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.

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 projects. A 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.

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 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, 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

JOC Process

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.

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.

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

BIM Strategy and Change Management II

BIM (Building Information Modeling) is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technologies.  As such it is a process of collaboration, continuous improvement, transparency, and integration.   3D distractions aside,  achieving optimal return-on-investment (ROI) on BIM requires focus upon change management, first and foremost.  Ad-hoc business practices, traditional construction delivery methods, and legacy software must be cast aside.

BIM is managing information to improve understanding. BIM is not CAD. BIM is not 3D. BIM is not application oriented. BIM maximizes the creation of value. Up, down, and across the built environment value network. In the traditional process, you lose information as you move from phase to phase. You make decisions when information becomes available, not necessarily at the optimal time.  BIM is not a single building model or a single database. Vendors may tell you that everything has to be in a single model to be BIM. It is not true. They would be more accurate describing BIM as a series of interconnected models and databases. These models can take many forms while maintaining relationships and allowing information to be extracted and shared. The single model or single database description is one of the major confusions about BIM.(http://4sitesystems.com/iofthestorm/books/makers-of-the-environment/book-3/curriculum-built-world/categories/introductionbim-integration/)

The principles of BIM:

• Life-cycle management: Process-centric , longer term planning  and technologies that consider total cost of ownership, support decision making with current, accurate information,  and link disparate knowledge domains and technologies.
• Collaborative Delivery Processes:  Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) procurement and construction delivery processes that consider and combine the knowledge and capabilities of all stake holders – Owners, AEs, Contractors, Business Product Manufacturers, Oversight Groups, Service Providers, and the Community.  (i.e.  IPD, Job Order Contracting/JOC)
• Standards and Guidelines:  Common glossary of terms, metrics, and benchmarks that enable efficient, accurate communication on an “apples to applies” basis.
• Collaborative, Open Technologies and Tools:   Cloud-based systems architectures that enable rapid, scalable development, unlimited scalability on demand, security, real-time collaboration, and an full audit trail.

(Johnson et al. 2002) – There is an interrelationship between business goals, work processes, and the adoption of information technology. That is, changes in business goals generally require revising work processes which can be enhanced further by the introduction of information technology. But we also recognized that innovations in information technology creates possibilities for new work processes that can, in turn, alter business goals  In order to understand how information technology influences architectural practice it is important to understand all three of these interrelated elements.
Business Goals…   Work processes  ….   Information  technology
require/create               require/create                    require/create

(Via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient construction project delivery – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, BOCA, BOA.  Exclusively enhanced 400,000 RSMeans Cost Database with full descriptions and modifiers.)

Sustainability –  “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”  – US Executive Order 13423

Ceasel – Patents Pending

BIM Framework

BOARDROOM BIM – Is Building Information Modeling Relevant to C-level Executives?

Efficient life-cycle management of the built environment (BIM) is critical to many/most members of senior management, if just that they don’t know it.

The success or failure of many organizations is directly linked to the built environment for the majority of public and private organizations.   From a financial perspective, facilities and infrastructure are second only to personnel in terms of bottom line costs.   Whether in manufacturing, DOD, healthcare, education, banking/finance… or almost any sector…   facilities are directly linked to the organizational mission and impact the ability of an organization to perform that mission.   Lastly, and not least important, environmental impacts of the built environment are significant, consuming 30%+ of total non-renewable energy and contributing to 30%+ of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, why has the “BOARDROOM” virtually ignored the efficient management of the built environment? Simple, facility management executives have not presented key information to senior managers in language the latter understands – impacts to the bottom line, mitigating risk, remaining competitive, retaining key personnel, in short, the built environment’s linkage to organizational mission.

Furthermore, many/most facility managers do not fully understand/appreciate the context and/or requirements and processes associated with efficient life-cycle facility management / BIM.   And for that matter, nor do many so called IWMS software vendors (Integrated Workplace Management System).  Many individuals associate BIM with 3D modeling and construction, vs. “true BIM”, the total cost of ownership management of the built environment.

Climate change is real, no debate left… period.  If for no other reason than to mitigate human impacts upon climate change, efficient facility life-cycle management should be a REQUIREMENT at the boardroom level.   Of course, mere long term survival of the human race as we know it may not be a concern of some c-level folks focused exclusively on quarterly profits.  So, for those individuals, FMers need to help the c-level gain visibility into the bottom line costs currently expended upon operating physical infrastructure and the associated direct and indirect impacts the condition of the built environment has upon product/services quality, dollars wasted upon unscheduled/emergency maintenance/repair vs. preventive/schedule maintenance/repair and renovation, risk mitigation, etc. etc.

