© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 ......Filippo Brunelleschi Leon Battista Alberti 7. The Day Trust Ended Between Design Professionals and Contractors July

© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Integrated Project Delivery

It’s A New World, And How It

Can Benefit Municipal Owners

Rich Atoulikian, PMP, PE

[email protected]

Cal Rozario, PMP

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.oawwa.org/

http://www.oawwa.org/

Brief History of Project Delivery

Drivers for Alternative Delivery

Alternate Delivery Models for W/WW Infrastructure

Additional Resources

Agenda

3

4

5





Agenda

6

Project Delivery

A Brief History

?

Industrial Revolution

Added project complexity

Specialization of services

1750 1850

Miller

Act

1935 1981

Master Builder Concept

1400 1450

Segregated Services Model

Early 1700’s

E&C collaboration & communication

Filippo

Brunelleschi

Leon

Battista Alberti

7

The Day Trust EndedBetween Design Professionals and Contractors

July 17, 1981

July 17, 1981

The Kansas City Hyatt Regency

Walkway Collapse

10

The day after, open E/A/C communications ended

Traditional delivery became contentious

Owner becomes a mediator

One positive result…..Alternative Delivery Methods emerge

Everything Changed!

Miller Act

1935 1981

AD Methods

Emerge

1993

KC Hyatt DBIA

Formed

11


Drivers for Alternative Delivery (AD)

Alternate Delivery (AD) Models for W/WW Infrastructure


Agenda

12

Speed of deliveryo Accommodates compressed

schedules

• Consent decree

• Development pressure

Transparencyo Risk shifting and sharing

o Open book approach

o Best value, not least cost approach

Drivers For AD

13

One Point of Responsibilityo Control changes and avoid claims

Foster Collaboration Between Designer/Buildero Constructability Input During Design

Other driverso QBS Selection of Design-Builder or CMAR

o Desire to gain AD experience

o Can keep capital dollars local

o Incorporate Owner/O&M input

(Progressive DB)

o Cost Savings???

More Drivers For AD

14





Agenda

15

Design-Bid-Build

Design/CM-at-Risk

Design-Buildo Traditional Design-Build (Lump Sum)

o Progressive Design-Build

AD Models for W/WW Infrastructure

DBOOTD-B-B D/CMAR D-B DBO DBFO

Increasing Owner Transfer of Risk and Control

P-DB LS-DB

16

Design - Bid - Build(Traditional Project Delivery)

Equipment

SuppliersTrade

Subcontractors

Owner

General

Contractor

Design

Professional

Contract

Communication

What entity has all the risk and

control in this delivery model?Spearin Doctrine applies...

17

Design - Bid - BuildBest Applications

Owner is pleased with results of past D-B-B projects

Owner desires high degree of involvement in design

Schedule is not a priority

Project is complex or scope

is uncertain

Enabling laws do not allow alternative project delivery

Owner

GCDesigner

18

Multiple contracts for owner to manage

Owner warrants design documents

Owner bears majority of risk

Reduced opportunity for collaboration between designer & constructor

Minimal ability to consider non-cost factors

Design - Bid - BuildDisadvantages

Owner

ContractorDesigner

19

Design-Bid-Build

Design/CM-at-Risk






P-DB LS-DB

20

Construction Management At-Risk(CMAR)

Equipment

SuppliersTrade Subcontractors

Owner

CMARDesign

Professional

Contract

Communication

Control and

Risk

General Contractor Role

• Construction Manager At-

Risk

21

Preconstruction

Collaboration

Engineering Firm Role

• Designer to Owner

• Owner’s Rep (Criterion Engr.)

Owner desires high degree of

involvement & control

Owner desires more

construction input into design

Owner desires less

construction risk

Schedule is a priority

Project is complex or scope is

uncertain

Ensures maximum local

subcontractor participation

Design/CM-At-RiskBest Applications

Equipment

SuppliersTrade

Subcontractors

Owner

CMARDesigner

22

Design/CM-At-Risk DeliveryThe “Plus” During Preconstruction

Preconstruction Phase Services

Budget Conformance Scope Conformance Schedule Conformance

Design Reviews Design Workshops MOPO Development

Value Engineering Constructability Reviews Phasing Plans

Bid Gap Analysis Subcontractor Qualification Early out Packaging

Design Professional and CMAR create best value

while minimizing claims and litigation

Design Phase

Construction Phase

23

Design/CM-At-Risk Disadvantages

24

Split Design & Build

responsibilities

o (Spearin Doctrine applies)

