Casos de Estudio IPD PDF

January 2010
Integrated Project
Experiences in Collaboration:
Delivery:
On the PathCase
to IPDStudies
The American Institute of Architects

A Joint Project of AIA California Council
Integrated Project Delivery Steering Committee
AIA National Integrated Practice Discussion
Group”.
Research and report by Jonathan Cohen, FAIA
For more detailed background information on IPD,

visit www.ipd-ca.net and refer to The Integrated
Project Delivery Guide, jointly developed by the
AIA’s Integrated Practice Discussion Group and
AIA California Council, and Integrated Project
Delivery: A Working Definition, published by AIA
California Council.
For information on existing project delivery

methods, see the AIACC’s Handbook on Project
Delivery.
Integrated Project Delivery: Case Studies © Copyright 2010 AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 2
Table of Contents Introduction
PAGE 5
Case Study Scorecard

PAGE 9
Case Study: Autodesk Inc. AEC Solutions Division Headquarters

PAGE 10
Case Study: Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building

PAGE 17
Case Study: Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Expansion

PAGE 25
Case Study: St. Clare Health Center

PAGE 31
Case Study: Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center

PAGE 38
Case Study: Walter Cronkite School of Journalism,

PAGE 45
Arizona State University
Conclusions
PAGE 53
Glossary
PAGE 57
About the Researcher

PAGE 58
Acknowledgements
PAGE 59
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
is a project delivery method
distinguished by a contractual
agreement between a minimum of
the owner, design professional, and
builder where risk and reward are
shared and stakeholder success is
dependent on project success. - Draft
definition of IPD from version 2 of the AIA / AIACC Integrated Project Delivery
Guide, anticipated in 2010
Integrated Project Delivery: Case Studies © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 4
These case studies examine real-world, completed
Introduction building projects that used Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD) in as pure a form as possible. The
projects studied show the successful application
of IPD in a variety of building types and scales and
in diverse regions of the country. This is the first
installment of an ongoing process of evaluation
and it will be supplemented as additional IPD
projects now underway are completed.
In each case we collected relevant data to

measure the completed project against the stated
goals of the project team. Through interviews with
project participants we also attempt to tell the
story about how each project was conceived and
carried out.
For the purpose of this study, IPD is defined by the

following characteristics:
• Early Involvement of Key Participants

• Shared Risk and Reward
• Multi-Party Contract
• Collaborative Decision Making
and Control
• Liability Waivers Among Key Participants
• Jointly Developed and Validated
Project Goals
“Key Participants” includes the owner, architect,

and builder who entered into the primary contract,
as well as design consultants and subcontractors
who sign “joining agreements” and are included in
the shared risk and reward structure. Disciplines
and trade contractors whose input has the
most impact on project design and costing are
considered the most valuable early participants.
The following additional characteristics are
considered highly desirable for IPD:
• Mutual Respect and Trust

Among Participants
• Collaborative Innovation
• Intensified Early Planning
• Open Communication within the
Project Team
• Building Information Modeling (BIM)
Used by Multiple Parties
• Lean Principles of Design,
Construction, and Operations
• Co-Location of Teams (“Big Room”)
• Transparent Financials (Open Books)
Methodology
The case study projects were selected based
on their compliance with the criteria stated
above. In addition, projects had to be completed
and located in the USA. The researcher visited
all of the case study projects and interviewed
at length all of the major participants, including
one or more representatives of the owner, the
architect and the builder, and in most cases
the major engineering consultants, specialty
subcontractors, building users, and other
stakeholders as well.
Project data was self-reported by project

participants.
Changing Roles and Relationships IPD and Lean
Construction
IPD should be understood as a comprehensive
process which addresses the entire sequence of “IPD is a clever solution to
the tough organizational
programming, design, construction and building and contracting problems
operations. Within the industry, there is a fair faced in today’s market. It
relies on careful participant
amount of confusion about the difference selection, transparency
and continuing dialog.
between lean construction and IPD and between It is hard to imagine a
IPD and BIM. Lean construction is a production better internal contrac
tual relationship for ap
control system that seeks to apply principles of plying lean construction.
the “Toyota Way” of manufacturing to the Construction consumers
might consider rethinking
construction process. Just as BIM is a tool that is their contracting strategies
useful, but not in itself sufficient for implementing to share more fully in the
benefits.”
IPD, lean construction is a set of tools in support
of IPD but is not the entire process. -Owen Matthews and
Gregory A. Howell, Lean
Construction Journal, April
These studies show that IPD is most successful 2005
when owners, architects, engineers, and builders
step outside the boundaries of traditional roles
into a more fluid, interactive, and collaborative
process. What impact does this have on the
principal participants?
Owners were all asked if the IPD process

demands more from them than traditional
methods of project delivery. All agreed this was
not for passive owners and that it requires a
level of sophistication and a willingness to “get
your hands dirty,” but none could point to any
additional resources required beyond what would
be needed for a similar project under a traditional
procurement process.
For architects, IPD is a change in the boundaries

of the work and the sequence in which it is
done. “If the owner’s going to get the early cost
insight,” says architect Tom Van Landingham
of Christner Inc., “then more design time has to
be spent up front to generate the information
for the builder to provide that insight. We’ve
changed the way we do work plans so that time
is pulled from the construction documents and
contract administration phases – and the bidding/
negotiation phase completely goes away– then
we add those hours to early design.” Value
engineering is continuous – it doesn’t come as an
unwelcome surprise at the end of design.
For builders, early involvement in design and

transparency of the collaborative process
overcomes much of the uncertainty in correctly
pricing projects. As Tocci Construction’s Jack
Short said, “As builders we’re used to doing very
well on seven projects and getting killed on three.
We’d much rather make our clients happy and
earn a reasonable profit on all ten.”
One of the recurring themes of these projects is

the blurring of lines (or the breaking down of silos)
between design and construction and among the
traditional phases of design. Instead of issuing
packages of documents – schematics, design
development, construction documents – designers
involved in IPD are issuing documents on a “just
in time” basis, and in a collaborative relationship
with builders and suppliers. Decisions are made
when they need to be made, and in many cases
redundant work is eliminated. Documents
generated from a single BIM model may be used
for permitting, analysis, bidding, fabrication, and
more. Appropriate information for the task is
exported from the model as required and when
needed. Architects are able to informally convey
design intent without having to draw or model
details that will be drawn or modeled again by
fabricators. Builders and suppliers are able to
share their knowledge and expertise when it is
most valuable in the design process. And owners
are able to participate in a more involved and
“hands-on” fashion than is usually the case with
traditional project delivery. Many participants in
these studies found such a blurring of roles to be
empowering and even exhilarating.
Showing the extent to which each case study project embodied the six
Case Study Scorecard characteristics identified as fundamental to IPD.
Case Study Projects
Cardinal Glennon Children’s

Autodesk AEC Solutions
St. Clare Health Center
Walter Cronkite School

Division Headquarters
Sutter Fairfield MOB
Encircle Health
IPD Characteristics
Early Involvement of Participants Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shared Risk and Reward Yes No1 Yes No Yes No
Multi-Party Contract Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Collaborative Decision Making Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Liability Waivers Yes No No No No No
Jointly Developed Goals Yes Yes No2 Yes3 Yes Yes
1
There was a provision in the contract enabling participants to create a shared “pain and
gain” scheme but it was not used.
2
Project was underway when IPD was adopted. Budget and program were established by
project team in earlier master plan.
3
The original budget was established by an independent program manager. Subsequently
the owner, architect, and builder developed and validated a new budget as part of IPD
process.
Case Study: Autodesk Inc. AEC Solutions Division Headquarters
Waltham, Massachusetts
Project Description
Autodesk Inc., a company that creates design software for the AEC industry,
wanted to highlight ways in which its own technology could support building
information modeling, design-to-fabrication, sustainability, building performance
analysis, and integrated project delivery. The company decided to put those
goals forward with two of its own projects. The Waltham project is a 55,000
square foot, three-story interior tenant improvement that uses all of the space in
a new speculative office building near Route 128 in Boston’s technology corridor.
Program elements include offices, conference rooms, training facilities, a café,

and a 5,000 square foot customer briefing center featuring an electronic gallery
of design work done with the company’s products. Requirements of the project
included very high sustainability goals (LEED Platinum for Commercial Interiors.)
Design and construction was accomplished within an aggressive eight and one-
half month schedule.
Owner: Autodesk Inc. www.autodesk.com

Architect: KlingStubbins www.klingstubbins.com
Builder: Tocci Building Companies www.tocci.com
Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
IPD Case Study: Autodesk Inc. AEC Solutions Division Headquarters © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 10
Early Involvement of Key Participants Autodesk’s first experiment
with IPD was a 16,500
Autodesk conducted a selection process to find an square foot customer
architect/builder team willing to try Integrated Project briefing center and 29,300
Delivery. The RFP clearly stated the owner’s direction square foot office tenant
improvement in downtown
in terms of scope, budget, sustainability goals and the San Francisco. The San
mandated form of agreement. At first, another team was Francisco project was
the front runner but their corporate leadership asked for undertaken shortly before
fundamental changes in the proposed IPD arrangement the Waltham project
began. In this case there
which Autodesk declined to make. In the end, were separate architects
KlingStubbins and Tocci were chosen because of their for the briefing center
qualifications, familiarity with the local market, BIM and (Anderson Anderson) and
LEED sophistication, and willingness to abide by a “true” the office space (HOK)
with one builder, DPR
IPD agreement. But another factor was their proposal Construction. Both DPR
to allocate fees and incentives within the fixed project and HOK were interested
budget. Three major subcontractors were also selected in “getting their feet wet”
with IPD.
early and included in the risk/reward structure.
As with Waltham there
was a hurry-up schedule:
Shared Risk/Reward 3 ½ months for design, 6
months for construction.
The contract establishes an Incentive Compensation Layer Unlike Waltham, how
(ICL) in which the architects’ and builders’ anticipated ever, no subcontractors
profit is put at risk. If specific goals are met, designers were brought into the IPD
and builders receive their normal profit, but jointly, not agreement.
separately. If they are exceeded in measurable ways the One of the “lessons
firms are eligible for additional compensation. The ICL learned” from San
Francisco that was applied
could adjust from minus 20% to plus 20% depending on to Waltham was that for
whether project goals were met or exceeded. a project of this scope
and a schedule this tight,
it is preferable to find
Multi-Party Contract one architect to handle
the entire project. Auto
The Integrated Project Delivery Agreement (IPDA) is desk corporate real estate
a three-way contract between the owner, the architect senior manager Gail
and the builder. Each party’s success is directly tied Boettcher said, “With IPD
to the performance of the others. Distinct roles and it’s a very dynamic process
where you’re designing
responsibilities are delineated in contract language and pricing in parallel -
and in a “responsibility matrix.” Major subcontractors that creates challenges
(mechanical/fire protection, electrical, and drywall) were when you’ve got a short
term project to do.” Marc
also brought in to the agreement, worked at cost, and H. Flax, HOK’s principal-
shared in the incentive program. in-charge agreed, and
said “one of the lessons
learned is that with IPD
it’s crucial to select your
architect and builder as a
team. There’s a synergy
that’s just got to be there.”
Boettcher said she would

be more precise in defining
“contingency” so that if
money is left over there is
no dispute about what can
be added to the project
and what can go into the
incentive pool.
Collaborative Decision Making/Control
For San Francisco as at
By contract, three levels of collaborative teams Waltham, existing projects
were established to manage the project. A Project were selected to serve as
Implementation Team (PIT) was set up to handle the benchmarks for design
day-to-day issues of the project. The composition of quality. Flax said, “We
wrestled for several days
the PIT included project participants whose work at with that – finding projects
any given time could impact the project’s outcome. A with the quality the
Project Management Team (PMT) with representation client wanted but at their
of the owner, architect, and builder, was established to budget.”
manage the project and make decisions by consensus. If Going forward, Flax thinks
issues arose that could not be resolved by the PMT they IPD works best when the
were taken to a higher level for final resolution: a Senior project team is involved in
setting the program and
Management Team, (SMT) again with representation of budget. HOK’s standard
the three principal parties. procedure now calls
for room data sheets to
describe the functional
Liability Waivers Among Key Participants requirements and finish
The parties waived all claims against each other except quality for every space. He
noted, “Lesson learned:
those arising from fraud, willful misconduct or gross do your program and
negligence. Disputes were to be resolved by mediation make it very detailed, up
or, if necessary, arbitration. Each party was required to front, before you start the
project.”
maintain typical insurance but with the provision that
policies be amended so that no right of subrogation (the Photograph ©2009 Jeff Goldberg/ESTO
ability to gain the rights belonging to one party against a
third party who caused a loss) existed against the other
partners.
Jointly Developed/Validated Targets

