Page 1




Project Leadership Silver Award Western Michigan University's Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine



BEST IN CLASS FACILITY OWNERS Perform 5x Better Than Their Peers The leading, cloud-based, construction management software for FACILITY OWNERS!

A technology-driven culture is one of the common factors among top-performing owners!


Project Savings


Productivity Improvement


Cycle Time Reduction

e-Builder Enterprise Delivers Accurate forecasts to avoid costly surprises Process consistency through automated workows Reduced risk through improved visibility and contingency management Real-time collaboration between owner, designers, contractors & suppliers | 800-580-9322






PROJECT LEADERSHIP SILVER AWARD Western Michigan University's Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine


By Matthew Bradford

Stan Scott Committee Chair Scott Consulting Lisa Berkey Pennsylvania State University Matt Handal Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. Dean McCormick Iowa State University



Randy Pollock


MediaEdge Communications 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1000 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6P4 President Kevin Brown Publisher and Senior Vice President Chuck Nervick Editor Matthew Bradford Senior Designer Annette Carlucci


Three questions Owners should be asking about BIM

Steps for attracting and retaining the very best By Brent Darnell



What project delivery and contract method is right for us?

Contributing Writers Matthew Bradford Brent Darnell Chuck Mies Dean McCormick Randy Pollock John Sier Jay Snyder Are you interested in having your project profiled in an upcoming issue of Owners Perspective? Please contact Chuck Nervick at 866-216-0860 ext. 227 or by email at


By Chuck Mies

Designer Jen Carter Account Executive Zoya Zajac


By Jay Snyder


President’s Corner


Owner Alerts

By Dean McCormick By John Sier

© 2016 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the association and publisher.

16 Owner Q&A: Gwen Glattes By Randy Pollock

31 Chapter Updates 33 New Members 34 Calendar of Events

COAA’S 2016 SPRING OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE Teamwork and communication take focus in spring Owner roundup By Matthew Bradford



I hope you are reading this as a follow-up to your attendance of the 2016 COAA Spring Owners Leadership Conference Leadership Conference that concluded just a short time ago in Dallas, Texas. The conference sessions were outstanding and the interaction with the other attendees was great. As usual, I came home with notes scribbled throughout my conference notebook, a pile of business cards, and more ideas than I can possible deal with in the next year. It was indeed a “Big Idea Roundup”.

This conference continued the recent trend of a healthy dose of “soft skill” content in addition to the customary sessions on current trends, applications of technolog y, and project succe s s stories. We led off with two sessions on recruiting and retaining talent in our organizations, and a panel discussion with a group of Millennials making their way up the career ladder in the design and construction industry. The conference also included several s e s sion s f o cu s e d on bu i ld i n g a nd leading effective teams. Rex Miller, a nationally respected author, coach, consultant, speaker, and lead author of The Commercial Real Estate Revolution, provided the opening keynote session, outlining key principals for ensuring the project team is successful.

These soft skills are essential for Owners in today’s culture, and I believe they are at the core of what COAA stands for. Let’s face it, the Owner is not typically the heavy lifter on our projects. We are not hoisting the steel, finishing concrete, or even painting the walls. We are, however, responsible for putting the team together and creating effective relationships and a collaborative environment on our projects. Most of us that have been around this business for many years have been involved in both successful and unsuccessful projects. My bet is that as you think back on those successful projects, you remember the team as much as you remember the project; and the meeting where the team had a key breakthrough leading to the success of the project, as much as you remember the dedication ceremony. In all

likelihood, you created career long – if not lifelong – relationships. Too often, the pressures of the project schedule forces us to rush through the project initiation stage. The sessions in this year's conference emphasized and reminded us that we need to take time to form the team, establish clear project goals and objectives, and create t he right environment to foster the success of the team. When the team succeeds together, the odds of a successful project are greatly enhanced – perhaps even guaranteed. A s w e r e f le c t b a c k o n a n o t h e r successful conference, it is important that we recognize the contributions of our staf f and volunteers. The COA A Conference Committee, led by Howie Ferguson, brought COAA an impressive array of conference sessions and content as t hey always do. T he st af f of T he Valisade Group sweated every detail, and as usual the conference ran like a fine watch. Karen Bresson, COAA Executive D i re c t or, p a r t icip ate d i n her f i r s t conference with many more to come. The COAA Scholarship Committee, led by Joe Sprys, brought us two outstanding scholarship winners that have bright f ut ures ahead of t hem. A s well, t he success of COAA and our events would not be possible without the devotion of our staff and volunteers. I am look in g for ward to t he Fall O w ner s L e ader sh ip C on ference i n Atlanta in November and seeing you there! Summer 2016 5



Construction necessarily occurs in the legal environment, which can be unique for each state, district, or circuit. Changes and developments can take place gradually or unexpectedly, and most changes will affect contracts already in place as well as future projects. COAA is a great resource for maintaining currency on industry evolution and identifying best practices. By John Sier


The limitations period for claims against a contractor may begin to run earlier than Substantial Completion. An Owner should always be vigilant in protecting itself against design and construction flaws because delaying action could result in losing the ability to recover for repair costs and other damages due to the defects. In 328 Barry Avenue, LLC v Nolan Properties Group, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court explained the significant cost of not acting promptly when construction defects are discovered. The Owner hired Nolan Properties to construct a commercial building in 2008, even though no w r it ten cont ract was ever executed. Dur in g construction in 2009, Nolan asked t he stucco subcontractor to investigate a water leak. While t he st ucco subcont ractor blamed t he window manufact urer and inst aller, t he subcont ractor applied some caulking sealant as a remedial measure. Two weeks later, Nolan noticed water at the same location. A spray test revealed water was entering at a corner of the window, but no cor rect ive measures were t a ken because t he Owner and Nolan believed that the issue would be addressed as construction was completed. A certificate of occupancy was issued in January 2010 and substantial completion was achieved in May of 2010. In August of 2010, the Owner noticed water on the floor in the same general location. Nolan and the stucco subcontractor investigated the cause with the assistance of several consultants who concluded that the now extensive water damage related to window


leaks. The Owner sued Nolan in June 2012 for negligence only, and Nolan joined several of t he subcont ractors as third parties. Following discover y, Nolan and t he subcont ractors sought dismis s al of the action because of the expiration of the Minnesot a St at ute of Limitations t h at required any action to be brought wit hin t wo years of “discovery of the injury.” Nolan asserted that the water intrusion was t raceable to t he water leak discovered during construction. The Owner responded that the time period for bringing claims should not commence before substantial completion because the defects or injury could or should be addressed as the construction is completed. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with Nolan that the period of limitations began when the first defect was identified. The Supreme Court affirmed finding that the wording of t he s t at ute do e s not re ference substantial completion as a precondition – only discovery of the injury. Substantial Completion is only mentioned in the Statute of Repose, which establishes an absolute bar to any action for a defect. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a jury to determine if the injury discovered in 2012 was the same injury that was identified in 2009. If the jury determines that the injury is the same, the Owner is barred from relief. There are several lessons from this

jurisdictions with different triggers for the commencement of the time period in which to bring an action. Further, ConsensusDOCS 200, Section 12.5.3, ConsensusDOCS 240, S e c t ion 9.5.3, A I A A 201, Section 13.7 and AIA B101, Section 8.1.1 address the application of the statute of limitations on claims; both t he B101 and t he A 201 also indicate that no action will be commenced more than ten years following substantial completion. All parties should be aware of the relative time periods for claims involving negligence, contract, and warranty issues in order to avoid the inadvertent loss of important rights.

Being aware of the periods of limitation and repose are essential to creating an overall risk management framework

” decision about taking timely action to preserve rights and claims. First, take all reports of defects seriously and confirm that corrective measures have been taken. Second, if an issue is recurring and an investigation is commenced, consider a tolling or standstill agreement that extends the limitations period while the investigation is ongoing to prevent the conclusion of the investigation from being reached after it is too late. Third, never undertake a construction project without a written contract between the Owner and the constructor. The time periods for bringing contract-related act ions tends to be longer in most

Claims by the government for indemnification may be barred by the period of limitations and repose [no nullum tempus in AZ for contract actions for construction defects] Sometimes claims arise as a result of separate litigation, so the ability to take affirmative measures is limited. However, being aware of the periods of limitation and repose are essential to creating an overall risk management framework. In City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc., t he A rizona Cour t of Appeals determined that the government does not have unlimited time to bring claims arising out of construction defects. In the underlying case, a pipe installer diagnosed with mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure sued the City of Phoenix in 2013 among several others for failure to warn and protect him from the dangers of asbestos. The City, in turn, sued several developers and contractors for indemnification because the plaintiff’s Summer 2016 7

OWNER ALERTS exposure occurred on projects taking place between 1968 and 1993 in which the developers and contractors were involved. The City pointed out that the contracts expressly required the contractors to indemnify the City from all suits “arising out of the work,” and the developers received permits that incorporate an ord in a nce re quir in g p er m it tee s to indemnify the City from al suits “arising out of or in connection with any act or omission” of the permittee. The developers and contractors sought dismissal of the action against them on the basis that the Construction Statute of Repose, ARS Section12-552(A), precludes any action based in contract for an improvement to real property may be brought more than eight years after substantial completion of the improvement. The City responded that Arizona law recognizes the ancient doctrine of nullum tempus occurit regit, “time does not run against the king,” meaning that the government is exempt from periods of limitations or repose. In fact, Arizona has a statute that provides “the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter.” ARS Section 12-259.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action because the Construction Statute of Repose opens with the phrase, “notwithstanding any other statute,” which the court interpreted as explicitly rendering the nullum tempus statute inapplicable. The court went on to interpret the indemnity claim asserted against the developers through the permits as being “based in contract” because the developers chose to accept the terms and conditions of the permits [including the indemnity obligations] in exchange for the City granting the permits. While the case was interpreting a statute, the same general rules apply to interpreting a contract. Parties should be very careful when using the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision to the contrar y” that it accurately ref lects the intent of that provision to trump any conf licting provisions. If the statement is not intended to supersede any other language on that topic, avoid using that phrase. Likewise, you should be aware of what a court may interpret to constitute a “contract” between the parties. Courts will examine the totality of the circumstances to identify the agreement and the “contract” may

consistent of several different documents as well as behavior. The best course is to have an explicit, clear and comprehensive document governing the relationship between the parties. An express warranty of future performance may extend the limitations period In reviewing statutes of limitation time periods, you should know that there are different statutes that apply depending on the nature of the claim, the contract or even the work or product being supplied, and those periods can be affected by the documents bet ween the parties. The Supreme Court of Delaware in LTL Acres Limited Partnership v Butler Manufacturing Co. and Dryvit Systems, Inc., clarified t hat an ex press war rant y of f ut ure performance can extend the limitations period. The Owner hired an authorized installer of Butler building systems to obt ain and assemble pre- engineered building components from Butler. The Owner also hired an installer of Dryvit to enclose the building once erected. The Dryvit cladding was covered by a ten-year limited warranty providing for repair or

Mobile facilities asset management software Are you looking for a better mobile tool for your maintenance technicians? Are you looking for a BIM-enabled CMMS? Are you trying to establish a Preventive Maintenance program? With Autodesk Building Ops • Begin operations on day one • Provide your mobile workers with the information they need • Gain greater insight into your operations and asset performance • Enjoy a tool that’s easy to learn and use Visit to learn more.

