Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Is Design-Build Project Delivery Benefitting the Public?

In the public sector, Design-Build has become the preferred form of project delivery.  Local examples include Metro, LACCD, LA County, and LAUSD.  Why?

·         Fewer change orders
·         Single-point of contact
·         Cheaper?
·         Faster?
·         No “pointing fingers” in a dispute between the design professional and the contractor – the architect works for the contractor 

Go to DBIA’s website to understand the benefits they promote:

One Contract, One Integrated Team
Design-build streamlines project delivery through a single contract between the owner and the design-build team. This simple but fundamental difference saves money and time by transforming the relationship between designers and builders into an alliance which fosters collaboration and teamwork. United from the outset of every project, an integrated team readily incorporates BIM and LEED certification goals.
What’s this mean for architects?

  • Benefits – hook up with a competitive contractor and their marketing team, and you increase your chances for big jobs.  And, your construction administration services will be limited (is this really what you want?). 
  • Challenges – as an architect, do you really want to work for the contractor?  Is this a conflict with our professional mission to represent the owner?  Are you doing the owner an injustice by not developing the design hand-in-hand with the users?  Can you afford to be a player bidding on a project?
Bridging Documents – These are architect-prepared plans describing the scope for the owner.  They become the “bid documents” in a design-build RFP.  If a complicated project, like a hospital, they may be at the Design Development level.  Many owners and agencies think they are saving money by providing sketchy descriptions of project scope. “Leave the creative design to the contractor-design professional, and they’ll find a better way to build for less.”   

Designing for Free - When bridging documents are lacking, architects and engineers on the design-build team get to prepare schematics, often for FREE.   The design better be sufficiently developed so the sub-contractors understand the scope.  The AIA says the median cost for firms to submit a design-build package is $260,000! An unscrupulous contractor can cut corners when the scope has not been well-defined by the owner.   

What about QBS?  If not familiar with this law, Google “QBS”.  Called the “Brooks Act”, Qualifications Based Selection is just what the name implies.  A preferred list of architects is ranked by the owner based on qualifications. The owner meets with the first ranked firm and negotiates fees.  If unsuccessful, the owner can go to #2 and so on.  QBS applies to public work.  California has its own law for public entities:  “the Mini-Brooks Act”.  Is Design-Build procurement by California public agencies without compensating design professionals, a violation of the law?   

Circle back…“Is Design-Build Project Delivery Benefitting the Public?”
In fact is this method of procurement a benefit?  Is this one more opportunity for fraud?  Check out the sordid history of LACCD and design-build.  My biases are showing! 
We need to understand why so many public clients prefer design-build.  Many public architects are advocates for design-build.  Why?  Instead of whining about losing opportunities, ASK HOW WE CAN BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC BODY.  It’s a rapidly changing world, and architects are lagging behind.  
What action is being taken? 

  1. Grassroots, AIA’s leadership conference for component leaders is this week (March 20-22).  One of the four issues they will take to “the Hill” as they meet with their representatives is “Small Business Procurement”.  AIA supports common-sense reforms to procurement that will help small firms enter the marketplace.  Not many architectural practices can afford the cost of designing for free to compete for a design-build project!
  2. AIA Los Angeles – Meeting with Paul Welch, Hon. AIA, California Council Executive VP, 2013 CC president Frank Bostrom, AIA and local firm leaders representing AIA/LA and Pasadena-Foothill met in February to develop an action plan at the State level.
  3. LAUSD’s Small Business Advisory Council under the leadership of Charles Bryant, AIA is currently advising the District on how to provide design-build opportunities for smaller firms.  
Lance Bird, FAIA