Synopsis & Condensed Summary of 14 May
2000
(Notes initially prepared by Norma Barr, PhD,
Barr & Barr Consultants, Austin, Tx.)
Construction Partnering Summary - NATIONAL
WATER QUALITY LAB – Denver Federal
Center
ABIDE – GSA - BLACKINGTON & DECKER -
HENSEL PHELPS February
1999
PROJECT PARTNERSHIP: Partners took time during the closing days of the project to
assess their experience & explore Lessons Learned, putting them into better
position to reinvest in construction industry partnership. They affirmed true
benefits to both government & business.
PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS: Partners were asked to rate Project Partnership by rating 20
items.
Rating scale was: 4 = Very Effective 3 = Effective 2 = Ineffective 1 = Real Failure
The ratings were as follows:
3.83 Problem-solving
3.81 No litigation
3.79 Rafting team building session
3.78 Quality Job
3.76 Safe Job
3.76 Non-adversarial work environment
3.67 Snow mobiling team building session
3.65 Teamwork
3.61 Open communication
3.57 Payment Process
3.56 Fun on the Job
3.53 Direct and candid instead of posturing and
hidden agendas
3.50 Trust
3.40 Schedule Management
3.33 Submittal Process (during 2nd half of the
project) (1.23 score during 1st half of the project)
3.29 Less sending and resending paperwork
3.29 Time and cost control over the project
3.27 As Builts
3.12 Reduced paperwork
3.00 Profitable
**On the evaluation of the submittal process,
partners were asked to evaluate the submittal process on the first half of the
job and on the last half. The 1st half Submittal score was 1.23. The 2nd half
Submittal score was 3.33, showing an enormous gain in mid-project with project
partners picking up revised duties.
The evaluations were the highest ratings the
Partnering Consultant has ever seen on a construction job.
Good News ---
Successes and Contributions
Volunteers
presented personal observations {names available by request}
01. The National Water Quality Lab, a
state-of-the-art laboratory, is positioned to truly support the national
resource of clean water. It's a science lab to provide scientific information
about ground water and irrigation as well as water quality and quantity. This
lab is a "fee-for-service facility" & is part of a larger program
that works with water as a vital national resource.
02. This
successful project demonstrates GSA's commitment to small and minority business
utilization
03. NWQL represents long-term government
payback with a government owned facility.
04. Technological
improvements allow reduced lab space, with increased capability.
05. Government took a front role in
integrated sustainable, affordable design which began in the project planning
stage. The project includes energy saving designs as well as utilizing some
recycling building materials
06. Partners achieved $1,200,000 Value
Engineering solutions which began with early input into the project &
continued throughout the project.
07. Prototype
Project Process – Casework Concept / layout is now being requested round the
world
08. Project is the first in the nation to
partner with Public Utilities - - Outcome: Huge energy savings - compared to
what the energy bill would have been.
09. Early
inclusion of Commissioning provides a true warranty period for the contractors
10. RK Mechanical brought in their Service
& Start-up Company early to check out equipment before start up. They took
a pro-active approach & presented a partnered, professional outcome. At
move-in, the govern-ment agency did not get ambushed on equipment, since the
early check out of equipment prior to lab start up helps to avoid later
potential damage to pumps & motors when they are started to do lab service.
Early check out helps to avoid potential limit to long-term performance of the
integrated systems.
11. Leader synergy occurred on the project
throughout the different parts of the job such as the leadership provided by
Howard, Carl, Brent, Steve, Taryn, and Tim.
12. Procurement Officer took a risk on the
innovative approach of going 8-A; BDI & HP put together a team with
outstanding individuals
13. The
leaders were visionary and thought outside the box
14. They were innovative in building
partnership rapport by turning to experiential learning rather than meeting/
classroom approach Partners brought expertise to the table
15. Leaders looked for the design intent to
support the project, rather than taking the business-as-usual approach of
rigidly considering contract content only.
16. Leaders encouraged partners to look for
better ways with minimal cost, minimal time investment & a workable
solution. Obstacles were over-come through communication & cooperation.
17. Initially the Project Manager (Taryn
Edwards) initiated the attitude of recommending a solution when bringing a
problem. This provided a transition for workman experience to be included in
solution finding.
18. Problem-solving responsibility was
distributed throughout the project, where Partners at critical project levels
took responsibility for project focus
19. The Construction Manager, Abide
International, offered to invest time & money into partnering & asked
for decision authority & responsibility to plan ways to make the partnering
process real. Carl found creative ways to help the team build strong
relationships. Howard & Steve (GSA) supported the innovative approaches.
20. GSA relinquished some decision-making
authority and invested in trust and good will to allow Abide International to
find innovative, experiential team building activities.
21. Partnering organizations shared the
costs to build a real Partnership work environment {Abide International, GSA,
BDI, Hensel Phelps, RKMI},as well as other subcontractors} provided money,
time, and participation.
22. Partners were able to include values,
emotional intelligence, good will investment and commitment to keep the
partnership alive and functioning.
23. Champions
of partnering behavior led the process throughout the project
24. Workers bragged about this project being
the best one they had ever worked on - - they demonstrated ownership of the
project at the working level also, which was an outcome of partnership and
leadership.
25. Many partners stated that this was the
best partnering experience they had ever had. They credited visionary
leadership, experiential team-building, and real human connection and
communication.
26. Rafting experience offered a real
opportunity to connect and build a team in a short amount of time. The raft
trip was followed by debriefing the experience and deepening understanding
through communication styles and recognizing project application.
27. Leaders kept the partnering process
energized during the intermediate parts of the project - - which kept
partnership focused.
28. The project was a pleasure to work on.
We actually achieved the goal of having fun while we built a top quality
project
29. Subcontractors and the General
Contractor brought in innovative people to meet the challenge, particularly in
the mechanical and electrical areas.
30. Successful job challenged the popular
perception of GSA's reputation in the contractor community of being difficult.
GSA’s leaders on this project used brilliant approaches combined with common
sense to continually serve project execution and project quality.
31. GSA’s Contracting Officer & Project
Manager demonstrated intelligent, interpretation of intent and were equally
committed to legality and contract integrity.
32. Companies
put together a truly safety-minded work force
33. No
lost time injuries occurred on the project
34. Project news was available on internet
website allowing interested stakeholders - families of workers, workers,
agencies, consultants, universities, and perspective clients – to stay
informed.
35. Project partners were sensitive to
neighbor impact of the building process (i.e,utilization of manifold instead of
numerous stacks for chemical exhaust.