Autodesk, the Autodesk logo, and Autodesk Building Ops are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product and services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. © 2016 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.

Untitled-3 1 8

2016-07-19 12:14 PM

OWNER ALERTS replacement of defective product. The building was complete in September of 2006, but water infiltration problems vexed the building from the time it opened. By February 2012, the Dryvit had begun to crack and buckle and the water infiltration continued into 2013 despite attempts to address the problems. The Owner sued Butler and Dryvit in July 2013. Both Butler and Dryvit moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the passage of time. Butler claimed the six-year limitations period for construction defects barred the Owner’s claim, and Dryvit claimed that the four-year limitations period of the Uniform Commercial Code prevented the Owner from bringing the claim. The Supreme Court agreed with the t rial cour t t hat But ler was ent it led to dismis s a l because it “ f ur nished construction” by specially engineering and fabricating the building for assembly and erection by the installer, and the work constituted an “improvement to real property” because the engineering and fabrication did not need to take place on the premises. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action against Dryvit. The Uniform Commercial Code [adopted by every state in one form or another] provides at 2-725: (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement, the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it. (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of deliver y is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discover y of the breach must await the time of such p e r for m anc e th e cau s e of ac t ion accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.(emphasis added) Dryvit argued that more than four years had passed from the tender of delivery of the product, and the trial court found that the warranty was a mere promise to repair or replace defective materials, so the warranty did not extend to any future performance. The Supreme Court disagreed but recognized that some states have declined to extend the period where

the warranty limits the remedy to repair or replacement. The critical point for the Court was the wording of the warranty that the product “will not … lose their bond, “will be fade resistant”, and “will be water resistant” to conclude that the warranty extends to future performance. While the Owner’s delay in pursuing it remedies caused a portion of the claim to be dismissed, the express warranty did extend the limitations period beyond what is provided under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, the remedies available under the warranty are very limited. This decision points out some of the various limitation periods that could be applicable to a construction project, and emphasizes the need for the Owner to be diligent in preserving and pursuing serious claims for defects and deficiencies. Defective workmanship causing damage may not trigger general liability insurance coverage for subcontractor Many Owners face the dilemma caused by damages suffered as a result of defective construction discovered long after the project is complete and the contractor is either not solvent or not sufficiently capitalized to pay for the damages. A Performance Bond, if one was supplied, typically expires at the end of the warranty period. Outside of that time period, the Owner may try to turn to the contractor’s insurance to cover the loss, but many states do not recognize defective workmanship as an “occurrence” triggering insurance coverage under the comprehensive general liabilit y policy. Illinois is one of the states that rejects coverage as described in the case of Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v Metro North Condominium Association decided in the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. T he C o n d o m i n i u m A s s o c i a t i o n experienced serious water infiltration issues resulting defective construction, so the Association sued the developer and several subcontractors, including CSC Glass, the glazing subcontractor. As a partial resolution of the underlying lawsuit, the Association entered a settlement agreement with CSC for the payment of $700,000 to be satisfied solely through assignment of rights to payment under the insurance policy issued to CSC by Allied. The Association attempted to obtain payment from Allied who responded that there was no “occurrence” under the policy, so there was no coverage.

The court agreed with Allied. General liability insurance policies cover “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.” However, those terms are defined by the policies and various interpretations from courts around the country.  Proper t y d am a ge is def ined in plaintiffs’ policies as “physical injury to tangible property,” and “occurrence” is defined as an “accident.” Under Illinois law, it is well-established that a construction defect is not an “occurrence” or “accident”; rather, it is the natural and ordinary consequence of poor workmanship. CGL policies “are intended to protect the insured from liability for injury or damage to the persons or property of others; they are not intended to pay the costs associated with repairing or replacing the insured’s defective work and products, which are purely economic losses.” St ated dif ferent ly, CGL policies do not cover “an accident of fault y workmanship but rather faulty workmanship which causes an accident.” [citations omitted] The court did provide an example that may be helpful to understand the distinction: Thus, where the window installer’s poor workmanship causes water infiltration which damages an antique rug, there is “faulty workmanship which causes an accident”; the presence of that rug in that location was not something the window installer necessarily could have foreseen— but he could hardly fail to foresee that, if his work was defective, the defects would result in damage to the structure in which he was installing windows. This holding is not unique to Illinois, but there are also several states that do recognize the possibility that defective construction could be an occurrence in one form or another. When examining and creat in g t he r isk mana gement pr o g r a m f or a g iven pr oje c t , t he Owner - as well as the contractor – should be mindful of that jurisdiction’s v iew toward coverage for defect ive construction. The Owner and contractors m ay be a s sumin g g re ater r isk and responsibility in the states having a more restrictive view of coverage for defects. John Sier is Associate Counsel to COAA and with the firm of Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook in Detroit, Michigan. Summer 2016 9


PROJECT LEADERSHIP SILVER AWARD Western Michigan University's Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine By Matthew Bradford

On July 13, 2012, the Western Michigan University (WMU) embarked on a 345-day journey to transform an aging downtown building into a new and cutting-edge School of Medicine (SoM). In June 2014, that journey was realized with the completion of the Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine (W/Med), a state-of-the-art facility that now stands as a testament to project management excellence.


Summer 2016 11




First conceived by University President Dr. John Dunn in 2007, the WMU Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine project launched in 2010 with a donation of a $100 million towards its development, and MPI Research's contribution of a 40-year old, eight-storey Pfizer building in downtown Kalamazoo, Michigan. “To build this new school of medicine in a vacant research building in the center of the business district of Kalamazoo was a very critical strategic decision,” said Robert F. Pulito, President and Principal-in-Charge with The S/L/A/M Collaborative (SLAM), the project's architects alongside Diekema Hamann. “Passing on the greenfield sites available on campus and selecting this site with an oversized 1980s former pharmaceutical facility required vision and the ability to accept and manage risk and this decision has had a profound impact on the economic vitality of the city.” A te a m w a s t hen for me d u nder construction manager Walbridge to convert the 330,000 sq. ft. facility into a modern SoM named after medical technology pioneer Dr. Homer Stryker. “[W/Med] was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop a new medical school and design a new facility to best meet the needs of the innovative, contemporary medical degree program curriculum,” said Hal B. Jenson, W/Med's Founding Dean. “The resulting campus plan and facility supports the medical school's current mission to educate and inspire lifelong learners to be exceptional clinicians, leader s, educator s, and researcher s of tomorrow; as well as the vision to be distinguished as a leader among medical schools through community collaboration in medical education, patient care, research, and service.” Construction on the facility began in July 2012 under the direction of Owner Peter Strazdas, WMU's Associate Vice President of the Facilities Management Department. It entailed demolishing 60 percent of the existing structure interior, including its lower, first, second, and third floors, which were renovated to incorporate more natural lighting, updated environments, and new common spaces. “The new facility includes a regional simulat ion center t hat responds to curriculum and professional development needs and incorporates classrooms, lecture halls, and informal learning spaces with access to technology. Featuring a threestor y atrium that connects the main

building to a new three-story cone-shaped addition, a 22,000-square-foot medical simulation laboratory, and a grand sevenstory stairway, the new SoM has become a standout facility in WMU's portfolio.” Moreover, the success of the project has inspired new rounds of donor participation, allowing the new school to begin the fit-out of an additional 100,000 sq. ft. of shelled laboratory space several years ahead of schedule. “This will allow the school to build their research program into an important component of all medical school programs,” explains Pulito. Excellence by Design The design of W/Med was informed by three design principals: to be Learner-centered and patient- and family-oriented, discovery-driven, and globally-engaged. With this in mind, the team worked to not only meet that vision,

but bring one of the region's most modern medical education facilities online within a tight timeline and budget. The team's secondary goal, however, was to produce a functional Level 500 BIM model of the new facility for integration into the University’s TMA system, an advanced computerized maintenance management system. Produced under Strazdas's direction, the BIM model introduced a powerful tool that aided the team during construction of the building’s addition and produced a resource that will assist the school in facilities management and possible expansions in years to come. “Strazdas's approach, along with WMU's engagement, generated energy among all team members. His leadership allowed and encouraged everyone's participation and enabled creative solutions that maintained design intent and economy while mitigating scheduling ef fect s,” Summer 2016 13


