Procurements & Supplements

Project Delivery Systems

Section I-1

There is a wide range of delivery systems available to Owners embarking on a design or construction project. Some are more appropriate to a particular project type and some are more appropriate to a particular Owner. 

Every project has a series of stages through which it passes. Different project delivery systems allow for different levels of participation by the Owner, the Design Team, and the Construction Team in these various phases. Following this introductory section are descriptions of numerous project delivery systems. There, recommendations are made for the selection of the delivery method, and for the structure of the project team. Pros and cons are based on the attributes of the project and the desired level of participation and control of the process by the Owner.

The Joint Committee recommends careful consideration of all potential project delivery systems very early in every project.  Early consideration is essential to gaining the greatest benefit from each of the alternatives.  Early consideration and selection of the project delivery method are especially critical in participatory and collaborative methods.  Planning and design of building systems, methods, and materials can be greatly optimized by early collaboration efforts between the Owner, Designer, Contractor, and Suppliers.

 

The Project Delivery Systems discussed in the following sections are:

  • I-2 Qualifications Based Selection Systems
  • I-3 Best Value Contracting for Public Procurement
  • I-4 Design-Bid-Build Delivery System
  • I-5 Construction Manager – CM as Constructor
  • I-6 Agency Construction Management
  • I-7 Design-Build Delivery System
  • I-8 Multiple Primes Delivery System
  • I-9 Negotiated Bid Delivery System
  • I-10 Integrated Project Delivery System

 

Following are some issues that should be evaluated by the Owner when determining which delivery system should be selected. They are addressed, where appropriate, within the sections on each delivery system.

Project type:

  • Size
  • Complexity
  • Schedule
  • Budget
  • Repetitive / prototypical
  • One time construction project or part of an overall master plan
  • Site conditions
  • Budget-driven
  • Signature building

Owner:

  • Public or private
  • Familiarity with construction
  • Staff available for input during design
  • Staff available for input / oversight during construction

Design professional:

  • Familiarity with Owner / facility
  • Familiarity with project type
  • Staff available
  • Compatibility with Owner’s and Constructor’s team
  • One-time project or long-term commitment

Constructor:

  • Familiarity with Owner / facility
  • Familiarity with project type
  • Staff available
  • Compatibility with Owner’s and Design professional’s team
  • One-time project or long-term commitment


History of Recommendation:
Reviewed March, 2011
Approved July, 2010
Revised March, 2014

Qualifications Based Selection Systems

Section I-2

The first step of any delivery system is that of building the design team. Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) is a method where a design professional’s qualifications, not fee, is the determining factor in selecting a firm. It places fee negotiation at the end of the selection process. While price may have its place within the selection process, it alone should not be the determining selection factor. The fee is also negotiated allowing for a give-and-take between the Owner and design professional to clearly delineate the scope of services and arrive at a mutually agreeable sum.

Professional organizations, such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Bar Association (ABA), and client organizations, such as the American Public Works Association, strongly support or require the use of QBS for procuring professional design services. Additionally, QBS is required for federal projects as described by the Brooks Architect/Engineer Act (Public Law 92-582, 40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.) which states that “the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the Federal Government to publicly announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services and to negotiate contracts for architectural and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications.”

QBS provides owners with a selection process that is not only straightforward and easy to implement, but is objective and fair. It recognizes that design professionals play a critical role in the building process. The reason for this is clear: Projects that are contracted solely on price do not take into account the myriad additional factors that go into building design. Building design and space planning are evolving processes and much goes into them, even after the drawings are signed, sealed and delivered. In fact, one of the design professional’s principal duties is to ensure that the construction process goes smoothly.

It is a design professional’s experience, expertise, and ability to resolve unforeseen problems creatively that will keep a construction project moving forward. These intangibles are common throughout the process. As a result, owners who rely only on a submitted bid as the project cost may be placed in a difficult position if the final cost is significantly higher.

QBS helps resolve the projected vs. final cost dilemma by negotiating the project’s cost with the most qualified firm among the applicants. QBS also fosters a collaborative environment, so the roles of all stakeholders are known, documented and understood. Finally, because the selection process is well-documented, decisions the owner makes are more likely to stand up to public scrutiny.

The QBS process for recruiting design professionals follows a well-established sequence.

  • The Owner issues a request for qualifications (RFQ);
  • Professional entities or individuals respond to the RFQ;
  • The Owner reviews the qualifications based upon past performance, technical competence, capacity to accomplish the work and related factors;
  • The Owner ranks the firms, with the best-qualified firm ranked first, the second most qualified second, and so on;
  • The Owner commences negotiations with the top-ranked firm to reach a mutual understanding of scope;
  • And the parties negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the services required.

If the Owner and top-ranked firm cannot reach an agreement on scope, contract terms or price, the Owner would then negotiate with the second-ranked firm, and so on. Caps on allowable costs and non-statutory based limitations on compensation are violations of the intent of the QBS process.

Owners frequently employ alternative project delivery methods. To help ensure that such projects receive the benefit of high-quality professional design services the following practices should be followed:

  • The Owner should retain, or have on staff, a design professional selected on the basis of qualifications and not associated with the alternative delivery system prime contractor. This design professional should assist the owner in developing initial project scope, selecting the most appropriate project delivery system and assisting the owner throughout the project delivery process.
  • Regardless of delivery method selected, the competence, experience, independent judgment and creativity of the design professional are major factors in a projects success. Thus, the qualifications and role of the project’s design professional (A/E of Record) should be major selection criteria for awarding an alternative delivery contract.

When alternative project delivery methods are employed, the use of procurement methodologies for the prime contractor (who may be an A/E, contractor, developer or joint venture) should also emphasize qualifications. These purchasing mechanisms include QBS (qualifications only) or best value source selection (the latter includes qualifications plus technical response and costs). A qualifications-based selection system is recommended for all design professional services (e.g., for a design services subcontract) procured under an alternative delivery prime contract.


History of Recommendation:
Approved July, 2010

Best Value Contracting for Public Procurement

Section I-3

When Best Value Contracting (BVC) is selected to award a construction contract, the Joint Committee recommends a transparent competition among responsible contractors to choose the constructor that offers the best combination of performance qualifications and price. The integrity of the construction industry and the future use of BVC is dependent upon qualified firms having an equal opportunity to fairly compete for a public construction project.

