IQ Summer 2011: The Federal Issue - (Page 45)

with a hands-on approach that is not unlike the traditional design-bid-build project delivery. Too often, this tendency limits the opportunity for industry to offer more innovative solutions. Additionally, issuing multiple notices to proceed (NTP) can severely limit the design-builder’s ability to fast track the project and is certainly not a design-build best practice. Ironically, such a heavyhanded approach to the project can result in the owner reassuming responsibility for the project end performance, potentially indirectly shifting risk back to the owner and relieving the designbuilder from such liability. Such behavior has the effect of diminishing a primary advantage of design-build project delivery. However, when the owner assumes such a proactive assertive role, it is the responsibility of the design-builder to properly notify the owner, specifically the contracting officer in a timely manner that such behavior is interfering with the contractor’s ability to adequately move forward on the project. The design-builder’s willingness and ability to submit a fixed price for the owner’s work necessarily relies on being afforded the flexibility to select the most economical design within parameters clearly defined by the owner during contract price negotiations. It is not unusual for design-builders to exhibit an accommodating attitude early in design development meetings often in anticipation of winning future projects. This tendency may result in self-inflicted damages resulting from the designbuilder’s ineffective management of the design process. Tolerating overreaching owner involvement can have significant negative consequences downstream. Such behavior can range from a potentially disruptive more hands-on approach by the owner to, often, inattentiveness to critical issues affecting the project. At its core, “post-award” actually begins during “pre-award” with the entire design-build team actively participating in developing the solution. In my experience, the owner must set the tone of the collaborative relationship throughout the team. The delicate balance of owner involvement during the post-award process is critical to the success of the project. Owners must keep in mind that assuming a more obtrusive role in the post-award design development may hinder the designbuilder’s contract performance. On the other hand, simply reviewing the 35 percent conceptual design and throwing it “back over the wall” to the design-builder (and, again, at the 65 percent design development stage and yet again at the 95 percent, etc.) will not provide the vitally needed owner input during design. Design-builders must remember the responsibility for managing the design process lies with them and strive to create cohesion within the team. Remember you are only as good as your last job and accommodating an overly involved owner can backfire and negatively impact the final project. Similarly, an owner’s attempt to assume duties and responsibilities for design management—even with the intent of being helpful—may result in risk reverting back to the owner. As a former owner I know this is a good time to remind ourselves why we selected the winning design-build team. If we do not have a high level of confidence and trust in the design-build team, perhaps we should have chosen another project delivery method. In closing, I am frequently puzzled by the fact that key personnel from both the design-builder and owner sides fail to recognize the need for formal training in design-build before execution of a contract. Also, including DBIA’s model designbuild process “award fee” program to incentivize high performance during post-award is probably the single most useful tool (and unfortunately the least understood) to achieve optimal results in designbuild project delivery. Is design-build done right easy? No! I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government –except all the others that have been tried from time to time.” CRAIG UNGER HAS MORE THAN 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN GOV ERNMENT CONTR ACTING. HE IS PRINCIPAL OF UNGER SECURIT Y SOLUTIONS, LLC, AND PRE VIOUS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE) AND DBIA (DBIA PAST PRESIDENT). dbia.org summer//2011 45 http://www.dbia.org

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