PROJECT COMPLEXITY Challenge: Design and construct a new ground-up medical school with limited and ever-evolving faculty in two years. Solution: Establish a modified integrated design and delivery process (IPD) that accommodated change throughout the design and construction process while maintaining the budget and schedule. Challenge: Deliver a state-of-the-art Medical School for under $275 sq. ft. Solution: Allow the construction manager to establish a design-assist guaranteed-maximum-price project delivery method with mechanical and electrical subcontractors. Also, negotiate with neighbor facilities to share cooling, steam, and power utilities, eliminating the need for a central utility plant. Challenge: Develop quality documentation minimizing field coordination issues and ensuring quality installation for an existing building with minimal documentation. Solution: Document the facility in BIM, scan existing conditions, and input it into the model. Also, contract the design team to manage the model throughout construction and to develop the coordination drawings for the subcontractors, resulting in the virtual elimination of all coordination changes due to field coordination. Challenge: Achieving the unique geometry for two multi-tiered, team-based learning halls in the built form was the most challenging aspect of the project. Virtually no straight walls were used. Instead, radial walls and curves were utilized through this addition. Solution: Achieving proposed truncated cone and elliptical shaping with BIM, utilizing the model to generate the fabrication drawings and laser scanning the installation on a continuous basis to ensure the accuracy of the addition’s foundation and structure, which was critical to the proper installation of its skin and build out. Challenge: Tying into the existing structural system for the new atrium on the north end of the building, constructed in a space between the new addition and existing building. Solution: As issues arose, documentation was gathered in the form of photographs and measurements that were shared instantly with SLAM’s offices in Connecticut and Atlanta.

says Pulito, adding, “His decision to proceed with a design assist approach to t he MEP [mechanical, elect rical, and plumbing] s y stems enabled t he desig n team to work collaborat ively with MEP subcontractors to investigate the existing systems and determine the optimal integration of existing systems and equipment with new. This critical decision resulted in substantial savings on the MEP systems.” SL AM was further empowered by Strazdas to discard any of the university’s previous facility design standards that did not add value to the current project, regardless of any bureaucracy issues that would arise. The team also benefitted from quarterly highlevel executive meetings with the [Architect / Engineer] A/E and construction manager 14

to go over design and construction progress, identify obstacles, and keep the team accountable to completion. Scheduling There were many critical milestone events the project had to meet. The most important was achieving Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accreditation, which allowed the school to interview and select new students and begin classes. Submitting and achieving LCME accreditation required careful coordination with the design and construction of the facility, making it imperative that the User Group make timely decisions in order to achieve a successful submission and project delivery. To that end, Strazdas facilitated a monthly meeting with his project manager, the design

team, and the User Group's key decision makers to make sure their progress on design decisions was being met and that the project schedule was in alignment with the critical requirements for LCME submission and accreditation process. In addition to ensuring the required shutdowns occurred on-time and without any incidents for the building's neighbors, every milestone date was met. This resulted in a successful accreditation process and project delivery, thereby inspiring confidence within the donor community and helping WMU exceed its funding goals. Cost Management A number of measures were taken to make the best use of the project's $60 million budget. They included:


SUSTAINABILITY The decision to renovate a vacant facility demonstrated WMU's commitment to sustainable development, minimizing their carbon footprint, and to supporting the local community. Sustainable highlights of W/Med include: • Allowing more daylight than ever before, contributing toward a goal for the renovated portion of the building being designed and constructed to achieve LEED Silver Certification. • Utilizing the central plant utilities from the neighboring corporation, eliminating the need for building a new central plant and avoiding additional emissions. The extra load on the existing central plant helps it run more efficiently because it was designed to support a greater load then its current condition. • Working with high-performance, energy-efficient glass that allows for high levels of visibility while reducing the potential for summer overheating and winter heat loss. • Recycling more than 75 percent of the construction waste. • Inviting Habitat for Humanity to collect reusable materials. • Building Reuse (maintaining 55 percent of existing walls, floors, and roof). • Using all new mechanical systems with the latest in digital controls, variable speed drives, and occupancy sensors for dynamic adjustment to the heating and cooling. This eliminates the need for a setback schedule for maximizing energy efficiency. • Reincorporating marble and granite that were removed to make way for the addition back into the project. • Locating the project within close proximity to a large variety of shops, restaurants, financial and medical services.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT The vertical integration of a single BIM model from design to construction and facilities management played a significant role in improving quality. A third-party commissioning agent was hired by Strazdas at the building design development stage to provide a comprehensive review of the design, submittals, installation, and system start-up. He also advocated and had the user group hire their facility manager (FM) early in the design phase . As such, they were actively engaged in the design review meetings, regularly attended the weekly construction progress meetings, and walked the project during construction. The FM was also given a desk in the construction manager's construction office and worked with them to become fully immersed in the system start-up and commissioning process.

Owner: Western Michigan University Construction Manager: Walbridge Lead Design The S/L/A/M Collaborative Associate Architect: Diekema Hamann Engineers Structural Engineer: Diekema Hamann Engineers Civil Engineer: Hurley & Stewart MEP Engineers: Diekema Hamann, Affiliated Engineers Inc.

• Hiring the architect, engineer, and construction manager at the beginning of the project, allowing Walbridge to work with SLAM to provide all of the budgeting within a manner that was consistent with the construction schedule. • Following a design-assist guaranteedmaximum-price project delivery method that Walbridge was able to use with mechanical and electrical subcontractors. • Implementing shared-savings incentives for subcontractors, which resulted in a savings of $2.5 million that was returned to WMU’s project budget. • Holding weekly meetings to assess site conditions, and providing rapid-responses and re solut ion s to un ant icipated conditions as a result of working with the

renovation of a complex research facility with little available documentation. • Involving the A/E in the discussion, which meant issues were quickly resolved and incorporated into change orders on a monthly basis, thereby removing any uncertainty on what change items were to be implemented or not into the construction and keeping real time costs tracked against the budget. Overall Success Thanks to these efforts and the team's “design-assist” approach, the W/Med team succeeded in transforming the building and site into a new medical facility on time and 4 percent below budget. “W MU’s conduct and constructive behav ior created a product ive and collaborative environment that facilitated

the success of the project and helped to establish benchmarks of design and importance for the University. The building was delivered under budget and on schedule, has distinguished the new SoM, and helped WMU fulfill its obligation to revitalize the downtown business district and adv ance K a lam a zo o’s medica l community,” reports Pulito. Matt Pulick, Senior Project Manager with Walbridge adds: “[Strazdas's] enthusiasm to create a culture of partnership among SLAM, Walbridge, and his team at WMU were crucial in delivering an award-winning medical school to the university. The WMU Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine is a landmark in downtown Kalamazoo, and I’m honored to have worked with WMU in making it possible.” Summer 2016 15


GWEN GLATTES Director, Facilities and Real Estate Services/Construction Audit, University of Pennsylvania, and COAA Secretary/Treasurer By Randy Pollock

One of the first people you meet at a COAA Owner Leadership Conference is almost always Gwen Glattes. At least that was my experience. She walks right up, introduces herself, welcomes you to the conference, and makes you feel immediately welcome – especially for first-time conference goers like myself in 2010. And at almost every conference since, she has been there, waving the flag and continuing to serve COAA in so many ways. Compared to most COA A leaders and members, Gwen has had an untraditional career pat h. Born and raised in Pennsylvania, she attended Penn State for her B.A. and Saint Joseph's University for her M.B.A. Early career stops included ENSR Corporation as a business manager, Henkels & McCoy as a financial analyst, the Philadelphia Food Network where she was CFO, to Johnson & Johnson in internal audit. Then in early 2004 she joined the University of Pennsylvania as Director, Facilities and Real Est ate (FR ES)/ Construction Audit, where she has been ever since. In her role at Penn, she provides primary leadership for the FRES/Construction Audit function within the Office of Audit, 16

Compliance and Privacy while supporting the vision and goals of the department. “My career has been a blast!” she says. “ I've always worked on the financial side of the construction business but have changed perspective many times: First, working for a subcontractor, then construction managers, both on-site and in office, and finally for Owners. Working for Owners has provided me the opportunity to focus on contract compliance and financial controls.” Since 2008, she has served as a director on t he national board of COA A as Secretary/Treasurer. We talked with Gwen recently about COAA and what it has meant to her and her career. She shared her thoughts and insights about what’s going on and what she does at Penn.

On COAA How long have you been a member of COAA and what prompted you to get involved? I joined COAA in 2006, based on my manager's suggestion. While I specialized in construction audit and had a background in related financial processes and controls, it was difficult for me to find an appropriate professional development path to continue to grow my skills. I continued to stay involved with COAA because after my first conference, I realized professionals in the industry were talking about concepts I didn't know (e.g. alternative delivery methods, 3- and 4D drawings), and I wanted to understand where the industry was heading. Ten years later those "new ideas" keep pushing the industry forward. How has your involvement with COAA impacted you professionally and personally? Professionally, I couldn't have been more fortunate than to have had the opportunity to stay connected with COAA. I think there is a tendency to view an auditor as an "after the fact" project necessity, but the role can also to be used to identify internal tools that may need to be tweaked in order to incorporate the shifting industry.


“Professionally, I couldn't have been more fortunate than to have had the opportunity to stay connected with COAA.” The educational content that is provided at conferences and chapter meetings always challenges me to think about the impact on the Owner; specifically, what the Owner can do to be proactive to incorporate things like alternative project delivery methods, collaboration and changing technology. Personally, I have always enjoyed connecting with my COAA colleagues, as they have respected my day job and helped me dig deeper into industry topics that were not grasped at first pass. What would you say is the biggest benefit of belonging to COAA? Certainly one of the biggest benefits is the networking opportunity this organization provides. With the variety of Owners, projects, and delivery methods, no two projects will likely be the same; however, COAA members are always willing to share lessons learned or best practices to help others succeed. What do you see as the biggest challenges for COAA and the industry in general? As we all know, design and construction is a very fast-paced business, and because of this it can be difficult to find time for professional development, one of COAA's strongest benefits. It is the ultimate “Catch-22”: too busy to explore how to do something different, but perhaps doing something different may actually be more effective. What do you see as the role of COAA going forward; how do you see it evolving? The growing number of Chapters and their corresponding events is making COAA much more accessible to Owners and their staff. COAA will continue to be an educational and knowledge-sharing platform for Owners and industry partners who want to see the industry evolve, and for those who are willing to share the successes and pitfalls encountered along the way. Change takes time, and not all institutions can embrace evolving project delivery methods fully, but the dialogue within the COAA community helps many identify achievable increments of change.

