B

Literature Search Abstracts

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS

Benchmarking and Metrics Summary for 1997, Benchmarking and Metrics Committee, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1998.

This 1997 annual summation of Construction Industry Institute (CII) benchmarking activity makes several noteworthy observations relating to the facility design process. The summary looks at the extent of use (and resulting benefits) of seven CII-recommended best practices: safety, team building, constructability, preproject planning, design and information technology, project change management, and strategic alliances.

A key finding of the summary is that project success is significantly enhanced when predesign activity is completely and properly addressed prior to start of design. Specifically, the study analyzed results obtained where projects used CII-recommended predesign processes to varying degrees. Projects whose design began with relatively little predesign activity realized an average cost growth of 16 percent whereas projects that maximized the use of CII predesign processes enjoyed a cost underrun averaging 8 percent. The study also quantified the benefit of applying a comprehensive constructability process during the design review phase.

Although the basic philosophy of this report is intuitive (“better planning makes for better projects”), the significant contributions of CII are

  • specific and practical recommendations for implementing the best practices cited above and described in user-friendly implementation manuals, and

  • objective use of benchmarking techniques to develop metrics that can be used to qualitatively measure results achieved from successful implementation of the CII best practices cited above.

Evaluation of Design Effectiveness, Report RS8-1, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1986.

This publication presents a method for determining the effectiveness of a facility design, based on seven evaluation criteria: (1) accuracy of design documents, (2) usability of design documents, (3) cost of design, (4)



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 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS B Literature Search Abstracts CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS Benchmarking and Metrics Summary for 1997, Benchmarking and Metrics Committee, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1998. This 1997 annual summation of Construction Industry Institute (CII) benchmarking activity makes several noteworthy observations relating to the facility design process. The summary looks at the extent of use (and resulting benefits) of seven CII-recommended best practices: safety, team building, constructability, preproject planning, design and information technology, project change management, and strategic alliances. A key finding of the summary is that project success is significantly enhanced when predesign activity is completely and properly addressed prior to start of design. Specifically, the study analyzed results obtained where projects used CII-recommended predesign processes to varying degrees. Projects whose design began with relatively little predesign activity realized an average cost growth of 16 percent whereas projects that maximized the use of CII predesign processes enjoyed a cost underrun averaging 8 percent. The study also quantified the benefit of applying a comprehensive constructability process during the design review phase. Although the basic philosophy of this report is intuitive (“better planning makes for better projects”), the significant contributions of CII are specific and practical recommendations for implementing the best practices cited above and described in user-friendly implementation manuals, and objective use of benchmarking techniques to develop metrics that can be used to qualitatively measure results achieved from successful implementation of the CII best practices cited above. Evaluation of Design Effectiveness, Report RS8-1, Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1986. This publication presents a method for determining the effectiveness of a facility design, based on seven evaluation criteria: (1) accuracy of design documents, (2) usability of design documents, (3) cost of design, (4)

