On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development [1 ed.] 9780309573276
173 14 757KB
English Pages 112 Year 1994
Polecaj historie
![Dialogues on Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries [1 ed.]
9780773573079, 9780773529403](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/dialogues-on-distribution-of-powers-and-responsibilities-in-federal-countries-1nbsped-9780773573079-9780773529403.jpg)
![Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities [1 ed.]
9780309221870, 9780309221863](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/predicting-outcomes-of-investments-in-maintenance-and-repair-of-federal-facilities-1nbsped-9780309221870-9780309221863.jpg)
![On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development [1 ed.]
9780309573276](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/on-the-responsibilities-of-architects-and-engineers-and-their-clients-in-federal-facilities-development-1nbsped-9780309573276.jpg)
Citation preview
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
i
ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND THEIR CLIENTS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON ARCHITECT-ENGINEER RESPONSIBILITIES Building Research Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C.1994
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
ii NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. Funding for the project, under the Federal Construction Council Technical program, was provided through the following agreements between the indicated federal agency and the National Academy of Sciences: Department of State Contract No. 1030-270106; National Science Foundation Grant No. MSS-9203138, under master agreement 8618641; and U.S. Postal Service grant, unnumbered. Inquiries regarding this report should be addressed to: Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418 202-334-3376 Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
iii
COMMITTEE ON ARCHITECT-ENGINEER RESPONSIBILITIES HAROLD J. PARMELEE (Chair), President, Turner Construction Company, New York, New York RICHARD T. BAUM, (Retired) Partner, Jaros, Baum and Bolles, New York, New York LYNN S. BEEDLE, University Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and Director, Institute for the Study of High-Rise Habitat, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania GERALD L. CARLISLE, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Washington, D.C. NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY, Consultant, Woolwich, Maine C. CHRISTOPHER DEGENHARDT, President, EDAW, Inc., San Francisco, California ELISHA C. FREEDMAN, Principal, The Par-Group—Paul A. Reaume, Ltd., Hartford, Connecticut DONALD G. ISELIN, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy (Retired), Consultant, Santa Barbara, California GARY T. MOORE, Professor of Architecture and Director, Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, Milwaukee WALTER P. MOORE, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas J. W. MORRIS, Lieutenant General U.S. Army, Retired, Engineer Advisor, Zorc, Rissetto, Weaver & Rosen, Washington, D.C. BRIAN P. MURPHY, Senior Vice President, Prudential Property Company, Newark, New Jersey JEROME J. SINCOFF, FAIA, President, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri JAMES E. WOODS, William E. Jamerson Professor of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg APRIL L. YOUNG, CRA Coordinator, First American Metro Corporation, McLean, Virginia
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
iv
Agency Liaison Representatives WADE BELCHER, Contracting Officer, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. LOUIS CHILDERS, AIA, General Manager, Design Division, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C. NESTER FOLTA, Facilities Engineer, Office of Project and Facilities Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. LARRY S. GAYNOR, P.E., Sanitation Facility Construction Branch, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland KENNETH R. HARPER, P.E., Office of Engineering Services, Public Health Service, Seattle, Washington REX HELLMANN, Chief Architect, U.S. Department of State, Arlington, Virginia DANIEL HIGHTOWER, AIA, Planning and Review Branch, Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland ALLAN HOCKETT, Office of the Civil Engineer, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. CLAUDE HUDSON, General Engineer Headquarters, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. LLOYD SIEGEL, Director, Office of Architecture and Engineering, Office of Facilities, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. VINCE SPAULDING, Deputy Director, Contracts Quality Assurance Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia RALPH S. SPILLINGER, Program Manager, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. DWAIN WARNE, Chief, Engineering Branch, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. Other Contributors CATHERINE BROWN, Director of Special Projects, Design Center for American Urban Landscape, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota BETSY CUTHBERTSON, Director, Government Affairs and Public Relations, American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, D.C. AUGUSTINE A. DIGIACOMO, Partner, Jaros, Baum & Bolles, Consulting Engineers New York, New York KATHERINE FARLEY, Managing Director, International Tishman Speyer Properties, New York, New York DELON HAMPTON, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C. HAROLD L. LLOYD, P.E., Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., Houston, Texas
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
v
Staff
ANDREW C. LEMER, Director (1988–1993) MAHADEVAN MANI, Director (1993) DENNIS CHAMOT, Director (1994) HENRY A. BORGER, Executive Secretary, Federal Facilities Council LENA B. GRAYSON, Program Assistant MARY McCORMACK, Project Assistant
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
vi
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
vii
BUILDING RESEARCH BOARD (1991-1994) HAROLD J. PARMELEE (Chair), President, Turner Construction Company, New York, New York RICHARD T. BAUM**, (Retired) Partner, Jaros, Baum and Bolles, New York, New York LYNN S. BEEDLE, University Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and Director, Institute for the Study of High-Rise Habitat, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania CATHERINE BROWN, Director of Special Projects, Design Center for American Urban Landscape, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis GERALD L. CARLISLE***, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Washington, D.C. NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY, Consultant, Woolwich, Maine C. CHRISTOPHER DEGENHARDT**, President, EDAW, Inc., San Francisco, California AUGUSTINE A. DIGIACOMO, Partner, Jaros, Baum & Bolles, Consulting Engineers, New York, New York ELISHA C. FREEDMAN***, Regional Manager, The Par-Group-Paul A. Reaume, Ltd., and Executive-in-Residence, University of Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut DELON HAMPTON, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C. DONALD G. ISELIN, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy, Retired, Consultant, Santa Barbara, California FREDERICK KRIMGOLD*, Associate Dean for Research and Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alexandria GARY T. MOORE, Professor of Architecture and Director, Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee WALTER P. MOORE, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas
* Term completed June 30, 1991 ** Term completed June 30, 1992 *** Term completed June 30, 1993
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
viii
J.W. MORRIS, Lieutenant General U.S. Army (Retired), Engineer Advisor, Zorc, Rissetto, Weaver & Rosen, Washington, D.C. BRIAN P. MURPHY, Senior Vice President, Prudential Property Company, Prudential Plaza, Newark, New Jersey LESLIE E. ROBERTSON*, Director, Design and Construction, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, New York, New York JEROME J. SINCOFF, AIA, President, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri JAMES E. WOODS**, William E. Jamerson Professor of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg APRIL L. YOUNG**, CRA Coordinator, First American Metro Corporation, McLean, Virginia Staff ANDREW C. LEMER, Director (1988–1993) MAHADEVAN MANI, Director (1993) DENNIS CHAMOT, Director (1994) HENRY A. BORGER, Executive Secretary, Federal Facilities Council LENA B. GRAYSON, Program Assistant MARY McCORMACK, Project Assistant
* Term completed June 30, 1991 ** Term completed June 30, 1992
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
PREFACE
ix
PREFACE
Responsibility is a complex term. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, written nearly four thousand years ago, held builders fully responsible if a building failure caused loss of life. Today society imposes penalties less severe than death for such serious consequences but nevertheless holds designers and constructors responsible for the safety of facility occupants and users and for a wide range of other functional and aesthetic requirements that a facility is expected to meet. Despite centuries of experience in design and construction, there are still disagreements and occasional disputes among facility owners, designers, and constructors regarding the distribution of responsibilities and whether these responsibilities have been met. Against the background of this long history, the growth of modern democratic government as a client for the services of architects, engineers, and constructors has eliminated some old problems, accentuated others, and raised new ones as well. Public building procedures in the United States have evolved since the nation's early colonial assembly buildings were constructed in the eighteenth century. The procedures used then were in turn based on earlier models transferred from imperial Europe. There is still much to learn. The members and staff of the Committee on Architect-Engineer Responsibilities recognize that their work may yield guideposts on the road to better facilities, rather than definitive and permanent answers to the questions we address. This is true with regard to the responsibilities of architects and
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
PREFACE
x
engineers, as these responsibilities are determined, in the end, only by the mutual agreement of all parties to the design, construction, and long-term use of a facility. The committee hopes nevertheless, that this report will indeed be an effective guidepost. Resolving issues of the responsibilities of architects and engineers doing work for federal agencies—and for others—will enhance the quality of facilities, the efficiency in developing those facilities, and thereby productivity and the quality of life in the United States. These are worthy goals. Harold Parmelee, Chair
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
CONTENTS
xi
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Source of the Study Issues of Definition and Measurement Teamwork and Responsibility Benchmarks for Management Interim Guidelines for Judging A&E Performance
1 2 3 4 7 8
1.
INTRODUCTION The Architect and Engineering Professions Source and Conduct of the Study
11 11 13
2.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT The Facility Life Cycle Facility Development
19 19 22
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES Quality Facilities as the Aim Responsibility versus Liability Teamwork Among Participants in the Process Generic Problems
27 27 29 30 32
3.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
CONTENTS
xii
Unique Aspects of Federal Facilities Process 4.
5.
6.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Government Perspectives Presented A&E Firm Perspectives Presented Shortcomings of A&E Firms and Government Agencies QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES How Government Agencies Seek to Avoid Problems What Happens When Problems Occur Outlook for the Future
34 39 41 48 53 57 57 62 64
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES Levels of Responsibilities Data, Measurement, and Limits of Management Interim Guidelines for Judging A&E Performance Efforts to Enhance Quality
68 70 72 75
REFERENCES
77
ACRONYM LIST
79
Appendix A:
Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
81
Appendix B:
Roster of Participants— for the Symposium/Workshop on Architect-Engineer Responsibilities
87
Appendix C:
A&E Project Performance Statistics
91
Appendix D:
Statement of Task
95
Appendix E:
The Brooks Bill
97
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
67
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Architects, engineers, and other professionals who deal with the planning, design, and construction of buildings and other facilities that provide shelter and serve a range of human needs are exposed by their education to the standards of their professions. They join together in professional organizations to develop and maintain those standards. They are generally licensed to practice their professions by government authorities responsible for assuring that basic qualifying standards of practice are met. They work together in businesses (firms) that provide planning, design, and related services to clients. Firms of architects and engineers that provide professional services related to the design and construction of buildings and other facilities are commonly referred to as A&Es. However, the term A&E also can refer to the individual professionals involved in the design and construction of facilities.1 The clients of A&E firms typically are property owners who wish to have new facilities constructed or old facilities refurbished. When hired for a facility development project, an A&E firm (and its constituent professionals) assumes a broad range of responsibilities related to the project. However, the A&E firm is not solely responsible for the success of the project. The owner and others also have significant influence on the outcome.
1To
avoid ambiguity, this report uses the term A&E as a modifier; for example, “A&E firm” or “A&E professional.”
