Lawyers
like the concept, but don’t let that scare you off.
If
you read my January 2009 column on integrated project delivery (IPD),
then you know I’m off on another business venture and so I’ve
been doing a lot of reading and listening to others discuss the IPD
process (
e.g., AIA
Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide).
Interestingly, it seems to be the lawyers and the insurance firms
doing much of the talking about this new project delivery system. I
must admit this is a great opportunity for them in a downturn
economy; they have a vested interest in the IPD method, as it brings
designers and builders calling with concerns on how do each work
together, share the risks, and agree not to sue each other.
I
have also listened to builders and designers discuss the benefits as
they see them:
- The use of BIM (building information modeling)
software;
- The 3-D computer-aided
drawings coordination advantage;
- The
new approach to designing with the builder and the designer, working
at the same table at the same time;
- The
teamwork both in the office and on the site;
- The opportunity to achieve a bonus above and beyond their
traditional fee if they work well together;
- A better chance of delivering the project on time and without
conflicts between the two parties.
What Do I Get?
If
you review the AIA document, you will read right up front the
difference between traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) and
construction management-at-risk processes vs. the IPD process. The
categories highlighted are 1) process; 2) risk; 3) compensation; 4)
reward; 5) communication; 6) technology; and 7) agreements. If you go
back and read the features of IPD again, you have to ask yourself,
“What’s in it for the owner?” In my opinion, the benefits of
IPD seem to be focused on the designers and builders working better
together to get the job done, but is that the owner’s problem or
their problem?
If we aren’t careful, the IPD
process will be just another project delivery method where, in this
case if things go well, the owner will have paid a premium in
incentives to the designer and the builder for doing their jobs. What
about the long-term benefits of the building systems meeting their
operating budget? What about the facility group who should have been
a partner in the process, rather than business as usual when it comes
to turning over the job to the building operators?
My
vision and IPD game plan is to facilitate a project delivery process
where the owner, designer, and builder all win. My “owner-focused”
IPD game plan is being formatted. Here are a few
components.
- Establish an operating budget in the initial phase of the job as
part of the OPR (owner’s project requirements) for utility costs
and O&M costs;
- Production of the
PM workorders in sync with the asset database (formally the shop
drawing submittal phase);
- Implementation
of a bar coding labeling system in lieu of those 20th-century
brass tags and plastic labels;
- System
training for the building operators early in the IPD
process;
- Use of other “smart
software” (programs with multiple applications) during the design
and construction and continued use of these programs by the owner’s
personnel in the years following the project completion;
- The implementation of building system monitoring, measuring, and
benchmarking process in the performance phase (formally the warranty
phase);
- The seamless integration of
automatic controls system design with building system commissioning
(HVAC, electric, plumbing, security, etc.);
- The integration of third-party TAB with the designer, similar to
the designer and trade contractors working together with BIM.
