We would like to thank Arta Yazdanseta for taking the time and contributing the following article to digitalfutures. Arta is currently teaching a REVIT course @ Pratt Manhattan.

Professional Practice Lecture Series Pratt Institute  School of Undergraduate Architecture

Intro:

According to the McGraw Hill Construction 2009 Smart Market Report – The Business Value of BIM, the number of professionals in the AEC (architecture, engineer and construction) fields who make use of BIM as an

integral part of their practice experienced a large upswing in growth from 28% of professionals in 2007 to 48%

of professionals in 2009.

As the professional adoption of BIM is gaining momentum, the AEC industry is confronting the inevitable next step: that is, to use BIM throughout all the phases of a building’s life cycle; from its conceptual creation to construction to facilities management to demolition.

This research-based lecture series is aimed to answer some of the questions on the subjects mentioned above.

BIM + IPD (Integrated Project Delivery)

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery method distinguished by a contractual agreement between a minimum of the owner, design professional, and builder where risk and rewards are shared and stakeholder success is dependent on project success.

Change in dynamic > Change in workflow

The new IPD Agreement redefines the traditional relationship of the three main participants of a project: the Owner, the Designer, and the Builder. The consequence of this change in dynamic is the drastic change in a project’s workflow.

In this lecture we examine the characteristics of this new dynamic between the key participants of a project and the resulting workflow.

Change in the main parties’ dynamic:

A California Council these changes in the relationships and roles of the main participants can be broken down into six main categories:

1- Early Involvement of the Key Participants:

From the very beginning the owner should identify the designer and the builder of the project. The relationships should be established on mutual trust and respect, and compatibility and comfort in collaboration should be tested. The team will help the owner to crystallize the project’s goals and objectives from very early on.

2- Shared Risk/ Rewards:

Full Integrated Project Delivery is a goal-oriented project delivery, wherein the team members share the losses and gains of a project. This new mindset creates a stronger incentive for participants to work towards the success of the project instead of personal gain.

3- Multi-Party Contact:

The IPD Agreement is a three-way contract, which unites the three main parties (Owner, Architect, and Builder) together. As a result, the success of one party is tied directly to the other. It is crucial, for the success of the project, that from the very beginning the risk and responsibility matrix of each participant be clearly identified.

4- Collaborative Decision Making/Control:

From the beginning of a project the main parties need to establish an agreement and a method to ensure that their representatives are involved in every step of the project. Also, the parties need to execute a previously agreed upon system where possible disagreements between team members can be resolved by an hierarchical management team.

5- Liability Wavers Among Key Participants:

To reinforce the sense of unity and a collaborative environment the main parties should waive any claim amongst themselves except for in the instance of a willful default. However, third-party liability (meaning, parties involved beyond the initial three-way contract, such as sub-contractors) should be addressed by the standard liability coverage.

6- Jointly Developed/Validated Target:

To gauge a project’s success the parties need to agree upon a clear and specific set of criteria. This set of criteria can be established according to the owner’s goal for the project and can vary from schedule and budget to sustainability objectives. The compensation of the non-owner parties will be in accordance to the meeting of the established targets.

Change in workflow:

“A Building Information Model is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. As such, it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during life cycle from inception onward.”

National Institute of Building Science (NIBS)

Building Information Modeling (BIM) programs have revolutionized the workflow of IPD. From the very early stages of a project AEC professionals can have access to information that would not have been available to them in a typical project until the very end of the CD phase.

BIM creates an environment where designers and builders can come together to help one another

to make wiser decisions in advancement of a better and more responsible project. The resulting digital model would be used, not only throughout the conception and construction of a building, but for facility managing and, eventually, the demolition of a building.

In this new workflow, the idea of the clear phases of a project blur. Since the digital model is constantly evolving, and the building data is readily and instantaneously available to all parties, the traditional SD, DD, and CD sets change to “just in time” sets.

This increase of information requires a longer time period to manage and, as a result, the design phase of a project expands. However, by the end of the Detailed Design phase, the model has evolved to a high level of sophistication so that the Implementation Document phase shortens drastically.

