Why IPD?

[bwiab]

Wan't sure where to post this,but why would an owner want to chose IPD? One of the main marketing points that I keep hearing from those touting the technology and process is that, "it is so efficient and will save the client money". Well pretty soon the client is going to ask, " Ok... how did that save me money"?

I see production of construction documents by all designers as an area that could go away in an integrated or collaborative delivery method. When you think through IPD and other attempts at a lean delivery method, this is a redundency that could be cut out. Similar to how many high design projects have both a design architect and an architect of record, this could translate into architecture firms all being hired as design architects. Then after the job has been awarded to the trades their in house architects and engineers would complete the CD's based on proprietary materials and methods, combining the CD phase with the traditional shop drawing requirement. Now will that result in a shift in fees from the design arch or eng to the trade company? I would say yes, but I would see an argument where the owner would also tell the trade that some of that would be offset because they had to figure something for shop drawings potentially lowering the cost of the project.

I don't know how design liability would shift, but, intuitively, it seems that the sub contractor would be taking on additional liability, but that would depend on the contract. I really don't know why the AIA is becoming a cheerleader for IPD. I don't see how it benefits the Architect in terms of revenue. It's a process that, I see, allows Architects to assume less liability and design more. Maybe someone else has more insight. Why would an owner chose IPD? What is the value in it?

[cporter.207875]

bwiab,

I have trouble following the example you give in your post. To what level of detail does the "Design Architect" document the design before the trades take over? And on what basis does the owner select one company over another for each trade. If it is a bidding process, some fairly detailed documents from the design Architect would be necessary, correct?

Additionally, none of the designers that I know would accept the proposition that you combine the "CD phase with the traditional shop drawing requirement." That would put too much control in the hands of the subcontractor; it would be like having a design/build nightmare on acid. Architects tend to be control freaks. Remember, Architecture is in the details, according to one school of thought.

As far as IPD goes, I think that it is a smart move on the part of the AIA to be "chearleaders." If owners are clamoring (so I hear) for a more efficient and collaborative process, then the owner's main monkey ought to be on board, right?

So why would owners be looking at IPD? You would have to confirm with them, but I believe it is the collaborative benefits of the short-term and the longterm that catch their eye, so to speak. In the short-term, open and free collaboration between all involved parties (owners, constructors, designers, facilities managers) facilitates a more informed design; is more likely to meet the diverse needs of the owner; and should help to reduce risk for all parties. For the long-term goals, an integrated project, especially if combined with BIM, evaluates the building's lifecycle needs and delivers a more sustainable facility. This last point is where the savings happen for the owner. IPD remembers that a project doesn't end when you issue C.D.s. A project doesn't end when the owner gets the C.O. A project ends when the building is demolished (supposedly, but I could probably argue that one a bit differently).

Just my 2 cents.

[bwiab]

CP

The level of detail would be project specific and would largely depend on the architect/engineer of record.

The basis for selection of a subcontractor would be the same as for an architect or a cmar. It would probably be very heavily weighted on the cost of the preconstruction services they would provide, safety record, experience with similar projects, past performance and their unit rates for construction. There would also be a stipulation in the contract that said if their final construction estimate appeared to be inflated, that the cmar would reserve the right to put the work out to bid. The subcontractor would be paid for all precon services rendered. The problem with the hard bid method is you usually don't know, until it is too late, if you are getting the best value for the work or the guy who made the biggest mistake on bid day.

Let's say that the project is hard bid at $X and at the end of the project there is an additional cost of $Y, change orders. I guess if you look at ipd as an improved collaborative process that reduces change orders the result of which would be the cost of $X or $X plus $.5Y then that could be a cost savings to the owner. Plus it would have the added benefit of managing the owner's expectations, by all parties involved, as opposed to the surprises they receive when change orders start pouring in.

The first example I gave tried to represent one possible evolution of this process in an effort to find efficiencies to the cost of $X. But you're right, I will have to ask some owners.