The contract spelled out specific criteria that would be
used to judge success. These included schedule and
budget, sustainability, quality of craftsmanship, Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
functionality, and design quality. Owner, architect, and
builder jointly selected three comparable projects in the
Boston area to serve as benchmarks against which these
goals would be measured. It was agreed – after some
hesitation from the team - that an independent evaluator
(in this case an architecture professor) would be the
arbiter of how successfully the project met the design
quality criteria. There was a scorecard and the process
was made as objective as possible.
Photograph ©2009 Jeff Goldberg/ESTO
During the project, John Tocci, head of Tocci Construction,

was worried about whether the design quality criteria
would be met, and, in an interesting twist on what is
usually expected from a builder, went out of his way to
make sure that sufficient budget was allocated for quality
materials and detailing. In the end, the team received
high marks from the evaluator for exceeding design
expectations and received the incentive money.
Narrative Photograph ©2009 Jeff Goldberg/ESTO
The project was the first IPD experience for the design
and construction team. Autodesk had just completed its
first IPD project: a 45,000 square foot corporate office and
customer briefing center in San Francisco, also an interior
fit-out (see sidebar.)
Autodesk management wanted the design and build

team to self-select; they did not want to “mix and match”
architects with builders. Within KlingStubbins there was
initial hesitation by partners at the head office about
using an untested IPD agreement, but the desire to try
something new and exciting overcame the doubts.
Meeting the schedule was particularly important to the

owner because they had to vacate their existing facilities
by a date certain. The entire process of contract For the Autodesk Waltham
negotiation, design, construction and move-in had to be project, the Incentive
accomplished in 8 1/2 months, a schedule which would not Compensation Layer (ICL)
have been possible with design-bid-build or CM-at-Risk, was structured as follows:
the delivery method typically used by Autodesk. • If the project cost is
under budget, 60 percent
of the saving is added to
The design and build team was held to an overall budget, the ICL.
but was completely free to move money among line
items. Money could be taken from carpeting and added • If the project is over
budget, the excess
to design fees, for example. Jack Short, Tocci’s Director of comes out of the ICL
Project Planning, estimates that 55% of the project value until it is exhausted.
was added by lean, cost-plus subcontractors within the
incentive compensation layer agreement and 45% was • If the project runs over
schedule, an amount per
traditionally procured. One major advantage of IPD for day is deducted from the
the builder is the ability to enable early procurement of ICL.
time- and cost-variable materials and services. The ability
of the team to move money between line items also meant • There was no bonus for
beating the schedule
that savings could be achieved by pooling resources. since this was of no
For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades. value to the owner.
Cleanup could be done by lower wage workers at night
• The third-party quality
rather than by highly paid tradesmen during the work day. assessment process
Savings from one line item could be placed back into the balanced cost and time
project in another area. considerations with
design goals.
Tocci’s local knowledge of the Waltham area made it

possible to call on relationships with building officials to
insure that permitting and inspections would not impede
the schedule. Plan reviews that typically took 4-5 weeks
after submission were done in three.
A Building Advisory Team was assembled early on to Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
provide programming input from building users. There was

a bit of struggle between Autodesk’s software engineers,
who wanted maximum privacy, and the goal of LEED
Platinum which can only be achieved by allowing natural
light to deeply penetrate the space. Ultimately the owner
decided that sustainability, as well as a cultural desire
for collaboration, trumped privacy. To address acoustical
privacy concerns, sound masking and other noise
mitigation measures were employed.
A BIM execution plan set ground rules for who modeled

what and when. Architect and builder both used Revit,
but the large file size – over 100 MB – made remote
access possible but slow. After design development,
the model was moved from KlingStubbins’ to Tocci’s
servers. During design, Laura Handler, Tocci’s Virtual
Construction Manager, spent two days a week at
KlingStubbins Cambridge office. When the design
reached the implementation phase, Sarah Vekasy,
KlingStubbins’ project architect, moved to the construction Photograph ©2009 Jeff Goldberg/ESTO
site. At-risk subcontractors were all BIM-enabled. They
provided detailed unit costs up front and Tocci assumed
responsibility for taking quantities off the model.
Scope changes totaling about 30% of the original budget

were added by the owner during the course of the project.
One was the build-out of 5,000 square feet of shell
space to accommodate personnel from a small company
Autodesk had just acquired. Another was to beef up the
shell building’s mechanical systems to accommodate
cooling the “regression farm”; a room full of powerful
computers doing automated software testing.
Another scope change was purely design driven. Phil

Bernstein, Autodesk’s Vice President for Industry Strategy
and Relations, and himself an architect, decided that the
design lacked a distinctive feature that would show the
company’s commitment to good design. He wanted to
create a dramatic gesture by cutting a three-story atrium
though the space. The decision had to be made quickly
so as not to upend the schedule. KlingStubbins began
modeling three alternatives and concurrently Tocci studied
the impact on cost and schedule. Within a week the team
presented the options, using BIM to allow the owner to
virtually “walk through” and get a feeling for the space. Thus, the integrated team was
able to quickly and comprehensively address an owner request and provide enough
information to make an informed decision. It was decided that Autodesk’s business
objectives were better served with the atrium and the team was instructed to proceed.
Design-to-fabrication was used for the customer briefing center’s distinctive wood
panel ceiling. The curved elements are described by a mathematical algorithm. They
were shop fabricated using computer numerical controlled (CNC) machines driven by
the design software. They arrived on site and fit together perfectly, thanks to tight BIM
coordination of above-ceiling lighting and fire protection systems.
Lessons Learned
Fundamental to the IPD process, according to Bernstein, is that “the first step should
be a scoping exercise taken to the level of conceptual design, in which everyone
works at cost until a deep understanding of the project and a level of comfort around
the program and budget is achieved by all parties. That’s one of the lessons learned
to apply to the next project. The other would be to eliminate the contingency. The IPD
design and build team, because of the financial incentives, will want to treat every
change as a scope change and not an item to be subtracted from the contingency.
By doing that you create some sense of discomfort, and that discomfort is the
team’s obligation to design to the target cost.” He felt that the financial incentives
were causing unwelcome changes in behavior. That doesn’t mean he would drop the
incentives – he believes they are essential to support the right kind of performance. “I
can see IPD projects in the future where incentives are paid as an annuity based on
long term operational performance and user satisfaction.”
Although all the major players used BIM, “interoperability of systems was a challenge,”
said Chris Leary, KlingStubbins’ principal in charge, “because the mechanical, plumbing,
and millwork subcontractors used specialized design-to-fabrication software rather
than Revit.”
Part of the promise of IPD is to deliver to the owner, at the end of the project, a
comprehensive building model for use in operations. Charles Rechtsteiner served
as Autodesk’s owner’s representative during design and construction. As a self-
described “operations guy” he would like all of the building systems information to
be more readily available for facilities management. He would like the ability to track
actual performance versus specified, do real time energy monitoring and maintenance
scheduling as well as other facilities management tasks enabled by BIM. A next step in
BIM evolution might enable greater interoperability among design models, fabrication
models, and facilities management systems.
KlingStubbins learned that close collaboration with builders made redundant detailing
unnecessary. The process also freed architects to spend more time on site and much
less time reviewing RFIs and submittals. In many cases shop drawings were eliminated
altogether.
Project Data Project name and location
Building type
Autodesk AEC Headquarters
Interior office fit-out
Owner Autodesk Inc.
Year begun May 2008
Year completed January 2009
Form of agreement Multi-party contract
Architect KlingStubbins
Structural Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger (not engaged in IPD agreement)
MEP KlingStubbins
Landscape Arch N/A
Lighting LightTHIS! (not engaged in IPD agreement)
Builder Tocci Building Companies
MP/FP J.C. Cannistraro (IPD subcontractor)
Electrical Interstate Electrical Services (IPD subcontractor)
Drywall Tenant Systems (IPD subcontractor)
(Other subcontractors were not part of IPD agreement)
Initial schedule
Design Start: 4/23/08
Construction Occupancy: 12/16/08
Achieved schedule
Design Start: 5/1/08
Construction Occupancy: 1/23/09
Programmed GSF 50,000 SF
Final GSF 55,000 SF (program breakdown and related $/SF changed)
Budget cost
Design1 N/A
Construction1 N/A
Contract cost
Design2 $1,231,000
Construction 3
$12,223,000
Final cost
Design4 $1,221,000
Construction 4
$12,117,000
Scope changes
Owner-initiated5 3
Other 0
RFIs Procurement clarifications: 76
Construction detail clarifications: 49
Total: 125
Sustainability Goal LEED-CI 2.0 Platinum Certified
Sustainability Achieved LEED-CI 2.0 Platinum Certified
1
Under IDP, programming and scoping were integrated into the overall project process as design proceeded. Therefore, there was no
traditional “budget” for the project; a target cost was developed and converted into contract cost.
2
Design budgets were originally set by traditional profit targets; this number includes all A/E fees at direct cost, plus incentive payments as
targeted.
3
As this was primarily an FF&E project with significant MEP and telecom infrastructure (and an atrium) under the IPD model this number
included all costs not associated with design, including hard cost, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, construction management, and incentive
payments made to the build team.
4
Final design and construction costs at completion were below the contract target. A/E and Builder profits exceeded original projections,
and final construction quality exceeded the base requirements, a “triple win” for the project.
5
The “pure” IPD model had no provision for change orders, but there were owner-initiated scope additions.
Case Study: Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building
Fairfield, California
Project Description
The project is a three-story, 70,000 square foot medical office building housing
primary care medical practices and laboratories, with pediatrics, oncology,
rheumatology, and cardiology departments and administrative offices. The
owner, Sutter Health, is one of the largest not-for-profit health care providers
in Northern California. This project is the first built component of a $6.5 billion
capital program of which, at the time of this study, several subsequent projects
are in advanced stages of design. As such it gave Sutter the opportunity to
test out a new process of collaboratively designing and building facilities in a
relatively small project.
Owner: Sutter Regional Medical Foundation www.sutterhealth.org

Architect: HGA Architects and Engineers www.hga.com
Builder: The Boldt Company www.theboldtcompany.com
Photograph by Vance Fox
IPD Case Study: Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 17
Early Involvement of Key Participants
Relational Contracts
The initial project team consisted of Sutter Health
(the overall corporate entity), Sutter Regional Medical The Fairfield MOB was the
Foundation (the local Sutter affiliate,) HGA and Boldt. first Sutter Heath project to
Sutter had issued a RFQ to select an architect in the use a three-way, integrated
form of agreement as
Spring of 2005. HGA interviewed and won the job, in part the basic design and
because of a successful prior relationship with Sutter. construction contract.
Subsequently, Sutter asked HGA to meet with Boldt to Attorney Will Lichtig,
see if the firms’ cultures aligned. The firms had previously whose Sacramento firm
has represented Sutter
worked together on traditional design-bid-build projects for 50 years, drafted the
in the Midwest. The principals met and decided it was IFOA used for the Fair
good fit and to proceed. The three-way contract called field project and through
several refinements
for the core team of owner, architect, and builder to since then. One of the
collaboratively select the main design-build subcontractors most significant contract
very early in the design process. Smaller subtrades were provisions has to do with
competitively bid with lump sum prices. trust:
“The Parties recognize

Shared Risk/Reward that each of their
opportunities to
The Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA - a “relational” succeed on the
contract) creates a system of shared risk with the goal of Project is directly tied
to the performance
reducing overall project risk rather than shifting it between of other Project
parties. Contingency funds are jointly managed by the participants. The
project participants rather than at the owner’s discretion Parties shall therefore
alone. The early version of IFOA used for this project work together in the
spirit of cooperation,
allowed for a financial incentive plan but the participants collaboration, and
elected not to implement it. “It was all so new,” said mutual respect for the
Bonnie Walker of HGA, “We were still in the mindset of benefit of the Project,
business as usual.” Subsequent Sutter IPD projects have and within the limits of
their professional ex
used incentives funded by project savings and pooled pertise and abilities.”
profits to reward designers and builders for meeting and
exceeding agreed project goals. In these projects most
subconsultants and subcontractors participate in the pool
as well.
Multi-Party Contract
The IFOA is a three-way contract between the owner, the
architect and the builder. Each party is held accountable
to each other as equal partners. Architect and builder
combine their contingencies and are jointly responsible
for construction errors and design omissions. All books
in regard to the project are open. This contract was the
first of its kind to be used by any of the parties and may
have been the first such agreement to be used on a
construction project in the USA.
An Integrated Project Team (IPT) composed of project manager level representatives
of Sutter, HGA, Boldt, and the major subcontractors, Rosendin Electric and Southland
Industries, met weekly throughout design and construction. The committee was
augmented when appropriate by representatives of other trade contractors and
stakeholders. A higher level Core Team, consisting of a senior representative each of
Sutter, Boldt, and HGA met monthly to resolve issues passed up from the IPT. Any
decisions that could not be unanimously agreed at this level could be referred to an
Executive Level committee with higher level representation from the three partners.
Liability Waivers Among Key Participants

There was not a “no-sue” clause. The parties agreed to use alternative dispute
resolution: first within the Core Team, then by agreeing to rely on an expert third party
for resolution, and if necessary to mediation. The owner, architect and builder agreed to
indemnify each other and to provide typical insurance, including architects’ professional
liability insurance, at limits established in the IFOA. The architect’s liability for
consequential damages was limited to the amount of its fee and the builder’s liability
for consequential damages was limited to an amount equal to its fee plus general
conditions.

