Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
3 A WORKSHOP ON OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF DESIGN The participants at the Woods Hole workshop identified five areas of federal agency building practices that can have important impact on design quality: · Pre-design planning and programming are activities that define the specific purposes for the building project, the anticipated users, and relationships among users and functional needs. Strategic mission planning, resource allocation and budget development, environmental impact analyses, master planning, and project programming are included in these activities, which in aggregate are the principal guidance given to the designers employed by a federal agency. O A/E selection is accomplished through a process that varies from agency to agency but conforms generally to a uniform framework intended to assure that designers are selected on the bases of qualifications rather than price, while assuring that all qualified firms are given opportunities to undertake federal design projects.ll replanning, programming, and budgeting activities occur throughout design development. As used in this report, pre-design plans, programs, and budgets are based on strategic assumptions and estimates by agencies, and include relatively little physical design information. Design plans, programs, and budgets are subsequently developed primarily by the respon- sible designer of a specific facility, and include details of a building's siting, layout, and materials. Congressional authorization to construct a building is typically requested on the basis of partially completed design plans, programs, and budgets that are anticipated to forecast future costs with sufficient accuracy to permit firm commitment to these plans, programs, and budgets. HIP . L. 92 - 582, referred to as the Brooks Act, clescribes the process, which requires that discussions be held with no fewer than three firms considered qualified for a particular assignment. 9
· Agency and A/E participation during the design process is essential so that problems and opportunities that inevitably occur during a project's design development are addressed in a timely manner. This participation should continue through the construction phase as well. o Design evaluation is an opportunity to learn from experience as well as to monitor quality. Awards programs and post-occupancy evaluation of buildings are examples of activities in this area that could be used more effectively to influence design quality. · Building approval and general management practices in federal agencies include interactions with Congress and the public at large. Agency personnel most often deal with interest groups that can influence pre-design planning and programming procedures, the A/E process, and even- tually on the quality of the finished product. In each of these five areas, workshop participants discussed agencies' concerns as well as comparable experience in the private sector. Proposals for changes in agency practices to improve design quality were then con- sidered by the committee in drawing their conclusions. PRE-DESIGN PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING12 Pre-design phases of the decision-making process are critical because it is during these phases that the size, function, general character, location and budget for a building are established. Errors made at this stage are usually embodied in the completed facility, in such forms as inappropriate space allocations or inadequate equipment capacity. These pre-design phases include long-term planning, programming, management planning, and budgeting. There are three essential elements of long-term or master planning for a building: 1. inventory, assessment, and evaluation of existing facilities; 2. analysis of future needs, with alternative scenarios de- scribed in terms of varying degrees of probability; and 3. development of alternative plans for each scenario, using existing or modified facili- ties and/or new construction. A successful master plan contains an inte- grated series of documents that present in graphic, narrative, and tabular form the present situation and the plan for an orderly and comprehensive solution to anticipated future problems. The master plan allows for the future accomplishment of the stated mission and objectives in an efficient and economic manner over a specified time frame. Based on a master plan, agencies normally develop long-, intermediate-, and short-range construction programs. Specific projects are identified and quantified, and usually given a priority. A specific anticipated 12The term "pre-design" is meant to refer to all stares Prior to final design. A building's stages of increasing detail "preliminary," "schematic," ~ . design is actually accomplished over several and certainty. Interim stages may be termed or "35 percent" designs. 10
cost is assigned based on preliminary design work, and on this basis con- gressional authorizations and appropriations are sought. An earlier BRB studyl3 noted that "In many agencies it is difficult to pinpoint where programming...begins and where it ends. Terminology differs among agencies and within agencies themselves. Programming is carried out with differing levels of efficiency and success. Programming is reviewed, in general, as a discrete, front-end or preliminary stage in the building process in which requirements are set out in isolation from subsequent trade-offs of funding, design, and construction. Programs are seen as definitive documents rather than as ongoing processes of discussion, negotiation and decision making...'' Yet at this early stage in design, uncertainties require a more flexible outlook. While the programming process differs among agencies, it generally begins during