ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY DEFINED BY DAVID BURTON, VICE PRESIDENT, FDBIA, LAYTON CONSTRUCTION | COLIN GRAY, PRESIDENT, GOVAN BROWN | ED HANZEL, VICE PRESIDENT, LF DRISCOLL | STEPHEN SOVIERO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, STRUCTURE TONE NEW YORK
As architects, engineers, owners, and construction managers embrace innovation at all stages of the project process, the industry has also begun to reevaluate how these stakeholders partner to deliver top quality projects, on time and on schedule. The STO Building Group family of companies has been leveraging alternative project delivery models for more than a decade now. Here, a handful of experts share how an integrated approach can add value. What’s the difference between designassist, design-build, and integrated
Hanzel: The big difference between IPD and design-assist is that the owner and the key trade contractors in an IPD agreement really share the risk and the success of the project. Because it’s a multiparty agreement, IPD projects tend to be more collaborative earlier in the project, which creates greater cost transparency throughout the process.
Why are more clients exploring Vice President, FDBIA, Layton Construction
Colin Gray,
President, Govan Brown
Ed Hanzel,
Vice President, LF Driscoll
Steven Soviero,
Executive Vice President, Structure Tone New York
Gray: There’s more than one way to approach these delivery models. Govan Brown recently completed a project where we entered into a “hybrid” design-build agreement with the owner. The structure of this agreement had the owner holding the design contract through the schematic design and design development of the project, then the final design responsibility
38 CONSTRUCTION TODAY
significantly reduce their risk on the project.
David Burton,
project delivery (IPD)? Burton: In design-build, the design team and the contractor are tied together and contractually share the risk. In construction management at-risk, or design-assist, the project is managed similarly to designbuild projects, but the owner actually holds separate contracts for the designer and the contractor. This approach puts the owner in a position where they must facilitate issues that arise in scope between the designer and the contractor.
was assigned to Govan Brown for the construction documents and construction administration phases. This allowed the owner to maintain full control of the design itself but transferred the risk related to drawing coordination and administration to Govan Brown. This model was suitable for that owner as the design details were very important to them but they wanted to
alternative delivery models? Soviero: Many clients have been reevaluating the layers of consultants and looking to put their trust in a proven strategic partner who can engage all parties up front at the inception of the project. The consultants’ agreements are held by the design-builder, and the terms and conditions are shared with each of the consultants. It becomes one team with one master agreement. This often naturally leads to less change orders and a reduction in schedule—which means the client is saving time and money.
Hanzel: LF Driscoll recently successfully completed an IPD project with a large healthcare client who I’ve worked with for years. On prior projects, I had been involved in excess of $800M worth of GMP-type contracts—and although those projects went very well, when it came time to build this flagship project, they chose an IPD model for a couple of key reasons: 1) an opportunity to be innovative early in the design process, 2) to create a more collaborative design and construction execution process that the entire team contributed to for a better outcome, 3) to reduce the number of change orders, and 4) to encourage resolution from any disputes between the construction manager and the architect when it came to design and scope. Although the IPD process was not without learning
