Putting it all Together: Case Study of the HCFA Headquarters

The nearly complete, four-building complex housing the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) headquarters, located in Woodlawn, Maryland, just outside Baltimore, has been acclaimed as a model in achieving both customer satisfaction and building quality (Figure 1).

This 900,000 square foot project, sited on 57 acres, was initiated to provide a consolidated facility for HCFA's more than 3,000 employees. Source selection was used as a procurement method, resulting in the award of a design/build contract (including operations and maintenance for up to three years) in August 1992, and ultimately in full occupancy by September 1995. This award represents the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Building Service's third largest design/build project. The principal team members in this project—representing the owner (GSA), client-tenant (HCFA), developer (Boston Properties), architect (RTKL Associates), and general contractor (McDevitt Street Bovis)—report on their roles and responsibilities in this highly successful development.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 115
--> Putting it all Together: Case Study of the HCFA Headquarters The nearly complete, four-building complex housing the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) headquarters, located in Woodlawn, Maryland, just outside Baltimore, has been acclaimed as a model in achieving both customer satisfaction and building quality (Figure 1). This 900,000 square foot project, sited on 57 acres, was initiated to provide a consolidated facility for HCFA's more than 3,000 employees. Source selection was used as a procurement method, resulting in the award of a design/build contract (including operations and maintenance for up to three years) in August 1992, and ultimately in full occupancy by September 1995. This award represents the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Building Service's third largest design/build project. The principal team members in this project—representing the owner (GSA), client-tenant (HCFA), developer (Boston Properties), architect (RTKL Associates), and general contractor (McDevitt Street Bovis)—report on their roles and responsibilities in this highly successful development.

OCR for page 115
--> Figure 1. The New HCFA Headquarters.

OCR for page 115
--> Paul Horneman Health Care Financing Administration I was the HCFA Project Director for what we called our single-site project. The attitude driving this entire project was customer satisfaction. All those involved in the project kept HCFA's needs and desires foremost in mind from beginning to end. Before Congress authorized our building project, HCFA was an agency suffering a true identity crisis. People did not know who we are. We run the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. In fact, we are now the second largest federal budget item, $319 billion in fiscal year 1997, though we are a relatively young agency. We were formed in 1977 from parts of the Social Security Administration in Baltimore and the Medicaid Bureau in Washington, D.C. Until we moved into our new building, many people thought we were still part of the Social Security Administration. We serve a huge population. There are 72 million Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients who receive benefits from our program every year. But we do this with a very small federal presence, only 4,400 HCFA staff, 2,500 of them in Woodlawn, Maryland, in our new facility. We have our small Washington staff, and 1,500 employees in 10 regions across the country. People do not know we exist because their primary contact with our programs is with the 22,000 Medicare contractor employees and the 40,000 Medicaid state agency staff that we fund across the country. Also, when we were formed we had no real home. The Social Security Administration gave us one of their buildings initially, so we were on their campus. Eventually HCFA occupied 12 scattered buildings in the Woodlawn area. Most were either inexpensive, speculative, suburban office buildings or converted warehouses. This converted space was very poor at handling office air, electrical, and other needs. We experienced many building problems during that time, such as constant heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) and chiller failures. One of our buildings was labeled a sick building. Elevators were too small and slow, and they broke down. The cafeteria was closed for the last five years because asbestos fell through the ceiling. We had difficulty cabling for large area network (LAN) computer configurations, because of

