University Business - July 2007 - (Page 66)

DESIGN BUILD: BUILT FOR SPEED How it works: The institution gives one contractor a performance specification, and then that contractor must undertake the project from design to construction according to those parameters. (Think of the ancient master-builder arrangement that resulted in the Parthenon in Greece.) A representative from the IHE talks directly to the designated spokesperson for that design builder. Advantages: Experts say the main reason colleges and universities like the designbuild model is that it minimizes cost risks by guaranteeing a maximum price. It is an ideal arrangement when schedules are compressed, says David Miller, director of the St. Louis-based Trivers Associates architectural and planning firm, which has done work for Oberlin College (Ohio) and Southeast Missouri State University. Miller tells clients to assume this option can slice off 30 percent of the time a traditional competitive bid process would require, since the method means overlapping the design and construction steps. DBIA leaders are quick to point out that this route also improves risk management because it clearly defines cost, schedule, and quality. In other words, kiss change orders due to errors and omissions goodbye. Disadvantages: Erasing the situation that pits architects and builders looking over each others’ shoulders also can endanger quality, Miller warns. And that guaranteed price can tempt design-build contractors to inflate a few numbers here and there to protect their wallets against unforeseen forces, Haupt adds. To keep from being taken to the cleaners, negotiate for an open-book process, meaning the institution has the right to review all the raw numbers during construction. “You need to know exactly what you are paying for,” Miller says. “Just realize this does take a bit of expertise on the part of the owner, so you have to have staff on board to handle the audits.” Finally, representing the project owner, an administrator must hand the contractor a set of minimum standards. Beyond those standards, the rest of the decisions are pretty much out of your hands. If you aren’t precise up front, you can accidentally sacrifice control within days. Case Study: Indiana University Photos by Indiana University Architect’s Oﬃce Time and money savings resulted when IU’s service building, which houses the Physical Plant and other offices, was constructed with design build. When the state of Indiana passed a law in the fall of 2005 allowing its public IHEs to opt for design-build delivery, Bob Meadows seized the opportunity immediately. By early 2006, Meadows, the systems vice president and university architect at Indiana University, was exploring this avenue to build a new 79,500-square-foot service center on campus. His reasons were the obvious ones: He wanted to speed up the timetable and get the biggest bang for his buck. “The only thing that was a bit difficult was that we were the first ones as far as we knew in this state to do this. We had to research other places to get the wording on the contracts and stuff like that, so it took a little longer,” Meadows says. Now that his team and other IU staff occupy the service building and he has a classroom/office building under construction with the design-build process, that hurdle is behind him. He says the university has also smoothed out the rough edges on this new mindset. For instance, a few of the architectural engineering services they took for granted in the past—such as being able to insist on certain design details after the initial specs are given—suddenly weren’t part of the design-build contractor’s scope. “The first round was hard, and we didn’t give [the design-build firm] a lot of direction. The second one we did better, and I think the third will be better still,” Meadows says. And there will certainly be a third project, as Indiana University was able to build the service building for just $84 per square foot—a significant savings—using this method. 66 | July 2007 universitybusiness.com http://universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - July 2007

Contents
College Index
Company Index
Advisory Board
Editor's Note
People Watch
Sense of Place
Marketing
Viewpoint
Human Resources
Money Matters
Financial Aid
Community Colleges
Seeds of Scandal
Controlling the Flow
Special Delivery
Presidential Progress
Best Foot Forward: SOX and Financial Standards
Business Technology
What's New
Calendar of Events
Direct Connect
End Note

University Business - July 2007