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS constructability, (5) economy of design, (6) performance against schedule, and (7) ease of start-up. The method assigns values and weights to each criterion, thus allowing the calculation of an overall quantifiable score. Owner/Contractor Work Structure Process Handbook, Report IR111-2, Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1997. This handbook recognizes the impact that downsizing is having on central engineering organizations and discusses the importance of identifying owner organization core competencies that are required for successful capital asset acquisition. It provides a methodology for identifying core competencies that should be retained as compared with those skills that can be outsourced. It also provides a methodology for establishing a working relationship with contractors who provide outsourced services, with special attention to achieving and maintaining alignment toward common goals. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS Achieving Designs to Budget for Federal Facilities, Committee on Design to Budget for Federal Facilities, Building Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990. Operating from the premise that deviation from a planned budget during acquisition is particularly onerous for federal government facilities, this committee was asked to provide advice and recommendations on how to improve the government's ability to ensure “designs to budget.” Several of the committee's findings and recommendations are relevant to the design review process: Design-related growth of construction costs in excess of budget is most frequently related to one or more of the following problems: Poor planning and failure to think carefully about foreseeable problems of construction. Poor understanding of the difficulties likely to arise in truly unique projects. Lack of attention to difficulties that may arise from unique conditions associated with otherwise standard projects. Inadequately detailed or erroneous design and increases of scope caused by user requests are other sources of failure to meet budgets. The report also found that the early stages in the design process are most critical for assuring successful designs to budget because the design is still flexible and factors that determine costs are not fixed. To have the greatest impact on the designer's ability to meet the construction budget, the owner's management attention should be focused most strongly on the early stages of design. In addition, such procedures as constructability analysis, value engineering, and peer review may be useful to refine and assure the quality of design and likelihood that budgets will be met. Relevant recommendations are the following: The present allocation of design and cost management resources places too much emphasis on later stages of design where the ability to influence costs has been largely lost. The allocation should be shifted or the budget set later in the process, or both. The formal cost estimates now used in federal design management should be prepared and reviewed not as a subsidiary task of design, but rather as a separate activity at the completion of each major stage in the design process. Agencies should work to reduce the time required to complete the design process for federal projects. The opportunity for cost growth during the 18-24 months typically required for federal projects imposes a substantial burden on the designer seeking to meet budget.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Agencies should conduct postoccupancy evaluations of all new facilities so that experience on how actual utilization and cost compare with program and budget used in design could be used to make planning and design of future facilities more effective. Designers seeking federal projects should be invited to include in their statements of qualifications descriptions of their cost planning and monitoring systems and their experience with these systems in previous assignments. Alternatively, agencies should assure responsible cost and control through explicit assignment of qualified staff or consultants. Government/Industry Forum on Capital Facilities and Core Competencies. Federal Facilities Council Report No. 136, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. The report summarizes presentations made at a forum cosponsored by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, The Business Roundtable, and the Federal Facilities Council in March 1998. The forum recognized that most federal agencies are dealing with unprecedented budget reductions, staff reductions, and wholesale organization reengineering. Experienced professionals from both the public and the private sectors were asked to discuss the challenges, strategies, and results they have encountered while responding to these kinds of changes. The following are key points made during the relevant presentations: The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems,” Ron Howard, Director-Construction, The Business Roundtable. Mr. Howard's presentation summarizes a white paper published by The Business Roundtable in 1997. The white paper makes a number of highly relevant points and is reviewed more comprehensively later in this appendix. Corporate Owners Perspectives on Capital Facilities Engineering Function and Core Competencies,” David A. Skiven, Executive Director, Worldwide Facilities Group, General Motors Corporation. Mr. Skiven's organization, the Worldwide Facilities Group (WFG) of the General Motors Corporation, was formed in 1994 through a consolidation of 20 organizations. He describes WFG's process of establishing a new vision focusing on serving General Motors' various business units in such a manner that the business units are free to focus on business strategy rather than overhead function management. He also lays out WFG's approach to defining core competencies and their relationship to outsourcing. Key to outsourcing, is maintaining a “smart buyer” on staff. That smart buyer must be someone who understands the business, its requirements, and customer needs, and who can translate those needs and requirements into a corporate direction. Amoco Corporation's Worldwide Engineering and Construction Division,” Terry Brandt Wood, Manager of Project Development. Ms. Wood describes the process of dealing with a 35 percent staff downsizing of Amoco 's engineering and construction staff during a period of increasing corporate revenue and capital investment. The process involved developing a mission and vision that focused on value-added to the corporate bottom line, developing a common process for capital projects and its adoption corporatewide, applying a “value-to-cost” ratio to help differentiate core competencies that should be retained in-house versus those that could be cost-effectively outsourced, and focusing in-house staff more intensively in the advance planning or front-loading activities involved with capital project acquisition. General Services Administration,” Robert A. Peck, Commissioner of the Public Building Service, and Myron H. Goldstein, Director of the Project Management Center of Expertise. Mr. Peck and Mr. Goldstein noted that the General Services Administration (GSA's) Public Buildings Service has downsized from 20,000 to approximately 7,000 staff over a 20-year period. Simultaneously, its inventory of managed facilities is expanding, although not uniformly at each region. Recognizing that it is not

