Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices (2019)

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.

61 A P P E N D I X A Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools A1 – Partnering Specifications (Tool 1) Sample 1: Caltrans Partnering Standard Specifications | Source: Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/partnering/documents/Field_Guide_to_Partnering_on_Caltrans_ Construction_Projects_final.pdf . Note: In the sample document, deletions and insertions (marked in red) reflect ongoing updates at Caltrans. These marked changes emphasize that the partnering specifications document is a “living” document.

62 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 63

64 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 1 of 10 12/20/2018 INTERNATIONAL PARTNERING INSTITUTE (IPI) STANDARD PARTNERING SPECIFICATION AVIATION CONSTRUCTION (LEVELS 1-5) DIVISION 1 - PARTNERING REQUIREMENT AND PROCESS SECTION 1 - GENERAL The purpose of this specification is to outline a structured process designed to develop a collaborative environment for your project so that communication, coordination, and cooperation are the norm. This Collaborative Partnering approach will aid issue resolution and will lessen impacts on project budget, schedule and quality. (This Owner) works in a collaborative and cooperative manner with all project stakeholders including the Prime Contractor or Design/Builder (Contractor), all subcontractors, all project architects and engineers; material suppliers, specialty consultants, vendors, representatives of other agencies and the community at large. Partnering is our way of doing business. In executing the contract associated with this specification, each stakeholder agrees that they will actively and enthusiastically participate in the Collaborative Partnering process defined here. Contractor agrees that all sub-contractors, material contractors and other entities within its contractual control will participate in the Partnering process as required. Contractor will make this a specific contractual condition for all sub-contractors, material suppliers, and other entities working on this project. The Architect and/or Engineer for this project and any other consultants engaged in this project have agreed to participate in the Partnering process as defined here. Formal Collaborative Partnering for this project will start within 30 days of the Notice to Proceed and will include these elements (defined in Section 3): 1. A mutually agreed, IPI Certified Professional Partnering Facilitator 2. A “Partnering Charter”, which includes the joint development of goals 3. A periodic, joint evaluation process 4. Executive Level, Core Team, and Stakeholder Partnering 5. A Partnering Follow-up Plan to resolve potential problems at the lowest possible level 6 A Partnering Training Plan, when applicable Participation in the formal Partnering process defined here will not void any contract part. All rights and remedies defined by the final contract will be preserved. SECTION 2 - DESCRIPTION A. Definitions 1. Project Team: the group of people and organizations who are executing a construction project and who have influence on the Sample 2: IPI Aviation Standard Partnering Specifications | Source: Owner's Toolbox, www.partneringinstitute.org.

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 65 IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 2 of 10 12/20/2018 outcome. The Project Team is comprised of the Owner/Owners Rep, the Owner’s Consultants, the Contractor, the Designer, the sub- contractor(s), and other stakeholders including Government agencies, tenants, materials suppliers, concessionaires, and third parties affected by the construction project. 2. Partnering: an effort by the Project Team to develop joint goals and to establish a cooperative atmosphere regarding execution of the construction project, regardless of delivery method. 3. Multi-Tiered Partnering: For large, complex projects, the participants in partnering workshops will be divided into subgroups: Executive Level, Core Team, and Stakeholder Level. a. Executive Level Partnering: workshops involving Executive representatives from the Owner, Contractor, and key Subs who serve as a “project board of directors” to steer the project. b. Core Team Partnering: workshops involving the central group responsible for the successful execution of the project as well as key individuals who are on the project throughout its duration. Typically, field-level Project Managers (PMs) and Superintendents from the owner, contractor, design, subs, key third-parties and stakeholder groups attend these sessions. Representatives from Executive Level Partnering should also attend to ensure commitments and follow through. c. Stakeholder Level Partnering: workshops that include those internal and external stakeholders who own, operate or maintain the new facility and external stakeholders who can directly influence the project outcomes such as maintenance, facility operators, key suppliers, funders, utilities, and internal units (e.g. hydrology, soils, traffic, etc.) 4. Project Team Leaders: Project Managers (PMs) from both the Owner and Contractor who are accountable for the day-to-day operations of the project and are responsible for leading the partnering effort. They will also be in charge of coordinating project Partnering meeting times, selecting meeting locations and other logistics. B. The Goals of Partnering are to: 1. Use early and frequent communication with project stakeholders 2. Develop and maintain a relationship based on shared trust, mutual respect and commitment 3. Identify, quantify, and support attainment of co-created goals 4. Establish strategies for implementing risk management concepts and identify potential project efficiencies 5. Use timely communication and decision-making 6. Resolve potential problems at the lowest possible level to avoid negative impacts on the project

