Partnering Dispute Prevention to Increase Readiness Blazing flash of the obvious…to many of you. Just because you created a great process and procedure, and it works, doesn’t mean it will always work…..it always needs maintenance Partnering is a continuum. Not a disconnected series of events.

DoD Partnering History – LTG Hatch, 1990 The best dispute resolution is dispute prevention. Acting to prevent disputes before they occur is key to building new cooperative relationships. Take time at the start of a project to identify common goals, common interests, lines of communication, and a commitment to cooperative problem solving.

DoD Partnering Reassessment The level of partnering with our contractors has significantly decreased. This decreased partnering effort has contributed to an increase in the number of projects with adversarial relationships between government and contractors. This decrease in partnering sessions can be partially reflective in the growing number of projects having significant delays and litigation.

DoD Partnering Background Partnering Level “Enabling people to do their jobs” “Partnering is a relationship not a contract”

Industry Government Working Group Society of American Military Engineers (SAME), Association of General Contractors (AGC), Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) and Lean Construction Institute (LCI) US Army Corps of Engineering (USACE), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), US Air Force Civil Engineers Also, Architect of the Capitol, and 10+ GC and AE firms Professional associations, Industry and the design and construction agents of DoD have teamed up to dust off and reinvigorate partnering with respect to federal work. This effort started about one year ago and was in response to a general belief that the Federal Partnering guidance was not being followed well by either side of the contract.

How do we reinvigorate the process Partnering, collaborative working and path forward © LEAN CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE

Partnering Mike Many people see partnering as standing around in a circle holding hands singing kumbaya. Well, it is standing in a circle holding hands, but you’re holding hands so the person next to you can’t hit you… Or, something in between. It’s a process, it’s a culture and it isn’t easy or kind…sometimes

Impact Partnering Continuum Partnering and collaborative working are involved in all stages of project delivery. I’m sure you all know this chart from “Examining the Role of Integration in the Success of Building Construction Projects. Charles Pankow Foundation and Construction Industry Institute”. I’d like to use this chart as a talking tool to navigate through the process. I love this chart…..so let’ work it Need to explain the relationship and dependency of Cost, Time, Quality and Safety to Programming Factors, Project Delivery Methods, Team Integration and Group Cohesiveness. Dependent Variables – Cost, Time, Quality and Safety Independent Variables - Programming Factors, Project Delivery Methods, Team Integration and Group Cohesiveness. Independent variables - The values that can be changed or controlled in a given model or equation. They provide the "input" which is modified by the model to change the "output." Dependent variables - The values that result from the independent variables. Partnering Continuum

Project Performance and Consequences B. Team Integration D. Project Outcomes COST SCHEDULE QUALITY MEASURES TO GAUGE PROJECT SUCCESS A. Project Delivery Strategy F. Project Impact high-quality interactions Plan for structuring design and construction services C. Group Cohesiveness READINESS If the Project Consequences is the impact of the solution, then Project Outcomes are the dependent variables in the project delivery equation. DELIVERY METHOD PROCUREMENT PROCESS CONTRACT PAYMENT TERMS DEVELOPMENT AS A TEAm E. Programming Factors Owner type, facility size, facility type

Project Performance and Consequences Consequences – Effect on Mission Readiness Military units not able to move into new facilities Utilities not available for follow on construction Unit training impacted by not having best available facilities Weapons platforms can not activate Poor performance of Facilities not what designed or promised Performance Late delivery High costs – which can lead to late delivery due to approval process Poor quality Poor safety – which can also lead to late delivery Improved mission readiness is the goal of every contract, every project. If the process leads to a negative impact on mission readiness, it needs to be fixed…repaired…improved. Schedule, Cost, Quality and Safety are all intertwined; each has an impact on the final product and the impact on mission readiness. Examples…..

Initial Partnering Decisions B. Team Integration D. Project Outcomes COST SCHEDULE QUALITY MEASURES TO GAUGE PROJECT SUCCESS A. Project Delivery Strategy F. Project Impact high-quality interactions Plan for structuring design and construction services C. Group Cohesiveness READINESS DELIVERY METHOD PROCUREMENT PROCESS CONTRACT PAYMENT TERMS DEVELOPMENT AS A TEAm E. Programming Factors Owner type, facility size, facility type Pre-Award Partnering

Initial Partnering Decisions All work done prior to solicitation Drive to mitigate issues after award Alignment User/ultimate client Resource sponsor Design and construction agent Facilities leadership Expectation setting

Sustaining Partnering Decisions B. Team Integration D. Project Outcomes COST SCHEDULE QUALITY MEASURES TO GAUGE PROJECT SUCCESS A. Project Delivery Strategy F. Project Impact high-quality interactions Plan for structuring design and construction services C. Group Cohesiveness READINESS DELIVERY METHOD PROCUREMENT PROCESS CONTRACT PAYMENT TERMS DEVELOPMENT AS A TEAm E. Programming Factors Owner type, facility size, facility type Post-Award Partnering

Sustaining Partnering Decisions Formal vs. Informal Partnering Session Governance Escalation Risk and Opportunities Evaluation Follow up Plan Close out Plan

Reinvigorate the Mindset Command Priority – Engagement and drive from leadership Unity of effort…Complete buy-in by all stakeholders Share same culture Align project management and contract administration Demonstrate value to the deck plate level Recurring Training Reward success We need to make partnering a topic of active discussion – reinvigorate the mindset More training, both internal and sponsored in forums like this (SAME, DBIA, AGC, LCI) Reinforce the importance – i.e. USACE bulletin on risk assessments wrt partnering Navy stressing “Partnering required on all Construction Projects” Support from the top –

Reinvigorate the Mindset Top driven command program – Chief notes/bulletins Training – common core curriculum Society/Association training tracks/sessions Service schools, courses, seminars DAU, academia Adherence, follow through and accountability “Maintenance” on the partnering program by project sponsor, design/construction agent, mission owner and contractor Examples - case studies, templates, best practices, cost avoidance

Processes and Procedures Clear and Consistent Partnering Directives and Instructions. Flow smoothly btn echelons. Scalable based on risk, complexity, schedule, size and type. Applicable to more than construction… Evaluate to determine applicability of partnering level Identify, adopt and apply Best Practices from government and industry. Better processes and procedures Consistent guidance Scalable partnering based on 1) Risk, 2) Complexity, 3) Schedule, 4) Size and 5) Type Working on tool to score a project and recommend an appropriate level of partnering

Scalable Partnering based on Risk Risk should drive the level of partnering. Risk = complexity, size, schedule and type Develop simple,, questionnaire that will score a project based on Risk. Web driven Pre-award Score will determine minimum level of partnering required.