25 minute read
east Station Plaza danseurs (dancers)
By John Sumnicht, S.E., Ronald Mayes, Ph.D. and Nicholas G. Wetzel, S.E., CPEng
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. was an Outstanding Award Winner for the East Station Plaza – Danseurs (Dancers) project in the 2014 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program (Category – Other Structures).
Union City, California wanted to develop a civic plaza to the east of the Union City BART station. Although money was tight due to the economic downturn, the City allocated local grant funding for the plaza upgrades. The architect for the project, Boris Dramov, FAIA, of ROMA Design Group, envisioned a centerpiece for the plaza – a terraced fountain with three bronze sculptured “Danseurs” – on platforms positioned within the fountain. The sculptures were fabricated in France, and for a time, were displayed in the plaza on the north side of the Louvre in Paris. Union City officials, in conjunction with the architect identified the sculptures and the City purchased them before the design of the fountain commenced. At a pre-proposal meeting, Boris expressed a concern about the seismic performance of the sculptures. As shown by the photo, his concerns were well founded. Each sculpture is approximately 16 feet (5 m) tall, weighs approximately 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg), and is very slender. The ankles of the sculptures are only approximately 6 inches in diameter. In addition, the Hayward fault is only 0.6 miles (1 km) northeast of the site. At the first sign of shaking, the sculptures would be severely damaged or possibly collapse if a conventional approach to the anchoring the sculptures was used. John Sumnicht, principal-in-charge, suggested mounting the sculptures on base isolated platforms to address this challenge. The concept of an isolated platform is similar to that used in base isolated buildings – put the object on a suspension with springs and shocks to reduce the lateral forces on the object – but on a smaller scale. This was the only scheme that had a chance of protecting the sculptures without obtrusive and objectionable external bracing. John Meyer and Ron Mayes, both with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (SGH), first proposed isolated floors a number of years ago when they were working for a biotech company on how to protect high value equipment or product from damage during strong ground shaking. They proposed mounting the high-value equipment and product on isolated floors. They worked with Dynamic Isolation Systems (DIS) to develop an early prototype utilizing small platforms with a rubber isolator and dampers. DIS took the concept and developed a system that relies on springs and cables. The isolation system used for the sculptures utilizes cross-linear bearings and a bi-directional spring unit that acts as the energy dissipation element and the spring. The hysteretic behavior of the spring unit is unconventional, with bilinear and different ascending and descending branches. The stiffness of the three branches (K1, K2, and Kr) is a function of the spring stiffness, and each can be adjusted to optimize the desired isolator behavior. The program, Design Ground Motion Library, developed by AMEX Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., was used to develop the ground motions. The ground motions were then scaled to the response spectrum for the East Union Plaza site. An analytical model of a sculpture on top of the isolation floor was developed using SAP2000. The sculptures and steel platform were modeled as linear elastic elements, and the spring unit was modeled with non-linear elements that followed the force-deformation response. In evaluating the seismic performance of the sculptures, the accelerations that the sculpture would experience and the stresses that would develop in the ankles of the sculptures were of paramount concern. For the Design Earthquake (DE) event, the average acceleration of the seven time histories at the center of mass of the sculpture, if the sculptures were rigidly attached, is 1.30g. When evaluating the stresses in the ankles, the average demand-tocapacity ratio (DCR) for a rigidly attached sculpture is 4.95. The DCR is an indicator of the ductility demand or inelastic deformation that will occur at the ankle location resulting in a rotation of the statue from the vertical position. If the sculptures are rigidly attached to the base, it is clear that a hinge would form at the base of the sculptures resulting in collapse during moderate to strong ground shaking. With the isolated platform, for the DE event, the average displacement of the seven time histories is 20 inches, the average acceleration is reduced to 0.2g, and the average DCR for the stress in the ankles is reduced to 1.04. With a DCR of 1.04, little to no damage of the sculpture during a DE ground shaking is expected. The isolation platforms were beautifully incorporated into the fountain by placing them on stone-clad pedestals, artfully arranged in the fountain. In addition, the platforms are clad in stone and bronze to transition seamlessly from the pedestals to the statues. Through the use of isolated platforms SGH was able to provide the architect and City an elegant solution to protecting their civic sculptures from earthquake damage. The total construction cost for the project was approximately $5,700,000.▪ John F. Sumnicht, S.E., is a Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. John can be reached at JFSumnicht@sgh.com. Ronald L. Mayes, Ph.D., is a Staff Consultant with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Ronald can be reached at RLMayes@sgh.com. Nicholas G. Wetzel, S.E., CPEng, specializes in the design of new structures, seismic evaluation of buildings, seismic rehabilitation of existing structures, and investigation of structural failures.
