Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: Best Practices for Reviewing Facility Designs (2000)

Because [design review] is a subjective process, it depends for its success on the quality, reasonableness and experience of the design review panel. As a result, experiences vary dramatically. George M. White, Architect of the Capitol (Brown, 1995)

The federal government, like private corporations and other organizations, acquires facilities to support specific functions and missions and the general conduct of its business. The federal government is, in fact, the nation's largest owner of buildings and other constructed facilities and has the largest annual budget for facility design and construction in the United States. Worldwide, the federal government owns more than 500,000 buildings, facilities, and their associated infrastructures (roads, utility plants, distribution systems and the like) valued at more than $300 billion (NRC, 1998). As an owner, the federal government and its agencies are responsible for the stewardship (i.e., responsible care) of these facilities on behalf of the American public.

Confronted with a requirement to acquire a building or other constructed facility, owner organizations, both public and private, traditionally participate in a multiphased process involving conceptual planning, design, procurement, construction, and start-up. Throughout this process, owners usually maintain some level of design oversight to ensure that the acquired facility is an acceptable balance of cost, schedule, quality, and performance.

Until the 1990s, federal agencies often maintained an in-house facilities engineering organization, comprised in part of architects and engineers, responsible for both the technical aspects and the oversight of the planning and design phases of the acquisition process. As a result of executive and legislative initiatives to reduce the size of the government, federal agencies have downsized their design and engineering staff. Agencies are increasingly using outside consultants to provide technical expertise for the planning and design phases of both new projects and major renovations of existing facilities. Although oversight responsibility for the facility planning and design phases generally remains within the agencies, fewer staff resources are being devoted to the effort than in the past.

Concurrent with downsizing, procurement regulations have been modified to allow agencies greater flexibility and choice in selecting contracting methods for acquiring facilities. As recently as five years ago, the design-bid-build method for facility acquisition was used almost exclusively. Today, agencies increasingly rely on design-build, construction management, and program management contracting methods. Further, advances in

computer-aided design and other technologies are occurring simultaneously with process changes in federal agencies, increasing the importance of technology support in the design process.

In this changing facilities acquisition environment, the sponsor agencies of the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) determined that a review of issues, practices, and methods related to the design phase of the acquisition process could be of benefit. The FFC is a cooperative association of federal agencies, each of which requires the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of a significant inventory of buildings and other constructed facilities in support of its mission. ¹

Because of resource constraints, the FFC initially chose to focus on the design review function of the design process. Prior to developing a detailed scope of work, the sponsor agencies shared information on their own design review processes and the design review processes of some private sector organizations with which they were familiar. Analysis of this information revealed that no two of these organizations defined the design review process and its various elements in exactly the same manner. Nor was a common start or end point identified for design review as an element of the facility acquisition process. For some organizations, design review was limited to reviewing a consultant-prepared schematic design to ensure that it met the owner organization's functional requirements for floor area, functional adjacencies and connections, and budget. For other organizations, design review primarily involved reviewing a more detailed facility design prepared by an in-house design team or a private sector architect/engineer firm under contract. The level of the review and the elements reviewed —for example, architectural reviews, mechanical and electrical interface reviews, or constructability reviews—also varied. Some processes were formal, incorporating design reviews at specific design milestones (e.g., 15, 30, 60 percent design). Others were less formal, relying on periodic meetings between the owner and the design team to review the progress being made toward final preparation of final construction contract plans and specifications.

In view of the lack of a commonly accepted definition of the elements, duration, and substance of the design review process, the FFC determined that it would focus on practices for reviewing facility designs over the entire facility acquisition process, from conceptual planning to start-up. Stated another way, in this study the term design review is used to signify the review of facility designs as part of a multiphased process and is not limited to reviewing designs during the design phase of facility acquisition.

