Over the last 15 years, design-build services have become more and more popular with public clients that were once bent on comparing costs between one competitor and another. These public clients have always felt good about comparing costs after receiving bids for the “best” price because they see their low bid compared to the others. Today, however, many of these same clients, including public school clients, are realizing that design-build serves as an option — both for projects with traditional schedules as well as for the more complicated or fast-track projects.
In Jefferson County, Colorado’s largest public school district set aside five percent of their funds from the 2004 bond election for charter schools. Once seen as a competitor of the public school district, parents of these charter school students were invited to vote for school bond dollars that supported facility improvements at their schools. Since the bond was passed last November, the school district intends to award contracts for the 11 charter schools to design-build teams. Jefferson County Public Schools favors an architect as the primary contact for these design-build projects and we were fortunate to head up the team for the first project, a $2.5 million middle school for Jefferson Academy. These charter school projects are a bit complicated though, because the ground on which the facility improvements occupy must be sold to the school district, as well as the facilities that are improved. The school district then owns the improved facilities, but relies on school personnel for upkeep and maintenance. Under this scenario, new buildings or additions work well, but roof projects do not, because a charter school would rather not sell their building to the school district for a new roof. To further simplify the delivery process for these charter school awards, the school district prefers that design-build teams not only provide traditional services, but be responsible for other services such as the site survey, the geotechnical report, and materials testing during construction.
Jefferson Academy is a 17,600 s.f. middle school with five general purpose classrooms, a science classroom, an art classroom, a media center, a computer lab, a commons, a music classroom, and support facilities. We began the project meeting with a Design Advisory Group, appointed by the school, to determine the vision for the school and to discuss the program, the design, costs, and alternates. Early on, our team provided several floor plan options for the design advisory group and the option that best met the needs of the school was chosen. We have since developed the plan further and the project broke ground in November 2005. The design-build team has given the school a high level of confidence and comfort, we’ve committed to a cost for the project early, we have developed relationships among our design-build team that will continue through construction, and the school district does not have to get involved in resolving disputes during construction — all part of design-build that could not have been handled with any other delivery method.
The use of funds for public school districts means that the life of each building must be maximized, that maintenance must be regular and straightforward, and that the building’s value endures in terms of its technology, appeal, flexibility and durability. School facilities personnel are more and more focusing on the optimal use of energy and are providing conservation measures that reflect our environment regarding sustainable design. They are providing similar systems and materials in all buildings for maintenance staff. Design teams are stepping up the emphasis for smart design solutions with the use of straightforward technology such as natural daylighting, solar energy, and geothermal capabilities. For most school districts, their facilities departments fall into two categories: those that have determined standards for a uniform and consistent delivery of services and those that have not. While most of the smaller school districts have no standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of their facilities, standards are still important. These standards are used to:
- Complement the design team’s professional responsibilities,
- Assist with regulatory requirements (zoning, planning, building, health, and fire),
- Be of assistance with hazardous material abatement,
- Assist in material and systems selections, and
- Help with budget compliance.
Many small school districts simply do not have the ability to choose a quality architect, a responsible contractor, or to manage the entire design and construction project. We have worked with many rural school districts for this very reason. And it’s been a rewarding experience to be of assistance to a school district that desperately needs improvements to their facilities, but simply cannot devote the time. One of our first design-build projects was for a small school district in Manzanola, CO. Manzanola had two buildings for their students. Their high school was built in the 1920s and the rich architecture and detailing of the building was in jeopardy because of years of neglect. The exterior walls were constructed of multiple wythes of clay masonry that was cracking, mortar was falling out of the joints, brick was being damaged at areas of poor drainage, and masonry was literally falling from the walls. We advertised the project throughout the state and even attracted the interest of a masonry restoration contractor out of Kansas. In the end, this was the contractor chosen for the project. The work was completed and today the town has a remodeled building of which they can be proud. A second project for the school district created several interior improvements.
Another example of working with a rural school district is the project we completed for the Karval School District. Karval is a very small town in the east central part of Colorado. While their total student population for grades K-12 is below 100, students travel from as far away as 35 miles to attend the school for their Vocational-Agricultural program. Unfortunately, in 2002 the existing building that housed the curriculum for Vo-Ag was in danger of shutting down for safety reasons. Our office was made aware of the project and chose to write a grant for the school district. We offered to write the grant at no cost, with the understanding that should the school be awarded the grant money, they choose our design-build team. After the project was awarded to our office, we were able to attract several subcontractors from the Denver area, as well as those closer to the project site, and provided a facility that is now the talk of the region. This two-story building continues the strong program for the school and will continue to attract students for this curriculum.
Any school district is interested in school designs that are stimulating, attractive, functional, flexible, economical and, whenever possible, state of the art. In 2003 the national AIA conference in San Diego introduced a partnership between the American Institute of Architects and the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture. The legacy project created a collaboration between the architectural community and neuroscience laboratories to study how the human brain responds to architecture. More and more research is indicating a direct tie between the quality of learning in schools and the built environment, namely indoor air quality, ventilation, acoustics, color, and natural daylighting. Most school districts also rely on their school as a community asset, and the schools in smaller towns open their facilities to the general public, including athletic facilities, the cafeteria, the auditorium, computer labs, and libraries for continuing education.
The construction industry has long fought a negative image with owners regarding contractors who have been dishonest, cost hungry, and overly schedule driven. In fact, many publications have been written and promoted around the country on how to maximize the contractor’s return for change orders. That is why several clients, including schools, are looking for other options to traditional project delivery methods. Today teams of designers and constructors are selected using design-bid-build, negotiated contracts, construction management (CM as Advisor, CM as Agent, or CM as Constructor), and design-build. What design-build offers that the other delivery methods simply do not is a single point of contact from the very beginning of the project to the very end. This single point of contact is responsible for all aspects of the project — literally everything! While risk management is not the topic of this article, it goes without saying that a quality team that is thorough in their approach to projects is only possible if it’s made up of quality team members and all members see the end result as a vision of the entire team.
One such project for us was the new Transportation Administration Building for the Aurora School District in Colorado. The district had a location for their buses and a repair facility for their vehicles, but the offices for the personnel were located in two temporary trailers. The school district provided a preliminary design, a program, a list of outline specifications, and the design-build team was chosen to continue the project through the design and construction phases. The Director of Transportation was very interested in a facility that was attractive to the drivers and staff, including the use of natural light. In response to this interest, the building design included large windows and sidelights at interior doors to flood the offices, dispatch area, drivers’ waiting room, and conference rooms with sunlight.
The design-build project delivery method creates several benefits to school clients. One of the most helpful is a single source of responsibility, which minimizes the number of district personnel required to manage the project. Another strong advantage is that personnel no longer have to referee the disputes between the designer and constructor, especially during construction. There is a shortened project delivery time because of the synergy created early on and the additional input from the constructor during design. Other advantages for the owner are:
- The price is guaranteed early in the process,
- Claims and damages due to legal hassles are minimized if not altogether eliminated,
- Performance warranties can be requested of the design-build team,
- Continuity between the designer and constructor can continue on future projects with the same owner, and
- The design-build team can include additional services above and beyond that of traditional services (such as the geotechnical report, a site survey, material testing, and project close-out).
There are also many benefits to the designer for designer-led design-build projects that traditional project delivery does not offer. Since 1999 our office has worked on design-build projects. We initially signed design-build contracts as the design-builder for an additional design-build fee, but chose to use an out-of-house general contractor. Today, our in-house general construction team manages this process and we are able to keep the construction fee and profits on general conditions as well. In offices with design-build services under the roof of an architect, the designer can enjoy:
- Better overall project management,
- Better design control,
- A shortened design schedule,
- Reduced risk and litigation,
- Market differentiation from other architects,
- Improved client satisfaction because of the design-build mindset that is created among the design team,
- Increased profits, and
- A renewed enjoyment in the architectural profession through building.
A recent survey was taken among members of the architectural profession at two separate venues in 2003, Grassroots (a national conference each year for leaders in local and state chapters) and the AIA national conference. Two responses of this survey were enlightening. The first question asked, “Which of the following has had the greatest effect on eroding the scope of architectural services?” The responses were:
- Construction management (45 percent, 57 percent),
- Interior design (six percent, five percent),
- Design-build (36 percent, 21 percent), and
- Other (13 percent, 18 percent).
The second question asked, “Which emerging design and construction trend will have the greatest impact on the future of the profession?” and the responses were:
- Globalization (17 percent, five percent),
- Alternate project delivery (35 percent, 34 percent),
- Technology (19 percent, 30 percent),
- Relevant client services (12 percent, 12 percent),
- Workforce/talent (six percent, seven percent), and
- Strategic alliances (11 percent, 11 percent).
What this shows is a paradox for many in the architectural profession. As architects, we have come from the master builders of Egypt, the master masons of the Renaissance, and through the mid-19th century when the architectural professional chose to separate themselves to create a code of ethics. Since the mid-1800s architects have had to take on a number of challenges without receiving additional credit or compensation. Today, architects have the opportunity to go back to their roots as master builders and to once again become design-builders. The responses above show construction management and design-build as apparent threats to our profession, yet alternative project delivery (including design-build) could very well have the greatest impact on the future of our profession. It appears that the profession is anxious for answers to bettering project delivery, but hesitates when it comes to design-build. Is this because design-build is only seen as a service of the constructor? Surprisingly, many architects I speak with feel this to be true. But it doesn’t have to be. The time is ripe today for designer-led, design-build services with school clients.
The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) offers a variety of quality courses that educate participants regarding design-build. These courses provide a general overview of design-build, review the various project delivery contracts, discuss insurance and bonds, how to procure work as a design-builder, and the importance of owners creating a quality RFQ/RFP. On another front, the AIA National Design-Build Knowledge Community has provided seminars to local, state, and regional chapters of the AIA over the past two years to communicate and explain how architects can provide design-build services. A history and an overall review of design-build is provided, how it differs from other project delivery methods, the differences between the personalities of architects and contractors is explained, how to overcome these differences to create a strong team, the importance of managing risks is reviewed, great examples of design-build projects is shown, and the importance of teaming and setting team goals on projects is shown.
Designer-led design-build is possible, believe me. The reasons that support this approach to design-build are many:
- The architect has traditionally been the initial contact on projects,
- The architect has historically developed a high level of rapport and is a trusted advisor with the owner,
- Architects normally oversee construction as part of our traditional services, and
- The idea of architects as design-builders is more logical, since it follows the natural chronological sequence of projects.
Our office has been providing these services for over five years and there are some huge rewards. Since the fees for design services support the costs for salaries, reimbursables, overhead, and profit, there is sometimes little left at the end of the project for the architect, because the fees also become the contingency. The construction fee, on the other hand, is separate from the costs that are used for the project, and is based on the other 90 percent of the project’s costs. This approach to projects alone means a better reward for the design-builder if the project is managed properly.
Another service valuable to school districts is grant writing. Our office has assisted smaller school districts in securing funds for facility projects by either providing the school district with a grant or writing the grant proposal ourselves. Knowing that many of these districts have limited budgets and little staff time available, they appreciate an architect who can help when it comes to investigating other sources of income. Many grants are available in Colorado. Qualified Zone Academy Bonds are available for school districts that are either located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community, or that have at least 35 percent of their students eligible for free or reduced lunches (see www.qzabs.com for details). These funds can be used to rehabilitate or repair public school buildings, provide equipment for school use, develop course material, or to train teachers and other school personnel. Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Funds use proceeds from a severance tax and assists communities affected by the growth and decline of the energy and mineral industries. Guidelines for these funds include that the impact be significant to public health and safety, quality of life, or services to the public, that the extent of the impact from energy and mineral development be shown, that the relationship of the proposed project be indicated, that the appli-cant’s fiscal capacity be proven, and that alternative funding be made available.
The state of Colorado’s Department of Education has also appropriated capital project funds for school districts in the form of project grants, matching grants, and loans through two funds — the School Construction and Renovation Fund (which requires a match by the school district) and the School Capital Construction Expenditures Reserve Fund (which allows for a hardship letter in lieu of a match). Grant requests are first evaluated based on life safety, security, or hazardous materials, then by any reduction of excessive operating costs, and finally by evaluating options that provide a better quality learning environment.
Many states continue to enact design-build legislation for school projects. Information regarding school legislation permitting design-build services for school projects can be found using resources of AIA and DBIA. As of the end of 2004, these states include: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. In 2005 the states of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Virginia passed new design-build legislation regarding public schools. Many other states permit design-build services for school districts — the services are just not defined by state statute. An excellent resource for designer-led design-build is a book written by architects, for architects, and published by John Wiley & Sons entitled, The Archi-tect’s Guide to Design-Build Services. The DBIA web site (www. dbia.org) provides detailed updates on design-build enabling lagislation. Moreover, the web site for the AIA Design-Build Knowledge Community is also a great resource for design-build legislation and other informative data (www.aia.org/db).
Ben Wilking, AIA, DBIA, is the Vice President and Director of LBA Corporate Services, Inc., in Englewood, CO. LBA Corporate Services provides design-build and construction services under the roof of Lantz-Boggio Architects, P.C. The service-oriented mindset of Lantz-Boggio and their focus and client service has created many opportunities with school clients in the state of Colorado. Mr. Wilking is also the 2006 Chair of the AIA Design-Build Knowledge Community and is a Designated Design-Build Professional™ with the Design-Build Institute of America. He can be reached at bwilking@lantz-boggio.com.