Moving from Design-Build, DB, to Integrated Project Delivery, IPD

Providing the opportunity for the kind of collaboration that the construction industry so badly needs….

Design-Build has a spectrum, ranging from almost as dysfunctional …. all the way to almost as collaborative as Integrated Project Delivery.

Shifting Design-Build toward IPD

This blog entry was co-authored by Oscia Wilson and Lisa Dal Gallo

We are big proponents of Design-Build because it places designers and builders in the same room, thus providing the opportunity for the kind of collaboration that the construction industry so badly needs.  Opportunity for collaboration, however, is not the same as a guarantee of collaboration.  Design-Build has a spectrum, ranging from almost as dysfunctional as Design-Bid-Build all the way to almost as collaborative as Integrated Project Delivery.

Design Build continuum

Figure 1: Depending on how the Design-Build structure is implemented, a project can be nearly identical to an IPD structure or very dysfunctional

On the left of this spectrum, you have those Design-Build projects that use bridging documents, lowest bidder selection, and a team that doesn’t work well together.  Although the builders are contractually combined with the architect of record, these projects are not collaborative, let alone integrated.

Owners, this is bad for you.  The biggest problem with this model is that when you have an architect prepare bridging documents, you’ve just made all the big decisions without the input of the building team.  Since 80% of the cost decisions are made during the first 20% of the design, you’ve just cheated yourself out of the biggest source of potential savings that come from collaboration between the contractors and the designers.

On top of that, now you’ve divided your design team into two groups: the architects who did the bridging documents, and the architects who finish the project.  This creates knowledge transfer loss, inefficiencies due to effort repetition, and prevents the second architect from holding a sense of ownership over the design.

In addition, if your selection is based solely on price, the Design-Build team will price exactly what is on the bridging documents; there is no incentive for the team to engage in target value design.  This situation could be improved by offering an incentive through savings participation, but that kind of aggressive innovation requires a high functioning team.  If the selection was based on lowest bid, the team may be too dysfunctional to achieve real gains because the lowest prices generally come from the least experienced and least savvy of the potential participants.  Often in these settings, cost savings are achieved at the expense of quality design, as general contractors under great pressure to achieve aggressive cost savings revert to treating architects and engineers as venders instead of partners.

For owners who want intimate involvement in the process, Design-Build based on low bidding offers another disadvantage.  In order for the Design-Build team to deliver for that low price you were so excited about, they have no choice but to ruthlessly cut you out of the process.  They are carrying so much risk that they can’t afford any of the potential interference, delay, or scope escalation that comes from involving a client in the back-room discussions.

If you have a team that works well together, you move farther to the right on the spectrum.

If you hire the design-build team based on good scoping documents instead of bridging documents, you move farther to the right on the spectrum.  (Partial bridging documents may be a good compromise for public owners whose process requires a bridging step.)

Starting somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, you start seeing successful projectsA successful, collaborative Design-Build project is light years ahead of Design-Bid-Build.

Some projects are pushing the envelope so far that their Design-Build projects look very similar to Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).  Lisa Dal Gallo, a partner at Hanson Bridgett is an expert in IPD and partially integrated projects, including how to modify a Design-Build structure to get very close to an IPD model.  She recently discussed this topic at both the San Diego and Sacramento chapters of the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA). The discussion was mainly to assist public owners who have design-build capability to improve upon their delivery, but same principles apply to private owners who may not be in the position to engage in a fully integrated process through an IPD delivery method.

Several recent and current projects in California are operating on the far right side of this Design-Build collaboration spectrum, by crafting a custom version of Design-Build that uses IPD principles.  Here’s how they’re doing it:

  • Skipping the Bridging Documents. Instead of using bridging documents as the basis for bidding, owners are creating scoping criteria or partial bridging documents that provide performance and owner requirements, but allow the design team to collaborate on the design and present their own concept to achieve the owner’s goals. Under this type of scenario, the design-build teams would typically be prequalified and then no more than 3 teams would be solicited to participate in design competition.The team is usually selected based on best value.  After engagement, the owner and end users work with the team through the scoping phase and set the price.
  • Integrating the Design-Build entity internally
    • To assist in a change in behavior, the general contractor and major players like architect, engineers, MEP subs, and structural subs can pool a portion of their profit, proportionally, sharing in the gains or pains inflicted based on the project outcome.
    • Through downstream agreements, the major team players can also agree to waive certain liabilities against each other.
    • They enter into a BIM Agreement and share information freely, using BIM to facilitate target value design and a central server to allow full information transparency.
  • Partially integrating with the owner.  The owner can play an active role, participating in design and management meetings.

The extent to which the owner is integrated with the design/build team is a subtle—but crucial—point of differentiation between an extremely collaborative form of Design-Build (which I suggest we call “Integrated Design-Build”) and Integrated Project Delivery.

Here is the crux of the biscuit: Under an IPD model, the owner actually shares in the financial risks and rewards associated with meeting the budget and schedule[1].  Therefore, they are part of the team and get to fully participate in back-of-house discussions and see how the sausage is made.

Under Design-Build, even an Integrated version of Design-Build, the design-build entity is carrying all the financial risk for exceeding a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and/or schedule, so they deserve to collect all the potential reward if they can figure out how to bring it in faster and cheaper.  Since the owner’s risk for cost and schedule is substantially reduced when the project uses a GMP, the owner doesn’t really deserve a spot at the table once they’ve finished clearly communicating their design and performance criteria (which is what the scoping documents are for).

It can be an awkward thing trying to incorporate a client who wants to be involved, while making sure that client doesn’t request anything above and beyond what is strictly communicated in the scoping documents upon which the GMP is based.

So the key differences between this Integrated Design-Build and full Integrated Project Delivery are:

  • The contract model (a multi-party agreement between Owner, Architect and Contractor vs. an agreement between owner and usually the contractor)

  • The level of owner participation in the decision making process

  • The fee structure and certain waivers of liability (shared risk) between the owner and the other key project team members.

Delivery model diagrams

Figure 2: Traditional design-build is hierarchical in nature. An integrated design-build model is collaborative in nature (but only partially integrates with the owner). An IPD model is fully collaborative with the owner and may or may not include consultants and sub-contractors inside the circle of shared risk & reward, depending on the project.

The IPD contract form of agreement is aimed at changing behaviors, and its contractual structure exists to prompt, reward, and reinforce those behavior changes.  However, full scale IPD is not right for every owner or project; it is another tool in a team’s tool box.  The owner and its consultants and counsel should determine the best delivery method for the project and proceed accordingly.  The important thing to remember is that any delivery model can be adapted to be closer to the ideal collaborative model by making certain critical changes.  What is one thing you might change on your next project to prompt better collaboration?

[1] Under IPD, a Target Cost is set early (similar to a GMP).  If costs exceed that target, it comes out of the design & construction team’s profits.  But if costs go so high that the profit pool is exhausted, the owner picks up the rest of the costs.  If costs are lower than the target, the owner and the team split the savings.

Lisa Dal Gallo

Lisa Dal Gallo is a Partner at Hanson Bridgett, LLP, specializing in assisting clients in determining the best project delivery method to achieve the teams’ goals, developing creative deal structures that encourage use of collaborative and integrated delivery processes and drafting contracts in business English.  She is the founder of California Women in Design + Construction (“CWDC”), a member of the AIA Center for Integrated Practice and the AIA California Counsel IPD Steering Committee, and a LEED AP.  Lisa can be reached at 415-995-5188 or by email at




Oscia Wilson headshotOscia Wilson, AIA, MBA is the founder of Boiled Architecture.  After working on complex healthcare facility projects, she became convinced that Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) was key to optimizing construction project delivery.  She founded Boiled Architecture to practice forms of Integrated and highly collaborative project delivery.  She serves on the AIA California Council’s committee on IPD.

via – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software ( JOC, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA… featuring an exclusively enhanced 400,000 line RSMeans Cost database with line item modifiers and full descriptions and integrated visual estimating/QTO, contract/project/document management, and world class support and training!

Job Order Contracting – JOC – is a proven form of IPD which targets renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction, while IPD targets major new construction.

IPD - Integrated Project Delivery and JOC - Job Order Contracting
IPD – Integrated Project Delivery and JOC – Job Order Contracting
JOC Process
JOC Process

BIM graphic #6

BIM Objects, Data, and Information – More than a 3D Pretty Picture – Soooo Much More!

A picture paints a thousand words,

but never underestimate the power of text

(Adapted from Source:

Stefan Mordue, Technical Author and Architect

BIM objects are much more than just graphical representations. Using them as placeholder to connect to a wider source of information provides for a powerful and rich source of information. 

‘Author it once, and in the right place; report it many times’

Information in the Building Information Model (BIM) comes from a variety of sources, such as 3D visualization tools ( Autodesk Revit or Nemetschek Vectorworks, Archicad, Bentley Systems …) as well as cost estimating, computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), capital planning and management systems (CPMS), geographical information systems (GIS), building automation systems (GIS),  model checkers and specification software.

All BIM objects have properties, and most also have geometries (although some do not, for example a paint finish). To avoid duplication, information should be both structured and coordinated. 

Some information is more appropriately located in the ‘geometrical’ part of the BIM object while other information is more suited to the ‘properties’ part, such as the specification. The specification is part of the project BIM, and objects live in the specification.   In traditional documentation we would ‘say it once, and in the right place’, however with BIM, we want to ‘author it once, and in the right place, to be able to report it many times’.

Figure 1: Appropriate location of information

Figure 1: Appropriate location of information

‘A picture paints a thousand words, but never underestimate the power of text’

Let’s take an analogy of a BIM object representing a simple cavity wall. The object will tell us the width of the brickwork and height of the wall. However at a certain point in the project cycle it is the written word that is needed to take us to a deeper level of information. It is within a textual context that we describe the length, height and depth of the brick. It is words that are used to describe the mortar joint and wall ties.

BIM objects are as much about the embedded data and information as they are about the spaces and dimensions that they represent graphically.

It is this connection to a wider source of information that really empowers the object, making it a rich source of information. Think of BIM objects if you will as a ‘place holder’ – not only a physical representation of the real life physical properties of the said object but also a home for non-graphical information such as performance criteria, physical and functional condition data, life-cycle data, detailed and current cost data (materials, equipment, and labor),  and operational information.

‘A new generation of specifiers is being empowered by BIM. We can begin to specify at a much earlier stage in the process’

Specifications were once undertaken by the specification expert, often once the detail design was completed. A new generation of specifiers is being empowered by BIM. We can begin to specify at a much earlier stage in the process.

In reality “specifiers” are now a team of stakeholders – Owners, Contactors, Subs, AE’s, Oversight Groups ….

By connecting the BIM object to an NBS Create specification, a direct link can be made to NBS technical guidance and standards, at the point where the designer most needs them. For example,  if the designer is a subscriber to the Construction Information Service (CIS), then any technical documents cited in the specification that are available can be downloaded instantly.

Figure 2: NBS Revit tool bar

Figure 2: NBS Revit tool bar

‘We have recently integrated geometric BIM objects with the corresponding NBS Create specification clauses to achieve a greater connection between the two’

BIM and BIM workflows are consistently being refined and updated as they become more commonplace and as standards and protocols emerge.   While we can never solve all coordination issues, we hope to improve coordination by linking databases, objects and eventually coordinate key property sets.

Traditionally, a value that was represented on a drawing may not correctly corresponded with the value within the specification simply due to a ‘typo’. An example being where a ’60 minute fire door’ has been recorded on the drawing but has been recorded as ’90 minutes fire rating’ within the specification. Aside from this coordination debate, practices will also need to decide and establish office policies on where information is recorded. While the specification system has detailed guidance and links to standards, regulations and suggested values, geometric BIM software has great visualization analysis and instance scheduling functionality.