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS practical for each region to perform all tasks, GSA's response has been to establish 12 Centers of Expertise around the country to ensure that core competencies are identified and retained at least somewhere within the system. Key to this approach is the Project Management Center of Expertise headed by Mr. Goldstein that will institutionalize the best attributes of project management. The center will also directly manage GSA's most expensive and complex projects, regardless of location. In an interesting initiative, GSA plans to create a learning center where less-experienced project managers will have access to information and training from GSA's most experienced and senior professionals who will provide mentoring. Improving the Design Quality of Federal Buildings, Committee on Improving the Design Quality of Federal Buildings, Building Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989. This report by an eminent group of academics and architect/engineering (A/E) professionals looked at methods to improve two aspects of facility design quality in federal facility acquisition: The magnificence of the architecture presented in the final plans and specifications. A process that provides appropriate and error-free building programs, plans, drawings and specifications. The report makes a series of recommendations regarding greater focus on the predesign planning and programming stages; a more flexible approach to A/E selection, contracting mechanisms, and the design management mechanism; greater participation during design and construction by knowledgeable owner and A/E personnel; more intensive postdesign evaluations, both during and after construction; and less-restrictive design criteria, standards, and guidelines on the part of owners. The study committee also recommended that Congress and its committees that oversee federal design and construction consider the merits of establishing more centralized federal advocacy for quality in design. On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, Committee on Architect-Engineer Responsibilities, Building Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994. This committee, told that many federal agencies were dissatisfied with the quality and thoroughness of work performed by private A/E firms, evaluated current methods of assessing the quality of design work and identified issues for determining what constitutes satisfactory professional work by an A&E firm. The report's findings and recommendations include the following: The designer must be given a realistic task and appropriate compensation, the task must be well understood by all parties, and the designer 's intent must be effectively realized in the constructed facility. Otherwise, owners and users will almost certainly question whether the A/E professional has fulfilled his or her responsibilities. In general, all parties—designers, owners, and users—must work together to achieve quality facilities. The federal process for procuring A/E services is often more complex and time-consuming, requires more formal document preparation, and is more prone to fostering adversarial relationships among the participants in facility development than procedures used for comparable projects in the private sector. Interim design reviews should be substantive and conducted by experienced professionals familiar with the

