Compilation of responses to
Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions
For
Bangor High School Design/build Project
Note: This includes only those questions that were answered
Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions
Bangor High School Design/Build (1st of 6 responses)
Response from Owner’s Special Advisor
General questions for all participants (Owner’s Team, Design Team,
Construction Team, DOE, BGS):
1. What TYPE OF BUILDING PROJECT did you work with? Please check to
indicate:
New Building Renovation Addition / Expansion
2. What TYPE OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION APPROACH did you use?
Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Construction Manager at Risk
Construction Manager Advisor
3. What was the final total project cost? Approx. $4.5 million
4. Overall, did the chosen approach best serve the interest of the public? Yes
No
Please explain how the chosen approach did or did not result in:
a) project cost savings
b) project cost control
c) short-term or long-term value for the money spent
d) meeting an aggressive time schedule The driving force was an aggressive time schedule to be ready for an influx of students which could not be handled in existing facility.
e) time or schedule savings or delays Time savings were an absolute necessity.
f) including all desired components of the building "Bridging" form of Design/Build used to assure inclusion of desired features
g) inclusion of desired quality of building materials and equipment Performance
specifications written in a way to assure quality materials
h) improved warranty service Were required by Performance Specifications
i) ease of project administration
j) other:
5. Was the facility program identified and achieved? Yes No
Please explain:
6. Were the design objectives maximized? Yes No
Please comment in terms of:
a) Aesthetics Some variation from originally planned but were acceptable to achieve
budget and cost controls.
b) Quality Quality materials were required and used.
c) Function Most functional requirements were included in Performance Specifications
and were achieved.
7. How were design decisions made? Because "Bridging" form of design/build was used
many design decisions were made during devepolment of RFP and some design decisions
were the result of being an addition to an existing building.
8. When in the process was the project cost identified? Total project cost identified prior to
issuance of RFQ (and advertisment for interested firms) and this information was
included in the RFQ.
Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes No
Comment: The inclusion of the information in the RFQ reduced the possibility that he
project size would result in a change in the firms that responded.
9. Was there a detailed project budget? Yes No
At what point was this established?
Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes No
Comment:
10. Did the project cost at completion meet expectations? Yes No
Comment:
11. Did the project come in within the planned budget? Yes No
Comment:
12. If the project was over budget, how were cost reductions handled?
13. When in the process was the project schedule identified? The general project schedule
was prepared prior to the issuance of the RFQ to identify interested firms and was
included in the RFQ documentation. Firms that could not meet the proposed schedule
were not considered.
Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes
14. Did the final project schedule meet expectations? Yes No
Comment:
15. Was the project completed on schedule? Yes No
Comment: There were some problems related to delivery of material that could not have
been anticipated and some were the result of the aggressive time schedule.
16. Was the lowest possible price paid for the project? Yes No
Comment:
17. Was the fairest price paid for the project? Yes No
Comment:
18. Did the Owner receive full value for its investment? Yes No
Comment:
19. Was the process “transparent” – open to appropriate review? Yes No
Comment: With the exception of the actual evaluation and grading of the RFQ and RFP submittals, everything was done in the open
47. Did all three parties to the process (owner, designer, constructor) avail themselves of the
alternative delivery system features and use them properly? Yes No
Comment: Because this was a "Design/Build Project, there were only 2 parties but the
features were used properly.
48. Did all parties understand the features, advantages, and disadvantages of the systems?
Yes No Comment: My primary function in this project was to assure the
"Owner's Team" understood and properly used the features and advantages of the
"Design/Build" process. This required an extensive education process as neither the
Owner (School Superintendant) nor the Owner's "Criteria Consultant (Owner's Rep")
had done a design/build project.
49. Were disputes minimized? Yes No
Comment:
50. Were all appropriate State agency approvals and sign-offs obtained? Yes No
Comment: There were some problems because this was the first (and only) design/build
project done in the "Pilot Program" and the various State Agencies had to be educated
on the process as well as the specific project.