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
SOURCE OF THE STUDY This report addresses primarily the responsibilities of A&E firms that provide design services to federal agencies. These agencies own, or oversee the development of, government facilities. They share many of the concerns of other facility owners but must deal in addition with a variety of goals, procedures, and requirements unique to government. Officials of several such agencies, within the forum of the 18-member Federal Facilities Council,2 have expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and thoroughness of work performed by private A&E firms. However, these officials generally have found it difficult to agree precisely why problems occur, or what the most appropriate remedial action may be. At the same time, A&E firms have often complained that many federal agencies—and in general, many owners—have unrealistic expectations about the amount of work a firm should perform for the design fee paid. Because of the pressures of maintaining a business, many A&E firms hesitate to turn away clients, preferring to try to find ways to deliver acceptable services at lower cost. The Federal Facilities Council requested that the Building Research Board (BRB) conduct a study that would help those seeking to resolve questions of whether the responsibilities of A&E firms are being met. The members of the BRB at that time were appointed by the National Research Council to serve as a committee to undertake that study. Over the course of approximately two years, this committee, the Committee on Architect-Engineer Responsibilities, considered current methods of assessing the quality of design work and identified the issues
2This
study was supported as part of the technical program of the Federal Facilities Council. The Council, formerly the Federal Construction Council, is a continuing activity of the National Research Council. The Federal Facilities Council's purpose is to promote cooperation among federal agencies and between such agencies and other elements of the building community that construct and manage facilities, addressing technical issues of mutual concern.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
for determining what constitutes satisfactory professional work by an A&E firm. The study focused primarily on design, within the traditional three-step process typically used to secure new government facilities: design, bid, build. This report documents the study's findings. ISSUES OF DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT Quality, the overarching goal of everyone involved in facilities planning, design, construction, and operation, means optimal meeting of the needs of facilities users. This involves striking a balance among performance, cost, schedule, and a range of other distinct and sometimes conflicting concerns. As an earlier BRB committee has noted, quality is obtained through conformance to requirements that are both well formulated and clearly stated (NRC, 1991). The challenges of determining what the requirements ought to be, stating them clearly, and ensuring that they are met extend throughout the facility development process, from initial project planning and facility programming, through design and construction, into occupancy. The current study focused on design but was necessarily concerned also with what happens before design begins and after it is completed. The study committee concluded that (1) the designer must be given a realistic task and appropriate compensation, (2) the task must be well understood by all parties, and (3) the designer's intent must be effectively realized in the constructed facility. Otherwise, owners and users will almost certainly question whether the A&E professional has fulfilled his or her responsibilities. In general, all parties—designers, owners, users—must work together to achieve quality facilities. Throughout the design and construction process, issues of responsibility and those of liability are often tightly entwined. However, responsibility and liability are two distinct problems with which A&E professionals must deal, and the two ideas should not be confused. This report concerns issues of responsibility.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Determinations of liability are outside of the scope of the committee's study. The committee found that there are no generally accepted guidelines on how to measure A&E quality, what constitutes “competent” A&E services, or what is “reasonable” to expect with regard to responsibilities of an A&E firm. Drawings and specifications are the principal product of the A&E professional's work, and their clarity and accuracy are major determinants of the quality of A&E services. However, the talent, skills, and experience of the A&E firm's staff; a range of interpersonal and other factors; and often serendipitous events will influence the client's satisfaction with the A&E firm's work. Also, the A&E professionals, as professionals, have responsibilities that go beyond the terms of contracts, which further complicates discussion. These topics are almost always treated anecdotally and suffer from a basic lack of quantitative analysis of A&E performance. There is little documentation available to support establishing a realistic and reasonable standard of care for A&E designers. TEAMWORK AND RESPONSIBILITY The study committee concluded that problems of the sort cited in this study by government agency officials and the A&E community are generally the result of faults in the staff and procedures of both A&E firms and contracting agencies. They sometimes spring from insufficient control in selection of constructors who use the A&E firm's work. Progress in dealing with purported problems of responsibility of A&E firms will require that both the firms and their clients work together for change. Stories of serious problems on projects are often widely circulated but seldom are backed by solid analysis. In any case, they represent a relatively small portion of the work done by A&E firms. The process of design and development of government facilities is the product of many years of evolution and legislation. This process is complex and involves many participants with sometimes ambiguous roles and
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
responsibilities. While most government facilities are of good quality, are safe, and serve their users well, individual government agency personnel and members of the A&E community express concern that responsibilities in federal design are too frequently not being met. The study committee found that the federal process for procuring A&E services is often more complex and time-consuming, requires more formal document preparation, and is more prone to fostering adversarial relationships among the participants in facility development than procedures used for comparable projects in the private sector. The complexity and delay spring in large measure from the inappropriate application of procurement practices developed initially for purchase of weapons systems or commodity goods. Every facility design produces a unique product, and flexibility in the procurement process is needed. One result of the complex process has been market specialization: some A&E firms tend to avoid competing for government work, while others favor it and become adept at working within the federal procurement process. Many federal agencies have chosen to develop their own guide specifications rather than adopt standard commercial practices in facility development. As a result, the forms, methods, and standards often change from one agency to another, and sometimes even from division to division within an agency. The A&E professional who is seeking to serve a federal agency must learn a whole system of doing business, regardless of his or her prior experience in the private sector. The federal system has evolved to meet its agencies' sometimes unique needs, but the burden of learning the system can dissuade qualified A&E professionals from undertaking government projects. Another result of the long time period that is frequently required between solicitation of proposals and execution of a contract with an A&E firm is that the firm may be forced to use key personnel unproductively or to assign them to more immediate projects. Government agencies are understandably concerned when professionals working on their projects are not
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
those promised by the A&E firm, but the firm sometimes cannot afford to “save” certain personnel. In such situations, the firm risks loss of good reputation. Neither the firm nor the agency gains. A&E firms sometimes fail to appreciate that government agencies must conform to many policies, regulations, and legislative concerns that do not affect the private sector and that these requirements add time to the process. Agencies have been working to simplify and speed up their procurement and design management procedures. Agencies should adopt as a goal substantially reducing the time elapsing between issuance of the request for statements of qualifications and the notice to proceed with design. The study committee recommends that one to four months should generally be an adequate amount of time for most agencies. The committee recommends that a 50 percent reduction in average elapsed time, compared with the current experience, is often a reasonable goal. The testimony and cases reviewed in this study, and the experience of the study committee's members, show that many agencies faced with real problems of the responsibilities of A&E firms often hesitate to act and fail to convey the nature of their concern or, when appropriate, to insist on corrective action without cost to the government. The committee judged that agency technical staff should be more willing to require such corrective action when it is warranted. In many government agencies, however, there have been reductions in numbers of professional staff and a shifting of A&E firm selection and supervision responsibilities toward administrative personnel who lack buildingrelated training and experience. Cases presented during the study suggest that these changes are increasing the problems agencies and A&E firms experience. The study committee agreed that A&E firms are rightfully concerned that agencies may be prone to make faulty judgments about the degree to which a firm's responsibilities are not being met. In particular, the committee recommends that interim design reviews be substantive and conducted by experienced professionals
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
familiar with the agency's needs, the user's needs, and the practical aspects of facility development. Ideally, the reviews should be conducted in similar fashion and by the same staff at each stage in the design process. If experienced agency personnel are not available, consideration should be given to utilizing an A&E consultant, distinct from the designer but fully familiar with the type of facility and the agency needs, to provide effective peer review. BENCHMARKS FOR MANAGEMENT In general, the responsibilities of A&E firms appear at contractual, technical, regulatory, and ethical levels. At all four levels, realistic, uniform, experience-based measures and benchmarks of A&E performance would be a valuable management tool that could be used by both A&E firms and government agencies to improve planning and design management. The committee proposes that a record of the need for change orders during construction can serve as such a measure of performance. Change orders during construction and their impact on project costs are key concerns from the owner's point of view. The need for change orders may have many causes, but is generally a key indicator of project quality. To the extent that the designer is the source of a need for change orders, this can also be an indicator of A&E firm performance. However, more data on change orders and sensitivity analyses are needed to ensure that benchmarks reflect realistic variations among projects of different types (e.g., hospitals or office buildings), which represent substantially different levels of complexity. Construction change orders may be required for several reasons. (1) The users' or owner's needs change from those anticipated in design. (2) Site characteristics, construction conditions, or market conditions encountered during bidding and construction differ significantly from those anticipated in design. (3) Staff of the A&E firm and the owner exercise judgment to make choices among design options and then later, with additional information, conclude that another option is
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8
more advisable (such decisions are frequent with “fast track” design and construction). (4) Staff of A&E firms neglect information or make errors or omissions, and these result in problems in construction, in construction bids that are substantially greater than the owner's budget, or in failure to meet the owner's design criteria. Only those changes in the fourth category are clearly an indication of A&E responsibilities not adequately fulfilled. Data on change orders, cost growth, likely causes, and other project characteristics should be collected and analyzed—with steady attention to the roles of both clients and A&E firms in successful facility development—to provide a basis for the firms, their clients, and others to judge whether the level of changes experienced in a particular project are unusual and possibly outside the range of adequate performance. Agencies of the FFC should convene professional organizations such as the American Institute of Architects, American Consulting Engineers Council, the Associated General Contractors, and others to work with the agencies to develop a study design, collect data on project development, and analyze that data to develop meaningful measures and benchmarks of A&E performance.
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR JUDGING A&E PERFORMANCE Until effective analyses can be conducted, the following guidelines, drawn from limited data and based substantially on the committee members' experience, may be helpful to government agency personnel and others seeking to determine the reasonable standards of care for A&E professionals and owners working on facility development and to manage facility development more effectively. Guideline 1. A&E professionals can be expected to perform their tasks more responsibly if they are involved on a continuing basis in more stages of the facility development process. A&E firms and government agencies must work together if improvements
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9
facility design and construction. Each side has responsibilities, and those of one cannot be effectively fulfilled without the cooperation of the other. A&E firms have a role to play throughout the facility development process. Guideline 2. Construction change orders due to unanticipated site or market conditions or shifts in user and owner needs are to be expected during the long time required for the planning, design, and construction of any facility. Construction-cost growth of as much as 5 percent over bid estimates is not abnormal. Guideline 3. As the time required to develop a facility increases, from initial planning through the end of construction, so does the likelihood of change orders, cost growth, and loss of quality. Delays, whether from legislative, administrative, or technical causes, upset budget and design assumptions and contribute generally to the potential for change orders to be required. Guideline 4. Changes in the requirements tend to cause changes in design. If the agency changes its requirements, cost changes often ensue through no fault of the designer. If requirements have changed, it is more difficult to determine that A&E performance is wanting. Guideline 5. Conventional design-bid-build projects that experience construction changes that increase costs more than 10 percent over construction contract award value should be thoroughly reviewed. Changes due to A&E errors, oversights, or omissions should not increase costs more than 5 percent. If an agency is experiencing such cases on a recurring basis, the agency's programming or A&E firm selection processes may be at fault. The levels proposed here are general and based substantially on committee members' judgment. Specific levels of cost growth and change orders that should be considered abnormal depend on project complexity and novelty. Nevertheless, cost growth, especially if due to design-related change orders, is an indicator of a need for management attention. Recurring cost growth is
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
10
a reasonable basis for the agency and the A&E firm to question whether their own performance on such projects is adequate.
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
11
1 INTRODUCTION
The English word “professional” derives from Latin roots having to do with public declaration, making one’s vows, and being received into a religious community. To adopt a profession in the middle ages was to become a part of a society of learning that would yield a livelihood but that required its members to live and work in prescribed ways. Today the term has less of a spiritual connotation, but professionals in many fields still are expected to adopt and conform to technical and ethical standards while earning their livelihoods and to continue learning and adding to the store of knowledge in their profession. THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONS Architects and engineers1 are professionals who deal with matters of the planning, design, and construction of buildings and other facilities that provide shelter and serve a range of human needs. These professionals are exposed by their education to the standards of their professions, join together in
1“Engineers”
includes professionals involved with a broad range of technologies. Engineers dealing with construction, buildings, and other facilities are drawn primarily from civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical disciplines. Similarly, “architects” may include professionals trained as landscape architects, planners, or urban designers.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
12
professional organizations to develop and maintain those standards, and generally are licensed to practice their professions by government authorities responsible for ensuring that basic qualifying standards of the practice are met. Individual architects and engineers typically operate as groups in business organizations that assume forms defined by the laws and regulations of jurisdictions where they work. These groups or firms may be simple proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations, and may concentrate on architectural design, engineering design, planning, cost estimation, construction management, or other specializations, or some combination of these. The firms of architects and engineers that provide professional services related to the design and construction of buildings and other facilities are commonly referred to as A&Es. However the term A&E also can refer to the individual professionals involved in the design and construction of facilities.2 To avoid ambiguity, the term A&E generally is used as a modifier in this report; for example, “A&E firm” or “A&E professional.” A&E firms typically are employed by owners of facilities. These owners, the firms’ clients, wish to have new facilities constructed or old facilities refurbished.3 A&E professionals do not construct these facilities—construction contractors (also termed constructors) do that. The professionals work with constructors and others concerned with facility planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance (e.g., financial institutions, regulatory agencies, and facility management businesses).
2As
used here, A&E professionals may include architects, engineers, facility programming consultants, urban designers, landscape architects, construction management consultants, cost estimating consultants, urban planners, and others. 3As discussed in the text, facility users, regulatory agencies, and a variety of professionals working with owners are in some senses the A&E’s clients.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
13
In doing their work and practicing their profession, A&E professionals assume a broad range of responsibilities related to the safety of the design, quality, cost, and timely progress of work. This range of responsibilities depends in part on what the client requests and in part on the standards of the profession that determine how much can reasonably be expected. The A&E is not solely responsible for facility development, and the relationships among many parties determine the outcome of any specific undertaking. This report addresses primarily the responsibilities of A&E firms providing design services to federal agencies who own or oversee the development of government facilities. These agencies share many of the concerns of other facility owners but must deal in addition with a variety of goals, procedures, and requirements unique to government. Not considered here are a range of other analysis, design, and management services A&E firms provide, such as construction management, cost estimating, waste clean-up and environmental remediation planning, community development planning, and others. SOURCE AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY The federal government annually spends about $14 billion to $18 billion on construction of buildings and other facilities that are federally owned (DOC, 1991).4 A&E firms are typically employed by federal agencies to design these facilities. Federal agency officials, in discussions with Building Research Board (BRB) members and staff, have sometimes expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and thoroughness of work performed by private A&E firms retained to plan, design, and oversee the construction of government facilities. However,
4Total annual federal construction-related expenditures are typically $45 billion
to $50 billion. However, this amount includes federal funding for facilities owned by state and local governments and private entities, as well as those for which federal agencies have substantial direct responsibility.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
14
these officials generally find it difficult to agree on precisely why problems occur or what is the most appropriate remedial action. They cite agency reluctance to take legal action against A&E firms, due to costs, the difficulty of proving negligence, and a purported tendency of courts in the United States to rule that professionals—including A&E firms—cannot be held responsible for producing perfect results but only for providing “competent” services in accordance with the terms of a contract.5 In similar conversations, representatives of A&E firms have complained that many federal agencies—and many owners, in general—have unrealistic expectations about the amount of work a firm should perform for a typical design fee. A&E professionals say that owners frequently demand more analyses and services and a higher level of perfection than is provided for in fees usually paid. While professional organizations have stated standards of professional practice, there are no established guidelines on what constitutes “competent” A&E services or on what is “reasonable” with regard to A&E responsibilities.6 Furthermore, BRB members’ experience shows that the client’s satisfaction with A&E performance often depends on interpersonal factors and serendipitous events, as well as on clarity of drawings and specifications and the talent, skills, and experience of the A&E firm’s staff. Although professional societies like the American Institute of Architects have published model contracts for design services, the models are
5The study committee did not conduct a review of case law in this study, but lawyers participating in the study’s discussions did not dispute these contentions. 6There are few explicit statements of what the “responsibilities” of participants in facility development may be. The American Society of Civil Engineers has prepared one such statement (ASCE, 1990), but several years of discussion, debate, and modification were required to resolve concerns expressed by other professionals reviewing early drafts of the document.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
15
not applicable to all projects and do not address such matters as the quality of services to be provided. As a means to better understanding of these matters, and to assist those who, as owners or design professionals, seek to avoid or resolve disagreements concerning A&E responsibilities, the Federal Facilities Council (FFC)7 requested that the BRB undertake a study of this topic as part of ongoing FFCsponsored programs. The BRB members at the time agreed to undertake the study and were subsequently appointed by the National Research Council to serve as a committee to conduct a study of current methods of assessing the quality of design work, seek to identify clearly the issues in determining what constitutes satisfactory professional work by an A&E firm, and make recommendations for addressing problems discovered.>8 In a series of meetings and workshops, the study committee solicited comments from government agency staff, opinions from professional organizations, and views of members of the A&E community practicing in both government and private markets. Federal agencies sponsoring the study appointed liaison representatives who met with the study committee on several occasions to present their views. Professional organizations were also invited to designate members and staff representatives to serve as liaisons to the study. Organizations consulted included the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the American Consulting Engineers Council, and the American Society of Landscape Architects.
7Eighteen federal agencies with interests in facilities and their construction currently make up the FFC (formerly the Federal Construction Council). These agencies had a combined 1992 construction budget of approximately $11 billion. The study was approved by the Executive Committee of the National Research Council’s Governing Board on November 27, 1990. (The Statement of Task is presented in Appendix D.) 8Brief biographical sketches of committee members and study staff are presented in Appendix A.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
16
The study proceeded in three broad phases, extending over the course of approximately two years: 1.