When to use Best Value Contracting
While there are many factors to consider to select the use of BVC for a project, a few criteria that may guide your decision include, but are not limited to, the following items: a project of unusual complexity, requiring expertise not commonly available among contractors; a time-sensitive completion and/or aggressive schedule; a project involving the use of a specialized construction technique that is not generally known throughout the industry; a project that involves complex and potentially unforeseen environmental issues; a design-build project (Section I-7); or if the entire scope of project is unknown at time of bidding and there is a high probability of major design changes during construction. There are certainly additional factors that could be considered; however, addressing these items may get your decision to use BVC closer. Additionally, the Joint Committee recommends consulting a practiced professional or public agency with a successful track record of using BVC to ensure this procurement method is advantageous and legally permitted.


The Selection Criteria in BVC
There are several industry accepted concepts that a BVC owner may use in order to select the firm which provides the best value to a project. The two concepts briefly discussed in this recommendation are the one-step and two-step selection process. The steps are defined by the number of formal submittals. In a two-step selection process, the technical criteria (and other non-price items requested by the owner) are submitted first, allowing the evaluation committee to assess which firms can perform the best value on a project (possible criteria listed below). After reviewing the technical submission, the evaluation committee may create a short-list of bidders acceptable to the owner based on a scoring system established, then competitively bid to the short-list firms in the second step of this process. The evaluation committee may make a final decision based solely on the competitive price; or depending on the submitted documents, an interview to discuss scope review, value engineering, constructability issues, sustainability ideas, etc., a decision may be determined that a firm can provide the best value for a successful delivery of a project.

In a one-step selection process, the owner requests a combination of the technical and price submittals to be simultaneously submitted so that both factors are evaluated, in accordance with a weighting of criteria items that is fully-disclosed in the request for proposals.

In either the one- or two-step process, it is recommended that the owner develop a list of non-price criteria, ranking each item in accordance with their importance to the specific project. These criteria requirements should be spelled out to clearly state what the evaluation committee is looking for. The following are examples of possible non-price/ technical criteria:

  • Experience with project team
  • Safety performance
  • Bonding program (single project / aggregate)
  • Past performance
  • Schedule commitment and ideas to project
  • Firm’s experience relating to project (delivery method, agency, funding source, etc.)
  • Depth of resources
  • Responsiveness of submittal
  • Default history, if any
  • Project approach

 

BVC Evaluations
It is recommended that the owner assemble an evaluation committee to select the contractor that offers the best value to a specific project in a fair and transparent manner. In an effort to lower the probability of a protested bid, the owner should incorporate a committee comprised of various viewpoints, expertise, and background. A chairperson, preferably with BVC experience, should run the committee. Prior to reviewing any submissions, the evaluation committee should be educated on the project, the owner’s requirements and the established selection criteria with weight of items.

When reviewing submittals, the committee should focus on content and how it addresses the criteria. When evaluating references, the committee should take a consistent approach, asking the same questions about each proposal, to effectively and accurately compare proposals. During deliberations, the committee should work towards a consensus, agreeing on a single score for each bidder and selecting the responsible contractor whose proposal is determined to represent the best value for the owner on its project. The committee should take all responsible steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the proposal review process, and it should afford the contractors who are not selected an opportunity for a debriefing to learn the reasons why its proposals was not selected.

Legal disclaimer: due to the legal environment associated with BVC, the Joint Committee recommends legal counsel be sought to assure actions conducted associated with bidding a BVC project are in accordance with the law.



History of Recommendation:
Approved July, 2011

Design-Bid-Build Delivery System

Section I-4

Design-Bid-Build has been the most common and popular form of delivery system for construction projects for many years. This is a sequential approach with three main phases:

  • The design phase
  • The bidding phase
  • The construction phase

During the design phase, the Owner engages an Architect to work with the Owner to identify the Owner’s needs and then to produce a conceptual or schematic design. This early design is then developed, and the Architect will usually bring in other professionals including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, structural, civil engineers and a landscape architect to complete drawings and specifications which are called the Contract Documents (CD’s). As an additional service, the Owner may have the Architect develop a written program documenting those needs.

Once completed, the CD’s are presented to General Contractors (GC), who prepare bids for portions of the work and put them out to multiple subcontractors for bids on sub-components of the project. Sub-components include items such as the concrete work, structural steel frame, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and landscaping. Questions may arise during the tender period, and the architect will typically issue clarifications or addenda. From these elements, the contractor compiles a complete “tender price” for submission by the closing date and time. In public work, the contractor submitting the lowest responsible bid is selected to perform the construction. For private work, the Owner selects one of the GCs based on the evaluation of the bid, the proposed Subcontractors, proposed schedule, the GCs current workload, and other factors. The successful bidder may or may not be the one submitting the lowest bid. In the event that all of the bids are in excess of the goals of the Owner, the Owner may elect to reject all bids. The following options become available:

  • Abandon the project;
  • The Architect may revise the design, making the project smaller or more efficient, or reduce features or elements of the project to bring the cost down. The revised documents can then be re-bid;
  • The Owner may elect to select the lowest qualified bid’s General Contractor to join the architectural team to assist with cost reduction. This process is often referred to as Value Engineering.

The selected GC is then responsible for constructing the facility in accordance with the CDs, including all related work to deliver a complete project. The GC is responsible to provide items included in the CDs but not included in the Subcontractor bids at no additional cost to the owner.

During the Construction Phase, the Design Professionals typically maintain limited oversight of the work, respond to questions, and interpret the intent of the CDs on behalf of the Owner. The Design Professionals may also assist the Owner in administering the construction contract, including determination of project progress for interim payments made to the contractor.

Benefits of this system
This contracting system offers the advantage of being widely applicable, well understood, and well-established /clearly defined roles for the parties involved. Furthermore, it offers the Owner a significant amount of control over the end product, particularly since the facility’s features are fully determined and specified prior to selection of the contractor.

Among the chief advantages of the Design-Bid-Build system are:

  • The design team is impartial and looks out for the interests of the Owner.
  • The design team prepares documents on which all General Contractors place bids. Incomplete, incorrect or missed items are usually discovered and addressed during the bid process when brought to the attention of the Design Professional by the bidders.
  • Ensures fairness to potential bidders and improves decision making by the Owner by providing a range of potential options. It also identifies new potential contractors.
  • Assists the Owner in establishing reasonable prices for the project.
  • Uses competition to improve the efficiency and quality for Owners.

Disadvantages of this system
In Pennsylvania, public owners are not permitted to utilize this approach in a single prime delivery method because of the Seperations Act, which requires a Multiple Prime Contractor delivery system (refer to section I-8).

