PUBLIC SECTOR ARCHITECT SELECTION & PROJECT DELIVERY INITIATIVES
Overview of State and Local Efforts to Date
July 14, 2009
Recent Project Delivery Initiatives at the California State Legislature
2006 Senate Bill No. 667 Migden: "Best Value Construction Contracting Pilot Program"
Applicable only to the University of California at San Francisco
Requires progress report in 2010.
Status: Passed and in process.
Synopsis: Selection of builder based on best value rather than lowest bid. Best value is determined through evaluation of the best combination of price and qualifications. The selection process would evaluate the following qualifications:
- Financial condition
- Relevant experience
- Demonstrated management competency
- Labor compliance
- Safety record
- Subcontractors qualifications
The process awards points in each qualification category and adds them for a total point score. The committee divides the candidate's price proposal by the point score to get a final score. The lowest final score wins (Lowest price divided by highest point score generates the lowest final score) .
Support:
University of California
California Pipe Trades council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Western States Council of Sheetmetal Workers
Rationale of support:
Reduces adversarial relationship, after contract cost increases; increases incentive for builders to perform well (since they qualify for future projects based on performance history not just price)
Opposition:
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors Association
Air Conditioning Sheet Metal Association
American Subcontractors Association of California
Associated General Contractors of California
California Chapter of the American Fence Contractors Association
California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors.
Rational of opposition:
Temptation for owners to hire builders based on arbitrary criteria and/or personal relationships
2008 Senate Bill No. 2551 Furutani: "Design Assist Program"
Applicable to California Community Colleges
Status: Failed to pass
Synopsis: Provides alternative to both design-bid-build and design-build, on the rationale that design assist projects
- Offer same benefits as design build process
- Allow and require more participation of the owner (college) in the design of the project than the design build process allows.
- Allow early involvement of the builder in the design process taking advantage of the builder's expertise in conceiving and developing the design resulting in cost and time savings
- Integrates current best construction practices (means, methods, technologies, etc) into the development of the design
- Allow the owner to solicit proposals based on previously developed set of project scope description, program, design and technical criteria, performance specifications (created by design professional with DSA experience).
- Allow the owner to select the design assist entity (builder) based on well described and published criteria that include qualifications and cost evaluated on the basis whatever relative weight the owner decides.
- Allow criteria to include: proposals for cost savings, time savings, transitional pricing strategies, alternative construction staging strategies in addition to price, technical expertise, life cycle costs, skilled labor force availability and safety record.
- Allow the college to make the design-assist entity responsible for cost overruns during construction.
Support:
Los Angeles Community College District
San Jose Evergreen Community College District
Rationale of support:
Reduces adversarial relationship, after contract cost increases; increases potential for owner to achieve best value
Opposition:
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Construction Employers' Association
Professional Engineers in California Government
State Building Trades Council
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Rationale of opposition:
Temptation for owners to hire builders based on arbitrary criteria and/or personal relationships
Future Project Delivery Initiatives at the California State Legislature
Community College Design Assist Legislation
The AIA Political Outreach Committee co-chair met with Larry Eisenberg Executive Director and Tom Hall Director of Facilities Planning and Development at LACCD on June 16 when Larry expressed his commitment to continue to pursue the design assist legislation, this time limiting it to a pilot project on the theory that the legislature will more willingly consider it if it's limited in scope. He has requested and we have consented to lend the support of the AIA LA Chapter in this effort. Also we have committed to assisting in gaining the support of the unions and the building industry, both of whom are critical in building a united front and both of whom must (given their superior financial and political strength) legitimately support concepts of alternative project delivery methods. We have also offered to win the support of local public agencies such as the city and county of Los Angeles. The AIA LA political outreach committee will reach out to:
- City of Los Angeles
- County of Los Angeles
- California League of Cities
- Los Angeles Chapter of Associated General Contractors
- California Chapter of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
- Professional Engineers in California Government
- State Building Trades council
- Western Electrical Contractors Association
- PIPE
- Informally the political outreach committee will meet and discuss with local builders and municipal attorneys to gain perspective and build support.
AIA California Council Sponsored Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Legislation
The AIACC looks to the year 2010 potentially as the year in which they will introduce legislation on Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) for public sector projects. They are in process on building consensus among partners (same as those identified above), building coalitions and determining the probability of success in achieving passage of a bill. The AIA POC has committed to supporting the Council's efforts in whatever way we can, such as for example in gaining the support of local public agencies such as, again, the city and county of LA.
Other Actions in Process
Architect Led Design Build Project Delivery
At the June 16 meeting with Larry Eisenberg and Tom Hall of LACCD they expressed an interest in promoting architect led design build project delivery, which would probably be possible under current design build legislation. The obstacle here resides with liability, bonding and insurance. At the invitation of Larry and Tom the LA POC committee co-chair will attend a meeting on July 30 at the District offices with some of the larger sureties and insurance brokers in town (AON, Kaercher Campbell, etc) to discuss the insurance/bonding issues related to a design build project delivery method in which the architect is the lead member of the team.
County of Los Angeles Architect Selection Process
The LA AIA Practice Committee has engaged the offices of local county supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas in revising and improving the methods by which architects are selected for county projects. This committee has been working closely with Dan Rosenberg of Ridley Thomas' office on the effort. They have in part modeled their effort on practices adopted by New York City. It is worth noting that the county has jumped on the design-build band wagon also and apparently plans to engage in design build with most of their future projects of any substance, thus rendering more or less moot the traditional architect selection process. The AIA's goals should include demonstration to the county that methods of project delivery other than design-bid-build and design-build are available to them.
New York City Excellence in Design and Construction Program
LA AIA Political Outreach Committee intends to host the head of the City of New York's Excellence in Design and Construction Program in order to learn more about how that city engages and supports high quality architects and builders.
