"Design/build" always demands definition

"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, good about design/build."

Dick Snow Past AGC President

From about 30 feet away on the parking lot of Milwaukee County Stadium recently, that verbal grenade was "incoming," aimed at a respectable journalist by an equally respectable high-level, verbose executive from one of Wisconsin's respectable general contracting firms.

At least the "lobbing" gentleman didn't say, "Design/build sucks," even though he may have well been thinking that. And, of course, even in its genteel mode, the message was duly noted.

This particular gentleman/executive, who looks better, more handsome without his hard hat, may just have a point to ponder.

However, one pauses to consider just which "design/build" he refers to - defining any term in the construction business is at once difficult and tricky.

Recollections of CM

For example, we clearly remember the introduction of construction management to the industry a quarter century ago.

There was panic in the streets from the traditionalists - the you-get-us-the-specs-and-we'll-bid-and-build-the-sucker group.

It was unthinkable to these folks that college-educated people wanted to practice what they learned at the university rather than get involved in the inherent distractions of actual construction work, particularly with the people and supply problems then cropping up like dandelions.

As any good trade association will do when faced with a problem, the Associated General Contractors of America established a Construction Management Committee. The CM Committee was certainly composed of individuals who actually practiced or considered practicing CM.

Initially, CMers, in their purest ethical sense, pledged not to do any work with their own forces. When taking bids, sooner or later (mainly sooner) these professionals found that some of the work could be done by their own forces at less cost to the owner(s). Their professionalism dictated this information must be passed on to the owner(s).

Owners, not caring a fig for any ethics in the industry and having a bottom line to meet, simply told the CMers to proceed accordingly. That was the first breach in the dam.

Is it any wonder then that at a meeting in Florida the AGC's CM Committee, about to write a brochure on the subject, spent an entire day cogitating over a definition for "construction management."

Finally, with tongue hanging out a la pre-cocktail reception hour, one unknown committee member requested the chair's attention:

"I know what construction management is - it's anything the owner thinks it is!"

As eye/ear witness, the retired John Reichl of Bell-Reichl in Hales Corners, then a CM Committee member and still an AGC life director, relates the tale, "It was all over then."

It wasn't too long thereafter that AGC, in a "streamlining" mode, folded the CM Committee and several others and formed a Project Delivery System Committee still in existence and dealing with construction by contract, turnkey, construction management and design/build, plus anything new coming down the line.

Design/build waters murky

While there well may be "nothing good about design/ build," it's safe to say this form of project delivery system is part of the construction industry, like it or not.

D/B has proven definitely viable in private-sector work and is certainly heading that way in the public-work sector.

Will D/B become the delivery system of choice in the public-work sector? Probably not. The system would likely fit in situations involving large (in-one-piece) public-works projects with big budgets, projects requiring definitive timelines and results.

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District thinks its Lincoln Creek extravaganza requires the employment of design/ build. The Wisconsin Underground Contractors Association thinks otherwise and is litigating, seeking an injunction against the project using the system.

A decision in this case might well establish precedence for legal parameters for the use of the system in public-works projects. Or the outcome might still leave the design/build waters murky or polluted, or both. There are notable examples of the use of the D/B system for large projects - Midwest Express Center, Miller Park and the new General Mitchell International Airport parking structure come to mind. Yet, are they really pure design/build projects?

The first two involve joint ventures that are contractor-led, with contractors, architectural and engineering firms in combination. The Mitchell airport effort involves a major engineering firm, a general contractor and a modest-but-adequate architectural effort. (This particular group won't like us pointing that out, by the way.)

One, with a small stretch, might consider Monona Terrace in Madison a form of design/build with the architect long deceased and led by a contractor and engineering team.

The new 6th Street viaduct in Milwaukee is a design/build project about to happen. It is relatively safe to say design/build will continue to find its way into public-works activity. For one thing, the government and owners control the purse strings; for another, many of their projects require design and technical skills beyond the capacity of public works administrative agencies.

Thus, the so-called Golden Rule of construction will win out in the end.

Then there are the attorneys general who will somehow figure that mass opposition to design/build for public works might just constitute an anti-trust situation.

It is up to the contracting industry, as we've said before, to jump in and participate in the rule-making process to prevent politics and other erstwhile abridgments of this type of project-delivery system for public work.

Design/build, as with the use of construction management, has potential flaws as a delivery system.

But, after all folks, isn't design/build "anything the owner thinks it is?" Stay tuned for any instant replays!