formulation of the budget, often one or two years prior to the start of actual design. Estimates used to support agency submissions to Congress may be inaccurate because at this point in the project develop- ment process, requirements and criteria are often not specifically defined. Methods are evolving (such as a parametric estimating system developed by the Air Force) to improve the accuracy of project estimates early in the programming process; however, where user requirements are not well defined, accurate cost estimates are still elusive. This ambiguity continues to be a major complicating factor in the plan/program/budget sequence. Prior to the start of design, more detailed documents are prepared and provided to the designer. These documents go by many names, such as the Army's "Project Development Brochure." The program document may be quite inclusive or narrowly limited, but regardless of scope, it is a key component in the design process. The quality of this document, as well as how it is used, has a direct and significant impact on the quality of design. Project management procedures and the ability to integrate all elements of a project effectively and in a timely manner affect the quality of the finished project. A management plan will ideally include the objectives, schedule, and budget for a proposed project. The plan should also include the organization required for project execution, with clearly delineated decision procedures. Because of personnel turnover and long lead-times inherent in federal projects, the plan should document project background and include information on the assumptions and judgments reflected in previous decisions. To be effective, management plans should be developed in advance of, or at least concurrent with, the project programming process and with the same care devoted to various technical aspects. Because of their dynamic nature, they also should be revised as needed during the programming pro- cess. Approvals for the management plan and for subsequent modifications should be done formally, and disseminated to all critical participants in the project delivery system. 13Programming Practices in the Building Process: Opportunities for Improvement. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1986. 11
The quality of a project can be adversely affected by the length of time required in the early stages of the process. It is not uncommon for a project to take five years from the beginning of the pre-design decision- making to award of the construction contract. During this cycle the budget and program are progressively refined, but early estimates tend to become firmer commitments with each successive approval. The initial budget estimate may become less accurate with respect to the actual need as more and more about the project objectives and necessary design solutions become known. The problem is further complicated by personnel turnover and con- sequent loss of management continuity that occurs during a project's devel- opment. - Project budget estimates are sometimes refined during the Congressional agency hearing process. When this occurs, individual project estimates should be adjusted to reflect current estimates if that can be done without affecting the overall agency budget. If arrangements cannot be made to adjust individual estimates, projects may be authorized and appropriated at amounts different than actually required. If approvals are less than those required to award the construction contract the agency is faced with several alternatives: The project can be cancelled; it can be with- drawn, redesigned and readvertised; or it can be reprogrammed. Procedures vary among agencies, but delays of twelve months are not uncommon. More importantly, however, the quality of a project can be affected by scope reductions, criteria changes or other actions that may be taken to reduce the cost of a project to fit it into the approved program. "Fit," in this case, is determined by the budget. A "cost variation" occurs when an acceptable low bid for a specific project exceeds the Congressional authorization by a specified percentage or dollar amount, and such a variation often attracts congressional scru- tiny. The workshop participants observed that there is excessive Congres- sional involvement in project decision-making, or "micro-management," resulting in delays, scope changes or redesigns that can affect the quality of a project. Cost variation procedures should be changed to give each agency authority to reprogram funds within its total annual authorization rather than basing reprogramming thresholds on individual projects. How- ever, more care in review of total program budgets and budget contingency estimates may then be warranted. The committee recommends that rules governing reprogramming and authori- zation periods for design and construction funds be liberalized. Authority to reprogram internally and/or carry some authorization for extended periods on selected programs or projects would enhance agency planning and delivery procedures. The workshop participants felt also that there should be greater flexibility regarding single- versus multi-year appropriations. Decisions regarding multi-year funding should be made case by case, based on the nature, scope, and complexity of the particular project. Currently most agencies follow nearly identical procedures in planning and budgeting for both small and large projects. The oversight process generally required for highly complex projects (usually the larger ones) is the same as for smaller, more routine buildings. For example, with roughly 1200 projects in the 1987 fiscal year military construction program, 12