Even though this delivery system has historically been the most dominant, many Owners have experienced a variety of frustrations using this system, leading to the development of other methods.

Among the chief disadvantages of the design-bid-build system are:

  • The process is time-consuming since all design work must be completed prior to solicitation of the construction contract.
  • The designer may have limited ability to assess scheduling constraints.
  • Failure of the design team to be current with construction costs and any potential cost increases during the design phase could cause project delays if the construction documents must be redone to reduce costs or result in a more costly final product.
  • The Owner generally faces exposure to Contractor claims over design and constructability issues since the Owner accepts liability for design in its Contract with the contractor.
  • The approach tends to promote more adversarial relationships rather than cooperation or coordination among the Contractor, the designer and the Owner.
  • The Contractor may pursue a least-cost approach to completing the project, requiring increased oversight and quality review by the Owner.
  • The absence of a Contractor’s input into the project design may limit the effectiveness and constructability of the design. Important design decisions affecting both the types of materials specified and the means of construction may be made without full consideration of a construction perspective.
  • There is the potential for the development of a “cheaper is better” mentality amongst the General Contractors bidding the project resulting in the tendency to seek out the lowest cost Subcontractors in a given market. In strong markets, General Contractors will be able to be selective about which projects to bid, but in lean times, the desire for work usually forces the low bidder of each trade to be selected. This usually results in increased risk (for the General Contractor) but can also compromise the quality of construction. In the extreme, it can lead to serious disputes involving quality of the final product, or bankruptcy of a sub-contractor who was on the brink of insolvency desperate for work.
  • As the General Contractor is brought to the team post design, there is little opportunity for input on effective alternates being presented.
  • Pressures may be exerted on the design and construction teams, which may lead to disputes between the Architect and the General Contractor.

Hybrid Design-Bid-Build Systems
While the most common approach to bidding a project in building construction is for General Contractors to submit a sealed lump sum bid, many variations in Contractor procurement exist in the traditional system.

Other methods include unit-price contracting, which is generally limited to projects that can be easily divided into small work units and quantified prior to construction. This is commonly found in heavy construction projects. At the other end of the spectrum is cost-plus contracting, generally used in circumstances where there is such high risk or variability in the work that preparing a responsible bid is impossible.

Many Owners make some effort to pre-qualify Contractors, either through invitation, or through an objective set of criteria considering construction experience and financial capability. Doing so helps assure the Owner that the Contractor is capable of providing a high-quality product. Once the field of bidders is established, an Owner bidding a lump sum project may choose to require sealed bids, wherein the lowest responsible bidder will earn the right to perform the work.

However, many private Owners prefer to negotiate bids with pre-selected GC’s (see section I-9: Negotiated Bid). This can be an especially powerful technique if the Owner considers qualifications, history of claims and experience in related work along with price in its evaluation. What the Owner should really be seeking is the best value for its money, not necessarily the lowest initial cost. Through a careful negotiation or contractor evaluation, the Owner can maintain the maximum amount of control over the resulting construction portion of the project.

 

Glossary Terms for the Best Practices Guide

History of Recommendation:
Revised September, 2011
Approved July, 2010

Construction Manager – CM as Constructor

Section I-5

The Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Project Delivery System allows an Owner to engage  the Constructor early in the project to provide cost, schedule, and constructability advice to the Owner and Design Team.  This is the same method often referred to as CM at Risk.  Use of the term Construction Manager as Constructor is recommended to more clearly identify the CM’s role in this delivery system, and to be consistent with the language in prevailing contract forms.  With this system, the CMc can assume responsibility and risk for budget and schedule management.

The CMc delivery system differs from the Design-Bid-Build system, in that it offers a more collaborative way for an Owner to engage a project team. When utilized early in the project, this system allows the CMc to provide preconstruction services in the form of assistance to the Owner prior to construction, offering schedule, budget, and constructability advice during the project planning and design phases, which can help facilitate more informed decisions relative to the project budget and scope. Thus, instead of a traditional General Contractor, the Owner works with a hybrid Construction Manager/General Contractor, whose services can better compliment the services of the Design Team.  This approach can be especially valuable in complicated projects. 

After the design phase of the project, the role of the CMc may become similar to a GC’s role in a traditional Design-Bid-Build project delivery system, in that the CMc assumes financial responsibility for the construction of the project.  The CMc often self performs some of the work while subletting the remaining work to trade subcontractors and material suppliers. The CMc often guarantees completion of the project for a fixed negotiated price (usually referred to as a Guaranteed Maximum Price, or GMP) at an agreed-upon point during, or following, the design phase. It is, however, critical that the Owner understand the degree of certainty provided by this delivery system.

Selecting the CMc

The CM as Constructor plays a critical role in the success of a project. Since a commitment is made to the Constructor early in the process, a heavy emphasis should be placed on the proper selection of the CMc to provide the best value to the Owner.  A Qualifications-Based Selection System (similar to that described for Design Professionals in BPG Section I-2) is frequently used to solicit proposals from a reasonable number of prequalified Constructors.  Solicitations should identify the scope of preconstruction services, general conditions, and the CM fee structure. It may be appropriate for the Architect to assist the Owner in this process, if they already are on board.  Conversely, if the CMc is established first, it would be appropriate for them to assist with the selection of the Architect. 

Commonly used contract forms in the industry for this project delivery system are:

  • AIA Document A133-2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor or the ConsensusDOCS 500 Owner/Construction Manager & General Conditions (At-Risk) – for these contract forms the basis of payment is the Cost of the Work Plus a Fee with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

  • AIA Document A134-2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor or the ConsensusDOCS 510 Owner/Construction Manager Agreement & General Conditions (cost of work, Preconstruction Option) – for these contract forms the basis of payment is the Cost of the Work Plus a Fee without a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

Managing Roles / Responsibilities

Comprehensive management of every stage of the project, beginning with the original concept and project definition and continuing through the design, procurement, and construction phases, yields the greatest possible benefit to Owners from Construction Management. Construction Management provides for very consistent schedule and budget management. It is imperative that the Owner defines and maintains a clear understanding of the roles of the project team and fosters a collaborative working relationship.

Understanding Risk

Understanding risk, risk management, and the responsibility for risk is critical in all project delivery methods.  Design and construction projects are risky. Unknown conditions, marketplace volatility, material supplies, permitting processes, and weather conditions are just a few examples of risk factors.   Contractors, architects, engineers, and building owners who build frequently come to know these risks.  However, the assumption of and responsibility for risks are often and easily misunderstood – especially by inexperienced parties.  The best path to clear understanding is open communication.  It is incumbent on each party to a contract to assure that the other parties have clear and consistent understanding of project risk.  It is best to assign risk to the party best able to control and insure it.  With mutual understanding these risks can be assigned and managed properly for project success.

Budget Management

In choosing a project delivery system, the Owner needs to take into account the size and complexity of the intended project.  Use of CMc on a smaller project may not be cost effective.  During the design of a project, a process that can involve many months of coordination between the Design Team and Owner, the CMc assists with estimating the cost of constructing a project based on a description from the Design Team and Owner that conveys the design concept and what is proposed to be built. If certain aspects of the preliminary design are identified as probable factors causing a cost estimate to exceed the Owner’s budget goals, a group decision can be made to modify the design, saving time, effort, and design fees for re-designing and modifying completed construction documents. With this level of informed decision-making during the early design phases of a project, the Owner may also be able to procure or identify additional funding for the project rather than reduce the desired scope or quality.

In a CMc contract with a GMP, the Owner still faces the potential of change orders for increased cost and schedule. The CMc’s risk needs to be appropriately defined to exclude risks of cost and time caused by changes outside of the CMc’s control; such as unforeseen changes in scope, delays caused by severe weather, and slow approval processes by jurisdictions having authority.

Advantages of the CMc Project Delivery System

In addition to having ‘checks-and-balances’ similar to the Design-Bid-Build approach, an Owner deciding to use the CMc approach can realize additional benefits. Primary among them is the opportunity to include a contractor’s perspective and input as part of the planning and design decisions. The CMc delivery system is a contractual vehicle to implement lean construction principles and tools, like Target Value Design, which allows for better collaboration between the different project participants at early stages while the project design is still be developed.

Furthermore, the CMc may find basic performance specifications or abbreviated specifications to be adequate. Since the CMc’s input can facilitate early decisions on materials, specifications, equipment types, and other project features, construction cost and time savings can result for the Owner.

In addition to providing the Owner with the benefit of preconstruction services, which may result in advantageous changes to the project, including cost savings, the CMc scenario offers the opportunity to begin construction prior to completion of the design. If portions of a design can be firmly established and documented earlier in the process, the CMc can bid and subcontract portions of the work earlier than in other processes, often while design of unrelated portions is still in progress. In this scenario, the CMc and Owner can negotiate a GMP based on a partially completed design, which includes the CMc’s estimate of the cost along with  allowances for the incomplete design aspects.

Owners should understand that competitive pricing is included at all levels of pricing in the CMc project delivery system.  Initially, the CMc selection process may include an evaluation of CM fees, and preliminary opinions of probable cost (if a preliminary design is established), in addition to qualifications, capabilities, experience, and references.  Whether a GMP is involved or not, the majority, if not all, of the work and materials will be provided by subcontractors and suppliers competitively procured by the CMc. The Owner should review all bids received, and subcontracts negotiated, with the CMc.  Therefore, the Owner has more control and insight into the cost components of the project.

Disadvantages of this Delivery System

As with all project delivery systems, extensive communication and openness amongst all project team members is essential to ensure a successful project delivered by a CMc system.  Without this effort, in the throes of financial responsibility and time management, disagreements and adversarial relationships may result.  This paradigm can involve more time devotion and an adjustment to philosophies than required with other systems, to realize the advantages to all involved.

Not every Design Team, Construction Team, and Owner are naturally suited to work effectively within this collaborative environment.  Some Owners may not be able to prepare the non-financial input required by a team approach, and some design and construction professionals may not be able to work well within a project team philosophy.  Participants should be chosen carefully, and the system approached with some introspection.

Maintaining Positive Working Relationships among the Owner, Design Team, and Constructor

As with all successful projects, an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect needs to be maintained throughout the course of the project for this collaborative process to function properly. Each party (Owner, Architect, Engineers, and Constructor) needs to be allowed to offer input and expertise during all phases. This input also needs to be considered, rather than challenged, by the other members of the team. Input from the CMc about any assumptions made, or deviations from the preliminary design description taken in the course of their cost estimating, must also be conveyed to the Design Team to ensure the design is developed in concert with the project budget.

Through constant and open communications between all parties during all phases of the project, the CMc system maximizes awareness amongst the Owner, Design Team and CMc of each other’s goals and expectations. This allows each party to perform their part of the project in the most efficient manner.

 

Glossary Terms for the Best Practices Guide

History of Recommendation:
Revised March 2014

Approved July 2010

Agency Construction Management

Section I-6

Construction Management – CM as Adviser
The Construction Manager as Adviser (CMa) provides advice and expertise on constructability, cost, schedule, and construction methodology to the Owner and the Project Team beginning early in the project life cycle, and remains an adviser to the Owner throughout the project.  The CMa assists the Owner in hiring the construction team, and sometimes in hiring the design team, but remains an advisor, not a constructor, during the construction phase. The CMa does not assume financial responsibility for the final constructed cost of the project and does not directly perform any of the construction work. The CMa must have extensive knowledge of construction practices, costs, and trends for input to the Owner, and the project team, throughout the project.  For this reason, many general contractors have expanded their services to include Advisory Construction Management.  CMa is the original form of modern construction management, where the owner has the advantage of expert advice in addition to that provided by the design and construction teams, and with this expert input, can develop detailed construction phase plans far in advance of hiring the construction team.  Preconstruction services, in the form of advisory assistance to the Owner prior to construction, include schedule, budget, and constructability advice during the project planning and design phases.
.
Selecting the CMa

The CM as Adviser plays a critical role in the success of a project. A heavy emphasis should be placed on the proper selection of the CMa to provide the best value to the Owner. A Qualifications-Based Selection System (similar to that described for Design Professionals in Section I-2) should be used to solicit proposals from a reasonable number of prequalified Construction Managers. Solicitations should identify the scope of preconstruction, design, procurement, and construction phase services. Solicitations should also identify the CM’s responsibility for estimating, constructability review, project planning, and scheduling, along with the CM fee structure. It is appropriate for the Architect to assist the Owner in this process, if they are on board.  Conversely, if the CMa is established first, it is appropriate for them to assist with the selection of the Architect. 