66 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 3 of 10 12/20/2018 7. Hold periodic partnering meetings and workshops throughout the life of the project to maintain the benefits of a partnered relationship 8. Establish periodic joint evaluations of the partnering process and attainment of mutual goals SECTION 3 - PARTNERING IMPLEMENTATION Partnering will be initiated and implemented in accordance with the IPI Aviation Matrix (see full size matrix p. 10): A. Selecting an IPI Certified Professional Neutral Partnering Facilitator For Levels 5, 4, 3, and 2 projects and high risk Level 1 (Micro) projects 1. The Contractor agrees that an IPI Certified Independent Professional Neutral Partnering Facilitator (Facilitator) will be retained to facilitate the project Partnering process. Professional Facilitation is required by the Owner for any project larger than $10M and will be used regularly throughout this job (outlined in Section 3 – Part C). 2. (Owner/Owner’s Rep), Designer/Architect, and the Contractor Rep will cooperatively select a Facilitator that offers the service of a monthly partnering evaluation survey with a 5-point rating scale and agrees to follow IPI’s “Partnering Facilitator Standards and Expectations” available at The IPI Owner’s Toolbox Website. Level Project Value Complexity PoliticalSignificance Relationships Desired Level of Engagement Expected Benefits and Approximate Cost to Owner* Partnering Elements 5 Very Large/Mega (Airport Terminal, Hotels, Parking Structures, etc.) ($250M - $500M+) Highly Technical and Complex Design and Construction, Public Private Partnership High visibility/ oversight Significant strategic project New Project Relationships including: New Contractors, Sub, Agencies, Third-parties, CM, PPP, High Turnover rate of Subs or other high potential for conflict (strained relationship, previous litigation, or high probability of claims) Very High Very high accountability, Issues tracked and decisions made timely, Momentum maintained as progress continues in spite of issues that arise Approx. $20,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 4 Requirements and... Monthly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Special Task Forces for specific issue resolution 4 Large (New design, new contracting method (D/B, CMAR, or other), challenging Rehabilitation/ Renovation) ($25M - $250M) High Complexity (short timeline/ schedule constraints, uncommon materials, new supply chain, baggage handling, Controls projects, Aircraft bridge Probable - Organization image at stake Public Private Partnership (PPP), Multi- prime contract, New Contractors or CM, New subs/relationships High More timely decision- making in field, Stakeholders phased in and out, Designers involved throughout process Approx. $10-15,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 3 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Stakeholder on-boarding/off-boarding Subcontractor on-boarding/off-boarding Partnering Training required 3 Medium($10M - $25M) Increased Complexity Likely, depending on the size of the client and place of importance Established Relationships New CM, Subs, Agencies, or other key Stakeholders Moderate/High (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies) Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 2 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings Monthly Scorecards Executive and Core Team Partnering Training - when team agrees 2 Small($5M - $10M) Moderate Complexity (ongoing operations) Unlikely, unless in a place of importance Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders Moderate (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies) Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 1 Requirements and... Professional Neutral Facilitator for Kick-off (minimum) 2 Project Scorecards (minimum) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution 1 Micro/Short Duration ($0 - $5M) Standard Complexity Unlikely, unless in a place of importance Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders Low to Moderate For small budget and/or short time line projects, Partnering can reduce risk and focus on project efficiencies Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $3,000/qtr Requirements: Professional Neutral Facilitator (if needed) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRA/DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution Example Potential Risk Factors Every Construction project encounters risks. Below is a short list of typical risks that a job may encounter. If your project encounters ANY of these risk factors, elevate your Partnering to the next higher level to ensure project success.

