Download - On IP
“To suffering there is a limit; to fearing, none.”
Spata - 2009©
• Theory• Practice• Tools• Expectations
Agenda
Spata - 2009©
THEORY
A Tale of Two Curves From BIM to PIM
Spata - 2009©
Spata - 2009©
Contractor Architect
Owner
Spata - 2009©
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Time
Satis
facti
on
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Low
erH
ighe
r
OwnerExpectations
A/E/CResponse
Spata - 2009©
In recession, A/E/C’s bid low, investment lags
In recession, Owners expect more value for money
Spata - 2009©
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Time
Satis
facti
on
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Low
erH
ighe
r
Prog
ram
Man
agem
ent
Cons
truc
tion
Man
agem
ent
Fast
-Tra
ck G-M
ax
?
Spata - 2009©
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Rece
ssio
n
Time
Satis
facti
on
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Low
erH
ighe
r
Business as Usual
Spata - 2009©
BIM
Spata - 2009©
Building Information Modeling (BIM)
• data & communication technology tool for object-oriented development using purpose-driven exchange to design & construct a project
Spata - 2009©
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
• collaborative method guided by transparency and shared risk & reward to achieve the Owner’s desired outcome
Spata - 2009©
Project Information Management (PIM)
• organized purpose-driven exchange approach to enable project team collaboration using BIM
Spata - 2009©
StructuralEngineer
StructuralEngineer
HVACEngineer
HVACEngineer
CityCity
Constr.Manager
Constr.Manager
FacilitiesManager
FacilitiesManager
BuildingOwner
BuildingOwner
CivilEngineer
CivilEngineer
ArchitectArchitect
StructuralEngineer
StructuralEngineer
HVACEngineer
HVACEngineer
CityCity
Constr.Manager
Constr.Manager
FacilitiesManager
FacilitiesManager
BuildingOwner
BuildingOwner
CivilEngineer
CivilEngineer
ArchitectArchitect
BuildingInformationModel(BIM)
BuildingInformationModel(BIM)
Early BIM
Spata - 2009©
Tekla
CadDuct
Construction Information Model
BIM
AuthorGravity
Wind
Ecotect
4D
5D
Navisworks
ResearchSketch Up
ADTRhinoMaya
3DSMax
Create
TriRiga(IWMS)
Affinity
Hold
Mature BIM
Purpose – built modelsPurpose – driven exchange
Spata - 2009©
Project Information Management
Spata - 2009©
Workflow
Diagram – courtesy of HOK
Spata - 2009©
Imag
e –
cour
tesy
of H
OK
Spata - 2009©
PRACTICE
Challenges Integrated Project Delivery
Spata - 2009©
Building
Binder
BlueprintKnowledge
“…a means
to a means
to an end”
Spata - 2009©
• Owners do projects because they must – not because they want to
• Owners want to create wealth
Outcome
Spata - 2009©
• Cost– value for money
• Velocity– increased speed to market
• Quality– decreased tolerance for error
• Complexity– increased systems integration
• Risk– decreased tolerance for uncertainty
FEARChallenges Owners Face
RISK
Spata - 2009©
DPE
ProfitOverhead
DPELabor & Materials
FeeGeneral Conditions
Contractor Architect
Owner
?
Scope
$Does Not Easily Flow$
Spata - 2009©
O
CDesign Bid Build
A A
O
CGMP
T
O
TDesignBuild
CA
O
C
Novation A
A
O
CIPD
BIM
A
Project Delivery Methods
DesignAssist +
A
O
BIM
C
TA
Spata - 2009©
Design / Construct Integration
Clie
nt In
tera
ction
O
C
Design Bid Build
A
A
O
CGMP
T
O
TDesignBuild
C
A
O
C
NovationA
A
O
T
C
DesignAssist
A
O
CIPD
BIM
A
PFI P3
DesignAssist +
A
O
BIM
C
TA
Spata - 2009©
Design / Construct Integration
Clie
nt In
tera
ction
O
C
Design Bid Build
A
A
O
CGMP
T
O
TDesignBuild
C
A
O
C
NovationA
A
O
T
C
DesignAssist
A
O
CIPD
BIM
A
PFI P3
DesignAssist +
A
O
BIM
C
TA
High Design / Construct Integration
H
igh
Clie
nt In
tera
ction
Spata - 2009©
TOOLS
Form of Agreement Model Progression
Specification Essential Features of IPD
Spata - 2009©
PIMBIM
Agreement
Integrated Project Delivery™
Spata - 2009©
ROLE INTEGRITY
RECIPROCITY
FLEXIBILITY
CREATION OF RESTRAINT ON POWER
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING
CONTRACTUAL SOLIDARITY
PROPRIETY OF MEANS
HARMONIZATION WITH SOCIAL MATRIX
EFFECTUATION OF CONSENT
RESTITUTION, RELIANCE, EXPECTATIONS- David Campbell, “Ian Macneil and the Relational Theory of Contract”
Relational Contract Theory
RelationalOutcome
DiscreteService
Spata - 2009©
Relational Contract• works interactions key to success
Social Capital• mutual trust & respect
Human Nature• few people, short distances, brief
intervals; approach - avoid
Spata - 2009©
AIA 195 / 295 Documents
Spata - 2009©