Initial “fact finding” involved solicitation of views from liaisons from federal agencies and professional organizations, a review of current practices in the A&E services business, and reviews of reports of litigation and regulatory actions. A preliminary paper prepared to summarize the results of this first phase of activity became the basis for chapter 1 and chapter 2 of this report. 2. Significant issues were delineated through committee discussion, with participation by representatives of the design community and others with special knowledge relevant to the topics raised in the study’s first phase. A workshop was held to involve a broader range of participants in the study (refer to Appendix B). The workshop discussion became the basis for chapter 3 and chapter 4 of this report. 3. Written statements and committee discussions of the preceding phases of work, and discussions within the forum of the BRB,9 led to the study committee’s findings and recommendations, which are presented for the most part in chapter 5 and chapter 6. The findings and recommendations, and the report as a whole, reflect the judgments and opinions of the committee’s members only. Liaison representatives and other study participants may not agree with the committee’s findings and recommendations. The study’s focus on the responsibilities of A&E firms that provide design services to federal agencies responds to the concerns expressed by the study’s sponsors but, as previously noted, excludes substantial areas of work that A&E firms perform for federal agencies and other clients. For example, environmental remediation (i.e., the repair or containment of
9During the study, the membership of the BRB changed through normal rotation of terms, while the study committee membership remained fixed.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
17
sites damaged by toxic or otherwise hazardous wastes) is a large and growing market segment for engineering firms. Another area many architects are involved in is public art programs. The work of A&E firms that are involved in these activities does not lead to facilities development. The issues of firm responsibilities in such work reflect different risks, priorities, and societal concerns than those considered in this study. Furthermore, the study and the committee’s recommendations focus primarily on the government’s traditional process for securing new facilities. This process comprises three steps—design, bid, build—that are typically taken in sequence and that distribute primary control to different people or organizations in each step. Other processes are possible but receive only limited mention here. Finally, the study was conducted within the context of the current practice, which is required in federal government projects (see the discussion of the Brooks Act in Chapter 3) and widely followed throughout government and the private sector, that selection of A&E firms is based on professional qualifications and not simply on low price alone. Some people argue that A&E services can be described with sufficient exactness that cost-based procurement procedures such as those commonly used for purchasing construction, custodial services, and office supplies, could be applied to A&E firm selection. This view is not examined in this report, and would likely be disputed by many of the participants in this study. While matters of professional responsibility may be to some degree codified in law or the formal guidance of institutions, they inevitably depend on the judgments of individuals concerned with particular situations. These judgments may be informed by professional training and experience, statistical analyses, or precedent, but they are judgments nevertheless, and depend on the people making them. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations here are not meant to imply enforceable standards of professional practice but rather to aid the continuing efforts of A&Es and their clients to achieve better facilities.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
INTRODUCTION
18
Ultimately, judgments about professional responsibilities and performance cannot be made in broad, abstract terms but rather must refer to the context within which relationships are drawn and work is carried out. In few cases are issues clearly delineated in black and white. Most of the time there are shades of gray. Nevertheless, the essence of the professional’s performance is his or her conformance to the standards of the profession. The members of the study committee believe that keeping these professional standards high will yield benefits of improved quality for all facilities owners and users.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
19
2 A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT Buildings and other constructed facilities are developed through a complex process that typically involves many people and extends over a period of many months. The facility then generally serves for a long period of time, measured in decades or sometimes centuries. It may change function and ownership more than once during this period, and in the end may be abandoned or demolished and replaced. A&E professionals can play a number of roles during this facility life cycle.1 THE FACILITY LIFE CYCLE For most purposes, the facility's life cycle may be described as having three stages that begin when a decision is made to proceed with planning of a facility to fulfill a particular (albeit perhaps still ill-defined) function (see Box 2-1).2 This decision
1This
chapter's description of typical processes and practices is based on the experience of study committee members and government agency liaison representatives. The description is intended primarily to provide readers unfamiliar with facilities development practices a general background for the subsequent discussion of issues raised in the study. The term “facility” in this context refers primarily to buildings but includes other infrastructure owned by federal government agencies. 2For such purposes as energy or environmental impact analyses, the life cycle is sometimes assumed to begin earlier, when materials that ultimately will be used in the facility's construction and operations are initially processed.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
20
is typically made by someone with access to resources to support subsequent activity. That decision maker is typically the owner of the facility or the owner's representative and will be the client for services provided by the broad range of professionals involved in facilities planning, design, and construction. However, the initial decision making may not involve the people who subsequently employ these professionals, for example when government agencies decide to develop new buildings.
BOX 2-1 TYPICAL STAGES OF THE FACILITY LIFE CYCLE Development Conception Planning Feasibility analysis Design Environmental impact analysis Construction Commissioning Occupancy and Use Leasing Occupancy Remodeling, renovation (e.g., for new tenants) Retrofitting (e.g., installing fire sprinklers) Component replacement (e.g., new roof) Retirement, Disposition Conversion (e.g., to museum use) Abandonment Adaptive re-use Demolition
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
21
Facility development, the first stage of the life cycle, includes a number of planning and design activities through which the people involved come to some understanding of what functions the facility should serve, where exactly it will be located, what it will look like, and what the costs of its construction may be. A&E professionals are likely to become involved in these activities. Sometimes estimates will also be made of the facility's operating and maintenance costs, the impact of its construction and use on the surrounding area's environment, the likelihood that the facility will withstand floods or earthquakes, and of other characteristics of the service the facility will provide during its lifetime. A variety of professionals may join or operate independently of A&E firms in making such estimates, working with the facility's owner, lending institutions, government agencies, or others that have an interest in the facility. Construction and commissioning complete the facility's development.3 A construction contractor, or constructor, will play the primary role in these activities. As will be discussed in later sections, A&E firms may or may not be involved. In the second and third stages of its life cycle, the facility may serve many occupants, visitors, owners, and neighbors. These users will judge for themselves how well the facility serves their needs. External events such as storms or changes in economic conditions may influence these judgments. A&E professionals are seldom directly involved unless changes in the facility are to be made. When changes do need to be made, the A&E professionals involved in making them may or may not have been involved in the facility's development. .
3In
commissioning, the construction contractor and owner may check heating systems, inspect interiors, or test electrical controls to ensure that all facility components are performing properly. See the discussion in the next section.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
22
FACILITY DEVELOPMENT The primary role of A&E firms is in facility development, and it is on this stage that the committee focused its attention. The committee found it useful to consider this development and the firm's role in terms of seven specific steps that make up the development process for many federal and other government facilities. 1.
Initial appropriation programming, which establishes in broad outline the scale and scope of the project, is required to obtain congressional authorization to develop the facility and appropriate funds for development. Agencies must provide information to meet the requirements of their particular authorization committees, which differ considerably, and have established a variety of procedures to do so. Because of user-agency program uncertainties or lack of funds or of in-house capability for design analysis, the physical scope of the facility may be defined in only a preliminary manner at this stage, but typically the budget becomes firmly established by congressional action. Some agencies use A&E firms to conduct preliminary planning and design studies that provide the basis for formal documents submitted for congressional action. Budgets requested and granted may be based on broad programmatic (i.e., in the sense of agency missions) concerns, political decisions, and other factors besides estimated facilities costs. 2. Architectural programming establishes the functional requirements of the facility, generally in terms of floor areas for particular activities and of adjacencies and connections that are required or desired among activities. Some agencies use A&E firms to assist in this stage, which should have substantial user involvement. However, A&E firms and construction agency staff often find that user-agency staff lack adequate time and budgets to participate effectively. Users may also lack experience in facility development and so are unprepared to respond to questions about space utilization or circulation in a building they will use in the future. The rework and costs
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
23
caused by program changes requested by users late in the development process are problems that may then be perceived as a failure by the A&E firm to in deliver quality facilities.4 3. Preliminary design, the first stage of producing formal drawings and specifications, is also referred to by other terms, such as “schematic design” or “35 percent design,” which are determined by procuring agency custom.5 This stage of design becomes a basis for more-detailed—and presumedly more-accurate—estimates of construction cost, which may or may not motivate agency budget revisions. 4. Final design completes the drawings and specifications that state the requirements for construction and are provided to prospective contractors as a basis for bid development. Some agencies hire an A&E firm to complete final design—a different one from the firm that did the preliminary design work. Some agencies (and some private building developers as well) may use their own staff for preliminary design and then hire an A&E firm for final design. In all such cases, selection of the designer may be an important and time-consuming step in the process. 5. Bid and constructor selection for government agencies typically involves open competition in which any constructor willing and able to meet competency requirements (set by the agency and most frequently based on the bidder's ability to obtain adequate financial backing for construction) is permitted to review the final design documents and submit a bid, which states the price they would charge for construction conforming to these drawings and specifications. The procuring agency must, except in unusual circumstances, select the constructor offering the lowest responsive bid. The A&E firm may or may not be asked to advise the agency on whether bidders have been fully responsive to all bid requirements. In the private
4If
users' needs are better met after the changes, then requirements have been met and quality facilities delivered. 5The
percentages (how much of the total design task is completed at intermediate stages) vary considerably within the industry,
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
24
sector, the owner may select a constructor for other reasons, such as past association, reputation, or similar experience, and this may be done early in the process. In such cases, the A&E firm may be able to discuss the project with the constructor during the design stages. 6. Construction, the primary responsibility of the constructor, accounts typically for 70 to 90 percent of the initial costs of facility development.6 Construction quality control and assurance activities may involve inspection of materials and work in progress, for which procuring agencies may use in-house staff, an A&E firm, or other specialist consultants. 7. Commissioning denotes the start-up and initial period of occupancy of the newly constructed facility, during which a “shake-down” of equipment occurs (i.e., initial operation, testing and any necessary adjustment), minor repairs and alterations may be made, and users learn about the facility. Often these activities are very informal, but some procuring agencies work with the user and construction contractor during a more formal commissioning phase of perhaps four to six months duration. Specialist consultants or the A&E designer may be asked to participate in commissioning. Because the ultimate determination of whether a facility fulfills its function well depends on the life cycle beyond the development stage, the committee determined that consideration of the responsibilities of A&Es must address occupancy. The committee thus added an eighth step to the process they considered in their discussions. 8. Occupancy is the long-term period over which the facility provides service and shelter to its users and economic return to its owner. For financial purposes, the occupancy period is typically planned to span 15 to 30 years, but the periods during which a building is occupied or owned are often much longer.
6This
statistic excludes the cost of land but includes financial costs prior to occupancy. Facility planning and design, which include site exploration, regulatory reviews, and other activities required prior to occupancy, typically account for 10 to 30 percent of development cost.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
25
While many responsible A&E and construction professionals maintain contact with owners and users and seek to assist them if problems arise (at least during the early years of occupancy), there is seldom any formal role for the A&E professional in the longterm occupancy. Sometimes an owner will undertake or commission a “post-occupancy evaluation” of how well the facility meets its users needs. The resulting information can be used for equipment adjustment or space reconfiguration. In general, owners may sell or otherwise transfer the facility, new users may come and go, maintenance may or may not be performed, and repairs and alterations may be made. Unless there is evidence of prior negligence or additional work is requested and paid for, the owner and user are entirely responsible for the facility throughout this stage. For typical major facilities (e.g., large office buildings, hospitals, schools), the first seven of these eight stages typically span a period of one to three years, with construction requiring 8 to 24 months or longer. In government projects, administrative requirements often expand the overall process time to five years or more. The A&E firm can participate, in principle, in all stages of the process but more frequently is asked to undertake only preliminary and final design.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. A&E PARTICIPATION IN FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
26
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
27
3 THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES There are many parties responsible for design, production, and operation of a building or other constructed facility. The facility itself, in turn, has many interacting parts and is very complex. This complexity of both producers and product is a source of many concerns about the responsibilities of A&Es and other participants. There are a number of views regarding what specific tasks within the process the A&E firm should be asked to undertake, what are the levels of effort required to complete these tasks, and whether the performance of these tasks has been adequate.1 QUALITY FACILITIES AS THE AIM The overarching goal of everyone involved in facilities planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance should be to provide high quality facilities that shelter and support the people and activities who use those facilities.
1While
the principles of A&E responsibilities apply to all projects, the specific tasks differ among project types. For example, when the project is renovation or remodeling or is carried out under “fast track” procedures (i.e., construction begins before design is complete to reduce total project duration), the work, timing, and appropriate controls may differ substantially from the conventional design-bid-build process described in Chapter 2. The committee focused its discussions on the conventional process.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
28
Meeting the needs of facilities users involves striking a balance between performance, cost, schedule, and a range of other distinct and sometimes conflicting concerns. Quality in constructed facilities has something to do with achieving a satisfactory balance among these various concerns. The American Society of Civil Engineers defined quality as “meeting the stated requirements of the principal participants (owner, design professional, constructor) while conforming to applicable codes, safety requirements, and regulations” (ASCE, 1990). In an earlier study, a BRB committee found that this definition needed to be taken a step further, because requirements are sometimes established on the basis of custom rather than analysis of the situation at hand. This earlier committee asserted that “quality is obtained through conformance to adequately developed requirements”—requirements that are well formulated as well as clearly stated to set forth the characteristics that the constructed facility must have to serve its users well (NRC, 1991). An essential precondition for ensuring construction quality is getting the requirements right and presenting them understandably and accurately in the drawings and specifications to be followed by the constructor. The challenges of getting the requirements right, stating them clearly, and ensuring that they are met are substantial. These challenges extend throughout the facility development process, from initial project planning and facility programming, through design and construction, into occupancy, and, with review of the user's experience, through postoccupancy evaluation. Hence, the client or owner must also “get the requirements right,” that is, know what is wanted in the facility, and present these requirements clearly to the A&E professionals. Involving the people who will ultimately be the facility's users in the work of establishing the requirements can help to ensure that the challenges are most effectively met. However, the agency or administrative unit responsible for developing a facility may be different from the agencies that will occupy this facility, so this involvement may not occur. This separation of
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
29
user and A&E professional is inherent in the facility development process and not unique to government agencies. Because getting the requirements right is so important, the committee, while focused on design, considered also what happens before design begins and after it is completed. However, the designer is limited by the scope and budgets established by the client and by a range of other conditions beyond the designer's control. Unless (1) the designer is given a realistic task and appropriate compensation, (2) the task is well understood by all parties, and (3) the designer's intent is effectively realized in the constructed facility, owners and users will almost certainly question whether the A&E has fulfilled his or her responsibilities. RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS LIABILITY Issues of responsibility are often tightly entwined with concerns for liability. When problems occur that cause monetary loss, injury, or even death to people, responsible parties may be held liable for these damages.2 However, responsibility and liability are two distinct problems with which A&Es must deal. Everyone involved in production of a facility shares responsibility for that facility's quality, but each individual, firm, and agency has a specific role to play. Responsibility and liability should not be confused, and parties responsible for some aspect of a project are not necessarily liable when accidents, errors, or omissions occur. Matters of liability must be determined within the context of each specific
2For
example, more than $250,000 was spent for government inquiry following the 1988 collapse of a grocery store roof, which injured 21 people in Canada. While four structural engineers were suspended by their professional association, the “convoluted relationships and lines of responsibility among owner, project manager, prime consultant, architect, structural engineer, and even tenant” were cited as cause for concern. (Jones and Nathan, 1990)
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
30
case and within the framework of specific statute and case law. Adjudication may be needed to make determinations of liability. Determinations of liability are beyond the scope of this study. Established procedures administered by government agencies, professional organizations, mediation and arbitration bodies, and the courts are the appropriate means for making these determinations. This report can have, at most, only an advisory role in such judgments. However, studies of court cases involving liability issues may suggest where quality problems are likely to occur. TEAMWORK AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS At a minimum, an owner, an A&E firm, and a constructor are generally involved in production of a building or other facility, and they must work together to achieve quality in that facility.3 Some observers suggest that these three parties are the legs of a stool on which rests the quality of the finished product. Another party, the user (sometimes termed the “non-paying client”), may or may not be the same as the facility owner—or even in the same organization, but is a part of the owner's team. For many of the federal government's facilities, a procuring agency, distinct from the user, represents the government-as-owner and often is the central participant in the process. This procuring agency may actually be a separate executive department (e.g., the General Services Administration acting on behalf of the Department of Transportation) or simply another office or division of the same department (e.g., the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations developing an embassy facility for use by the State Department's diplomatic staff).
