The design-assist model, if done in a way where scope and responsibility are not clearly communicated and outlined in the project’s initial stages, can blend far too many gray areas across traditional boundaries. Often times, this leads to an unsuccessful experience for one or several of the project team members. Expectations and value are best described by the owner and identified in the format of a contract that is clear and concise.

Contractual risks traditionally flow downhill from owner to designer, owner to contractor, and then on to the subcontractor. Depending on how a project is procured and the quality of the design and construction team members, behaviors that were once desired when the project was awarded may fade under the pressures of actual execution. It is at that point where the contract begins to bend to suit the firm’s needs. How can this be fixed?

If innovation, collaboration, and shared risk is a desired outcome, aligning expectations beyond the honeymoon of a project pursuit can carry through to a successfully completed project. The idea of design- assist can be done well, but it is best to do so intentionally and from the onset of a project. When you have the right people doing the right things at the right time, it produces a positive outcome.

The most successful project teams, regardless of the delivery method, rely on all team members working toward the same goal. Open conversations – whether it is safety, quality, client satisfaction, or the ability to make a fair profit – might come more naturally in an integrated project delivery (IPD) or design-build setting due to contractual drivers. Design-assist models inherently shift risk, whether intentional or not, and forces the drivers of each team to align closer to traditional design-bid-build behaviors. Rather than all team members rolling up their sleeves and working side-by-side to find the right solution, each team retreats in an effort to protect their interests and minimize the risks. In the end, the owner pays for lack of teamwork in the form of a compromised design, extended schedule, reduced quality, lengthy entitlement discussions, or budget overruns.

Ultimately, the more design-assist contracts are closer aligned to what is seen in integrated project delivery or design-build, the better. In order to influence the future of design-assist models, team members (general contractor, architects, engineers, subcontractors) need to fully develop and assign the scope, responsibilities, and risks. Contracts should be aligned so that fixed relationships between all team members exist and the owner should be encouraged to allow the design-assist team to operate in a performance-based/contracting arrangement. This allows the team to not be hindered by a prescriptive program. Finally, it’s encouraged to explore the guaranteed maximum price or shared saving contract with team members. By incentivizing team work, collaboration, and establishing honest communication early on, design-assist can be an effective model for any project.

Tags:

  • Show Comments (0)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

comment *

  • name *

  • email *

  • website *

You May Also Like

Understanding Clients’ Needs Over Requests

It is often more important to pay attention to a client’s issues than simply ...

4 Steps to Getting Started on Your Smart Building Approach

One of the challenges in developing a ‘smart building’ is that most owners have ...

2018 ASHRAE David C.J. Peters Scholarship Winner

As a former senior vice president at Southland Industries, Dave Peters was one of ...

How to Drive a Zero-Incident Rate Culture

The construction world is one of constant change as we drive to safer and ...

Emphasis on Safety Culture Goes a Long Way

What does it mean to have a safety culture? At Southland, it means safety does ...

Breaking Ground on Design-Build: A Q&A with Bryce Barler, Project Executive

As the AEC industry continues to push the envelope with improvements in design-build and ...