Competitive pricing of the trade and general contracts for construction typically is part of the CMa project delivery process.  A competitive process can also be employed in the selection of the Construction Manager-Adviser.  Evaluation of the CMa candidates’ experience, expertise, and marketplace position should be strongly considered, along with the CMa fee structure.  When selecting a Construction Manager, careful consideration should be given equally to the staff, experience, and capabilities of the preconstruction phase team, as well as the construction phase team.

Two  commonly used contract forms for this project delivery system are AIA Document C132–2009 (formerly B801CMa–1992)Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Adviser, and A132–2009 (formerly A101CMa–1992)Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor, Construction Manager as Adviser Edition.


Managing Roles / Responsibilities
Comprehensive management of every stage of the project, beginning with the original concept and project definition and continuing through the design, procurement, and construction phases, yields the greatest possible benefit to Owners from Construction Management. Construction Management provides for very consistent schedule and budget management. It is imperative, especially with CMa, that the Owner defines and maintains a clear understanding of the roles of the project team and fosters a collaborative working relationship.

Budget Management

During the design phase of a project, the CMa assists with estimating the cost of constructing a project based on a description from the design team and ownerthat conveys the preliminary design and what is proposed to be built. If certain aspects of the preliminary design are identified as probable factors causing a cost estimate to exceed the Owner’s budget goals, a group decision can be made to modify the design, saving time, effort, and design fees for re-designing and modifying completed construction documents. With this level of informed decision-making during the early design phases of a project, the Owner may also be able to procure or identify additional funding for the project rather than reduce the desired scope or quality.

Advantages of this Delivery System
Advisory CM is a fee-based service in which the CMa is responsible exclusively to the Owner and acts in the Owner’s interests at every stage of the project. The CMa can offer advice, unaffected by any conflicting interest, on matters such as:

  • Optimum use of available funds;
  • Control of the scope of work;
  • Project scheduling;
  • Optimum use of design and construction firms’ skills and talents;
  • Avoidance of delays, changes, and disputes;
  • Enhancing project design and construction quality;
  • Optimum flexibility in contracting and procurement;
  • Cash flow management.

The CMa approach adds a fourth party to the basic project relationship who plays a significant coordinating role.  This approach has great potential to support and take advantage of a highly collaborative project team.

The procurement and construction phases of the project can be pursued using many project delivery methods including competitive bidding, negotiated, accelerated, and collaborative methods.  Again, the CMa provides advice, assistance, and logistical support.  In addition, the CMa can be instrumental in monitoring quality and progress.

This method is extremely well suited to “Multiple Prime” contracts such as required under Pennsylvania’s Separations Act of 1913.  The CMa can take on the coordinating role typically played by a general contractor in a more conventional contract arrangement.  This construction coordination role is missing from the requirements of the PA Separations Act.

Disadvantages of this Delivery System:
The primary disadvantage of the Agency CM system involves the relationship among the Design Professionals, CM, GC, and Owner. The CMa, as a fourth party to the relationship, can cause confusion about the head of the project organization.  Owners often designate the CMa as their representative without carefully establishing a communication plan that maintains proper direct involvement of the Owner with the design and construction teams.  These communication issues can result in serious misunderstandings regarding the Owner’s needs versus the design program, which can lead to tensions over design intent,  construction quality, and the completeness of the design.  Impacts to schedule and budget can arise, as in most delivery methods. Conflicting interests and stake-holding can become similar to the traditional Design-Bid-Build system, and adversarial relationships may result. In addition:

  • This system introduces a fourth party to the team, which requires more team building, coordination, and careful communication;
  • The general and trade contractors are not part of the early collaboration;
  • The CMa, rather than the General Contractor, provides schedule expediting and cost-saving suggestions during the design phase.

CMa is a complicated arrangement, best suited to large and complex projects.  Owners with little or no construction industry experience tend to place excessive trust in this method and often develop unrealistic expectations regarding the various roles – including their own.

Maintaining Positive Working Relationships

An atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect needs to be maintained throughout the course of the project for any project delivery process to function properly. Every party (Owner, CM, Architect, Engineers, Consultants, and Constructors) needs to be allowed opportunities to offer input and expertise. This input also needs to be considered, rather than challenged, by the other members of the team. Input from the CMa about any assumptions made, or deviations from the preliminary design description taken in the course of their cost estimating, must also be conveyed to the Design Team to ensure the design is developed in concert with the project budget.

Through constant and open communications between all parties during all phases of the project, the CMa system maximizes awareness amongst the Owner, Design Team, Construction Team, and Construction Manager – Adviser of each other’s goals and expectations. This allows each party to perform their part of the project in the most effective manner.  Typically, however, the constructor is added late in the process and does not participate in the essential collaboration.


History of Recommendation:
Approved July, 2010
Revised March, 2014

 

Design-Build Delivery System

Section I-7

Design-Build is a method of project delivery in which one firm assumes the responsibility for both the design and the construction of a project. The one firm is known as the Design-Builder, Design-Build Contractor, Design-Build Entity or the Master Builder. This single entity delivery system is used to minimize the project risk for an Owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project. In this system, the design, permit, and construction schedules are all combined in order to streamline the process. The time it takes to complete the individual tasks of creating Construction Documents, acquiring building and other permits, or actually constructing the building are not reduced, but an environment is created where these tasks can be done concurrently rather than sequentially.

Typically, in a Design-Build project one entity takes the lead; if this entity is a Contractor, the process may be known as “Contractor-led Design-Build.” If the entity is a design firm, the process may be known as “Design-led Design-Build.” In either case, the organization employed by the Owner rarely handles both aspects of design and construction in-house. The Design-Build entity often subcontracts with construction personnel if design-led, or with Architects and Engineers if Contractor-led.

Potential Advantages of Design-Build
Among the chief advantages of the Design-Build delivery system are:

  • Schedule compression allowing for earlier occupancy;
  • Integrated solutions;
  • Single point of contact;
  • Focus on maximizing the value to the Owner.

It is important to note that the Design-Build method, while not focused on saving the Owner construction costs, can often save the Owner money on the overall project. An earlier occupancy date usually yields considerable overall profitability to the project and may make seemingly unfeasible projects into genuine opportunities. The schedule compression is an important aspect of the implementation of this system.

Rather than a distributed level of responsibility, as is customary of the classic Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build provides an integrated solution for the Owner. This moves projects away from the adversarial relationships between the Owner, Design Professional, and Contractor that are often commonplace in traditional delivery systems.

