CONTRACTOR OWNER FOOD SERVICE SUBS STRUCT ARCHITECT IFOA GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL COST ESTIMATING COST ESTIMATING SD DD GMP CD Construction Administration
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCT OWNER STEEL FOOD SERVICE IFOA SUB ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATING SUBS SD DD GMP CD Construction Administration
Contractor s Control Owner s Control PROJECT DELIVERY Contractor s Risk Owner s Risk P3 Design-Build Design-Bid-Build CM-at-Risk IPD Owner s Risk Contractor s Risk Owner s Control Contractor s Control
DESIGN-BID-BUILD OWNER FOOD SERVICE SUBS STRUCT ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL COST ESTIMATING COST ESTIMATING SD DD CD Bid Construction Administration
DESIGN-BID-BUILD Advantages Widely acceptable, well understood, well established Clearly defined roles Most contractual history Large amount of control for the owner Disadvantages Typically a linear process and therefore the longest duration as compared to other delivery methods Opportunity for change orders during construction Constructability reviews are limited to the Design Team since during design Adjustments to scope and program can have an impact on schedule Design & Specifications are completed prior to bidding and construction Can create adversarial relationships Procurement process is easier to manage Higher contingency required. Architect and Contractor are accountable to the owner
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AT-RISK OWNER FOOD SERVICE SUBS STRUCT ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL COST ESTIMATING COST ESTIMATING SD DD CD GMP Construction Administration
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AT-RISK Advantages Contractor input to planning and design decisions Opportunity for fast-tracking packages and shortening schedule and thus, general conditions CM is selected on qualifications and experience Disadvantages Need for more experienced CM s and thus a deeper selection process CM s role changes during construction due to being at-risk Not suited for small projects A more collaborative process Need a deeply integrated owner team Continuous cost control. Possibly with a GMP. CM manages schedule during design Ability to accommodate change during the design schedule Lower contingency Reduced competition and possible higher costs GMP not fully resolved and therefore costs can increase
DESIGN-BUILD OWNER SUBS FOOD SERVICE GENERAL CONTRACTOR STEEL STRUCT ARCHITECT COST ESTIMATING SD DD GMP CD Construction Administration
DESIGN-BUILD Advantages Project schedules are typically shorter Single entity responsible for both design and construction Contractor is selected on qualifications and experience Cost input happens in an integrated fashion during design Opportunity for fast-tracking packages and shortening schedule Change orders should only come from owner-related scope changes Continuous cost control. Possibly with a GMP. Price can match quality Disadvantages Limited design control and limited user group integration Not necessarily suited for smaller projects Changes can be expensive and difficult to integrate Speed of project increases potential for mistakes Focus on efficiency in decision-making which requires strong owner representation and leadership Owner loses the Architect as the agent who contractually protects the owner s interests Multiple jurisdictional approvals can be problematic. Contingency is controlled by the DB entity Need a sophisticated owner to manage the contractor.
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCT OWNER STEEL FOOD SERVICE IFOA SUB ARCHITECT GENERAL CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATING SUBS SD DD GMP CD Construction Administration
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY Advantages Similar advantages of combined delivery methods Design-Build & CM-at-Risk Continuous cost control. The entire team works together and their goals are aligned. Sometimes through incentives. Project schedules are typically shorter Built around for large, complex projects Opportunity for fast-tracking packages and shortening schedule Increases predictability Disadvantages Contractual history is limited and negotiation can be extremely intensive. Insurance and liability must be aligned contractually. Adversarial relationships can damage the team environment and goals. Collaboration must be managed, monitored and promoted constantly. Labor costs for design team members is difficult to assess and can vary Need a sophisticated and deeply integrated owner management team. Lower contingency Reduced competition and possible higher costs GMP not fully resolved and therefore costs can increase
EXPERIENCE / LESSONS LEARNED W/ IPD / DA-DAB IPD/DA-DB Compressed schedule Communicate Educate Ask questions
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL TRUE IPD MAJOR PLAYERS HAD SHARED INTEREST & FINANCIAL RISK Positive experience True collaboration Change mind set design vs. construction Big Room process All designers and contractors in a room Smart Board/BIM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW Constructability it would be easier if I could Operation we prefer that doesn t happen because Between the two is collaboration and compromise
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL TRUE IPD SHARED EXPERIENCE Talked through things you wish you could say when on PL Plumbing in wall Get the drains flush Clash detection Walk in and duct work Drain and beam locations Practical how we get to that sink behind ice maker? RESULT Both learned about other s perspective Will take to other projects
IPD & DA/DB EFFECT ON DESIGN PROCESS DESIGN Compressed schedule package Increments Want early but don t they always?? When do you REALLY need? When will floor be poured? Dealing with equals in equipment Changes to Changes to seismic bracing Rough-ins vs spot connection drawings COST ESTIMATING/SPECIFICATIONS Convincing CM that our CE is better than pricing thru FSEC Provide continual updates decision making Providing spec at GMP
IPD & DA/DB EFFECT ON DESIGN PROCESS BID PROCESS Value based decision Who to bid to? Friend of CM or good FSEC/KEC When to contract w FSEC? Who controls specs? Substitutions convince everyone of value not cheap CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Changing role
SPECIFIC IPD & DA/DB LESSONS LEARNED KENTUCKY HOSPITAL Transferred our contract for CA to CM CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL 1 No punch list We are okay thank you for your work LPCH & STANFORD Incremental packages - define OSPHD submittal and structural Multiple document sets GMP, CD/Bid, OSHPD 1, 2 and 3, permit set Running written and drawing log ALL changes in each for TWO years worth of work FSEC EARLY GMP & DESIGN ASSIST Complete drawing and spec still hours of fighting against FSEC for substitutions
BOTTOM LINE AFFECTS STAFF TIME REQUIREMENTS & FEE Schedule Number of submittal reviews Who do I work for?
PROCESS: STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINIC 2008 MASTER PLAN FOR SHC ONE TO TWO DEPARTMENTS Recommend split into two departments Distance Service type Adult vs Pediatric Population DIFFERENT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION TEAMS Similar timeline DA/DB $5M equipment Stanford $3M equipment LPCH 2016 and 2017 install
Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add Thank You!