OCR for page 115
--> asbestos in the walls. There were constant electrical failures when we tried to go to a personal computer environment. There were no special facilities, no meeting rooms, no auditorium, and no library. The one training center was on the second floor of a building that had no elevator, so we had difficulty complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because our people were spread through 12 buildings, we also never developed a sense of HCFA identity. We became a very fragmented organization. There were communication problems throughout the organization. Thus HCFA's new building was intended not only to house the staff adequately, but also to bring HCFA together to function as one entity. In short, we had high expectations for this building. In 1988, we prepared and submitted to GSA our preliminary program requirements, almost entirely focused on space needs. We did not address building quality or systems or our future technology requirements to any significant degree. At the time, HCFA's relationship with GSA was rather poor. GSA took something of an authoritarian role, providing only what. they believed we needed. Cost was also a much greater factor than quality at that time in GSA's decision making. In 1989, authorizing legislation was enacted for this project, much to our surprise. We already had a five-year plan for staying in place, and we were suddenly faced with trying to meet all our needs in this unknown new building. So at that time, we put ourselves on a wartime footing. We did not have expertise on site, nor people who had built facilities before. We had some space planners. We therefore immediately formed a single-site staff, consisting of six employees fully devoted to the project for its duration. This continuity proved of great benefit. In 1990, HCFA senior staff came together and decided what they wanted the building to look like and the image they wanted to project. They also made a commitment to fund the upgrades needed so the building would be ready for the technologies envisioned through the next decade. HCFA entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Public Health Service for architectural and mechanical engineering services from their hospital construction group. Two of their employees worked with us part-time until the contract was awarded in 1992. We thus had some of the expert input that we needed at this stage. We then put together rather detailed program requirements,

OCR for page 115
--> covering more than general needs for space. This very thick document encompassed every HCFA unit's needs for space, electric power, computer support, and telephone support, and even the required humidity levels and desired finish quality for some spaces. This dynamic document changed constantly, up until three months before we moved in, as we tried to accommodate everyone's needs. It was prepared partly for the expected battle with GSA about what we wanted to see in the Solicitation for Offers. Suddenly, however, GSA's attitude changed. In the early 1990s, government began to be reinvented, and quality and customer satisfaction became important goals. GSA was now interested in what we wanted to accomplish. There was no battle, but the preparation for one resulted in HCFA putting in place what we needed to be a fully operational member of the project team. We were probably the least knowledgeable of the whole group originally, but we closed the gap, to play a critical central role in the completion of the project. GSA allowed me, as Project Director, to be one of the evaluators in the source selection panel. Along with GSA, members of HCFA's single-site staff, the two Public Health Service employees and myself spent a good part of a year in Philadelphia working as a team to evaluate and award the contract. Because we evaluated by consensus rather than votes, each voice carried far more weight. We were even invited to sit in on the best and final negotiations. At that time, we began to convey to the bidders our desire for an image, as well as our practical requirements. This was the beginning of the dialogue that resulted in our final successful product. We were also fully integrated in the team during design and construction of the design/build project. We sat in on the design meetings. Everyone was clearly aware of our needs and trying to satisfy them within budget. We hired HCFA's first engineer, a full-time mechanical engineer, as our on-site person in the GSA construction trailer. She worked alongside GSA and the contractor, doing inspections, approvals, and acceptance of space. The single-site team grew, and we added more people on site and worked with the team when changes were needed and to provide our ideas in response to requests for information. HCFA also tightened its belt, so that there was funding available to make changes. This probably would not be possible under budget circumstances today. Even then, however, Congress gave us very little

OCR for page 115
--> funding, mostly for the move and for new computers. We paid for the design and finish changes by doing without elsewhere. Also during the move, the project and move team coordinated skillfully with final construction. We involved not only the project team in the project, but all the other HCFA staff as well. An employee newsletter was issued regularly. The developers put displays in lobbies and we briefed senior staff and employees, so they could see what the building would look like. We participated fully in community meetings and maintained progress displays in all our buildings. This process energized the whole organization, with all 2,500 HCFA employees as participants, and a building that the group took ownership of. One critical arrangement in the development was the full decision authority that HCFA gave me. All design and construction, furniture procurement, budgeting, color selections, and so forth, through final acceptance of space was my responsibility. Even though I am not a member of HCFA's senior staff, once it was understood what they wanted to accomplish in the building, we did not have to go back for approval in making changes. Decisions could be made quickly while we were at the design table. This empowerment greatly promoted efficiency. In sum, important elements in the project's success included obtaining input from everyone and keeping them informed throughout project development, the use of one decision point, placing staff on the project from the outset, and HCFA's commitment to provide staffing and funding for the project all the way through. HCFA's adversarial relationship with GSA in earlier years no doubt stimulated our solid preparation to be a member of the project team, in addition to HCFA's just-mentioned commitments. The final product has been extremely well received by HCFA employees. Our image and our internal coherence have both improved enormously. The building complex provides an inviting, informal, place for staff and visitors (Figure 2). We have a great work environment, with more than 50 conference and training rooms (Figure 3), all constantly booked, a LAN network supporting excellent communications, good indoor air quality, and ergonomic desks and chairs, as well as a day care facility, cafeteria and dining terrace, fitness center, and jogging trails. Everyone is thrilled.

OCR for page 115
--> Figure 2.  Facade of New HCFA Building.

OCR for page 115
--> Figure 3. HCFA Conference Room.

OCR for page 115
--> Ellen McCole General Services Administration Following the 1989 congressional authorization of the new HCFA building, the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation directed GSA to consider Baltimore City in selecting the site, as well as Baltimore County, where HCFA was then located. GSA Region III then named me, at that time a GS-11 realty specialist with little design and construction experience, as project manager, and eventually as contracting officer. They later confessed their choice owed partly to their feeling that the project would fail in any event, because of political fallout from the competition of Baltimore City and County, and because of HCFA's traditionally adversarial relationship with GSA. Since no one told me I wasn't expected to succeed, I set out to make the project work. GSA has become much better lately, not only at valuing newcomers, but also at reinventing itself, to reflect past experiences such as ours. But in 1990, when we began writing the solicitation for offers (SFO), we were just learning about source selection and design/build. As a result, this 250-page solicitation document was a hodgepodge of performance and prescriptive specifications, reams of contract clauses, and references to other documents, that are sometimes unclear, even conflicting, and, or at worst, ignorant of the realities of the design/build environment. Back in the late 1980s GSA knew design/build provided opportunities to save time by expediting or overlapping design and construction phases. We also knew it provided one point of accountability to escape the ''finger pointing'' between architect/engineers and general contractors on traditional jobs. Additionally, we knew it was possible to capitalize on the past experience and expertise of a developer, but we were unsure how to select a contractor on that basis, capture that advantage in the process, or reward a successful contractor with more business. Now federal policy is being revised so that source selection procurement is based on past performance rather than simply price. Contractual environments are also more conducive to teamwork, with less emphasis on regulation. The evolution of our project in fact often mirrored such GSA policy changes, and partially accounted for the project's success. While GSA's relationship with its customers had been primarily regulatory, the partnering

OCR for page 115
--> approach in this project not only allowed GSA to respond to HCFA's needs, but also to use HCFA's resources, for the betterment of the process. I hope we have also contributed to a higher regard for GSA as a service-oriented organization. GSA and HCFA first joined forces to draft the SFO. If we were to do it again, we would have allowed much greater flexibility in requirements development. For example, we would include more performance-oriented specifications and fewer specifics on tenant fit-out. We had reams of information about what HCFA needed years down the road, but of course, such needs change with time. The source selection evaluation factors were more in tune with where GSA is now in selecting contractors. These factors were, in descending order of importance, building quality, impact on HCFA employees, offerers qualifications, and national headquarters identity. The factors set the stage to evaluate offers and make an award based on the offerer's reputation, quality, and employee productivity. We eliminated offers by establishing a competitive range after initial responses. However, we did require more information and thus more offerer investment and government evaluation resources than were actually necessary. Partially due to this high degree of offerer investment, we had an award protest from an unsuccessful offerer. While this delayed us for a few weeks, it did not significantly affect project schedule. The Government Accounting Office determined that we had evaluated proposals in keeping with the published SFO, and that we had the documentation proving so. While our source selection evaluation process was resource-intensive, HCFA and GSA both escaped internal, progress-threatening bureaucracy by appointing a single point of decision making and accountability (Mr. Horneman for HCFA and me for GSA). The result was an intense sense of ownership of the project and true empowerment. In fact, there was only one other full-time GSA person at any time on the project: the construction manager on site during the construction phase. Other in-house resources were brought in as needed throughout the project. GSA also contracted with a construction management firm for design compliance, inspection, progress monitoring, independent government estimates, and so forth. After the award, the team's mutual respect grew, with the focus on fairness and practical win/win solutions to problematic procedures and