half were budgeted at less than $2 million. Together, these 600 or so projects constituted only about 10% of the total construction -budget. These smaller projects require administrative and technical staff work that might better be applied on larger projects that are generally more complex and difficult to manage. Workshop participants proposed that procedures should be established to allow for lump-sum authorizations and appropriations on an annual basis for small projects (i.e., less than $2 million). ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION Most federal construction projects of any significance are accomplished by contract. The single most important factor in achieving quality of design in federal buildings is often the selection of the A/E firm that will develop the design. The selection process--carried out within the framework established by the Brooks Act--generally begins with the posting of a notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD), and the subsequent submission by an A/E firm of Standard Forms 254 and 255. The workshop participants felt that procedures, within the framework established by the Brooks Act, should be improved. First, the respondent is usually not asked to address specific design expectations for the proposed project. Second, the open-ended nature of the SF 255 encourages voluminous responses. Such expanded and often extravagant submissions may give competitive advantage to large firms that have both the resources to commit to their preparation and a large portfolio of previous projects to submit. The most significant problem, however, is that the persons reviewing the various initial sub- missions often have very little basis on which to make assessments (par- ticularly regarding capability to perform quality design) of an individual firm's work. Comparisons of relative competence among applicants is very difficult because of such wide variety in the content and quality of sub- mitted materials. Smaller or regional firms that can produce high quality work may be lost in the initial screening process. To offset the advantages of larger firms, agencies with substantial building programs often follow the practice of rotating contract awards among qualified A/E firms to avoid accusations of favoritism or unfair competitive advantage. While such a policy may occasionally allow A/E contracts to be awarded to otherwise unknown firms who can produce good quality work, such strategies generally make it more difficult for the government to benefit from the learning experience of designers who have performed well on previous assignments. Although such "pass-around" or distribution-of-work policies may have positive political results, workshop participants suggested that they are not in the best interests of achieving quality of design. Workshop participants agreed that A/E selection for a specific project should be based on the evaluation of three fundamental factors, and acknowl- edged that these factors are in principle incorporated in the present selection process: 13
(1) The quality of past projects directly attributable to members of the design team for the project contemplated; (2) The experience and qualifications of the design team members; and (3) The proposed design approach for arriving at a final solution. Another factor that is more difficult to evaluate is the "chemistry" or fit anticipated between the design team and the individuals representing the client or agency. Different types of building projects may require different selection procedures and emphases. Design selection criteria, the program objectives outlined in the request for proposals (REP), and the selection panels should be tailored to each building project. The workshop participants concluded that there is some value in the fact that various agencies have a procurement system unique and responsive to their mission, and rejected completely measures that would attempt to standardize or centralize A/E selection without regard to the specific needs of each project or agency. However, the participants suggested that the agencies are not always par- ticularly effective in their individual selection processes and noted mixed results in quality of selections, not only among agencies, but also among projects within a single agency. While most large federal projects receive adequate publicity to stim- ulate a broad response from the A/E community, this is not necessarily true for projects that are smaller in scope and that might be more appro- priate for a large number of smaller firms unaccustomed to doing business with the federal government. In order to ensure that the best firms are given a chance to compete, the agency may need to make sure that such firms are aware of the opportunity. To this end, agencies should develop and maintain a data base on outstanding projects and their respective designers, and use this data base when developing lists of prospective design candidates of a particular assignment. Workshop participants agreed that maintaining the continuity of the original design team to the success of design is crucial. An agency-wide effort to minimize the time that elapses between the beginning of the application and interview process and the completion of contract negotia- tions would significantly increase the chances of working with the original design team. Additionally, to ensure that the commitment to design quality is sustained, a member of the selection committee should be assigned to the agency negotiating team to monitor and/or participate in negotiations. Although the workshop participants did not attempt to analyze each agency, some contended that the rating sheets used to compare A/E firms may have an inherent bias toward very large organizations and those with an extended history of building design. Questions or criteria that ask for an "evaluation" of the various firms' project histories, number and types of in-house specialists, and specific projects that demonstrate the performance characteristics sought may, in fact, provide useful insight, but since the largest firms have greater flexibility because of their larger portfolios, only those projects that are highly successful need be shown. 14
