Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Architect-Led Integrated Project Delivery: An Opportunity for More Collaboration


Published on

Collaboration: The construction industry recognizes the benefits of having a collaborative design and construction process, and tools are available to make that process efficient. However, collaborative teams still need leaders. This course will examine ways for the architect, through the Integrated Project Delivery system, to lead the collaborative construction effort.

Published in: Design
  • There are over 16,000 woodworking plans that comes with step-by-step instructions and detailed photos, Click here to take a look ♥♥♥
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Architect-Led Integrated Project Delivery: An Opportunity for More Collaboration

  1. 1. Architect-Led Integrated Project Delivery: An Opportunity for More Collaboration AL:2-3 Michael J. Cremonese, Esq Paula M. Selvaggio, RPLU Ronald F. Dellaria, AIA, CSI April 12, 2018
  2. 2. Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request. This course is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. ___________________________________________ Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
  3. 3. Collaboration: The construction industry recognizes the benefits of having a collaborative design and construction process, and tools are available to make that process efficient. However, collaborative teams still need leaders. This course will examine ways for the architect, through the Integrated Project Delivery system, to lead the collaborative construction effort. Course Description
  4. 4. Learning Objectives 1. Establish a collaborative team 2. Fairly allocate risk/benefit amongst team members 3. Manage team collaboration 4. Document the legal rights and responsibilities for the project At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:
  5. 5. Historical Context  Master-Builder  Responsible for Design and Construction  Leon Battista Alberti (1400s)  Architect/Lawyer  Risk Averse  Design-Bid-Build  Avoidance of risk  Sharing of Risk  Checks and balances  Builder – second set of eyes
  6. 6. Evolution of Design-Bid-Build  Owner/Design Professional contract  Determine project scope and budget  Design project  Bid project  Owner/Contractor contract  Build project
  7. 7. Design-Bid-Build v. Litigious Society  Adversarial Relationships  Owner Demands  Risk Allocation  Indemnification  Uninsurable Clauses  Time to complete  Changes/Cost escalation  Communication gaps  RFIs
  8. 8. Contractor v. Architect  Negligent Misrepresentation  Bilt-Rite v. The Architectural Studio  Detrimental Reliance  Misrepresented Design Information  Extra Cost  Gongloff v. Kimball (2015)  Representation that Design is Adequate  Courts Encourage Evolution
  9. 9. There is a Better Way!  Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)  Designer-Led Collaboration  Owner  Design Professional  Construction Manager  Others integral to the Project
  10. 10. Structure of Designer-Led Project Delivery Design Professional  Construction Manager/Design-Builder  Sub-contractors (100% of the work)
  11. 11. Designer-Led Project Delivery  Risk More Risk or Less Risk?  Responsible for Construction  Warranty of Work  Supervise & Control of Work  Virtual Construction  Pass-Through  Who Can Sue?
  12. 12. IPD - Contractual  Define process  Conceptualization phase  Criteria design phase  Detailed design phase  Implementation documents phase  Construction phase  Identify project cost and schedule  Contingencies?
  13. 13.  Clarify intellectual property rights  BIM  Copyright  Risk/reward allocation 1. Waive claims 2. Waive consequential damages 3. Indemnification 4. Limitations of liability 5. Profits/savings/incentive bonuses IPD - Contractual
  14. 14.  Faster  Greater Opportunity for Profit  Greater Control of Process  Cost Certainty  Reduction of Changes/Errors/Omissions  Collaboration Designer-Led Project Delivery
  15. 15. Implementation Overview 1. Collaboration  Transactional or Behavioral 2. Delivery Methods  Traditional Approaches 3. Collaborative Construction  A New ‘Concept in Practice’ 4. Risk Management  BIM/VDC ‘Prescribed Reliability’
  16. 16. Tale of Two Projects
  17. 17. PNC Park, Baseball Stadium • Client: Pittsburgh Pirates • Location: United States ‘ 160 non conformances‘
  18. 18. IsMeTT, Transplant Center • Client: UPMC • Location: Italy ‘ precon problem solving‘
  19. 19. Segmented vs Collaborative Segmented Process - America The erosion of standard professional fee scales and our litigious culture have led to a trend for project participants to delimit their areas of responsibility rather than blur their boundaries through collaboration. Hence, design and its delivery become to some degree a set of separate sequential steps, the project passing from design to production and then ultimately on to contractors and their subcontractors. Collaborative Process - Europe The designer’s role must continue through construction. Many Owners think that the A/E’s “plans & specs” are a product that can be completed and then require no further involvement by the author. This is a fundamental misconception. By definition, a design professional performs a service. A service is not a product and some Owners fail to realize that design is a flow of information that cannot be completed until the need for that information is fully replete.