OCR for page 115
--> conflicts. Despite possible contractual risk, those involved worked to reduce procedural red tape by encouraging communication among all team members. For example, HCFA facility personnel could communicate openly with Boston Properties' interior space planners to solve user design problems. Another win/win team achievement late in construction was the negotiation of a new construction completion schedule, taking into account the urgency of numerous tenant space changes identified late in the process, along with HCFA's relocation parameters. Government thus achieved a smooth and timely progressive occupancy, and Boston Properties avoided liquidated damages. Still, the team had some more enduring problem areas. One concerned the ownership of design drawings at any point in the process, along with the contractual right to change those drawings. This issue had implications as well for the use of value engineering incentives. The basic difficulty here was clearly distinguishing the roles of developer and owner, given the risk-versus-cost and cost-versus-quality decisions, and the tradeoffs associated with those roles. In the end, we agreed to disagree on some of the over-arching questions, but solved specific difficulties case by case. Another trouble area was quality control. We had checkers checking checkers checking checkers. We need a different approach to quality control in this design/build situation, especially now that we have fewer and fewer resources available. In all fairness, though, one factor that worked in our favor then, but probably no longer would, was the fiscal environment. The project did come in under budget, with a total contract cost of $142 million. The most important principle I could offer from my experience with this project would be never to ask whether something can be done, but to ask how it can be done, and to ask persistently enough so that someone will figure it out. Jonatham B. Kurtis Boston Properties Our story is one of real import for the private sector-government partnerships. I will tell you something about the private sector side. Boston Properties is a national real estate developer, with offices in

OCR for page 115
--> Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1970, we have developed and own about 13 million square feet of space on the East Coast. In the Washington D.C. area, we have developed and own about 7 million square feet. Our earlier experience was in building speculative or build-to-suit facilities for private sector users such as law and accounting firms. In the mid-1980s, when the market began to change, we began focusing on government leases and pursued government lease requirements. It is not as glamorous, nor do you make as much money in the public sector, but the government does pay its bills, they sign long-term leases, and banks will provide financing for development. Initially, we concentrated on public sector leases with the International Trade Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, and the Comptroller of the Currency. Toward the end of the 1980s, even these government leases were diminishing, and we decided to sell our services to other agencies on a fee-for-service basis. We were very successful in a public-private partnership with the Architect of the Capitol, developing the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Office Building on Capitol Hill. We then competed for the HCFA facility, and we are currently working on a project for the National Institutes of Health. In short, we did shift our paradigm, from high-risk office buildings, to government leases, and then to government design/build or fee-for-services work. The government issues requests for proposals (RFPs) all the time, and we evaluate thoughtfully whether we can bring some value to the project—and therefore be awarded the assignment and make some money carrying it out. Often the RFPs issued by the government are not structured for a developer and we do not pursue them. They may be better suited to a construction manager or architect/engineering firm. If we decide we should pursue a project through the RFP process, we then start assembling a team. If a requirement has a very heavy engineering focus, such as a data center, we look for an architecture/engineering firm that has performed that type of work. If we feel we can bring a better product to the government by offering a suburban solution rather than an urban one, we team with an architect who has done successful suburban solutions. They may not be the least expensive, but they are good at this type of challenge. We also involve the general contractor very early in the process because we have to establish a budget.