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS agency's needs, the user's needs, and the practical aspects of facility development. Ideally, the reviews should be conducted in similar fashion and by the same staff at each stage in the design process. If experienced agency personnel are not available, consideration should be given to utilizing an A/E consultant, distinct from the designer but fully familiar with the type of facility and the agency needs, to provide effective peer review. Realistic, uniform, experience-based measures and benchmarks of A/E performance would be a valuable management tool that could be used by both A/E firms and government agencies to improve planning and design management. Agencies of the Federal Facilities Council should convene professional organizations such as the American Institute of Architects, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the Associated General Contractors, and others to work with the agencies to develop a study design, collect data on project development, and analyze those data to develop meaningful measures and benchmarks of A/E performance. In the interim, the committee recommended a series of guidelines as follows: A/E professionals can be expected to perform their tasks more responsibly if they are involved on a continuing basis in more stages of the facility development process. Construction change orders due to unanticipated site or market conditions or shifts in user and owner needs are to be expected during the long time required for the planning, design, and construction of any facility. Construction cost growth of as much as 5 percent over bid estimates is not abnormal. As the time required to develop a facility increases from initial planning through the end of construction, so does the likelihood of change orders, cost growth, and loss of quality. Changes in the requirements tend to cause changes in design. If the agency changes its requirements, cost changes often ensue through no fault of the designer. If requirements have changed, it is more difficult to determine that A/E performance is wanting. Conventional design-bid-build projects that experience construction changes that increase costs more than 10 percent over construction contract award value should be thoroughly reviewed. Changes due to A/E errors, oversights, or omissions should not increase costs more than 5 percent. If an agency is experiencing such cases on a recurring basis, the agency's programming or A/E firm selection processes may be at fault. Quality Control on Federal Construction Projects, Technical Report No. 84, Federal Construction Council Consulting Committee on Contract Management, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987. This report summarizes responses to a questionnaire focused on five areas associated with construction quality control: (1) definition of terms, (2) general approaches to construction quality control, (3) views of agencies on trends in construction quality, (4) recent actions taken to improve construction quality control, and (5) additional actions being considered to improve construction quality control. Responses were received from five federal agencies: (1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (2) Naval Facilities Engineering Command, (3) Veterans Administration, (4) General Services Administration, and (5) Public Health Service. The report was one of the earliest to note the impact of staff downsizing on the design review process. It recognized the relationship between quality results and good design and compares and contrasts differing agency approaches to design review processes, noting several best practices. Points receiving the most emphasis include the following: The design review process is critical to project outcome; more attention needs to be placed on this phase of the project acquisition cycle. Constructability issues need more attention during the design review process. Facility maintainability issues (especially participation by the owner's maintenance experts) need to be increased during the design review process.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Quality Planning in Times of Tight Budgets: Summary of a Symposium, Technical Report No. 97, Federal Construction Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990. This report comprises synopses of 11 talks presented by both public and private sector facilities managers. The topics are generally concerned with the predesign planning and programming phase of facility acquisition. However, one presentation is particularly noteworthy by providing an unusual perspective: “Quality Planning in the Marriott Organization,” by Rene Gautschi, Vice President of Marriott Corporation. Ms. Gautschi relates the difficulty faced by an owner who must focus primarily on schedule aspects of facility acquisition in a business where a large staff is on payroll prior to opening and convention users are often booked before construction is even started. In such an event, the temptation to delay start of construction until every last detail has been wrung out of the concept plan and construction drawings can be catastrophic. Ms. Gautschi therefore describes a facility acquisition process focused on minimizing up-front planning activity, eschewing alternative design studies, avoiding construction change orders, and accelerating start-up activities. Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets, Committee to Assess Techniques for Developing Maintenance and Repair Budgets for Federal Facilities, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1998. Although primarily oriented toward facilities operation, maintenance, and repair activities, many of the committee's findings and recommendations are relevant to facility acquisition issues. Relevant findings include the following: Federal facilities program managers are being encouraged to be more businesslike and innovative, but current management, budgeting and financial processes have disincentives and institutional barriers to cost-effective facilities management and maintenance practices. Organizational downsizing has forced facilities program managers to look increasingly to technology solutions to provide facilities-related data for decision making and for performing condition assessments. Training for staff is a key component of effective decision making, condition assessments, and the development of maintenance and repair budgets. Relevant recommendations include the following: Governmentwide performance measures should be established to evaluate the effectiveness of facility maintenance and repair programs and expenditures. Facilities program managers should be empowered to operate in a more business-like manner by removing institutional barriers and providing incentives for improving cost-effective use of maintenance and repair funds. The government should provide appropriate and continuous training for staff that perform condition assessments and develop and review maintenance and repair budgets to foster informed decision making on issues related to the stewardship of federal facilities and the total costs of facilities ownership. At the executive level, an advisory group of senior-level federal managers, other public sector managers, and representatives of the nonprofit and private sectors should be established to develop policies and strategies to foster accountability for the stewardship of facilities and to allocate resources strategically for their maintenance and repair. OTHER RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS Glenn R. Bell, Frank W. Kan, and David R. Wright, “Project Peer Review: Results of the Structural Failures II Conference, ” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 3, No. 4, November 1989. The authors note that review of structural design for integrity and compliance with applicable building codes