“The AECOO industry (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner, Operations) as a whole needs to invest more time and management to fully implement what is an entirely new approach to a traditional industry.”

BIM is a strategic, boardroom-level resource if applied properly.  What is your organization to plan for the future of collaborative, efficient facility life-cycle management?

Collaboration the key obstacle to BIM / efficient management of the built environment.  There is no to barrier to BIM except those people construct around themselves.”

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

BIM Framework – Process for Facility Life-cycle Management

BIM and The Role of a Construction Cost Estimator

Professional construction cost estimators are critical to any collaborative, transparent, and productive  BIM solution.   BIM, facilities life-cycle management supported by digital technology will create a high demand cost estimators with a thorough understanding of building systems and associated repair, renovation, sustainability and construction techniques, materials, equipment, and labor.   Experienced cost estimators who appropriately leverage technology and embrace collaboration will excel.  Navigating the current AEC sector-wide paradigm shift from antagonistic ad-hoc processes such as design-bid-build, excessive change-orders, and even modest attempts at improvement such as design-build, to collaborative, efficient project delivery methods such as integrated project delivery – IPD, and job order contracting – JOC will be a challenge for some, but a willing change for most.

A team approach, support by technologies such as domain-specific cloud-computing solutions (cost estimating, capital planning, maintenance/repair, …)  integrated with 3D visualization tools..aka Revit will become commonplace.  Owners, AEs, Contractors, Sub-Contractors, Oversight Groups, Business Product Manufacturers- BPMs, and the Community will all gain higher visibility into life-cycle needs and impacts of the built environment.

All who collaborate openly to exceed client’s expectations, and produce efficient, quality construction, renovation, repair, and sustainability on-time, and on-budget will thrive, while non-participants will fall by the wayside.

The AECOO’s (architecture, engineering, construction, owner, operations) legacy of fragmented, unproductive approaches,  ad hoc practices, and associated lack of trust will crumble, to be replaced by OPEN, transparent, and collaborative PROCESSES supported by robust technology.

\

The Benefits of BIM, Life-cycle Management, Sustainability and High Performance Buildings

In many ways BIM, Life-cycle facility management, sustainability, and high performance buildings are interchangeable terms… some of us just don’t know it yet.

BIM is the life-cycle management of facilities (vertical and horizontal built environment), support by digital technology.  Thus BIM is part process and part software.  Life-cycle management includes all physical and functional conditions of a structure (physical condition of major systems, sub-systems, components, functional conditions-suitability for current mission, life/safety/security, access/ADA, utilization, ….) and all associated strategic, capital, and tactical planning.  High performance building management and sustainability also includes these factors, with a focus upon environmental impacts-Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality.

The benefits of BIM, Life-cycle management, sustainability, and high performance building strategies go well beyond financial considerations, though productivity and improved performance is sorely lacking within the AEC communities.

The following are just a few of the benefits of Sustainability and High Performance Buildings:

– Improved building occupant productivity ( studies indicate that approximatley $260B Billion lost annually due to poor indoor air quality-Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).  Productivity gains have also been linked to factors such as day lighting (7-8%), temperature, ventilation,

–  Goodwill, enhanced image.

–  Reduce environmental impact / carbon footprint:  energy, water, waste, pollution (CO2 emissions, pesticides, fertilizers, …)

To put facility costs into perspective, here’s an example from the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).  Annual costs in the private office building sector average $200 per square foot for salaries, $20 per square foot for building costs, and $2 per square foot for energy use – a 100:10:1 ratio.   It is therefore relatively easy to calculate direct cost savings relative to productivity and energy improvements.

via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier software for efficient construction project delivery – visual cost estimating and project management – JOC, SABER, IPD, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, IDIQ, POCA, BOA, and exclusive enhanced 400,000 line item RSMeans Cost Database.

 

Fram,ework for High Performanc Building Managment, BIM, and Sustainability

 

 

References:

Source: Quantifying the Hidden Benefits of High-Performance Building, TAMU Mays Business School Cooperative Study, December 2011

Bryson York, Emily. (2010, August 28). Goodwill, better business grow from going green. ChicagoTribune.com.
U.S. Green building Counsel. (2010). LEED for New Construction.
Kats, Greg. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building.
Kats, Gregory.(2006). Greening America’s Schools Costs and Benefits.
Beko, Gabriel, Geo Clausen, & Charles J. Weschler. (2008, October). Is the use of particle air filtration justified? Costs
and benefits of filtration with regard to health effects, building cleaning and occupant productivity. Building and
Environment, 43(10), 1647-1657.
Hepner, Christina M. & Richard A. Boser. (2006, December). Architects’ Perceptions of LEED Indoor
Environmental Quality Checklist Items on Employee Productivity. International Journal of Construction Education and
Research, 2(3), 193-208.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. Mixed Mode Conditioning Systems.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. High Performance Lighting.
U.S. Green building Counsel. (2009). LEED® for Retail.
Gardner, Ken. (2010). Overcoming Barriers to Green Building.
Miller, Norm & Dave Pogue. (2009). Do Green Buildings Make Dollars and Sense?
WBDG Sustainable Committee. (2010). Sustainable.
Romm, Joesph & William Browning. (1997). Green Building and the Bottom Line.
Issa, M.H., J.H. Rankin, & A.J. Christian. (2010, January). Canadian practitioners’ perception of
research work investigating the cost premiums, long-term costs and health and productivity benefits
of green buildings. Building and Environment, 45(2010), 1698-1711.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Hepner, Christina M. & Richard A. Boser. (2006, December). Architects’ Perceptions of LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Checklist Items on Employee Productivity. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 2(3), 193-208.
Hepner, Christina M. & Richard A. Boser. (2006, December). Architects’ Perceptions of LEED Indoor
Environmental Quality Checklist Items on Employee Productivity. International Journal of Construction Education and
Research, 2(3), 193-208.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. Daylighting.
Hoffman, Andrew & Rebecca Henn. (2008). Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green Building.
Kats, Greg. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building.
Romm, Joesph & William Browning. (1997). Green Building and the Bottom Line.
Fisk, William J. (2000). Health and Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their
Relationship with Building Energy Efficiency.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. Daylighting.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. High Performance Lighting.
Gregerson, John. (2010). The Thermal Comfort Zone.
Gregerson, John. (2010). The Thermal Comfort Zone.
Fisk, William J. (2000). Health and Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their Relationship with Building
Energy Efficiency.
NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University. Mixed Mode Conditioning Systems.
International Society of Sustainability Professionals
Fisk, William J. (2002). How IEQ Affects Health, Productivity.
Fisk, William J. (2002). How IEQ Affects Health, Productivity.
Kats, Greg. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building.
Kats, Greg. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building.
Kats, Greg. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building.
Lipow, Gar W. Cooling It: No Hair Shirt Solutions to Global Warming.
Cascio, Wayne and John Boudreau. (2008). Investing in People. (p. 195-215). Pearson Education, Inc.

Behind the High-Performance Federal Buildings Act

---

Reduction of  federal building energy footprint is an important initiative.

Focus must shift to the renovation, repair, and sustainability of existing buildings and associated efficient project delivery methods.   BIM and Cloud computing can integrate the currently disparate processes associated with facility capital planning, management, renovation, and maintenance…. and make enable the widespread use of efficient project delivery methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD) and job order contracting (JOC).

The focus on BIM as 3D visualization and design is a distraction we can no longer afford.

 

BIM is the life-cycle management of facilities supported by digital technology.  It is the use of robust business processes and standardized taxonomies and metrics.

The tools to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment are readily available.  Products and services  manufactured here in the United States, the use of which would also help our economy.

The  High-Performance Buildings Caucus was started in 2007 with a goal to make a real difference in our economy and environment. Last year,  the “Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act”  was introduce to piece of legislation ensure that people working on federal buildings are properly trained to do the work their job requires. This bill was signed into law at the end of 2010, however, the   General Administration Services (GSA) is lagging in its proper implementation.  Knowledge of life-cycle facility management is critical to reaching the goals of efficient facility life-cycle management.

The High Performance Federal Buildings Act is intended to require analysis of the full life-cycle costs for buildings.    It also requires regulations for the use of energy and water in federal buildings to reflect the most current codes and standards.   The Act will reduce energy footprint speed compliance with mandated standards.