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 67 IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 4 of 10 12/20/2018 B. Partnering Initiation 1. To initiate the Partnering arrangement, the Project Team will conduct an open discussion prior to the start of the job to select the Facilitator. It is expected that, at the conclusion of the initial discussion, the parties will express a consensus regarding, the Facilitator and, among other things, the respective goals in completing the contract. Thereafter, the Project Team will continue discussions as necessary and will conduct periodic joint evaluations of performance throughout the life of the contract as outlined below. It is expected that the parties will use the services of the Facilitator not only at the initial partnering workshop, but also to assist in later discussions. 2. In leading the ongoing Partnering effort, Project Team Leaders will schedule the initial partnering workshop. All relevant stakeholders will be expected to attend and participate. The Project Team Leaders will also: a. Identify the initial suitable workshop site and duration. Note that it is typical for Level 1 and 2 projects to have between 8 and 25 attendees and for Level 3, 4, and 5 projects to include in excess of 40 to 50 individuals. b. Come to consensus on other workshop administrative details. c. Agree to additional partnering workshops and sessions throughout the life of the project. Frequency will be determined by (Owner/Owner’s Rep) as outlined in Section C. However, it is expected that there will be at least quarterly partnering workshops that will involve all relevant stakeholders. d. Agree to conduct a project close-out partnering workshop. e. Agree to document lessons learned as a condition of final project acceptance. C. Developing the Partnering Charter (All Levels) In implementing project partnering, the project team will agree to create a “Partnering Charter” that includes the agreed-on mutual goals, the Partnering Follow-up Plan, the Partnering Dispute Resolution Plan, and the signed Team Commitment signature page, explained in detail below: 1. Agreed-on mutual goals, which will include the core project goals and may also include project-specific goals and mutually supported individual goals. a. The mandatory core goals are that the Project is constructed (at minimum): i. On time ii. On budget iii. Safely iv. Quality Met

68 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 5 of 10 12/20/2018 b. Optional project-specific goals include – win a Partnering Award, team trust, excellent communication with local community (zero complaints), effective communication with Media, mitigation of project risks (e.g. environmental requirements met, stakeholder interests understood and managed, etc.). 2. The Partnering Follow-up Plan a. Attendees: For Levels 5 and 4 Projects, Partnering will be established in three groups: i. Executive Level: Executive Representatives from Owner, Prime, and key Subs – role is to steer the project ii. Core Team: Project Managers and Superintendents working at the field-level from owner, contractor, design, subs and key third-parties and stakeholder groups iii. Stakeholder Level: Identifying key trades, staged subcontractors and tenants prepared for scheduling work and later, building activation (concessionaires, security, IT, external stakeholders, etc.) b. For Levels 3, 2, and 1 Projects, Partnering will be established in two groups: i. Executive Level: Executive Representatives from Owner, Prime, and key Subs – role is to steer the project ii. Core Team: Project Managers and Superintendents working at the field-level from owner, contractor, design, subs and key third-parties and stakeholder groups c. Frequency of Partnering Sessions: For Levels 5 and 4 Projects, the team will conduct joint Partnering Meetings at these intervals: i. Through Design: Quarterly or at key milestones (e.g. Schematic Design, Design Documents, and Construction Documents) ii Through Construction and Building Activation: Monthly Partnering Sessions with the Executive, Core Team, and Stakeholder Level iii. For Design/Build, CM at Risk, or other delivery methods, frequency may increase over the course of the project. For Level 3, 2, and 1 Projects, the team will conduct joint Partnering Meetings at these intervals: i. Through Design: Quarterly or at key milestones (e.g. Schematic Design, Design Documents, and Construction Documents) ii Through Construction and Building Activation: Quarterly Partnering Sessions with the Executive and Core Teams as needed.

