CHAPTER 24
Case Studies
The following examples illustrate projects that have used Project Design Controls successfully.
In 1987, I left Heery International to join mentors Terry Sargent and Larry Lord at their new firm, Lord & Sargent. Having successfully tested my mettle as a project designer and project architect, I was ready to tackle the role of project architect/project manager. For my first assignment, I was entrusted to oversee the most significant project in the firm's young history, the Georgia Tech Manufacturing Research Center. This $12 million project was to house research labs for the “factory of the future.” Little did I know, it would be the project of a lifetime.
It was my first opportunity to be responsible for “design management” in all aspects, including realizing the design vision, managing the consulting engineers, serving the client, and developing a thoroughly documented, technically sound building, within budget, on schedule, while making money. I took it seriously, having left a fine company to rejoin past mentors Terry Sargent and Larry Lord in their smaller, upstart firm. I staked my career on it.
This project was designed in a simpler time. The last gasps of the postmodern movement were audible. Serving our client involved only pleasing the Georgia Tech Campus architect, the Georgia Board of Regents and their guidelines, and the faculty advisory committee. Because it was a speculative building, there were no users, only a flexible research facility to house funded research. Just three program requirements were proffered, to design a facility that was:
- 100,000 gross square feet
- “Functionally flexible” to allow various configurations to accommodate future research
- Within its $12 million stated cost limitation
This last mandate was no idle request. In the state's design-bid-build contracts, architects were required to “own” the cost estimating responsibility. Based on a spate of overbudget public work, the state had developed prescriptive guidelines to guarantee stewardship of public funds. Architects were no longer allowed to design and hope their projects would bid within budget; they were required to hire cost estimators and submit estimates at every phase, certifying that design was in budget. In the folksy parlance of author, John Sims, “The state of an architect's mind is as much a fact as the Chattahoochee River.” No more “guessing” designs to be in budget.
To address this charge, we did cost estimates at each phase. Though we didn't call it this at the time, we used the ScopeDoc technique. Because engineering systems were an integral part of the concept and a significant part of the cost, we cajoled the engineers, Newcomb & Boyd and Pond & Company, into drawing their systems in the early phases, so they could be estimated. We insisted they draw cross-sections to prove their systems would fit.
Led by Terry Sargent, the design expression was genius. Drawing its expression from our Detroit roots, historic references to Ford's Rouge River manufacturing plant melded with a building-as-machine modernist ethos to produce a wealth of visual metaphor. Cogs, wheels, gears, and a brick building skin suggesting computer dot matrix printer paper offered a rich palette. While I was hands-on in drawing, detailing, designing, and leading the team, on the management side I filled my hours with work plans, spreadsheets, schedules, and assigning roles. In hindsight, I was using Project Design Controls.
Amazingly, in the span of a few years, (including an eighteen-month hiatus while the owner cleared property easements) our design process used all available media. Initial concepts began as tracing paper sketches. We refined drawings in pencil on vellum, mylar and mylar lead, and pen and ink. We drew details of worm gears, and machine crafted elements by hand. Large scale physical modeling was enlisted to study exterior form and interior spaces. In a bold move, we showed our technology leadership by using the then new Autodesk AutoCAD software to produce all project plans and elevations – the perfect digital toolset to coordinate the project's mechanistic rhythms. We had some trouble with our technology experiment, given limited CAD drafting talent and dot matrix plotters. Near the project's end, our digital evangelist, Andy Smith, modeled the project in Bentley's Microstation software, producing an early 3D building information model, circa 1989 – 30 years ago.
As design neared completion, we entered it in Progressive Architecture's Design Awards Program for conceptual, unbuilt work. Our submittal included 10-foot-long pen-and-mylar drawings, hand drawn in the evenings, with 12-pack and Led Zeppelin accompaniment – a labor of love. Soon afterward, we were notified that we won!
At the end of one phase, in the throes of cost estimating, I was visibly worried. In my culturally conditioned individual behavior pattern I assumed a defensive position when queried by firm principal Larry Lord about cost. I objected. His reply: “Mike, I'm not trying to put you out on a limb, I'm trying to climb out there with you to help – and bring us both back.” I breathed a sigh of relief. We reviewed the cost estimate together, collaboratively, benefitting from his budget experience and my project knowledge. It was one of my first management collaborations – we built the budget together. It made all the difference. It worked.
On bid day, we got lucky. Despite our exhaustive cost estimating, all bids except one exceeded the Stated Cost Limitation (SCL) by 5 to 15 percent. That's all we needed. A local contractor, Barge-Wagener, was inspired by the chance to build this intriguing design at the owner's alma mater. To win the work, they submitted a low bid of $11,995,000, $5,000 less than the SCL. Mercifully, we averted value analysis and redesign.
