Design Build

[RedBauer]

I previously worked for a Design-Build company and have since moved on to a traditional engineering company. The design-build company had an in-house civil engineering division and an in-house excavation (construction) division. Since I've moved on, I've always wondered if this situation would be a conflict of interest or unethical. Without a complete division (separate companies) between the engineer and contractor, what protects the owner from unwarranted designs, changes orders, etc. that would directly put money back into the contractor's pocket?

Personally, I was always firm on my designs and approach, however, there was always "pressure" to design for the excavation equipment on hand rather than the most economical way. For example, why underground bore when we could excavate the entire road.

The experience was actual quite beneficial since I was allowed to be part of the actual construction process and receive hands-on training in the field. But just curious on everyone thoughts.

 

[PEDARRIN2]

The contract includes both the design and the construction so the owner gets a proposal/bid for both as part of a single entry.

So if the engineer spends too much time on a design, he eats into the company's profit because his design fee was part of the bid. If the contractor constructs it wrong, he cannot get any recourse from an E&O from the engineer but has to rely on the engineer to redesign it.

So, in an ideal world, the owner gets a better product, because the engineer has the contractor review his design, and the contractor has little resistance to revising design during construction.

 

[JAE]

There's nothing unethical about Design/Build.

...unless of course your employer tried to force you to design something that you knew wouldn't be safe or violated the conditions of the agreement with the owner.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[hokie66]

Design/Build itself is not unethical. But there are certainly a lot of conflict of interest concerns with that method of delivery.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Design/Build can be a big advantage for some Owners. One client needed a third party (me) to get an understanding of traditional change orders, cost overruns, requests for information, etc. For the next phase of their building project, I suggested Design/Build, even though that meant they no longer need me. Worked out well for them.

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

http://www.VacuumTubeEra.net

 

[IRstuff]

Seems to me that a design/build also has advantages of common processes, better communications, etc.

Interestingly, almost all defense contracts are essentially design/build, although, the build might be more like a general contractor with a bunch of subs, but their contracts will also be design/build. There are almost no contracts where one sub does the design, and another does the build

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[KENAT]

IRstuff, that goes for many (most?) 'products' that are sold be it cars, aircraft, ships, washing machines or what have you.

Sure manufacturing does get sub contracted/out sourced as does design but it's not seen as some big ethical issue when it's all kept in house.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[IRstuff]

I was picking my industry specifically because of the RFP process is most like the subject matter here, while internal development rarely has any sort of competitive procurement. One exception I've heard is Cray Computers, wherein they had a shootout between two competing versions of their next computer. Rumor has it that Seymour Cray somehow tended to always be on the winning team.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[urgross]

Most construction contracts in the Federal government are design/bid/build as opposed to DB; some federal agents do not have a delegated authority to allow design/build.

I would much prefer a negotiated (RFP) design/bid/build if time allows, or design/bid/build IFB. I would liken it to having a GC hiring the commissioning agent. The Owner would need a good Owner's Agent to assist in determining whether a change is in or out of scope, what are considered reasonable practices, and what is a standard and average product for design.

Design/bid is, in theory, intended to award the contractor for assuming greater liability under a performance type contract. I've rarely seen that happen, and, often, shifting the onus is politically unacceptable. The government has been placing greater emphasis on performance based contracts, but if specifications are needed, I'd definitely want to be negotiating a design/bid/build.

 

[moltenmetal]

There's nothing inherently unethical about design/build.

In theory, design/build offers the opportunity for greater interaction between the people doing the design and the people implementing it. Done properly, that interaction raises the game of both parties, for the benefit of the client as well as the benefit of the firm doing the work. It doesn't always work that way, but it certainly can.

When design and construction are separated entirely, you can get engineers whose primary concern is not the interests of their client, but rather covering their own @sses. That may sound all squeaky clean and ethical, especially to the engineer preparing the design, but the client still gets the shaft. This is not always true, but it is best to set up contractual and working relationships in such a way that all parties have their motivations in proper alignment.

The worst is when design and construction management are separated. That can break the feedback chain necessary for design to be refined and improved. The result can be an impairment of the reputation of engineers in general.

 

[MrHershey]

@urgross: One big outlier on that federal government non-design/build is the military. I don't know that I've done a military job that *wasn't* design build.

Like most methods there's always some training to do for organizations who haven't done it before. If you get an owner who is used to DBB there's some training involved to write things as more performance specifications and make sure to leave RFPs open enough that modifications can be made. Layout general geometry and program and make sure your space requirements are good. But if you've gotten to the detailing stage, you've gone too far. Had one job that was the first design-build the entity had ever done. The RFP was so specific that they ran into issues when they insisted we stick to specification and RFP drawings when you couldn't make them meet code. Would have been fine without the details because we could have done our own thing while still meeting their performance requirements, but were hamstrung with the architectural details. Almost seemed like the structural engineer was doing it correctly and leaving plenty of things open while the architect was laying out strict rules on what could and couldn't be done to protect his architectural intent (for a building that he would not be the registered design professional for).

Not all contractors are real great at it either. Supposed to be a contractor-friendly approach and it certainly can be, but they can't ignore the design process like they get to the with DBB. The point is to get their input early, and avoid many of the pitfalls of DBB when they enter the game last. But have been on teams with some contractors who won't look at much of anything until the IFC and then wonder why it doesn't match their vision of what it should have been. At that point you're not a whole lot better off in construction then you would have been in DBB, you even might be worse off since you can't go to the Owner and whine about things and ask for schedule or money help. You're the one who designed it, you won't get any pity from them for the design not being constructable. And you've taken on the additional design liability for your troubles.

I don't know that there's anything unethical about it. At the end of the day the thing still needs to be safe and to meet code. And would seem like there'd be more pressure on engineers to cut corners with the design to help contractors. There may be some truth to that. But unlike in DBB, the contractor's ass is actually on the line for those defects in design-build. The owner isn't going to sue me, the designer, like they would in DBB. They're going after the contractor first and the contractor is going to have to turn around and sue me. And if they're the ones pushing for the items that caused those defects, they get a lot less sympathy (though designers probably still get most of the blame).

 

[BUGGAR]

We did design build contracts for the Navy. We were a big engineering outfit and when the Navy went design build, we wrote up the contracts and requirements for their DB projects. We had to come up with DB documents that accurately presented what the client wanted and we had to do enough design to make sure it was designable and buildable. We frequently thought we should just design the whole thing ourselves but that is not the point of DB. Some of the work was designed completely by us and was not subject to the DB process. Identifying what was and was not DB was like combining metric and imperial dimensions on the same project, but we found ways. We had failures (Peohe's Marina in San Diego and a Navy Pier in Washington State) and some successes (Navy build up in Guam). The failures were both design errors on the part of the DB contractor. In both cases, the General Contractor was the lead and the engineer was his sub. I never saw their contract so I don't know the lines of authority. In both cases we advised the owner that we didn't recommend acceptance of the contractor's calculations but were overruled.
It's incredibly difficult to write design build documents that cover everything!

 

[urgross]

There is always two-step design build. The firm doing the 10-30% design could then be retained as the Owner's Agent.

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

There is still potential conflict of interest for that design firm if they did some of the design and then are doing construction supervision for the owner. They have a contractual relationship with the design build firm and also potential liabilities from their design work in the project.

Better to have a third party not involved in the direct design acting as the owner's agent, in that scenario.

 

[urgross]

In a two step, the Owner hires an independent A-E firm to create the OPR, applicable criteria, and general concept of design. The conceptual design is then used as a performance solicitation document. The third party firm then is in a position of knowledge to represent the Owner in negotiations with the DB. No conflict of interest, no ethical breach.

 

[JStephen]

The flip side of the design/build ethical issue is that you're also supposed to work only in your area of competence. When you get into specialty work, there are very "generalist" engineers who are competent in oddball specialties. So most of our work is not called "design/built", but it all includes designing and building on our part, with exactly the same ethical challenges as a traditional design-built contract.