  20. 20. Collaboration
  21. 21. To further this understanding, it is worthy to note that there are degrees of collaboration and that they are appropriately described in the publication “Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners”, which offers a tiered approach to achieving collaboration based on three levels. The three levels represent the typical spectrum through which owners move. Whether by legislative restrictions, policy limitations or cultural barriers, there are a number of reasons that affect the collaboration spectrum and they are listed in the three evolutionary level progressions below: 1. Level One Typical; collaboration not contractually required (perceived) 2. Level Two Enhanced; some contractual collaboration requirements (philosophical) 3. Level Three Required; collaboration required by a multi-party contract (binding) Levels of Collaboration Do not mistake cooperation with collaboration • Cooperation means working together as long as both groups see a mutual benefit • Collaboration means making decisions on what's best for the team
  22. 22. Transactional or Behavioral To some degree many owners and practitioners have been creating collaborative teams for years. In fact, some have been using collaborative contracts, using practices such as: • Early involvement of trade contractors; • Contract provisions incentivizing behavior (shared savings clauses); • Preliminary guaranteed maximum price (GMP) targets established during design; However, this has been done in an environment that was constrained by ‘transactional’ contracts that created “silo behavior” instead of the improved practices that are emerging directly from the paradigm shift that IPD ‘relational’ multi party contracts have created. ‘whether perceived or binding, it can be at least behavioral’
  23. 23. We can therefore acknowledge that many of the integrated principles discussed both here and elsewhere are not new and to varying degrees have long been applied: Level One (Typical Collaboration) would be the way many owners have been working for years. It is assumed that owners understand the concepts of collaboration and integration at least to that level, whether they are able to apply the concept or not. Accordingly, based on the Levels of Collaboration noted, the publication “Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners”, further divides its examination of IPD into two areas: 1. IPD as a Philosophy (Non-multi party contracts or Levels 1 or 2 as described above) 2. IPD as a Delivery Method (Multi-party contracts or Level 3 as described above) Contractual or Philosophical ‘transactional is to behavioral as contractual is to philosophical’
  24. 24. IPD as a Delivery Method, true IPD or ‘Multi-Party Contracting’ is characterized by: • A multi -party contract with the key members • Prescribed collaborative behavior • Team risk- sharing • Other IPD principles and practices (jointly developed goals, liability waivers) IPD as a philosophy occurs when integrated practices are applied to more traditional delivery approaches such as CM at-Risk, Design- Build or Design-Bid-Build where the owner is not a party to a multi-party contract. IPD as a Philosophy is characterized by: • “Traditional” transactional CM at-Risk or Design-Build contracts • Some limited risk- sharing (savings splits) • Some application of IPD principles (early involvement, co-location, open book) As a Delivery Method or a Principle ‘contractual is to philosophical as delivery method is to principle’
  25. 25. Delivery Methods
  26. 26. Project Delivery Methods • When discussing project delivery methods it’s important to distinguish between delivery systems and their respective rules of engagement. • Three most commonly employed project delivery systems in North America. DESIGN-BID-BUILD (A201) General Conditions of the Contract CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (A201 or A201 CMa) General Conditions of the Contract DESIGN-BUILD (A141, Exhibit A) General Conditions of the Contract • However, there is a fourth - the recently added Integrated Project Delivery Method (IPD). INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (B195 + A195 + A205) Multiple Party (C191) Multi - Party (C195 + C196) Single Purpose Entity
  27. 27. Time of construction is consistent • the completion rate is faster because it starts early; but it’s more complex to manage. Project Scheduling Method Fast- track
  28. 28. Boundaries are Beginning to Blur Design Construction Design/Bid/Build 1966 Integrated Project Delivery 2001 CM Advisor 1975 CM at Risk 1990 Design/Build 1999 HardBid2DimensionalDefault Integration = Time Saved
  29. 29. Traditional vs Transitional CMc with a Design Assist Project Management Strategy This proposed pseudo integrated project delivery method: • captures the collaborative approach to design and construction • involves all project participants earlier in the process, not just the CM • goals are aligned, communication lines are well established and a forum for resolving potential future issue in a collaborative spirit is in place • can still maintain the competitive procurement procedures required in a public environment Recent industry research demonstrates that a collaborative effort, as exemplified by this delivery, produces superior results and enhances the design process. A true collaborative delivery process is the most beneficial way of attaining certainty of outcome. In simple terms it is getting the right people at the table, at the right time, with the right information, building trust in the process. ‘this collaborative construction delivery method produces superior results’
  30. 30. Boundaries are Beginning to Blur Design Construction Design/Bid/Build 1966 Integrated Project Delivery 2001 CM Advisor 1975 CM at Risk 1990 Design/Build 1999 HardBid2DimensionalDefault Integration = Time Saved
  31. 31. AE AE/CM AEC HardBid2DimensionalDefault Delivery Process Chart Astorino / CannonDesign Information Danger Zone (IDZ)
  32. 32. Us for You 350 400 You with Us You for Us 300 BIM Execution Plan Astorino / CannonDesign
  33. 33. LOD Catalog: Examples of Level Progression 300  350  400
  34. 34. LOD Catalog: Design Intent • LOD 300
  35. 35. LOD Catalog: Trade Coordination • LOD 350
  36. 36. LOD Catalog: Fabrication • LOD 400
  37. 37. Design Intent
  38. 38. Trade Coordination
  39. 39. Fabrication/Installation
  40. 40. LOD 350 > 400 – Trade Coordination > Fabrication Predictability of Outcome Astorino / CannonDesign
  41. 41. …in General Construction Astorino / CannonDesign
  42. 42. …in Mechanical/Plumbing Astorino / CannonDesign
  43. 43. …with the Right People Astorino / CannonDesign Architect Fire Protection Sub Electrical Sub MEP Engineer MEP Sub MEP Engineer Architects Civil Construction Manager Detailers Subcontractors CM
  44. 44. Risk Management
  45. 45. ‘An ounce of prevention…’ BIM facilitated Virtual Design and Construction (VDC): • it virtually solves and stays ahead of any potential problems • It helps to manage project complexities with more predictability • It produces optimal outcomes ensuring minimal risk Accordingly, the BIM Execution Plan prescribes the details for achieving this reliability: • used for pre- qualifying the various stakeholders that will be involved in the project o to ensure that they are capable of participating in this design assist delivery o to show their proficiency for problem solving thru visualization, coordination & constructability o to demonstrate their understanding of early documents release and their ability to collaboratively complete the work in the respective models Owners are quickly beginning to realize how these information-rich 3 dimensional models can: • really be useful as active decision-making tools during construction • really add value as repositories of vital information necessary for the daily operation of their facilities. ‘…it is not a mistake until it is built.’