The workshop participants supported agencies' use of designers who are not federal employees in the selection and/or interview process for selected projects. The precise composition of a selection group (which should also include in-house expertise and user representatives) should vary depending on the scope and type of project. The State Department and General Services Administration have both utilized panels of outside reviewers. The State Department has reported favorably on experience with such panels in selecting designers for overseas embassies, while the GSA's Public Advisory Panel is said to have yielded mixed results. One form of A/E selection seldom used by federal agencies is the pro- fessional design competition. Unlike other countries (such as Germany, where nearly all private A/E involvement in public buildings results from government-sponsored design competitions), there does not exist an oblig- atory management or review process in the U.S. to oversee the design compe- tition process. Workshop participants noted that a properly managed compe- tition can greatly enhance the probability that a higher level of design quality will be achieved. Participants cited some of this country's most notable historic and contemporary public buildings which have resulted from various types of design competitions: the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the Washington Monument, the Nebraska State Capitol, the Pan American~Union (now Organi- zation of American States), the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, Boston City Hall and the adaptive re-use plan for the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C. Competitions have also provided the basic schemes and the basis of selection for the A/Es for such private under- takings as the Chicago Tribune Building, the highly sophisticated Intelsat Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the Humana Tower in Louisville, Kentucky. There are commonly voiced criticisms of design competitions: The process necessitates an increase in the length of time devoted to a project. Competitions add to the cost of the project. The process limits or re- stricts designer/client interchange during the important conceptual phase of the design process. Compensation for competing firms seldom covers the actual costs of the formal submissions. The focus is often more on the visual qualities of the design than functional aspects. Howeve r, workshop participants felt that with proper management, the cost of design competitions and any additional time in the process can be minimized, and are in any case marginal compared to the total life and cost of the proposed project. Generally speaking, design competitions are far more publicized and visible than other procurement methods and often receive more attention from the public. Such visibility would help foster quality of design within federal programs and appreciation within the design profession, and the public at large of the government's commitment to quality. Appropriate compensation may be the single most important incentive for an A/E firm to consider federal work. Some workshop participants believed that the current statutory limitation that design fees not exceed six percent of project construction cost may be counter-productive in terms of both attracting reputable firms and providing fair and reason- able incentives for quality work. The complexity of various projects 15
often has little relationship to a pre-established fee-that is now virtually an industry standard. The design services for many projects should be accomplished for an amount less than six percent, while in some instances, a higher percentage of the construction cost may be needed to solve complex building problems or issues. The best firms can afford to be selective about their projects, and will be attracted to those projects, almost exclusively in the private sector, that will provide a measure of compensa- tion directly related to the effort involved. The disincentive of a fee that is arbitrarily low will almost guarantee that a firm's best and most talented people will be assigned to projects other than those of the federal government. ~ Some agency procurement personnel assert that many qualified firms are willing to undertake federal design at amounts well below the statutory limits. Further, the limit applies only to preparation of drawings and specifications. If the design team is called upon to perform other services such as geotechnical exploration, materials testing, or background research, the total fees received by an A/E firm may exceed six percent of the con- struction cost. PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Workshop participants noted that the A/E called upon to design federal facilities responds directly to the guidance from agency personnel par- ticipating in the selection and technical management process. If these personnel understand and appreciate design quality and are prepared to represent the agency's interests as both users and owners, the quality of design is more likely to be high. Workshop participants cited the Park Service as an agency that has been successful in recruiting effective personnel and subsequently achieving high quality in design. Various public agencies and large private entities have substantial experience in using predominantly in-house design staff rather than con- tracting for services. It has been argued that by using in-house staff for at least a portion of the design work, the staff are able to maintain their professional currency and are more highly motivated. Similarly the ability to recruit top entry-level professionals is greatly enhanced. However, there is understandable reluctance on the part of private sector firms and established professional organizations to accept any change in policy that would direct a greater percentage of federal work to be done in-house. Workshop participants felt that quality of design can be achieved with either in-house staff or contract services, but without the guidance . . . 14Workshop participants cited specific examples, particularly in Australia and Great Britain, that support the contention that buildings of obvious quality can be produced by an agency professional staff. Par- ticipants could not determine whether such cases demonstrate specific management practices that could be adapted to federal agency design. 16