The core issues of this study concern the value-added of design review processes and the appropriate level of oversight for owners of facilities, particularly federal agencies, in such processes. The study objective was to identify a range of best practices and technologies that can be used by federal agencies and other owners to provide adequate management and oversight of design reviews throughout the facility acquisition process. Specifically, the study seeks to provide answers to the following questions:

• What is the value-added of design review processes?

• How do (and how can) federal agencies measure the value-added?

• What is the role of in-house staff, and what value do they add to design review processes?

• What functions are being (and should be) contracted to outside consultants?

• What skills and resources do federal agencies need to provide effective oversight of design review processes?

• What risks and liabilities do federal agencies face in outsourcing most or all of their design review functions?

• How can new and emerging technologies be integrated into design review processes?

The members of the FFC identified the need for this study in the 1998 Technical Activities Program. The FFC's Standing Committee on Organizational Performance and Metrics had the lead responsibility for the planning, organization, and oversight of the study. The standing committee developed a two-part questionnaire and distributed it to FFC sponsor agencies. Part one was sent to senior facilities engineering program directors at the headquarters level and focused on agencywide policy issues. Part two was sent to randomly selected project managers at the field activity level and focused on design review for individual projects. (Copies of the two questionnaires are included in Appendix C). A total of 44 questionnaires were returned (21 of part one; 23 of part two). The following nine federal agencies answered the questionnaires:

• Air National Guard

• U.S. Department of Energy

• U.S. Department of State

• General Services Administration

• Indian Health Service

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• National Institutes of Health

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command

• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

The questionnaires were collected and provided to Mr. Ralph Spillinger, the author of this report. Mr. Spillinger is a consultant experienced with federal facility acquisition, the facility project design and construction process, and FFC activities (Appendix D contains Mr. Spillinger's biography). He was asked to analyze the questionnaire responses to compare and contrast design review processes as practiced by the nine responding agencies. Furthermore, he completed a literature search and conducted interviews with other public agencies, private sector facility owners, trade and professional organizations, and A/E firms to characterize the current state of the art from a broader perspective. (Appendix A contains a list of persons interviewed by Mr. Spillinger and their affiliated organizations. Appendix B contains abstracts of publications that were reviewed during the course of the study.)

The FFC and the Standing Committee on Organizational Performance and Metrics reviewed interim drafts of the report. The final draft of the report was reviewed by Dr. Sarah Slaughter, professor of civil engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment of the National Research Council.

The remaining sections of this report are organized as follows. Chapter 2, Facility Acquisition Practices and Industry Trends, describes the facilities acquisition process; trends related to downsizing, process reengineering, contract methods, and teamwork; and collaborative processes. The roles of conceptual planning, benchmarking, technologies in design reviews, and the costs and benefits of design reviews are addressed. The chapter concludes with findings regarding effective design review processes.

Chapter 3, Design Review Practices in Federal Agencies, summarizes and analyzes the responses received to the questionnaires developed for this report. The results are analyzed at two levels:

• An agency-by-agency review that characterizes each of the nine responding agencies' approach to reviewing facility designs. In the case of those agencies with multiple reporting field activities, the analysis also looks at the process variability among field activities.

• A general overview of all 44 surveys received from the nine responding federal agencies. The analysis contrasts and compares design review practices among agencies.

Chapter 3 also identifies some interesting initiatives.

Chapter 4, Best Practices for Reviewing Facility Designs, summarizes the findings of the study as they relate to the value-added of design reviews, the skills and resources needed to provide effective oversight, and the role of technology. Based on these findings and other information, 17 best practices for design reviews are identified. The chapter concludes by identifying some opportunities for follow-on study.

Appendix A, Record of Interviews, provides the names and affiliations of individuals who were contacted and interviewed during the course of this study.

Appendix B, Literature Search Abstracts, contains abstracts of publications that were reviewed during the course of this study.

Appendix C, Benchmarking Design Review Process Questionnaire, contains copies of parts 1 and 2 of the FFC-developed questionnaire.

Appendix D is the biography of Mr. Ralph Spillinger, the author of this study.

Appendix E is the bibliography.