Delivering School Construction
Successfully
Regardless of the Delivery Method
Presented by:
Doug Sitton, PE, LEED AP
Sitton Construction Group
What if you could spend less time,
reduce the overall cost, and
eliminate most of the problems on
your next construction project
without reducing quantity or
quality?
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
Case Studies
Project Complexity
Bridging the Gaps
Keys to Success
Project Delivery
Additional Tips
Projects That Fell Short
What did the following projects all have
in common that caused them to fall
short of expectations?
Project #1
•
•
•
•
•
•
New High School
Design/bid/build with CM as Advisor
$45 million new construction
20-month original schedule
12 months late
14% delay claims/change orders
Project #2
•
•
•
•
•
University Student Rec Center
CM at Risk
$13 million new construction
15-month original schedule
12 months late
Project #3
•
•
•
•
•
University Student Center
Design/bid/build – multiple prime
$14 million addition/renovation
18-month original schedule
12 months late
Project #4
•
•
•
•
•
•
New College Classroom Building
Design/bid/build – multiple prime
$11 million new construction/addition
21-month original schedule
15 months late
11% delay claims/change orders
What Was The Common Cause?
What did each of these projects have in
common?
A. Under-qualified contractor(s) or CM
B. Under-qualified architect/engineer
C. Wrong delivery method
D. Unusually complex
E. Other
The Common Cause
What did each of these projects have in
common?
The gaps that existed were not filled
Gaps are caused by complexity
Successful Case Study #1
•
•
•
•
•
$60 million program
2 new elementary schools
Various additions/renovations
Design/bid/build – single primes
Delivered in 16 months and under
budget
Successful Case Study #2
• $6 million program
• Renovations to elementary and high
schools
• D/B/B – single primes and PC
• Saved $550,000 while adding in
quantity and quality
Project Complexity
Project Organizational Chart
Thousands of exchanges of info in
different languages
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Owner
Funding sources
Design firms
Consultants
Contractors
Subcontractors
Utilities
Regulatory agencies
Manufacturers/vendors
Stakeholders
Design/Construction Complexity
Organizations
X
People
X
Processes
X
Technical
X
External Forces
Technical Complexity
• Systems:
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Structural
MEP/FP
Security
Data/telecommunications
Furnishings and equipment
Codes, soils, environmental, etc.
Project delivery
LEED
BIM
The Cost of Complexity
U. of I. Sues over Dorm's Big Cost
Overrun
Cost Overruns at Prairie State Energy
SCHOOL BOARD TO MEET ON SCHOOL
COST OVERRUNS
MetroLink Files Damage Suit Against Four
Companies
Big Dig Cost Explodes To $22 Billion from
Original $2.6 Billion
Complexity = Change Orders
Complexity = Change Orders
Gaps
Why Complexity Often Wins
Where Are The Gaps?
Between all project participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Owner
Funding sources
Design firms
Consultants
Contractors
Subcontractors
Utilities
Regulatory agencies
Manufacturers/vendors
Stakeholders
What are the Gaps?
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge and experience
Priorities, goals and objectives
Roles, responsibilities and risk
Information and communication
Cultures and
personalities
• Performance
and results
Bridging the Gaps
The Owner’s (District’s) Role
Build the bridges
Start with the 3 legs
The Owner is responsible for the
team of teams.
The Owner’s Role
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Financing/budget/costs
Project delivery method
Requirements/program/operations/objectives
Property/surveys/utilities/environmental/soils
Existing conditions/testing
Schedule
Permits
Furniture/Fixtures/Equipment
Voice/Data/Security
Move management
Reviews/decisions
The Owner’s Role
• Procurement and performance
–
–
–
–
–
Architect/engineer
Consultants
Contractors
Construction manager
Performance contractor
• Dispute resolution
The Owner’s Required Expertise
Bridge building:
• Improve all contracts
• Manage and improve
everyone’s performance
• Facilitate collaboration and teamwork
• Streamline and improve the delivery of
planning, design and construction
Who Wins When The Owner
Has Sufficient Resources?
Everyone!
Two Options: Win-Win or Lose-Lose
Minimize the Owner’s Role?
• Avoid paying for expertise?
Any expertise should more than pay for
itself
• Hand it off to the Architect, CM or PC?
Time, focus, qualifications, conflicts
Design
Performance
Contractor
CM at
Risk
GC or CM
at Risk
Design
Performance
Contractor
GC or CM
at Risk
Design
CM
CM
Design
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Keys to Success
10 Pieces to the Successful Project
Puzzle
10 Pieces to the Project Puzzle
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Identify Owner’s Expertise
Establish Goals and Objectives
Maximize Competition for Selection
Negotiate Effective Contracts
Place Right People in Right Roles
Plan Ahead
Establish Effective Processes
Set Performance Metrics
Apply Cost-Effective Technology
Lead and Manage Proactively
Solve It at the Beginning
.
Project Delivery
Methods and Myths
Project Delivery Methods
• Design/Bid/Build – Single Prime
• Design/Bid/Build – Multiple Prime or
CM
• Construction Manager at Risk
• Performance Contracting
Owner
Owner
GC or CM
at Risk
Design
Performance
Contractor
Owner
CM
Design
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Design/Bid/Build – Single Prime
• Owner contracts with a design team
• Design team provides design and
produces bid/construction documents
• Project is bid to single general
contractor
• Low responsive, responsible bidder
selected
Owner
Design
General
Contractor
Design/Bid/Build – Multiple Prime
Same as Single Prime except:
• Project is bid in multiple packages
• Low responsive, responsible bidders
selected
• Multiple primes “assigned” to general
contractor as coordinating contractor
Owner
GC as
Coordinating Contractor
Design
C
C
C
C
C
General Contractor as CMa
Same as Multiple Prime except:
• Owner contracts with a CM
• CM participates in design phase
• Owner is at risk and holds all contracts
– no “assignments”
• Typically many more contracts
Owner
GC as CMa
Design
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
General Contractor as CM at Risk
Same as GC as CMa except:
• GC holds the contracts and is at risk
Owner
Design
GC as CM
at Risk
Performance Contracting
• Same as Design-Build except:
• For energy savings improvements
• ESCO provides:
– Financing
– Guaranteed energy savings
Owner
Performance
Contractor
Which Method . . .
Can be completed in the least amount of time?
Requires the least amount of District time to oversee?
Takes the least amount of District expertise to manage?
Has the fewest change orders?
Involves the least risk for the District?
Provides the highest overall value for the District?





Design/Bid/Build – single prime
Design/Bid/Build – multiple prime or CMa
Construction Manager at Risk
Performance Contracting
It depends
Which Method . . .
Can be completed in the least amount of time?
Requires the least amount of District time to oversee?
Takes the least amount of District expertise to manage?
Has the fewest change orders?
Involves the least risk for the District?
Provides the highest overall value for the District?





Design/Bid/Build – single prime
Design/Bid/Build – multiple prime or CMa
Construction Manager at Risk
Performance Contracting
It depends
It Depends
• Every method:
– Has positives and negatives, has
succeeded and failed
– Is complex, just in a different way
– Can be fast-tracked
– Should never be used “as is”
– Should be tailored to the specific client,
project, and local/current market
• Customization and management
matter most, not the method
Selecting Project Delivery
Consider:
• Most common, best understood
• Experience and knowledge of:
architect, engineers, contractors
Don’t consider:
• Time – overall or District’s
• Change orders
• Risk
These are customization considerations
Additional Tips for Success
Minimizing Owner’s Time Invested
• Have the right level of expertise
• Invest the time early
• Avoid gaps
More
time here
Pick Any Two
• The Project
Management
Triangle
• Why not have all three?
•
•
•
•
Low quality often adds cost and time
Quality design can reduce overall cost
“Too” slow and “too” fast both cost more
Effective Owner management improves all
three
Improving All Three – Q/B/S
“Avoidable failures are common
and persistent . . . the volume
and complexity of what we
know has exceeded our
individual ability to deliver its
benefits correctly, safely, or
reliably.”
“We need a new strategy . . .
and there is such a strategy. It
is a checklist.”
Getting Things Right
• Ninety-second checklist
• Complex world of surgery
• Eight hospitals around the
world
• All kinds of operations
• Reduced deaths and
complications by one-third
• No cost
Example Checklists
•
•
•
•
•
Facility appraisals
Facility assessments
Plan/spec reviews
Inter-disciplinary reviews
Scorecards
eTools Examples
• Building Information Modeling (BIM)
• eProject Management
• eDeliverables
Summarizing Success
• Understand the complexity
• Identify expertise necessary for the
District’s “Owner” role
• Identify/predict the gaps
• Bridge the gaps
• Use checklists!
Equal Understanding is Key
“Armed with the most the most powerful
weapon in anyone’s business arsenal
– understanding – you will have a
fighting chance to get the building you
want, when you want it, for the price
you originally agreed upon.”
Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets
by Barry LePatner