Figure 3: Connection to a wider source of information empowers the object

Figure 3: Connection to a wider source of information empowers the object

At present, the NBS National BIM Library objects are classified using both the draft Uniclass 2 Work result code and the System name to give a deeper link between the object and specification. The NBS National BIM Library contains a number of objects that connect at a ‘product’ level (e.g. hand driers, baths, individual doorsets) while others work at a ‘system’ level (e.g. cubicle, partition, door and signage systems). Yet other objects are at an ‘element’ level (i.e. made up of a number of systems) such as external walls.

Following a period of industry consultation, Uniclass 2 is now being finalized for publication during 2013. Classification of content in the National BIM Library and NBS Create will then be updated.

National BIM Library Parameters

NBSReference NBS section/clause number 45-35-72/334
NBSDescription The full description of an object Hand driers
NBSNote Where a second system which is related to the BIM object can be described =[Blank]
NBSTypeID A reference to the object for the user if one or more is used with the project
Help URL of a website where additional help notes are available
Uniclass2 Uniclass2 Product Pr-31-76-36
IssueDate The issue date of the object 2012-12-06
Version The version of the object 1.1

A hand drier is an example of an object that links nicely to an associated product clause (NBSReference=45-35-72/334). Using tools such as NBS Create and the NBS Revit plug in tool, the corresponding product will automatically be captured; it can then be used to enrich the object with information such as power rating and noise levels.

A doorset is an example of an object that maps beautifully to an NBS Create System outline clause. For example using WR 25-50-20/120 Doorset System, we can then specify system performance, component and accessory products (e.g. glazing type, fasteners and threshold strips) as well as execution.

Certain NBS National BIM Library objects are at an ‘element level’ where they comprise a number of systems. In this situation we give a primary work results classification, the NBSReference. In addition, to help the user, we add the Uniclass 2 element code in an extra parameter field.

The following example is a Unit wall element comprising 100 mm thick stone, 100 mm mineral wool insulation batts and 100 mm concrete block, lined with 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard on 25 mm dabs.

WR 25-10-55/123 ‘External multiple leaf wall above damp proof course masonry system’ has been used for the primary reference. From this System outline we can specify the stone facing, insulation and concrete block, together with DPC, lintels, mortar, cavity closers (which all in turn have product codes). A further system outline, WR 25-85-45/140 Gypsum board wall lining system, is given, from which the lining can be specified.

‘This year will mark the 40th anniversary of the launch of NBS and we are now seeing project information being coordinated through intelligent objects’

An object could potentially relate to two different systems. An example of this would be a rainscreen cladding object. The following example is an aluminium cassette panel rainscreen system with metal frame, weather barrier, insulation, concrete block and plasterboard lining. This particular system could be either a ‘Drained and back ventilated rain screen cladding system’ 25-80-70/120 or a ‘Pressure equalized rain screen cladding system’ 25-80-70/160. The detail which would differentiate between the two is not shown in the geometric object itself but rather in the detail that would be found within the specification. When used in conjunction with the NBS plug-in tool, you are presented with the option to select the most appropriate system, and then to specify it to the appropriate level of detail.

Figure 4: Technology is enabling better processes and connection

Figure 4: Technology is enabling better processes and connection

We are now beginning to see project information being coordinated through intelligent objects.  The classification system, structure of data and technology are enabling better processes and will allow us to move a step closer towards full collaborative BIM.

via – Leading cost estimating and efficient project delivery software  solutions for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, BOS … featuring and exclusively enhanced 400,000 line item RSMeans Cost Database, visual estimating / automatic quantity take off ( QTO), contract, project, and document management, all in one application.

Construction Disruption – BIM, Cloud Computing, and Efficient Project Delivery Methods

By Peter Cholakis
Published in the March 2013 issue of Today’s Facility Manager

Emergent disruptive technologies and construction delivery methods are altering both the culture and day-to-day practices of the construction, renovation, repair, and sustainability of the built environment. Meanwhile, a shifting economic and environmental landscape dictates significantly improved efficiencies relative to these facility related activities. This is especially important to any organization dependent upon its facilities and infrastructure to support and maintain its core mission.

The disruptive digital technologies of building information modeling (BIM) and cloud computing, combined with emergent collaborative construction delivery methods are poised to alter the status quo, ushering in increased levels of collaboration and transparency. A disruptive technology is one that alters the very fabric of a business process or way of life, displacing whatever previously stood in its place. BIM and cloud computing fit the profile of disruptive technologies, individually, and when combined these stand to create a tidal wave of change.

BIM is the life cycle management of the built environment, supported by digital technology. While a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon 3D visualization, this is just a component of BIM. The shift from a “first cost mentality” to a life cycle cost or total cost of ownership is a huge change for many. Improving decision making practices and applying standardized terms, metrics, and cost data can also prove challenging. An understanding and integration of the associated knowledge domains important to life cycle management is required, resulting in what is now being referred to as “big data.”

Cloud computing is also a disruptive technology, and it’s one that impacts several areas. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of cloud computing is as follows, “Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. The cloud model is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.”

It is perhaps helpful to define cloud computing in terms of its benefits. Cloud computing enables far greater levels of collaboration, transparency, and information access previously unavailable by traditional client/server, database, or even prior generation web applications. Multiple users can work on the same data set with anyone, anywhere, anytime, in multicurrency, multilanguage environments. All changes can be tracked to “who did what” within seconds (potentially the best form of security available), and information is never deleted.

The disruptive technologies of BIM and cloud computing will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods and foster new frameworks. Design-bid-build, the traditional construction delivery method for decades, is inherently flawed. As a lowest bid deployment it immediately sets up adversarial relationships for involved parties. Owners prepare a solicitation for construction projects based on their understanding of them1, with or without third-party A/E assistance, and in most cases they go out in search of the lowest bidder. Then without a thorough understanding of the owner’s facility, bidders base their responses on the owner’s solicitation, plans, and specifications. Owners typically allow a period of time for bidders’ questions and clarifications; but the quality of this interchange is at best questionable if based solely on a written scope, plans and specifications, and/or a meeting with suppliers.

Design-build, arguably a step in right direction, falls short of bringing all stakeholders together. More responsibility of design and construction is shifted to the contractor and/or A/E. However, the dual level participation structure doesn’t assure the interests of all parties are equally addressed. Furthermore, the design-build process is typically reserved for major new construction projects versus the numerous sustainability, repair, renovation projects, and minor new construction projects typically encountered by facility managers (fms).

Because BIM brings together previously disparate information into a framework that enables decision support, using the technology requires a collaborative construction delivery method. The integration of the domain knowledge and robust processes required to allow fms, A/Es, and other stakeholders to achieve heightened levels of information sharing and collaboration is enabled by methods that include Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Job Order Contracting (JOC).

Key characteristics of these emergent construction delivery methods include: choices based on best value; some form of pricing transparency; early and ongoing information sharing among project stakeholders; appropriate distribution of risk; and some form of financial incentive to drive performance.

Both IPD and JOC allow, if not require, owner cost estimators and project managers to “partner” with contractors, subcontractors, and A/Es to conceptualize, create, cost, prioritize, start, and report upon projects—in the very early phases of construction.

IPD, JOC, and Simplified Acquisition of Base Civil Engineering Requirements (SABER)—the U.S. Air Force term for applying JOC practices—are practiced simultaneously by a growing number of organizations and supported by digital technologies. These construction delivery processes are embedded within software to allow for rapid, cost-effective, and consistent deployment as well as the associated level of collaboration and transparency.

BIM and cloud computing are disruptive technologies that will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods such as IPD and JOC. Construction delivery methods set the tone and level of interaction among project participants and can be viewed as the management process framework. When supported by BIM and cloud computing, the life cycle management of the built environment, and the associated management of big data, can be expected to become commonplace for many construction projects.

1303 profdev a 150x150 Professional Development: Construction Disruption


Cholakis is chief marketing officer for 4Clicks Solutions, LLC, a Colorado Springs, CO provider of cost estimating and project management software. With expertise in facilities life cycle costs and total cost of ownership in various market segments, he is involved in numerous industry associations and committees including the American Society of Safety Engineers, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Society of American Military Engineers, BIM Library Committee-National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), and National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee.

1 “The Art of Thinking Outside the Box;” Vince Duobinis; 2008.

NIBS – Building Innovation 2013 Conference

I am writing this from Washington, D.C. while participating in the NIBS Building Innovation 2013 Conference.   The buildingSMART alliance conference is part of this gathering under the title “Integrating BIM: Moving the Industry Forward.”

BIM education and practice requires focus upon process and associated return-on-investment.   Robust communication and adoption of standard and/or “best practice” construction planning and delivery methods specific to efficient life-cycle management of the built environment are sorely needed.

It is amazing that Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and “IPD-lite”… the latter being Job Order Contracting and SABER which are forms of IPD specifically for renovation, repair, sustainability and minor new construction…  are not being brought to the forefront as critical aspects of BIM.    It is the construction planning and project delivery method that sets the tone of any project and ultimately dictate relationships and associated successes or failures.

Collaboration, transparency, and performance-based win-win relationships are necessary components of a BIM-based philosophy.  Yet, these and other critical aspects; including  defensible, accurate, and transparent cost estimating and standardized construction cost data architectures, are neither in  forefront of current thinking nor receiving an adequate allocation of resources.


Far too much emphasis continues to be place on the 3d visualization component aspect of BIM, IFC format pros and cons, and other “technology” areas.


Technology is NOT what is holding back BIM, it is the apparent lack of understanding of … and associated failure to adopt … facility life-cycle management processes… combined and what can only be described as a pervasive “not invented here” attitude.

Many of of our peers are reinventing the wheel over and over again at tremendous cost to all stakeholders…Owners, AEs, Contractors, Subs, Oversight Groups, Building Users, Building Product Manufacturers, …not to mention our Economy and our Environment, vs. sharing information and working toward common goals.

Where will BIM / Efficient Life-cycle Management Supported by Digital Technology Be in Five Years

A workshop with members from the BIM Academy, NBS, and various other was recently held to postulate on this topic.

As one might expect topics encompassed;  design, procurement, policy and standards, technology, education and culture, success to date, areas for innovation, challenges, and barriers to adoption.

As facilities costs are second only to personal/labor costs for most organizations, the need for breadth, consistency and transparency of BUILDING INFORMATION to understand, articulate, prioritize, and act upon requirements is readily apparent.    Information must be timely, accurate, transparent, actionable,  traceable, and shared collaboratively.

Change management is a requirement, and those adapt will excel, those that do not will fall behind.

A core, yet perhaps obvious observation was that ” There is a growing realization of the importance of data structure, quality and transferability, rather than geometry alone. We need to stop talking less about “the model” and more about “the data”.
“One participant noted a recent US comparative diagram mapping CAD adoption in the 1980s and recent BIM adoption. The trajectory has been much more rapid for BIM, however from recent discussions with US practitioners it appears the US is advanced in geometric, spatial and visual BIM uses but progress in the productive use of structured data, particularly into the operational phase, seems to be falling behind the UK.”

BIM management is misunderstood by some clients who regard it as purely a technological challenge which can be simply be solved by a software purchase and training, others are intimidated by a perceived complex restructuring of management processes. The truth lies somewhere between and follow the principles of Latham – get the process right before you think of the technology.

The role of IPD (Integrated Project Design) and JOC (Job Order Contracting) will become even more important.  It was also noted that collaborative working doesn’t necessarily demand multidisciplinary organizations. There is a balance to be struck between the efficiency gained from freshness and innovation often achieved from different organizations coming to together on a project basis and working collaboratively, however traditional  disjointed methods of procurement common in industry, such as design-bid-build or even design-build or CMAR do not fully encourage this.  IPD and JOC, the later a form of IPD for facility renovation, repair, and construction are proven methods of developing long term,  win-win multi-party relationships. “It’s crucial to get the right people involved early enough and understanding what outcomes they need from the start.”, and both IPD and JOC enforce this behavior.