“Functional” IPD
A 195Owner -
Contractor
B 195Owner – Architect
B 295General
Conditions for Integrated
Project Delivery
Spata - 2009©
Project Phasing
Sche
mati
c D
esig
n
Des
ign
Dev
elop
men
t
Cont
ract
D
ocum
ents
Bid
& N
egoti
ation
Prog
ram
min
g
Cons
truc
tion
Adm
inist
ratio
n
Post
Occ
upan
cy
Crite
riaD
esig
n
Det
aile
dD
esig
n
Impl
emen
tatio
nD
ocum
ents
Fina
l Buy
out
Conc
eptu
aliza
t’n
Cons
truc
t’Ad
min
Clos
eout
Fina
l Age
ncy
Appr
oval
C-O
utlin
e Pr
opos
als
D-D
etai
led
Prop
osal
s
E-Fi
nal P
ropo
sals
F-Pr
oduc
tion
Info
rmati
onG
-Ten
der
Doc
umen
tatio
nH
-Ten
der A
ction
J-M
obili
zatio
nK-
Cons
truc
tion
to
Prac
tical
Co
mpl
etion
L-Aft
er P
racti
cal
Com
pleti
on
A-Ap
prai
sal
B-St
rate
gic
Brie
fing
RIBA
Sta
ges
AIA
Trad
ition
alAI
A 19
5/29
5
Agency ApprovalBuyout
Spata - 2009©
Model Progression Specification
AIA Document
E202™ - 2008
Spata - 2009©
Multi-Party Agreement for IPD
Spata - 2009©
Essential Features of IPD
• Shared Objective• Joint Project Management• Early Participation• Shared Risk & Reward
Source - Howard W. Ashcraft, Jr.; Hanson Bridgett LLP
Spata - 2009©
Shared Objective
Validated Target Cost(with ICL)
Validated Target Schedule
Validated Target Programqualitative & quantitative goals setting the Owner’s project requirements
single sum for all Direct Costs to design & build the project (also sets the ICL)
key task timelines, milestones, target date for Substantial Completion
Spata - 2009©
• Project Management Team– Executive Committee– Direction, approval & decisions
• Project Implementation Team– Design and Build the Project– Key Participants, early as possible
Joint Project Management
Spata - 2009©
Project Management Team
Owner
ArchitectContractor
PMT
• Project Facilitator, if required;
• Jointly selected• Direct project
cost
• No ‘skin-in-game’• Honest broker• Enable the
conversation• Cost• Schedule• Reliability PMT Facilita
tor
Spata - 2009©
Facilitation, not Delegation
Owner
ArchitectContractor
Spata - 2009©
Project Implementation Team
MEP Consultant
HVAC Contractor
ElectricalContractor
SteelFabricator
StructuralEngineer
Curtainwall
CivilEngineer
PIT
Owner
ArchitectContractor
Spata - 2009©
Project Implementation Team
MEP Consultant
HVAC Contractor
ElectricalContractor
SteelFabricator
StructuralEngineer
Curtainwall
CivilEngineer
Cost Reimbursable Consultants & Contractors
Fixed Price Consultants & Contractors
Owner
ArchitectContractor
Spata - 2009©
Early Participation
AgencyOwnerArchitect
EngineersGCSubs
Predesign Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Agency Permit / Bidding
Construction Closeout
WHO
REALIZEHOW
WHAT
WHATWHO
HOW
AgencyOwnerArchitect
EngineersGC
Subs
Conceptualization Criteria Design Detailed Design Implementation Documents
Agency Coord / Final Buyout
Construction Closeout
REALIZE
Traditional
Collaborate
- AIA, “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide”
Key Participants
Spata - 2009©
Shared Risk & Reward
Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL)
Construction Efficiency Adjustment
Project Schedule Adjustment
Project Quality Adjustment
Safeguard against fast & cheap
ICLCEA
PSAPQ
A
OwnerParticipation
Spata - 2009©
C A Owner
C A Owner
Contractor Architect
Cost Reimbursable Consultants & Contractors
Cost Reimbursable…
Cost Reimbursable…
ICLCEA
PSAPQ
AC A OwnerCost Reimbursable…
Spata - 2009©
+$8,000-$1,600
-$3,200-$3,200 20% of ICL, Maximum
+$1,500/day-$100/day
-$200/day-$200/dayLate Penalty @ 1/3 of Early Bonus
$2,000 $2,000 $5,000
$16,000 $16,000
$8,000
$1,000$10,000 savings
$40,000
Hypothetical $1,000,000 VTC
ICLCEA
PSAPQ
A
Spata - 2009©
PQA
Standard
Quality Criteria
Potential Quality Points
Quality Materials: Are the materials installed of the quality, durability and maintainability required by the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Workmanship: Is the workmanship of the completed Work consistent with the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Performance: Are the building systems operational and functioning in accordance with the performance requirements stated in the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Functionality Spatial: Does the Project provide the spaces required by the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Functional: Does the arrangement of spaces comply with the VTP so that it meets the needs of the Owner’s staff and assist them in carrying out their responsibilities?