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS is highly variable across the country. They also note that, to a great extent, review characteristics are anecdotally based, with tightly enforced jurisdictions usually traceable to a highly visible failure incident. They briefly describe current practices in Belgium, France, and Germany where structural design public safety reviews are tightly structured, conducted by specialized and licensed engineer firms, and funded either by code-enforcing municipalities or by building insurance associations. The authors conclude that project design peer reviews of certain building types and threshold limits should be made mandatory for public safety, although definition of types and thresholds requires further study. The authors also recommend that such review be made by an independent third-party reviewer, and that care be taken in the selection of such a reviewer to ensure competence and lack of conflict of interest. Richard Bender, and Todd Bressi, Design Review: A Review of Processes, Procedures and Potential, Center for Environmental Design Research, University of California, Berkeley, 1989. The University of California (Berkeley) offers a seminar on design review for individuals selected to serve on public sector design review boards concerned with selecting and grading appropriate design solutions for the urban environment. This publication is based upon the course materials. Chapter 5 contains a discussion comparing and contrasting various approaches to using the following types of guidelines: strict guidelines contained within zoning requirements that must be met, specific prescriptive guidelines that describe the desired design solution in specific terms, descriptive guidelines that are statements of intentions and less specific about possible design solutions, and performance guidelines stated in terms of performance objectives that the designer can meet in any way seen fit. J. Carter Brown, ed. Federal Buildings in Context: The Role of Design Review, University Press of New England, Hanover, N.H., 1995. (Proceedings of the symposium sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art and the National Building Museum, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1993). This symposium of 12 papers and a panel session was arranged around three case studies: The Boston Federal Office Building, American embassies abroad, and the Boston Federal Courthouse. Abstracts of relevant papers include the following: Brenda Case Scheer, “A Design Review Primer.” Professor Scheer explores strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to architectural design oversight of landmark public buildings. Her preferred approach uses the review process to advocate good design rather than stifle it by focusing on negative criticism. Although primarily concerned with high architectural-impact structures such as courthouses, museums, and monuments, her analysis is relevant to the architectural aspects of any public or private project. Robert J. Diluchio, “Design Management at the United States General Services Administration. ” Mr. Diluchio describes the GSA process of managing its facility portfolio designs from the perspective of the Assistant Commissioner of Public Buildings. The focus is primarily on landmark architecture with high-impact architectural considerations. He describes a process that must also ensure a high-quality and safe workplace, functional efficiency and effectiveness, compliance with budget limitations, and compliance with legislative requirements such as the 1972 Brooks Architect-Engineer Act. In summation, he describes the GSA design review process as an interpretation and expansion of Senator Daniel P. Moynihan's publication, “The Guiding Principles of Federal Architecture.” George M. White, “Notes on the Design of Federal Buildings.” Mr. White, writing from his perspective as