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 69 IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 6 of 10 12/20/2018 3. Partnering Dispute Resolution Plan (All Levels) The goal of the project Dispute Resolution process is to prevent conflicts from hindering project momentum and causing slowing the project down. It is the Owner’s expectation that issues not effectively settled at the Field Level will elevate according to the Dispute Resolution Ladder (sample below). The goal is that project momentum can be maintained while a decision is reached by the next layer of Project Management, who can rely on a broader project perspective in decision making. The Dispute Resolution process is bisected into two-sections, Project Team-driven Dispute Resolution and 3rd party Driven Dispute Resolution. As the Project Team progresses from less formal to more formal dispute resolution processes, it is important to understand that decision-making shifts from the project team, to 3rd party experts. The team will be expected to select and document planned Dispute Resolution processes during the kick-off Partnering session. (Please visit the IPI Partnering Field Guide for a detailed explanation of the various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution). a. Project Team Dispute Resolution i. Field-Level Negotiation ii. Dispute Resolution Ladder (Sample – please refer to IPI Specification Owner’s Guide additional information) iii. Facilitated Dispute Resolution (FDR) is a mediative process where the IPI Certified Construction Partnering Facilitator (Facilitator) helps the team negotiate disputed issues. In FDR, the Project Team discusses project issues and the Facilitator serves as a Neutral, offering opinions and providing settlement options. Often, Project Teams are provided 20 days to conduct this process. (Please refer to Section 5 for details).

70 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 7 of 10 12/20/2018 Sample Dispute Resolution Ladder Architect/Engineer Suppliers/Subs Owner Contractor Time to Elevate Level I Assistant Supervisor or Engineer Foreman End of shift Level II Project Superintendent orProject Engineer Superintendent, General Foreman, or Project Manager Up to 1 day Level III Construction Manager Project Manager Area Manager 1 week Level IV Project Director or Program Manager Area Manager Owner 2 weeks Level V Director of Facilities Department or Manager of Capital Programs Owner 2 weeks Level IV Board of Directors or Supervisors Owner Select next form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Typically FDR followed by the DRA/DRB) b. 3rd Party-Driven Dispute Resolution i. Dispute Review Board or Dispute Resolution Advisor – a panel of construction experts review a claim and render a non-binding, 3rd party decision to the Project Team. Additional time is granted to the team to engage in this process and make final decision. ii. Mediation – Prior to Litigation, a Project Team may elect to attempt Mediation, a voluntary, consensual, and confidential process involving attorneys and a 3rd Party Neutral with expertise in Dispute Resolution and/or Construction Litigation. iii. Arbitration – Prior to litigation, a Project Team may elect Arbitration, a short-form, contracted, dispute resolution option, where Parties in dispute present to a panel of 3 subject matter experts who render a final decision with limited appeal options. c. Litigation i. Mini-Trials: short form Court Preceding for claims litigation that attempts to reduce cost of full civil trial. ii. Traditional Civil Trial. 4. Team commitment statement and signature document (refer to IPI Specification Owner’s Guide for example) D. Partnering Evaluation 1. Owner, contractor, major sub-contractors, architects and engineers, and major stakeholders will participate in monthly partnering evaluation surveys to measure progress on mutual goals and short-term key issues as they arise. a. Partnering Evaluations will be collected by Facilitator

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 71 IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 8 of 10 12/20/2018 b. Results will be shared with project team (best practice is on a monthly basis). 2. Owner, Contractor, major sub-contractors, and major stakeholders will evaluate the partnering facilitator using IPI Forms (IPI-E1 and IPI-E2). The (Owner/Owner’s Rep) will provide the evaluation forms to the project team and collect the results. 3. (Owner/Owner’s Rep) will make evaluation results available upon request. 4. Facilitator evaluations must be completed twice: a. At the end of the initial partnering workshop on Form IPI-E1. b. At the end of the project close-out partnering workshop on Form IPI-E2. E. Partnering Skills Development Training For Levels 5 and 4 Projects, Partnering Skills Development Training will be required. For Level 3 projects, the training will be optional. 1. A Partnering Skills Development Training will be taught by a professional trainer who will conduct a 1-day training session in partnering skills development for the Owners, Contractors, sub- contractors and major stakeholder representatives. This training session should be held prior to the initial partnering workshop and must be a separate session, held locally. Owner and Contractor will cooperatively schedule the training session and select a professional trainer, training site and any of 1 to 2 topics from the following list to be covered in the training: a. Teams will complete IPI Collaborative Partnering Orientation Training or the IPI Collaborative Partnering Basics Training (visit http://partneringinstitute.org/training/ for details) b. For Teams that have completed Collaborative Partnering Basics Training, courses in these topics are available: Team Leadership Leadership Skills Dealing with Difficult People Running Effective Meetings Building Effective Teams Change Management Technical Partnering Skills Advanced Partnering Concepts Project Orientation Team Problem Solving Facilitation Skills Effective Escalation Ladders Interpersonal Skills Active Listening Communication Business Ethics Empathy Resolving Issues Conflict Resolution Cultural Diversity Win-Win Negotiation Problem Solving

72 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices IPI Aviation Committee IPI Aviation Committee 9 of 10 12/20/2018 3. The training session must be consistent with the partnering principles discussed in the IPI Specifications Owner’s Guide. Owner, Contractor, major sub-contractors, and major stakeholders will send at least 2 representatives to the training session. Contractor and sub-contractors will agree to send, at a minimum, the project executive and the project superintendent. 4. Owner will pay 100% for the training (Detailed Section 4) SECTION 4 - PARTNERING PAYMENT A. The (Owner/Owner’s Rep) agrees to pay: 1. 100% of cost for: a. facilitator workshop and session based costs b. monthly partnering evaluation survey service cost 2. 100% of cost for partnering skills development trainer and training site cost B. Payment amount will be based on invoice prices minus any available or offered discounts. (Owner/Owner’s Rep) will not pay markup on these costs. C. (Owner/Owner’s Rep) does not pay for wages, travel expenses, or other costs associated with the Partnering workshops and sessions, monthly partnering evaluation surveys, and training in partnering skills development. SECTION 5 - PARTNERING DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. (Owner/Owner Rep) will encourage the project team to use all forms of Project Team-Driven Dispute Resolution prior to engaging a neutral 3rd party. When the Project-Team is unable to resolve the issue, a Facilitated Dispute Resolution (FDR) session may be an effective method for clarifying issues and resolving all or part of a dispute. B. In order to ensure the project team has sufficient time to plan and hold an FDR session, a maximum of 20 days may be added to the Dispute Review Board (DRB) referral time following the Owner’s written response to a supplemental notice of potential claim. C. In order to be granted this additional referral time, the project team must document its intention to use FDR in the Dispute Resolution Plan of the Partnering Charter. The team may also document agreements for other associated criteria to be met in order to access the additional referral time in the Dispute Resolution Plan. If no session is held, the DRB referral time will remain in effect as specified in the Dispute Resolution Plan (See Section 3- part C for details). End of Specification