3Design–build
and other less frequently used facility development procedures combine these typically separate parties. These procedures will be discussed further in later sections of the report.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
31
There are other parties involved as well, including building-code enforcement bodies and other government regulatory agencies responsible for building safety, environment, access, and other characteristics. The federal government assumes, in principle, all regulatory responsibilities for ensuring public health and life safety in and around its facilities, and many agencies have developed their own published standards of practice (popularly termed “guide specs” in some agencies).4 Licensing and regulatory agencies, typically state or local government bodies, seek to provide some degree of assurance that participants in the building process are qualified to perform their functions. A&E professionals, following their formal professional education, must undergo rigorous testing and personal scrutiny to become registered and thereby certified to practice their professions. Constructors must generally be licensed to operate in a particular jurisdiction, although the regulations usually refer more to business strength than to technical qualifications or experience. Facility managers, who operate facilities in service and thereby have substantial influence over user satisfaction, may be licensed by their local jurisdiction in much the same manner as real estate brokers. Professional organizations such as the American Institute of Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, and American Society of Landscape Architects establish standards for their membership that also have the effect of ensuring that members meet certain criteria of training and experience.
4These agency standards are typically similar to the criteria and standards that apply in the private sector, but A&E firms cannot take for granted that this is the case. Federal legislation encourages agencies to consider locally applicable building codes and to cooperate with local enforcement officials (P.L. 100-678, Public Buildings Amendments of 1988), and some agencies have voluntarily begun to use local or national model building codes in lieu of federal design standards.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
32
GENERIC PROBLEMS The various parties all play some role in determining how buildings are developed and their ultimate quality. But, as Chapter 2 explains, each party's roles are for the most part limited to only one or two stages within the multistaged process of facility development. A&E firms, however, can participate in principle in all stages of the process, although the participating firm may change from one part of the process to another. For typical government projects, a single A&E firm is asked to undertake only preliminary and final design. The A&E firm is sometimes asked to review constructors' bids but seldom has a role in construction quality assurance.5 A&Es recognize, and the committee noted, that the facility development process is essentially a creative process. The committee noted further that because of this, the process is resistant to objective description, quantification, and generalization. Conflicts in views—sometimes leading to legal action and the courts—are not unusual.6 Even when conflicts do not arise, the designer faces many opportunities to exercise “designer's discretion” in choosing among equally acceptable design alternatives. Hence, there are a number of difficulties or “problems” inherent to the design process, which are sources of disagreement about the distribution and fulfillment of responsibilities. First, as noted in Chapter 1, there are no established guidelines on what constitutes “competent” A&E services or on what is “reasonable” with regard to A&E responsibilities. The subject is almost always treated anecdotally, and stories of failure and success highlight the basic deficiencies in discussion to date. The committee found that there has been virtually no broadly applicable quantitative analysis to provide objective bases
5For
further discussion of this function, refer NRC, 1991.
6In
these cases, procedures for conflict resolution short of court proceedings are an appropriate concern. See Chapter 5.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
33
for establishing a “realistic and reasonable standard of care” for A&E firms. 7 It is obvious but often overlooked that the A&E firm provides services only to the extent that the owner and procurement agency request and pay for the firm's assistance. The request may or may not take advantage of the full extent of the firm's qualifications and may or may not be clear in conveying the owner's and users' expectations. For example, some agencies prepare preliminary plans and budget documents using in-house staff and little design analysis, while others may employ an A&E firm to undertake studies that will become a basis for subsequent design by other A&E firms. The monetary budgets, time schedules, and other requirements established by the owner and procurement agency determine, to a large degree, the A&E firm's ability to deliver assistance to the extent of its qualifications. Another sometimes overlooked feature of the process is that the capabilities of the construction contractor, general market conditions, and unforeseen events (including “acts of God”) influence how well a facility conforms to drawings, specifications, schedules and budgets. For example, requirements to accept lowest lump-sum bids for construction contracts or to set certain contracts aside for award only to small or disadvantaged businesses may lead to contracting with less experienced constructors.8 While these points suggest why problems may occur even when the A&E has done a “good” job, it is also true that all A&E firms are not equally well qualified to provide advice and
7The
data that the committee found were useful but limited in scope. See Appendix C. problem cited by A&E professionals and agency personnel is contractors who are adept at submitting qualifying low bids to win a contract and then filing claims for “extras.” Such contractors file these claims for any work deviating in the slightest from the specifications and drawings, and this increases the final construction cost substantially over the bid amount. Some contractors develop a reputation for these practices. 8Another
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
34
assistance on any particular facility development project. For example, very complex or technology-intensive facilities (e.g., acute-care and advanced surgical hospitals, biotechnology and nuclear chemistry laboratories) may challenge the capabilities of any firm, and procurement policies or geographic location may limit the ability of an agency to secure the services of A&E designers with experience on such projects. The size of an A&E firm (e.g., number of employees) and current workload are sometimes significant factors in determining whether staff are available at a particular time and place. The time and effort required to determine fully the current capabilities of any particular A&E firm may exceed the levels that agency officials are prepared to provide, although formal presentations of the qualifications of the firm and its key staff provide useful evidence. The process depends to a large extent on teamwork, and the difficulties of coordinating any two or more organizations may be exacerbated by procurement restrictions (e.g., forbidding discussions with constructors prior to contract bid selection, lateness in selection of A&E firms), interagency and intra-agency conflicts, uncoordinated consultant team management, or lack of clear designation of a leader when more than one A&E firm is involved in design. The committee agreed that, in general, management can be more effective, and responsibilities more clearly met, when accountability and authority are not distributed among many people but, rather, rest with a single individual within each participating organization. UNIQUE ASPECTS OF FEDERAL FACILITIES PROCESS In addition to these generic sources of difficulties, the building process for federal facilities includes some features that differ from general (i.e., private sector) practice:
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
35
1.
For basic design services, federal legislation imposes limits on design fees of 6 percent of estimated construction cost.9 Various agencies interpret differently the scope of work to be provided within this limitation, and agency personnel may vary in their efforts to restrict design-related budgets. 2. General government policy requirements are imposed, which are unrelated to the concerns of any particular facility.10 These requirements may limit the A&E's options in design and the procurement agency's options in selecting an A&E firm or constructor. 3. A&E firms must be familiar with a particular agency's design criteria, specifications formats and conventions, procurement practices, and standard terms, all of which may differ from those in common use in private sector facilities development. Even when the requirements are the same as those in the private sector, they may be presented in government publications that repeat rather than make reference to more widely used documents. Careful reading is then required to assure that requirements are not different. 4. Government budgeting procedures often place an emphasis on reducing initial construction cost, sometimes at the expense of increases in longer-term operating and maintenance costs.11 This problem occurs in the private sector as well. Federal agencies procure A&E services according to the provisions of the Brooks Act (P.L. 92-582)12 and the Federal
9In
1992, there were five different statutes that established this limitation (FCC, 1982). Many state governments have similar fee schedules or limitations on payments for design services. 10Such federal policies include “buy American” restrictions, open competition, and preferential treatment to small or disadvantaged firms. 11For example, changing materials used for floors or roofs to less costly and less durable options will reduce construction costs but increase maintenance and repair costs over the course of a building's decades-long service life. 12This law is presented in Appendix E.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
36
Acquisition Regulations. This administrative framework establishes a qualifications-based selection system. The system is typically applied through a staged review of standard presentations of A&E firm qualifications, submitted in response to an agency's request for assistance. Firms are rated in order of preference, and the agency enters negotiations with the most highly rated firm. The resulting contract (assuming negotiations are successful) include a price that is typically a fixed, lump-sum amount referred to as the fee. There is seemingly widespread agreement among A&E professionals and federal agency staff that government design fees are generally adequate and that the legislative limitations do not represent a substantial barrier to achieving quality facilities. One reason is that agencies procure a range of special studies, reviews, and other services from A&Es and other building professionals, outside the scope of basic design. According to agency personnel, total spending on A&E design-related services (including programming, site investigations, criteria development, research, and other activities) can easily amount to 10 to 14 percent of construction cost. However, an effective fee-negotiation process requires that both parties to the negotiation have a good understanding of the scope of work to be conducted for the fee paid and that these parties reach meaningful agreement on both scope and fee. Committee members noted that some agencies have increasingly placed responsibility for negotiation and agreement in the hands of “procurement specialists,” who are well trained in dealing with the complexities of the Federal Acquisition Regulations but lack experience with design and construction of facilities. When such specialists are not advised by qualified professionals or choose not to follow their advice, this approach may reduce compatibility, communication, and fair negotiation between the A&E firm and the agency. In the interest of obtaining the contract, the firm may sometimes accept terms that are unfavorable and even unrealistic. This strategy is then a source of problems for both parties.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
37
Reliance on procurement specialists is typical in the government's purchase of large-scale weapons systems and commodity products. However, the committee questioned whether adaptation of the procedures used in such purchasing is appropriate to procurement of A&E services. Every facility design produces a unique product, and flexibility in the designer selection and contracting process is needed. Factors considered in A&E firm selection should always include present capabilities and past performance and other such indicators of qualifications. While recognizing that government agencies have a fiduciary responsibility for use of public funds (as do school boards and corporate boards of directors), the study committee found, in general, that the federal process for procuring A&E services is often more complex and time-consuming, requires more formal document preparation, and is more prone to foster adversarial relationships than do procedures used for comparable projects in the private sector. Some firms tend to avoid the perceived burdens of competing for government work, while others favor it and become adept at working within the process. Because of this, government agencies have a smaller group of A&E firms from which to choose. Principals of smaller A&E firms assert that government procurement procedures make entry into the government design market unaffordable for their firms. Based on the testimony presented and their own experience, the study committee's members agreed that the government's process for procuring A&E services is slow in comparison to private sector practices, and slower than necessary. One to four months should generally be adequate to select and enter into a design agreement with an A&E firm. When the process takes longer, the firm's client (i.e., the agency) is more likely to find fault with the firm's fulfillment of its responsibilities, due to changes in the firm's staffing or approach to the assignment, which may occur. The agency's fault-finding in such cases is often unfair, because the firm cannot be expected to hold personnel in reserve, absorb the costs of changed business conditions, and otherwise provide the precise services offered
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
THE PATTERNS OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
38
months earlier. The study committee recommends that agencies establish targets for reducing the time required between the agency's request for qualifications and the issuance of the notice to proceed with design. In view of the experience at several agencies, a 50 percent reduction in elapsed average time may be a reasonable target. In contrast to design services, construction is procured typically by competitive bidding and is based on lowest bid cost for construction of the facility described in drawings and specifications that are prepared by the A&E firm. The Federal Acquisition Regulations and supplemental regulations used by individual agencies present the procedures to be employed, which are similar to those used sometimes in the private sector. However, many private sector construction contracts are negotiated less formally and without unrestricted competitive bidding. The A&E designer may sometimes advise the owner on selection of a constructor and work with that constructor to ensure that the facility is constructed according to design intent. Such activities are normally beyond the scope of design work, and the A&E firm receives compensation beyond the amount paid for design. When there is to be competitive bidding, the firm may avoid or be prohibited from contact with prospective constructors, to assure that competition is open and unbiased. A&E professionals sometimes claim this separation limits the designer's ability to ensure that facilities can be efficiently constructed according to design.13 Some federal agencies are experimenting with ways to maintain fair competition while permitting closer contact between A&E firms and constructors.
13The term “constructability” is used for this analysis. Agencies or private sector owners (and sometimes the financial institutions that provide mortgage or construction loans) may secure advice from constructors or special consultants to assess the constructability of a particular design.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
39
4 RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Despite its complexity and the ambiguity of participants' roles and responsibilities, the process of facility design and development has evolved over many years and is generally effective in yielding good-quality facilities that are safe and serve their users well. Nevertheless, participants in study meetings and workshops, both government agency personnel and members of the A&E community, express concern that responsibilities, of both A&E firms and their clients, in federal design are too frequently not being met. Sometimes these concerns are reflected in “horror stories” told by A&Es or agency personnel—tales of unfair management, poor judgment, or bungled communication. (See box 4-1 and box 4-2.) Such experiences attract disproportionate attention when facility development professionals gather to discuss their problems. More typical are the day-to-day management challenges inherent in a production process that involves many participants and distinct, often discontinuous, stages that extend over many months. To explore these concerns more fully, the BRB held a workshop in Washington, D.C., on March 10, 1992. Approximately 50 invitees representing a broad cross section of federal and state agencies and the A&E community attended. 1 The workshop provided a forum for open give-and-take on the
1Participants
are listed in Appendix B.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
40
concerns felt by the principal participants in federal facility development and for consideration of what might be done toimprove the process. Key points of the workshop discussion are summarized in the following sections.