Perhaps most importantly the topic of education rose front and center:

“It was agreed that this community also needs to escape from its silos. Some universities are starting to adopt a multidisciplinary curriculum supported by BIM, but this needs to become the standard not the exception. “Why not have a combined construction degree with final years dedicated to a specific discipline and practical work experience in between?””

BIM ( Building Information Modeling ), Cloud-computing, Changement Management, and Architecture, Engineering, and Construction – III

Cloud-computing will have a much more significant impact upon how the built environment is managed than 3D visualization.   Information drives  cost savings and higher efficiency.  How and when we access information will forever alter day-to-day and strategic business practices for Owners, AEs, Contractors, SubContractors, Business Product Manufacturers, Building Users, Oversight Groups, and the Community.

BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment support by digital technology.

Currently, the efficient life-cycle management of the built environment is being retarded by several factors:

  • Existence of data silos;
  • Organizational/professional cultures;
  • Reliance archaic construction delivery methods (design-build-build, vs. IPD, JOC), and
  • Poor life-cycle management knowledge transfer.

Most disconcerting is that,  in most cases, methods for gathering and working on significantly enhanced tactical and strategic facility life-cycle management practices are readily available.   Primary failures and relative lack of progress relative to BIM occur due to lack of  applying information to resolve planning, resource allocation, and execution in a timely, collaborative manner.  Cloud computing uniquely addresses all of these important issues.

Data silos evolved from improper higher education and professional training practices, inefficient and adversarial construction delivery methods, as well as piecemeal  IT procurement policies.

Traditional data processing systems and application specific software solutions were confined by the high cost of memory and storage.  Memory, storage, and processing power are now relatively inexpensive, to the extent that they are mathematically approaching zero.  As a result Internet massive scale storage, search, and processing paradigms are rapidly becoming commonplace.  That said, Excel and similar spreadsheet-centric programs, and even  relational database technology are not up to the task of accessing and working upon data fast enough.

Cloud computing however enables the searching and use of massive data sets in milliseconds.  Additionally real-time, multi-point collaborative access is securely enabled by cloud computing.   In short, cloud computing eliminates the need for data silos.

Moving the currently disparate knowledge domain AECOO (Architecture Engineering, Construction, Owner, Operations) practices into a collaborative process, and shifting information access to an earlier point within the construction project planning process are also enabled by cloud computing and associated “newer” construction delivery methods (Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and Job Order Contracting – JOC).      Former  time-line and silo restricted aspects of present day-to-day AECOO business practices stand to be vaporized by the precision search and analytic capabilities of modern  cloud computing.    Cloud computing is a highly standardized and virtualized commodity infrastructure, when combined with with standardized terms, cost data architectures, and similar generalized information hierarchies  enables real-time continuous processing of open digital document/ information flow.

Fear that cloud computing will reduce the importance of Architects, Cost Estimators, Construction Managers, and other related profession is unfounded.  Certainly inter-relationships and roles will evolve, however for those that are receptive, capabilities and potential within each profession will be expanded.

Building Information Modeling Framework
The Evolution of AECOO Technology

BIM Strategy, Change Management, and Education – Architects

Problem #1? – “While engineering and construction management might legitimately (but also might not, as will be discussed) have efficiency as their primary goal, architectural design does not; what distinguishes architecture from mere building and architects from developers and contractors is the concern for aesthetics and design quality

Problem #2? – “The BIM process offers the opportunity for cross-disciplinary contamination without sacrificing design emphasis. How to blend engineering student input with architecture student design input so each group learns equally from the other and high quality design outcomes ar……”

Problem#3 – “However the nature of architectural idea generation is a delicate process, which does not always benefit from early and quantitatively rigorous engineering analysis.”

Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Impact on Design Quality
Madis Pihlak1*, Peggy Deamer2, Robert Holland3, Ute Poerschke3, John Messner4 and Kevin Parfitt5
1School of Visual Arts, Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape, Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA
2School of Architecture, Yale University Principal, Deamer Architects, USA
3Department of Architecture, Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape, Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA
4Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Penn State, USA
5Executive director, Consortium for the Advancement of Building Sciences, Department of Architectural Engineering College of Engineering, Penn State, USA
*Corresponding author: Madis Pihlak
School of Visual Arts
Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape
Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA
Received November 09, 2011; Accepted December 15, 2011; Published December 20, 2011
Citation: Pihlak M, Deamer P, Holland R, Poerschke U, Messner J, et al. (2011) Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Impact on Design Quality. J Architec Engg Technol 1:101. doi:10.4172/jaet.1000101
Copyright: © 2011 Pihlak M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The integrated studios in which architecture students are paired with engineering and construction manager students works on the assumption that the common denominator-BIM-is a tool of equal meaning and value to all. This is not the case: each discipline has its own values, procedures, and protocols that bend BIM to its own needs. When these differences are not recognized, design, which has traditionally been the province of architecture, gets short shrift. The BIM process offers the opportunity for cross-disciplinary contamination without sacrificing design emphasis. How to blend engineering student input with architecture student design input so each group learns equally from the other and high quality design outcomes are empowered rather than diminished will be discussed.
The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) procedures and the consequent earlier and more collaborative interdisciplinary design workflow is changing the nature of architectural design idea generation. The pre-BIM workflow usually consisted of a patient and sometimes solitary search for meaningful architectural form, to an interactive multi-disciplinary group activity where mechanical, structural, electrical, lighting and construction engineers and landscape architects are involved in evaluating and proposing changes to early architectural design ideas and concepts.
The ability to recognize the differences between AECO cultures – and hence, architecture with its design thrust – isn’t helped by the fact that efficiency and cost-effectiveness are the banner under which the different disciplines mutually latch onto BIM. While engineering and construction management might legitimately (but also might not, as will be discussed) have efficiency as their primary goal, architectural design does not; what distinguishes architecture from mere building and architects from developers and contractors is the concern for aesthetics and design quality. One could argue that efficiency (in particular in material and energy use as well as operations) should be a criterion of architectural design, but certainly not the only (or perhaps even the most important one). Without emotional and aesthetic impact a building is not architecture. Without consideration and achievement of a certain amount of efficiency or function, there is a real risk that a piece of architecture is a building with an unhappy client. Such unhappy clients may turn to design/build entities (usually lead by contractors or engineers) as a way to get what they perceive as better architectural results. It is our architectural position that the BIM workflow has the potential to positively impact the creation of meaningful architecture. However the nature of architectural idea generation is a delicate process, which does not always benefit from early and quantitatively rigorous engineering analysis. Of course early engineering input can greatly aid the creative development of the architectural design concept. Herein lays the core position of this paper. The BIM workflow shows great promise. Precisely when and how engineering analysis should be brought to bear on the architectural idea will be discussed.
Having said this, BIM challenges many of the tenants of traditional “good” design practice, and the manner in which BIM adjusts the process of design needs to be understood, agreed upon, and secured. The unchartered territory has to do with a number of things: BIM software’s general awkwardness with non-orthogonal designs; its potential for collaboration (in the case espoused here, between architecture students and engineering student designers); its ability to conceive/insistence on constructability; the immediacy with which it integrates design decisions with 2-D and 3-D representational output; its access to and limitation of its library of elements.
The things in this list that limit ones design repertoire will, for some, be the reason to shun BIM and/or wait for Revit and other BIM software to become more adroit. But this strategy puts design in a passive position, waiting for change/perfection instead of participating in its technically and culturally unfolding context.
It is for this reason that, if one is concerned about the quality of design while working in a BIM environment, each discipline might explore the potential for BIM individually. This is not to say that at a point in the future, or at a more advanced stage of a designer’s education, the inter-disciplinary collaborative potential of BIM should be denied; only that the delicacy of design, for now, needs attention as it moves into unchartered territory.
BIM Studio Examples
While this position of design delicacy affects design strategies in practice, it more directly implies pedagogical tactics in the academy. How does one introduce BIM in schools of architecture as well as schools/programs of building management, landscape architecture, engineering, and other AECO academies, in a manner that supports design? In this regard, it is fruitful to examine studios that variously explore the location of design as it adjusts to the protocols for BIM. Three such studios provide interesting and contrasting examples: the Penn Studio led by Robert Holland, with Ute Poerschke, Madis Pihlak, John Messner and Kevin Parfitt. Columbia University’s Building Intelligence Project (C-BIP) led by Scott Marble, David Benjamin, Laura Kurgan; and the University of Texas, Austin core studio led by Danelle Briscoe. These studios explore the location of design in differing ways, from the most inter-disciplinary example to the most architecture-centric, and offer interesting lessons regarding the status of design.
The penn state interdisciplinary collaborative BIM studio
In a prototype Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio at Penn State, some fifth year and graduate architecture and landscape architecture students worked in multi-disciplinary teams with fourth year architectural engineering students from four different engineering disciplines. (structural, mechanical systems, lighting electrical and construction engineering) This prototype BIM studio has occurred each spring term from 2009 through 2011 [1]. (This BIM studio is currently being integrated into the curricula of all six disciplines as a regularly scheduled alternative design studio). In this studio, three teams of students – each made up of an architect, a landscape architect, and the four types of engineers – were given the same real design project, the “reality” of the project (which is to say, one that was slated to be built) making apparent the multiplicity of players that have input into the making of a project[2]. Each BIM team developed their design project through group meetings outside of studio time and with desk critiques with each of the five faculties. Since for the first two years of the BIM studio only Robert Holland, the Professor in Charge, was given administrative/teaching credit for the class and the other four faculties taught pro bono, not all faculty attended each studio session for desk critiques. On a three week schedule there were formal design juries where all five faculty and invited administrators and real project design, engineering and client participants actively critiqued the student design and engineering proposals. Design quality and overall aesthetic impact, high functioning creative teams and software integration were major focus areas of the BIM studio. BIM workflows and the interoperability of the various software were of necessary concern. The architecture students used Revit, Sketchup, AutoCAD, Ecotect and 3D Studio, while the landscape architect student experimented with Vectorworks Designer, Revit and AutoCAD Land Desktop. The engineering students used Revit MEP, Navisworks(4D and Clash Detection), Timberline (cost estimating), GBS (energy modeling), RAM (structural), Project and Primavera. Learning workshops with Vasari (Beta software) were also conducted with Autodesk representatives throughout the term.
With such a complete engineering contingent and only one architect and one landscape architect on each BIM team there was a concern for productive and creative group dynamics. For each of the first two years Professor Sam Hunter of the Penn State Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department led a team of Grad students to study the functioning of the creative design teams. The most interesting finding was that the teams that were able to manage a certain degree of conflict lead to the most innovative architectural, landscape architectural and engineering solutions. The BIM teams that strived to minimize conflict produced the least innovative designs. Dr. Hunter’s team also found that stressing the equality of expertise of each of the student discipline areas lead to the development of the most creative learning environment. The importance of each of the student expertise areas to actively promote their area and then to be mature enough to compromise when necessary lead to the best solutions. Again, too much compromise lead to less than optimal design solutions. Finding the balance of just the right amount of conflict proved to be one of the determinants of a successful creative design solution.
In comparison to the traditional architectural studio, early engineering and landscape architecture advice to aid in the development of an architectural design concept sped the design process. Likewise, the collaboration between the designers – landscape and architecture – and the engineers was productive when two conditions were met: when the designers were strong and confident and when the engineers were flexible enough to fly with the non-linear creative process. But in the other cases, the designers floundered with the need to explain their sometimes poorly developed design concepts to four different types of engineers. Either the designers felt the need to absorb the logic of the engineers (which they cannot be blamed for doing poorly) or the engineers could use their quantitative abilities (so much more justifiable than the subject product in of design) to overwhelm the formation of a concept (Figure 1,2,3).
Figure 1: Robert Holland Associate Professor, Architecture and Architectural Engineering leading BIM studio students in a discussion in the Stuckeman Center, Stuckeman School, Penn State.
Figure 2: Students of six different disciplines present their project to invited guests form practice and academia.
Figure 3: Digital models used in a project by different disciplines (from top left to bottom right): coordinated model, construction scheduling, structural analysis, energy analysis, coordination of structure and mechanical systems, architectural models.
The Penn State Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio has won a NCARB Award (2011), an ACSA Award (2010) and a National AIA Award (2009).
Columbia university C-BIP
This fourth semester studio in a 3-year MArch program, as student’s transition from the core sequence into advanced studios, combines three traditional studios (hence the three instructors) and employs outside consultants from environmental studies and engineering. In addition, the studio builds on the ideas, expertise, and suggestions coming from the “Think Tank” symposiums that include all the players of the AECO industry as they gather around BIM capabilities. As the brief says, “The single critic/single student/single project model of architectural education can no longer address the design potential found in the complexity of projects or the increasing role that collaboration will play in future practice.” The students are given existing buildings to modify for environmental updating. In the first phase, students are asked to design components or “Elements”, designed in CATIA and documented with a design manual that can be attached to the building’s skin roof, or ground plane and will adjust the building’s environmental performance. These components form a library of elements available to all students in the studio in the second phase, in which the students form groups and establish their “Integrated Building Strategies,” consisting of combining and synthesizing elements from the first stage library into a parametric building solution. These strategies, like the Elements, are intended to be flexible and reusable. Because the Elements can be adjusted to the new groups’ concept/strategy only by the original author, who has to be responsive to the request for modification while adhering to the parameters that initiated its creation, collaboration happens in two ways: the original Element author adjusting his/her element according to new demands and each student participating in a team that forms its Strategy for building performance renovation. The final project is thus a collaboration of various authors who maintain an individual sense of authorship while taking advantage of the wisdom of many.
In comparison to the Penn State Architecture/Architectural Engineering Integrated Studio, the Columbia architecture students utilized the information of the non-architecture AECO industries via the consultants attending the Think Tanks and the studio, leaving intact the design-specific method of architects. However, much else challenged the nature of traditional design methodologies: the collaboration and sharing between architects; the inability at all stages of starting from scratch, since the program was on existing buildings, the Elements had to function according to environmental criterion, and the eventual Strategies were compilations of ideas/forms generated by the elements. The strongest projects at the Element level were those that did not forget all of the other things beyond function and adaptability that make good design: appropriate scale of solution to problem; scalability in general; elegance; context. Likewise, the input of environmental and structural engineering, made the performance –driven nature of this problem richer, but did not determine for better or worse the quality of design; it merely changed its content.
The austin/briscoe studio
This studio, taken concurrently with a Visual Communication course, was offered for 1st and 2nd year students who are taking the first of a seven-semester studio sequence and who have varying degrees of design and drawing experience, some with no design background at all. The students are given a typical design problem of designing a building that must be responsive to program and context, with two initial exercises: the first was the analogue design of a canopy design, its mechanism, and its relationship to a wall. The second digitized this and brought it into BIM. The rest of the semester was spent developing the wall system as it applied to the building in its urban site. After the initial analog design of the canopy, all else is designed in Revit, where the aim was to avoid separating parametric modeling from BIM and to take advantage of the “optimized geometry” when parameters were set up for the performance of the components, their relationship to each other, and their interaction with the building and site as a whole. The challenge was to see how students new to design would handle the potential overload of information as they established a concept and developed them into spatial ideas.
Danelle Briscoe indicated that the students were not inhibited by the amount information and took particular advantage of the representational ability of Revit, both in 2-D representations and in the physical models facilitated by the workflow between BIM and fabrication methodologies (laser-cutter; 3Dprinter, 3-D scanner); that they had more sophisticated designs as a result of the construction information required of their design decisions; and, as a result of these two conditions, they produced work more sophisticated than the norm for that level. At the same time, she indicated that the complexity of the software makes it desirable for a separate instruction prior to or parallel to the studio.
In this case, there was no desire to mine BIM neither for its interdisciplinary nature nor even for it collaborative, sharing capabilities. Rather, the imperative of constructability – that means that lines can’t be drawn innocently; the power of 2-D to 3-D to 2-D – that makes architectural representation not just sophisticated but information heavy; and the parametric possibilities of Revit without recourse to other parametric software – were tested. In this, the students were not given the same depth of “content” of the two other studios discussed, but the essential tools of design were transformed from something moving from general gesture to specific detail to something moving, like the Columbia studio, from buildable part to overall building/site design. In this, the natural limitations of such a process – the ability to think more abstractly – is understood by the teacher, but needs to be grasped and overcome as well by the students. The strongest designers, again, will be those that latch on to the power of the new, bulky information while also being able to step back and see the success of design solution as a whole concept – integrated, appropriate, elegant, coherent, and diagrammatically clear. Likewise, despite that fact that collaboration was not a primary agenda, the students grasped the advantage of sharing knowledge, sources and design, such that the success of one’s project was not predicated on originality, but rather on access to and judgment regarding choices.
As discussed, the Penn State, Columbia University, and UT Austin studios’ primary aims in using BIM to advance design competence were very different. The Penn State studio focused on robust engineering integration with landscape architecture involvement; the Columbia studio focused on design collaboration; and the Austin studio on the formal possibilities for an individual designer. The Columbia Studio concentrated on renovating existing buildings; the Austin studio on developing buildings from scratch and Penn State used real building projects, with design juries with the architect of record and their engineering consultants. The Columbia studio emphasized environmental parameters; the Austin studio, the geometry potential resulting from programmatic and site parameters and the Penn State studio emphasized detailed engineering integration. Thus, one cannot draw any singular conclusions about how “design” with BIM can/ should be taught in an architectural school.
However, certain observations can be made:
1. The three studios indicate that BIM can be incorporated successfully at either the upper or lower level of design education.
2. They show that the two main aspects of traditional design – singular authorship and a formal abstraction dependent on limited information – may rightfully be rethought as sine qua non of design education.
3. They indicate that design sensibility is not aided by or thwarted by BIM. Briscoe emphasizes that while BIM helped the students visualize their decisions, it neither made “design” automatic nor took the place of aesthetic judgment. Marble/Benjamin/Kurgan implicitly indicate this by not making the studio about design invention (supposedly happening elsewhere in their education) but rather affective performance. The Penn State studio had somewhat weaker design teams and somewhat stronger design teams.
4. Columbia and Austin concentrated on the creation of components as the starting point of BIM design. Penn State benefited from professional engineering students who created original engineered design solutions. This is both a comment on the limits of the existing BIM library and an indication that BIM’s greatest potential at this stage is in the small scale, where the specifics of performance is able to be intimately navigated and the limits of formal synthesis (the inability to easily blend wall, roof and floor, for example) less immediate.
5. The studios indicate that collaboration is facilitated by BIM. While this was clearly the goal and stated pleasure and success of the Columbia studio, Briscoe indicated that the “open source” attitude of the students and the facility to share with BIM meant that without specific direction, the students shared their knowledge and resources. The Penn State BIM Studio benefited greatly from busy professionals making time to attend multiple design juries.
The ability of design to not only NOT be sacrificed in teaching BIM, but to be explored in new ways, is an indication that BIM design is not an oxymoron. These examples indicate that there is much that needs to be and should be explored as BIM enters architectural design studios. That this exploration needs to happen with attention, vigilance and, to reiterate the thrust of this article, within the arena of the architectural design discipline is also clear. This is not to say that architecture must be the dominant player in collaborations or that collaboration should not happen. Rather, it merely but strongly suggests that design, always economically unquantifiable and unjustifiable, can easily get lost in an expanded playing field where numbers, time and money are so present. Collaboration is vitally important and central to a changed definition of architectural practice. The hope in this is not that each discipline bends BIM to its traditional aims but takes advantage of being moved out of its comfort zone and looking for innovative ways to consider “problem formation,” not only determine “solution-finding.” That this is an attitude shared not merely by architects, but by those other disciplines is indicated in the following observation made by Scott Marble in the description of one of the think Tanks that framed his C_BIP studio: “During one of the discussions, Hanif Kara of Adams Kara Taylor proposed design engineering—the integration of engineering ideas at the outset of concept design—as one step toward a more collaborative relationship between engineers and architects with principles that could expand to an entire design and construction team. He insisted, though, that this not be seen as a casual blurring of disciplinary boundaries, where architects become engineers and vice versa. On the contrary, he suggested that each discipline become more skilled at what they do and, most importantly, respect and value the contribution of each other as a first step towards new working processes [3].”
Additionally, the case can be made that engineering and building management will move towards an engagement with design. The point of saving design within architecture is not to keep either architecture or design in a privileged position, but to realize that all the AEC players contribute to (a larger definition of) design. If this occurs, design not only will NOT be sacrificed, but enhanced, and all players will be in a position to think about quality, not just quantity; to think about innovation and risk, not just cost-effectiveness. The reality is that these disciplines already play this role more than we have traditionally acknowledged, and as we understand instead of challenge each other’s contributions to design thinking, we displace prejudices that benefit no one, least of all the quality of our buildings.
‘The Penn State BIM Collaborative studio was generously supported by the Bowers Fund for Excellence in Design and Construction of the Built Environment; the Thornton Tomasetti Foundation and the Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education. With the exception of the Professor in Charge, all other faculty donated their time.

      Deamer P, Bernstein PG, eds BIM in Academia. Yale School of Architecture, New Haven, CT, 96.

      Eastman C, Teicholz P, Sacks R, Liston K (2008) BIM Handbook, A Guide to Building Information Modeling for owners, managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Web Sources
3. Independent voice Jan 2008.html
5. http: / / chi / PalladioAndTheVeneto/PalladioAndHisRegion/Villas/LaRotonda/Rotonda2.aspx
7. comparision of AIA IPD documents with the consensusdoc 300.pdf
9. legal and business isssues.pdf
Foot Note
2The first year involved an elementary school with a real site, which was never built due to concerns over the subsurface super fund site. The next year the new campus early childcare center was chosen as a design project. The third time another elementary school was chosen in the State College School District. The two later sites allowed extensive interaction with the consultant team of architects and engineers.

Public Law 111-308 – Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act – FBPTA – CORE COMPETENCIES

Via – Premier software for cost estimating and efficient project delivery for renovation, repair, and sustainability – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA ….

In accordance with Public Law 111-308, The Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act, GSA identified the core competencies contained in the attachment for personnel performing building operations and maintenance, energy management,  safety and design functions. The core competencies identified include competencies relating to building operations and maintenance, energy management, sustainability, water efficiency, safety (including electrical safety) and building performance measures. The core competencies will be updated annually per the law.

Congress passed FBPTA to ensure that the Federal building operations workforce is adequately trained, and that Federal buildings are maximally productive and properly serviced to achieve the highest possible return on investment over projected operating life.  The Act requires GSA, in collaboration with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, to identify the necessary core competencies for Federal building operations and management personnel, the methods required for demonstrating these core competencies, and a recommended course curriculum for all personnel involved in building operations and management, energy management, sustainability, water efficiency, safety, design, and performance measurement.

…”described by House and Senate Republicans as “green” legislation to create cutting edge energy conservation technology jobs.”

…”the bill is supposed to cut federal government energy costs and train the federal building maintenance work force in the use of high performance technologies for energy conservation in federal buildings.”

Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act

Core Competencies June 2012                                                                                                           

In accordance with the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act 2010 (FBPTA), the enclosed core competencies are identified for personnel performing building operations and maintenance, energy management, sustainability, water efficiency, safety (including electrical safety), building performance measures and design functions.

Law requires an annual update of this curriculum, allowing it to evolve over time. This release represents the results of significant consultation with representatives from Federal departments and agencies, relevant professional societies, industry associations and apprenticeship training providers, as well as subject matter experts from academic institutions. Our Program to implement the FBPTA will continuously evolve; through lessons learned from this initial release and successive updates, in response to technological breakthroughs and improvements, in order to highlight transformational policies, processes and procedures, and in response to changes in funding and philosophical constraints. We will remain in constant consultation with the stakeholders mentioned above.

Legislative Intent:

Taxpayer investment in Federal facilities must be protected and leveraged through the cost savings involved in maximizing building performance. Achieving this level of performance requires a government-­‐wide program that stresses training and continuing education in the implementation of industry best practices and lifecycle operations and management. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Report-­‐ paraphrased  



The evolution of the enclosed core competencies began with a Federal listening session and the modification of a Department of Energy

Workforce Standardization Project. We modified the energy job task analyses to include facilities operations and management activities. We also held an additional Federal listening session and an Industry Symposium. The completed Job Task Analyses (JTA) were released for public review and comment. Comments revealed that the JTAs were so comprehensive that no single person could acquire all of the skills and experience captured – even over a lifetime in the profession. This lead to the development of a paired down version of the knowledge, skills and abilities (core competencies) arranged into three levels with associated pay grades and military ranks.

The Facility Manager section was then put out for public comment in the FedBizOpps and sent to more than 200 representatives from government, industry and academia. Comments were transformative in that they made it very clear that a government-­‐wide Program to implement the FBPTA, must be agnostic to GS job series or pay grade. Departments and Agencies across the Federal government have personnel operating and managing facilities from many different job series. Any meaningful organization of core competencies needs to account for the variability of pay grades performing at the same level and with the same basic roles and responsibilities that are department/agency, region and even facility dependent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1

The next significant area of comment centered on how departments and agencies deploy their personnel.

Reviewers admired the system’s three levels of increasing knowledge, skills and abilities as a “concept”, but did not believe it was implementable government-­‐wide. Departments and agencies deploy their personnel according to the scope and scale required by the facilities being operated and managed, and according to their own organizational idiosyncrasies. One agency may have a dedicated facility manager for a large stand-­‐ alone building, while another agency may have a number of individuals whose area of expertise is deployed across numerous facilities coming together in a “department” to accomplish all facilities operations and management tasks.


We developed a system that focused on the highest impact core competencies common to every agency -­‐ remaining job series and pay grade

agnostic. This system establishes (7) Core Competency Areas referenced in the law, along with (5) additional Core Competency Areas universally recognized for their impact on facilities operations and management. Further, we introduced an industry standard framework and nomenclature to better align core competencies with existing courses, certifications, degrees, licenses and registrations. It arranges the system into: Core Competency Areas, Core Competencies and Performances. We determined that most functions performed above the Facility/Cantonment Area level differed mainly in scope and scale rather than in content including: program management; policy development and implementation; performance measurement; providing subject matter expertise; budget formulation, advocacy and execution; and funding allocation. While important, these management and support functions are not the focus of the FBPTA and thus, are not the focus of our initial Program release.

The Program/system provides departments and agencies the maximum flexibility to implement the FBPTA according to how they are truly organized and deployed across their portfolios. Inherent to this level of flexibility, is the necessity for interaction between individuals and their supervisors at an operational level. Using the “performances”, individuals and their supervisors will need to determine what core competencies are vital to performing their roles within the organization. A web-­‐tool is being developed with OPM that allows individuals to enter, and choose from a menu of certifications, degrees, licenses and registrations which ones they currently hold. Qualifications will be mapped automatically to the core competencies that they demonstrate. This plus any courses the individual has completed, establishes their baseline. The difference between the individual’s baseline and the core competencies required by the individual will form a “GAP”. This GAP analysis will provide the individual and their supervisor the ability to create development plans and justify funding for training. Unfortunately, the extreme variability across department and agency systems makes it impossible to allow data to be “pushed” into the web-­‐tool.


The web-­‐tool and this process presents an incredible opportunity to create a one-­‐of-­‐a-­‐kind database that can be used to measure the

effectiveness of our training programs by mapping them to a series of building performance measures that we will be asking for when personnel establish their account, and at the six and twelve month time periods following completed training. We will include inquiry into whether the measures are impacted by any extreme conditions – record hot summer, record cold winter, moving into a 24hr operations posture etc. This

direct and observable correlation of training to building performance will be a powerful vehicle for both public and private facilities operations and management personnel as they make the case for training budgets or as evidence of the efficacy of their products.


This Program is designed to pursue and present state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art knowledge and concepts per the law. As such, some of the terms and concepts may not be familiar to all personnel using this document. Where the potential for that exists, the term has been defined and a reference location given. In some cases, knowledge of a term or concept represents a “performance” under a core competency. To receive credit for this performance in the system, an individual will certify that they have reviewed the reference indicated – the honor system applies.

During the development of this Program, the question of how to deal with (On the-­‐Job-­‐Training = OJT) came up frequently. Our intention is to give credit where appropriate. However, the number of personnel that will be seeking OJT and the areas they will be seeking it in, could not be determined prior to the identification of the core competencies. Now that we have the core competencies, the web-­‐tool is being designed to capture OJT requests so that the volume an scope can be analyzed and a program developed to provide vehicles for these organization to ensure their personnel possess the competencies that they are claiming credit for.


The identification of the enclosed core competencies represents a significant amount of research and has been done in consultation with our industry, government and academic partners. This is a very complex system seeking to implement transformational concepts across the Federal government. We look forward to continuing our work with all the outstanding individuals and organizations that contributed to this effort.


Competency Area Core Competency Competency Area Core Competency
1. Facilities Operationsand Management o Building Systems o Building Interior o Building ExteriorOther Facility Systems 9. Project Management o Initiate o  Execute o Closeout o Training
2. Facilities Operations,Maintenance and


Operating and Maintaining HVAC SystemsOperating and Maintaining Electrical and

Mechanical Systems

o Operating, Maintaining and Testing Life Safety


o General Building Maintenance

Best Practices and Innovation

10. Business, Budget andContracting Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)Life-­‐Cycle Assessment (LCA)


Budget Formulation and Execution

3. Technology Technology SolutionsBuilding Automation Systems (BAS)

Maintenance Management System (MMS)

11. Leadership andInnovation Communication and AdministrationPersonnel


Enterprise Knowledge and Strategic

Decision Making

4. Energy Management Systems and Demand ReductionAssess Initial Conditions


Planning, Project and Program Management

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC)

o Coordinate with Public Utilities

12. Performance Measures FBPTAAcquiring Data

Establishment and implementation

5. Safety Basic RequirementsInfrastructure

Contract Management

Occupant Interface

6. Design PlanningInfrastructure Systems
7. Sustainability BackgroundRegulations and Requirements Implementation
8. Water Efficiency Regulations, Goals and Best PracticesWater Audit

Large FACILITY/Stand-­‐alone Facility(ies)/Cantonment Area(s)

Core Competency Area: 1. Facilities Operations and Management
Core Competency Performances:
Building Systems 1.   Demonstrate familiarity with Building Systems: HVAC, Electrical (and Standby generators), Lighting,Mechanical/Plumbing (and Fire protection systems), Vertical transportation, Structural, Roofing, Building


2.   Demonstrate ability to work with Facilities team to assess a facility’s need for building systems.

3.   Demonstrate ability to oversee the acquisition, installation, and operation of building systems.

4.   Demonstrate ability to work with Facilities Team to establish practices and procedures.

5.   Demonstrate ability to work with Facilities Team to determine and administer the allocation of building systems’ resources.

6.   Demonstrate ability to monitor and evaluate how well building systems perform.

7.   Demonstrate ability to manage corrective, preventive and predictive maintenance.

8.   Demonstrate ability to work with Facilities Team to develop emergency procedures for building systems.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to implement disaster recovery plans for building systems as required.

Building Interior 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to evaluate building structures and permanent interiors.2.   Demonstrate ability to manage the service/repair requests and maintenance and cleaning needs of building structures and permanent interior elements.

3.   Demonstrate ability to evaluate furniture and equipment performance.

4.   Demonstrate ability to manage the maintenance and cleaning of furniture and equipment.

Building Exterior 1.   Demonstrate familiarity with managing grounds and exteriorso     Parking structures

o     Site utilities

o     Landscaping and grounds

o     Exterior envelope (roof, brick, masonry, etc.)

2.   Demonstrate ability to assess the effect of climate and extreme environmental conditions.

3.   Demonstrate ability to evaluate the performance of grounds and exterior elements.

4.   Demonstrate ability to assess the need for alterations in grounds and exterior elements.

5.   Demonstrate ability to manage the maintenance and custodial needs of grounds and exterior elements.

Other Facility Systems 1.   Demonstrate ability to manage vehicles and related equipment as required.
2.   Demonstrate ability to work with Security Personnel as required on:o     Personnel ingress/egress

o     Controlled access systems

o     Backup power requirements

o     Emergency Lighting

3.   Demonstrate ability to manage pest control and waste systems.

4.   Demonstrate ability to work with interior communications (phone, computer, video conferencing)

personnel to ensure facility requirements are met and service interruption procedures are in place.

Core Competency Area: 2. Facilities Operations, Maintenance and Engineering
Core Competency Performances:

Operating and

Maintaining HVAC Systems

1.   Demonstrate ability to collecting Operating Data on system.o     Read required: pressures, temperatures, control panels and other operating parameters as required. (Using gauges, meters and computer systems as necessary)

o     Check oil levels and other required levels

o     Log equipment reading and report any inconsistencies

2.   Demonstrate ability to adjust System Parameters as required.

3.   Demonstrate understanding of indoor air quality – how to test and adjust. (Air pollutant sources, biological contaminants, air sampling, CO2 measurement, mold, control strategies, system balancing, ventilation)

4.   Demonstrate ability to analyze HVAC system performance. (chillers, boilers, ventilation, pressure,

temperature, amperage, voltage, air flow, water flow)

o     Collect trends of operational parameters

o     Conduct performance tests and collect data

o     Compare trends and data

o     Report findings

5.   Demonstrate ability to coordinate HVAC system changes.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain all HVAC Systems (clean, change and perform preventative maintenance…)

7.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to repair all HVAC Systems (calibrate, change, fabricate, recover, replace and trouble shoot as required…)

o     Ability to perform advanced trouble shooting techniques using appropriate tools.

8.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to optimize HVAC controls. (ex calibrated energy savings, reduced

ventilation where possible, hot/cold water resets, economizer control, start/stop timers, demand load shedding)

Operating andMaintaining Electrical and

Mechanical Systems

1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability with Lighting Systems – trouble shoot lighting systems, adjust lightingprogramming, replace lamps, replace ballasts, maintain lamps and ballast inventory,

2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to change: electrical fuses, control boards, electrical fixtures, and electrical relays.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to replace electric motors.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain plumbing fixtures, sewage injectors, and water heaters.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to identify irrigation leaks.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to all drains and backflow preventers

7.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain pressure-­‐reducing valves.

8.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to replace water filters.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to winterize irrigation systems if necessary.

Operating, Maintaining

and Testing Life Safety


1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to operate Fire Alarm panels and test the entire fire alarm system.2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to test the emergency generators.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to test fire pumps and sprinkler systems.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to test smoke and heat sensors.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to inspect fire extinguishers.

General BuildingMaintenance 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain door hardware.2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain roof systems.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain ceiling tiles.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain flooring systems.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to maintain window systems.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to perform minor wall repairs.