May cost more if not

structured efficiently

Multiple contracts for owner to

manage

Equipment

Suppliers

Trade

Subcontractors

Owner

CMARDesigner

Design-Bid-Build

Design/CM-at-Risk






P-DB LS-DB

25

Traditional D-BContract and Communications Lines

Owner

(Integrated)

Design-Builder

RiskControl


• Designer to a Contractor (Design

Assist)


General Contractor Roles

• Contractor to Designer

26

Contract

Communication Trade

Subcontractors

Equipment

Suppliers

Traditional Design-BuildBest Applications

Existing conditions, scope and desired

outcomes well understood and defined

Owner does not want direct involvement

in detailed design and construction

Operational and aesthetic issues well

defined

Conventional, well-understood

technology

Owner has experience with AD

Owner

Design-Builder

27

Traditional Design-BuildDisadvantages

Lump Sum price may not reflect final cost

Owner involvement limited once price

established

Design less detailed during bidding

Increased potential for change orders or

claims if Owner wants changes after pricing

Lengthy and costly process to develop

prescriptive D-B procurement

Owner

Design-Builder

28

Progressive Design-BuildContract and Communication Lines

Owner

(Integrated)

Design-Builder

RiskControl

29


• Designer to a Contractor

(Design Assist)


General Contractor Role

• Contractor to Designer

Contract

Communication Trade

Subcontractors

Equipment

Suppliers

Time is critical

Owner has specific technology,

aesthetic, and equipment preferences

Owner desires high degree of

involvement during design,

preconstruction & construction

Owner desires a single point of

responsibility

Project more complex and scope is

uncertain

Progressive Design-BuildBest Applications

Owner

Design-Builder

30

More up-front design effort to get

to a firm price than with

Traditional D-B

Firm price is set later than with

Lump Sum D-B

Owner may need more time to

understand final construction

cost development (i.e. GMP)

Progressive Design-BuildDisadvantages

Owner

Design-Builder

31

How Does An Owner Choose?

32

Design-Build

Design-Bid- Build CMAR

Comparison of Project Delivery

Methods

33

D-B-B LS D-B P D-B CMAR

Selection Criteria Price based Price based Qualifications based with price

considerations

Qualifications based with

price considerations

Owner Involvement &

Flexibility

Good through detailed

design. Minimal after

construction contract is

awarded

Good through preliminary

design. Minimal after D-B

contract is awarded

Good throughout entire design

and construction phases

Good throughout entire

design and construction

phases

Relative Schedule Slowest Faster Faster Faster

Number of Owner

Contracts to Coordinate &

Manage

At least 2 Usually 1 Usually 1 At least 2

Potential to Deliver “Least

Cost”

Very Good (in favorable

market conditions with good

design)

Good Very Good to Great Good to Very Good

Cost Control Reduced control once

construction contract is

awarded

Early cost identification.

Least control after preliminary

design is completed

Later cost identification.

Most control throughout entire

project

Later cost identification.

More control throughout

entire project

Potential for Change

Orders & Claims

Higher Higher Lowest Lower

Powerful, flexible delivery

methods that must be well-

managed

Methodology has gained favor

with many Owners across the

industry

Trend will continue in

foreseeable future

34

Alternative Project DeliverySummary

0 1 2 3 4 5

Owner Involvement in Design

Quality of Completed Project

Communication

Overall Experience

Transition to Operation

Risk Distribution

Level of Satisfaction

Source: Water-Design Build Council, 2012

Survey on Owner Satisfaction

35

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

220.0

240.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

CMAR Revenues

DB Revenues

Future Projection

Alternative Delivery Market Trends

Val

ue,

$Bill

ion

s

Source: ENR, June 201336

Design-Bid-Build

Design/CM-at-Risk



What’s Next ??



P-DB LS-DB

37





Agenda

38

Water Design Build Councilo The Municipal Water and Wastewater Design-

Build Handbook, 2nd Edition

o (http://info.waterdesignbuild.com/water-

design-build-handbook)

Design Build Institute of Americao General info on Alternative Delivery

o Standard Form AD Contract Documents

For More Information on

Municipal W/WW D-B Delivery

39

http://info.waterdesignbuild.com/water-design-build-handbook

When Does an AD Method Make Sense?

41

To have a greater control in contractor selection

Foster early collaboration between Designer and Builder

Desire for a greater role in project execution

Accommodation of schedule drivers

Why Are Owners Increasingly Turning to

Alternative Project Delivery?

42

Design-Bid-Build

Design/CM-at-Risk



Prevalent AD Models for W/WW

Infrastructure



P-DB LS-DB

43