OCR for page 115
--> While we do budgeting in house, we want those who buy construction services daily to work with us. Thus, we identify an architecture/engineering team and a construction team, and all are asked to study the RFP. Then we meet to decide whether to pursue the project seriously, an effort that often demands considerable sums of money. A developer can spend over half a million dollars pursuing and submitting his proposal. Our teams' objective is to bring the most value to the end user, whether it's the Architect of the Capitol or GSA/HCFA or any user for that matter. Because deadlines are often short, we do pro forma budgets and design development working all hours of the day and night. The requirement always needs interpretation, which under the circumstances is not always available. Yet we must commit to delivering a building for, say, $122 million. We submit, present, negotiate, negotiate again, and with luck we are awarded the project. Once we have the award, we start with design, with input from a variety of users and contracting experts. Our core team is expanded, and we add other components so that everyone's needs will be met and the project will be successful. HCFA's need, for example, was a good community for its people, while GSA had the contractual need to make sure that we performed in accordance with their requirements. With the design done, we then go to bid with subcontractors and budgetary issues always arise. Disputes or discussions with GSA about value engineering, about whether we could change the documents because another type of material appeared better, and about who would receive any savings and who owned the documents and when, were all issues in this process. Building begins. We create another team for this phase, including the project superintendent from the general contractor and the subcontractors. We must work as a team to reach our common goal—to finish the facility, and have satisfied clients, both GSA and the tenant, and hopefully make some money. Given the myriad of government inspections and inspectors, directions can get crossed, especially when trying to meet a schedule. We hope to come up with better ways to do this. There is understandable concern about the fox watching the henhouse, but if a good partnership and trust can be established among all team members, perhaps we can avoid the adversarial relationship that develops.

OCR for page 115
--> We completed the building and were doing the punch list quickly to meet the tenant's scheduling needs. The tenant was moving in and the furniture and cabling people were there, creating additional punch list items and complaining about existing items. These things happen. But they can be worked out fairly with good teamwork, as they were in our case. Warranties and commissioning are other major issues at completion. We had extensive commissioning requirements because of the building automation and HVAC system. This is an ice storage facility, where ice is made at night with big chillers and is melted during the day to cool the facility. The automation system commissioning had a relatively short scheduled time frame. But observations over four seasons were needed to make sure that the system would work in real life situations. There must be some give-and-take in the specifications and in the requirements to accommodate reality. I offer a few concluding comments. We always assess "lessons learned" to improve the next time. Team members should be carefully picked. Source selection, with an emphasis on past performance and customer satisfaction, is a much better approach than simply choosing lowest price. All parties involved must truly be treated as stakeholders, and mission statements should be clear. People should be at risk for their performance, and they should value the other partners' circumstances and goals. With a good team, mission statements can be satisfied with a win/win result for all. Developers, general contractors, and architects should all be able to make money; it is the incentive to do a good job. Such basic common sense should enrich our professional lives, and create projects that are successful for all involved. Goodluck Tembunkiart RTKL Associates I never cease to be awed by the sheer complexity of building projects and the information that must be communicated to carry them out. From the standpoint of design, the effort is largely synthesis—combining technological knowledge, aesthetic judgment, and the client's vision into a unified form. All building projects must take into account client programs,