of competent agency staff and a clear mandate to produce quality design, the ability of private-sector contractors to perform optimally will be seriously impaired. If the in-house staff are not at a level of competence similar to that found in the private sector, A/E firms cannot be expected to achieve the level of design quality that they are capable of performing. And if the A/E firm is selected for reasons only tangentially related to issues of design quality, the agency's objectives will not be achieved. Since the A/E selection process, as well as the program and the review process, is usually directly affected by the agency staff, the need for recruiting the "best and the brightest" must not be underestimated, and may warrant review of the civil service rating system for design pro- fessions. Presuming that the agency has done a thorough job in soliciting, select- ing and contracting with the best available A/E firm, the role of the agency during the design process phase is still critical to achieving design quality. Fundamental to this role is the development of an under- standing, on record, of the quality objectives intended for the project. If not clearly articulated in the appropriate program document or agency design guidelines, the A/E should be invited to work with the agency staff and the end-user to define the level of quality desired. The expectations of the agency and the end-user must be explicit if the design team is to perform at an optimal level. Obviously, the quality of agency personnel directing the effort is important for developing and maintaining an appropriate level of communication with the design con- sultants. Promulgation of formal design guidelines stating the agency's policies and expectations will also be helpful. Workshop participants asserted that very early in the process the agency staff should designate qualified and responsible persons representing both the agency and end-users to be members of the design team, and insist on continuity of both these personnel and the A/E staff through design and construction of the facility. Agency staff should be guided by explicit design guidelines and criteria that address issues of design quality. Workshop participants felt that there should be a clear distinction between guidelines and criteria and that this is not always the case. Design guidelines should be broad and general in nature so as not to restrict the design team or stifle creativ- ity. Design criteria, on the other hand, should be more project specific and be focused on establishing specific needs and levels of performance expected in a given project. The method and timing of reviews during the design process is also a significant factor in achieving quality. The stages and frequency of such reviews, the individuals involved in the reviews, and the method and timeliness of feedback to the design team are important considerations in structuring the design phase. The type and completeness of information developed by the design team for each review should also be clearly delin- eated if these sessions are to have maximum value. (For example, models, full-scale mock-ups, and computer-based systems simulation may be used to augment drawings to improve communication among participants.) Prior to entering the construction stage, a thorough review of all 17
construction documents should be made. All user agency representatives should be invited to participate, along with the design and construction agent (e.g., GSA, Corps of Engineers, or other agencies) designated, to oversee construction. While experience varies from agency to agency and from project to project even within a single agency, workshop participants felt that addi- tional agency reviews were necessary to improve design quality, particularly in the preliminary and schematic phases of design. Typically, this is the time to make decisions or changes that later in the design process will be costly to alter. Detection and correction of design deficiencies become more difficult as the design stage nears completion. Workshop participants felt it important to emphasize that design quality is largely determined prior to the commencement of construction. During the construction process, the focus must be on maintaining the integrity of the design by insuring that construction documents are followed. Where omissions or errors exist or when new information suggests the need for revisions of the documents (i.e., "change orders"), care is required to assure that design quality reflected in the documents is not lost, and that opportunities for improvement are recognized. Participants at the Woods Hole workshop identified several actions preparatory to or during construction that could directly contribute to maintaining or enhancing quality of design: · Individual agencies should be given authority to pre-qualify con- struction contractors and major subcontractors, at least on selected pro- jects. Federal