Sutter’s internal budget of $19 million was based on a very generic MOB project with
little architectural amenity. Boldt’s first estimate was $22,250,000. After an intense
validation effort, a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $19,573,000 was agreed by the
three parties. The final construction cost was $19,437,600 which included $836,500 of
value-added, owner initiated scope additions.
Benchmarking of comparable medical office buildings was established. A finish

date of December 2007 was set. In subsequent Sutter projects, specific metrics
called Conditions of Satisfaction are negotiated for, among other things, improving
operations, improving space efficiency, reducing time to build and reducing
consumption of natural resources.
Narrative
Sutter Health, after having had its share of disputatious projects, was looking for a
better way to build facilities. It hosted the Sutter Lean Summit in 2004, with help from
the Lean Construction Institute. This three day event set forth a vision for transforming
the way Sutter capital projects would be designed and built.
Room data sheets and narratives were used to definitively establish detailed
requirements. Each room’s equipment needs, finishes, utilities and special requirements
were documented. This approach was used to document and preserve decisions made
by stakeholders during programming and ensure that the final product met stated
needs.
Sutter needed the building delivered in 25 months and that was accomplished despite
a three month delay for reprogramming at the start of the project and with the addition
of extra scope.
The extensive use of BIM was a new experience for architect, builder and owner,
although the MEP subcontractors had limited prior experience. Live group modeling
sessions around a projector were held every other week. Steel structure was modeled
along with duct runs, cable trays, plumbing lines and sprinkler system. These sessions
enabled the IPT team to identify over 400 systems clashes that, because they were
discovered early, “provided significant cost savings due to increased field productivity,
tighter schedule, more prefabricated work, and less redesign,” according to Boldt’s Jay
Harris.
Later, BIM was used with GPS measurement to drop ductwork hangers into the
metal decking before concrete was placed. Layout that normally would have taken 2-3
weeks was accomplished with greater accuracy in 2-3 days. The more accurate hanger
placement allowed for much larger sections of shop prefabricated ductwork and less
field labor.
The ability of the design team to work directly and interactively with subcontractors
was appreciated by both sides and relieved the general contractor of always having
to be the hub of information exchange. For casework, much less detailing effort was
needed from the architect – with no loss of design and quality control.
Boldt’s project web site became the repository of project information and the place
where submittals were made and processed electronically. Over 50% of the submittals
were processed by the architects without paper documentation.
Consideration of change orders was limited to the following categories:
1. Owner generated–requested by owner, owner’s suppliers or consultants.
2. Unknown conditions–items which could not be anticipated during design or

which builder could not have anticipated during pre-construction.
3. Design refinement–added value to the owner. Owner would have paid for work if
included in bid documents.
4. Construction revision–no added value to the owner. Something had to be added,

removed or reworked once it was installed as a result of design error or omission.
5. Governing agency generated–the result of unforeseen agency code

interpretations, newly enacted codes or policies being enforced which could not
have been anticipated during design or bidding.
6. Builder generated–the result of corrective work requiring documentation to

record the change, owner accepted nonconforming work or builder-requested
changes.
By the end of the project there were no change orders that had not been initiated by
the owner.
“Last planner,” “reliable promises,” “pull scheduling,” end- Photograph by Vance Fox
of-day “huddles,” and other lean construction techniques

were employed with success. Just-in-time materials
management was not used in this project, in part because
there were large areas available for staging.
Lessons Learned
Sutter was very pleased with the building and the process.
The project was under budget and within schedule.
Change orders were virtually eliminated.
Lessons learned from this pilot project have been applied

to larger and more complex projects Sutter is currently
undertaking, including California Pacific Medical Center’s
$1.7 billion, 555-bed Cathedral Hill Campus in San
Francisco and the $320 million Sutter Medical Center in
Castro Valley, California.
Subcontractors found that more intense effort is required

up front than in negotiated or design-assist projects, but
the payback comes later with rework almost completely
eliminated. The early commitment inherent in IPD allows
them to devote these resources to the preconstruction
phase.
In future projects Boldt intends to provide field

superintendents with BIM capability in the trailer.
In this project, a few of the subcontractors did not want

their foremen attending the group scheduling meetings.
Boldt now makes this a mandatory requirement.
The owner must be kept engaged from earliest design

and throughout construction. In this case, during
construction the owner’s project manager was distracted
with another, more troublesome project and the team felt
that this may have slowed decision making.
Preconstruction design assist is vital for those trades that

have the biggest impact on other systems. Mechanical,
electrical and plumbing/fire protection certainly fall into
that category, but Boldt learned that exterior glazing and
skin should also be one of the early selected subtrades
that fully engages in early design.
Boldt felt that financial incentives would have been a
benefit to this project, with the incentives flowing down
to the subcontractor level. All of the considerable project
savings in this case went only to the owner. Boldt Group
President Dave Kievet thinks the key is the alignment of
commercial interests. “By aligning the owner’s commercial
goals with those of the project team it is possible to create
a win-win situation where any incentive payment becomes
an acknowledgement of a job well done and not the driver
of it.” He believes the way to do that is to put profit in a
separate bucket from fee. ”One of the lessons learned is
that the best way to ensure commercial alignment is to
completely separate the cost of the work from the profit.
That way, as the team continues to drive down the cost,
the partners’ actual return as a percent of revenue goes
up.” He would apply that thinking to every input from
design services to structural steel.
By contrast, Bonnie Walker of HGA is unsure whether the

existence of an incentive pool necessarily leads to project-
centered behavior. For example, if the architect’s fee is
a not-to-exceed amount based on a planned number of
hours, any savings from hours not used are rolled into
the incentive pool with the architect getting a smaller
percentage back. “I like having control of our fees,” she
says, “I believe that a lump-sum fee is a leaner approach.
It doesn’t take an incentive pool to get us to behave
collaboratively.”
Participants, when asked if IPD was applicable to all

projects, felt that it is ideal for larger-scaled, complex
projects and perhaps does not have proportionate value in
smaller, simpler projects. This is perhaps more a reflection
of the up-front time it takes to establish IPD standards
and procedures rather than an issue of scale.
Participants reported a feeling of being respected

as equal partners in a collaborative process in which
everyone’s opinion was valued. In addition to the
efficiencies gained from such a process, there was a
sense of goodwill, trust and professional satisfaction.
Building type
Sutter Regional Medical Foundation Medical Office Building #2, Fairfield, California
Medical Office Building
Project description 3 Story - 69,948 SF with clinical, administrative, and shelled space.
Owner Sutter Regional Medical Foundation, Sutter Health
Year begun July, 2005
Year completed November, 2007
Architect HGA
Structural HGA
MEP Southland Industries
Rosendin Electric
Landscape Arch MTW Group
Other designer HGA
Builder Boldt
MEP Southland Industries
Rosendin Electric
Curtain wall Progress Glass
Major subs A & B Painting
Air Systems
American Tile & Brick
Anning – Johnson
Davison Iron Works
Diablo Landscape
Enterprise Roofing
Forderer
Ireland Interior Systems
R E Maher
B T Mancini
Mission Bell
Otis Elevator
Systems Tech
Top Grade Construction
Initial schedule
Design SD (2 months) 10/05 – 1/06
DD (3 months) 1/06 – 3/06
CD Phase I (3 months) 4/06 – 7/06
CD Phase II (6 months) 4/06 – 10/06
Construction Phase 1 (4 months) 8/06 – 12/06
Phase II (11 months) 12-06 – 11/07
(15 months total)
Achieved schedule
Design SD (2 months) 10/05 – 1/06
DD (3 months) 1/06 – 3/06
CD Phase I (3 months) 4/06 – 7/06
CD Phase II (6 months) 4/06 – 10/06
Construction (15 months total) 8/06 – 11/07
(3 month delay for program revision)
Final GSF 69,948 SF
Budget cost
Design1 Design information not supplied
Construction2 $19,017,180
Contract cost
Final cost
Change orders
Owner-initiated $836,528
(stair/canopy/connector/add sidelights, Mecho Shades, upgrade building management system,
misc adds and upgrades)
Other
RFIs 123
Sustainability Goal N/A
Sustainability Achieved N/A
1
Total design fees including all subconsultants and owner-selected consultants.
2
Construction hard costs excluding furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) but including general conditions, CM fees including
preconstruction services.
Photograph by Vance Fox
Case Study: Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Expansion
St. Louis, Missouri
Project Description
The project is a 138,000 square foot, $45.5 million children’s hospital expansion
consisting of a surgical suite, a 60 bed neonatal intensive care unit (NICU,)
a central sterile unit, 10 new surgical suites, 10-bay post-anesthesia recovery
rooms, a video integration system, and shell space for future relocation of
radiology and laboratory functions. The operating rooms are designed to be
reconfigured without demolition to accommodate future needs and may be
reassigned among surgical specialties as service volumes increase or decrease.
Owner: SSM Healthcare www.ssmhc.com

Architect: Christner Inc. www.christnerinc.com
MEP Engineer: McGrath Inc. www.mcgrath-inc.com
Builder: Alberici Constructors, Inc. www.alberici.com
Photograph by Sam Fentress
IPD Case Study: Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Expansion © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 25
This was the first IPD experience for owner, architect, With respect to incentive
MEP engineer and builder. The decision to use IPD was pools, attorney Will
Lichtig observes, “There
made after architect, engineer, and builder were on board will always be carrots
and design work had begun. Christner , McGrath and and sticks in the way we
Alberici had prior working relationships with SSM and with deliver projects. We can’t
always be smart enough
each other. Christner had designed the Phase I bed tower to know that what we
for the hospital. Structural engineering was provided by offer as a carrot or a stick
Christner’s consultant. will not have unintended
consequences. We want
to make sure that whatever
Shared Risk/Reward economic system we put
in place will not prevent a
SSM, Christner, McGrath, and Alberici were on board person from always doing
and the project was well into design development when what is best for the project
the decision was made to switch to IPD. Christner was and not any individual
participant.”
engaged under a typical owner-architect contract and
Alberici was anticipating a typical CM-at risk arrangement.
Photographs by Jonathan Cohen

SSM had conducted a “lean seminar” with guests from
the Lean Construction Institute and partners from the St.
Louis design and construction community. The Cardinal
Glennon team was there and they challenged each other
to try these ideas on their project. Tim Gunn, Project
Director for Alberici, said “we raised our hand and said:
this is a small project, let’s try it.” Donald Wojkowski ,
SSM’s Executive Director Design and Construction,
quickly agreed.
An Integrated Form of Agreement, (IFOA) based on

the Sutter Health model, was negotiated by the team
with assistance from SSM’s attorney, Tim Thornton of
Greensfelder. It is planned to be a model document for all
future SSM work. Because the project was already under
way with a traditional structure, it was too late to use
some of the early steps encouraged by IPD. Nevertheless,
and in contrast to the later St. Clare project, financial
incentives for achieving project targets were used with
the money funded from unspent contingencies. Tom Van
Landingham, Christner’s principal in charge, said “financial
incentives are absolutely the key to the success we had. “
About $400,000 was saved out of the approximately $1

million contingency. The incentive pool was distributed as
follows:
40% to owner
20% to design team
40% to builder and lean partners (MEP/FP and drywall)
The IFOA is a four-way contract among the owner, architect, MEP engineer and
builder. Each party is held accountable to each other as equal partners. Architect and
builder combine their contingencies and are jointly responsible for construction errors
and design omissions. All books with regard to the project were open. “Lean partners”
(i.e. subcontractors inside the risk pool) included MEP, wall and ceiling framing and
finish, and fire protection subcontractors. Smaller pieces of the work were bid out with
fixed prices.

