LACCD_4.20.10

707 views

Published on

Presentation on Integrated Project Delivery to BuildLACCD, the program manager for LA\'s $5.7 billion community college capital program.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
707
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LACCD_4.20.10

  1. 1. AIA/AGC/ McGraw-Hill Integrated Project Delivery Case Studies Jonathan Cohen, FAIA LEED AP jonathan@jcarchitects.com 510.558.8154 Presented to BuildLACCD April 20, 2010 0 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  2. 2. today’s discussion  The goals of IPD  The six case study projects  Conclusions from the case studies  The role of IPD facilitator  Options for public agencies 1 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  3. 3. http://aia.org/ipdcasestudies 2 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  4. 4. AIA California Council IPD Task Group AIA National IPD Interest Group http://www.ipd-ca.net/ 3 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  5. 5. the goals of IPD  Early knowledge - cost and schedule certainty lowers risk  Recapture of explicit and hidden contingencies  Improved information exchange and sharing of expertise – Less duplication of effort/less rework – Fewer RFIs/submittals/change orders  Creation of a virtual enterprise around project – Alignment of goals – Collaborative working environment – More transparent process – Fewer disputes – No risk-shifting – “all for one and one for all”  Easier to achieve sustainability/operational goals 4 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  6. 6. how do we define IPD?  Early involvement of key participants  Multi-party contract  Jointly developed/validated targets  Shared risk/reward based on project outcome  Collaborative decision making/control  Reduced liability exposure 5 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  7. 7. desirable conditions  Mutual respect and trust  Intensified early planning  BIM used collaboratively  Lean design/construction/operations  Collaborative innovation  Open communication  Transparent financials  Co-location/Big Room 6 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  8. 8. case studies  Autodesk AEC Division HQ, Waltham MA  Cardinal Glennon Children’s NICU, St. Louis MO  Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center, Appleton WI  St. Clare Health Center, Fenton, MO  Sutter Fairfield Medical Office Building, Fairfield, CA  Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU, Phoenix, AZ 7 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  9. 9. case studies  1 corporate, 1 public university, 4 not-for-profit healthcare providers spread across the country  1 TI fit-out, 1 addition/renovation, 4 new buildings  $12 million to $150 million construction cost  Budgets met, schedules met with exceptions  No change orders, except owner-initiated  Designers and builders felt adequately compensated  Participants will use IPD again  No disputes! 8 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  10. 10. Sutter Health Medical Office Building, Fairfield CA 9 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  11. 11. Sutter Health Medical Office Building, Fairfield CA  Owner: Sutter Regional Medical Foundation  Architect: HGA Architects and Engineers  Builder: The Boldt Company 10 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  12. 12. Sutter Health Medical Office Building, Fairfield CA  3-story, 70,000 SF, $19.5 million MOB  Pilot project for IPD: first relational integrated form of agreement (IFOA) in USA  Design: 12 months  Construction: 15 months  On time and under budget  Non owner-initiated change orders: 0  Sutter Health has committed to IPD for its $5.5 billion capital program. IPD projects underway: – California Pacific Medical Center, SF – Eden Health, Castro Valley 11 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  13. 13. Sutter Health Medical Office Building, Fairfield CA  From the Integrated Form of Agreement: – The parties recognize that each of their opportunities to succeed on the Project is directly tied to the performance of other Project participants. The parties shall therefore work together in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual respect for the benefit of the Project, and within the limits of their professional expertise and abilities. 12 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  14. 14. Autodesk AEC Division HQ, Waltham MA 13 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  15. 15. Autodesk AEC Division HQ, Waltham MA  Owner: Autodesk Inc.  Architect: KlingStubbins  Builder: Tocci Building Companies 14 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  16. 16. Autodesk AEC Division HQ, Waltham MA  3 story, 60,000 SF interior office fit-out  Design and construction: 35 weeks  Competitive selection process based on quals, fees  Incentive compensation layer used based on targets: – Budget and schedule – Sustainability goal – Design quality compared to benchmarked projects – 3rd party neutral evaluator of “soft goals”  Non owner-initiated change orders: 0  Budget and schedule met  Design-to-fabrication used  LEED Platinum – CI 15 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  17. 17. Autodesk AEC Division HQ, Waltham MA 16 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  18. 