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 ldalgallo@hansonbridgett.com.

 

 

 

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 http://www.4Clicks.com – 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

AGC – Job Order Contracting Webinar – March 12, 2013

Webinar:   Job Order Contracting

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 – 2:00pm to 3:30pmJOC Process

Job Order Contracting (JOC) is an innovative delivery method focused on the renovation and repair of large facility infrastructure under a long-term contract.   JOC has been around for a long time but is experiencing an upswing in an era of limited capital dollars and greater efficiency.   Like IPD, JOC focuses on relational contracting, an integrated team, and performance incentives, but JOC is unique in its unit-price structure and repetitive delivery order process.  This webinar will demystify unit pricing, coefficient development, job order scoping and estimating process, and skillsets needed to succeed in JOC. The current JOC market will be framed, with an emphasis on serving owners throughout the building life-cycle.

During this webinar, participants will learn about:

  • Compare Job Order Contracting (JOC) to other well-known delivery methods.
  • Describe the pricing structure of JOC, identify strategies for developing a coefficient, and understand the basics of line item estimating.
  • Discuss the JOC delivery order process, including scoping, proposal preparation, and execution.
  • Identify current JOC market opportunities and dynamics, including market segments, contract structure, unit price books, consultants, etc.
  • Determine skillsets and culture to be a successful JOC contractor..

Speakers

Lisa Cooley
Consultant, LEED AP

Perfecto Solis
Vice-President of Airport Development and Engineering, DFW Airport

Leo Wright
Vice-President of Job Order Contracting Division, F.H. Paschen

 

 


Any questions or changes to your registration should be made via email to meetings@agc.org.

via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier Cost Estimating and Efficient Project Delivery Technology for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, IPD, SATOC, MATOC, POCA, BOA.

Cloud Computing, Construction, Engineering, Architecture and Productivity

Cloud computing is a more than catalyst for change, it is a DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY.  Cloud computing will drive significantly enhanced productivity within the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Facility Management Sectors by enabling the consistent deployment of integrated project delivery methods.   Owners, Contractors, Architects, Engineers and stakeholders of the built environment will benefit if they focus upon CHANGE MANAGEMENT and how to best leverage cloud computing.

  1. Collaboration – True cloud computing (vs. cloud-washing, or simply posting legacy application to the cloud) lets users  work concurrently on projects in real-time (milliseconds)… virtually anyone, anywhere, anytime.  Multi-language and mult-currency, etc. can easily be implemented.
  2. Security – Information is NEVER deleted.  This is potentially the best form of security available.   “Who” does “What” and “When” is always tracked and changes can be “rolled back” at any time by authorized administrators.  Furthermore, only changes are transmitted vs. full data sets and even these are encrypted.
  3. IP Protection – Despite all the “hype” to the contrary, it is YOU, the user who determines how, when, and where to publish data.   For example, you can maintain information in your private area, publish as read only to specified members within a private cloud…or publish to all members in a private cloud, or publish information to all members in public cloud and enable rights to use and modify data.
  4. Visualization –  Despite the pervasive misunderstanding of BIM and unfortunate focus upon 3D visualization, DATA visualization and the associated development and implementation of the colloborative life-cycle management of built environment are the benefits provided by BIM.  Cloud computing will accelerate data visualization and transparency among all stakeholders of physical infrastructure and promote performance-based processes.
  5. Agility – Our work and natural environments are changing at an accelerated pace.  Rapid deployment, monitoring,  and the associated modification of processes and policies is becoming increasingly important.  Cloud computing deploys process faster than any other method currently available.   There is no longer a need to rely upon internal “IT” for deployment or applications specific changes.
  6. Mobility – It is neither cost effective, nor efficient to have everyone working in offices or specified work settings.  Resources need to be tapped from multiple locations enabling use of “the best of the best”, and resources with localized resources and/or capabilities.   Cloud computing allows direct, transparent access to local resources while also communicating centralized processes and procedures.
  7. Centralization of Information – While information can be scattered among several data centers, it also can be instantly consolidated to provide global management in support of an organization’s mission as well as associated, efficient local action.
  8. Business Continuity – True, Internet access is required, however, would you rather store your information at your location and risk catastrophic failure, or have your information at multiple locations designed with redundancy, power backup, etc.?

BIG DATA and EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS (Integrated Project Delivery, Job Order Contracting), CLOUD COMPUTING, and BIM are here to stay, are you ready?

via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, …

Roadmap
Roadmap
BIG DATA
BIG DATA

BIM Evolution

In the long history of humankind, those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.
– Charles Darwin

BIM, the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology, requires a fundamental change in how the construction (Architects, Contractors, Engineers) and facility management (Owners, Service Providers, Building Product Manufactures, Oversight Groups, Building Users) sectors operate on a day-to-day basis.  

BIM, combined and  Cloud Computing are game changers.  They are disruptive technologies with integral business processes/practices that demand collaboration, transparency, and accurate/current information displayed via common terminology.

The traditional ad-hoc and adversarial business practices commonly associated with Construction and Facility Management are changing as we speak.    Design-bid-build and even Design-Build will rapidly go by the wayside in favor of the far more efficient processes of Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and Job Order Contracting – JOC, and similar collaborative programs.  (JOC is a form of integrated project delivery specifically targeting facility renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction).

There is no escaping the change.   Standardized data architectures (Ominclass, COBie, Uniformat, Masterformat) and cost databases (i.e. RSMeans), accesses an localized via cloud computing are even now beginning to be available.   While historically, the construction and facility management sectors have lagged their counterparts (automotive, aerospace, medical, …)  relative to technology and LEAN business practices, environmental and economic market drivers and government mandates are closing the gap.

The construction and life-cycle management of the built environment requires the integration off several knowledge domains, business “best-practices”, and technologies as portrayed below.   The efficient use of this BIG DATA is enabled by the BIM, Cloud Computing, and Integrated Project Delivery methods.

Image

The greatest challenges to these positive changes are  the CULTURE of the Construction and the Facility Management Sectors.  Also, an embedded first-cost vs. life-cycle or total cost of ownership perspective.  An the unfortunate marketing spotlight upon the technology of 3D visualization vs. BIM.   Emphasis MUST be place upon the methods of how we work on a daily basis…locally and globally  − strategic planning, capitial reinvestment planning, designing collaborating, procuring, constructing, managing and operating.  All of these business processes have different impacts upon the “facility” infrastructure and  construction supply chain, building Owners, Stakeholders, etc., yet communication terms, definitions, must be transparent and consistently applied in order to gain  greater efficiencies.

Some facility life-cycle management are already in place for the federal government facility portfolio and its only a matter of time before these are expanded and extended into all other sectors.

BIM, not 3D visualization, but true BIM or Big BIM,  and Cloud Computing will connect information from every discipline together.  It will not necessarily be a single combined model.  In fact the latter has significant drawbacks.    Each knowledge domain has independent areas of expertise and requisite process that would be diluted and marginalized if managed within one model.   That said, appropriate “roll-up” information will be available to a higher level model.   (The issue of capability and productivity marginalization can be proven by looking a ERP and IWMS systems.  Integration of best-in-class technology and business practices is always support to systems that attempt to do everything, yet do not single thing well.)

Fundamental Changes to Project Delivery for Repair, Renovation, Sustainability, and New Construction Projects MUST include:

  • Qualifications Based or Best Value Selection
  • Some form of pricing transparency and standardization
  • Early and ongoing information-sharing among project stakeholders
  • Appropriate distribution of risk
  • Some form of financial incentive to drive performance / performance-based relationships

Metrics for BIM – Total Cost of Ownership and Facility Life-cycle Management

BIM Metrics

If you think the value of BIM is in pretty 3D pictures, don’t both to read the attached article…   there is too much for you to learn.    Remember…  “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.”