  46. 46. Whether pursuing IPD as a Philosophy or a Delivery Method, • there is a range of fundamental principles that can inform project foundations; and, • any project delivery method may be improved through implementation of these principles. However, it is important to realize that in implementing some, as opposed to all of the principles, • may still gain you much of the value of IPD; but, • you will not be able to capitalize on the full range of benefits of a “true” IPD project. A Behavioral Delivery ‘employing the principles of IPD, prescribed or not, will enhance your rate of success’
  47. 47. Normally, these principles are divided into two categories – contractual and behavioral. For the purposes of our discussion, we are listing both sets of characteristics that in essence, whether contractual or behavioral, equally contribute to the success of what we have termed as ‘transitional design assist’ integrated project delivery method. For this classification, we will use the AIA’s definition using its six (6) characteristics: • Multi-Party Contract • Early Involvement of Key Participants • Shared Risk and Reward • Collaborative Decision Making • Liability Waivers • Jointly Developed and Validated Goals Essential Characteristics
  48. 48. Additionally, it is worth noting that the following characteristics should also be identified as ‘highly desirable’ for an Integrated Project Delivery and are not unique to multi- party IPD projects. In fact, all of these principles are available to some degree with traditional contracts and are very relevant to the intent of our project discovery sessions: • Mutual Respect and Trust Among Participants • Collaborative Innovation • Intensified Early Planning • Open Communication within the Project Team • Building Information Modeling (BIM) shared by Multiple Parties • Lean Principles of Design, Construction and Operations • Co-Location of Teams (“Big Rooms”) • Transparent Financials (Open Books) Supplemental Characteristics
  49. 49. Adapting the IPD Process
  50. 50. Modified Collaborative Agreement Governing Contract (B103 & A133) + (A201) • Fast-Track • GMP • Shared Savings (50/50/50) BIM Addendum (E201 + E202) • Digital Data Protocol Exhibit • Modeling Protocol Exhibit BIM Project Execution Plan (BEP) • Phased Documents Release • Collaborative Design Assist This approach is a little different, and resulted from working with the Owner’s Legal Departments which needed a level of comfort with the use of collaborative multi party agreements: the outcome was the creation of modified construction management agreement witch you see above. Construction Management at Risk
  51. 51. Subcontractor Pre-qualification Form Collaborative Project Delivery
  52. 52. Subcontractor Pre-qualification Form Limits of Liability
  53. 53. Project Responsibility Matrix Phase Deliverables ▪ MEAs ▪ LODs
  54. 54. LOD Standards’ Specification Certainty of Outcome
  55. 55. LOD Standards’ Specification Part A - Model Element Table ▪ geometry
  56. 56. 56 Uniformat LOD Level Attribute Breakout Tables LOD Standards’ Specification Part B – Parametrics’ Table ▪ attributes
  57. 57. LOD 350 > 400 – Trade Coordination > Prefabrication Prescribed Certainty of Outcome Astorino / CannonDesign
  58. 58. Construction Sequencing Detail Gantt Chart
  59. 59. Construction Sequencing Navis 4D from 3D
  60. 60. Excel Spreadsheet Construction Estimating
  61. 61. Construction Estimating Innovaya 5D from 3D
  62. 62. Construction Administration Newforma ▪ punch lists Astorino / CannonDesign
  63. 63. Real Time Messaging ▪ RFIs ▪ non conformances Document Control Web Based Apps Astorino / CannonDesign
  64. 64. Project Close Out Punch List App Astorino / CannonDesign
  65. 65. This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course Thank You Michael J. Cremonese, Esq Paula M. Selvaggio, RPLU Ronald F. Dellaria, AIA, CSI