Teambuilders, Inc.


Moderator's Perspective: A Panel Discussion on Design Build in New York; Current Trends and Practical Considerations When the American Institute of Architects / New York State (AIA/NYS) and the General Building Contractors (GBC) of NY, conceived and planned the recent jointly sponsored Design Build conference, (held at McGraw-Hill's Corporate Headquarters in Manhattan), they wanted to be sure to include live input and feedback from architects, contractors and owners, currently involved in significant design build projects in New York. After all, the heavy turnout was based on more than curiosity. The recent increase in the number of "design-build" applications by several of New York's public agencies, notably the SCA and the Dormitory Authority, had demonstrated that this approach, popular in other regions of the country, was becoming a factor in New York that could no longer be ignored. The depth and variety of experience of the panelists that AIA/ NYS and GBC assembled provided the conference with the opportunity to learn first-hand from seasoned practitioners, about different designbuild applications from the public and public sectors, from owners', architects' and contractors' perspectives. The Panel Panelists from the Owner's side included representatives from two of New York's major design and construction agencies: Milo Riverso, PE, PhD, President and CEO of the NYC SCA; and Robert Fraser, RA, Director of Engineering Services. and James Gray, RA, Director of SUNY Programs, of the NYS Dormitory Authority. Architects represented included Jeffrey Pencek, AIA of Highland Associates, Architects and Engineers; and Peter Samton, FAIA of Gruzen Samton, Architects, Planners, Interior Designers. Contractors included Sal LaScala of Turner Construction and Wayne LaChase, of LaChase Construction. Major differences in the Public sector We started by hearing brief descriptions of each party's design-build experience, including their overall sense of its successes and drawbacks. It didn't take long before it became clear that even on the public side, there are significant differences in how design-build is executed. DASNY has been using designbuild since the late 60's, mostly in its Residence Hall program. It defines its program, sets its criteria, establishes its budget, determines the completion date, and then issues the RFP Since cost is predetermined, teams are selected based on experience and the quality and relative value of their submissions. Depending on the client, design-build teams can be given tremendous latitude in coming up with solutions (i.e. in a recently awarded project, the two finalists included high rise apartment towers versus low rise wood frame garden apartments.) The SCA has only more recently begun to utilize design-build (since the early 90's). Riverso describes that in the last two years he has increased the SCA's use of design-build for capacity projects (new buildings and additions) so that they now account for 70% of new construction dollars. Like DASNY, these projects are driven by the client's need to significantly reduce design and construction time. Unlike DASNY, the SCA establishes tight requirements for their projects, offering design-build reams very little opportunity for utilizing their creative abilities. They then select the lowest bidder, from a short list of "pre-qualified" teams, after first establishing that only chose proposals chat meet certain minimum technical requirements, are eligible to be considered. Major time savings Although both agencies see major benefits in time saved, (DASNY estimates 4 - 6 months saved on its Residence Hall projects over conventional design/bid/build, while the SCA's turn-around time for PS 7, a 900 student primary school, was 17 months from time of award, compared with 36 or more, for recently completed design/bid/build projects,) they see overall benefits differently. Downsides DASNY's use of design-build has been much more limited than the SCAs, mainly due to the more customized requirements of many of its campus clients, and to the greater variety of complex building types involved. They've found the biggest downside is "not knowing what the product is before you buy it." Here the flexibility given to the design-builder is a disadvantage. This has led DASNY to utilize "bridging" for some of its clients, where full schematics are developed by a consulting architect, who then acts as the client's representative during the design-build process. Both Fraser and Gray are of the opinion that for the majority of DASNY's projects, design-build is not a preferred choice. According to Riverso, the SCA, perhaps because it has only one major client, the Board of Education, has been able to develop a formula that insures that everyone knows what the project will be, no matter who the successful bidder is. By utilizing inhouse staff to provide "bridging"services, detailed project requirements are included in the project's RFP The downside of eliminating the unpredictability of the process is that additional cost benefits, as well as potential improvements in the overall design concept, created by the unleashed creativity of design build teams, are lost. A secondary benefit shared by both agencies, the shifting of responsibility for design errors and omissions from the owner's shoulders to the design-builder's, revealed a largely uncompensated reallocation of risks for architects and contractors, as further discussion amongst panelists disclosed. The architect's perspective on public sector design-build Gruzen Samton's experience on PS 7, although largely viewed by Samton as a success, carried some caviats, namely, not enough time was given during the UP stage for developing design documents, and given the incomplete nature of the documents used for bidding, the design contingency was insufficient to cover omissions, now the responsibility of the design-build team. The added burden of carrying the full responsibility for such omissions was not recognized in determining the architect's compensation. A recent example of a two phase process, on a major office building for the FDA, where the owner, GSA, sought design and cost proposals from design-build teams in a first phase, and then made a weighted decision based on both design quality and cost, as the basis for awarding phase two services, was cited by Samton as a more innovative and satisfying approach. PS 51, an earlier design-build project for the SCA that Turner and Gruzen built, provided more opportunity for design innovation and, interestingly, according to Samton, was also more profitable. The private side of design-build Both Highland Associates, as architects and engineers, and LaChase Construction, as contractors, described additional approaches being utilized in the private sector. Highland's experience included providing "bridging" services for corporate clients in the preparation of schematic design documents for RFP's, and then, in some cases, being assigned to work for the selected contractor, as a member of the design-build team. LaChase described a more all-encompassing role where his firm becomes an alliance partner with his client, participating in the development of their business plan, then moving on to develop the program, design concept, and finally building the project under a designbuild agreement. Both Pencek and LaChase emphasized the importance of selecting an experienced team, where both the architect and the contractor are experts in the design and construction of the client's facilities, and have worked together before. Both praised the design-build process as they've experienced it. Partnering on design-build projects Both Samton and Pencek emphasized the added benefits of working collaboratively with contractors during the design phase. In particular, the ability to work closely with subcontractors in developing a design that conforms to the owner's budget can prevent costly redesign. This is made possible by the creation of a partnering environment, instead of the customary adversarial relationships. LaScala's observation on designbuild partnering is that it is more effective because the architect takes his role more seriously, mainly due to the added risk. He is more inclined to be cooperative and to work more closely with the subcontractors. Subcontractors have noticed this change, which they see as a direct result of the architect's newly defined status on the job. Now he is "just another sub", like them. Risks and rewards The consensus of the architects and contractors on the panel, in both the private and public sectors, is that design-build involves more risk mainly due to the combination of a guaranteed maximum cost and having the responsibility for design errors and omissions. It was also acknowledged that rewards come from a satisfied client and more work, not from additional compensation. All, including the owners, agreed that in order to succeed in designbuild, team members must have a different mentality ... for a contractor this means delivering the best quality project, including design. For architects there must be a willingness to participate in a synergistic design experience with the contractor and subs. In the end, a positive attitude that "it's up to us" to make sure that the design works, and an awareness that "grandfather clauses" that protected individual team members from liability in conventional construction, may no longer be effective, seems like good advice to all who contemplate this approach. The future of design-build in New York Contractors have adapted to design-build with much less ambivalence than architects. Perhaps it is because they are accustomed to working under the pressure of RFP's and have shown a willingness to take on the responsibility of managing the design process, as the leader of the design-build team. The future of design-build for architects may very well depend on their willingness to explore and more actively debate some of the issues that this conference has raised, and then to take a more pro-active role in joining with owners and the construction industry in developing improved guidelines for its use.