Instead of having several contractors and consultants, an Owner only has one entity to deal with. Design revisions, project feedback, budgeting, permitting, construction issues, change orders, and billing can all be routed through the Design-Build entity. This single point of contact allows a certain degree of flexibility for the Owner. Most Design-Builders will leverage that flexibility for the Owner’s benefit by continually refining the construction schedule to maximize the Owner’s value at the completion of the project.

Typically, in order for a Contractor to bid on a project, very specific details relating to the methods and materials must be given to avoid any ambiguity and to allow for an equitable comparison of bids. In a Design-Build context, the Owner, the Owner’s other consultants, and the Design-Builder can work together to determine what methods and materials will maximize the Owner’s value. In instances where marginally more expensive materials, designs, or construction methods might yield a higher return on investment for the Owner than those of lower cost, the Owner is free to adjust the project’s program without having to re-bid the entire project.

Potential Disadvantages of Design-Build
Potential problems of the design-build process include:

  • Premature cost estimating;
  • Short-cut design process;
  • Decreased accountability by the service provider;
  • The need to correct completed work.

Cost estimating for a Design-Build project is sometimes difficult because design documents are often preliminary and may change over the course of the project. As a result, Design-Build contracts are often written to allow for unexpected situations, and the price of the completed project may vary greatly from the original estimate. The uncertainty of the early estimate requires the Owner to rely a great deal on the integrity, acumen, and competence of the Design-Builder. As the certainty of estimate decreases, the reputation of the Design-Build firm becomes more important. Estimates should be accurate, and reasonably verifiable in order to minimize risk.

The short-cut design process may restrict regulatory review efforts to a potentially cursory overview. Projects may be designed as they are built, thus providing those with the responsibility of oversight little to no time at all to review completed plans and specifications. Projects completed before they may be reviewed can be forced into costly change orders to bring the project into compliance with regulatory requirements. The short-cut design process may also create an ill-defined scope of the work. Since the purpose of the design documents is to describe the project’s desired outcome, an abbreviated design process can result in leaving out some details of the quality, workmanship, and/or desired aesthetic attributes of the project, thus making it impossible to hold the builder accountable for the desired level of quality.

The Design-Builder is given a great deal of control over the entire process of both how the project is configured, and how it is completed. With no third-party observer such as an independent architect to administer the process, the unscrupulous Design-Builder may sacrifice the quality of materials and systems such as HVAC, lighting, plumbing, and even structural elements in order to pad his own profits at the expense of the Owner.

Since the Owner may not have the expertise to evaluate the quality of portions of the work, the Owner must trust the Design-Builder to properly design a facility that will meet its needs, and to execute the design properly, according to codes, and consistent with industry-standard specifications. Unless the Builder agrees with the Owner’s assessment of the situation, the Owner may have no means to insist on correction of work done improperly but to go to some form of formal dispute resolution such as litigation, or arbitration. To avoid this issue, it may be beneficial for an Owner to consider utilizing a third party consultant to assure that the Owner’s needs are met – this point is especially important in instances when an Owner inexperienced in the Design-Build process is involved.

In exchange for the ability to save money, the Owner assumes the risk and responsibility to review contract documents, such as plans, specifications, and agreements for services, and to hold the Design-Builder accountable to design and deliver a quality product. By contrast, under the typical Design-Bid-Build or Negotiated Bid delivery systems, the Design Professional is in a better position to reject work not performed according to the Contract Documents.

Several organizations, such as the Design Build Institute of America, provide standardized form contracts for Design-Builders to use, but it is not unusual for the Design-Builder to provide its own contractual documents. The American Institute of Architects warns that when non-standard documents are used, great caution should be exercised because they may be untested, or may be written to favor one party or the other; Therefore, qualified legal council should be employed to review all contracts before signing.

 

Glossary Terms for the Best Practices Guide

History of Recommendation:
Amended November, 2011
Amended July, 2010
Approved March, 1995
Revised Oct. 25, 1995 I-1

Multiple Primes Delivery System

Section I-8 

Another alternative project system is Multiple Prime Contracting, in which the Owner holds separate contracts with Contractors of various disciplines, such as general construction, mechanical, electrical and plumbing. In this system, the Owner, or its CM, manages the overall schedule and budget during the entire construction phase.

Although the Joint Committee ultimately does not recommend this delivery system, it is required for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania public projects by the Separations Act* and many Public Owners are required to use it.  The system has also gained favor in part as another method to procure early “stand alone” packages to help accelerate the construction start or order long lead major equipment.

Potential Advantages of the Multiple Prime Contracts system

 This system can theoretically result in a lower cost to the Owner because it avoids the compounded profit and overhead margins that are common to the single contract method.

The multiple contract system may also permit the Owner to divide the work into smaller packages. This may permit more firms to bid for the work and this increased competition may result in lower prices.

Work in each construction discipline is bid separately, allowing the flexibility of awarding construction contracts on the first portions of the project as soon as the respective aspect of design is completed. Furthermore, the system may allow the Owner to have more control over the project procurement schedule, since the Owner sets the schedule for bidding individual portions of the work. For example, if an initial phase of construction (such as foundation construction) is delayed, the Owner may reduce liability for delays by postponing the bidding of follow-on work. Another advantage of this system is that the Owner can realize savings by directly procuring major material items, such as structural steel or major mechanical equipment, avoiding contractor mark-ups.

Disadvantages of the Multiple Prime Contracts system

The very nature of this system causes its primary disadvantages.