Best Practices andInnovation 1.     Demonstrate knowledge of the “Ten Steps to Operational Efficiency” – FEMP O&M Best Practices Guide Rev3.0 pg 291. (

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of (DOE/PNNL) “Retuning Project” and how it could be applied – (Re-­‐tuning is intended to provide building operators, building managers and energy service providers with the necessary skills to identify no-­‐ and low-­‐cost operational problems that plague commercial buildings and provide the skills necessary to take corrective action.)

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of and the ability to perform “predictive maintenance” (Predictive maintenance attempts to detect the onset of a degradation mechanism with the goal of correcting that degradation prior

to significant deterioration in the component or equipment.) FEMP O&M Best Practices Release 3.0 pg 59(

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of ALL types of commissioning, and what is required in the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 (EISA).

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of metering and sub-­‐metering for energy and water and how they contribute to systems optimization.

6.    Demonstrate knowledge of O&M Frontiers like those found in FEMP O&M Best Practices Guide Rev 3.0 pg 287.


7.   Demonstrate knowledge of advanced trouble-­‐shooting techniques on a systems-­‐wide basis.

Core Competency Area: 3. Technology
Core Competency Performances:
Technology Solutions 1.   Demonstrate ability to monitor information and trends related to facility management technologies.2.   Demonstrate ability to identify and interface with internal and external accountable resources, e.g., external vendors, internal or external IT systems owners.

3.   Demonstrate ability to identify evaluation criteria, evaluate, and recommend facility management

technologies solutions.

4.   Demonstrate ability to assess how changes to facility management technologies will impact current infrastructure, processes, and building systems.

5.   Demonstrate ability to plan for and oversee the acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, upgrade, and disposition of components supporting facility management technologies.

6.   Demonstrate ability to recommend and communicate policies. Establish practices and procedures.

7.   Demonstrate ability to develop and implement training programs for facilities staff and ancillary resources.

8.   Demonstrate ability to monitor performance of facility management technologies and make appropriate recommendations when modifications are needed.

9.   Demonstrate ability to manage corrective, preventive, and predictive maintenance.

10. Demonstrate ability to develop, test and implement, when necessary, emergency procedures and disaster recovery plans.

Building AutomationSystems (BAS) 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of a Building Automation System (BAS) and Maintenance Management Systems(MMS)

o     How equipment is entered into BAS

o     Participate in the establishment of control strategies

o     Monitor and implement overrides when necessary, alarm procedures

o     Monitor, analyze and report trendso     How BAS and MMS inter-­‐relate for operations and accounting systems

2.   Demonstrate understanding of the bridge between the technical and business aspects of facilities


3.   Demonstrate ability to conduct trouble-­‐shooting procedures at the equipment, system and building levels.

4.   Demonstrate ability to conduct trouble-­‐shooting of critical systems: access control systems, fire alarm and suppression systems, elevator systems, emergency lighting systems, and emergency communication systems.


Management System


1.   Demonstrate knowledge of Maintenance Management Systems -­‐ Computer Assisted Facilities Management(CAFM) AND Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS)

2.   Demonstrate understanding of MMS AND CMMS:

o     Understand how to setup the program and input data on equipment and items to measure

o     Establish baselines with standards and priorities and backup requirements

o     Establish maintenance schedules

o     Setup reports, frequency, levels and user access

o     Establish inter-­‐operability with accounting system

o     Establish inventory thresholds/levels and determine maintenance tasks

o     Determine user roles (access levels) and identify system administrators

o     Establish close-­‐out procedures

o     Process departmental charge-­‐backs

o     Determine costs/pricing structure (labor, materials, overhead, etc.)

o     Ensure system maintenance back up data and develop data archiving strategy

o     Train users, setup dashboard and identify in-­‐house skills inventory

Core Competency Area: 4. Energy Management
Core Competency Performances:
Systems and DemandReduction 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of building systems and how they affect energy use:o     HVAC System

o     Electrical Systems

o     Motors and drives

o     Lighting Systems

o     Building Envelope

o     Fuel Systems -­‐ Fuel Selection

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems and distributed generation.3.   Demonstrate knowledge of Renewable Energy Systems – Solar (Thermal and Photovoltaic), Wind, Biomass, Hydropower.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of Thermal Energy Storage systems – (ex. chilled water storage, ice storage, potential energy storage etc)

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of Building Automation Systems (BAS) and Control Systems.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of Enhanced Automation (EA) – “the variety of potential strategies to increase the capability of the existing energy or building management systems to control current, and plan for future, building energy costs while maintaining the comfort and productivity of all building occupants.”

7.   Demonstrate knowledge of Energy Management Systems (EMS) and Energy Information Systems (EIS).

8.   Demonstrate knowledge of re-­‐programming current systems and expanding network of sensors and control devices to optimize HVAC, lighting and other automated systems.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to incorporate occupancy sensors, task lighting, thermostatic set-­‐points with weather forecasting and other demand linked strategies to optimize building performance.

Assess Initial Conditions 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to perform and Energy Savings Assessment: Example

o     Role of Energy Audits

o     Energy Audit – Types I, II, III

o     Utility Bill Analysis

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of laws, regulations and Executive Orders that pertain to energy management,

status of compliance and existing energy management plans. See FEMP website of list of laws and regulations:

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of applicable Codes and Standards – (ex. ISO 50001, ASHRAE/IESNA Std 90.1-­‐2010, ASHRAE 62.1-­‐2010, Model Energy Code, ASHRAE Standard 135-­‐2008, ASHRAE Std 189.1-­‐2009 etc)

Commissioning and

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC)

1.   Demonstrate knowledge of all types of Commissioning: initial commissioning, retro-­‐commissioning, re-­‐commissioning, Continuous (on-­‐going) Commissioning – the differences, and commissioning requirements in laws and executive orders.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of commissioning requirements for: measurement and verification, phasing and commission agent duties.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of the Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) procedures and


o     Measurement and verificationo     Energy Savings Companies (ESCO)

o     Regulations pertaining to ESPCs

o     Utility Financing

o     Demand side managemento     Savings determination

o     Risk Assessment

o     Loans, Stocks and Bonds

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of Shared Savings Contracts, Power Purchase Agreements (PPA), Utility EnergyService Contracts (UESC) and Enhanced Use Leases (EUL).

Coordinate with Public


1.   Demonstrate knowledge of utility service providers for facility (ies).2.   Demonstrate knowledge of utility meters – location, reading and data management.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of utility billing and rate structure.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of local utility programs – special rate programs and incentives.

5.   Demonstrate the ability to work with Facilities team to negotiate rates and discounts.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to work with utility departments to locate lines.

7.   Demonstrate knowledge of utility emergency procedures and contacts.

Planning, Project and

Program Management

1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop an Energy master plan.2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop a metering Program.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop energy account database.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to provide planning support for energy budget.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to identify and develop low-­‐cost and no-­‐cost energy efficiency opportunities.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to provide operational support to energy management control systems.

7.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop/assist in project identification and justification.

8.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop UESC and ESPC projects.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to monitor facility energy projects.

10. Demonstrate knowledge and ability to provide peak load management.

11. Demonstrate knowledge and ability to manage an energy awareness program and establish/support an

awards program recognizing energy efficiency efforts.

12. Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop and distribute energy articles, newsletters, notices, posters and signs.

13. Demonstrate knowledge and ability to coordinate Energy Awareness Week/Month.

14. Demonstrate the ability to calculate and respond appropriately to established energy metrics such as Power

Utilization Efficiency (PUE).

o     Where and how to take measurements

o     How to interpret the datao     How to explain the results to people in operations and upper management

o     How to develop an improvement strategy

15. Demonstrate the ability to recommend and/or acquire certifications for specific skills

Core Competency Area: 5. Safety
Core Competency Performances:
Basic Requirements 1.   Complete Department/Agency required Safety training that meets or exceeds the requirements of OSHA,General Industry and/or Construction 10 and 30 hr programs.

2.   Complete Electrical Safety course and be familiar with electrical codes and regulations and best practices.

Infrastructure 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of control systems for: mold, asbestos, Histoplasmosis, PCB in transformers.2.   Demonstrate knowledge of proper water treatment to prevent Legionnaire’s Disease.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of ventilation systems and prevention of contaminant introduction and cross contamination.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of fire prevention systems in hazardous locations/operations; food preparation areas; electrical transformers.

5.   Demonstrate the ability to manage compliance with NFPA 70E -­‐2012 for determining incident energy and marking the electrical components for the hazard distance and proper arc rated protective equipment

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of control of electric vehicle battery fires, internal use, occupant use and visitor vehicles.

7.   Demonstrate the ability to ensure that all building confined spaces are evaluated and marked.

8.   Demonstrate the ability to ensure proper maintenance of special purpose, unique design or antiquated fire alarm and suppression systems.

9.   Demonstrate the ability to manage Compliance with elevator inspection requirements.

Contract Management 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to protect occupants with signs, barriers, and fencing and allow NOrenovation of occupied space.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of permit system for hot welding work and for confined space work.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of fall protection of people and tools/materials for contractor and occupants.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of proper disposal of hazardous, toxic and biologic materials.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of protection of electrical hazards to employees and to building infrastructure; arc rated clothing, lock out/tag out program.

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of compliant protective equipment for contract and sub contract workers

7.   Demonstrate knowledge of adequate fall protection working from ladders/heights8.   Demonstrate knowledge of, and ability to manage compliance with OSHA 1910 and 1926 standards and

Army Corps of Engineers construction safety manual EM 385-­‐1-­‐1.

Occupant Interface 1.   Demonstrate ability to ensure tenant renovations have adequate design, does not interfere with othertenants, local code compliance, high quality of work

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage proper storage of hazardous, toxic and biologic materials

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage proper disposal of hazardous (such as kitchen grease) and biologic materials (medical or research)

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage prohibition of fire hazards.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage adequate ventilation of work spaces, adequate exhaust and makeup air, no short circuit designs

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage adequate cleanliness of indoor firing ranges-­‐ventilation,

cleanup of lead dust.

7.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage adequate electric vehicle battery charging stations to prevent fires (as required).

8.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage prohibition of non UL-­‐rate unsafe electrical equipment.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage the documentation of occupant safety and health complaints and their resolution.

10. Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to manage/conduct:

o     Creation of fire and life safety plans

o     Fire, HAZMAT and life safety drills

o     Creation and posting of evacuation routes

o     Creation of a personnel accountability system

o     Inspection of all components of the fire and life safety systems – (ex. exit lights, fire extinguishers, fire

suppression systems, incident announcement systems etc)

Core Competency Area: 6. Design
Core Competency Performances:
Planning 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability of conduct an assessment of “needs” that will evaluate whether currentfacilities can respond to a new requirement or whether a “project” must be developed to respond to the new requirement.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to utilize Agency/Department planning tools (ex DD form 1391 or

Prospectus) and funding thresholds to define project requirements, propose project site, estimate project

costs, justify need, and develop scope.3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to perform due diligence analysis regarding:

o     Best site selection according to transportation connectivity

o     Interrelationships between physical, climatic, environmental, economic, political, sustainability, historic

preservation, archeological and social elements

o     Interrelationships between Federal, State and local policies – codes, laws and regulations

o     Long-­‐range vice short-­‐range development plans

4.   Demonstrate understanding of the concept of “Deep Energy Retrofits (DER)” and how and when to initiate.

WorkingConceptDefinition: An integrated team, Implementing a deep energy retrofit should piggyback efficiency improvements on already planned capital improvements and breaks in occupancy, take advantage of advanced energy modeling and life cycle cost analysis methods to identify situations in building’s life cycle that trigger DER design and analysis, verify savings and continuously improve energy performance.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of certification systems used by the Federal government and industry (ex.