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS the Architect of the Capitol, provides unequivocal support for the concept of “owner” review of an A/E's effort. He recommends development of design guidelines for use by both designers and reviewers to remove arbitrariness from the process. Mr. White commends the Commission of Fine Arts and the U.S. State Department for having uniquely successful design review processes and recommends adoption of similar processes by other federal agencies. David M. Childs, “The Role of Design Review in Achieving Excellence of Design.” Mr. Childs explores how to create and operate an “office of design” at the highest level of each federal agency with facility engineering responsibilities. Such an office would oversee predesign activities, A/E selection, and the design review process. Mr. Childs emphasizes the importance of design review by stating that “. . . the mere existence of a design review process elevates both the work of architect and the aspirations of his or her clients.” Robert A. Peck, “Reviving Design Quality in Federal Projects.” Mr. Peck (at the time Deputy Director for Intergovernmental Affairs of the Federal Communications Commission) recommends that a senior government position, “The Office of the Supervisory Architect,” be reinstated. The office existed from 1840 to 1939, and he believes its reinstatement would raise the visibility and quality of federal design and construction activity to historic levels of achievement with the overall process much less regimented and benefiting more from intensive oversight by independent and respected design professionals. Mr. Peck notes that “things are terribly amiss with regard to design quality in the federal government's public building programs. . .” and he directs his criticism across the board to military commissaries and exchanges as well as landmark projects. He notes a downward trend in quality beginning in the 1930s, prior to which over one-half of all public buildings were designed by federal employees. To counter this trend, he recommends increased involvement of competent and independent peer review groups, while simultaneously minimizing guidelines, rules, and regulations to which such groups would be subject. The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems, A White Paper from The Business Roundtable, Washington, D.C., 1997. This paper provides a remarkably succinct, focused, and practical look at how large private sector corporations have transformed their approach to engineering and management of capital projects, with widely varying results. Data for the analysis are based on 2,000 projects totaling over $300 billion in investment value. The following three key points are raised: The best companies bring their facilities online 30 percent faster and at 27 percent less cost than average companies, and the facilities are generally more effective in meeting their intended purpose than those of average companies. In-house detailed engineering has declined to one-third the level it was in the 1970s; similarly, conduct of the critical predesign project definition phase by outsourced contractors has increased threefold. Total project engineering costs, as a percent of total project cost, have nearly doubled during this same timeframe. This may be an indication of engineering inefficiency, or it may indicate increased project planning activity. Research has identified the following universal characteristics of the best capital project systems: Cross-functional teams develop projects. These teams are led by the owner and involve all interested parties to the project (A/E, construction contractors, subcontractors, vendors, users, maintainers, etc). Active and project-knowledgeable business representatives take the lead, especially on the front end. Engineering and project functions report to the businesses, not to the plant management. Continuous improvement systems are used throughout.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Systematic performance measurements are frequently taken during the life of the project. All necessary in-house resources required to develop and shape projects are provided until such time as projects are ready for detailed design. John H., Cable, and Gerald W. Westerbeck, Assessment of ISO 9000 Pilot Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, Publication CE607R1, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Va., 1998. This report discusses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pilot program to test the concept of operating under the ISO 9000 quality management system. ISO 9000 is an internationally recognized 20-step system for controlling process quality that essentially requires the user to “Say what you plan to do; do what you said you would do; measure what you did; adjust your process if you're unhappy with the measure, and repeat. And periodically conduct an independent audit of the whole process using an ISO 9000 process expert.” Although generally thought to apply more appropriately to the manufacturing industry, ISO 9000 techniques are every bit as applicable to service industries such as A/E and construction. Indeed, some of the most recognized names have achieved ISO-9000 registration: Bechtel Group, Brown and Root, Fluor Daniel, Jacobs Engineering Group, Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, among others. In 1995, six organizations (four engineering divisions and two construction divisions) at four sites were chosen to implement ISO 9000. The time from inception to final registration was expected to take 12-14 months. Four of the six organizations completed registration (requiring from 15 to 33 months) at time of report publication. Pilot