Engineered Systems - October 2008 - (Page 13)

Letters model of the design process would be better achieved by relating the actual design and construction work objectives to the established processes of design and construction as they exist and are practiced — not by proposing a radical and unrealistic revision of the process. agement firms have staffed up with inhouse engineers and architects to meet the owner’s building program needs and project/program requirements. I think eventually the CMs will take full control of the process with the design team as a subcontractor unless the design community finds a way to work with the builder to provide a team solution to the OPR at the start of the job. 3. Comment: Since 90% of the cost of a project goes through the builder and 80% to 85% of the building cost over the life of the building is in the hands of the building manager, it is imperative that these two are also represented at the start of the job. As one major CM said to me recently, “No design team has ever asked me what I need to build the owner’s job.” Instead, the design team shuts out the builder or reluctantly accepts the CM’s “pre-construction services” from the builder. The building manager is also shut out on most jobs at the start of a building program. A good project delivery team leader would not let this happen. 4. Comment: I believe “increase the design fee” is the standard response by design team when it comes to changing their mode of operation. It’s seems like a good excuse to say “more fee” instead of working with the builder from the start (60/40 matrix) and efficiently producing what is needed; in lieu of expensive-to-produce “CYA” documents, the teamwork fee should be adequate. What is needed is better business people who make up the design team. Today, the owner is probably extra for an owner representative in addition to the design team and then a third-party commissioning firm to make sure the design works. The owner doesn’t need to be increasing design fees if the OPR was achieved through teamwork. 5. Comment: Again, do a Web search and you will find the “established, 1960s AIA-contractor, D-B-B process” hasn’t worked and the 1970s AIA-CM document was the tip of the iceberg relative to changing the project delivery services. I’m just happy to know we can overcome 20th century methods in the best interest of the building owner if we can implement a project delivery team effort. ES John C. Rollow, AIA, CHPS Principal Green Schools Plus High Performance Schools Consultants Glendale, CA McKew responds 1. Comment: Penn State’s “project delivery institute,” part of its architectural-engineering department, completed an excellent national survey probably 12 to 14 years ago that showed D-B-B was the most costly approach as well as most adversary approach with an average 12% overrun on projects. Construction management followed with around 9% overrun and D-B being the best for owners with no overruns unless an owner requested change. I, along with many others as well as organizations, recognize the D-B-B process is not in the owner’s best interest and that architects who champion this really need to listen to their clients. I believe AIA recognized this when they produced the AIA construction management contract document in the 1970s and then the AIA D-B document in the 1980s to try and keep pace with the changing project delivery process. As a side note to the project delivery process, I personally don’t think architects like to be part of a team unless they can run the process, which is not in the owner’s best interest. 2. Comment: Owners don’t want “gradual and reiterative decision making.” They want a building program defined as best as possible at the start based on a team effort to define the scope, cost, and schedule. Again, listen to the clients and also complete a website search for white papers on improving project delivery. As the architect has slowly lost control of the project delivery process beginning with construction management in the 1970s, today you can see the construction man- This One Will! Introducing by System Sensor The only duct smoke detector that adjusts to ﬁt any application! Available Now! Find out more. Visit systemsensor.com/ﬂex. Input 217B at www.esmagazine.com/instantproductinfo w w w. esmag a zine . c o m ESM10084SSAd3.indd 1 13 9/15/08 12:00:29 PM http://www.systemsensor.com/flex http://www.systemsensor.com http://www.systemsensor.com http://www.esmagazine.com/instantproductinfo http://www.esmagazine.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Engineered Systems - October 2008

Engineered Systems - October 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Letters Back2Basics HVAC Challenge Case in Point Commissioning Building Automation HydroTech HVACR Designer Tips Special Insert: Engineer's Technical Library Fall 2008 Living Wild! Chilled Beams in Chicago Phoenix Convention Center: On The Rise Cold-Climate HVAC Challenges Humidification Strategies For Data Centers & Network Rooms Special Advertising Supplement: Tabb Talk Computers & Software Issues & Events Products Literature & Catalogs Glossary Classifieds Advertiser Index Tomorrow’s Environment

Engineered Systems - October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.