agencies should cooperate in maintaining and sharing per- formance data on contractors. · Agencies should require a qualified, full-time A/E job site repre- sentative (i.e., "clerk of works") or third party manager for all construc- tion projects in excess of $2.5 million. · Agencies and their contractors should establish acceptable levels of quality prior to start of construction, with mutual understanding of what is required to assure quality is maintained throughout construction. O Agencies should insure they know who is accountable for quality assurance throughout construction, and should establish specific levels of authority and lines of communication for reporting on quality among designer, contractor, and agency representatives. For some prod ects, a " des ign-build" strategyl5 may be appropriate to ensure continuous project responsibility. The purpose of the design-build strategy is to acquire, through a single contractual instrument, both design and construction services. While arguments can be made both for and against design-build, the committee was not able to determine that 15With this strategy, a single firm or team is selected to design and construct a facility. Such a procurement method is also termed "turn- key." The agency or an independently commissioned A/E may perform initial project planning, programming, and budgeting. 18
such an approach would necessarily increase design quality. However, the workshop participants believed that there is nothing inherent in the de- sign-build process that would necessarily preclude a higher level of quality design, and the more rapid pace of activity may discourage loss of quality through simple delay and indecision. A variation on the design-build process that has recently gained con- siderable attention in the private sector has been design-build competi- tions. In such a competition, typically three or more teams are invited (and paid) to submit conceptual plans for the facility along with a guar- anteed maximum price for construction. For some projects, particularly those for public use or those to be located on a highly visible site, such a process may present -significant advantages to a government agency. The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) in Washington, D.C., has conducted two very successful design-build competitions, one for the Willard Hotel and one for Market Square. Again, there is nothing inherent in this process that either promises or limits quality design. Yet, it is possible that properly conceived and executed design-build competitions can, in some instances, increase the probability of achieving design quality because of certain advantages implicit in the competition process, and by specifically focusing the competition on quality issues. DESIGN EVALUATION Quality design yields buildings that perform well throughout their service lives. A building's user evaluates the performance of the building in terms of its ability to satisfy both the organization's mission and the physical and psychological needs of the people who occupy the building. People's productivity and happiness depend on the healthfulness, safety, and aesthetic qualities of their environment, which depend on design. Analyses of a building's effectiveness with respect to users' needs and interests are generally termed post-occupancy evaluation (POE). A POE is dependent upon a set of pre-defined functional values and objectives related to these users' needs and interests. For the POE to be valid and meaning- ful, these values and objectives should have been clearly specified early in design or in the initial program document. Energy consumption, mechanical system and sub-system performance, and maintenance costs are important elements of POE. An evolving discipline sometimes referred to as "building diagnostics" attempts to draw upon available knowledge, techniques, and instruments in order to predict a building's likely performance over a given period of time, usually without regard to the specific user productivity within the facility. While sub- jective judgments and values will always be present, building diagnostics attempts to limit its evaluation to measurable or quantifiable physical aspects of the building and its component systems. The fields of building diagnostics and post-occupancy evaluation provide two of the most direct means of assessing design quality of federal build- ings. Upon completion, the building may be analyzed in relation to its performance (operating costs, indoor air quality, noise elimination or 19
isolation, etc.), or in relation to the performance of any number of sub- systems, assemblies, or products. Workshop participants proposed that such post-construction evaluation procedures should be more frequently used by federal agencies. Knowledge gained from building diagnostics and post-occupancy evaluations can have a positive impact on the programming and design of future facilities with similar characteristics.16 POE results also allow the agency and A/E consultants an opportunity to learn how decisions made in the design process turn out to influence building performance. The Woods Hole workshop participants also examined the role that various design awards programs might have on improving design quality. It was noted that federal buildings seldom receive recognition through established design awards programs operated under the auspices of the national pro- fessional societies at either regional and national levels. The participants agreed that properly conducted awards programs could have a major position impact on design quality. Awards programs foster understanding of design excellence among both the professional design community and the public. The central issue of "design quality" in building construction is also made more accessible for