  • The final cost of the project is not known until the final prime contract is procured.
  • There have been numerous cases where this method did not work well due to the absence of overall authority and coordination once construction is underway. The problems primarily arise from lack of coordination and contractor delay issues. While the general trades prime contractor is often given contractual responsibility to coordinate the work among trades, including schedule, this contractor lacks the contractual authority to dictate the schedule of another contractor.
  • With the Owner as the construction cost estimator, more time and expense may be required of it in receiving separate bids or negotiating separate contracts.
  • Some party has to coordinate the work of the various contractors and form the construction team. This may be done by the Owner, the Design Professional, a Construction Manager or the Contractor who is constructing the building structure.
  • As the construction cost estimator, the Owner must determine the cost that will be incurred in connection with the coordination work.
  • The lines of responsibility and accountability under Multiple Prime Contracts are less clear than a single contract system utilizing a general contractor. A Contractor who performs his work late may assert that this delay was caused by another Contractor.
  • When defective work is the issue, a Contractor may claim that his work was proper when he performed it, but that another Contractor’s work caused the problem.
  • The Owner or his Design Professional, whichever is responsible for the construction project management, must coordinate a solution to competing claims from Contractors under the Multiple Prime Contract system. Had there been only a single contract, the General Contractor would be responsible for construction management. He would be required to resolve the problems since the General Contractor is responsible for the work of his Subcontractors
  • Various elements required for the proper installation of materials and equipment or performance of systems may not be included in any of the separate contracts.  Even with detailed scope review of each separate prime contract, missing items of work may not be uncovered until late in the construction process causing additional cost, schedule delays, and potential removal of work already in place.  This coordination is the responsibility of the Owner under a Multiple Prime Contract whereas it is the responsibility of the Contractor under a Single Prime Contract.
  • Some General Contractors in the area will not participate in projects utilizing the multiple prime delivery system.  Some General Contractors prefer to control the entire project thereby limiting risk and having to rely on the performance of another prime, especially not knowing what other major primes might be awarded contracts for the project.
  • Decreased collaboration may occur because the multiple primes may act in a manner that benefits their own interests instead of the best interests of the project.
  • Number of bidders may be limited by major trade contractors that are unable to provide performance and payment bonds for their package, but would be able to participate as a subcontractor under a General Contractor that does not require a subcontractor bond.
  • The multiple prime delivery method challenges the process of constructing a high performance building by making it virtually impossible to integrate the design and construction processes.  This is fundamental to constructing a Green Building at a competitive price. The key principle of sustainable design, treating the building as a total functioning system, requires pre-construction collaboration between the designer and contractor; which cannot be done using the multiple prime delivery method..
  • The general trades contractor is often assigned responsibility for the coordination of the other prime contractors even though this entity does not have the authority to approve or disapprove the Owner’s payment to the other prime contractors.  Therefore, the most effective method to coordinate the work is lost under the multiple prime delivery system.

_____________________________

* PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES  

TITLE 53.  MUNICIPAL AND QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 

PART I.  GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 

CHAPTER 9.  CONTRACTS 

ARTICLE I.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

53 P.S. § 1003 (2013)

§ 1003.  Separate specifications for plumbing, heating, ventilating and electrical work; separate bids and contracts

Hereafter in the preparation of specifications for the erection, construction, and alteration of any public building, when the entire cost of such work shall exceed four thousand dollars, it shall be the duty of the architect, engineer, or other person preparing such specifications, to prepare separate specifications for the plumbing, heating, ventilating, and electrical work; and it shall be the duty of the person or persons authorized to enter into contracts for the erection, construction, or alteration of such public buildings to receive separate bids upon each of the said branches of work, and to award the contract for the same to the lowest responsible bidder for each of said branches.

 

Negotiated Bid Delivery System

Section I-9

This delivery method is similar to the Design/Bid/Build method in that design and construction are performed by different firms. Unlike the Design/Bid/Build approach, a General Contractor and an Architect are selected at the project’s inception. These firms work together throughout the design phase.

When the Owner does not have preexisting relationships with companies that have a proven ability to perform, it will qualify a list of Architects and Contractors via a request for qualifications (RFQ) process; followed by a request for proposal (RFP) to those that best qualify. As the proposals are short-listed, a selected subset of candidates are typically interviewed by the Owner to determine which company understands the project, has the chemistry to collaborate with the team, is able to display competency throughout the proposed team, and offers the best solutions and strategy. The chosen Architect and Contractor will enter into a contract with the Owner based upon negotiated terms.

The General Contractor provides estimated construction costs throughout the design phase and may offer a Guaranteed Maximum Price before the design documents are complete. When design documents are complete, the final construction costs are negotiated by the General Contractor through bids from Subcontractors on various scopes of work.

Among the Chief Advantages of the Negotiated Bid Delivery System are:

  • An Owner may expect some advantages from employing a particular Contractor whose policies and methods are known and who has in the past proved capable of fulfilling his obligations;
  • With the General Contractor being pre-qualified and able to select his Subcontractors, better quality, early completion, and smooth administration can be anticipated;
  • The GC is one in which the Owner and the Design Professional have confidence, and which is of known integrity and reliability. Moreover, the work to be carried out is within his special scope and experience.
  • The GC has the opportunity to provide input to the design and suggest alternative materials, systems, or means and methods which the GC feels will improve the project or reduce costs;
  • The GC provides preconstruction budgeting and scheduling in order to determine project feasibility, to establish economic parameters, and to gain preliminary “buy-in” from ancillary departments;
  • ‘Typical’ details do not need to be provided in the drawings since the methods and details are being discussed and agreed upon between the Design Professional and GC;
  • Not having to solicit competitive bids and possibly solicit revised bids to meet a budget saves time;
  • The GC’s bid can be compared to national and regional averages. If there is a large discrepancy these averages can be used to negotiate the price with the GC;
  • Beneficial gain is realized through the team striving to achieve mutually accepted project goals in which all parties have contributed value input;
  • Projects performed under these terms are often times more collaborative, resulting in greater overall satisfaction with the value and quality of the end product;
  • This system typically reduces the overall project schedule from conceptual phase to occupancy, in large part by avoiding the re-design, value engineering, and re-bid phases common to the Design/Bid/Build delivery process;
  • Change orders should be reduced or eliminated since the GC was party to the design.

Among the Chief Disadvantages of the Negotiated Bid Delivery System are:

  • It does not provide the Owner with comparative prices from several bidders;
  • The cost of work may be higher in this method;
  • The Owner may feel that he is in a weaker negotiating position when getting final pricing since there is a disadvantage to utilizing a GC other that the one retained throughout the design process (giving up advantages noted above);
  • The GC may not submit the bid in the itemized format. In this case it may be difficult to decipher the bid and the GC may resist further breakdowns.


History of Recommendation:
Approved July, 2010

Integrated Project Delivery System

Section I-10

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery system which teams the Owner, Design Professional and Constructor throughout the life of the project. It is similar to a number of other delivery systems previously described in this resource in which the Owner selects the Design Professional and Constructor at the inception of the project, based on qualifications.

IPD is a project delivery method that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the Owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction.

There are eight main sequential phases to the Integrated Project Delivery method:

 

  • Conceptualization phase [Expanded Programming]
  • Criteria design phase [Expanded Schematic Design]
  • Detailed Design phase [Expanded Design Development]
  • Implementation Documents phase [Construction Documents]
  • Agency Review phase
  • Buyout phase
  • Construction phase
  • Closeout phase

IPD is similar to the Toyota Productions System, which was an outgrowth of the work of W. Edwards Deming and the writings of Henry Ford. Emphasis is placed on collaboration between all parties of the design team and approaches promoted by the Lean Construction Institute, such as the two-week look-ahead schedule and Last Planner System collaborative schedule / programming tool.

