2010 Bridging 4pp

8/3/2019 2010 Bridging 4pp

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-bridging-4pp 1/4

Electronics Manufacturing Plant, Juarez, Mex

Poly Canyon Village at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo High End Multi-Story Co-op, Atlanta, Geo

Georgia Tech’s New Campus at Savannah

Bridging Reducing the Owner’s risks and costs in quality construct

8/3/2019 2010 Bridging 4pp


Details about the projects shown on the cover

Georgia Tech’s New Campus at Savannah. 3 Buildings Brookwood was both designer (Owner’s Design Consultant)

and the Owner’s Development Manager. The original budget or construction was $21,155,860. However, the price came

in at $19,643,685 with competitive bids based on the Bridging Contract Documents (BCDs). There were no Contractor

initiated change orders and no claims against the Owner (The University Financing Foundation, a 501c3). The acility is

leased to Georgia Tech which has the right to purchase.

Poly Canyon Village at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo , Brookwood Group frst provided consultation on project

procurement methods and fnancing plus ull Program Management. Project has been very successul with students as

well as in all other respects. Bridging type contract was awarded in amount o the original project budget with several

betterments including LEED Gold included in the price. Cal Poly exec points out that the project was completed “on spec,on budget, on schedule” with no contractor initiated change orders.

Electronics Manuacturing Plant, Juarez, Mexico , Brookwood provided Development Management including site

procurement, design services (Owner’s Design Consultant) and project management or Scientifc Atlanta (now part o

Cisco Systems).. The frst hal o the space (50K s) was occupied 7 months ater the client frst discussed the project with

Brookwood. Remaining 50K s was occupied 3 months later. Original budget: $8mm. Contract award price (competitive

bids on BCDs): $7,346,800. One Contractor initiated change order: $38,310. No delays or costs to the Owner or fxing

several minor “bugs” discovered ater occupancy.

High End Multi-Story Co-op, Atlanta, Georgia , The Wakefeld in the Buckhead area o Atlanta. Brookwood owners

were the developers. Brookwood carried out the design as the Owner’s Design Consultant as well as ull Development

Management including site search/purchase, arranging fnancing, carrying out marketing, and management o

construction. Project was completed in 16 months on schedule. Contract award price:$15,183,000. One Contractor

initiated change order: $8,400. No claims against Owner (Developer). There were several “bugs” promptly corrected by

Contractor at no cost to owners.

The Bridging Method

Bridging is the only project delivery method that provides the owner with a fxed, “all up” price orthe construction with the Owner having only about hal o typical design time and design costs atrisk.

In act, it is the only method that will provide those Owners who cannot rely upon relationships in procuring

construction a dependable price based on less than 100% complete “working drawings and specications”.

The construction price under Bridging, when properly executed, is not only as dependable or the Owneras a price based on nal Contract Documents under the traditional Design-Bid-Build method, it is moredependable because the Owner’s exposure to unexpected change orders due to errors or omissions in thenal “working drawings” and specications is dramatically reduced. All too oten, change orders amountto more than was budgeted or them. In projects carried out by Brookwood Group using Bridging, totalcontractor-initiated change orders have not exceeded 1% o the contract price on any project, with theaverage being under 0.3% o the contract price.

Bridging usually saves 4-5% or more in contract prices anddramatically reduces:

unexpected high Change Order costs.•

claims against the Owner.•

delays/costs/disputes or fxing the ever present post•

construction “bugs”.

Construction also goes aster and smoother under Bridging, andadditional acceleration procedures work easily with this method.

Yet all o these advantages or the project owner are realized withBridging without any loss o :

opportunity or creativity.•

control o design.•

control o design details.•

quality o engineering.•

quality o construction.•

BRIDGING ORG CHART

LINES OF REPORTING

CONTRACT LIINES

INTERNAL or EXTERNAL

OWNER

DESIGN-BUILD

CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTOR’S

AE

OWNER’S

PROGRAM

MANAGER

OWNER’S

DESIGN

CONSULTANT

8/3/2019 2010 Bridging 4pp


How the Bridging Method WorksStep 1: A designer or design team isselected as the Owner’s Design Consultant(“ODC”), sometimes reerred to as the“Bridging Architect” (Figure 1). TheODC goes through Schematic Design in

the same way an architect would do intraditional design services, with reviewsand approvals by the Owner. Typically, theproject budget and schedule would alsobe reconrmed at this point (Figure 2).

Step 2. In this phase the ODC with its consulting engineers as well as the Program Manager (i there is one) preparesthe Bridging Contract Documents (“BCDs”). While this will typically require about the same level o eort as thepreparation o “Design Development” documents required in the traditional Design-Bid-Build method, BCDs are quitedierent rom “DD” documents. They will be much more complete in many aspects, usually the architectural, andmuch less complete in others, typically some elements o the engineering. However, i the BCDs are properly preparedollowing Bridging methodology, the contract provides highly dependable protection o the design intent and o thecontract price. In Bridging this is achieved with a design-build type o contract as opposed to a traditional constructioncontract, though Bridging is not Design-Build in the way Design-Build is typically carried out. (Figure 3).