On trends in the construction of facilities for higher education In terms of construction auditing, what are the most significant changes in the implementation of your projects at Penn? Which contract structures do you typically audit, and why? The GMP structure is the typical focus for construction auditing due to the reimbursable cost nature of the contract. The focus of the audit is contract compliance, and while cost recovery opportunities may be identified, these are really just symptoms of internal controls not working as they should (for example: missing segregation of duties, lack of familiarity with contract, and ambiguous contract language). How does Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) impact construction auditing? Fundamentally, the approach is the same with regard to contract compliance. However, this now extends to multiple firms. IPD encourages the audit activity to begin earlier in the project and to continue for the duration. One of the fundamentals of IPD is cost transparency, so the sooner this can be confirmed the better. On trends that are impacting the future of your organization How does your background shape your understanding of the work Owners do? My time at Penn and involvement with COA A have def initely given me an appreciation of the diverse and complex world that Owners navigate. It is important to balance the needs of the capital project while supporting the institution's core mission. In addition, Owners have both internal and external clients, and satisfying both can be difficult and at times complicate the design and construction process. With the proliferation of so many various technologies involved in every phase of the construction process, how essential is it that an Owner has a strong understanding of all those technologies and their applications? It is important that an Owner understand both the project delivery and the capital

program management technology that are available. The Owner needs to have a strategy to incorporate technolog y into their internal operations, and this strategy must be incorporated into individual projects. However, due to the duration of some capital projects, technology on a specific project can actually drive the Owner to incorporate technolog y into their operations. For an Owner, increasing the use of technology will likely have ripple effects, such as staff training, contract modifications, or additional infrastructure in order to maximize the use of project specific technology (e.g. BIM to FIM). On what you are doing now Do you feel any need to emphasize “buying local/ regional”? Engaging locally is a core component of the “Penn Compact,” issued by the president of the University of Pennsylvania. In support of this guiding principle, the University has an Economic Inclusion Commit tee which focuses on local procurement, human resources, and capital construction activity. With respect to the construction activity, the subcommittee monitors inclusion for both workforce and subcontracted services, for projects in excess of a pre-determined threshold. Our construction managers and general contractors understand the importance of our program and continually strive to support our program. What is your advice to the next generation of COAA Owners? Being an Owner isn't limited to the Project Manager track. A s capit al project s become more collaborative, the Owner's project team must collaborate as well. Change "in the field" requires internal coordination with finance, legal, and information technology. About the Interviewer Randy Pollock is a member of COA A’s nat ional Editor ial Commit tee since 2010 and Program Chair of the COA ATexas Chapter. Randy can be reached at Summer 2016 17


PREPARING FOR POST OCCUPANCY Three questions Owners should be asking about BIM By Chuck Mies

The success of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for building delivery is fueling the push towards the use of BIM for building management. Owners are now starting to reuse the models and information created during design and construction to streamline their own operations. Often, however, the models resulting from BIM building design and construction processes simply do not contain the information necessary for building operations. This problem can be solved by recognizing the issue and asking the right questions that will help you better understand the challenges you face and, in turn, define a solution that provides data integrity and confidence. First, however, some background. Building Operations vs. Delivery Owners contemplating the use of BIM often incorrectly assume they can simply use the building models and data created during design and construction for their facility management. Unfortunately, they sometimes misjudge the usefulness of that information. Propagating this misconception, many architects and builders assume that Owners 18

need as-built models. Contractors’ as-built models are complex fabrication-ready models that can contain everything from duct hangers to structural rebar. From a geometric point of view, building models used for design and construction are extremely detailed. This is necessary for drawing creation, clash detection, and other geometry-intensive activities. For facility management, though, the main purpose of the graphical components of building models are to help Owners visually navigate to building data, thereby providing a graphical means to access and organize information. In addition, design and construction models often lack even the most basic information required for operations and are cluttered with data that the Owner does not need. In fact, what Owners usually need are models— and data—that have been right-sized for

their operations. For example, if an Owner does not need to tag a piece of equipment, a representation of that equipment probably does not need to be included in their model. Surely, it is the ‘I’ in BIM—information— that holds the key to BIM’s potential for building management, operations, and maintenance. The ability of Owners to realize that potential hinges on the use of standardized data streams throughout design, construction, and commissioning; as well as a thorough understanding of the end use, and users, of that building data. Begin with the end in mind Using BIM for facility management is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Different Owners need different types of data and use different systems for different operations. How BIM fits into this picture is unique for each Owner and each stakeholder within that Owner. For example, facility managers usually need a f loor plan with associated room numbers. But how about room names or floor finishes? Certainly, the latter can be important when planning moves, because move managers need to know if the space traversed by heavy moving equipment will require protection. But is this information important for a factory facility?


And how are square footages of a specific area calculated? Building Owners define and classify space differently, based on regulatory, industry, or internally developed standards. Educational facilities, for example, may rely on grants for partial funding of their operations and BIM helps them create space inventories to develop financial analysis for indirect cost recovery. Hospitals, on the other hand, may use BIM to streamline the reporting of space utilization for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. The standards used to calculate square footage by these two very different Owners should guide not only their BIM implementation but also their digital requirements for commissioning. Overall, when you begin planning for BIM, you should accurately assess your information needs based on input from your own IT and facilities groups. Facility management usually requires the aggregation of data streams as well as integration with systems such as maintenance management or HR. Without a clear definition of the problem, these integration efforts often flounder. Therefore, you should ‘begin with the end in mind’ by documenting your organizational needs. As well, answering these three questions will frame your facility management challenges and guide you to a solution.

Q1: Who will use the data? The best way to define what data you need is by talking to the people who will actually be using BIM data for their day-to-day tasks. Find out their roles and responsibilities, why they need the data, how they will use the data, and what systems and tools they use to do their job. Keep in mind that many of these employees may have little or no exposure to BIM, so some initial level of BIM education may be required beforehand. Some organizations tackle this question by developing “use cases” to represent different employee types that will use BIM in a similar way. For example, what systems do HVAC maintenance managers for your organization use and, from their experience, what are the good points and bad points of those systems? The development of this employee use case might uncover that your HVAC manager spends a lot of time trying to locate equipment because the existing HVAC building management and work order systems have limited information about equipment locations. By taking the time to talk to the people who will ultimately consume the data from the building models, you can better understand the problem and take the first step towards defining the solution.

Q2 What data is needed and how will you collect it? When data is easily accessible, people can do their jobs more efficiently – but only if they have the right data. Once you understand the roles and needs of the people who are going to use the data, you can work with them to uncover the right data that they need, from the make, model, and serial numbers of assets to square footages and finishes for space. A sk ing what dat a is needed also helps you think about your facility (and building models) as “as-maintained” instead of “as-built”. Since the models and data needed to build a building are very complicated, the complexity of building models and data requirements significantly shrink when moving from construction to commissioning, handover, and O&M. For example, a project team may have captured 41 pieces of data for a specific piece of equipment during design and construction, but for O&M, you may only need eight (and two of them are not even in the contractor’s as-built!). Now that you know what data you need, how are you going to capture that data? There are multiple stakeholders involved in the delivery of your facility that add Summer 2016 19


or capt ure dat a when it is available. Therefore, you have to put in place a plan that can address when the data is available, who is the best stakeholder to capture the data, and how it is moved downstream. By doing so, you create work processes that can capture your data and transfer it into your facilities systems even before you take occupancy of the building. Q3 How will the data be maintained? T he deliver y of incor rect or out- ofdate information will risk the perceived integrity of the entire system. So this last question might be the most important, as it can help ensure the integrit y of your solution and instill confidence in the data. The first step is to realize that you are maintaining two separate types of data: graphical data and attribute data. For example, at some point in the life of your building, an HVAC maintenance manager will replace a glycol pump, but unless there is some other significant change to the chilled water system, the old pump may simply be swapped out

for a new one. Once that new pump is in place, do you need to update the model? In most cases, the answer is no. However, the attributes need to be changed because the pump has a new serial number, installation date, warranty, and so on. Most Owners have maintenance management systems in place to capture that update. Instead of duplicating that effort, an integration that automatically synchronizes your maintenance management system and your a s -m aint ained buildin g model might be a better approach. W h e n O w n e r s i m p l e m e n t BI M , many view it as a software/technology

implementation. In fact, it is a process c h a n g e . Ta l k t o p e o p l e i n y o u r organization to find out who is using the data, what they need, and how the data can be kept up-to-date. These three important questions will form the basis of your BIM project plan, your model development specification and handover requirements, your data collection and transfer formats, your system integration efforts, and your data maintenance plan. As well, to optimize the value of BIM, Owners should begin with the end in mind—helping them better understand the business issues of the people who use the facility data, and address their data and workf low needs.

Charles E. (Chuck) Mies, LEED A.P., Assoc. AIA, Senior Manager, Business Development, Autodesk, Inc. He is a member of the Autodesk Business Development Team focused on looking at the application of technology to the entire ecosystem of a project, extending from preliminary design through operations and maintenance.

Construction Contracts Make a Difference in Project Success. ConsensusDocs are the only contracts written by 40 A/E/C organizations, including COAA. COAA Members Receive a 20% Discount Discount Code “COAA100”




See What’s New at


Most owners do not have the time and/or resources to develop and conduct training for their project managers. COAA OTI courses are the only training available in the industry specifically designed for Owners’ Project Managers. COAA is training “For Owners, By Owners.”