It is very important to use of life-cycle cost analysis on any construction, alteration or acquisition of a building.  Facility condition assessments and commissioning are also key elements in this regard that must be addressed in a standardized manner.

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

GAO – Ownership Less Costly Than Leasing

Federal budget scoring rules make acquiring buildings more difficult even though  owning property is often more cost effective than leasing, the Government  Accountability Office (GAO) found in a report.

Tenants have over-relied on costly leased space to meet expansion needs in  recent years.  – GAO

Many of the 900,000 buildings in the federal real estate  portfolio are leased from private-sector owners — often at costs that would exceed what the government would pay for owning the building, David J. Wise, GAO  director of physical infrastructure issues, recently testified before the Senate  subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal  Services and International Security.

The GAO has shown federal building ownership often costs less than operating leases, particularly for long-term
space needs, and could often save millions of dollars. However, decisions to  lease rather than own space are often driven by budget-scoring issues rather  than long-term cost-effectiveness.

Under current federal guidelines,  departments and agencies must record the acquisition cost of a building fully up
front in the budget. In contrast, leases executed by the General Services Administration (GSA), the central leasing agent for most agencies, only require budget authority to cover the annual lease payments.

In California last year, Gov. Jerry Brown used a similar rationale, that owning buildings usually
saves money over the long term, to cancel the planned sale of 11 state buildings
as a budget shortfall solution by his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Brown
called the sale and planned leaseback of the buildings a shortsighted move that
would cost taxpayers $6 billion over 35 years.

GSA leases more than 8,000 assets and since 2008, it has leased more space than it owns. In fiscal  year 2010, the government leased a total of 191 million square feet compared to  179 million square feet of owned space. This reliance on leased space was among  several factors that led the GAO to designate the management of federal real  estate as a “high-risk area,” prompting the Obama Administration in May 2011 to  propose the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA) to reform federal property
management and disposal regulations. Different property reform legislation has  also been introduced in the House of Representatives.

“Building  ownership through construction or purchase is often one of the least expensive ways to meet agencies’ long-term requirements,” Wise said. “Alternatively,  operating leases, in which periodic lease payments are made over the specified
length of the lease, are often the most expensive way to meet long-term space  needs.”

Wise noted in testimony and in the report that GSA has relied heavily on leases to meet new long-term needs because it lacks funds to acquire buildings. In 2008, for example, the GAO reported that if the government had
pursued ownership for the FBI building in Chicago instead of an operating lease,
it could have saved $40.3 million over 30 years.

In certain situations, such as the Commerce Department’s cyclical growth due to the short-term needs of
the Census, leasing makes more sense, GAO acknowledged. Operational requirements such as immediate space needs, security requirements, or a desire for flexibility, as well as short-term or smaller space needs, are other examples of
where leasing may be more advantageous than ownership.

For instance, Hurricane Katrina damaged more than 200 GSA-owned and leased buildings in 2005,
necessitating the relocation of 2,600 federal employees from 28 agencies, many of which were GSA tenant agencies. GSA expanded its use of leases to fill the short-term need.

However, in general it’s more fiscally prudent to own buildings, Wise said. GSA’s goal is to break even on the administrative costs of the facilities it leases from private-sector owners, but recent years have seen significant losses, raising concerns about the agency’s management of its leases.

Under current rules, tenant agencies pass lease payments plus a fee to GSA, which retains the fee and then passes the lease payment on to the private sector owner. However, GSA losses within its leased portfolio increased dramatically to $102.9 million in fiscal year 2009 before falling to $64.8 million in fiscal year 2010, according to GAO.

GSA told the accountability office that the losses are partially attributable to the differing accounting treatment of rent payments and fees in financial statement reporting requirements, but GAO maintains that the agency should still be able
to cover the extra costs with the fee it charges tenant agencies.

 

Why BIM should be renamed BIMM – The Value of BIM

BIM should should have been can BIMM – Building Information Modeling and Management. The emphasis upon 3D is silly, and the focus upon 3D replacing 2D is equally misdirected.

Products like Revit and Archicad are only relatively small components of a BIM solution.  BIM is a process embedded within and support by digital technology that enables more efficient cradle-to-grave management of the built environment.

Owners, contractors, A/E’s, oversight groups, and communities will all benefit from BIM relative to the management and usage of the built environment.

As many say, the “I” in BIM is the critical aspect.  Defensible, accessible, transparent, accurate and re-usable information is the true value of BIM.