Step 3. The Owner can then receive competitive, xed-price proposals based on the BCDs or the ull project or a 2-stepaward contract. In this way the Contractor (who has its own architects/engineers by sub-contract or as employees) hasthe complete responsibility or both the construction and the nal drawings and specications and their being incompliance with the BCDs and or their completeness, accuracy and code compliance.

Step 4. I the Owner is now readyto proceed, the Owner would thenauthorize the preparation o Con-struction Documents (“CDs”) by theContactor and its AEs. As this work proceeds the ODC will review thesedocuments or compliance with theBCDs.

Step 5. Upon proper completion o the CDs, the Owner may proceed withthe construction or terminate thecontract with the Contractor withoutcause by payment or the CDs. The CDsthen belong to the Owner. I Ownerchooses to proceed construction isauthorized.

Step 6. During the construction theODC and Program Manager (i thereis one) would also represent theOwner with on-site observation o the work, seeing that construction is

in compliance with both the CDs andthe BCDs, authorizing the monthlyprogress payments and nal paymentto Contractor.

These Bridging Contract Documents(Figure 3) must ully protect the design,the quality, and the Owner fnancially,while allowing the proposing contractor as much latitude as is prudent in order toget the best price.

Bridging may also be easily combined with CM-at-Risk for better results from

CM-at-Risk.

BRIDGING METHOD

* laboratory, medical, detention, scientific, information technology, etc.

Finish Hardware

Specialty Hardware,Equipment & Details *

HVAC System

Fire Protection System

Plumbing System

Electrical Systems

Lighting Fixtures,Switches/Outlets, Etc.

Cabinetwork

Elevators

Interior Finishes(with Schedule)

Site Development

Foundations

Internal Structure ofExterior Wall Construction

Floor & Ceiling PlansBuilding Sections

Doors & Windows(With Schedules)

Structure, Floor& Roof Systems

Architectural Ext. Design/

Controlling Details

Other Details

Plumbing Fixtures

Security Electronics

Supply & Return Grilles

Equal toSD & DDEqual toSD & DD

100%CD

0 10 30 60 80 100%20 70 905040

8/3/2019 2010 Bridging 4pp

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-bridging-4pp 4/4BR-HE-101001-ASD

Bridging Protects the Owner Better Than Other MethodsBridging solves problems that owners oten encounter with the three most commonly used project delivery methods (“Design-Bid-Build”, “Design-Build” and “CM-at-Risk”). While all three o these methods have advantages, they each have serious aws in terms o protecting the best interests o the Owner (and/or User). The pros and cons o each are discussed below.

Advantages: Logical and orderly process, well understood throughout the industry. Ownerhas a rm price based on complete contract documents beore authorizing construction.Architect and Engineers have direct proessional relationship with the Owner.

Disadvantages: Takes too long and costs the Owner too much to obtain a reasonablydependable total price. Method assumes that architects and engineers have the bestknowledge o construction methods and costs, which is rarely the case. Assumes that theContract Documents (nal drawings and specications) are ree o errors and omissions,which is humanly impossible.

Advantages:Contractor brings construction know-how to the design process rom the outsetand has ull responsibility or both the design and the construction

Disadvantages: There is a clear and serious conict-o-interest between the Owner and theArchitect and Engineers. GMPs issued on less than 100% complete working drawings andspecications are not contractually enorceable. Under this method it is oten difcult or theOwner to obtain true competition on price or ully equivalent quality and details.

Advantages: Contractor (“CM”) enters the process relatively early so as to provide costing,scheduling and construction method inormation to the Owner’s Architect and Engineerswhile design is still in development. Contractor is compensated by ee and obtainscompetitive prices rom subs. Contractor provides a “Guaranteed Maximum Price” (GMP) atone or more points during the design process.

Disadvantages: A GMP based on less than 100% complete drawings and specications isnot contractually enorceable and can be misleading to the Owner. In many cases therecan be a conict due to the “CM” using the same subs on other projects concurrently withthe CM serving as traditional general contractor on the other project.

LINES OF REPORTING

CONTRACT LIINES


CM-at-RISK

OWNER

CM-at-RISK

OWNER’S

PROGRAM

MANAGER

ARCHITECT& ENGINEERS

LINES OF REPORTING

CONTRACT LIINES


DESIGN BUILD

OWNER

DESIGN-BUILD

CONTRACTOR

OWNER’S

PROGRAM

MANAGER


GMP Final Confirmation

CM CONSULTS LONG LEADSGMP

The Bridging method o construction project delivery was developed primarily by George T. Heery FAIA RIBA FCMAA, Chairmano Brookwood Group. The name “Bridging” was originally coined in August o 1989 by S. Shepherd Heery, now President/CEOo Brookwood Group, who pointed out that the method “bridged” over many o the problems that Owners oten encounter indesign and construction programs. For more inormation on Bridging go to www.BridgingMethod.com where more inormation

can also be ound on Bridging/CM-at-Risk in the Downloads section.

DESIGN BID BUILD

LINES OF REPORTING

CONTRACT LIINES


OWNER

CONTRACTOR

OWNER’S

PROGRAM

MANAGER