Leadership Energy Environmental Design –LEED, Green Globes etc)

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of the Sustainable Facilities Tool –

7.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to use Geographic Information System (GIS) and other Dept/Agency software programs in preparation of all required documents.

Infrastructure Systems 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Architectural and Engineering Systems:o     Roofing Systems

o     Building Envelope Systems

o     Window Systems

o     HVAC Systems

o     Electrical Systems

o     Telecommunication Systems

o     All Lighting Systems

o     Fire Protection Systems

o     BAS

o     IT Systems – installation arrangement and energy requirements

o     Interior Design

o     Landscape Architectural Systems

o     Plumbing Systems

o     Occupant needs and requirements/controls

o     Resource flows – energy, water and waste
Core Competency Area: 7. Sustainability
Core Competency Performances:
Background The term Sustainability applies within the definition of High Performance Buildings from EISA 07.“A building that integrates and optimizes on a lifecycle basis all major high performance attributes, including

energy [and water] conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-­‐benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational considerations” (Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 401 PL 110-­‐140).

Within this definition, Sustainability is recognized to mean “development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” -­‐ from the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987). Experts within the Facilities Management industry have used the triple bottom line

-­‐ balancing environmental, economic and social goals (Hodges 2009; Lewis et al 2009) to take the philosophical definition and make it practical.

The nature of “Sustainability” is interdisciplinary and will contain elements from environmental, operations, maintenance, contracting and management etc.

Regulations andRequirements 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of the Guiding Principles for Federal High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. and Federal Mandates

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of Dept/Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP).

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of Dept/Agency Resiliency and Adaptation Plan.

Implementation 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to develop and/or coordinate:o     A recycling program

o     A HAZMAT reduction program

o     A green purchasing program

o     Alternative transportation and workplace strategies

o     Sustainability audit and inspection programs

o     Universal Waste Audit

o     Water Audit

o     Energy Audit

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of how the above comes together in the “Sustainability Section” of the FacilityMaster Plan.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of the Sustainable Facilities Tool –

4.   Demonstrate ability to work with subject matter experts to calculate the “qualitative impacts” of sustainability program.

o     Waste reduction

o     Greenhouse Gas reduction

o     Operational impacts

o     Community impacts

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of implementing a “recognition program” for sustainability efforts.

Core Competency Area: 8. Water Efficiency
Core Competency Performances:
Regulations, Goals andBest Practices 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of water efficiency principles that are applicable in both the public and privatearena.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of Federal water policy and goals found in Laws and Executive Orders:

o     Executive Order 13123, Guidance to Federal Agencies for Determining Baseline Water Usage


o     Executive Order 13123, Guidance to Establish Water Efficiency Improvement Goal for Federal Agencies


o     EO 13423, 13514, Energy Policy Act 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 07).

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of Water Efficiency Goal Guidance for the Federal Government.


4.   Demonstrate knowledge of current Dept/Agency water guidance – Uniform Facilities Code (UFC), Department or agency guidebooks.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of how the following affect water use and efficiency and ability to make recommendations based on lifecycle analysis and best practices to facilities team:

o     Distribution System Audits, leak detection and repair

o     Water-­‐efficient landscaping with focus on Xeriscaping -­‐ Defn: landscaping method that employs

drought-­‐resistant plants in an effort to conserve resources, especially water)

o     Toilets and Urinals

o     Showerhead and Faucets

o     Boilers and Steam Systems

o     Single-­‐pass Cooling Equipment

o     Cooling Tower Managemento     Any miscellaneous high water-­‐using processes

o     Water Reuse and Recycling

Water Audit

1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to conduct both a Top-­‐down and Bottom-­‐up water audit:

o     Top-­‐down:

•    Focus on the total system to set priorities

•    Comprehensive scope

•    Goals, objectives, procedures are then pushed down to the individual parts

o     Bottom-­‐up:

•    Focus on the specifics of each end-­‐use

•    Sum the parts to define the whole

•    Goals, objectives, procedures are developed at the lower levels and pushed upward

Core Competency Area: 9. Project Management
Core Competency Performances:


1.   Demonstrate ability to work in integrated project teams (Facility Managers, Building Operating Engineers,Planners, Contracting Officers, Contractors, Occupants etc) to execute, small, medium and large projects.

2.   Demonstrate ability to:

o    Follow Project Management processes and procedures per your organization’s preferred methodology

(ex. ISO 9000, PMI, WBS, in-­‐house system etc)

o    Conduct needs assessment and define project requirements o    Estimate costs and develop Project Plan and Project timeline o    Develop project communications plan

o    Obtain any required project permits

o    Develop project accounting procedures

o    Ensure regulator compliance

3.   If Project will be completed by contractors, demonstrate the ability to:

o    Develop Scope Of Work (SOW) and the Request For Proposal (RFP)

o    Work with procurement team to select contractor

o    Review Contractor Plans

o    Work with Contracting Officer on all contract administration requirements


1.   Demonstrate ability to:
o     Ensure facility services are maintained during project executiono     Assign project resources

o     Inspect project work

o     Manage impacts of project on existing facility

o     Conduct project meetings

o     Report project progress

o     Monitor project costs

o     Monitor project schedules

2.   If Project will be completed by contractors, demonstrate the ability to:

o     Produce project change orders

o     Attend site reviews

o     If Contracting Officer Representative -­‐ approve project payments/draws

o     Resolve project issues

o     Obtain maintenance contracts

o     Secure project warranties

o     Arrange staff training for new equipment

o     Develop spare parts lists

Closeout 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to:o     Obtain project as-­‐builts

o     Perform project close-­‐outs

o     Create and complete project punch-­‐lists

o     Obtain certificate of occupancy

o     Accept beneficial use

o     Commission the project

o     Review lessons learned

o     Work with contracting personnel to:

•    Obtain lien waivers/release of liens if required

•    Issue final payment

•    Create budget variance report


1.   Demonstrate knowledge of PM software and scheduling software, where to find technical resources on PM.

o     Demonstrate ability to train those junior to you in these PM aspects and on these tools

o     Demonstrate ability to develop and implement a project Quality Assessment (QA) Program to ensure

Initial Costs – Acquisition, Construction etc Residual Values – Resale values, Disposal costs
Fuel Costs Other Costs -­‐ Finance Charges(interest payments) etc
O&M and Repair costs Non-­‐Monetary Benefits or Costs
Replacement Costs
Net Savings (or Net Benefits) Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) or Benefit-­‐Cost Ratio
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Payback Period
that projects are completed as designed with the specified materials by qualified personnel.
Core Competency Area: 10. Business, Budget and Contracting
Core Competency Performances:

Total Cost of Ownership


1.   Demonstrate knowledge of the mission of the Facilities’ Occupants and how the facilities enhance thatmission.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge that the TCO is best determined through Life-­‐Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for


3.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to find/calculate the basic costs required for an LCCA:

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of additional methods for calculating TCO and other economic analysis can be used if they use the same parameters and time period.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of available LCCA software.

o     Building Life-­‐Cycle Cost (BLCC) Program -­‐ FEMP

o     ECONPAK – Army Corps of Engineers

o     Energy 10 – has a cost estimating feature

o     SuccessEstimator – from U.S. Cost

Life-­‐Cycle Assessment


1.   Demonstrate knowledge of the difference between a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and an LCCA.2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to use a LCA to estimate the environmental impacts of a material, product or service through its entire life cycle.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of ISO 14040.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of an ability to use LCA Software:

o     Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)

o     ATHENA Environmental Impact Estimator

Contracting 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of Contracting Officer Representative (COR) duties, responsibilities, training,certification and maintenance of certification.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of rules and requirements for purchasing products and services.

3.   Demonstrate ability to assess technical requirements needed to ensure delivery and quality of services/products.

4.   Demonstrate ability to create an effective Statement Of Work (SOW) for COR or Contracting Officer to ensure proper procurement of a product or service.

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to effectively govern/oversee a contract to ensure compliance and full value of the service or product being provided.

o    Quality Assurance Audits and Indicators o    Required Measurement and Verification o    Performance Audits and Surveys

o    Customer Satisfaction Surveys

o    Compliance with Federal, State and Local regulations

o    Compliance with all Safety laws and requirements

o    Benchmarking Progress

Budget Formulation andExecution 1.   Demonstrate ability to develop and manage a project/program budget.2.   Demonstrate knowledge of budget submission requirements.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of historical budget records and costs and how to use in forecasting.

4.   Demonstrate ability to quantify potential for cost savings and cost avoidance.

5.   Demonstrate ability to use LCCA in budget preparation.

6.   Demonstrate ability to identify quantitative and qualitative risks.

7.   Demonstrate ability to advocate for funding using economic analysis.

8.   Demonstrate ability to prioritize projects/programs based on funding levels.

9.   Demonstrate ability to manage operating budget and produce required financial reports.

10. Demonstrate knowledge of invoice/expenditure approval processes.

11. Demonstrate ability to recommend/conduct funding reallocation based on changing priorities.

12. Demonstrate ability to conduct periodic financial reviews and produce required reports.

Core Competency Area: 11. Leadership and Innovation
Core Competency Performances:
Communication andAdministration 1.   Demonstrate ability to:o     Write clear, concise, and well organized documents
o     Speak in a clear, concise, and well organized manner (public and interpersonal)o     Listen effectively and communicate understanding

o     Give direction

o     Actively clarify interpretations and confirm understanding

o     Make oral presentations

o     Present information visually

o     Use communication technologies

o     Conduct effective meetings

o     Comprehend written and graphic information

o     Comprehend financial and technical information

o     Negotiate for services, resources, information and commitments

o     Establish personal and professional networks

2.   Demonstrate ability to supervise personnel as required:

o     Plan staffing needs and requirements

o     Hire, contract, reassign, retrain, right-­‐size

o     Coordinate personnel assignments

o     Coordinate work performed as contracted services

o     Evaluate performance

o     Support personnel development

o     Provide leadership

3.   Demonstrate ability to perform administrative duties:

o     Administer policies, procedures and practices

o     Administer the acquisition, distribution and use of material resources

o     Maintain documentation systems


1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to:

o     Evaluate and manage the facility’s support of organizational goals and objectives.

o     Monitor changes in laws and regulations.

o     Assure the facility and its operation complies with laws and regulations

o     Monitor and assure changes in the facility function and services

o     Monitor information and trends about human and environmental concerns

o     Ensure training is conducted to maintain safe and effective use of the facility

o     Conduct due diligence studies

2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to:o     Develop or participate in the development of emergency plans

o     Assure people are trained in emergency procedures

o     Assure all emergency systems and procedures are tested as planned

o     Assure emergency drills and conducted

o     Develop or participate in the development of recovery plans

Innovation 1.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to investigate ways to improve facility services.2.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to assess risks and opportunities.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to conduct pilot tests when developing new procedures.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge of the on-­‐line National Science Foundation library of Federal Facilities related publications – (ex Core Competencies for Federal Facilities Asset Managers Through 2020, Predicting Outcomes of Investment in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities)

5.   Demonstrate knowledge of Federal government “Knowledge Hubs” – (Whole Building Design Guide, Fed

Center) and

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of the offices, programs and National Labs at DOE that drive innovation in Facilities operation and management. [ex Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL)]

7.   Demonstrate knowledge of GSA’s Green Proving Ground Program -­‐

8.   Demonstrate knowledge of the training and certifications provided by Industry Associations and

Professional Societies in Facilities Operations and Management, Energy Management, Sustainability, Project

Management etc.