18. Encircle Health for ThedaCare, Appleton WI 17 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  19. 19. Encircle Health for ThedaCare, Appleton WI  Owner: Encircle Health, an LLC composed of ThedaCare and independent physician groups  Architect: HGA Architects and Engineers  Builder: The Boldt Company 18 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  20. 20. Encircle Health for ThedaCare, Appleton WI  Ambulatory care center with labs and imaging  Physician owned LLC  Bank financed  157,000 SF, $35.4 million  Design: 5 months  Construction: 11 months  Non owner-initiated change orders: 0  Budget and schedule met, except for weather delay  Sustainability goal: LEED Silver  Sustainability achieved: LEED Gold 19 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  21. 21. SSM St. Clare Health Center, Fenton, MO 20 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  22. 22. SSM St. Clare Health Center, Fenton, MO  Owner: SSM Healthcare  Architect: HGA Architects and Engineers  Builder: Alberici Constructors 21 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  23. 23. SSM St. Clare Health Center, Fenton, MO  6-story, 158 bed hospital + 85,000 SF medical office building + 75,000 SF ambulatory care center = 430,000 SF total  $148.3 million construction cost  Design: 28 months  Construction: 29 months  Non owner-initiated change orders: 0  Budget met  Schedule extended due to programmatic changes, incorporation of electronic medical records technology 22 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  24. 24. SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s, St. Louis 23 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  25. 25. SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s, St. Louis  Owner: SSM Healthcare  Architect: Christner Inc.  MEP Engineer: McGrath Inc.  Builder: Alberici Constructors, Inc. 24 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  26. 26. SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s, St. Louis  138,000 SF, $45.5 million children’s hospital addition  60 unit neonatal intensive care, 10 surgical suites  IPD adopted after project had started  Construction: 24 months, finished 3 weeks ahead of schedule  Change orders: 0  Budget and schedule met  Financial incentives paid out of unused contingency - $400,000 saved and distributed out of $1,000,000 25 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  27. 27. Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU 26 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  28. 28. Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU  Owner: City of Phoenix  User/Occupant: Arizona State University  Design Architect: Ehrlich Architects  Executive Architect: HDR Architecture  Builder: Sundt Construction 27 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  29. 29. Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU  “Public-Public” partnership: City of Phoenix/ASU  6 story, 225,000 SF, $63 million  Classrooms, media production labs, auditorium, TV production studio, retail  Competitive selection process based on quals  Design/Build contract but IPD adopted informally  Extremely tight schedule met, budget met  Design to permit: 10 months  Construction: 15 months  Non owner-initiated change orders: 0  LEED Silver 28 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  30. 30. Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU 29 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  31. 31. case study scorecard 30 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  32. 32. conclusions  It works!  Better management of risk – transparency eliminates “hidden contingencies”  Early certainty of cost & schedule; capture of market knowledge  Lesson learned: put profit in a separate bucket from fee; allow movement between line items  Much waste eliminated – shared resources; draw (model) once  Flexible, shifting roles, blurring of boundaries between designer and builder – people seem to like that  Full engagement of owner  Financial incentives are controversial – they must be carefully structured to insure “project-centric” behavior  Creative adaptation to different circumstances 31 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  33. 33. the IPD facilitator  Designs IPD process unique to project and client  Independent of architect and builder – works for owner  Acts as evangelist/educator to internal and external stakeholders  Assists in establishing a legal framework  Assists the owner in design and construction team selection  Facilitates interactive communication during project  Establishes BIM/IT standards for information exchange  Assists in setting project goals  Assists in evaluation of goal attainment 32 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved
  34. 34. options for public agencies  IPD principles can be applied to public procurement – Design-build with “best value” selection – Public-private partnerships – for revenue generating projects only, i.e. dorms, parking garages, transportation, food service – Lease/leaseback – CM-at-risk – not authorized for community colleges – Multiple prime with “best value” selection – UCSF Mission Bay  Legislative authority needed for 3-way contracts, single purpose entity LLCs – enacted in Colorado 33 ©2010 Jonathan Cohen - all rights reserved

×