BOX 4-1 ALL AGENCY OFFICIAL'S HORROR STORY While most projects go smoothly, problems sometimes occur and can become extreme. The following case was presented at the BRB workshop. We had a firm of national repute doing the design of a project, a hospital, with construction cost estimated to exceed $100 million. They had to resubmit their 100 percent design drawings and then their working drawings four times before they were right. Even in the last submission there were still beams missing girders and unsized structural members. The design called for more than two dozen different shades of interior paint. Can you imagine trying to maintain that kind of an inventory or match these shades over a period of years? We have learned that simple metal railing along the hallway not only offer patients a handhold, but save thousands of dollars in maintenance costs by preventing gurneys and other equipment from bumping into the wall. The designers had not thought of that. We had to ask them to change the design, which increased the design costs.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
41
BOX 4-2 AN A&E'S PROFESSIONAL'S HORROR STORY Sometimes problems are a result of client action or simple misunderstandings. The following case was presented at the BRB workshop to balance the agency perspective. We were working for a private sector client, a corporation, on a fine project. In the last month, as constrution was being finished, the client decided to add an indoor swimming pool and athletic facility to this project. As you could imagine, this cost a great deal of money in reworking things. It was enormously expensive but it was accomplished, the project opened, everybody was very happy. Five years later, this client decided to build a new project and they were interviewing architects and engineers. We were glad to have a chance to serve this client again. However, the client said to us that our record on the last project was terrible because the cost of change orders were so high. We were really shocked to find this out, and asked to see the record. They showed the record and lo and behold, here in this change order log is this crazy but wonderful swimming pool. We were being held responsible for this change order.
GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES PRESENTED2 The government, as an owner and user of facilities, is undergoing change. In the early 1990s, cutbacks of staff and other resources have been widespread at almost all administrative levels. The scope of responsibilities of agencies is changing, and senior management levels are being reduced
2This
and the following section are composites of several individual presentations and subsequent discussions by workshop participants.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
42
and eliminated. This is occurring particularly in the military services and in the Department of Energy programs that are closely related to the military services, but other agencies are feeling the trend as well. Some agency officials anticipate further very substantial staff reductions, perhaps on the order of 25 to 33 percent of initial personnel levels. One result may be that more work and more responsibility are going to go to the A&E community. It means also that more difficulties will be encountered if government agencies and their A&E firms do not have a good understanding of their mutual responsibilities. (See Box 4-1.) The A&E firm's primary point of contact in facility design and development (the firm's immediate client) is a procurement agency or office. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the General Services Administration, the largest such agencies, each manage design and construction of facilities for their own agency's use and for other agencies. But even in the agencies that oversee their own facilities entirely, such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Public Health Service, facilities procurement is managed by offices separate from the operating programs that carry out the agencies' principal missions. Hence, participants in the workshop asserted that first concern for the government agency must be the customer for facilities, the operating unit. Personnel in these operating units—the line Navy, staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals and others—do not have time to worry about whether their facilities are energy-efficient or whether the roof will leak. These operating personnel may not understand why it routinely takes nine months to hire an A&E firm for design. Yet, if one wants to achieve quality facilities, this customer, the user, must be adequately represented in the facility process. Agencies operate under the Brooks Act and seek generally to hire the best qualified firm that can be found. Agencies are trying to buy competency and an appropriate level of expertise for the job, and they seek to negotiate a fair and reasonable fee for these services. Determining how to judge what is
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
43
“competency,” “fair,” and “reasonable” is a complex task. The owner (i.e., the procurement agency) must be able to express its needs and its criteria and standards clearly. When this is done, the A&E firm can respond. Unlike the private sector, where state and local government participate in setting these criteria to protect public health and safety (e.g., through code compliance), for federal facilities, stating requirements for the A&E firm is entirely the clients' (i.e., the federal government's) responsibility.3 Federal policy requires that, in setting these requirements, the agencies concern themselves with such matters as energy conservation and environmental compliance, as well as life safety and health. Because compliance must be documented, such issues may then take on relatively greater importance than they would in similar projects for private sector owners. Like any owner and user, the agencies must concern themselves with functionality of the facility, but in many cases, the government user is separated from the agency that works with the A&E firm. These are concerns that the firm must understand. In addition, the agency must be prepared to respond to questions from Congress—operating in the fishbowl, some staff call it—and sometimes to intense public scrutiny. Federal agencies are compelled to allow vendors of all sorts to compete to provide products and services and so tend to describe needs in generic terms that do not preclude any particular brand or vendor. The agency and the A&E firm must work together to address these concerns. These concerns do not necessarily imply the need for grand architectural statements or technological virtuosity. Agencies require a very wide spectrum of facilities, high tech, low tech, urban, rural, large, and small. Sometimes the work required by
3Federal statute (P.L. 100-678) urges federal agencies to utilize model codes and comply with local codes, but many agencies set their requirements at higher levels than those reflected in these codes. Refer to FCC technical report Policies of Federal Agencies on Referencing Model Building Codes and National Standards for Construction (FCC, 1992).
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
44
agencies is not exciting. Nevertheless, the agencies must depend on the A&E firm for competent assistance. Participants in the BRB workshop noted that federal agencies, like any owner, pay dearly for delay.4 Any perturbation during construction that is caused by the design process is extremely costly. When a facility cannot be built the way it was drawn, agency professionals lose credibility and Congress demands accountability. Nobody wins in these situations. Who is responsible? Should agency staff have to check the work of their A&E firms? Can the firm be required to certify that its designs can be built, and built within budget? What can be done to avoid diverting agency staff attention to the task of explaining technical design details to congressional staff? There is no clear accountability in such decisions. Some industry observers claim that federal agencies pay 30 percent more for a federal facility than owners in the private sector would have to. Whether this differential truly exists is difficult to verify.5 Some analysts claim that congressional limitations on contracting procedures and wage rates lead to higher costs. Others attribute apparent cost differentials to the government's long-term interest in operations over the 50- to 75-year service life of the facility and its consequent willingness to invest more heavily in durability and maintainability. Unlike the private sector, government agencies have no tax incentives or other financial inducements to plan for shorter service lives and for subsequent rehabilitation or quick sale when needs change. In fact, agencies do not often have that opportunity, even when it makes good sense from the user's point of view. A&E professionals sometimes complain that the government avoids using trade names in specifications and that this adds to the work an A&E firm must do for a limited fee. However, the
4The interest, or opportunity cost of funds, paid used during construction of a large building, for example, is typically thousands of dollars a day. 5The claim is difficult to prove or refute. Refer, for example, to FCC, 1990.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
45
firm must recognize how important open competition is on government projects and how much effort can be required to ensure that all potential suppliers have the opportunity to bid. In one case, for example, a federal agency undertaking construction of a very small building had to devote 415 person-hours of professional time trying to answer a congressional staff member's questions, because one of the congressman's constituents was upset that the products of his brick manufacturing business did not meet the specifications. Each time a federal agency wishes to specify a particular product, agency staff perform a risk-benefit analysis. This analysis compares the risks to the government of using the trade-named product (e.g., higher cost or limited supply) with the benefits, such as meeting specific service requirements. Many agency officials find that the need to perform and defend such an analysis can delay a project, and they avoid specifying a single trade-named product. Within the various constraints imposed on government projects, agencies are trying to find ways to improve quality. One way may be to cut the time required from initial advertising of the project to project start. The Brooks Bill procedures are applied in five steps: (1) a request for submittal of qualifications is placed in the Commerce Business Daily,6 (2) a short list of the most-qualified firms is selected from among those responding, (3) firms on the short list are interviewed, (4) a selection is made, and (5) the award is negotiated. Only then does the project start. These five steps should not take nine months to complete. Participants in the workshop told of one agency that had studied the process, concluding that it should be achievable in as little as 30 days. Completion within two and one half to three months should be routine. Time is now being consumed in administration and in routing forms and memoranda for coordination and formal approvals. Tasks now done
6This federal publication lists government requests for proposals and awards for procurement of a wide range of goods and services.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
46
sequentially could be performed in parallel. Also, the government auditing of contractor's costs is a requirement that can delay the process for up to three months. For some agencies, the auditing is done by personnel of other agencies, who have little concern for the underlying project schedule. The agencies must work harder to realize improvements in the process. Once the A&E firm is working, some federal agencies ask for quality control plans. In developing these plans, some firms have a very formal and rigorous approach, while others have approaches that are less well defined. Some agencies have begun to gather documentation on the past performance of A&E firms and then use that information in the firm selection process.7 The system is a positive incentive for people to do a good job. Unfortunately, when an A&E firm is performing poorly, the agency may sometimes be prevented from taking action by a procurement process that can take seven months to hire a replacement. When good performance is maintained, an A&E firm may have a lasting business relationship with an agency, which can extend over a period of decades. Some agencies, in the past, have felt compelled to spread work among as many firms as possible and have thereby denied themselves the opportunity both to reward good performance with repeat business and to enhance the likelihood of success by retaining proven professionals. Agency staff participating in the workshop asserted that such practices have generally been curtailed in the federal sector and that good performance can lead to repeat business for the A&E firm.
7The committee considered data on A&E firms' performance, collected by the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Appendix C). Also, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy of the Office of Management and Budget in December 1992 solicited public comment on a proposed policy letter to require agencies to use past performance information in selection of government contractors (56 FR 63988).
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
47
Of course, an A&E firm depends on its individual professionals to provide this good performance. Some federal agencies have found that after the most qualified A&E firm is selected, the individuals offered during the selection process are diverted to other assignments. Sometimes this diversion is unavoidable, a response to the uncertainties of business and the delays in government contracting and decision making. An A&E firm cannot afford to have professional staff sit idle for the nine months (and sometimes more) it can take for a government agency to execute a contract with the firm, and agencies are unwilling to pay the costs of such delay. Sometimes, however, reassignments seem to be simply the result of the attraction of higher fees or the continuing need to develop new business. Many participants in the BRB workshop felt such practices could not be condoned. Federal agencies recognize that their design procurement process, shaped by the Congress's budgeting and appropriations procedures and agency bureaucracy, can introduce problems the A&E firm might not face in the private sector. In a typical project, design goes through three distinct stages. First the A&E firm will go to “schematic” or “35 percent”8 design and then have to respond to hundreds of comments and changes in direction from the agency. Then design advances to the “65 percent” or “design development” submittal, which again elicits hundreds of comments and introduces conflicts and changes. The third stage, “95 percent” or “precontract” submittal, is also subject to review before final drawings and specifications (which become the construction bid documents) are prepared. Agency staff participating in the workshop felt that so long as the current framework of congressional budgeting remains in place, this process and its accompanying problems are unavoidable. Agencies are trying new procurement systems (see Chapter 5), but these new systems are unlikely to take entirely
8As noted in Chapter 2, such terms for characterizing the progression of design are widely used by government agencies but inexact. The percentage of completion and corresponding terms may vary from one agency to another.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
48
the place of the present system. A&Es firms are sometimes unrealistic in their expectations of what agencies can do within the constraints of the government processes. Agency staff recognize that A&E firms must adjust to this system while coordinating multiple disciplines, subcontractors, and consultants, often at several locations. There are time limitations and fee limitations and budget limitations. However, agency staff speaking at the workshop asserted that the error rate is too high. They feel that too few A&E firms are adequately checking their work. Resident engineers of federal agencies who supervise construction projects claim proper coordination is lacking among the A&E disciplines. These agency professionals claim that changes are needed to get the job done right the first time.9 A&E FIRM PERSPECTIVES PRESENTED A&E professionals participating in the workshop noted that it is popular today to talk about facility development as a collaborative process. Many people talk about “the team” on which the A&E firm and the agency are meant to play together, but it seemed to many of the A&E professionals at the workshop that the forces holding the players apart are greater than those bringing them together. (See Box 4-2.) The A&E firm and the agency may both seek to focus on the project, but each member of the “team” must contend with distinct needs and requirements that influence individual careers and lives. The firm and the agency must each answer to outsiders' inquiries, live within budgets, and work hard to do more with less. A&E professionals are trained in universities and guided by state registration and licensing laws to act and perform competently and professionally. The volunteer members of
9Only
anecdotal evidence was presented to support these assertions.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
49
professional organizations like the American Consulting Engineers Council, the American Institute of Architects, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and the American Society of Civil Engineers all work diligently to enhance standards of practice. Through this system, the U.S. A&E community has achieved a level of excellence that many people feel yields the best architecture and engineering in the world. A&E participants in the workshop noted that some facility owners—many federal agencies, in particular—choose not to adopt standard commercial practices in facility development.10 Each agency has its own procedures and contract format. In some agencies, the forms change from one division to another. The A&E firm seeking to serve a federal agency must learn a whole system of doing business, regardless of his or her prior experience in the private sector. The situation is most clearly illustrated in the case of specifications. The Construction Specification Institute and the American Institute of Architects each have devised model standard specifications that are clear, concise, and accurate. They help an architect or an engineer describe his or her client's needs and enhance the ability to forecast performance and construction cost. They are widely used in the industry. Yet most federal agencies do not use either of these models, and even those few who have adopted more than just the general framework have made enough changes that an A&E firm must give careful attention to the government documents to ensure that a special feature is not missed. Of course, these commercial models do use product trade names. Concern is sometimes expressed that trade names inhibit free competition among suppliers. However, as the development of personal computers has demonstrated, a
10As
explained in Chapter 2, federal agencies are responsible for life safety matters in and around their facilities and are not required to conform to local building codes. For matters not covered in local codes, agencies and owners of large portfolios of facilities (e.g., large corporations) may choose to develop their own design standards.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
50
company with trade name recognition may set high standards to protect a new market but still face competitors who can meet and exceed these standards, often at lower cost. IBM's early entries in the PC market were hugely influential on both hardware and software, and that company still produces a well regarded product. But many “clone” competitors have developed, some taking significant market share. On the basis of such examples, some people argue that use of trade named products in specific projects for design and construction in no way limits competition. Some federal projects are in fact being developed with use of trade names and Construction Standards Institute specifications. Broader adoption of these private sector practices would help the A&E community to achieve a more consistently high level of performance. Several agencies have joined together to make their guide specification systems available in a computerized form initiated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1965. The National Institute of Building Sciences sells a database of agency specifications on compact disk media (CD-ROM), under the names Construction Criteria Base and SPECINTACT, that can be used by any A&E firm with the proper computer hardware and software. Many A&E firms have made substantial investments in computer technology, but not everyone has adopted the same hardware and software. For some A&E firms, gaining access to the Construction Criteria Base requires a new investment and staff training. Again, this investment has little to do with the A&E firm's basic skills, competence, or past experience. Nevertheless, the system is said by some A&E professionals to be a major step in the right direction. Being able to see easily the often small variations from one agency to another is likely to lead, over the longer term, to greater uniformity of agency practice. Many professionals feel that greater similarity to private practice is warranted as well. A number of A&E professionals expressed concern about the impact of the government's slow designer selection process on