The IFOA established an IPD Field team and a Core Team to manage the project. The
Field Team brought together a rolling cast of mid-level project participants at frequent
intervals to resolve routine issues. The Core Team, made up of the owner, architect,
engineer, and builder, plus the ”lean partners” who had a stake in the incentive pool,
met weekly to resolve issues and make most decisions. Above the Core Team level,
however, decisions were made by the owner’s management team at their discretion,
albeit infrequently and with great restraint.
Christner’s Tom Van Landingham felt that the Core Team was highly motivated to find
the optimum solution for the project. “We supported each other and looked out for
each other. ‘I win-you lose’ was not an acceptable outcome for this project.”
One interesting example tested the collaborative management concept and showed
its validity. During concrete placement, the builder proposed that concrete maturity
testing (CMT) be used to measure strength as opposed to the traditional method
of successively testing cylinder samples. With CMT, sensors are embedded in the
concrete and data is read from the outside. The advantage is that forms can be
stripped earlier and time saved. Although this technique has long been used for
pavement testing, it was a relatively new concept in structural concrete. Owner,
architect, structural engineer, and builder discussed it, weighed the benefits and risks
and ultimately decided against it. As Tim Gunn of Alberici said, “With this process, it’s
important to reach consensus. You just can’t push people beyond their comfort level.”
Liability Waivers Among Key Participants Photograph by Sam Fentress
There was not a “no-sue” clause in the IFOA. Each party

carried typical general and professional liability insurance.

The budget and scope had been established by the same
project team as part of an earlier campus master plan.
Since IPD was implemented after the project was well into
design, this criterion does not strictly apply.
Narrative
Donald E. Wojtkowski, SSM Healthcare’s Executive
Director Design and Construction, first learned of IPD and
lean construction by attending the Sutter Lean Summit in
2004. After a long career developing healthcare projects
he was particularly attracted to the notion of relational
contracting. He felt that healthcare projects in particular
were not well served by the traditional design-bid-build
process due to their complexity, lengthy schedules and
the need for flexibility. He felt that the traditional process
was too much about risk-shifting to the detriment of
project value. To that end, in late 2004 he invited lean
construction advocate Greg Howell of UC Berkeley to
come to St. Louis for a two-day seminar involving SSM
and its partners, including architects, engineers, general
and specialty contractors.
SSM Healthcare as an organization was already

committed to Continuous Quality Improvement and it was
a natural transition to apply “lean operations” principles
to its capital programs. In 1989, CEO Sister Mary Jean
Ryan began to adopt methods derived from the Baldrige
Healthcare Criteria for Performance Excellence to apply
whole systems thinking to hospital operations.
The NICU project needed to transition from a 44-bed

open ward to 60 private patient rooms without increasing
the existing staff. Christner led a highly interactive process
with NICU staff to better understand the implications
of this new nursing configuration. The design team built
a full-scale room mock-up and simulated staff working
conditions to be certain that everything in the unit would
function as planned.
BIM was not used extensively in design. In 2004, Christner and McGrath were still
working in 2D AutoCad. There was a desire to use BIM to model building systems
but there were incompatible software platforms all around the table. Much of the
coordination was done by experienced field personnel and engineers poring over light
tables. In spite of the low-tech approach, the incentive system gave the contractors
nothing to lose and everything to gain by finding and fixing clashes as early as
possible.
Lessons Learned
Christner is looking for the opportunity to use IPD again, but according to Tom Van
Landingham “You need scale and sophisticated management. You need a self-selected
team. You’re challenging the owner to get deeper into their own project. In the field of
healthcare there is a nice synergy between lean operations and IPD.” Christner has
since transitioned to BIM and expects it to support future IPD projects.
The owner felt that “relational” contracts based on the Sutter model try too hard to
dictate behavior. SSM felt that similar results could be achieved through the use of
standard contracts but with addendums spelling out expectations with regard to
collaboration and lean methodologies.
Challenges that arose during construction could be dealt with more effectively with
open and transparent, cooperative management. After the first elevated floor deck was
in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between rebar in the flat slab and
plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the
course of a “huddle” aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could
be avoided by shifting the entire plan 3 ½” with respect to the column grid. “How likely
are architects and engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in
the middle of construction?” asks Tom Van Landingham. But because the designers
were incentivized to be part of the larger team they were able to make the necessary
design and coordination changes in just three days. In the end, the project was
occupied six weeks earlier than planned.
Photograph by Sam Fentress
Building type
SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center Surgery and NICU Expansion
St. Louis, MO
Hospital expansion
Project description The expansion included a central sterile unit, 60 neo-natal intensive care unit
(NICU) rooms, 10 surgical suites, 10-bay PACU, PACs and a video integration
system. 10 new operating rooms, an all-private room Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit, new Central Sterile and shell space for future relocation of Radiology and
Laboratory.
Owner SSM Health Care
Year begun October 2004
Year completed August 2007
Architect Christner, Inc
Structural Christner, Inc
MEP McGrath, Inc.
Landscape Arch N/A
Other designer N/A
Builder Alberici
MEP Corrigan Co (M&P)
Kaiser Electric.
Major subs TJ Wies (Walls and Ceilings)
Engineered Fire Projection (Fire Sprinklers)
Initial schedule
Design Design information not supplied
Construction August 2005 to October 1 2007
Achieved schedule
Design Design information not supplied
Construction August 2005 to August 2007 (NICU moved Sept 11, 2007)
Programmed GSF
Final GSF 138,000 SF
Budget cost
Contract cost
Final cost
Change orders
Owner-initiated 0
Other 0
RFIs 63
1
2
Case Study: St. Clare Health Center
Fenton, Missouri
Project Description
The project is a 430,000 square foot replacement hospital serving the growing
I-44 corridor in suburban St. Louis. It is comprised of a six-story, 154-bed inpatient
tower, an 85,000 square foot medical office building, and a 75,000 square foot
ambulatory care center. The campus also includes an emergency room and other
diagnostic and surgical components. SSM Healthcare sought to redefine the
patient experience and worked with HGA to organize the program around a two-
story “main street,” with nodes that evoke “marketplace,” “hotel,” “factory,” “healing
garden,” and “condominium.”
Owner: SSM Healthcare www.ssmhc.com

Builder: Alberici Constructors www.alberici.com
Courtesy of HGA Architects and Engineers
IPD Case Study: St. Clare Health Center © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 31
The core team of SSM, Alberici, and HGA was in place
at the start of the project. At the same time, a program
manager was also engaged. The program manager, who
was not familiar with IPD, advised SSM to establish a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP) as soon as possible,
and push the risk of cost overruns on to the builder
and architect. He advocated using standard, separate
design and construction contracts but with addendums
mandating a lean construction process. HGA objected.
Based on the experience in California, IPD had to be
implemented in full for the process to work. “You could not
cherry-pick some items and leave out others,” said Kurt
Spiering, HGA’s principal in charge, “we’re either going Courtesy of HGA Architects and Engineers
to use the whole agreement or none of the agreement.”
Alberici seconded the motion, and SSM subsequently
agreed to move forward with an integrated form of
agreement and without a program manager.
The mechanical, electrical, and fire protection Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
subcontractors were contracted to Alberici and signed

joining agreements prior to the start of design.
Shared Risk/Reward
At the beginning, SSM felt that this project, with its
significant scope, had to have an enforceable GMP. As
noted above, the budget for the project had been set by
a program manager prior to the engagement of HGA and
Alberici. When the architect and builder began their work it
quickly became clear that the budget did not match SSM’s
aspirations for the project. The owner was willing to defer
the setting of GMP until the design was substantially
complete and subcontractors were comfortable
enough with their prices that they could eliminate most
contingencies. But when all the subtrades’ GMPs were
totaled, the sum exceeded the overall budget. In the end
no GMP was set, the architects and builders worked
collaboratively to hold down costs but were not required
to hold to a fixed price and were paid cost plus a fee.
Because the builders’ risk was thereby almost eliminated,
financial incentives were not deemed by the owner to be
necessary. Books were open and audited.
The three-way IPD contract, based on the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) used
by Sutter Health, was fashioned by SSM’s local attorney for use as a model document
for this and future SSM projects. By contract, each party is held accountable to the
others as equal partners. Architect and builder combine their contingencies and are
jointly responsible for construction errors and design omissions. “Lean partners,” i.e.
subcontractors within the shared risk/reward circle, included MEP, wall and ceiling
framing and finish, and fire protection. Smaller pieces of the work were bid out in the
traditional way.

A tiered decision making structure was established by the IFOA. The IPD Field Team,
which included all participants active at a given time, met daily to review routine
matters. The Core Team, with senior representation of the owner, architect, engineers,
and builder, met weekly to collaboratively discuss issues and make the more difficult
decisions. A senior Leadership Team convened monthly to resolve issues when
consensus could not be reached in the Core Team. The Leadership Team included
representatives of the interested parties - including SSM, Alberici and HGA.

There was not a “no-sue” clause. There was a limitation on consequential damages.

In this case the initial budget was established by a program manager without the
involvement of architect and builder. Because this initial budget was not jointly
validated, the owner had to supplement it with additional funds to satisfy programmatic
goals for the project.
Besides schedule and budget, project goals included improved operational productivity.
Specific metrics were not set, but the team was tasked with improving efficiency
through design to the greatest extent possible.
Narrative
A local MEP consulting engineering firm, KJWW, working under the direction of HGA,
developed 2D single line diagrams showing duct sizes and locations as well as
performance specs. At the same time HGA was developing architectural and structural
designs in their Milwaukee office with early input from the builders. Then all of this
material was taken to the “Big Room” where the architects and engineers could
collaborate with the design-build MEP detailers to model the design in real time and in
3D using Architectural Desktop. The “Big Room” was a triple-wide trailer set up on the
site. Tim Gunn, Alberici’s Project Director said “it was the first time for everyone with
this kind of a process. Some things went more smoothly than others. But all the time
spent up front in the Big Room was more than paid back later with substantially fewer
coordination errors and RFIs.” Kevin Kerschbaum, HGA’s project manager said “We
could have drawn it all but we wouldn’t have known if there needed to be a joint here
or a piece of unistrut there. You have a much higher degree of certainty that things will
fit when the actual fabricator is doing the modeling. Everything should be drawn and
detailed by the right person at the right time and then put together into the overall
model.” Virtually all systems including power, low voltage, lighting, mechanical and fire
protection were modeled in detail.
The Big Room was augmented with a project management web site used to share
design progress with team members who could not physically be present.
“Big Room” is derived from

the Japanese term “obeya.”
In the Toyota Product
Development System,
the obeya is a location
in which interdisciplinary
team members meet daily
to brainstorm and resolve
issues on the spot.
The owner learned from an earlier project, Cardinal Glennon , that a release from GMP
was preferred by the builders over financial incentives. Donald E. Wojtkowski, SSM
Healthcare’s Executive Director Design and Construction, said “The only way you’re
going to get the complex design and construction resources needed for a project like
St. Clare, to get them to change their behavior, is to remove financial risk. Whenever
you have a GMP or stipulated sum, if you need to deviate from the schedule for the
good of the project, you’re going to get a change order and be arguing about it for the
rest of the project.”
This was SSM’s and Alberici’s first IPD project from conception. HGA had prior
IPD experience with Sutter Health in California. But according to Wojtkowski, that
previous experience didn’t immediately transfer to the HGA office in Milwaukee. Over
time, however, the Milwaukee office became more comfortable with this new way of
working.
SSM Healthcare as an organization was already committed to Continuous Quality