Metrics/Cost Models

􀀹 FCI (Facility Condition Index) = DM (Deferred Maintenance) + CR (Capital Renewal)/
CRV (Current Replacement Value)
􀀹 AI (Adaptive Index) or PI (Programmatic Index) = PR (Program Requirements)/
CRV (Current Replacement Value)
􀀹 FQI (Facility Quality Index) or Quality Index or Index = FCI (Facility Condition Index)+ AI (Adaptive Index)
􀀹 Annualized Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) per building per gross area = Rate per square foot
􀀹 Annualized TCO per building/Current replacement value = Percent of Current Replacement Value (CRV)
􀀹 Annualized TCO per building/Net assignable square feet = Cost rate per net assignable square
feet per building
􀀹 Annualized TCO per building/Non-assignable square feet = Cost rate per non-assignable square
feet per building
􀀹 Annualized TCO per building/Building Interior square feet = Cost rate per interior square foot per
building
􀀹 Total Cost (inclusive of construction, design, project management, etc.)/square foot vs. Regionalized
Applicable Standard Reference Cost, Percent Variance
􀀹 AI (Adaptation Index) or PI (Programmatic Index) = PR (Program Requirements)/
CRV (Current Replacement Value)
􀀹 Uptime or Downtime – Defined in percent, as amount of time asset is suitable for the program(s)
served.
􀀹 Facility Operating Gross Square Foot (GSF) Index (SAM Performance Indicator: APPA 2003)
􀀹 Custodial Costs per square foot
􀀹 Grounds Keeping Costs per square foot
􀀹 Energy Costs per square foot
􀀹 Energy Usage
􀀹 Utility Costs per square foot
􀀹 Waste Removal Costs per square foot
􀀹 Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index (SAM Performance Indicator: APPA 2003)
􀀹 Churn Rate
􀀹 Utilization Rate
􀀹 Planned/Preventive Maintenance Costs per square foot
􀀹 Emergency Maintenance Costs as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures.
􀀹 Unscheduled/Unplanned Maintenance Costs as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures.
􀀹 Repair costs (man hours and materials) as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures
􀀹 FCI (Facility Condition Index) = DM (Deferred Maintenance) + CR (Capital Renewal)/
CRV (Current Replacement Value)
􀀹 Recapitalization Rate, Reinvestment Rate
􀀹 Deferred Maintenance Backlog
􀀹 Facilities Deterioration Rate

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KAMPSCHROER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTWIDE POLICY U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

What is the Green Building Certification System?    What is Federal government’s role in using sound science and peer-reviewed studies to evaluate and implement advanced building technologies?

Congress has set statutory goals for improvements in performance – from reducing energy and water intensity across the Federal government’s real property inventory  relative pursuing net-zero energy buildings…. but is any project truly being made?

Executive Orders in two successive Administrations also have been issued to accomplish sustainability targets, but is anything truly being done in a productive manner?

The GSA is chartered to lead high performance building efforts including Congressionally-mandated review of green building certification systems.

As the GSA’s success is measured in how well it aids other agencies in their effectiveness, it must address all core aspects of sustainability initiatives including: efficient project delivery methods (integrated project delivery – IPD and job order contracting – JOC), capital planning and management,  and the disposal of Federal assets.

Congress created the  Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings – OFHPGB (Chartered in December 2007 under Section 436 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) ) to enable and enhance Federal leadership in the field of large scale sustainable real property portfolio policy, management and operations.

Goals established in 2007 include:

Energy managers to complete annual comprehensive energy and water evaluations for approximately 25 percent of covered facilities, with each facility evaluated at least once every 4 years;

30 percent of hot water demand in new Federal buildings and major renovations be met with solar hot water equipment provided it is life-cycle cost effective;

Agencies use energy-efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs in Federal buildings;

Sustainable design principles to be applied to new Federal buildings and major renovations of Federal buildings;

Aggressive fossil fuel-generated energy reductions for new Federal buildings and major renovations of Federal buildings, phased-in through 2030, and

Agencies reduce total energy consumption per gross square foot in their new and existing Federal buildings by 30 percent from a FY2003 baseline by FY2015.

