Competitive bidding may rule the construction scene, but that doesn't make it the best choice for all campus projects. Here's how your peers are breaking out of the box.
LET'S BE PERFECTLY clear: No one is kicking the traditional design-bid-build model to the curb. It remains the most widely accepted model for getting campus construction projects done, because its linear process is easy to manage and it sets the stage for the lowest, responsible price. After all, the system offers college and university officials more than one set of checks and balances and controls, and it works in real time for truly market-driven invoices.
But sometimes it pays to get the cart before the horse. For instance, campus architects and pencil pushers aren't hesitant to explore alternative delivery methods when opening a dormitory faster means an income stream sooner, or when the facility design becomes complicated and the available in-house staff amounts to just a handful of already overworked architects.
According to Richard Belle, vice president of public affairs for the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), as much as 40 percent of all U.S. nonresidential construction currently uses the design-build alternative delivery method. That's quite an impressive percentage compared to the single digits this method scored in the 1980s. Insiders at Wight Construction in Darien, Ill., predict that by 2015, more than 50 percent of all commercial work-which includes institutions of higher education- will be delivered using this option.
On the other hand, 2015 may be a generous estimate for public institutions, which remain rather limited in their construction choices, admits Christopher Haupt, a senior vice president at the Pittsburgh architectural and engineering firm L. Robert Kimble and Associates. Today he sees far more delivery method activity in private IHEs compared to state-funded ones, but he adds that signs of an ice melt are beginning to appear.
Take his home state of Pennsylvania, for example. Typically, the Department of General Services manages the entire process for major campus construction projects within the Keystone State, mandating that general construction, mechanical, plumbing, and electric bid packages toe the traditional line. But recently, the state began elegating some of the projects directly to its state universities, offering them a little more flexibility in who they choose to use.
Yet college administrators flirting with the crop of newer delivery methods need to adopt a different mindset if they expect to reap results, Haupt says. No matter which route they choose, he believes the biggest mistake is not understanding their role in communicating details of the project. "We see a lot of administrators who don't understand that, by contract, they should communicate through their architect to the contractors. They walk the site and give directions for the contractors to follow, and a lot of problems result," Haupt says. Such blunders put colleges and universities legally at risk, as courts have ruled that orders from a perceived owner are binding. So with that caveat, sit down with your institution's design professionals and work out a risk analysis on the following alternative methods for your next project.
DESIGN BUILD: BUILT FOR SPEED
How it works: The institution gives one contractor a performance specification, and then that contractor must undertake the project from design to construction according to those parameters. (Think of the ancient master-builder arrangement that resulted in the Parthenon in Greece.) A representative from the IHE talks directly to the designated spokesperson for that design builder.
Advantages: Experts say the main reason colleges and universities like the designbuild model is that it minimizes cost risks by guaranteeing a maximum price. It is an ideal arrangement when schedules are compressed, says David Miller, director of the St. Louis-based Trivers Associates architectural and planning firm, which has done work for Oberlin College (Ohio) and Southeast Missouri State University. Miller tells clients to assume this option can slice off 30 percent of the time a traditional competitive bid process would require, since the method means overlapping the design and construction steps.
