— Winning Entry —
2006 JAMES
L. ALLHANDS ESSAY COMPETITION
Evolution
of Design Documents
for
a Construction Project
By Natalie Franz
Department of Construction Science
Texas A&M University
October 26, 2006
As the construction industry evolves with the development of new techniques
and technological advances, the basic function of design documents progress
as well. In order to predict the future of design documents, the past must
be understood. Through a comparison of project delivery systems, a firm grasp
on the appropriate completeness of design documents can be obtained. By analyzing
current projects, the present view of design issues can be realized. Based
on this information, the correct path of the development of design documents
can be deduced.
In the early periods of American history, the craftsman was responsible for the complete design and construction of buildings. A single craftsman was able to oversee all design and construction because the complexity of projects was not the same as it is today. Early American buildings were much simpler and did not face the pressures of constantly improving technology, complex designs, and fluctuating material prices. In fact, “during 1998, the cost of a 2 x 4 fluctuated 26%, concrete 22%, and steel 21%” (Thomsen, 7).
As construction processes advanced, the need for specialization increased. One craftsman was no longer able to handle the responsibility of the entire building process. The architect and engineer eventually separated and formed their own accreditation agencies and codes. As architects and engineers split up, the contractor also became a separate entity. While the AE was responsible for the technology that was to go into projects, the contractor was responsible for taking design documents and erecting a structure.
Today, the relationship between the AE and contractor has advanced into a few different project delivery systems, including design-bid-build and the more recent, design-build. In the design-bid-build process, there are essentially two contracts that the owner issues. The first contract with the architect and engineer is for the complete design process from the conceptual design all the way to the flawless completion of design documents. After the design documents are finished, the next contract with the contractor is executed. The owner warrants that the design documents are complete and correct. The design-bid-build approach “relies on restrictive contract language, audit and inspection, and occasionally, the legal system, to ensure final project quality” (“An Introduction to Design Build”). Then, the contractor takes the plans and builds a perfect structure from them.
In the design-bid-build process, there are some inherent flaws that have
been around since its inception. Because a disconnect exists in the process
between
AE and contractor, conflict arises. The nature of design-bid-build pits the
architect against the contractor, instead of having them work together as
in the design-build process. One argument that usually arises is that of
the completeness
of design documents.
When the contractor receives the design documents to build from, they should
be flawless in order to make the process flow smoothly and efficiently. A
universal truth that the design-bid-build process fails to take into effect
is one of
human nature. Because we are human, we are not flawless. Issues that arise
from design documents include designed spaces that can not physically be
constructed, incorrect dimensions, and discrepancies between design documents
and specifications,
just to name a few.
Because we are human and naturally have flaws, design documents that are created by human hands can not be sufficient to construct a project. There will be requests for information and clarification, necessary meetings between the architect and contractor, and other problems to deal with. In the traditional approach to constructing a building, design documents should be thought of on a more conceptual level. The question then arises of who has the responsibility to answer questions and correct problems that spawn from the design documents. Is it the architect that designed the plans or the contractor who must build from the plans?
This question is not a new one. Contractors have been aware for quite some
time that errors and omissions will occur. Because of this problem, detailed
contracts must include verbiage detailing the responsible parties and appropriate
courses of action to be taken when dealing with issues resulting from the
design documents.
Consider the construction of an office building as an example. The final
plans, which have been approved by the owner, call for a small deli to be
included
in the lobby on the first floor. In this deli, there are lower and upper
cabinets shown on plans that are continuous on the north, east, and south
walls. The
contractor takes these documents and builds exactly according to plans and
specifications. The cabinets in the deli were set along with the accompanying
granite countertops. When the owner walks the site that Friday, he is irate
because there was no room left for an industrial size refrigerator that was
to be situated on the east wall.
The contractor had no way of knowing that the plans should have shown a gap in the cabinetry on the east wall. If the contract did not specifically call for the owner or architect to pick up this added cost, the contractor might have to cut into his own profit to rip out and reset the cabinets. In order for the contractor to be compensated for this additional work, a change order or some other legal action should be taken to rectify the situation.