comment and debate. The potential for recognition by peers provide a clear incentive to both de- signers and their clients to achieve quality. It was proposed that a national design awards program, limited to completed federal buildings, be established and conducted every two years. Project submissions would be reviewed in three stages: first by technical assessors (representative of various federal agencies not directly involved with the submitted project); second by a team of external professionals with exemplary design credentials, who have available the earlier technical assessments; and third, by site visits by at least two members of the second stage evaluator team, who would interview with users and agency administrators as well as inspect the building. Awards would be presented at an appropriate ceremony, documented and published biennially, thereby institutionalizing the process and publicizing exemplary projects representing the best of federal architecture. Formal recognition of distinguished federal buildings will encourage senior agency officials to address design quality as an agency objective in future pro- jects, and will help to spread understanding of what is meant by quality. The proposed awards program would supplement the Presidential Design Awards Program, established in 1983 by Presidential memorandum. Adminis- tered by the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts, this quadrennial program is intended to recognize outstanding contributions to federal design in the fields of architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, planning/urban design, interior, graphic and product design, and historic preservation. The first awards were announced in the fall of 1984. Workshop participants felt that this existing program is 16Refer to 'Post-Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the Building Pro- cess--Opportunities for Improvement." Building Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1987. 20
commendable and valuable, but that a greater emphasis on design quality for federal buildings is needed. BUILDING APPROVAL AND GENERAL MANAGEMENT Workshop participants noted that each federal agency has a number of institutionalized general management practices, more or less specific to that agency, that may have significant impact on quality of design of individual building projects. These program-level management practices are expressed in the extensive array of general design criteria or guideline manuals of the agency. These general criteria typically apply to design of all buildings an agency may commission. The need for agency design guidelines and criteria would seem to be based on the assumption that the agency has unique or special requirements that need to be made a part of each building's design. The workshop par- ticipants acknowledged that for some special types of facilities, such unique guidelines and criteria may be warranted. Indeed many private sector owners of very large building portfolios also have their own guide- lines and criteria. However, participants noted that overly extensive and specific guidelines and criteria imply that the designer, left to his own devices, may very well not be motivated to produce quality, and that his flexibility design should be restricted. In effect, the criteria serve as insurance of certain aspects of performance, but reduce or elimi- nate altogether opportunities for the A/E or in-house designer to create something better. Given the complexity of buildings, the pace of technology development in the building industry, such criteria are useful, efficient, and often necessary, but agency design managers must assure that they do not serve to constrain productive creativity and quality of design. At a broader level, workshop participants noted that there is currently no agency or individual within the federal government whose exclusive job it is to act as an advocate for quality of design in federal buildings. No single entity provides direction or assistance related to design quality to the various agencies directly involved in building design and construc- tion. While the National Endowment for the Arts, National Trust for His- toric Preservation, and a number of other government or government-enabled agencies include architecture within their scopes of interest, workshop participants felt the scope and magnitude of the federal buildings program warrants greater leadership and advocacy at the national level for enhance- ment of federal design quality. Virtually every aspect of the design-delivery process can affect design quality, and at every stage there must exist a desire and encouragement to improve quality. Virtually all workshop participants felt that high level advocate for design quality in federal buildings is needed, and that a unit of government should be established to fulfill this role, perhaps with the title of Council on the Design Quality of Federal Buildings. Workshop participants did not attempt to develop the Council's structure, operations, or juris- diction, but suggested that its membership should be composed of a "super 21
vising architect" from each agency with design and construction responsi- bilities.l7 An appointed design professional would head the body. The proposed body would be responsible for advising the Congress and the President on legislative or executive actions that would enhance federal building design quality, and for assessing the design quality of federal construction in an annual report to the Congress and the President. Through these activities and ongoing advocacy the council would seek to ensure a basic commitment to quality of federal design. 17Precedents for "supervising architects" and a centralized design advocacy may be cited in past federal building practice. Refer to Chapter 4. 22 /