51. What was the source, i.e., AIA, BGS, of the contract and construction documents and
supplements used? As this project was early in the process, BGS had not established any
standards. Because of my familiarity with the standard contract and other "boiler plate
documents" prepared by the Design/Build Institute of America, these were used and
modified to comply with specific State of Maine requirements. Approval was obtained
from BGS for the use of modified DBIA "boiler plate". It should also be noted that the
software program used to develop the performance specifications had been coordinated
with DBIA "boiler plate" in the development process.
25. Were final construction documents prepared prior to CM selection and cost proposals?
Yes No Comment: NO CM
Were there changes to those final documents? Yes No If so, when?
26. How satisfied were you with the PROCESS: 5-Very Satisfied
27. How satisfied were you with the RESULTS: 5-Very Satisfied
28. Do you feel that you SAVED TIME: 5-Yes
29. Do you feel that you SAVED MONEY: select one
30. Do you feel that you gained VALUE in the school design compared to what you might
have obtained through a traditional Design-Bid-Build process: select one
31. Do you feel that you gained VALUE in the completed school building compared to what
you might have obtained through a traditional Design-Bid-Build process: 5-More Value
32. Was the alternative delivery process MORE DIFFICULT or EASIER to administer than
traditional Design-Bid-Build: 5-Easier
33. Were the state and local officials you dealt with able to appropriately assist with the
planning and management of the chosen delivery system? Yes No
Please explain: As indicated earlier, as this project was done in the early stages of the "Pilot Program", it was necessary to educate both state and local officials to the differences that existed in the design/build process for buildings and other traditional or alternative delivery system methods. The fact that the "bridging" form of design/build simplified some of this process but most state and local officials had unrealistic expectations based on their experience with traditional methods
34. Was your interaction with the Alternative Advisory Review Panel productive? Yes
No
Please comment on how the Alternative Advisory Review Panel could improve its
support role by:
a) Meeting with applicant teams earlier in the process Meetings with applicant teams
does need occure as early as possible.
b) Providing more specific information on the different options In general this might
have been a beneficial but for this specific project the time schedule limited the
options.
c) Offering information sessions for Owners before they choose designer or contractor
All of the meetings and State Agency approvals were done prior to considering the
responses to the RFP submitted by design/build firms. In general, this would be of
help where the Owner has not made a final decision or where there are opportunities
for different approached.
d) Meeting periodically with full teams as the project goes forward Probably of little
value unless requested by Owner's Team.
e) Other
35. Were your interactions with BGS productive? Yes No
Please comment on how BGS could improve its performance
a) Providing improved contract documents At the time this project was started as a
"Design/Build Project, BGS did not have any standard contract documents for
Design/Build.
b) Providing a process for add alternates and value engineering Not appropriate for
Design/Build
c) Reviewing and commenting on the plans Probably not appropriate for Design/Build
as design is responsibility of Design/Build entity and any changes have cost
implications as well as liability implications.
d) Other
36. Would you use this system again? Yes No Why? Design/build can be a
very appropriate method where time is the controlling factor AND the Owner fully
understands the "trade-offs" that must be made and the loss of some traditional controls
when "Design/Build" is used
37. Do you have other suggestions or thoughts that you would like us to consider?
See separate report prepared by Dick Eustis dated Nov. 6, 2005.
General questions for members of the Owner’s Team:
38. Did you understand your selected Alternative Delivery System at the start of your project?
5-Yes
39. Do you understand it significantly better now? select one
40. What were your reasons for choosing the design/construction process you used? Critical
time limitations
How did these reasons relate to your particular circumstances? There was only about 9
months from time of first meeting with school superintendant to discuss project alternatives until multi-million dollar addition/renovation project had to be completed and ready for occupancy.
How did the chosen system not suit your purposes?
41. Did you understand the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to your
design/construction project at the start of your project? Yes No
At the end of your project? Yes No
Comment:
42. Were the Maine State Learning Results a factor in the design? Yes No
Comment: Unknown
43. Was a life cycle cost analysis done for the project? Yes No
At what point? A "Life Cycle cost anaylysis was not done but "Performance Standards" were establised for each element as a part of the "Performance Specifications". RFP documents required compliance with energy efficent standards for all products and construction.
44. Did the project solve all the long-term needs of the facility? Yes No
Comment: Unknown but prbably not all "Long-term Needs" as this project was to
address partilar "space limitations" and in the proces bring the facility into compliance
with federal accessibility standards (ADA).
45. Were Educational Specifications done prior to the design of the project? Yes
No
If so, were they followed or compromised?
46. Was there a building committee for the project? Yes No
If so, please provide the interests represented, i.e., superintendent, citizen, School Board
member, facilities manager: Superintendent, School Board, School Business Manager,
Facilities Manager.
47. Was technology a consideration in the design? Yes No
Comment: Performance specifications defined basic infrastructure requirements with
the Bangor School Department installing cable and equipment.
48. What percent of the budget was dedicated to equipment and technology?
49. What percent of the construction cost was carried in the budget for contingency?
50. Was consideration of security for the building part of the planning process? Yes
No
Was there consideration of security for building users? Yes No
Comment: Security during construction and in the completed facility were included in
the "Performance Specifications" that were apart of the RFP.
51. Was site circulation or site safety a consideration in the planning process? Yes
No
Comment: One of the major problems that had to be addresses was improving circulation while compling with fire codes and improving accessibility for disabled.
52. Did you have an Owner’s Representative? Yes No
If “yes,” what were their primary responsibilities? In Design/Build, this is frequently
called a "Criteria Consultant" and is reponsible for the preparation of the RFQ and RFP
Documents as well as providing inspection and approvals that are appropriate for the
"Design/Build" form of project procurement. In this specific project, I prepared the RFQ
as well as providing the advice on the RFP because of lack of experience on this type of
activity by the Criteria Consultant (Owner's Rep)
58. Would you use this particular Alternative Delivery System process again? 5-Yes
59. What were the total square feet of new construction and/or renovation for the project?
60. What was the final cost per square foot for design and construction for both new
construction and renovation for the project:
New construction:
Renovation:
61. Please comment on how BGS could improve its performance:
a) Providing guidelines on the cost of general conditions Not appropriate for
Design/Build
b) Educating owners on the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the project team
members This would be a major help. In this project one of the major parts of my job
was to educate the members of the Owner's Team on Design/Build, how it should
function, the use of performance specifications and the evaluation of both the RFQ and
the RFP.
c) Other
62. Should there be more education for the industry concerning the use of alternative delivery
systems?
Yes No
If yes, who should provide it Alternative Delivery Review Panel
Comment/Specify: This needs to be done by people who are not only knowledgeable but also who are seen as unbiased as to the various methods. Every delivery method has appropriate uses and the selection of a method should be based on what is most appropriate for a specific project.
63. Do you have other suggestions or thoughts that you would like us to consider?
See separate report prepared by Dick Eustis dated Nov. 6, 2005.
(provided at the end of this compilation)
Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions
ndBangor High School Design/Build (2 of 6 responses)
Response of Owner’s Criteria Consultant
General questions for all participants (Owner’s Team, Design Team, Construction Team, DOE,
BGS):
1. What TYPE OF BUILDING PROJECT did you work with? Please check to indicate:
New Building Renovation Addition / Expansion
2. What TYPE OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION APPROACH did you use?
Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Construction Manager at Risk
Construction Manager Advisor
3. What was the final total project cost? $4,500,000
4. Overall, did the chosen approach best serve the interest of the public? Yes No
Please explain how the chosen approach did or did not result in:
a) project cost savings did not
b) project cost control final selection of materials by owner and contractor
c) short-term or long-term value for the money spent long term value by owner input thruout the construction process
d) meeting an aggressive time schedule It was the only way the project could be completed in the short time
e) time or schedule savings or delays Sudden increase in tuition students required more space
f) including all desired components of the building Bridging team identified needs
g) inclusion of desired quality of building materials and equipment bridging documents
h) improved warranty service
i) ease of project administration fewer players
j) other:
5. Was the facility program identified and achieved? Yes No
Please explain: School representatives met with bridging team
6. Were the design objectives maximized? Yes No
Please comment in terms of:
a) Aesthetics existing building, not as important
b) Quality identified materials specifications in the proposal
c) Function bridging design established the basics, design-build team carried it on
7. How were design decisions made? weekly meetings with Owner, Owner's Rep, and Design-
Build firm
8. When in the process was the project cost identified? beginning