There should be a better way to manage the construction process and avoid problems such as the one described. One solution is the project delivery system called design-build. This new trend differs from the traditional approach in several ways. During design-build, the contractor collaborates with clients, subs, and AEs during design. Collaboration throughout the entire process allows a free flow of information that is beneficial to all involved parties. Design documents can be more accurate because the subs are allowed to input ideas such as which product selections and design criteria should be used.
Another advantage of design-build is that the contractor and AE are now on the same team. During design-bid-build, the AE completely designs the project and then hands off his work to the contractor to interpret. Now that the contractor is involved in the whole process, a trusting relationship can be built from the conceptual phase of the project all the way to completion. When the design documents need clarification, the contractor can ask his partner questions instead of his adversary.
Within the category of design-build, there are several different ways to approach a project. Some of the design-build techniques are bridging, bridging with program management, and integrating AEC contracts (Thomsen, 12). Bridging involves two contracts. One contract is between the owner and AE. The AE then hires a design builder that works with another AE to create the design documents. Bridging with program management is the same process as bridging with the addition of a program manager. The program manager is contracted at the same time as the AE to watch over the entire project.
The design-build technique that takes one step further is the integration of the architect, engineer, and contractor. Integrated AEC contracts have the greatest amount of synergy out of all the design-build techniques. Because the architect, engineer, and contractor are all on the same level and under the same contract, everyone is working towards the same goal. Issues with the authority of the AE are eliminated because the AE and contractor are all under the same roof. This concept is the most advanced and advantageous project delivery system for the development of design documents. The American Institute of Contractors website states that its members “shall keep informed of new thought and development in the construction process”. In following the AIC Code of Ethics, design-build is a technique that contractors should keep abreast of during its development and application to the industry.
An old saying that has application today is “three heads are better than one”. Integrated AEC contracts allow all “three heads” to work along side each other to create a superior product that is able to be delivered faster and cheaper. Design-build projects are more cost efficient because they can have constant cost control during design. As products and specifications are changed, the estimate can be updated simultaneously by the AE’s teammate, the contractor.
One company that has taken advantage of the design-build process is BECK. A four story, 212,000 square foot office building was recently completed by BECK for SBC Communications in Dallas. BECK utilized the design-build process to streamline its estimate and schedule. The ease of creating accurate design documents early on in the process helped BECK to complete the project in a much shorter time period. This graph shows BECK’s analysis of the time taken to build Pinnacle Park in relation to buildings of the same size using a more traditional approach (“Pinnacle Park Overview”).
Pinnacle Park by BECK is just one many projects that have been successful due to the use of design-build processes. The popularity of design-build has had a positive effect on design documents that has in turn led to projects being delivered faster and cheaper. BECK was able to obtain accurate shop drawings quickly that further facilitated the early completion of design documents.
The evolution of project delivery systems into the design-build approach has allowed design documents to become more efficient and economical. By studying the history of the architect’s relationship with the contractor, a better approach named design-build can use historical data to build the synergistic relationship that exists today between the architect and contractor. Design documents will continue to evolve and change with general construction industry practices. The future holds great possibilities that will eventually lead to a completely flawless design and construction process.
Works Cited
An Introduction to Design Build. 1994. Design Build Institute of America. 25 Sept. 2005 <http://www.dbia.org/pubs/pd_intro.pdf>.
Code of Ethics. 2003. American Institute of Contractors. 25 Sept. 2005 <http://www.aicnet.org/about/code_of_ethics.asp>.
Pinnacle Park Overview. 18 June 2004. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering. 11 Oct. 2005 <http://cife.stanford.edu/sp04/EB/EBPinnacle.pdf>.
Thomsen, Charles. “The 21st Century Master Builder.” The Military Engineer April-May 1999, Volume 91.
To see online versions of the current and archived issues of Inside
Track,
visit http://archone.tamu.edu/archcom/InsideTrack/.
About Inside Track: http://archone.tamu.edu/archcom/InsideTrack/about.htm
How to Submit News: http://archone.tamu.edu/archcom/InsideTrack/submissions.htm