As construction began, Lord & Sargent merged with a venerable firm, decades-old Aeck Associates to add construction and technical capability. I managed the project during the design phase, but I handed the project off to experienced veterans for completion. Bringing it to reality was a challenge. The state's adversarial hard bid process set the stage for a prolonged battle throughout the ensuing two years of construction. Despite valiant efforts, the joys of design were tempered during the construction administration phase. Lacking the opportunity to work under a collaborative contract the team had only their professionalism and persistence to sustain them. The project remains a highly functional, award-winning accomplishment, one that left its protagonists with too much hair on their chests and too little profit. Since completion, the building has been widely recognized:
- Progressive Architecture 36th Annual Design Awards: Citation, January 1989
- Atlanta Urban Design Commission Award of Excellence, 1992
- AIA Atlanta Tour, 1992
- Progressive Architecture, cover story, “Technology Expressed,” April 1992
- R&D Magazine Lab of the Year: High Honors, May 1993
- L'Industria Delle Costruzioni, “Centro di recirche ad Atlanta, Georgia,” March, 1993
- AIA Georgia Design Honor Award, 1995
FIGURE CS1.2 Georgia Tech MARC: brick detail; author sketch.
FIGURE CS1.4 Georgia Tech MARC: atrium; photo: Jonathan Hillyer.
FIGURE CS1.5 Georgia Tech MARC: drawing, “Things That Move.”
FIGURE CS1.8 Georgia Tech MARC: entry bridge; photo: Jonathan Hillyer.
FIGURE CS1.9 Georgia Tech MARC: digital model; Courtesy Lord, Aeck & Sargent, a Katerra Company.
FIGURE CS1.10 Georgia Tech MARC: reflected ceiling; Courtesy Lord, Aeck & Sargent, A Katerra Company.
FIGURE CS1.11 Georgia Tech MARC: gear ceiling; photo: Jonathan Hillyer.
FIGURE CS1.12 Georgia Tech MARC: Progressive Architecture Citation.
Understanding Contractor Processes
Before changing careers, I was Lord, Aeck & Sargent's (LAS) lead architect, project and program manager on a project for Zoo Atlanta in 1996. Years before LEED, this project, designed by Terry Sargent, had a green roof, locally sourced materials, and a coiled, copper-clad, metaphorical “snake” on the roof – and no right angles. It was a challenging design to construct, to say the least. We needed a good partner. I was thrilled to recommend Holder Construction as construction manager. After concept drawings were complete, I left a late-Friday voice mail message for Holder's preconstruction manager, Doug Hunter:
“Hi Doug, this is Mike, the architect from LAS. We sent you our drawings yesterday. Can you have the cost estimate to us by Tuesday?” The next morning my phone rang. I answered.
“Mike, this is Doug Hunter at Holder. First, thanks for the heads up on this estimate for the zoo. But let me explain the process we go through to do an estimate. First, we have to get your drawings. Then we have to print and distribute them. That takes a few days. Then, we notify and prequalify subs. They need a few days for quantifying, pricing, and contacting material providers and suppliers. After they send their pricing, we analyze and level their proposals and have scope meetings. Then we check quantities, scope gaps, pull our proposal together, review the draft, and do value analysis to get to a plan to get back in budget. Then, we're finally ready to present it to you and the owner. All that typically takes 4 to 6 weeks. We can shorten it but here's what it entails, and what we sacrifice. Plus, we have unique things that have never been done before like copper ‘snakes' on the roof, cedar ‘curtainwalls,' and ‘Coke bottle walls' that will take special attention since there is no precedent.”
My response: “Wow, Doug. I had no idea. Thanks! How much time do you need? 3 weeks. Okay, that will be great. Thanks for educating me. No problem.” His taking the time to politely educate me to his process made all the difference. Rather than call and curse me (which is probably what he wanted to do), he took the high road. He earned my trust. Holder became a great partner in affording and realizing our adventurous design. We couldn't have done it without them.
Scope Meetings, Value Engineering, and Trade Contractor Expertise
After we designed the sloped, curved, naturalistic cedar curtainwalls and sustainable concepts in this project, Holder, as contractor, was challenged to develop cost estimates for design solutions like these. No one had done anything like them before. Coiled copper snakes? Cedar curtainwalls? Stone Mountain granite rubble skin? Recycled Coke bottle partitions? Which database or experience set has the benchmark pricing for those?
To engage me in becoming part of the solution, Holder's preconstruction team invited me, as architect, to sit in their subcontractor scope meetings as we engrossed ourselves in value engineering. This cost reduction process was brought on after my firm's design, done in isolation before CM involvement, led us to be 40 percent over the owner's budget. I was invited to attend trade contractor scope meetings for the first time in my career.
