What's Holding Back "High Performance Green Buildings"?

3 Common Roadblocks to Achieving Project Performance

1- The Project Delivery Model: This is not to say that all three primary Delivery Models can't achieve a "High Performance" result. It's that the risk/cost associated with various Project Delivery Models creates a barrier to High Performance by jeopardizing the project's budget.

The proof of this is evident in the inventory of High Performance Green Buildings built over the past several years. They are the exception, not the rule. All things being equal, no owner would avoid the creation of a facility that reduces their energy costs by up to 50%, unless their budget "forbids" it.

Keeping in mind that the "Project Delivery Model" guides the risk/cost results of the project, design-build (design and construction within a single contract with the owner) focuses accountability to the least number of alternatives; two. Having only one accountable entity, would be the owner designing & building their own project.

Response: To hit a budget, the attributes for cost/risk (required results) within the contract must be identifiable and allocatable. Identification and allocation of cost/risk resides in the obligations of a given contract. However, allocation of cost/risk attributes can be spread to no more than two entities when using a design-build delivery model. If nothing else, "who's to blame" can only be one of two, and for that reason Design-Build lends itself to performance accountability.

2- Contractual obligation of "scope": Just about all Project Delivery Contracts use a prescription of "scope" to obligate the contractor. Likewise, just about all prescriptions are in the form of "drawings & specifications" that detail the solution to some degree. These prescriptions entrench risk (whether real or perceived), and block any innovative response by the contractor in pursuit of " High Performance".

The result is lost opportunity, during the "unfolding" design and construction, for the project to be guided by the contractor in direct response to the performance-outcomes required of a High Performance Project. Prescriptions included in contracts are a definition of "input" not "outcome".

Response: Replacement of "input" prescriptions with "outcome" metrics for performance (the scope) allows the project team to refine decisions throughout the design and construction process, targeting High Performance and not just following directions.

3- Owner control of the Project: Owners must "control" their projects. Some method of "Project Control" on the part of the owner is the basis for their accountability within the contract. To not "control" is to not be "accountable". So it's not THAT the owner controls, it's WHAT the owner controls that is important.

When owners control the design and construction decision-making process of "input", they indirectly control the "outcome" of performance (both good or bad). The deficiency of input-control is the resulting performance-outcome created by the contractor is not assured. The one who controls the input is responsible for the outcome; that being the owner in the traditional prescriptive approach.

Therefore by controlling (defining and obligating) the outcome-performance metrics within the contract, the owner can give up the "traditional" control model of "design and construction decision-making" while still controlling the most important part of Project Management; the results.

Response: To better assure the High Performance outcome of projects, owners must contact for compliance to "outcome metrics" that they control, and obligate the input decision-making to the contractor.

Conclusion

Combined, using design-build project delivery, with scope contractually obligated using performance metrics established by the owner, and allowing design-builder decision-making authority, owners can better assure a High Performance Green Building. This is the definition of "Performance-Based Design-Build" delivery using a "Problem-Based Contract".

This model has been used on multiple projects, including:

• The DOE/NREL Research Support Facility in Golden Colorado
• The 188th Fighter Wing CE Headquarters in Ft Smith Arkansas
• The Kansas State University IAHFSI Facility in Olathe Kansas

For more, visit DesignSense