OCR for page 115
--> site issues, code requirements, government facilities requirements, budgets, construction techniques, schedules, design quality, indoor air quality, and much more. But each project has its own contingent constraints and thousands of pieces of information. The fact is, there are unlimited ways for a project to go wrong. I believe the success of the HCFA project came from an understanding of this process and mutual respect and cooperation in place of the traditional combative relationships. The foundation is client satisfaction. A building program starts with particular client needs, which must remain the foremost consideration. The building belongs to the client and is used by the client; it is not used by the architect, and it is not a vehicle for the architect to do something other than meet the client's needs. The client's requirements are first expressed in terms of area, functional groupings, and the aesthetic sense of spaces. Initially, the building has no form. It is simply the sum of the expectations, in many ways differing, in many people's minds. When many paths can be followed, the only way to find the right one is through clear communication. In HCFA's case, a development competition was the response to program information. HCFA and GSA were thus able to find an initial design direction by considering various approaches, in terms of credentials, development strategy, construction cost and schedule, and design. However, this just represents the start of the process. At this point, the client and the design team have not even met. The vision exists primarily in verbal form. It must to be turned into a building somehow. Arriving at the best and final offer (BAFO) is still more the beginning of design than the end. A good foray has simply been made in capturing the concept. But when a BAFO is turned into a building, even though the result may look good from a distance, in a monumental sort of way, it is the detail that provides the sense of enjoyment for clients and staff who work in the building, and this detail is not always achieved. A shortcut is to simply build according to the BAFO. However, much of the enjoyment and design excellence comes in that period of design development where you come to know the clients and users well, and work with the general contractor to achieve the level of fine detail that is feasible. In developing the HCFA facility, our team cooperation in this phase was very good. In project development that is this complex, all team members are indispensable. All provided critical insights. The strategy for

OCR for page 115
--> cooperation during this phase was based on a quality assurance model of the general contractor, which allowed information to be easily exchanged. The fundamental question asked by team members of each other was, "How can we help you perform better?" It may sound odd, but this in fact was the spirit we had throughout the project. It was even applied in a program that McDevitt Street Bovis had for subcontractors. For exemplary performance, we congratulated the subcontractor (in this case, the precaster) by having the entire design team go down to the plant and shake hands with everyone who contributed to the process. There was a wonderful feeling all around. Reward for a job well done is extremely important, and I think often missing from this industry. Regarding design quality, we are very proud of having provided a building of high detail within budget. We attribute this achievement to an abiding respect for the craft of building, knowledge of construction techniques, and a philosophy of designing for buildability. To help establish HCFA's identity, we wanted to design a building that had permanence and depth and weight. We did numerous studies, using our best skills and knowledge of construction technology, to develop facades that provided this sense. The general contractor and the developer brought in the precast subcontractor early, to advise us throughout the design process. We listened closely, and began using a master mold concept, understanding that the more forms used for precasting, the more it would cost. We tried to design simpler forms that could be variously recombined, to achieve a good amount of detailing without extra cost. We worked with the precaster to find more varied ways to sandblast the facade; everything above the cornice line is one kind of precasting, sandblasted in different ways. For the interior of the building, the BAFO had indicated a dark wood lobby with brass trim. With a building 168 feet deep across its width, we suggested that this deep lobby be as light as possible, so that it would not feel somber (Figure 4). In conclusion, we are now in an era of limited resources (though to some degree, we always have been). This realization should lead us to better understand and master the complete building process, to optimize design quality. It would also be wise to recognize that cooperation may be the largest factor in conserving project resources of time and energy, particularly with the many contingencies that arise.

OCR for page 115
--> Figure 4. Lobby of the New HCFA Headquarters.

OCR for page 115
--> We made a step forward in these respects in the HCFA project. I hope our own experience can contribute to the way we all work together. Stephen Skinner McDevitt Street Bovis I would like to continue on the theme of customer satisfaction and focus on our key processes. We had a very cooperative effort from day one, among all stake holders, a strategy that made this project work. McDevitt Street Bovis provides quality construction services for select clients. Examples of work we are involved in includes a program management role at the 1996 Olympic Games and a general contractor role at Loudoun Hospital in Virginia. For the HCFA project, we served as the general contractor. But we also saw our role as a facilitator to bring the team together and make the building happen. One of the tools we used is what we call Project Quality Planning. By the way, it has been acknowledged as best practice, in the Associated General Contractors' Implementing TQM in a Construction Company and in the McGraw Hill issue Partnering in Design and Construction. Our process begins with a planning session. This is a very important activity before we begin construction. It involves all the stakeholders, as many stakeholders as we can bring together. The one-day session is the first time that many of the team members will have come together. It includes team-building exercises to get to know one another. Following that, we develop our mission statement—a project-specific mission statement. This we also feel is a very important step. Our mission statement for this project was to deliver, "through a focused team effort, an exemplary national headquarters facility for HCFA which satisfied all customers' [I want to emphasize all customers] objectives and results in a high degree of fulfillment among project participants." The mission statement does not go on the shelf. It is placed in our conference room, and everyone signs it to show their commitment. We then develop a win/win performance matrix. Thus, we are all tied together and committed to performance. First, we define our roles. While roles are defined in the contracts, in this exercise we explain how we each perceive our own roles. Team