Improvement and it was a natural transition to apply “lean operations” principles to its
capital programs.
In late 2004, Wojtkowski invited lean construction pioneer Greg Howell to come to St.
Louis for a two-day seminar involving SSM and the partners with whom it did business,
including architects, engineers, builders, and specialty subcontractors. SSM was
encouraged to test the process on Cardinal Glennon Children’s, a project then already
underway. After Cardinal Glennon was completed, SSM decided to implement IPD and
lean construction from the beginning with St. Clare. Advisors were brought in to help
implement the Last Planner system, a construction planning methodology developed
by the Lean Construction Institute.
One of the issues in hospital design is that, although designers and builders want
owners to make decisions and stick with them, hospital operators always want their
buildings to have the very latest in equipment and reflect the most up to date thinking
in hospital operations and patient care. “There’s always the desire to defer those
decisions in case the next generation of cath lab or MRI or articulated arm in the
operating room is coming down the road,” said Wojtkowski.
At St. Clare, the owner decided to switch from back-to-back patient rooms to same-
handed rooms even as structural steel was being erected. This decision came from
studies showing that same-handed rooms promote operational efficiency and reduce
the likelihood of medication errors. It was decided to make the change even though it
increased cost. Such a major change so late in the process would have been extremely
difficult for a traditional, fragmented design and construction team to handle efficiently,
but the integrated team was able to meet the owner’s wishes because of its inherent
flexibility. The change was made without a major impact on cost or schedule. Tim
Gunn of Alberici said “We like the ability to let the owner wait until the last responsible
minute to make a decision, and sometimes even beyond that.”
BIM was used extensively, not only to detect clashes between systems but to increase
the proportion of prefabricated assemblies with their greater tolerances and lower
requirement for field labor.
Lessons Learned
Had the budget and program been collaboratively set between owner, architect, and
builder at the beginning, it would likely have not been necessary to go “back to the
well” for additional funds to square the budget with program.
The owner thought the process works very well for large and complex projects but
is perhaps not needed for smaller (under $5 million) projects, in part because SSM
tends to assign those projects to smaller builders, new firms, or firms without broad
experience in healthcare.
The owner felt that it was unnecessary to model every pipe and conduit, and that in the
future, modeling should be limited to major systems. But he did acknowledge that he
was left with “one heck of a good set of as-builts.”
“Most of our problems came from design-build subcontractors not having the patience
to deal with the iterative nature of design. They want all the answers way too early,”
says Wojkowski. In this project the consulting engineers were essentially in design-
assist mode to the subcontractors instead of the other way around. The owner felt
this was backward. In addition, according to Tim Gunn, “Our MEP/FP subcontractors
struggled at times with conceptual estimating. They sometimes fell back to the old
counting light fixtures, counting toilets mode.”
Kevin Kerschbaum of HGA, who has now worked on several IPD projects, feels that
architectural work hours can be taken from the construction administration phase
and shifted to schematic design. “There is an intense amount of work required of the
designers at the beginning of the process but the time needed during construction
to review RFIs, submittals, and substitutions is greatly reduced.” There is no longer
a defined “bidding/negotiation phase” so that time gets pulled forward as well.
Kerschbaum learned that during construction more time is freed to actually spend on
the job site and much less “busy work” is required in the office.
The owner felt that “relational” contracts based on the Sutter model try too hard
to dictate behavior. SSM’s Donald Wojkiowski wondered if similar results could be
achieved through the use of standard contracts but with addendums spelling out
expectations with regard to collaboration and lean methodologies.
Building type
SSM St. Clare Health Center
St. Louis, MO
Hospital
Project description 154 bed hospital (plus 20 shelled beds)
• Outpatient/Inpatient Surgery
• Cancer Center (Medical Office Building)
• 5-Story Inpatient Tower
• Medical Office Building
• Emergency Services
• Ambulatory Surgery Center
Owner SSM Health Care
Year begun 2005 Design Start, Construction start 2007
Year completed 2009
Architect HGA
Structural HGA
MEP KJWW
Landscape Arch EDAW
Other designer Mackey Mitchell Associates
Builder Alberici Constructors
MEP Murphy Co (M,P) Guarantee Electric (E, LV)
Curtain wall Missouri Valley Glass
Major subs Niehaus (drywall, acoustic ceilings, interior framing), SLASCO (Fire Sprinklers)
Initial schedule
Design April 2005 thru August 2007
Construction August 2007 thru Sept 2008 (with first patient at end 2008)
Achieved schedule
Design April 2005 thru October 2008
Construction August 2007 thru January 2009 (with first patient March 30, 2009) Project schedule
adjusted by owner due to start up of electronic medical records systems and re-
evaluation of plan to move during holidays.
Budget cost
Design1 $8,847,857
Construction 2
$141,000,000
Contract cost
Design1 $8,847,857
Construction 2
$148,300,000
Final cost
Design1 $8,947,000
Construction 2
$148,300,000
Change orders
Owner-initiated Yes
Other 0
RFIs 278

1
2
Case Study: Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center
Appleton, Wisconsin
Project Description
Encircle Health is a three-story, 156,000 square foot ambulatory care center
combining physician practices with ancillary diagnostic services, including
imaging, radiology, endoscopy, pharmacy, and testing labs, each of which own
an equity stake in the building. It is not a typical medical office building; the
design is based on a “pod” concept, where related practices share flexible
space and equipment and use a centralized reception office. The circulation
system provides a “front stage” and “back stage” whereby patients in gowns
are not exposed to public areas. The project was managed by its largest tenant,
ThedaCare, a comprehensive regional healthcare organization with considerable
construction experience, and a focus on lean operations. ThedaCare and its
employed physicians occupy approximately two-thirds of the building.
Owner: Encircle Health, an LLC composed

of ThedaCare and independent
physician groups www.thedacare.org
Builder: The Boldt Company www.theboldtcompany.com
IPD Case Study: Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 38
“Risk Pool”
ThedaCare, acting as owner and program manager,
selected the core project team based on existing Recent iterations of the
relationships with HGA and Boldt, and the IPD experience Sutter model contract
that both firms had acquired with Sutter Health. use “fee pooling,” in
which participants’ costs
Mechanical, electrical, plumbing/fire protection, and are separated from their
glazing subcontractors were selected collaboratively by anticipated profit. Planned
the core team from a short list of three candidate firms in profits are placed in the
each category. Selection was based on fee proposals and “risk pool” for those inside
the IPD agreement. That
qualifications of committed personnel. All of the firms way, everyone’s individual
considered had previous working experience with Boldt. success hinges on the
Each of the selected major subcontractors entered into a project’s success. Profits
are protected even when
“lean partner” relationship with the core team through the work (done at cost) is
use of joining agreements, and all were in place at the increased or decreased.
start of schematic design. Smaller subcontracts were Therefore no one is hurt
procured in a traditional manner with hard bids. if work is shifted from
one party to another for
overall project benefit. If
Shared Risk/Reward a $1 increase in framing
cost allows a $2 savings
Architect and builder worked on a time-and-materials in HVAC, no one loses the
basis at a reduced billing rate, with a portion of anticipated incentive to put the project
first.
profits placed at risk depending on project outcomes.
The contract provides for a performance contingency,
consisting of at-risk profits, plus typical contingencies, Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
with a formula to split funds remaining in the pot at the
end of the project. A scaling factor was used wherein
the more that was saved, the higher the percentage of
compensation to the non-owner participants. Additionally,
there was an owner’s contingency that was not shared.
An integrated form of agreement (IFOA) based on the
Sutter Health model was signed by owner, architect, and
builder. Prior to the start of schematic design, four of the
major subtrades--mechanical, electrical, plumbing/fire
protection and exterior glazing--signed joining agreements
and participated in the financial incentives scheme.
These subcontractors all provided design services and
their engineers acted as the engineers-of-record for
their respective disciplines. HGA provided full service
architectural and structural design. These at-risk parties
accounted for more than 60% of the work.

A Core Team met weekly to resolve routine issues. The
composition of this team varied, sometimes including
one or two of the owner/physicians, sometimes including
administrators, but always with the owner, architect and
builder represented. Under the direction of the Core Team were specialized component
teams including building enclosure, MEP, interior fit-out, and LEED compliance. The
Core Team would resolve issues that arose between the component teams on a
continuing basis. Above the Core Team was the Board of Directors of the LLC, but very
few issues were passed to that level. The ability to perform to such a tight schedule
required that decisions be made and not revisited.

The contract did not contain a no-sue clause. It did contain a limitation on total liability
and consequential damages for the architect and a mutual waiver of consequential
damages between the owner and the builder. Each entity maintained typical insurance.

Project goals, developed collaboratively by the core team, included budget, schedule,
and a requirement to attain LEED Silver or higher, as mandated by ThedaCare’s
systemwide sustainability initiative. At the time of this study the LEED evaluation was
not yet complete, but the team was confident of achieving LEED Gold.
The overall schedule as it was jointly prepared did not change during the project,
although it was constantly and interactively adjusted in detail during weekly meetings.
Narrative
This was the first IPD project for ThedaCare; the architect HGA and builder Boldt
Construction had prior IPD experience working together with Sutter Health in
California. The three principal partners had worked together previously, as did most
of the major subtrades, a factor that everyone believed contributed to the project’s
success.
The project was not self-funded by ThedaCare; a bank provided lending and it was
necessary to persuade the lender and its attorneys that IPD was a viable form of
project delivery. “It was unfamiliar territory for them,” said Albert Park, ThedaCare’s
Director of Facilities Planning, “but when it was explained to them they agreed it made
sense.”
The project was completed from start to move-in in 18 months, including 13 months
of construction. During five of those months, the coldest winter in recent memory
compounded the difficulty of achieving such a compressed schedule.
A thorough programming process was conducted by HGA, consulting each of the

tenant/owners on space and equipment requirements. Boldt and the subcontractors
were in attendance at many of these meetings.
The design process was highly collaborative between designers and builders. The
design-build specialty subcontractors provided design services and acted as the
engineers-of-record for their respective disciplines. HGA and its consultants designed
systems as single line diagrams plus performance criteria Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
which the subcontractors used as a basis for their designs.

All systems were modeled in 3D.
Smaller subtrades were selected in the traditional

manner with stipulated prices. Although the overall
budget was fixed, the flexible process allowed money
to be moved between line items, so that each of the
major subcontractors’ budgets was in constant flux and
decisions could be made based on what was best for the
project.
During design the architects were given a detailed

spreadsheet of unit costs. They had the freedom to design
knowing the real cost of tradeoffs between, for example,
using one material over another in a particular space.
Because cost information was provided early, architects
could make design decisions based on reliable information
and did not have to redesign later for value engineering.
In this fully integrated project, the boundaries between

the phases of design sometimes became blurry. Just-
in-time design meant some aspects of the project
were still in sketch mode while others were already
under construction. There was no traditional SD-DD-
CD issuance of design packages. Delivery of design
documents was continuous and directed at what the team
felt most needed attention at a particular moment in the
process. In addition, the severe weather during much of
construction meant that the usual sequence of subtrades
couldn’t be followed and the designers were able to
adjust.
At a defined point in the process it was agreed that design

was finished. All parties and all stakeholders had been
consulted and signed off. After that point any significant
design adjustment was considered a scope change with
an impact on the target cost.
Most costs were well predicted during design, but when

the inevitable small surprises happened, as materials
and smaller trades were bid, the team could easily adjust
without adding to the overall cost. Only in the rare cases
when items had to be subtracted from the performance
contingency did it require a decision from the Core Team.
Because subcontractors were on a fixed fee, but with
flexible labor hours and materials at cost, there was no
concern if hours had to be taken from one trade and
assigned to another. That inspired some out-of the-box Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
thinking for the benefit of the overall project. Costs such

as material lifts and clean-up could be shared and those
items could be taken out of individual budgets and the
savings put into the incentive pool. This had the additional
benefit of minimizing jobsite clutter because redundant
equipment was reduced.
The primary computer model was held by Boldt.

Each systems subcontractor used its own preferred
software platform, which in the case of the sheet metal
subcontractor, was used to directly drive CNC fabrication
equipment. Navisworks was used extensively and
interactively to detect clashes between systems. By
modeling everything, there was a much higher assurance
that things would fit and therefore tighter tolerances
were possible. Instead of a laborious shop drawing review
process, the subcontractors were able to model their own
work and build it. Trent Jezwinski , Boldt’s project manager
said “The money spent on building and maintaining the
BIM was more than offset by less rework caused by
coordination errors.“ In addition to BIM, Boldt maintained
a project web site for information exchange open to all
participants.
RFIs were essentially limited to documentation of

decisions already reached in the field. This freed the
architect to be more hands-on during construction
because much of the tedious paperwork and tracking was
eliminated. Representatives in the field were empowered
to make decisions quickly. Participants at all levels tended
to ask questions with a range of possible solutions in
mind. It wasn’t “your design doesn’t work, fix it.” The
process tended to flatten the hierarchy and put everyone
on an equal footing, which was empowering for all and a
good stimulus toward creative problem-solving.
“With a traditional agreement the attitude is: if there is a

mismatch or a problem, I’m not going to come back and
change it – I’m done,“ said Boldt’s Trent Jezwinski .“Instead
of just looking out for your narrow business interest,
people really act for the good of the project.”
The shop drawing process became concurrent with

design, saving time and duplication of effort. Kevin
Kerschbaum, HGA’s project manager, said “We drew 30%
fewer window details, for example, because the curtain
wall subcontractor was involved from the get-go and their
input was incorporated in the design drawings.” Shop Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
drawings were used for installation purposes only.
A similar situation occurred with millwork. The architect,

with the fabricator by his side, drew what was needed
without having to extensively detail. In that sense, the
architect could focus purely on design while allowing the
fabricators to detail exactly what they were going to build.
Lessons Learned
Several of the participants wished that the major field
foremen had been more completely integrated into the
process. As a rule these field workers were the most
skeptical of the new process.
There was a general consensus that a more precise

method of distinguishing design refinement from
scope change from contingency item was needed.
Participants reported several instances in which there
was disagreement about which bucket should pay for a
particular item. But in the spirit of collaboration and feeling
of trust that prevailed these were resolved with frank
discussion and give-and-take. This supports the idea that
a rigorous programming phase in which requirements are
well defined must be part of IPD.
In some cases, the scheduling of trades such as fire

protection had to be adjusted because things were
happening so much faster than usual. Boldt has indicated
that it will adjust its scheduling practices to suit this new
process.
“I’ve never had a job run this smooth in 23 years,” said

Jezwinski .“There wasn’t any of that silo mentality – and
to be able to move that feeling into the construction site
is huge. I’ve never seen a project work as a team like this
one did, from the top down and including the installers and
guys in the field. When you have a hand in establishing
the schedule and see how your trade fits into the whole
process, you tend to believe in it and act accordingly. Slack
is greatly reduced. The interactive scheduling process
showed you the logic of where everything had to go – you
trusted it and had ownership over it, and if you didn’t fulfill
your promises you felt you had let down the team. If you
have partners who are willing to change culturally then
this process could work anywhere.”
Building type
Encircle Health Center
Appleton, WI
Ambulatory Care Center, with
Endoscopy center
Imaging center
Medical offices
Pharmacy/Café/Conference area
Owner NAACC Building Co. LLC and ThedaCare
Year begun 2006
Year completed 2009
Architect HGA
Structural HGA
MEP HGA/August Winter (M,P), Town and Country (E), Excellence Elec. (LV & Security),
Ahern (FP)
Landscape Arch Martenson and Eisele
Other designer HGA (Interiors), Martenson and Eisele (Civil)
Builder O. J. Boldt Construction
MEP August Winter (M,P) Town and Country (E) Excellence Elec. (LV), Ahern (FP)
Curtain wall Corcoran Glass
Major subs O. J. Boldt, F.C. Dadson (Millwork), Builders Service (Door/Hardware), Nimsgern
(Struct Steel), Macco’s (Flooring),
Omni Glass & Paint (Wall Finishes)
Initial schedule
Design May 2006 thru January 2009
Construction July 2008 thru July 2009
Achieved schedule
Design May 2006 thru January 2009 (5 month delay due to formation of business model with
physicians)
Construction September 2008 thru October 2009
Budget cost
Design1 $2,657,820
Contract cost
Design1 $2,901,071
Final cost
Design1 $3,185,917
Change orders
Owner-initiated $1,514,911
Other -0-
RFIs -0-
Sustainability Goal LEED Silver
Sustainability Achieved LEED Gold (not final as of this writing but team was confident it would be achieved.)

1
2
Case Study: Walter Cronkite School of Journalism,
Arizona State University
Phoenix, Arizona
Project Description
The Cronkite School is a build-to-suit venture by the City of Phoenix for
Arizona State University (ASU) and financed by a city bond measure. ASU’s
new downtown campus is part of the revitalization of the Phoenix central
business district. The six-story, 230,000 square foot project consists of academic
classrooms and offices for the School of Journalism and Mass Communication,
university-operated public television station KAET/Channel 8, general purpose
ASU classrooms and ground floor retail intended to activate the street. The
program required studios, control rooms, a master control room, editing suites,
post production suites, computer labs, media-intensive classrooms, as well as
other highly technical support spaces. A significant design feature is the “forum,”
a high-ceilinged, media-intensive, community activated space that is the central
gathering space of the school.
Owner: City of Phoenix www.phoenix.gov

User/Occupant: Arizona State University www.asu.edu
Design Architect: Ehrlich Architects www.s-ehrlich.com
Executive Architect: HDR Architecture www.hdrinc.com
Builder: Sundt Construction www.sundt.com
Photograph by Bill Timmerman
IPD Case Study: Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, ASU © Copyright 2010 AIA/AIA California Council, 1303 J Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 45
The designers and builders were selected as one team. The builder’s preferred
mechanical, electrical, and glazing subcontractors were introduced to the selection
committee and began work simultaneously with Ehrlich/HDR and Sundt. HDR
brought mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering in house. Sundt chose its
subcontractors in a qualifications-based process, agreeing to fixed fees but with open
book accounting of costs. Subcontractors were required to use BIM and were selected
in part on a judgment of their preconstruction capabilities. All of the disciplines needed
for a complete design were on board as the design process began.
Shared Risk/Reward
The project was obliged to follow the standard City of Phoenix design-build contract,
which did not allow for a shared “pain and gain” mechanism. Money saved through
efficiencies was put back into the project for value-add items. Nevertheless, many IPD
features were put in place on a non-contractual basis.
The project had to be completed by a “drop-dead” date and for a sum set by the bond
measure so the budget and schedule were absolute. But the project participants
believed that their risk was reduced due to the completely transparent way in which
the project was managed.
The contract was a two-way owner/designer-builder contract as prescribed by City
procurement regulations, but the participants decided collectively that the only way to
insure that the owner’s budget, schedule and programmatic requirements could be met
was to follow IPD principles in managing project delivery. The team made a conscious
decision to sign the contract but not to let it dictate behavior. Sundt’s project manager
Terry Abair said: “The stuff that’s written into the contract, such as submittal review
times, and so on, had we followed that we would never have been successful.”
Project oversight was managed by an Executive Committee meeting every other week
with high level representation of all participants and stakeholders – frequently, even
including the Dean of Journalism. Decisions were arrived by consensus and very rarely
did issues have to go to a higher authority for resolution. This kind of collaborative,
quick, and final decision making process was key to achieving such an aggressive
schedule.

The standard City of Phoenix contract contained a limitation of consequential damages
provision but there was not a “no-sue” clause. The contract was so inflexible that even
misspellings could not be corrected without action by the city council.

Although budget and schedule were fixed by the bond financing, the program that
ASU hoped to achieve was flexible. Owner, architects, and builder were able to
collaboratively decide how to spend the funds for maximum gain. It seemed clear, early
in design, that the budget would not buy the entire program the University desired, and
ASU was able to find an additional $2 million from another budget to fill the gap. Even
then, it was expected that a certain amount of space would be left as an unfinished
shell. But in the end, efficiencies achieved during construction and buyout, allowed all
of the program to be achieved and all the space to be finished without touching the
extra $2 million.
Narrative
The downtown ASU campus, which will ultimately fill a nine block area, is an important
component of the Phoenix redevelopment vision. Unlike its main Tempe campus where
ASU builds for itself, the downtown campus will be owned by the City with ASU on a
long term master lease. In effect it’s a “public-public” partnership. As the first significant
building and on the most prominent site, the Cronkite School was expected to set a
high standard of design quality.
Both HDR and Sundt are headquartered in Phoenix and the opportunity to work for
both the City and ASU was very attractive to both of them. The prime issue forcing
an extremely tight schedule was the “drop-dead” date for move-in prescribed by the
bond measure. A previous scheme for another downtown site had fallen apart, leaving
the city with only 24 months to complete the project on a different site. Finding an
alternative project delivery method was essential; there was no time for a design-bid-
build scenario.
The City issued a public RFQ to select an architect and builder together, purely on
the basis of qualifications with no price attached. 13-15 responses were received out
of which a short list of three teams was chosen. State law required that an architect
and builder be on the selection committee along with representatives of the City of
Phoenix and ASU. Teams were selected on the basis of familiarity with the project
type, experience working with public agencies, and the prospect of working well
together. ASU in its own capital programs had been using CM-at-Risk exclusively for
the previous five years.
HDR and Ehrlich applied together as a design team. They Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
felt that their combined talents and experience would be

a good fit for the project. The two firms had previously
pursued work together but never landed a job, although
key individuals at HDR and Sundt had prior working
relationships.
The University had programmed the project to fit the

original site. When that first effort fell apart, many of the
stakeholders were reluctant to go through another lengthy
programming process. Although the budget was fixed, the
program was flexible. The City and ASU challenged the
team to give them the most they could get for the money.
A prioritized list of add-ons was agreed, and in the end,
almost all of them were achieved.
Ehrlich Architects began rapidly testing alternative

schemes, always working in 3D, and always with the
full participation of the builders. There were many
constraints. For budget reasons it was necessary to stay
under a height of 75’, above which expensive life safety
requirements would be triggered. ASU wanted about half
the site to remain for a subsequent project. And schedule
constraints meant it was not possible to consider major
excavation even though elements of the program could
have worked well underground.
A “Big Room” was set up at HDR’s office. Howard Shugar,

HDR’s project manager said “If you didn’t have the right
people in the room you couldn’t make the decisions when
they needed to be made.” Every Monday the latest design
ideas were published as a set of 20 or more 11”x17” sheets.
“We do not provide quantity takeoffs in a design-bid-build

project,” said Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Architects, ”but
in this project it was a daily occurrence. Because of the
trust established we weren’t afraid to get involved. We
were constantly using the BIM model to test the cost of
different design ideas.” Howard Shugar said “We were
really learning. As architects we never sat in a general
contractor’s office and understood what they do.”
The City created a dedicated team of building inspectors

for the downtown ASU campus, but the project still had
to go through the City’s full design review process. A
site plan and elevations had to be quickly developed and
approved. The City worked closely with the project team
and committed to reasonable turnaround times but did not Photograph by Jonathan Cohen
cut short its normal review process. A number of variances

were required, which extended the schedule with public
review and comment periods.
The tight schedule coupled with a lengthy review process

meant that aspects of the design had to be fast tracked
and accomplished out of normal sequence. One of the
tenets of lean construction is “optimize the project, not
the pieces.” A structural and foundation system was
designed that could flexibly accommodate ongoing
design refinement. The foundation may have been a bit
overdesigned, but early design enabled optimization of
larger project goals. Flat, post-tensioned slabs were used
to maximize flexibility as the detailed design proceeded.
Both the City and University had sustainability goals: The

City wanted the project LEED certified, and ASU wanted
it to be LEED Silver or higher.
BIM was used extensively through programming, design

and construction, but there was no standardization of
software platforms. Ehrlich had extensive experience with
Revit, and discovered in the process of program validation
that it was also useful as an interactive 3D programming
tool in live user group meetings.
HDR’s engineers developed single-line diagrams of

systems which were turned over to subcontractors
for detailed modeling. The transition from consulting
engineers to design-build subcontractors was almost
completely seamless. The two sets of engineers sat
across from each other in the Big Room and designed
collaboratively. Navisworks was used to stitch together
models created in various software packages. The
mechanical engineer led the clash-detection process.
Lessons Learned
“In order to be successful we had to change the behaviors we were used to,” said
Sundt’s Terry Abair, “If everyone had fallen back on their normal behavior we never
would have gotten there.” Compromises had to be made to accommodate the
aggressive schedule. The team felt that although a hurry-up schedule can often be a
productivity advantage, in this case another month would have been very useful. There
was not enough time up front to engage in the kind of team-building that is needed in
such an intense collaboration.
Michael Jackson, HDR principal in charge said “Co-location works because when you
work that closely together you naturally develop a relationship of trust. When everyone
is in their own office and using email and staying at arms’ length it doesn’t allow that to
happen.” As a result of the success of this project HDR has built out a new space in its
office specifically for co-location.
When design began, Ehrlich was working in Revit. HDR, which at the time was still
using Architectural Desktop, determined that there was insufficient time to train their
personnel on new software. Translating the models back and forth turned out to be
a cumbersome and problematic process and a major inefficiency. The firm has since
transitioned completely to Revit.
Sundt now requires its major subcontractors to model their systems in 3D as a

condition of working together.
Building erection had to begin before all systems were fully designed. Full BIM
coordination was not possible until the 3rd floor was in place, and because old
fashioned paper-based coordination had to be used some rework on lower floors was
necessary.
Participants felt that design-build subcontractors are typically uncomfortable with the
uncertainty and sometimes chaotic nature of early design and the iterative process
that designers must follow to arrive at an appropriate solution. All felt this could be
overcome with additional training and experience.
Most participants felt that some of the lean construction thinking is doctrinaire and
inflexible.
Michael Jackson of HDR said “owners are not used to the level of commitment of
taking responsibility equally with architects and builders and accepting some risk
themselves. The owner has to be at the table. In the old fashioned relationships we’re
always thinking ‘How can I shift that risk to the other two parties’ but it’s just pushing
the shells around. The reality is when you’re willing to take responsibility and provide
the builder with those materials quantities the end result is the risk goes down for
everybody.”
Building type
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication – KAET 8
Phoenix, Arizona
Classroom / office building, on-air production public TV and radio station
Project description The program was driven by the diverse needs of the School of Journalism, the university-
operated public television station KAET/Channel 8, with the addition of general
university classrooms and ground floor retail. Though served by a common lobby, each
required its own distinct identity. In addition, the project needed to accommodate an
electrical substation and internal delivery bays on the first floor. The School of Journalism
and KAET/Channel 8 cameras each required super-flat floors in the studios and roof-
mounted satellite and microwave dish arrays.
KAET/Channel 8 and the Cronkite School each required studios, control rooms, master
control room, editing suites, post production suites, computer labs, and television-ready
classrooms, as well as many other technival support spaces.
Components of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism include:3,000 SF multi-level

Forum with remote-operated cameras and HD rear-projection screen
• 3 working newsrooms
• 2 television studios with associated video production and audio control rooms
• 23 TV edit bays
• Radio studio and control room
• 9 Radio edit bays
• 7 digital computer labs
• 150-seat, theatre-style auditorium with remote-operated cameras
• 1,500-square-foot gallery dedicated to journalism history
The Cronkite School occupies all of the second and third floors and a portion of the
fourth and sixth floors. The newsroom and broadcast anchor desks are contained within
one production space with views overlooking the city. Additionally, heavily mediated and
camera-ready classrooms were required for distance learning.
KAET/Channel 8 occupies the entire fifth floor of the building, a portion of the fourth
floor and transmits from studios on the sixth floor. This top floor location uses long
spans and high ceilings as required by the studios. Satellite dishes for transmission
and reception are housed on the roof; they are not screened and serve to express the
building’s communication function.
Components of KAET / Channel 8 include:

• 1 – 5,400 SF and 1-2,400 SF television production studios with associated video
production and audio control rooms
• Master Control Room and equipment rack room
• 4 edit suites and 2 post production edit suites
• KBAQ radio studio and control room
• 2 radio production edit suites
Owner City of Phoenix – Owner/Developer
Year begun 2006
Year completed 2008
Form of agreement Design-build
Architect HDR Architecture, Inc. and Ehrlich Architects
Structural CTS – Caruso Turley Scott, Inc.
MEP HDR Architecture, Inc.
Landscape Arch Ten Eyck Landscape Architects
Other designer Dibble Engineering – Civil Engineers
Builder Sundt Construction – Design Builder
Self-performed civil and structural concrete work
MEP University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc., Kearney Electric, Western States
Fire Protection
Curtain wall KT Fabricators
Major subs Performance Contracting – Framing and Drywall
Thyssen Krupp - Elevators
Resource Flooring
T-P Acoustics, Inc. – Acoustical ceilings
Commercial Door & Hardware
Elward Construction – Metal Panel System
Schuff Steel – Structural Steel
Ironco – Misc. & Structural Steel
Rhino Masonry – Masonry
RBG Construction – Site/Offsite Concrete
Initial schedule Design and Construction – 21.4 Months
Design Notice to proceed through tenant fit-up permit – 10.8 months
Construction From 1st permit issued to certificate of occupancy – 16 months
Achieved schedule Design and Construction – 19.8 Months
Design Notice to proceed through tenant fit-up permit – 9.4 months
Construction From 1st permit issued to certificate of occupancy – 15 months
Programmed GSF 200,000 to 260,000 GSF
Final GSF 230,000 GSF
Budget cost Total project budget = $71,000,000 bond funded building plus miscellaneous
bond funded offsite improvements and art projects.
Design1 Design, owner soft costs & owner contingencies - $16,022,000
Construction2
Construction - $54,978,000
Contract cost
Design1 $7,910,994
Final cost
Design1 $8,276,450
Change orders
Owner-initiated Total Added Scope from City of Phoenix Contingency - $1,351,334
Other Budgets Total Added Scope from Other Budgets = $4,513,732
Added value changes from design-builder contingency = $1,556,236
from owner allowance = $2,402,926
RFIs 454, of which about 25% were confirming RFIs for documentation purposes.
Sustainability Goal LEED Silver
Sustainability Achieved LEED Silver, 2 Green Globes Achieved
1
2
By examining only built projects, these case
Conclusions studies attempt to provide a “proof of concept” for
this new method of designing and building. Most
of the participants in the case study projects had
enough bad experience with traditional delivery
models to be willing to try something new. In every
case these projects met or exceeded the owner’s
expectations with respect to budget, schedule,
design quality, and sustainability and also met the
financial expectations of designers and builders.
Every participant interviewed was enthusiastic
about IPD and eager to try it again.
A significant key to IPD’s promise is its ability to

manage and mitigate risk for the three principal
parties: the owner, the architect/engineer, and
the builder. By aligning the goals of these parties
around what is best for the project and making
each party responsible for the behavior of the
others, all three parties gain more control of
the overall process. Increased certainty means
lowered risk.
In a typical construction project done in the

traditional fashion, every participant relies
on stated or hidden contingencies to cover
foreseeable and unforeseeable risks. Often
architects attempt to shift as much risk as possible
to builders, builders to architects and owners to
both of them. For owners, a “hard bid” represents
a shift of the risk of cost escalation to the builder.
Builders attempt to mitigate that risk through
contingencies. For architects, the avoidance
of risk is reflected in the number of drawings
produced as if risk could be reduced by the sheer
weight of the documents. Traditional design
and construction contracts seek to manage risk
by narrowly defining roles and responsibilities.
Each participant must then be vigilant to limit the
scope of their activities to prescribed parameters,
which reinforces isolating “silo” behavior, limiting
collaboration and precluding an aligned focus on
the good of the project.
The total of all these implicit and explicit

contingencies represents an enormous amount of
waste – resources that if saved could be used to
add value to owners and better compensate the
project team. Albert Park, ThedaCare’s Director
of Facilities Planning, said “it’s all about managing
risk. I don’t mind paying for labor and the cost of
materials. What I don’t want to do is pay for your
risk, and others risk so that all that money is sitting
out there which I can’t quantify, when it could go
toward the project. I can make better business
decisions early in the project knowing what the
real costs are.”
When additional waste can be removed through

improved information exchange, streamlined
decision making processes and a reduction in
self-serving behavior, the outcome is even better.
“How do you convince an owner that trust is
actually reducing their risk rather than increasing
it?” asks Mathew Chaney of Ehrlich Architects.
These case studies provide insight that may help
answer that question.
As these studies show, IPD is gaining particular

traction in the healthcare field. This may be the
result of these owners’ focus on lean operations
and whole systems thinking now considered
“best practice” in healthcare delivery. Healthcare
providers may then look to their capital programs
and ask why such a holistic approach can’t also
be applied to design and construction of facilities.
As Sutter Health’s attorney Will Lichtig states,
“It makes it easy for those organizations that
have enlightened management with respect to
operations to recognize that there are significant
opportunities in the design and construction arena
as well.”
How might public agencies, whose procurement

policies are often constrained, get some of the
benefits of IPD? One of these case studies, the
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, was a public
project and used most of the IPD methodology,
but the contract didn’t reflect it. New forms of
public agency contracts should be explored,
including modified design-build, contracts
with single purpose entities, and public-private
partnerships.
The blurring of boundaries mentioned in the

Introduction is a challenge for some. In particular,
“early involvement of key participants” means
that major building systems contractors have
to become comfortable with the messiness of
design. Much of the efficiency that IPD brings
is due to the early participation of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing contractors not used
to the “what-ifs” and iterative thinking that is
characteristic of early design. Perhaps a culture
change is needed from both the consulting
engineers and the design-build subcontractor
community as integrated teams become more the
norm. “You have to have people who can deal with
a huge amount of ambiguity and not get nervous
about it,” said Michael Jackson of HDR.
The use of financial incentives to reward or punish

is controversial. Some say they are essential to
insure the alignment of goals around the good
of the project, as defined by agreed objectives.
Others see a danger of abuse or conflict of
interest when incentives are based on exceeding
budget and schedule targets. In the course of
compiling these case studies, owners, architects
and builders expressed strong feelings both pro
and con. Some felt that the reduced risk and
increased certainty of outcome outweighed the
value of additional compensation. Others held
the opposite view. “I have a sense that incentives
poorly structured can create non-collaborative
behavior, but properly structured, they help,” said
attorney Howard Ashcraft, who authored the
Integrated Project Delivery Agreement used in two
Autodesk projects.
One area of unanimity was the conviction that

success depends on putting together the right
team of people. Ultimately the success of any
group undertaking depends on the integrity
and commitment of the participants, and this is
certainly no less the case with IPD.
With respect to insurance, many of the parties

interviewed in these case studies felt that umbrella
project policies are most appropriate to IPD
projects. At present, these policies are expensive.
Because of its collaborative nature IPD should
decrease the number of claims among participants
in projects, leaving only third-party claims to cover.
It will be a challenge to the insurance industry to
recognize the inherently lower risk profile of IPD
projects and write affordable project policies for
them.
It is still “early days” for Integrated Project Delivery.

Not every case study met all of the desired
criteria. Teams are experimenting and finding what
works through trial and error. In many cases the
participants are already applying lessons learned
to new IPD projects now in the planning and
design stages. This is not a “one-off” study; it is
the start of an ongoing effort to document IPD as
it grows and evolves.
Big Room Integration
Glossary A term derived from the Japanese “obeya.” In the Toyota
Product Development System, the obeya is a location in
The coming together of all key participants, at the begin-
ning of a project, for the purpose of designing and con-
which interdisciplinary team members meet to brainstorm structing the project together, as a team.
and resolve issues on the spot.
Interoperability: The ability of two or more systems or
Building Information Modeling (BIM) components to exchange information and to use the
“A building information model is the digital representation information that has been exchanged. An example is two
of the physical and functional characteristics of a building software applications that are capable of exchanging infor-
from design through construction and operations. As such, mation with each other without loss.
it can serve as the shared information repository for col-
laboration throughout a building’s lifecycle.” Joining Agreement
A contractual amendment used to add a new party to an
Construction Management at Risk (CM-at-Risk) existing multi-party IPD agreement and include them within
In this delivery method, the construction manager is hired the risk sharing orother terms of the IPD agreement. For
at the beginning of the design phase to act as the project example, a joining agreement could be used to append
coordinator (not at risk) and general contractor (at risk). key subcontractors to a MPA IPD agreement previously
Later, if the construction manager serves as builder, he/ executed by owner, contractor and designer.
she assumes all of the liability and responsibility of a gen-
eral contractor. Key Participant
A person or organization whose contribution is critically
Core Team necessary to achieve project goals.
A team that collaboratively manages IPD projects from
inception to completion and with equal representation of, at Lean (design, construction, and operations): A produc-
a minimum, the owner, the architect, and the builder. tion practice that considers the expenditure of resources
for any goal other than the creation of value for the end
Design assist: A process in which the architect and owner customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination.
work use the expertise of specialty contractors to develop The term “Lean” was first used by Toyota to describe how
an optimum solution, material or construction application. its production system aims to eliminate waste in manufac-
turing. The ideal was to produce a car to the requirements
Design-to-Fabrication: A process in which building com- of a specific customer, deliver it instantly, and maintain no
ponents are modeled in 3D software which is then used to inventories or intermediate stores. Lean construction ap-
control computer numerical control (CNC) machines for plies similar principles to the construction process.
automated fabrication.
Liability Waivers
GMP: Guaranteed Maximum Price Contractual provisions in the IPD agreement that eliminate,
or significantly reduce, the ability of the IPD parties to sue
Incentive Compensation Layer each other for losses related to the project. The level and
The portion of the IPD parties’ prospective compensa- comprehensiveness of liability waivers varies between
tion that exceeds direct costs of design and construc- contract forms.
tion. Roughly analagous to profit, the ICL is reduced or
augmented based on comparing project performance to Multi-Prime
agreed targets and distributed according to an agreed A method of contracting for construction wherein an owner
formula. In some projects, a portion of the ICL is distributed contracts directly with several (usually major) building
at milestones, in other projects the entirel ICL is distributed trades under separate contracts to perform their work
when the project is complete. either simultaneously or sequentially. The owner may
provide the management of the project, or hire a construc-
Integrated Form of Agreement tion manager or general contractor (not at risk) to provide
The multi-party IPD agreement developed by the Lean construction administration, coordination, and scheduling of
Construction Institute and Sutter Health. the work of the different trades.
Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) Relational Contract

A “relational” contract among owner, architect, and builder Relational contracts, in contrast to traditional design and
that creates a system of shared risk and reward with the construction contracts, place greater emphasis on commu-
goal of reducing overall project risk rather than shifting it nication among the participants and encourage collabora-
between parties. tive solutions to design and construction problems. The
term encompasses a spectrum of contract approaches that
Integrated Project Leader/Coordinator range from nearly traditional to fundamentally different.
An individual or firm that assembles a multidisciplinary team
tailored to each project, encompassing the organizational, Risk Pool
legal, technological and communication skills required to In an IPD project, participant’s cost of work is separated
successfully implement IPD. from anticipated profit. Planned profits are combined into
a “risk pool” to be divided according to an agreed formula
only if project goals are met or exceeded.
Jonathan W. Cohen provides consulting services to building
About the Researcher owners, architects, and builders seeking to implement IPD.
He has been a practicing architect for more than 30 years,
with senior design and management responsibility in a variety
of building types both domestically and internationally, most
recently with Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill LLP. He is past
chair of the AIA California Council Integrated Project Delivery
Steering Committee and the national AIA Technology in
Architectural Practice Knowledge Community. Jonathan was
the conference chair of “Connecting the Dots: Understanding
the Emerging Digital Building Process,” held in San Francisco
in 2003. He has received design awards from the American
Institute of Architects, AIA San Francisco, and the Urban Land
Institute. A graduate of UC Berkeley, he has been a presenter
at national and international conferences and an instructor in
the Harvard Design School Executive Education program. He
is the author of Communication and Design with the Internet:
A Guide for Architects, Planners and Building Professionals
(WW Norton, 2000) as well as articles for Architectural Record,
Urban Land, and Planning magazines. He was elected to the
AIA College of Fellows in 2004.
Jonathan can be reached at

jonathan@jcarchitects.com.
Integrated Project Delivery: Case Studies is published by

The American Institute of Architects, California Council in
partnership with AIA.
Thanks to all the individuals and organizations who reviewed

and contributed to this work. The following members of the
design and construction industry served as authors and
editors of this document.
AIA National Integrated AIA California Council
Acknowledgements Practice Discussion Group Integrated Project Delivery
Steering Committee
Pamela M. Touschner, FAIA - Chair
WWCOT Stuart J. Eckblad, AIA – Chair
Palm Springs, CA UCSF Medical Center
San Francisco, CA
Kevin J. Connolly, AIA
Connolly Architects, Inc. Howard Ashcraft, Hon. AIACC
Milwaukee, WI Hanson Bridgett LLC
San Francisco, CA
Robert P. Smith, AIA, LEED AP
Culpepper McAuliffe & Meaders, Inc. Jim Bedrick, AIA
Atlanta, GA Webcor Builders
San Mateo, CA
Charles G. Hardy, AIA
GSA Cliff Brewis, Hon. AIACC
Chicago, IL McGraw-Hill Construction
Walnut Creek, CA
Michael Whaley, AIA
Findorff Michael Chambers, FAIA
Madison, WI Ukiah, CA
MCA Specifications
Erleen Hatfield, PE
Buro Happold Nicholas Docous, AIA
NYC, NY Lionakis
Sacramento, CA
Renee Cheng, AIA
University of Minnesota Robert J. Hartung, DBIA
Minneapolis, MN 55455 Alternative Delivery Solutions LLC
Laguna Nigel, CA
ExCom Liaison:
Peter J. Arsenault, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP David Higgins Jr.
Manlius, NY Harbison, Mahoney and Higgins
Sacramento, CA
Staff Liasions:
Markku Allison, AIA Michael Hricak, FAIA
Resource Architect Michael Hricak Architects
Los Angeles, CA
Elizabeth Stewart, Esq.
Vice President Zigmund Rubel, AIA
AIA Strategy and Business Development Aditazz
San Francisco, CA
Staff Liaisons:
Paul W. Welch Jr., Hon. AIA
Executive Vice President
Nicki Dennis Stephens, Hon. AIACC

Director of Member and Component
Resources
Showing the extent to which each case study project embodied the six
Case Study Scorecard characteristics identified as fundamental to IPD.
Case Study Projects
Cardinal Glennon Children’s

Autodesk AEC Solutions
St. Clare Health Center
Walter Cronkite School

Division Headquarters
Sutter Fairfield MOB
Encircle Health
IPD Characteristics
Early Involvement of Participants Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Shared Risk and Reward Yes No1 Yes No Yes No
Multi-Party Contract Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Collaborative Decision Making Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Liability Waivers Yes No No No No No
Jointly Developed Goals Yes Yes No2 Yes3 Yes Yes
1
There was a provision in the contract enabling participants to create a shared “pain and
gain” scheme but it was not used.
2
Project was underway when IPD was adopted. Budget and program were established by
project team in earlier master plan.
3
The original budget was established by an independent program manager. Subsequently
the owner, architect, and builder developed and validated a new budget as part of IPD
process.
Contact Information
Cardinal Glennon Encircle Health St. Clare Sutter Walter Cronkite
Autodesk, Children’s Ambulatory Health Health, School of
NAME Position Company Email Inc. Hospital Care Center Center Fairfield Journalism
VP/Industrial Strategy
Bernstein, Phil and Relations AutoDesk phil.bernstein@autodesk.com x
Sr. Mngr. Global

Boettcher, Gail Projects AutoDesk Gail.Boettcher@autodesk.com x
Crosby, Justine Marketing Manager AutoDesk Justine.Crosby@autodesk.com x
Leary, Chris Principal Kling Stubbins cleary@klingstubbins.com x
Rechtsteiner,
Charles Owner’s Rep. AutoDesk charles.rechtsteiner@autodesk.com x
Regitano,
Richard Asst. Project Mngr Tocci rregitano@tocci.com x
Short, Jack Dir./Project Planning Tocci jshort@tocci.com x
Principal/Sr. Dir.
Simpson, Scott (Cambridge) Kling Stubbins ssimpson@klingstubbins.com x
VP Preconstruction
Smalley, Rob Services University Mechanical rsmalley@umec.com x
Tocci, John Manager Tocci jtocci@tocci.com x
Gough, Dave Vice President Alberici Dave@alberici.com x x
Gunn, Tim Project Director Alberici Tim@alberici.com x x
Wojtkowski, Exec. Dir./Design and

Donald Contruction SSM Healthcare Donald_Wojtkowski@ssmhc.com x x
Van Landingham,
John Thomas Assoc. Principal Christner Architects jvanlandingham@christnerinc.com x
(Tom)
Cardinal Glennon Encircle Health St. Clare Sutter Walter Cronkite
Autodesk, Children’s Ambulatory Health Health, School of
NAME Position Company Email Inc. Hospital Care Center Center Fairfield Journalism
Kerschbaum,
Kevin Project Director HGA kkerschbaum@hga.com x x x
Tande, Clare VP & Legal Counsel HGA CTande@hga.com x x x
Walker, Bonnie Assoc. VP (Sac.) HGA BWalker@hga.com x x x
Harris, Jay General Manager Boldt Construction jay.harris@boldt.com x x
Jezwinski, Trent Project Manager Boldt Construction trent.jezwinski@boldt.com x x
Kievet, Dave President Boldt Construction dave.kievet@boldt.com x x
Dir. of Facilities
Park, Albert Planning Theda Care albert.park@thedacare.org x
Digby, Christian Sr. Project Mngr. Sutter Health ChristD2@sutterhealth.org x
Assoc. Dir., Realestate

Panetta, Patrick Development Arizona State University patrick.panetta@asu.edu x
Shugar, Howard Project Manager HDR Architecture howard.shugar@hdrinc.com x
Atkinson, Chris Managing Partner Caruso Turley Scott, Inc. catkinson@ctsaz.com
Tidwell, Dave President KT Fabrication davet@ktfab.com
Trueb, Rick Project Manager DPR Construction richardt@dprinc.com

Casos de Estudio IPD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casos de Estudio IPD PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casos de Estudio IPD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 2010

The American Institute of Architects

Research and report by Jonathan Cohen, FAIA

For more detailed background information on IPD,

For information on existing project delivery

Case Study Scorecard

Case Study: Autodesk Inc. AEC Solutions Division Headquarters

Case Study: Sutter Health Fairfield Medical Office Building

Case Study: Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital Expansion

Case Study: St. Clare Health Center

Case Study: Encircle Health Ambulatory Care Center

Case Study: Walter Cronkite School of Journalism,

About the Researcher

In each case we collected relevant data to

For the purpose of this study, IPD is defined by the

• Early Involvement of Key Participants

“Key Participants” includes the owner, architect,

• Mutual Respect and Trust

Project data was self-reported by project

Owners were all asked if the IPD process

For architects, IPD is a change in the boundaries

For builders, early involvement in design and

One of the recurring themes of these projects is

Case Study Projects

Cardinal Glennon Children’s

St. Clare Health Center

Walter Cronkite School

Sutter Fairfield MOB

Program elements include offices, conference rooms, training facilities, a café,

Owner: Autodesk Inc. www.autodesk.com

Photograph by Jonathan Cohen

Boettcher said she would

Jointly Developed/Validated Targets

During the project, John Tocci, head of Tocci Construction,

Autodesk management wanted the design and build

Meeting the schedule was particularly important to the

Tocci’s local knowledge of the Waltham area made it

provide programming input from building users. There was

A BIM execution plan set ground rules for who modeled

Scope changes totaling about 30% of the original budget

Another scope change was purely design driven. Phil

Owner: Sutter Regional Medical Foundation www.sutterhealth.org

“The Parties recognize

Liability Waivers Among Key Participants

Jointly Developed/Validated Targets

Benchmarking of comparable medical office buildings was established. A finish

Consideration of change orders was limited to the following categories:

1. Owner generated–requested by owner, owner’s suppliers or consultants.

2. Unknown conditions–items which could not be anticipated during design or

4. Construction revision–no added value to the owner. Something had to be added,

5. Governing agency generated–the result of unforeseen agency code

6. Builder generated–the result of corrective work requiring documentation to

of-day “huddles,” and other lean construction techniques

Lessons learned from this pilot project have been applied

Subcontractors found that more intense effort is required

In future projects Boldt intends to provide field

In this project, a few of the subcontractors did not want

The owner must be kept engaged from earliest design

Preconstruction design assist is vital for those trades that

“Big Room” is derived from