The training includes valuable and proven tools, strategies and documents that Owners’ Project Managers can use immediately to minimize project risk, improve efficiency, maximize quality and maintain project budgets. Examples include project management guides, design submittal checklists, design review checklists, project budget tracking spreadsheets, and meeting notes formats.


Courses are conducted by an experienced 3-person instructor team led by an Owner who is joined by an Architect and Contractor. This approach is unique in the construction industry.


The course size is limited to 25 participants by design. So an Owner’s project manager does not get lost in a crowd.


Course participants are fully engaged with small group exercises, role playing and “real life” project examples with valuable “lessons learned.” This approach is possible due to the limited course size.


The “Return on Investment” of this training for Owners includes avoidance of budget overruns, delays in completion, dissatisfied end users, and claims. Any owner who has had even just one construction claim knows how costly it can be in time, money, personnel resources as well as reputation.


Courses provide an opportunity to meet and network with other Owners.


Courses are affordable and are held in clusters in easy to reach locations.


Courses can be taken “on the road” directly to Owners’ organizations/locations (In-House Training).

10. Courses are accredited through AIA’s Continuing Education System for Learning Units. Certificates of Completion are also available.

UPCOMING COURSES September 27-28, 2016

September 28, 2016

November 7-8, 2016

Project Management: An Owners Perspective Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Schedule Managment State College, PA

CM at Risk Atlanta, GA

For more information, visit or call COAA HQ at 800-994-2622. Summer 2016 21




SOLID TEAM Steps for attracting and retaining the very best Brent Darnell

Workforce development has reached a crisis level. The number of projects moving forward continues to increase and worker demand (labor and management) continues to rise. That, along with the dwindling workforce, is already negatively impacting the industry. If we don’t take concrete steps now, this workforce development crisis has the potential to cripple the industry.

With that in mind, there are some very concrete steps companies can take to attract and retain the very best people: 1. Let Them Control Their Own Destiny I f y ou w a nt t o at t r a c t a nd r e t a i n people, give them as much autonomy as possible. Give them the ability to set their own work schedules and work the way that they want to work. This may be difficult with some projects, but there is always room to experiment. Many companies are toying with f lexible work hours and ROWE (results oriented work environment s), an approach wherein employees only know what their result should be and it's up to them as to how and when and where they do the work to get that result. 2. Provide a Clear Career Path and Training to Get There All workers, especially young workers, w a nt a cle a r c a re er p at h a nd t he



resources to attain the skills to be able to make it happen. If your company doe sn’ t have cle ar career pat hs for all employees, and the skills training needed to travel along those paths, this is the time to implement a program. 3. Make Sure Employees Know Your Why Employees, especially younger ones, want to have a sense of purpose in their life and work. What is your company’s purpose? What is the project’s purpose? Do you articulate that and communicate it clearly on a reg ular basis ? Ever y c o mp a n y a n d e v e r y p r oje c t h a s a purpose, so tap into that purpose with your employees. 4. Make Their Lives Better This is a simple concept, but perhaps n o t t h a t e a s y. I f y o u m a k e y o u r employees’ lives bet ter, t hey will be more loyal to your company. So how do you do that? There are two areas that we

see that can make your employees’ lives better. First, improve their f inances. Hire someone to come in and help people set up budgets and pay off debt. Second, improve their health and well-being. St ar t a wellness program (formal or informal) and help them to be healthier and happier. 5. Create a Fun Place to Work To many people in the industry, work a n d f u n ju s t d o e s n’ t g o t o g e t he r. T herefore, wh at c a n you do a s a n individual and a company to inf use more fun in your work, on your projects, and in your offices? Put in games, have contests, have laugh time. Start every meeting out with something fun and promote and encourage f un ideas of team, collaboration, and play. Some of these ideas are pretty far out for folks, but if we don’t start embracing these kinds of changes, this workforce

development issue will only worsen. Company leaders tell me that they can’t try the f lexible work initiative because some people will just sit at home and watch television. What they are doing, then, is punishing the 90 percent who will actually honor this open way of working. If you are a company, push t he envelope and st ar t t r y ing t hese new ideas. If you are an individual, be strategically subversive. Try some things and see if you get a good result. When you do, share it with the company. Whether it is for you, your company, or for the industry, how we attract and retain people is vital to our livelihoods and the very industry in which we work. It’s time to take some action. Brent Darnell is Owner of Brent Darnell International. He has been teaching emotional intelligence and people skills to the AEC Industry for the past 16 years and has helped thousands improve their social competence. Summer 2016 23


COAA'S 2016 SPRING OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE Teamwork and communication take focus in spring Owner roundup By Matt Bradford

The tenets of team-building, communication, and project collaboration took center ring this May during COAA's 2016 Spring Owners Leadership Conference in Dallas, Texas. The aptly named “Big Idea Roundup” set up camp at the Westin Galleria Dallas and gathered Owners, industry partners, and stakeholders from across North America to tackle important issues and discuss the nuts and bolts of team management. “We've focused on collaboration for the last few conferences, but wanted to hone in on team-building for this conference since it's hard to collaborate without first assembling - and then nurturing and maintaining - a good team,“ says Howie Ferguson, COAA Conference Committee Chair from the University of Florida's Facilities Planning & Construction Department. “I believe team building is especially important for many industries today, but maybe even more so

for ours given the increasing complexity of the work, more specialization, a shrinking workforce, and technology that allows for great opportunities, but also seems to add to everyone's stress level.” The event opened with Information Exchange / Transition to Operations, a moderated for um led by Oly mpic A s s o ci a t e s C o mp a n y 's E r ic Sm it h on i mpr o v i n g t he t r a n s it ion f r o m con s t r uct ion to op er at ion s. It a l s o f e a t u r e d c a s e s t u d ie s a n d le s s o n s learned from COAA's own Information Handoff Initiative. Following a Chapter Best Practices Forum, the event leaped out of the gate with an introduction from COAA President Dean

McCormick, who also emphasized the importance of job site collaboration. “Let's face it, few if any of us are picking up the tools and doing any physical work. Putting together an effective team and providing the leadership necessary to make the team highperforming is the most important contribution an Owner can make in many cases,” he added after his presentation. These ideas were explored further throughout the three-day event, from Brent Darnell's Attracting and Retaining the Best Employees (read Darnell's Simple Secrets to Building a Solid Team for more) to Jay Snyder's What's Important to the Millennial Generation, which shared insights from FMI's Millennial survey. “What I like to convey to audiences is that, while we have all had to deal with the stereotypical millennial, the data tells us that the stereotype is inaccurate,” says Snyder, who was joined on stage by Rachel Sommer (DPR Construction), Dustin Sommer (National Heritage Academies), and Matt Waguespack




(Stantec Architecture). “The idea that, as a population, Millennials are willing to work harder for the company than other generations and that they want to take on tough challenges, is inspiring; and that specific insight from our study is surprising to most senior leaders. This study provides Owners with the wants and needs of Millennials as they seek employers and look to advance their career.” Adding his own expert perspective to the conference was Rex Miller with Go mindSHIFT LLC, who dissected the finer points of talent management in Team-Building as a Science. Speaking after the show, he emphasized, “When projects began to add up to 250 trades and 250 manufacturers, the lever to create effectiveness shifted from process to people. Remember that complexity requires people to align early and solve problems together, and one disengaged player can impede the entire project. We’ve all been there.”

Surely, from Team First, Then Project, presented by Brad Pollitt (University of Florida Health), Ben Bowman (Velocity Advisory Group), and Matt Webster (Charles Perry Partners Inc.); to Creating a High-performing Team: Techniques, Tools, and Processes to Enhance Project Outcomes led by Pam Neckar (Bostwick Design Partnership), there were no shortage of sessions for attendees to dig in to. Case Studies These interactive discussions notwithstanding, conference attendees also had the opportunity to gain behind-the-scenes perspectives from a handful of recent projects. “One of the many benefits of COAA and its conferences is the willingness of Owners and other stakeholders to share what they've done and learned - good and bad - and case studies are one of the most obvious ways of doing that,” says Ferguson, noting, “I've also noticed an increase in the number of presentations that have data or 'analytics' as either a means of supporting what's being discussed or as a

lesson learned; as in, 'you can't improve what you can't measure'.” A mong t he case st udies t hat took COA A's spotlight were those relating to the New Parkland Hotel, delivered by Joe L ongo (Park land Healt h and Ho s pit a l Sy s tem) a nd Ti n a L a r s en (Corgan); and the American Airlines Operations Center, shared by Palmina W helan (A mer ican A irline s), Scot t Breitkreutz (Holder Construction), and Mary Hart (Corgan).



“One thing that I particularly enjoyed in the sessions was the different perspectives from the panels,” offered Ahmed Zakria, 2016 Albert E. Phillips Scholars recipient and conference attendee. “For example, when the panel was presenting American Airlines, they brought the construction manager, the Owner, and the architect to discuss. They didn't only have one voice; instead, all of the key folks on the job were presenting.” Bryan Bagley (Affiliated Engineers) was also on-hand to discuss recovery efforts following the massive flooding at the University of Texas Medical Branch after Hurricane Ike; as were Chuck Hardy (General Services Administration) and Renee Cheng (University of Minnesota) to deliver their experiences in Building the Perfect Team: GSA's Collaborative Practice Case Studies. As well, representatives from Penn State University returned to COAA's conference to talk about their 2015 Gold COAA Project Leadership Award-winning project, the Health and Human Development Building. For more information, read the Gold Award profile in the Spring 2016 Owners Perspective issue. A Balanced Schedule As always, the event allowed attendees to get up close to the industry's newest technologies and systems through both its exhibitor hall and tech-savvy sessions such as Game On! Smart Owners Invest in Virtual Environments, with Michal Wojtak (Travis Noble) and Brian Nahas (Mortenson Construction); and What Do You Do with 13,890,000,000 Building Data Points with Peter “Chip” Pierpont (General Services Administration) and Shaun Klann (Intelligent Buidings). Combined with in-depth discussions on project risk management, worker safety, and best practices for project closeouts – COAA's conference provided a well-rounded and holistic view of project management. Not to be forgotten, however, was the final – and always-popular – Owners' Roundtable (aka the “Big Idea Roundup”). Led by futurist, 26

Albert E. Phillips Scholarships

Making Connections

COAA's Albert E. Phillips Scholarships are awarded annually during its Spring conference for up to two college students who are interested in pursuing a career in the design and construction industry. Recipients are invited to attend the conference at no charge and receive complimentary hotel accommodations and airfare.

