Holder

I think there's a little difficulty in mapping two "X" axes--degree of collaboration and philosophy vs. delivery method--and this isn't completely clear to me. The question mark in middle demonstrates the mapping problem. Perhaps the "pure philosophy" extreme that suggests "no contract language" is another example--does "philosophy" mean "people of good will acting without contract obligations"? If so, the continuum might not be that provocative. So I guess I'm suggesting that "low collab" versus "high collab" is a more interesting contrast that also illuminates the differences.

A design build facilitator and two non-compete design build contractors can eliminate an amazing number of contemporary and historical project delivery related problems. There are countless project delivery method variations that fall within two categories. Category one is design build. The contractor is responsible for the design and installation. Category two is plans and specifications. The consultant is responsible for the design and the contractor is responsible for installation. Design Build Facilitation is a flexible design build variation designed to enhance consistency by eliminating conflict of interests and creating checks and balances.

ABC Company decides to build a facility in Milwaukee (City A).The design build facilitator would select and pay a City B (Chicago) design build contractor to work directly with the building owner. The City B contractor would put together a complete design build proposal and price it without travel time included.


After the City B contractor gets the Design Build Facilitation process started the facilitator instructs the City A design build contractors to propose better solutions then the City B contractor’s proposal without adversely affecting other trades relative to the City B contractor's proposal.
The design build facilitator next step would be to hire and pay a City C (Minneapolis) contractor to evaluate the completing City A design build proposals and contractors and make a recommendation.

In comparison to under performing project delivery methods, the design build facilitation project delivery method should typically reduce the installation cost by 12%. Reduce annual operating and maintenance expenses 20%. Reduce the time frame from conception to completion by a third. Eliminate 80% of the cost growth.

Budgeting problems are eliminated. The building owner has someone looking out for their interests throughout the process without being too reliant on one person. The combined cost of the design build facilitator, City B contractor and City C contractor should be around 2-3% of installation cost. The facilitator could be an architect, a trade consultant, a prime contractor, construction manager or non-compete contractor.

Starting with Midwestern metropolitan areas and based upon information made public, the exchange will list contractors, architects, and consultants that may be interested in being a:

- City A contractor vying for a design build facilitation project

- CIty B proposal contractor

- City C evaluating contractor

- Design build facilitator

There is a Design Build Facilitation long explanation that historically focuses on the four most important project delivery system issues: Fear, Competition, Accountability, and Trust. For more background information, links to articles and papers are listed. The exchange will defining the role of facilitator, City B, and City C contractors trade by trade but honestly the Design Build Facilitation is as easy as ABC along with finding agreeable contractors . Unfortunately the ABB or replacing City B or C contractors with a consultant creates too many conflicts of interests to be called the Design Build Facilitation project delivery method. ABC is the key.

For more Design Build Facilitation explanation please visit.

http://sites.google.com/site/dbfacilitation/