As the meetings unfolded the trades' uncertainty became evident. But after we talked about our intent and I sketched and elaborated on our desired details, the dialogue opened. “You know, we would be perfectly happy with exposed fasteners here,” I shared, sketching as I talked. The subcontractors' reactions were welcome: “Heck, I can just shoot a redhead there, that's way less expensive than what we had priced. I think we can cut our number in half. I can just counterbore a hole and power-fasten the base plate, then plug it.” “That's perfect,” I said, happy not only with direct, honest detailing solution, but also with its accompanying price reduction. Now all we had to do is repeat this process for a good number of the other trades and we'd be in budget. We did.
Summary
Here's the moral of the story: for unusual design work with little precedent, most design documents don't do justice to the information subcontractors need to price their work. The value that the CM brought, including access to their trusted, knowledgeable subs, and the synergy we had meeting face to face while drawing, talking, and sharing interactive feedback was extraordinary and project saving. When we were done, we had better understanding, common language, more information, and tighter pricing. We managed design by talking and working together. Since design and drawings are never “done” by definition, and budgets are always challenging to comply with, wouldn't this be a good way to work on all projects?
Our combined collaborative soft skills, and old-fashioned sketching, measurable against our hard systems of target budget values helped control otherwise separate, nonsynergistic efforts. Bringing them together was not only enlightening, but it rescued the project.
In 2002, a potential client approached Holder with an opportunity. They had contracted with Antoine Predock Architects for the design of an aquarium and museum to be called the Flint RiverQuarium in Albany, Georgia. In this case, not all Project Design Controls had been set. Level 0 controls, contracts and team assembly” had been established by the owner without our involvement. No collaborative agreements or incentives were in place. The architect worked for the owner and the CM was to be selected. Design was “complete” to design development level. A $14 million budget had been established, but significant issues had surfaced. Although onsite design visioning sessions had been conducted and a stunning contextual design had been approved, the project cost languished at $21 million dollars, 50 percent over budget. Even after working with two other construction managers, the team had been unable to resolve the budget overage. Two years in, the owner and architect came to us with a desperate challenge: find a way to get the project back in budget while preserving the design – within 2 weeks – and the project would be ours. This example offered a fine opportunity to manage design after the fact, in this case, one that had already been developed. Nevertheless, we set about implementing Project Design Controls. Revisiting Level 0 controls, we rebuilt the team to include ourselves. We added key trade contractor teammates. As a Level 1 Project Design Control, we began with a project analysis kickoff meeting to understand the objectives and key design features to be preserved. At Level 2 we reset measurable aspects such as program, scope, budget, schedule, and documents.
Due to the magnitude of the budget overage we used a highly collaborative process to address scope and documents. In a process we called “turbo value analysis” we employed a multidisciplinary team including preconstruction, MEP and field experts, our design partners, key trade contractors, an engaged owner, and me – as architectural interpreter and translator. We produced fast, freehand scope documents and value analysis sketches to convey the revised design intent and extent in quick sketch form – adding to shared understanding and re-pricing certainty. The design team willingly embraced and led the suggested construction options. Contractors and trade contractors respected design tenets.
In a series of intense, working meetings, the team proposed alternate construction means that preserved the design form and concept. The local limestone façade – the concept's essence – was preserved. In lieu of the cast-in-place integral concrete structure proposed we suggested more efficient, faster, more forgiving systems such as steel framing, precast concrete, and standard curtainwall systems in lieu of the custom, time-and-labor-intensive original, as-designed approach. Using live-sketching over design development drawings we elicited immediate feedback from trade contractor experts, and got immediate quantity and cost feedback, rebuilding the cost model.
With all parties present, we eliminated the time lag of preparing sketches, sending them out for pricing, waiting a few weeks, then hoping we had guessed right, only to need more iterations and time. Working concurrently and collaboratively we compressed the process to record levels.
At the end of this effort the owner remarked, “Your firm clearly has a passion for collaboration and preconstruction. We needed some of that.” The architect said, “We got more done working with you guys in three days than we did with those other guys for three months.”
The lessons in this story? Despite a late start and no input on team configuration or collaborative contracts, we were still able to employ Project Design Controls to rescue this project. Without such a combination of hard metrics and soft relational skills, the project would likely have been shelved. Today it stands as a testament to collaboration, as it has for a decade.
FIGURE CS3.2 Flint RiverQuarium: value analysis concept sketch.
Design Partner Collaboration: Ayers-Saint-Gross (ASG)
As an example of a design firm that's easy to work with, try this one. This project, intended to reinvigorate an aging central library on the ASU campus and make it accessible to students, centered around project scope knowledge. Design partner Ayers Saint Gross (ASG) joined us and our client, Arizona State University, in using the following strategies to manage design:
“Partnering” Meeting
Before design started, ASG welcomed us to their office to get to know them. We discussed concerns, issues, roles and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, they had a clear strategy with which to approach design. We shared ours. They were aligned.
Scope Documents
To accelerate project knowledge and set up better budgeting, ASG embraced our suggestion to produce scope documents at schematic design. Holder's ScopeDoc whitepaper and sample formats were shared with the architect, their consultants, and the owner early on to educate, and share this state-of the art tool to enhance scope definition. As a result, SD and DD documents included excellent scope definition of design intent and extent to support balanced budgeting. Using our ScopeDoc format and approach, ASG and their consultants produced 204 sheets of schematic design drawings and a detailed outline specification to fully describe the project scope. It established a new high-water mark for SD package content and resulted in a thorough SD phase cost estimate to balance the project. Their effort stands as the benchmark for this practice.
Value and Options Analysis
Partially due to the thorough scope documents that informed the pricing, the schematic estimate exceeded the project budget, which had been set before design at the program stage. Because of the full scope definition, the team's confidence that all scope was included allowed informed, fast value analysis to return the project to budget at schematic stage. The SD budget was held as the cost model and the budget was maintained throughout the project. One additional cost spike arose at the signing of the guaranteed maximum price but was mitigated through contingency and final adjustments. The AE-CM-owner team worked integrally to identify, study, price and select early project options. An outcome was using a central external mechanical room and new stair towers to add efficiencies. Additive alternates and options were clearly documented in the DD documents to give the team packaging alternatives with which to balance the budget.
Data-Driven Building Type Experts
ASG's knowledge, databases, and collection of campus masterplan figure-ground drawings are widely recognized as evidence of their building type expertise for campus projects. The prints are coveted handouts at industry conferences.
Design Scheduling
With only suggestions and construction input from Holder Construction, ASG led the way in developing detailed design schedules. These were shared and celebrated in each monthly design workshop to guide OAC team process understanding and navigation through design. We always knew where we were, what was coming next, and where we were going, because the design team owned, shared, and managed their schedule.
Design Manager
I served in this role through design development to aid in communication between designers and contractors. By empathizing with, translating, and sticking up for the design team's challenges, I earned their trust and maybe helped a bit.
Documents Planning, Management and Review
To ensure quality content suitable for developing early budgets, Holder worked closely with architects Ayers Saint Gross (ASG) to develop sheet lists and deliverable plans to produce thorough document sets, including the work of the consultants. We conducted progress reviews, reviewed documents, and provided comments for design completion status, scope, trade packaging, construction, and interdisciplinary coordination.
Summary
This team's owner, architect, and contractor embraced design management and collaboration from the outset – an example of how attitude, shared goals, positive culture, and tracking tools led to a successful project.
Emory University's goal to replace their Campus Life Center was ambitious but essential. It would require demolition of the existing Dobbs University Center, construction of a temporary dining facility, and significant enabling civil and utilities work all in the center of an active campus. Based on their similar facilities experience, design excellence, and collaborative approach, Duda|Paine was selected as architect with Holder Construction as CM-at Risk for this $69M project.
As design progressed, the number of existing conditions and complexities grew, including extensive utility relocation, phasing of work to accommodate Emory's schedule, site expansion, structural systems analysis, review of finishes and exterior materials, constructability, and sequencing. Cost estimates, despite a close working relationship among the owner-architect-contractor (OAC) team, required value analysis (VA) to mitigate an 8 percent budget overage. The OAC team met in a series of intense meetings. Difficult decisions were made, and ideas and target reductions were identified for a VA Roadmap of $5.5M. The next challenge was to guarantee this amount would be realized and incorporated. Holder called on their proven value analysis incorporation (VAI) practices, beginning with a process kickoff meeting with Duda|Paine's design principals to develop a VAI Plan. Items were categorized as “ready to incorporate” or “needing study, pricing or owner approval.” The entire team presented an 8-week VAI plan and tracking log to Emory, and the design team took ownership of the process. Rather than requiring Holder's oversight, Duda|Paine self-led their process using the Holder-developed VAI tool to track and manage items across all consulting disciplines, producing documentation for Emory's sign-off. Alternates were identified to reduce initial costs including special lighting, finishes, and AV equipment. Reporting progress at weekly meetings, they incorporated all accepted items and alternates into the documents and were able to add most alternates back. The Emory project is a testament to design and construction team collaboration to identify savings and make decisions with one final goal in mind: success!