COAA conferences are as much about learning as they are about bringing Owners and their industry partners together.

This year's recipients included Curtis Ray Lucas (University of Houston, Construction Management) and Ahmed Zakria (New York University, Civil Engineering); both of whom took up COAA's offer to join the event. “I was very honored to be named one of the two Albert E. Phillips Scholars in 2016; it's a tremendous opportunity and I am incredibly grateful for the Construction Owners Association of America for believing in me and investing in my dreams,” said Zakria, reflecting, “The conference was a great experience: the sessions, the people, the networking, the accommodations, the hosting state, and obviously the wonderful hospitality by Lucie Castro [COAA Member Services Manager] and her team.” Curtis also followed up with COAA after the conference, saying, “It was humbling to know that the construction industry has been so incredibly willing and generous to assist me with my educational endeavors and guiding me to succeed. I forever will be grateful for the COAA community that was in Dallas that week.”

“At COAA, we are very committed to creating an atmosphere at our conferences that fosters open communication and sharing of ideas,” says Dean McCormick. “Our members value this and most are willing to share their best ideas.” This year's event was no exception. It offered a number of networking breaks, receptions, and an exhibit hall featuring the following companies: AssetWorks Bentley Systems Bluebean Software Broaddus & Associates CMIC ConsensusDocs e-Builder Faro Technologies Fort Hill Associates Lean Construction Institute Massaro CM Services Newforma PM Web Procore Technologies, Inc. RSMeans / The Gordian Group Smith Seckman Reid Structural Group COAA Texas Chapter Vaughn Construction


author, and industry expert Rex Miller, the forum generated lessons learned and concerns taken from both the conference and Owners' day-to-day experiences. “COAA has a unique style for their roundups. It serves to both recap the takeaways and highlights from the event but also serves as an open forum to share challenges and get input from others,” says Miller, adding, “It has a strong community feel to it, and reminds me a little of growing up listening to radio when people

call in looking for advice and someone calls in with the advice.” Key insights from the roundup included everything from the qualities of leadership to team dynamics and feedback for the conference itself. Looking back, Ferguson notes, “I thought it went well. I heard and overheard good feedback regarding the content and speakers, and we're looking forward to reading all of the written evaluations to see what we can do even better next time.”


Construction Portfolio & Program Management Software

Dubai International Airport powered by PMWeb.

Learn why more facility owners and operators across all verticals in the construction industry choose PMWeb.

Project Life Cycle Solution • Portfolio Planning • Project Management • Scheduling • Document Management • Visual Workflow • Asset Management • Business Intelligence • 617.207.7080 •






HAT PROJECT NTRACT METHOD I have participated in the construction industry as an Owner (corporate director for a hospital system), an executive with a contractor, and as a professional consultant. Overseeing the real estate planning, design, and construction program for a hospital system was quite rewarding. It was also a role where I experienced steady scrutiny, auditing, and ongoing education to my stakeholders of processes, techniques, and tactics of construction.

One of t he more common topics of discussion was the debate over which project deliver y method and contract met hod was most appropriate to t he organization and to the project. Even today, as I speak to industry associations, consult our Owner clients, or present at other conferences, it is always on the minds of Owner program managers or directors. Owners, boards of directors, a r ch it e c t s , e n g i ne e r s , c o nt r a c t o r s , lawyers, and others spend a lot of time discussing the best project delivery and cont ract met hods for t heir program. T here has been considerable debate within the industr y, and it is a topic that has been covered ad nauseam. Even so, the answer is unclear because ... it depends. It depends on a number of characteristics that would describe the

project, market, and the Owner. Project o bje c t i v e s a n d p r oje c t c o mple x it y w ei g h he a v i l y o n t he a p p r o p r i a t e project delivery and contract method to implement. Many variables are also in play within an Owner organization that will determine the success or failure of Owner building programs. These same drivers present const raint s or advant ages to various project delivery and contract methods. Deter mining which met hods are appropriate for your organizat ion r e qu i r e s m o r e due d i l i g e nc e t h a n reading a few case studies or listening to t he success of ot hers. To improve project outcomes and reduce risk, you have to understand those drivers, over which a pro g r a m m a n a ger / d i re ctor may or may not have control. Industry opinion and project case st udies are

an excellent tool for comparing your methods to others, but it does not mean t hat you will have t he same success unless your project, market, and Owner org a ni z at ion a re ident ic a l to t ho se examples. As you consider the various methods a s an O w ner, here are some of t he variables that drive successful project delivery and contract methods: • Corporate governance, policy, and procedure. Similar to risk tolerance, your org ani z at ion ha s a ser ie s of p olicie s and procedure s intended to safeguard employees /occupant s, manage f inancial risk, ensure cer t a i nt y of bu si ne s s op er at ion s , and delegate specific authorities to various stakeholders. These constrain y ou r o p t ion s o f pr oje c t del i ver y and cont ract met hods unless your org ani z at ion con sider s mo di f y in g governance, policy, and procedure. • Project complexity. Does the project require early involvement from the contractor to ensure constructability of desig n or budget feasibilit y? Is the project within an active campus or on an unusual site that requires front-end site planning and logistics coordination? • O r g a n iz a t i o n’s p r o j e c t p ri o ri t y (C os t vs. Schedule vs. Scope/ Quality). Above all else, what is most important to the organization? There is often a leading driver that decides Summer 2016 29


Owner organization that will determine the success or failure of Owner building programs.” “Many variables are also in play within an

the others, and there may be a project deliver y or contract method that is better suited for success. • Risk tolerance of the organization. W here does t he organization want to place the financial risk and it is comfortable with the associated shift in control? • P r o g r a m Vo l u m e . C o n s i d e r i n g the current capital spend plan and the facility year master plan, which project delivery method(s) aligns best with the organization’s programmatic and strategic business goals? • Level of sophistication. What sort of processes and controls exist to manage stakeholders and the project team? Are technology solutions in place that can be leveraged and encourage one project delivery or contract method over another? Consider things such as 3D modeling capabilit y and the oppor t unit y for Design A ssist, t he ability to precisely track budgets and per form audit s of GMP cont ract s, and having a strategic sourcing and procurement program that supports competitive bidding. • Project management experience. T he ex p er ience a nd sk i l l s et s of Owner project managers var y con sider ably. M any org ani z at ion s r e qu i r e t hei r PM s t o b e e x p e r t contract administrators while others ex pect design and / or const ruct ion ex p er t i se to p er for m profe s sion a l d e s i g n r e v ie w s a n d i n s p e c t i o n s . Organizat ions may seek PMs wit h exceptional estimating, scheduling, and procurement/contracting skills. Ot hers may out source project management to a third-party Owner representative. • Program staffing and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . O ne way in which project deliver y and c ont r ac t me t ho d s v a r y i s i n t he 30

amount of oversight needed or level of administrative burden placed on t he O w ner. D e p a r t ment s t a f f i n g and organizational structure have a considerable impact on the success of a project and how that project is executed. • Capabilities of contractors in your market . I have a close client t hat has a main campus in a rural part of its state. It is often difficult for the client to secure project interest from qualified general contractors and even more difficult – sometimes impossible – to source “ local” subcontractors. Cer t ain project deliver y met ho d s require a level of ex perience and acumen that may further limit your pool of qualified contractors. • F u n d i n g S o u r c e . O f t e n t i m e s t he f unding source may have requirement s and regulations associated with them that dictate the project delivery and contract method. A lender may require the certainty of a lump sum contract. A bond issuance or P3 f unding ar rangement could require traditional design-bid-build with maximum bidder participation. Although uncommon, a private donor on a private project may require the use of a particular contractor which could mandate a negotiated project deliver y met hod. Of ten times, multiple funding sources are secured for large capital projects which means compliance with terms and conditions and the appropriate project delivery and contract methods may be onerous and restrictive. It is impor t ant to note t hat none of these variables should be addressed in isolation. Owners should consider these variables collectively and assess their program in it s entiret y to determine the best fit. Certainly, if an Owner is seeking the benefit of a specific project deliver y method or contract method, all of these drivers may be addressed

for proper alignment. However, many of t hese drivers may be dif f icult to modify. Aligning the organization with a particular project delivery and contract method is a greater task than aligning the project delivery and contract method with the organization. While each project strives to achieve excellence in project cost, schedule, and scope or qualit y, most project s and organizations have a top priorit y that must prevail above all others. For the retail market, it is often speed to market (schedule); in health care it is often quality (infrastructure reliability, air quality, etc.); and in manufacturing it m ay be project schedu le, a s t he manufacturer plans to st ar tup a new pr o duc t ion l i ne. K now i n g t he t op priority may highlight the appropriate project deliver y met hod for t he organization. It is important to determine the which project delivery method(s) is the right fit and which contract method(s) is best aligned with your organization. But be sure to identify all of the drivers that will impact the success of your program. An analysis of completed projects will provide insight into how the program has per for med in t he past and may i d e nt i f y w h i ch m e t h o d s a r e m o s t successful in your organization. As you look forward, remember that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution. T he ch a r acter i s t ic s, pr ior it ie s, a nd drivers of your organization and your project will bear greatly on the success of t he project deliver y met hod and contract method imposed.

Jay S nyder is Senior Consultant with FMI Corporation and has been a professional in the real estate development and construction industr y throughout his caree r. He is al so a tenured board member of a city Planning & Zoning Committee and a city Board of Adjustments.