Moderator's Perspective: A Panel Discussion on Design Build in New York; Current Trends and Practical Considerations

When the American Institute of Architects / New York State (AIA/NYS) and the General Building Contractors (GBC) of NY, conceived and planned the recent jointly sponsored Design Build conference, (held at McGraw-Hill's Corporate Headquarters in Manhattan), they wanted to be sure to include live input and feedback from architects, contractors and owners, currently involved in significant design build projects in New York. After all, the heavy turnout was based on more than curiosity. The recent increase in the number of "design-build" applications by several of New York's public agencies, notably the SCA and the Dormitory Authority, had demonstrated that this approach, popular in other regions of the country, was becoming a factor in New York that could no longer be ignored.

The depth and variety of experience of the panelists that AIA/ NYS and GBC assembled provided the conference with the opportunity to learn first-hand from seasoned practitioners, about different designbuild applications from the public and public sectors, from owners', architects' and contractors' perspectives.

The Panel

Panelists from the Owner's side included representatives from two of New York's major design and construction agencies: Milo Riverso, PE, PhD, President and CEO of the NYC SCA; and Robert Fraser, RA, Director of Engineering Services. and James Gray, RA, Director of SUNY Programs, of the NYS Dormitory Authority. Architects represented included Jeffrey Pencek, AIA of Highland Associates, Architects and Engineers; and Peter Samton, FAIA of Gruzen Samton, Architects, Planners, Interior Designers. Contractors included Sal LaScala of Turner Construction and Wayne LaChase, of LaChase Construction.

Major differences in the Public sector

We started by hearing brief descriptions of each party's design-build experience, including their overall sense of its successes and drawbacks. It didn't take long before it became clear that even on the public side, there are significant differences in how design-build is executed.

DASNY has been using designbuild since the late 60's, mostly in its Residence Hall program. It defines its program, sets its criteria, establishes its budget, determines the completion date, and then issues the RFP Since cost is predetermined, teams are selected based on experience and the quality and relative value of their submissions. Depending on the client, design-build teams can be given tremendous latitude in coming up with solutions (i.e. in a recently awarded project, the two finalists included high rise apartment towers versus low rise wood frame garden apartments.)

The SCA has only more recently begun to utilize design-build (since the early 90's). Riverso describes that in the last two years he has increased the SCA's use of design-build for capacity projects (new buildings and additions) so that they now account for 70% of new construction dollars. Like DASNY, these projects are driven by the client's need to significantly reduce design and construction time. Unlike DASNY, the SCA establishes tight requirements for their projects, offering design-build reams very little opportunity for utilizing their creative abilities. They then select the lowest bidder, from a short list of "pre-qualified" teams, after first establishing that only chose proposals chat meet certain minimum technical requirements, are eligible to be considered.

Major time savings

Although both agencies see major benefits in time saved, (DASNY estimates 4 - 6 months saved on its Residence Hall projects over conventional design/bid/build, while the SCA's turn-around time for PS 7, a 900 student primary school, was 17 months from time of award, compared with 36 or more, for recently completed design/bid/build projects,) they see overall benefits differently.

Downsides

DASNY's use of design-build has been much more limited than the SCAs, mainly due to the more customized requirements of many of its campus clients, and to the greater variety of complex building types involved. They've found the biggest downside is "not knowing what the product is before you buy it." Here the flexibility given to the design-builder is a disadvantage. This has led DASNY to utilize "bridging" for some of its clients, where full schematics are developed by a consulting architect, who then acts as the client's representative during the design-build process. Both Fraser and Gray are of the opinion that for the majority of DASNY's projects, design-build is not a preferred choice.

According to Riverso, the SCA, perhaps because it has only one major client, the Board of Education, has been able to develop a formula that insures that everyone knows what the project will be, no matter who the successful bidder is. By utilizing inhouse staff to provide "bridging"services, detailed project requirements are included in the project's RFP The downside of eliminating the unpredictability of the process is that additional cost benefits, as well as potential improvements in the overall design concept, created by the unleashed creativity of design build teams, are lost.

A secondary benefit shared by both agencies, the shifting of responsibility for design errors and omissions from the owner's shoulders to the design-builder's, revealed a largely uncompensated reallocation of risks for architects and contractors, as further discussion amongst panelists disclosed.

The architect's perspective on public sector design-build

Gruzen Samton's experience on PS 7, although largely viewed by Samton as a success, carried some caviats, namely, not enough time was given during the UP stage for developing design documents, and given the incomplete nature of the documents used for bidding, the design contingency was insufficient to cover omissions, now the responsibility of the design-build team. The added burden of carrying the full responsibility for such omissions was not recognized in determining the architect's compensation.

A recent example of a two phase process, on a major office building for the FDA, where the owner, GSA, sought design and cost proposals from design-build teams in a first phase, and then made a weighted decision based on both design quality and cost, as the basis for awarding phase two services, was cited by Samton as a more innovative and satisfying approach. PS 51, an earlier design-build project for the SCA that Turner and Gruzen built, provided more opportunity for design innovation and, interestingly, according to Samton, was also more profitable.

The private side of design-build

Both Highland Associates, as architects and engineers, and LaChase Construction, as contractors, described additional approaches being utilized in the private sector.

Highland's experience included providing "bridging" services for corporate clients in the preparation of schematic design documents for RFP's, and then, in some cases, being assigned to work for the selected contractor, as a member of the design-build team.

LaChase described a more all-encompassing role where his firm becomes an alliance partner with his client, participating in the development of their business plan, then moving on to develop the program, design concept, and finally building the project under a designbuild agreement.

Both Pencek and LaChase emphasized the importance of selecting an experienced team, where both the architect and the contractor are experts in the design and construction of the client's facilities, and have worked together before.

Both praised the design-build process as they've experienced it.

Partnering on design-build projects Both Samton and Pencek emphasized the added benefits of working collaboratively with contractors during the design phase. In particular, the ability to work closely with subcontractors in developing a design that conforms to the owner's budget can prevent costly redesign. This is made possible by the creation of a partnering environment, instead of the customary adversarial relationships.

LaScala's observation on designbuild partnering is that it is more effective because the architect takes his role more seriously, mainly due to the added risk. He is more inclined to be cooperative and to work more closely with the subcontractors. Subcontractors have noticed this change, which they see as a direct result of the architect's newly defined status on the job. Now he is "just another sub", like them.

Risks and rewards

The consensus of the architects and contractors on the panel, in both the private and public sectors, is that design-build involves more risk mainly due to the combination of a guaranteed maximum cost and having the responsibility for design errors and omissions. It was also acknowledged that rewards come from a satisfied client and more work, not from additional compensation.

All, including the owners, agreed that in order to succeed in designbuild, team members must have a different mentality ... for a contractor this means delivering the best quality project, including design. For architects there must be a willingness to participate in a synergistic design experience with the contractor and subs.

In the end, a positive attitude that "it's up to us" to make sure that the design works, and an awareness that "grandfather clauses" that protected individual team members from liability in conventional construction, may no longer be effective, seems like good advice to all who contemplate this approach.

The future of design-build in New York

Contractors have adapted to design-build with much less ambivalence than architects. Perhaps it is because they are accustomed to working under the pressure of RFP's and have shown a willingness to take on the responsibility of managing the design process, as the leader of the design-build team. The future of design-build for architects may very well depend on their willingness to explore and more actively debate some of the issues that this conference has raised, and then to take a more pro-active role in joining with owners and the construction industry in developing improved guidelines for its use.