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
51
the firm's ability to assign personnel productively. During the sometimes extended period between solicitation of proposals and execution of the design contract, key personnel must be kept in readiness or reassigned to other more immediate projects. Such reassignment risks annoying the client agency and damaging the firm's reputation, but keeping personnel in readiness can be costly. Another area of concern to many A&E professionals is the style and procedure for negotiating fees paid for design work for federal agencies. The A&E firm typically makes a good faith effort to estimate the amount of work involved in a project and can discuss the technical bases for this estimate. However, at the negotiation table with some agencies, the firm often must negotiate with a contract specialist who typically has limited experience with the workings of the design profession and does not have responsibility for project completion. This contract specialist depends on a government technical representative for his or her understanding of the particular tasks and effort involved in the procurement. In this setting, it is not unusual for the government's estimate of effort to be different from that of the A&E firm. Such differences can be caused by differences in understanding of what the project requires or by inexperience or mistakes that lead one party in the discussion (or sometimes both) to make a bad estimate. The government also makes its own analysis and estimates of what hourly salary rates are appropriate. A&Es sometimes feel these estimates give inadequate recognition of the expertise of individuals and demands for their services. The A&E firm may ask to know the basis for the government's total estimate, the analysis of the tasks to be performed, but is typically told that such information is privileged. The result is that the A&E firm has great difficulty explaining that the difference in estimates may be a result of a bad government estimate. The firm also cannot learn if its own estimate is based on a misunderstanding of what the agency wants. The A&E firm then perceives the negotiating
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
52
relationship as somewhat dictatorial, very adversarial, and uncongenial to teamwork. The adversarial feeling continues when the A&E firm is told by the agency's project manager not to deal with the ultimate customer, the user. “They will tell you what they want,” the firm is told, “not what the budget allows. Follow the scope of work.” That is not the teamwork and focus on the project that many A&Es believe is needed. Even if the overall performance of the A&E community, as a whole, is good, unexpected events can occur, and mistakes are sometimes made. However, agencies and A&E firms alike lack the data to discuss in any comprehensive manner how often this happens and the consequences. All parties need a more objective basis for assessing the performance of A&E firms. The number or magnitude of change orders in construction is one important measure, but other measures may be needed as well. Whatever the measures, care is required to ensure that responsibility for changes is reasonably and fairly apportioned. The great variations in uncertainty and complexity among projects must be recognized. Care is needed to ensure that a firm with a good record is not permanently penalized because of a single problem project. In any case, there must be adequate data to characterize the standard of care to which agency and A&E staff should manage and to infer possible causes for those lapses that do occur. It might be possible to achieve a situation in which there are no change orders on a project, but at what cost? There is currently too little basis for determining the desirable balance among the effort put into avoiding mistakes, the chance that mistakes will occur, and the consequences of those mistakes. Some people assert that an A&E professional, as a professional, should be expected routinely to design according to the scope of services; that if the professional is negligent in that work, he or she should be held responsible for correcting the errors without cost to the government; and that if the design is faulty, then the A&E firm should be liable to the government for any damages caused by the work.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
53
However, there is neither a generally accepted definition of “negligence” nor a set of standards for measuring its severity. That may be one reason why the number of liability cases filed against A&E firms is claimed by some knowledgeable observers to be relatively low compared with the number in other professions.11 Despite the low rate of liability claims, participants in the study asserted that all is not well and that the standard of care for A&E firms seems even less well defined in government practice than in the commercial world.12 SHORTCOMINGS OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Reviewing such anecdotal and impressionistic evidence as that presented in the BRB workshop and summarized in the preceding two sections in light of their own experience, the members of the study committee concluded that problems of A&E responsibilities are generally the result of faults in both A&E firms and government agency staff and procedures. There are unquestionably cases of inadequate performance and sometimes unprofessional behavior by A&E firms, but many of the agencies' complaints are related in some degree to the responses of A&E firms to agency practices. At the same time, many of the complaints raised by A&E firms stem from agency practices initiated to respond to or avoid problems of
11The committee found no way to verify this assertion, made in the study workshop, without conducting a survey of the regionally divided courts in which these cases are filed. Even such a survey might fail to yield meaningful data, because many cases are settled by negotiation. 12These participants asserted that only 2 percent of the cases that went to court in 1990 were from federal agencies. On the other hand, others observe that litigation more frequently results when standards are not well defined. No formal survey was conducted in this case, and the statistics have not been verified.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
54
inadequate firm performance. In summarizing specific aspects of the “problem” of A&E responsibilities (see Table 4-1), the study committee found a certain similarity between the shortcomings of A&E firms and those of their client agencies, which are ascribed by each side to the other. Progress in dealing with purported problems of A&E responsibility will require that both sides work together for change. In general, A&E firms should welcome competent review of their work, so long as preparation for review does not consume excessive resources. However, agencies cannot expect to supervise the firms' work, and must allow them freedom to manage effectively the resources available for the project at hand. The summary listing in Table 4-1 presents targets for improvement rather than a comprehensive cataloging of shortcomings. Chapter 5 presents the committee's assessment of how well such problems of A&E responsibility are typically addressed now and how improvements could be made. The workshop and the committee's deliberations raised several broad issues that go beyond the specific problems included in Table 4-1 and Chapter 5. The committee agreed there is a need for better understanding of and agreement on the nature of A&E responsibilities and on appropriate measures of the performance of A&E firms. Solid data should be developed to establish benchmarks for performance and standards of care for A&E services. These issues will be addressed in Chapter 6.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
55
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. RECENT EXPERIENCE OF A&E FIRMS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
56
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
57
5 QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES A&E professionals as a group provide billions of dollars of services annually.1 Much of their work is accomplished without major disagreements or disputes. However, as the preceding chapters illustrate, disagreements do occur, some of which have bearing on the responsibilities of A&E firms and their clients. As in most fields of human endeavor, the participants often try to resolve their disagreements without substantial conflict. Statistics on court actions and insurance claims histories—difficult to gather, in any case—are therefore unlikely to be accurate indicators of the scale or scope of any problems that may occur regarding A&E responsibilities. HOW GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SEEK TO AVOID PROBLEMS As has been described, A&E involvement in federal facilities development is concentrated in the design stages of the process.
1According
to Engineering News Record magazine, design billings for the top 500 design firms in the United States totaled $33.9 billion in 1993, which includes architects and engineers providing a wide range of services. BRB staff estimate that the top 500 firms may account for as much as 90 percent of the total market for construction-related professional services but are a much smaller fraction of the number of firms in the business.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
58
During these stages, the result of the A&E firm's work is reflected primarily in the drawings and specifications documents that describe the facility to be constructed. To the extent that it is cost-effective to do so, agencies seek to avoid problems in the beginning, so that they don't need to be corrected later in the process. In principle, such avoidance should make it easier for the A&E professional to fulfill his or her responsibilities. Several strategies are useful for avoidance. Effective Selection of an A&E Firm Selecting an A&E firm that is likely to perform responsibly is an important first step. The basic policy that work for government agencies must be open to all qualified firms underlies the competitive bidding procedures used to solicit and select most government contractors. For A&E services and other professional services for which competition on the basis of price alone is inappropriate, agencies have developed quality-or qualifications-based selection procedures that facilitate the screening out of clearly unqualified firms, including those who may be less likely to fulfill their basic responsibilities. These procedures depend generally on the firms' presentations of their qualifications in a standard format.2 While the format used is flexible, agency staff and A&E firms sometimes complain that the forms do not permit sufficiently detailed and specific information to be presented in order to allow reviewers to distinguish between firms that are basically qualified and those that may be outstandingly well qualified.
2Standard
Forms 254 and 255 must be completed by the A&E firm. The forms include information that is potentially useful in deciding among firms proposing to do design work, such as the firm's annual volume of business, staff capabilities, and past project experience. No cost or bid information is included.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
59
To make this distinction, individual agencies have developed their own procedures for evaluation. The State Department, for example, appoints a prestigious three-member architectural advisory board that reviews and ranks the list of candidate firms for design of U.S. embassy facilities. Final selection rests with State Department officials, but the advisory board's judgments have weight in that decision, which thereby introduces an element of peer review that may consider how responsibly a firm is known to perform. The state of Pennsylvania has a similar procedure, which uses a five-member selection committee appointed by the state's governor. Realistic Budgets The A&E firm's task must be realistic, and this means that agencies need a reasonable construction budget. To help improve early cost-estimating ability and thereby reduce some of the problems that arise during initial appropriation programming, the Air Force has developed its parametric estimating3 program (PEP). The program, which is used to support preparation of authorization requests on Form 1391, has been found to produce more-accurate early cost estimates than other systems, which reduces the probability that established budgets will be found in design stages to be inadequate. The PEP is being considered for adoption throughout the military services. Some agencies have found that involving the design A&E professionals in the
3Parametric
estimating is generally defined as a system using unit cost estimates that depend on a relatively small number of key project characteristics that influence costs (e.g., number of floors). Such a system's estimates are potentially more realistic and accurate than those produced using only average unit costs but still may not be helpful in very complex or unusual projects.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
60
programming phase reduces the chance that disagreements or conflicts will arise in the design phases. Effective Communication and Review Recognizing that lack of effective communication among all parties to the facility development process and of continuity of staff involvement are sources of perceived problems of A&E responsibility, agencies are experimenting with a variety of specific mechanisms in the design and construction stages of the process. The Army Corps of Engineers, for example, encourages “partnering” on appropriate projects, which brings the designer and constructor together earlier, with agency staff, to form an effective team working toward the common goal of project completion. Other agencies, including Naval Facilities Engineering Command and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have experimented with similar procedures. Some agencies have been attracted to design–build procurements or indefinite quantity contracts to achieve quick response and personnel continuity.4 In many cases, government staff involvement in the design process makes it difficult to distinguish who is responsible for particular problems that occur in the contract drawings and specifications. The A&E professional's certification of a design is meant to indicate that all applicable codes and standards of professional practice have been met, but federal agencies, not
4For
“design–build” procurement, firms or teams are invited to propose to design and construct a facility under a single contract, in contrast to the traditional design-bid-build sequential process. An indefinite quantity contract places an A&E firm under contract to provide unspecified services, up to some aggregate limit and at agreed prices, subject to the agency's issuance of specific task orders. In view of the limited use of these procedures in government, they were not considered in any depth in this study.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
61
strictly subject to local and state government regulation, may not insist that A&E professionals place their stamp or seal on drawings (i.e., professionally certify their work). In one case cited, agency staff routinely instructed A&E professionals not to stamp their drawings, so that the agency could make changes without (or so these agency staff presumed) totally negating the professional's responsibility for those drawings. A&E professionals should always stamp their drawings. In general, agency staff devote considerable effort to reviewing drawings and specifications that are submitted at key points in the design development process. In subsequent stages of design, the A&E professional is expected to deal with questions and concerns raised during these reviews. Often, however, these reviews are conducted by agency staff who lack extensive practical experience in facility development. Such reviews tend to focus more on the details of whether the agency's design guidelines have been met than on the functional aspects of the design, where agency experience from older facilities can make the greatest contribution to facility quality. The value of these reviews is dubious, because they do not ensure that users' needs are being served but add time and cost to the design process. In addition, reviews conducted at the various stages of the design process are often conducted by different agency personnel. This requires that the project be fully explained at each review. Questions resolved in early reviews may be raised again later. The lack of agency staff continuity is a source of inefficiency for both agencies and their A&E firms. Some agencies have experimented with permitting the A&E firm to proceed directly from 0 to 100 percent design, without major intermediate reviews, as a means of reducing the disruption and loss of identifiable responsibility that these reviews can cause. However, agency staff must work to maintain regular and effective communication with the design
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
62
team in order to avoid the risk of discovering late in the design process that the design team has unwittingly failed to maintain focus on objectives the facility is to meet. Regardless of their frequency, reviews should be substantive in nature, addressing the facility's likely ability to meet the users' needs. Such reviews must be conducted by adequately experienced staff and should ideally be conducted in similar fashion and by the same staff at each stage in the design process. If experienced agency personnel who are knowledgeable in the practical aspects of facility development are not available, consideration should be given to utilizing an A&E consultant, distinct from the designer but fully familiar with the type of facility and the agency needs, to provide effective peer review. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PROBLEMS OCCUR When conflicts do arise, even when agency technical staff feel the A&E firm clearly is at fault, agency representatives claim they find it difficult to take action. The strongest sanction available to the agency is the threat of court action to enforce the responsibilities of the A&E firm, but agency legal staff are often reluctant to go to court because of the expense of litigation and the lack of bases for defining adequate performance. In addition, small A&E firms may carry no professional liability insurance and lack the resources to pay substantial damage awards. When problems are serious during project development, agencies may, in principle, terminate their contract with the A&E firm. (A&E firms may terminate the contract as well but generally are less inclined to do so.) However, administrative procedures make such terminations time-consuming and costly for the agency. Agency personnel have found that it may take more than half a year to replace an A&E firm whose
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
63
performance was unsatisfactory. Agency staff therefore frequently choose to try to carry on with the unsatisfactory firm. A&E firms wishing to continue in business recognize that failure to fulfill perceived responsibilities can threaten future opportunities for work, and they generally will try to ensure that their clients are satisfied. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy is currently (as of May 1992) circulating for comment a proposed policy statement requiring agencies to consider past performance in contractor selection.5 This policy would apply to all types of government contracting, including selection of A&E firms. A few agencies have already made efforts to develop comprehensive files on the past performance of A&E firms. The Corps of Engineers and National Aeronautics and Space Administration each have established computer-based data files that include A&E contractors, and the Corps' system is gaining increasing usage by other agencies in addition to Corps field offices. One concern about such systems that has been expressed by A&E professionals is that they should have the opportunity to review the record and correct misunderstandings or errors. The proposed policy of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy requires that contractors be provided with copies of rating forms and other related records before they are entered into the database and that contractors be allowed a minimum of 15 days to appeal any rating.
