CREJ

December 2020 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \ 35 ELEMENTS IPD One example early in the design process involved the issue of fitting the ambulance entry for the emergency room located in the basement. Due to soil conditions, the team had decided to implement a structural floor but the subcontractors had to figure out how to support pipes, electrical conduits and ductwork beneath the slab but above the soil. As the team discussed the escalating costs, including difficult working conditions to install utilities, working with flexible connections due to swelling soils, a very large excavation, and loss of useable site due to the ambulance entry, the electrical contractor, who normally would not even be in the same room as the architects and engineers within the first few months of the design pro- cess, poignantly commented, “Do we even need this base- ment?” The architect was then able to pivot and facilitate a conversation around eliminating the basement all to- gether with input from all the teammembers to help save time and money on the project. Without the IPD structure of bringing on subcontractors early in the process, this solution may not have been available to the project team. • Co-location within co-location. Another aspect of the project that first came about due to the IPD multiparty agreement (but also was predicated upon the behavior of the individual team members) was the lengthy time peri- od of co-location for the project team. In an IPD project, co-location, along with the “Big Room,” defined by the Lean Construction Institute is a “Shared space [that] can support communication and dialogue, resulting in more efficient and real-time work product, as well as less re- work and revision.” Project teammembers began co-locating early in the de- sign process at the offices of TreanorHL, then again later on the construction site in GH Phipps’ trailer. Alex Hesse, PE, the project engineer for KL&A, worked with the project team on site three days a week during design and up to two days a week during construction. This allowed Hesse to make strong connections with team members from different companies that he would have normally never crossed paths with. “This IPD project allowed me to see what collaboration truly is, working directly alongside other designers and contractors who rallied together for the success of the children’s hospital.” Greg Reindl, PE, the steel construction manager who managed the steel construction services for KL&A, also spent a significant amount of time co-locating for campus. “Having the IPD structure really set the tone for the project for everyone to engage with each other. Just the fact that everyone was in the same place at the same time, helped streamline the process and allowed for effective pull-plan- ning on the job site.” One example of this occurred during the shop-drawing review that took place on-screen in the job site trailer. Heath Stein, PE, project manager and engi- neer-of-record for the project, noted that it usually takes 14 days to review and approve steel components, but co-locating onsite allowed the shop review process to take place in one day. • Time and money saved with IPD. Just as the contract language set the stage for this fully integrated project where the individual team members’ behavior helped to ensure the success of the project, making any true change in the construction industry is heavily dependent on the bottom line. At the end of the day, time and money are ul- timately the determining factors as to the “success” of a project, regardless of contract choice. However, executing and delivering the campus on schedule and under bud- get would not have occurred without this IPD multiparty agreement nor without the selected teammembers on the project. Examples of time and money saved are demonstrated by the following factors. The “real-time” problem solving and co-location benefits led to zero RFI’s and zero change orders on this complicated hospital project. To put this in perspective, according to the research report from the Navigant Construction Forum entitled Impact & Control of RFIs on Construction Projects, “Projects between $5M and $50M have an average of 17.2 RFIs per $1 million of con- struction cost, whereas projects between $1 billion and $5 billion have an average of just 1.1 RFIs per $1 million of construction cost. For all projects in the sample, the ratio is 9.9 RFIs per $1 million of construction cost.” For a project this size, that would amount to approximately 1,000 RFIs. IPD multiparty agreements and the resulting projects are not easy, but can be beneficial not only to the owner, but to the project team as a whole. Bob Redwine, PE, the Facilitator on Children’s Hospital Colorado – North Cam- pus, concluded, “No IPD project happens in a bubble. We are all victims of habit, where the transition to integration can be difficult, but our team rallied behind the IPD struc- ture to help set the standard for our projects moving for- ward.” \\ blahnert@klaa.com Children's Hospital Colorado – North Campus utilized IPD.