organizations reported that their postregistration operations are streamlined, more efficient, and consistent with the operation of an engineering and construction organization. The rigor of maintaining registration is of value as well; it forces organizational self-examination in preparation for external audits. Organizations report improved internal communication, increased teamwork, reduced time to deal with routine procedures, clarified responsibilities, and reduced errors and rework. Although organizations participating in the pilot program were enthusiastic about the experience and the results of the ISO 9000 certification process, some viewed the time and cost of the process as unduly great. With experience, ISO 9000 implementation should become a much more efficient process as additional Corps districts are brought on line. National Government/Industry Forum on Design-Build Plus, Summary of a workshop held September 9, 1998, at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. This workshop was cosponsored by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Design Build Institute of America, the CII, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Society of American Military Engineers, and the Federal Facilities Council. Presentations by the sponsors and invited guests addressed the following issues: The need for better, cheaper, faster project delivery. How private owners have aligned facility and business objectives. Why the industry has been evolving toward design-build delivery. How the industry has adapted to owner requirements, for better or worse. How design-builders recommend owners prepare their solicitations. Why the planning, funding, and management cycle is interdependent and not independent. What constitutes sustainable design for integrated facilities providers. The major public barriers preventing wholesale adoption of design-build. How innovative materials and processes can be put into practice. The future of facilities acquisition, including operation and maintenance. The public-private alliances that would allow projects to move forward. What is needed to implement design-build and other owner tools.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Sue Dyer, Partner Your Project, Pendulum Publishing, Livermore, California. 1997. This report walks through the partnering process. It offers a step-by-step guide for successfully partnering a project, answering questions concerning the partnering decision, overcoming objections, getting project stakeholders on board, the partnering session, and follow through. E. William East, Tim Roessler, and Mark Lustig, “Improving the Design Review Process: The Reviewer's Assistant,” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1995. This paper reports the results of an analysis of the design review process and the development of a tool to assist design reviewers. The tool, called the “Reviewer's Assistant,” assists reviewers by capturing, storing, and retrieving design review comments and by compiling lessons learned. The storage of comments and compilation of lessons learned enable future reviewers to benefit from the experience gained on past reviews of similar projects. E. William East. Web-Enabled Design Review and Lessons Learned. USACERL Technical Report 98/31, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, Illinois, 1998. Mr. East and the Construction Engineering Research Laboratories have been involved for several years in the development and adoption of a series of computer-based systems intended to facilitate the design review process. The Automated Review Management System, developed in the early 1980s, required mainframe computer support, but it evolved into Reviewer's Assistant which can be run on relatively simpler net server systems. This report announces the third-generation improvement: Document Review and Checking System (DrChecks), which can be run on desktop PCs and uses the worldwide web to communicate between various participants of the design review process. DrChecks also exploits the ability of the World Wide Web and Internet to access other material relevant to the design review process, such as multimedia knowledge base for building systems, standard sets of computer-aided design and drafting details, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guide specifications. Kneeland A. Godfrey, Partnering in Design and Construction, New York, McGraw Hill, 1995. The author shows how to build a relationship between the general contractor, subcontractors, and designers in construction projects, featuring case histories of real projects and chapters by construction professionals. Topics include the origins of partnering, including lawyers as team members; alternative dispute resolution; partnering with foreign coworkers; and safety and quality issues. Jeffrey G. Kirby, Douglas A. Furry, and Donald A. Hicks, “Improvements in Design Review Management,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 114, No. 1, 1988. The benefits of a formal design review program depend on the ability to efficiently manage many simultaneous review efforts and effectively incorporate the resulting comments into the final contract documents. Research into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design review program identified areas of needed improvement which resulted in the development of the Automated Review Management System (ARMS). ARMS is a computer-based program that fosters increased communication and interaction among all review participants and provides a mechanism for data collection, collation, distribution, and incorporation into contract documents. This paper makes a number of relevant points, including the following:

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Fifty-six percent of all contract modifications are to correct design deficiencies. Industry research indicates that savings on the order of 6-23 percent of original estimates are achievable through proper constructability reviews. Too many traditional design review activities are conducted as individual efforts with little interaction between reviewers. Traditional design-bid-build practice separates the A/E from the construction contractor, intensifying the need for error-free documents amenable to a variety of construction techniques. Recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers experience in design review indicates that there will be well over 600 comments per project, on average —an intensity that would be well served by an automated system for the documentation, analysis, and resolution of comments. Most design review comments are not tracked adequately—final resolution status and archival availability need improvement. Roy Mendelsohn, “The Constructability Review Process: A Contractor's Perspective.” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1997. Mr. Mendelsohn estimates that 75 percent of the problems encountered during construction are generated in the design phase, and they could be avoided by incorporating an appropriate constructability review into the design review process. He defines such a process, emphasizing that it must begin as early in the design process as possible, indeed “before any design is put to paper.” Selection of a construction expert, without conflict of interest, is of crucial importance. Rather than relying on traditional sources (in-house construction inspectors or third-party contractors who may or may not have subsequent involvement with actual project construction), he recommends selection of an individual or firm specializing in construction management services (i.e., firms that do not perform construction with their own forces, but rather manage construction on behalf of owners. William T. Nigro, and Martha W. Nigro, Redicheck Interdisciplinary Coordination. 3rd ed., The REDICHECK Firm, Peachtree City, Ga., 1992. Based on research, the authors concluded that the average construction project generated 8.4 percent cost growth from change orders. Furthermore, approximately 50 percent of these change orders were due to coordination errors in project plans and specifications. Examples include ceiling heights incompatible with above-ceiling mechanical components; variance between electrical and mechanical requirements concerning voltage, horsepower, or phase; and mechanical ducts and building structural members occupying the same space. The authors estimate that the average project contains five coordination errors per contract drawing; and a large project of 500 drawings will typically contain 2,500 coordination errors! The authors developed a systematic approach to check the interface of disciplines (civil, structural, architectural, mechanical/plumbing, electrical, kitchen/dietary, and specifications). Although their firm (The REDICHECK Firm) will perform an interdisciplinary check under contract, their manual is intended as a checklist that will allow an owner or an A/E to perform the service internally. The authors' most recent research, encompassing over $1 billion in construction work submitted to REDICHECK review, resulted in a 50 percent reduction in cost growth due to change orders. With the cost of the REDICHECK review averaging 0.125 percent of project construction cost, this translates to an average 30:1 payback ratio.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Partnering and Changing Attitudes in Construction, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C., 1995. This volume provides case studies, with good coverage on the facilitator 's involvement and approach to workshops. Quality in the Constructed Project: A Guide for Owners, Designers and Constructors, Vol. 1, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 73, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1990. This is a perceptive and well-written manual intended to guide the owner, design professional, and constructor of a given project into and through a mutually supportive relationship which will result in the highest probability of ultimate project success. The manual provides guidance for establishing roles, responsibilities, relationships, and limits of authority for project participants and stresses the importance of concepts and practices that enhance quality in the constructed project. Relevant topics discussed include definition and assignment of responsibility, importance of teamwork, importance of concise contractual provisions, principles of good communication, owner's selection process for project team members, and procedures for design and construction. Anyone involved with the acquisition of capital facilities, regardless of their area of expertise or depth of skill, will likely find some new and practical insight into improving individual and team effectiveness. J. Mark Schuster, Design Review: The View from the Architecture Profession, Design and Development Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1990. This report summarizes a Boston-area survey of architects that solicited information concerning their experience with design review boards whose responsibilities ranged from code compliance to architectural aesthetics. Responses to questions relating to “value-added” or “value-subtracted” by the review process are of particular interest. The more generally supported positions included the following: Overall, the process is beneficial to both architect and facility owner or developer. The process is enhanced by use of written guidelines and standards, as opposed to hard-requirement rules and regulations. Board constituency is critical: All interested parties need to be represented (owner, developer, architect, construction contractor, maintenance staff, users, community representatives, permit agencies, and code reviewers). Continuity of participation of the part of board members is essential. Participants should be versed in subject matter (i.e., facility intent, community standards, facility design and construction technology) and relatively senior in terms of experience. If laymen participate, prior training in architectural engineering fundamentals and semantics, as well as board functioning, is appropriate.

OCR for page 53
Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING FACILITY DESIGNS Ralph J. Stephenson, Project Partnering for the Design and Construction Industry. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996. This volume is a one-stop resource that contains all the steps, procedures, and guidelines needed to build effective partnering project systems. Rubin M. Zallen, “Proposal for Structural Design Peer Review,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996. Mr. Zallen proposes a mandatory peer review of structural review that could be incorporated into a government regulation. Such review, he posits, should be conducted by the building code authority rather than by the A/E or owner, both of whom he believes represent a conflict of interest. America's Conference on Project Delivery Systems for Building Construction, presentation material for the Conference of the Associated General Contractors of America, Atlanta, Georgia., September 9-10, 1993. The conference support materials focused on the definitions, strengths, and weaknesses of the four major methods of construction project delivery, identified as general contract, design-build, construction management, and program management. Material is included addressing several best practices including partnering, alternative dispute resolution, total quality management, and variations and hybrids of the above-listed construction project delivery methods.