1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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…..

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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 –

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.