556
F.R. 235, 63988-63989.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
64
OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE Based on the commentary of government agency staff and their own experience, the members of the study committee concluded that agencies should pursue a broader range of actions for encouraging and supporting responsible performance by A&E firms. Further, agency staff are often too restrained (by both internal agency controls and external forces) in talking action to correct problems when positive action is appropriate. On the other hand, A&E firms are rightfully concerned that agencies may be prone to make faulty judgments about the degree to which A&E responsibilities are not being met. Changing administration policies and government budgetary deficits have combined over the past several years to reduce staffing levels and increase workloads in many government agencies, and the trend seems likely to continue for at least the next several years. In particular, “procurement specialists” trained primarily in contract negotiation and review rather than design and construction, have been playing increasingly greater roles in facilities development. Many A&E and agency professionals express concern that these specialists have less direct interest in the timely and effective delivery of a quality facility than in conformance to established contractual relationships and regulations that may or may not be accurate and appropriate. On the other hand, many outside observers suggest that few private sector owners have substantial technical staff to work with A&E firms and question whether sizable technical staffs are needed by government agencies.6
6Sometimes
A&E firms that are hoping to expand the market for their services are among those posing such questions. The committee notes that experience of many A&E firms and their clients demonstrates that a fully knowledgeable client is more likely to achieve quality facilities.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
65
However, whether it is because of growing workloads or reduced technical sophistication, agencies are likely to find themselves increasingly dependent on the services of A&E firms for procuring needed facilities. More agencies may, of necessity, make increasing use of design–build, public–private ventures,7 construction management contracts, or other procurement practices that shift work from agency staff to the other participants in the process. Such growth in the scope of services that A&E firms are asked to provide is likely to increase the perception that such firms are not meeting their responsibilities. As stated previously, the committee agreed that progress in dealing with purported problems of A&E responsibility will require that both sides work together for change. Chapter 6 explores the key issues to be considered in working for such change and presents the study committee's recommendations for how to improve understanding and management of both A&E and agency responsibilities.
7In a typical public–private venture, a government agency may provide its site to a private developer who agrees to construct, at little or no additional cost to the government, a facility incorporating the agency's requirements (e.g., square footage of office space). The developer is sometimes given permission and a long-term lease to operate a larger facility thereby giving the developer an opportunity to rent space to other tenants and reduce average costs for the government. Control of the larger facility reverts to the government at the end of the lease-term.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. QUALITY CONTROL, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
66
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
67
6 TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES In their guide on Quality in the Constructed Project, the American Society of Civil Engineers presented a “matrix of suggested responsibilities” that proposed 38 specific tasks for which owners, design professionals, and constructors might be considered responsible, individually and jointly (ASCE, 1990). At the same time, the guide states that: Each project has its own unique set of circumstances requiring careful structuring of the contract terms which define the roles and responsibilities of each team member and the manner in which other team members assist in the effort to reach the common goal—quality in the constructed project.
The unique circumstances of each project are indeed decisive in determining the roles and responsibilities of participants in the facility development process. General lists of potential responsibilities can serve as suggestions of areas to which these participants should give attention in their work, but each project should be addressed as a new undertaking and considered for the unique pattern of responsibilities on that project. Similarly, many key aspects of roles and responsibilities can be effectively contained in the formal contract terms, but the contract is
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
68
drawn before a project begins and cannot be expected to deal effectively with all aspects of how the project will develop. A&E professionals, as professionals, have responsibilities that go beyond the terms of the contract. LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITIES Beyond their contractual responsibilities—described in the specific agreement between the A&E firm and the client and in the general terms of law governing contractual relationships—A&E responsibilities occur at three additional levels: (1) technical, which concerns the methods and procedures used to design facilities and the underlying knowledge of materials, construction methods, users' needs and requirements of use, and other areas that enable the A&E firm to make sound technical judgments; (2) legal, which is the general framework of regulation, liability, and other areas of law that guide or constrain society; and (3) ethical, which involves matters of judgment and behavior regarding public interest, uses of environmental resources, aesthetics, and other issues that go beyond codified legal, technical, and contractual responsibilities. As the American Society of Civil Engineers guide indicates, contractual responsibilities are for the most part spelled out for each specific project, and contractual terms may vary substantially from one project to another. The scope of services of the contract is written for the specific project, and the A&E's performance can be evaluated against the terms of that scope. Nevertheless, certain general forms of contracts for A&E services are widely used. These general forms reflect aspects of the standards of A&E professional practice. Technical responsibilities are implicit within the contractual scope of services. While they vary with the specific type of facility, its scale and location, and other characteristics, these
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
69
technical responsibilities spring from a core of technical knowledge that A&E professionals are expected to know and master. This knowledge includes characteristics of materials; analysis and design methods; and the limits of appropriate application of material, methods, and procedures. Complaints about constructability of designs by A&E professionals spring from a belief that A&E professionals should have thorough knowledge of construction practices. When failures occur during and following construction, the allocation of blame frequently hinges on whether technical responsibilities were met, a judgment that often involves the opinions of other professionals that are asked to review the specific situation. Such disputes are therefore difficult to resolve, because they rely on these judgments. Legal responsibilities (e.g., those associated with national environmental policy or equal employment opportunity), unlike the technical ones, are explicitly stated but are included in the contract document only by reference,1 if at all. These responsibilities, while based on specific statutes and regulations, may evolve with experience and interpretation in case law. Determination that these responsibilities have been met may be based on straightforward procedural criteria but sometimes requires legal opinion or jury deliberation. Ethical responsibilities are defined and enforced in part by licensing and registration laws, in part through peer reviews, and in part by self-imposed principles and practices. A responsible A&E professional will act in the public interest to protect health and safety; meet broadly defined users' needs; and point out problems to the client, even in those areas not
1For
example, standard requirements may be cited in contract documents as applicable to the project. It is then up to the contractor to know the content of these citations.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
70
included within the contractual scope or covered by enforceable laws or regulations. An understanding of these ethical responsibilities is generally developed through professional education, the activities of professional societies, and the mentoring of junior professionals by more senior personnel. DATA, MEASUREMENT, AND LIMITS OF MANAGEMENT At all four levels of responsibility, there are few statistics or other quantitative data on the performance of A&E firms. This lack of objective information limits the ability of all participants in the process to characterize effectively when each party is adequately fulfilling its responsibilities. Management, to be truly effective, should reflect experience. Efforts to develop realistic, uniform, experience-based measures and benchmarks of A&E performance will yield solid benefits in the form of management tools that can be used by both A&E firms and government agencies to improve planning and design management. While there are many factors that will enter into the determination of whether A&E firms and others have met their responsibilities, the need for change orders during construction and the impact of change orders on project costs are key concerns from the owner's point of view. The study committee proposes that change orders—their number, causes, and impact on construction cost relative to budgeted and bid amounts—should be given careful consideration as an indicator of project quality and the performance A&E firms. Data should be collected and analyses conducted to provide a uniform basis for A&E firms, their clients, and others to judge whether the level of changes experienced in a particular project are unusual and possibly outside the range of adequate performance. These analyses
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
71
should be conducted with steady attention to the roles of all parties involved in successful facility development.2 Some data are already available that might contribute to such analyses. However, the study committee found that problems of consistency of definitions and subjectivity in attribution of sources of the need for a change order (e.g., because of designers' errors, program changes, or other) will limit the usefulness of existing data. (See Appendix D.) Hence, new data will have to be collected. In the future, these data would be expanded beyond change orders to encompass the full range of factors that enter into a determination of whether A&E firms and others have met their responsibilities. A&E professionals and government agency personnel are (or ought to be) working together on facility development, and they should work together on data collection and analyses of A&E performance. Both parties play a role in determining the outcome of facility development. Measures and benchmarks of A&E performance cannot be developed with reference to the A&E firm alone. The study committee recommends that the agencies of the FFC convene professional organizations such as the American Institute of Architects, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the Associated General Contractors, and others to work with the agencies to develop a study design, assemble a comprehensive database on project development, and analyze that data to verify or modify the measures and benchmarks proposed here. The BRB should act to encourage and facilitate this work.
2Other
measures besides change orders, such as construction period duration, user satisfaction, variance of construction bids, and relation of construction bid to designer's estimates, might in the future be developed as useful supplementary indicators of how well A&E responsibilities have been met.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
72
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR JUDGING A&E PERFORMANCE While data for comprehensive analysis are not now available, the members of the study committee agreed that guidelines can be developed for judging A&E performance. The committee suggests the following guidelines as interim and advisory but nevertheless possibly helpful to government agency personnel and others seeking to determine the reasonable standards of care for owners and A&E firms working on facility development. The experiences of A&E firms and government agencies shows clearly that they must work together—from start to finish—if improvements are to be made in the procedures and products of government facility design and construction. Each side has responsibilities, and those of one cannot be effectively fulfilled without the cooperation of the other. Guideline 1. A&E professionals can be expected to perform their tasks more responsibly if they are involved, on a continuing basis, in more stages of the facility development process. The professionals can do a better job if they are familiar with the reasons that particular decisions were made during the process and if they can maintain a continuity of intent throughout planning and design. Being asked to assess the finished product not only allows for mistakes and oversights to be corrected but also enhances awareness of problems that occur in construction and operation and maintenance. Guideline 2. Construction change orders due to unanticipated site or market conditions or due to shifts in user and owner needs are to be expected during the long time required for the planning, design, and construction of any facility. This long time—18 to 36 months, typically, and much longer still if the
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
73
project is undertaken for a government agency—makes it almost inevitable that assumptions will change, new information will be discovered, or external forces in the economy will influence decisions. Changes during construction may in such cases be not only unavoidable but also a sensible response to current conditions. The issue in judging A&E responsibilities is not whether there are change orders but rather whether the level of change orders (and resulting cost growth, if any) is excessive and the degree to which the cost growth is attributable to the A&E firm. In any case, construction cost growth of as much as 5 percent over bid estimates is not abnormal.3 Guideline 3. As the time required to develop a facility increases, from initial planning through the end of construction, so does the likelihood of change orders, cost growth, and loss of quality. While it might be expected that larger projects (as measured by construction budget) are more susceptible to changes, experience shows this to be an unreliable indicator of likely percentage cost growth. Increasing time is more reliable as a predictor of changes. Delays, whether from legislative, administrative, or technical causes, upset budget and design assumptions and contribute generally to the potential for change orders to be required. As project duration increases, it is more difficult to determine that A&E performance is wanting. Guideline 4. Changes in the requirements tend to cause changes in design. Changes associated with design (for which the A&E firm often is presumed to be responsible) are more likely to be encountered when there have been changes associated with the owner's requirements. Whether agency shifts in requirements actually foster design-related changes or are simply an indicator of a project more susceptible to changes
3Small
projects may typically experience changes representing a larger portion of bid estimate.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
74
is unclear. However, if the agency changes its requirements, these changes may have impact throughout the design by disrupting both previous design decisions and the design management process. In such cases, it is more difficult to determine that A&E performance is wanting. Guideline 5. Projects that experience construction changes that increase costs more than 10 percent over construction contract award value should be considered unusual and warrant thorough management review. Changes due to A&E firm errors, oversights, or omissions increasing costs 5 percent or more may be an indication of A&E performance problems. If an agency is experiencing such cases on a recurring basis, the agency's programming or A&E firm selection processes may be at fault. While the preceding guidelines acknowledge that blame is difficult to assign, cost growth due to design-related change orders is an indicator of a need for management attention. The level of cost growth and number of change orders that should be considered abnormal depend on project complexity and novelty. The specific levels proposed here are general and based substantially on committee members' judgment. Study committee members estimate that fewer than 20 percent of projects exhibit cost growth in excess of 10 percent, for any reason, and suggest that such cost growth is a reasonable basis for the agency and its A&E firm to question whether the performance on such projects is adequate.4 Effective management of facility development requires that all participants understand their roles and responsibilities in achieving a high-quality facility.
4The comments and the recommendations apply primarily to conventional design-bidbuild construction.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
75
EFFORTS TO ENHANCE QUALITY Although these guidelines may be a useful starting point toward moreeffective understanding and management of the responsibilities of A&E firms and their clients, they are only a start. Additional data and analysis are needed to develop better bases for judging whether responsibilities are being adequately met. Above all, more-effective communication and cooperation among the participants in facility development are needed. Better understanding, bases for judgment, and teamwork will make the process of selection, design, and construction initiation of A&E firms faster and more efficient and will in turn help to ensure that the responsibilities of A&E firms and their clients are met. Enhanced quality of the facilities produced will be the ultimate result. It is said that “good judgment is generally the result of experience, and experience is often the result of poor judgment.” Unless one can learn from experience, the same mistakes will continue to be made. The guidelines presented here may serve as a starting point but must be verified or modified by experience and further analysis. The committee hopes that their study will motivate further learning, so that everyone involved can work together to achieve better facilities.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. TOWARD BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT OF A&E RESPONSIBILITIES
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
76
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
REFERENCES
77
REFERENCES
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1990. Quality in the Constructed Facility. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. DOC (Department of Commerce). 1991. Construction Review, vol. 37, no. 4, July/August 1991. Washington, D.C.: DOC. FCC (Federal Construction Council). 1982. Review of three recommendations on architect-engineer procurement of the commission on government procurement. Pp. 1–17 in FCC, Transactions of the Federal Construction Council for 1980–81. Advisory Board on the Built Environment, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. FCC (Federal Construction Council). 1990. Comparing the Construction Costs of Federal and Nonfederal Facilities. (Summary of a Symposium) Technical Report no. 94. FCC, Building Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press .