ASSOC I A T I O N S NATIONAL COUNCI L
NCSEA News
CALL FOR ENTRIES
Highlighting the best examples of structural engineering ingenuity throughout the world
Eight categories:
• New Buildings under $10M • New Buildings $10M to $30M • New Buildings $30M to $100M • New Buildings over $100M • International Structures • Renovation/Retrofi t Structures • Other Structures • New Bridges/Transportation Structures
Eligible projects must be substantially complete between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014.
Entries are due Monday, July 20, 2015, and awards will be presented at the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit on October 2nd in Las Vegas. More information and entry form at www.ncsea.com
March 24, 2015 The Correlation Between Soil Bearing Capacity & Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Apurba Tribedi, C.E., Director of Product Management at Bentley Systems Inc.
March 31, 2015 AWC’s 2015 Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic – Overview & Changes from Previous Editions Michelle Kam-Biron, P.E., S.E., SECB, M.ASCE, Director of Education for the American Wood Council
April 14, 2015 Quality Assurance For the Structural Engineer Edward Westerman, P.E., S.E., Director of Structural Engineering with Clark Nexsen
April 28, May 5 & May 12, 2015 Coming in April and May, Jon Schmidt’s 3-part series on blast: Design Criteria/ Structural Elements/Glazing Systems. Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP, Director of Antiterrorism Services at Burns & McDonnell
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS NCSEA CONTINUING EDUCATION
Diamond Reviewed Non-CalOES courses award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Approved for CE credit in all 50 States through the NCSEA Diamond Review Program. Time: 10:00 AM Pacifi c, 11:00 AM Mountain, 12:00 PM Central, 1:00 PM Eastern. NCSEA off ers three options for registrations to NCSEA webinars: Ala Carte, Flex-Plan, and Yearly Subscription. Visit www.ncsea.com for more information or call 312-649-4600.
visit www.ncsea.com for more information
Join us in Las Vegas for the new 2015 StructuraL EnginEEring Summit
Red Rock Resort, September 30 – October 3
2015 marks the 1st NCSEA Structural Engineering “Summit”. The Summit is the new title for NCSEA’s Annual Conference, which draws together the best in the structural engineering field. If you are a structural engineer or a company providing products and services to structural engineers, this is the meeting you don’t want to miss!
Leaders and Principals Gather for High-Level Talks and Networking in Coral Gables, Florida
The third NCSEA Winter Leadership Forum drew principals and leaders from a diverse group of engineering firms to Coral Gables, Florida, for thought-provoking sessions, meaningful interaction, and networking. Sessions focused on business development, retaining good relationships with your clients, banking, and organic growth versus growth by acquisition, then finished with a case study that separated the group into four Boards of Directors, to discuss whether or not to purchase another firm. Attendees enjoyed 65-degree weather, a great reception sponsored by ICC Evaluation Services, and some excellent restaurants one block away, on Miracle Mile.
Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB Principal, ARW President, NCSEA
Engineers from the following firms were represented at the 2015 NCSEA Winter Leadership Forum:
ARW Engineers Ascent Group, Inc. Barter & Associates, Inc. BHB Consulting Engineers Bob Rude Structures, Inc. Bowen Engineering
Corporation DCI Engineers Degenkolb Engineers Dibble Engineers Douglas Wood Associates, Inc. Equilibrium Engineers LLC Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP Haskell HGA IBI Group Michigan, LLC International Code Council JDB Engineering, Inc. John Tawresey Consulting Joshua B. Kardon + Co. KL&A, Inc. LV Engineers Magnusson Klemencic
Associates Martin/Martin, Inc. McLaren Engineering Nayyar & Nayyar O’Donnell & Naccarato Paul J. Ford and Company PEAK Engineering, Inc. Providence Bank Reaveley Engineers + Assoc. SMBH, Inc Sound Structures, Inc Stantec STV, Incorporated TGRWA, LLC Thornton Tomasetti TLV Holdings Wallace Engineering
Thank you to ICC Evaluation Services for being a sponsor of NCSEA’s Winter Leadership Forum.
“I really enjoyed it as usual. Great group of people this year, and the banking presentation was excellent.” NCSEA News
T R U C TURAL S
ASSOC I A T I O N S NATIONAL COUNCI L
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE Structural Columns
Registration Now Open for Structures Congress 2015
New ideas. New practices. New science. New resources. New colleagues. April 23–25, 2015, Portland, Oregon
Early Bird Registration Rates Available until March 4, 2015. The Structures Congress will feature 120 informative technical sessions, topics will include: • Buildings • Bridges • Wood • Tall Buildings • Business and Professional Practice • Natural Disaster and Resilience • Structural Steel • Wind • Blast • Masonry • And many more There will also be sessions on “Expanding the Structural Engineer’s Role in Society.” Don’t miss the CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation. Earn up to 15PDHs! Visit the congress website at www.structurescongress.org for more information and to register.
Reactivation of Blast Protection of Building Standards Committee
First published in 2011, ASCE/SEI 59-11 Blast Protection of Buildings is being revised to improve current content and expand its scope. The committee that will undertake this task is being reconstituted, with the potential that the first meeting will be during the 2015 Structures Congress in Portland, Oregon. Please express your interest in membership of this committee by submitting an application on the SEI website at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/ sei-codes-and-standards-committee-application/.
IBC Student Paper Competition
Entries due by March 31, 2015
The International Bridge Conference James D. Cooper student paper competition is open to college and university engineering students in the United States and worldwide. The winning paper will receive a $1,000 Fellowship, complimentary conference registration, hotel and travel allowances to attend the 32nd Annual IBC, June 7-11, 2015, in Pittsburgh, PA. Additionally, the winning paper will be considered for inclusion in the published proceedings and for presentation at the conference. Deadline is March, 31, 2015. See the IBC website at www.eswp.com/bridge/student_aid_bridge.htm for more information and to apply.
New Structural Books Available from ASCE
Wind Induced Motion of Tall Buildings
Wind-Induced Motion of Tall Buildings presents an overview of current research on occupant response to motion in tall buildings. This state-of-the-art report describes the physiology and psychology of the human perception of motion, and explains the factors that can be used to characterize a building’s movement. The authors summarize the results of field studies and motion simulator experiments that examine human perception of, and tolerance for, building motion. They survey the serviceability criteria adopted by international standards organizations and offer general acceptance guidelines based on peak acceleration thresholds. Finally, they identify design strategies that can mitigate wind-induced building motion through structural optimization, aerodynamics treatment, and vibration dissipation or absorption. This report was developed by SEI’s Tall Buildings Committee.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at www.asce.org/SEI. Click on “Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.” If you have any errata that you would like to submit, please email it to Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.
Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE/SEI 24-14, provides minimum requirements for design and construction of structures located in flood hazard areas and subject to building code requirements. Identification of flood prone structures is based on flood hazard maps, studies, and other public information. This standard applies to new structures, including subsequent work, and to work classified as substantial improvement of existing structures that are not historic. Standard ASCE/SEI 24-14 introduces a new concept, Flood Design Class, that bases requirements for a structure on the risk associated with unacceptable performance. This standard provides essential guidance on design and construction to structural engineers, design professionals, code officials, floodplain managers, and building owners. The standard is adopted by reference in model building codes. This standard was prepared by SEI’s Flood Resistant Design and Construction Standards Committee.
To purchase these and other structural books visit the ASCE Bookstore at www.asce.org/bookstore/.
