AIA MBA NAIOP CPD Presentation FINAL.pptx [Read-Only]€¦ · – AIA/MBA Joint Committee Task Force on Collaborative Project Delivery: Will be offering educational sessions and continuing

One Project

The Benefits of Collaborative Project Delivery

Your Logo

A dAgenda

Why is Collaborative Project Delviery Important?22

11 The AIA/MBA Joint Committee

Collaboration in Project Delivery Systems

Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources

Strategies for Owners

Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

The AIA/MBA Joint Committee


11


Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

The AIA/MBA Joint CommitteePromoting Collaboration

Chartered in 1965, the AIA-MBA Joint Committee provides a unique forum for

Promoting Collaboration

Committee provides a unique forum for Architects, General Contractors and Owners to meet and discuss existing conditions of the gconstruction industry.

As a result of this forum, a set of guidelines was created to reflect the best practices for procedures involving drawings andprocedures involving drawings and specifications, bidding, contract documents and administrative procedures during

t ticonstruction.




Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

Collaborative Project Delivery Why is it important now?

• Fragmentation in traditional delivery

Why is it important now?

systems causes poor performance


‘Ours is the only trillion


dollar industry in the history of the world in which misguided owners demand processes that increase cost and reduce quality.’

The Owner’s Dilemma, 2010Barbara White Bryson with Canan Yetmen

Collaborative Project Delivery Why is it important now?Why is it important now?


• Complexity of Projects



• Environmental Sustainability



• Information Management Tools Require It


Adapted Autodesk Diagram




Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

Collaborative Project Delivery Project Delivery Systems

• The Traditional Fragmented Process

Project Delivery Systems

Design Construction


• Boundaries are Beginning to Blur


Design Construction


• No “Pure” (or Perfect) Delivery Systems


“IPD”

Design/Build

CM Advisor

CM at Risk

Design Construction

Design/Bid/Build


• Key Principles of Integration/Collaboration


Behavioral

•Mutual Trust &

Organizational

• Strong Leadership

Contractual

•Mutual Risk and Respect

•Open Communication

•Willingness to Collaborate

g p• Jointly Developed Goals

•Appropriate Technology (BIM) & Other Tools

Reward• Financial Incentives Tied to Goals

• Early Key Participant InvolvementCollaborate

•Collaborative Innovation

•Collaborative Decision Making

Other Tools• Intensified Planning•Co‐Location

Involvement•Multi‐Party Contracts• Liability Waivers• Fiscal Transparency


• Delivery Method by Procurement Option


Less Collaborative More CollaborativeMatrix Courtesy of AGC Project Delivery Systems for Construction - Michael E. Kenig

What is it?Project Delivery Systems

• All Else Fails Without Trust





Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

Collaborative Project Delivery Case StudiesCase Studies

Cardinal Wuerl North Catholic High SchoolProject CostProject Cost

$43,283,000

Project ScheduleDesign: 1/2011 - 4/2012

Construction: 5/2012 - 1/2014

Project Delivery MethodDesign Bid Build

Contract TypeContract TypeAIA

Construction Manager AdvisorCampayno Consulting Services

Architect of RecordAstorino

General Contractor/Lead ContractorMascaro Construction CompanyMascaro Construction Company


Cardinal Wuerl North Catholic High SchoolMajor Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:Major Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:

• Owner wanting to use this project to embrace BIM• Owner wanting to structure information for operations and maintenance phase

Collaborative Principles Used

• Behavioral•Open Communication•Willingness to Collaborate

• Organizational•Strong Leadership•Early Jointly Developed Goal Definition•Appropriate Technology and other Implementation Tools•Co-locationCo ocat o

• Contractual•Early Involvement of Key Participants

Outcomes/Keys to Success

• Early involvement of Mascaro prior to release of CD’s to structure a collaborative BIM implementation plan• Getting buy-in from all participants to buy into the goal of doing what is best for the project success• Sharing information and contributing in an open environment


UPMC Clinical LabProject SizeProject Size

Renovation: 133,000 sf

Project Cost

Project: $38 Mj

Project Schedule

17 months

Project Delivery Methodj y

Negotiated / CM-at-Risk

Contract Type

AIA A133 (GMP)

Team

Massaro

Perkins Eastman


UPMC Clinical LabMajor Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:Major Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:

• Project Complexity – repurposing a building not ideally suited as a laboratory building presented major risk for budget and schedule overruns due to extremely complex MEP coordination issues

• Budget – unrealistic budget set early in the project required high collaboration to ensure maximum amount of program scope was accomplished within delivery time periodprogram scope was accomplished within delivery time period


• BehavioralM t l T t d R t


•Project done on schedule and close to original budget d it li ti t ti d h d t i ti•Mutual Trust and Respect

•Open Communication•Willingness to Collaborate

• Organizational•Early Jointly Developed Goal Definition

despite unrealistic expectations and changes due to existing conditions•On time delivery provided owner with flexibility to deal with planning for the Patients Affordable Care Act•Higher collaboration provided real time changes and key player feedback on constructability and value engineering•Intensified Planning

•Appropriate Technology and other Implementation Tools

• Contractual•Early Involvement of Key Participants

player feedback on constructability and value engineering•Getting entire team working together to solve complex logistical issues virtually before becoming major time consuming field issues

y y p•Fiscal Transparency


Bechtel MRTC & A6 BuildingsProject CostProject Cost

$15.4 Million

Project ScopeTo deliver two mirror image office buildings on

Separate, adjoining parcels of land

Project ScheduleDesign: August 2, 2012 – May 3, 2013

Construction: February 1, 2013 – April 24, 2014

Project Delivery MethodDesign-Build

Contract TypeBechtel’s Standard D-B Purchase Order

General Contractor/Lead ContractorDCK Worldwide

Architect of RecordArchitect of RecordParadigm Architecture/Michael Baker, Inc.


Bechtel MRTC & A6 BuildingsMajor Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:Major Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:

• Bechtel was dissatisfied with the collaborative levels achieved on previous D-B Projects so the retained a consultant from the DBIA to guide the process.

• Owner needs to have a Fixed-Firm Price contract – could not have change orders or cost overruns.• Owner has historically been viewed as a very difficult owner and wanted to change their reputation withOwner has historically been viewed as a very difficult owner and wanted to change their reputation with

contractors.


B h i l• Behavioral•Open Communication •Willingness to Collaborate•Mutual Trust and Respect

• Organizational•Jointly Developed Goals•Co-Location (dck’s Office, Baker’s Office, PNC Park)•Appropriate Technology - BIM used

• Contractual•Early Key Participant Involvement (MEP Subs were part of the team before the RFP was released)Early Key Participant Involvement (MEP Subs were part of the team before the RFP was released)•Financial Incentives Tied to Goals•Fiscal Transparency



Cleveland Clinic Marymount Hospital Surgery ExpansionProject SizeProject Size

Addition: 43,965 sf - Renovation: 29,458 sf

Project Cost

Project: $45 M - Construction: $27.5 Mj

Project Schedule

Design: 2008 - 2010

Construction: Nov’10 – March’12 (Addition) & May’13

(Renovation)

Project Delivery Method

CM with Design Assist Partners and Lump Sum Bidders

Contract Type

Separate Contracts between Owner/Architect/CM with a

performance charter

P tPartners

Cleveland Clinic – Bostwick Design Partnership – Karpinski

Engineering – Turner Construction


Cleveland Clinic Marymount Hospital Surgery ExpansionMajor Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:Major Impetus for Higher Levels of Collaboration:

• Maintaining Budge and Schedule• Reduced RFI’s and Changes• Reduced Risk for Owner Based on Prior Project

ExperiencesExperiences


• Behavioral


•Only 34 RFI’s in first 9 Months•Mutual Trust and Respect•Open Communication•Willingness to Collaborate•Collaborative Innovation and Decision Making

• Organizational

•Phenomenal collaboration and communication between design and construction led to several innovative solutions•Project completed on budget and schedule•Were able to add additional scope within original budget•Accomplished LEED Gold (target was Silver)g

•Strong Leadership•Early Jointly Developed Goal Definition•Intensified Planning •Appropriate Technology and other Implementation Tools

• Contractual

p ( g )•User surveys indicate an increase in quality (environment, amenities, etc.)•Strong owner leadership

•“Owner Controlled Team Project Delivery”• Contractual

•Mutual Benefit and Reward (and Risk)•Financial Incentives Tied to Team Goals•Early Involvement of Key Participants•Fiscal Transparency




Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

Collaborative Project Delivery Strategies for OwnersStrategies for Owners

Teamwork on the AGENDATeamwork on the AGENDA

Confirming RFI’s ONLYConfirming RFI s ONLY

Job Site OFFICEJob Site OFFICE

Team Environment SURVEYTeam Environment SURVEY

Increased TRANSPARENCYIncreased TRANSPARENCY

Collaborative Project Delivery Strategies for Owners

Teamwork on the AGENDA



Confirming RFI’s Only

As discussed, …


Job Site OFFICE


SH Team Scorecard: March 2012SH Team Scorecard: March 2012Team Environment SURVEY

4.36

4.55

Communication

Acknowledgement of Issues

4.36

4.55

Communication

Acknowledgement of Issues

4.09

4.27

Timely Resolution

Cooperation

4.09

4.27

Timely Resolution

Cooperation

4.55

4.45

Accountability

Teamwork

4.55

4.45

Accountability

Teamwork

4.55

4.55

Trust

Respect

4.55

4.55

Trust

Respect

0 1 2 3 4 5

Survey Rating

0 1 2 3 4 5

Survey Rating

Bi-monthly team surveys


Increased TRANSPARENCY




Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo




Case Studies

55

44

33

Resources


Discussion

77

66

55

Your Logo

Collaborative Project Delivery Resources

• Books – Broken Building Busted Budgets by Barry B. LePatner

The O ner’s Dilemma b Barbara White Br son

Resources

– The Owner’s Dilemma by Barbara White Bryson– The Commercial Real Estate Revolution by Rex Miller

• American Institute of Architects ResourcesAIA Center for Integrated Practice: http://network aia org/centerforintegratedpractice/home/– AIA Center for Integrated Practice: http://network.aia.org/centerforintegratedpractice/home/Contains many good resources such as Integrated Project Delivery Case Studies (2010 and 2012), AIA Integrated Project Delivery Awareness Survey, AIA-AGC Primer on Project Delivery - 2nd Edition, etc.

– AIA IPD Contracts Information:http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS076706The Business Case for Trust:– The Business Case for Trust:http://www.aia.org/akr/Resources/Documents/AIAP062339

• AIA/MBA Joint Committee– AIA/MBA Joint Committee Best Practices Guide:

http://www.mbawpa.org/aia-mba/best-practices-guides.aspThe guide was updated last year to include a section on BIM and will continue to be updated with information and case studies as the industry migrates toward more integrated and collaborative delivery systems

– AIA/MBA Joint Committee Task Force on Collaborative Project Delivery:Will be offering educational sessions and continuing to highlight case studies in an effort to elevate the regions understanding of the value of collaborative project delivery and encourage more integration to achieve more certainly in project outcomes

Collaborative Project Delivery ResourcesResources

Collaborative Project Delivery ResultsResults

Cost Growth (%)654

4.84

3.34

Schedule Growth (%)654

4.44

Quality

14.7 16.1 15.62015

3210

2.373.34

3210 0 0

1050

Key: DBB - Design Bid Build (Plan/Spec)D/B Design/BuildD/B - Design/BuildCM@R - Construction Management at Risk

CII Penn State UniversityCII – Penn State UniversityResearch Study of Project Delivery for 351 ProjectsSummary of Principal Metrics