IP I A vi at io n C om m itt ee IP I A vi at io n C om m itt ee 10 o f 1 0 12 /2 0/ 20 18 IPI Aviation Construction Project Partnering Matrix Level Project Value Complexity Political Significance Relationships Desired Level of Engagement Expected Benefits and Approximate Cost to Owner* Partnering Elements 5 Very Large/Mega (Airport Terminal, Hotels, Parking Structures, etc.) ($250M - $500M+) Highly Technical and Complex Design and Construction, Public Private Partnership High visibility/ oversight Significant strategic project New Project Relationships including: New Contractors, Sub, Agencies, Third-parties, CM, PPP, High Turnover rate of Subs or other high potential for conflict (strained relationship, previous litigation, or high probability of claims) Very High Very high accountability, Issues tracked and decisions made timely, Momentum maintained as progress continues in spite of issues that arise Approx. $20,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 4 Requirements and... Monthly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Special Task Forces for specific issue resolution 4 Large (New design, new contracting method (D/B, CMAR, or other), challenging Rehabilitation/ Renovation) ($25M - $250M) High Complexity (short timeline/ schedule constraints, uncommon materials, new supply chain, baggage handling, Controls projects, Aircraft bridge Probable - Organization image at stake Public Private Partnership (PPP), Multi- prime contract, New Contractors or CM, New subs/relationships High More timely decision- making in field, Stakeholders phased in and out, Designers involved throughout process Approx. $10-15,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 3 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings (Design through Construction) Multi-Tiered Partnering (Executive - Core Team - Stakeholder) Stakeholder on-boarding/off-boarding Subcontractor on-boarding/off-boarding Partnering Training required 3 Medium($10M - $25M) Increased Complexity Likely, depending on the size of the client and place of importance Established Relationships New CM, Subs, Agencies, or other key Stakeholders Moderate/High (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies) Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 2 Requirements and... Quarterly Partnering Meetings Monthly Scorecards Executive and Core Team Partnering Training - when team agrees 2 Small($5M - $10M) Moderate Complexity (ongoing operations) Unlikely, unless in a place of importance Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders Moderate (seeking risk mitigation and project efficiencies) Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $5-10,000/qtr Requirements: All Project Level 1 Requirements and... Professional Neutral Facilitator for Kick-off (minimum) 2 Project Scorecards (minimum) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution 1 Micro/Short Duration ($0 - $5M) Standard Complexity Unlikely, unless in a place of importance Established Relationships New Subs New Agencies New Stakeholders Low to Moderate For small budget and/or short time line projects, Partnering can reduce risk and focus on project efficiencies Increased Predictability Reduced (zero) Claims Improved Safety Improved Schedule On or under budget Approx. $3,000/qtr Requirements: Professional Neutral Facilitator (if needed) Charter Executive Sponsorship Field-Level Decision Making Including Stakeholders Dispute Resolution Ladder and DRA/DRB Facilitated Dispute Resolution *Costs of Facilitation based on $5,000/day and $500 per scorecard Please note that Daily rates for Facilitators can vary widely http://partneringinstitute.org/owners-toolbox/ ©2014, International Partnering Institute Feb-15 Example Potential Risk Factors Every Construction project encounters risks. Below is a short list of typical risks that a job may encounter. If your project encounters ANY of these risk factors, elevate your Partnering to the next higher level to ensure project success.

74 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices A2 – Kick-Off Partnering Meeting Checklist (Tool 3) MdQI Partnering Manual (2015 Edition) I Source: Maryland Quality Initiative (MdQI), http://mdqi.org/partnering

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 75

76 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices A3 – Partnering Charter (Tool 4) Sample 1: Partnering Charter Page 30 of the “Kick-off Partnering Workshop Report for the Library of Congress Book Storage Facility Module 3 and 4 Fort Meade,” October 18, 2006.| Source: Document Author, Brian Polkinghorn, Personal Communication (Note: Signatures that appear as part of the example in some documents have been deliberately blurred for security purposes.)

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 77 A4 – Issue Resolution Process (Tool 5) and Issue Escalation Ladder MdQI Partnering Manual (2015 Edition) I Source: Maryland Quality Initiative (MdQI), http://mdqi.org/partnering

78 G uidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices

Sam ples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 79

80 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices project’s goals. A5 – Partnering Scorecards (Tool 8) Sample 1 – Partnering Project Scorecard | Source: A Mini-Guide to Partnering, San Francisco Public Works, https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Mini%20guide%20to%20partnering%206.23.16%20.pdf

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 81 Sample 2 – Partnering Facilitator Scorecard | Source: Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/partnering/documents/Field_Guide_to_Partnering_on_Caltrans Construction Projects_final.pdf

82 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 83 A6 – Close-Out Workshop Agenda (Tool 16) MdQI Partnering Manual (2015 Edition) I Source: Maryland Quality Initiative (MdQI), http://mdqi.org/partnering

84 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices A7 – Facilitator Allowance Language Used in Specifications San Francisco Partnering Field Guide| Source: San Francisco Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee Member, Personal Communication, August 2018, Unpublished.

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 85 A8 – San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee’s Executive Directive on Partnering | Source: Office of the Mayor, San Francisco https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-lee-issues-executive- directive-improve-delivery-capital-projects-promote-efficiency

86 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices

Samples of Collaborative Partnering Tools 87 A9 – Partnering Agreement between City and County San Francisco Partnering Field Guide| Source: San Francisco Collaborative Partnering Steering Committee Member, Personal Communication, August 2018, Unpublished.