You are invited to contribute to the new ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering. If you are a practicing engineer or researcher in the field of risk or uncertainty analysis in engineering systems, we ask you to consider sharing your expertise by either submitting a manuscript to the Journal or contributing as an expert reviewer. The Journal presents state-of-the-art research and best practices on risk and uncertainty related issues. Topics include but are not limited to: • Risk quantification based on hazard identification, • Scenario development and rate quantification, • Consequence assessment, • Valuations, perception, and communication, • Risk-informed decision-making, • Uncertainty analysis and modeling, • Other related areas. Visit the ASCE website at http://ascelibrary.org/page/ajrua6/ editorialboard, to learn more.
SEI Futures Fund Seeks Strategic Initiative Proposals for Funding Consideration
Call to SEI Committee Chairs to Submit Proposals by June 1
The SEI Futures Fund (SEIFF) invites proposals for new initiatives in line with SEIFF strategic areas that benefit the structural engineering profession and/or SEI as a whole, and would not otherwise be funded out of SEI Division or operating funds. Review the SEIFF Case Statement and the Guidelines for FY2016 funding requests. If your SEI Division Executive Committee wishes to vet the proposal, plan to do so this spring, to meet the June 1 final proposal submission deadline. See the SEI website at www.asce.org\SEI for more information.
Local Activities
Roanoke Chapter
Welcome to the newly established SEI Roanoke Chapter. SEI Roanoke Chair Patrick Williams leads the effort to bring together the local structural engineering community to raise awareness for the new SEI Roanoke Chapter, and plan activities to serve local members and the community, including the nearby SEI Graduate Student Chapter at Virginia Tech.
Oregon Chapter
The Oregon ASCE Chapter has formed the new SEI Oregon Chapter. The new chapter will focus on providing greater access to information, helping members stay current on structural engineering trends, connecting with a diverse population of like-minded engineers, and becoming good stewards of the built environment. SEI Oregon will appoint board members and hold elections for officers who will serve for 2015.
February 14–17, 2016, Phoenix, AZ
Call for abstract and session proposals now open until April 7, 2015 Connect | Collaborate | Build
Be part of the technical program for this unique event featuring dynamic sessions and presentations on topics addressing both Geotechnical and Structural Engineering issues. Final papers are optional and will not be peer reviewed. Consider submitting either session proposals or single abstracts related to the topics and subtopics of interest to both professions. The 2016 joint Congress will feature a total of 15 concurrent tracks: there will be tracks based on traditional GI and SEI topics, and tracks on joint topics. In addition, we will be offering interactive poster presentations within these tracks. This event will be held instead of a Structures Congress in 2016. All proposals must be submitted by April 7, 2015 (no extensions). Visit the joint conference website at www.Geo-Structures.org for more information and to submit your abstract.
Save The Date
Second ATC-SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures
December 10-12, 2015 Hyatt Regency San Francisco
www.atc-sei.org/
University of Texas at Arlington Graduate Student Chapter
The Graduate Student Chapter at UT Arlington had a very productive fall. Activities included field visits to construction sites, seminars, and participating in an ASCE webinar.
Get Involved in SEI Local Activities
Join your local SEI Chapter, Graduate Student Chapter, or Structural Technical Groups (STG) to connect with colleagues, take advantage of local opportunities for lifelong learning, and advance structural engineering in your area. If there is not an SEI Chapter or STG in your area, talk with your ASCE Section/Branch leaders about the simple steps to form an SEI Chapter. Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI and look for LAD Committees.
CASE in Point
Use of the LPTA Acquisition Procedure in Contravention of the Brooks Act
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states in FAR 1.102 that “The vision for the Federal Acquisition System is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.” Over the past several years, primarily in response to reduced procurement budgets, some federal government agencies have started using with greater frequency the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedure in the acquisition of technical services, including professional architectural and engineering services in some instances, in their attempt to obtain best value. This practice raises serious concerns in the architectural and engineering communities and appears to be in contravention of the Brooks Act, or at least the spirit thereof, which established Qualification-Based Selection (QBS) as the norm in Federal contracting for architects and engineers
What is LPTA?