9.   Demonstrate knowledge of University Facilities Management degrees and certifications.

10. Demonstrate ability to translate innovative ideas into actionable tasks:

o     Work with occupants, and facilities’ team to analyze and ensure alignment of Facilities with the mission of Dept/Agency on a macro level and the specific occupant’s deliverables on a micro level

o     Work with occupants, and facilities’ team to integrate people, places, processes and technologies throughout all interconnected organizations

o     Using knowledge gained from the above sources and ingenuity born from day-­‐to-­‐day in the field operations, find ways to innovate across traditional macro and micro organizational boundaries

Enterprise Knowledge andStrategic Decision Making 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of “continuous retuning” and the potential savings represented by a government-­‐wide shift to this operating mode (ex A 10-­‐30% reduction in electricity use across Federal facilities represents a savings of between $700,000 million and $2.1Billion annual – in 2009 dollars)

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of the National Security role that Federal Facilities play – housing Fed

Dept/Agencies for operations, training, disaster response and energy/resource use.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to drive a “Change Management” process -­‐ a structured approach to shifting/transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state.

4.   Demonstrate knowledge and ability to move from the Operational (the who and when of things getting done) to Tactical (what we do) to the Strategic (why we do what we do).

5.   Demonstrate ability to strategically allocate all forms of “capital” – human(people), physical(facilities), economic(money) and environmental(land and resources).

6.   Demonstrate ability to provide decision makers with better information about the total long-­‐term costs and consequences of a particular course of action.

7.   Demonstrate ability to participate in the organization’s strategic planning at the executive level in order to translate between the organization’s missions and its facilities portfolio and clearly communicate how real estate and facilities can support these missions.

Core Competency Area: 12. Performance Measures
Core Competency Performances:
Federal BuildingsPersonnel Training Act 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of the requirements under the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act 2010.2.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to use to view core competencies, methods to demonstrate them, curriculum and to report compliance with the law.
Acquiring Data 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of the differences between quantitative and qualitative data and how togather/calculate each.

2.   Demonstrate knowledge of key building performance measures, where and how to read them, and reporting requirements.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of what data is necessary to enable “continuous retuning.”

4.   Demonstrate ability to determine what records provide the “best fit” data for strategic decision making –

situation and desired outcome dependent.

Establishment andImplementation 1.   Demonstrate knowledge of Performance Measurement concepts (ex. SMART – Specific, Measureable,Actionable, Time-­‐bound)

2.   Demonstrate ability to use measures to inform decision-­‐making and resource allocation.

3.   Demonstrate knowledge of cascading Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that can be used to measure how well mission, management, program and individual goals are being met.

4.   Demonstrate ability to establish baselines from which progress toward attainment of goals can be measured.

5.   Demonstrate ability to establish feedback systems to support continuous improvement of an organization’s processes, practices, and results (outcomes).

6.   Demonstrate knowledge of how to combine single building metrics into a system to measure the performance of buildings portfolio in support of the organization’s overall mission.

7.   Demonstrate understanding that investments in training, and in facilities in general, are not often immediately visible or measurable, but that they are manifest over a period of years.

8.   Demonstrate ability to perform a sensitivity analysis on proposed measures to determine the how much

affect various controllable and uncontrollable drivers are:

o     Funding, weather, retirements, individual performance, training etc

9.   Demonstrate knowledge of current portfolio-­‐level performance indicators like the following:

o     Facilities Condition Index or Asset Utilization Index (measures portfolio against mission)

o     Current Replacement Value (total amount of money invested in portfolio)

o     Plant Replacement Value (cost to replace facilities assets in today’s dollars and using today’s methods)

o     Sustainment Rate (adequacy of funding maintenance and repair)

10. Demonstrate ability to understand a base set of key performance indicators for measuring the outcomes of

investments and the data to be provided for:

o     Total number and size of facilities

o     Facility types, age and location

o     Plant Replacement Value (PRV)

o     Facilities Condition Index (FCI)/Installation Readiness Report

o     Deferred Maintenance/Facilities Revitalization Rate

o     Asset Utilization Index

o     Recapitalization Rate

11. Demonstrate ability to understand, provide input for, and use additional (KPI) developed by organization to

measure the qualitative aspects of facilities operations and management:

o     Cost effectiveness

o     Customer satisfaction

o     Process efficiencies

” Evidence-based ” Life-cycle Federal Facility Management, BIM, and the Status Quo – NIBS, FFC

Yesterday (6/19/2012), the National Academies Federal Facility Council hosted a timely, and potentially watermark event “Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities“.

It is my hope that this event and those similar to it  be expanded as much as possible to assist all real property owners, architects, contractors, subcontractors, building product manufactures, oversight groups, and the community truly practice facility life-cycle management, referred to more recently as BIM (building information modeling / management).

Key Topics / Take Aways:

Identify and advance technologies, processes, and management practices that improve the performance of federal facilities over their entire life-cycle, from planning to disposal.

Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal Facilities
-Facility risks to Organizational Mission
-Potential to quantify
-Ability to predict outcomes vs. investment
-Communication strategies
-The “how” of measuring investment successes

1. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

2. Requirements for facility life-cycle management, efficient repair/maintenance/sustainability, BIM

3. Inventory of Built Environment

4. Physical and Functional Condition of Assets (Portfolio, Site, Building/Area, System, Sub-system, Component Levels)

5. Expected Life-cycle and Deterioration Rates for Physical Assets

6. Ranking of Facilities/Built Environment relative to Organizational Mission

Mission Criticality / Risk Matrix















7. Associated Capital Reinvestment Requirements and Ability to run multi-year “What-if ” scenario analyses

8. Collaborative, Efficient Project Delivery Methods ( IPD – Integrated Project Delivery, JOC – Job Order Contracting)


Strategic approaches for investing in facilities maintenance and repair to achieve beneficial outcomes and to mitigate risks. Such approaches should do the following:

• Identify and prioritize the outcomes to be achieved through maintenance and repair investments and link those outcomes to achievement of agencies’ missions and other public policy objectives.
• Provide a systematic approach to performance measurement, analysis, and feedback.
• Provide for greater transparency and credibility in budget development, decision making, and budget execution.

• Identify and prioritize the beneficial outcomes that are to be achieved through maintenance and repair investments, preferably in the form of a 5- to 10-year plan agreed on by all levels of the organization.
• Establish a risk-based process for prioritizing annual maintenance and repair activities in the field and at the headquarters level.
• Establish standard methods for gathering and updating data to provide credible, empirical information for decision support, to measure outcomes from investments in maintenance and repair, and to track and improve the results.

Vehicles for Change—
• Portfolio-based facilities management (aka asset management)
•Technology (tools, knowledge, risk)
• Recognition of impacts of facilities on people, environment, mission (i.e., prioritizing)
• Changing of the Guard

Best Practices … Partial Listing
• Identification of better performing contractors or service providers
• GIS mapping tools
• Facility condition assessments – surveys, vendors, frequencies, costs
• Maintenance management systems
• Predictive maintenance tools
• Organizational structures
• Budget call process
• Master Planning processes
• Improve relationships with the facility end users and foster a “One Community”
• Energy management


Doug Ellsworth_USACE


John Yates_DOE

Get Moy_Portfolio Mgmt

Peter Marshall_FFC_Chair


Component-section (a.k.a. section): The basic “management unit.” Buildings are a collection of components grouped into systems. Sections define the component by material or equipment type and age.
Condition Survey Inspection (a.k.a. Condition Survey; Inspection): The gathering of data for a given component-section for the primary purpose of condition assessment.
Condition Assessment: The analysis of condition survey inspection data.
Component Section Condition Index (CSCI): An engineering – based condition assessment outcome metric (0 – 100 scale) and part of the Building Condition Index (BCI) series.

Condition Survey Inspection Objectives
1. Determine Condition (i.e. CSCI) of Component-Section
2. Determine Roll-Up Condition of System, Building, etc.
3. Provide a Condition History
4. Compute Deterioration Rates
5. Calibrate/Re-calibrate Condition Prediction Model Curves
6. Compute/Re-compute Remaining Maintenance Life
7. Determine Broad Scope of Work for Planning Purposes
8. Quantify/refine Work Needs (incl root cause analysis, if needed)
9. Establish when Cost Effective to Replace (vs. Repair)
10. Compute/Re-compute Remaining Service Life
11. QC/QA (Post-work Assessment)

Condition Survey Inspection Types
Deficiency: The “traditional” inspection discussed previously.
Distress Survey: The identification of distress types (i.e. crack, damage, etc.), severity (low, medium, high) and density (percentage) present. Data directly used in the calculation of the CSCI. No estimate of cost or priority.
Distress Survey with Quantities: Same as distress survey except that distress quantities are measured or counted. The resulting density is more accurate than a distress survey, thus the CSCI is more precise.
Direct Rating: A one-step process that combines inspection and condition assessment. An alphanumeric rating (three categories, three subcategories each) is assigned to the component-section by the inspector. Rating is directly correlated to a CSCI value, but is less accurate than a CSCI derived from a distress survey. Quick, but no record of what’s wrong.







































About The Federal Facilities Council

The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) was established at the National Academies in 1953 as the Federal Construction Council. The mission of the FFC is to identify and advance technologies, processes, and management practices that improve the performance of federal facilities over their life-cycles, from programming to disposal. The FFC is sponsored and funded by more than 20 federal agencies with responsibilities for and mutual issues related to all aspects of facilities design, construction, operations, renewal, and management.

The FFC fulfills its mission by networking and by sharing information among its sponsoring federal agencies and by leveraging its resources to conduct policy and technical studies, conferences, forums, and workshops on topics of mutual interest. The activities to be undertaken in any given calendar year are approved by a committee composed of senior representatives from each of the sponsor agencies.

Much of the work of the FFC is carried out by its 5 standing committees, each of which meets quarterly. The majority of meetings include presentations by guest speakers from the federal community, academia, and the private sector and these presentations are open to the public. The presentation slides are posted on the Events page of this website. If you would like to automatically receive notices of new reports or upcoming events, please subscribe to the FFC listserv.
Within the National Academies, the FFC operates under the auspices of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE) of the National Research Council. The BICE provides oversight and guidance for FFC activities and serves as a link between the sponsoring federal agencies and other elements of the building community, both national and international.

via – Premier software for efficient construction project delivery – renovation, repair, sustainability – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, IPD, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA …

Major Impacts Associated with Mismangement of Physical Infrastructure

Unfortunately it is a present fact that Capitol Hill has let the Country down. Republicans, Democrats… it doesn’t matter…  the sole clear focus of the Senate and Congress is upon self interest, party politics vs. doing their duty… serving the Country and the People.

One of the several roles of government is to maintain, preserve, and help to manage our buildings, roadways, bridges, and utility systems.    Due to the shear scope involved, Federal, State, County, and Local Governments must collaborate to simply plan for  and fund the immense costs of managing the built environment.

It likely that more that 2.2 trillion dollars (American Society of Civil Engineers reports) is needed to bring current infrastructure up to date… and this figure is likely understated.   What better way is there to actually grow our economy and secure our future than to invest here?   Furthermore the costs of not doing this work range from nearly $100 billion dollars in increase motor vehicle costs due to poor roadway systems, continued pollution and energy depletion from outdated building systems.

Unless we act now to make the investments we need, jobs and wealth will move away from the United States at an ever-increasing pace, wages here will be depressed at an even greater rate, and the social strain on families and communities will increase.  Furthermore, from a global competitiveness perspective, virtually every other nation is moving faster than the U.S. relative to infrastructure investment.

On the other side of the equation, our construction sector remains unproductive and rampant with waste due to antagonistic and out dated construction project delivery methods.   Design-bid-build does little but fund greed and fill our courtrooms.  Even “newer methods” such as design-build, are only partial solutions.

Integrated project delivery (IPD) and job order contracting (JOC) are examples of proven construction delivery methods that focus upon collaboration, transparency, and performance.   These types of processes should be mandated and enhanced.


via – Premier software for cost estimating and efficient project delivery – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, IPD, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA.