I don’t want to get off on a rant here but..
In design build it is customary for SOMEONE to act on behalf of the owner. This someone may be in house architect or engineering staff or an outside consultant hired for the task. The make-up of the owner’s team depends on how often this type of work is done. For example a large retail firm who builds a lot of new stores would have an in house capability and a good generic design that would only have to be modified to suit local site conditions and codes. A firm that does not do a lot of construction and is building a one of type of facility may find it more economical to hire outside consultants for this role.
NEVER assume that because the contractor is required by the contract that you will get what you want with no supervision to the contractor. There is a definite requirement for due diligence in supervising the contractor. For example if the contractor puts a floor drain directly into the sanitary sewer system he can claim that he did not know that the end user would be dumping hazardous material into the sewer and guess who would be responsible? That’s right the owner would have the liability.
By the time these types of problems are found rectifying them can be very expensive and time consuming.
The contractors prime responsibility is to make as much money as possible on the job. The owner’s representative is responsible to ensure that the end product meets the owner’s needs as economically as possible. These two responsibilities are in conflict and if one person has both guess what suffers.
The role of the owner’s representative is the same in design build as in conventional design-bid-build. That is to ensure that the owner gets what he paid for and pays for what he gets. The methods to achieve this are different.
In traditional design bid build the owner’s representative controls the design process. He (or she) is responsible for ensuring that the owner’s requirements are built into the detailed design and specifications and that the design and specifications are followed by the construction contractor. The owner’s representative can also be the design consultant’s project manager. This is however IMHO a conflict of interest and should be avoided as much as possible, but that’s another rant.
In design build the responsibility for the owner’s representative is to ensure that the contract to the design builder reflects the owner’s needs and that these needs are fully implemented in the final design and also are built correctly.
In the construction phase the owner’s representative should be heavily involved in quality assurance issues. Is all the concrete tested by a qualified person and the cylinders broken in a certified lab? Are all the fire suppression and detection systems fully tested and integrated? Is the quality of the carpet what was required for the application? Etc.
I was once involved on the periphery of a design build that went bad. From this some valuable lessons were learned at the owner’s considerable expense.
The original statement of work was inadequate. It did not cover such considerations as soundproofing rooms, quality of interior finishes, standards for communication services. (The client’s end client had some very specific and extensive requirements for communications systems and these were not included into the SOW and hence not into the final product.)
The most important omission was that there was no reference to the building being economical to maintain. This resulted in the design being changed from two large penthouse mechanical systems to 33 small roof top units. The resulting savings were pocketed by the contractor and the owner not only paid a premium for maintenance but the design change allowed the roof structure to be lighter and there is a serious acoustical problem from all the roof top units vibrating. Since the facility involved training and office environments the noise was and still is a serious problem. Balancing the HVAC system is also a nightmare.
All electrical panels were full and there were no spare circuits anywhere in the building. When the inevitable changes were needed, extensive rewiring was required.
The list goes on and on and on.
The problems were compounded by an owner’s representative who was 2,000 kms away with no authority to act and only able to get to site once a month. The design builder would simply say he was doing it his way and before the owner’s representative could find out and then get the authority to do anything the issue would be moot because it was an accomplished fact and there was no time or budget to reverse any unilateral decisions by the contractor.
On a different project, a sub contractor on one of my jobs was the mechanical sub on this one, there was no requirement to use a limited number of different parts. This project was a mechanical process plant and extensively used conveyor systems. Every conveyor was designed to be as economical as possible to construct and no attention was paid to the number of different spare bearings and parts required. When the owner set up his maintenance system and stocked up on spares a separate warehouse was needed for all the different variety of spare parts. My project was in a plant about 10 times the size of the design build and had a smaller number of different spare parts because it had been a long standing policy of my client to only use a very limited number of different parts.
In design build the danger is to start quickly with a vague statement of the requirement and allow the contractor almost total freedom to meet the requirements in the most economical way , to him, as possible.
Successful design build requires a lot of front end input from the owner. The statement of requirement should be fairly detailed and concentrate on what is important to the owner in the final produce.
Consider:
1) Maintenance issues, number of spares quality of original equipment etc.
2) Quality control issues, require a QC/QA plan and make sure that it if followed.
3) Usability issues. Things like the soundproofing and special communication requirements, office finishes etc
4) Authority issues. Someone on the owner’s part needs to be able to make changes and if necessary pay for them if the original statement of work is found not to meet the owner’s needs. Also who reviews the designs, how long to review the designs and who signs off for the client
Of course that’s just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