In 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance which added the following:

Reduce potable water intensity by 26 percent in FY2020 compared to FY2007;

Reduce industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water use 2 percent annually, leading to a 20 percent reduction by FY2020 compared to FY2010;

Ensure all new Federal buildings entering the design phase in 2020 or later be designed to achieve net zero energy by 2030, and

Have at least 15 percent of existing buildings and leases meet the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015 with continued progress towards 100 percent.

To this date one might argue that little has been done.  For example the GSA and most, if not all other Federal Government non-DOD Departement and Agencies don’t even have a standardized job order contracting (JOC) program to enable efficient implementation of sustainability projects.

The DOD however, especially the Air Force has full documented and working JOC programs (called SABER in the Air Force), and the Army has made some progress as well.

Thus in summary, the GSA is still in the mode of “Putting the tools together”, to allow the Federal government to make strides in achieving the aggressive performance goals set by Congress and pursued by the Administration.

The question however is, do we have the time to wait?

 

 

Reducing the Federal Government Real Property Footprint 2012 – Civilian Property Realignment Act – CPRA – H.R. 1734

The  “Civilian Property Realignment Act,” (CPRA) H.R. 1734, a bill  to reduce the size of the federal government’s footprint and save taxpayers billions of dollars through realignment and consolidation of the federal real estate portfolio was just passed (February 7, 2012) by the U.S. House of Representatives and is headed for the U.S. Senate.

The bill was introduced by Representative Jeff Denham, R-A, chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, and had thirty-one (31) House member co-sponsors.

Federal Real Property Bill

The White House Office of Management and Budget estimates that the benefit to taxpayers from passage of the proposed legislation will be at least US$15 billion.  A one-time appropriation of US$88 million is called for, after which proceeds from the sale of excess federal properties would be used to repay the treasury and provide taxpayers a 60% windfall on any property sold.

“I believe the potential to save billions of dollars is real,” said Denham. “Given our trillion dollar deficit and skyrocketing debt, we must examine every area of government and look for ways to cut spending. My bill establishes a nine person Civilian Property Realignment Commission to take politics out of the process, increase transparency and save billions of taxpayer dollars.”

Life-cycle costs are also a component of the legislation via arequirement that  federal agencies conduct a full life cycle cost analysis of any building design, construction, or operations and maintenance projects.

The federal government is the largest single property owner in the United States and has the opportunity and resources to lead the way in  the development and implementation of integrated building operation, maintenance, and space utilization practices.

 

Why Focus on High-Performance Buildings?

From the materials produced to construct buildings and the energy used to operate them, buildings consume vast amounts of resources and are responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions. High-performance buildings, which address human, environmental, economic and total societal impact, are the result of the application of the highest level design, construction, operation and maintenance principles—a paradigm change for the built environment.

  • Our homes, offices, schools, and other buildings consume 40% of the primary energy and 70% of the electricity in the U.S. annually.
  • Buildings consume about 12% of the potable water in this country.
  • The construction of buildings and their related infrastructure consume approximately 60% of all raw materials used in the U.S. economy.
  • Buildings account for 39% of U.S. CO2 emissions a year. This approximately equals the combined carbon emissions of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom.
  • Americans spend about 90% of their time indoors.
  • Poor indoor environmental quality is detrimental to the health of all Americans, especially our children and elderly.
  • Residential and commercial building design and construction should effectively guard against natural and human caused events and disasters (fire, water, wind, noise, crime and terrorism).
  • The U.S. should continue to improve the features of new buildings, and adapt and maintain existing buildings, to changing balances in our needs and responsibilities for health, safety, energy efficiency and usability by all segments of society.