It has been over a decade since the Federal Acquisitions Requirements (FAR) changed to accommodate design-build project delivery. Since then, the competitive two-phased selection process pioneered by federal has been used to bring countless facilities and other capital projects to completion on time and on budget, creating savings for the agencies and the taxpayer.
At last year’s Design-Build Conference, held in Washington, D.C., DBIA invited representatives from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the General Services Administration (GSA) to describe their ongoing reliance on design-build. Agency officials spoke at the closing general session — the end of a particularly busy year for public-sector owners charged with getting projects off the ground quickly under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA).
Moderated by Patrick Burns, P.E., vice president of Mortensen Construction’s Federal Contracting Group, the session was extremely well attended. Enjoyment of the lovely autumn weekend was delayed for nearly two hours while the audience of several hundred listened to the panel’s insights into how design-build had transformed the work of their agencies.
“At NAVFAC, we do about 75 percent of new construction design-build,” Joseph E. Gott, chief engineer and director of capital improvements, told the audience. “The largest reason we select a project for the design-build delivery vehicle is the single point of accountability and responsibility. We have an A/E and a design-build constructor on the same team and have a contract with one company.” He went on to point out additional attributes commonly associated with design-build — innovation and cost savings. “Through design-build, we can get innovative design solutions,” he noted. “We can get an even better mix of additives added to our contracts, which allows us to get more projects and more value for our customers.”
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was in the vanguard of integrated design and construction. Federal law enforcement efforts and new legislation doubled the number of inmates during the 1980s — a rate of increase that continued through the next decade, placing heavy construction demands on the agency. Because of time constraints, the BOP has relied exclusively on design-build project delivery since the early 1990s. “Design-build shortened the delivery period because it eliminated the procurement phase between the design and the construction phase,” explained Pete Swift, deputy chief, Design and Construction Branch.
When Congress approved the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations, the USACE was similarly pressured to respond faster than ever before. According to Paul M. Parsoneault, construction management team leader, Military Programs Branch, “There was no way possible to execute an historically large mission using the traditional delivery system. We determined that, in terms of the Army, the default delivery system is design-build,” he said. Why? “Primarily because we can deliver more quickly, we can leverage the innovation of industry to provide us with the most cost effective solutions to our requirements.”
Jag R. Bhargava, deputy director, U.S. General Services Administration, faced extreme time pressures when meeting the scheduling requirements of the new Census Bureau Headquarters (see page 10 of this issue). With only four years between groundbreaking and full occupancy, he reflected, “We [had] to find a way of doing it. The only method I could think of was design-build.” Completed on time, this state-of-the-art workplace not only achieved a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) silver rating but also won the GSA Design Excellence Award.
When the federal government began issuing design-build contracts, the goal was to capture the numerous benefits of a streamlined approach to design and construction. Over the years, an added benefit has emerged from this integrated approach, one that the agencies cited again and again by the panelists: Reduction or elimination of claims.
The BOP foresaw this outcome, as Swift noted, “We at the Federal Bureau of Prison have been doing design-build since the FAR regulations changed. Our primary reasons back then were that we would eliminate a lot of the claims we were getting and we had a large workload. Over the years, we have not had a claim on any design-build project we have done and, like Joe [Gott of NAVFAC], our claims department is now defunct.”
Susan Hines is DBIA’s director of public relations and information. A version of this article appeared in the April issue of GOPRO, the magazine of the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing.