IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 40)

PERSPECTIVES// subsequently meeting with each team in one-onone forums during the procurement process. Selecting design-build project delivery generally allows the owner to transfer much of the risk for design errors, omissions and ambiguities to the design-builder. Design-build done right affords an excellent opportunity to establish a collaborative relationship between the owner and the designbuild team. One advantage of this relationship is the ability to identify high-risk issues much earlier in the process and the potential allocation of those uncertainties to the party (or parties) most capable of managing. In a best-case scenario, some risk factors may be avoided altogether. Unlike design-bid-build, multi-prime or construction management at risk, design-build project delivery provides owners with a guaranteed (bonded and insured) firm-fixed price much earlier in the process. Combining these two advantages, namely, shifting the design risk and cost risk to the design-builder, typically comes at a cost to the owner, i.e., the owner relinquishes control of the details of the design during post-award—not to be confused with loss of control of the outcome. Within a typical design-build contract (again, design-build done right) certain design interfaces should occur during the post-award administration phase. Seasoned design-build experts generally agree: Design management presents the greatest challenge to administer. This is because effective post-award performance requires a structured integrated team approach by the design-builder with disciplined participants. The budget and schedule must have been established before completion of the design. In order to achieve the primary benefits of design-build, all members of the team must communicate in an open and candid manner; exhibit a flexible mentality; and, above all, behave in a manner that facilitates an environment of trust. Again, the design-build team includes not only the designer and general contractor but also subconsultants, subcontractors and the owner, who must be cognizant of the fact that he or she ultimately sets the tone of the collaboration within the team. Situations in which the owner’s management team is multi-faceted (e.g., includes local staff, an owner’s representative, regional supervisors as well as headquarters staff, etc.) require a high level of coordination, cooperation and consistency on the part of the owner and increases the risk for the owner. Effective design-build requires that owner decisions be provided in a fast-paced manner, oftentimes without all of the desired information available. Here lies the most significant difference between the traditional design-bid-build and the fast-tracked integrated design-build project delivery method. Trust and flexibility between the different members of the project team is paramount to a successful design-build project. Post-award contract administration activities are unique to each design-build project. Specifically, the level of design the owner included in the RFP often varies and may include a design criteria package, preliminary design or bridging documents. The amount of design work in the RFP subsequently correlates to the design development functions that must occur post-award. In other words, the level of “performance based” requirements in the statement of work (SOW) has a direct correlation to the post-award design development process. [For more on performance-based requirements, see page 37.] MANAGING THE POST-AWARD PROCESS The owner has broad discretion to define requirements within a design-build acquisition, i.e., to express needs in performance-based or prescriptive terms (or a combination of both). However, the owner cannot specify both for the same element of work and expect to hold the contractor accountable for conformance. It is my opinion that the two become blurred at times during the procurement process. The typical design-build project-delivery process entails substantial design development after the contract is awarded. The budget is fixed, the performance requirements/design criteria package is agreed upon and the schedule is confirmed—all prior to completion of the construction documents. NOTE: Owners who selected the design-build team based on best value (DBIA’s “build to budget” best practice) as opposed to low price clearly have an advantage during post-award to maximize scope, sustainability, life cycle cost, performance, quality, etc. The evolution of the design throughout the post-award process does not necessarily result in changed conditions or “change orders.” As the design solution is refined, various options are normally available to the project team. As long as the performance requirements do not change, 40 summer//2011 the quarterly publication of the design-build institute of america

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue

IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue

IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page Cover1)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page Cover2)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 1)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 2)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 3)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 4)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 5)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 6)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 7)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 8)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 9)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 10)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 11)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 12)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 13)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 14)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 15)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 16)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 17)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 18)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 19)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 20)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 21)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 22)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 23)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 24)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 25)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 26)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 27)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 28)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 29)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 30)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 31)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 32)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 33)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 34)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 35)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 36)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 37)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 38)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 39)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 40)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 41)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 42)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 43)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 44)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 45)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 46)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 47)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 48)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page Cover3)
IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page Cover4)
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g32384_dbia_spring2013
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g30201_dbia_winter2012
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g27498_dbia_iq_fall2012
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g27263_dbia_iq_summer2012
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g27412dbia_iq_spr12
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g24065_dbiaiqwinter11
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g21862_dbia_fall_11
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/dbianxtbook_summer_11
http://staging.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/DBIA/g18240_dbia_spring2011a
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com