[-6 to +6]
Usability: Does the arrangement of spaces comply with the VTP so that it meets the needs of the Owner’s clients and others that will use the space?
[-6 to +6]
Aesthetics Visual Appeal: Does the completed Work provide the visual appeal required by the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Cultural Expression: Does the completed Work express the Owner’s culture and uniqueness as stated in the VTP?
[-6 to +6]
Sustainability Sustainable Design Objective Achieved: Has the Sustainable Design Objective stated in the VTP been achieved?
[-6 to +6]
Sustainable Design Innovation: Does the completed Work provide sustainable design solutions that are innovative?
[-6 to +6]
QUALITY RATING: [-60 to +60]
Spata - 2009©
FunctionFormCost
Time
Goals Facts Concepts NeedsProblem
Statement
Discovery Analysis Findings
What is it all
about?
What is the idea?
What do you
really need?
Recognize conditions;
state directions.
What do you want
to do? Why?
Courtesy of HOK: Problem-Seeking ™
Information Index
Spata - 2009©
What is Direct Cost?
DPE
Overhead
Brea
keve
n
Profit-Not-at-Risk
Profit-at-Risk (ICL)W
ithin VTC
Reimbursables‘Gua
rant
eed’ Beyond VTC
Spata - 2009©
Shared Pain & Gain
Time
Cost
4%
ICL pays direct costs
Owner pays direct costs
VTC
ICL
Sche
dule
dCo
mpl
etion
Owner pays direct costs Ac
tual
Com
pleti
on
Spata - 2009©
• Design Costs– Architect– Cost Reimbursable Consultants– Fixed-Price Consultants– Reimbursable Expenses
• Construction Costs– General Contractor– Cost Reimbursable Sub-Contractors– Fixed-Price Sub-Contractors– General Conditions
• Other Direct Costs– PMT Facilitator– FF&E
Design and Construct to Objective
Spata - 2009©
EXPECTATIONS
How to Recognize IPD Is it Good for You?
Spata - 2009©
How to Recognize IPD
1. Multi-Party Agreement2. Shared Risk & Reward3. Relational Contract4. Shared Project Objective5. ‘Zero’ Change Orders6. Shared Unitary Fund7. BIM-Optional (in theory)
Spata - 2009©
1 Multi-Party Agreement
• Single, signed agreement– Owner, Designer, Constructor– More parties, counterproductive
• Joint project management– Achieve the project objective as the
Project Management Team (PMT)
• Limited / Waived liability– Among PMT
Spata - 2009©
2 Shared Risk & Reward
• Shared pain & gain based on project outcome– Team performance trumps individual
• Early involvement of key participants– Cost Reimbursable consultants &
contractors
Spata - 2009©
3 Relational Contract
• Agreement defines the working relationship of:– Owner, Designer, Constructor– Roles retain integrity
• Deliver a project outcome, not a service
Spata - 2009©
4 Shared Project Objective
• Validated Target Cost– (VTC)– Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL)
• Validated Target Program– (VTP)
• Validated Target Schedule– (VTS)
Spata - 2009©
5 ‘Zero’ Change Orders
• Owner Directive• Differing Site Conditions• Agreed Scope Change
– Adjust VTP, VTS, VTC, ICL
Spata - 2009©
6 Shared Unitary Fund
• VTC is the single source funding all design & construction direct costs
• Funds ‘flow’ to maximize Owner value– If spending more on design saves much
more on construction, then money moves that way, & vice-versa
Spata - 2009©
7 BIM-Optional (in theory)
• BIM is a tool, IPD a method• IPD without BIM is possible,
but so difficult as to be impractical– BIM technology enables IPD
Spata - 2009©
Is it good for you? Ask, do we…
• use a transparent & immediate decision-making process?
• have knowledge regarding design & construction?
• not delegate our project participation & responsibility?
• know our building type?• enjoy a reputation for reliability?
Spata - 2009©
Thank You