Today, design and construction teams are joining forces across the country to utilize the IPD system created and trademarked by the Orlando, FL-based Integrated Project Delivery Inc. As organizations, such as AIA, have endorsed the IPD system, projects of all sizes are seeing the benefits of Integrated Project Delivery Inc.’s foundation. IPD combines ideas from Integrated Practice and Lean Construction to solve several problems in contemporary construction such as low productivity and waste, time overruns, quality issues, and conflicts during construction among the key stakeholders of owner, architect and contractor. The growing use of Building Information Modeling in the construction industry is allowing far greater information collaboration between project participants using IPD and considered an important tool to increasing productivity throughout the construction process.

Advantages of the IDP System

  • By the project team working as one unit, the Owner is better served and the project is completed faster, cheaper and without the typical stress of a construction project.
  • IPD seeks to align interests, objectives and practices, even in a single business, through a team-based approach. The team primary Team Members would include the Architect, key technical consultants, the General Contractor, and key Subcontractors.
  • The IPD system is a process where all disciplines in a construction project work as one firm, creating faster delivery times, lower costs, no litigation and a more enjoyable process for the entire team – including the Owner.

 

History of Recommendation:
Approved July, 2010

Building Information Modeling (BIM)

Section I-11

The National Institute of Building Sciences, author of the National BIM Standard, states that “BIM is a digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a project. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a project forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle from inception onward.” The “I” in BIM stands for digital information that includes both two and three dimensional data, as well as associated properties that describe the characteristics of components and assemblies that compose the virtual model of a project. This information can be used to promote better collaboration, visualization, analysis, coordination, project scheduling, phasing and sequencing, cost planning, fabrication and pre-fabrication, and lifecycle maintenance / management during the project lifecycle. When implemented thoughtfully and managed carefully by project stakeholders, BIM provides great value to projects by reducing costs, shortening project durations, eliminating field conflicts, minimizing duplication of effort, and increasing project team efficiency.

Process
BIM not only refers to technology and software tools, but also an integrated project process which requires an increase of collaboration and communication among the entire team.

The information developed and extracted from the model will be used for many purposes by multiple entities utilizing different software packages. To accomplish this level of collaboration, the information within the BIM must be structured to support the various intended uses, which requires a carefully planned and documented execution strategy. The project team should develop this plan early in the project, revise as additional participants are added; and update the plan as needed throughout the project lifecycle. Within this document, the project team will need to define the scope of BIM implementation; the level of collaboration between stakeholders; the information requirements and responsibilities for each team member; and the required technological infrastructure needed to support implementation.

Delivery methods which reward integration and collaboration, such as IPD and Design-Assist, will maximize the effectiveness of BIM. However, BIM also has value in the more traditional delivery methods of Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, and Construction Management-At-Risk. Currently, project teams are experiencing a hybrid of traditional delivery contracts that include supplemental agreements which target the level of BIM to varying degrees. Even with these agreements, additional definition of goals, uses, delineation of responsibilities, and planning may be required to leverage BIM effectively.

Many project teams have found it helpful to consult a practiced professional or consulting firm with a successful track record of using BIM to ensure that the chosen delivery method and developed execution plan is advantageous, financially feasible, and acceptable to both industry and project stakeholders.

Factors for Use
As BIM implementation becomes more prevalent within the industry, some professionals and contractors are utilizing BIM for design, construction documentation, coordination, and analysis for projects of any size or complexity. However, it is important for project teams to realize that BIM use may vary from project to project and, in some instances, certain applications may not be appropriate or cost-effective. The project team must instead define the specific areas for successful project implementation and should aim to use BIM at the level needed to maximize value, while minimizing project cost. Criteria that can assist the project team during the decision making process includes, but is not limited to:

  • a project of unusual design or complexity
  • a project using value-based engineering to make up-front decisions
  • a time-sensitive design and/or construction schedule
  • a project using specialized or complex construction techniques, including prefabrication or computer-aided fabrication
  • a project with significant unknown scope at the time of bidding, resulting in a high probability of major design changes during construction
  • a project requiring phased future expansion and/or facilities operations management

Benefits
Since there is no single best method for BIM implementation, the team must effectively design the execution strategy for each project by understanding the goals, capabilities, and constraints of the project team members. By utilizing the BIM process, the entire project team can achieve the following benefits:

During design and preconstruction:

  • align project to planning, programming and budget requirements
  • generate meaningful design studies
  • adjust design for optimal performance through integrated analyses
  • avoid costly redesign by creating more informed design decisions
  • enhance project visualization and project marketing support
  • improve project communication to expedite approval process
  • produce tighter design coordination and integration of building systems
  • improve document coordination, quality, and speed of revisions
  • develop owner information requirements

During construction:

  • use enhanced visualization for better project understanding
  • efficiently extract data to support quantity take-off and cost estimating
  • enhance construction coordination of trades and reduce costly field conflicts
  • create schedule simulations of installation sequences that optimize manpower and supply chain inventory, storage and site logistics to minimize damage, re-work, safety hazards and waste
  • utilize digital fabrication and equipment control processes to promote efficiency and accuracy during installation
  • address owner information requirements

After project turnover:

  • reduce costly and time consuming manual data entry at project turnover
  • integrate models with equipment information (warranties, maintenance records, O&M manuals) into a facility management system to aid in the creation of maintenance schedules, budgets, and resolution of work orders
  • integrate models and data into a BAS (building automation system) and EAS (energy automation system) to improve building performance and reduce unscheduled repairs by using real-time performance data
  • support space utilization management and real-estate portfolio planning
  • provide first responders visual and comprehensive facility information to assist in planning appropriate response to emergencies

Closing Summary
Addressing the project scope, goals, and limitations during the early stages of a project will create the necessary dialog between the different project stakeholders to use BIM effectively. In order to achieve the maximum benefit, the project team needs to establish a detailed implementation plan to utilize BIM throughout the design, construction, and operational lifecycle.

Note: This document is an executive summary of The Joint Committee BIM Reference Guide that will soon be published.

 

Glossary Terms for the Best Practices Guide

History of Recommendation:
Approved August, 2012

Design Assist 

Section I-12

Click here for the PDF: 

Design Assist