CHAPTER UPDATES COAA-Maryland/Washington, DC


On March 9, 2016, the COA A-Mar yland/ Washington, DC Chapter hosted its Spring Workshop at Howard University’s Interdisciplinary Research Building in downtown Washington. Michael Biesiada (Structural Group) and Rex Cyphers (WDP & Associates) teamed up to present Investigate-Design-Build Approach for Challenging Repair Projects, a session on the Investigate Design Build (IDB) delivery method, which borrows heavily from the existing DesignBuild and Integrated Project Delivery methods. They explained how both small and larger repair projects can benefit from using an IDB approach where there is a need to identify the degree of the problem and the root cause before developing the proper repair design. In the nex t se ssion, G ive the People What They Want: Reimagining the Academic Workplace, Allison Arnone, (HDR Architecture), Ja son B e shore ( HD R A rchitec ture), a nd Melissa Phommaseng (Kaiser Permanente) described various work st yle phenot ypes by differentiating the attributes of each. They followed by presenting approaches to modernizing workspaces and processes to positively affecting the influencing factors of employee success in, Engagement and Wellbeing, Settings, Tools, and Policies. A panel consisting of Dr. Gar y Harris (Howard Universit y), Derrek Niec-Williams (Howard University), Louis Fry, III (Lance Bailey & Associates), and Michael Vinkler (HDR) presented the next session, An Overview of the Design & Construction of the Howard University Interdisciplinary Research Building (IRB). They outlined how the design of the Interdisciplinary Research Building (IRB) suppor ts Howard University’s collaborative research environment and how the building supports the institutional vision of campus renewal within an urban context. A tour of the facility followed the panel discussion.

On March 18, 2016, the COAA-Florida Chapter hosted a Spring Workshop at the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL. There were three very interesting educational sessions offered throughout the day followed by the showcase tour of the J. Wayne Reitz Union, a $60M renovation and expansion project at the University of Florida. The early session tackled the industry concerns of the nation-wide shortage of skilled craft professionals and how severe this issue will grow in the coming years. Don Whyte of the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) spoke to the group offering current workforce challenges while also providing a perspective on how Owners can be proactive to possibly help with this market condition. Whyte shared his perspective on the gravity of the labor market issues, plus provided ideas for helping attract more young workers into the construction industry. Howie Ferguson, University of Florida, also shared information on COAA and the COAA-FL Chapter, their mission, and vision. The last session was presented by Miles Albertson and William Smith from the University of Florida, who delved into the specifics of the project selection process for delivering small, minor, continuing, annual, or job-order-contracting projects at the University of Florida. COAA-FL Chapter is currently organizing the next workshop for Fall 2016. Visit chapters/florida to learn more.

COAA-Georgia On March 31, 2016, COAA-Georgia Chapter hosted its Spring Workshop in Atlanta where they were introduced to Karen Bresson, COAA’s first Executive Director. The day prior to the workshop, the Chapter hosted a sold-out COAA Owner Training Institute (OTI) Schedule Management Course. The workshop began with Barry Bloom, Gregory Spiro, Chris Kloes, Tony Martin, Michael Rosenberg, Charles Fischer, and John McFarland, who had a lively discussion on the topic of Optimizing Building Automation systems and Overcoming Challenges with Control Vendors. The topic was so popular that questions continued during the roundtable later in the day. During the second session, Craig Kvien and Kurt Seigler shared interesting photos and stories about the Net-Zero Energy Homes on the UGA Tifton campus. Students have already moved into the homes and continue to gather data for research. The houses are working very well, returning power to GA Power 92% of the time. In the third session of the morning, Brent Darnell led a valuable discussion on the importance of emotional intelligence within our industry. He shared how this is rooted in neuroscience and not just a “touchy-feely” approach, noting that once team members understand their emotional intelligence, one can then begin building a high-performing team by holding each other accountable. This is the personal growth our industry could embrace to continue to improve and evolve. During lunch, a “roundtable” unstructured discussion was held with the audience providing the topics. This proved to be very successful as many people remained after the workshop came to an end to continue discussions and networking. COAA-GA looks forward to the National Conference in Atlanta November 9-11, 2016.

COAA-California On March 1, 2016, COAA-California Chapter hosted its Spring Workshop at Santa Clara University in San Jose, CA. The educational sessions addressed a number of regional issues, including the local housing shortage and solutions to remedy that situation. Woven into this discussion was a very detailed program overview concerning the BART extension to South Bay and nearby the Santa Clara University campus. In addition, there were three detailed presentations focused on campus growth and infrastructure. UCSF and Stanford discussed the challenge of aging campus buildings and the need for a seismic retrofit, including the life safety issues they present. Chris Shay, a founding member of COAA-CA, shared Santa Clara’s journey to plan for the largest physical campus expansion in their history; Adam Del and Bijendra Sewak explained the innovative new energy system Stanford developed, which is predicted to save the university $420M over the next 35 years; and Richard Vermeulen presented Construction Economics, which included an excellent analysis of the current economic picture and how that might inform future construction cost in California. Two tours followed the sessions. One showcased the Santa Clara University campus (the oldest University in California) and another included a grand tour of nearby Avaya Stadium that opened in 2015. The Chapter’s next event is scheduled to take place September 20, 2016, in downtown Los Angeles. The workshop will include a tour of the Wilshire Grand as well as a networking happy hour. For more information, visit

Summer 2016 31



The March 29, 2016 Spring Workshop saw the gathering of the largest registration and at tenda nce in the histor y of the reignited COA A- MI chapter! K ick in g t hin gs of f wa s Ronald R. Henr y (Detroit Medic al C enter), J o h n O’ To o l e ( T h e C h r i s t m a n C o m p a ny), and Ar t Smith (Harley Ellis Deveraux) who presented the successful collaboration and unique approach of using an ice arena-sized cardboard mockup during the design process of their Children’s Hospital of Michigan project in Troy, MI. After lunch, Marina Roelofs and Jerry Shulte of the Universit y of Michigan outlined their long-term approach to safety and encouraged O wners to be engaged in their own safet y programs with Safety: Maybe You Need to be More Involved Than You Thought. They shared their standardized prac tices and discussed some of the unique challenges of doing so as a University. Lynda Boomer (Michigan State University) a n d Jay S mi t h ( T h e C hr is tma n C omp a ny) took the podium next to outline their process of evaluating their rigorous design and construction standards with their presentation, Design & Construction Standards: Half Are Overkill… But Which Half? Presenting their process of evaluating current standards aga ins t p otentia l s t a ndards mo dif ic ations, they showed at tendees how they developed a “ t ypical” campus building and priced the construction of both existing and proposed standards to show potential savings of the revisions being explored. They highlighted some of their hierarchical and organizational hurdles of accomplishing standards modification o n c a mp us a l o n g w i t h h ow t h ey nav i g ate atypical considerations of outlier departments on campus that fund their own projects and therefore have additional latitude. Cultivating the next generation of leaders is always on the mind of leading organizations. Energetically presenting on this topic to the group, Jennifer Bat tle ( Michigan St ate Universit y) brought together the Millennials, Gen X’ers, Boomers, and Traditionalists to discuss motivating factors across generations. Jennifer helped break down some dif ferent tactics of communicating with the nex t generation of leaders by highlighting ways to approach positive growth-oriented conversations that resonate. Each generation present left with a little more self-awareness a nd p er sp e c tive of the other generation’s motivations and communication styles.

On March 11, 81 building Owners, architects, contractors, and engineers enjoyed COAA-Ohio Chapter’s 2016 Spring Workshop. The event was held at Cleveland State University’s Student Union, with focused presentations on the power of collaboration. Following COAA National’s lead, the Ohio Chapter introduced its first “Pecha Kucha” session to kick things off after lunch. PechaKucha (Japanese for "chatter"; pronounced "peh-cha-koo-cha") was developed by two Tokyobased architects who realized that architects (and most presenters) talk too much. Therefore, one simple ground rule applies: each presentation has 20 slides displayed for 20 seconds each. This allows six minutes and forty seconds for each presenter, after which the next one begins. Utilizing this challenging but stimulating format, speaker presentations focused primarily on Ownerdesigner collaboration, with such diverse projects as Capital University’s Convergent Media Center; Case Western Reserve University’s innovative new ThinkBox facility; and the landmark new high rise, Cleveland Convention Center Hilton Hotel. Expanding the circle of collaboration, the second session featured a case study on Cleveland State University’s new Center for Innovation in Medical Professions (CIMP), featuring representatives of the Owner, the design architect (Pelli Clarke Pelli), the architect of record (Stantec), and the construction manager (Donley’s). The presentation focused on the projects four major goals:


1. Set the tone with sustained, high-level project leadership that reflects the strategic vision, creates clarity, and encourages stakeholder ownership and thus a successful project. 2. Create common-goal partnerships between different / distinct educational institutions (CSU and NEOMED) and the project team that will ensure sustained focus on the final vision. 3. Recognize the value of the programming / pre-design phase towards maximizing the collaborative project team structure, including design and construction firms, as well as other design-assist specialists 4. Integrate program requirements from multiple departments across institutions to create academic bridges between teaching and learning spaces. Following the conference, at tendees enjoyed an Owner/designer/CM-hosted tour of the beautiful new CIMP building.

COAA-Texas COAA Texas held an Owner’s Forum on February 16, 2016, led by The Commercial Real Estate Revolution co-authors Rex Miller and Dean Strombom. Attendees included Owners in the healthcare, higher education, and corporate commercial market sectors. This session continued the chapter’s work: bringing together COAA members, prospects, and project delivery stakeholders to uncover productivity issues and identify solutions. Rex pointed out that, “It starts with the Owners”, and kicked off the forum with three questions: 1. How can Owners rethink a procurement system that they set up, that works against them? 2. How can Owners break traditional silos and distrust to create tight coordination and even collaboration? 3. Is there any other team activity we watch or participate in that is assembled like a traditional construction project? Rex identified some of the issues in the AEC industry, including declining productivity in construction since 1964; our system of managing projects and resulting distrust between Owners, architects, contractors, and engineers; and the increased complexity of what we do. He divided the room into small groups to workshop solutions. For the first exercise, groups identified the areas of waste in our industry. Next, they explored trust and discussed what to do differently in the context of a past project. Finally, groups brainstormed obstacles, captured behaviors, and developed a list of implementation ideas for a team-selected trust-based early delivery process. Owners left the forum with actionable ideas to implement with their project managers and teams, as well as new and further developed relationships with colleagues across the state. This forum offered a new workshop format for COAA-Texas Owner members, and one which is a focused, safe environment for Owners to discuss ideas, share challenges, and develop solutions to improve project delivery.