OCR for page 115
--> members can then understand how they will interface—a very important aspect of the project. I understand what you do, and you understand what I do. This knowledge definitely helps to facilitate communication. Another key feature of the process is the focus on successes from the beginning. Each HCFA stakeholder group defined its own idea of a successful project. This let us understand we were all focused on the same result. We then share more specific expectations, for example, the contractor's need for timely responses from the architect in requests for information (RFIs). The developer, GSA, and HCFA all wanted to see the project on time and within budget. Reaching this kind of understanding, while it may take a day or two to do, we feel again is extremely important. We revisited this expectation matrix quarterly. In up to day-long sessions we exchanged information about expectations not met—and about those we did meet. We held these sessions even when pressured by the project, and made them rather formal, employing specific ratings. After developing the win/win matrix, the next step is defining key construction processes. While these processes are generally common to all construction projects, and include such basic activities as the shop drawing process, RFIs, and scheduling, sometimes we lose sight of the most basic processes. With the win/win agreement and key project processes defined, we follow up by means of our quality teams, the use of indicators, and training and development. For example, the quality indicator for RFIs in this and other projects has been response time. If responses were always on time, that would be great, of course, but this is not always the case. The indicators allow us to manage processes by observing any patterns or trends. We can also avoid unnecessary disputes and find solutions when we can identify the reasons for the possible negative trend. We also had a measure for the shop drawing process. When the trend is poor, we ask, what can we do to help? This was our approach throughout. Or, if a trend is positive, we know this process is tracking fine and we can focus on other aspects of the project. It is important not only that the architect respond on time to us, but that we are getting the submittals to them just as we committed to. The small business concern was also a goal for the project, measured by a simple trend indicator. This aspect of the project was audited by the National Capitol Region, and GSA received an excellent

OCR for page 115
--> rating in this area and the same result also for minority participation. The indicators allow us to track many processes with a simple graph, so we can evaluate efficiently, and better balance our time. Safety was obviously important. Severity and frequency of incidents were also tracked throughout the project. Mr. Tembunkiart touched on the issue of employee recognition. A Harvard Business Review study found that recognition is the second most important motivator for people, after achievement. At HCFA, we selected a quality crew of the month, and recognized them by shaking hands and telling them how great their work has been. They were amazed that we took the time to offer sincere appreciation and also very pleased. We once ordered 175 pizzas and had them delivered to the job, a very small token of appreciation for the people who are actually doing the work in the field. You can see the motivation that results from these small acts of recognition in people's faces. In fact, we once got a thank you card from the utility crew. The HCFA project was a fast-track project with phased drawings. We established what we called the ''magicians of coordination,'' a quality team in mechanical-electrical interfacing. Working over a lighted table, they got the parties to sign off, and kept the trades working together through the shop drawing process. We anticipate that we saved nearly half a million dollars in coordination by preventing related conflicts before they reached the field. Another team we started several months before completion was the move team. The moving in of 3,000 people had to be coordinated with the sequence of construction. This team involved the players closest to the process. Another example of team involvement for the fast track processes was provided by Les Horneman, who went down to the precast plant and watched them sandblast a panel to let them know exactly what he wanted. This involvement and decision making was invaluable. Did we meet our mission? We just completed the post mortem for this project, in which we asked all of the stakeholders whether we met the mission statement from their own viewpoints. The answer was consistently, "yes!" We also had a very open and honest discussion about how we might improve in the future.