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
REFERENCES
78
FCC (Federal Construction Council). 1992. Policies of Federal Agencies on Referencing Model Building Codes and National Standards for Construction. Technical Report no. 117. FCC, Building Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Jones, C.P., and Nathan, N.D. 1990. Supermarket roof collapse in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 4(3): 142–160. NRC (National Research Council). 1991. Inspection and Other Strategies for Assuring Quality. Building Research Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. ACRONYM LIST
A&E
BRB
FCC
FFC
PEP
79
ACRONYM LIST
Architectural and Engineering (e.g., A&E firms and A&E professionals) Building Research Board Federal Construction Council Federal Facilities Council Parametric Estimating Program
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. ACRONYM LIST
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
80
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX A
81
APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee on Architect-Engineer Responsibilities HAROLD J. PARMELEE, Chair, President of Turner Construction Company of New York City, is responsible for the operations of a large international construction company with many diverse projects in the United States and abroad. He received his B.A. from Bowdoin College and B.S. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1960. RICHARD T. BAUM is a Partner (retired) in Jaros, Baum & Bolles of New York. He received his B.A., B.S., and M.S. from Columbia University. He is a mechanical engineer, Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning specialist, and a registered Professional Engineer in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other states. Mr. Baum was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in 1983 and is a Fellow of the American Consulting Engineers Council; the American Society of Mechanical Engineers; and the American Society of Heating Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. LYNN S. BEEDLE is University Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and Director of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and the Structural Stability Research Council at Lehigh University. A civil engineer and specialist in structures and tall buildings, he received his B.S. from the University of California and M.S. and Ph.D. from
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX A
82
Lehigh University. Dr. Beedle was elected a member of National Academy of Engineering in 1972. L. GERALD CARLISLE is Secretary-Treasurer of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and a trustee of the International Masonry Institute. NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY is a consultant in public works and infrastructure and is affiliated with the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the J. F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She received her B.A. in political science from the Pacific Lutheran University and Master of Public Administration from Harvard. She is a former Executive Director, National Council for Public Works Improvement. CHRISTOPHER DEGENHARDT is President of EDAW, Inc. He received his B.S. from Wye College, University of London, and M.L.A. from Syracuse University. He is a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, the American Planning Association, and the Urban Land Institute. ELISHA C. FREEDMAN is a Principal for The Par Group—Paul A. Reaume, Ltd., Management Consultants. He was formerly Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services for Connecticut. He received his A.B. in Political Science and Economics and Master of Public Administration from Syracuse University. He is a career public administrator having served at local, state, and federal levels. Mr. Freedman is a member of the National Academy of Public Administration, serves on the National Council of the American Society for Public Administration, and was a vice-president of the International City Management Association. He is also the recipient of the Louis Brownlow Memorial Fund Award for distinguished contribution to the literature of public administration.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX A
83
DONALD G. ISELIN is a consultant specializing in engineering management. He graduated at the head of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1945, earned his B.A. and M.A. in civil engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and completed The Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School. Mr. Iselin retired from the U.S. Navy in 1981 as a Rear Admiral after serving as Commander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and Chief of Civil Engineers of the Navy. He has served in top-level positions for major international engineering firms and has been active in national professional societies. GARY T. MOORE is a professor of architecture and director of the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. He received his B.Arch. from the University of California, Berkeley, and his M.A. in developmental psychology and Ph.D. in environmental psychology from Clark University. Dr. Moore is a research architect and environmental psychologist specializing in educational facilities, environment/behavior studies, and aerospace architecture. His research has been supported by National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts, American Institute of Architects, Graham Foundation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and has received a series of awards for his work on design guidelines, including three annual design research awards from Progressive Architecture. WALTER P. MOORE, JR., Chairman of the Board of Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., is recognized for the creativity of his designs and for his contributions toward improvement of safety factors and quality in design in the practice of structural engineering. He received his B.A. and B.S. in civil engineering and an M.S. in civil engineering and Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. Dr. Moore is a member of the
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX A
84
American Concrete Institute, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Military Engineers, Consulting Engineers Council Texas, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Society of Professional Engineers. J. W. MORRIS, (Lieutenant General U.S. Army, Retired) is President, J. W. Morris, Ltd., and a professor of construction management at the University of Maryland. He was formerly Engineer Advisor to Zorc, Rissetto, Weaver & Rosen; Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Executive Director for International Operations for Royal Volker Stevin N.V.; and Chairman/CEO, Planning Research Corp. Engineer Group. He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the U.S. Military Academy in 1943 and an M.S. from the University of Iowa in 1948. Dr. Morris is an expert in construction management and has received numerous awards and honors from professional societies and government agencies for his construction and management accomplishments, including a Presidential Citation for Management when Chief of Engineers, Construction Man of the Year (1977) from Engineering News Record, and the Pladium Medal sponsored by the Audubon Society. BRIAN P. MURPHY is Senior Vice-President of the Prudential Property Company. A graduate of West Point with an M.S.B.A. from Boston University, he has extensive experience in asset management and real estate development, particularly in Prudential's role in the development of Gateway Center (Newark, New Jersey), Princeton Forrestal Center (Princeton, New Jersey), and Prudential Business Campus (Parsippany, New Jersey) and in redevelopment of Times Square (New York City). Mr. Murphy is a charter member of Leadership New Jersey and
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX A
85
is active in United Way, National Association of Independent Office Parks, Urban Land Institute, and other organizations. JEROME J. SINCOFF, FAIA, is President and Chief Operating Officer of Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. (HOK). He received his B.A. from Washington University. He has served as principal-in-charge for major corporate and large-scale projects such as the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., Kimberly-Clark Research and Office Buildings in Wisconsin, and The Pillsbury Company Research and Development Facility in Minnesota, among others, while associated with HOK. Mr. Sincoff serves on the Board of Governors of Washington University and is a member of the university's Eliot Society, as well as the Large Firm Roundtable of the American Institute of Architects. JAMES E. WOODS, is the William E. Jamerson Professor of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of New Mexico and M.S. in Physiological Sciences from Kansas State University. Mr. Woods is a mechanical engineer and specialist in Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning and controls. He is a registered professional engineer and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Architecture at Iowa State University. APRIL L. YOUNG, is CRA Coordinator, First American Metro Corporation. She received her B.A. and M.U.R.P. from George Washington University and Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from St. Louis University. She is an economic development specialist and development company executive and former Executive Director, Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. Dr. Young is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and Urban Land
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX A
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
86
Institute, Lambda Alpha, and an officer of the National Council on Urban Economic Development.
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX B
87
APPENDIX B ROSTER OF PARTICIPANTS
SYMPOSIUM/WORKSHOP ON ARCHITECT-ENGINEER RESPONSIBILITIES March 10, 1992 Lecture Room, National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 STUDY COMMITTEE Chairman: Mr. Harold J. Parmelee, President, Turner Construction Company Members: Mr. Richard T. Baum, Partner (Retired), Jaros, Baum and Bolles Dr. Lynn S. Beedle, University Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and Director, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Lehigh University Mr. Gerald L. Carlisle, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX B
88
Mr. Elisha C. Freedman, Principal, The Par Group—Paul A. Reaume, Ltd. Rear Admiral Donald G. Iselin, U.S. Navy (Retired) Dr. Walter P. Moore, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc. Lt. Gen. J.W. Morris, U.S. Army (Retired), President, J.W. Morris Ltd. Mr. Brian P. Murphy, Senior Vice President, Prudential Property Company Mr. Jerome J. Sincoff, FAIA, President, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. Dr. April L. Young, CRA Coordinator (VA 1-12-1), First American Metro Corporation Agency Liaison Representatives: Mr. Rex Hellmann, Office of Foreign Buildings, Operations, U.S. Department of State Capt. Daniel Hightower, Planning and Review Branch, U.S. Public Health Service Mr. Allan Hockett, Office of the Civil Engineer, Department of the Air Force
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX B
89
Mr. Claude Hudson, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army Mr. Lloyd Siegel, Office of Facilities, Department of Veterans Affairs Mr. Vince Spaulding, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy Mr. Dwain Warne, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration INVITED PARTICIPANTS Mr. Ed Bajer, American Consulting Engineers Council Mr. Jeffrey L. Beard, American Society of Civil Engineers Mr. Ronald H. Berger, Wilbur Smith Associates Mr. Robert R. Boyer, Federal Emergency Management Agency Lt. Gen. Devol Brett, U.S. Air Force (Retired) Mr. David Dibner, Consultant Mr. Paul Genecki, Schinnerer Management Services Mr. Richard M. Heim, George Hyman Construction Co. Mr. David Johnston, American Institute of Architects
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX B
90
Mr. Milton Lunch, Schinnerer Management Services Mr. Joseph Paoluccio, PWNA Gen. Bryce Poe, U.S. Air Force (Retired) Mr. Larry Spiller, National Society of Professional Engineers Mr. Robert Webb, Office of Policy, Department of Energy Mr. Harry Zimmerman, Naval Facilities Engineering Department of the Navy
Command,
STAFF Dr. Andrew C. Lemer, Director, Building Research Board Mr. Henry Borger, Executive Secretary, Federal Facilities Council, Building Research Board Mr. Peter Smeallie, Director, Geotechnical Board
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX C
91
APPENDIX C A&E PROJECT PERFORMANCE STATISTICS During the study reported here, a limited and informal survey was made to determine whether data are available that might be used to develop indicators and benchmarks of A&E performance. It was found that many large users of A&E services, in both the government and private sector, do maintain records that might be analyzed, but these records are typically developed in an idiosyncratic manner, depending on the specific characteristics of the project and the personnel involved. There is seldom any effort to develop consistent definitions and uniform data collection procedures. Some federal agencies have collected some data on construction experience that is relevant to A&E performance. The study committee reviewed two such data sets in an effort to determine whether more-explicit guidelines could be developed in this study. One agency provided the committee with a data set describing that agency's experience with the development of 151 facilities construction projects completed between January 1985, and March 1992. The construction contract award values of these projects ranged from $55,000 to more than $12 million. The range of project types was broad, and they included new building construction, structural and interior repairs, subsurface facilities, roads, and other infrastructure systems. Project
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX C
92
durations ranged from approximately 100 days to more than five years. Change orders were reported on more than 90 percent of these projects. For approximately 50 percent of the projects, ten or more changes were reported, from all sources. About 73 percent of projects had changes attributed to design, and approximately 65 percent had more than one such change. About 21 percent had more than five design-related changes, and about 14 percent had ten or more. However, approximately 20 percent of the projects, regardless of the number of change orders, reported no cost growth at all, and costs declined below contract amount in about 5 percent of the cases. For approximately 50 percent of projects, cost growth was less than 6 percent, and it exceeded 16 percent of contract value in fewer than 25 percent of cases. A second agency provided data on 133 projects, which ranged in size from $190,000 to $24.5 million. The range of project types was broad, similar to that of the first agency. It included projects from child care centers to wastewater treatment systems to road improvements. Project durations ranged from 200 days to just over three years. Nineteen percent of these projects had no change orders at all, and 23 percent had ten or more changes, from all sources. While changes were generally less frequent than in the first agency's case, 71 percent of projects had changes attributed to design, a fraction similar to that of the first data set. Thirty-three percent had five or more design-related changes, and 20 percent had ten or more. All projects experienced some cost growth, regardless of the number or source of change orders. Cost growth exceeded 6 percent in 43 percent of the cases, but only 20 percent of projects experienced cost growth of 16 percent or more. The committee concluded that these two limited analyses were inadequate, by themselves, to support development of
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX C
93
solid indicators of A&E performance. Nevertheless, the analyses do provide evidence supporting rules of thumb that were suggested by committee members' experience. Changes and cost growth are not unusual, but only about 20 to 25 percent of projects experience cost growth in excess of 15 percent of initial contract value. And when change orders are required, they are more likely than not to be attributed to design problems. However, the data sets were too small and not clearly representative of the broad range of government building experience, and the definitions too uncertain to draw conclusions regarding how likely it is that design changes will be the primary cause of cost growth. On the basis of their survey and analyses, the committee concluded that efforts to develop valid indicators of A&E performance must start with development of a well thought-out study design to guide collection of data for analysis. This conclusion became the basis for the study committee's recommendation that professional organizations and the government should work together to develop a database and conduct analyses of A&E performance.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX C
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
94
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX D
95
APPENDIX D STATEMENT OF TASK
The committee will conduct a study of current methods of assessing the quality of design work, to identify clearly the issues in determining what constitutes satisfactory professional work by an architect-engineer (A-E) firm. The study will investigate issues important to defining “competent” A-E services and “reasonable” meeting of responsibilities for providing such services in current practice. The committee will review current federal policies on the subject, current practices in A-E services and other fields facing analogous problems, and issues raised in litigation and regulatory actions. The committee will solicit opinions from professional organizations and may hold a workshop to obtain the views of the A-E community. The committee will prepare a report discussing the issues facing those seeking to judge the quality and adequacy of work performed by A-E firms working for government agencies.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX D
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
96
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX E
97
APPENDIX E THE BROOKS BILL
PUBLIC BUILDINGS—SELECTION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS PUBLIC LAW 92-582: 86 STAT.1278 An Act to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Service, Act of 1949 in order to establish Federal policy concerning the selection of firms and individuals to perform architectural, engineering, and related services for the Federal Government. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That: The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) “is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title: “TITLE IX—SELECTION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS “Definitions “Sec. 901. As used in this title— “(1) The term ‘firm' means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX E
98
“(2) The term 'agency head' means the Secretary, Administrator, or head of a department, agency, or bureau of the Federal Government. “(3) The term 'architectural and engineering services' includes those professional services of an architectural or engineering nature as well as incidental services that members of these professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform. “Policy “Sec. 902. The Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the Federal Government to publicly announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services, and to negotiate contracts for architectural and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required and at fair and reasonable prices. REQUESTS FOR DATA ON ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES “Sec. 903. In the procurement of architectural and engineering services, the agency head shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession to submit annually a statement of qualifications and performance data. The agency head, for each proposed project, shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with no less than three firms regarding anticipated concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services and then shall
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
APPENDIX E
99
select therefrom, in order to preference, based upon criteria established and published by him no less than three of the firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to provide the services required. NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES “Sec. 904. (a) The agency head shall negotiate a contract with the highest qualified firm for architectural and engineering services at compensation which the agency head determines is fair and reasonable to the Government. In making such determination, the agency head shall take into account the estimated value of the services to be rendered, the scope, complexity, and professional nature thereof. “(b) Should the agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, at a price he determines to be fair and reasonable to the Government, negotiations with that firm should be formally terminated. The agency head should then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the agency head should terminate negotiations. The agency head should then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified firm. “(c) Should the agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, he shall select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with this section until an agreement is reached.” Approved October 27,1972.
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX E
On the Responsibilities of Architects and Engineers and Their Clients in Federal Facilities Development, National Academies
100