NEW MEMBERS OWNERS Allegheny Health Network Jim Beck Brad Cole Nicole Duncan Richard Hart Mark Hartman John Kalberer Eric Lawson Robin Ramaley Scott Saunders Thesese Shearer Jim Stark Skylar VanSoest Stacy Wood Assiniboine Community College Jim Simmons Auburn University Mark Aderholdt William Bell Charles D Berry David Bess Amy Bingham Nicholas Blair Kirby Brown Benjamin Burmester Julie Cannon Jim Carroll Ben Chapman Johnny Clark Daniel Clarke Sara Collins Josh Conradson Walker Davis Margaret Devall Daniel Dix Jeffrey Dumars Gregory Forthofer Mercedes Fox Scott Fuller Anna Ruth Gatlin Richard Guether Tyler Hand Jennifer Harris Brad Harrison Suzanne Irby Philip Johnson Wade Kennedy Raymond Kirby Joshua Lane Patrick Ledbetter Randy Long John Lyons William Maffett Contina McCall Susan Miller Wendy Peacock Bradley Prater George Reese David Roberson Joseph Ruscin Burl Sumlin Mitchell Tucker Matthew Wagner Mitch Walley Steve Williams Noelle Wills Simon Yendle Bedrock Real Estate Services Erik Reed Bucknell University Danni Bolinsky David Eckley Brian Fritz Ray Kacyon Greg Koontz Jeff Loss

Edd Morrison Robert Rapp Jim Rebuck Justin Salyards Dominic Silvers Amy Smalt Kim Wagner California Institute of Technology Don O’Neil Mark Trojanowski Case Western Reserve University Robert Smith Chris Wilson Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. Stacy Eason Frank Konicki Travis Spankowski City of San Antonio Marcus Hammer Cleveland Clinic Frank Aucremanne Leilani Barkan Gina Casalinova Michael Chesser Gregg Dahlby Jerry DeCesare Dave Doren Christine Foley Christopher Gates Jason Geibel Randy Geise Danette Hauck Mark Hull Dean Ibsen Chas Kikel Mike Kish David Krymowski Doug Lippus Rainer Megger John Olach William Peacock Joan Radzyminski Leah Ratner Gary Russell Russ Saghy Brian Smith Joe Strauss Jeff Thien Travis Tyson Peter Volas Bill Weber Penrose R Wolf Cook Children’s Medical Center Anne Mullins Del Mar College August Alfonso Jonathan Garcia Emergent Biosolutions Jeffrey Adcock Emory University Kevin Bryant Christina Roberts Georgia State Financing & Investment Commission Theresa Harris Laura Leigh Vann Shivana Waterman Georgia State University Kim Bauer Tyrone Boyd Suzanne Dunn Susan Ludwig Kevin Payne Vincent Payne Gowri Pillai

Nikki Porter Lisa Santschi Paul Skelton Johns Hopkins University Linda Ayres Loudoun County Public Schools Shirley Bazdar Mason School of Business, College of William & Mary Rex Holmin MD Anderson Cancer Center Chelsea August Dichelle Burrus Randall R English Sam Layegh Adam Miller Patricia Miller Whitley Robinson Jorge Rodriguez Sandy Schoen Kaye Sutton Barry Swartz Ahmad Walton Drew Wendler Methodist Health System Scott Simons Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Kyle Johnson Michigan State University Ann Erhardt Jill Tuley Samantha Williams Northwestern Medicine Angel Files Oregon Health & Science University Feather Billings Osceola County Curt Diehl Rosser Pace Princeton University Lorine Murray-Mechini Public Building Authority Kristin Lee Grove Santa Clara University Sean Collins Marissa Pimentel Steve Thompson Sparrow Health System Michael Clewley Aaron DeVore Bill Laurain Dan Nelson Adam Santorilla Kathy Smith Eric Stuber Gene Turcotte Michael Wagner Roger Wood Staci Bakkegard Bob Berquist Bob Boehm Shanna Cole Mark Craft Karen Hart Alan Henry Austin Holcomb Ryan Odell T Olsen Andrea Ott Brittany Pringle Steve Schultz

Sulabh Srivastava Mary Swan Susan Sweitzer Bianca Taylor Jill Walters John West Mike Winter Brent Yager Standford University Adam Dell State of Iowa Barbara Bendon Kara Keeran State of Missouri Division of Facilities Mgmt, Design & Construction Cathy Brown Michael Sundermeyer State of Tennessee Department of General Services Brian Wilson Syracuse University Jennifer Bybee Terry Capenos Christopher Danek Mark Hance Brenda Law Jason Plumpton Nate Prior Pete Sala Debbie Skeele Texas Children’s Hospital Alexander Lopez Noriega University of Chicago Nathan Chalik Kevin Rodgers University of Florida Marie Brown Carlos Dougnac Robert Hatker Mark Humbert Lori Martens Cydney McGlothlin Greg Roberts David Wood University of Georgia Tyler Alsen Maurice Blount Thor Hahn Michael Kajder University of Illinois Angela Jacobs University of North Texas System Kim Nguyen Terri Pierce University of Texas Medical Branch Marcel Blanchard University of Virginia Carolyn Chionchio Rachelle Kolesar UT Health Science Center - Houston Steven Bennett Brady Smyth Virginia Tech University Bob Blackwell Gerard Folio Travis Jessee Wayne State University Kidest Albaari Wellspan Health System Brian Wickenheiser Summer 2016 33

ASSOCIATES ARC Document Solutions Brian Loeb BluebeamSoftware, Inc. Katie Briggs Chandos Construction Markku Allison Corvado Ortez Gude FMI Corporation Jay P. Snyder Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC David M. Lick Global Workplace Solutions Chelsea Hanson GSC Architects Phil Scott Harrison Walker Harper Tom Unruh JE Dunn Construction Michael Blackmore Emre Ozcan

Linbeck Becky Burleson Manhattan Construction Company Elaine Gray Massaro CM Services Tim Jones MOCA Rhonda Robinson Newforma Kelly Murray Perkins+Will Ian C. Sinnett Quest Resource Management Sonya Brooks Tec Inc. Engineering & Design Jeffrey Engram Turner Construction Shawn M. Bell Walter P Moore and Associates Kurt Young





COAA-TX Fall Workshop September 15-16, 2016 Courtyard by Marriott Austin Downtown Austin, TX COAA-CA Fall Workshop September 20, 2016 The Los Angeles Athletic Club Los Angeles, CA


GET NOTICED! Owners Perspective (OP) magazine subscribers are comprised of North America’s most influential audience of construction industry executives. For information on advertising in the magazine or its companion digital media products or if you’d like to discuss the development of custom marketing programs for your organization, please contact Chuck Nervick at 416-512-8186 ext. 277 or


COAA-IL Fall Workshop September 22, 2016 Chicago, IL COAA-OH Fall Workshop September 23, 2016 The Ohio State University Columbus, OH COAA-VA Fall Workshop September 27, 2016 University of Mary Washington Fredericksburg, VA Project Management: An Owner's Perspective (OTI Course) September 27-28, 2016 Marriott Harbor Beach Resort & Spa Ft. Lauderdale, FL Schedule Management (OTI Course) September 28, 2016 The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel State College, PA

COAA-PA Fall Workshop September 29, 2016 The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel State College, PA COAA-FL Fall Workshop September 30, 2016 Grand Bohemian Hotel Orlando, FL

OCTOBER COAA-MI Fall Workshop October 4, 2016 Crowne Plaza Grand Rapids Airport Grand Rapids, MI COAA-MDDC Fall Workshop October 5, 2016 Morgan State University Baltimore, MD

NOVEMBER CM at Risk (OTI Course) November 7-8, 2016 InterContinental Buckhead Atlanta Atlanta, GA 2016 Fall Owners Leadership Conference November 9-11, 2016 InterContinental Buckhead Atlanta Atlanta, GA

How Are You Tracking Your Construction Projects? New methods of project delivery promise on-time results, within budget. As an owner or manager of buildings or infrastructure, what are these trends, and what technologies do you and your vendors need in order to take advantage of them? Download this eBook for a quick overview.

Š 2016 Newforma, Inc. Newforma is a registered trademark of Newforma, Inc., in the United States and in other countries. All other brands or products are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

+1-603-625-6212 option 1

MANAGE YOUR PROJECTS MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY THROUGH LEAN PROCESSES WHEN YOU ATTEND THE 18TH ANNUAL LCI CONGRESS! JOIN OVER 1000 OF YOUR PEERS! Experienced instructors sharing their own paths to success and valuable lessons learned from failures Breakout sessions offering distributed leadership skills that veer away from traditional hierarchal leadership, eliminating stress and promoting respect for people Over 70% of our Congress offerings are geared toward Owner initiatives Owner dedicated sessions like, “An Owner’s Perspective: How ILPD Outperformed Design Build”

“Those construction companies that have successfully applied Lean methods have reduced construction time by up to 30% and reduced costs by up to 15%.” Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in Mindset And Technology World Economic Forum Takeaway key knowledge designed to help manage your capital projects:

Reduce and eliminate rework, re-pricing, change orders, and schedule slippage Cut costs and reduce waste Working collaboratively across the supply chain Help manage your projects more efficiently and effectively throughout Lean processes Learn more at





Owners Perspective  

Summer 2016

Owners Perspective  

Summer 2016