| Current Issues | No.37 February 2003 |

Design-Build Construction: is it really a less expensive option to build a sports facility? Sue Langlois Endicott College, USA The gold standard for building a new facility for an organization has been the design, bid, and build process. But the time and money required by this process can be as much as 25% greater than an increasingly popular alternative: design-build. A 25% reduction in cost is attractive…is it too good to be true? Why wouldn't organization with new facility needs take the design-build route? The aphorism "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) certainly applies to this situation. There are several factors that should be considered before a sports administrator takes the design-build plunge. Sports administrators who want to lower costs and decrease the design/construction time often choose design-build because one company will provide both the design and construction services with the promise of a lower total project cost and an earlier opening of a new sports facility. It sounds very attractive, but the shrewd sports administrator needs to have both eyes open to gauge whether this design-build process will actually mean lower costs for both the short and long term. How can the design-build process produce these savings? Usually, a design-build company incorporates elements from previous projects, so that there is less time spent on design development by the architect. This also gives the general contractor and sub-contractors more lead time to buy materials which also lowers the costs and prevents delays in construction. Also, the means of construction can be addressed by the architect and the project manager in charge of construction during the design phase. The way the facility will be constructed will influence how the architect designs the building. This can also cut construction costs. Design-build can provide another advantage to the construction of a sports facility: eliminating the bid phase which decreases the total timetable for the process and because the design can be adapted from a previous project, a guaranteed price can be quoted quickly and for sometimes as little as $30,000 for $5 million facility. The more traditional design, bid, and build process involves hiring an architect to develop a series of drawings and specifications which ultimately yields contract documents. The contract documents specify what the new facility will be like from the footings which support the foundation to the type of security system. General contractors are provided with the contract documents to submit a bid for the construction of the new facility. The sports organization will then select one of the general contractor's bids and sign a contract with the general contractor to build the facility. This whole process of designing and bidding can take several months, or if the project is fairly complex, it can take as long as one year. A shovel won't be put into the ground until these phases are completed. There are many advantages to this traditional method. One of the most important advantages is that there are checks and balances to ensure that the general contractor follows the specifications of the contract documents. The sports organization will hire a clerk of the works who has construction expertise to represent the owner on the construction site each day. The sports organization also has the architect who has been contracted to provide the design services and to work with the clerk of the works. Both the architect and the clerk of the works are the eyes and ears of the business owner. They are the watchdogs who make sure that the construction meets all the specifications of the contract documents. Another major advantage of this traditional process is that the architect's main concern is designing a facility that best meets the needs of the business. The architect does keep costs in mind but is not looking to make the construction process easier or less expensive for the general contractor. Locating the mechanical room closer to the security booth cuts down on the cost of construction but it negates locating a laundry or a first aid station that could cut down on the labor costs of running the facility. The short-term savings in construction may translate to higher labor costs every year for the life of the facility. It may be cheaper to put storage outside the main structure of the facility and place an access door to the main structure and a door with access to the outside. But there unwanted by-product of this strategy: a direct connection through the storage area which gives unwanted access from the outside into the main structure. The result a compromise in security and unwanted outdoor dirt tracked into the facility. Another question to ask before you make a final decision between design, ,bid, and build process and design-build option is to identify who are the key players with the sports organization who will influence the development of this new facility. Will there be an organizational building committee that includes a cross section of everyone who will use this new facility or are there just a few people who have specific interests and agendas for this new facility? To identify the facility needs of current and projected programming it would be extremely helpful to have all constituents represented in a building committee. This is especially true when there are scarce resources and the needs list is extensive. A collegial process to develop consensus about how to prioritize the long list of needs can streamline the design process and help to develop a facility that meets the mission of the organization. But there are situations where the priorities are developed by a select few who may not have the ability to envision the needs of the entire organization. The design, bid and build process would make it possible for the architects to work with the sports organization to complete a comprehensive needs assessment. Architects have the expertise and experience in design development to raise issues that impact the viability and flexibility of the new sports facility. For example, if the new sports facility will have a natatorium, should it have a uniform depth of six feet or a graduated depth spanning from three feet to 13 feet? Should it be a metered length or yard length? Long course of short course? The design, bid, build process usually affords more time to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options. So in the long run there are no surprises to the director of the swimming instruction when swim aids need to be budgeted for non-swimmers to use the facility. This costs was weighed against attracting world class swimmers to use the facility for elite training and competition. So which process is best for a sports organization that needs to get the most facility for the money? If your sports programming requires sophisticated services and you value having your programming needs studied extensively and incorporated into the design without fear of compromises, you would have to find an extraordinary design-build firm. If you are looking to stretch every dollar to accomplish a Spartan-like facility, as fast as possible and you have the time to find a clerk of the works who is meticulous and highly experienced in the means and methods of construction, then you would be hard-pressed to attain this product by the design, bid, and build process. If you have weighed these factors carefully and you are still unsure, talk to other sports facility owners who have been through both processes. The more you know, the more you will contribute to the process…and that is probably the best insurance of getting the facility that you need and that you can afford. Dr. Sue Langlois Dean of Sports Science Endicott College Beverly, MA. USA slangloi@endicott.edu http://www.icsspe.org/portal/texte/area/bulletin/ Design-Build Construction: is it really a less expensive option to build a sports facility? Sue Langlois Endicott College, USA