Methods for Collaboration

Joining forces with a contractor may seem like an obvious or easy thing to do. But savvy building veterans say it's filled with nuance.

"They have done Myers-Briggs personality profiles on architects and contractors showing that they have two very different personalities that drive them into their respective professions," observes G. William Quatman, FAIA, a Kansas City-based lawyer and author specializing in teaming and design-build. "So we're putting opposites into a room and telling them to cooperate. It's a challenge that's bigger than the obvious differences between the two."

To bring together these disparate world views, Fraga recommends four critical components for successful collaboration:

• "Most important: all stakeholders must align their expectations and objectives.
  It has to be a win-win for all stakeholders."
• "Communications must be superior for all stakeholders-for expectations as well as systems-so that people can react quickly."
• "You have to have negotiations, because conflict is inevitable."
• "And the last element is compromise."
  Risk-averse by nature, many contractors would add a fifth component:timing

"The biggest thing is just getting everyone together and getting ideas and opinions out on the table early, before you get too far down the road and changes can't be made," says Bob Durrant, plant and preconstruction services manager with Kepco+, an architectural cladding contractor known for panelized stone. "On a stone job, the earlier you get your blocks and fabricator secured, the better your product's going to be be. It's a long-lead item and a lot of people don't take that into consideration."

As an example, Durrant cites the Utah State Capitol restoration-a "design-assist" scenario involving a "project definition" phase consisting of workshops and the preparation of a final scope document. According to David H. Hart, AIA, executive director of the state's Capitol Preservation Board, the process started with an RFP and qualifications-based selection (QBS) for design and construction providers for each contracted portion of work. Those firms that made the first cut received a 300-page "guidelines-and-imperatives" document from the owner, with technical guidelines such as matching existing colors and detail dimensions on the landmark building. Then several firms were short-listed and given a not-to-exceed budget. Each team was paid a fee to detail and design a solution to meet the predetermined budget. All accounting was open-book, with a negotiated process for the bidding phase.

The team with the best solution would be converted to a design-build contract if they could agree on a budget with the board. If not, the state could put out their solution for open bidding. "So there was an incentive for the contractor to get the job," says Hart.

After architect and contractor were both on board, a three-day-long workshop was held to review the capitol design guidelines and imperatives. Specialty contractors for each trade were brought in to define the full extent of the work. The result was a scope document with about 20 percent construction documents. "The process helped keep scope creep out of the equation and kept us on schedule, with a wonderful synergy from that technical assistance," says Hart, who calculates that there were only about 1.5 percent change orders for the $170 million project, versus 8 percent to 10 percent for typical state buildings.

Although the construction teams were paid for their design assistance, the Utah State Capitol process represented a tradeoff: Precise collaborative planning required a serious time commitment even before work was awarded. "At times it was frustrating because there was so much involvement, but the outcome was great because we had so much input from the design engineer and the terra cotta manufacturer," says Durrant. "It was really a good experience."

Other states and public agencies may find such collaborative options constrained by procurement regulations. According to the AIA Design-Build Knowledge Community, QBS is not allowed in Georgia, Iowa, South Dakota or Wisconsin, for example.

"We would actually like to use the collaborative roles more than we do," says the University of Illinois' Black. On large projects, the state permits construction management (CM), allowing Black to bring in the construction firm at same time as the architects and engineers.