Also, since from the very beginning the builder is involved with the project, the bidding and contractual negotiation phase will be eliminated and the cost estimates and market risk controls become much more accurate.

Shop Drawings will eventually become eliminated. Architects will not be obligated to create detail drawings to show the design intent. The builder must provide the digital BIM model with the required detailed elements. These elements will be discussed between the main participants and will be approved and used directly for construction and fabrication. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s 2004 survey, estimated RFI management costs (combined contractors and architects/engineers) has been $500 million per year. Since IDP allows for a seamless and much more accurate coordination and collaboration between parties, the amount of RFI costs will be drastically decreased.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that BIM can be explored to its fullest by practicing Integrated Project Delivery. In order to gain the maximum advantage of IPD, the team members should be willing to collaborate in a transparent and open-book manner to create an environment of trust. Integrated Project Delivery is an option for sophisticated and active owners, whose goals are not only their financial gain, but also a better design and higher quality of work.

A Case Study

The following case study is one of six case studies done by a collaboration of AIA National, AIA California Council, AGC California and McGraw-Hill Construction.

Autodesk AEC Solutions Division Headquarters is one of the few projects that have been fully developed through Integrated Project Delivery. Below is a summary of the study released by the AIA California Council in 2010.

Early Involvement of Key Participants

Autodesk conducted a selection process to find an architect/builder team willing to try Integrated Project Delivery. The RFP clearly stated the owner’s direction in terms of scope, budget, sustainability goals and the mandated form of agreement. At first, another team was the front runner but their corporate leadership asked for fundamental changes in the proposed IPD arrangement which Autodesk declined to make. In the end, KlingStubbins and Tocci were chosen because of their qualifications, familiarity with the local market, BIM and LEED sophistication, and willingness to abide by a “true” IPD agreement. But another factor was their proposal to allocate fees and incentives within the fixed project budget. Three major subcontractors were also selected early and included in the risk/reward structure.

Shared Risk/Reward

The contract establishes an Incentive Compensation Layer (ICL) in which the architects’ and builders’ anticipated profit is put at risk. If specific goals are met, designers and builders receive their normal profit, but jointly, not separately. If they are exceeded in measurable ways the firms are eligible for additional compensation. The ICL could adjust from minus 20% to plus 20% depending on whether project goals were met or exceeded.

Multi-Party Contract

The Integrated Project Delivery Agreement (IPDA) is a three-way contract between the owner, the architect and the builder. Each party’s success is directly tied to the performance of the others. Distinct roles and responsibilities are delineated in contract language and in a “responsibility matrix.” Major subcontractors (mechanical/fire protection, electrical, and drywall) were also brought in to the agreement, worked at cost, and shared in the incentive program.

Collaborative Decision Making/Control

By contract, three levels of collaborative teams were established to manage the project. A Project Implementation Team (PIT) was set up to handle the day-to-day issues of the project. The composition of the PIT included project participants whose work at any given time could impact the project’s outcome. A Project Management Team (PMT) with representation of the owner, architect, and builder, was established to manage the project and make decisions by consensus. If issues arose that could not be resolved by the PMT they were taken to a higher level for final resolution: a Senior Management Team, (SMT) again with representation of the three principal parties.

Liability Waivers Among Key Participants:

The parties waived all claims against each other except those arising from fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence. Disputes were to be resolved by mediation or, if necessary, arbitration. Each party was required to maintain typical insurance but with the provision that policies be amended so that no right of subrogation (the ability to gain the rights belonging to one party against a third party who caused a loss) existed against the other partners.

Jointly Developed/Validated Targets:

The contract spelled out specific criteria that would be used to judge success. These included schedule and budget, sustainability, quality of craftsmanship, functionality, and design quality. Owner, architect, and builder jointly selected three comparable projects in the Boston area to serve as benchmarks against which these goals would be measured. It was agreed – after some hesitation from the team – that an independent evaluator (in this case an architecture professor) would be the arbiter of how successfully the project met the design quality criteria. There was a scorecard and the process was made as objective as possible.