In 1997, LPTA was added to the FAR as a source selection process in FAR 15 – Contracting by Negotiation. FAR 15.101-2 states that “the LPTA source selection is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.” In other words, the LPTA process was intended to be used in situations where paying more for a product or service was not expected to provide better/greater value to the government because all of the offerors had satisfied the minimum requirements specified, i.e. the LPTA process by definition provided the best value. Additionally, in FAR 15-101, the concept of a price-value continuum is introduced, and it is stated that the selection based on price is most appropriate “where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal” and on the opposite end of the continuum, when “The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.” These contrasting points draws a fair distinction for when price is the appropriate selection measure (e.g. products and commodities) and when it is not (e.g. services). If LPTA was used to contract for services, once it is determined which offerors meet the minimum stipulated requirements in the government’s announcement (say with regard to prior project experience, staffing requirements, technical capabilities and the like), the final selection would be based solely on the lowest price. A firm with a slightly higher price than the low price, but offering vastly superior resources and capabilities, is not to be selected, based on the no better value concept. Obviously, under this guideline for the use of LPTA, the acquisition of professional architectural and engineering services raises serious concerns in the architectural and engineering communities. Architects and engineers all know from experience that the best value to the government is really measured by the lowest total cost of a project that satisfies the government’s programmatic and life-cycle costs which, on a design and construction project, include both the cost of construction and life time ownership costs, including operations and maintenance, as well as the far smaller cost of architectural and engineering services. As noted above, the use of LPTA is also in contravention of the acquisition regulations in FAR 36 – Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, Sub 36-6 – Architect-Engineer Services, which is based on Public Law 92-582, otherwise known as the Brooks Act. It would be fair to ask whether the Federal government would include an entire chapter in the FAR specifically for the acquisition of services from contractor, engineers and architects if the government really wanted LPTA to be used. As taxpayers and citizens, some push-back by architects and engineers on the perhaps illegal, but most definitely inappropriate, use of LPTA is warranted. Design professionals never wish to speak ill of their clients, but since they are in the business of offering advice and guidance and being trusted advisors to their clients, if they believe that the procurement of the services required isn’t being done in accordance with the client’s goals and best interests, they have a duty to speak up.
The Brooks Act
Concern within the AE community regarding the ability to fulfill the government’s best value goal when AE selection was based on the lowest bid (i.e. the lowest-price offeror) led to the passage of Public Law 92-582, otherwise known as the Brooks Act, 1972, as an amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The purpose of the Brooks Act was to establish Federal policy concerning the selection of firms and individuals to perform architectural, engineering, and related services to the Federal government. Section 904, titled Negotiations of Contracts for Architectural and Engineering Services, provides guidelines on how firms are to be selected and the order in which qualifications are evaluated:
“Sec. 904.(a) The agency head shall negotiate a contract with the highest qualified firm for architectural and engineering services at compensation which the agency head determines is fair and reasonable to the Government.” The best value selection process can be summarized in three simple steps: 1) Which firm is the most qualified? 2) Is that firm’s proposed fee fair and reasonable? 3) If yes, then proceed to a signed contract. If no, then proceed to next most qualified firm and start over. The government’s integration of the Brooks Act into the FAR for the procurement of public projects established the QBS process.
Comparisons
So given the tools the government has at its disposal, the question is when should it use QBS and when should it use LPTA? The answer seems clear that when acquiring services from architects and engineers, the procedures in FAR 36.6 (QBS) are the only appropriate, and they might say legal, way.
Architects and engineers can point to more than a generation of successfully completed projects since the passage of the Brooks Act as evidence that QBS works and serves the interest of the government and the citizenry. Trying to develop a work-around of the Brooks Act to save a few dollars up-front, with no guarantee of saving money in total, seems misguided. Since the cost of engineering services are so small, relative to the total construction and ownership costs for a project, any perceived savings in the cost of those services are inconsequential when compared to the impact of those services on total project costs and performance. Seeking the lowest cost of these services forces offerors to cut corners (e.g. less innovation, fewer alternatives considered, reduced level and hours of staff used, or types of equipment/tools applied). This is not a benefit to the client/owner or the public, especially when public safety may be involved, as with most infrastructure projects. Another drawback to using cost as a discriminator is that the scope of work becomes fixed, in order to fairly compare costs. With QBS, the scope of work is negotiated with the most qualified offeror, as part of arriving at a fair and reasonable fee for services. A better understanding of the work involved and the true needs of the client results from this process, all before signing a contract. With the fixed scope of a LPTA process, scope flaws, errors, or improvements may not be addressed until after contract award, requiring negotiations with the contractor on a sole source basis. This is not the best way to achieve true cost benefits.
Recent Experiences
The AE industry has become aware of the use of LPTA or practices very close to LPTA in the second-phase of the two-phase Design-Build acquisition process, contained in FAR 36.3. In the two-step process, the most qualified contractor/ designer teams are identified in phase one based on relatively low cost technical approach and qualifications submissions. In phase two, extensive additional technical information is submitted along with expense price proposals, requiring significant design work to be performed, in order to accurately identify construction costs, per FAR 15. FAR 15 allows the contracting officer broad latitude in defining the selection criteria, i.e. whether technical factors are most important or whether pricing factors are most important in a tradeoff process along the best-value continuum. FAR 15 also allows the use of LPTA, which is the most extreme version of selection based on price importance since trade-offs are not permitted. To be consistent with the spirit and benefits of the Brooks Act, since architects and engineers are involved, phase two really ought to be solely evaluation based on additional technical factors and an interview, leading to the ranking of the most qualified firms, followed by a negotiation with the most qualified team on the price. Anything less than this subverts the entire process and changes it into a price competition amongst the qualified firms, whether it is explicitly stated or not. The most qualified firms will likely look very similar to the government (since phase one eliminated all but the most qualified teams); therefore, everyone on the design-build team will be asked to provide their lowest price so the team can submit the lowest total price in an attempt to win. This is defacto low bidding for AE services, albeit amongst a short list of teams, the activity the Brooks Act sought to eliminate. The government regularly acquires non-AE technical services that don’t clearly fall within the purview of FAR 36. This is where things get a bit sticky. But if the success of QBS in selecting architects and engineers is to serve as any lesson, a QBS procedure is most appropriate and will yield the best results when the government’s requirements are less definable or specific, are apt to change and/or grow over time, when there is the possibility of additional compensation for added innovation, etc. LPTA would seem to be applicable to the acquisition of only true commodities such as materials and products that have to be manufactured to certain industry standards such as ASTM, API, etc. This includes the ability to prototype and test. Infrastructure projects are always unique, due to geographical location, weather conditions, soils composition, topography, location and type of utilities available, geotechnical formations, etc. The skill of the most qualified technical team to deal with known and unknown situations, and to optimally design the project the first time, is important. The costs and time impacts of corrections, renovations, or even demolishment and reconstruction are too high for infrastructure projects, often more than the original construction. Risking this on using LPTA to save relatively small and usually non-existent savings on the cost of engineering services is questionable.
Conclusion
In a response to reduced budgets and cuts in spending, some Federal agencies have resorted to the use of LPTA, or practices very close to LPTA, as a selection tool for some technical services, including architectural and engineering services covered by FAR 36. With regard to the services of architects and engineers, this is in contravention of the Brooks Act, which was passed by Congress to ensure that architectural and engineering services are always made based on a Qualifications-Based Selection process devoid of the influences of price. It is not conceivable that the requirements for such architectural and engineering services (qualifications, skills, resources, facilities, past performance, etc.) could be written so well, and with such precision and detail, that the government agency could confirm the offeror’s minimum technical credentials and thereby base the selection on lowest price and assure that best value is obtained. Use of the QBS process benefits the project owner and the public by providing the opportunity to optimize the life-cycle costs, performance, and safety of a project by using the most qualified technical team at a point in the project when the cost of services is relatively, extremely low. It would be fair to say that the use of LPTA, or practices very close to LPTA, would likely result in the selection of the lesser qualified professional with the lowest paid staff providing the poorest service. All fee above the minimum will be been wrung out of the offer. In the long term, this impacts innovation and design capabilities too, because firms will have insufficient funds to conduct training, study new ideas, perform research and the like. Hardly a recipe for project success or a path to achieve design excellence and best value in today’s complex world.
