Post on 18-Dec-2015
transcript
Delivering School Construction Successfully
Regardless of the Delivery Method
Presented by:
Doug Sitton, PE, LEED AP
Sitton Construction Group
What if you could spend less time, reduce the overall cost, and
eliminate most of the problems on your next construction project without reducing quantity or
quality?
Agenda
• Case Studies• Project Complexity• Bridging the Gaps• Keys to Success• Project Delivery• Additional Tips
Projects That Fell Short
What did the following projects all have in common that caused them to fall
short of expectations?
Project #1
• New High School• Design/bid/build with CM as Advisor• $45 million new construction• 20-month original schedule• 12 months late• 14% delay claims/change orders
Project #2
• University Student Rec Center• CM at Risk• $13 million new construction• 15-month original schedule• 12 months late
Project #3
• University Student Center• Design/bid/build – multiple prime• $14 million addition/renovation• 18-month original schedule• 12 months late
Project #4
• New College Classroom Building• Design/bid/build – multiple prime• $11 million new construction/addition• 21-month original schedule• 15 months late• 11% delay claims/change orders
What Was The Common Cause?
What did each of these projects have in common?
A. Under-qualified contractor(s) or CM
B. Under-qualified architect/engineer
C. Wrong delivery method
D. Unusually complex
E. Other
The Common Cause
What did each of these projects have in common?
The gaps that existed were not filled
Gaps are caused by complexity
Successful Case Study #1
• $60 million program • 2 new elementary schools• Various additions/renovations• Design/bid/build – single primes• Delivered in 16 months and under
budget
Successful Case Study #2
• $6 million program • Renovations to elementary and high
schools• D/B/B – single primes and PC• Saved $550,000 while adding in
quantity and quality
Project Organizational Chart
Thousands of exchanges of info in different languages
• Owner• Funding sources• Design firms• Consultants • Contractors• Subcontractors• Utilities• Regulatory agencies• Manufacturers/vendors• Stakeholders
Technical Complexity
• Systems:– Structural
– MEP/FP
– Security
– Data/telecommunications
– Furnishings and equipment
• Codes, soils, environmental, etc.• Project delivery• LEED• BIM
The Cost of Complexity
U. of I. Sues over Dorm's Big Cost Overrun
Cost Overruns at Prairie State Energy
SCHOOL BOARD TO MEET ON SCHOOL COST OVERRUNS
MetroLink Files Damage Suit Against Four Companies
Big Dig Cost Explodes To $22 Billion from Original $2.6 Billion
Where Are The Gaps?
Between all project participants• Owner• Funding sources• Design firms• Consultants • Contractors• Subcontractors• Utilities• Regulatory agencies• Manufacturers/vendors• Stakeholders
What are the Gaps?
• Knowledge and experience• Priorities, goals and objectives• Roles, responsibilities and risk• Information and communication• Cultures and
personalities• Performance
and results
The Owner’s (District’s) Role
Build the bridges
Start with the 3 legs
The Owner is responsible for the
team of teams.
The Owner’s Role
• Financing/budget/costs• Project delivery method• Requirements/program/operations/objectives• Property/surveys/utilities/environmental/soils• Existing conditions/testing• Schedule• Permits• Furniture/Fixtures/Equipment• Voice/Data/Security• Move management• Reviews/decisions
The Owner’s Role
• Procurement and performance– Architect/engineer– Consultants– Contractors– Construction manager– Performance contractor
• Dispute resolution
The Owner’s Required Expertise
Bridge building:• Improve all contracts• Manage and improve
everyone’s performance• Facilitate collaboration and teamwork• Streamline and improve the delivery of
planning, design and construction
Minimize the Owner’s Role?
• Avoid paying for expertise?
Any expertise should more than pay for itself
• Hand it off to the Architect, CM or PC?
Time, focus, qualifications, conflicts
10 Pieces to the Project Puzzle
1. Identify Owner’s Expertise
2. Establish Goals and Objectives
3. Maximize Competition for Selection
4. Negotiate Effective Contracts
5. Place Right People in Right Roles
6. Plan Ahead
7. Establish Effective Processes
8. Set Performance Metrics
9. Apply Cost-Effective Technology
10. Lead and Manage Proactively
Project Delivery Methods
• Design/Bid/Build – Single Prime• Design/Bid/Build – Multiple Prime or
CM• Construction Manager at Risk• Performance Contracting
Design/Bid/Build – Single Prime
• Owner contracts with a design team• Design team provides design and
produces bid/construction documents• Project is bid to single general
contractor• Low responsive, responsible bidder
selected
Design/Bid/Build – Multiple Prime
Same as Single Prime except:• Project is bid in multiple packages• Low responsive, responsible bidders
selected• Multiple primes “assigned” to general
contractor as coordinating contractor
General Contractor as CMa
Same as Multiple Prime except: • Owner contracts with a CM• CM participates in design phase• Owner is at risk and holds all contracts
– no “assignments”• Typically many more contracts
Performance Contracting
• Same as Design-Build except: • For energy savings improvements• ESCO provides:
– Financing
– Guaranteed energy savings
Which Method . . .
Can be completed in the least amount of time?
Requires the least amount of District time to oversee?
Takes the least amount of District expertise to manage?
Has the fewest change orders?
Involves the least risk for the District?
Provides the highest overall value for the District?
Design/Bid/Build – single prime Design/Bid/Build – multiple prime or CMa Construction Manager at Risk Performance Contracting It depends
Which Method . . .
Can be completed in the least amount of time?
Requires the least amount of District time to oversee?
Takes the least amount of District expertise to manage?
Has the fewest change orders?
Involves the least risk for the District?
Provides the highest overall value for the District?
Design/Bid/Build – single prime Design/Bid/Build – multiple prime or CMa Construction Manager at Risk Performance Contracting It depends
It Depends
• Every method:– Has positives and negatives, has
succeeded and failed– Is complex, just in a different way– Can be fast-tracked– Should never be used “as is”– Should be tailored to the specific client,
project, and local/current market
• Customization and management matter most, not the method
Selecting Project Delivery
Consider:• Most common, best understood• Experience and knowledge of:
architect, engineers, contractors
Don’t consider:• Time – overall or District’s• Change orders• Risk
These are customization considerations
Minimizing Owner’s Time Invested
• Have the right level of expertise• Invest the time early• Avoid gaps
More time here
Pick Any Two
• The Project
Management
Triangle
• Why not have all three?• Low quality often adds cost and time• Quality design can reduce overall cost • “Too” slow and “too” fast both cost more• Effective Owner management improves all
three
Improving All Three – Q/B/S
“Avoidable failures are common and persistent . . . the volume and complexity of what we know has exceeded our individual ability to deliver its benefits correctly, safely, or reliably.”
“We need a new strategy . . . and there is such a strategy. It is a checklist.”
Getting Things Right
• Ninety-second checklist• Complex world of surgery• Eight hospitals around the
world• All kinds of operations• Reduced deaths and
complications by one-third• No cost
Example Checklists
• Facility appraisals • Facility assessments• Plan/spec reviews• Inter-disciplinary reviews• Scorecards
Summarizing Success
• Understand the complexity• Identify expertise necessary for the
District’s “Owner” role• Identify/predict the gaps• Bridge the gaps• Use checklists!